Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere is something profoundly disturbing about the fact that the Commander in Chief is in better shape than his Army, that he has time to ride his bike around his ranch for hours while the wheels are coming off the war in Iraq, that he had time to attend fundraisers but not to meet Cindy Sheehan.
Bush's disengagement from reality is reaching the freakish level. In America, Republicans are abandoning his war as they face re-election in '06. Chuck Hagel compared Iraq to Vietnam. More than 60 percent of Americans think the invasion was a mistake, and we are not winning. And now the first Democratic senator, Russell Feingold, has broken ranks and called for a timeline for withdrawal.
In Iraq, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are seriously debating if they really want to be a unified country, whether women will be treated as equal citizens and how much Islamic theocracy to put into the constitution. Outside the Green Zone, the Shiite militias are arming themselves for civil war, while American soldiers are dying at a faster and faster clip.
And yet in Texas, Bush has taken five weeks to cut brush. He mouths the same platitudes about freedom and democracy he was using three years ago. And he cross-trains. The President doesn't just need a plan to get us out of Iraq; he needs an intervention to get him back to planet Earth.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Is the administration guilty of believing it's own propaganda: "We will be welcomed as liberators"?
Now that they know it isn't true, they don't know what to do.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 3:25pm
To ILP:
I, too, have often wondered about how much they believed the propaganda that US troops we be welcomed as liberators. To a certain extent, they were. Ousting Saddam is the one and only good thing about invading Iraq.
However, they had no desire to have us tell them how to govern their own country, nor does any foreigner have any right to tell them.
In any event, democracy is not something that can be imposed at gunpoint. Supposedly, Iraq is headed toward a kinder, gentler Islamic republic than the one next door in Iran. Nevertheless, it's hard to determine that from the draft constitution presented yesterday [nytimes.com]. This document is quite unsatisfactory, regardless of one's views of any issues. The problem I have with it isn't that I don't like what it says (there are some good things in it), but that it is incomplete and isn't really ready to be presented for serious discussion.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 4:11pm
Interesting, isn't it, that of the assumed presidential candidates so far, the "anti-war" candidate is a republican? And that the two biggest hawks are Clinton and Biden? This truely is the final proof that voting within the "two party" paradigm is a colossal act of futility. All the candidates are imperialists who are bought and paid for by the multi-nationals. None of them represent humanity in the least. The best of them advocate for extra crumbs for the masses, but that is all. If that is good enough for you, or if you support imperialism, than maybe your vote will count. The only hope for humanity is for things in the US to get so bad that the majority of people become radicalized and take to the streets.
Posted by carpenters at 08/23/2005 @ 4:11pm
Very frustrating... what can the average person actually do to change the course of the world? Write our government leaders? I've done it. March in protest of the war? I did it. Support leaders who think like me? I'm doing it. Pass information on to friends? I do it all the time. What else can a guy do?
This is real, folks, and the people running the show in DC do NOT get it. There is no honor in dying for a government whose leaders have lied. I'm a veteran. I'm also gay. And I'm a Latino. I know what it's like to be on both sides of just about any fence. We do not belong in Iraq. We needed to go after bin Laden, but since he is apparently a friend of the Bush family, it was decided to go after someone smaller than us and look like big tough guys.
BushCo. is wrong. They lied. They continue to lie. More servicemen and women will suffer and die because of their lies. The rest of us will also pay. What did you pay the last time you filled up your car?
...Rowdy!
Posted by Rowdy at 08/23/2005 @ 4:14pm
JACK RABBIT, You usually have good posts and the last one is no exception. I just wish I could get the hard-core righties to see that it is simply arrogant to think that we have the right to tell the rest of the world how to govern their affairs. I understand that there are exceptions, of course. No sensible person would argue against deposing Hitler or Tojo. But trying to be the Daddy of the world, viewing all the other countries as children to be ordered around, is just wrong. OKSG, if you read this, I am talking to you and others like you. (But I am still looking forward to tossing back a few cold ones while we talk sports...)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 4:28pm
Physics - THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/23/2005 @ 3:25pm
Yes they do; "stay the course". Staying-the-course is just not an effective plan for getting out of Iraq successfully and short of killing many more American troops.
By the way, does anyone know what stay-the-course means? How does the Defense and State Departments operationalize the stay-the-course strategy of the Bush Administration? These questions are not trivial ones at all.
Here is why the questions are not trivial. The President says he has given the military commanders in Iraq all the troops that they have asked for to do the mission. Disconcertingly, the commanders in Iraq are not certain what the mission is supposed to be.
It is the proverbial Catch-22, and I can hear Major Major Major explaining the Bush strategy of stay-the-course.
Typical Dialogue:
Press - Major Major what course is it that we must stay?
Major Major - The course that we need to stay on.
Press - Yes sir, but what does that course look like?
Major Major - The course looks like the course that we should stay on.
Press - Does that course that we must stay on have any mile markers to tell us if we are moving forward by staying the course?
Major Major - No mile markers, to indicate whether we are successful or not, are on the course that we must stay. If we put mile markers on the course that we had to stay, then the enemy would know our plan.
Press - Did you tell the Congress and the American people what the mile markers for success are as we stay the course?
Major Major - No, they would not find the mile markers for success on the course we have to stay to be believable and achievable. Besides, the Democrats would criticize our plan for not having any mile markers for success as we stay the course.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 4:33pm
On Tom Paine.com, Lynn Woolsey says:
How distressing that energy is being wasted on slogans and catchphrases, as if this were a marketing campaign for a new line of detergent. More statesmanship, less salesmanship, please. Everything about this war has been a ruinous debacle: the way we got into it, the way we've conducted it, the refusal of a plan for disengagement, the high price--in dollars and lives--we've paid for it. It must end as soon as possible. There is only one solution: Bring the troops home.
U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey is a Democrat from California. Click on link below to read entire article.
It's Time to Debate Iraq [tompaine.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 4:52pm
Hey Freiheit, if a Republican administration is successful in politically stabilizing the Middle East, it will be the next Republican administration. The Bush administration is incompetent. "Stay the course" is a lazy substitute for solving the problems in Iraq. But then, when did Bush ever have a job that required hard work?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 4:59pm
ORAIBI, I enjoyed your post, very funny! But I stand by my statement: THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO
Maybe I should have added "to succeed" on the end of it, but I still stand by it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 5:00pm
(p.s., thanks to theNation webmaster for instituting the Ignore list)
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 5:01pm
Freiheit: no mention of defeat from me....I don't even know what "the mission" is any more. Can you tell me, what is the mission in Iraq? How do we know whether this is a victory or defeat? How do we know when we can unfurl the "mission accomplished" banner?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 5:08pm
Let's face it, if the Bush Administration had one clear, credible justification for going to war with Iraq, we wouldn't need Cindy Sheehan to ask the question for us: What is the noble cause for which our service men and women are fighting? The fact that we are leaving this responsibility up to the mother of a soldier killed in the war is a sad commentary on the state of our national politics.
Posted by Trippercat at 08/23/2005 @ 5:11pm
Aludra! Buhbie! C'mere!! Give us a hug! How are those anti-psychotic meds workin out? :-)
Posted by doog at 08/23/2005 @ 5:11pm
Thank you Nation for the "ignore list" feature.
Aludra, you may be able to read this, but I won't have to read you're response. Finally some sanity.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 5:15pm
Rowdy, great post - says it all. Thanks for your service, sounds like you're still 'in the war' to a great degree - don't give up and never give an inch!! It's time that neocon supporters wake up and realize the people their 'leaders' are maligning ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS AND SERVICEPEOPLE. That's just un-American. They want to destroy all the checks and balances so that once they ascend the throne, they never have to come down.
Many kings have learned the error of that ambition - this one will be no different.
OUT KING GEORGE! OUT!!!!
Posted by doog at 08/23/2005 @ 5:17pm
Physics,
I'm glad you enjoyed the humor.
Katrina piece today touched me just perfectly, and the out-of-touch nature of Bush's speeches nowadays, especially the speech he gave at the VFW meeting on yesterday, was something that I was wrestling with a great deal throughout yesterday.
Katrina's "Major George" evoked thoughts of Major Major, Captain Yossarian, and the other characters of Joseph Heller's Catch-22; thus I attempted to provide a bit of humor based on those thoughts.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 5:19pm
Freiheit,
Despite the fact you can't see me, know that right now I am shaking my head in disbelief at you. I am seriously apalled that you would believe that "the left" would want the war in the Middle East to continue, as a way to further an agenda! I have spent the last few years hoping like hell that Bush would prove me wrong and actually fix something, but unfortunately that hasn't happened yet. I can't believe that you would seriously even suggest that the left would be willing to sacrifice lives just to try and prove a point.
Furthermore, you say that the liberals are trying to "sell out" the stabilization effort, but take a look at the actions of Cheney, the CIA, et al during the 80's and tell me who was really trying to destabilize the Middle East. Honestly...
Anyway on a lighter note, I just have to say -- Huzzah! Aludra is here! No one can make me laugh like Aludra. I particularly liked the "evil" comment about the author's name. That's so witty!
Posted by neko-chan at 08/23/2005 @ 5:19pm
Freiheit, can you, or anybody else out there (other than Aludra, who's on the Ignore list) tell me what the mission is? What is it that we will have accomplished when President ______ proclaims "Mission accomplished, the troops are coming home!"?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 5:20pm
Unfortunately, I think that "what the mission is" depends on what month and year it is when you ask the administration.
Posted by neko-chan at 08/23/2005 @ 5:24pm
Katrina:
Nice press release announcing Bush's latest whereabouts! You might say that Bush is hard at work -wackin' it- in an attempt to relieve himself of the pressure to invent new lies to justify why Americans are still dying in Iraq.
Posted by Shane at 08/23/2005 @ 5:28pm
Freeheit, I dunno, Woolsey's not my specialty; gotta run now, some of us who take public transit have to leave on time....
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 5:29pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is a remarkably bitter, angry woman. Just look at her face. She looks nasty and hateful to the core.
Anyway, the majority of the American people, while frustrated with the duration of the war, realize that we must finish the job. Iraq's constitution will be drafted shortly, and permanent elections will be held later this year.
Rome wasn't built in a day. It took us 20 years to rebuild Germany and Japan with the Marshall Plan. What we have done in Iraq in 2 years is at a much more rapid pace. It is not perfect, but no reasonable person (this group excludes fifth-column leftists, of course) expects it to be.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 5:33pm
FREIHEIT, To answer your question, I don't see much of a connection between the left's social agenda and the right's Iraq war. The threat to our social "agenda" (I hesitate to use that word) has been developed by conservative decision-makers and their think tanks for decades, and however this war turns out will have little effect on the outcome of the battle.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 5:34pm
Katrina, DON'T LISTEN TO KMG4!!! YOU LOOK GORGEOUS, BABY! I for one am jealous of your significant other.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 5:35pm
Okay Freiheit, I only have a couple minutes before I have to go, but if you can explain exactly what it is you want to know about Ms. Woolsey, I'll give you my $.02 (did you know there isn't a cent key on this freakin' keyboard?? When did that happen?).
Posted by neko-chan at 08/23/2005 @ 5:35pm
I will no longer call you Katrina Vanden Heuvel. From now on you are Katrina Vanden Hottie!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 5:38pm
FREIHEIT and KMG4
What is your reasoning to think the Iraqis cannot establish a legitimate government without our troops there? I am not trying to be trite, but I have not heard any coherent argument from our leaders (or anyone on this board) demostrating a basis for the presumed conclusion that Iraq will fall apart if we leave. I am not predicting that everything will come up roses in the immediate future if we do pull out now. However, I wish somebody would articlulate some evidence that Iraq will not "succeed" if we leave now, rather than spewing those words automatically as some kind of mantra.
Now before you (or anybody else) answer with the evidence of the violence and current unrest, it seems to me that most of the insurgency is directed to our presence. And, what about self-determination? Isn't it possible that leaving will embolden Iraqis to establish schools, infrastructure, hospitals, a government, and whatever they need on their own, without the distraction our presence is causing? To think that Iraqis cannot do this without American troops seems paternalistic to me.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 5:46pm
Freiheit,
*sigh* This is the part where I start to think you're slightly delusional. As much as you might want to believe that the left is "fighting for its life", you need to understand that even if the right-wingers are in power right now, it will not always be that way. Let's take a look back at political history, shall we, so hopefully you can realize that no one party dominates for very long. It's a constantly swinging pendulum, and what you fail to see is that the right-wingers are beyond their apex now.
Additionally, you also aren't paying attention to the people that are running screaming from the Republican party because of the neo-con agenda. Personally, I wasn't really involved in politics untill 2000, because W was the first president to piss me off enough to get involved. I am not alone in this sentiment, either. So you need to step back and look at the big picture before you start sending us lilies.
Posted by neko-chan at 08/23/2005 @ 5:48pm
Freiheit,
Freiheit - ORAIBI1952?
Do you really think Ms Woolsey would risk her social agenda for Iraq?!
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/23/2005 @ 5:31pm
My response to your question is: "Do you think Bush will ever stop deceiving the American people about his Iraq War aims?".
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 5:50pm
FREIHEIT. I don't see how it can do anything else but get better. Given all the damage this illegal war has caused to Iraqis, their land, their infrastructure, their long term physical & psychological well being. (The 2200 tons of depleted Uranium rounds alone will cause health problems for an unknown number of years to unknown numbers of people, both "theirs" and "ours",) not to mention the horrific & irreversible damage done to archeological sights in "The Cradle of Civilization". So, of course things will get better -- eventually. No, it won't be a bummer, it will be sad that it had to take so long -- or happen at all -- because of lies.
Posted by Chuck at 08/23/2005 @ 5:51pm
I gotta bolt, but if anyone wants to fling venom in my general direction I'll try and respond later. Peace out (no, really)!
Posted by neko-chan at 08/23/2005 @ 5:59pm
HMAN23,
Good questions. Remember that many thousands of Al-Qaeda terrorists from foreign countries are pouring into Iraq to fight the US. They are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, etc. They want to derail democracy (as Zarqawi himself openly says) so they can impose a Tabiban-type fundamentalist state.
From what I understand, we are in the process of helping them create their own army of 270,000 troops, as well as a professional and modern police force.
The 270,000 troops amount to about 270 divisions (1000 each). So far, about 40 are fully trained to conduct operations without our help, about 100 are trained to be directed by us but not advanced enough to conduct anti-terrorist operations by themselves, and about 130 divisions are yet to be created.
If you are genuinely curious and would like to ask questions to real experts on the subject, visit the blog www.billroggio.com and read a few of the articles, and participate in the discussion board.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:03pm
FREIHEIT and KMG4:
Care to answer my 5:46 post?
HMAN
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:04pm
KMG4:
Thanks.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:04pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Nation, for your ignore this person feature. And goodbye, dear Aludra - you are the charter member of my ignore list. That's ignore for ignorant, obnoxious all-caps ranter of complete nonsense. Respond all you like now - how about trying all caps AND BOLD! I will blissfully not see any of your drivel.
You can of course return the favor - and consign me to your ignore list. But once you "ignore" all the left wingers, progressives and what have you that post here, what's left to rant about?
Posted by Fishbite at 08/23/2005 @ 6:05pm
FREIHEIT, Were you typing slowly in your last reply to me? (Gotta keep it simple for the dumb physicist...) All kidding aside, yes, I understood your hypothesis the first time, but thanks for re-explaining it. I stand by my answer. Guess we have to agree to disagree...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 6:07pm
Freiheit,
You have my answer.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:08pm
Freiheit,
You, like many of the right, continue to see the dispute over Iraq in almost purely domestic political terms. The very notion that anyone could be interested in something other than political gain appears to be foreign to you. In other words, there is no "right thing to do" or "wrong thing to do" - at least for the left. There is only a left/liberal/Democratic party agenda to regain power.
I am not naive and understand that the Democrats are hugely interested in regaining power. But to think that the only reason folks are against the war is that somehow this will bring the Democrats back into power - that is delusional. Further, it makes the point that the right DOES see things this way - not what's the right thing to do, but how can spin what we want to do anyway (to achieve long-standing conservative geopolitical and social agendas) such that it can keep us in power?
Posted by Fishbite at 08/23/2005 @ 6:13pm
HMAN23 In ref. to your 5:46 comment, you might want to look at Juan Coles blog at Informed Comment of 8/22
Posted by Chuck at 08/23/2005 @ 6:16pm
prior post correction: should say... - not what's the right thing to do, but how can we spin what we want to do anyway (to achieve long-standing conservative geopolitical and social agendas) such that it can keep us in power?
Posted by Fishbite at 08/23/2005 @ 6:16pm
ORAIBI1952,
Please answer Freheit. I too am curious.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:20pm
The key thing that leftists like ORAIBI1952 don't get is the general public has figured them out.
Leftists are gleeful about the dropping Iraq polls. BUT, most Americans, even if they are frustrated with the slow progress there *STILL WANT AMERICA TO WIN* and are hoping that we win.
Many leftists, on the other hand *GENUINELY WANT AMERICA TO LOSE*.
This is the difference. This 95%+ of Senators are not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. They recognize that the leftists who want their country to lose are in the minority.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:25pm
Most of the credible journalism reports these iraqi 'soldiers' as merely bin laden-like merceneries, who after the U.S. occupation will be depositing their latest dictactor-signed paychecks in the new haliburton built banks. Our efforts in Iraq are only going to instigate Iraqi insurgents allied with Islamic extremists to sponsor new and ever more horrific acts of terrorism against the U.S. Is this logic so abstract to comprehend?
Posted by Shane at 08/23/2005 @ 6:31pm
CHUCK and KMG4:
I read what you posted. It was good reading. Maybe some will take this as a punt on my part, but I think both sides on Juan Coles blog (Coles and Achcar) have vaild points. I have nothing more to add other than to say it is very complicated - far beyond my knowledge of Mid-East politics. I do not know enough to try and discredit either side at this point. But, thanks for the information, I truly had not seen much underneath catchphrases like, "We can't leave now; it'll be chaos!"
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:34pm
HMAN23,
Try to dig up and track other metrics like the number of Iraqi army divisions trained, the number of schools opened, GDP growth rate of Iraq, the stockmarkets of nearby countries (like Turkey, Egypt, UAE), etc. This will give you more datapoints by which to judge the rate of progress (or lack thereof, if true).
Unfortunately, the only quantifiable metric readily available is the number of US troop deaths. If one were to only see this, it would be easy to have a pessimistic assessment. But other metrics give other sides of the picture (like 72% of Iraqis voting in January, for example).
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:41pm
"Does the left believe defeat of terrorism abroad under a Republican administration would advance their left-wing social agenda?"
Are you honestly under the belief you've launched an invitation for pragmatic discourse here?
Posted by Shane at 08/23/2005 @ 6:53pm
Below are letters to the editor of The Arizona Republic that answer the papers question about 'noble cause' in Iraq.
***********************************************
What is the 'noble cause' in Iraq?
Aug. 23, 2005 12:00 AM
Editor's note: Following are some of the responses to the question asked Monday on what Americans believe is the "noble cause" in Iraq for which more than 1,800 troops have died. As expected, opinions were diverse.
Very little 'nobility' revealed here
Sorry, there is no "noble cause."
We were duped by a president with not many scruples. That has resulted in the loss of our fine men and women. Pauline Erlick is right; it is already lost ("For what 'noble cause' are we fighting?" - Letters, Monday).
We better hope Saudi Arabia doesn't fall to the terrorists.
Mission accomplished, eh, George? - Ron Roxburg, Gilbert
*****************************
Goals in Iraq are clear, worthwhile
It is evident that Saddam Hussein had and used WMDs.
It is evident that Saddam sponsored terrorism.
It is evident that peaceful appeasement doesn't work when dealing with Islamofacists and it certainly didn't work with Saddam Hussein.
This is a war we must win, in Iraq or wherever these terrorists are! - Mike McBride, Glendale
******************************************
50 words or less? How about just 1?
Noble cause in 50 words or less? Sadly it takes one word: None.
No WMD threat. No safer world. No march of freedom and democracy.
The not-so-noble cause? An ill-conceived plan by a few men who had never fought in a war. Cindy Sheehan is right. - Molly Mudick, Scottsdale
**************************************
We must stop tyranny, terrorism
The "noble cause" is to stop years of attacks on our embassies, military installations, naval ships and buildings in New York City.
It is to stop dictators like Saddam Hussein from rewarding families of children who blow themselves up in Israeli restaurants. Thank God we have a president who understands! - Mike Stetson, Mesa
***************************************
Time to leave 'cause' to the Iraqis
What noble cause?
It was originally to topple a dictator who threatened our security. He's been gone for more than two years now, and our soldiers are still dying every day.
Maybe now the cause is bringing peace to Iraq, but they seem less than interested.
It's time to leave. - John Mills, Chandler
***************************
Source: The Arizona Republic online, 2005 Aug 23.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 7:01pm
Freiheit--Thanks for your comments re NATIONSUCKS's "postings." I know he/she doesn't represent conservative viewpoints, but I appreciate your post. I also have no problem with someone posting one Ann Coulter piece (though I'm not sure you'd want her representing legit conservatives either). But we will take down multiple posts obviously designed to disrupt our conversation.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/23/2005 @ 7:15pm
Below are letters to the editor of The Arizona Republic that answer the papers question about 'noble cause' in Iraq.
***********************************************
What is the 'noble cause' in Iraq?
Aug. 23, 2005 12:00 AM
Editor's note: Following are some of the responses to the question asked Monday on what Americans believe is the "noble cause" in Iraq for which more than 1,800 troops have died. As expected, opinions were diverse.
Very little 'nobility' revealed here
Sorry, there is no "noble cause."
We were duped by a president with not many scruples. That has resulted in the loss of our fine men and women. Pauline Erlick is right; it is already lost ("For what 'noble cause' are we fighting?" - Letters, Monday).
We better hope Saudi Arabia doesn't fall to the terrorists.
Mission accomplished, eh, George? - Ron Roxburg, Gilbert
Goals in Iraq are clear, worthwhile
It is evident that Saddam Hussein had and used WMDs.
It is evident that Saddam sponsored terrorism.
It is evident that peaceful appeasement doesn't work when dealing with Islamofacists and it certainly didn't work with Saddam Hussein.
This is a war we must win, in Iraq or wherever these terrorists are! - Mike McBride, Glendale
50 words or less? How about just 1?
Noble cause in 50 words or less? Sadly it takes one word: None.
No WMD threat. No safer world. No march of freedom and democracy.
The not-so-noble cause? An ill-conceived plan by a few men who had never fought in a war. Cindy Sheehan is right. - Molly Mudick, Scottsdale
We must stop tyranny, terrorism
The "noble cause" is to stop years of attacks on our embassies, military installations, naval ships and buildings in New York City.
It is to stop dictators like Saddam Hussein from rewarding families of children who blow themselves up in Israeli restaurants. Thank God we have a president who understands! - Mike Stetson, Mesa
Time to leave 'cause' to the Iraqis
What noble cause?
It was originally to topple a dictator who threatened our security. He's been gone for more than two years now, and our soldiers are still dying every day.
Maybe now the cause is bringing peace to Iraq, but they seem less than interested.
It's time to leave. - John Mills, Chandler
Source: The Arizona Republic online, 2005 Aug 23.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 7:27pm
About domestic agendas: I've always felt that it is republicans who don't want the war to end, because while the citizens' eyes are averted, there is a greater chance to advance the conservative domestic agenda. After all, would Bush have been reelected without the GWOT?
Posted by tmag at 08/23/2005 @ 7:28pm
Freiheit:
Two things:
Your first question assumes that by supporting withdrawl now, but the U.S. somehow "wins" in Iraq (whatever that means), Woolsey would not win re-election afterwards, if I get your drift. I do not see how you get to that conclusion automatically, but maybe this goes more to your second question. Many people who vote for Woolsey based on her social agenda still might support her, even if some think she made a "wrong call" regarding withdrawl. For some (like OKSG said in another post I saw), a candidate's social views are paramount. Second of all, because in your hypothetical it never happens, endorsing withdrawl can never be definitively proven to be the "wrong" argument post-hoc, because we will never know what would have happened had it occurred. Maybe, we could have "won" or "lost" (however you define that). What will happen in Iraq if we withdraw now is speculation, and certainly disputed by learned experts in Mid-east politics.
The difficulty with your second question is you use the phrase "defeat of terrorism abroad," as if this is some easily identifiable thing we will be able to judge. Like we will wake up one day to read it in a headline. If you mean, more generally, if the Iraqi government can be shown objectively to be a positive for U.S. interests, will Democrats lose elections in the future because they supported withdrawl at some point? I touch on this above, but I think my answer is no, or at least not necessarily. Sure, her opponents will spin this negatively, and maybe they will succeed. But for those who opposed the war throughout, or moved that way in some time, they might not view her stance as a fatal. If Woolsey can explain that she took a principled stance for what she thought was best at the time, many may still support her. Furthermore, pinning her down on this one issue moves the goalposts, by starting the analysis of "success" in Iraq from our occupation, not in the lead-up to war. History will judge the success of this war not only in terms of what happens to Iraq, but in how we got into it. You seem to think that "success" in Iraq at the end of this will absolve all past sins. I do not think it is that simple.
I have always thought that Iraq was based on deception and it was wrong for Bush to do it. I also object to the manner in which we are continuing to occupy. But, I do not hope for failure or chaos to come so I can tell everyone, "I told you so!" Failure in Iraq is not necessary for me to argue my current points. Since the beginning of the Cold War, we do not have a very good track record with nation building, but if Iraq proves the exception, I will not have to flip my current positions to feel better about myself. Why would Woolsey or any other pro-withdrawl politician be any different?
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 7:34pm
Katrina, I couldn't agree more. And the response from your righty readers is telling. There's a desperate tone in their comments. I can almost hear them shouting into their computers, still hoping that 'loud makes right'. There is one thing we can count on. They will never take responsibility for the tragedy they have visited on this country and the Iraqi people.
Posted by Mateo at 08/23/2005 @ 7:38pm
KMG4:
You are right. Those items are cetainly important, but, to make sure we encompass everything, so are the numbers of Iraqi troops and civilians killed and injured, the number of homes we destroyed, the damage to the infrastructure, the capital we lost (gained) in international politics (hard to measure). I think for many Iraqis these figures may stay in their minds for a while.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 7:46pm
MATEO,
I've also noticed a certains desperate tone to the posts from the righties.
There posts remind me of the panic nature of the Dean campaign just prior to the Iowa caucuses in 2004.
A line that I used during the Democratic Party caucuses in Iowa was from the movie, "A Bridge Too Far". In that movie, the wife of an allied spy heard the noise made by the retreating Germans and asked her husband, and I paraphrase: "What's that noise?"; and her husband's response was: "That's the sound of panic.".
The noise that your hear from the conservatives/righties is the sound of "panic".
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 7:48pm
I'm new to this so bear with me. I've read most of the posts here. Too bad the press didn't ask Bush today (while he vacationed at a resort in Idaho) this...."if this war is such a "noble cause", why aren't your daughters enlisting to go and fight for that "noble cause"? Why aren't more Americans enlisting in droves - as they did during World War II? Also, if this is such a "noble cause", why is it that you have to still try to explain the war?" I think that if someone has to explain over and over again something he has started, then there's something wrong. He must think the American public has a short attention span and that with each new excuse for going into war, he thinks the public will "buy" into it. If he can only come up with one good reason rather than making them up as the years go on, then maybe people might think twice. He's changed his mind since day one - first it was for a "regime change" then it was the hunt for weapons of mass destruction (remember the mushroom cloud theory?), then it was to get rid of Saddam, then it was to "free the Iraquis", and now it's to bring so-called peace to the Middle East. Still waiting for the flowers to be thrown at the soldiers and the dancing in the streets...
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:34pm
KMG4 and HMAN23: you asked about other successes in Iraq so far? Info is available on the Dept of Defense website under "War on Terror" subheading. Sorry about the question format that follows. That's how it came to me in an e-mail (but I did verify it on the DofD site). As of July 4, 2005:
Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi current government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a navel infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (u! nder Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscrib! ers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know th at Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a recent televised debate recently?
Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:35pm
Frankgrits ... never saw your "Fireside Chat", so if you're still around to post it, please do.
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:38pm
FRANKGRITS, unfortunately, Bush is more interested in vacationing TO actually answer. He's used to having a "screened" audience to ask the questions he knows he can answer. Remember those so-called staged townhall meetings?
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:41pm
USC1 - I can still remember Bush trying to sell the fact that Iraq would rebuild itself from the oil revenues....and here the U.S. taxpayer is making sure their country is looked after while schools go dilapidated, jobs are lost, the deficit grows, etc.
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:46pm
FRANKGRITS - I almost felt warm inside, like I was listening to an old radio chat...
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:51pm
FRANKGRITS - I can read! Give us blondes some credit....
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 8:53pm
now I have to wonder....will it be okay if ohhhh some controversial person with clout and a t.v. program called to "take out" Pres. Bush (because he started a war that has killed thousands) now that it seems "okay" for Pat Robertson to want this of another leader? I guess anyone can ask to assassinate Bush and the excuse can be...."oh, it's inappropriate, but a private citizen is allowed to have an opinion"....
Posted by sophieg60 at 08/23/2005 @ 9:02pm
I fail to how see raving in all caps without a hint of a cogent argument, or posting the same Ann Coulter collumn 5 times (probably without permission in violation of copyright laws) is an attempt at having an open free discussion. Having the ability to ignore street corner lunatics is not censorship, its common sense.
I don't see anyone putting people on ignore lists who are attempting to have rational conversations, just those who are trying to disrupt the rational conversations.
Posted by Guiles at 08/23/2005 @ 9:09pm
Good question, GRITS. I can't think of anyone so strident and obnoxious on the left that people would ignore him, except maybe that ILP guy......
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 9:23pm
USC1:
Actually, I do not find most of those stats useful. Many do not reflect what was there before we invaded. Some are weak in my opinion if that is the best success stories we have. Morevoer, after dropping 50,000 bombs, it follows there would be some improvement in many of these areas, no matter if it is a democracy or dictatorship.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:46pm
Hey Nation,
Hire Frank Grits! He could write his fireside chats for each issue. A little comic relief is a good thing.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:54pm
My previous post actually was directed at Hman and KMG4 who, I believe, were having an open exchange about what has been accomplished in Iraq.
While we're on the subject, Zero, FG, Sophie: if you read your comments again with an open mind, you might see just how dripping with cynicism they are, which is a shame. Our military and independent contractors are accomplishing quite a bit, and more gets done every day. But you don't hear much about it here, do you? I wonder why that is.
But since we're on the subject--how many of you actually, honestly knew any of this before reading it here? I would bet you didn't know much about it, if at all.
Zero: it's awfully convenient of you to focus on cell phones and stock exchanges and ignore the rest. I know, you've already made it clear that you don't care about the good things that are happening in Iraq. However, the fact remains that they ARE happening. Unfortunately, it is much easier for some to focus on the negative and define success/failure based on body counts. It is more infinitely more difficult (and less newsworthy) to define it by the day to day, small successes that occur, which is BTW how anything and everything gets done.
BTW, the sanctions against Iraq were a result of whose actions? That's right. Saddam, himself.
Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:56pm
I wonder if anyone has placed me on their ignore list just from my initial post and these recent posts are floating off to cyber-purgatory like farts in the wind.
If I did make it to your ignore list based on 1 post--well, that's an accomplishment that even Aludra would be proud of.
And speaking of ignore lists...
Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:00pm
If a conservative posts a comment on a liberal website, but he is already on everybody's ignore list...Is he still wrong?
Heh,heh,heh. Come on. Admit it. You liked that one, didn't you?
Posted by usc1 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:02pm
FrankGrits,
Go for it. I laughed my behind off. Actually I first came across your fireside chats in another topic, when you were posting them in pieces. I actually found myself scrolling through the posts to find the continuation parts.
Great stuff, and refreshing to see someone who is not a sheep, and not willing to blindly follow the leader.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:16pm
Progressives keep focusing on the bogus reasons for the invasion of Iraq and complaining that the Pres. is lying to us. Actually, the reasons are bogus and the govt. cares not because we are building permanent military bases in Iraq as I write this and we intend to stay there permanently just as we have all over the world. We will control the oil and the water in Iraq. The constitution is a smoke screen. Should it work, we will see to it that the new govt issues an invitation for us to stay in Iraq for their protection.
Posted by jimjammer at 08/23/2005 @ 11:26pm
More to the point USC1, whether we knew these facts or not, how many schools, hsopitals, roads, etc. were built because we destroyed them? I think it is pretty hollow to point to that as progress. I am not pro-Saddam, but what were some of the statistics before "shock and awe?" Why was it our obligation to foot the bill?
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:28pm
Been following the discourse here for a while, and I support the troops, but not the leaders or the policy. I only have a couple of questions.
First off, what exactly is it that our young soldiers are fighting and dying for now? The reason has changed so many times, frankly, I have no clue why our country is sending people there.
Second, Iraq is had the third largest oil reserves in the entire world, we invaded, and basically were/are running the country. Yet, we are paying record high prices for oil. Why, are we not taking payment for war costs from Iraq, just as we did after WW2?
Actually, in retrospect I have a bunch more questions, but thats a start.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:28pm
Dear Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Here are a couple of my LETTERS that I think you will like. I like THE NATION and I always am cheering for you when you are face to face with "the other side."
Thank you. Mad Plato
Letters from Mad Plato [www.madplatonews.blogspot.com]
Friday, August 19, 2005
MY WAR WAS NOT FOR OIL! George W. Bush: "Let me straighten you fellows out. My shock and awe destruction of Iraq had nothing to do with getting reconstruction contracts to any of my friends or Dick's. We wanted to rid Iraq of their Weapons of Mass Destruction..."
Aide: "Uh...Mr. President. That won't work. The public found out that we were fabricating and misleading them on the WMDs."
George W. Bush: "Sure...that's right. There wasn't none of those WMDs. We bombed Iraq because of those Taliban and Al-Queda monsters."
Aide: "Uh...Sir. That won't hold water either. The Taliban and Al-Queda were in Afghanistan."
George W. Bush "Sure. I knew that. So we bombed Iraq to help Iraq get some democracy and freedom fries. O.K. What's up? Are we evacuating? Are we bombing Iran yet?"
Aide: "No sir. Marine 1 (presidential helicopter) is here. You're due to start your vacation at Crawford."
George W. Bush "Yeah. Have to go find me armadillos, clean some brush and chop the wood."
Aide: "Yes sir."
George W. Bush "Fine. Bring 'em on. I'm ready to roll. Let's go smoke 'em out. Dead or alive. Push those gas prices up. Bless Haliburton and Carlyle!"
# posted by News from Mad Plato
Letters from Mad Plato
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
ASSASSINATION NOT WAR Pat Robertson for president in 2008! Here is a man with a head on his shoulders. Instead of spending billions and billions to attack and invade a country, just snuff the leader. In this instance, the leader is Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. The U.S. invaded Iraq and thousands and thousands of its civilians have been killed. 15,000 to 42,500 American soldiers have been wounded. As of August 23, 2005 1,871 Americans have been killed. At least 70 Americans have been killed in August of this year. The United States should have liquidated Saddam Hussein and his sons rather than have its pre-emptive war. Why didn't Bush (or Bush I and Clinton) do this? The answer my friends is not blowing in the wind. It is flowing beneath the earth.
# posted by News from Mad Plato
Posted by Mad Plato at 08/23/2005 @ 11:43pm
Why don't you Republican failure monkeys get a life and give up trying to defend your extremely self-serving and inconceivably foolish Dear Leader?
The crude, harebrained scheme of he and his cronies to enrich and engorge themselves on the blood of America and please the "rebuild the temple"-type "Christian" heretics of their party has come to grief with a resounding thud.
Some signposts on the road of shallow minded Republican misleadership:
• Mesopotamia's immense oil wealth is now about to fall to the control of an Islamic Republic of Iraq which will significantly strengthen theocratic Iran
• Iraq has been transformed from a hobbled, non-threatening state to a stateless terrorist breeding ground
• America has been pushed from a luxurious budget surplus to a deadening $500,000,000,000 budget deficit
• The Iraq conflict is pointless and counterproductive to America's national interests but is now estimated to eventually cost American taxpayers $1 trillion which they could have much better used to strengthen America's defenses
• The Iraq conflict has sent oil prices soaring, further weakening not only America but world stability
• Blustering aggressiveness and hostility have driven Russia and China into the arms of one another in a strategic alliance where none previously existed
The Republican Party has wrought harm not only to America but the whole world which will last possibly for a generation. Enough is enough.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/23/2005 @ 11:47pm
Bush & Co. are plummeting toward record unpopularity. No matter what the hard-core Red State reactionaries say, most people see that there's no clear reason any more for all the dying. My wife's 91 year old grandfather who had voted Republican in every election since 1935 recently switched his party affiliation to Independent because he was so disgusted with the Bush hogwash. He hasn't changed his commonsense conservatism one iota but when it became clear that Bush had lied about WMD's, he could no longer stomach being in the same party. He had believed Bush because Presidents don't lie about such immensely consequential things. When he could no longer continue to deny Bush's mendacity, it crushed a lifetime of faith in the Republican party. He recently said: "I just don't see why we went over there or why we're staying there." Over the last few months, millions of Americans have come to the same conclusion. There is no Big Picture, no Plan, just senseless dying. Every day the truth becomes clearer and as has been noted earlier in this thread, the panic on the right is bubbling to the surface. "Kill Hugo Chavez" is just a symptom of the desperation. We have to hope and pray that Cheney and Rumsfeld don't instruct Bush to invade Iran in order to reinvigorate the jingoism that got them this far.
Posted by bookmanjb at 08/23/2005 @ 11:59pm
FIVE REASONS WHY THE U.S. MUST STAY THE COURSE IN IRAQ:
1. If we don't kill terrorists in Iraq we will be attacked here.
2. The U.S. is helping Iraq form a democracy, and this democracy will spread in the Middle East.
3. We must defeat the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq or the Global Islamic Terror will spread.
4. If the United States pulls out of Iraq before fully training Iraqis to defend themselves, then other countries (such as Iran) will fill the vacuum and take advantage of the power struggle and insurgency. The Terrorists will gain a new base of operations.
5. Halliburton (and other friends of Bush & Cheney) have made too much money to leave now. There is still much money to be made.
Posted by Mad Plato at 08/24/2005 @ 12:09am
Frank....if you copy and paste the whole thing together I'll give you an email address to send it, and I'll post it in full on its very own page and give you the URL...and full attribution of coure. Such art is worthy of my excess bandwidth!
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 12:09am
HMAN: sorry, i missed your earlier post. Some of these stats are given relevance on the DofD website (admittedly, not all). It mentions sewer lines, schools, etc. which are new, did not exist before. You do have to look for it, though. As far as being considered "weak" success stories--first, those were only a few examples, there are more. Second, if you believe the stories that Iraq is a disaster, then most of these accomplishments are ASTOUNDING given the context. But I do think you have to look at the big picture in terms of getting Iraq back on its feet. We can't wave a magic wand and have a thriving country. It is a step-wise process consisting of many small ("weak") successes. Those successes create infrastructure, military, rule of law, employment opportunities, which creates income, a working class. Eventually, all the things necessary for a stable society. Unfortunately, it is a long, laborious process. We just have to have the patience to see it through. I know that sounds too much like "stay the course", but what choice do we have? Leave now, and we would probably be in more danger than before Saddam. I might even agree with HRC (Holy crap! Did I just say that?) and send more troops, tighten the borders, stem the flow of terrorists, etc.
Certainly, if we destroyed it, then we should finance the reconstruction. AS far as funding new projects, I agree justifying it is not as straight-forward. But I believe it serves our purpose of ultimately creating a more stable society by creating jobs and employment and makes our job easier in the long run. Easier being a relative term.
Posted by usc1 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:19am
Mad Plato:
1) We will be attacked here by someone, somewhen anyhow....Dubya & co. have actually said so in the past. Just a question of who and when...and we ain't exactly passing out dance cards these days if you know what I mean...
2)Haven't you read the paper...Iraq doesn't want a democratic system...they will go back to an Islamic Republic. That's the main spin why none of this is working. Their culture IS their religion IS their politics.... Dubya and co. just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. The only thing spreading is discontent.
3) I agreee in part...we should have gone after the ones responsible. Instead W decicded to declare war on someone we didn't like (for valid reasons) but had nothing to do with the "war of terror" (other than he was mean, ugly and Islamic) ...of course, NOW Iraq IS a terrorist training ground. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
4)Uh...Earth to Mad Plato....see anwer #3 above...it has already become a training ground *because* we came there. Don't think that's gonna change much at this point. Like was said..."Wrong, war; wrong place; wrong reasons."
5) The whole Halliburton thing makes me wanna vomit. It's like letting Dahlmer write recipe books and sell them from prison. Crooks making money with our blood for ink.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 12:20am
"4. If the United States pulls out of Iraq before fully training Iraqis to defend themselves, then other countries (such as Iran) will fill the vacuum and take advantage of the power struggle and insurgency. The Terrorists will gain a new base of operations."
I can see the sarcasm, in the first three, but I have heard this one touted by Rummy and Condi as well. Well, I dont get it.
At the time of the 1st gulf war, Iraq had the 3rd largest standing military in the world, led and kept in step by the elite republican guard. For years Iraq was a totalitarian country, with police and an army that showed no mercy. Ten years of sanctions, considerably weakened the Iraq economy, but if we are to believe as we have been informed, had no effect on the military, except in weapons, and spare parts for existing equipment.
All of a sudden now, the Iraqis dont know how to fight? Or police themselves? I really find it hard to believe that this is the case, or is possible in a country were the islamic law (eye for an eye) is as prevalent as it is.
Possibly the fellow who was stating that we will be in Iraq for years to come may be right, and I would agree with that, just as after WW2, we stayed. However, I dont recall reading about the Germans sniping, and blowing things up on a daily basis. We need to either finish this thing the right way, or get out.
Paralells to Vietnam are becoming quickly more clear in that we are trying to fight a war, thats not a war, with one hand tied behind our backs. After WW2 we didnt rearm the military, and expect them to defend themselves against the Soviet Union.....why are trying to do this now?
Just my two cents
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:25am
BTW, According to DofD over 60% of Iraqis approve of the direction in which Iraq is headed. I know you guys don't believe in polls unless they're anti-Bush, but reports I get from independent contractors and their employees seem to back this up.
Posted by usc1 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:28am
USC1
I believe in polls, matter of fact, one of the facets of my previous job was collecting data, and insuring its integrity, from polls.
I do have a problem however with someone who on one hand says "we dont believe in polls", then turns around in the same press conference and uses poll results as facts to support a position or policy.
Something our current leaders do on a regular basis.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:33am
USC1:
While I must say I am not surprised when I see anti-Bush polls I resent the idea that you (and other right-siders) on this blog choose to "put words in our mouths" in this regard time and again. Sure it runs both ways, but that makes neither right.
I am not surprised that a large portion of Iraqis want control of their destiny. However, I think that in the end, their culture will win over our desires to have the Iraq that we want...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 12:33am
Hey KMG4...are you blind? Katrina is beautiful AND brilliant! You should be so lucky as to kiss her feet! Freiheit: Bush is bringing STABILITY to the Middle East? Man, you are out there in space. Iraq is fragmenting and heading for civil war. It is a diaster, and the American people are turning against this war.
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 12:48am
USC1: Oh,sure...I really believe a poll in Iraq taken by the DoD! Not!
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 12:54am
Katrina darlin:
Bush is disengaged, we know this. I regret to say that as long as George W. Bush and his prevaricating administraion are in power the mendacity and the platitudes we see and hear each day will continue, unabated.
And it'll take much, much more than the likes of Chuck Hagel to end this senseless quagmire in Iraq. A TOTAL uprising of the American people is required, and I don't see this happening anytime soon!
Posted by Munich at 08/24/2005 @ 12:55am
DADO, LOC: The anti-Bush statement was tongue-in-cheek. If I post enough, you'll eventually get used to the dry humor.
Hopefully, our presence/influence will be enough to persuade the fledgling gov't from Islamic rule. But those overtures towards Iran are enough to make me sweat.
Count me as one conservative that thinks KVH is very attractive. I would love the chance to turn her on...to conservatism.
Posted by usc1 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:16am
What you never see from leftists are any constructive ideas about where we go from here.
Sure, they complain ad nauseum about Abu Ghraib, no WMDs, and other such nonsense. The majority of the US population has rejected their screaming, as have the Democratic Senators.
But they never come up with a suggestion of how to win the war on terror, if Iraq was the wrong way. They criticize the Patriot Act (even though the Senate voted on it 98-1) but have no alternative suggestions.
No alternative, constructive suggestions at all. In other words, no reason to take leftists seriously.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:26am
TO: All these asshats that keep telling us we are winning in Iraq.
Where is Osama? Got a clue?
Posted by shpilk at 08/24/2005 @ 01:39am
SHPILK,
Osama is in Pakistan. We cannot take troops into Pakistan, as we have not declared war on them, and will not be in the forseeable future. Surely you knew this by now.
Surely you also realize that Osama is not the ONLY person who matters. There are other terrorists that are worthy of stopping (like Zarqawi) as well.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:41am
KM,
I think thats where your wrong and just repeating the sound bites handed out to tow the party line. I've heard many good ideas coming from the dems, much more so than the repubs. Basically today, repubs are still blaming the dems for everything, when they have had the power for 5 years now.
How do we get out of this mess in Iraq, or the mess created domestically?
Let's start with Iraq. Enough messing around, fight a war like its a war. War is ugly, and we reget it is necessary, but in order to secure the blessings of liberty, we fight them.
1) Seal the borders of Iraq, no more bad guys get in or out. 2) No one will like this one. Reinstitute the draft, and put enough people on the ground to win. Most of the strategy being implemented now in Iraq, mirrors Vietnam. I say we treat it like WW2. 3) Once the country is secure, i.e. no more insurgents, attacks..etc, then begin reconstruction. 4) Make it nice and sparkling clear, any efforts by any foriegn power to destablize, insight, or otherwise harm Iraq or its people will meet with swift retribution. 5) Include the rest of the world, and Iraq in the reconstruction. 6)Enlist the world court, and demand reparations for our efforts.
I'll stop here and let you call me a fool, or whatever, you asked for solutions. I provided ones that have proven results. While we the people didnt get us into this war, we are being asked to sacrifice for it, on a daily basis.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:43am
DAD0
A couple of clarifications. My criticism is for the hard left (like The Nation, the Michael Moore crowd, etc.). I have pointed out many times that Democratic Senators have not voted with the left, by voting for the Pat. Act 98-1, Iraq War 77-23, Tax Cuts 92-8, etc. My point is that the left is rejected by both sides, due to not having any interest in constructive suggestions.
Now secondly, I FULLY agree with your points 1-5. Indeed, they would make any hawkish conservative proud.
As a matter of fact, if I said exactly the same thing, I would be attacked by the leftists on this site as a brutal warmonger. Let me simply repeat what you say since it is so good.
1) Seal the borders of Iraq, no more bad guys get in or out.
2) No one will like this one. Reinstitute the draft, and put enough people on the ground to win. Most of the strategy being implemented now in Iraq, mirrors Vietnam. I say we treat it like WW2.
3) Once the country is secure, i.e. no more insurgents, attacks..etc, then begin reconstruction.
4) Make it nice and sparkling clear, any efforts by any foriegn power to destablize, insight, or otherwise harm Iraq or its people will meet with swift retribution.
5) Include the rest of the world, and Iraq in the reconstruction.
Yep, I like it. Spoken like a true America-defending hawk. Surely you recognize that most leftists have VERY different opinions (pull out now, etc.)
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:51am
KMG4 said: What you never see from leftists are any constructive ideas about where we go from here.
Sure, they complain ad nauseum about Abu Ghraib, no WMDs, and other such nonsense. The majority of the US population has rejected their screaming, as have the Democratic Senators.
But they never come up with a suggestion of how to win the war on terror, if Iraq was the wrong way. They criticize the Patriot Act (even though the Senate voted on it 98-1) but have no alternative suggestions.
No alternative, constructive suggestions at all. In other words, no reason to take leftists seriously. Posted by KMG4 08/24/2005 @ 01:26am
First suggestion: start immediately undoing the mess the Republicans have made by:
1. withdrawing from Iraq as promptly as possible without placing our troops in any more danger than the Republicans have already placed them in
2. undertake a realignment of our foreign policy that abandons the ill conceived effort at US world dictatorship; that includes a relationship with Israel which is beneficial to US national interests rather than harmful
3. undertake the diplomacy required to return us to the path of further progress toward world disarmament which the Republicans have been struggling mightily to derail
You say you want a suggestion to win the war on terror. Your problem is that you don't even know what the right question is. The right question is: How do we stop creating terrorism? There's a reason why Bin Laden didn't attack Iceland or Switzerland. You Republicans don't understand what is going on in the world but you keep insisting that you're cut out to be leaders. You're complete failures. The American people were bamboozled for a while after 9/11 but the giant doesn't sleep forever. You're finished.
And can the "leftist" hogwash on your way out.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 01:53am
KM,
I agree with them, if we arent going to do what is necessary, then yes by all means, pull out. Just like Vietnam, cut our losses now and leave. Dont keep sending boys to die, for nothing. FDR wouldnt have done that...
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:55am
What FROMREDBIRD spewed out was quite the opposite of what DAD0 said. I like DAD0's ideas. FROMREDBIRD is utterly clueless, as he/she conveniently ignores the terrorism that has struck Spaid, London, a Bali Nightclub, an Egyption resort, and a Russian school. Sure... that is all because of the US. The Muslim Men who did it are not at fault whatsoever.....
FROMREDBIRD, what do you think of DAD0's suggestions, which are different from yours?
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 01:58am
DAD0, you're a Republican failure monkey; are you trying to convince someone that you're not a Republican?
If, by some weird happenstance, you are registered Democratic, please register Republican as soon as possible. It will raise the IQ of both parties.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 02:00am
DAD0,
But they are not suggesting more force at all. Just look at this chain. If we did as you suggest (which I support), the leftists would scream about 'American Imperialism', etc.
They cried for a year about what was essentially a college hazing incident, for crying out loud.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:00am
FROMREDBIRD says Republicans are 'dumb' but also trys to say that Republicans are 'rich'.
Therefore, by his leftist 'logic', wealth and intelligence are inversely corelated.
And they wonder why they lose elections... tee hee.
How does he explain that the voting patterns of the 2004 election show that people earning over $50,000 a year solidly voted for the GOP?
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/voting_patterns_in_the_2004_elec.htm
The Democrats are strong only with people who make less than $30K/year - the less productive, less hard-working, and/or less intelligent members of our society (a.k.a. leftists).
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:04am
KMG4 said: "he/she conveniently ignores the terrorism that has struck Spaid, London, a Bali Nightclub, an Egyption resort, and a Russian school"
Each and every attack you list was directed at citizens of countries that are or were engaged in military operations against Muslims on Muslim territory or are assisting that in some way.
If you have any more inaccurate comments I'll respond to them tomorrow.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 02:05am
FROMREDBIRD,
So ANY country that is doing anything to Muslims will predictably get terror? That is a very long list of countries. Japan, S. Korea, China, India, Russia, Italy, Poland, etc. are all either in the Iraq coalition or have some other beef with Muslims in their own territories.
It does not occur to your feeble mind that Muslims are the aggressors here, does it? That they resort to terrorism to kill innocents, because they are totally incompetent in a fair fight on the battlefield, does it?
And the mystery of leftist election losses deepens....
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:10am
Redbird, calls me names. Try that, staring into the wrong end of a pistol. Im not a republican, or a democrat, Im an American, the father of 4 boys. Who America just may ask to fight this bloody war on terror. From your stance here, I take it you would never take a stand anywhere for a principle. Do you think America was founded without bloodshed? I would suggest you vist the local library and study history, starting with the American revolution.
The move on to WW1 and WW2, and perhaps you will realize just what is at stake here.
Last, I would say its attitudes and rhetoric like yours that is destroying the democratic party.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:10am
KMG4: If you think the Nation is "far Left", you are really ignorant of Left thought. The Nation is very moderate and mainstream. It is not anti-capitalist. If you want to read something really radical, try Z Magazine, or Monthly Review. You won't find any ads for corporations there. The Nation is mild by comparison. But you geeks on the right label anything moderately liberal as "far left". That's funny...
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 02:15am
DAD0,
Cowards like FROMREDBIRD are the majority on this board. You are the exception, and I was pleasantly surprised with your realistic views.
Spend more time here, and you will see that most leftists here are secretly hoping that America loses the WoT. Sad but true.
You are correct that they have ruined the Democratic Party. I was a Democrat pre-9/11, but their near-suicidal lack of logic, ideas, or spine drove me away to the other side.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:16am
PHILBQ,
The Nation, in its archives, has not one article actually denouncing Al-Qaeda for 9/11. All mentions of 9/11 are 'Bush/Rice let it happen', or 'it is a predictable consequence of capitalism'.
80% of the US population would consider The Nation to be far left. There may be magazines and individuals (like you) who are even further left, but The Nation is *not* mainstream.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:18am
All of you,
I like the nation. They are not afraid to question purported authority. Not afraid to ask the difficult questions. Something the founders of this country advocated.
Everyone today is so quick to lable something right, left, liberal, conservative, etc.... Frankly, it makes me sick. Always looking for someone to blame for failure, and constantly pointing the finger in any direction. Instead of admiting our faults, and trying to learn from them. Its just sad.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 02:26am
Ya know, it never really hit home till now. Saddam's elite army... the 'Republican Guard' maybe they weren't contributing enough. The GOP is tough on slackers.
Posted by doog at 08/24/2005 @ 02:28am
KMG4: You,sir, are a liar. Never has anyone in the Nation blamed 9/11 on capitalism. You did not find that in the archives. I have read every issue since 9/11 (I have been a subscriber for many years) and you are lying. What kind of creep are you to have to lie to make your point? You don't deserve to be here at this respected 135-year-old magazine. Your dishonesty is exceeded only by your ignorance.
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 02:41am
Earth to Bush: Today in Idaho Bush said the proposed Iraqi constitution guaranteed women's rights. Actually, the constitution stipulates that judges' rulings shall not contradict Islamic law, which does not give women equal rights in issues of marriage,divorce, inheritence, or child custody. Maybe Bush's handlers haven't told him what is in the document that was produced under the U.S. ambassador's bullwhip. That way Bush won't have to explain to Laura why women got shafted in the new constitution. She might make him sleep alone.
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 03:04am
Philbq,
I think the editors should put up a history link on the main page, and give a bio of the magazine. If for no other reason, to enlighten visitors to the purpose and origins of the magazine. One very good reason would be to inform those who would believe the spin, casting The Nation as a left wing loony bin. Perhaps, if they knew the history behind it, they would put aside predispositions and view with an open mind.
Its alot to hope for I know, at least in this day and age, but they still are teaching American history in schools.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 03:04am
"Earth to Bush: Today in Idaho Bush said the proposed Iraqi constitution guaranteed women's rights. Actually, the constitution stipulates that judges' rulings shall not contradict Islamic law, which does not give women equal rights in issues of marriage,divorce, inheritence, or child custody. Maybe Bush's handlers haven't told him what is in the document that was produced under the U.S. ambassador's bullwhip. That way Bush won't have to explain to Laura why women got shafted in the new constitution. She might make him sleep alone"
What make you think that he doesnt already?
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 03:05am
I like your article, Katrina. Short and sweet.
Blink
Posted by Blinky at 08/24/2005 @ 04:54am
Katrina makes a simple point that we once called "Credibility Gap" during the Vietnam War. When the self-styled "leaders" of the country become so far removed from the real world of everyday experience, you begin to question their grip on sanity. For example:
During the early years of my service in the U.S. Navy, long before I got my orders to foreign language school and then Vietnam, one of my shipmates rented a houseboat in San Diego and we would go over there to relax some nights after knocking off ship's work for the day. We'd get a couple of cold beers, turn on the TV, and check out the news. Whenever President Johnson came on the tube, though, my buddy would go nuts. He'd turn down the volume on the TV and put a record on the turntable. Then, while Johnson's lips moved silently on the TV screen, a raucous rock-and-roll band would scream from the stereo: "NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!"
Then, a few years later, President Johnson decided to quit because the Vietnam War (i.e., "fight 'em over there so that we don't have to fight em' here") had made him terribly unpopular and no one any longer believed a single thing that he said. Credibility Gap.
Then, Richard Nixon promised that if we voted for him (or anyway, those older people who could vote) he would end the war and "bring the troops home." Once elected, though, he went on bombing, killing, and getting even more of our own troops killed, maimed, or captured as POWs. Two years later, in June of 1970, I shipped out for Vietnam. (Nixon had to send me there first, you see, before he could bring me home.) Eighteen months later, in January of 1972, I returned home to find Richard Nixon running for re-election still promising to do what he promised to do four years previously. Credibility Gap. "NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!"
I got out of the Navy then, and never ever ever ever since have I ever ever ever ever believed anything that any President of the United States has ever said. Needless to say, I have never suffered the slightest disappointment, either. I never thought I'd live to see a troop of untrained chimpanzees fall for another trumped-up "Gulf of Tonkin" stampede, but George W. Bush pulled it off nonetheless, with damn near the whole Congress falling all over themselves to help drag the country over the edge of another credibility cliff. As the saying goes, however, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time. Credibility Gap: an enormous, yawning chasm separating self-hypnotic, sophomoric sloganeering from even the remotest acquaintance with reality. "NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!"
Posted by Michael Murry at 08/24/2005 @ 06:16am
Hey Katrina, Bush did meet with her, hugged her,too. But don't let the truth get in the way of your story. And, yes you advocate a cut and run policy/timetable. Let's surrender and show the world that we are vulnerable to attacks by "The United Roadside Bombers", a country, army power, based in? and ruled by? If and when we leave Iraq to the "URB", they, the "URB", will restore order, electrical power, women's rights, education, and protection of the Iraqi people from the "USA", it's soldiers and even do all of this without lining Cheney's pockets. When the "URB" are done unifying and freeing Iraq, they will be able to send their forces to other hotbeds of unrest and drive out the dang infidels and spread their message and way of life to: Iran, Syria, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Posted by oldgofaster at 08/24/2005 @ 07:57am
Michael Murry,
Are you saying that Presidents of the United States lie? Shame on you for pointing out that the "emperor isn't wearing any clothes".
And, Gee Dubya Bush being the 'best' prevaricating President in our nation's history.
See if I ever "toe the line" that a President draws in the sand of some Middle Eastern suzerainty ruled by an anti-democratic potentate.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 08:12am
Michael Murry,
P.S. - Don't you know that we have to keep sending Americans to die in Iraq in order to honor those Americans who already made the ultimate sacrifice.
You say that argument will lead to continuous war and death of Americans - well, the fact that Americans are dying is beside the point; their dying will provide the opportunity for other Americans to die in their honor, and on and on and on it will continue.
Gee, such cynical people to think that continuous war and dying isn't honorable.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 08:17am
"Count me as one conservative that thinks KVH is very attractive. I would love the chance to turn her on...to conservatism."
I couldn't agree more on KVH. However, maybe you should focus on turning W on to conservatism. Spending billions of $$ and precious human lives so recklessly is hardly conservative.
Posted by rain man at 08/24/2005 @ 08:41am
Thanks to The Nation for the ignore list. For those who think it is some sort of censorship, I will not use it to ignore opposing views. But life is too short to have to scroll by mile-long Rush transcripts and empty (caps locked) slogans and insults.
For those who think that the left wants us to lose the so-called "war on teror" so that the Dems will regain power, I think that shows how many in right think of everything in terms of politics. Who wouldn't want a stable Middle East? If the failure in Iraq leads to an advance of liberal agendas, it would merely be an unintended consequence of Republican failures. We're not cheering for the insurgents.
Posted by rain man at 08/24/2005 @ 09:08am
Rainman: I totally agree. It is garbage for rightwingers to say that we wish failure in Iraq. If the end result was true secular democracy,with equality for all including women, I would be glad. It is obvious that is not going to happen. Supporters of the war are feeling the heat because they see the tide of public opinion turning against the war, so they lash out at war critics.
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 09:49am
PhilBQ: I think it was one of your posts yesterday that talked in very strong terms about the tide of public opinion having turned against the war. I do hope the Democratic leadership is feeling that shift. Like you, I won't vote for anyone who is for staying the course. Also, I think the right wing rants against those of us who oppose the war smells a little like desperation.
However, one thing that concerns me is that Bush is just going to declare victory at some artificial milestone and pull out, leaving the "stay the course" Dems holding the bag. Then, with the war in the rear view mirror, mid-term elections go to the global warriors on terror, and Bush can back to the work of planning the next pre-emptive strike.
Posted by rain man at 08/24/2005 @ 10:21am
As long as Iraq remains unstable, the Red State reactionaries can hope for it to evolve into a representative democracy. It is this hope that allows them to state, straightfaced and self-righteous, that a desirable (from our point of view) solution is possible. Once the Islamists take over and Iraq assumes the inevitable shape that its geography, religions, and cultures dictate, that hope will morph into resentment of the "left" (i.e., the majority of Americans of all political stripes who came to realize that the goals of the Neocons were unattainable). They will say that the "left" prevented the righteous Bushies from fully prosecuting the war (as though it WAS a war in any conventional sense). They will warp their historical memory to fit events around preconceived beliefs, e.g., the disgraced Bush will be remembered as a lonely truthteller. In other words, the Vietnam Syndrome, which supposedly died when the first Gulf War was perpetrated, will be shown to be alive and well.
Posted by bookmanjb at 08/24/2005 @ 10:49am
To Rain Man and PhilBQ:
RM, you seem to have the same ignore list I do. When I put Aludra on the list, it felt like I was bouncing a drunk out of a bar; in the case of Nationsucks1 and Nationsucks2, it felt more like throwing out unopened junk mail.
You're both right about the calumny we put up with from some of the other posters. I stop taking any post seriously that asserts that opposing the war is to support insurgents or apologize for Saddam. Did either of you see that nonsense yesterday from a right wing poster charging leftists are racists because they oppose black conservative nominees like Condoleezza Rice?
Although I believe that it is as firmly established that the world is round that Bush and his lieutenants deliberately lied about the threat posed by Saddam, I'll entertain well reasoned views to the contrary.
Most of the nonsense posted by right wing posters is short enough to scroll by or at least presents the opportunity to pick apart a logically fallacious argument. Aludra's posts seldom rose to the level of the logically fallacious. They were just pure invective with no reasoning, not even poor reasoning, behind them.
In about a week, after we are finished talking about the novelty of the ignore list, not only will most people here not be seeing Aludra's posts, but there will be a lot fewer responses to him telling him to grow up, which is about the only thing one could say to him in response.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 10:51am
To Rain Man on the tide of public opinion:
The American Research Group's poll this week put Bush's approval rating at 36%, with 58% disapproving.
He's got more problems that the failure of his policies in Iraq.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 10:54am
Zero--Thought you might appreciate our new "ignore" feature. I'll be detailing it in full in my blog today but it gives our readers the ability to not have to read certain posters if you decide to tune them out. Though many of you offeed good reasons why we should ban certain folks, this gives the power to do that to each individual. We do hope people use it sparingly and never use it to ignore poltiical perspectives they don't share, which I know you--Zero--won't do.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/24/2005 @ 11:01am
Frank...saw your "full version" of Fireside Theater and it's great. I took the liberty of copying and intend on doing some minor reformatting for its own web page if thats OK. Figure its good enough to rate a bit of bandwidth on its own... I will give you full attribution as "Frankgrits" from TheNation Blogs unless you'd like something more personal. I am the webmaster of http://geodude.home.mchsi.com/GOP_2004.html (webmaster link at the bottom) if you want to contact...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 11:07am
KMG4 said: FROMREDBIRD says Republicans are 'dumb' but also trys to say that Republicans are 'rich'.
Therefore, by his leftist 'logic', wealth and intelligence are inversely corelated.
And they wonder why they lose elections... tee hee.
How does he explain that the voting patterns of the 2004 election show that people earning over $50,000 a year solidly voted for the GOP?
The Democrats are strong only with people who make less than $30K/year - the less productive, less hard-working, and/or less intelligent members of our society (a.k.a. leftists). Posted by KMG4 08/24/2005 @ 02:04am --------------------------
Oh, KMG4, you logic powerhouse. I never said "Republicans are dumb". I implied that some of the Republicans here are "dumb", certainly. I think that the average Republican realizes full well that the Bush administration and it's chosen advisors is much "dumber" than they ever could be themselves.
The reason that a marginally larger proportion of higher income voters are Republican is due to their desire to keep their income tax rates at a reduced level. That has nothing to do with their intelligence. You must be one of the very few in the world who hasn't perceived this very basic fact of American politics. Even the dimwits in the Bush administration realize that.
Those "intelligent" Republicans are now staring down the double barrels of a $500,000,000,000 budget deficit and an estimated $1 trillion war bill and wondering if maybe the ones who will have to eventually pay for it will be the ones with more money than the "dumb, lazy", in your estimation, working class, but less political power than the plutocrats. They are probably also reflecting on the possibility that their self-concern may have trumped their "intelligence" in the last two elections. Most of them will likely cling to their beneficial tax rates by continuing to vote Republican until the crock breaks and the political balance turns against them.
... tee hee.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 11:22am
KMG4:
Just got caught up from the late night and early morning posts. Most was your inane rhetoric about the Left wanting to lose and of having no ideas on moving forward in Iraq. Republicans create a catastrophe that has made the U.S. weaker and it is Left who want to lose? You criticize the Left who opposed this war for having no ideas on how to fix it. We appreciate the assignment but you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. The damage has been done. Progressive ideas about how to better America are much broader than fixing the Iraq mess Bush has burdened us all with. Being a parent to Iraq and building schools and roads, giving more cell phones, awarding 25 Iraqis scholarships, and helping them draft an Islamic constitution may slap a band-aid on the wound, but does nothing to address the underlying disease, which is that certain factions in the world are tired of U.S. global domination at their expense. The war (even it results in Iraq becoming some form of a democracy) has done nothing but add fuel to that fire. We would be better off to let the Iraqis do things for themselves at this point because every day we occupy that nation we put the U.S. at greater risk in the long run.
You make it seem as if terrorism exists in a vacuum and has nothing to do at all with a response to U.S. (or Spanish or British) foreign policy. It does not mean blowing up civilians is the right response, but do you really expect all other societies to sit idle and concede to U.S. dominance against their own self-interests? I am sure your rationalization that they are pure evil and we are pure good helps you sleep at night, but it just does not wash. The only way to change the blowback we have been hit with is to accept not that it is justified, but that it is happening, right or wrong, and unless we want a state of perpetual war, it is not ever going away unless we can come to some kind of compromise regarding America's place int he world. Thus, we should lessen U.S. policies of unilateralism, militarism, imperialism, the enlargement of powers that have been given to the executive branch over the last fifty or so years, lessen the stranglehold the war industry profiteers have on our politicians. I am not suggesting we become Switzerland, but I think tempering our efforts at global domination will actually improve the quality of life for our nation in the long run. This is a tall order, and one that many Democrats do not seem inclined to have the guts to undertake, but this is one progressive idea.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 11:35am
KMG4 said: So ANY country that is doing anything to Muslims will predictably get terror? That is a very long list of countries. Japan, S. Korea, China, India, Russia, Italy, Poland, etc. are all either in the Iraq coalition or have some other beef with Muslims in their own territories.
It does not occur to your feeble mind that Muslims are the aggressors here, does it? That they resort to terrorism to kill innocents, because they are totally incompetent in a fair fight on the battlefield, does it? Posted by KMG4 08/24/2005 @ 02:10am------------------------
Speaking of feeble minds, genius, I deduce that it escaped your questing intelligance that your two above paragraphs are self-contradictory. Not surprising considering that you bolster your lame opinions by calling anyone who discredits them a coward. Keep it up. You're funny.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 11:36am
On the RebBird, KMG topic....
Its odd that stats roll that way because Red states tend to be the poorer states and Blue more affluent (in gneral, not cast in stone...you know what I mean...the "poor south" vs NY, CA) So why this dichotomy? I mean the money aspect is unsurprising I suppose...GOP = BIG Corp Interests while Dems w/ more liberal social agenda appeal to urbanites. But why doesn't the liberal social agenda appeal to these poorer areas? I can only surmise that the "poor south" regions (the masses of very rural zones that *really* vote hard RED) are A) voting religion and NOT politics (we can see from Pat Robertson's recent diplay that the wacko-Religous types are all for Theocratics / new "Crusades") and/or B) are more impressed by the "Bush-y" simplistic trains of thought (drum beating sound bites, "be afraid" sorts of thoughts)...both mindsets get active and vote however.
Meanwhile many Dems are only involved with the election process via their remote controls as they passivley watch. We have mixed messages and ideas that don't seem to be palatable or understandable to the "poor south" masses.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 11:50am
Ironic too that the "Security Moms" that helped put Dick & Dubya in the White House are now the ones protesting his actions.... Does that come under the "Be careful what you wish for" category?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 11:54am
DAD0 said: Redbird, calls me names. Try that, staring into the wrong end of a pistol. Im not a republican, or a democrat, Im an American, the father of 4 boys. Who America just may ask to fight this bloody war on terror. From your stance here, I take it you would never take a stand anywhere for a principle. Do you think America was founded without bloodshed? I would suggest you vist the local library and study history, starting with the American revolution.
The move on to WW1 and WW2, and perhaps you will realize just what is at stake here.
Last, I would say its attitudes and rhetoric like yours that is destroying the democratic party. Posted by DAD0 08/24/2005 @ 02:10am-----------------------
Oh, stick it in your ear. Post your e-mail. I'll send you my name and address and we'll see who ends up where, wimp.
Spare us your rhetoric about American history, too. If America's founders are looking down on you they will be vomiting. They would hang George Bush for treason. Where in America's founding documents did you see the part that says America will spread democracy by force to other countries? You're laughable.
You are anything but a traditionalist American and it is quite obvious that you yourself don't know anything about American history. WWII? Germany was occupying most of Europe and half of Russia before we got involved. What country was Iraq occupying when we invaded? Did you forget why Bush had to cook up lies about WMD and mushroom clouds? Because Saddam Hussein was incapable of flying an airplane in his own country and was a threat to no one.
Your brilliant solution to the failure of Bush's foolish misadventure is to turn up the atrocities and shame America even more before God and man. Your moral incapacity is repugnant.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 12:00pm
On the RedBird, KMG topic....
Its odd that stats roll that way because Red states tend to be the poorer states and Blue more affluent Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/24/2005 @ 11:50am--------------------
Also, the blue states pay more federal income taxes than they receive while the red states pay less federal income taxes than they receive. KMG4's dumb, lazy blue states are supporting his smart, hard working, "more productive" red states. He's just mouthing typical Republican, logic-free rhetoric.
The Democratic Party is hobbled by corporate-sponsored carpetbaggers. They get the money and the television coverage and they won't speak forcefully on red meat issues that would attract more red state support. The progressive forces within the Demos must organize more and better and expect to start providing an alternative money stream to the progressive leadership. Otherwise, America and the world will keep foundering.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 12:23pm
Left,
I am the webmaster of http://geodude.home.mchsi.com/GOP_2004.html (webmaster link at the bottom) if you want to contact... Left.
I visited your web site and bookmarked the site for future reference. I will inform my friends of your site.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:54pm
"Oh, stick it in your ear. Post your e-mail. I'll send you my name and address and we'll see who ends up where, wimp."
Oh yeah, thats real mature, and an obvious solution to a problem. You would want to beat the crap out of me for disagreeing with you, yet you would cut and run from a terrorist?
Your blind hatred prevents you from seeing anything other than what you have predisposed in you mind.
Perhaps you didnt see my other posts, where I state I dont agree with the policy, or the leaders. Yes, we are there because of a lieing bunch of idiots. However, the fact remains that we are there, and pulling out now would, at least to me, provide an open invitation to would be terrorists seeking their heavenly rewards, to come to America, and spread their hate.
Again, my post was about cleaning up the mess that has been created, and providing a tactical solution to the problem of our young soldiers being killed daily for nothing. Its seems to me that perhaps, it matters not to you, but America has in the past been looked upon as the champion of the opressed. I believe that was a democratic principle at one time or another.
Like I said before, if we the people could stop looking to place blame, and start providing solutions to overcome, maybe, just maybe we could save some lives. American and Iraqi
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 1:04pm
Bookman JB,
As long as Iraq remains unstable, the Red State reactionaries can hope for it to evolve into a representative democracy. It is this hope that allows them to state, straightfaced and self-righteous, that a desirable (from our point of view) solution is possible. Once the Islamists take over and Iraq assumes the inevitable shape that its geography, religions, and cultures dictate, that hope will morph into resentment of the "left" (i.e., the majority of Americans of all political stripes who came to realize that the goals of the Neocons were unattainable). They will say that the "left" prevented the righteous Bushies from fully prosecuting the war (as though it WAS a war in any conventional sense). They will warp their historical memory to fit events around preconceived beliefs, e.g., the disgraced Bush will be remembered as a lonely truthteller. In other words, the Vietnam Syndrome, which supposedly died when the first Gulf War was perpetrated, will be shown to be alive and well. Bookman
Posted by BOOKMANJB 08/24/2005 @ 10:49am
The spinning of history by the Bushites that you describe will begin as soon as Gee Debya Bush uses the 'constitution' of Iraq to "cut the Gordian Knot". The Iraqi 'constitution' will be spinned by the Bushites as 'spreading democracy' to Iraq.
But you and I, and the Bushites know that Iraq will be an Islamic Republic; in the model of Iran.
And the only good thing coming from Bush "cutting the Gordian Knot" is that it can be said; "we are no longer in that God-forsaken war in Iraq".
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 1:12pm
Below is an excerpt from an email sent out by MoveOn.org:
The resolution, known as the Homeward Bound Act (House Joint Resolution 55), was introduced by Jones, fellow Republican Rep. Ron Paul and Democratic Congressmen Neil Abercrombie and Dennis Kucinich. It would require the president to put together a plan by the end of the year for bringing home all U.S. forces from Iraq--with troop withdrawal beginning no later than October 1, 2006. It is an important step in the right direction, and with Republican co-sponsors it creates real pressure to change course.
There are 50 members of Congress who have signed up as co-sponsors of the Homeward Bound Act. That's a good start but we need more--our goal is to have more than 100 co-sponsors by the time Congress returns September 6. If we can do that it will show that Cindy Sheehan's vigil has added to the pressure on our leaders to come up with a real plan for Iraq.
After you make your call, please let your friends, family and colleagues know about the Homeward Bound Act by forwarding this e-mail or calling them.
Congress has a duty here that they shouldn't ignore. Our troops have done everything we've asked of them in Iraq. Now it is time for politicians to do their job.
They are requesting that everyone call their respective Congressman and ask him or her to sign on to the Homeward Bound Act - House Joint Resolution 55.
I have already made my call and I hope you will do the same.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 1:26pm
DAD0 says this: "Redbird, calls me names. Try that, staring into the wrong end of a pistol."
I say this: "Oh, stick it in your ear. Post your e-mail. I'll send you my name and address and we'll see who ends up where, wimp."
. . . and DAD0 gets artful and says this: "Oh yeah, thats real mature, and an obvious solution to a problem. You would want to beat the crap out of me for disagreeing with you, yet you would cut and run from a terrorist?"---------------------
DAD0, I wasn't talking about "beating the crap out of you", believe me. You should be so fortunate. Don't shoot off your mouth like that unless you're ready to back it up. The only one who acted like a terrorist here was you, with your comment about a pistol. If you're willing to bomb the Iraqis into subservience just for your opinions why do you think you deserve kid glove treatment when you are an actual wrongdoer by making threats? You'll deserve what you get and show up or shut up.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 1:35pm
Redbird,
Perhaps in your anger, you misinterpreted my post, or my writing style needs improvement, as I didnt convey my message so you would understand it.
What I was talking about with my original comment was, if someone is pointing a gun at you, like say a terrorist, or an insurgent. Try and see how far throwing and insult at him will get you.
So far you have called me, a Republican failure monkey, laughable, morally repugnant, and Im sure you have a few other insults to throw my way. I can take it believe me. Perhaps you were insulted by my suggested reading materials? My suggestions were made to "back it up".
It seems you read a great deal more into my posts that I put into them, and because they dont fit your views you attack them vicously.
I am still debating whether to Gump you or not, as I donot like to silence any voices, but seems to me that you are the one doing the threatening.
And for those that dont know what Gump means. In the movie Forest Gump, Forest was talking about one of his buddies and says "just like that, he was gone" to me its kinda the same as using the ignore this person forum feature, because all I have to do is click the button, "and just like that, he is gone". ;)
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 1:50pm
DAD0 said this: "Redbird, calls me names. Try that, staring into the wrong end of a pistol."------------------------
There's no misinterpretation involved, that's obvious, so stop wheedling.
And, I don't feel very guilty about insulting you when you're proposing a massive additional increase in the suffering of the Iraqi people, for the sole purpose of rendering them subservient to us . . . along with our troops who have been sent to kill and die in an unAmerican war.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 2:02pm
BUSH ADMITS THAT WAR IN IRAQ IS BEING FOUGHT FOR A "CRAPPY" REASON. MAD KING GEORGE III HAS DISCARDED ALL PRIOR REASONS FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. HE HAS NOW GIVEN US THE SAME REASON THAT MEEHAN HAS GIVEN US, NAMELY, WE CAN NOT LET THESE SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN IRAQ THAT THEY DIED IN VAIN. WHAT "DOUBLESPEAK". WHY SHOULD MORE MEN DIE IN VAIN FOR BUSH'S LIE ?
It took President Bush a long time to break his summer vacation and acknowledge the pain that the families of fallen soldiers are feeling as the death toll in Iraq continues to climb. When he did, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Utah this week, he said exactly the wrong thing. In an address that repeatedly invoked Sept. 11 - the day that terrorists who had no discernable connection whatsoever to Iraq attacked targets on American soil - Mr. Bush offered a new reason for staying the course: to keep faith with the men and women who have already died in the war.
"We owe them something," Mr. Bush said. "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for." It was, as the mother of one fallen National Guardsman said, an argument that "makes no sense." No one wants young men and women to die just because others have already made the ultimate sacrifice. The families of the dead do not want that, any more than they want to see more soldiers die because politicians cannot bear to admit that they sent American forces to war by mistake.
Most Americans believed that their country had invaded Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but we know now that those weapons did not exist. If we had all known then what we know now, the invasion would have been stopped by a popular outcry, no matter what other motives the president and his advisers may have had.
It is also very clear, although the president has done his level best to muddy the picture, that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Mr. Bush's insistence on making that link, over and over, is irresponsible. In fact, it was the American-led invasion that turned Iraq into a haven for Islamist extremists.
When Mr. Bush articulated his "comprehensive strategy" for responding to the threat of terrorism, he listed three aims: "protecting this homeland, taking the fight to the enemy and advancing freedom." The invasion of Iraq flunks the first two tests. But it did free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and may still provide an opportunity to inspire the rest of the Arab world with an example of democracy and religious toleration.
Right now, however, the Iraqi Assembly is dickering over a constitution draft that would not accomplish any of the American goals. It would fail to protect the rights of Iraq's Sunni Arab minority and the rights of women, and it would enshrine Islam as a main source of law. It could well lead to a fracturing of Iraq into an all but independent, and oil-rich, Kurdish homeland in the north and an oil-rich Shiite theocracy in the south, while the oil-poor center was left to the disaffected Sunnis, the terrorists and the American troops. It's an outcome that would make the violent religious extremists very happy.
Preventing that kind of tragic last chapter is the only rational argument for continuing the American presence in Iraq. The president's strange declaration yesterday that the draft constitution would protect the rights of women and minorities, and his continuing attempts to clog the debate with misleading explanations, suggest his own lack of commitment to the only rationale for keeping American troops in Iraq - or, perhaps, his lack of faith in the likely outcome.
It is now clear that the President's brain is either "fried" or "unintelligently designed".
Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.
www.freedompost.typepad.com
Posted by msf31538 at 08/24/2005 @ 2:15pm
what we are fighting in Iraq is the government of Iraq, we are losing that war, when you are not defeating an insurgency, read unconventional enemy, you are losing. the accomplishments in Iraq, elections, constitutions, governments, are a sham and a lie. the soviets had their own government installed in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the guy in Chechnya was blown up, the president of that soviet Afghanistan is living in Moscow. the US has not begun fighting a war against terror, which is a technique and method not an enemy. when you oppose the war in Iraq you are not in opposition to the war on the people who attacked us, Al Queada. that is the biggest lie the right is propagating, they are indeed getting desperate, their credibility tanking. the latest twisted rationale is that we must continue our disastrous policy to honor the dead. why didn't Bush say that from the start, we could be honoring the dead of the civil war and all the wars since that by sending more youngsters into that maw of death. that Freiheit guy gives me the creeps, couldn't you find a more Nazi like moniker? how about Vaterland, or the Bund? to the knuckleheads who think this is the lunchbreak at grammar school and a lofting threats of ptysical violence, shove it up your keista or volunteer for death in Iraq, we are adults conversing here so butt out. Johannesrolf
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2005 @ 2:19pm
" DAD0 said this: "Redbird, calls me names. Try that, staring into the wrong end of a pistol."------------------------ There's no misinterpretation involved, that's obvious, so stop wheedling. And, I don't feel very guilty about insulting you when you're proposing a massive additional increase in the suffering of the Iraqi people, for the sole purpose of rendering them subservient to us . . . along with our troops who have been sent to kill and die in an unAmerican war."
Again, you reading more into it than was intended. To be honest, I could care less about your feelings, so feel free.
I said nothing about subservience, and you know it, maybe you should read the entire post. As I stated in my post, that any attack on Americans or Iraqis would be met with swift retribution. What part of that do you not understand? It seems to escape you that most of the folks trying to kill our soldiers are not Iraqi. I wonder why, oh I know, it doesnt fit your preconcieved notions and cant possibly be the case, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions, it is America after all.
If we follow your solutions, cut and run, and leave our mess for somone else to clean up, that would be unAmerican. In addition, what message would it send to the rest of the world, to those who would ask America for help? Yeah call the Americans, the will come and leave our country in one big pile of rubble, yep thats the American way.
Maybe it is also escaping you that, as I said before, we are there, lets win this thing or get out.Your so busy attacking the messenger, that you cannot see the message. ;)
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 2:20pm
JACKRABBIT: I welcome and enjoy tossing issues between intelligent, honest conservatives. I just haven't found many at this site. Most are like LOVELIBERTY: has a pathological fear of "communists", and sees "communist" conspiracies everywhere, is a fanatical fundamentalist Christian who somehow justifies any war the U.S. starts, has no traditional libertarian conservative positions(balanced budgets, opposing big govt. spying on Americans as in the Patriot Act,non-interventionist foreign policy,etc.), equates dissent with disloyalty("you're all guilty of treason").These rightwingers are not principled conservatives, but instead are extremely partisan Republicans. The real conservatives are the Libertarian Party, and I agree with them on many issues. So I have no patience for the rightwing ranters who infest this site. They live in a bizarre faith-based world that is unconnected with reality. So just keep giving them the truth...it drives them crazy.
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 2:23pm
[Warning-possible straying off topic ahead]
Having started reading these postings on The Nation in the last couple of weeks, I'm struck by the diversity of opinion. Not just liberals/progressives whacking ideas around, there are numerous conservatives also getting into the action. It seems that this may be in part because right wing sites/blogs typically offer much fewer opportunities for comment/reaction. Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject Aristocratic Right Wing Blogosphere Stagnating by Chris Bowers [mydd.com]
Posted by Fishbite at 08/24/2005 @ 2:55pm
Fishbite: This confirms my suspicion that the reason this site has been invaded by so many ranting rightwingers is this site practices FREE SPEECH, where their own rightwing(I refuse to call them "conservative")sites do not allow unrestricted speech. We of the Left believe and practice free speech. So these rightwingers ,who always scream of how much they hate us, still come here to enjoy free speech. Ironic, isn't it?
Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 3:09pm
If we pull out of Iraq now, the bad guys will see it as a surrender. They will exploit it as America being weak and the end result would be far worse than anything we've seen thus far.
I agree that the reality of this sucks, but we cannot escape that reality unless we see this thing through.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 3:12pm
The Iraq debacle by and large is a lose/lose and getting worse by the day. My firstborn is preparing to deploy and per her commentary...very few people actually "want" to go. I pray that Bush fiasco is not her demise (surprise right wing-nuts....a Liberal Dem has used the "p" word - it happens)
The only up side is the right wing-nut cadre will lose credibility. (38% approval and dropping)
Look, I don't know if there is a right way or good way to fold this Iraq mess up now....but I would think that most folks on this Blog could do a better job than our revered (or is that reviled) POTUS.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 3:23pm
.
So far it is Katrina and her friends whose wheels have been coming off. Socialism did not bury the US, it buried the Soviet Union. America has not gone left, China has gone right. The Iraq invasion did not see tens of thousands of GI body bags, the oil fields did not erupt in flames, the world economy did not crash, the Middle East was not reduced to a vast landscape of riot and chaos.
Instead the Iraqi army was crushed in three weeks at the cost of 121 US troops. The rule of the Baath was ended. Saddam and his brood were rounded up. Libya gave up her nukes, Syria gave up Lebanon, the entire Middle East is mulling over the idea of elections. Six million Iraqis went to the polls at the risk of their lives; a new constitution is being hammered out. Two and a half years of war have drawn 1,850 fatalities. (There were single days in WWII when our deaths were twice that. In Vietnam in 1968 - 1969 we regularly suffered 400 deaths per week.) The Nation's hopes for American disasters have not materialized.
It is Katrina whose wheels have been punctured and whose wings have been clipped and who is burned up.
That is what happens when you make your bed with mass murdering fanatics who hate democracy, religious toleration and free speech. From the joy of foreseeing American disasters there is no way home. The left, revealed as left fascist, is washed up in this land. It will never again land.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 3:23pm
USAPRIDE, See it through to what? Should we stay until we find WMD, since that was the reason given for going in the first place? Please explain.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:41pm
Having been ready to cancel my subscription due to Republican trolls who use ALL CAPS and many misspellings (I won't name names, but s/he initials are Aludra, and derivatives), I am delighted with the ignore this person feature! Now I will undoubtedly continue my subscription so I can continue to enjoy reading/participating in genuine, civil, and important social discourse. Bushco has been an unmitigated disaster for America and I find myself (after 5-years) too disgusted with their venality and banality to lend credence to neocons and their awful policies. Now, thank god, I can screen out the lunatics, comfortable with the knowledge that they may screen me out as well; I could not care less.
Posted by Bill Arnett at 08/24/2005 @ 3:41pm
USAPRIDE:
I have heard this before, but why don't you explain to me "the end result" you see, and how it will be "far worse than anything we've seen thus far." Just looking for some specifics to judge your statement by. I for one, cannot agree/disagree unless people explain what it is we should all fear.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 3:44pm
NACL, you draw the wrong parallels for the cost of the war in Iraq. Can you give us the casualty numbers for the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan? If you'll recall, one of the ways the old U.S. of A. brought communism to its knees was by funding a proxy war where a guy by the name of Osama bin Laden proved his mettle while bleeding the hammer & sickle guys. I think there was a Republican in the White House then...
Posted by nathanhale at 08/24/2005 @ 4:04pm
To: ILP & HMAN23,
How will it be worse than anything we've seen before?
Simple - leaving Iraq would embolden the terrorists. An embolden terrorist is many times more dangerous. Now, transfer this greatly enhanced boldness worldwide. Example - It's been reported that Bin Laden remarked in an interview that when he saw the American soldier being dragged though the streets of mogadeashu (sp?) which was the catalyst to Clinton deciding to cut and run, he knew then that the will of the Americans could be crushed if they drew blood. He also said this was "his awakening" which embolded him to proceed with the plans for 9/11. Not to mention how it encited the Somalians. To cut and run is not an option.
I see the end result as the terrorist factions and all who support them being beaten, destroyed, put to waste. The result will be a safer, more civilized world. If we don't do this and do it now, we will suffer later for our lack of fortitude now.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 4:16pm
To: ILP & HMAN23,
How will it be worse than anything we've seen before?
Simple - leaving Iraq would embolden the terrorists. An embolden terrorist is many times more dangerous. Now, transfer this greatly enhanced boldness worldwide. Example - It's been reported that Bin Laden remarked in an interview that when he saw the American soldier being dragged though the streets of mogadeashu (sp?) which was the catalyst to Clinton deciding to cut and run, he knew then that the will of the Americans could be crushed if they drew blood. He also said this was "his awakening" which embolded him to proceed with the plans for 9/11. Not to mention how it encited the Somalians. To cut and run is not an option.
I see the end result as the terrorist factions and all who support them being beaten, destroyed, put to waste. The result will be a safer, more civilized world. If we don't do this and do it now, we will suffer later for our lack of fortitude now.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 4:17pm
DAD0 said: It seems to escape you that most of the folks trying to kill our soldiers are not Iraqi. I wonder why, oh I know, it doesnt fit your preconcieved notions and cant possibly be the case, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions, it is America after all.
If we follow your solutions, cut and run, and leave our mess for somone else to clean up, that would be unAmerican. In addition, what message would it send to the rest of the world, to those who would ask America for help? Yeah call the Americans, the will come and leave our country in one big pile of rubble, yep thats the American way.
Maybe it is also escaping you that, as I said before, we are there, lets win this thing or get out.Your so busy attacking the messenger, that you cannot see the message. Posted by DAD0--------------------------------
It "escapes me that most of the folks trying to kill our soldiers are not Iraqi"? Why do you say that, because that jackanape, Donald Rumsfeld, said it? Is that your contribution? Do you have any believable evidence to back that up, any at all? Even a shred? Our military officers have stated off the record that 99.9% of the insurgents are Iraqi, which, perhaps counterintuitively for a Republican, makes sense due to the fact that we're occupying Iraq. It's amusing, the way you wring your hands over my "thoughtless bias". You even allow that a stupid person like me is allowed an opinion in America. Put your money where your mouth is and come up with the facts.
The only tentative allies we have are the Kurds. The reason for that is that we have given them an opportunity to seize the northern oil fields. Is that who "asked for our help"? That sounds like robbery, not democracy. In the meantime they are operating camps where victims are executed summarily under our tutelage, just as the Shiite "security" forces are doing. In the meantime, also, our thoroughly corrupt "interim government" has stolen billions from the American taxpayer, funnelled off to foreign banks.
Your pretensions that the US wanted to create anything resembling an authentic democracy are ludicrous. "Winning" in Iraq never meant anything more than either Plan "A" or Plan "B". Install a subservient, superficilly democratic central government to control Iraq in perpetuity or fracture Iraq as a nation and play one faction against the other. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the US eventually switches sides to the Sunnis to attack the Shiites.
Does a drunk who drives his car off the road into a ravine sit at the bottom and say, "I'm going to stay until I win"?
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 4:51pm
ILP & HMAN23:
It would be worse if we pulled out of Iraq because it would embolden the terrorists and those who support them.
Go back to what happened in Somolia. The solder being dragged through the streets was the catalyst for Clinton to cut and run. In an interview, Bid Laden said this was the moment in time he realized that if they drew American blood we would run. He said this is what convinced him to proceed with the attacks on 9/11. As a result of our leaving (in their eyes defeated) they were emboldened to raise the stakes in a big way.
The answer is to finish what we started in Iraq. Take out the terrorists and the factions that support them. The end result will be a safer and more stable world. This, by the way, is what Bush has been saying all along.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 4:51pm
My computer crashed when I tried to send the 4:17 post. The 4:51 post is basically the same thing.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 4:54pm
.
I don't know the Soviet casualty numbers in Afghanistan. (I doubt that it was over 20,000 dead.) I am sure however their losses were nowhere near their bloodletting in WWII. Then they suffered over 8 million dead, yet even that did not make the Kremlin say uncle.
You however, have adopted OBL's hallucination that his contribution in Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
You twit.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 5:06pm
I see the end result as the terrorist factions and all who support them being beaten, destroyed, put to waste. The result will be a safer, more civilized world. If we don't do this and do it now, we will suffer later for our lack of fortitude now. Posted by USAPRIDE 08/24/2005 @ 4:16pm------------------
The result would have been a safer, more civilized world if we hadn't created them in the first place through our predatory foreign policy. And at a much lower cost in blood and treasure. Needless to say, what we're doing is only whimsically referred to as "civilization".
The reason you can't see that is that you refuse to think of yourself or your country as having anything other than pure motives. Because of the need to maintain that blindspot you fashion a blind policy prescription as a wall to protect it.
When do we stop creating ever greater messes to cover up the messes we created in the past? Until we spiral down a drain of bankruptcy and endless war?
Americans will eventually choose to get on with a rational way of life, having faith in earning their own way, rather than seeking to dominate and exploit others. Your time is limited.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 5:07pm
You however, have adopted OBL's hallucination that his contribution in Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
You twit. Posted by NACL 08/24/2005 @ 5:06pm
If the contribution of the foreign fighters was so minor, why did the US ask the Saudis to organize such a massive operation to get them there? You should make a logical comment before referring to someone else as a "twit".
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 5:13pm
Fishbite,
" Having started reading these postings on The Nation in the last couple of weeks, I'm struck by the diversity of opinion. Not just liberals/progressives whacking ideas around, there are numerous conservatives also getting into the action. It seems that this may be in part because right wing sites/blogs typically offer much fewer opportunities for comment/reaction. Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject Aristocratic Right Wing Blogosphere Stagnating by Chris Bowers [mydd.com]"
I agree. I disagree with most progressives points of view, but I feel intellectually challenged on these blogs. RedState.org, Rush's site, and many other traditionally conservative blogs are filled mostly with only conservatives "preaching to the choir" so to say. I don't need to be preached to about a position I already tend to agree with. Conservative sites in some cases tend to do more "selection" on who they allow to post as well.
Ah hell, I guess what I'm trying to say is…
I kind of like you progressives, you challenge my intellect and most die hard "Bushites" conservatives don't.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 5:18pm
usapride should be called usablind, you really have no idea other than the Bush lies, do you. there is no job to finish, you cannot take out the terrorists, sure we can kill many more Iraqis, to what end, a Shia government? take your pick of the more than 35 rationales given for this war, we ain't winning any of them, today no oil flowed in Iraq, check the newspaper, Shia militias are attacking each other, can we spell civil war? wars are fought in order to bring about postwar realities of choice, does anyone still believe that freedom and democracy will be the postwar reality in Iraq. come now name one middle eastern arab country that has freedom and democracy. the big absurdity from Bush is that by going to war in Iraq we will spread peace in the region, get it : war, killing and destruction in Iraq, for at least the remainder of Bush's term, presto fixo peace breaks out all over the region, ha ha ha and right wing nuts, get used to it, all the soldiers in Iraq died in vain, they died in the service of a lie, they did not defend their country, and from the looks of the torture photos they were not heroes. the soldiers in the Civil War that fought for the south also died in defense of a lie, that it was not about slavery but the traditionds and values of the South, they died for a shameful cause, and so it is here, you can dress up the corpse that is the Iraq war with perfume and patriotism but it still stinks to high heaven, so right wingers stop to smell the stink emanating from the white house and the pentagon, it is the stink of death
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2005 @ 5:19pm
Redbird,
Again, you put words and meanings into my post that were never there. Are you sure your responding to me? You seem to have lumped me in the same category as those currently in power. As if I ever stated I what the goal was in Iraq. I never did, and still dont. All I know is that we are still there, and its not going well, and there appears to be no end in sight.
Its too bad that you do not show the same courtesy as to allow others to have differing opinions. It occurs to me that it is pointless to attempt discourse with you as whatever arguments or evidence I present will be spun, misintrepreted, taken out of context, and used to support your views. Besides, I have to go now and take my kids to football practice. :)
You really should find a productive channel for all of that hate, you never know, you could really do some good. Welcome to the bozo bin.
*click* "and just like that, he was gone"
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:19pm
Phil,
"who always scream of how much they hate us, still come here to enjoy free speech. Ironic, isn't it?"
Phil, progressives preach tolerance which includes not stereotyping people. I have never said I "hated" progressives, please don't stereotype all as progressive haters. I have read the many quotes from conservatives that had verbiage close to what you are referring to, but not all conservatives fit that example.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 5:23pm
NACL- According to your 3:23 PM post, things are going great over there in the Middle East what with folks mulling over elections, Saddam gone, rule of Baath ended, Libya without nukes. All this, and achieved with US casualties that pale in comparison with those in WWII or Vietnam. Point 1 - at what point do the US casualties begin to matter to you? Point 2 - since when did disagreement with the administration turn into making our bed with mass-murdering fanatics? I derive absolutely no joy from foreseeing disasters - why do you think that your fellow citizens, the liberals, could possibly be enjoying any part of this? The fact that we were right, that Bush and his staff would move this country in a disastrous direction brings with it a little I-told-you-so feeling, but no pleasure.
Posted by Fishbite at 08/24/2005 @ 5:23pm
NACL:
I seem to recall GWB making a photo op landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring the war was over. That was over two years ago...on the deck of the USS Lincoln he states..."major combat operations in Iraq have ended...we have seen the turning of the tide." [5/2/2003]
Got a heads up there Georgie-boy...don't know what ocean you're looking at, but the tide's been rising, oh for like the past 2 years!
We haven't had near the personnel loss of past wars, this is true. However we are getting close to the number that are being "mistakenly avenged" [in quotes, as the premise of a 9/11 connection was BS] and we are most certainly having a fiscal hemorrhage, the likes of which we haven't seen before.
Constitution...will believe it when I see it. I estimate we will end up with a theocratic framework that pisses of the Sunnis and is "unkind" to females. The two "winning" factions will cheer for a few days until the Sunnis (now trained AND armed) roll out and start an armed conflict.
This is becoming the military equivalent of 43-Man Sqaumish [collectmad.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 5:24pm
OKSPORTSGUY - You are one of the reasons I enjoy reading these postings, because even though I'm fairly sure we have radically different world views, political opinions, etc., you express yourself reasonably and have an interesting perspective (here and there!). Not so, unfortunately, with some of the other folks from the right that post here.
Posted by Fishbite at 08/24/2005 @ 5:28pm
FROMREDBIRD:
can you be any more dense? the goal of these terrorists is to undo western culture, undo womens rights, undo most the of liberties we hold dear and create an world order based on the prinicples of islam. they say this themselves. how can anyone be so nieve? You think that the terroist understand even the most basic complexities of foreign policy? this would be funny if you didn't actually mean it. There have been those who pervert islam (and all other religions) for thousands of years in order to advance their own mistaken view of how the world should be, long before the US. No one argues that the US doesn't follow its own motives, find a country on earth that doesn't act in its own self-interest. that is the nature of foreign affairs that so many on the bozo-left(this is the far left, not general democrats) forget to realize. I think that you and vanden heuvel and all others that believe this non-sense go over their and try to negotiate with the terrorists and those who want an islamic caliphate. go ahead and learn the hard way. just make sure your not a women or else you will be beaten for speaking out.
So the US should not pursue its own policies and best interests because it pisses off a bunch of deranged fascists bent on shaping the entire world in what they mistakenly think mohammed wants? what about those in the middle east that do business with the US, who admire western education institutions, its respect for human rights, who move to the west to escape the 7th century life. Do you really think that the terrorists speak for the majority? Sorry for the tone, but ridiculous arguments like your only weaken the debate and distract us from discussing important real solutions.
Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:30pm
FISHBITE:
oh yeah i forgot the country was not disastorous before we got there. it was going in the right direction, right? its too bad we interfered in Iraq and turned the once prosperous country into a hell-hole.
Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:37pm
CMBENNETT23 - Among the various hyperbolic statements in your 5:30 pm post, you appear to be associating Islamist terrorism with the loss of women's rights. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert on Islamic law but I understand that Sharia laws have been introduced in Niger, for example, that restrict women to the back of buses, etc. This is not a terrorist agenda, but a fundamentalist Islamic one.
Another thing- of course the US should pursue its own best interests. The question is, how does it best do that? One of the key objectives of Bin Ladenism is to get the US out of Islam's holy places, remove our hold over oil production, etc. How does continuing to fight in Iraq help us? How would installation of a puppet regime help us?
What's ridiculous is characterizing our role as fighting a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. Shouldn't we be using every bit of diplomatic, economic, political (and military if there's a role) capabilities to remove the conditions in which terrorism becomes a viable tactic?
Posted by Fishbite at 08/24/2005 @ 5:48pm
CMBENNET23 - Whoah, you're posting faster than me! I can't keep up.
You said: oh yeah i forgot the country was not disastorous before we got there. it was going in the right direction, right? its too bad we interfered in Iraq and turned the once prosperous country into a hell-hole.
Correct, Iraq was a mess - remember the sanctions? And by the way, is that our role - helping clean up the hell-holes of the world?
Posted by Fishbite at 08/24/2005 @ 5:51pm
Actually before Saddaam Iraq wasn't so bad I hear (well, aside from the occasional stoning)...but obviously you can't turn back the clock. Maybe if we had whacked him in Bush War 1, when the world was a bit more behind us it would have been different. (After all, they did invade Kuwait...) But...woulda, coulda, shoulda.
However, aside from trying to control oil, I fail to see how pissing off the entire world and creating the world's biggest terrorist training camp falls into the category of "serving our best interests." [If they can make it there, they'll make it anywhere...(to the tune of NY, NY)]
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 5:55pm
.
Your ability to handle a logical comment matches a goat's ass' use of window wipers.
Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 5:56pm
Fishbite.....good pickup. We are fighting an intangible concept that has a varying group of followers. You are right, this is not the way to "fight the wind". But "What is?" becomes the question....
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 6:07pm
usapride: I was looking for something more concrete, but I guess all you can do is regurgitate the old "War on Terror" rhetoric. Too bad for you 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. I am all for bringing to justice those responsible for 9/11 and any other terrorist attack on the U.S., but where was Al Queda after 9/11? Not in Iraq - until we decided to invade. Then they showed up in droves. If we leave, what is AQ going to do? Form their own country? Be so emboldened that they start invading other countries? What evidence do you have that they have that kind of capability? If we reduced our military presence in the Middle East an in Islamic countries, what would AQ do? Continue to attack us until we left Europe?
Your response was nothing more than hollow scare tactics. Another thing, you condemn what you call "cut-and-run." So how to you square that with our quiet withdrawal of U.S. forces from our Saudi Arabia bases in 2003 with the fact that the U.S. military presence there was one of bin Laden's reasons for attacking the U.S.? Was this not this cutting-and-running too?
Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 6:24pm
Repost due to some confusing typos:
usapride: I was looking for something more concrete, but I guess all you can do is regurgitate the old "War on Terror" rhetoric. Too bad for you 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. I am all for bringing to justice those responsible for 9/11 and any other terrorist attack on the U.S., but where was Al Queda after 9/11? Not in Iraq - until we decided to invade. Then they showed up in droves. If we leave, what is AQ going to do? Form their own country? Be so emboldened that they start invading other countries? What evidence do you have that they have that kind of capability? If we reduced our military presence in the Middle East, what would AQ do? Continue to attack us until we left Europe?
Your response was nothing more than hollow scare tactics. Another thing, you condemn what you call "cut-and-run." So how to you square that with our quiet withdrawal of U.S. forces from our Saudi Arabia bases in 2003 with the fact that the U.S. military presence there was one of bin Laden's reasons for attacking the U.S.? Was this not this cutting-and-running too?
Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 6:27pm
.
Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 6:39pm
NACL : Well first off I am not a left fascist, and I resent that you think you know me well enough to even make the accusation. You think I want this war to drag on forever? You are sorely mistaken and more than a bit deluded.
We have 138,000 forces in country and more on the way...including my firstborn thank you very much. Sounds kinda major to me.
Bush, Cheney and the whole crew crowed 9/11 and Saddaam in the same breath every chance they could right up until the war was going on, then they denied they did it. Do you watch the news? Polls indicate the result is that 1/2 the US ppl STILL think the two are connected. This is not a fabrication and if the is the first you've heard of a 9/11 - Iraq connection statement by the admin, I want some of what your on cause you've been out of it for a couple of years! Guess they were banking on the intentional misperception and the "can't unring the bell" concept. It worked....doesn't make it morally correct though.
..And no, I don't think a rapidly patched together constitution will hold. Sure, it could and if it does great...I'm wrong, so what. However, look at the track record in the middle east. How long they been fighting in the Israel / Palestine area now...2000 years? I'm just looking at the probabilities.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 6:54pm
?welcomed as liberators? you be the judge!
Thu, 3 Feb 2005 03:45:36 -0800 (PST) From: "Najah Abood" > View Contact Details Subject: ELECTION To:
DEAR STEVE THE FAIR [/fear] IS AWAY ANDI TOOK ALL FAMILY FOR ELECTION EVEN THEIR IS A THREAT OF BOMBS AND TERREIST BUT NEVER THE LESS WITH OUT US [that's "US" as in United STates] WE WILL RETUR BACK TO DENGIN [?dangerous] AND DARK AGES .WE ARE SAFE FOR TIME BEING HOPING THE SITUATION WILL BE IMPROVED . ....
THE FAMILY SAFE AND WE HAVE MID TERM HOILDAY OR SPRING HOILDAY BUT WE STAY HOMEAND DIDNT TRAVAL.... THE WEATHER START TO WORM UP .HIFFA,SAMA AND MOONAF SEND THEIR REGARDS,AND WORM HELLO ,TODAY LIFE RETURN NATURAL TO BASRAH. ALL THE BEST NAJAH
Posted by sagrabe at 08/24/2005 @ 7:17pm
NACL, The problem with your comparison of war costs with Medicair/Medicaid costs is that Medicair/Medicaid money is used to help people with the cost of medical care, people who are US citizens and taxpayers.
The war costs are used (mainly) to fight an unnecessary war of aggression.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 8:16pm
RIO BRAVO, For someone with such a low opinion of this site you sure do visit quite often.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 8:19pm
ILOVEPHYSICS,
I was reading somewhere the otherday, I cant recall where, that the govt has only spent something like $80 billion of the $200 allocated for the war. I wonder where the other $120 is. That would be interesting to find out.
Posted by Dad0 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:31pm
You really should find a productive channel for all of that hate, you never know, you could really do some good. Welcome to the bozo bin. *click* "and just like that, he was gone" Posted by DAD0 08/24/2005 @ 5:19pm
Gee whiz, I apologize for asking you for some facts to back up your talking points when you didn't have any. Take solace in the fact that you convinced the whole world that I'm "full of hate". Have a good rest of your life. Everyone else can read my responses to your contributions.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 9:19pm
FROMREDBIRD: can you be any more dense? Posted by CMBENNETT23 08/24/2005 @ 5:30pm
Oh yeah, if I were to carry on a "conversation" with someone whose knowledge of their chosen subject is nothing more than a melange of buzzwords.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 9:31pm
leftofcenter, what the hell are you talking about, the Israelis and the Palestinians fighting for 2000 years, when have you read a history book if ever. the state of Israel was founded in 1948. prior to WW1 Palestine was part of the turkish empire for something like 600 years. there have been jews living in that area for a few thousands years and arabs too and while their relations were sometimes strained they were not at war with each other. this casual ignorance is just appalling.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/24/2005 @ 9:31pm
.
Don't worry, I know you well enough. You wrote:
You apparently did not hear that Saddam amputated the tongues of critics, started a war that killed 750,000 Iranians and Iraqis, murdered 5,000 at Halabja, wared for years against the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south and ethnically cleansed both, attacked Kuwait and deported hundreds into his prisons from which they never again emerged, threatened to turn Israel into a sheet of flame, gave suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses, avenged himself on his political prisoners by forcing them to watch their wives raped and children tortured, and put 300,000 Shia into mass graves, according to the UN and HRW.
Who was deaf to that news? If only 10% of it was true, who could deem Saddam's Iraq as not really so bad? Only the kind of lowlife capable of saying, Hitler was really not that terrible. No human being with any sense, or compassion can consider such a creature, who made losing sport teams afraid for their lives, not really so bad. Or are you really too stupid to understand the import of your words? !
You rail at right wingers, at Bush or Cheney, and have the effrontery to say, "Saddam's Iraq, wasn't so bad, I hear." From whom did you hear that? From which democrat? From which thinking, feeling human being? You resent me calling you a fascist, because you support an insurgency that hates democracy and tolerance and free speech? You urine specimen, what position are you in to resent anything? You are a reptile, a loathsome and deceiving apologist for mass murder and endless cruelty.
Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 9:32pm
And RIO, just so, at least on this count, you're not belabored by ignorance, we actually borrowed the idea of the "ignore" button from the rightwing TownHall site, where it's been effectively in use for some time. This idea is about as much a liberal conspiracy as the MSM!
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/24/2005 @ 9:42pm
.
We were talking of what is hemorrhaging the nation. If we bleed to death it doesn't matter whether the leak was in the rectum or in the throat. If we go bankrupt it doesn't matter if the reason was exorbitant medical expenses or weapon costs, we are just as broke. What matters is not where the leak is but where is it torrential? Our medical spending is where. Those costs are out of control and they can sink us, even if we don't invest a dime in Iraq. Seniors are spending more on health costs now, than before Medicare existed. The average per diem hospital bed cost before 1965 was under $100. Now a day in the hospital averages around $4,000. Nor are we any healthier. Costs have merely gone through the roof.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 9:51pm
1. You however, have adopted OBL's hallucination that his contribution in Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
You twit. Posted by NACL 08/24/2005 @ 5:06pm
2. If the contribution of the foreign fighters was so minor, why did the US ask the Saudis to organize such a massive operation to get them there? You should make a logical comment before referring to someone else as a "twit". Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/24/2005 @ 5:13pm
3. Your ability to handle a logical comment matches a goat's ass' use of window wipers. Posted by NACL 08/24/2005 @ 5:56pm
I was hoping you could answer the question but if you want to substitute an excuse, go right ahead.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 9:51pm
Oh dear, when NACL comes out with
"You resent me calling you a fascist, because you support an insurgency that hates democracy and tolerance and free speech? You urine specimen, what position are you in to resent anything? You are a reptile, a loathsome and deceiving apologist for mass murder and endless cruelty."
it kind of makes me reach towards "ignore this person". Has NACL said anything worth reading? I'm a bit tired of opponents of Bush being tagged as supporters of the insurgency. This extends "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to "the opponent of my policy is the friend of my enemy" or something like that.
And pardon me if I don't follow the logic - $200 billion spent on Iraq (or whatever the number is or will become) doesn't matter because we're spending so much more on health care? Is this your approach for your own finances?
Posted by Fishbite at 08/24/2005 @ 10:15pm
Katrina I pity the time, if any, you spend reading through some of the rightwing bullshit on this blog. Bush is playing out the role of the idiot king as America wastes away in an avalanche and growing tsunami of debt and bad foreign and domestic policy. The battle between American "interests" and Islamic and other anti-American reactionaries is like a game of chess, and they have us mated. What better strategy could any under-militarized and under-funded group seeking to do in the US have, than to engage the hubris of men bent on poorly thought out military solutions, in a costly low voltage and bloody war? They won already. Some estimate came out today of the war's potential costs soaring over the trillion dollar mark. America, under republican guidance has gone insane.
Posted by parulis at 08/24/2005 @ 10:15pm
You apparently did not hear that Saddam amputated the tongues of critics, started a war that killed 750,000 Iranians and Iraqis, murdered 5,000 at Halabja, wared for years against the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south and ethnically cleansed both, attacked Kuwait and deported hundreds into his prisons from which they never again emerged, threatened to turn Israel into a sheet of flame, gave suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses, avenged himself on his political prisoners by forcing them to watch their wives raped and children tortured, and put 300,000 Shia into mass graves, according to the UN and HRW. Posted by NACL 08/24/2005 @ 9:32pm
True: attacked Kuwait and deported hundreds into his prisons from which they never again emerged
More or less true: threatened to turn Israel into a sheet of flame (actually, he threatened to "burn" Israel)
Not true: gave suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses ( he gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers to rebuild the family houses that Israel demolished after the fact, the latter being a war crime)
No evidence: Saddam amputated the tongues of critics
No evidence: avenged himself on his political prisoners by forcing them to watch their wives raped and children tortured (there actually is evidence that the US has done this- DOD won't release photos that show it)
No evidence: murdered 5,000 at Halabja (that's why the US Army attributed the attack to Iran; and, since the subject came up, why did the US supply Saddam the chemical feedstocks and expertise to manufacture chemical weapons? Do you advocate that Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld be tried for war crimes?)
True but the US was complicit: started a war that killed 750,000 Iranians and Iraqis
True but the US was complicit: wared(sic) for years against the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south and ethnically cleansed both
No evidence of numbers claimed and the US was complicit: put 300,000 Shia into mass graves, according to the UN and HRW
NACL, your argument is built on quicksand.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/24/2005 @ 10:28pm
Dear lefttocenter: This IS MAD PLATO. I WAS being sarcastic & tongue-in-cheek with my post of the 5 things about Iraq. I was actually espousing sentiments of the NeoCons. If you check out my Archives [madplato.blogspot.com] you will find that I am a very good gadfly and one of Bush's top-notch critics. Sincerely, MP.
Posted by Mad Plato at 08/24/2005 @ 10:58pm
Hey everybody. I haven't put anyone on the ignore list and I still have nothing new from Aludra. Guess somebody ran out of gas. Life is good.
Posted by Delmark.G at 08/24/2005 @ 11:16pm
I'll call this post:
A letter to the President with a CC to all the people in America
Here's the first thing I would do.
The first thing I would do is ask everyone that "supports" the war to put up or shut up.
Physics, will shoot me, but I must quote myself again:
And this is what I would everyone, primarily the other conservatives so hell bent on supporting the war (which everyone knows that I do):
The difference between a conviction and a statement is one's willingness to die for the first.
Pat Tillman, and Cindy Sheehans son, and every other soldier who has lost a life in this war understood that concept well before I ever stated it.
There are evil people in this world, and Saddam was of them. I know progressives shiver at the thought of the concept of good and evil, however I fully believe this to be true.
Hitler and Musulini, were others that exuded evil, just to give some perspective.
Now, we must get some clarification, real communication, and honest answers as to how President Bush plans to finish this thing.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, I make no apologies for Bush. Yes I voted for him, and yes I'm a conservative, but I have serious criticisms about his handling of the war, and the constant saber rattling, and rhetoric, and "feel good" speeches that come from his mouth. I want some real answers, real time tables, and real explanations on how this war will proceed and finish, including an exit strategy.
Bush you got my vote, but don't take it for granted, I expect you to act as the commander in chief accordingly, AND YOU AREN'T DOING IT.
Wow, I feel better now.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 11:33pm
Mad Plato...sorry bout that. Here, take a look-see here Bush Blues [geodude.home.mchsi.com]...and the links off it.
NACL Per the Wikipedia entry on Fascism: Another key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack or absorb the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Peter Fritzsche and others have described fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism.
Long story short....you're probably (by definition) a helluva lot more of a fascist than I. Do your homework `fore you come to class or I'll have to get the ruler out!
re: "Actually before Saddaam Iraq wasn't so bad I hear." (Posted by 08/24/2005 @ 5:55pm)
Please note that I said BEFORE Saddaam. Apparently your right-sightedness only permits you to see what you want because you quote me in text as "Saddam's Iraq, wasn't so bad, I hear." which is just plain false.
Don't worry...I'll only slap you with my "left" hand...BTW: are you on Dubya's speech-writing team perchance? Seem to have a knack for misinformation....
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 11:54pm
Todd....I see some bits of consensus. As civilized folk we can agree to disagree on some things, and agree on others it seems. Perhaps there's hope yet!
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 11:59pm
Bush Tells Troops 'We Will Win the War' Published: August 25, 2005 NAMPA, Idaho (AP)
"So long as I'm the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror," Bush told National Guard troops and their families.
"The stakes in Iraq could not be higher," he added, painting a bleak scenario if U.S. troops retreat and insurgents prevail. "We will not allow the terrorists to establish new places of refuge in failed states from which they can recruit and train and plan new attacks on our citizens," he said. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush.html?ex=1125547200&en=2fa0ff4db861fa51&ei=5070&emc=eta1
This is what Republicans call a leader. He creates a failed state where none previously existed and then tells America that we can't leave because it's a failed state. He also expects us to believe that Iraq is the only place in the world where terrorists are able to read an airline or subway schedule, mix chemicals in a bathtub, or buy a boxcutter. He also assumes that we don't remember that fewer terrorist attacks had been launched against Americans from Iraqi territory under Saddam Hussein than from the territory of the United States under George Bush.
The man's logic is compellingly elegant. I want to be a Republican. Where can I buy a tinfoil hat?
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 01:44am
American's need a wake up call too - George Bush indisputably stole the election in 2000!
American media has enveloped the Bush presidency in a protective cocoon. [consortiumnews.com]
Posted by rob.olywa at 08/25/2005 @ 02:09am
Fish...re: "the enemy of my enemy" line of thought. Its a spin of history that repeats itself.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
NACL Please see my 11:54PM response....short version. Learn to read.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 07:21am
for Rio Bravo and a few others who have inquired:
I am tied up this week catching up with some business and some visiting missionaries at my house. I will return but I do notice that the liberal side has the record needle stuck. But I understand that can happen when you rely on just the emotional hate of Bush, Conservatives and especially we Conservative Christians.
It's ok though, even the dinosaurs caused a lot of damage in their final days, but they still died out like hardcore leftists will (the dinosaurs of modern politics).
Mahalo
Posted by love liberty at 08/25/2005 @ 09:56am
NACL: I don't know the Soviet casualty numbers in Afghanistan. (I doubt that it was over 20,000 dead.) I am sure however their losses were nowhere near their bloodletting in WWII. Then they suffered over 8 million dead, yet even that did not make the Kremlin say uncle.
You however, have adopted OBL's hallucination that his contribution in Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
You twit. well, Mr. Salty, was it just an oversight that you omitted the fact that 8 million Soviets died in WWII defending the homeland, but that Afghanistan was a colonialist adventure that the people lost their stomach for? I really expected a better answer than that from the guy who took so much time to explain how the Dixiecrats lost the South to Republicans. Will you be surprised if the current Mess'o'potamia causes the South (and all people of conscience) to turn to the Democrats?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/25/2005 @ 10:37am
Jo-Rolf point of clarity: I did not mean to indicate that people of a specific "nation" have been fighting for 2000 years...but the peoples of this region have. That much I will stand by (OK..so they were Phoenecians and Canaanites back then....)
snap of the past 50-60 years: http://www.historyguy.com/arab-israeli_war_links.html
the "way back" http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_lebanonphoenicians.htm
Someone has always been kicking somebody's butt in the region for an AWFUL long time...sure some periods of peace...bound to happen, but conflict seems to be much more common in that neighborhood!
LL busy, busy I see, 'a'ole pilikia bruddah (I live da Big Island 10 years...)
There's a thread betwween me and Todd (OKSport) that you might want to weigh in on in the Bush's Iraq Fantasy
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 10:38am
.
Your first mistake is your handle. You are not a redbird. You are a woodpecker, but with a terrible defect.
You start out by claiming, it never happen but in the same breath you reflexively blame the US for it happening.
Here is a November 2004 HRW statement: [hrw.org]
During the past thirty years, the government of Saddam Hussein engaged in three wars and numerous campaigns to repress the Kurdish, Shi`a, and Marsh Arab populations, resulting in the disappearance--and, most certainly, the deaths--of between 250,000 and 290,000 people.47 By February 2004, the Combined Forensic Team of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had collected information on 259 mass graves in Iraq. Of these, U.S. military criminal investigation teams had conducted preliminary assessments of fifty-five sites by February 2004.48
Tony Blair, on the floor of the House of Commons - read out United Nations statements claiming that some 300,000 bodies lie in mass graves in Iraq, and that this alone justifies the US-UK invasion.
The 2003 US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices [state.gov] cited UN officials and UN Special Rapporteurs as estimating the execution of 300,000 Iraqi civilians and possibly as many as 1.3 million people killed in Saddam's time in power.
The NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE of April 15, 2005 ran a story on newly discovered graves: [signonsandiego.com]
" ... the graves would be among the largest in the grim tally of mass killings that have gradually come to light since the fall of Hussein's government two years ago. At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the U.S.-led invasion two years ago ..."
The BBC ran this: [news.bbc.co.uk]
How was the US complicit? The war began in Sept 1980. At that time Iraq was in the Soviet camp, whereas America listed her as a rogue state. The US had a law forbidding the sale of any weapons to Iraq. The US had not had so much as diplomatic relations with Iraq since 1967. Relations were not resumed until Nov 1984.
That is as untrue as the former statement.
No evidence? A subcommittee of the US Congress held a special session on Halabja. Physicians and scientists who had visited the city testified. Mirage and MIG jets dropped cannisters of poison gas on Halabja across several days. Some of the cannisters were recovered. They contained a cocktail of poisons from a Soviet formula concocted by Saddam's technicians trained in Leningrad laboratories, and using French and German laboratory equipment. There was no US involvement. The US delivered no chemical equipment or expertise. None of the cultures America supplied were in militarized form, or were militarized. None of the chemicals the US supplied ever found their way into weapons. Saddam undertook many poison attacks following the first in Nov 1980 on Susengard. None of that had anything to do with the US which for years thereafter did not so much as have diplomatic relations with Iraq.
No evidence, eh? Look at the Web. For example, a health coordinator for a refugee health program in Yemen reported in January 2002 that an Iraqi child had been subjected to injections which caused severe mental deterioration, in retaliation for the father's opposition politics. Saddam's sons threw women to pet lions to avenge themselves on their husbands.
Nicholas D. Kristof, a New York Times Op-Ed Columnist tracked down people who had ears and tongues amputated [cnn.com]
In the clinic of the Abu Ghraib prison, nine Baghdad merchants were video taped undergoing surgery to remove their healthy right hands, [military.com] on the orders of Saddam Hussein.
Baghdad, Iraq Press, March 1st , 2004 – The ousted regime of Saddam Hussein amputated the ears or tongues [wadinet.de]of at least 3,600 Iraqis
The US State Department report for 2003 describes "Cruel and unusual punishments prescribed by the law, including amputations [state.gov] and branding. In 2000, the authorities introduced tongue amputation as a punishment for persons who criticized Saddam Hussein or his family. Soldiers had their ears cut off as punishment for desertion. An "X" was branded on their foreheads so that citizens would not think that they were wounded war veterans. In February 2002, the Minister of the Interior admitted the existence of this practice, but claimed "it had now definitively ceased."
House demolition is a time honored form of punishment in that region. The Jordanians, British and Turks practiced it before the Israelis. Nor have those bonuses anything to do with whether or not a home of a suicide bomber's family is demolished, which it often is not. Nor did the Iraqis or Palestinians connect those bonuses with demolished home.
Paul McGeough of the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the Arab Liberation Front's Ma'amoon Tayeh as saying the extra $15,000 would encourage more suicide-bomber volunteers to "confirm the legitimacy of our national questions."
Dr Hassan Khraisheh, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council told the crowd he had just returned from a solidarity conference in Baghdad, said some families believed the money should be sent back to Iraq because of the hardships imposed by sanctions; others used the money to "buy weapons to defend Palestine". [smh.com.au]
You are quick to deny and belie and to distort. And you think that puts the quicksand under my feet.
You are as useless as a woodpecker with rubber lips.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 10:48am
.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. We were talking of OBL conceit that he brought on the collapse of the USSR. I think it is just your habit of shaking your lips whether you have a thought or not. I suggest you go fart peas at the moon.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 10:59am
.
If you think a movement which considers voting a capital offense, and which denounces religious toleration, freedom of speech and Jews, and whose modus operandi is terrorizing people into submission with unspeakable acts of brutality, and if you think that is not fascism, suit yourself. If you want to think it is just healthy fun which a humanitarian like yourself can safely and decently embrace, I'm not the one to dispute you.
BTW, speaking of militant, right wing populism, that describes the Baath. It has national socialist features. Its Volk idea is pan Arabism. And Islamism is reactionary to the core, which is why it is, Islamo-fascism.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 11:09am
NACL, oh Mr. Salty, you do make me laugh! We weren't talking about OBL's conceit, we were talking about how publics lose their stomach for colonialist adventures, yet will sacrifice 8 million citizens in defense of their homeland. Perhaps rather than fart peas at the moon, I should shit directly in your salty little mouth: My "Gravity's Rainbow" present to you!
Posted by nathanhale at 08/25/2005 @ 11:09am
.
I really wish you would ignore me. You say you don't follow my logic, you don't think what I say is worth reading. So what is stopping you?
Look, I'll throw a stick and you go chase it. But don't come back!
.
Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 11:19am
Pass It On - The Most Peaceful Button On Earth
King Bu$h rides his bike around his ranch for hours...
BUT... Behind His Back... CINDY, FRIENDS and ECs
Greet Each Other Around Planet Earth
With the
EARTH CITIZEN ( EC ) Hand-Shake / Hand-Sign
EC Sign Is Made by...
Connecting the Middle Finger with the Thumb…
The Resulting Circle Signifies...
OUR SHARED PLANET EARTH
The Raised Index Finger - Is A Reminder that...
WE Are ALL ONE PEOPLE
The Most Peaceful Button On Earth
See`at http://www.RogerART.com
Posted by RogerARTcom at 08/25/2005 @ 11:27am
What's really telling about FREIHEIT's first post is that he states "Whether Bush lied or not ...".
Please, by what standard are we to accept "whether we were lied to"?
Like all things built on deceit it is domed to fail. One would have to be as brain-dead as Terri Shaivo not to know by now that this whole administration is built on a pack of lies.
I've come to the conclusion that if you still support this corrupt administration you have to be one of, if not all of the following: 1) misinformed, which can be helped 2) stupid, which can't or m3) fascist, which makes you the mortal enemy of America
Posted by Gonnuts at 08/25/2005 @ 11:47am
Oh come on guys,, Bush works 24/7.....24 mins a week and 7 months a year..
Posted by bayside at 08/25/2005 @ 11:47am
"considers voting a capital offense, and which denounces religious toleration, freedom of speech and Jews, and whose modus operandi is terrorizing people into submission with unspeakable acts of brutality"
NACL
Which movement are you referring to that does this? I though I was supposed to be the fascist...now I'm a movment or representing one? Your lack of logic is a bit perplexing....
Sounds like you need to call Rush Limbaugh and get a few Oxycotins and calm down. I never said I condoned any of that....you misread and misquoted me re: Iraq. However I notice you choose not to field that part of my response.
re: "Actually before Saddaam Iraq wasn't so bad I hear." (Posted by 08/24/2005 @ 5:55pm)
Please note that I said BEFORE Saddaam. Apparently your right-sightedness only permits you to see what you want because you quote me in text as "Saddam's Iraq, wasn't so bad, I hear." which is just plain false.
For the record, I am a social liberal, fiscal conservative (unlike spend-heavy, BIG gov't Bush) with a bit of a libertarian bent (small Fed, more power to local gov't) and a smattering of green values....being an environmental scientist and all... Go to the Iraq Fantasy thread and see my religious views. Up there for all to see. I have nothing to hide. Howzabout you salt-lick?
There...now you actually know me well enough to form an informed epithet
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 12:09pm
Hey guys . . . poop. That's all I have to say. Poop.
Posted by headexplode at 08/25/2005 @ 12:37pm
What's up with the "ignore" button? Where's the fun in that? The best part of reading the posts are the delusional, half-witted responses from right-wing fundamentalists. The rest of those who post here are self-involved left-wing hack intellectuals. And there is nothing funny about them.
Posted by headexplode at 08/25/2005 @ 12:49pm
So what are you, Headexplode: a nihilist?
Posted by Hattie at 08/25/2005 @ 1:36pm
.
I missed this 2 point post of yours from yesterday. It raises some interesting questions.
Obviously, for a spouse, parents, child there is no point where the loss in war of a loved one begins to matter. It matters from the first, enormously and incalculably, whether the victim was the war's only casualty or fell alongside a million others.
From the perspective of a mother there is no relativizing death. But there is from a national security perspective. Then a loss/gain calculus applies, and a nation's values are involved. Thus, in WWII Britain was prepared to bitterly resist a German invasion and fight on from Canada. Russia sacrificed 8 million soldiers and 20 million civilians. France surrendered after six weeks. The Serbs lost an even higher percentage of their people. Israel left one percent of her entire population on the 1948 battlefield. In US terms that would mean three million graves.
WWII saw the US spend three hundred thousand lives on a preventive war, to defeat the Axis far away and avoid having eventually to fight them on American soil. That was acceptable. But had the various landings failed, and had the country faced half a million body bags and little progress, she would before long have reconsidered her oversea commitments.
Korea tested our resolve, to not let Communists succeed by naked force. That principle could be defended at the cost of twenty, thirty thousand men. The US was a country of 150 million. But losses in the hundreds of thousands and even millions, for the sake of South Korea, would not have gone down. When Mao's Red Army made its move after WWII, missions under Wedemeyer and Marshall decided that defending Chiang Kai-shek's China was not worth what it would cost in US lives.
Today, as the only superpower, we have unique responsibilities. For example, to make nuclear nonproliferation stick. And we alone are in a position to promote a non-authoritarian alternative to the usual Arab regime.
Islamists see East and West as irreconcilable. They see a western wave which they must turn back, or drown. That was what 9/11 was about, an attempt to splinter the glass towers of the West. Iraq is the counteroffensive, the insistence that Muslims can swim in open societies, that western standards of human rights, individual liberty, etc., are not incompatible with the ways of the Arabs.
Are we prepared to back this gambit at any and all cost? No, not at any and all cost. But at considerable cost. It involves a great matter. Much is at stake. It deserves a mighty, sustained effort.
For a nation which not long ago shrugged at 2,200 homicides yearly, just in NYC alone, 700 to 800 deaths a year in Iraq, are not unsustainable. Even if those numbers were tripled, that kind of bloodletting would not weaken this nation of 300 million, and could be defended politically.
What disaster has Bush brought us? Is it a disaster that US ships, embassies, skyscrapers are no longer attacked with impunity? Bin Laden is now a hunted creature living in caves, afraid to make a telephone call. Most of his staff are dead or captured. The Taliban are scattered. Afghanistan is slowly adjusting to an elected govt. Saddam and his nuclear ambition, no longer have a nation to play with. The entire Middle East is feeling the winds of change. Those who pulled down the Twin Towers realize, they are worse off than before 9/11. They have tackles a mighty opponent who is not about to collapse. They have reaped more than they bargained for.
You were right about what? That Iraq was better off under Saddam? That terror is best fought by ignoring a vicious regime conspicuously taunting and defying the US? That tackling the Arab's Saladin,the one intent on proving the US a paper tiger, was a mistake? You haven't yet considered that the one who miscalculated was Saddam.
The administration undertook Iraq, stressing the positive, the opportunities. It insisted the enterprise would succeed. It did not stress the dangers and reasons it might fail. You think that was a failure of leadership. It proves you prescient and wise and the administration dumb and ignorant. You jerk.
The problem is not that The Nation and its friends, are disagreeing with the administration. The problem is, they, which is to say, you are agreeing with the insurgents. You, or most of you, supported Saddam against the no fly zone, against the inspectors, against the sanctions, against the US decision to wring the neck of the Baathists. You stood with and are yet on the side of the most patent and rancid fascists.
You cannot choose sides and not be held responsible for your choice. You have made your bed. You have collaborated with fascists. You became apologists for the scum of the earth. That was your decision. Now live with it.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 1:38pm
.
The movement you now bring to mind relates to a fishy smelling septic pool into which I wish you'd take a flying leap. You are about as sharp.
Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 1:42pm
HEADER;
" POOP " is your contribution? Well, that certainly trumps any of my hack intellectual musings! Congradulations!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 1:42pm
Headexplode,
The "ignore" button only applies to people that you choose to ignore. If you choose not to ignore anyone, then you will get all the half-witted posts that you desire.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 1:43pm
MAD KING GEORGE III HAS MADE THE PRESS MAD BY FRYING THEM IN CRAWFORD FOR FIVE WEEKS.
MAD KING GEORGE III VACATIONS IN CRAWFORD WHILE THE MEDIA GET FRIED IN THAT HELL HOLE, CRAWFORD TEXAS. DIDN'T ROVE ADVISE HIM THAT THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS HAVE NOTHING TO DO, NO PLACE TO STAY, AND NO PLACE TO GO, IN THAT INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED RANCH LOCATED IN CRAWFORD. HOW CAN HE CALL HIMSELF "COMPASSIONATE" WHEN HE THINKS ABOUT NOTHING BUT RIDING HIS BIKE WITH THE TOUR DE FRANCE CHAMPION. HE RIDES WHILE EVERYONE ELSE "STEWS".
MAUREEN DOWD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES DESCRIBES THIS CAVALIER ATTITUDE IN HER MARVELOUS COLUMN. SHE HAS W DOWN TO A T SHOT, AND DOES NOT SPARE THE SWINGS. SHE STATED:
"W. vacationed so hard in Texas he got bushed. He needed a vacation from his vacation.
The most rested president in American history headed West yesterday to get away from his Western getaway - and the mushrooming Crawford Woodstock - and spend a couple of days at the Tamarack Resort in the rural Idaho mountains.
"I'm kind of hangin' loose, as they say," he told reporters.
As The Financial Times noted, Mr. Bush is acting positively French in his love of le loafing, with 339 days at his ranch since he took office - nearly a year out of his five. Most Americans, on the other hand, take fewer vacations than anyone else in the developed world (even the Japanese), averaging only 13 to 16 days off a year.
W. didn't go alone, of course. Just as he took his beloved feather pillow on the road during his 2000 campaign, now he takes his beloved bike. An Air Force One steward tenderly unloaded W.'s $3,000 Trek Fuel mountain bike when they landed in Boise.
Gas is guzzling toward $3 a gallon. U.S. troop casualties in Iraq are at their highest levels since the invasion. As Donald Rumsfeld conceded yesterday, "The lethality, however, is up." Afghanistan's getting more dangerous, too. The defense secretary says he's raising troop levels in both places for coming elections.
So our overextended troops must prepare for more forced rotations, while the president hangs loose.
I mean, I like to exercise, but W. is psychopathic about it. He interviewed one potential Supreme Court nominee, Harvie Wilkinson III, by asking him how much he exercised. Last winter, Mr. Bush was obsessed with his love handles, telling people he was determined to get rid of seven pounds.
Shouldn't the president worry more about body armor than body fat?
Instead of calling in Karl Rove to ask him if he'd leaked, W. probably called him in to order him to the gym.
The rest of us may be fixated on the depressing tableau in Iraq, where the U.S. seems to be delivering a fundamentalist Islamic state into the dirty hands of men like Ahmad Chalabi, who conned the neocons into pushing for war, and his ally Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who started two armed uprisings against U.S. troops. It was his militiamen who ambushed Casey Sheehan's convoy in Sadr City.
America has caved on Iraqi women's rights. In fact, the women's rights activists supported by George and Laura Bush may have to leave Iraq.
But, as a former C.I.A. Middle East specialist, Reuel Marc Gerecht, said on "Meet the Press," U.S. democracy in 1900 didn't let women vote. If Iraqi democracy resembled that, "we'd all be thrilled," he said. "I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy."
Yesterday, the president hailed the constitution establishing an Islamic republic as "an amazing process," and said it "honors women's rights, the rights of minorities." Could he really think that? Or is he following the Vietnam model - declaring victory so we can leave?
The main point of writing a constitution was to move Sunnis into the mainstream and make them invested in the process, thereby removing the basis of the insurgency. But the Shiites and Kurds have frozen out the Sunnis, enhancing their resentment. So the insurgency is more likely to be inflamed than extinguished.
For political reasons, the president has a history of silence on America's war dead. But he finally mentioned them on Monday because it became politically useful to use them as a rationale for war - now that all the other rationales have gone up in smoke.
"We owe them something," he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion). "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."
What twisted logic: with no W.M.D., no link to 9/11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already? Talk about a vicious circle: the killing keeps justifying itself.
Just because the final reason the president came up with for invading Iraq - to create a democracy with freedom of religion and minority rights - has been dashed, why stop relaxing? W. is determined to stay the course on bike trails all over the West.
This president has never had to pull all-nighters or work very hard, because Daddy's friends always gave him a boost when he flamed out. When was the last time Mr. Bush saw the clock strike midnight? At these prices, though, I guess he can't afford to burn the midnight oil."
Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.
www.freedompost.typepad.com
Posted by msf31538 at 08/25/2005 @ 1:49pm
that the Taliban is scattered is not true, attacks against US troops have increased. the Afghan war has been a sham, we went in with 13,000 troops and some suitcases filled with cash. the warlords who received this cash fought the Taliban, but not too hard and Osama and his henchmen escaped. now our installed government cannot project its poewer beyond Kabul and the Taleban is again on the rise. small wonder since they and Osama are protected by our ally Pakistan, the same Pakistan that spread nuke technology around the world, which by coincidence, not, is one of the reasons given for the removal of Saddam, that he MIGHT spread nuke technology to our enemies. and dude your defense of your cavalier palestine history is to laugh, no one was talking about Chaldeans. be a mensch admit that you are wrong and move on
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/25/2005 @ 1:55pm
I can't ignore a piece of work like NACL! Man, for a fine Christian brother he sure can sling the low brow, revisionist, intolerant mudd! At least he gave up the bold type! I just can't bring myself to relagate him to cyber-limbo! He serves a valuable purpose- to reinforce all my perceptions of delusional conservatives! The way he devines his wisdom from history is a study in the human ability to be both informed and hopelessly stupid at the same time!.......
I'd like to get his brain for research some day! WE won't even have to put it in formaldehyde. It will probably be fossilized!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 1:58pm
NACL Do you actually have anything meaningful to say or just throw meaningless gibberish about when someone asks you a question that you don't want to answer?
As far as "sharp"...at least I can define the words I use. As I said before...do your homework before you accuse. If I err on a blog, I admit and try and figure out where I erred...and/or talk with those I disagree with. It is called discourse....try it sometime, you might learn a thing or two.
...and while I cannot say this with any certainty at all, I would guess I probably have more college credits than your entire family. Not an insult per se, just gauging what seem to me to be willful ignorance.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 2:31pm
It's a bit surprising to me that there haven't been more calls to impeach our president. Isn't this the primary mechanism by which we the people can (bring stray presidents back to Earth) declare no confidence in our leader? It would be disruptive, but it's been done before and we continue to function. There is certainly ample material to justify it, from the Downing Street Memo, to Bush's backing down on his pledge to fire after Rove was caught leaking. I think Cheney should be impeached too, after all he is the evil lever puller in the shadow government located in a secure location.
Posted by greenhat at 08/25/2005 @ 3:01pm
One more thought closer to topic re: "Bush's disengagement from reality is reaching the freakish level."
Well yes, because he's a freak. He doesn't even have the sense to know it's bad form to drag your $3000 bike around with you (the compassionate conservative). I wonder how many GIs have $3000 bikes. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/opinion/24dowd.html
Posted by greenhat at 08/25/2005 @ 3:09pm
Greenhat,
"It's a bit surprising to me that there haven't been more calls to impeach our president. Isn't this the primary mechanism by which we the people can (bring stray presidents back to Earth) declare no confidence in our leader?"
And this is exactly what leads me to infer that there is not near as much dislike or hate for Bush as progressives like to think.
If there WAS, there would be much more support from the majority of Americans that would be calling for his impeachment.
Please don't get me wrong, I certainly think he has handled the war poorly, I'm not trying to make excuses for him.
I just don't think the majority of Americans feel as you do, if they did, there would be a public outcry for impeachment.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 3:20pm
FROMREDBIRD Your first mistake is your handle. You are not a redbird. You are a woodpecker, but with a terrible defect.
You are as useless as a woodpecker with rubber lips. Posted by NACL 08/25/2005 @ 10:48am---------
Well, NACL, I think that I have perceived your scheme. It is to overwhelm the simple truth with volumnious lies and stunningly erudite employment of the English language.
I will get to the others later but we will start here:
A War Crime or an Act of War?
By Stephen C. Pelletiere New York Times Friday 31 January 2003 (excerpted) I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html
US Complicity in Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons
In December 2002, the Bush seized 800 incriminating pages of the 2,000-page Iraqi report to the U.N., pages that contained the names of U.S. companies that supplied arms to Saddam, including details on weapons, dual-use technologies, and materials of mass destruction. Some of those companies are Alcoliac International of Maryland, that transported mustard gas precursors to Saddam; the Tennessee manufacturers that provided sarin-based chemicals; the heads of Dow chemical who sold toxins that cause death by asphyxiation; and Bechtel which produced chemicals for Saddam in their Iraqi plant.
The National Security Decision Directive 114 of November 26, 1983, replete with revelations on U.S. collusion with Saddam Hussein, should also be declassified.
US Complicity in Iran/Iraq War
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas By Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 18 August 2002 WASHINGTON, Aug. 17--A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for regime change in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html?ex=10 30678162&ei=1&en=5c6d8cb1b09395fb
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 3:21pm
HEAD, ORAI & NO-NO As the half-wits seem to be in charge, ignore what you consider to be half-witted is blinding you from a "majority" perspective. (I quote "majority" since it is my belief DEMs would have won handily if we had the ardor and sense of purpose as the GOP....fact is, more of us voted with our remote controls than with our ballots...and here we are)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 3:32pm
Leftofcenter,
"...and while I cannot say this with any certainty at all, I would guess I probably have more college credits than your entire family. Not an insult per se, just gauging what seem to me to be willful ignorance."
Perhaps not an insult, but most definitely a condescending remark. I must say my brother, it's remarks like that, true or not, and that creates a lot of resentment against progressives by conservatives, and does absolutely no good in terms of encouraging constructive communication between us.
Very similar to the just as cutting, while much less intelligent "all you progressives are terrorist excuse making fagots" type of Aludra comment that infuriate progressives.
Todd (the dum konservative)
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 3:32pm
"It's a bit surprising to me that there haven't been more calls to impeach our president. Isn't this the primary mechanism by which we the people can (bring stray presidents back to Earth) declare no confidence in our leader?" Posted by GREENHAT 08/25/2005 @ 3:01pm
And this is exactly what leads me to infer that there is not near as much dislike or hate for Bush as progressives like to think. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 08/25/2005 @ 3:20pm
You mean in the Republican Congress?
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 3:40pm
Fromredbird,
" You mean in the Republican Congress? "
No, I mean across America. It's not just congress that can start a movement for impeachment of a President.
If enough public support exists, pressure can be placed on government officials to act.
In the same way grass roots efforts put so many ballot initiatives on ballot boxes across America during the last Presidential election changing state constitutions to define marriage.
None of those initiatives where initiated in the government and trickled down. It was all done at the grass roots, and went up.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 3:53pm
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. We were talking of OBL conceit that he brought on the collapse of the USSR. Posted by NACL 08/25/2005 @ 10:59am------------
If the contribution of the foreign fighters was so minor, why did the US ask the Saudis to organize such a massive operation to get them there? You never were able to answer that question.
And, what difference does it make anyway? Why are you so concerned about OBL's regard for himself?
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 4:04pm
Two excerpts from a Clarence Page article on Commondreams.org.
A Time for Leading, Not 'Framing'
by Clarence Page
If Democratic Party leaders were listening to me, I'd give them some good old-fashioned advice: Run to the head of the parade so you can lead it.
_________________
I am reminded of how Democrats used to have the lead on that art, which today is often called "spin." Democrats in President Lyndon B. Johnson's day knew how to clobber Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, the conservative 1964 Republican presidential nominee, by painting him as "trigger-happy." That pretty well describes the tunnel vision of Team Bush as they rushed this country into war with Iraq.
*********************End of Excerpts***********************
Click on link to read entire article.
A Time for Leading, Not 'Framing' [commondreams.org]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 4:05pm
If enough public support exists, pressure can be placed on government officials to act.
In the same way grass roots efforts put so many ballot initiatives on ballot boxes across America during the last Presidential election changing state constitutions to define marriage.
None of those initiatives where initiated in the government and trickled down. It was all done at the grass roots, and went up. Todd Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 08/25/2005 @ 3:53pm
Only the US Congress can bring impeachment proceedings. No such movement has ever originated from the grassroots. Bill Clinton's approval ratings immediately after impeachment by the Republican controlled Congress were 70%.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 4:07pm
Proper safety clothing should be worn when listening to President Bush's speeches.
Click on link to see protective clothing; it is shown in the picture that accompanies the story.
Protective Clothing for Bush Speeches [canada.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 4:12pm
ORAIBI1952
Where do Republicans get the "Truth Protectors" for their ears? Are they made by the same company? Should I ask NACL?
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 4:20pm
Regular posters to the Comments section of Nation blogs will notice a new feature: "Ignore this person," a simple function that allows participants in online discussions to render invisible posts that they find offensive or off-topic.
How best to moderate a free-wheeling online discussion is a question which has bedeviled scores of webmasters. At The Nation, we're particularly disinclined to ever censor anyone based on political perspectives, especially those we abhor. But it can be disruptive when, as happened recently, someone decides to paste dozens of versions of the same Ann Coulter piece to all five of our weblogs in an obvious effort to disrupt the conversation. Or when someone simply unleashes an obscene tirade with no argument being made.
So what we've come up with is a way for readers to create their own realities by offering the option of "ignoring" a given poster.
We hope that everyone will employ this option sparingly and will use it only as a last-resort to rid themselves of those few posters explicitly trying to prevent the free and feisty exchange of ideas. We strongly discourage anyone using it to shield themselves from unwelcome points of view.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/25/2005 @ 4:30pm
Fromredbird,
"Only the US Congress can bring impeachment proceedings."
I understand, and agree.
My point is, if congress felt that the public in general would support impeachment as they did with Clinton, they would be impeaching Bush NOW.
They obviously don't.
If progressives DO want Bush impeached they need to rally more support around the idea of impeachment, until they do Congress more than likely won't proceed with impeachment.
Government 101, the house and congress "represent" the constituents from each district, representative republic. If they don't feel the majority of constituents want and would support impeachment, congress won't start the proceedings. If they do.. they will..
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 5:11pm
PETER;
Creating your own reality? Isn't that what our President is doing? No thanks, I like to keep the enemy close - like they say in the mob!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 5:15pm
Redbird,
Where do Republicans get the "Truth Protectors" for their ears? Are they made by the same company? Should I ask NACL? Redbird.
I don't know where you can get them, but as soon as I find out I will let you know.
My answer is slow coming to you because I'm doing about five things at once.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 5:52pm
Bill Clinton's approval ratings immediately after impeachment by the Republican controlled Congress were 70%. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/25/2005----------
Government 101, the house and congress "represent" the constituents from each district, representative republic. If they don't feel the majority of constituents want and would support impeachment, congress won't start the proceedings. If they do.. they will.. Todd Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 08/25/2005-------------
Are you reading what I'm writing? There was absolutely no groundswell of public opinion to impeach Clinton but the Republican Congress DID anyway because they COULD.
If 70% of the public supported impeachment of George Bush this Republican Congress would NOT impeach him.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 6:01pm
NACL – I am not persuaded by your comments regarding sustainable levels of losses in Iraq. You are convinced that military action against Sadaam, and now the terrorists who have sprung up since our ostensible victory, is the appropriate way to fulfill our responsibilities, including "to promote a non-authoritarian alternative to the usual Arab regime". Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the war in Iraq is NOT the way to fulfill our superpower responsibilities but rather, that it is exactly antithetical to these objectives. If this were so, then wouldn't you agree that any number of casualties would be too high?
Obviously, you DO think we're on the right path in Iraq and so a few thousand dead soldiers (oh, and let's not forget the many thousands more grievously wounded) is acceptable. This is where we part company – since I don't think our objectives, if I even understand them, make sense. How will our actions in Iraq convince fundamental Islamists that "western standards … are not incompatible with the ways of the Arabs"? Is it at least possible that with every person we kill in Iraq, we create additional recruits for terrorism? Do you expect that our military power will scare folks away from murderous acts? Have you read interviews with terrorists in which they fervently describe how much they hope to kill as many Americans as possible?
Now, as to whether or not Bush has brought us a disaster. Do you seriously believe that the folks who were responsible for 9/11 feel they are worse off now and that they've reaped more than they bargained for? Didn't they just shoot off some missiles at us the other day? Do you really believe that Afghanistan is stabilizing and things are really beginning to come together? Didn't we just lose a bunch of soldiers there? It certainly appears that Bin Laden is marginalized, living in a cave somewhere, but Binladenism is alive and well – and apparently growing.
I have never said that Iraq was better off under Saddam. I believed before the war and I believe I've been proven right that the world was a safer place for us before we started our adventure in Iraq. How on earth can you think that we were ignoring Iraq while it taunted and defied us? Iraq was completely hamstrung and toothless. Oh, and by the way, is that the standard for selecting countries to attack – the ones that taunt and defy us? On that basis… look out North Korea, your taunting defiance will cost you dearly.
Then you came out with "The administration undertook Iraq, stressing the positive, the opportunities. It insisted the enterprise would succeed. It did not stress the dangers and reasons it might fail. You think that was a failure of leadership. It proves you prescient and wise and the administration dumb and ignorant. You jerk. "
Gosh, I never realized that a positive attitude and a smiley-face were what it takes to be a good leader. Silly me. Guess what – I profoundly disagreed with the war and all the saber-rattling that preceded it. I don't pretend to be wise, but I do think that the administration was either misguided or foolish, maybe both. Further, I do not agree with the insurgents, I supported the no fly zone, I supported weapons inspections, and I supported the sanctions. Why do you assume otherwise?
You believe that those who disagree with the administration have "collaborated with fascists". The depth of your obvious hatred is truly disturbing – this is the kind of virulence usually associated with class or race hatred. I urge you to consider why you are filled with such hate. I can only assume that a steady diet of right wing diatribes, a strong dose of irrational fear and an absolutist win/lose mentality might have something to do with it.
Posted by Fishbite at 08/25/2005 @ 7:14pm
To Freiheit;
It doesn't matter what Lynn Woolsey would do. She may not be critical if there was a democratic president. The fact remains, we don't have a democratic president. We have a president who, without a conscience, is allowing young people to be killed based on a lie and a personal vendetta. The most disappointing thing about the Democrats is it has taken them this long to stop trying to out - Republican the Republicans.
Posted by Arlando Smith at 08/25/2005 @ 7:53pm
Let's be real, and let's be honest. Neither party has a corner on truth telling and ethics. For the most part there are a serial group of white males who are in disagreement about whether to live in Upper Manhattan or Pacific Heights. The only difference between the two is the New York group flaunts their position, while the SF group wants the people of SF to think they're one of them. I never heard John Kerry, or any Democrat, argue for full withdrawal, or that we shouldn't exacerbate the lies that got us into the war by leaving. We continue to hear more about how we can't leave now that we're there. Immorality is immorality. We got into the mess based on the sociopathic immorality of one man and his group that is still fighting a cold war. We are compounding it by suggesting that since we're there,let's complete the job. Problem: No one can describe what the job is any longer.
Posted by Arlando Smith at 08/25/2005 @ 8:02pm
My point really was that in my opinion, much of the antiwar sentiment of the left in the United States is based on the truth that a successful George Bush in Iraq means possible Republican gains in Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. That could put a real wrench into the liberal social agenda in the US, starting with a crazy reversal of Roe v Wade, stalled movement on gay marriage, socialized medicine, social security, etc. I think that fuels opposition to anything good happening in Iraq.
There is absolutely no political capital I can see for the Democrats to mine out of any success in Iraq. America must lose for them to win. But the really want to keep that reality under wraps. Clinton, Biden, Reid, et al been to Crawford for a photo op?
Oh, in saying that, I'm not denying there's political capital for the Republicans and their agenda in any success in Iraq. The difference is, I believe, that if Kerry were in the White House, Republicans would not be organized to undermine efforts towards success in Iraq for political gain.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/25/2005 @ 8:51pm
.
WRONG, and WRONG
Your rhetoric is too crude too allow for any difference between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Democrats- therefore, your comments are essentially meaningless.
The idea that the DLC-type, Iraq War-supporting Democrats fear a "win" in Iraq is ludicrous if not laughable. There is not going to be any "win". I told you Republicans that in November 2002. What the Iraq War-supporting Democrats fear is an American loss, which they don't want to admit is inevitable in some shape or form if not every shape or form.
Some of the lousy Democrats voted with the Republicans on Iraq back then. Do you think that was a plot to get the Republicans in a war they couldn't win? That would be the logical extension of what you're saying, assuming that there could be a logical extension to something that's illogical. Democrats voted with the Republicans on these issues and are still carrying water for the Republicans on Iraq because they have the same "America/israel must rule the Middle East" political commitments.
Second wrong: The most virulent Republican supporters of the Iraq misadventure did everything they could to undermine American commitment and resolve in the Balkan conflict. They did that purely for political gain when our troops were in the battlefield. They are utter hypocrites.
Those Democrats who opposed the Iraq disaster from day one did so for one reason and one reason only- because it was destructive to America's national interests and they have been proven correct on each and every point concerning it. You, and the Republicans in general, have been proven wrong on each and every point concerning it.
But keep trying to rewrite history. It's entertaining.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 9:27pm
Signposts of Misleadership
Why don't you Republican Keystone Cops get a life and give up trying to defend your extremely self-serving and inconceivably foolish Dear Leader?
The crude, harebrained scheme of he and his cronies to enrich and engorge themselves on the blood of America and please the "rebuild the temple"-type "Christian" heretics of their party has come to grief with a resounding thud.
Some signposts on the road of shallow minded Republican misleadership:
• Mesopotamia's immense oil wealth is now about to fall under the control of an Islamic Republic of Iraq which will significantly strengthen theocratic Iran
• Iraq has been transformed from a hobbled, non-threatening state to a stateless terrorist breeding ground
• Hundreds of thousands of the world's people who did not previously even dislike us now hate us
• America has been pushed from a luxurious budget surplus to a deadening $500,000,000,000 budget deficit
• The Iraq conflict is pointless and counterproductive to America's national interests but is now estimated to eventually cost American taxpayers $1 trillion which they could have much better used to strengthen America's defenses
• The Iraq conflict has sent oil prices soaring, further weakening not only America but world stability
• Blustering aggressiveness and hostility have driven Russia and China into the arms of one another in a strategic alliance where none previously existed
The Republican Party has wrought harm not only to America but the whole world which will last possibly for a generation. Enough is enough.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 9:38pm
Lies and damned lies
Did I forget to mention that George Bush and his Republican Congress tried to cut veterans benfits in the middle of THEIR war? What could illustrate the true attitude of Republicans to our troops any better?
They were stopped by the Democrats.
But the tinfoil hat-wearing Republicans on this board yet try to say that it's the Democrats that don't support our troops. They are living a lie and a very dirty one.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/25/2005 @ 9:50pm
Did someone say intervention??? It's called I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T... along with indictments all around ... and of course an integral, competent constitution of citizens in affinity that have organized to manifest this country's agendas in order to set the record straight.. and make good with the world. I never said it wasn't simple.
Perhaps HERE [impeachbush.org]. Has Cruise or Lucas or EVERYONE else in affinity with wherewithal... called them up and done this? The people have to do it. The government won't. Ie... promote benign energy's myriad lifesaving applications world wide like it's going out of style. Who ever said there wasn't a cure all? Just do it. Who's got funding for Fantastic Voyage and the sciences... the American citizents do. There, no more health care problems in the nearer future. Just do it. And so on...
Get the picture? It's about the people. Not Bush. Get organized. Damn.
Posted by emg at 08/25/2005 @ 10:11pm
"Perhaps not an insult, but most definitely a condescending remark."
Todd Yes, it was. If you cruise up thread you will see NACL has been misquopting me and using his misquotes to tag me as a Fascist among other things. When I define fascist and ask for the connect he goes all postal. My remark, while condenscending, was based on the facts in the thread...unable to understand the terms he uses. Lays false accusations and refuses to answer queries as to why. It smacks of willful ignorance, which to me might be indicative of someone "not so bright". I could be wrong...he could be a dyslexic psycho with a PhD...in which case I would apologize for my earlier statement and rephrase it to "educated ignoramous."
On another front...on our previous discussion. A final thought to help me to understand the mindset of someone who seems intelligent, congeneial even, but with a much different world-view: Do you have any friends (by that I mean people you would...oh, invite over for dinner) who are non-Christian...Hindus or Buddhists, or such?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 10:39pm
It's called D.I.Y.! Impeachment and a correct agenda. It can ALL happen at once.
In lamens terms, Benign Energy = Collapse of Bush Agenda.
Think.
The nation needs a lead.
Is there anyone here in affinity... that has the wherewithal and willingness to actually communicate with others of the same fortune in order to appropriate impetus for this mandate? Get the idea on Current, Charlie Rose, let Stewart get serious for once, create a real function and resolve for "progressives" alike on a macro scale...
This is how to really effectuate the appropriate due change and get out from under corruption's wrought course. It's not hard unless we don't communicate. It's like a horrible movie that could've been cleared up in less than a minute of communication and proper resolve... except the whole world is in the balance with chain reactions that have devastated and still affect everything on a macro scale.
TUNE IN!!!
It can all start with a phone call and meetings that can echo around the world practically in one day. Read the script Hollywood. Tune in accordingly musicians. Progressive politicians, business owners big and small, Scientists, Engineers, much of the military, International partners, here it is. Get on line. Take part for every good sake and reason out there.
We can't afford to keep beating around the Bush. To end and make this wrought hell of corruption history, we have to stop sabotaging it and create a better future. Human's potential is absolutely amazing if one counts the minutes by it and believes in it's truth, and not the contrived falsehoods that impede awareness.
So, casting call.... who cares AT ALL???? This can work. This must work. Don't make me start naming names.
Posted by emg at 08/25/2005 @ 11:14pm
It can't be denial. Some would call it derelict in duty. It will be interesting to see what God will call it. Only he will know. We will all pay for it and God bless our women and men who have paid for it the most. Your comment is so appropriate when the worst part of is when our leader is so detached from reality, we appear to be floating along without sound judgement at the top and so many problems sitting in our lap. All that he can do is regurgitate: "Economy getting better, making headway in the war; critics of war the enemy; I deserve time to rake hay."
It's too sad to be funny anymore. I guess it will all be over when the last American comes home in a casket.
Posted by dalesewell at 08/25/2005 @ 11:27pm
"...Time to let 'em know what we EXPECT (editor) Stop building SUV's strung out on OPEC. Hold up wait up, you know we come correct..."
Posted by emg at 08/25/2005 @ 11:28pm
thanks for enlightening me as to the meaning of Freiheit, arschloch,
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/25/2005 @ 11:32pm
"... You wanna change things up well hey, just get set. It's easier to sit back than stick out your neck..."
-BEATSIE BOYS
A word to the wise should be sufficient.
Posted by emg at 08/25/2005 @ 11:33pm
OKSPORTSGUY,
Perhaps you're reading too much of the conservative media. Sorry, that's the US media.
I think the reason there hasn't been a groundswell of popular support for impeachment is because people are too afraid to rock the boat in these uncertain times, and they have enough going on in their lives. Uncertain partly because the man in charge is unstable. And Americans are now dying as a result.
The margin of the 2004 vote was razor thin, and many people did not have their voices heard. There must easily be 70% of Americans who do not want George W. Bush in office. So here's where the perception game becomes important.
I'd prefer the justice of impeachment to a lame duck finish. I admit it looks like a long winter with the Red Congress. But whether impeachment has been initiated by public outcry in the past or not doesn't mean it can't happen now. It's with this bit of knowledge that I retire for the evening in a beautiful land of fine people.
Posted by greenhat at 08/26/2005 @ 12:30am
.
You're the one, an apologist for mass murdering Baatist, who blankly denies everything. You had the impudence to deny there were amputations, or that hundreds of thousands were murdered; but the temerity to suggest, if they were it was America's fault. You are beyond contempt.
Now you want to twist Saddam's gassing of Halabja. You flourish Pelletiere and what was an initial limp attempt to blame the Iranians. Pelletiere is a fool and knave. He avers: "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds." We damn well can. Iraqi fighter bombers, Mirages and MIGs were observed dropping gas canisters, some of which were recovered.
That Saddam's poison bombing of his own crowded Kurdish city was justified by pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in the vicinity is equally ridiculous. That is like saying, because the Mafia is in Little Italy it is legitimate to bomb lower Manhattan. It is as crazy as torching a house with the excuse, the garage has termites.
Copies of that unexpurgated report went to all the other members of the UN Security Council. Whatever was edited in that Iraqi document, which was stuffed with old and false Saddam claims, had the full agreement of the Security Council.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [projects.sipri.se] established that as late as 1990 less than 1% of Saddam's arsenal contained weapons with a US provenance.
Significant US/Iraq trade only began after diplomatic relations were reestablished in Nov 1984. Most shipments only got going in and after 1988. That was the year the Gulf War ended. It is malicious to blame the US for Saddam's poison gas capacity when he acquired that capacity while the US refused to speak to him, except to call his a rogue state. He was waging massive mustard gas attacks in 1980 years while diplomatic relations had been down since 1967. His substantial chem/bio arsenal, complete with trained technicians and cutting edge laboratories, was entirely derived from Russia, Germany France and China.
Sure, after relation were restored Iraq went shopping in the US for many things including chemicals and biological cultures. That is what every countries does with a modern agriculture, pharmaceutical and scientific sector. But nothing was sold to Iraq in militarized form. For example, the most sensational claim, the anthrax shipments, were supplied under an UN FOA program for vaccinating cattle. Involved was not the "Aims" strain which our weaponed anthrax used, but "Vollum" for which humans have a much lower affinity. Incidentally another supplier of anthrax to Iraq was the Institute Pasteur in Paris.
More bullshit. How do you know that that Directive is replete with scandalous revelations, if it is classified?
But it has in fact been declassified for several years. You can read it on the Web, and it contains nothing embarrassing.
More rubbish. It is old hat that Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in Dec 1983 when Iranian armies threatened to break through and seize the Gulf's oil fields. That was why the US reestablished relations with Iraq. To stop the Ayatollah's armies from gaining control of the West's economic life blood. Thus the US supplied Iraq with satellite intelligence, so that it could anticipate and beat back Iranian attacks. There was nothing insidious or nefarious in that. It had nothing to do with gas warfare. It was sensible and legit. That Stalin was a murdering SOB did not change the rightness of helping the Soviet Union beat Hitler.
There isn't an honest or reasonable comment in your entire post, in your entire opus. You are a vulture. No you are the carrion a vulture feeds on. You are for the birds.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/26/2005 @ 01:03am
.
It is less hate than disgust. There is this unending torrent of cant and lies and stupidities. I offer your last post in evidence. It isn't just you, it's this entire crowd. If idiots could fly this would be an airport. You guys are endlessly flapping your mouths but with never a new idea or a bouncy remark or a subtle phrase. Here is proof, evolution goes in reverse. Your friends are monkeys eating one another's flees. Before long they'll develop gills and join you in the water blowing bubbles.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/26/2005 @ 01:13am
Posted by nacl at 08/26/2005 @ 01:22am
I see that the usual bunch of wingers are sitting around in their dirty underwear, punching the keyboard, trying to matter. Well none of you do. Fuck off you old turds.
Posted by bloppy at 08/26/2005 @ 01:49am
Jack Rabbit,
I have been wondering if this war is about democracy at all. It seems to me to be about oil and only oil. If this is a war for oil it stands to reason that this administration really does not have to care much what kind of government was there.
I take that last part back. It seems to me that a military dictatorship or a king would be just what the doctor ordered for the Bush admin. for these types of governments are pretty easy to control.
Posted by BrownSound at 08/26/2005 @ 04:16am
Greenhat,
I have been paying pretty close attention to the liberal media in America (ya know, not tv news) and I am at a total loss for ANY kind of impeachment movement at all. Years before Clinton was impeached I saw a lot of bumperstickers in support of impeachment, Rush was talking about at least once a week, and it had support in print. I really just dont see that going on right now with the left. What do you see?
Posted by BrownSound at 08/26/2005 @ 04:24am
NACL Well, I see you have at least discovered how to spell check yourself. Now we have gramatically correct ravings. Of course, it is still progress of a sort...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 07:36am
Leftofcenter,
"On another front...on our previous discussion. A final thought to help me to understand the mindset of someone who seems intelligent, congenial even, but with a much different world-view: Do you have any friends (by that I mean people you would...oh, invite over for dinner) who are non-Christian...Hindus or Buddhists, or such? "
I have a few, wow this kind reminds me of the proverbial "some of my best friends are black" argument that racist whites used to use to try to somehow justify their bigotry against blacks.
How do you answer this question?
I do have a few friends that are atheists, and a friend who used to be Buddhist but has since been saved.
I have several friends that are Mormon, Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (who have some similarities with Christians, but some serious differences)
We all get along and are good friends, but in the end we all disagree on where we all go after physical death on Earth (it creates some interesting conversations and discussions).
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 10:18am
Ok, Freiheit, there is no point to ad hominem attacks and I apologize for getting carried away a little. my knowledge of german is surely a bit deeper than yours, as it is my first language. thanks for calling me youthful, as one who is pushing 60 that is balm to my ears. but let's get serious, please explain why you choose a foreign language word as your moniker. perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "Arbeit macht frei", which was displayed over the concentration camp's doors. perhaps you mean it ironically. the word freedom is a loaded one in any language.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 10:23am
Greenhat,
"There must easily be 70% of Americans who do not want George W. Bush in office. So here's where the perception game becomes important. "
I'm not sure where you pulled that 70% number from… is there light in the area that you did pull it from?
Here's a current series of polls, including Rasmussen, ARG, Harris and others, with an aggregate average of Bush's approval/disapproval rating, which comes out to be 41.4% approve and 55.2 disapprove.
President George W. Bush - Job Approval Ratings Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread RCP Average 8/8 - 8/23 41.4% 55.2% -13.8% Rasmussen 8/21 - 8/23 45% 54% -9% ARG 8/18 - 8/21 36% 58% -22% Harris** 8/9 - 8/16 40% 58% -18% SurveyUSA 8/12 - 8/14 41% 55% -14% CNN/USA Today/Gallup 8/8 - 8/11 45% 51% -6% Click Here to See All Job Approval Poll Data
It's a stretch however to make an argument that the general public who although disapproves of his job performance would also support impeachment.
As a matter of fact Zogby finds, specifically in regards to impeachment:
more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
I personally disapprove of his performance, but not enough to support impeachment. I don't see anyone else that would handle the war or the presidency any better, other than perhaps John McCain.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 10:35am
TODD
"I have a few, wow this kind reminds me of the proverbial "some of my best friends are black" argument that racist whites used to use to try to somehow justify their bigotry against blacks."
Its not like that at all Todd. As I said before, I do not seek to impale you with your own words. I don't think I've attempted to yet, have I? I thought I was clear on my rationale for asking. I am just seeking to understand the personal boundaries of world-view that I don't fully undertand.
I think one of your cross-Christian discussions would be intriguing over a good cabarnet. However, I do get a little uneasy over the friend who was "Buddhist but has since been saved" thought as it does appear to engender a certain pitied predjudice of other religions.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 11:14am
Leftofcenter,
"However, I do get a little uneasy over the friend who was "Buddhist but has since been saved" thought as it does appear to engender a certain pitied predjudice of other religions."
I do not hide my prejudice or bias for Christianity, and against other religions.
I believe in ultimate truth when it comes to eternity, and his name is Jesus.
If because I do, you want to label me as narrow-minded and bigoted, so be it. I have been called these before, and it doesn't offend me one iota.
I'm not willing to gamble with my heavenly life (I'm not concerned about the physical one) in terms of whether I might be wrong or not and explore other possibilities.
This theology goes back to the story we discussed with the children going to speak with Jesus, and his telling the disciples to let them through, because the Kingdom of heaven will be inherited by the likes of these.
I intentionally prefer to stay innocent and not accept the possibility that another religion might be the "right" one, when it comes to religion.
For me, ultimate truth is faith in Christ. It's that simple.
On a side note, I appreciate the cordial discussion, most progressives are not so open to discussing religion mixed with their politics.
= )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 11:27am
Todd,
open mind, open heart and shoot from the hip is my motto (if I have one I guess)
Sure, terminal honesty tends to get me in a fix at times. That's OK though...cause I sleep REAL well as a result.
Appreciate the candor from your end my friend...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 11:36am
NACL said: Now you want to twist Saddam's gassing of Halabja. You flourish Pelletiere and what was an initial limp attempt to blame the Iranians. Pelletiere is a fool and knave. He avers: "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds." We damn well can. Iraqi fighter bombers, Mirages and MIGs were observed dropping gas canisters, some of which were recovered. Posted by NACL 08/26/2005 @ 01:03am
There were two separate investigations of the events at Halabja which is the centerpiece of the current Bush administration claim that "Saddam gassed his own people". One by the U.S. Army War College and another by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Both determined that the civilians who died in Halabja succumbed to gas from the Iranian side, a nerve agent gas, while Iraq was using mustard gas in that battle.
But, being the Republican robot that you are, you clownishly insist on ignoring both of those investigations and accepting wholly the bald, unsubstantiated claims of a Bush administration whose only observable plan is to try to cover up it's failures with lies.
You also say: You're the one, an apologist for mass murdering Baatist, who blankly denies everything. You had the impudence to deny there were amputations, or that hundreds of thousands were murdered; but the temerity to suggest, if they were it was America's fault. You are beyond contempt.
There's nothing more lame than pretending that I said something I didn't because you can't refute what I did say. I said there was no evidence for the specific amputations that you claimed ("Saddam amputated the tongues of critics") and you have been unable to provide any, so far. This asinine claim is along the lines of the "people shredders" that the Western news media claimed that Saddam had installed in his prisons. Where are they, now? They never existed.
Your claim that I "blankly deny everything" is the best you can come up with to cover up your specific lies which leave your general credibility in a shambles. I never denied that Iraq used poison gas. The US helped him acquire, target, and deliver it. These are well substantiated facts but you propound imaginary tales to avoid the fact that the US was extensively complicit in Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq War.
It's now abundantly evident that you are not a serious person. You are nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the failure-monkey Bush administration.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/26/2005 @ 12:27pm
OKSPORTSGUY and BROWNSOUND,
Thanks for the data, it's more interesting in the aggregate.
My reasoning for the 70% opposition to Bush (not % willing to impeach, yet):
2004 razor thin margin with substantial vote tally irregularities and continuing controversy. Exit poll numbers way off the actual count (1:900,000+ odds by some estimates)(US media explanation BS). So there is perhaps 55% of the population who was, and no doubt still is, against Bush. He has since lost a significant (10%?) portion of his base due to Iraq, and no doubt lost lots of indies/swings who were on the fence. Oh and base closings will further raise that number. To me that's an easy 70%. I have no hard data at this point to support my hypothesis, but intuitively it makes sense to me. Also, it has been shown sufficiently that the specific wording of poll questions changes the responses given. It seems to me polls are an often inaccurate temperature of the nation's opinions, and prone to partisan manipulation. Perhaps that's why politicians like them so much.
I agree that there doesn't appear (the US media wouldn't cover it if there were) to be a grass roots movement with popular groundswell to impeach, yet, but mainly I'm asking WHY THE HELL NOT? It's clear the Democrats are doing next to nothing for this country other than staking out turf for the upcoming elections. And you know, there will always be upcoming elections. This does not and will not pass for taking responsibility for an out-of-control situation,(HRC). America needs leadership, and we have misleadership on both sides of the aisle. And the mechanism of impeachment, begun perhaps for the first time at the popular level, is one attractive means of directing the energy of people frustrated by our current government. Almost everyone I speak to possesses in some measure a disdain and/or embarrassment about Bush being our president (I live in TX)
ImpeachBush.org (yellow and black folks)is one example of a functioning effort to impeach. I have supported them in the limited way I can because this administration deserves to be at least censured, if not completely removed like a cancer on our collective souls. I'd argue that we the people must now intervene in a situation which the Bush administration cannot effectively handle. It's out of the box, and they don't do out of the box.
Speaking of boxes, why doesn't Bush get some cardboard likenesses made up so he can be at many places at once, telling many times the folks how well Iraq is going and how we need to support his "war". Most people will understand it's not really him, but the words will be the same. In other words, his media presence is a SHAM.
Todd, if I may, I would caution against placing too much emphasis on the notion that there is no one to replace Bush. That argument doesn't wash. Ask Gerry Ford. You don't remove a gangrenous leg based on the idea that a person will not be able to walk if you do. Perhaps thinking about it like triage for democracy? The WH janitor could step in and we wouldn't notice a difference, other than perhaps some fresh words and helpful cleaning tips. Did I state that Cheney has to go with GWB?
Posted by greenhat at 08/26/2005 @ 2:18pm
Can someone please explain to me why leading Democrats in the Senate and House continue to support the Iraq war? Why can't they explain their earlier support for the war as the product of having been lied to?
Thank God for Senators Feingold and Hagel.
Posted by Curious Jim at 08/26/2005 @ 2:37pm
Can someone please explain to me why leading Democrats in the Senate and House continue to support the Iraq war? Why can't they explain their earlier support for the war as the product of having been lied to?
Thank God for Senators Feingold and Hagel.
Posted by CURIOUS JIM 08/26/2005 @ 2:37pm
There's nothing mysterious about it. It's because thay support the Iraq War. They're in or close to the DLC wing of the Democratic Party whose world outlook is very similar to that of the neocons, in fact nearly identical.
As a side note, the rumor is that Hagel has been discussing with his closest supporters a run as an independent.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/26/2005 @ 3:02pm
LOC, I don't know how much you've studied the Bible, but I am fairly certain that OKSG knows the verse "straight is the path, and narrow is the gate, that leads to life, and few find it." In other words, Christianity is a narrow religion so don't expect other outlooks from true believers.
OKSG, Bush is probably more unpopular than you realize. Granted there is not a public outcry from a large percentage of people demanding impeachment. One reason is that people who understand that articles of impeachment must be brought by the House of Representatives realize that this is hopeless as long as the GOP controls the House. So it would be a waste of effort. The only practical approach is to try to win enough congressional elections to change this roadblock.
A huge obstacle to change in this country is the contradictory approach so many people take towards voting. Two days ago I was sitting in a local bar with a nice german beer (bier) when I started talking politics to the guy next to me. He was going on and on about how Bush had messed up the war, how much debt he is running up, how he is doing nothing for the economy, the future looks bleak, on and on. Then he tells me "I'm a Republican, and I voted for the guy..."
With assinine people like that, no wonder - no f'ing wonder our country is going the wrong way. Attention people! Quit voting for morons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 3:04pm
Yeah, ok, so I am running off at the mouth but the point bears repeating. Ninety percent of people do NOT make "issues" their main criteria in deciding for whom to vote.
As long as you people keep voting for candidates based on likeability, "does he understand me," "would I drink a beer with him," "where does he come from," etc. then we will continue to get incompetent presidents like W. It is so obvious that he is in over his head and doesn't know what to do that anyone who says otherwise should take another look!!!!!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 3:08pm
""straight is the path, and narrow is the gate, that leads to life, and few find it." In other words, Christianity is a narrow religion so don't expect other outlooks from true believers. "
Right.
Todd
= )
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 3:25pm
Physics, "With assinine people like that, no wonder - no f'ing wonder our country is going the wrong way. Attention people! Quit voting for morons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well, I don't think he's a moron.. I get your point though, make sure you are aware of the issues that are important to you and how the candidates have voted on similar issues in the past before you go vote.
Ever stop to think that one must have a license to drive, however all one has to do to vote for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is prove that one lives legally in the district they are voting in = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 3:31pm
Presidents need to relax, more so than any other job-holder in the world, given the pressures of the job. However, we all know, no President ever really takes a vacation. It's silly to try and portray him as being too leisurely.
He met with Sheehan once. He efforts to meet with families of dead soldiers often. Sheehan is a political pawn, of which there are many.
Your portrayal of us not winning the war is myopic. A constitutional process is underway in Iraq. Polling within Iraq has consistently indicated support for the current government and future plans. Support for insurgency has never been high, but declines everyday. Also, note the enhanced standing of American in the eyes of populaces all over the Muslim world. American public opinion is short term oriented - You can't order up a western style (even Middle-east style) democracy, with solid underpinnings at the drive-through window. It takes time. American public opinion has always been short term oriented. Katrina, if you and I want to kill 50 people innocent people on a bus or in a market, we can plan it and execute successfully with a trip to Lowe's and an afternoon of surveillance. It's pretty easy to blow up stuff. What are the people who do things like that winning? The answer is ... nothing. There is no popular support for insurgents. The people who live there want the insurgents to stop. Blowing up stuff stuff takes seconds, building institutions takes time and effort, savvy. Forgive me, but 'staying the course' in this exampls, works.
American soldiers are dying at a faster clip because they have been engaging the enemy at a faster clip. Period.
There should be no plan to get out us out of Iraq, until Iraqis can at least mimic (hopefully improve) the security situation/assets in place now. Period. Setting conditions other than that, or setting a specific date supports the insurgency.
There have been no terrorists attacks on our soil in almost four years. Do you ever give credit for that? Unprecedented events like 9/11 (following an internet bubble) severely affected the economy in Bush's early years, but the pace of economic development has grown significantly in the last couple of years. I have problems with Bush's vacant energy policies, his shortsighted border/immigration policies, some of his rigid social viewpoints, however credit must be given when it is due. Katrina, you never give credit.
I consider myself a moderate. As such, I am constantly looking for policies on the left that I can support. All I ever see is anti-Bush rhetoric.
As I see it, liberals can ascend on your own merit, or you can put down the other side, but in doing so any elevation on your part, is artificial. Choose the former, will you? Give people something to be for, not against, and you will begin to win elections.
Posted by dougs778 at 08/26/2005 @ 4:19pm
hey Freiheit, see I can use caps, but kidding aside I did indeed grow up in occupied Austria and in occupied Germany, my first city, Vienna was divided into four occupation zones, american, french, british, and russian. one tried like hell not go to the russian zone. in germany I lived in the american zone. I honestly cannot draw any parallels between those occupation and that in Iraq. germany was and is a highly developed industrial country, with a culture also highly developed fora few thousand years.this culture was and is incorporated in american culture, german-americans are the largest immigrant group. germany, politically, has been a country since around the time of the american civil war. Iraq was agreat civilization about 5000 years ago, and after that was not a country but a region. the country was defined by the british and the french, with the assent of america, and a king was appointed. Sunnis have controlled the country politically for a long time and the Baathists have ruled since the 50s. affinity with our culture, zero. democracy close to zero. I'm including this brief history to point out the facile lies of those who got us into this futile war. looking at america's post ww2 foreign policy it is obvious that dealing with murderous tyrants was fine as long as they were anti communist enough, and so it was with Saddam, we told him we wouldn't let him lose against Iran, it's known as realpolitik. now can anyone explain this paradox, the stated rationale for the war in Iraq was that by going to war, peace and democracy would spread in the midddle east, it's so paradoxical as to be absurd. a less fertile ground for freedom and democracy cannot be imagined. but no matter what one can say about Iraq under baathist rule they were a secular regime, with rights for women much greater than any muslim country I know of. another historical tip to Freiheit, yes universal suffrage, for men, came about 50 years after the constitution. I would like to recommend a book published in 1945 by Schlesinger, Arthur M called "the age of Jackson" very apropos to our domestic political situation if not the war.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 4:37pm
Freiheit
It would be kinda nice if our UN rep actually believed in the UN....
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 4:44pm
doug you are making some assertions that are unsupported. I have seen no reports that support for the american occupation is growing, or that the insurgency is diminishing, quite the opposite obviously. also america's standing in the muslim world and elsewhere has plunged, where do you get your news? I don't see how you can give Bush credit for something that didn't happen. they don't have to attack america, we conveniently made it possible for them to kill americans on their terms, in a place and time of their choosing. you cannot finish the job without killing the 20 percent of the population that is Sunni, just like you can't hold meaningful elections under the guns of 130 000 troops and without the sunnis, same for writing constitutions. I keep hearing about how long it took for our constitution etc, what an absurdity. in america the Tories, british sympathizers were deported, and so the country was more or less united, at least until the 1860s. in vietnam, too, we were there to fight a war that asian boys ought to have been fighting, so according to that lying president Johnson. and so it is with "our" Iraqis, they will not fight while american boys are fighting for them, that's human nature. the parallels with that war which america lost, LOST do you hear me, I hear the right wing say we withdrew but the truth is we lost. let the shia in Iraq fight their own war, let the US make an honest peace brokering effort along with the UN and our allies, let's repudiate this war and this administration, and let the american bleeding stop and try to heal the deep divisions politically in this country. then we will be stronger to resist those who want to attack us
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 4:55pm
doug you are making some assertions that are unsupported. I have seen no reports that support for the american occupation is growing, or that the insurgency is diminishing, quite the opposite obviously. also america's standing in the muslim world and elsewhere has plunged, where do you get your news? I don't see how you can give Bush credit for something that didn't happen. they don't have to attack america, we conveniently made it possible for them to kill americans on their terms, in a place and time of their choosing. you cannot finish the job without killing the 20 percent of the population that is Sunni, just like you can't hold meaningful elections under the guns of 130 000 troops and without the sunnis, same for writing constitutions. I keep hearing about how long it took for our constitution etc, what an absurdity. in america the Tories, british sympathizers were deported, and so the country was more or less united, at least until the 1860s. in vietnam, too, we were there to fight a war that asian boys ought to have been fighting, so according to that lying president Johnson. and so it is with "our" Iraqis, they will not fight while american boys are fighting for them, that's human nature. the parallels with that war which america lost, LOST do you hear me, I hear the right wing say we withdrew but the truth is we lost. let the shia in Iraq fight their own war, let the US make an honest peace brokering effort along with the UN and our allies, let's repudiate this war and this administration, and let the american bleeding stop and try to heal the deep divisions politically in this country. then we will be stronger to resist those who want to attack us
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/26/2005 @ 4:56pm
"Also, note the enhanced standing of American in the eyes of populaces all over the Muslim world"
Posted by DOUGS778, 08/26/2005 @ 4:19pm
Yeah, you actually said that.
"Liberals" would probably pay more attention to your comments if you didn't come off as a blind Bush supporter who justifies that support with falacious pap.
You really should consider whether or not you're mentally ill.
When someone gives a reason for doing something, especially something violent, which is completely detached from reality then odds are there's something wrong upstairs.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/26/2005 @ 7:24pm
.
In case you missed it, I responded to your Halabja post under Katrina vanden Heuvel's last blog entry: The Importance of Being Lazy
.
Posted by nacl at 08/27/2005 @ 1:42pm
In response to subsequent posts.
I have no blind support for George Bush. As I not I differ with him on three major issues, which I have noted. Read what I wrote. It's there. My problems with Bush.
Also, I did not say Iraqis support the "occupation", I said they support the current government, and future plans. That, they have supported consistently in overwheling numbers (numeruous polling data, and 8.5 million VOTES last winter. I did not say the insurgency was diminishing (although there are indications that it may have peeked). I said support "There is no popular support for insurgents. The people who live there want the insurgents to stop."
YOu should read more about Muslim views on Americans. It has been reported in a number of outlets that postive sentiment towards the US has increased significantly (doubled in many countries). Albeit from a low level. Tsumami aid to Asia to a degree proping up feelings there, but even as the new Iraqi government has been evolving, among muslims in the ME as well.
You should keep up with news. Facts regarding Al-Caida contacts with Saddam do not exist in vacumn, nor are they frozen in time. More and more (post 9/11 report) has come out regarding Sadaam's association with terrorists groups. We knew of his use of chemical weapons in the past. The incredible corruption owing to Oil for Food.
Finally, I am far from mentally ill. However, attempts at imbuing me with personal insults, takes away from the discussion. A condition, I am afraid that seems more prevalent in left-wing blogs. Why can't you acknowledge simple facts.
And have you read today's news, Korea may be ready to give up it's nukes. Will you EVER? EVER..... give credit. If the final result is Kim gives it up, will you give credit?
Stop being ANTI... be for something
Posted by dougs778 at 08/28/2005 @ 3:28pm
Doug we are for something,a lot of things like affordable health care for ALL Americans,equal opportunities in education for ALL Americans,clean air and water and jobs brought back to us from wherever they were farmed out.Vacation time such as king George has might be a far reach but some mandatory vacation time would be nice.Enviornmentalists would like to see more Fed. money spent on developing alternatives to oil then drilling more oil.The working class would like to see the billionaires pay taxes on their entire incomes.Why not?We have to pay on our entire incomes.The rich only have to pay on the first 90,000.How is that fair?We are for a lot of things but it's like butting our heads up against a steel wall because the only people king George and his merry men have any interest in are the ultra rich.
Posted by BusyHands at 08/29/2005 @ 02:45am