The $700 Billion Kiss-off?

The Roman historian Tacitus famously put the following lines in the mouth of a British chieftain opposed to imperial Rome: "They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger… they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor… They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."

Or, in the case of the Bush administration, post-surge "success." Today, however, success in Iraq seems as elusive as ever for the President. The Iraqi cabinet is now refusing, without further amendment, to pass on to Parliament the status of forces agreement for stationing U.S. troops in the country that it's taken so many months for American and Iraqi negotiators to sort out. Key objections, as Juan Cole points out at his Informed Comment blog, have come from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is [Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki's chief political partner, the support of which he would need to get the draft through parliament." That party, Cole adds tellingly, "is close to Tehran, which objects to the agreement." The Iranian veto? Hmmm…

Among Iraqis, according to the Dreyfuss Report, only the Kurds, whose territories house no significant U.S. forces, remain unequivocally in favor of the agreement as written. Frustrated American officials, including Ambassador Ryan Crocker ("Without legal authority to operate, we do not operate… That means no security operations, no logistics, no training, no support for Iraqis on the borders, no nothing…"), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ("Without a new legal agreement,'we basically stop doing anything' in the country…"), and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen ("We are clearly running out of time…") are huffing and puffing, and threatening -- if the agreement is not passed as is -- to blow the house down.

Without a mandate to remain, American troops won't leave, of course. At year's end, they will, so American officials insist, simply retreat to their bases and assumedly leave Maliki's government to dangle in the expected gale. Clearly, this is a game of chicken. What's less clear is who's willing to go over the cliff, or who exactly is going to put on the brakes.

In the meantime, the administration that, only four years ago, imposed conditions on Iraq at least as onerous as those nineteenth century colonial powers imposed on their colonies, can no longer get an agreement it desperately needs from its "allies" in Baghdad. Could this, then, be the $700 billion kiss-off? Stay tuned and, in the meantime, consider what the Bush administration did to Iraq these last five years. Imagine it as a preview of the devastation the administration's domestic version of de-Baathification is now doing to the U.S. economy.

Michael Schwartz has just written a striking overview of "wrecked Iraq" that encapsulates a story he's been following closely for years: the everyday economic violence that invasion and occupation brought to Iraq.

In a magisterial survey, he explains just how the U.S. invasion and occupation turned the Iraqi economy into rubble and what that means for the country today. He surveys the dismantling of the economy, the loss of key technical and managerial personnel, the collapse of the electrical grid, the disaster of American-style "reconstruction," the polluting of the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (due largely to destroyed sewage systems) and what this has meant for health and farming, and the way all of this has impacted the educational system, leading to a "dysfunctional society."

The piece has been posted at TomDispatch.com in honor of his just-released book, War Without End: The Iraq War in Context. Think of this superb new work on the American war in Iraq as Tacitus updated. In both the TomDispatch post and the book, Schwartz offers a gripping history -- the best we have -- of how (to steal a phrase from the Roman historian), "driven by greed… [and] ambition," the U.S. dismantled Iraq economically. It's a nightmare of a tale. If this be "success," then we truly are wandering in the desert.

Comments (50)

1. THE SUN. IT'S HOT!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 12:55pm

2. "Clearly, this is a game of chicken. What's less clear is who's willing to go over the cliff, or who exactly is going to put on the brakes."

   Perhaps we should wait till the next president takes office and America's financial crisis worsens.........then America will be praying not playing for resolution.

   Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 1:18pm

3. they say chicken soup is good for the soul..

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 1:22pm

4. Looks like LVL and the rest of our local Republicans won't have much to say about retreating from Iraq soon. If they respect the "Rule of Law" then we must respect the Iraqis want for us to get the hell out of ther country. Wasn't it nice back when we would "be greeted as liberators"?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/23/2008 @ 1:27pm

5. greeted as Liberaces

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 1:48pm

6. Didn't we once have a right-winger here who told us that the Iraqis were "like children", didn't know what's best for them, and regardless of what their cute, little "government" wanted...we needed to stay until they "grew up"?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/23/2008 @ 1:54pm

7. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 12:55pm |

   and the Wind - it blows!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/23/2008 @ 1:55pm

8. If they respect the "Rule of Law" then we must respect the Iraqis want for us to get the hell out of ther country. Wasn't it nice back when we would "be greeted as liberators"?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/23/2008 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   You can imagine the arguments....its not what Iraq wants - its them darn Iranians inteferring with democracy. We told you libs we should have blown em to smithereens...

   Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 2:56pm

9. bbbut we "took out" Saddam, don' that count fer somethin'.

   no

   Posted by emile duBois at 10/23/2008 @ 3:04pm

10. You can imagine the arguments....its not what Iraq wants - its them darn Iranians inteferring with democracy. We told you libs we should have blown em to smithereens... Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 2:56pm

    Yeah. Too bad for the Republicans to maintain that we are going what is best for Iraq we HAVE to respect the rule of law.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/23/2008 @ 3:06pm

11. 'Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ("Without a new legal agreement,'we basically stop doing anything' in the country…..)'

    This is amusing to say the least.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 3:16pm

12. bbbut we "took out" Saddam, don' that count fer somethin'.

    no

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/23/2008 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Much appreciated by Iran though!

    Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 3:18pm

13. Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 3:16pm

    I heard that. Gates essentially admitting...if we do anything in Iraq AFTER the authorization runs out...

    we're in violation of UN resolutions...

    which...uh....is one of the reasons we attacked Saddam!!!!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/23/2008 @ 3:34pm

14. which...uh....is one of the reasons we attacked Saddam!!!!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/23/2008 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    If our government could only bottle irony and sell it we could pay off our national debt in no time.....

    Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 4:06pm

15. Check out video clips of the massive rally in Baghdag last Saturday - democracy in action Islamic style with burning effigies and nationalistic fervor....oh boy.......not looking too good........

    Posted by OneVote at 10/23/2008 @ 4:47pm

16. lvliberty1: WE Libs love the U.S. We just don't have are heads up are ass unlike Bush, Cheney, McCain, et al.

    Posted by k20thmaine at 10/23/2008 @ 8:02pm

17. Some of you will remember this song... from the Viet Nam era... and some of you would probably rather not... But for some reason, the first paragraph of this article reminded me of it.

    Words and music by Richard Farina

    ---The Bold Marauder---

    And it's hi ho hey, I am a bold marauder

    And it's hi ho hey, I am the white destroyer

    For I will show you silver and gold, and I will bring you treasure

    I will wave a widowing flag, and I will be your lover

    And I will show you grotto and cave and sacrificial alter

    And I will show you blood on the stone and I will be your mentor

    And night will be our darling and fear will be our name

    -

    And it's hi ho hey, I am the bold marauder

    And it's hi ho hey, I am the white destroyer

    For I will take you out by the hand and lead you to the hunter

    And I will show you thunder and steel and I will be your teacher

    And we will dress in helmet and sword and dip our tongues in slaughter

    And we will sing a warrior's song and lift the praise of murder

    And Christ will be our darling and fear will be our name

    -

    And it's hi ho hey, I am the bold marauder

    And it's hi ho hey, I am the white destroyer

    For I will sour the winds on high and I will soil the river

    And I will burn the grain in the field and I will be your mother

    And I will go to ravage and kill and will go to plunder

    And I will take a fury to wife and I will be your mother

    And death will be our darling and fear will be our name

    Posted by ttr at 10/23/2008 @ 9:46pm

18. Though it is admittedly one-sided and incendiary... and it's a bit too provocative... it does stimulate thought.

    Part of the 60's legacy, I suppose...

    Posted by ttr at 10/23/2008 @ 10:12pm

19. logisitics aside, just because the war profiteers have plundered our treasury doesn't mean the $$ is forever gone "like a fart in the wind..." and just because the illicit Bush Administration will no doubt attempt to, pardon me, insulate itself from prosecution doesn't mean civil or international remedies can't "ready the noose"... All should urge Mr Obama as a first order of business track ongoing defense expenditures, gather a blue-ribbon commission to pour through the Pentagon budget and demand receipts, invoices, proof of purchase, etc with an eye toward finding out the extent to which we have been "bamboozled, hoodwinked and led astray..." "a transformational figure" is how Gen Powell described our future President, and Americans will once again be able to hold our heads high that we are a force for good in the world.

    Posted by calandra_speaksout at 10/23/2008 @ 11:14pm

20. they can hardly restrain their joy at even the thought that an Obama presidency means we can declare defeat and come home embarrassed and defeated..

    Yeah, you folks love the US =and pigs can fly.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    What a joke! Obama hasn't even served a day in office and the defeat in Iraq will be his fault.

    What about the last 5+ years of failure? Sure, there has been some success by using the "old fashioned colonial power" type tactics...bribe local thugs to serve your end. But, now Bush can't even control his puppets.

    Posted by koroviev at 10/23/2008 @ 11:54pm

21. they can hardly restrain their joy at even the thought that an Obama presidency means we can declare defeat and come home embarrassed and defeated..

    Yeah, you folks love the US =and pigs can fly.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm | warn this person

    Embarrassed and defeated? You really think our troops will come home embarrassed and defeated? How about they will come home as heroes and freed from the neocon warmonger chains that have kept them there with no concrete mission, with no end in sight, while war profiteers and private contractors have enriched themselves with blood money while our troops' brothers and sisters in arms have died. The only "joy" we will take from this experience is the end of it.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 12:00am

22. Yeah, you folks love the US =and pigs can fly.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm

    i love america even if you live there :+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2008 @ 01:16am

23. Yeah, you folks love the US =and pigs can fly.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    stale, larry...stale as two week old relatives...

    Yeah, you folks love the US =and pigs can fly.

    see how easy it is? i can make lame-o non sequiter slurs too!

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/24/2008 @ 01:22am

24. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm

    LVLIB, the story is about how THE IRAQIS want us out of Iraq...

    or are you including them in "wanting us defeated in Iraq"?!?!?!!?!?!??????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 09:23am

25. no one loves Amurica like the satanic preacher.

    ttr, thanks for the Richard Farina.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/24/2008 @ 09:44am

26. Just perusing the posts here and at least the left is consistent..

    they can hardly restrain their joy at even the thought that an Obama presidency means we can declare defeat and come home embarrassed and defeated..

    Yeah, you folks love the US =and pigs can fly.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm

    Liver, You need to read the book The Enemy Within by Bob Woodward. We never were winning nor won anything in Iraq. The original mission of taking Saddam out of power was accomplished. Since then, the Bush administration didn't know what the hell it was doing in Iraq nor did the military commanders on the ground in Iraq? Why, because there wasn't a mission to accomplish aside from turning Iraq over to the Iraqis.

    Now that they want us out, you call that leaving in defeat?! What they hell are you talking about man? There wasn't anything to win in the first place aside from oil contracts and a lot of money to be made off defense contracts being doled out to the nth degree. Now it's time to pay the piper. W ran out of his political capital about a year ago and can't control congress or even his own party with the iron fist of years back. The big loser's in this are the assholes seem to think that the U.S. should control the world while it's own economy is in the toilet.

    You should start worrying about people here in the U.S. if you claim to love this country so much. People are losing their homes, jobs, pensions, retirement money and our infrastructure is crumbling. People of your ilk contributed massively to the crisis this nation is now facing out of your complete stupidity and greed.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/24/2008 @ 10:22am

27. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm | warn this person

    Liv...what unit did you serve in in Vietnam again? I think if you served at all it was behind a desk. Very easy to support war when you don't have to actually fight it. My hunch is that if you actually served in any type of combat capacity, you wouldn't have come back alive. Overzealous types were dealt with accordingly as being extremely dangerous to self preversation of men in a no-win situation.

    'Fragging most often involved the murder of a commanding officer (C.O.) or a senior noncommissioned officer perceived as unpopular, harsh, inept, or overzealous. Many soldiers were not overly keen to go into harm's way, and preferred leaders with a similar sense of self-preservation. If a C.O. was incompetent, fragging the officer was considered a means to the end of self preservation for the men serving under him. Fragging might also occur if a commander freely took on dangerous or suicidal missions, especially if he was deemed to be seeking glory for himself.

    The very idea of fragging served to warn junior officers to avoid the ire of their enlisted men through recklessness, cowardice, or lack of leadership. Junior officers in turn could arrange the murder of senior officers when finding them incompetent or wasting their men's lives needlessly. Underground GI newspapers sometimes listed bounties offered by units for the fragging of unpopular commanding officers.

    During the Vietnam War, fragging was reportedly common. There are documented cases of at least 230 American officers killed by their own troops, and as many as 1,400 other officers' deaths could not be explained.[1] Incidents of fragging have been recorded as far back as the 18th Century Battle of Blenheim.' Source: Wikipedia......

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 10:35am

28. Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 10:35am

    OV, Larry served in the "Secret Double-Nought Spy Navy Super-SEALS" in Vietnam...

    he can't offer any proof (such as the name "Larry Robinson of Modesta, CA" on a roster) and of course all the missions are still Uber-Ultra-Violet-Hush-Hush-Top-Top-Top-Secret classified (after 45 years)....

    but other than that, it must be true!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 10:40am

29. but other than that, it must be true!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    As always Mask thanks for clearing that up.....lol.......

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 10:43am

30. but other than that, it must be true!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    As always Mask thanks for clearing that up.....lol.......

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 10:43am

    Have you guys seen the movie "A Brilliant Mind"? Maybe that's Liver.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/24/2008 @ 11:25am

31. he can't offer any proof (such as the name "Larry Robinson of Modesta, CA" on a roster) and of course all the missions are still Uber-Ultra-Violet-Hush-Hush-Top-Top-Top-Secret classified (after 45 years)....

    but other than that, it must be true!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 10:40am

    Mask, Larry would tell you, but as you explained before, if he did tell us his war memoirs, he'd have to put us on double secret probabtion...or kill us like Francis off stripes.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/24/2008 @ 11:29am

32. Mask-Luvvy is the kind of fanatical anti commie that they would have recruited for such things in Nam and some of his stuff reeks of untreated PTSD.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/24/2008 @ 11:35am

33. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 6:28pm | warn this person

    Quick Liv - if you saw "GmbH VP" - what would it mean to you?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 11:55am

34. LVLIB, the story is about how THE IRAQIS want us out of Iraq... or are you including them in "wanting us defeated in Iraq"?!?!?!!?!?!?????? Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 09:23a

    Don't hope for a miracle Mask. He only has so many talking points alloted each day.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/24/2008 @ 12:01pm

35. Have you guys seen the movie "A Brilliant Mind"? Maybe that's Liver.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/24/2008 @ 11:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

    "Beautiful Mind" yes "Brilliant Mind" no. If a "Beautiful Mind" you would think that Liv would be ranting about corruption of markets as being disruptive of equilbrium theory or something to that effect - not the jinogoist ranting so characteristic of Liv.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 12:12pm

36. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/24/2008 @ 12:01pm

    He just fires off a "You libs just want to see us leave Iraq before the job is through and see it descend into chaos and those poor Iraqis suffer for your pacifism!"

    then you point out that it's the IRAQIS who want us to leave...and how illogical it is that they want to "suffer and see their country collapse" (per LL's theory)....

    and he goes silent running.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 12:32pm

37. At some point in time , we will have to leave, and the Iraqi will either come together as a nation or fight. They will have to make the decisions. They will decide and not us. We need to leave now!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/24/2008 @ 3:47pm

38. Before one can mention winning or losing in Iraq one has to show that there is something to win.My personal view is that we created a government that has shown itself to be anti Israel and pro Iran and will be just as oppressive as Saddam,but I don't think in terms of black and white win or lose and look at everything.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/24/2008 @ 4:38pm

39. said before, I was recruited into Task Force 157. I served in intel, not just in Nam, but in many other countries. We had action also going on in places that never made the news back then. I lost buddies in more places than just Nam.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 4:15pm | warn this person

    You provided intel from many countries Liv? Boy....you and your handlers must have worked pretty fast. The cover for Task Force 157 was to plant operatives in the export/import business - no easy task to set up without lots of advanced preparation and acclimatization in target terrority. You would have been very lucky and very adept to establish yourself in more than one country successfully. Task Force 157 was shut down in 1976. That gives you 8 years to establish cover and contacts in many countries. Uh huh.... So were you ostensibly an employee of Edwin Wilson's Consultants International? Navy Intelligence Director Bobby Inman shut down Task Force 157 because Wilson (presumably with the help of his "agents") was embezzling funds from Navy and had attempted to bribe Inman outright. So how did you get to be a disabled veteran then if you were recruited as an agent to adopt the "intel" cover of a businessmam in the export/import busienss?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 5:21pm

40. lvliberty-The left isn't fixated on Wilson or much of anything else to do with Nam except for some Viet Nam history buffs.For the most part, no one cares anymore about Nam and what went on there.It barely gets much attention in most history books or any where else.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/24/2008 @ 5:59pm

41. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 4:15pm | warn this person

    Liv...my sources tell me there were never more than 75 agents in the program and that the program did not begin until Wilson resigned from the CIA.

    That still leaves the question on how you were wounded in action, and how you were able to successfully nest yourself in many countries in the span of 8 years after you were recruited in 1968.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 6:11pm

42. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 4:15pm | warn this person

    The program began in 1966, spawn of NFOSG. So if outright military advisors were allowed to come and go freely in South Vietnam as early as 1950, why would Task Force 157 be necessary in South Vietnam? An import/export business in a country in which our military was already embedded? Doesn't make sense.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 6:34pm

43. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 4:15pm | warn this person

    Wilson's discredited part of Task Force 157 apparently commenced in 1971. So Inman cancels the entire program which you indicate was far more reaching than Wilson based on the criminal conduct of Wilson? Doesn't seem logical unless Inman determined that the whole of Task Force 157 was corrupt or of limited use for intelligence gathering.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/24/2008 @ 6:45pm

44. Sorry to jump in late, semi-busy day at work.

    *I will leave it at that. But there is more unclassified if people know where to look. I've just never been one to talk. I had at least a secret clearance for more than 25 years, and I prefer to keep that sensitivity.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/24/2008 @ 8:32pm*

    Something here doesn't pass the smell test. My father retired from the Navy after 21 years working on nuclear engines on submarines and surface ships all over the country. There are many many happenings that he could never divulge to us. Yet all of his missions have been de-classified by now, especially with the fall of the Soviet Union. And my father retired in 1991. What could POSSIBLY still be strategically relevant from the Viet Nam war to this day?

    Posted by yutsano at 10/24/2008 @ 10:21pm

45. Again, guys...LL is proving my point.

    His intentional vaguery ("I was recruited earlier than that"...."When?"....'earlier') leaves some doubts as to the full extent of his "career" in the military.

    Plus the fact that it seems HIGHLY unlikely that 40 years later, anything close to "wet work" (i.e. combative or violent missions undertaken by his "unit"...facilitating him "losing buddies") would still be classified.

    In all likelihood, LVLB operated in some "brass plate" business...monitoring radio traffic between Soviet support and the North Vietnamese out of Taiwan or the Philippines, not even analysis, simply transcribing what the translators told him on a typewriter and sending it off in the diplomatic pouch to the Pentagon.

    But he likes to HINT that he was behind the lines, sneaking up on NVA guards and slitting their throats real quiet like, and blowing up power lines to Hanoi....so that he has "credibility" to speak on military matters and to promote his "Nuke da bastards" foreign policy.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 11:13pm

46. In all likelihood, LVLB operated in some "brass plate" business...monitoring radio traffic between Soviet support and the North Vietnamese out of Taiwan or the Philippines, not even analysis, simply transcribing what the translators told him on a typewriter and sending it off in the diplomatic pouch to the Pentagon.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 11:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Monitoring Soviet shipping and transport was apparently the ostensible purpose of Liv's Task Force 157. Pretty tame.

    All the hush hush that Liv can't tell us about may refer to rogue activities of characters such as Wilson who was busted for selling arms to Libya. Since the CIA and its progeny loves to pay bribe money or provide arms in order to buy love for the USA, it is possble that these front companies (especially Wilson's) were cover for lucrative arms trafficking for greed and political favors. Perhaps Liv's front company was trying to play the Viet Cong against the North Vietnamese through arms deals and cash - but that is pretty far fetched and I seriously doubt that any agent who participated in such things would be alluding to it in this blogs. He never has told us how he became a disabled veteran while sitting on a boat eavesdropping on shipping lanes on the China sea.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/25/2008 @ 01:04am

47. There's a man who leads a life of danger To everyone he meets he stays a stranger With every move he makes another chance he takes Odds are he won't live to see tomorrow

    Secret agent man, secret agent man They've given you a number and taken away your name

    Beware of pretty faces that you find A pretty face can hide an evil mind Ah, be careful what you say Or you'll give yourself away Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow

    Secret agent man, secret agent man They've given you a number and taken away your name

    ------ lead guitar ------

    Secret agent man, secret agent man They've given you a number and taken away your name

    Swingin' on the Riviera one day And then layin' in the Bombay alley next day Oh no, you let the wrong word slip While kissing persuasive lips The odds are you won't live to see tomorrow

    Secret agent man, secret agent man They've given you a number and taken away your name

    Secret agent man

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/25/2008 @ 02:34am

48. But he likes to HINT that he was behind the lines, sneaking up on NVA guards and slitting their throats real quiet like, and blowing up power lines to Hanoi....so that he has "credibility" to speak on military matters and to promote his "Nuke da bastards" foreign policy. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/24/2008 @ 11:13pm

    Kind of like Frank used to do before he admitted he was never even in the military?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/25/2008 @ 10:54am

49. As I remember, if you had a low draft number and no way out, you quick enlisted in the Navy as your best chance for survival. If Liv believed so much in our cause, you would think that he would have enlisted in the Army or Marines so he could see some real boots on the ground action.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/25/2008 @ 12:00pm

50. What the stupid wing nuts do not understand is there is no such a term as winning in Iraq. We get to spend a megaton more $ in the joint This plays right in to an the bad guys hand. To show the brilliance of the wing nuts we borrow $ from China give them to Iran via Iraq. an the American taxpayer gets to pay the in trust on the loan Good thinking huh?? Well dealing with the wing nuts just makes one wonder Xatly where there head is .. Could it be where the sun don't shine? Its a condition found in most right wingers known as CRANEL-RECTUM-ITICE

    Posted by jetphixer1 at 10/25/2008 @ 12:31pm