Iran/contra: 20 Years Later and What It Means

It's the 20th anniversary of the Iran-contra scandal. Two decades ago, the public learned about the bizarre, Byzantine and (arguably) unconstitutional actions of high officials in the post-Watergate years. But many Americans did not absorb the key lesson: the Iran/contra vets were not to be trusted. Consequently, most of those officials went on to prosperous careers, with some even becoming part of the squad that has landed the United States in the current hellish mess in Iraq.

Before tying the then to the now, let's revisit the basic narrative. When Congress, by fair vote, decided in the 1980s that the United States should not assist the contras fighting the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua, the Reagan White House concocted several imaginative ways to pull an end-run around democracy. This mainly entailed outsourcing the job to a small band of private sector covert operators and to foreign governments, which were privately requested or pressured by the Reaganites to support the secret contra support operation. The "Iran" side of the scandal came from President Ronald Reagan's covert efforts to sell weapons to Iran to obtain the release of American hostages held by terrorist groups supposedly under the control of Tehran--at a time when the White House was publicly declaring it would not negotiate with terrorists. The two clandestine projects merged when cash generated from the weapons transactions with Iran was diverted to the contra operation.

Conservatives for years--make that decades--have argued there was nothing really criminal about the Iran/contra affair and that it was merely a political dispute between the pro-contras Republicans in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress. Yet at the time the architects of these schemes worried they were breaking laws and placing Reagan in jeopardy of being impeached. Look at how the National Security Archive, a nonprofit outfit that gathers national security records, summarizes a memo documenting a key White House meeting on the clandestine contras program:

At a pivotal meeting of the highest officials in the Reagan Administration [on June 25, 1984], the President and Vice President [George H.W. Bush] and their top aides discuss how to sustain the Contra war in the face of mounting Congressional opposition. The discussion focuses on asking third countries to fund and maintain the effort, circumventing Congressional power to curtail the CIA's paramilitary operations. In a remarkable passage, Secretary of State George P. Shultz warns the president that White House adviser James Baker has said that "if we go out and try to get money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense." But Vice President George Bush argues the contrary: "How can anyone object to the US encouraging third parties to provide help to the anti-Sandinistas…? The only problem that might come up is if the United States were to promise to give these third parties something in return so that some people could interpret this as some kind of exchange." Later, Bush participated in arranging a quid pro quo deal with Honduras in which the U.S. did provide substantial overt and covert aid to the Honduran military in return for Honduran support of the Contra war effort.

The Iran arms-for-hostage-deal was also illegal--or so Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger thought. At a December 7, 1985 White House meeting, Weinberger argued the Iran missile deal was wrong and criminal, according to his notes of the session. Weinberger pointed out to Reagan that selling missiles to Iran would violate a U.S. embargo on arms sales to Iran and that even the president of the United States could not break this law. Nor, Weinberger added, would it be legal to use Israel as a cutout, as was under consideration. Both Secretary of State George Shultz and White House chief of staff Donald Regan, who were each present, agreed that a secret weapons deal with Iran would be against the law. Reagan, though, insisted on proceeding, noting he could answer a charge of illegality but not the charge that he had "passed up a chance to free hostages." Weinberger then quipped, "Visiting hours are Thursdays"--meaning the deal could land someone in jail. After the meeting, Regan told Weinberger he would try to talk Reagan out of the deal. He failed to do so.

Soon both the clandestine contras program and the secret Iran deal were underway, with the relevant agencies--most notably, the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department--providing back-up and National Security Council officers Robert McFarlane, John Poindexter and Oliver North overseeing operations. In supporting the contras project, the CIA worked with individuals it suspected of being involved in drug-dealing, according to a subsequent CIA inspector general's investigation.

The skullduggery began to unravel in the fall of 1986. On October 5, 1986, a C-123 aircraft ferrying supplies to the contras was shot down by the Sandinistas, and an American named Eugene Hasenfus was captured. He told the Nicaraguans that his flight was part of a CIA-approved operation. Days later, Reagan said of the Hasenfus operation, "There was no government connection with that at all." He was not telling the truth. Shortly after that, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams testified in Congress that the administration had arranged for no foreign donations--"not a dime"--to the contras--even though he had arranged for a $10 million contribution to the rebels from the Sultan of Brunei.

On November 3, 1986, a Lebanese weekly revealed that the previous May National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane had secretly flown to Tehran. McFarlane's covert mission had been part of the arms-for-hostages deal--which now stood exposed. On November 25, Attorney General Edwin Meese held a press conference and disclosed that funds from the arms sales to Iran had been diverted to the contras support program. (I happened to be watching that press conference with Abbie Hoffman, the former Yippie, who exclaimed, "I couldn't make this stuff up.")

A full-scale scandal was born. Investigations were convened. The Reagan presidency was hobbled. But impeachment never became an issue--in part because Democratic congressional investigators removed it from the table at the start of their inquiries. White House partisans threw up a defense of spin and obfuscation that turned the affair into a political muddle. (That is, mission accomplished.) Oliver North became a hero to conservatives. Bush the Elder, who lied about his involvement in Iran/contra (saying he had been "out of the loop," though noting in a private diary that he had been one of the few officials in-the-know), was elected president in 1988.

The investigations continued. Abrams, McFarlane (who botched a suicide attempt), and a CIA officer named Alan Fiers pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress. Two other CIA officers--Clair George and Duane Clarridge--were indicted on perjury-related charges. Former General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim, who managed the secret contra supply operation, pleaded guilty to minor charges. North and Poindexter were convicted of various counts, but their convictions were overturned on legal technicalities. Weinberger was indicted for illegally withholding his notes from special counsel Lawrence Walsh.

The affair came to an ignominious finale on Christmas Eve, 1992. George H.W. Bush, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton seven weeks earlier, issued pardons for Weinberger, Abrams, McFarlane, Clarridge, George and Fiers. Only Thomas Cline, a former CIA officer and partner of Secord and Hakim, who was found guilty of tax charges, ended up going to jail due to the Iran/contra scandal.

But history never ends. Twenty years later, Abrams is deputy national security adviser for global democracy in the George W. Bush administration. A fellow who admitted that he had not told Congress the truth and who had abetted a secret war mounted by a rebel force with an atrocious human rights record now is supposed to promote democracy abroad. Other Iran/contra figures are leading players today. Here's a partial list from the National Security Archive:

* Richard Cheney - now the vice president, he played a prominent part as a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf. He later pointed to the committees' Minority Report as an important statement on the proper roles of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

* David Addington - now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and by numerous press accounts a stanch advocate of expanded presidential power, Addington was a congressional staffer during the joint select committee hearings in 1986 who worked closely with Cheney.

* John Bolton - the controversial U.N. ambassador whose recess appointment by President Bush is now in jeopardy was a senior Justice Department official who participated in meetings with Attorney General Edwin Meese on how to handle the burgeoning Iran-Contra political and legal scandal in late November 1986. There is little indication of his precise role at the time.

* Robert M. Gates - President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991.

* Manuchehr Ghorbanifar - the quintessential middleman, who helped broker the arms deals involving the United States, Israel and Iran ostensibly to bring about the release of American hostages being held in Lebanon, Ghorbanifar was almost universally discredited for misrepresenting all sides' goals and interests. Even before the Iran deals got underway, the CIA had ruled Ghorbanifar off-limits for purveying bad information to U.S. intelligence. Yet, in 2006 his name has resurfaced as an important source for the Pentagon on current Iranian affairs, again over CIA objections.

* Michael Ledeen - a neo-conservative who is vocal on the subject of regime change in Iran, Ledeen helped bring together the main players in what developed into the Iran arms-for-hostages deals in 1985 before being relegated to a bit part. He reportedly reprised his role shortly after 9/11, introducing Ghorbanifar to Pentagon officials interested in exploring contacts inside Iran.

* Edwin Meese - currently a member of the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, he was Ronald Reagan's controversial attorney general who spearheaded an internal administration probe into the Iran-Contra connection in November 1986 that was widely criticized as a political exercise in protecting the president rather than a genuine inquiry by the nation's top law enforcement officer.

* John Negroponte - the career diplomat who worked quietly to boost the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America as ambassador to Honduras, he also participated in efforts to get the Honduran government to support the Contras after Congress banned direct U.S. aid to the rebels. Negroponte's profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005.

Another Iran/contra veteran has dramatically returned to the scene recently: Daniel Ortega. On November 7, as the Bush White House prepared itself for congressional elections that would be widely seen as a repudiation of its war in Iraq, the morning newspapers carried the news that Ortega, the Sandinista leader whom the Reagan administration had targeted, had won a presidential election in Nicaragua. The old contras backers now running the Bush administration had to watch their old nemesis (not that Ortega was ever much of a threat) regain power, as their hold on power was slipping. The arc of history is indeed long.

As for the current relevance of Iran/contra, one could argue that the affair taught Reaganites and neocons a lesson, the wrong lesson: you can get away with it. Though the operations ended up being exposed and the Iran deal crashed and burned, the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration did create enough pressure on Nicaragua and forced the expulsion of the Sandinista government in a 1990 election. Perhaps more important for this crowd, no one involved in the shady activity was held accountable. Bush the First was elected. Abrams and other scandal vets were rewarded with prominent posts in the next Republican administration--that of Bush the Younger. The Reaganites had lied to Congress and the public about Iran/contra and ultimately escaped retribution.

This sordid episode hardly served as a warning--either for the Iran/contra alumni who would lead the United States into the debacle in Iraq or for voters who would support an administration staffed with people who twenty years earlier had made their bones in a scandal involving war and truth. One can hope, though, that the disingenuous, reality-defying engineers of the current disaster will be too old or too discredited to return to power two decades from now.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (150)

1. Geez, I thought Mr Corn still fighting over Karl Rove not getting indicted was living in the past...now "Iran-Contra"?

   Here was the problem with "Iran-Contra"....it wasn't un-popular.

   Simple as that. Reagan was beloved. Bush wasn't beloved, but certainly was liked. Ollie North stood up and looked like a "Marine hero taking on partisan Democrats in love with a Central American Commie". And the public had no problem with the contras, as long as it wasn't US guys dying.

   It was still the "Cold War" days, and stopping a "mainland Castro" from coming to power, with NO "Bay of Pigs" and certainly no "Vietnam scenario" emerging seemed like the best way to stop Soviet expanisionism.

   It never reached the "outrage level" of Nixon and Watergate, except on the Left and was forgotten by all but them within a year or so.

   And worse (from a David Corn perspective) is the fact that it NEVER touched Reagan (who still polls in John Kennedy numbers) and George HW Bush is now considered the "reasonable Bush" and the public has moderately good feelings about the man.

   Re-hash it if you will, Mr Corn....and even claim that "history will vindicate you"....but after 20 years?!?!?....it still hasn't happened.

   Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 4:14pm

2. BTW....

   "fighting the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua"!!!

   The "socialist Sandinistas"?!?!?! As ILOVEPHYSICS, NEW DAWN, and WILL have noted over on John Nichols thread....throwing around that label is "McCarthyism"!!!!!

   Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 4:16pm

3. I watched those hearings in late 1986 and early 1987. Fawn Hall (North's secretary) had a unique way of transporting certain documents across DC. And how many times did Poindexter say "I can't recall" or words to that effect? Over 180?

   Posted by Rapaport at 11/28/2006 @ 4:18pm

4. Mask, neither you nor I are actually doing any research here, so all we're going on are 20-year old memories, but here are mine:

   Iran-Contra was unpopular. Cutting secret deals with Iran was especially so, even for those who loved Reagan or were impressed by the square-jawed, if lying, Ollie North.

   The consensus of historians and political observers has been that Iran-Contra dealt a body-blow to Reagan's second-term, which is tough enough for any President, especially one dealing with a revolving door in his Chief of Staff and other major appointments.

   I would hope that Will and Co. would not complain that describing the Sandinistas as socialists would constitute McCarthyism, since some of them clearly were. Calling them Communists would be McCarthyite because that would be absolutely inaccurate; if memory serves, not only was the Communist Pary of Nicaragua not part of the Sandanista Front, but I think it was actually a member of the anti-Sandanista electoral coalition backed by the U.S. in 1990! If I'm wrong about that, I appologize, by the way.

   Posted by cka2nd at 11/28/2006 @ 5:08pm

5. Reagan should have been impeached and convicted, as should Bush Sr.. the televised hearings back fired, in that they gave the perps a platform to claim their patriotism, and the american people, away for their summer vacation yawned.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 5:10pm

6. I would hope that Will and Co. would not complain that describing the Sandinistas as socialists would constitute McCarthyism,

   Posted by CKA2ND 11/28/2006 @ 5:08pm

   see what happens. Mask lumps a bunch of people together in one of his rambling accusations and suddenly on another thread I'm accused calling people mccarthy.

   ladies and gents, read what mask says before you repeat it. More often then not you will find it's bullshit.

   Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 5:38pm

7. Both Secretary of State Charles Shultz...

   That's pretty funny. C. Shultz did Peanuts, George Shultz was secstate and CEO of Bechtel. What a creepy time that was for our country.

   Posted by group5 at 11/28/2006 @ 5:59pm

8. It's funny how the "law and order" crowd can be so tolerant when it's their people breaking the law. Every time I hear one of the hypocrites saying something about the "rule of law" I can't help but laugh.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 11/28/2006 @ 6:10pm

9. Hmmm so I see lots of comments that feel selling arms to Iran was ok. And circumventing Congress was ok. And so I guess was building up Saddam and ignoring the gasing of the Kurds!! Well it took a while but guess what, now these guys certainly are getting US soldiers killed and we are in the one of the worst disasters in the history of our country. So I'd have to agree with this analysis wholeheartedly.

   Posted by notaname at 11/28/2006 @ 6:34pm

10. LIBERAL Democrats: 100% right about the disaster in Iraq. Demonized by the Conservatives who dragged America into this MESS, all Conservatives ever say is, "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal".

    Liberals were RIGHT about Iraq, 100%. Liberals warned Americans time and time again HOW BAD the disaster would be. Conservatives called us traitors - for being right, for being intelligent, for having the foresight that Conservatives did not have.

    What else are LIBERALS right about, every time, consisitently, besides just FOREIGN POLICY? Answer: a helluva lot, a helluva lot!

    You dont see too many idiots demonizing "Liberal" Democrats anymore - a few do, but NOBODY takes them serious.

    "Liberal" is a synonym for "knowing what the hell youre talking about" - in Foreign Policy and alot else too.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 11/28/2006 @ 7:37pm

11. "We are in the one of the worst disasters in the history of our country".

    NOTANAME, while our situation in Iraq is not great, it's certainly not one of the worst in the history of our country. Our democracy is not even 300 years old. If we were as old as the European countries, then probably you would have a point. But our worst and saddest events lay at the feet of 400 years of slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, the Trail of Tears and Indian reservations. What was done to the native people of this country and to the Africans that was bought and sold into slavery to work under the most inhumane conditions is uncomprehensible.

    Yes, many of you are angry about the war, but that will end soon, as oppose to the others that didn't end soon enough.

    Posted by ACook at 11/28/2006 @ 7:38pm

12. Ask some of the slaughtered innocent people in Iraq, whether or not our immoral invasion of their land is part of the worst history of our country.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 11/28/2006 @ 7:59pm

13. LIBERAL, you're a legend in your own mind...slaughtered folks can't tell you anything....they're dead!!

    Posted by ACook at 11/28/2006 @ 8:33pm

14. I thought it might make sense here to repost a letter I wrote three months before that Iran-Contra staff meeting that Corn refers to at the beginning of his blog. The letter appeared in the NYTimes on 23 April, 1984.

    I think the issue of where the war and diplomacy powers are constitutionally located goes deeper than even your April 8 editorial (‘‘The Power to Make War'') has penetrated. In practice, what we have is working agreements between the executive and the legislature; and this is certainly a great improvement over the Roosevelt-Nixon practice of informing only the handful of legislators who will agree, collude and say nothing. Neither system, however, is what the Framers and their generation had in mind. Their bogey was monarchy. Their villains were Charles I and Caesar. They designed the Constitution of 1787 so as to permanently cripple what they saw as the inevitable attempts of republican magistrates to become dictators through misuse of what the English had called ‘‘prerogative.'' The English Revolution of 1640-1660 was remembered here as a desperate but successful attempt to defend the liberties of the legislature and the people against tyranny. It was remembered as having begun when Charles I, like his father James I, insisted on his sole and exclusive right to make foreign policy. In giving the foreign policy power to the President, the Framers, I believe, found a modus vivendi on one of their touchiest issues. It was a limited grant. Some would not have voted for it if the President's term had been made longer. Some would have eliminated the grant if the state militias had been eliminated. Almost all considered it indispensable that any result of Presidential diplomacy be debated at least by the Senate, preferably in public, before it went into effect. Those who rejected it were vehement in their rejection. They were afraid of having a single rather than a plural executive in the first place; and a single executive with discretion in foreign policy would be even more dangerous. In these times, the mind of the Framers would, I think, advise that more rather than less be put in the President's way. Threats of war, like acts of war, must be made in the name of the sovereign people of the United States. It is outrageous even to consider leaving them out of the decision-making. To bring them in, there must be open, vigorous, public debate between magistrates whose responsibilities in this area are more or less equal. The Framers were not democrats, but if a democracy must be defended by democratic means, then that is all the more reason for defending a republic by republican means. The alternative is the sort of tyranny foreshadowed by the Nixon Administration, wars like the one in Vietnam and possibly a nuclear war to which we have not consented. WILLIAM R. EVERDELL Brooklyn, April 8, 1984

    Posted by weverdell at 11/28/2006 @ 9:11pm

15. Iran-Contra Alumni: am I mistaken or is Lee Hamilton also an alumnus, in that it was his Congressional committee that helped keep the issue of impeachable offenses off the table and thus paved the way for the learning of the wrong lessons. The rationale at the time was that after Carter, the nation could not afford another failed presidency.

    Posted by markhammel at 11/28/2006 @ 9:12pm

16. Posted by WILL C. 11/28/2006 @ 5:38pm

    I noticed you didn't answer CKA's question...

    IS it more "McCarthyism" to label the Sandinistas "socialist"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 10:10pm

17. Posted by CKA2ND 11/28/2006 @ 5:08pm

    CKA...far be it from me to undercut your "memories"....but apparently those memories are in short supply nationally.

    Reagan holds poll numbers equalling John F Kennedy...hardly the mark of man whose Presidency was "dealt a body blow".

    And MY memories of that time involve a lot of liberals and Democrats who were glad-handing and cozying up to a Communist dictatorship and "apologizing" for Reagan's belligerance (to the Sandinistas, as well as to Gorbachev)....but I'll call them as subjective as yours.

    I also don't seem to recall the American people standing up in righteous anger that the Sandinistas were eventually forced to hold free and fair elections (that they notably LOST)...except by a small cadre that are presently "The Nation" editorial staff.

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 10:15pm

18. noticed you didn't answer CKA's question...

    IS it more "McCarthyism" to label the Sandinistas "socialist"?

    Posted by MASK 11/28/2006 @ 10:10pm

    You poor little guy. CKA2ND never asked that question. As a matter fact, he didn't ask any questions.

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    you are so full of shit mask

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 10:34pm

19. Cook, this war is a selfinflicted wound, it could and should have been avoided. something not easily said about the other items in your litany.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 10:34pm

20. So many things I read here make me sad.

    Liberalpride says, "ask some of the slaughtered innocent people in Iraq...", as if United States Military Forces had killed those innocent people! "Sad"...

    The United States Military is there to prevent the innocents from being killed! The "Killers" are the ones that are fighting against freedom for Iraqi's! And it seems these are the people "Liberalpride" and others on this site root for!

    Granted, we "could be" and "should be" doing a better job...but don't blame the US Soldier for the deaths of innocent Iraqi's! Blame the people we are fighting against!!! Why do "Liberalpride" and almost everyone else on this site including the publishers of this paper rail aganist the "good" the US Troops are working to achieve?

    The original discussion in this thread discussed Iran-Contra.

    "Johannesrolf" stated..."Reagan should have been impeached & convicted as should Bush Sr."...because of "Iran Contra".

    Why?

    The law Congress passed about sending money to the Contras said, "Intellegence Agencies", (CIA), of the United States will not send funds to the Contras.

    The White House arranged the funds...not the CIA! No law was ever broken. Democrats knew this and knew they could never impeach Reagan or Bush because actions by Reagan and Bush never rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

    Bill Clinton's actions DID rise to the level of high crimes...a felony...a judge found him guilty and handed down a sentence...he is still serving it as he is not allowed a law licence in Arkansas.

    In 1944, if we had the current partisanship in Congress and "reporters" reported the way they do today, I'm sure Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt would have been impeached AND convicted for denying Japanese-Americans their constitutional rights during the war years of WWII. And there's an aguement that it would have been correct to do so.

    General Eisenhower may have been recalled for lying to the press about the invasion at Normandy, (D-Day). Remember, there was a HUGE deception planned by the US Government to make the Germans and Hitler think we were going to attack 200 miles away from where the actual attack took place. Lying to the public? YES!!! And it WORKED! We live in a "free country" today! (More free than most...)

    This writer, "USVET", wonders whether readers of the Nation think the "truth" should have been broadcast by the "press" before that invasion so many years ago...June 6, 1944?

    To "Liberalpride"...I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Liberals were right 100% about Iraq. Nancy Pelosi stated in 1998 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. John Kerry stated in 1999 that Saddam had to be remoived and that he had weapons of mass destruction. Bill Clinton make it a policy of his administration that due to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, he should be removed. Hillary Clinton stated in 2002 that Saddam was a threat to humanity due to his weapons of mass destructions.

    You may blame some "mis-information" about weapons of mass destrucion on politics. BUT...Hillary and Bill CLinton saw more classified reports than any other Democrat in or out of office and they BOTH said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in the late 1990's up to 2003.

    I enlisted in the military in 1972, (when I was 17), a time when very few people were willing to go into the military due to Vietnam. From the time I was in 9th grade, (1969), I argued that Vietnam was the "right" thing to do. I know that was still the right conflict to fight.

    I also know that Iraq is a fight we needed to engage. Every Liberal in Congress in the late 90's said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them against us!

    A tape recovered from one of Saddam's homes proved this...although the news media has down-played this. The recording had Saddam on tape saying something like, "we will provide the nuclear device as long as it's not able to be traced back to me."

    Why hasn't the Nation written about this FACT?

    No war ever goes "as planned" and this one is certainly a testament to that!

    What I don't understand is why, people that are supposed to be on "our side"...(Americans living with-in the United States), use their hatred of President Bush to undermine the mission their own political leaders, (Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore), said needed to happen? The overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

    Posted by USVET at 11/28/2006 @ 10:42pm

21. Great, another hamster spreading a little red state hate

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 10:46pm

22. vet, this is all so old. we have heard all this many many times before. take your blind obedience patriotism and shove it up your ass.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 11:03pm

23. WOW! I heard Liberals were nasty but I never really believed it. But WillC and Johannesrolf just proved it!

    Jahannesrolf says to take my patriotism and shove it up my ass? I appreciate how friendly this Liberal is...what a shame he can't discuss things in a gentlemanly manner.

    Jahannesrolf...just so you know...some of my United States Veteran friends who I served with DID get it up the ASS in Vietnam and they didn't make it home where you have lived your precious little life...to date...and as much as I'd like to KILL you, bare-handed, for your anti-American rant on this site, I know I served the United States Military to allow you to say what ever you want to say..no matter how it offends the men and women that put their lives on the line to protect your right to say and do what you want.

    WillC...I'm a hamster? In a red state hate? What the heck is that? I feel sorry for you.

    WillC and Johannesrolf...why did you both attack me? I brought up a discussion...and all of a sudden I'm a "hamster" and in a "red state hate" group? I feel sorry for all of you that have fallen into the Nation Hate group.

    The Nation Magazine is trying it's best to divide the "nation"!

    I think the thing we have seen over the past few years is that we, as a nation, have to come together.

    I don't understand why the NATION magazine is trying to rip us apart as a nation!!!!

    But that's what they are doing!!!!!

    Posted by USVET at 11/28/2006 @ 11:53pm

24. WillC...I'm a hamster? In a red state hate? What the heck is that? I feel sorry for you.

    Posted by USVET 11/28/2006 @ 11:53pm

    If you don't know my meaning for these terms, how can you feel sorry for me?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 12:00am

25. WillC and Johannesrolf...why did you both attack me? I brought up a discussion...and all of a sudden I'm a "hamster" and in a "red state hate" group? I feel sorry for all of you that have fallen into the Nation Hate group.

    Posted by USVET 11/28/2006 @ 11:53pm

    You didn't bring up a discussion. You did what every other hamster does. You blamed president clinton. You blamed the media.

    and you insist that a lie about a blow lob is worse then a lie that got alot of people killed.

    and did mention that you finished up with a little red state hate?

    but I have to give you this, using the deception plan Ike used against the germans before the Normandy invasion to justify the lies that the chimp used against the American people before he invaded iraq... is a new one

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 12:11am

26. and dispite all your rage do you feel like a rat in a cage?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 12:12am

27. JR, I think this hamster is one of the 33%

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 12:13am

28. Reagan was of course one of the greatest presidents of our history. He ranks right behind Washington and Lincoln.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2006 @ 01:05am | ignore this person

    Ronald Reagan was an addle-brained, doofus who grew from his "Joseph McCarthy roots" into "playing the part" of a leader. He often confused his movie parts with real life, thought trees caused polution, considered catsup a vegetable, and "introduced the neo-con game of fronting an amiable idiot to sucker and distract the American public while the rest of his team ransacked the house." (Mimi Yahn)

    "He introduced the glorification of greed, and popularized contempt, not only for the poor, but for any who want to eradicate poverty. He ushered in the Wild West, fuck-you school of foreign policy that metastasized from Ollie North's drug-dealing schemes to Donald Rumsfeld's Lord of the Flies Abu Ghreib prison tactics.

    Reagan gutted hard-won laws barring monopolies and business trusts, removing protections for citizens from the excesses of corporate America. He deregulated entire industries--utilities, airline, the media, telecommunications and others--which had been considered too vital to everyday life to leave up to profiteers to regulate. He introduced profit-driven privatization of basic human needs and services, from education and health care to water and electricity.

    Reagan brought back, with unprecedented venom and vigor, the practice of appointing industry honchos to head up the agencies entrusted with regulating those industries. From James "Trees R For Lumber" Watt to head up the Interior Department to William "Public Schools Need Prayer Not Funding" Bennett to head up Education, Reagan removed the constraints of a formerly civilized democracy designed to prevent the nightmare we now have: a fraudulent government installed by the oil industry, for the oil industry and of the oil industry.

    Reagan busted unions and began the all-out assault on workers' rights and protections that every president since has continued. Reagan began the demonizaton of Black women on welfare, claimed that trees cause pollution and called ketchup a vegetable. He cut benefits and services for veterans, kicked disabled people off social security, and criminalized the homeless.

    Reagan began taxing unemployment benefits, then instituted the practice of simply not counting unemployed people no longer receiving benefits to make the unemployment figures look better. In fact, Reagan instituted a lot of sleazy accounting practices, like lowering the poverty line in order to disqualify more people from receiving aid and make it look like poverty was decreasing.

    Reagan opposed placing sanctions on apartheid South Africa, opposed assistance to farmers, the homeless, hungry children, opposed abortion, birth control funding, the Job Corps, school lunches, affirmative action, labor laws, environmental laws, funding for AIDS research--in short, Ronald Reagan opposed everything even remotely progressive. Worse, he actively began dismantling everything that was carrying America toward a more perfect union and replaced it with a government that believed it no longer had an obligation to serve the tax-paying public but, instead, was in business solely to service the graft-paying private corporations."

    Posted by Lillian at 11/29/2006 @ 02:05am

29. .

    THINK

    "Al Qaeda In Iraq" is a BRAND NAME born of US Marketing sensibilities.

    Do you really believe that if there were a terrorist group in Iraq, they would have a store front and letterhead with the name "Al Qaeda In Iraq?"

    This is Karl Rove INVENTION for US consumption.

    The media blissfully plays along without questioning whether such an "organzation" actually exists.

    Karl Rove is a BRANDING STRATEGIST.

    He's the one who selected "911" as the date for the false flag attack - chosen for it's implied reference to "EMERGENCY" in the collective American conscience.

    These are not coincidences - you're being SOLD a PRODUCT.

    They have the bought and paid for Zionist-controlled media on their side selling you a WAR WITHOUT END - all for the creation of the GREATER ISRAEL:

    THIS is Eretz Israel:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

    The Agents of Israel who post here under hundreds of different names using MEGAPHONE software (invented by Mossad) are part of the campaign to expand Israel's territory and kill as many Arabs as possible in the process.

    America has been duped into enabling genocide - under a marketing and promotional plan devised to sell it to you as though it were a product to be Bought.

    Could it be any more obvious?

    There is no "Bin Laden"

    There is no "Al Qaeda"

    There was no "Al Zarkawi"

    This entire administration and the entire mainstream media is at the service of Israel - whose ONLY goal is total war until all of the water and oil of the Middle East is under their control.

    You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

    The EVIDENCE is OVERWHELMING

    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

    http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/blitzer2.htm

    http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4178

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/giyus_megaphone/

    http://www.eretz.com/NEW/

    Scroll down to this:

    GIYUS.ORG - Give Israel Your United Support

    "Many of us recognize that the internet is the new battleground for Israel's image. Now is the time to improve our efforts on this front by better coordinating our on-line efforts. An Israeli software company has developed a free, safe, and useful tool for this purpose: the Internet Megaphone. Please go to www.giyus.org and download the megaphone. You will then receive daily updates with links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a response, and more."

    "PROBLEMATIC ARTICLES?"

    Oh - you mean TRUTHFUL!

    Yeah, that's a problem - when you're a FALSE FLAG TERRORIST.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/29/2006 @ 06:09am

30. .

    Why was the JINSA.org web site taken offline?

    ONE REASON.

    John McCain is set to receive an award from them in DC in the next few days - yet ALL reference to it has been scrubbed from the Internet.

    WHY?

    The tide has turned and Israel's causative role in our invasion of Iraq is on full display.

    Founded in 1976, JINSA began as the only U.S. think tank that put "the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first.

    Last December, General Peter Pace was the recipient of JINSA's "23rd annual Scoop Jackson Distinguished Service Award.

    cached here:

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cyZiv3_sWsoJ:www.jinsa.org/articles/ view.html%3Fdocumentid%3D3338+jinsa+peter+pace&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

    The JINSA site appears to have been taken down on Nov. 17:

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:kwfzZFFc0oQJ:www.jinsa.org/+site:www .jinsa.org+jinsa&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

    This years recipient of the Scoop Jackson "Traitor For Israel" is AIPAC hand-picked Goyim, John McCain (Lieberman's future running mate).

    Isn't McCain proud? Isn't JINSA happy to promote this prestigious event?

    Why is it invisible on the Internet?

    Why was their entire site taken down?

    "Perle, who most recently served as chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board and quietly resigned after the AIPAC case broke, was alleged to have passed on highly classified information to the Israeli embassy when he was a foreign policy aide for Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson in 1970."

    THINK!

    McCain is being honored for his service to ISRAEL. He's being honored for his call to escalate this WAR WITHOUT END in the service of the creation of ERETZ ISRAEL:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

    Now they need to keep the press away from the event and hand the award to McCain IN SECRET.

    THE MEN FROM JINSA:

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

    Why the coverup Mr. McCain?

    Why the coverup?

    MC CAIN'S ROLE IN THE COVERUP:

    Liberty Cover-Up and John McCain's Conscience

    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/29/2006 @ 06:48am

31. very good Lillian, but that man was a saint. a saint I tell you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 08:33am

32. vet, you are mistaken. I said shove your blind obedience patriotism up your ass.

    we have had over three years of your kind of disinformation, as in everybody thought he had the WMD. may be true but they did not invade Iraq, big difference.

    the stuff with D day is also absurd. Eisenhower lying about a pending invasion, nonsense

    "and as much as I'd like to KILL you, bare-handed, for your anti-American rant on this site,"

    and here we get to your true colors. pouting about being attacked while expressing the wish to kill me for exercising my right of free speech. no more needs to be said. you said it all. verreck! get one of your soldier friends who served in germany to translate it for you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 08:47am

33. "WOW! I heard Liberals were nasty"

    "and as much as I'd like to KILL you, bare-handed, for your anti-American rant on this site,"

    you heard wrong, liberals are the kindest, most lovable and loving people on the planet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 08:50am

34. Posted by WILL C. 11/28/2006 @ 10:34pm

    WILL, my young friend, he said...

    "I would hope that Will and Co. would not complain that describing the Sandinistas as socialists would constitute McCarthyism"----Posted by CKA2ND 11/28/2006 @ 5:08pm

    Which begs the question....would you? THAT is what you didn't answer....wonder why?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2006 @ 09:04am

35. Posted by LILLIAN 11/29/2006 @ 02:05am

    And every post-Presidential poll still ranks him higher than Carter, Clinton...are nearly the same as Kennedy.

    Guess you're in the minority viewpoint, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2006 @ 09:05am

36. LVLIBERY1, thanks for the words of encouragement!

    I have read the Liberal words and feelings of hate for quite some time. It's really rather amazing there is such hatred from Liberals since they preach just the opposite. But I guess that's what makes them "Liberals"...

    Luckily, the Liberals, Leftists and "Hate America Crowd" that post on this site are in the very small minority of Americans.

    I like to be informed of how these people think, (or don't think), so I do view the Nation now and then just as I listen to Air America at times. It is my conclusion that those that believe the Nation and Air America haven't received a decent education or, their teachers passed them without allowing them to learn the meanings of the words they write. I think that's one reason Unions support Democrats...to keep the population "dumb" so they will continue to vote for Democrats! The majority of college students, (un-educated people), are on the left. The majority of senior citizens, educated by experience, are on the Right. That tells you something! Now...if we can only educate those in high school and college, we will have a HUGE right wing majority!!!! BUT...unions won't let us "educate".

    Posted by USVET at 11/29/2006 @ 09:05am

37. "The majority of college students, (un-educated people),"

    this is cute. from a guy who joined the army at 17, wow.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 09:19am

38. Now...if we can only educate those in high school and college, we will have a HUGE right wing majority!!!! BUT...unions won't let us indoctrinate.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 09:22am

39. Which begs the question....would you? THAT is what you didn't answer....wonder why?!?!??

    Posted by MASK 11/29/2006 @ 09:04am

    you poor litle guy. Ha Ha Ha Ha. Because he made a statement. But to to answer your question... I didn't complain did I?

    open the hanger mask, here comes the airplane

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 09:30am

40. You are experiencing the typical hatred of the left that is espoused here for all things conservative, including our proud military.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2006 @ 12:57am

    Another classic example of red state hate. We can always count on luvvy

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 09:31am

41. I have read the Liberal words and feelings of hate for quite some time.

    Posted by USVET 11/29/2006 @ 09:05am

    and the follow up. This thread is becoming another red state hate fest. You hamsters never disappoint.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/29/2006 @ 09:33am

42. Buwahahaha. The return of the Nationalists.

    See the apologists spew party line dogma. "No laws were broken".Teehee. then why, LUVDESPOTS were pardons issued? Reagan, Bush and crowd violated laws, plural. Then their operatives LIED to congress . But ya'll are comfortable with that. Thats America to you. Do what your utopian theories tell you to do, lie cheat and steal if necessary. And then call yourselves Patriotic. Your a joke, both of you.

    Goes right back to what I wrote last summer:

    North=hero, Ellsburg=traitor, Negroponte=hero, Ritter=traitor.

    As long as the talking points tell them to parrot the Line, they get a cracker.

    Hate America! What a joke. The people that hate freedom, democracy, freedom of speech are all the neo-con apologists. "Judicial activist", "Free speech zones", "liberals hate America so shut up!". All propaganda that goes against the constitution.

    "You are experiencing the typical hatred of the left that is espoused here for all things conservative, including our proud military.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2006 @ 12:57am

    False witness, Preacher. You never tire of beating the Commandments, do you? Winner of the most hypocritical name at the Nation award.

    "The majority of college students, (un-educated people)"-USVET

    Again, how does one debate with some one that makes such an absurd statement?

    Read "Firewall" by Judge Walsh. Oh, right! Can't, because Judges are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy too.

    Sad little hamsters, following the liars, being one.

    sing us a song neo's, sing away. Reagan sold weapons to Iran, funneled drugs around the world, broke the law of the land and all you have is "the (mythical) Left" hates America. And that is one reason we are failing in Iraq now, because you believed the LIARS, again.

    USVET, why do you hate America?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 09:52am

43. A little reading comprehension would do the apologists some good. I broke out some important points for you to read.

    "Visiting hours are Thursdays"- Weinberger

    "if we go out and try to get money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense."- Baker

    The "Iran" side of the scandal came from President Ronald Reagan's covert efforts to sell weapons to Iran to obtain the release of American hostages held by terrorist groups supposedly under the control of Tehran--at a time when the White House was publicly declaring it would not negotiate with terrorists.

    Weinberger pointed out to Reagan that selling missiles to Iran would violate a U.S. embargo on arms sales to Iran and that even the president of the United States could not break this law.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 09:58am

44. And VET (is that as in doggy DR?), you wrote that Vietnam was worth it. Did you notice that when Saigon fell, there were no dominoes? 2,000,000 people died to stop.... nothing.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 10:00am

45. USVET,

    Welcome to the Nation...you have received a dose of what goes on here and as long as you know why and DO NOT take it seriously you will understand, the people here have a consistant belief that anything on the right of Carter is original sin(no God, of course, but you get the point.),..and there is nothing worth going to war over, especialy America or its intersets as the people HERE see them...which amounts to nothing worth going to war over and they are willing to negoitate with anyone, including Hitler of Armajan or bin Laden.

    Many are smart, decent honest bloggers with great points...and passions..My friend Johannesrolf is one of them..even if you disagree with nearly everything he says one can see the points...he gives no quarter and expects none...one can't be more fair than this...on the other side you have ideologues and just plain kooks...Zero writes painful endless manifestos on the evils of all things American,in particular corporations, you will find all types of clowns who, no matter what, blame all of lifes troubles on capitalists,and then you have the Wills of the world...one line posts in a style diguised to sound iltelligent and witty, and as you can see, falls blantlntly short on all accounts...people who do nothing but answer questions with questions, revealing inabilities to back their personal beliefs to actualll events... Will makes saw dust for a living, hands out $5.00 bills on exit ramps to "the needy", quotes the Nazarene....almost as if he thinks he is espousing profound truths in the nature of Jesus,(maybe the connection of the Carpenter and the stud pounder)...when in truth, things he doesn't understand and never will, he wraps in little one line utterances regarding rodents when discussing persons and ideas he constantly is unable to comprehend....in others words...kook, the infamous kook section of American Politics where Zeros, Will, and a few others have honored positions in the front row seats..Theses are the people discussed at length in a great book, "Useful Idiots".

    You are welcome and your services to your country are appreciated. But make no mistake..your thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies are hated here. Reagan, my favorite, is vilified, Nader is the hero here, Carter, and Clinton. Know where you are standing and you will understand the hate that comes off these pages...Bush is more hated than Satan in a Pentacostal Church...and you will be attacked on your person with emotional rants and hate...other than that..enjoy...you will find these pages a great source of enjoyment(my office uses many posts as discussion fodder and laughs) and it explains "alot". But never take it too seriously.

    You have been attacked only slightly so far...it will get personal

    Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 10:01am

46. Guess you're in the minority viewpoint, huh?

    Posted by MASK 11/29/2006 @ 09:05am | ignore this person

    At least I HAVE a viewpoint Mask. What's yours?

    Are you one of the lemmings who got suckered by the Reagan PR machine into believing that the bumbling, mis-spoken, Barney Fife was somehow 'the Great Communicator' or do share my 'minority' viewpoint?

    Or are you to afraid to say?

    Posted by Lillian at 11/29/2006 @ 10:14am

47. Crabwalk...you say when Saigon fell there were no dominoes. Saigon fell in 1975. "We" went to Nam in 1964. You are right...no dominos fell while we were there. We left in 1973. (We would have been out in 1970 if it were not for the protestors prolonging the conflict and Walter Cronkite espousing his left wing politiks thus killing 30,000 more American GIs). Once we left, the dominoes did start to fall in the deaths of not 2,000,000 as Crabwalk says but closer to 5,000,000 in the region. Yes...we were right to go to Vietnam and as soon as the generation that protested that conflict dies off and the true history can be told, ALL Americans, (except for the leftists who post on the Nation Blogs), will realize the truth about what was accomplished in Vietnam. It was a noble cause just as the conflict in Iraq is noble and just.

    So Crabwalk, I'm glad you agree with me that we prevented the domino effect as long as we were in Vietnam...I think there may be some hope for you!!!!

    Johannesrolf...I went into the military at age 17 because I felt the cause of Vietnam was "right". I didn't need college to teach me the left wing doctrine of "I am right..the rest of you are stupid" idealogy.

    Why is it that those on the left contribute less of their incomes to charity even though as a group they earn more than those on the right?

    Posted by USVET at 11/29/2006 @ 10:26am

48. VET, what countries in SE Asia went commie after we left vietnam?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 10:29am

49. Can anyone answer me this, why are bush41's papers secured from the public after Chimpy issued a presidential directive allowing them to be hidden from view? could it maybe, just maybe have something to do with the illegal Iran/Contra drugs for arms deal?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 10:35am

50. Achmed Chalabi=hero, David Albright=traitor, "Curveball=reliable anonymous source, Hans Blix=just plain wrong. Saddam in 1980's=Americas only hope in the ME, Saddam in 2003=threat to the world.

    Anybody else see the pattern?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 10:46am

51. http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/

    Fits the topic.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/29/2006 @ 10:51am

52. Is this Vet guy for real or just trying to jerk some chains? He claims the US would have left Vietnam sooner had there not been protesters out in the streets? He claims Vietnam was a noble effort, foiled by those opposed to the war? He reminds me of all the uninformed in Germany that blamed their defeat in WWI on the Socialists that the Kaiser and Ludendorf dumped their mess on--the "Stab in the Back" myth that Hitler, et. al exploited so well. Please, tell me this guy is just having some fun with us.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/29/2006 @ 11:07am

53. Aw shucks, Maasch, thank you for the kind words. you shamed me into taking vet a little more seriously.

    let's take Vietnam first. why don't we turn to the architect of that foreign policy disaster, Robert McNamara. what was HIS hindsight? "we were all so wrong" but why listen to him when we can listen to an uneducated revisionist vet?

    now let's take Iraq: can we do a cost benefit analysis of deposing a nasty dictator? on one side: mission accomplished, a little Blitzkrieg against a country that was on its knees militarily, no air cover for instance.

    on the other side: a civil war unleashed by the invasion and the resulting power vacuum, hundreds of thousand Iraqis dead, hundreds of billions of american money wasted, and thousands of american vets dead or maimed. a devastating political situation, with no good way out. how does it stack up to you?

    I am an educated fellow, speak two languages, read a few more, have lived in Europe and here, a college degree, fellowships from the NEA and the Pew Foundation etc. I will not have a guy whose education ended at age 17 tell me about who is educated or not.

    same with patriotism. the Nuremberg trials forever banished the defense of" we were only following orders" . that goes for the gov't too. criticizing the gov't is an american tradition, we fought the revolutionary war because the leaders of the colonies criticized their gov't and their leader George. Patriotism in those days consisted of supporting the king against the "terrorist".

    that tradition continues to this day, with another leader named George.in case you haven't noticed, WE are in the majority now, in the country and the congress, and we will be served. the troops will be withdrawn, the thing will be declared a fiasco, and those who died, will have died in vain, as did those in Vietnam, which is now our communist trading partner, as are the Chinese who supported them and incidentally the North Koreans in that war. and George? he will be disgraced for as long as he lives, picture OJ, a persona non grata in all social circles.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 11:08am

54. Posted by LILLIAN 11/29/2006 @ 10:14am

    I think Reagan did some good things, LIL....same as Kennedy, hence their equally high post-Presidency poll numbers.

    Among RR's was....making "liberal" and "liberalism" such dirty words that now everybody on the Left is a "progressive who believes in progressivism"!

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2006 @ 11:18am

55. Hey JR,

    Wie gehts?

    I am just trying to welcome a fellow traveler to these parts ...and point out the pot holes..

    Viet Nam--for me that war should have been won in 5 years and not 12 years spent doing what ever the politicians did...who cares about the protesters...the point being, for me, if we are going in to do a military action, go in like mother f'ers and win on ALL fronts..or don't go at all.

    Iraq--I understand why we went in there, but I am not sure the government knew what they were going to do once they arrived after the military victory. They didn't know the enmey.

    I also understand patriotism and how it can be viewed from different poles..

    As far as the WE in the majority..I am not sure what that means..the WE...the Dems are the majority, but does that mean the Zero or WILL section is the majority? The Johannes majority? the Mask,or the Darladoon? What WE? what is for sure is this...the Repubs were fired for incompetance and rightly so...I believe the Dems were not hired for their competance. They were just the next guy in line...

    example...the manager of a department is found to be incompetent and is fired. The asst manager is then placed in the position and an eye is kept on him since the department is now under observation and attention is turn to repair, reorganization or shut down. From what we have seen from the current crop of Dems, I'd say they are in over their head too, as is the asst manager, as we watch their decison making form up we can see that they may be headed for firing also...a clean slate is presenting itself to the people in 08...

    I have heard of no one celebrating a new day in Washington nor can anyone describe succintly what the Dems are going to do now...which means no one knows...which means no one knows what is going to happen next...and that is the situation that existed BEFORE the elections...see my point?

    Nor do I believe the country has had an epiphany and move to the left, in fact, I have a feeling the country will move right again in 08..depends on the candidates, which places the dems in trouble, since Hillary is their candidate and she could drag down the entire cabal to defeat....I don't know about you, but Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton doesn't go down very well....my guess the entire country may be done with all things Bush and Clinton...sorry Hillary and Jeb...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 11:37am

56. JR,

    The Chinese also invaded Viet Nam and those there told me they thought the US in Viet Nam was not really a bad thing as they(Chinese) have had issues with them for centurys and no love lost...I am not sure about us being there a bad thing for the Chinese as it refocused the US on the Russians and not them..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 11:42am

57. As far as the WE in the majority..

    the majority who thinks the war was a mistake, the majority who wants to end the US war in Iraq and withdraw.the majority who believes Bush lied and is an incompetent fool. that majority.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 11:59am

58. Beneath all the new guy's protestations about the lack of civility here, and alleged liberal hate, lies this:

    "...and as much as I'd like to KILL you, bare-handed, for your anti-American rant on this site,..."

    Make no mistake, I appreciate the man's service. Really.

    Beyond that, I have nothing good to say other than I enjoyed watching him piss on his own post.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/29/2006 @ 12:04pm

59. Hammer, since he evidently missed the big show in Vietnam, and is too old for Iraq, he obviously has some issues.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 12:11pm

60. USVet: I too love this country. The things I fought (and still fight in a different fashion for now) are the freedoms which we, as Americans, have earned. Freedom means being able to dissent in a peaceable fashion. Strangling people does not qualify. If you did not learn that in high school or basic training, try to learn it now. A good time for an old dog to learn a new trick.

    Posted by The Goods at 11/29/2006 @ 12:28pm

61. All,

    I believe USVET was speaking metaphorically....surely you all being so wise can see this...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 12:34pm

62. Just as sure there are those here who would love to strangle me...bare hands or not?

    Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 12:35pm

63. Crab...that was the whole point in us being there...we PREVENTED any countries from falling after we stopped communism in Vietnam! Don't you know anything about history? Lesson...between advisors and GIs, the US spent a decade in Nam to stop communism from spreading to other countries. Mission Accomplished!

    Posted by USVET at 11/29/2006 @ 12:45pm

64. vet .we PREVENTED any countries from falling after we stopped communism in Vietnam!

    hahahahahah, this guy is a lunatic. the goddamn country was unified under communism. the communists won, the US lost. an absolute lunatic.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 12:58pm

65. Metaphor? OK. I can probably dredge up enough sophistication to chalk that one up in the "literary device" column, whether it's true or not.

    But even if one strips the violence out of the comment, it's still built on the foundation that dissent is unAmerican, a staple from the wingnut handbook that is belied by our very history, and that I will reject down to my final breath.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/29/2006 @ 12:59pm

66. we stopped communism in Vietnam! Don't you know anything about history?

    I get it. Irony, black humor, reductio ad absurdum, or just dumb and dumber. this takes the cake.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 1:01pm

67. history of WW2 according to vet. Hitler caused the soviet union to collapse, by making them snatch up eastern europe, overextending themselves, causing their collapse. that Adolf was some smart fellow. like Bush his reputation will rise in another 50 years

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 1:23pm

68. LILLIAN,

    "Reagan busted unions and began the all-out assault on workers' rights and protections that every president since has continued. Reagan began the demonizaton of Black women on welfare, claimed that trees cause pollution and called ketchup a vegetable. He cut benefits and services for veterans, kicked disabled people off social security, and criminalized the homeless."

    This is one of the main reasons why I will never trust a liberal, ever again!!!. As a woman of color on this blog, I'm offended that the Democrates will not take responsibility for the Welfare monster they brought to life. It is that very system you blame Reagan for that demonized and destroyed our Black families. When the system was introduced, it truley wasn't meant for anyone of color. A struggling Black family couldn't get any aid, especially if the husband was still in the home. We needed your help, not your self-righteous indignation.

    You democrates ruined a good portion of our lives. You even managed to convince our pathetic Black leaders that it was OK. And you still haven't got a clue. You're going to look around one day during a major election and find that we won't be there to prop you up.

    My people are waking up....2008 is not a sure bet for either party.

    Posted by ACook at 11/29/2006 @ 2:10pm

69. cook you are a woman of color like I'm the queen of Romania. give us a rest with this bull. firts you bitch that blacks couldn't get any assistance, then you bitch for getting assistance. this is a thinly disguised shill for the repubs. I, for one , am not buying.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 2:16pm

70. USVET attempts to justify the killing in Vietnam, by saying it was to fight for MY freedom. Why dont you go Iraq, where they now have freedom of speech, and walk around with an "I Love Bush" sign.

    USVET says the killing in Iraq is about giving people freedom of speech. If so, please go to Baghdad, and please march around carrying a sign that says "I Love Bush". Express the freedom of speech that YOU killed Vietnamese people to protect.

    USVET is a typical CONSERVATIVE - representative only of Conservative anti-culture. Still says Americans HAD TO kill the Vietnamese for freedom. Still wont take responsibility for losing the war - wont take responsibility for the Disaster in Iraq, wants to blame those who dont believe the lies.

    Liberals have brains, Liberals understand Foreign Policy. Liberals didnt cook up lies to drag America into the Disaster in Iraq. Liberals must be geniuses. Imagine being a genius, but what is a genius relative to the stupidity and willful ignorance of those who call themselves Conservatives?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 11/29/2006 @ 2:58pm

71. Reagan: tear down those walls... not you South Africa - I meant Germany - South Africa you build those walls higher

    Posted by LiberalPride at 11/29/2006 @ 3:00pm

72. Liberals have brains

    Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 11/29/2006 @ 2:58pm

    How come they only they didn't have "brains" enough to win any Presidential elections over the last 35 years?

    (Will happily debate how "liberal" pre-1977 Jimmah or "Third Way/New Democrat" Bill Clinton are, if you like)

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2006 @ 3:07pm

73. WOW! Just took a break from work and read all the replies to my earlier posts!

    Every one, bar none, mis-states what I said to make an entertaining point...and every one of them incorrect.

    MTSPENCE05- Yes the US would have left Nam earlier had it not been for the protestors. After the unsuccessful TET offensive, the General on charge of Vietnam forces said he was about to turn to Washington for terms of surrender since he realized the US could never be defeated in combat. THEN...he saw the protests start and decided to continue the fight, realizing the protestors would accomplish what his forces couldn't...so the US would have been out in 1970 if it were not for the protestors. Sound familiar? The protestors are now prolonging the Iraq war to the delight of the terrorists! The terrorists learned from VietNam...why can't Liberals?

    Johannesrolf- I never said my education stopped at age 17. Better re-read my posts or go back to school or clean those dirty glasses! This is exactly what I talked about earlier when I said the schools don't teach the meaning of words! Just because I enlisted at age 17, doesn't mean I quit school or went in at age 17. I went in after I graduated high school, attended college after I was discharged, have been to three colleges, have two degrees, and a partridge just landed in my pear tree! Your education sounds like a typical liberal...lots of reading but no learning!

    DRHAMMER- Re-Read what I said...you LIbs are amazing at your total misunderstanding of the English language! I said, "..I'd like to"...NOT..."I will"! Do you think everyone who would "like to" do something acts that desire out?

    THE GOODS- Read what I just wrote to DRHAMMER...the same applies to you!

    JOHANNESROLF- I never said the US won in Nam! Re-read my posts! (I think you Libs should start your indoctrination of the English language by buying a book at the book store...it's called, "The Dictionary". Please read the first chapter tonight...that's all the "A" words.) You may be able to start a semi-coherent discussion after you finish the "elanemotopee" area, (l,m,n,o,p for you really left leftists!) What was the discussion I talked about? The domino theory. Did that happen? NO...we stopped it from happening by engaging the communists in Vietnam. If we hadn't, the 2004 election may have been between Putin and Pelosi!

    DRHAMMER "Dissent" is not un-American. Of course I'm dissenting from the usual liberal clap trap discussions here and look how I'm being pounded! I love it! What I find to be "anti-American" is when people use lies and distortions to assist enemies we as a country are at war with! Just like when Walter Cronkite came back from Vietnam and told Americans the war was a lost cause. Well...he MADE it a lost cause! If any Liberal can come up with real reasons, (not accusations, distortions, lies, misrepresentations), why we shouldn't be in Iraq...I'd love to hear them! But I haven't heard any yet! The "majority" thinks we should leave Iraq? I do too! But not yet! Cripes...if it wasn't for the Libs and left wingnuts bashing the President we probably would half the forces we do in Iraq right now! And all would be out by the end of 2007! But the LIBS are repeating Vietnam.

    JOHANNESROLF - History of WWII - You got it all wrong! Hitler wasn't the real leader of Germany! Joseph Kennedy was! Look it up in your Weekly Weeder Conspiracy Mailer by Rhandi Rhodes! And Roosevelt was actually working for Ford Motor Car Company in order to mass produce tanks and ships for the Chinese in a finely tuned organization that included Pakistan as the super-power of it's day, or evening depending on when you read this.

    It's interesting...all these comments to my earlier posts and not one, NOT ONE, that tries to rebut what I stated! You Libs really do attack the messenger! Well...I hope the truth has opened your eyes because you certainly won't get much of the truth from the Nation magazine!

    MASK...keep up the great work!

    Posted by USVET at 11/29/2006 @ 3:39pm

74. LIBERAL PRIDE I object to your 2:58 post where you say I said certain things. I never said any of that! You better go back to 4th grade and learn the meaning of "words"...they are formed to create sentences that convey thoughts. If you as a Liberal had any thoughts, you probably would have figured that out...you best go back to school!

    Posted by USVET at 11/29/2006 @ 3:43pm

75. Posted by ACOOK 11/29/2006 @ 2:10pm

    ACOOK, I hate to inform you of this but....

    If you are a "woman of color" and just stated that you don't trust liberals or Democrats and blame them for the welfare system....you're going to get raked over the coals and likely called a "Condi Aunt Jemimah".

    Liberals don't take too kindly to apostates, especially from people from groups that "ought to be thankful" to them and the Democratic Party.

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2006 @ 4:09pm

76. Good on ya, David Corn!

    I spent a great deal of time in Central America during the mid-1980s and saw first hand the death and destruction meted out by the same Reagan Republicans who brought us nuclear escalation in the early 1980s, Iran/contra in the mid-1980s, Iraq I, and now Bush the Younger's War in Iraq. The current list of Who's Who in the Bush II Administration pushing this most recent War in Iraqi began with Nixon, continued through Ford and Bush I, and are the same men actually running the Bush II Whitehouse. You don't have to be a detective to figure out what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter, and Negroponte are all about, eh?

    Posted by kabal at 11/29/2006 @ 4:29pm

77. there is one country that went commie as a result of the Vietnam war. Laos, which had been neutral.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 5:04pm

78. JR,

    "cook you are a woman of color like I'm the queen of Romania. give us a rest with this bull. first you bitch that blacks couldn't get any assistance, then you bitch for getting assistance. this is a thinly disguised shill for the repubs. I, for one , am not buying."

    I've never said what you've implied. You have no idea what it's like to be black or brown in America. And, yes I "bitch", because my people aren't treated fairly or equally. That, you've heard me say on numerous occassions.

    Welfare, affirmative action, Gov't schools, and a hosts of other social programs have done more harm to the Black and Latino communities then the libs will ever let on. We know all too well how social programs are designed to fracture entire families and ruin whole neighborhoods. I want to cringe every time I hear the word "progressive".

    I knew your true colors would come out, eventually. You may not say it directly, but it's there. You remind me of Michael Richards.

    Posted by ACook at 11/29/2006 @ 6:07pm

79. So no protesters, the US wins, and all the troops go home in 1970? Wow, I did not know that. (Never mind the Vietnamese had a long history of fighting the Chinese, the French, then us; or that the government of South Vietnam was nothing more that a corrupt, unpopular facade put together by the US government; or that there was this long, open flank that could not be protected; or that the US was actually nothing more than an occupying party fighting for its right to economically penetrate other nations; or that a "communist" ally shared a border with North Vietman and would continue to supply a country fighting the US; or that the USSR would continue to supply the North in order to keep the US mired in a never ending guerilla war...).

    So if all of us that are opposed to this unnecessary war would just shut up the troops could be home in no time? The Sunnis and Shia would kiss and make up; Syria and Iran would not be interested in influencing their next door neighbor; the divided land the British put together so many years ago will come together without the aid of a strong, repressive, central government? Democracy will take root in a non-Western nation without the benefit of the traditions that evolved over centuries? We will all eat pie in the sky?

    You have to do far more than simply dominate on the battle field in order to win a war. Stop blaming the press and all the men and women that wanted to end the illegal, immoral war in Southeast Asia for the US' failure to win in Vietnam. It was an unwinnable war, and if the men running the show had half a brain they would have recognized that Ho was a nationalist intent on freeing his country of foreign domination and played him against the Chinese he loathed. Military might can win only so much. And only fools start wars; you never know what you're gonna get when you start a war.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/29/2006 @ 6:33pm

80. C'mon, ACOOK, stop blaming everybody else for your problems. It must be nice to always be able to blame someone else for whatever goes wrong.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/29/2006 @ 6:35pm

81. And what the hell did Richards do that was so wrong? You sit in an audience and heckle some guy, and then you want to whine about getting called out?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/29/2006 @ 6:46pm

82. MT, have you seen the Richards clip? National Lampoon has a humorous montage of Seinfeld shows, cheque it out.Richards was way over the line, and now with phone video cameras everywhere, it's out there for all to see. comedians have been heckled forever, and there are ways to deal with that. that wasn't one of them.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 7:17pm

83. Cook, your plaint is as phony as they come. you are a repub shill, no more.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 7:18pm

84. MT, you left out the Japanese. Ho was fighting the Japanese, and was on our side in that war. Ho also stated that they were willing to fight for another 20 years, or more. the south vietnamese had nothing but corruption to fight for, the americans had nothing at all to fight for, but the communists had their country to fight for. the right side won.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 7:21pm

85. MTSPENCE05, I'll tell you what JR won't tell you about Michael Richards, he called a group of black men a bunch of niggas and that 50-years ago they would have got a fork stuck up their asses for "disrespecting" a white man.....just because they didn't think he was funny....

    Hey JR, is that shill enough for you?....

    Posted by ACook at 11/29/2006 @ 7:56pm

86. JR,

    I think you are out of line with ACOOK...her opinions and expressions are derived from her experience of being black in America and should be heard as much as ol' Jesse and his ilk with their fraud wagon...

    I am surprised at you questioning her existance as a person of color based soley on her political opinion....it is not like you...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 7:59pm

87. Thank you John.....

    Posted by ACook at 11/29/2006 @ 8:24pm

88. sorry Maasch, I just don't buy it. there was this New Yorker cartoon, two dogs, one says to the other: "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog." Cook has been posting for a few days, with a lot of weird posts. now all of a sudden this black chick thing, I just don't buy it. and to try to paint me as a racist like Richards, homey don't play that.

    my first girlfriend was black. I went through all the nigger lover stuff with my High School friends. since then I have had many black friends, lovers and some students, informal, too. in my professional life too I have had many many black clients, in one case a twenty year relationship that continues to this day. in my field there is no one who has more black clients than I do, same with my partner and spouse.

    look, you all have seen me open my mind and heart here. has there ever been a racist comment by me? Cook's post is the exact talking points of the RNC. black folks ain't buying that line either.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 8:29pm

89. I'll tell you what JR won't tell you about Michael Richards

    this clip has been running on TV for a week now, and has been quoted by every newspaper in the country. everyone knows what it is about. I won't fall for any gotcha trap. you may believe what you like.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 8:31pm

90. Lesson...between advisors and GIs, the US spent a decade in Nam to stop communism from spreading to other countries. Mission Accomplished!

    Absolute nonsense. Neither Thailand nor Malaysia had anything resembling a serious Communist insurgency while Suharto had done a thorough job of massacring Communists and a great many other people when he took over. Which countries (except for Laos and Cambodia) were under any threat of falling to Communist insurgencies in 1965?

    es the US would have left Nam earlier had it not been for the protestors. After the unsuccessful TET offensive, the General on charge of Vietnam forces said he was about to turn to Washington for terms of surrender since he realized the US could never be defeated in combat. THEN...he saw the protests start and decided to continue the fight, realizing the protestors would accomplish what his forces couldn't...so the US would have been out in 1970 if it were not for the protestors.

    Which general, Giap? A name would offer some missing substantiation. Further, it was still Ho Chi Minh who was running things in 1968, any indication that he was ready to throw in the towel? Further, the impact of Tet lay in the fact that the people running the war had keep saying that there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Tet, even though a military victory for the US, put the lie to that. Sound familiar? Like people saying that Iraq would be a cakewalk or that we shouldn't need to be there very long, etc.?

    Posted by brunowe at 11/29/2006 @ 9:13pm

91. JR, I'm glad you know a some black folks. I'm not surprised that you think I'm doing talking points for the RNC, because it's inconceivable to you that any black person could ever be a Republican or an independant for that matter. Too bad you don't understand that black people are as varied as the color of our skin.

    I can assure you, I am black...I grew up on the roughest side of Detroit, the Eastside. I moved to Atlanta with my husband and then 2 small children some time ago. My oldest child is 20.

    I'm a registered nurse and my husband is retired from the military after 19 years of service.

    I never dated a white guy, but went to school with plenty of white children who thought using the word nigga was the funniest thing.

    I'm glad you've been able to maintain at least one 20-year relationship out of the many that you did not forge.

    Oh, and I didn't imply that you were a racist, only that you have the same temperment as Michael Richards.

    Posted by ACook at 11/29/2006 @ 9:25pm

92. "Oh, and I didn't imply that you were a racist,"

    you did nothing BUT imply that I am a racist.

    that twenty year relationship was with a client. many of my clients, black or white, and I go way back. my contribution to black history is a matter of public record. that you never dated a white person indicates that your social contacts are a lot more catholic than mine.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 9:52pm

93. of course that was all nonsense, Bruno. vet never addressed any of my points, prattling on instead about education. reading a book is evidently anathema to him. not to me.over 1,000 books and I'm not done yet.

    I recently discovered a great historian from the 19th century, Jules Michelet: his masterwork, a 29 volume history of france, among other things. the book I discovered was published in 1858 and is a philosophical exploration of insects, wow.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 9:57pm

94. Week 196: 11/26/06 6

    Week 195: 11/19/06 13

    Week 194: 11/12/06 16

    Week 193: 11/05/06 15

    Week 192: 10/29/06 20

    Week 191: 10/22/06 17

    Week 190: 10/15/06 30

    Week 189: 10/08/06 23

    Week 188: 10/01/06 30

    Week 187: 09/24/06 15

    Week 186: 09/17/06 17

    Week 185: 09/10/06 14

    Week 184: 09/03/06 23

    Week 183: 08/27/06 22

    Week 182: 08/20/06 15

    Week 181: 08/13/06 7

    Week 180: 08/06/06 13

    Week 179: 07/30/06 12

    Week 178: 07/23/06 13

    Week 177: 07/16/06 14

    Week 176: 07/09/06 8

    Week 175: 07/02/06 6

    Week 174: 06/25/06 14

    Week 173: 06/18/06 16

    Week 172: 06/11/06 8

    Week 171: 06/04/06 20

    Week 170: 05/28/06 10

    Week 169: 05/21/06 13

    Week 168: 05/14/06 16

    Week 167: 05/07/06 15

    Week 166: 04/30/06 19

    Week 165: 04/23/06 17

    Week 164: 04/16/06 11

    Week 163: 04/09/06 21

    Week 162: 04/02/06 23

    Week 161: 03/26/06 10

    Week 160: 03/19/06 4

    Week 159: 03/12/06 10

    Week 158: 03/05/06 7

    Week 157: 02/26/06 9

    Week 156: 02/19/06 16

    Week 155: 02/12/06 10

    Week 154: 02/05/06 13

    Week 153: 01/29/06 11

    Week 152: 01/22/06 14

    Week 151: 01/15/06 11

    Week 150: 01/08/06 6

    Week 149: 01/01/06 31

    Week 148: 12/25/05 15

    Week 147: 12/18/05 10

    Week 146: 12/11/05 14

    Week 145: 12/04/05 14

    Week 144: 11/27/05 21

    Week 143: 11/20/05 13

    Week 142: 11/13/05 28

    Week 141: 11/06/05 18

    Week 140: 10/30/05 29

    Week 139: 10/23/05 19

    Week 138: 10/16/05 23

    Week 137: 10/09/05 22

    Week 136: 10/02/05 19

    Week 135: 09/25/05 18

    Week 134: 09/18/05 15

    Week 133: 09/11/05 9

    Week 132: 09/04/05 7

    Week 131: 08/28/05 10

    Week 130: 08/21/05 14

    Week 129: 08/14/05 14

    Week 128: 08/07/05 15

    Week 127: 07/31/05 36

    Week 126: 07/24/05 23

    Week 125: 07/17/05 9

    Week 124: 07/10/05 12

    Week 123: 07/03/05 9

    Week 122: 06/26/05 8

    Week 121: 06/19/05 14

    Week 120: 06/12/05 21

    Week 119: 06/05/05 30

    Week 118: 05/29/05 13

    Week 117: 05/22/05 28

    Week 116: 05/15/05 8

    Week 115: 05/08/05 24

    Week 114: 05/01/05 12

    Week 112: 04/24/05 16

    Week 111: 04/17/05 13

    Week 110: 04/10/05 10

    Week 109: 04/03/05 10

    Week 108: 03/27/05 9

    Week 107: 03/20/05 7

    Week 106: 03/13/05 6

    Week 105: 03/06/05 5

    Week 104: 02/27/05 14

    Week 103: 02/20/05 18

    Week 102: 02/13/05 20

    Week 101: 02/06/05 8

    Week 100: 01/30/05 15

    Week 99: 01/23/05 61

    Week 98: 01/16/05 9

    Week 97: 01/09/05 12

    Week 96: 01/02/05 17

    Week 95: 12/26/04 11

    Week 94: 12/19/04 21

    Week 93: 12/12/04 14

    Week 92: 12/05/04 14

    Week 91: 11/28/04 27

    Week 90: 11/21/04 17

    Week 89: 11/14/04 34

    Week 88: 11/07/04 67

    Week 87: 10/31/04 7

    Week 86: 10/24/04 16

    Week 85: 10/17/04 3

    Week 84: 10/10/04 31

    Week 83: 10/03/04 10

    Week 82: 09/26/04 12

    Week 81: 09/19/04 16

    Week 80: 09/12/04 22

    Week 79: 09/05/04 26

    Week 78: 08/29/04 8

    Week 77: 08/22/04 14

    Week 76: 08/15/04 23

    Week 75: 08/07/04 9

    Week 74: 08/01/04 18

    Week 73: 07/25/04 5

    Week 72: 07/18/04 11

    Week 71: 07/11/04 12

    Week 70: 07/05/04 20

    Week 69: 06/27/04 11

    Week 68: 06/20/04 13

    Week 67: 06/13/04 8

    Week 66: 06/06/04 6

    Week 65: 05/30/04 17

    Week 64: 05/23/04 16

    Week 63: 05/16/04 14

    Week 62: 05/09/04 14

    Week 61: 05/02/04 25

    Week 60: 04/25/04 28

    Week 59: 04/18/04 12

    Week 58: 04/11/04 30

    Week 57: 04/04/04 66

    Week 56: 03/28/04 12

    Week 55: 03/21/04 10

    Week 54: 03/14/04 17

    Week 53: 03/07/04 14

    Week 52: 02/29/04 2

    Week 51: 02/22/04 2

    Week 50: 02/15/04 6

    Week 49: 02/07/04 8

    Week 48: 02/01/04 4

    Week 47: 01/25/04 15

    Week 46: 01/18/04 10

    Week 45: 01/11/04 6

    Week 44: 01/04/04 11

    Week 43: 12/28/03 9

    Week 42: 12/21/03 12

    Week 41: 12/14/03 7

    Week 40: 12/07/03 12

    Week 39: 11/30/03 5

    Week 38: 11/23/03 10

    Week 37: 11/16/03 10

    Week 36: 11/09/03 26

    Week 35: 11/02/03 34

    Week 34: 10/26/03 13

    Week 33: 10/19/03 9

    Week 32: 10/12/03 12

    Week 31: 10/05/03 6

    Week 30: 09/28/03 10

    Week 29: 09/21/03 5

    Week 28: 09/14/03 11

    Week 27: 09/07/03 6

    Week 26: 08/31/03 5

    Week 25: 08/24/03 8

    Week 24: 08/17/03 8

    Week 23: 08/10/03 7

    Week 21: 08/03/03 11

    Week 20: 07/27/03 7

    Week 19: 07/20/03 16

    Week 18: 07/13/03 9

    Week 17: 07/06/03 12

    Week 16: 06/29/03 5

    Week 15: 06/22/03 11

    Week 14: 06/15/03 8

    Week 13: 06/08/03 4

    Week 12: 06/01/03 7

    Week 11: 05/25/03 13

    Week 10: 05/18/03 9

    Week 9: 05/11/03 6

    Week 8: 05/04/03 7

    Week 7: 04/27/03 3

    Week 6: 04/20/03 7

    Week 5: 04/13/03 9

    Week 4: 04/06/03 21

    Week 3: 03/30/03 41

    Week 2: 03/23/03 51

    Week 1: 03/20/03 9

    Total 2884

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/29/2006 @ 10:00pm

95. JR,

    "my contribution to black history is a matter of public record."

    Hopefully they were good ones.

    Posted by ACook at 11/29/2006 @ 10:26pm

96. How many dominoes fell? Well, exactly two. In 1975, communist "People's Governments" were established in both Laos and Cambodia. But you have to wonder whether this would have happened if we hadn't indiscriminately (and illegally) bombed the shit out of both countries in the early 70s.

    The Khmer Rouge didn't last long but successors to the Pathet Lao continue to rule (ineptly) the landlocked former kingdom of Laos. Which isn't really a great loss, as the country is of zero strategic interest to the U.S. Of course it's sad if you're one of the unfortunate 3 million Laotians who have to put up with the government. It should be said, however, that Laos is even more of a shithole than even Vietnam is or ever was.

    One final word: every time I hear the argument that we fought the Vietnam war "with one arm tied behind our backs," I always think, "right, and our heads shoved completely up our asses." Then as now, the U.S. political leadership knows absolutely nothing about the part of the world where it has decided to send our soldiers to be killed and maimed.

    Posted by Licky Laos at 11/29/2006 @ 11:39pm

97. It's interesting...all these comments to my earlier posts and not one, NOT ONE, that tries to rebut what I stated! You Libs really do attack the messenger! Well...I hope the truth has opened your eyes because you certainly won't get much of the truth from the Nation magazine!

    MASK...keep up the great work!

    Posted by USVET 11/29/2006 @ 3:39pm

    Oh Vetty... Vetty boy. all those comments to my earlier posts and not one, NOT ONE, that tries to rebut what I stated.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/30/2006 @ 12:00am

98. I guess if USVET wants the truth he should go find it at "Free (sic) Republic," where if you post anything remotely critical of the administration it is instantly delated by the Freeper thought police...

    Posted by Licky Laos at 11/30/2006 @ 12:10am

99. I always find it sickenly ironic that the hsuB admin that lied its way out of their duty in Vietnam, are shamelessly browbeating others for not wanting to stick it out in a war that they, the hsuB admin, lied us into; that war in Iraq will have, in every single fucked-up week-- for soon to be 200 weeks straight, devastated from 2 to 67 families with the annoucement that their beloved family member will be returning, quietly in the dead of night and possibly worse-- questionably destined into, a flag draped box.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 12:28am

100. JR,

     "and to try to paint me as a racist like Richards,"

     nope, you are not a racist and never said such,you just prematurely fired, IMO.... and I have dated all flavors too...I encourage all to do so..

     ...just don't assume all black people or all people of color are Dems and not RNC adherants...one of the fastest growing groups in America is the black middle class and they are starting to vote their wallets like their white neighbors...and are moving right....the real racial color of America is green...and the real gulf between people is not race anymore but economic...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 12:34am

101. "all those comments to my earlier posts and not one, NOT ONE, that tries to rebut what I stated"

     Thats because all your comments are nothing and not worth rebuttal...just horseshit.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 12:41am

102. the real racial color of America is green...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/30/2006 @ 12:34am

     In other words the greedy and the needy, same ol same old. All the more reason for a strong middle class and not an enconomy driven by large corporation profits while the average joe's salary stagnates. That shameful excuse that upping minimum wage will lose jobs only need be applied to CEO's. Sure are a lot less CEO's now because they got that average 65X raise in income...

     Sorta like when repubs say schools are failing because still dumb kids being produced-- it's kinda like saying we should close hospitals because people still get sick...

     And who's profiteering in Iraq? Not our soldiers that's for sure.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 01:11am

103. Nor the Iraqis.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 01:13am

104. 200 weeks straight with death-- not one single week went by without at least two of our soldiers dying-- lots more being mained.

     Multiply ours by about 250 for the number of dead Iraqi. Yep, we sure are benifiting them a whole lot.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 01:22am

105. Spreading that wmd democracy du all over the place. LV¬ spreads it on bread and serves it to as many as will eat it. Tastes like chicken.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 01:29am

106. JOHN MAASCH, WILL C., CRABWALK, MASK, ACOOK, LIBERALPRIDE,

     First, America should make it clear that they would not support an indepedent Kurdish state to the North in Iraq and that their most logical option at this point is to negotiate with the Shia and the Sunni to live in a unifed, peaceful country. Having said that:

     Can any of you tell me what Thomas Ricks and Robin Wright are thinking? This is the kind of lunacy (from the left I would presume) that makes absolutely no sense to me. My take is this: While the United States did incredible damage to Iraq with the invasion, (which a sizable donation for reconstruction and reparations should be paid) I think they miss the main point. The main point is that the Shia, which is 60 percent of Iraq's population, should cut a deal with the Sunnis and the Kurds and bring them in to a unified country that they CAN AND WOULD CONTROL. Does it not make more sense for the Shia to unite and cut a deal with the other factions that everyone can live with so they can control a unifed Iraq with as little chaos as humanly possible than for them to be clinging to power by the skin of their teeth constantly at war with their neighbors in-country with a U.S. occupation army propping them up with the extreme chaos, murder and mayhem that we currently see today? I find it grotesquely illogical and very offensive when I see these types of articles because it gives the impression that the Iraqis have absolutely ZERO RESPONSIBILITY FOR REBUILDNG THEIR SOCIETY BY CUTTING A DEAL FOR EVERYONE TO ATTEMPT TO LIVE IN A UNIFIED IRAQ. The Shia should cut a deal with the others and THEN DEMAND THAT U.S. AND COALITION OCCUPATION TROOPS LEAVE IRAQ..................And if the Shia are not willing to cut a deal, then American troops should leave, MUCH SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.................(60 days tops)

     POSTED FROM TRUTHOUT.ORG

     As Iraq Deteriorates, Iraqis Get More Blame By Thomas E. Ricks and Robin Wright The Washington Post

     Wednesday 29 November 2006

     From troops on the ground to members of Congress, Americans increasingly blame the continuing violence and destruction in Iraq on the people most affected by it: the Iraqis.

     Even Democrats who have criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the occupation say the people and government of Iraq are not doing enough to rebuild their society. The White House is putting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have debated how much to blame Iraqis for not performing civic duties.

     This marks a shift in tone from earlier debate about the responsibility of the United States to restore order after the 2003 invasion, and it seemed to gain currency in October, when sectarian violence surged. Some see the talk of blame as the beginning of the end of U.S. involvement.

     "It is the first manifestation of a 'Who lost Iraq?' argument that will likely rage for years to come," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has worked as a U.S. government consultant in Iraq.

     Americans and Iraqis are increasingly seeing the situation in different terms, said retired Army Col. Jeffrey D. McCausland, who recently returned from a visit to Iraq. "We're just talking past each other," he said, adding that Americans are psychologically edging toward the door that leads to disengagement. "We're arguing about 'cut and run' versus 'cut and jog.'"

     Iraqis' role in their own suffering has been an issue since shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, when looters ransacked the national museum and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dismissed it by saying, "Stuff happens." But more than three years later, with schools and hospitals struggling, electrical service faltering, and police and government agencies infiltrated by sectarian death squads, the question of blame is more urgent.

     For example, a Nov. 15 meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee turned into a festival of bipartisan Iraqi-bashing.

     "We should put the responsibility for Iraq's future squarely where it belongs - on the Iraqis," began Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's next chairman. "We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves." He has advocated announcing that U.S. troops are going to withdraw as a way of pressuring Iraqi politicians to find compromises.

     Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) followed by noting: "People in South Carolina come up to me in increasing numbers and suggest that no matter what we do in Iraq, the Iraqis are incapable of solving their own problems through the political process and will resort to violence, and we need to get the hell out of there."

     "We all want them to succeed," agreed Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). "We all want them to be able to stabilize their country with the assistance that we've provided them." But, he added, "too often they seem unable or unwilling to do that."

     Later the same day, members of the House Armed Services Committee took their turn. "If the Iraqis are determined and decide to destroy themselves and their country, I don't know how in the world we're going to stop them," said Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.).

     Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said he worries about the growing chorus of official voices blaming Iraq, and suggested that a little introspection on the U.S. side could help.

     "I am indeed concerned about this trend," he said in an interview. "The U.S. through its actions and omissions has helped to create the current conditions in Iraq. Therefore the U.S. also bears responsibility in putting right the situation."

     It isn't just politicians who have decided that the problem with Iraq is the Iraqis. In the military establishment, said Joseph J. Collins, a professor at the National Defense University, "there is lots of disappointment in the performance of Iraqi officials of all stripes."

     Thomas Donnelly, a hawkish defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he considers blame a legitimate issue. "Ultimately, just like success rests with the Iraqis, so does failure," he said. "We've made a lot of mistakes, but we've paid a huge price to give the Iraqis a chance at a decent future."

     The blame game has also been playing out somewhat divisively within the secretive Iraq Study Group. The bipartisan commission, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), is deliberating policy recommendations to put forward next month.

     "I'm tired of nit-picking over how we should bully the Iraqis into becoming better citizens of their own country," former CIA Middle East expert Ray Close wrote in an e-mail to the other advisers to the study group.

     Several other experts of various political stripes said this tendency to dump on Baghdad feels like a preamble to withdrawal.

     "It's their fault, and by implication not ours, is clearly a theme that's in the air," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and longtime skeptic of the war in Iraq. It reminds him, he said, of the sour last days of the Vietnam War, when "there was a tendency to blame everything on the 'gooks' - meaning our South Vietnamese allies who had disappointed us."

     "People never understood the culture and the challenges that we faced in trying to build a new Iraq," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "There's incredible frustration ... but it also shows a great deal of ignorance."

     "Definitely," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served in Iraq as an Army officer in 2003-2004 and went on to found a veterans group critical of the conduct of the war. "It is growing into an angry, scolding tone." He said he finds it "sad" - "especially after all the talk of our mission to 'save the Iraqis.'"

     The long-term effect of blaming Iraqis also could be poisonous, said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan specialist in Middle Eastern issues. He predicted that it will "infuriate the Iraqis and worsen further the future relationship of the two countries."

     The turning point in the blame game seems to have occurred in early October, when both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) went public with their frustrations, warning the Baghdad government that it must do much more much faster. Warner suggested that the United States should explore a "change of course" if security had not improved within 90 days.

     During a surprise visit to Baghdad on Oct. 5, Rice said with uncharacteristic bluntness that the security situation was not helped by "political inaction."

     The Bush administration hoped the long-delayed formation of a government, which took about five months after the Dec. 15 election last year, would produce more initiative by Baghdad. But the security and political situation continued to deteriorate, so the administration increased the pressure on Maliki's government. Over the past three months, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said, senior U.S. military and administration officials visiting Baghdad have conveyed the same message: Get on with it.

     "Our role is not to resolve those issues for them," Rice told reporters last month after pressing Maliki to be bolder about disbanding militias and reconciling sectarian differences. "They are going to have to resolve those issues among themselves."

     Blaming Iraqis for the woeful situation disregards recent history, some experts argue. Phebe Marr, an Iraq expert and adviser to the Iraq Study Group, calculates that because of policy missteps and other errors, the United States bears about 60 percent of the blame. "You can't say, 'We did this and the Iraqis didn't rise to the occasion,' " she said. "There's enough blame to go around."

     Posted by POSEIDON at 11/30/2006 @ 02:00am

107. HSUBFOOLS

     I like those analogies. Close hospitals because people still get sick! Priceless! Of course your main point is well taken. How in the world can millions on top of millions be paid to one or a select group of individuals in a company and not cause it to go bankrupt while raising the minimum wage by a mere $2.10 will for sure without a doubt cause a company to collapse? Now clearly the mathematics don't support the above righwing view for not raising the minimum wage. But another point to make is that many "average joes" truly believe that raising the minimum wage will cause companies and businesses to go belly-up and jobs to be lost.......

     HSUBFOOLS

     the real racial color of America is green...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/30/2006 @ 12:34am

     In other words the greedy and the needy, same ol same old. All the more reason for a strong middle class and not an enconomy driven by large corporation profits while the average joe's salary stagnates. That shameful excuse that upping minimum wage will lose jobs only need be applied to CEO's. Sure are a lot less CEO's now because they got that average 65X raise in income...

     Sorta like when repubs say schools are failing because still dumb kids being produced-- it's kinda like saying we should close hospitals because people still get sick...

     And who's profiteering in Iraq? Not our soldiers that's for sure.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS

     Posted by POSEIDON at 11/30/2006 @ 03:43am

108. Bush fools,

     "average joe's salary stagnates."

     Maybe for guys like you,.....maybe you should stick to pasting polls...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 07:15am

109. Cook,

     "my contribution to black history is a matter of public record."

     I doubt you can make that statement.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 08:48am

110. "average joe's salary stagnates."

     Maybe for guys like you,.....maybe you should stick to pasting polls...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/30/2006 @ 07:15am | ignore this person

     you are in denial on this. the numbers come from the gov't agencies and have been widely reported.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 08:50am

111. Posted by POSEIDON 11/30/2006 @ 02:00am

     POSEI, at this point, Joe Biden's "three-state solution" is the only thing that even SEEMS feasible.

     Until there are some defined "borders", everybody (less maybe the Kurds who have something of a defined border) is going to see how much they can grab of what I think we could start calling "former Iraq".

     Shiia and Sunni militias freely roam and intermingle into both populations. Some kind of defined border, where anybody on "this side of the line" is a citizen of "Sunnistan" and anybody on "that side of the line" is a citizen of "Shiia Iraq" atleast would turn it into some kind of conventional warfare, if not lead to an armistice.

     BTW, I don't "blame the Iraqis". I blame the leadership of the Iraqis.

     Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 08:58am

112. Off-topic, but they usually hang out at Mr Corn's thread....

     "South Park" last night NAILED RESE and PLUNGER!...hehe

     Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 08:59am

113. Bush fools,

     "average joe's salary stagnates."

     Maybe for guys like you,.....maybe you should stick to pasting polls...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/30/2006 @ 07:15am

     JR's right-- the numbers tell the tale. Those with money are making more those with the least to minimum are making less and the corporations are making out like badits. As for myself, as I've said before, I'm blessed, so earning money has never been a problem. As for my family, freinds, and the average joes', yep, a big problem. Or is that a pig problem?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 09:09am

114. BTW, I don't "blame the Iraqis". I blame the leadership of the Iraqis.

     Posted by MASK 11/30/2006 @ 08:58am

     And don't forget the turn-everything-to-shit (except corporate bitches) support of the hsuB admin.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 09:12am

115. JM, at my slave wage job I have had no raise in two years. Nobody has, except for the execs. They continue to get a new SUV every 2 years, gas cards and no insurance pass alongs. The hourly workers, no raise, no gas card, increase in insurance premiums.

     The execs claim we are hemorrhaging money, but spent 2 million redecorating the building (horribly).

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/30/2006 @ 09:22am

116. What I am surprised at is the lack of comment from the neo's about the Iran/Contra affair. Remember the article that starts this thread?

     Do you people support putting into positions of power those that have lied to congress, broken the laws congress put in place and show zero responsibility for those actions?

     Did Billy Clinton EVER put a convicted felon next to Hillary at a SOU speech?

     history is repeating itself, because many have either forgotten, or like "VET", never learned. (What a moop!, like BARRY claiming the left was for segregation. Must have a bachelors from Hawaii Polytechnic mail order U. "we could have left if it were not for the protesters". hahahaha)

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/30/2006 @ 09:29am

117. Colin Powell calls it a civil war. Any neo's want to bash a troop?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/30/2006 @ 09:32am

118. Crab,

     I think the neos all think and/or are just satisfied that most of the public bought the RR propaganda of bringing down the wall and the playing too dumb to be involved in the complicated ins and outs of the Iran/Contra criminal activity since congress/media didn't impeach and make that the story. Looking back, perhaps it would have been better to stomp out the pigs then. They just keep multiplying like vampire rodents. A stake to the heart of the leader I hear frees their zombi followers to get their souls back.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 09:55am

119. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/30/2006 @ 09:12am

     Not forgetting HSUB...was merely responding to POSEIDON's post.

     Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 10:26am

120. Freedom of speech still moves people and impeachment teaches right from wrong.

     XXXXXXXXX

     Soldier's coffin at center of furor

     Some officials skeptical of mishandling report

     Joseph Spector Staff writer

     (November 30, 2006) -- A woman says she saw a soldier's flag-draped coffin put into a cart with passengers' baggage last month at the Greater Rochester International Airport, shocking her and other onlookers.

     "It looked awful, just awful," Cynthia Hoag, 56, of Dansville, Livingston County, said Wednesday. "Maybe we made too much out of it, but it was very disturbing to us. If that had been my son, I would have been very upset."

     Officials dispute Hoag's story, saying it is implausible. They did not disclose the name of the fallen soldier, but he appears to be Army Sgt. 1st Class Tony Knier of Sabinsville, Pa., who was killed in Iraq on Oct. 21.

     A Pennsylvania funeral director confirmed on Wednesday night that he transported Knier's body from the Rochester airport on Oct. 27, the day Hoag was there. Monroe County officials said the coffin was being taken to Pennsylvania.

     Knier's mother was appalled when she was told Wednesday night that the incident might have involved the body of her 31-year-old son, a husband and father of three young children. Knier's funeral was Oct. 31 near his home in Wellsboro, Pa.

     "If that's what that lady saw, I'm outraged. I'm really upset, because my son died for this country. " said Betty Tidwell, who lives in Tennessee. "He gave all he had to this country. And for them to do that to him, that just upsets the hell out of me."

     Hoag wrote an op-ed essay that was published Tuesday in the Democrat and Chronicle, describing what she says she saw.

     Based on Hoag's account, Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks called on the federal government Wednesday to change procedures to prevent a similar incident, saying what happened is an "outrage."

     Hoag explained that as she waited at the airport with friends, she saw a soldier in uniform standing at attention near a commercial airplane as the luggage came off. She then saw a coffin draped with an American flag come down a luggage conveyor on the runway.

     The coffin was put into a baggage cart with other luggage and driven off with the uniformed soldier in the cart.

     "I saw the casket of a fallen soldier, saluted by a lone soldier, and then placed in a baggage cart," she wrote. "Baggage."

     VVVVVVVVVVVVVV

     He said the airport was unable to find video of the incident.

     Nonetheless, the witness' description prompted Brooks to urge the Defense Department to change policies on the transportation of the coffins of dead soldiers.

     "It is unfathomable to me that our federal government would allow a fallen military hero to be returned home in this manner, and then transport him along with someone's checked luggage," Brooks, a Republican, wrote in a terse letter to the Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

     Brooks said the Defense Department should be required to notify an airport when the coffin of a fallen soldier is being transported so that proper arrangements are ensured.

     "I am asking you to do whatever is necessary to end this abhorrent practice," Brooks wrote. "Our military personnel and our veterans deserve better."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 11:19am

121. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/30/2006 @ 11:19am

     HSUB....no corroborating witnesses? and where WAS this story published?

     Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 11:42am

122. Posted by MASK 11/30/2006 @ 11:42am

     It's from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. This is what she wrote and aparently there are several other witnesses: the soldier accompanying, the driver and her three other freinds:

     Where was outpouring of respect for fallen soldier?

     By Cynthia Hoag Guest essayist

     (November 28, 2006) -- On Oct. 27, I was waiting for a flight with three friends at the Greater Rochester International Airport. As we talked and laughed, we watched airport personnel unloading luggage from a plane. And we were surprised to see a soldier in uniform standing by the airplane looking things over, and watching the luggage belt that was loaded with baggage.

     Since I have served in the Army Reserves for 21 years, my friends asked me why I thought he was standing there. I did not need to answer because as I looked down, a box with the American flag draped over it came down the belt. The lone waiting soldier stood at attention saluting the fallen soldier.

     My friends and I sat silently watching the casket roll down the belt, and then, to our surprise, disappear into the cart with the rest of the luggage. The waiting soldier stayed with the casket and rode in the cart as they pulled away.

     My friends and I were speechless. I, as many Americans, support our troops and know they believe they are truly making a difference in Iraq. As I read the paper every day, I see the number of soldiers who are killed every day. I served with soldiers who were deployed in support of the war. I have not, however, known anyone who has been killed in it. After I read the paper I usually go about my business not thinking again about the young men and women who died trying to complete their mission. Since I have not been affected by the death of a loved one, or a friend, I haven't been as aware of the devastation that their families must endure. I'm afraid most people feel that way.

     This incident, however, changed that for me. I saw the casket of a fallen soldier, saluted by a lone soldier, and then placed in the baggage cart. Baggage. There was a young man standing at the window watching intently with us. He made no comment, but I can only hope that he was not a relative.

     At the very least, couldn't there have been a hearse to transport the fallen soldier? At the very least, couldn't there have been a group of soldiers to receive one of their own? If it had been a dignitary/celebrity arriving, the reception certainly would have been different.

     It was a very sobering, sad experience for all of us. Please, don't let this happen again to any soldier. Let's not treat our fallen troops like baggage.

     Hoag lives in Dansville, Livingston County.

     http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20061128/OPINION02/611280340/-1/archive2

     XXXXXXXXX

     Perhaps the other reason the troop levels were kept low. Less US troops, less troop casualties, less of the public being affected, lower outrage, more time to profiteer under the radar.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 12:23pm

123. "Did Billy Clinton EVER put a convicted felon next to Hillary at a SOU speech? "

     No, he pardoned all of them on his last day of school.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 2:07pm

124. And now they fund Hillarys campaign.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 2:09pm

125. Crab,

     You are right that there are no comments on Iran contra....as far as many are concerned, Oliver North made monkeys out of that commitee with ease and the dems looked like stooges for supporting Ortega...the contra "thing" died after it served it's purpose apparently, and that was getting rid of Ortegas influence in the entire region...no one was bothered that the deals engineered and the cash for them came from the Suadis or where ever...and had Carter done something about Iran and the Kohmeni nutcase, there would have been no Iran hostage and all the fall out from it...so..

     ...now Ortega can do what he tried to avoid..get elected and not imposing himself.. He now has accountability..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 2:14pm

126. Crab,

     As far as the company you work for, I can't speak for them , but it seems the level you should want to be at is the management level above you in order to get an increase in benefits and wages...a promotion, old sport,..work your way UP and not bitch about those already there and what they have that you now do not...one does not know the risk and sacrifices that may have been made in order to get to that level...there are always prices to pay for attainment..or goals reached...aspire higher rather than take away...

     unfortunately, many jobs that pay hourly can be filled or refilled easily by many others and thus no high demand for the skills required, which, if the skill level required is high,then wage will be higher...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 2:21pm

127. Crab...that was the whole point in us being there...we PREVENTED any countries from falling after we stopped communism in Vietnam! Don't you know anything about history? Lesson...between advisors and GIs, the US spent a decade in Nam to stop communism from spreading to other countries. Mission Accomplished!

     Posted by USVET 11/29/2006 @ 12:45am

     There was no significant communist threat to Laos or Cambodia before the American escalation in Vietnam. The imperialists of America created for real the exact thing that they fabricated to rationalize their aggression. Iraq is a rerun in spades.

     Characters like you are incapable of learning. What's with the USVET moniker? Do you consider that so exclusive? Just like you, there are plenty of vets here. Unlike you, they learned something along the way.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/30/2006 @ 2:35pm

128. the management level above you in order to get an increase in benefits and wages..

     is tis your version of let them eat cake, Maasch? only the bosses get raises? and you support that? shame on you

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 2:38pm

129. No, he pardoned all of them on his last day of school.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/30/2006 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person

     like Bush Sr. you mean?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 2:39pm

130. Posted by USVET 11/28/2006 @ 10:42pm

     Oh, shit! What a mental retard!

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/30/2006 @ 2:44pm

131. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/30/2006 @ 12:23am

     HSUB...again....where's her corroborating witnesses? It was an AIRPORT, should have been more than just "her friend",huh?

     I re-read your orignal C&P...and it's full of "officials dispute Hoag's story"..."IF that's what that lady saw"...."airport was unable to find video of the incident"...

     Not saying it DIDN'T happen, but it sure seems ....odd...nobody else can confirm it.

     Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 2:47pm

132. "is tis your version of let them eat cake, Maasch? only the bosses get raises? and you support that? shame on you"

     Of course not, as I mentioned, I don't know the company or their circumstances...from my point of view, if I own a company with employees, if the company does well, all share the rewards,top to bottom,and if the company does poorly, we all share the low points as well...

     I do believe in promoting from the ground up and inside the house first...I know of no one who was promoted by bitching, but I also am aware of times when shit floats right to the top...and in that case..get out, quit and move on...if Crab is being screwed or he feels he is, then that is a sign to move out and on down the road..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 2:51pm

133. Posted by MASK 11/30/2006 @ 2:47pm

     If a tree in the forest falls and only one person hears it-- it's irrelevant?

     I believe since the situation was taken seriously your question is irrelevant.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/30/2006 @ 5:26pm

134. This is retrospective speculation, of course, but here's a description of a by-product of the Reagan/North/Poindexter deal to sell Army Tow missiles to the Iranians to raise funds for their Sandanista effort. There is an antique, yet still active multilateral international treaty called the Hague Convention of 1907 codifying the laws of war. The U. S. ratified it as did several of the then extant near Eastern countries. It became effective Jan. 26, 1910. Part XIII of the treaty covers the "Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War." Article 6 of Part XIII provides "The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerant Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden." In 1987, The Iran-Iraq war was in process. U. S. commissioned warships were constantly at use in the Persian Gulf escorting tankers from load-up sites out through the Straits. Our nation was neutral in the Iran-Iraq war and our ships had the protection given to neutral nations by the 1907 treaty. Then, Reagan/North/Poindexter shipped Tow missiles to Iran. Suppose the Iraqis found out that they did it, which isn't impossible. If a neutral nation violates a condition of neutrality, it may be considered to have lost its neutral status and to no longer be shielded from reprisals or retortions, even including violent military efforts. In On March 17, 1987 a Mirage fighter took off from an Iraqi airfield and swept over the USS STARK, an American destroyer escorting a tanker in the Persian gulf. It launched two French-made Exocet air to surface missiles at the STARK. Each carried a 352 pound explosive payload. The missiles punctured the Stark's hull below the waterline and exploded inside. The ship flooded, but held some watertight integrity so it didn't sink, but merely foundered. It was later towed free and repaired. However, about 37 American Navy sailors lost their lives as a result of the explosion and flooding. I have always supposed that this Iraqi effort was taken in reprisal for the Reagan/North/Poindexter violation of the laws of maritime neutrality. Both North and Poindexter were military officers subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, yet neither were court-martialed for dereliction in the performance of their duties, hazarding a vessel or other charges. They ought to have been brought to task for this.

     ROBERT T. GUSTAFSON, LCDR, JAGC, USN (Ret.), National City, CA, rgus@nethere.com

     Posted by rgus at 11/30/2006 @ 6:29pm

135. very impressive, RGUS. I look forward to hearing more from you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 6:41pm

136. MASK,

     I would conceded that the three state solution has a chance, for as long as the Sunnis get a share of the oil revenues. Without that problem ironed out, the civil war will continue until one side or the other wipes out their opppoents..............

     MASK Posted by POSEIDON 11/30/2006 @ 02:00am

     POSEI, at this point, Joe Biden's "three-state solution" is the only thing that even SEEMS feasible.

     Until there are some defined "borders", everybody (less maybe the Kurds who have something of a defined border) is going to see how much they can grab of what I think we could start calling "former Iraq".

     Shiia and Sunni militias freely roam and intermingle into both populations. Some kind of defined border, where anybody on "this side of the line" is a citizen of "Sunnistan" and anybody on "that side of the line" is a citizen of "Shiia Iraq" atleast would turn it into some kind of conventional warfare, if not lead to an armistice.

     BTW, I don't "blame the Iraqis". I blame the leadership of the Iraqis.

     Posted by MASK

     Posted by POSEIDON at 11/30/2006 @ 7:41pm

137. HSUBFOOLS, MASK,

     MASK, the article does not imply that all Iraqis are at fault but those in power in the gov't. And I was not implying that you were blaming all the Iraqis, I was only asking your opinion and what you think of the Thomas Ricks/Robin Wright article on the subject. Clearly Bush and his cronies bear the lion's share of the blame with the invasion, but the Iraqis must realize that only by cutting a deal can they avoid this endless nightmare of a civil war.

     HSUBFOOLS BTW, I don't "blame the Iraqis". I blame the leadership of the Iraqis.

     Posted by MASK 11/30/2006 @ 08:58am

     And don't forget the turn-everything-to-shit (except corporate bitches) support of the hsuB admin.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS

     Posted by POSEIDON at 11/30/2006 @ 7:45pm

138. CRABWALK,

     You are not a wage-slave but rather a lower level entrepenuer.....

     Posted by POSEIDON at 11/30/2006 @ 7:46pm

139. I'm afraid I have to agree with cka2nd. My late father in law was conceived as a social conservative and never lost the faith. I will never forget how profoundly shaken he was when confronted with the fact that the Reagan Presidency did business with the regime in Iran that had held Americans hostage in complete contravention of international law. He understood that both parties in Washington could be a little suspect in their dealings on Capitol Hill and of course he thought the Dems were the worst of the two. But dealing with Khomeni and his thugs... that really shocked him.

     Posted by wh1 at 11/30/2006 @ 7:56pm

140. Poseidon, I find your post really hard to read. could you perhaps put what you're responding to first and then your two cents? that seems to be the form here.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 8:51pm

141. Mask in the first post and usvet1 in a very recent one both demonstrate the ability of the true right-wing believers to bend reality to their liking.

     The US attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Nicaragua in the 1980s of course is a precursor to the even more tragically and profoundly mistaken invasion of Iraq. The US-instigated civil war in Iraq is a direct consequence of the US occupation's inability to establish peace. The idea that the US can create peace with more troops is simply insane.

     The US forces' mission has now changed, if we are to believe President Bush, a hazardous venture built upon a slippery slope of deception. Nevertheless, let us take Bush's claim at face value and ask:

     How many US troops can speak the native language? If the US troops are to be trainers, how many of them can really train other troops? And how many of these authentic trainers, how many can speak Arabic?

     Are we speaking 10s, 100s, 1,000s, 10,000s ?

     Huh?

     Does that rhyme with duh?

     How foolish is Bush's claim? Are there any real reporters left? Where is I.F. Stone when we need someone like him?

     Posted by jkrogman at 11/30/2006 @ 9:34pm

142. J, when they were torturing arabs, often there were no arabic speakers in the room, as has been reported. barbaric and medieval.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 10:18pm

143. JKROGMAN...you salute me with 21 guns by including my comments with "MASK"! For the past two years I have read these blogs and I have seen how "MASK" has tried to educate those, (YOU), that need educating...(Liberals, leftists, Vermonters that voted for Bernie the Socialist)...and others!

     If you know MASK...let him know I'm one of his biggest fans! And ask him to call me...BR-549...Junior sells used cars...

     Posted by USVET at 11/30/2006 @ 11:14pm

144. If you know MASK...let him know I'm one of his biggest fans! And ask him to call me...BR-549...Junior sells used cars...

     Posted by USVET 11/30/2006 @ 11:14pm | ignore this person

     Really USVET? I know he comes across as a Republican neocon but...I'm just curious...did you know that Mask voted for John Kerry? did you know he voted in the past couple of elections for the Democrats because he wanted the Repubs out of power?

     Ask him.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/01/2006 @ 12:15am

145. So, those who say they are for democracy, they're really against.

     We just can't expect these faux democrats to admit to their inconsistencies and ultimate rejection of democracy.

     Corn makes the valid point that these opponents of democracy riddle the crippled Bush administration.

     It's too bad that USVET doesn't get it.

     Posted by jkrogman at 12/01/2006 @ 12:58am

146. .

     The present Cyber-Terror Threat and what's really behind it….

     Read all the comments on this page:

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/30/govt-warns-al-qaeda-plann_n_352 88.html?p=4#comments

     .

     Posted by plunger at 12/01/2006 @ 08:13am

147. Posted by LILLIAN 12/01/2006 @ 12:15am

     LILLIAN's an amusing little gal. She posts that she DOESN'T believe me when I say I voted for Kerry (Clinton too) and Democrats.

     Then posts later to USVET that I DID....to try to initiate some "rift" between him and me.

     Sure wish she could make up her mind....LOL!

     Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 09:31am

148. The US attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Nicaragua

     Posted by JKROGMAN 11/30/2006 @ 9:34pm

     Would that be the "democratic election" of Ortega which the "right-wing" NY Times in February 1985 said wasn't showing that the FSLN ruling by the "consent of the people"...and that opposition parties BOYCOTTED due to intimidation of them by the Sandanistas?

     or the later one that the Sandanistas lost overwhelmingly?

     I know, I know...we'll go into a "I Love The 80s" retro-debate about Nicaragua again. And the same ol' rehashes.

     And ultimately the Left of the 2000s will be apologists as they were in the 80s.....as long as it's a SOCIALIST dictatorship, they got no problems with it.

     Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 09:39am

149. BTW, RESE.....asked PLUNGER on another thread...

     Did you catch "South Park" this past Wednesday?

     Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 09:42am

150. LILLIAN's an amusing little gal. She posts that she DOESN'T believe me when I say I voted for Kerry (Clinton too) and Democrats.

     Posted by MASK 12/01/2006 @ 09:31am | ignore this person

     Bald faced LIE! But with Mask, we expect no less. Since he can't grasp the use of quotes, and logic is beyond his comprehension, lies and BS are about all he has left. Oh, and this...

     ...hehe!

     Posted by Lillian at 12/04/2006 @ 7:23pm