Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen:

I agree with many of your points. I worry, though, that saying “…he has an entire party underestimating things right with them” overstates things a bit. Heck, Chuck Hagel came right out and said we’re losing the war. There have also been criticisms from moderate Republicans like McCain. I guess my point is just that not all Republicans are “in lock step” with the administration on this one.

Posted by: Steve Westby at June 29, 2005 02:37 PM

SD
I like you post and you make some very good points, but what is up with saying this:

“It’s not surprising that many in the military support Bush. His visions coincide well with their career goals: change the world for the better with the force of arms”

Totally uncalled for. Any soldier worth a damn sees the use of force as the only viable option left.
Saying a soldiers career goal is to change the world through the use of force is way off mark.
A soldiers career goal is to defend this nation at all costs, even the ultimate sacrifice if asked. You know this to Stephen.

As I said, I really enjoyed your post and am glad you gave your opinions on Bush, except for what I mentioned.
I am very curious to see if anyone from the right has yet found a reason as to HOW Iraq was a serious threat to OUR national security.
I hope this brings some answers out.
Thank you.

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2005 02:56 PM

No links between 9/11 and Iraq, no WMD’s, no terror in Iraq until WE invaded - if Bush was a Democrat he would already be facing impeachment.
And, by the way, the administration is NOT trying to build democracies around the world, but tributary states of the United Empire of America. He cares nothing for democracy; he only cares about spreading unregulated capitalism - an oligarchy that threatens ANY democracy.

Posted by: Fionn at June 29, 2005 03:06 PM

Fionn,

Absolutely right. He cares not one bit about democracy or he would participate more in a democratic way in this country instead of the facist style that he practices. It’s all about Oil and Power. And helping his cronies aquire more wealth and power.

Posted by: Dane at June 29, 2005 03:20 PM

Stephen,
good article, im sure my comments will pale in comparison.

Bush’s speech last night strikes me as containing nothing of substance. Its like he is a preacher who keeps giving the same sermon and cant figure out why the congregation keeps getting smaller. There will always be those who are willingly placated by hearing the same rhetoric, “this is hard work, we are making progress, we will win, etc” but the reality is even some of his faithful are beginning to doubt and look for something more concrete to answer his concerns.

When is the Bush administration going to realize that you cannot continue to misinform the American people and get away with it?
The answer is only when the American people stop wanting to be deceived and give up their apathy and hold their leaders accountable.

Posted by: Vex at June 29, 2005 03:36 PM

Stephen,

I don’t say this often. However, when I see a new article with your name on it, I look forward to reading it because I know that it will be well-written and insightful.

This post exemplifies all I admire in your writing.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 29, 2005 03:40 PM

No terror in Iraq? How do you explain away the training camps? “They are only training not doing” How do you explain the bounty paid to the families of suicide bombers? “Oh it is against Israel so it doesn’t count” How do you explain away the mass graves? “It isn’t terrorism if the tyranny of a government does it”

WMD found - no
WMD program - yes

9/11 link - no
Terrorist link - yes

The Middle East has been a world problem for long time, too long and it kept getting worse. Things had been done in the past and failed. What Bush is doing may fail too but it is better then placing sanction on a country and then getting rich off of subverting the sanctions.

Is this about oil and power, sure but never forget the food aspect of it.

As for where all new jihadists are coming from, they were coming no matter what the question was to where were coming to. Right now they are being funneled/focused away from the US. Now instead of being heroes to the people of the land, they are becoming the ones doing the killing of the people. Instead of cultivating a field of prospects they are salting the fields.

Posted by: Alan Winship at June 29, 2005 03:52 PM

Is this the trash Bush blog?
Did I find the correct place?

Posted by: Ted at June 29, 2005 03:56 PM

Alan~

I agree. People sure do get worked up about “intent” when a kid does something at school(wears black, draws a gun). It’s called being pro-active, nobody wants their child shot at school and will go to great lengths to stop it(rightfully so) so no, I don’t see the difference.

Posted by: Traci at June 29, 2005 04:01 PM

The entire so-called “War on Terrorism,” with its associated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the product of a deliberate policy of perpetual war. That policy, formulated by a gang of neo-cons in the Bush Administration, is intended to take the world back to the condition it was in, prior to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which brought to an end nearly 150 years of destructive, bloody, religious warfare in Europe. But Americans won?t or don?t care because we know nothing of pre-1776 history. This perpetual war policy, of course, requires an army designed to fight perpetually, which the U.S. Army, heretofore, has not been designed to do. The Cold War U.S. Army had been structured to fight short but decisive campaigns, and is now being reorganized to fight continuously. Senior Army leaders do not hide the fact that this is what is going on. Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody, in remarks to a luncheon on Capitol Hill, sponsored by the Defense Forum Foundation, described the entire process in some detail. Among other things, Cody said that the institutional Army, including the logistics base, will have to be reorganized onto a “wartime footing,” because “we believe war will be the norm… and peace will be the exception.” We already know that the middle east has been in a ?perpetual war? for decades now, but the difference will be a DIRECT American presence?which means, we?ll be spending money and spilling American blood for many, many years to come.

Posted by: Karl at June 29, 2005 04:03 PM

I’m doing some research and I would appreciate if one of you could give me a link to all of the arguments against the Bush Administration. And I mean all of them. Thanks

Posted by: Tony at June 29, 2005 04:07 PM

When the strong use their power to try push the weak to be a certain way that is what I have been taught that a bully was.I now see our country the once poster child for democracy being bully to the rest of the world.Mr Bush democracy is when the people decide on their government not us.I don’t think the old if we can’t win your hearts and soul we will burn your huts working to stop terrorism instead we are now the terrorist.Thanks for promoting what you claim to be fighting and if you guys hadn’t of put these guys in power you wouldn’t have to be trying to stop them now.

Posted by: randy at June 29, 2005 04:19 PM

Stephen,

I’m not sure I wholly agree with your thinking that Bush doesn’t know what he’s doing, that his neat little plans are falling through. We have a strong, justified (not really….Say, “accepted”) presence in the Middle East. The Middle East, aside from being possibly the most anti-American area in the world, also holds the world’s majority of oil, something the U.S. depends on.

Not only is Bush guarding that oil now, he has the ability, more importantly the emanance of fear, to keep the rest of the Middle East in line. He’s attempting to bring democracy to a country last ruled by a dictator - he’s doing it by force, which some don’t agree with, but it looks like he’s doing it.

I suppose what I’m saying is, Bush may very well be accomplishing his goals: American supremacy, oil supply confidence, “freedom” in the Middle East. Whether you agree with those goals doesn’t matter in terms of him failing to achieve them.

There was a closed thread over in the Red column asking how a quote from Karl Rove (“Republicans fight the terrorists, Democrats would make more policies” - I paraphrase of course) differs from another inflammatory quote from our liberal news-getter Howard Dean. We were attacked. We fought in Afghanistan against who we truly believed, as a nation, were the harbourers of the terrorist faction that attacked us. It was when the war was to continue, with no moral clarity, in Iraq, that the nation wavered. And now that we know that the motives were unjust, Democrats still waver, whatever the potential outcome.

Between the choice of unjust war (death, destruction, mourning) and more containment policies, I’ll accept Mr. Rove’s statement, and live by it.

Posted by: Thomas_R at June 29, 2005 04:24 PM

——“No terror in Iraq? How do you explain away the training camps? “They are only training not doing” How do you explain the bounty paid to the families of suicide bombers? “Oh it is against Israel so it doesn’t count” How do you explain away the mass graves? “It isn’t terrorism if the tyranny of a government does it”——

There were, at the time we invaded Iraq, terrorist training camps in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Lebanon……I could go on. There was NO DIRECT THREAT in Iraq greater than any of these other nations. You are lying to yourself.

Posted by: jim at June 29, 2005 04:24 PM

“When the strong use their power to try push the weak to be a certain way that is what I have been taught that a bully was.”

You meant Al Queda, UBL, the Taliban, Radical Muslims, Iran, Syria ….
I didn’t see the U.S. ‘forcing’ themselves on the Middle East until the Middle East came to us.
It’s more like the U.S. has come to the rescue of the weak being bullied in the Middle East.

Posted by: bugcrazy at June 29, 2005 04:31 PM

I did not watch Bush’s speech, but one thing struck me after I heard about it: It is extremely troubling to me that Bush would use a military base and the soldiers there as his backdrop and audience for what was presented to the nation as a prime time address to all Americans concerning his Iraq policy.

When speaking to the nation, the president uses the White House (or a joint session of Congress) to deliver his message.

Perhaps my anger should be directed at the media, who in the build up to this covered it as a presidential address to the nation. But what we got instead was a photo op.

What’s next — is Bush going to deliver a major speech arguing for his Social Security privatization at one of his so-called “town hall” meetings? Where hand-picked citizens can ask him their softball questions?

Will the networks provide equal time to those who oppose the Iraq war (such as moveon.org), allowing them to use whatever backdrop and audience they choose?

Posted by: Steve at June 29, 2005 04:35 PM

“I didn’t see the U.S. ‘forcing’ themselves on the Middle East until the Middle East came to us.”

Iraq never came to us.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 29, 2005 04:37 PM

WMD program - yes

WMD program - NO. The “program” didn’t exist. At most, there is some slight evidence that Saddam would have liked to restart the program, when and if the sanctions were lifted, but there was no WMD program in Iraq at the time we invaded.

Terrorist link - yes

Yes, Iraq had links to terrorists - who were targeting Israel, not the US. Saudi Arabia has more links to terrorist organizations than Iraq. So why invade Iraq?

…placing sanction on a country and then getting rich off of subverting the sanctions

You mean like one of Bush’s fellow Texas oil men, the one who was indicted as part of the scandal? Maybe we should have invaded Texas.

As for where all new jihadists are coming from, they were coming no matter what

What evidence is there that “they were coming no matter what”? I haven’t ever seen any such evidence. In fact, it’s been reported that terrorist organization recruiting has increased since our invasion of Iraq.

the question was to where were coming to. Right now they are being funneled/focused away from the US.

Why do terrorists have to travel here to kill Americans when our “bring ‘em on” president has conveniently provided thousands of targets right there in Iraq? Posted by: ElliottBay at June 29, 2005 04:38 PM

I’m doing some research and I would appreciate if one of you could give me a link to all of the arguments against the Bush Administration. And I mean all of them. Thanks

I’m working on a Computer Science project for a Master’s Degree. Could someone here do all the work for me? Thanks

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 29, 2005 04:58 PM

Stephen,

I started counting how many posters were sympathetic to the content of your article as opposed to how many raised some opposition. I gave up but I would estimate that about 90% are “pro” article content.

Your article lays out very nicely in that the subject matter is story like. Events are like chapters in a historical portrayal of the Iraq war. Some text has a philosophical aura.

My question to you is : If you were reading this article, what if anything would you select to discuss as a counterpoint.

Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 04:59 PM

Iraq didn’t come to US ??

Wake up, please wake up.

Iraq attack Kuwait, while Kuwaiti oil ships were flying US flags. This means we were protecting Kuwait. Hence, Iraq attacked the USA.

The first Trade center attack during Clinton years - ALL of the attackers were under Iraqi passports.

Tim McVeigh met with Iraqi intelligence officers 6 months prior to Oklahoma City Bombing. Janet Reno threw that evidence out because McVeigh could not get death penalty if he was working for someone else and they had not been tried yet.

Atta (9/11 ring leader) met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Hamburg Germany in December 2000.

The cease fire of Gulf 1 stated that Saddam must show proof that he destroyed all WMDs including these that were never destroyed (220 tons of nerve agent, 80 tons Mustard gas, 450 mustard Ariel bombs and 550 mustard gas artillery shells) he never showed proof of the destruction of these items. It doesn’t matter if he let people search the entire country. He didn’t show proof of the destruction.

For 5 years we couldn’t find that bomber guy in NC mountains, and for 17 years we couldn’t find the una bomber. AND WE NEVER DID FIND THEM. One was accidentally found digging in a dumpster and the other was turned in by his brother. Our law enforcement can’t find shit or prove shit. And you don’t believe we are having trouble finding gas in an entire foreign country?

On May 17, 2004 terrorist rigged a roadside bomb using a saran nerve gas artillery shell near Baghdad WMD FOUND

Some Mustard gas was found around the same time period.

Bush didn’t lie.

Our Intel and WMD slueths may be incompetent, but Bush didn’t lie. Some where out there there is over 300 tons of nerve and mustard gas and around a thousand rounds of the same.

Dems populate the big cities in our country.

You don’t really think they are going to target east bum f’ked Georgia do you ?

They’ll be hitting LA or NY or Chicago. You do know that right ?

Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 05:10 PM

James,

Brilliant post. Is it safe to assume that these statements reflect a political position that is other than Liberal.

Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 05:24 PM

WMD program - NO. The “program” didn’t exist. At most, there is some slight evidence that Saddam would have liked to restart the program, when and if the sanctions were lifted, but there was no WMD program in Iraq at the time we invaded.

WMD program ? Iraqi scientists with literature buried in yard
http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/Serialization.html

CIA?s finding (but then again it?s the CIA so can you believe it?)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

You mean like one of Bush’s fellow Texas oil men, the one who was indicted as part of the scandal? Maybe we should have invaded Texas.

A man from Texas so he must be a friend of Bush.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/14/texas_oil_man_indicted_in_iraq_oil_for_food_scandal.php
Not a good friend, since Bush let him get indicted.

Yes, Iraq had links to terrorists - who were targeting Israel, not the US.

So that makes it ok?

Saudi Arabia has more links to terrorist organizations than Iraq. So why invade Iraq?

Because other methods are being used

What evidence is there that “they were coming no matter what”? I haven’t ever seen any such evidence.

9/11, 1st attack on WTC, Cole, Lebenon and too many to mention. Terrorist have been attack the world for years and it has been getting bigger, there is the proof. What other proof do you want? It is called a Jihiad or ?Holy War? against the ?Great Satan?.

Posted by: Alan Winship at June 29, 2005 05:29 PM

to all you bush lovers.

it doesnt matter how much evidence you have. we will never stop untill bush is impeached and spends the rest of his life in jail.

we need to revenge bill clinton and ensure hillery is elected in 2008 so we have to destroy bush to acheive this.

to the dems sorry im sharing page 105 of the 2008 playbook but it was bound to get out.

Posted by: bush must go at June 29, 2005 05:35 PM

more proff of bush being nuts!!!

http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=1904

Posted by: bush hater at June 29, 2005 06:05 PM

James,
Wake up and smell the facts, dude.

Iraq attack Kuwait

Don’t use things Iraq did before Gulf War I to justify Gulf War II. That would like justifying an attack on Japan today based on what they did during WWII.

The first Trade center attack during Clinton years - ALL of the attackers were under Iraqi passports.

And where are the attackers all now? In jail for the rest of their lives, thanks to the Clinton anti-terror program. If the Busgh program is so good at protecting us from terrorists, where is Osama bin Laden? Where is are the Taliban leaders? Where is al-Zakarwi?

Tim McVeigh met with Iraqi intelligence

Yeah, in your dreams.

Atta (9/11 ring leader) met with Iraqi intelligence officers

He met with one low-level Iraqi officer. One. And there is abosolutely no evidence of any other collaboration between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. None.

The cease fire of Gulf 1 stated that Saddam must show proof that he destroyed all WMDs including these that were never destroyed (220 tons of nerve agent, 80 tons Mustard gas, 450 mustard Ariel bombs and 550 mustard gas artillery shells) he never showed proof of the destruction of these items.

Using that logic, I challenge you to prove that you’ve stopped beating your wife. Don’t forget that the weapons Saddam was supposed to destroy were the ones we shipped to him during the Iran-Iraq War.

…a roadside bomb using a saran nerve gas artillery shell near Baghdad WMD FOUND

First of all, the “W” in WMD stand for Weapons. Plural. More than one. Besides, subsequent tests on the shell you’re referring to revealed no evidence of sarin. The mustard gas shells were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, and contained no active ingredients. You must’ve been watching Faux News.

Some where out there there is over 300 tons of nerve and mustard gas and around a thousand rounds of the same.

Right. Hundreds of UN inspectors and thousands of US troops looked for months and months and found nothing. Nada. Zilch. I guess you’re entitled to ignore reality and HOPE for them, though.

The facts are that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that it posed no threat to this country, and that we invaded without sufficient justification.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 29, 2005 06:16 PM

bush must go and bush hater,

Are you guys some sort of secret society.

Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 06:18 PM

Alan
1. Literature buried in a back yard is not a WMD program, is it?
2. Your own CIA link says this about the WMD program:

Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

So how does this make Iraq a threat to this country?
3. Regarding Iraq’s support for terrorists:

Yes, Iraq had links to terrorists - who were targeting Israel, not the US.
So that makes it ok?

No it doesn’t. But it does show that support for terrorists doesn’t necessarily make Iraq a threat to this country.
4. Please explain how the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the 1st WTC attack, the attack on the Cole, etc., prove that Iraq was a threat to this country. The point I was trying to make (and could probably have been clearer about) was that there are now more terrorists than there would have been if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. So, this invasion has resulted in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous one.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 29, 2005 06:44 PM

Bush (43) must go ?
What ?
Before that, Clinton must go !
Bush (41) must go !
Before that, Reagan must go !

Hold someone accountable ?
In government ?
In the United States ?
Keep on dreamin’ !

Even if a politician ever gets convicted (like Dan Rostenkowski) they get a pardon (like Dan was pardoned by Clinton).
Look at this long list of criminals pardoned by Bill Clinton.

Check this out too. Hillary was very happy to get a $400K donation for that little favor too.

And, what a slap in the face of the jury and judge that convicted those criminals!

Let’s face it. We, the people, are being screwed.
This is not a government by/for/of the people.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2005 06:55 PM

James - They’ll be hitting LA or NY or Chicago. You do know that right ?

They’ll be doing that anyway. Only now they’ll have more resources to do it with.

Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2005 07:46 PM

Please tell me the purpose of trying excuse the complete failure of the Bush Administration by bringing up Clinton? I know you hate Clinton… fine… get the hell over it. If you want to compare people pardoned by Clinton vs Bush Sr. and or Reagan… OK. But face up to the issues facing us today. They’re ugly - but they’re here to stay until REPS face them and deal with them.

Mistake from the past to NOT excuse what’s happening now. Face it - deal with it - or live in the past on your own.

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2005 07:53 PM

Elliot Bay,

You purposely leave out parts of your sources which is exactly what most US Newspapers and TV stations do.

You stated: Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

The actual line from the report reads as this:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

They actually found 12 artillery shells of Sarin and mustard gas and these were real and not later found to be empty.

Terrorist’s first thought: Should I keep fighting

Then seen on Al Jazera TV: Ted Kennedy “We need to get out of this Quagmire” Pelosi “Iraq isn’t the problem, Mexico is” Durbin “US soldiers are criminals” Biden “Bush is a liar”…so on, and so on, impeach, our boys are dying, no WMDs blah blah blah

Terrorist’s second thought: wow, we just might win…even Kennedy thinks we can win the same way Vietnam did

Picture this: Ten tractor trailors drive to a hole in the desert. Everything, including the drivers are put in the hole and buried. When the soldiers who did this deed return, other soldiers are waiting for them, they don’t know why but they are ordered to shoot them when they return, but they do it.

Find the hole

Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 08:00 PM

Elliot bay,

You lied at least twice.

you said “Besides, subsequent tests on the shell you’re referring to revealed no evidence of sarin.”

Here is the AP report from 1 week after the bomb.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin (search) in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad, a defense official said Tuesday.
The determination, made by a laboratory in the United States that the official would not identify, verifies what earlier, less-thorough field tests had found: the bomb was made from an artillery shell designed to disperse the deadly nerve agent on the battlefield.

Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 08:17 PM

James,
Are you referring to these shells?

You’ve completely missed my main point, which was that Iraq was not a threat to this country at the time we invaded. Having A SMALL NUMBER OF OLD, ABANDONED munitions does not constitute a threat.

Since you bring up the subject, I challenge you to name one single (or married, for that matter) American serviceperson who you can prove has been physically harmed by opposition to this war.

I’ not trying to be inflamatory, but if your “terrorist thoughts” were meant to imply that we who oppose this war are somehow less American or that we love our country any less, I have words for you. THAT IS A DESPICABLE LIE. I tried to think of a “kinder, gentler” term for it, but there isn’t one. If oppposition to this war is unpatriotic, does that make the Republican party unpatriotic for its opposition to President Clinton sending US troops into Kosovo?

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 29, 2005 08:26 PM

Tony,
That’s the art of politics.
Change the subject, cloud the issues, obscure the facts, use non-sequiturs, mix truth and lies.

However, there is one truth in what I said.

We, the people, are being screwed.
This is not a government by/for/of the people.

You demonize republicans, some demonize democrats, some demonize the president (who ever it is at the current time), but there’s really not much difference between one party or the other. Consider the similarities between Democrats and Republicans. Then, still try to perpetuate the partisanship. Do you wan to be a puppet for one party or the other ?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2005 08:43 PM

In the Authorization of Use of Force against Iraq drafted on October 16, 2002, which passed both the House and Senate with overwhelming majority stated “Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for 911…., are known to be in Iraq. The following paragraph states Iraq to be a safe haven for many terrorist groups. So, Alan are you honestly going to say that all terrorists in Iraq were only focused on Israel (as if that’s ok). Secondly, the claim that there are more terrorists in Iraq now than before is exactly GW’s point. Iraq is now where they are concentrating and fighting realizing this is the mother of all battles and I, for one, am glad that it is over there. GW is listening to his military leaders advice on how to win this war and that’s exactly how it should be. They tell a slightly different story on how the war is going then the Dems, and I trust the version of the men who are there rather then one’s at the cocktail party.

Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2005 08:47 PM

According to a CIA analyst on, “Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraqi War”; he stated that the only place that had terrorist training camps in Iraq is in the Northeast border; however, Sadaam Hussein didn’t have control of that area, as it is ran by the Kurds.

——————————————————————-
Jay,

GW is listening to his military leaders advice on how to win this war and that’s exactly how it should be.

Bush certainly wasn’t listening to the Army’s Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki. He is listening to the Rumsfeldian theory of military; less ground troops, more technology. Clearly, Rumsfeld is off.

——————————————————————-
On the final point, the Bush Administration asked the CIA to data mine; which is telling the CIA Analysts to go back and rethink their positions. That is highly unethical, blatantly dishonest and down-right stupid. This is the reason why the CIA is away from Washington and out of political influence. The Bush Administration violated that.

——————————————————————-

On a final sidenote, biological and chemical weapons have shelf lives. Sarin has a shelf life of six months. I wouldn’t advise to drink Sarin after the six months are up but it is no long Sarin anymore.

Your posts have been condensed into one posting. a little double post to follow up is acceptable, but otherwise, try an get things in one fell swoop as a courtesy to other readers.

Posted by: Professor Easley at June 29, 2005 08:53 PM

Resubmit the point about the pardons without the personal comment
-editor

Posted by: Professor Easley at June 29, 2005 09:03 PM

“…East Bumf’ked, Georgia…”
I think you mean Florida. I live in Georgia and
we don’t have an East or West Bumf’ked. We do seem to have a gaggle of Yankee transplant
Republicans, though.Perhaps this accounts for
your confusion.

Posted by: Georgia Cracker at June 29, 2005 09:40 PM

Certainly the red column is quick to talk about hating America - so lets look at that.

I’ll tell you who hates America. Its the people who whole-heartedly support a man who pretended to be something he is not (a moderate) to become the president. Those who support a man who is the head of the government yet wants the government to fail by bankrupting it. Those who support a man who cares more about quarterly profits than preserving a healthy environment. Those who are glad our president prefers walking with a tough guy swagger than worrying about world public opinion of this country. Those who are glad we have a president that takes credit for surrounding himself with diverse looking people though these people have virtually no diversity of thought. Those who support a president who is just too lazy to get the details right.

You have to really hate America to be all about that.

Posted by: Tom G at June 29, 2005 10:35 PM

kctim-
What was World War Two? Changing the world for the better by force of arms. You assume I was taking a negative view on our soldiers for having that particular attitude. I think it’s a noble one, after all my grandfather is a veteran of the Good War.

I’m just saying that Bush has used that noble ideal to convince some in the military of a rather sad thing: that the Democrats who are their fellow Americans do not support them. We do, with no less heart than anybody.

Alan Winship-
I spoke of a real terrorist presence. By that, I didn’t indicate the penny ante groups that have had neither the strength nor the spine to strike at us, but al-Qaeda, or al-Qaeda like international organizations. Those terrorists groups were not in Iraq in any truly great numbers. As for terrorist links, the best anybody can do is conversations with al-Qaeda, a standard that would incriminate even us. As for WMDS, we found only evidence of the wish to have one. Again a fairly loose standard for war.

I don’t want this country jumping at shadows or fulfilling the grudges of its political leaders. The Department of Defense has a purpose and it’s not to send our men and women to die for the geopolitical dreams of a clique of conservative academics.

You underestimate the complexity of the situation your hero Bush landed us in. There are factions in the Sunni world that shed few tears for the deaths within Iraq’s Shia majority. As for how many are being sent over to fight in Iraq, well, it’s sort of irrelevant. It didn’t take thousands of insurgents to kill thousands of Americans. It only took nineteen. It is dangerously naive to assume that occupying some terrorists in Iraq means we’ve occupied them all.

It’s also dangerously naive to say that just because Saddam supported penny-ante terrorism in his local neighborhood, that this means that going to war with Iraq was justified. Sorry, you don’t get to conflate those threats so easily. Iraq supported terrorism along the lines of what we first confronted at the dawn of today’s age of terrorism: Arab socialism.

But those people are of an entirely different sensibility than al-Qaeda’s, no matter how much you conflate the secular tyrants of the Middle East with the zealot terrorists. If you knew the history, you would know they were antagonistic forces in Middle Eastern politics.

And yes, it does matter to how we respond, in terms of who we lean on, and who we pit against whom.

James-
I’ve heard your material before. It’s called Laurie Mylroie, former apologist for the Saddam Hussein Regime, believes that every terrorist attack since the Gulf War was done by Iraq. I’m not going to dignify such stuff with a response. Her only way to link WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef to Iraq is to say that somebody switched fingerprints during the occupation of Kuwait to create a legend for Ramzi. This to explain away the inconvenient fact that Yousef is not the same Mukhabarat agent that Mylroie’s claiming him to be.

As for the destruction of the WMDs, if a WMD is destroyed without a memo, is it still destroyed? Yes. Since we have inspected quite thoroughly, and WMDs can’t just walk into the woods and disappear like our nice little domestic terrorists are able to, your argument is without much merit.

Truth is, to move tons of such materials, one needs men and materials, and those things can be tracked down.

Oh, and yes, I do remember the shells! I wrote an article about it! But you know what? They were too old. Also, the mustard gas shell had gone bad. the Sarin shell only lasted this long, I think, because it was a binary agent that would mix together from relatively nontoxic chemicals that had more stability. The twelve shells I heard about were inf act false positives. You’ll have to link me to the story so I can see the basis of your claim.

That’s another thing: even if chemical munitions survived from the Gulf War, they would be decomposed by now. Saddam needed more than just kept weapons, he need the system to produce more. Which we successfully denied him.

Picture this: Ten tractor trailors drive to a hole in the desert. Everything, including the drivers are put in the hole and buried. When the soldiers who did this deed return, other soldiers are waiting for them, they don’t know why but they are ordered to shoot them when they return, but they do it. Find the hole

That’s so simple it just might not work.

A tractor trailer is not a small purchase. Here in the states, it’s a about a hundred thousand. the sudden disappearnce of a million dollars worth of vehicles will leave a mark in the records. What’s more, you can’t just go out there and bury them without additional earthmoving equipment, and the personnel to run those. Do we bury those with their operators too? To hide the kind of munitions Bush was talking about, there would be a noticeable pattern of deaths, plus suspicious patches of disturbed earth.

As for your propaganda victories, it seems a conveniently geared explanation of terrorist motivations, where they wait for baited breath for our politicians to argue among themselves.

What about Bush’s leaving Fallujah alone for half a year? Does that not embolden them? Don’t the daily successes in attacking Iraqis and Americans embolden them? Should we desist in criticizing those whose decisions can endanger our lives if made wrongly, simply so that some terrorist watching our news (if they can get it) doesn’t feel emboldened? I don’t know about you, but I don’t give a flying shit if that encourages them, because that’s democracy and it’s what we’re fighting for, damn it! Bad foreign policy emboldens terrorists more than rocky partisanship at home.

Bush must go-
I don’t need revenge for Clinton. I need more competent people in Washington for this time of great trial. Mediocrity in leadership in this particular period in our history is a luxury we can ill afford.

Ted-
No, you haven’t. Bush trashed himself. I’m just relating to you the smell of what he’s dumped on himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2005 11:43 PM

Jay-
Whereas clauses, of which your quote is one, do not count as congressional or legal sources. Additionally those whereas clauses where language suggested by the White House, and supported by their “evidence”

The main support of Saddam’s activities was with local terrorists with beefs against Saddam’s competitors, second the claim is not that there are more terrorists, but rather that there are any of that kind of terrorist there at all.

Al-Qaeda killed almost three thousand men women and children with just 19 hijackers, so it is not right to assume that Bush’s war in Iraq consitutes any defense for that kind of threat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2005 11:54 PM

Elliot, Stephan,

This, was not some article:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

It came from this CIA report, the exact same line that Elliot used except Elliot used only the second half:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Stephan,
Millions of things walk off into the woods and are never seen again, every year…you only hear about the blonde ones.

Example: There are 93, Russian made, mobile (suitcase) nuclear bombs missing too, find those.

Georgia Cracker - sorry about the east bumf’ked Georgia comment. It’s an old Army saying. I have a whole bunch of old Army sayings.

As for your shelf life of nerve agent, an English degree doesn’t make you a chemist:

CIA BELIEVES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL SEGMENT OF IRAQ’S NERVE AGENT STOCKPILE CONSISTS OF BINARY CHEMICAL WEAPONS—WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION. CIA ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE SHELF LIFE PROBLEM WAS ONLY TEMPORARY AND THAT THE IRAQIS EVEN NOW MAY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE UNITARY AGENTS OF SUFFICIENT QUALITY BY ADDING A STABILIZER OR IMPROVING THEIR PRODUCTION PROCESS.

Found here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960705/73919_01.htm

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 05:21 AM

Sorry Stephan,

One more thing;

You said:

A tractor trailer is not a small purchase. Here in the states, it’s a about a hundred thousand. the sudden disappearnce of a million dollars worth of vehicles will leave a mark in the records.

Don’t forget that France, Germany and Russia (basically the UN security council)(Why did we have to act unilaterally again?) anyway, France, Germany and Russia were getting Saddam about 2 billion dollars a month under the table. Plus, i drove in an 18 wheeler from Dahok to Turkey, there are a lot of trucks that could have been taken by the government.

He (Saddam) buried all those million dollar MIGs (MIGs are russian fixed winged fighter aircraft) Why wouldn’t he bury a few trucks.

Again, I would be surprised to later find out that Saddam had some aid in hiding WMDs. Aid from western countries that wanted oil.

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 08:00 AM

LOL

I meant:

Again, I would NOT be surprised to later find out that Saddam had some aid in hiding WMDs. Aid from western countries that wanted oil.

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 08:25 AM

Elliotbay

1. A program on hold and hidden is still a program. There are many incidents of stashes of hidden parts of chemical and biological weapon programs such as mobile labs they weren’t suppose to have.

2.I did say no WMD. Destroying weapons does not get rid of the knowledge of how to make more. How to make the weapons is part of the WMD program.

3. Terrorist are a threat to every country. By the way did you hear about the assassination attempt against Pres Bush 41 from Iraq?

4. When I mention those incidents I said terrorists, I did not say Iraq. But Iraq is part of the terrorist culture, and terrorist is a threat to the world, therefore Iraq is part of the problem. Under Saddam, the terrorist cuture grew in Iraq through the use indoctrination in schools (I don’t have the link to the Newsweek story “Hate Schools”).

Jay

I am not saying that Iraq was only focused on Israel, I mentioned it as proof they were involved with terrorism, nor is it ok.

Stephen Daugherty

Maybe an anolog will clear up what I am saying about the threat of Iraq’s and roll in terrorism.

Think of al-Qaeda as a professional football and Iraq’s terrorist outfits as highschool football (not that I agree that is all they are, but I will take it from what I have infered from you). If you were able to remove high school football, the quality of play in professional football would drop, not istantly but over time. It is called removed the building blocks. A fire is not put out buy spraying water on the flames, but by attacking the source. The source does burn anyone but it allows the flame to inflict damage. That is what I mean when I say Iraq is a threat, is allows the flames to burn.

Posted by: Alan Winship at June 30, 2005 10:04 AM

I did say no WMD. Destroying weapons does not get rid of the knowledge of how to make more. How to make the weapons is part of the WMD program.

Does it follow that any country that ever had a WMD program should be considered a target for invasion? Thus Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Israel, the United States, etc. should be worried? Quite a statement.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2005 10:35 AM

SD
“What was World War Two? Changing the world for the better by force of arms.”

The way you stated it, that it was a soldiers career “goal” to use force of arms, made it sound as if our soldiers only reason for enlisting is to use deadly force to achieve peace.
Maybe I read to far into it, but as a former soldier it sounded to me as if you were saying I enjoyed killing because I was brainwashed into believing it was for changing the world for the better.

“I’m just saying that Bush has used that noble ideal to convince some in the military of a rather sad thing: that the Democrats who are their fellow Americans do not support them. We do, with no less heart than anybody.”

Bush didn’t have to convince anybody of this.
Liberal lawmakers using the Democratic Party and the thousands of leftist protestors who march against everything our military does convinced us.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 10:47 AM

Theorically, in a perfect world all WMD should be eliminated.

Posted by: Alan Winship at June 30, 2005 11:11 AM

Stephen
You wrote an excellent piece regarding Iraq. And did it without major Bush bashing!
I would like to submit the following in response to Steve. There is a counterpoint.

Bush isn’t the only one involved in making the decisions regarding the invasion. I had great respect for Colon Powell until this fiasco. Our Congress, the eagerness of one party wanting to show WHAT they could do once in control of the government…..,our own “intellegence sources” (isnt’ that almost an oxy-moron?)the FBI scew - ups, the CIA (I do believe that Bush Senior was head of that at one time.) etc, etc.

I am NOT talking about some sort of compiracy, merely that the above and more must also take responsiblity.
The red page is trying to compare Bush to Reagan, so I’ve like to add a little something for them:
I’m still looking for the money I should have gotten from Reagan’s “tickle-down” theory.

Linda H.

Posted by: Highlandangel at June 30, 2005 11:57 AM

Alan-
I agree that a program on hold might still be considered to be a program. But a program on hold does not make Iraq a threat to this country. In contrast, North Korea has nuclear weapons, an active program to make more of them, and has threatened to use them not only on South Korea, but on us. So please explain how Iraq is more of a threat than North Korea. Oh, I understand - the North Korean missles can only reach the west coast and those states went for Kerry.

I agree that terrorists are a threat to every country. If that’s your standard for invasion, then why aren’t we in Nepal fighting the Maoist rebels there? Why aren’t we in Spain fighting the Basques? Or any one of twenty or thirty other countries around the world with terrorists? Almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn’t we invade them?

And yes I know about the assasination attempt on Bush I. My personal belief is that this is the real reason 1,700 brave Americans have had to die in Iraq - because Bush II wanted personal revenge for his daddy.

kctim -
You say that opposing this war means that we don’t support the troops. I oppose this stupid and dangerous war, and have participated in marches and vigils in opposition to it. But my wife and I have also raised money for orphanages there, and I have written several checks over the last 18 months to help local National Guardsmen who were stationed in Iraq pay for armor plating for their vehicles, to pay for personal body armor, and to help defray medical expenses for a couple of guys who lost limbs over there. The checks for the medical expenses were written, by the way, because the Bush administration cut veterans benefits. I did this even though I oppose the war. And now I hear that I really don’t support the troops. I resent hearing such fatuous statements.

What complete and utter hypocricy.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 30, 2005 11:59 AM

It seems that there those who go to extreme measures to justify our situation in Iraq. After exhaustive searching and finding nothing that would constitute a direct threat to our country our government had to fabricate enough bogus evidence and use it as propaganda to sway public opinion. Shame! Look for bigger fish to fry. In my lifetime I have not seen a more irresponsible, untrustworthy, and integrity void adminisration than the Bush administration. We need not worry about the import of fascism into our country, it is already here under the disguise of “conservative agenda.” Greased-palmed politicians, state sponsored religion, invasion of countries under false pretenses, and division between rich and poor all fit this fascist idea. I truly feel for those who put their lives in danger for an administration of liars.

Posted by: magi at June 30, 2005 12:30 PM

Magi,

Strange, how different you and I are. I often think that it has been a long time since we have had a president with so much integrity.

As far as propaganda, the propaganda mills are 75:25 in favor of the left. You can’t dispute that. I even did a survey here at the newspaper where I work and it was 79:21.

You’re also an idiot if you can’t see that the divisions between the rich and the poor are created by and exasperated by the left.

As for our president and his integrity, we often find ourselves with a problem that presents two solutions. In the military, we called it the easy wrong vs. the hard right. (right meaning correct, not political right)

Far too often today, we find ourselves led by leaders who instinctively always go for the Easy wrong. (I know you democrats loved Bill Clinton, but for some reason, you do not want to hear him mentioned any longer BUT) Bill Clinton was the epitome of always doing the easy wrong.

Example:
The house is on fire. Bill would be smart enough to identify that fact. He would also yell to everyone else and they would all run out of the house together.

I honestly think GW is the type that would run back in to save people and put the fire out, even though Ted Kennedy and the NY Times, and Howard (aching back, draft dodger) Dean are all standing in front of the door trying to trip him. And old Bill would be pointing and laughing and shouting to his buddies, “look at that fool country boy, don’t he know that the fire is hot?”

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 01:22 PM

As far as propaganda, the propaganda mills are 75:25 in favor of the left. You can’t dispute that.

Yes, we can. Many of us have, with actual evidence, to boot.

You’re also an idiot if you can’t see that the divisions between the rich and the poor are created by and exasperated by the left.

Yes, we get exasperated by the persistent divisions. Oh wait, did you mean exacerbated? Silly me. Sorry, what were you saying about idiocy?

In the military, we called it the easy wrong vs. the hard right.

Interesting division. Of course, we think that Bush went for the hard wrong. Oh well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2005 01:38 PM

So please explain how Iraq is more of a threat than North Korea. Oh, I understand - the North Korean missles can only reach the west coast and those states went for Kerry

Oil

What do I mean by that? Probably not what you are thinking. The worlds, not just ours, depends on it. They have it, so we can never isolate them. Until the oil runs out they would have a substantial income to fund their Jihad. And we have seen with Oil for Food Scandal there are not just people but nations who will subvert any attempt to remove that factor. So that is the one of big difference between entire ME and NK. ME can fund their hatred while NK cannot. Does that mean I am saying NK is not a serious threat? No.

There is also the factor that NK cannot be treated like Iraq. Until China comes on board with the idea that NK is a problem, any military action against NK would be devastating. But that is thing, once China comes on board there wouldn’t be a need to invade. China has the power to fix the problem there without military intervention. They are the loving parent who keeps enabling the out of control drug user.

I agree that terrorists are a threat to every country. ….. Why aren’t we in Spain fighting the Basques? Or any one of twenty or thirty other countries around the world with terrorists?

Because (to my knowledge) Spanish Government is not actively funding those terrorists, they are fighting them. Now Spain’s (IMO) approach is only making the terrorists stronger, they are not supporting them.

Almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn’t we invade them?

You are absolutely right, Saudi Arabia is a huge problem with terrorists and some thing should/needs to be done about it. They supply money, equipment and a breeding ground for hate. Difference between Iraq and SA is absolutely no one would have supported an invasion of SA. They didn’t have sanctions against them, they don’t have a large standing army threatening the entire region and I really hope we can another method other then invasion.

And yes I know about the assasination attempt on Bush I. My personal belief is that this is the real reason 1,700 brave Americans have had to die in Iraq - because Bush II wanted personal revenge for his daddy

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion with out getting shot for it, at least in the US.

Opposing the war does not mean you don’t support the troops. But do you also supporting those that slander the troops with lies and hate?

Posted by: Alan Winship at June 30, 2005 02:02 PM

Should I feel like an idiot because I misused a word? Ok, I will, me and the multi millions of idiots that GRADUATE from our public schools every year. A fine creation of the corrupt relationship between the NEA and Democrats.

“keep em stupid and dependent on us, and we’ll always have them dumbasses to vote for us”

The media bias is real. I have an AP feed 15 feet from my desk. Between October 1, 2004 and November 7, 2004 79% percent of all editorials and political cartoons were pro kerry or anti bush. 21% were pro bush or anti kerry. that’s fact, no matter what you little blog conversation thinks that in proved.

Either way, for years clinton allowed the schools to grow increasingly worse, throw money and let them (teachers, schools)do whatever they wantEasy wrong. Today, children graduate who cannot read or add or spell exacerbate. Why? “We don’t want then to go through life with the feeling of failure” No one cares how they’ll feel when they are 30 and realize they are dumber than dirt.

Bush is trying to do the hard right, which is educate the children, get rid of bad teachers and bad schools, reward good teachers and good schools.

This is very hard because the NEA is very powerful and they have 75% of the newspapers and 90% of the TV news and the entire democratic party on their side.

You see if you were to truly educate the poor. They would need government less. Then the entire democrat platform of (sit on your ass and we’ll steal enough for you to leave just under the poverty line) would be less enticing (did I spell that right lawn boy?)

Bush is trying to do the hard right with Social security too. SS is broke, ask my mom. but if people had their own money, what could democrats bribe them with?

You’re pro choice aren’t you lawn boy? Then why not allow school vouchers ?

Pro choice? why not allow me to decide if I want the government welfare (Social Security) or if I want to do it on my own?

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 02:24 PM

I agree 100% with you, I personally believe that Bush thinks he can’t get the ists in afganastan so he went for his next best target, Iraq. We should have kept our nose out of Iraqs buisness and went on and fought the war that really mattered to our country instead of just going and finishing up what Bush’s dad couldnt take care of over ten years ago

Posted by: john at June 30, 2005 02:28 PM

Saudi’s attack on 9/11. Al Quida is from almost all countries…even the USA. It was purposeful to have all saudis on that attack. An attempt to drive a wedge between the USA and Saud alliance.

What i think is humerous is they are pretty sure only the ones flying the planes knew it was a suicide mission. LOL - now that’s sheep

Tim McVeigh was from NY State, should we attack NY state ? Why bother I suspect that with 10 years NYC will be hit by WMDs.

North Korea is a different type of threat. They are the same type that the USSR was in the 60’s and 70’s. The “wait em out” technique will probably work. Clinton did spoil the little dictator by giving him so much in the 90’s.

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 02:33 PM

James-

So was Bush “hard right” to have his daddy get him out of going to Vietnam by getting him into the Air National Guard ahead of thousands of others, and then failing to finish his obligation?

Was it a “hard right” to get drunk and crash his car into a hedge and then to cover it up for more than 20 years?

Was his illegal sale of Harken stock a “hard right”?

I suggest that if a building were on fire, Bush would gather his cronies together, and we’d all be told (1) Iraq caused the fire, (2) it’s Clinton’s fault, (3) pay no attention to the fact that Bush & his cronies had just given a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton to rebuild the building after the fire, (4) to ignore the fact that the building had no sprinklers because of Bush budget cuts, and (5) anyone who talks about items 4 or 5 is a traitor who hates America and wants Osama bin Laden to be president.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 30, 2005 02:35 PM

Linda H:

Well Done, I asked the same question, “When Do I Get Mine? During the Ray-Gun tinkle down years. I always got the same replies “You will get yours once the Big Businesses get theirs”. Well I am still waiting for mine. I know, in my haste to Bush-Bash I forgot about the very generous windfall I received when Emperor Bush II opened the coffers reached in and gave each Taxpayer a check for $300, those with children got slightly more. How Benevolent of him, or should I say of his handlers?

On an off topic: Just what is the next act/folly/stop in this; “Rove’s Traveling Circus”? I will bet it includes stops in Such scenic “Ports o’ Call” as Tehran, Pyongyang, oh don’t forget Havana yes Habana. “That little Despot Fidel has made us look bad since ‘59 and I can put a stop to him.” I don’t know which troops I’ll use, BUT READ MY LIPS “There will be NO NEW Draft” I simply will use my powers as Emperor to have the definition of a Pleasant word such as “Vacation” changed to Read “MASS CALLUP OF CITIZENRY TO FIGHT THE NATIONS’ WARS”.

This is a “Fast Food Nation”, We only need to keep their attention for a “coupla hours at most” Then they’ll believe any thing we tell em, they will spout it like a third grader reciting a multiplication table … “VERBATIM”

Posted by: Wayne at June 30, 2005 02:50 PM

EB
“You say that opposing this war means that we don’t support the troops. I oppose this stupid and dangerous war, and have participated in marches and vigils in opposition to it.”

Please point out where I said you did not support the troops.
You support your way and others will support their way, no big deal.
Marching against the war? Who cares! But if you think our soldiers see it that way AFTER they are already at war, you are dead wrong.

“But my wife and I have also raised money for orphanages there,”

Congrats, but how does that support our troops?

“and I have written several checks over the last 18 months to help local National Guardsmen who were stationed in Iraq pay for armor plating for their vehicles, to pay for personal body armor,”

Then you got screwed by buying into the lefts lies of trying to get more votes.
Every soldier has personal body armor, not one person I know there has seen or even heard of anybody not.
Truth is, some believe they need more protection than what was issued to them and in turn they become creative and make what they believe is a more efficient vest.

“and to help defray medical expenses for a couple of guys who lost limbs over there.”

Thank you.

“The checks for the medical expenses were written, by the way, because the Bush administration cut veterans benefits.”

Really? wow! And to think that VA care has always been thought of as the best in the world in the past.
Govt does not care about vets, ok? I threw away a lifelong dream and 10years because dumbass clinton embarrassed and ransacked our military.
Give me a break. NONE of them care.

“I did this even though I oppose the war. And now I hear that I really don’t support the troops. I resent hearing such fatuous statements.
What complete and utter hypocricy.”

Resent all you want, I’m sure it makes you feel better and helps justify your actions to yourself, but the proof is in the pudding as they say.
While in a war, the troops watch these “marches” that “support” them and ask out loud: “why don’t they see the good that we are doing and support US in our mission?”
Right or wrong, that IS how they view it.

You want to resent people for telling you that the military does not view your actions as anything similar to support? Go right ahead.
You want to yell hypocrisy because you support the troops but not the war and you THINK the troops should see it that way? Go right ahead.

But if you want THEIR support, maybe you should think about them FIRST and YOUR cause SECOND.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 02:50 PM

Elliot,

It takes some longer than others to grow up. I’m sorry to say i spent some time on some of those roads to.

I’m just glad Bush didn’t f-king say that he didn’t inhale.

You don’t really want to discuss raping women, mudering people and questionable stock moves do you?

How many dead and battered women are there associated with the name Kennedy ?

How many suicides are there involved with Whitewater? Answer, all the ones that wouldn’t go to jail to keep their mouth shut.

Stock deals? Of the four condidates to run for office (P+VP) Bush is the poorest.

ok, there were more than four but does Nadar really count? The way kerry’s thugs ruined nadar’s campaign, it put Nixon’s men to shame. So, i only counted the Reps and Dems.

Ask Hillery about making money off the retirement funds of old middle class citizens (savings and loan)

Did you know lady bird johnson owned the colt subsideary (lawnboy - correct spelling please) that made the M-16 ?? Right when johnson swtched the primary weapon to the M-16 and sent 1/2 million men to vietnam.

lastly, what budget cuts?

As for patriotism, I believe the 204 swift boat vets.

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 02:53 PM

“Well Done, I asked the same question, “When Do I Get Mine?”

Damn good question. Thank god we got rid of that silly notion some guys put into the heads of Americans in the 60’s.
You know, all that “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” crap.

I want mine, but instead of getting it myself, I think I’ll just wait for the govt to give it to me.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 02:57 PM

James-
It doesn’t take earthmoving equipment and scores of personnel to hide a person or briefcase bombs. Hundred or thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents are another matter entirely.

Also, if Saddam ever wanted to use those weapons again, somebody would have to know where to look. He couldn’t kill everybody who knew, and even if he killed most of them, one could piece together through investigation where they went.

I believe you remember the Iran/Iraq war of the eighties. During that conflict, Saddam used quite a lot of chemical and biological munitions. He was paranoid about them being found and touted as proof, so they were mostly unlabeled. Munitions were often buried for the purposes of storage. These were the shells that were raided for use in IEDs.

You’re probably right that there were solutions to the stability problem (I even theorized the same thing in regards to the binary shell). Even then, thought, the CIA is using qualified language. Now, that’s something you always got to watch out for, especially when looking through official documents.

As such:

CIA BELIEVES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL SEGMENT OF IRAQ’S NERVE AGENT STOCKPILE CONSISTS OF BINARY CHEMICAL WEAPONS—WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION. CIA ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE SHELF LIFE PROBLEM WAS ONLY TEMPORARY AND THAT THE IRAQIS EVEN NOW MAY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE UNITARY AGENTS OF SUFFICIENT QUALITY BY ADDING A STABILIZER OR IMPROVING THEIR PRODUCTION PROCESS.

“Believes” is a safer word, but “may” is the kicker. It means they have not observed an improved productions process, nor the addition of stabilizers to the weapon. They would have stated it in a more unqualified manner had they evidence of such things.

It’s worth noting that the document is dated February 20th of 1991 and the paragraph you quote is preceded by this:

CIA AND DIA HAVE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ’S UNITARY NERVE AGENTS. BOTH AGENCIES AGREE THAT IRAQ HAS ENCOUNTERED DIFFICULTY OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS WITH THE SHELF LIFE OF ITS UNITARY NERVE AGENTS. DIA BELIEVES THAT THE PROBLEM PERSISTS, THAT THE STOCKPILE OF NERVE AGENTS WILL BE UNUSABLE BY LATE MARCH, AND THAT DAMAGE TO PRODUCTION FACILITIES WILL FORCE THE IRAQIS TO RELY ON STOCKPILED AGENTS.

Additionally:

5. DIA BELIEVES IRAQ HAS HAD INSUFFICIENT TIME TO PRODUCE LARGE AMOUNTS OF BINARY CW AGENTS.

As to who is right? Who knows. But, your version of events is not without doubt, and the information was at least twelve years old, which means that even with stabilizers, probably the only weapons that would be left would be the binaries, and we’re not sure how many of those were ever produced, and how many survived the various means of destruction, documented or not.

I won’t contradict you on the number of trucks, but there are still ways to track down these vehicles. After all, we found those jets. Probably found them because we tracked down the right leads. Two intensive searches by this administration have failed to pick up such leads.

As for aid from western countries, I would venture to say that profiteering off of the oil for food program and helping to hide WMDs are two different things. If they did involve themselves, they likely did so with a high degree of plausible deniability.

My bet is they didn’t. If that got out, it would totally reverse things. Forget oil for food, it would entirely reverse the dynamic of things. Iraq would be a legitimate target for its contraband weapons, the leaders in Europe would get a taste of what we Democrats have been feeding Bush, and the UN would be forced to admit that we were right.

I suppose, your dream scenario. But we have nothing.

Alan-
There are stashes, but it’s important to emphasize that we justified this war as a pre-emptive strike. A threat was supposed to exist, or otherwise our war would be simply illegal. You can shoot a man with a gun on you, but you can’t shoot a fellow for having a gun license and no weapon.

You can’t destroy knowledge, or expertise, nor can you destroy intent. But you can refuse them the opportunity to assemble equipment and gather chemical feedstocks that would allow them to make these weapons. That’s what we did with the sanctions. We were successful.

Also, in terms of nuclear weapons, we should have taken that idea right off the table. Making nuclear weapons requires uranium and the industrial facilities to refine it.

This was the big deal about the yellowcake, but even with that, Saddam needed cascades of very expensive, very high maintenance centrifuges in order to spin out enough of the material to create a weapons. We would have known if he was creating a bomb.

There is no “terrorist” culture, but rather cultures. There’s a difference between the mainly secular PLO, and HAMAS, between HAMAS and al Qaeda. There’s certainly a difference between Saddam’s groups and al-Qaeda. I wouldn’t doubt that children’s days were filled withe propaganda against the west and against Saddam’s enemies, but I don’t think Saddam was all that fond of religious Zealots.

Which leads me to question the logic of of your analogy. I don’t think the people in groups like the MEK, who went after Iran mainly, would be the minor leagues for major leagues like al- Qaeda. Sure, there are some local Sunni groups, and perhaps some local movements that might serve to provide recruits, but I don’t think they represent the center of gravity for al-Qaeda.

kctim-
What we oppose is a policy. You’ve read my posts. What have I been advocating for? Victory in this war, due compensation to our soldiers, and the best defensive measures on our soldier behalf that can be provided to them.

What have most of us object to is that we are not only ensnared in this conflict because of the dishonest approach this president took to selling this war on us, but also because they were as careless with the planning of the war as they were with it’s justification.

We are protesting a government that seems to be looking out for its own interests and that of the companies lucky enough to have its ear.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2005 02:58 PM

Wayne,

Did someone tell you that you had something coming?

They lied.

Trickle down doesn’t mean we’re all gonna get wet by just standing there and waiting.

To get wet, you have to go get it.

I always liked the question “Am I better off than I was 4 years ago”

Problem is, at the end of the question, it should further ask…and who’s fault is it ?

Do you really think succesful people are running around saying thanks Bill clinton or whoever ?

No? Then why are all the failures running around blaming someone else.

You’re in America, I think. If you can’t make it here - you can’t make it anywhere.

LAWN BOY Can you proof that for me and have it on my desk by 3:30EST ?

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 03:04 PM

KCtim

I like your attitude.

“if you don’t get off your fat ass, maybe that’s why it is a fat ass”

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 03:08 PM

James-
Have you considered there are reasons other than partisan bias to criticize Bush? That there are perfectly conservative folks who believe the president is spending too much? That there might be right-wing military folks who think the president’s screwed the military? That there are people who advocated for small government and less interference in people’s lives who look at Bush’s expansion of the government and its powers, and shudder?

Or that perfectly moderate folks look at this war, and how long things have been allowed to degenerate, and say to themselves “Gee, this guy doesn’t know what he’s doing”?

You talk about Bush going for the hard right. I think this has been one of my major complaints, actually: that Bush doesn’t do that. Let’s take Fallujah.

He could have waited on Fallujah, in the wake of the burning of the contractors to calm it down. Nope. He went in prematurely, and the place exploded. Once that occured, though, he could have had us stick it out, get reinforcements, and pacify the city completely. Nope. We stopped midway, pulled out, and made a bunch of deals nobody honored. In the six months that Bush waited, he could have decided to mount the offensive. He didn’t, not until after election day, after half a year of waiting, and hundreds of soldiers dead from insurgent attacks.

Bush could have swallowed his partisanship for the 2002 elections, preserving unity at the cost of some political power. he could have fulfilled the promise to seek out Osama Bin Laden tirelessly until he was dead or captured. He could have decided to go into the next part of the War on Terror in a country of far greater consequence to al-Qaeda, even if it meant putting off the final reckoning with Saddam Hussein. He could have decided to stick it to the defense contractors, and provide our soldiers with the help they need to win this war and keep their lives, and the benefits they deserve after their service is over, or their sacrifice made.

Nothing. Which, by coincidence, is also how much legislation he’s vetoed.

You’ve cast us as the bad guys in the war on terror, even to the exclusion of our real enemies. You’ll fight us, even if it means not doing what your best advisors are telling to do. You’ll fight us, even if it means failing to properly armor and supply our troops. You’ll fight us, even if it means preserving the graft and corruption that’s infected Iraq, and Halliburton’s contracting work. You’ll fight us the whole way through this war, then you’ll scapegoat us for your not doing everything you needed to do.

You guys have become arrogant about your defense credentials. Despite the greivous errors in your choices during this conflict, you continue to believe that we won’t get it right, so you must deny us the opportunity to do things our way. But it’s forced you into denial about your very real problems, and it’s torn this country apart in needless controversy.

You’re so wrapped up in it that you’ve forgotten there’s a world beyond politics, and that the actions we take there matter more. I take my side against Bush not because I hate our soldiers or our military, but because I think he’s done them the dishonor of sticking them in a highly problematic war, for the sake of his own ideological fixations.

I want soldiers to be able to recount the war they fought with pride. I don’t want them to have to speak of a defeat, or of a war so morally bankrupt it darkened the hearts and souls of every soldier ordered to fight it. If they die, I want them dying secure in the knowledge that their death truly helped save their countrymen from their enemies, that their sacrifice helped buy a good peace, not an ongoing war and a persistent threat to our nation’s security.

As for the 204 SwiftVets, their patriotism apparently extends to calling their fellow soldiers liars, and questioning the documented bravery and military ethics of one in particular. Their patriotism was one of writing what has to be one of the most vicious smear jobs I’ve ever read. And their concern for the facts? Not present. They would claim that Kerry charged other soldiers with acts, when in fact the soldiers were passing on confessions of their own to Kerry to give to congress. Kerry’s concern, then as now, was for the soldiers, who were fighting a war that even the Nixon administration was admitting wasn’t winnable. We were withdrawing, of course, but doing so from a position of strength they said.

One of the leaders of the Swiftvets is Admiral Hoffman, who had our boys in uniform getting shot up and blown up by the Vietcong in the Delta merely to show the flag- that is, not to take land or cut off a supply route, but to simply let them know they couldn’t deny the waterways to us. Kerry’s best friend met his end in such a way. Many Swift boats were shot up and would-be Swiftvets killed, only to have the same waterways become ambush zones again later. That’s strikes me as a waste of life, equipment, and ammunition if you ask me. Are these the people you follow?

I know your response to that won’t be positive, but folks like you don’t seem to have much positive to say about us anyways. I might as well stand up to your b.s. and draw the line here and now. Vietnam was a mistake, and not just an insufficiently fought war. Iraq is a mistake, but one not so easily abandoned as Vietnam, because our real enemies, who we should have been denying ground to, have already taken advantage of the chaos we allowed to occur to set up a new Afghanistan, a new training ground for terrorists. And this time, the terrorist train against live targets.

kctim-
There’s good reason not to support the direction Bush has taken us in. We will support victory in this war, but we won’t support the attitudes, the corruption, and the politics that got us in this mess. We certainly won’t support a president who has failed the American people in both honesty and competence in terms of this war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2005 03:54 PM

LAWN BOY Can you proof that for me and have it on my desk by 3:30EST ?

Proof of what? That you don’t know what exasperated means? Already done!

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2005 03:58 PM

Bush (43) must go ?
What ?
Before that, Clinton must go !
Bush (41) must go !
Before that, Reagan must go !

Hold someone accountable ?
In government ?
In the United States ?
Keep on dreamin’ !

Even if a politician ever gets convicted (like Dan Rostenkowski) they get a pardon (like Dan was pardoned by Clinton).
Look at this long list of criminals pardoned by Bill Clinton.

Check this out too. Hillary was very happy to get a $400K donation for that little favor too.

And, what a slap in the face of the jury and judge that convicted those criminals!

Let’s face it. We, the people, are being screwed.
This is not a government by/for/of the people.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2005 06:55 PM

Hard nosed criminals like these:
Peg Bargon
Offense: Convicted of violating federal law by having an eagle feather that her son found in a zoo
Clinton Link: She gave feather to Hillary Clinton
Outcome: Fined $1,000; commuted

I hope that she doesn’t live in my neighborhood.

Roger Clinton
Offense: Pleaded guilty in 1985 to conspiracy to distribute cocaine
Clinton Link: Bill’s brother
Outcome: Spent more than a year in jail; pardoned

A pardon for a conviction that you, and I and thanks to this thing that we’re using to communicate the entire world knows he received by his brother, former President Clinton. One thing, you failed to mention is unlike others on the list he DID DO TIME…Not a lot, but some In California(we have the 10% rule, once you have completed 10% of your sentence you are eligible for parole) a little over a Year is the equivalent of doing a ten year++ sentence somewhere else. That’s another discussion all to it’s own. And afterall, Roger is the President’s brother, cut him some slack after all even President Carter had his Brother Billie to look after. Let’s look into the future, I Hope that we’ve seen the Last of the Clampett’s for now. Oh my mistake, I meant the Bush’s for my life time.
Just Passing Gas(JPG)

As Always
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at June 30, 2005 04:26 PM

You can shoot a man with a gun on you, but you can’t shoot a fellow for having a gun license and no weapon.

What if the man, who has history of shooting people, now has his hand in his pocket simulating a gun while holding hostages, refuses to show his hands and you have a whole bunch of people saying he has a gun. (British Intelligence, Russia Intelligence, French Intelligence)

..mainly secular PLO

They hate Jew, that doesn’t sound very secular to me. The Palestians have been offered a homeland many times over. There is an interesting story from FrontPage http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18543, of course it a right wing page so how much of it can you believe.

Which leads me to question the logic of your analogy. I don’t think the people in groups like the MEK, who went after Iran mainly, would be the minor leagues for major leagues like al- Qaeda.

Read a rap sheet on some of different terrorist. You will see a list of terrorist organization they have ties to. Al-Qaeda is the Major Leauge because they have ties to all sort of other groups that act as farm teams (since we have switched from Football to Baseball).

The entire region is a killing field for one reason or another and something has to be done because it is spilling over. Bush’s strategy seems to be (I don’t have a direct connection to him so I don’t know for sure) go in and knock off the one with a know history of atrocities and aggression. Attempt to set up something that can be used as an example of what could happen if the terrorist culture is put behind. Give them a chance to follow suit and make a better world. If not, knock over the next guy. Libya got it.

Trickle down economy, yeah I got mine but it wasn’t a hand out, it was a hand up. Thats why I’m not in the lower middle class any more.

Posted by: Alan Winship at June 30, 2005 04:30 PM

SD
“We are protesting a government that seems to be looking out for its own interests and that of the companies lucky enough to have its ear”

I really do understand all that and I have no problem with protests. I did my part BEFORE the war started.
The left’s biggest problem is that they do not take into account the soldiers views on these protests. It really is that simple.

“There’s good reason not to support the direction Bush has taken us in.”

I know. I don’t support this direction either.

“We will support victory in this war,”

We ALL will.

“but we won’t support the attitudes, the corruption, and the politics that got us in this mess. We certainly won’t support a president who has failed the American people in both honesty and competence in terms of this war.”

Why the change of heart?
The only people I heard complaining in the 90’s are the ones who are now silent.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 04:31 PM

KCTIM, STEVE, LAWNBOY and many others;

Thank You. You guys are the reason I get out of bed in the morning. Many thanks.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at June 30, 2005 04:39 PM

Stephan,

I don’t think of any politicians together with myself as us. Strange that you do. Whether they are republicans or democrats, to me they are all “them”. If I said something about Kennedy or Kerry or any other Democrat I’m not sure why you take it personally.

I don’t think Bush sits around a map and decides much in any way of when to attack or for that matter, where. The generals are doing the best they can. This isn’t WWII where we are allowed to just level every building in a city and kill everyone. (although that would do the trick)
I honestly think he is involved only in the macro war. Their hands are tied by the left media. War is ruthless and can only be successful by being ruthless. “that’s just the way it is, some things will never change”

How you feel you are capable of second guessing military moves, I don’t know.

I was in the military for 21 years. I can’t second guess everything. The one thing they should have done different, in my mind is this:

1.During the initial war, we should have killed 10 times as many people. We never should have allowed any soldiers to walk off the battlefield. They all should have been completely distroyed. The only way to beat an enemy is to BEAT them down beyond question. Many iraqi soldiers were allowed to walk off without a fight.

Don’t you understand, we are not allowed to fight wars the way they are suppose to be fought. If we had wiped out falujah, CNN would have been purposely providing exclusive footage of dead civilians to Al jazera.

2.The gitmo abugrab stuff, who knows, but it is a huge distraction to what is really important. If they are POWs, then they can be held, without being charged, until hostilities end. If they are not POWs then they can be sumarilly shot. Congressional leaders can hold investigations without being on TV 100 times per day. They are purposely hurting the war effort.

3. It’s not an insurgency when 85% of all suicide bombers are now coming from Africa. that’s ok i don’t believe that most Americans know what insurgency means, so, the press and the left lose on that play of words.

4. I don’t think of Kerry as a hero. I don’t care how many of his friends died as heros. I don’t think he is one. I know dead men too and i’m no hero. Kerry is a traitor.

I think VIETNAM was a mistake on Truman and Kennedy’s part. But Jane Fonda is still a traitor. I think we should have befriended Hochimin and told De gaulle to go screw. but Kerry still betrayed his mates and he left his men.

Properly prepare soldiers: You go to war and it is always chaos. You never have all the bases covered….NEVER. The extensive use of Improvised explosive devices does throw a curve. You can’t just stop everything and wait until every hummvee is armored. Plus, lets not place blame, but i personally witnessed the military decimated from 92-2000.

I still think he is doing the hard right. And lefties get the most benefit.

Posted by: James at June 30, 2005 04:46 PM

James-
I think education and economics are off-topic here, but here goes: Not everybody who works their butt off gets to succeed. Why? Because some people get only half of what the free market entails. They tell themselves that the free market exists to keep costs low, and that isn’t always the case. So they don’t promote or give raises to those who work below them, and they grant themselves huge increases in compensation, because they believe they do the real work of the company- they make it a success.

It’s elitist to believe that our problems simply is that we are not motivated enough. Sometimes, folks ask too much of us, and its all we can do to break even. And please don’t contradict me on this, because it is the story of my life. I don’t speak of the squeezing of the middle class from a perspective of somebody who’s not feeling the pressure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2005 04:46 PM

The feeling is mutual Wayne.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 04:47 PM

Should I feel like an idiot because I misused a word?

Not really, but you would have me feel like an idiot because I disagree with you.

Ok, I will, me and the multi millions of idiots that GRADUATE from our public schools every year. A fine creation of the corrupt relationship between the NEA and Democrats.

Actually, I’m also a graduate of public schools. You don’t win any points on this one.

You’re pro choice aren’t you lawn boy? Then why not allow school vouchers?

Not really. I used to be strongly pro-life, but now I understand both sides pretty well, so I don’t pick a side in that battle.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2005 05:08 PM

kctim-

You said: Please point out where I said you did not support the troops. OK:

“… Bush has used that noble ideal to convince some in the military of a rather sad thing: that the Democrats who are their fellow Americans do not support them…

In response, you said:

Bush didn’t have to convince anybody of this. Liberal lawmakers using the Democratic Party and the thousands of leftist protestors who march against everything our military does convinced us.

You asked:

how does [raising money for orphanages] support our troops?

Because the request for help came from a letter to my local newspaper from a National Guardsman stationed in Iraq, asking for help.

You said

…you got screwed [for writing checks to help Guardsmen buy armore for vehicles and for themselves] by buying into the lefts lies of trying to get more votes .

I was asked for help by a (Republican) friend of mine, whose son was stationed at the Baghdad airport and had to drive regularly into Baghdad, without personal armor and without armor on his vehicle. I wasn’t lied to.

Finally, you said

dumbass clinton … ransacked our military

The army fighting in Iraq today is mostly the result of the modernization effort by the Clinton administration. They were (mostly) following the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense who from the preceding administration. That Decretary of Defense’s name, by the way, was Dick Cheney.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 30, 2005 05:26 PM

EB
And with that, I tried to show you how the “soldiers” view your protests.

“that the Democrats who are their fellow Americans do not support them”

It wasn’t Bush or the right-wing that gives this view to the soldiers, its your own actions.

Congrats on “supporting an orphan” at the request of a guardsman.

“I wasn’t lied to”

Then you weren’t told the whole story. Sorry, but what he and others want is body armor that they deem better than the standard issue vests. They are less cumbersome and not as hot. I bought mine in 92 when I was riding convoy.

“The army fighting in Iraq today is mostly the result of the modernization effort by the Clinton administration.”

So then the modern military is the result of Cheney then? Or can only the negative things like loss of benefits, supplies and lying by the CIC can be attributed to Cheney. I bet he was forcing clinton to do that wasn’t he.

Again, protest all you want. It’s your right and I don’t care. But if the soldiers see it as a show of non-support for them, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 05:47 PM

Elliot,

Modernization is what made our missles one shot = one kill.

But from 1992 - 2000 the numbers of troops were cut drastically. Which is why Joe goes to Afganistan and then comes back home only to get sent to Iraq.

Posted by: james at June 30, 2005 08:34 PM

Modernization is what made our missles one shot = one kill.

But from 1992 - 2000 the numbers of troops were cut drastically. Which is why Joe goes to Afganistan and then comes back home only to get sent to Iraq.

Posted by: james at June 30, 2005 08:34 PM

Yes james that’s true I can not disagree for I have no arguement Emporer Bush, Uncle Rummy, Trickey Dicky, Had already set the wheels in motion for this to take place. President Clinton’s role in all this? He didn’t stop it until it was too late. He relied on his advisor’s and suffered the same fate that I hope this Regime will, Emporer Bush II, Trickey Dickey, and The first Octagenarin in history to serve as SecDef (Well almost) Uncle Rummy, suffer the at the hands of Karl Rove….Defeat & Damnation and Be remembered as being inept and vilified forever.
JPG

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at June 30, 2005 09:06 PM

Alan-
Jews are defined as much by ethnicity as they are by religion. After all, the zionists who founded Israel were mostly secular themselves. Many of the Jewish Fundamentalists disagreed with the foundation of modern Israel, believing that the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel was God’s will, and not to be undone by the hand of man.

al-Qaeda’s terrorism represents a different kind of Ideology from past terrorist groups, and most state sponsored ones. It is not like the terrorist groups that the PLO supported, and lacks the state support that restrains Hamas. This is what I mean by the differences between the terrorists out there. It is plain to see, if you inspect the reports on Iraq that it did not support al-Qaeda style terrorism.

Why would they want to? After all, Saddam runs precisely the kind of government they hate. It’s secular, it’s socialist, and it doesn’t tolerate strong religious leaders. Recall the fate of Moqtada al-Sadr’s father. Osama Bin Laden would constitute a threat to his power.

As for the reasons for the Middle East’s troubles? Colonialism. You’ve got a conflict between those who assimilate and/or represent Western powers, who ruled the area for centuries, and those who gravitate towards the idealized loss world of Medieval Islam, and consider the modern western influence an evil. The Middle East is a place waking up from history, and the last thing it needed was somebody coming along to remind them just how helpless they are in the modern world.

kctim-
Clinton, for all his reticence about committing to military involvements at least didn’t skimp on force when he used it. He followed the advice of his commanders. If you think Bush had persistence, you forgot the fifty plus days of bombing Clinton pulled during the Kosovo conflict, bringing Serbia to its knees. Bush, however, seems more interesting in the glory of war than the goals of strategy.

As for the soldier’s views, I believe that we should follow our consciences as they follow theirs in deciding what we believe. Respect is the key, and it bugs me sometimes that we are accused of disrespect when it is behavior and not soldiers we object to. What a soldier does is necessary to society. It is what the civilian bosses of these soldiers are doing and allowing that we object to.

James-
Spell my name right. It’s right there under every post I’ve got.

What I take personally is your implication that we somehow are the party of moral degeneracy. There is plenty of that to go around, nothing anybody should be proud of.

Bush’s hands are as free as the American public allows them to be. If he feels restrained, it’s because he knows the American people won’t stand for it. And that is Democracy. He’s not a Chairman Mao, who can order reforms that starve millions to death. He’s an elected president who has to watch his back on unemployment.

But if it was that important, Bush could, as you say, do the hard right thing, and take the hit for it a proud, courageous leader. Instead, this man you praise for being so upright, take-no-prisoners, for being able to defy his critics, seems to fold rather easily, given what you say he could potentially do.

How do I believe I can second guess military moves? I know history, science and technology. I’ve studied works on military strategy, and I keep up with current events. I also know the difference between a hawk and handsaw, regardless of the way the wind blows.

As for what I would have done for the war:

Take prisoners. That destroys a fighting force as effectively as annihilation. Bush allowed the enemy to retreat and regroup, this time fighting in such a way that the initiative was not longer ours.

Don’t forget your strategic goals. If your goal is conversion of the middle east to your brand of government, don’t go demonstrating how indistinguishable you are from the former masters of the country. We should have treated them as POWs, and kept them imprisoned for as long as hostilities in Iraq lasted. As for summary shooting, I’ll present you with a devilishly clever idea: tell them we will take no prisoners if we are attacked by plainclothes soldiers. Those who want the benefit of our nice POW camps can put on uniforms and act as an actually army.

As for what it is consider in the media, I think it was Bush’s folks who started calling them insurgents. If you want to argue with the terminology used, take it up with them.

Vietnam was both party’s faults. People from both party’s ended up opposing it. Why did Cheney get his deferrals? Find out. Why did Bush apply to the Air National Guard, then decide at some point he didn’t have to show up.
Ask Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith what their feelings on the war were. The great fiction of the Vietnam war is that it’s the liberal’s fault it went so badly. The war was a combination of the worst in both our parties, I’d say, and the best turned to try and confront the worst.

I know it’s impossible to completely prepare soldiers for war, but there are a hundred degrees of difference between what we have now, and what’s impossible, and it is my firm belief that we could do much better than we are doing now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2005 09:15 PM

George W. Bush is a bold-face unapologetic liar. Therefore, even when he is telling the truth, he will never again be trusted. The American people don’t mind being lied to every now and then, but being lied to repeatedly and unpologetically gets a little old after five years. Until Bush Inc. stops trying to twist the truth in its favor and starts simply telling the plain truth, about the past as well as the future, his poll numbers will stay down and deservedly so. People are sick of spin.

Where do people get this hogwash that the military “was cut” by Clinton? Do the Clinton-haters ever stop being blinded by their hatred. Newflash Clinton-haters: the President cannot fire soldiers. Note: Militarization was scaled back by a REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress, starting under Bush I’s administration, and based largely on the recommendations of one Dick Cheney, the secretary of defense. It was Cheney who killed the $60 billion Navy A-12 Stealth fighter, the largest program ever terminated by a defense secretary. It was Cheney moved to cut the armed forces by a half-million troops and to shut down more than 40 military bases that. It was Cheney who held the B-2 Stealth bomber program to 20 planes when the Air Force requested 80. It was Cheney who on February 1, 1990 told Congress “since I became Secretary, we’ve been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget,” who boasted that his department “cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program” and that he would “take another $167 billion out.”

What are we going to blame Clinton for next? The Black Plague? Republicans have controlled Congress for over ten years and held the White House for 17 of the past 25 years. But somehow that means everything is Clinton’s fault. That’s what passes for logic in Red America.

What I don’t get is why everybody complains about the military, but nobody is willing to put their bodies and their money where their mouth is. Upset about demilitarization? Great! Then stop supporting tax cuts, so our military can be properly funded. Dismayed troop numbers are down? Go volunteer, instead of sitting online writing angry posts. But it’s so much safer and cheaper to blame Clinton and stick a 25 cent “support the troops” magnet on your car, isn’t it?

Extremist hypoc