Democrats & Liberals: Archives

How about GWB and GWHB’s military careers? I’m starting to think that only military people should have the right to criticize the service records of others, or tell others that they have a moral duty to enlist.

As to the lack of content in your post, we’ve heard the same rants hundreds of time from people with better grammer. Please proofread your posts before you make them public.

Whoops, that should be “grammar”. :)

Gandhi,

Thank you for the constructive criticizm.

I especially found this section particularly helpful. “As to the lack of content in your post, we’ve heard the same rants hundreds of TIME from people with better GRAMMER.”

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would like to see those that have mislead our patriotic Americans to send their own family members to war if they feel it is such a just cause. I somehow don’t ever think we will see that happen. There is currently only one US Senator that has a son enlisted. As for the Bush twins, why would they go…their dad didn’t even live up to his patriotic duty when he was in the service. Bush and his cronies are NOT part of “We the People”, they feel that they are superior to the rest of us, so how could they be? It’s just more of his propagandic spin.

As for “rants”, I guess that’s an easy way to brush off the truth. And…not everyone has to be a great speller to tell it like it is.

Maybe I am ranting. I see this man sending our friends and family to be killed, in a war half of this country does not approve of, speaking about sacrifices and it makes me angry.
The cameras showed people applauding this man.
I just don’t get it.

The Bush family has never had to sacrifice. The only Bush to even serve with any distinction was Bush 41. He served while his father was engaged in profiting from the military-industrial complex. Prescott Bush even had dealings with the Nazi party in the 1930’s, prior to WWII. So you see, it’s a family tradition of sorts. The veterans of this war will make the largest sacrifices. Those who have and are yet to make the ultimate sacrifice may be the lucky ones. Those who return will not have a Veterans Administration with enough funding to adequately care for them. The legacy of this war will be a new generation of homeless, disabled veterans. You will look upon them with distain, even turn your back on them. That’s what happens when you send young people off to war, say things like “support the troops”, then refuse to make the Veterans Administrations’ budget mandatory instead of descressionary. Hope all you “vote values first” people are happy.

The Iraq War is now irrelevant. The Issue now is the Supreme Court. If Karl Rove has a brain, he will milk this Issue for as long as possible. The Soldiers, their Families and their Treatment will be forgotten as yesterday’s Celebrity Trial.

People are already starting to tune out the Iraq War. Who cares really? As long as you don’t have Family Serving, its someone else’s problem. People are more concerned about themselves than some GIs who, after all, volunteered for this.

I expect Bush and Rove will make the Supreme Court the new Media Darling. Make Stop-Loss permanent and the GIs can rot doing their Duty.

Gandhi -

1 - it’s really low class to mock someone for spelling or grammatical mistakes in their posts. Even though it’s tempting to base what you read on how it’s written, it just simple decency to overlook mistakes and read for intent and content.

2 - if you can’t argue your way against a posting, please stop using insults (“we’ve heard the same rants hundreds of time from people with better grammer”) and overtly generalized statements to dismiss rather than disprove. It’s really simple-minded and obnoxious.

Jimmie is right.

We know you think the President lied. We know you don’t like business people. We know you are not in the military yourself, but you think others should join. We assume you believe it would have been better to leave Saddam in power and that the war in Iraq is just a waste. We perceive that you don’t love or understand the market economy.

A lot of others share your opinions. We know that they think the Republicans will get their payback in 2006, but we observe that they also thought that in 2002 and 2004. It might be good to move on.

One thing that is offensive is the idea that our volunteer military cannot make logical choices. The army exceeded its recruiting target in the month of June. Some people took so much pleasure in mentioning when the goals were not met. They have less eagerly embraced this news. Reenlistments are as high as 150% over the target for deployed troops.

This is not the Vietnam. We have not drafted anyone since 1972. People are choosing to join the military. Whether they do or not is their business, not yours. You have no basis on which to judge their motives. Let it go, or put together a better argument.

jimmie,

It’s a statistical fact that the military is made up of substantially more poor and educationally ‘disadvantaged’. Our leaders in Washington are made up the elite and wealthy.

If you remove the political sides to this debate and look at it from a strictly economic point of view… the people who have the least to loose (in terms of family members) are the ones who start the wars… the people have the most to loose (the poor) fight them.

I call them ChickenHawks - they’ve never put their lives on the line for their county, but they’ll beat the war drums whenever it fits their needs.

Jack:

“Myers did not give specific figures, but military officials provided preliminary data showing the active-duty Army exceeded its June recruiting goal of 5,650 by 507 and the Army Reserve, made up of part-time soldiers, topped its June target of 3,610 by 41.”

So they exceeded by 550. Cool. Unfortunately, we are still short for the year.

The reason we are urging Republicans to Enlist is because the Military only needs about 50,000 recruits. We find it amazing that 61,000,000 Conservatives cannot pony up a measly 1% of their number. Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans should fight in Iraq.

One reason I can see where poor people would enlist in the military is because of a lack of JOBS! Another would be that they are fed propaganda from overly zealous recruiters. And, still another is because they are led to believe that they are protecting their country from another 9/11. (yet, Osama remains free, borders are still insecure)

No, we aren’t Vietnam - Yet! No, we don’t have a draft in place - Yet! We don’t have to have a draft so far because the propaganda machine is alive and well. And, we have a back-door draft in place. There are many enlisted men and women who have been lied to about when they would come home, only to serve an additional tour of duty. The ones who are fortunate enough to make it home, rarely have a job waiting for them. Sometimes their wives/husbands/fiances have moved on and their Veteran benefits have been cut.

We are told to “move on” if we are unhappy with the current state of affairs. Should we just roll over and play dead when we see injustice? When lies are exposed? When we truly honor our brave men and women who serve and want the best for them? To turn a blind eye to what is going on would not be very patriotic.

I wish everyone a Happy 4th of July and hope we will all stand up for the kind of America that we envision…the same one that our forefathers envisioned.

Andre,

All those men and women that died, did so for your way of life. They believed strongly in the freedom that you now enjoy.
President Bush lives with the fact that he is responsible for their deaths. If that is not sacrifice, then what is?

Do you believe enough in your freedom to handle that burden?

Brian,
The president indeed should have the deaths of our service people on his conscience. Especially since he sent them to Iraq based on lies. That isn’t sacrifice on his part. It’s called guilt. Because he continues to lie, I don’t even think he has a conscience.

Now, if he were to make a sacrifice, it would be to give up his lust for power and greed and let his brave men and women come home. But then, we have the arrogance factor. Not only will he NEVER admit that he had been wrong or lied, he will continue to perpetrate the lies, costing more lives and more debt and he will NEVER, ever say he was sorry.

“When we truly honor our brave men and women who serve and want the best for them?”

Sounds good, but maybe we should respect their intelligence and the choices they have made. You don’t need to speak for them. Let them speak for themselves.

I wish more of the elite would join the military and have written of the dangers of the military being separate from other parts of society. This is a problem separate from the immediate problem of the Iraq crisis. We should start by allowing recruiters and ROTC into the richer schools and universities. Sometimes the rich kids don’t make the choice because their professors and teachers keep the information from them. We can all agree that this should stop.

There has been so much hogwash in the criticisms of this wonderful post I hardly know where to begin picking them apart.

Why is it that when people tell the truth, the criticisms are always “this does not help your cause,” “this is anti-American/unpatriotic,” “you lost, get over it,” “this is vitriolic and disturbing,” “you don’t have a right/the credentials/the intelligence” blah blah blah, and never “this is not true”? How telling that when people criticize the Rove-Rummy-Bush machine they are villified for everything EXCEPT being liars. Very telling.

I will never understand why neoconservatives — and, please, let’s all begin to distinguish them from the real conservatives (re: Eisenhower Republicans) of old — insist upon making every excuse as to why people should not tell the truth. Because it’s 4th of July weekend, the truth is out of the window? Give me a break!

Bush’s lies — as well as his misderictions, implied falsehoods, misleads and just good old-fashioned mistakes — have been so well-documented at this point, have been pointed out by fans as well as former fans, have been so dissected that it stuns me there are people who, like him, still cannot admit that he has done anything wrong. I have friends/a boss who were born Republican and will die Republican, but who think Bush is a blight on America (hence his poll numbers, because I’m sure they aren’t interviewing only Democrats).

Every President has made SOME mistakes. Yo, neocons: has Bush ever done anything wrong? Has he ever NOT told the truth? I’d be interested to hear some responses. Maybe he is the first non-human superhero to sit in the Oval Office, I don’t know.

“The reason we are urging Republicans to Enlist is because the Military only needs about 50,000 recruits. We find it amazing that 61,000,000 Conservatives cannot pony up a measly 1% of their number.” Posted by: Aldous at July 3, 2005 10:40 PM”

Beautifully put, although I disagree with the bit about Iraq being a Republican war, since the ignoble Democratic leadership (at least in Washington) ignored its constituency and Democratic leaders away from the Beltway by laying down and dying when it came to this thing. But your point is made, bringing up a still-unanswered question which I have often asked: why is it that so many Americans claim to “support the troops” and think this war is so vital and necessary, yet our troop numbers are not up to par. It would seem Bush’s ardent supporters would be lining up to help the cause, but that is not the case. What gives? Anybody?

Oh, and Happy 4th! God Bless America, yay freedom, give me liberty or give me death, and all that good stuff!

I admire our brave troops, and all those before them that have sacrificed so much for us. I think most Americans do too.

When I saw how some of our wounded troops were being treated like dogs, and no one in government took responsibility, it became all too clear that our federal government (i.e. politicians) has grown far too irresponsible, and unaccountable. I felt ashamed and angry.

For those that agree and want to do something for our troops, call and/or write the federal government (i.e. politicians) and demand that:
____________________________________________
Our troops should never, ever, again, be ignored, and denied medical attention for weeks and months. We’re sick and tired of empty words and negligence of the worst kind. Let’s see some action and responsibility, and steps to see to it that never happens again
( true-patriot.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/220601815/m/3856035175 ).
____________________________________________
www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml
____________________________________________

president@whitehouse.gov
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive/EOP.shtml

Jack,

I agree with you that the ROTC should go into the schools of the privileged. But, they don’t. I believe the original post dealt with that reality.

I do apologize for any misunderstanding about our service men and women being unintelligent. That is not how I feel or what I meant. Great minds have been propagandized and it has been easy to do since our great nation was attacked. Of course, that is not to say that many actually believe in what they are doing and are noble in their pursuit of justice. But, there are also many who admit they have been sold a “bill of goods”. Once they enlist, it is too late.

And, I do feel a need to defend them. They are not here to defend themselves. When I hear about their poor equipment, additional tours of duty, decreased veteran’s benefits, etc., it does upset me. Our government should care about them more than with words. It is up to us at home to stand up for them as needed and to implore our govt. to do all they can for them…before, during and after their service to our country.

My daughter wrote this in the 8th grade (about 6 years ago) I read it every year around this time because it gives me a perspective that I often forget…It may not totally deal with the post, but it does give us something to think about…

History provides pages and pictures of the many men and women who gave their lives for the freedom of this country. They sacrificed everything - their dreams, their relationships, and their very lives. There will always be an empty chair at Thanksgiving and Christmas time in these homes. It is difficult for me to understand or even imagine the hurt and the pain of losing someone for the cause of freedom. I would like to thank these brave individuals for their belief in freedom and their belief in the United States of America.
Thank you for protecting my religious freedom. I can worship God freely in whatever way I choose. My religious beliefs do not have to be kept secret or hidden from others. I pray that God would watch over your families in your absence.
Thank you for protecting my freedom of speech. I can voice my opinions and say things that I believe need to be said. I can make a difference.
Thank you for protecting the freedom of the press. It makes me aware of what is going on in the world around me. It tends to keep our government in line and honest with its people. It gives everyone the opportunity to get involved if they choose.
Thank you for the freedom I have to go where I want to go and be who I want to be. I can get the education I want, and the career I choose. I can work hard and be successful. I can earn my own way. I could be an average person, and in this country, I could change the world. Thank you for allowing me to dream, and perhaps, to let my dreams become a reality.
Whenever I look at our flag, I remember all those who sacrificed all they had, including their lives, for my country’s freedom. Thank you for all the freedoms you have protected. You made this country what it is today. God has surely blessed America…
Now, it is my turn to protect this freedom for future generations. I cannot repay the debt I owe to these brave men and women. But I can, and I will preserve their honor.
Thank you.

Discerner,

Your daughter’s words are beautiful, although untimely. Today, our religious freedom is being attacked, our freedom of speech is under attack, and no, we no longer have the freedom to go where we want or to dream our dreams because our educational system is depleted. The American dream has lost some of its luster and I am sad. Her words make me yearn for the America I love and I grieve because of the ideals we are losing.

Your daughter’s love of country is inspirational and wonderful. I hope she will see that things have changed since she wrote them. We are not the same country that we were 8 yrs. ago. Those in power are trying to stip us all of our fundamental freedoms and each time they take them and get away with it, they continue to take more and more. I don’t want any of our brave service men and women to come home to find out that what they so nobly fought for has been methodically taken away. They deserve better. All Americans deserve better.

Donna

I can see that you are patriotic and care for our troops. I have written thousands of words on this blog and have always recognized that there are good and patriotic people on both sides of the political debate.

We need to consider the nature of free choices. Nobody joins with the expectation of being killed or wounded, but they all know that is a possibility. We should respect both their courage and their choices.

There are reasons to oppose this particular war. Mistreating the troops is not one of the more cogent reasons because it applies to any war at any time. It is an emotional argument that is meant to create a feeling of guilt and it can work in the sense of any appeal to emotion. But it is not valid and it has been much overused on this blog.

A few people (like AP) have made good arguments against the war based on what will happen. I don’t agree with their conclusions, but I respect the reasoning. Accusing the President of lying or trying to “guilt” people about the troops suffering are not persuasive to anyone who isn’t already on board.

When I see “Bush lied” in the first paragraphs, I have learned to discount what comes after. The next part are predictable. I admit it is not a perfect rule of thumb, but so far it has worked well for me.

Jack,
The military met its recruiting goal this month because the goal had been reduced 25%. That doesn’t mean the actual need was reduced; the original goal reflected the real number. It’s just that the military knew it would hit that number, so the goal was lowered.

Discerner,
I do not believe for one moment that an 8th grader wrote that essay. I have taught High School English & World History. I’ve spent a lot of time with children in grades 7-12. That essay does nor reflect an 8th grade vocalulary, sentence structure, or organization.
Baloney.

bush IS a liar … this is A FACT … countless thousands of american and iraqi men, women and children ARE DEAD because of bushco’s divide and conquer (here at home) war agenda … the TRUTH is merely a republican inconvenience which can easily be brushed aside and dismissed when it does not suit THEIR agenda …

Healthy discussion. Hope it’s still legal! Look folks, not one American has been asked to SACRIFICE anything, the exception being the deployed service members and their families. Has the Commander-in-Chief gone on national television and asked Americans to give up their sons and daughters, NO! A previous blogger had it right. Most people in this country buy a “support the troops” magnet or sticker from Wal-mart. Even that is not made in America. The people who truly support the troops have a blue star on their vehicle, some have 2 or 3. Ask those families about sacrifice.

Yes, I will voice my opinion about this issue on the 4th of July. I’ll voice it because a true patriot loves their country enough to point out when it has gone astray. If those of you living in the two word culture can’t understand it, try getting your news from somewhere other than FOX.

I remember Ayn Rand’s words (paraphrased): “Anyone who speaks of sacrifice is speaking of masters and slaves, and intends to be the master”.

After several years of attempts the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. The previous and ensuing conflicts and disputes did not change the fact the Declaration was well worth the effort as it helped establish and maintain the freedom that we now enjoy as citizens of The United States of America.

Now, instead of simply celebrating the anniversary and true meaning of this day some have chosen to seize yet another opportunity to discredit President Bush’s service record, character, intentions and so on.

To make matters worse there is an outcry for his daughters to serve. I cannot remember any calls for Chelsea Clinton to serve. In one of the posts there is mention that there is a senator who has a son serving. How about demanding that all senators and congressmen’s sons and daughters be required to serve.

The intent of my message is to suggest that this is the worst of all days to criticize our leadership.

Jimmie,

There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, even though Bush swore otherwise. I cannot accept the excuse that GW just received bad intelligence. Either this was a willful act of deception(a lie)or the Bush administration is seriously lacking powers of discernment.

I cannot remember any calls for Chelsea Clinton to serve

If Clinton had taken us to war, I would have called for Chelsea to serve.

As I recall, one of the purposes of the Declaration of Independence was to criticise King George. Our Founding Fathers didn’t take July 4th off, why should we?

Loren,

I think the purpose of The Declaration of Independence was not to criticize King George and get him to govern us better, keep us more informed, stop lying to us, etc. but, to let him know that we have broken away from his rule, no longer recognize him and declared our independence and were forming our own government.

There were enough military involvements during the Clinton administration where Chelsea could have helped out.

“The intent of my message is to suggest that this is the worst of all days to criticize our leadership.”
Posted by: steve smith at July 4, 2005 09:50 AM

steve …
thanks for the clarification as to the intent of your message - now i would like to clarify mine …

today i am thinking about the 1800+ groups of americans who are honoring their own personal dead mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends and loved ones and asking myself why they are dead and why the president sent them into combat undermanned and underequipped, allowed many of their families to go unsupported at home and then cut their benefits when they did manage to survive the bushco challenge …

these are FACTS folks, and on this proud day when we rightly honor the sacrifice and service of EVERY LAST SOLDIER, past, present and future i can’t think of another topic more worthy of discussion …

i ask EVERY american, regardless of political affiliation, to take a moment TODAY to look at what the president has DONE and stop allowing themselves to be distracted by the lofty, meaningless and carefully scripted rhetoric which comes out of the bushco mouthpiece, a.k.a the president of OUR country …

in conclusion, i don’t think there could possibly be a better day to take a moment to think about who is REALLY supporting our troops and who is REALLY NOT supporting the men and women that he has caused to be put into harm’s way …

there is no such thing as a bad day or a wrong day to critisize this incompetent, immoral and warmongering “leadership” and this criticism has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that i am a patriotic christian american who loves his country too much to NOT say anything on the Fourth of July, 2005 …

Loren,

Clinton did involve us in many military engagements where Chelsea could have served - Bosnia for one. Did you claim that was a Democratic war and only sons or daughters of Democrats should serve?

Jimmie,

If you are unaware that Bush lied - like all politicians do - then you are so distanced from reality there is no need for a discussion.

Khandara,

The problem is that some of what you call “facts” are actually opinions or slected “facts” that do not tell the whole story.

You say that we went in undermanned yet Iraq fell quickly with few casualties. So you comment that the President sent them into combat undermanned and underequipped is questionable at best. Yes there are some who say we are undermanned after we took over the country but there are also military ezperts who say otherwise. So this is actually an opinion at best and not a fact.

“cutting VA benefits”? This is just a general accusation that does not take into account the fact that funding for VA has increased every year under Bush (by about 11% with the last approved budget)and yes you can argue that the increase is still not enough to handle the Veteran’s claims and it would be a valid point. But like any government agency over time it adjusts the resources given to use them in the best way which can mean cutting back in other areas.

There were enough military involvements during the Clinton administration where Chelsea could have helped out.

Steve,

You can’t possibly compare any military action during the Clinton’s admin to the war against Iraq, nor did Clinton call for all of us to sacrifice militarily, nor was there any problem with recruitment. IMO, the current situation is the most disrespectful treatment there has ever been against our troops.

So, it’s OK to rebel against a tyrant on the 4th of July , but to offer honest criticism isn’t?

Clinton did involve us in many military engagements where Chelsea could have served - Bosnia for one. Did you claim that was a Democratic war and only sons or daughters of Democrats should serve?

How many troops and innocent Bosnians died in our actions in Bosnia? Did Clinton’s reasons for going in there change after we got in? Did Clinton’s approval ratings go down?

Khandara,

I respect your opinion. In giving it you only criticized the President eight (8) times. Well done for a message so wrought with hatred and anger for the President of the United States of America which you claim to love so much.

I believe that it was the collective unanimous agreement of United States Congress and Senate that felt that the war was necessary.

HE didn’t put them in harm’s way, WE did.

I was in a war where many of us were unerequipped and I can assure you more often than not we were undermanned. And those of us who returned were, guess what, the BAD GUYS.

Loren,

So what you are saying is you are partisan about only Republicans enlisting if the conflict meets some standard of yours making it a partisan conflict but because the conflicts involved under Clinton did not meet your standards then there is not clamor for Democrat kids to enlist during that time? Since when do approval ratings have any effect on that?

Your blind partisanship is showing.

Re criticism of grammar

We all make mistakes. None of us here has an editor to catch our little foibles. But I would appeal for a little more thought in some of the posts. We should all try to go beyond grammar mistakes and assess the idea, but below some standard the grammar and organization become real impediments to understanding. There is also an issue of logical inconsistency.

My goal is that opponents say something like, “I don’t agree with this, but it makes sense.” Or “This is all spin, but well done.” When we are too forgiving of poor presentation, it begins to erode the quality of the debate.

Mike,
Here is an idea, repeal the tax cuts given to the top 2% of Americans by the Bush administration. Plenty of money there to fully fund the VA. Or how about investigating the 8.8 BILLION dollars “misplaced” in Iraq under the watch of Paul Bremmer and the CPA. A mere fraction of that could take care of all of the veterans.

By the way, when exactly did Iraq fall? Just because Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and stated “major combat operations” over, does not mean Iraq fell “quickly” or has fallen at all. Why don’t you ask any family member that has lost a service member since that time. At last report, we were still taking casualties. In fact, we are taking losses at an ever increasing rate. Has anyone in your immediate family “served it up for Baghdad”?

Badlands

A couple of points.

We are not taking casualties at an ever increasing rate. In fact, the rate is decreasing.

The Saddam Hussein government fell. The fact that insurgents can still murder civilians in Iraq and sometimes kill coalition soldiers is a different matter.

The tax cut was across the board. You can’t technically repeal the cut on the top 2% of payers. You can make taxes more progressive or raise the tax for everyone. You probably want the former, but you are advocating the latter.

Nobody in my immediate family was killed in Iraq. Given the actual numbers of killed, and if you define immediate family as mother, father, siblings or children (even including in laws), it would be surprising if that is not the case for most American families. That is why this particular line of argument is so barren.

I could also stipulate that nobody in my immediately family has died of AIDS. Nobody in my immediate family has ever been in prison. Nobody in my immediate family has ever been to Alaska. And nobody in my immediate family is currently unemployed or has ever been on welfare. But nobody in my immediate family is a millionaire. That means I can’t comment on AIDS, criminal justice, Alaska, unemployment, poverty or wealth. I don’t think the immediate family thing is very useful.

Ok Jack, time to hit you with a little something called the TRUTH.

This information comes from www.icasualties.org.

Iraq casualties by month:
1/05- 107 (Iraqui election month)
2/05- 58
3/05- 36
4/05- 52
5/05- 80
6/05- 78

Please, someone show me the decreasing trend here. icasualties.org gives you all casualties, i just noted the US casualties for the sake of argument.

By the way Jack, i thought the reason for going to war with Iraq was the threat of “imminent” attack using WMD’s? By you touting the fall of Saddam, you infer that the reason was regieme change? You cannot attack a soverign nation for the sole purpose of deposing it’s government, it is illegal! Have you read the Downing street memo in it’s entirety? Or does the light of truth freighten you?

steve … you are 100% correct in assessing my anger at the president for his actions - you are also, however, 100% wrong about the hatred portion of your accusation - i feel nothing but compassion for the soul of such a man as our president - the karma payments on this one are not going to be pretty …

oh, by the by, does anybody know what dubya’s little fourth of july “let’s blow somethin’ up” meteor stunt has cost the american taxpayer? a couple of billion? hhhmmmmmmmmmm, that could have bought a few flakjacks and some extra armor for our troops in iraq, or maybe kept a few million people in africa from starving, or maybe been spent on the space shuttle and the international space station which are now apparently lower on the priority list than putting a dent in a rock in space with a truly pathetic cover story about “science” when the real purpose is global military intimidation …

Khandara,

I do not know the precise cost of the Meteor issue. If you say a couple of billion, I would take you at your word.

I would add to your list of what the money would be better spent on is assistance for Americans in need (if you need a list of these needs you are living in a cocoon).

I would subtract from your list, the starving Africans and the International Space Shuttle. We are already contributing to the African effort and I am not convinced that the International Space Station is much worth the effort.

BTW, showing the ability to “dent” the Meteor is a pretty darn good way to demonstrate “global military intimidation”. Besides, what if one of those meteors were bound for earth and was going to land in the Middle East, we would want to save those people and deflect it, wouldn’t we.

The post showing Posted by : Khandara at July 4,2005 03:32PM is in error. It was posted by STEVE SMITH.

I cannot explain the error, I am sorry for the confusion.

Since when do approval ratings have any effect on that?

The fact that GW’s ratings have dropped was one of several points I made to differentiate between Iraq and Bosnia. They were worded as questions, hoping for some answer. IMO, the two are not the same.

Partisanship? Ouch Mike, that really stings! Imagine somebody expressing a liberal opinion on this blog? Just because I stand up for what I believe to be right doesn’t automatically make it partisan. But honestly, I never thought to call for Chelsea to serve. If someone had brought it to my attention at the time, I probably would have agreed. Maybe she and the Bushes could serve together…

Badlands

I am really not trying to be nasty, but spell check would improve your credibility. Perfection is not required, maybe even not desirable, but you can avoid some simple errors courtesy of Microsoft.

The truth shall set you free and statistical truth depends on your base period. The figures from the source you mention prove us both inadequate. If we look at longer periods, the six-month before the period you mention had 411, while the most recent period is a slightly higher 472. I won’t consider that proof of my point because objectively, there is no discernible trend. So I won’t say they are declining, but you can’t say they are increasing. The numbers are just not big enough for statistical analysis.

As for reasons for the war, President Bush never said it was an imminent threat. If you do a search on his State of the Union 2003 speech (where he laid out his case) he used the word imminent only once. This was the context:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

People have fixated on one reason for the war and exaggerated it to the point of reversing the meaning.

I won’t explain all the reasoning that went into the war decision. Read about it “Transformational Bush” on the other side of the blog.

jack -

Read up on the other statements that imply immanent threat… “A smoking gun that comes in the shape of a mushroom cloud.”

The President lays out in veiled ways, and his VP and others get much more specific. But it comes down to the single reason for invading Iraq - the UN resolution. The UN resolution demanded that Saddam rid himself of all WMDs. That’s what Bush claims Saddam was in violation of (aluminum tubes, mobile chem labs, predator drone airplanes, ### lbs. of this and that…)

And we you take that into account to when Bush pulled out the UN inspectors - just 30 days prior to them completing their task (and refuting Bush’s claim about WMDs.) Bush said we can not wait idly by and wait for them to attack us… we can not wait any longer.

That’s how you get the single reason for attacking Iraq - IMMENENT THREAT - and Bush was at best completely wrong about that. At worst, he lied to us to start this war. Either way, until he publicly apologizes for his part in WMD debacle, then I will consider him a bold-faced liar.

How typical. The Neo-cons cannot debate this and many other issues by using logic and facts. They can however critique youe spelling and/or grammar. They cannot debate because it takes more than their two-word culture allows. You cannot dismiss the truth because it was not spelled properly.

Jack, leave your Websters out of the debate and bring us some facts to support your position. Substance counts more than spelling.

Now for more interesting information.

The Bush administration has downplayed the significance of the “Downing Street” memo from 23 July, 2002. Go to downingstreetmemo.com if you are interested in the details.

Here is further information that shows that the Bush administration was interested in overthrowing Saddam prior to the Sept. 11th attacks. Mind you, there has NEVER been a creditable connection made between Bin Laden and Saddam.

An interview conducted by the PBS news hour on 16 February, 2001 (less than 30 days after inauguration) concerning Bush sending a message to Saddam by Bombing targets OUTSIDE of the no-fly zone. Go to pbs.org and search the archives.

One of the panel members was Geoffrey Kemp, a former Reagan adviser. He said that the Bush administration talked openly during the 2000 campaign about using force to overthrow Saddam, but since being elected has toned down the rhetoric publicly.

The pieces are there people, just put them together and quit going against your own best interests.

There should be no more sacrifice for this war!

PS: Jack, has “W” caught Osama yet? You remember him, the “Mastermind” behind the 9/11 attacks? Or, do you think like the President, who “doesn’t think much about him”.

First off, I apologize for making fun of Andre’s grammar. Although I retain my opinion on the quality of his writing, my comments were over the top.

Jack is right on casualty statistics (I found information, but can’t post the link). Most comments by either party on there being any trend are baseless. Yes, the average has declined since November 2004. Yes, it was also at a new high in November 2004. Anyway the injury graph is probably a smoother trend to look at than the death graph.

To the whiners on this board: frankly I hope you keep up your current attitude, because it will help the Republicans win again in 2008. However, if you’d like some respect from us or want to win an election, here are a few suggestions:

1) Unless you have a distinguished military career to show us, stop telling my generation that we should be enlisting in droves. (As it is, I have many Republican friends who have done so). Stop saying that “Bush should make his daughters enlist”. Barring a draft (which is currently both unlikely and not in anyone’s interest), no one has the right to tell anyone else to enlist. The only person you have a right to enlist is yourself. If there is a draft though, I will enlist immediately.

2) If you didn’t serve, stop criticizing military records of others. Someone referenced Ayn Rand on sacrifice/tyrany. I’d preface that remark by saying that those who have refused to serve have no right to demand sacrifice from others. Politicians who have served, and command our respect, include Presidents Bush Sr. and Jr., Senator Kerry, Senator McCain, and Mr. Kerry. Politicians who dodged the draft should be subjects of ridicule. These include the likes of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gingrich.

3) Stop saying “Bush is a liar/idiot/thief”. Whether or not the former is true is irrelevent. Whatever criticisms one has of the administration as a whole (and I have plenty), no one can actually prove that Mr. Bush himself has withheld known information from the public; only the closest Presidential advisors would actually know how honest Mr. Bush is as a person. Give the man some respect, and you will reap the benefits when you again occupy the White House someday.

4) Stop complaining about Ohio and Florida. No one cares, and no one likes sore losers. In return I hope that Republicans are gracious winners; most of us have been, I think.

5) Enjoy the 4th and contemplating our freedom. I’m going to see some fireworks, and maybe read a biography of George Washington.

P.S. This no-link error thing is pretty annoying, and has eaten my last two attempts to post. Anyone know what’s going on?

There should be no more sacrifice for this war!

Um, do you mean there shouldn’t be any more AMERICAN sacrifice? Because someone is going to sacrifice. If you’re suggesting that we drop everything and evacuate Iraq today, I don’t think you’re going to get much support, even from other Democrats. I’m sure everyone here loves peace, but idealism dies hard in the real world.

Jack, has “W” caught Osama yet?

Howard Dean asked the same question about Sadaam shortly before he was apprehended. Shortly after, he sank in the polls behind Senator Kerry.

The Draft is the ultimate sacrifice this country will make, and it is coming!

Of course the Bush administration does not want it, or even want to discuss it. It is the ultimate dagger in the heart for the Iraq war.

Right now, a vast majority of Americans see the Iraq conflict as “not my problem”. It has not affected every day life. They put a “support the troops” sticker on their SUV’s and go about life as normal. That all changes with forced conscription. Then, if they have children of eligible age, it becomes very much their problem.
There would be a public outcry, “not my son, not my daughter”! Public opinion would be worse than it is now, because it would energize main street America.

I for one think the waking of America from this apathetic slumber is long over due.

Yes, I did call it the Iraq CONFLICT. If Bush continues to call the Iraqi front central to the war on terror, then it is a conflict. Terrorism is an ideal, not a country. You cannot declare formal war on a tactic. By that logic, we have been fighting the “war on terror” for thousands of years.

How heartwarming to know we can look forward to unending wars on terrorism. The Selective Service will be in touch, don’t forget to fill out that registration card!

Good original post Andre M. Hernandez!

Great posts also to Donna, Badlands & Loren.

As for jimmie, you said “This is the type of post that leads people in the mainstream to believe you are in fact anti-American.”
Contrary to what you (and so many other Bush supporters) think, it is NOT un-american to be anti-Bush or to be against the war in Iraq. I have a younger brother that has already served in Iraq and will be going back in November. I can only pray that he is one of the lucky ones that returns home alive and in one piece. I think that it is a shame that he and so many others are putting their lives on the line in this sham of a war that seems to have no ending in sight. Why aren’t more resources being used to go after Bin Laden? Remember him? He’s the one that was responsible for the loss of thousands of American lives.

Gandhi,
Of course you cannot just “cut and run”. The status quo obviously is not working either.

Train their army out of country. That will do two things, first it removes the fear of being harmed by insurgents. Second, train them at Paris Island. They need to be more like Marines than Army. Train them as a unit so they have the ability to adapt to mission specifics. Train them, and rotate out the equal number of American forces.
And when we get out, we truly get out! We do not need any permanent bases in the country. Doing so is an automatic destabilizing element.

And that was not the reason why Gov. Dean fell behind in the polls. The Republicans had nothing to do with his downfall, it was the established Democrats. But that is neither here nor there for this thread

Loren,

There is a huge difference between being partisan and blind partisanship which is the phrase I used.

A person can be partisan towards their party or perspective but still be intelligent enough to look at the arguements and stands on the other side without automatically dismissing them because they are from the Republican side. There are many partisan people on this board but they can be debated in an itelligent manner.

Blind partisanship as displayed by some on this board though refuses to see the other side and usually is hypocritical in what they demand of the other side. Much like your comments requesting the Bush twins to serve yet disputing the same idea for Chelsea during Bosnia.

Badlands

I have written many times and referred you to my earlier post about Iraq. I don’t see much reason to cut and paste it here.

I am not much of a stickler for spelling and grammar. Lord knows I make plenty of mistakes myself. But there is a point that it shows disrespect for your audience. This is especially true when the technology that comes with all word processing programs exists to make it better.

As for refuting the arguments, which ones do you mean? I successfully countered the idea that casualties were rising with the numbers you provided. I noted that I was also mistaken that they were dropping.

I don’t feel it necessary to refute insults. “Bush lied” is not an argument. It is easy in hindsight to claim things that you didn’t know at the time. As for the statement that he called Iraq an imminent threat, I quoted the man’s words in the most important speech he made on the subject just before the war. He specifically said it was not an imminent threat. Nuance may be too much for you and I am sorry if what he said is not what you heard.

What about the other things people say? “The draft is coming.” There is no reason to believe this. You can say it. I would bet money it will not happen any time soon, but it is not an argument; it is merely assertion.

I have read most of the same things you have, but we come to very different conclusions. I discussed the Downing Street memo in previous postings and explained why I don’t find it as compelling as you all do.

One more thing – my posts do not call people anti-American. I don’t question the patriotism of liberals. Yet so often I see accusations of those sorts of things. It makes me wonder why people so strongly protest accusations I didn’t make. Maybe it’s the same as the imminent threat thing.

“2) If you didn’t serve, stop criticizing military records of others…”

papa bush got baby bush a pass on vietnam and, even then, he couldn’t be bothered to show up when he was supposed to - and then he has the nerve to send his cronies out to create the “swiftboat veterans for truth” for the sole purpose of smearing and discrediting another rich boy who didn’t take the pass but chose to risk his life repeatedly in vietnam and earned 3 purple hearts in the process…

the hypocrisy and arrogance of this president are (conveniently) beyond the ability of most americans to truly comprehend …

The status quo obviously is not working

Badlands, you fail to clarify what you mean by “status quo”, and what about it that “isn’t working”. I continue to see excellent articles every month in reputable newspapers, i.e. the Wall Street Journal, that discuss progress being made in Iraq. From electricity to repairs to training police and military forces, progress is being made. I get tired of people who can only find the negatives in everything. Here are some examples:

-Electricity’s back in Baghdad (but it didn’t get back quickly enough)

-We’re continuing to refit humvees with plating as fast as is physically possible (but it’s not fast enough)

-Elections happened across the country with minimal violence (but not everyone chose to vote so that makes the elections a failure)

-Iraqi troops are continuing to be trained (but not fast enough); they’re getting trained in the field (but that training isn’t good enough)

-We can’t monitor everything in Iraq, so we need to send more troops; we need a draft

-“Violence has increased” because Americans are still in Iraq, so we need to hurry up and leave

Since when did everyone sitting on their couches in America suddenly become experts on what the military needs to do in Iraq? Badlands, if you have some military background you can show us to lend credibility to your suggestions, we’d like to hear about it. If not, I hope you’re at least talking to your servicemen, as I am, to survey the actual needs in Iraq and the pace of progress in different areas. It’s much more educational than listening to CNN.

If (as you say) you’re not suggesting that we cut and run from Iraq, then please clarify your assertion that “There should be no more sacrifice for this war!”, and what we should do about it.

Also, please clarify why U.S. Marine training would be superior to U.S. Army training for the Iraqi army. Specifics would be helpful.

Khandara, there were no direct links between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush Re-election campaign; the only tenuous link was severed through a voluntary resignation, and Bush himself affirmed Mr. Kerry’s war record.

I want to see your military record before you criticize Mr. Bush’s record (with real evidence, not Rathergate evidence). I will abstain from criticizing Kerry’s antiwar activism until I have served myself.

Hey Mike,

Did you read the rest of my post? I said I didn’t have a problem with calling Chelsea to serve. I really do have a problem with anyone equating Bosnia with Iraq.

gandhi … “no DIRECT links…to swiftboat…”

give me a break …

it was an orchestrated republican smear of the nastiest kind against a decorated vietnam veteran - that is a FACT !!! - it was and is a disgrace to the office of the president along with gitmo, abu gharaib, valerie plame and on and on …

By the way, I dont see much in the way of grammatical mistakes in Andre’s post. I think you got a bum wrap.

Gandhi
You forgot the most important draft dodger of all in your point #2. Dick Cheney! Oh, that’s right, I forgot, he had more important priorities!

Khandara: President Bush wasn’t behind the Swiftboat Vets campaign. He in fact condemned it. Get your own facts right. (I can’t post links, but google “bush condemn swift boat ads” and try the first three matches that come up).

Tom G: if you really want to get technical, there are about 20 mistakes in the original post, including omission of paragraphs, punctuation, word confusion, misuse of compound words, etc. You’ll have to look hard on Watchblog to find that many errors by a Watchblog editor. Andre is also a teacher, so he probably has a masters degree and is capable of better writing. However, this is bordering on a personal attack, and I will stop there.

KP: many people dodged the draft, including Mr. Cheney. The better time to complain about his background would have been when he was appointed Secretary of Defense by GHWB, and Chief of Staff by President Ford. I gave you a politically balanced list of people who have served/dodged. Show us a more complete list if you like.

I am a republican, and I think that bush lied about why we went into iraq. I think he did it because there was no other way to start a war with saddam. I also know that this is wrong. Impeach him if you want to. As long as the war on terror does not end. If it does end it will all be for not.
By invading iraq he has begun the process of building a democracy in the middle of the terrorist. This gives us a staging point where we may conduct anti-terrorism efforts. I do believe that terrorists are the #1 threat to the U.S. It is better to fight a war against terror on their soil than ours. If we keep them occupied over there then they will not come over here. At least that is what I hope will happen. We are also doing it with paid volunteers. They know the risks when they join, and I am very grateful for them. I feel that the terrorists will stop at nothing to destroy the U.S. and her people. I guess you could call them racists at its most extreme form. Racism comes from a lack of knowledge. Racism still exists in the U.S. because there are still people who hate black people. Until those people die and quit teaching their children how to hate then racism will never die. The same thinking should apply to terrorists. They hate us, and you can’t change that by talking to them. You have to use force. Desegregation was not a peaceful process. It was a violent process. Out of that came the kkk, which was and is a terrorist organization. I don’t know what made the terrorists hate us but they do, and the only way to deal with them is by force, and they must be dealt with. I know all of you will probably think I am crazy, but that is how I feel.

Gandhi,

I’d be happy to provide you with a list, knew I who exactly would be on there. But certainly President Clinton would also be on that list. Even as a Democrat, I have no problem admitting this.

What I do have a problem with is this hypocricy of politicians (both right and left, although Clinton was by no means a leftist) in claiming they believe in things like peace while fighting wars abroad when they need not be fought but avoiding fights when they might actually need fighting.

A perfect example of this hypocricy is what’s been going on in Saudi Arabia for…oh *checks watch* about thirty years now. We turn a blind eye to the Saudis, rarely (except in the case of Condoleeza Rice, who’s been better as Sec. of State than I ever would have believed, though I did have rather low expectations) criticizing their completely ridiculous treatment of…well, anyone…because they give us such lucrative deals on oil (which, like it or not, is the biggest deal in world economics right now, and will be until water supplies really start drying up).

Yet we go into Iraq, which is a country with technology so beyond ours that they created invisible weapons of mass destruction, without a plan to get out.

This is a grander scale of what Clinton did in Kosovo—something that Bush decried. Bush claimed that we need an exit plan when going into an unprovoked military conflict. Bush said on several occasions that Clinton was going to lose the support of the American people on Kosovo intervention because we had no exit plan. Fast forward to now, when apparently exit plans are a bad idea that give support to the enemy.

Both of these gents had zilch on military experience, which could explain what made the two of them such horrid Commanders-in-Chief. That, Gandhi, is the hypocricy—and both sides need to admit it.

I will support my President while he is still in office, even though I may disagree with some of his decisions. I expect to campaign for John McCain in the 2008 election, should he decide to run. If he can make the Republican nomination, beware liberals! Hillary may have to postpone her plans until 2016.

No one “made up” anything about WMDs; there is a huge amount of bipartisan, documented evidence indicating Iraq’s nonconventional weapons programs through the late 90s. Disclosure prior to the invasion was incomplete and everyone knew it; we continued to discover illegal, undisclosed rockets after Iraq issued its reports. Since 1980 Saddam had always tried to produce WMDs, and would detain or throw out weapons inspectors whenever they got too close. The Hans Blix scene from “Team America World Police” isn’t far off. In the end, Saddam destoyed, hid, and likely exported to Syria all of his weapons. Had we not invaded, he would have resumed work on them.

Remember the Security Council Resolutions. You can’t rewrite history.

There has certainly been plenty of double-dealing in the Middle East for the last 30 years, by all White House administrations that I can recollect. Saddam used to be on the CIA payroll. Most of us agree that we should pursue alternative energy sources, including nuclear, water and solar forms, to reduce Middle East dependence. This will happen naturally if energy prices continue to go up (although there are now economic indicators that the high oil prices may be unsustainable). As far as regime change, Iraq is a start.

If as individuals we want to improve US clout in dealing with countries with human rights violations, we should start by buying less Chinese plastic and driving Geo Metros. I drove one for a while, before someone drove it into a bus and totaled it :)

Gandhi,

First off, I’m glad you brought up John McCain. If he does run, and Hillary decides to run as well, McCain will triumph in a lot of places—but a lot of those places won’t be conventional “Red States.” Religious and Social Conservatives greatly dislike McCain’s libertarian-leaning idea of what makes the government work. But McCain is also more of a true conservative than our president (and yes, Gandhi, whether I like him or not, George W. Bush is my President, too, elected by the people of this country (I wish they hadn’t, but, for better or for worse, he’s the guy we’re stuck with, and there’s no sense in whining about it now).

Now, on to your points.

First, you say, “Disclosure [of Iraqi WsMD] prior to the invasion was incomplete and everyone knew it; we continued to discover illegal, undisclosed rockets after Iraq issued its reports.” Of course we did. Did you really expect a dildo like Saddam to reveal all of his secrets? But the point was that we still knew what he had; the charges of nuclear and biochemical plants, however, was false, and yet that was the main basis for immediate and pre-emptive invasion. Now I believe that we were deceived by several aveneues, including by our intelligence bureaus. The point, however, is that we were not 100% sure of the nature of those buildings former Sec. of State Powell described in his address to the U.N. When they were skeptical, many in this country (including the president) claimed that they were just pussy-footin’ around. Perhaps they were, but they were right to be skeptical; our intel was faulty, and every commission that has investigated the Iraqi war and its connections to 9/11 planning and supposed subsequent planned strikes on the U.S. have been shown that information to be completely false.

“Since 1980 Saddam had always tried to produce WMDs, and would detain or throw out weapons inspectors whenever they got too close.” Well, I hope you realize that in 1980 Saddam could not have possibly had the resources to produce WsMD, simply because the U.S. was financing his pet projects in hopes of containing the Iranians. In 1980, the year that Jimmy Carter faced off against Ronald Reagan in the presidential race, the Iranians had American hostages (which we’ve all been hearing about lately, what with the new Iranian regime and all). We propped up Saddam because we needed a friend in the region; and because Saddam was just nutty enough to wave his sabre around and threaten to invade Iran every so often, he was perfect for the job.
Of course, we made one fatal mistake: Saddam really WAS nuts. Sorry; our bad.

“The Hans Blix scene from ‘Team America World Police’ isn’t far off.” Just to show you I’m not such a bad guy, I’m going to agree with you on this. Of course, there’s an underlying key here, too: yes, Hans Blix and his investigative team can’t do much, but do you really think that war is the answer? Go back and look at recent history, especially that of the Cold War. Without a shot being fired in Europe and Russia (excepting, of course, a small conflict in Estonia and the bloody coup in Romania), EuroCommunism fell. How? Containment. Every president, from Roosevelt to H-Dub Bush, was told that this would eventually work. And they were right; Communism fell without our having to get involved militarily once the Berlin conflict was over (and yes, that even means during the Cuban Missle Crisis, which was dealt with by political maneuvering, not military action. Had it come down to military action, I guarantee you none of us would be here debating any conemporary American politics because there wouldn’t be any America left).

“In the end, Saddam destoyed, hid, and likely exported to Syria all of his weapons. Had we not invaded, he would have resumed work on them.” First off, where’d you get your info, Gandhi? If the weapons are in Syria, we should be in Syria trying to get them so we have more than “just” a humanitarian case against Saddam. If Pres. Bush went into Iraq to get WsMD, and the WsMD actually do exist, don’t you think he’d like to prove that to us? ‘Cause he hasn’t done so good a job yet.
Secondly, we don’t even have any proof of what he was doing with those rocket factories. But rockets aren’t why we invaded. Nuclear and chemical plants were. According to the administration, these were what we needed to stop. ‘Cause, c’mon, rockets don’t really threaten us anymore; Saddam would need some serious ICBMs to attack the U.S. from Iraq’s position on the globe.

Anyways, IMHO you’re right on one thing: we need to get over our oil independence. But our president has paid only lip-service to this (which is indeed a step up from the Reagan adminstration, which openly shat upon the environment, but it still isn’t all the good). What we need more than anything else is to give some real subsidies to oil and gas companies who develop cleaner energy supplies for mass-market production. Yes, that sounds semi-socialistic. I know. I’m a Social Democrat.

phx8,

I’ll consider that a compliment…She is an incredible girl. She entered that reading into the American Legion contest in 1998 and won the Indiana state contest in 1999. She ended up placing 10th overall in the nation and had opportunity to read it at some very honorable and distinguished events…
Thanks again…

Discerner,
Since you returned to post a response, I take you at your word, & appreciate your graciousness. Please accept my apology- my compliments to your daughter. Disbelieving in the first place can be taken as a high, albeit lefthanded, compliment.

Gandhi,
Here are just two examples of President Bush lying about WMD’s; these are quotes from the Washington Post, 10/22/02.

1) President Bush… warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”

The unmanned vehicles lacked the range to reach the US.

2) “Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.”

There was no report by the IAEA.

Weapons moved to Syria? Is that where the two or three dozen Scuds in the western Iraqi desert went? The mobile biological warfare labs? The chemical weapons? The nuclear program?

According to the Duelfer Report; and this is the first key finding listed:
“Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.”

As for biological weapons:
“With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad’s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions

And for chemical weapons:
“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. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.”

I’ve cited the Special Advisor to the CIA, who actually spent time in Iraq and made these conclusions. Events suggest the Duelfer Report is correct.

WMD’s moved to Syria? Make your case.

Phlox (aka phx8—sorry, I couldn’t resist the name-drop),

You rightly chastise Gandhi for not providing sources for his info. Now I might have missed it, but you say,

“Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were ‘six months away from developing a weapon.’”

There was no report by the IAEA.”

I side with you on what Bush did, as well as on most of your sources, but I’d have to see some documented evidence of there having been no IAEA report—newspaper article, magazine piece, or even something from a verifyable net source (Yahoo! or another news server).

——
Just because we agree with something doesn’t make it true. All facts have to be verified.

Here’s my case.

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

Whether John Shaw can/will produce the evidence to substantiate his claims is another question. I would be very interested if anyone can dig up the documents to which he is referring.

The book “Saddam, King of Terror” by Con Coughlin describes in great detail the lengths to which Saddam went to acquire bio and chem weapons, as well as his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons - which started as early as 1979. Buy it at Amazon.com and see for yourself.

The justification for invading Iraq was general non-compliance with the terms that granted the ceasefire from Gulf War 1 - more specifically, cooperation with Security Council resolutions. It was not, as many think, Saddam’s actual posession of illegal weapons (that, regional stability, and humanitarian reasons were secendary issues). A college course in foreign affairs should make this clear to most people.

Brendan is correct: the rockets weren’t a threat to US national security. But they provided one more example of deception and noncompliance by Saddam. Saddam was an expert at toeing the line; he would have kept us there indefinately if we’d waited for him to actually provide evidence for us that he had become an “imminent threat”. If we’d waited long enough, perhaps we’d now be fighting another war to liberate Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And had the Isralis not sabotaged Saddam’s nuclear reactors in the 80s, Iraq would most certainly have developed nukes.

Amazing to me how every discussion on this blog deteriorates into a “Bush lied”, or “Iraq is an illegal war” rant.

Folks, there are other important issues to discuss. This is not to demean the validity of an intelligent discussion about the war, but not everything in the world is caused by the war.

To get back to the original point of this thread, as a veteran, I greatly appreciate the sacrifices our men and women in the armed forces have freely chosen to make in our name.

The arguements regarding Bush sending his children to fight are so outragious as to be silly. Prez Bush does not have the right to make that decision for his children any more than any of us do. The argument is childish.

I appreciate jack bringing some perspective back to the discussion.

phx8:

1) President Bush… warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”

The unmanned vehicles lacked the range to reach the US.

Please open your mind a little further. I am no huge supporter of Prez Bush, but even I know he meant “US interests”, not necessarily US soil.

2) “Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.”

There was no report by the IAEA.

So now he made up an entire report? Funny the IAEA hasn’t said that. Proof please.

One point not made yet is not the case that was given to the U.N. was not the same particular case as that given to the American people. Now I hate to drudge up that whole ol’ “liberal” phrase, but the president did indeed give mistruths to the public (I purposely have not used the word “lie,” although the uber-lib in me really, really wants to). President Bush mislead the country into believing first that there was a link between Hussein and 9/11 (there wasn’t). He also told us that there were WsMD (if they’re there, they’re really, really well hidden). Later, he told us that we went in to free the Iraqi people (what he didn’t tell us was that as bad as the Iraqis have it, the non-royal Saudis, Ethiops, Syrians, and Somalians have it even worse, but their governments aren’t anti-American). He also later told us that we were winning in Iraq (well, that’s closer to the truth; I mean, we’re not LOSING, but I’m not sure that I’d call 1700+ dead and no end to this war in sight “winning”).
The point is that Bush is misleading the country in this war in the same way that Lyndon Johnson misled the public about the Vietnam War. We’re being told one thing even though something different is happening.

Now, as for your response to me, Gandhi, I must say that you provide for some interesting reading. I had to reread your post to be sure that I wasn’t completely off-base in my opinions. Upon further inspection, however, I realized the flaw in your arguments: you fail to understand a few things about international sociopolitical wheelings-and-dealings:

1) “Saddam was an expert at toeing the line; he would have kept us there indefinately if we’d waited for him to actually provide evidence for us that he had become an ‘imminent threat.’”

Gandhi, please go back and read your high school American history textbook, specfically the section on World War II. The United States didn’t get involved until she was attacked. That’s the way it works. And that’s why no one argued with going into Afghanistan; although the Taliban didn’t actually bomb us, they funded those terrorizing a-holes. We weren’t wrong to bomb the crap out of ‘em.
But Iraq is different. We weren’t attacked. We weren’t going to get attacked. Every expert on Iraq agreed, even if they also believed going into Iraq was the right thing to do, that the little Mid-Eastern country could never have gotten as powerful as it did in the late 80s and early 90s (and it got that powerful why, again?). So yes, Iraqi containment was indeed working in the same way it had worked on the U.S.S.R. and its satellites.

2) “If we’d waited long enough, perhaps we’d now be fighting another war to liberate Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”

Gandhi, I’m not sure you have any idea what’s going on in the Middle East, nor that you have anything to base your information on. There are a lot of problems with this statement. First, the UAE and Iraq had a longstanding nonaggression treaty. Not that Saddam really cares about such things, but the UAE is all the way on the other side of the Persian Gulf. To get to that country, the Iraqi army, the same one that we descimated in Operation Desert Storm, would’ve had to go through Saudi Arabia (which would’ve said no), or Iran (which hates Iraq and Hussein). So saying that they would’ve invaded the UAE is ridiculous.
And the Iraqi army taking over Saudi Arabia?!?! That’s just plain ridiculous. The Saudi royals, if they had wanted, could very easily have outsourced a bunch of mercinaries and had Saddam killed in a matter of weeks. They’re that rich. And Saudi Arabia has an army three times that of Iraq. Do you really think that the little bitty Iraqi army, the one that had nothing on our troops when it was at a strength it could not have gotten back for another fifty to sixty years, could’ve even come close to taking over Saudi Arabia, the richest country in the Middle East?

3) “And had the Isralis not sabotaged Saddam’s nuclear reactors in the 80s, Iraq would most certainly have developed nukes.”
Actually, that’s completely inaccurate. Had the Israelis done anything to Iraq in the 1980s, they would not have been on very good footing with the U.S.; Iraq was our last line of containment against the Ayatolla in the late ’70s up through the end of the Cold War, when we realized that we had to keep this nut-job we’d installed in-check. Israel has been a friend of the U.S. for a very long time; if they weren’t, their tactics of terrorism (which they do indeed use) would be just as decried as that of al-Qaeda.

Gandhi,
The Shaw accusations go back to just before the election in 2004:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
In this version, no chemical or biological weapons are mentioned, just high explosives, buried or shipped to Syria by Russians. This was part of the missing explosives story that came out just before the election.
Given the logistics of moving large quantities of weapons, and trying to do so across a desert under close US satellite scrutiny, it seems unlikely- not impossible, but unlikely.
Putting on a tin hat for a moment, if I were Saddam, & making contingency plans, I’d bury weapons, & concentrate on hiding cold hard cash both at home & abroad, with the attitude that weapons could always be purchased.

Brendan: In regards to your statement “3) “And had the Isralis not sabotaged Saddam’s nuclear reactors in the 80s, Iraq would most certainly have developed nukes.”
Actually, that’s completely inaccurate. Had the Israelis done anything to Iraq in the 1980s, they would not have been on very good footing with the U.S.”
You are completely inaccurate. In 1981 Israeli jets bombed Iraq’s Tammuz-1 research reactor, and if I am not mistaken, they were jets that we supplied them with. I also think the reactor was supplied by france.

sorry- forgot the reference

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/iraqnu91.htm

Brendan,

3) First off, I am absolutely correct about the Israelis sabotaging Saddam’s nuclear reactors. Read “Raid on the Sun: Inside Israel’s Secret Campaign That Denied Saddam the Bomb”. The introduction paragraph reads as follows:

“Long before Saddam Hussein became a household name and the alleged presence of “weapons of mass destruction” became the center of a national debate, we now know with certainty that the former Iraqi dictator was perilously close to manufacturing nuclear weapons as far back as the early 1980s. If it wasn’t for the bold and, at the time, controversial 1981 military strike by the Israeli air force on a nuclear reactor outside Baghdad, the balance of power in the Middle East might look significantly different than it does today.”

Iraq’s al-Tuwaitha nuclear complex housed two French-supplied nuclear reactors that were nearly operational at the time the Israeli Mossad struck, in 1981. The Israelis’ cover-up job was almost as good as the Soviet dossier created for Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat, the supposed Palestinian from birth. (The French offered to replace the destroyed reactors, by the way). See the following link for an overview of this particular book:

search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?pwb=1&ean=9780767914000

For a general history of Iraq’s history of nonconventional weapons, all war skeptics here should read the Duelfer Report on the CIA’s website. www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

2) Yes, I did actually look at the map before I mentioned the UAE. (OK, Qatar would probably be first in a land invasion through Saudi Arabia, but there’s more oil in the UAE). It is true that Iraq’s military in 2001 wasn’t big enough to take on Saudi Arabia, let alone with the U.S. forces currently there. In 1991, however, Iraq had the strongest military in the Middle East. Only Israel, with its superior technology, would have been a formidable adversary. Consider this: if Iraq never had the military to threaten Saudi Arabia (and through extension, its southeast neighbors), why did the U.S. military execute Operation Desert Shield before the invasion of Iraq?

You said:

The UAE and Iraq had a longstanding nonaggression treaty

There would be no reason for the two countries to sign such an explicit treaty unless there was some capacity for them to engage in conflict. Go check your map. The Persian Gulf provides the perfect route for a sea invasion from Iraq.

Remember that Iraq was pretty decimated by the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. It rebuilt pretty quickly without sanctions. Had we dropped sanctions and left Saudi Arabia after 1991, Saddam’s military (with some Soviet help) might well have been back on track in a decade. Also, remember how much money Kuwait had? Despite the highest per-capita income in the world, Kuwait didn’t have much of a chance to use its money to hire trained guns, from the time they saw the Iraqi army camping on their northern border. (Granted, Kuwait is a pretty small country, and would have provided few logistical problems for annexation).

1) We didn’t get attacked in World War 1. Why did we intervene then? Go search your own high school history text for “Monroe Doctrine” :) (This was formally extended to much of Europe in 1949 through NATO, and it extends to cover all U.S. strategic interests and alliances). “National Interest” is a somewhat ambiguous term, but post-911, the Middle East now falls into that category. It’s not even all about oil.

And anyway, when did the U.S. ever have a policy of non-preemption? If any such policy didn’t end with the Spanish American War, it certainly did in the Cold War with nation building containment strategies, from Nicaragua to Iran. World War 2 was the exception. I suggest we annex Canada for their natural resources, and suspend their voting rights so that America stays conservative!

phx8, I believe there were some excellent WSJ articles on the Syria arms-movement issue. Unfortately I can’t access them without paying $3. They’re from Feb/March, if anyone can dig them up.

Historically though you’re thinking on the right track; Saddam always liked using his palaces and swimming pools for hiding weapons from inspectors in the 90s. Dig a big pit to hide them, and then kill everyone who dug it.

Chi Chi,
See the IAEA web site. There are numerous reports, articles, & interviews given by the IAEA during that time.

Furthermore, if you read the articles, you’ll quickly conclude these are careful, cautious people. They state they did not know about Saddam’s nuclear program because they had not been in the country since 1998. A quick perusal reveals they simply don’t make the kind of statements Bush made.

Brendan,
Did the “two examples” link to the Washington paper work?

anybody know how many innocent, but nonetheless dead, iraqi men, women and children can dance on the head of a pin ??? …

and what has bushco sacrificed ??? …

anybody know how many innocent, but nonetheless dead, iraqi men, women and children can dance on the head of a pin ???

Why don’t you ask Saddam and the insurgents that question.

Gandhi,

On the subject of Israel, I stand corrected. I did some further research after reading your post (as well as some of the others here) and realized my error. I could’ve sworn I was right, but I understand now I was not. My apologies for the inaccurate information.

Now, onto your other comments:

“We didn’t get attacked in World War 1. Why did we intervene then?”

Actually, we didn’t start out by intervening. In fact, Pres. Wilson declared neutrality.

“Go search your own high school history text for ‘Monroe Doctrine’ :)”

Love the smiley face ;). But the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t why we went into WWI, just as the Roosevelt Corrolary wasn’t why we went into Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. We weren’t protecting our interests; we were protecting our citizens. After the deposition of Nicolas in Russia, Wilson realized that Russia was not going to get involved very heavily in the war; they had other problems (although that was nothing compared with what was to come). Shortly prior to this, Wilson had asked for the power to do something about the disease and starvation happening all across Europe Proper, but he was refused by Congress. Then, a German ambassador to Mexico tried to convince the Mexican government to join Germany in the war. In exchange, were Germany to win (which they were beginning to), they’d help Mexico wage war on the U.S. to reclaim the parts of the Southwest once held by Mexico. We only went to war after a communique between Mexico and Germany was intecepted by British forces.

You can find all this info here

2) Yes, I did actually look at the map before I mentioned the UAE. (OK, Qatar would probably be first in a land invasion through Saudi Arabia, but there’s more oil in the UAE). It is true that Iraq’s military in 2001 wasn’t big enough to take on Saudi Arabia, let alone with the U.S. forces currently there. In 1991, however, Iraq had the strongest military in the Middle East. Only Israel, with its superior technology, would have been a formidable adversary. Consider this: if Iraq never had the military to threaten Saudi Arabia (and through extension, its southeast neighbors), why did the U.S. military execute Operation Desert Shield before the invasion of Iraq?

“The Persian Gulf provides the perfect route for a sea invasion from Iraq.”

True, but the majority of the Persian Gulf is Saudi territory. And the Saudis despise the Iraqi government, despise Iraq, and despised Saddam Hussein. If he had mobilized his forces anywhere near them, they’d have met a strong resistance from the Saudi military.

Great discussion; I’m glad we get to debate geography and history on a political thread. This is what it’s all about, folks!

Hey sorry folks it seems I accidentally pasted more than I meant to. Please ignore the paragraph beginning “2).”

Sorry ‘bout that.

Oh, and by the way Phlox, the WashTimes article you posted did indeed work, but the link needed to be copy-and-pasted.

Brendan,

Correct on the Zimmermann note. As to the strength of the Saudi military, they are #8 in the world for expenditures - a whopping $18 billion a year since 2000. I don’t think they were spending as much in 1991 though, and Iraq may have posed a serious threat to them at that time. Iran had a sizable military in the early 80s, but that didn’t stop Saddam from mounting a massive sneak attack. He’d have won the war, too, if he’d listened to his generals instead of “disappearing” them whenever they disagreed with him - including even a daughter-in-law’s father, if I remember correctly. (Sounds reminiscent of Hitler holding back his 80 tank divisions at D-Day. This brings the thread on the verge of invoking Goodwin’s law, so I think the end of this discussion is near!)

Gandhi,

Well stated. We’ve reached our stalemate in terms of hypothetical versus facts.

I think this was an excellent and friendly debate. Hope everyone here takes note: these are the types of debates those phonies in Washington (on the right and left sides of the dial) should be having. Screw all this partisan hackery.

Thanks everybody for a great debate!

Ghandi:

Shame on you for mentioning the WTSR’s(Wartime Service Records) of Emporer George I and suggesting that Emporer George II (Dubya) ever even had one. During his time in, Bush the elder, Got shot down in the waters of the South Pacific. ‘W’ on the other hand just downed shots, while being ‘AWOL’ in the South.

Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans should fight in Iraq.

Posted by: Aldous at July 3, 2005 10:40 PM

Aldous :
Get a grip, by using your formula they already are over there, living, breathing, sucking it all up, just as I did for the last 20 years. I didn’t look into the foxhole next to me and wonder is he a republican? I knew he was because, why you ask? well, let’s see. I have met only a hand full of white males over 35 who are not ingrained with christian doctrine, Know you don’t measure success by how much money you earn, or that if you don’t donate 10% of your earnings you won’t get to heaven. Please, spare me the rhetoric. Oh, For those of you have been force fed the crap about us Dems being left winger liberals. Open your eyes, and minds.

Just a few thoughts.

JPG,
As Always,
Wayne