Edwards Confronts GOP on War on Terror

On Wednesday, John Edwards continued his frontal assault on President Bush's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), telling a Portland audience that he opposes the policy and the "Bush language" that justifies Iraq, torture and Guantanamo. Edwards is not only trying to distinguish himself from the Democratic frontrunners, who said they "believe there is a war on terror" in response to a simplistic question at last week's debate. The Edwards campaign is also taking the battle directly to Republican candidates, pressing MSNBC to ask a similar question at tonight's GOP debate:

"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"

Instead of waiting for the inevitable Republican attacks on national security - which will come with equal ferocity whether Democratic leaders back Bush's doctrine or not - Edwards is pushing Republicans to answer for their President's failed policy.

This is a particularly auspicious time to challenge the conventional wisdom on counterterrorism, since this week's State Department report on global terrorism indicated a terrible 29 percent spike in terror attacks. Edwards is gearing up to outline a more comprehensive rejection of Bush's foreign policy than any other major candidate. A source close to the campaign told me that in "rejecting the Bush doctrine," the plan is to set the tone to announce a "bold national security framework" to defeat an enemy who is not "fixed in place" and a transnational threat that cannot be "defeated through a permanent military campaign alone."

That strategy was on display yesterday, as Edwards emphasized his case against GWOT in an interview with Time: "This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do [...] It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans[...] I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

That argument concisely nails three faults of Bush's policy that experts have been assailing for years: targeting a tactic instead of an enemy; making endless war as the premise for U.S. foreign policy; and secretly violating the Constitution and federal law in the name of security.

President Bush never had the courage or honesty to stand up for his most controversial post-9/11 policies, he simply implemented them, often in defiance of Congress and sometimes illegally. Instead of working with Congress to build an effective detention center for accused terrorists, for example, the administration unilaterally created the lawless Guantanamo prison. Five years and zero convictions later, in 2006 a (conservative) Supreme Court found the system unconstitutional, forcing Bush to start over with Congress. In the meantime, the prison operated with scant oversight and, according to Defense Department records, a majority of the detainees were not even alleged to be members of terrorist groups. Read that again: the Defense Department says most of the detainees were not alleged terrorists. (Here's a report on the DoD records from Seton Hall Law School.) Maybe that's why General James Jones, who served President Bush as chief of the U.S. European Command and is an informal adviser to Senators Clinton and Obama, said we should close Guantanamo "tomorrow" because it hurts America from a "national prestige standpoint."

At a minimum, congressional oversight would have exposed the detainee errors earlier. But even a compliant Congress would probably not have approved the original Guantanamo plan, which is precisely why the administration bypassed the coequal branch in the first place. The same logic motivated illegal spying, supposedly justified by GWOT. In a rare moment of candor, Alberto Gonzales told reporters why the administration didn't just request new spying authority from Congress:

"We have had discussions with Congress in the past [...] as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

See? It would be hard to change the law, so instead they broke it. But it's still "justified" in the Global War on Terror.

This GWOT approach has failed to reduce terrorism because it defies oversight, transparency, and accountability -- all essential for effective operations, as any general or CEO will tell you. But it is also dangerous, because it assumes an endless war with unilateral executive authority to defy democracy and the rule of law itself. The Republican candidates have surely heard Edwards' argument by now, tonight we'll see if any of them can stand up to address it seriously.

Comments (67)

1. Ari Melber or Berman? Either way a nice post.

   John Edwards may have unfortunately shot himself in the foot with the now infamous $400 haircuts in Beverly Hills, but he continues to strike some resonant notes on key issues.

   My own sense is that this country is in probably its most precarious situation since the civil war with a full blown constitutional crisis underway, and a dangerously unpredictable and increasingly cornered executive still holding a death grip on power.

   Add to the mix an unfolding global warming catastrophe --the latest predictions now suggest an ice free summer Arctic by 2020-- and no current leadership on nuclear weapons proliferation, and you have the makings of a "truth is stranger than fiction" nightmarish future.

   Brilliant and innovative leadership is called for now like never before. It starts here in America and it seems obvious to me that fundamental structural changes are imperative.

   That said, I have to admit that among the candidates we have to choose from --a formidable caveat-- Edwards seems to be a reasonable choice so far.

   It should be an interesting ride over the next 18 months as the nation (and the planet for that matter) struggles to find its way through an increasingly dangerous minefield.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2007 @ 02:55am

2. You know B Kool, I agree with you about this being one of the most precarious time since the Civil War. Very scary. I'm not sure I think so for the same reasons you do, but I agree.

   Never have I seen (or read about another historical period) such polarization or bad decisions made as I see today. One NPR guest attributed this to my generations's growing up with a 9 year devisive war. (I'm 55) A President who justifies, and worse, legalizes, torture, thus bringing us down to the level of everyone else. Flirtation with Socialism, a system that a basic study of history will tell you doesn't work. Liberals who whittle away at the profitability of companies in the interest of "social justice" Liberals and conservatives who tromp all over the basic rights of man and Bill of Rights if they think the situation demands it. We don't even agree of the basic processes anymore that have sustained us for 2 centuries now, and there are even discussions about the limits of free speech. Add to that this negative, self flagellating, "sky is falling" mentality over the Global Warming issue, instead of the innovative, move ahead, fix-it-and-make-it-better-too attitude for which we are famous. I'm slowly reaching the conclusion that this countries' future depends on how fast my daughters generation can grow up and take over before my own screws it up beyond repair.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 08:18am

3. "Edwards is not only trying to distinguish himself from the Democratic frontrunners..."

   How much is "not only"...and how much is Edwards realizing that if the mainstream Dems go for Hillary, and the "anti-Hillary" vote goes for Obama, he needs SOMETHING to distinquish himself from them and maybe win over the liberal base.

   The other big question is....how "real" is John Edwards? IS he channelling Bobby Kennedy...or Bill Clinton? And do we see an Edwards AFTER he wins the Democratic Primaries, that moves to the "Hillary center"?

   Posted by Mask at 05/03/2007 @ 09:09am

4. Posted by MASK

   You know he'll move to the "center" (which is right of the center in any accurate definition).

   I only hope this Bush fiasco will cripple the sickening strains of the Repub party that is driving this administration (fundamentalist fruits, neocons militarist, "free trade" fanatics). It is a radical, dangerous far right agenda; too bad the press doesn't label it as such.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/03/2007 @ 10:02am

5. Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/03/2007 @ 10:02am

   He'll move to where the country is. Which is "the center".

   Posted by Mask at 05/03/2007 @ 10:07am

6. Yeah, sure it is, which is to the right of where Nixon was.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/03/2007 @ 10:18am

7. MASK,

   Readup on this (RealClearPolitics) and tell me why are you (& FRANK + others) so damn sure the Dems will win in `08!

   May 03, 2007

   Polls, Politics and the War

   By Donald Lambro

   If a strong majority of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war, which no one disputes, then why are the voters evenly divided between the Republican and Democratic presidential front-runners?

   One would think that mounting opposition to the war and President Bush's handling of it would be driving the presidential polls, and that all of the top Republican contenders -- who fiercely back the war -- would be struggling to overcome lopsided Democratic support.

   But that's not the case at all......

   Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

   Posted by Happy at 05/03/2007 @ 10:29am

8. The Washington Times? I'm laughing.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/03/2007 @ 10:46am

9. Posted by HAPPY 05/03/2007 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

   The Washington Times? IROTFLMAO thanks for the humor Happy!

   "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush, August 5, 2004

   Posted by COProgressive at 05/03/2007 @ 11:14am

10. Flirtation with Socialism, a system that a basic study of history will tell you doesn't work. Liberals who whittle away at the profitability of companies in the interest of "social justice"

    nonsense. slogans do not make an argument. and tell us about your basic study of history.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/03/2007 @ 11:50am

11. Chip and HAPPY, always good for a chuckle.

    How's about the Jessica Lynch story? and Tillman? Do you see any hippy lies there? Ya'll need to get your own in order before you start blaming some mythical left for the ills of this country. Largest income gap since the gilded age. 2 failed wars, one of which was based on garbage intel. Massive trade deficit with the commies.

    Bu keep the funny stuff coming, it helps to keep my mind off of the harm your "side" is doing to the next generation.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 11:51am

12. the 8 highest paid hedge fund managers could cover health insurance for every uninsured child in this country, just with what they made in 1 year!! 8 guys could take care of somewhere near 8 million kids.

    Cry me a fcking river about profitability. Boo hoo. poor obscenely rich hedge fund managers have it rough. Waaa. How can they make it through next year?

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 11:54am

13. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush, August 5, 2004

    Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 05/03/2007 @ 11:14am | ignore this person

    Out of the mouth of babes....what a classic!

    Watching the Prez spin the definition of "success" and "victory" last night. Seems like the Prez wants us to believe that sectarian violence in Iraq is just like violence in America, and that you've just got to live with it, and life goes on despite the bloodshed. Moving away from controlling violence in Iraq by defining it as uncontrollable and part of every day life is just preposterous. Bush is defining failure as success. What will he come up with next?

    Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2007 @ 11:59am

14. The Iraqis parliament wants 2 months off. They learn fast. Maybe there is some brush that needs clearin' in Texas.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 12:04pm

15. Why has there not been one article, blog or other posting about the release of Oklahoma City Bombings that were directly supported by Saddam and the terrorists? We are living under one of the BIGGEST cover ups in our nations history and all I keep hearing from far left minded folks is that there are no terrorists, everyone loves each other and give peace a chance.

    Iraq is a mess because we can't do what is takes to win. Just like in Vietnam...maybe we should just ask the 1 million plus that were slaughtered in Cambodia after we left that region...and wasn't that in the name of socialism? Never mind Che murdering anyone who opposed Castro and his cronies...gotta love the peace loving liberals who forget the blood on the hands of socialists and anyone who is fundamentally against their views.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:05pm

16. Recalling what Bush promised and what he actually has done seem to have happened with integrity and accountability. What more can we ask?

    Posted by Leefeller at 05/03/2007 @ 12:06pm

17. And I also love the fact that the dems are stating they were elected because the people wanted change in the war. That is not the case. A good percentage of Republicans voting Dems to teach their locals leaders they will not stand for unethical behavior be it in kickbacks or "sleeping with boys". Or did we all forget about the liberal media on slaught right before the elections on that story, which was about a year old before they released it... Liberals are boring. As are the hard core conservatives.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:11pm

18. The Iraqis parliament wants 2 months off. They learn fast. Maybe there is some brush that needs clearin' in Texas.

    Posted by CRABWALK 05/03/2007 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person

    Maybe they can join the Prez on the links too after clearin that Brush. Wonder where they plan to spend their Bremer -US sponsored vacation money this summer? $10 billion buys alot of hotel rooms.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2007 @ 12:12pm

19. "We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm the commander guy." (May 2, 2007) Chimpy McFlightsuit, not on board an aircraft carrier declaring an end to major combat operations.

    what a maroon!

    "There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

    "It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way."

    "My most important job is to defend the homeland, to protect innocent Americans from the deaths of the killers."

    "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."

    "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." So, can the neo-cons explain their votes?

    and one of my personal favorites of all time...

    "We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country."

    That's your boy, Chip!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 12:17pm

20. DanCall-Cambodia is a different country than Viet Nam.Would these people be less dead if we killed them than if they kill each other?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 12:18pm

21. I guess they are spending the money where the UN officials and other jack offs that were involved with the oil for food scandal are...BTW these are the same people who were voting in favor of Saddam over the last 10 years after breaking every UN mandate after the first gulf war!

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:18pm

22. Posted by DANCALL 05/03/2007 @ 12:05pm

    Yep, ya gotta kill those people to win them over.

    Try reading up on Fallujah circa 2004-5. that is your theory in practice. We are still there in 2007.

    what it takes to win is competence, a knowledge of the area and it's inhabitants, and ideas that are based on reality, not some Straussian theory out of a book. Too late.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 12:21pm

23. Posted by DANCALL 05/03/2007 @ 12:18pm

    You mean like that oil guy from Texas? And Halliburton doing business with Iraq and Iran? Still. today.

    40% of your tax dollars meant for Iraqi reconstruction are being pocketed by private US contractors, at inflated prices. 2 former Iraqi Prime Ministers are living large in Europe off of your tax money.

    Please, remove head from opposite end. Repeat as necessary.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 12:24pm

24. I'm nobody...they were both impacted by the war with the communist/socialist way of life...almost the same as the view of left winged americans on capitalism...my way or the highway.

    Cambodia was a battle field for socialism, capitalism and communism...

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:29pm

25. so when 50 "non iraqi's" are shooting at US soldiers from a mosque and we can't enter or blow it up is good strategy?

    we are not allowed to help rebuild the city because NON IRAQIS are blowing up innocents. How about this idea, get the NON IRAQIS out of Iraq and see what happens. It is clear as day that they ones blowing things up are not locals yet you dismiss those facts and say it is not working.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:33pm

26. Crab walk...if we were allowed to enter Iraq for the 8 years before Bush was in office we wouldn't be in Iraq. The US and UN were laughed at.

    Every major country knew Saddam had WMDs...and everyone with half a brain knows he moved them to Syria when we pussy footed with the UN who knew what he was doing because they were taking oil vouchers from him. German, French and Russian companies lost billions of dollars in contract money with Iraq because they were in bed with Saddam.

    Please re-read your last sentence and do the same.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:38pm

27. DanCall-Your response had no relevance to my question.Do you have anything besides paranoid rhetoric to offer?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 12:46pm

28. DanCall-You naive children are so cute with your Saddam moved his weapons into Syria as if leaders get rid of their weapons because they fear they may be attacked.Yes,and people who suspect they're going to to have their houses robbed always unhook their alarms and get rid of their weapons.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 12:49pm

29. Dan, you keep repeating the lies that not even Bush tells anymore. whattabore.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/03/2007 @ 12:50pm

30. DANCALL (all posts)

    That's what happens when you post from Starbucks, folks. They really need to down the wi-fi after the fourth double shot.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/03/2007 @ 12:51pm

31. You mean the people who were enslaved by Pol Pot and died of starvation? Or the ones who the French let out to dry and asked for our help and they ran and blammed the war on the US?

    Answering a philosphical question with no historical fact is mindless...but extremly liberal minded.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:52pm

32. Can you prove that syria does not have them? Oh that's right, they won't let us Check the region were they are supposed to be in...

    Next you are going to say that Iran does not have soliders in Iraq and Syria does not have soldiers in Lebanon.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:55pm

33. DanCall-There are many nasty leaders throughout world history,but we can't attack them all and doing so just kills many of the people you're trying to save.I hate bringing facts into this,but I must.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 12:56pm

34. DanCall-I don't need to prove that Syria doesn't have them since I have common sense and you have naive delusions about people getting rid of their weapons when they know they're going to be attacked.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 12:58pm

35. I'm nobody. when a drug dealer knows he is going to be raided certainly moves the drugs, money and weapons, right?

    Should we not forget that Saddam invaded Kuwait and then burned the oil fields. Soon after he AGREED to let us into his country for inspections...but then wouldn't let us in. You are boring!

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 12:59pm

36. What about the GULF WAR SYMDROM? Chemical weapons, brother? Did we not hit a few of the targeted warehouses, brother?

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 1:01pm

37. Crabwalk, before you have a coronary, I do believe I said, directly or by implication, that my concern was with ALL of the current leadership

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 1:03pm

38. DanCall-Are you an adult?A drug dealer is trying to avoid getting arrested whereas a countries leader has never,in world history, gotten rid of his weapons prior to being attacked.Obviously,you aren't a veteran.In war there are people on one side who have weapons and if you don't have weapons then the people who have weapons will win.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 1:08pm

39. When you are dealing with an ego maniac, anything is possible. Now do you mean gun weapons or WMD's?

    The idea Nobody is not to release WMD's ON TOP OF YOURSELF. Hmm...

    The idea is to build them and then transport them to areas of high population of your enemies. If the weapons are found, they lost 10 plus years of research and development.

    Please...you are really the one that is clueless!

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 1:18pm

40. DanCall-Your claim that Saddam figured he would win is quite ignorant considering the results of desert storm and his 8 year war with Iran,where he used biological weapons in his own country by the way,is too naive for words.I know you people need to believe this naive nonsense,but you just make yourselves look like little children.Saddam had no problem with using such weapons on his own people and would have used them on us if he had had them,but he didn't.Saddam said this would be the mother of all wars which would be impossible if he had gotten rid of his most lethal weapons.Try thinking instead of just repeating rhetoric.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 1:31pm

41. It is well known that the terrorist networks want to hit the US or UK with some form of WMD...the main question is, where are they building the devices and where are they getting the supplies?

    The material is one thing. and as we patiently watch Iran laugh at the world and build their nukes, we are seeing missle tests to see how far they can transport the materials or all our nuclear bombs.

    Have you not been reading that Russia cannot account for all their nukes? That Joe Wilson's report was a sham and that Saddam was actively pursuing material? (btw, one of the biggest spin jobs was to deflect the attention of his lies to the outing of his wife...masterpiece).

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 1:39pm

42. Mother of all wars would be to kill himself. Look where they found him. In a hole like a scared little kid. So PLEASE stop trying to defend Saddam and his military strategic powers.

    Maybe worth looking into: Oklahoma City Bombing and the Iraq/Saddam connection. Jayna Davis... Also, congressional reports are coming in stating the FBI and DOJ conducted a massive cover up...

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 1:44pm

43. Dan, you are a nutcase and are hereby remanded to the ignore bin.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/03/2007 @ 1:53pm

44. "After Saddam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found?" he said. "That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against."

    What we are witnessing now, he said, "is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted."

    Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 1:53pm

45. Posted by HAPPY 05/03/2007 @ 10:29am

    Lambro have any explanation why the public who disapproves of the war in Iraq by 65-70%....is "evenly split" on the 2008 candidates, when ALL of the Republicans want to keep the war going, against that poll; and ALL of the Dems want to end the war, in alignment with that poll?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 05/03/2007 @ 2:03pm

46. Please- both of you must stop. Iraq was the red herring. Bushies want permanent war. Flash your guns, scare some enemies, enrich contractors, and get more votes. But please, stop making this about terrorism. The pathetic part was picking an adversary capable of killing thousands of Americans. Although I disagree with most of what Dan has been spewing, the white house has strategically done nothing to debunk or discount these theories. Congratulations Dan, you are a sucker. Keep on carrying the water for this lame administration.

    Posted by phillymark at 05/03/2007 @ 2:08pm

47. After Gravel kicked buttocks at the last Democratic debate, It is nice to see some action coming from someone, anyone in the running. Now we get to see some heavy ass kicking from the Republican debate? Waiting for the sparks to fly.

    Posted by Leefeller at 05/03/2007 @ 2:08pm

48. DanCall-You may live in whatever fantasy world you choose to live in.You may believe that Saddam was the first leader to get rid of his weapons and voluntarily die just so he could make bush look bad and you may believe that Bush will be the first leader in world history to unite people who passionately hate each other under the banner of freedom and Democracy.You may believe whatever you wish,but I hope you don't mind if I stay in reality.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 2:12pm

49. "How about this idea, get the NON IRAQIS out of Iraq and see what happens."

    Posted by DANCALL 05/03/2007 @ 12:33pm

    Starting with US.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/03/2007 @ 2:15pm

50. DANCALL, I see you've been ignored, OR threatened with it: the cyber equivalent of sticking ones fingers in ones ears and going LA LA LA LA LA. This is a great honor amoung the sensible. You're response should be: WE WHO ARE ABOUT TO BE IGNORED, SALUTE YOU. :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 2:25pm

51. Chip-May I suggest that you and Dan Call get therapy.Just show the therapist his posts and say that you agree with them and therapist will be able to get you guys on the proper medications.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 2:29pm

52. Chip, you too, ignore. you have nothing to say.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/03/2007 @ 2:32pm

53. Someone please tell JR that, primitively speaking, I couldn't give a red rats ass if he ignoes me or not

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 2:44pm

54. Sorry, thats "ignores"

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 2:46pm

55. Witnesses to the DANCALL diarrhea meltdown, resolve that:

    A person who can find neither Iraq nor Cambodia on the map -- nor even the state in which he himself resides -- must be considered unfit for commentary on this august forum. Just glancing over the shitmess to which DANCALL has given anal birth most sloppy does reveal a few things:

    1. DANCALL needs to explain the dialectic between the coup against Prince Sihanouk led by Lon Nol and the rise of the Khmer Rouge -- the kind of totalist regime that (I will add in aside) is like a bedside drip of viagra for the froth-at-the-mouth America-despising likes of LVLIBERTY1 and McRIO McVEIGH. Had there been no Nixonian incursions all the way into Phnom Penh, no destabilization of a fragile and traditionalist Cambodian government, then it is likely that the Khmer Rouge would have amounted to no more than a bunch of raving assholes wearing black pajamas in the jungle. William Shawcross's SIDESHOW is the definative account and I encourage people to read it.

    2. As DANCALL is convinced at least of the Khmer Rouge's enactment of "hell on earth" (their neighbor's description), he should also explain the US complicity with and support for them. When Vietnam made their incusrtion in 1979, whom did Washignton support? Who was subsequently recognized as representing Cambodia at the UN? (Now watch as the DANCALL-calibre of grade zero intellect defends the Pol Pot/Maoist maniacs)...

    3. DANCALL was apparently in a coma for all of the 1990s as he did not notice the US-UK-(and for awhile French) no fly zones over the country throughout the entire decade (which would be roughly analogous to a recently belligerant Cuba, in tandem with Venezuela, enforcing the same over US airspace). He also fails to notice -- again, the only explanation can be a decade-long coma -- the UNSCOM inspections under the man who was characterized as Madame Albright's "creation" (Aussie Richard Butler) at the same juncture in time. Yet, the weakling DANCALL abundently fills his rightwing diapers with mighty fecal logs about "not going into Iraq" during the Clinton era.

    Yes, I see that others have also scraped the DANCALL diaper and rubbed his nose in the maggoty mess of drippy, runny caca that he has hatched. He is a rightwing retard so he probably won't learn any lesson. But we must be sure that the kids out there see that this is what happens when you agree to act like a robot programmed by the Bush-Rove-Reverand Moon-Murdoch axis and carve out your own brain with a butter knife.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/03/2007 @ 2:48pm

56. Chip, ignoes is more your style. bye.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/03/2007 @ 3:03pm

57. good slicing and dicing, Glenn. I just don't have the time to argue this revisionist crap for the nth time, which is not to say that I don't enjoy when someone demolishes these dolts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/03/2007 @ 3:07pm

58. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/03/2007 @ 3:07pm

    Verily. Posts can be a fine way to use some rightwing detritus as a punching bag, just for fun, just because one can. AND at the same time call out and voice support to others mobilized on the side of Truth against America-hating/9-11 loving cheerleaders for the Maximum (Cheer)Leader. The information is really for us, under the alibi of rubbing their noses in it, so we set the terms of discussion here and elsewhere. In this endeavor, I thank people like you, CRABW, BRUNO, JENKINS, ZERO, OUST, FOOLS, RILEY, WILL (and others I am scandalously not recalling at the moment) who achieve all these lofty goals with style.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/03/2007 @ 3:21pm

59. nonsense. slogans do not make an argument. and tell us about your basic study of history.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF

    To give you an idea, the fool says Howard Zinn made up all the stories in "A People's History of the United States".

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/03/2007 @ 3:46pm

60. Glenn, Just another "I try to belittle people that don't agree with me" rant. Please then explain the position of the support of China and the Soviets during that same time? Was it not the intent of the Soviets to spread communism and was it not the intent of the US to stop Vietnam from overtaking that region? Did we not just have a war with Korea who was supported by China and then 15 years later a war with Vietnam who was supported by the Soviets? Never mind that France ducked out of ALL responsibility and clearly has supporters like you who will not give the whole story so you can present yourself as all knowing for the good of your own cause? Now I will grant you that Pol Pot and his cronies should have been jailedimmediately, but please include with your righteuos intellect how we were screwed any which way in that region because we were dealing with the same bastards we are dealing with today? Dude, Socialists and communists need oil ya know...

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 3:58pm

61. MTSPENCE,

    At no time did I say any such thing. I mentioned that Zinn's narrow-minded single-vision view of US History consists of nothing other than the oppression of minorities by Majorities, or Capital vs the working man, and that such a narrow view, aside from being historically inaccurate, must by necessity be dismissed out of hand by serious students of history. THATS what I said. Your last post therefore makes you , sir, a liar. Remember the term the next time you use it on Maasch.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 4:06pm

62. There used to be this great place called Zinn's Diner. It had Pennsylvania Dutch cuisine and a championship miniature golf course to die for.

    Posted by phillymark at 05/03/2007 @ 4:30pm

63. PHILLYMARK,

    I'm There!!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/03/2007 @ 4:33pm

64. oh thats right, China and Russia are green...my fault.

    BTW, didn't we support Stalin killing off millions during WWII? Where is your outrage? Where is your zeal for freedom?

    You are right, the US is the only bad country in the world. we create all the evil that exists.

    Posted by dancall at 05/03/2007 @ 4:37pm

65. On Howard Zinn, want to really stump his fans....

    use a LEFTIST critic [dissentmagazine.org]

    Posted by Mask at 05/03/2007 @ 5:03pm

66. Posted by DANCALL 05/03/2007 @ 12:33pm: How about this idea, get the NON IRAQIS out of Iraq and see what happens. It is clear as day that they ones blowing things up are not locals

    DANCALL, I am quite surprised. Are you actually blaming the violence in Iraq on the presence of US troops? Are you advocating the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq? I would never have figured you to be a blame-america-first, surrender monkey.

    Posted by masquerade at 05/03/2007 @ 5:19pm

67. Posted by MASQUERADE 05/03/2007 @ 5:19pm

    LOL!

    DANCALL, your grasp of recent history is lacking in attachment to reality, why the heck would your opinion on 30 year old matters have any more relevance than your dreams of Syrian involvement in moving non-existent wmd's? (Along with russian help, I assume)

    HAHAHA, what a crock-O-Stimpy!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/03/2007 @ 9:51pm