Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEven as President Bush was trying, once more on Sunday, to spin the fantasy that the Iraq invasion and occupation are some kind of success, Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Iraq confirmed the truth of the mess that this military misadventure has created.
The vice president's "surprise" visit to Iraq -- which, coming shortly after voting in the latest of the country's quickie elections had finished, was about as surprising as Cheney's repetition of the administration's "stay-the-course" mantra -- was a public-relations disaster.
Why?
Because the vice president actually came into contact with the people his fantasies regarding Iraq -- remember Cheney's pre-war promise that U.S. troops would be "greeted as liberators" -- had put in harm's way.
Cheney's cheerleading during a whirlwind trip through the battlezone was challenged by men who are actually doing the fighting.
The first words Cheney heard during a roundtable discussion with several dozen troops were those of Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, who said, "From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains."
Cheney responded with warmed-over rhetoric about how the media is not showing the true picture of what is going on in Iraq. "I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq. We're getting the job done," claimed the vuice president, who was making his first visit to the warzone. "It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news."
The vice president did not seem to recognize the irony of complaining about media coverage presenting the war as something less than a success when he was responding to the concerns of a Marine -- who is actually serving on the ground in Iraq -- about the fact that he and his fellow troops "don't see much as far as gains."
Cheney's attempt to put a positive spin on the occupation does not appear to have found many takers among those who are dodging the bullets and bombs in a war that has killed more than 2,100 of their comrades and maimed tens of thousands more.
According to an Associated Press report, "When (Cheney) delivered the applause line, 'We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run,' the only sound was a lone whistle."
It is no wonder the troops were lacking in enthusiasm.
They know something that Cheney does not know, or at least does not admit.
They know that, at the close of this "watershed year," not nearly enough has changed for the better in Iraq.
They know, as well, that the administration's talk about how the U.S. will stand down as the Iraqis stand up remains an empty promise.
How empty?
Consider a line buied deep in the AP report of the vice president's visit to Taji Air Base in Iraq: "U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns."
For all of Cheney's cheerleading about how well things are going, those carrying the real guns recognize that they will not soon be coming home from a country where their "replacements" are carrying imaginary guns.
The truth is that the president and vice president refuse to level not just with the troops and American people but with themselves. Wiser observers recognize that only when the U.S. leaves Iraq will the Iraqis begin to take responsibility for policing their own country. As U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, wrote last week in a letter to his House colleagues, "It is time that the over 200,000 Iraqis who have received military and police training over the past three years take over the hard job of providing domestic security themselves and stop using American forces as a crutch to lean on. It is time for U. S. forces to redeploy out of the country in an orderly but rapid way..."
Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has spent far more time than Cheney ever will speaking frankly with troops in Iraq and with honest military strategists, says, "I believe that the policy of the president -- total victory -- is not a policy. I believe that is a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion." It should come as no surprise that the troops Cheney encountered appeared to have been as frustrated with the illusion as Jack Murtha. After all, Murtha, the old soldier who earned a chest full of medals in Vietnam, is one of them. Cheney, the guy who got five deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam, is not.
An expanded paperback edition of John Nichols' biography of Vice President Dick Cheney, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press: 2005), is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. The book features an exclusive interview with Joe Wilson and a chapter on the vice president's use and misuse of intelligence. Publisher's Weekly describes the book as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Again...the tag line about Murtha and his service in Vietnam, and Cheney's lack of it.
I keep wondering....did Mr Nichols feel that a DECORATED war veteran knew more about foreign policy and defense issues than a person who got numerous deferments from Vietnam....in 1992?
Did he think that a WOUNDED and DECORATED war vet, would "speak frankly" and do what's right by the troops....than a person who mentioned "loathing the military" in a letter he wrote in search of a deferment....in 1996?
or why we heard no cries of "chickenhawk"....during the Kosovo War?
just curious....like leftists who are NOW so worried about "Big Government" knowing our library records....but who thought it was "fine" with "Big Government" having our MEDICAL records....
a lot seems to have changed since the 90s!!!
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 3:01pm
Mr. Nichols,
I think you touched Mask's (and other war zealots like him, aka Bush & Cheney) hot button.
Keep up the great work.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/19/2005 @ 3:18pm
Sorry, ORAIB...not a "war zealot"
I'm a "zealot" against hypocrisy.
The kind that suddenly makes "deferments from Vietnam" "bad"...when it was "good" in 1992, 1996.
and putting a premium on the words and honesty of "war veterans", which was "bad" in 1992 and 1996....but "vital" now.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 3:28pm
Mask,
It is good to read that you are not a war zealot.
Regarding hypocrisy, Bill Clinton, et al, I think the critical difference between Clinton and the present chicken hawks is that Clinton did not pretend to be a war hawk even after getting the U.S. involved in Kosovo.
The present chicken hawks in the Executive Branch are not only hypocritical, but are also quick to disparage those who have served and who may disagree with their idea of fighting terrorists.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/19/2005 @ 3:36pm
Mask, I can't speak for Nichols because I wasn't reading him in the 90s (as I guess you weren't, or you'd be able to answer your own question). But I think the greater point of the piece is not that Cheney has or doesn't have specific symbolic qualifications (we all know that there have pleny of brilliant civilian war-time leaders in history right alongside bumbling generals).
The greater point is the current administration's continued unwillingness to look at what people who actually have a clue have to say about what's going on in Iraq. Cheney's deferments from VN don't (IMHO) necessarily disqualify him as a good leader, but, coupled with his current (and recent) behavior, they do indicate a certain unwillingness to put his money where his big mouth is.
Posted by Rintrah at 12/19/2005 @ 3:39pm
And, PS, if you don't remember, Clinton got reamed by the right and in the MSM for his VN avoidance, so let's not pretend it was a cakewalk for him. Come on.
Posted by Rintrah at 12/19/2005 @ 3:40pm
Remember, Shrub and his minions have no intention of EVER leaving Iraq. Don't be fooled. Remember the PNAC, and the fourteen PERMENANT bases we're building there. Everything they say and do is smoke and mirrors. They plan to keep us all distracted for another three-and-a-half years, and steal '08 like they did 2000 and '04, so they can keep troops there forever.
Based on the torture issue alone, the Bush Crime Family has got to go!! Impeach now.
Posted by tomshef at 12/19/2005 @ 3:44pm
Gotta run, late where I am. Damn, I wish I could get into with you guys right when things are heating up. Maybe during my Jan Holiday. Cheers . . .
Posted by Rintrah at 12/19/2005 @ 3:46pm
"U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns."
Because the US military was afraid the Iraqi soldiers would shoot the old, fat chicken Cheney. He looks more and more like crap every day. It's hard living in a bubble of blood.
Posted by LDEYAB at 12/19/2005 @ 3:57pm
People who actively and aggressively advocate for war should not be people who avoided actual service themselves. If Cheney was so gungho, then why didn't he serve? He's all too willing to send others to their deaths, but he found a way to avoid that, saying he had better things to do. I think there are over 2000 American citizens who definitely had better things to do than to die for the neocon agenda. Turn it around and look in the mirror: Clinton was not a war hawk, never pretended to be one, and therefore not a hypocrite. Beavis Bush and Butthead Cheney both found ways to avoid military service, and now take every opportunity to do to others what could not be done to them - send them in harm's way. You want to talk hypocrisy, start admitting that it has been taken to new heights (or should I say new lows) with the current administration.
Posted by Turk33 at 12/19/2005 @ 4:02pm
It was great to see Cheney being interviewed, apparently right after getting the cold shoulder from the troops. I think reality is starting to sink in.
As for the first post: Nichols was pointing out that MAYBE the correlation in perspective of Murtha and the troops that Cheney encountered was POSSIBLY due to what they have in common. THEREFORE, Cheney's ignorant perspective of the horrors of war might give him reason to listen to those who have endured it. I highly doubt that Clinton ignored the perspective of those who have fought in the war, like Cheney and Bush do!
Posted by jkbriscoe at 12/19/2005 @ 4:22pm
ORAIB
that Clinton did not pretend to be a war hawk even after getting the U.S. involved in Kosovo--- Posted by ORAIBI1952 12/19/2005 @ 3:36pm
What does that MEAN? Clinton didn't try to "act like he was some great Commander-in-Chief or something"? Sure you were watching TV back then?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 4:48pm
TURK
Ok....let's go with your standard from now on.
No wars or military action, unless the President was in the service. No fudging about "who's more 'war hawkish' or more 'chicken hawkish'....that's too arbitrary (as show by the odd defenses of Clinton's war and his lack of service).
From now on....no service IN A WAR (as we all know National Guard duty state-side won't "count")....So, no more humanitarian missions to stop genocide in Africa (unless led by a combat vet Prez), no re-installing "democratically elected" leaders in the Caribbean (ditto), no rescue missions of hostages in the Middle Easat (as above).
No nothing with the military...even the stuff YOU and the Left like...unless the Commander-in-Chief was in a combat zone.
Sounds fine with me!.........now, why do I suspect you'll disagree with this idea?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 4:52pm
Mask,
I thought Clinton attempted to act like a reasoned Commander-in-Chief, but more importantly Clinton didn't confuse stubborness with leadership or spin with reality.
When it came to real issues, like war and peace, Clinton didn't appear to suffer from fugue, psychologically speaking that is.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/19/2005 @ 4:53pm
Clinton was/is an ass and is a business and crime partner with the Bushies anyway (after all, who was governor of Arkansas when the Iran/Contra return flights full of cocaine were landing in Mesa, AK?).
I fail to see how deflecting the argument onto a former president somehow takes the heat off of Cheney and his puppet W.
Stick to the point Mask: these guys don't know how to fight a war half as well as they know how to dodge one.
Posted by bjkron at 12/19/2005 @ 4:58pm
ORAIB
Then criticize the way the war is fought....don't get on some hypocritical high-horse and discuss "such-n-such's" military service as a "kicker" to the argument.
Mr Nichols only used Murtha and Cheney to try to hammer home his point about how one guy opposing the war being a veteran, gives him more "gravitas" than another guy supporting the war who had a deferment.
Either COMBAT service by a Prez or Veep "matters"...or it doesn't, but this SUDDEN love of "combat vets" and their opinions (over those of "draft dodgers") is purely political and has arisen since 2000....and did NOT exist before that.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 5:06pm
BJKRON
Then why do they get support from guys who DID fight in a war and not "dodge one"....like John McCain?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 5:07pm
Mask:
They've also got opposition from people who fought in them (i.e. Murtha). AND they have opposition from people who dodged service, too. Life is a rich tapestry....
My point is that by saying these guys are no different from Clinton doesn't invalidate any argument against this administration.
Posted by bjkron at 12/19/2005 @ 5:16pm
Ummm....
Isn't the Cheney v. Murtha / Deferment v. Service kind of beside the point?
Or is that the point?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 5:24pm
Mask,
I'm not going to restate my words - read them again and respond to what I said, or not. Don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said into some hyperbolic bastardization. You are always claiming that you're not part of the Koolade Brigade - until you stop acting like one, we'll keep treating you like one.
Posted by Turk33 at 12/19/2005 @ 5:33pm
No wars or military action, unless the President was in the service. No fudging about "who's more 'war hawkish' or more 'chicken hawkish'....that's too arbitrary (as show by the odd defenses of Clinton's war and his lack of service).
Posted by MASK 12/19/2005 @ 4:52pm
Mask!
A new record. It only took one post to drag my favorite president into the fray. But the discussion was about comparisions between Murtha and Cheney. And four posts later, you keep wanting to make the discussion about Bill Clinton
To bad for you that Clinton hasn't been president for five years.
Though for some reason you still feel a deep psychotic need to keep trashing him.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 5:39pm
I guess the first eight years wasn't enough
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 5:40pm
Mask;
It really sucks when the DEM's use the same tactics that you do! It just kills you guy's when vet's give credibility to our position. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you can't take it! Obviousely, there are some vets who couldn't ignore their conscience.
I can hardly wait until those Iraqui vet's run for office in the up-comming elections. How will you convince America that a veteran with no legg's is unpatriotic? Nobody is going to swallow that hollow bullshit now!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 12/19/2005 @ 5:54pm
(sorry, couldn't sleep). MASK, I think the point Nichols and others here are trying to make has nothing to do with Clinton. Yes, he was a draft-dodger, and yes (IMHO) he was an ethical slug, BUT the biggest lie he told got 0 people killed.
Bush and Cheney, OTOH, have got thousands killed.
All presidents warp the truth. This isn't an excuse for anyone and I don't let anyone off the hook. But when Clinton was pres, and when he fucked up (which he did a lot), the pres and the libs joined the right in letting him have it.
When Bush, et al. fuck up no one on the right has the clarity of mind to be honest about it. Just say it, they've shat the bed. And now we all have to deal with the mess. Thanks a lot.
Posted by Rintrah at 12/19/2005 @ 6:35pm
Gee, Mask, you think the decorated war veteran should have won in '92 and '96. How about '04?
Posted by BBatten at 12/19/2005 @ 6:40pm
The Conservatives have no intention of ever reducing troop levels in Iraq, that is for sure. These rumors about reductions are being started by Donald Rumsfeld. It is painful to see the media repeating these rumors. The disaster in Iraq will only continue to get worse. All the Republicans I talked to in 2002 ALL said the job would be done within a year.
This character MASK was posing as a centrist Democrat before, on the Hillary Clinton thread. It was such an obvious fake - dude was even too lazy to re-register under a new name.
Posted by reidsucks at 12/19/2005 @ 6:46pm
Conservatives wish the ethnic cleanser Slobodan Milosevic was back in power.
Posted by reidsucks at 12/19/2005 @ 6:47pm
Mask: "I'm a "zealot" against hypocrisy."
Great, me too. Now try these on for size:
I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
My, my, these gentlemen seem to have a different outlook on war when a democrat is Commander in Chief. I'm sure as a "hypocrisy zealot" your blood is boiling.
Posted by BBatten at 12/19/2005 @ 7:04pm
MASK, I'll ask more pointedly: what does Clinton's performance as pres have to do with what Bush, et al. are doing now? Are not they (and their followers) adult enough to accept responsibility for their own actions?
Posted by Rintrah at 12/19/2005 @ 7:04pm
I wish someone would tell the Stock Market that Bill Clinton is still president.
Posted by reidsucks at 12/19/2005 @ 7:09pm
So much good news coming out of ABC's nightly news:
Ted Stevens has tied ANWR drilling to a comprehensive defense bill that funds not only the troops in Iraq, but also Katrina victims. He cried when questioned, "I've done nothing illegal. I've done nothing wrong. I've done nothing immoral." Too much cold weather will do a number on your gray matter.
And ABC will be running specials later this week on "What is Heaven?" with Barbara Walters and "Christian Wrestling". Damn liberals in the media!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 7:14pm
Ted Stevens was a mean old bastard long before he became mean and old. Nothing he does surprises me. I had the "honor" of introducing him once at the Tanana Valley Fair in Fairbanks, Alaska in the summer of 1972. He was, as John Stewart has phrased it, a "butt boy" for oil interests then, and he remains the same now.
Posted by Legba at 12/19/2005 @ 8:09pm
Speaking of Dick, and for that case Dubya, it's shame on us, not on them, that we've let them to cheat on us all the time. Fact is, if you were Dick, you would have done the same things. Another thing is, if Dick were you, the ordinary and mortals, he would fought back vigorously against the power that be as he has forced our toops in Iraq do. Viva Dick?
Posted by HelenDAO at 12/19/2005 @ 8:46pm
The problem that Bush and Chaney have is that they are unable to tell the whole truth without exposing the real reasons Iraq was invaded. Without it, all they can do is make sound bites which only the likes Mask still believe.
Not once has Bush or Chaney mentioned oil (nor, for some reason, have the Democrats which suggests some cross party collusion). Cheap oil is the sum total of why American troops have to stay the course. Withdraw without a friendly regime being made secure and all the lost lives and extraordinary expense will have been for nothing.
Bush or Chaney have precious little credibility as it is. Expose anything quite as nasty as the whole truth and their sordid little game will be well and truly up.
Posted by inveresk at 12/19/2005 @ 8:55pm
You're all forgetting the point of this article:
The troops on the ground, in Iraq, whose lives are being measured against death --- they are the ones saying that there is no appreciable gain. In other words, this may be a futile war costing "their" lives, the lives of loved ones.
And the end result - Cheney refused to acknowledge that fact. To him they are a statistic of effort in their overall scheme. Perhaps if Bush, Cheney, and the rest had seen first hand, both sides of flesh as it's torn from ones soul, then perhaps they'd find the heart to deal with sacrifice. Instead, the only sacrifice that Cheney, Bush, et al, are willing to offer is, the Truth.
bohdan yuri
And as I repeat what "the final victory" may look like it is:
"The Inevitable"
We keep hearing calls for a solution to the nation building efforts of the United States Forces in Iraq so that our troops can finally exit the quagmire of false pretenses.
The Bush Administration keeps stating that "we" cannot leave Iraq: until the votes for democracy are complete; until the Iraqis can set up a democratic government and govern themselves, until the Iraqi forces can protect their citizens, not until..........
Well, not until we realize the inevitable will the true Iraqi solution come forth. What is that solution you ask? The solution is the one that should have been sought from the very beginning, the obvious one, the one that Iraqis are in the midst of forming themselves through violence instead of diplomacy.
Has it occurred to the Bush Administration that this secular and non-secular warfare is not going to end until the most important lines are finally drawn, (and tragically at the cost of innocent lives,) --- the lines are boundary lines, separating each "tribe" into their own ruling domains.
Mankind has always and will always fight to the end for their country, their territory, their religion, their everything....
That is a Truth of any country, any heritage. Call it nationalism call it anything you want except an untruth. If put to a vote by the Iraqi people, they too would choose their own domain instead of sharing it with "enemies". Does Israel/Palestine come to mind, --- Chechnya...?
Anyway, even after the United States withdraws from Iraqi civil wars are inevitable. Just look to the secular, and non-secular lines drawn presently; lines that mark territories guarded by numerous militias that answer only to their own leaders.
So why not do the most logical thing --- divide the country into three: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. The only disagreements there would be the resources. It's all a matter of economics and equality in sharing the country's wealth. I'm sure that can easily be hammered out to the satisfaction of each party. Then and only then can true nation building take place. That should have been the goal from the beginning.
I don't know if that approach is past its time, I hope not, but perhaps it's worth diverting our efforts towards that solution.
Unfortunately here too I doubt if the Bush Administration would condone such a change in its policy, because that would mean admitting a mistake --- and aren't they all infallible --- in their own words, in their own minds, (it's always someone else's fault - does "faulty intelligence" come to mind?)
"Stay the Course" has been their eternal mantra, yet it's a course mapped by lies.
Unfortunately, daring moves require Courage, while Strength requires character, and Wisdom will usually ensure a final, lasting victory. Yet none of aforementioned qualities can be in effect until the curtain of lies is lifted. And that is where Courage still waits its turn.
Now, does anyone in the Administration have the Strength, Courage, and Wisdom to fully understand the future --- and not use the excuse of, "...nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined."
Seems I've heard Republicans use that excuse frequently in their past, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the insurgency in Iraq. It has now become an idiot's excuse to the very end of time.
If they only saw the Truth.................. then they could predict the future!
the end
bohdan yuri
Posted by bohda yuri at 12/19/2005 @ 10:15pm
"The Conservatives have no intention of ever reducing troop levels in Iraq, that is for sure. These rumors about reductions are being started by Donald Rumsfeld."
Well...I would not wager on this. This little stat has never really been sported. Remember about three months ago, our committed troop level was around 133,000. Now it is over 160,000. This was done for one reason only- the flim flam of the electoral process. As it stands, ladies and gents, expect a very sudden "reduction" in troop levels in the next week or so. It's a sham and a whole lot a spin. I expect Bush will call for a reduction of 25,000 troops in the next week or two. The same level as before December 2005. Imagine that.
Posted by doumer at 12/19/2005 @ 10:46pm
And to add to my last post. 27,000 additional troops in Iraq to "oversee", "provide security" etc the democratic elections and at a probably accepted sum of $5000 per to get them there and get them set up, to "oversee" the elections = $135 million. What is our esteemed Senator from Alaska gonna think about that. Think one "bridge to nowhere" drowned in the slough. Although,it will never really amount to that. The patriotic people of Alaska need that.
$135 million? More or less. It's a lot of clams. Yours and mine.
Posted by doumer at 12/19/2005 @ 11:05pm
My last piece and then I'm off to imbibe a few wholesome brews.
At long last, I see a little rainbow. Every day that passes, I see Bush sticking his hoof in his hole. I see his reaction displayed openly every night and it ain't pretty. He is leaving himself open to so many potentially indictable offenses without even a second thought. Carry on man.
My fervent hope is that ONE dem gets off his/her ass and does the rest of the deed.
Posted by doumer at 12/19/2005 @ 11:16pm
Again...the tag line about Murtha and his service in Vietnam, and Cheney's lack of it.
I keep wondering....did Mr Nichols feel that a DECORATED war veteran knew more about foreign policy and defense issues than a person who got numerous deferments from Vietnam....in 1992?
Did he think that a WOUNDED and DECORATED war vet, would "speak frankly" and do what's right by the troops....than a person who mentioned "loathing the military" in a letter he wrote in search of a deferment....in 1996?
or why we heard no cries of "chickenhawk"....during the Kosovo War?
just curious....like leftists who are NOW so worried about "Big Government" knowing our library records....but who thought it was "fine" with "Big Government" having our MEDICAL records....
a lot seems to have changed since the 90s!!!
Posted by MASK 12/19/2005 @ 3:01pm
Yeah, what changed was that Bush got us into a war that is a disaster whereas Clinton got us into a war that was prosecuted relatively successfully. That's regardless of whether I think the war itself was proper or not.
Sometimes brains can make up for lack of experience. Bush, unfortunately, is hobbled in both of those departments as are some of the participants here.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 12:13am
For those who are still awake:
"Not one American life was lost and Milosovich was overthrown with an air bombardment."
I have read statements like this multiple times over the last few months but no one has refuted it. Until now. heh,heh. The whole "no one lost their life" argument is completely irrelevant with regards to going to war. You go to war based on its necessity with the understanding that soldiers could and likely will lose their lives. (Do you really think Clinton KNEW that there would be no deaths?) That is why it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. But "no one lost their life" is a statement made with 20/20 hindsight and actually attempts to justify a war based on the number of dead. It is at best an empty-headed argument.
Now, excuse me while I digress: If one American soldier had lost his life, would that have negated the "worthiness" of the Bosnian conflict? (For that matter, if Milosevic had not given up, would you have supported ground troops? Or, would you have given Clinton the "get the troops out now!" rhetoric?) What number of deaths would have made World War II "not worth it?" Just extra-credit questions you can answer for fun.
Posted by usc1 at 12/20/2005 @ 12:29am
"The whole "no one lost their life" argument is completely irrelevant with regards to going to war. You go to war based on its necessity with the understanding that soldiers could and likely will lose their lives."
The larger point is not whether or not lives were lost, but whether or not the war was executed properly. With real international collaboration within the NATO alliance, Kosovo toppled Milosevic AND managed to avoid massive post-conquest turmoil. We know that there has been no true coalition in the Iraq war (unless you accept Blair's protests to obviously idiotic actions like bombing Al Jazeera as true collective decision-making), and we also know that the plans for post-invasion recovery made by the State Department were cast aside by an administration that, instead of suggesting that the war would not cost lives, wanted to suggest that the war would not cost money, require a large peace-keeping force after the fall of Saddam, or entail a lengthy occupation.
Still, the line that "You go to war based on its necessity with the understanding that soldiers could and likely will lose their lives" is incredibly naïve in the era of the all-volunteer army and 24 hour news cycles. Of course that's what war is about. But in a democratic nation, politicians can't just decide, a la Bush, to do "what's right" when they get into office regardless of what the public thinks (and anyone who says that they should has no understanding of the democratic, as opposed to the electoral, process). Otherwise, why would the army not allow the media to document the return of caskets from Iraq?
Posted by modibo1 at 12/20/2005 @ 01:31am
Perhaps the all-important issue here is that we're involved in an illegal war, illegal from it's very inception and well before. There isn't one iota of honesty, reason, or necessity to ANY of it. Therefore it isn't worth one cent let alone one life. The people who started this catastrophic mess should be held responsible and yet, Congress -- Repubs and Dems alike (the courageous Murtha excepted) are ducking the issue lest it taint them going into the '06 election. Congress smells like shit and it gets worse with every passing day. Disgusting in the extreme, and cowardly.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/20/2005 @ 02:22am
RIO BRAVO, you are a nut case.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/20/2005 @ 02:42am
Well, Cheney went and talked to the troops who are alive, seen that the death come back home in the dark, I would very much appreciate if the Nation, and Mr Nichols could report concerning the tens of thousands maimed, I do not have sufficient information concerning them, are they taken care for correctly?, why Cheney did not go and visit them also ?
Posted by areyouok at 12/20/2005 @ 04:03am
Cheney's mission is hopeless.
The war is lost.
It was lost the day we entered Iraq because the operating assumptions were utterly absurd--especially the one about being greeted as liberators. The country of "500,000 infant deaths was worth it" Albright was NOT going to be greeted as anything BUT evil.
It was lost when someone assumed that Iraq's oil would pay for the invasion. We are the world greatest debtor nation. We simply cannot afford a $6 billion per month war--no matter what the Enron-educated financiers of this war are telling the administration.
It was lost the day we decided to put 400,000 Iraqi soldiers out of work. Do the math folks. We are a LONG way from home. Our military is armed with equipment that uses a lot of gas and needs a LOT of maintenance. We are fighting in desert conditions (sand) which compounds the maintenance headache. We are in an area with 27 million people who speak a language only a TINY handful of Americans even know exists--much less speaks. Under these hazardous conditions, we sent home to brood, 400,000 men with wounded pride and military training while we left unguarded millions of TON of pretty sophisticated ammo so that when they got angry, they would have plenty of lethal options. The MATH is NOT on our side--we have less than 200,000 troops in Iraq. (oops)
It was lost when we sent a right-wing nut to administer the Iraqi economy. Of course, we maybe we shouldn't pick on "Jerry" Bremer too hard--the president of Harvard is just as goofy. We have been listening to these fools tell us their agenda was working for over thirty years now. It is a monumental and alarming failure wherever it has been tried--including USA (or perhaps we should just ignore the $2 billion merchandise trade deficit.)
The difference is that in USA, we have "educated" people to tell us that their economics of naked plunder is good for us while in Iraq, this scheme of theft arrived with an armed invasion. Consequently, the Iraqis understand that pirate-economics-with-a Harvard-U Chicago-Stanford-shine is something so appallingly evil, it is worth dying to defeat.
We have no shortage of bombs and missiles so we can still wreck a lot more of Iraq, but there is NO way we can win a war on the ground. We are strangers in a strange land--and soon, we are going to have to go home.
And the ONLY thing that Cheney can do about it is try to figure out how to shift blame away from himself. Nice going Cheney. You will go down as one of history's greatest fools. Put THAT on your tombstone.
Posted by eltechno at 12/20/2005 @ 05:13am
That was suppose to be $2 billion PER DAY merchandise trade deficit.
Posted by eltechno at 12/20/2005 @ 05:26am
ELTECHNO,
Thanks for a clear and argumented content exposing the real situation, just want to add that it has been a well know fact for centuries: ".......you never win a war in someones else home..............."
Posted by areyouok at 12/20/2005 @ 05:34am
Couple of comments (late, I grant) for those who responded to me.
1. I voted for Bill Clinton twice....George HW Bush's distinquished service in WW-2 was NOT a concern of mine's (Again, same as Mr Nichols then, probably...but ODDLY different from his view NOW!)...same for Bob Dole, a good man, but not my choice on many other issues.
2. I also voted for John Kerry...and HIS service (again, distinquished) was NOT a factor then either (THAT time we were already under the HYPOCRITICAL assault from Democrats (and Mr Nichols no doubt) that "during war, we need a combat vet"....something they wouldn't contemplate during the 90s)
3. A prediction of the future....in 2008 or 2012, regardless of our national security situation...if the Republican candidate for Prez and Veep are "combat vets", and the Democrat candidates received deferments (or even "easy" National Guard duty) during Vietnam or the First Gulf War....
I fully expect Mr Nichols' position to GO BACK to his pre-2000 stance on the "increased credibility" of combat vets versus "draft dodgers"!
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 07:23am
DOWNWITHW, I agree: RIO is a nut case.
It's sooooooo difficult to find rightwing websites that will publish anything and everything and call it "news." Note the lack of an accurate source. Heck, s/he probably wrote the whole thing while at work.
Posted by Litz at 12/20/2005 @ 07:34am
I just noticed that a similar and quite lengthy discussion has been taking place on D. Corn's most current blog concernig this exact thing: citing references. Com'on people, it's not that difficult!
Posted by Litz at 12/20/2005 @ 08:35am
Wish to add some more comments to FRANKGRITS 12/20/2005 @ 08:33am
Clark conducted a very well designed and implemented action, even the most stringent Human Rights requirements of some European Countries members of NATO where taken into consideration. Clark later took the time to explain the whole at several academic sessions all around Europe, he was convincing, dont forget he himself is a Political scientist before being a soldier. The USA will never be stained by the action he conducted with the allies, this, of course is not the case of Irak.
Posted by areyouok at 12/20/2005 @ 08:40am
Something called "USC1" writes:
The whole "no one lost their life" argument is completely irrelevant with regards to going to war. You go to war based on its necessity with the understanding that soldiers could and likely will lose their lives. (Do you really think Clinton KNEW that there would be no deaths?)
USC1, do you realize that more unborn children were subject to medical murder in the womb of the ramrod upright "pro-life" Congressman Bob Barr's wife after he zealously drove her to the abortion clinic? To paraphrase your own bold and lofty words: Do you really think Barr KNEW that there would be no deaths?
Why are the wombs of rightwing Congressmen's wifes so much more lethal than Clinton's NATO action where red-blooded American lives are concerned? Do not shrink away from this query, USC1, and stay not the course of idiocy ...
Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 12/20/2005 @ 09:17am
FRANK
Imagine Bush claiming that he is keeping Americans safe while terrorists have been pouring across our borders for the last five years at least. There's no excuse, post 9/11 that this could possibly happen.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 12/20/2005 @ 09:01am
????...I'm sorry. Did I miss the "2nd" 9/11 attack...or the 3rd...or 4th?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 09:20am
In today's GUARDIAN (London), Latin Americanist Richard Gott writes as follows on Evo Morales and Movimiento a Socialismo's bigger-than-anticpated victory in the Bolivian elections:
"The US, already overstretched in other parts of the world, is now being openly challenged on its southern flank, an extraordinary and unprecedented development".
In his article, Gott also alluded to the center-left governments already in place in Venezula, Brazil, and Argentina.
As hard-dicked Henry "HeMan" Kissinger opined after socialist Salvador Allende's electoral triumph in 1969: "If the people of Chile are too stupid to know what is good for them, we'll have to take matters into our own hands" (paraphrase).
So how about it? Following the towering Kissingerian moralism, I am compelled to ask: Where are the RealAmericans who will save RealAmerica --- yes, including the sandal-clad Martha's Vineyard element quaffing on champagne socialism and shamelessly speaking to their servants in Spanglish --- from the perils of Latin-accented leftistism? Do the bedimmed not realize that once entrenched in Bolivia, the leftists will sweep up the ithmus with Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Mexico among other dominos falling in succession until ... el peligro latino has encroached upon Texas --- or (shiver) TEJAS!!! --- perhaps to be joined by sleeper cells babbling in Spanish, salsa-dancing tastelessly, showing their tits, and inflicting Catholicism on the Protestant City Upon A Hill!!!!! Where are John Wayne and John Milius when we need them????
But wait. Perhaps their is a hero emerging over the horizon ... yes, it's ... could it be ...
CPT!!!??? Where are you in our hour of domino-driven peril? You have not become the "sunshine patriot" or the "springtime soldier" about which Thomas Paine warned????!!!! Surely, CPT, you can push more papers and recruit more cannon fodder and blog more furiously to put off the leftist menace on the doorstep????!!!! Of course, once you have done so and America is safe to protect my freedom to be in heavy debt, I will (literally, figuratively) spit at you as if I was im persoanting ass-challanged RightWingerDeluxe Anne Coulter interviewing a VietNam vet who has left a few limbs behind ... But that is beside the point!!! We need you NOW to save us, CPT!!!! You are --- as you said so bravely, so manishly in a recent post --- an "Eagle". On your wings, may we soar over the little brown Latins below who are driving toward New World conquest so menacingly!!!!
Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 12/20/2005 @ 09:45am
Important warning to neo-cons and history ignorants:
Tejas used to be Latino land, just check the US map, where you find a spanish name, it was Latinoland, so shouldnt it come back to them, as Israel came back to the jews ?........
Posted by areyouok at 12/20/2005 @ 09:54am
Mask You need not concern yourself with "the 2nd" or "the 3rd" 9/11, just take a look at GWB's non-actions, arrogance, and stupidity which resulted in 9/11 in the first place. W ignored all of the mounting evidence of al Quada's activity in the U.S. up to 9/11. I am not letting Clinton off the hook, but why the hell doesn't GWB take his share of responsibility (which he has never, ever done). The CIA had been seeking an irrifutable evidentiary link between bin Laden and terrorist activities world-wide since at least 1997, and GWB's knew this. The CIA event tried to snatch Bin Laden from Afghanistan in 1996 or '97 (w/o success of course). Richard Clarke and others told the Bushies time-and-time again. Osama surfaced early on as an angry and potentially very violent SOB over U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, as Bushies well knew, and they also knew about his close ties with the Taliban. He was also suspected as having some kind of involvement (nature uncertain: maybe knew Ramzi Yousef?) in the '93 WTC bombing as well.
So I guess your hero GWB cannot rightfully claim "that was before my watch" as he continues to white wash himself away from 9/11. And where the hell was the reliable first-term "National Security Advisor" in the run-up to 9/11? Probably shopping for shoes in Manhattan. We certainly don't want our NSA/Secretary of State to be outdone by the legacy of Amelda Marcos. If nothing else, Condi oughtta at look LOOK the part . . . .
Posted by DownWithW at 12/20/2005 @ 10:04am
FRANKGRITS: I wish just one soldier would have walked up to Cheney and told him to go fuck himself. This of course would never happen because our fine young men and women would never stoop to his level. But I,m sure the thought occured to thousands.
You are probably correct on this. One comment like that though to the Veep would get you a DD and 20 years in Leavenworth. The poor schmuck's family would undoubtedly be shipped off to a CIA sun-'n-fun club in Bulgaria or Poland as well. And I understand Bulgaria is beautiful just before Christmas, which you are allowed to take in and appreciate providing your cell window faces outward. Cold beans on Christmas Eve are of course, free of charge.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/20/2005 @ 10:19am
Cheney also forgot to pay a X'mas visit to the CIA sun-'n-fun clubs around the world, after all, in a torture free adminsitration, these paradises should be used as ethic and moral examples, anybody disagrees ?.
Posted by areyouok at 12/20/2005 @ 10:43am
Cheney flees from Iraq. Supposedly he is going back to the US in order to cast a tie-breaking vote. What message is he sending the troops with his fleeing from Iraq?
Posted by jkrogman at 12/20/2005 @ 10:50am
You need not concern yourself with "the 2nd" or "the 3rd" 9/11...
Well, yeah, DOWNWITH...think I WILL "concern myself" with that...since they haven't happened and yet FRANKGRITS claimed that all those terrorists have slipped through the border in the last 5 years and apparently decided to just lay about or something.
This is what I think REALLY scares a lot on the Left about the end of the "Bush Years" in 2009. If we go into Spring of 2009 with a Democrat (or even a Republican) President, and THEN a "2nd 9/11" happens, the Bush people RIGHTFULLY get to claim that "there weren't any further attacks under their watch" and the "legacy" is established.
Now, of course, no one here WANTS a "2nd 9/11" (atleast I hope so)...but politically, if it doesn't occur under Bush's watch....that WILL be a pretty profound thing for him to point to as he leaves office.
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 11:15am
JKROG
Cheney flees from Iraq. Supposedly he is going back to the US in order to cast a tie-breaking vote. What message is he sending the troops with his fleeing from Iraq?
Posted by JKROGMAN 12/20/2005 @ 10:50am
"fleeing"?....same standard going to apply when the TROOPS come home?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 11:15am
Mask
You seem to have a thing for the early 90's those days were not even close to what we have today. The most obvious is that there was actual world support for the actions taken very simular to Bush SR's gulf war. If you want to compare now to then go back to 66 - 74 then you have a leg to stand on in comparision or inverted comparision, the only real difference is that the drugs were better and more plentiful then.
Why does your first reply remind me of the rush limpbrains/ ann cuntrane rationaliztion justifications where time and context means nothing.
Hate to repeat my posts please bear with me but CPT got lost again, from the earlier topic "Bush's New Rhetoric on the War" a responce.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 12:09am /in responce to my 11:52 am post
{DYCEL8R
"I dont need Micheal Moore to tell me about 9-11"
Mayor Rudy Guilliani.....when asked if he was going to watch Farehnheit 911}
When did I invoke the anticoncervative threat of threats Michael Moore O great clueless one? and who gives squat if Rudy ever watches F 911
{ DYCEL8R
In that same vein,
I certainly do NOT need you to lecture me, about WAR.
You will never know just how stupid your last post sounded. }
Why did it sound stupid you didn't bother to answer the question, let me guess I was right you've never seen combat for more than a month or two if that, now you push paper because its the only thing you are almost qualified for.
{ But lets move on, to the topic at hand, the militias, because of their presence you deduce an all out civil war is immenient, right? Sure, if we pull out they way many of you want us to, but it is highly unlikely. }
Weather we leave now or ten years from now there will be a civil war unless they redistrict the country into three provinces.
{ You see O CLUELESS one, 11 million voted FOR a govt of IRAQ, now out of country with a total population of 25 million you do the math. Thats is alot people by virtue of the act of VOTING said NO to terrorists violence and makes the possiblity of a civil war even more remote. }
Once again O clueless one you didn't read the post! the comment attached said they have no idea what they are voting for! Please get your Duffy reader out and try to comprehend the content of this post instead of the anally retentive rationalized thought processes that pass for understanding in that .17 cal brain of yours.
Here's the post again see if you can read it this time!
This post from an Iraqi website seems to add light to their view of the elections: http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/74042
@ All by sjreese on 19.12.2005 [16:21 ] How could they know? 7500 people running; 275 seats 11 million votes; US Congressmen and VIP's with purple fingers!!! Photo opportunities in the US Whitehouse!
Victory In Iraq equals a voting public unable to know the what is their constitution; what are the results in the last election or this election for that matter; This information is only for the US VIP's with purple fingers -- Oh, by the way partial result means shaping the Victory for the US - (Allawi is the winner) and "I liberated Iraq" :-(
If you can refute this please at least supply you source in stead of your mouth
Posted by DYCEL8R 12/19/2005 @ 11:39pm
Posted by dycel8r at 12/20/2005 @ 11:51am
DYCL8R
Sorry, if my concept of history actually goes BEFORE November 2000 and Florida and also AFTER November 1992....I realize a lot of the Left have that mind-set, where anything that happened under the Clinton Years can NEVER be discussed (atleast not in a "bad way" about the WH....Newt of course is fair game).
And of course "now" is the "worst time in American history"...which "oddly" seems to conincide with a lot of chest-beating and furrowing of brows about how we have "one party rule"...LOL.
Reminds me of the 90s....Ooops!....hehe....when "bipartisanship died", the moment the Democrats lost control of Congress, despite the fact that Clinton signed off on numerous bills in a quite "bipartisan" way!
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 12:29pm
DYCLEAR
I will not defend my combat experience to a nitwit like yourself.
You are a little sad man, unworthy of a reasoned discourse. I imagine your a little jealous. Perhaps you never had the balls to serve or perhaps you were simply a coward when the shit hit the fan and you yourself curled into the fetal position and wept.
Posted by CPT at 12/20/2005 @ 12:34pm
You are a little sad man, unworthy of a reasoned discourse. I imagine your a little jealous. Perhaps you never had the balls to serve or perhaps you were simply a coward when the shit hit the fan and you yourself curled into the fetal position and wept.
Posted by CPT 12/20/2005 @ 12:34am
Well reasoned.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/20/2005 @ 12:38pm
GLENN C LEMON
I consider it an honor, Thank you
Bring it on, I must be getting to you. Will Glenn I will tell what, dont worry if we go down to Latin America, we wont have to get interperters
Cause as we used to say back in the box
"They all speak M4"
Posted by CPT at 12/20/2005 @ 12:56pm
TJB
Sometimes you have to know your enemy, and "speak the language" that only they understand.
Posted by CPT at 12/20/2005 @ 12:59pm
" perhaps you were simply a coward when the shit hit the fan and you yourself curled into the fetal position and wept."
this would perhaps describe Bush on 9/11
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 1:00pm
MASK wrote:
Now, of course, no one here WANTS a "2nd 9/11" (at least I hope so)...but politically, if it doesn't occur under Bush's watch....that WILL be a pretty profound thing for him to point to as he leaves office.
MASK, when Rove goes to jail, they should hire you, because you hit the nail on the head. What do you do when there's a giant terrorist attack less that a year into your first term as President? That's right, you commit 150% of an already huge military budget to chasing the buggers down, and knock off a past-his-prime dictator while you're doing it. The chances that the opposition can regroup are miniscule under the circumstances, and you can just borrow the money for seven years or so. Success is assured.
Pity the poor guy (or gal!) who has to pick the pieces afterward. But that's not going to be W's problem. All he has to do is "stay the course."
Posted by MyParadigm at 12/20/2005 @ 1:08pm
You know this place used avoid nastiness, although you had the occasional profane poster, but latelty the leftists seem to have really taken over and have gotten real ugly.
I admit, I myself have fully particiapated in it, but you can only take the moral high ground so many times.
Its ashame, there used to be alot of good spirited debate.
Now the posts seem more bent on insulting and degrading the other, without apologies, in fact even proud , and I admit I have participated in this as well, although almost always in response to a provacative and nasty post.
So what to do? I guess could stop coming here, that would make many happy, oh well.
I will from here on out, not engage EXCESSIVELY nasty posters, spirtid debate is well and good, but I will disregard many who are just plain mean spirited extremists radicals. It serves no real purpose other than the school yard mentality of getting the last shot in.
Posted by CPT at 12/20/2005 @ 1:13pm
Johanne
lol, alright that was funny
Posted by CPT at 12/20/2005 @ 1:15pm
Well, yeah, DOWNWITH...think I WILL "concern myself" with that...since they haven't happened and yet FRANKGRITS claimed that all those terrorists have slipped through the border in the last 5 years and apparently decided to just lay about or something.
This is what I think REALLY scares a lot on the Left about the end of the "Bush Years" in 2009. If we go into Spring of 2009 with a Democrat (or even a Republican) President, and THEN a "2nd 9/11" happens, the Bush people RIGHTFULLY get to claim that "there weren't any further attacks under their watch" and the "legacy" is established.
Now, of course, no one here WANTS a "2nd 9/11" (atleast I hope so)...but politically, if it doesn't occur under Bush's watch....that WILL be a pretty profound thing for him to point to as he leaves office.
Posted by MASK 12/20/2005 @ 11:15am
That's all unadulterated poo, MASK. Any attack will be the responsibility of a Republican Party that has committed to an estimated 1 trillion dollars in spending to attempt the subjugation of Iraq. That money could have been spent on homeland security and apprehending the 9/11 principals.
Any Democrat elected will have to break the budget even further to put in place the security that the Republicans have ignored the last four years in their idiot attempt at material and political conquest. They were intellectually inbred enough to think that Iraq would be a cakewalk and that they would be heroes to the American people for decades to come. Just goes to show that money doesn't equal brains.
More importantly, however, they have committed treason. Repeatedly. You seem very assured that they will get away with it scot free but take my advice and don't bet the farm.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 1:18pm
Bring it on, I must be getting to you. Will Glenn I will tell what, dont worry if we go down to Latin America, we wont have to get interperters
Cause as we used to say back in the box
"They all speak M4"
Posted by CPT 12/20/2005 @ 12:56am
Why didn't you try to be a soldier with the Mafia? Don't they pay more? You certainly don't evidence any compunction about who you're asked to commit violence against or if there's any moral reason for it.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 1:23pm
You know this place used avoid nastiness, although you had the occasional profane poster, but latelty the leftists seem to have really taken over and have gotten real ugly.
I admit, I myself have fully particiapated in it, but you can only take the moral high ground so many times.
Its ashame, there used to be alot of good spirited debate.
Now the posts seem more bent on insulting and degrading the other, without apologies, in fact even proud , and I admit I have participated in this as well, although almost always in response to a provacative and nasty post.
So what to do? I guess could stop coming here, that would make many happy, oh well.
I will from here on out, not engage EXCESSIVELY nasty posters, spirtid debate is well and good, but I will disregard many who are just plain mean spirited extremists radicals. It serves no real purpose other than the school yard mentality of getting the last shot in.
Posted by CPT 12/20/2005 @ 1:13pm
It all started when you told that cowardly lie about the Iraqi family, women and children included, that got shot to death by American machine guns. The "M4" that you love to brag about. Respect isn't a freeby anywhere.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 1:28pm
Right? If Israel belongs to the Zionists, the United States belongs to the American Indian Movement, who certainly have a more recent claim to U.S. territory than Zionism has to Israel. In fact, the Great Spirit gave them North America, just like God gave Israel to the Zionists. In fact, the seizure and redistribution of territory once lived upon by Indian tribes is arguably an act of state socialism, which, as we all know, the righties are opposed to.
Posted by Legba at 12/20/2005 @ 1:36pm
Say that, Fromredbird. at the end of the day, old CPT ain't anything but another social darwinist with a rifle.
Posted by Legba at 12/20/2005 @ 1:37pm
FROMREDBIRD: Your last statement is entirely true and makes sense. Every nation sooner or latest must grapple with the issue of resource finality. We have so exhausted our own in Iraq, both troops and $$, that little (relative to Iraq) has been expended to crush the Taliban and their lucrative opium trade. In many areas of Afghanistan they have returned to power. These things are established facts.
Hence, the case is made that GWB has failed to win the "war on terrorism" due to his pigheaded insistence on fighting the war in Iraq which, as we know all too well, HAD (previously) nothing to do with terrorism at all. If we don't have bin Laden in hand by 2009, and if we havn't tried every MAJOR player/planner of 9/11 by then, then yes, GWB will have completely flopped since he, as C-in-C, had the resources to catch the bad guys. GWB has been very cagey at evading blame and responsibility, and at snowing the snoozy, dozing American public. GWB has always know this and has used this to his great advantage. History, however, will not look kindly upon his Administration (how's that for a gross understatement?).
Posted by DownWithW at 12/20/2005 @ 1:43pm
The reason the Dems' critique of this war falls so flat is because nearly the entire Congress and Senate bought into the 'lie' that Iraq was rich, weak, and easy. 'Low hanging fruit,' 'an opportunity too good to be missed.' Why else Iraq, and not North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, all who were, are still, or plan to develop nuclear weapons?
Posted by frankbel at 12/20/2005 @ 2:41pm
I will from here on out, not engage EXCESSIVELY nasty posters, spirtid debate is well and good, but I will disregard many who are just plain mean spirited extremists radicals. It serves no real purpose other than the school yard mentality of getting the last shot in.
Posted by CPT 12/20/2005 @ 1:13pm
CPT: The point you make is not a bad one, admittedly. However, you need to keep in mind two big things: 1) You are blogging on a "progressive" website here. Friends of Bill O'Reilly we are definite NOT and NEVER will be. 2) A lot of pent-up frustration exists among all voting categories over GWB's inflexible and obstinated policies which have: a) cost many lives, limbs, ears, noses, faces, etc. under horrific conditions. In short, there is alot of very real middle-class pain out there; and b) Progressives have been hopelessly shut out of office by a politician who claimed he would "reach across the isle" and include those who viewed things differently than himself. We are really pissed about this one; and c) Folks are just plain tired of being lied to by GWB. It's incredibly demeaning and completely transparent, and we've had a snootfull of this as well. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't also.
So there, now we can all sit together and play nicely in our big sandbox, and there is plenty of room for you and your friends, too! But under the above circumstances, don't be TOO surprise if sand (I'm be polite now) comes flying in your face every few minutes or so. It simply comes with the territory.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/20/2005 @ 2:44pm
I have repeatedly pointed out that Israel is at least a split on the palestinian issues as we are in the issue of the war, or the Bush presidency. Zionists are only part of the story, to keep harping on them is akin to imagining that all of us in the US subscribe to the views of Fox cable.
we owe it to ourselves to support progressive movements here and in Israel
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 8:13pm
Frankbel, you are right, but don't tar all dems with the same broad brush
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 8:14pm