Democrats & Liberals Archives

It's All Good, Except The Bad

“We’re making good progress in Iraq.”

The negatives:

Rumsfeld in charge:

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the Washington Post.

Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous. "In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement." From CNN's "Late Edition.

"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing." Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as National Security Adviser under President Carter.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004."Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," he wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the New York Times.

"Imagine what would happen if it were announced tomorrow in the headlines of the papers of America and throughout the world that Rumsfeld was fired," the Delaware senator told CNN. "It would energize, energize the rest of the world, to be willing to help us. It would energize American forces; it would energize the political environment. Yes, he should step down." Asked his opinion, Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, chose neither to defend nor to criticize Rumsfeld.


The cost:

Money, lives and credibility
"The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $251 billion March 31, 2006." National Priorities Project

"The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought," according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.

Total fatalities: 2,318 American men and women.

"17,000 Americans have been injured. More than 200 members of the "coalition" have lost their lives. More than 100 journalists and members of their support teams have died covering the war. And, in the most conservative estimates, more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths. The United States has evaded international law, circumvented the Geneva Conventions, violated basic human rights, utilized renditions; spread government sanctioned propaganda and placed our Democratic government in the same league as other human rights violators such as N.Korea and China. We are no longer seen as a bastion of freedom. We are seen as hypocrites. Education funding has suffered. Healthcare funding has suffered. Hurricane relief and rebuilding has suffered. The families of those who have lost their lives or have debilitating injuries have suffered. American civil liberties are being dismantled under the "War on Terror" mantra. There are some positives to our preemptive attack on Iraq. Let's take a look at them.

The positives:

From truthout.org:
"The value of Halliburton's Iraq contracts has crossed the $10 billion threshold. Halliburton has now received $8.3 billion in Iraq work under its LOGCAP troop support contract and $2.5 billion under its no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract, a total of $10.8 billion. The mounting value of the contracts has been accompanied by a growing list of concerns about Halliburton's performance. Over the last year, government auditors have issued at least nine reports criticizing Halliburton's Iraq work, and there are multiple criminal investigations into overcharging and kickbacks involving Halliburton's contracts. Former Halliburton employees have testified before Congress about egregious instances of over billing. Despite these concerns, the Bush Administration continues to reject. The actual value of Halliburton's Iraq contracts is likely higher than $10.77 billion. In January 2004, Halliburton received a follow-on oil contract for southern Iraq worth up to $1.2 billion. The Administration has not disclosed the value of the work given to Halliburton under this contract.
"Big Oil" profits are at a record high.
Haliburton profits are at a record high.
Cheney's stock value in Haliburton is at a record high.
The Military Industrial Complex's influence and power are at a record high.
The NSA and CIA's power is at a record high.
Executive power over congress and senate is at a record high.
The use of spin and propaganda is at a record high.

It's going very well and according to the president, "we're making good progress.”
"Chant with me, "USA, USA, USA, USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at March 20, 2006 4:33 PM
Comments
Comment #134807

So we went to war to help Haliburton. Good point, if you don’t understand business or government or leadership. It will appeal to many.


Take a look at Halliburton stock charts. Compare it with a few other like Starbucks (no blood for coffee) or Toyota (no blood for Japanese cars) or Posco (no blood for Korean steel) or … you get the picture and if you don’t stay away from investments because you don’t understand them.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #134809

Nicely done, Andre.
Here’s yet another opinion from Sunday, March 19th’s, Meet the Press transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: The president picks up the phone and calls you up, and says “Jack, come on down. You voted for this war, you now think it was a mistake, but we’re in a fix. And if I get out right away, we could leave behind a civil war, we could leave behind a haven for terrorism. Tell me specifically Mr. Murtha, what should I do today?”

REP. MURTHA: Here, here’s what you should do, Mr. President. First of all, you should fire all the people who are responsible for that, which gives you international credibility.

MR. RUSSERT: Including his secretary of defense?

REP. MURTHA: Well, he, he should—well, let’s say he should offer his resignation, because he certainly…

MR. RUSSERT: And it’s sure to be accepted?

REP. MURTHA: I would accept it, that’s exactly right.

MR. RUSSERT: What about the vice president?

REP. MURTHA: Well, you can’t fire the vice president, so I think he’ll, he’ll have to handle this himself.

MR. RUSSERT: Should he offer his resignation?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, certainly the vice president has been the primary force in running, running this war, and many of the mischaracterizations have come about. You and I talked before the show about some of the things he said on your show, right before the war started. None of them turned out to be true. This is why the American public is so upset.

OK, I say fire some people, that’s the first thing.

MR. RUSSERT: Who should he fire?

REP. MURTHA: Well, he… he’s got to make that decision himself. Anybody that’s been responsible, first of all, for the intelligence-gathering; second of all, for the characterization; and third of all, for the maintaining and running the war. For instance, from the national security office down to the secretary of defense’s office. I mean he’s got to make that decision.

Btw, have you heard that Dubai has been bidding on weapons manufacturing for the U.S.? Yeah, they want to make parts for our weapons and tanks, but now because of what happened with the port deal, this one is also being scrutinized. The righties will probably say it’s a great idea for them to do this. You know, because it would be “racist”, and totally against the “free market” not to give them this opportunity.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #134811

Jack, having what I consider to be a more proficient understanding of stocks than most individuals (forgive the hubris) I would like to talk with you a bit about Halliburton, especially as it pertains to stocks.

For one, bringing in Starbucks instantly gives your argument less credibility. Starbucks’ strongest growth period outperformed 99% of all stocks (relative strength rating taken from Investor’s Business Daily) and this is the time period with which you are comparing Halliburton.

Additionally, Halliburton has outperformed Toyota over the past 5 years (their stock value has gone from $9 in mid-2002 all the way up to $69 as of late-2005) so I’m not even sure why you’ve brought that up. After all, the argument is that Halliburton is exceptionally profitable due to it’s “special deals” it obtains from the Bush administration.

To speak from a business perspective it becomes clear that Halliburton’s company has inexplicably grown over the past 5 years unless you account for cash obtained for practically nothing. Examples include an audit of Halliburton by the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency which found $108 million in “questioned costs” and, as of mid-March 2005, said they still had “major” unresolved issues with Halliburton. On a larger scale, Halliburton recieved around 18 billion dollars in contracts in Iraq in the year 2005.

It’s not that any of this necessarily means foul play, but you have to admit that such occurrences happening again and again is extremely suspicious given the circumstances.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #134813

Hey Zeek, nice to see you posting again!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #134815

Zeek

If you bought Haliburton the day George Bush took office and sold it today. How much did you make?

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #134823

Adrienne, so nice that you remember me :)

Jack, I hardly see the relevance in your question since the profiteering could hardly start on the first day Bush took office.

Well, I guess it could, but that would be some REALLY dedicated corruption right there.

But to humor you, I would have made an over 50% gain which outperforms the Dow by quite a bit. Especially when you consider the fact that in 2002 Halliburton’s stock tanked (then again most stocks did).

I’m not sure where you’re going with this but feel free to ask more questions.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #134824

It’s pretty sad that the American left takes pleasure in the fact that our soldiers are getting killed just so they can say “we told you so.” The liberals do not want Iraq to become a stable democracy, at least not during a Republican presidency. They want it to be a place of constant chaos, just so they can demagogue it.

Posted by: Duano at March 20, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #134836

Duano:

No one on the left takes pleasure in the fact that our soldiers are getting killed. What a crock. Won’t even read the rest of your post.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 20, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #134837

Andre M. Hernandez,

Here’s an interesting sidenote, in Bush’s speech today he did something that struck a very familiar chord with me today. Bush has a new group of pantomimes at the podium: BILL CLINTON’S PANTOMIMES. No BS turn to CNN they’ll rerun parts of the speech—It’s Bill Clinton’s head and body movements and even hand gestures—I sh!t you not.

His numbers are actually that low. I guess Bill isn’t doing much these days and Poppy called him up and asked if he could give his boy George Jr. some pointers on speech making and it apparently took. Unlike CIA data, The Geneva convention and concepts of illegal wars and such.

Watch the gestures at the podium—we’ll undoubtedly see more of it.

Posted by: Translator at March 20, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #134839

Actually its pretty sad that the ‘conservative right’ can come up with nothing better than constant ‘attack and distract’ rhetoric in their ongoing struggle to sweep historical fact under the rug.

Challenging the true motivations behind this false war isn’t anti-American or unpatriotic……..in fact its quite the opposite in the opinions of our founding fathers.

The internet changes everything. Power to the people, the truth shall prevail.


Posted by: mountain man at March 20, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #134841

womanmarine,

Do you honestly believe the left would be happy if all the problems in Iraq melted away tomorrow and we brought all our troops home and everyone lived happily ever after on GWB’s watch? If it has to do with Bush’s poll numbers going up, the left will fight it, no matter how many soldiers have to die.

Posted by: Duano at March 20, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #134843

“It’s BS to say ask a soldier. These kids aren’t college graduates, they don’t read twenty newspapers a day, the vast majority are nineteen and twenty year-old kids who joined the military because they couldn’t get a job!” Richard Belzer(leftist)

Posted by: Duano at March 20, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #134845

While the administration, like every other past adminstration with a military action, has done…let’s blame the press!
After all, it was the press that undermined the diplomatic processes and got the nation into the war in the first place.
After all, it was the press that continued to report the deaths of soldiers every day, and never showed how many telephone poles that were put up that day.
After all, we all know the press is under the influence of the party that lost the election.
Bad press. Axis of evil newspaper plot. Commie reporters.
Well, the press is the press. Live with it.
But when those that spend the money, and send troops to their deaths, for whatever reason, blame someone other than themselves when things go wrong….it’s time to consider whether or not those leaders made the right decision.
I support the press over the actions of any administration.
Without the press, history would not be. Nor would we be able to look back and make comparatives of past experience.
I would hope the press, in the US, gets as viscious and mean spirited as they have in Britian.

Posted by: Joe at March 20, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #134848

Duano,

“If it has to do with Bush’s poll numbers going up, the left will fight it, no matter how many soldiers have to die.”

The really sad part about this isn’t that you actually belive this, it’s that you had the balls to write it.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #134849

///
Andre, thank you.

Pig Oil and Haliburton are the winners. The Globalization agenda is making corporations above the law of any country. They are obviously above the law here, since their cronies are in charge. Their profits include their estimate of how much they will have to pay out to stay above the law.

Adrienne, I have not been able to stomach Tim Russert for a long time. Cheney Rummy and Wolfy are a team, Bush might as well fire himself. Maybe he should go quail shooting with Cheney.

pleasure in the fact that our soldiers are getting killed …blah blah blah. Pleasure, what kind of statement is that? The loss of soldiers continues even though the war was supposed to be over when GWBush did his photo op on the aircraft carrier. The Rpblcns are the one expressing their contempt for C.Sheehan, even though she lost her son.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #134852

Cindy Sheehan is glad her son died. It has given her the celebrity she has lusted after her whole life. Casey didn’t even communicate with his mom.

Posted by: Duano at March 20, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #134855

Andre,
you were reading my mind with this post. I just watched ABC, and they began with GW telling us that we are all idiots and that the only reason the war looks bad is that it is being covered by the free press. It seems to me that ABC starts every program with the wonderful news from Iraq. There idea of fair and balanced is to editorialize when it comes to good news from the front and show only raw facts and stats without comment when it comes to negative info, let the consumer analyze for themselves. I notice they didn’t ask Bob Woodruff his opinion on how the war is going.

Jack, so what you’re saying is that it’s good for the market that we invaded Iraq? So you guys really do believe that war is good for the US economy. Maybe we should reinstitute draft as the form of a peace corps service and make every American go to Iraq to build schools and hospitals. Oh wait that’s what Halliburton supposedly does.

Posted by: Loren at March 20, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #134857

Zeek

I think it is actually about 59% from Jan 22, 2001 to today. My point is that it is not a particularly big number. You would not go through all that trouble for 59%. Someone who bought a house in a big American city made a lot more in that time.

The whole idea that Haliburton made such piles of money is just not correct. It is just juvenile to think that you would take the country to war to make 59% on a stock portfolio over a five year period. I can’t believe we are even talking about this, but it comes up every couple of weeks.

It seems to me that if you control the levers of government and you want to make money, you could do it in a less extravegant fashion.

There are plenty of reasons you might oppose the war. The idea that people are trying to make money on it is just no among them.

If you are an investor, you know that a 59% five year return is not surprising. You also know that there are many stocks that have done better over the same period.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #134861

BTW I can even begin to scream the profane anger I feel at anyone who asserts that we on the left are glad that we are failing in Iraq. If those on the right cared 1/10 as much as I do about our troops and the Iraqi civilians, there wouldn’ be so many dead and maimed. We will NEVER be able to repay them for their sacrifices, and if Duano, you didn’t believe that they were expendable for your political views, thay wouldn’t even be there.

Posted by: Loren at March 20, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #134862

Duano,

Thanks for pointing out the type of mentality that got W re-elected.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 20, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #134863

I have always been disposed to give Bush more credit than many on the left. He could not be THAT stupid etc. Even now it would be foolish to regard him as stupid but it is clear he is dangeriously deluded.When his ideaology blinds him to economic and social problems of his policies that is one thing but when he is too blinded by his “faith” to recognize the need to change direction involving security issues it is time for his removal. I pray that congress,both parties,will put aside poiltics to render him at least less dangerious for the rest of his term. Should he be removed Cheny will likely go also as part of a plea bargain alla Agnew but it does not matter so long as that lunatic is no longer capable of starting wars. What if God tells him to nuke China or France for that matter. He is out of control,probably medically insane.

Posted by: BillS at March 20, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #134864

Sadam killed 7000 people. Not Millions. The USA has now killed 250,000 Iraqis.

Posted by: Chris at March 20, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #134865

Loren

I was posting while you were writing

NO I am not saying the war was good for the market. I am merely pointing out the Haliburton is up 59% since Bush took office. I don’t own any Haliburton. I think it is not a good investment. If you guys think it is so good, buy some. Give the money you make to charity or moveon.org if you want.

Of course you won’t actually put you money where your mouths are. Talk is cheap.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #134867

ohrealy:
“Adrienne, I have not been able to stomach Tim Russert for a long time.”

Hey why do you think I put up the transcript rather than a link to the video (though Crooks and Liars probably has it)? I can’t watch Russert at all at this point either — so I just read about it every Monday! ;^)

“Cheney Rummy and Wolfy are a team, Bush might as well fire himself.”

So True. And no doubt it would be simply terrifying to watch the puppet collapse in on itself if all of his various “hands” were removed and he had to actually function on his own.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #134875

I think the left is the ultimate supporter of the troops because we dont’ want them dying for lies. for oil. for personal vendettas. for excessive tax dollars when we have more pressing needs here. its a crock to think we don’t support them, we want them alive.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 20, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #134886

duano:

Is it pronounced “Dwayne-o” like a lispy child describing a product for cleaning the sh!t out of clogged drains, or “duano, rhymes with guano (bird sh!t)”? Because the main component of both those definitions is the basis for your reasoning in your posts on this article.

Posted by: mals2003 at March 20, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #134888

Jack, I am well aware of Halliburton’s situation. So let’s go over a few of your statements.

“I think it is actually about 59% from Jan 22, 2001 to today. My point is that it is not a particularly big number.”

You completely ignore the fact that Halliburton went through a 50% correction before it started it’s major run up. I agree, 59% in 5 years is rather pathetic. A 766% increase (9 to 69) is not too shabby.

“The whole idea that Haliburton [sic] made such piles of money is just not correct.”

Your statement has some merit. Halliburton is not a company driven purely on shady deals, but the fact that such transactions are happening is clear and is rather dis-heartening.

“It is just juvenile to think that you would take the country to war to make 59% on a stock portfolio over a five year period.”

Where did I say we went to war for Halliburton? That would be like me saying the Bush administration broke the dikes in New Orleans for Halliburton. My point is that when the opportunity arose Halliburton was there to reap the benefits, not that Halliburton was the causation. It’s called opportunism.

“I can’t believe we are even talking about this, but it comes up every couple of weeks.”

Meh, it’s interesting enough. Plus I’m catching up with the old crew so it’s good to get reacquainted :)

“It seems to me that if you control the levers of government and you want to make money, you could do it in a less extravegant fashion.”

Such as?

“There are plenty of reasons you might oppose the war. The idea that people are trying to make money on it is just no among them.”

I never cited the war in Iraq. You are assuming things. You have no idea what my stance is on Iraq unless you somehow have telepathy and are reading my mind.

“If you are an investor, you know that a 59% five year return is not surprising. You also know that there are many stocks that have done better over the same period.”

I do know this and I understand that Halliburton hasn’t been setting records as far as its stock goes. Yet, the fact remains that Halliburton has had unnatural growth. It is also true that there has been much money which should not have gone to Halliburton that did. It’s all a drop in the bucket when compared to something like the U.S. tax revenue or yearly budget, but it still underscores a problem of corruption in the government.

I’m not saying it’s today’s major problem, but it certainly isn’t something that should just be ignored.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #134895

Duano,

“If it has to do with Bush⦣x20AC;™s poll numbers going up, the left will fight it, no matter how many soldiers have to die.”

The really sad part about this isn’t that you actually belive this, it’s that you had the balls to write it.


Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2006 07:44 PM

“No matter how many soldiers will have to die”

No balls or brains, what brillance eminating from such a lifeless rightwing void!

Intelligent design at it’s best.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 20, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #134897

Zeek

It is reasonable to question Hal’s taking advantage of a situation and they have engaged in some questionable behavior. That is a separate question from motivation for the war. You did not say that, but it is a constant drum beat. Hal is just not a big enough issue to come up all the time.

You also know that if you take any volatile stock from a low to a high, you have an impressive number. Presumably the administration’s friends owned the stock when it went down as well as when it went up. Anybody could have bought it at the low. It would not make much sense to manipulate that particular stock. Nobody would even bother bringing it up if it had not formerly been associated with the VP.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #134898

[Sigh]
It’s All Good, Except for more Bad on Pre-War Intelligence:
Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 20, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #134905

Jack, I’m sorry for digressing us but I thought there was a lot that needed to be understood. I agree that it shouldn’t come up all the time, I admitted it was a drop in the bucket, but it’s part of the problem.

As for the stock volatility… come on, Jack… It has a 35.36 billion dollar market cap and it’s float is well over 300 million. If it were a penny stock, I could see why 766% wouldn’t be a big deal. But it isn’t a penny stock and it is a big deal for Halliburton considering it probably wouldn’t have had half those gains were it not for… well there’s a list of shady deals.

By the by, I’m not saying the stock was manipulated. However, I do expect Cheney will be recieving a cushy pay-off when he retires as VP. Do I have any proof? No, only a set of highly suspicious circumstances.

The reason I’m hammering this issue is because if politicians feel they can get away with something, they’ll try to. This is why we cannot simply let issues like this fall to the wayside.

Also, since this thread is about “making progress in Iraq” Halliburton ties-in in a roundabout way. I would say that if we are making progress there should be less corruption on both the Iraqi and U.S.’s part.

Currently, Halliburton employs over 30,000 men and women in Iraq. In addition to troop support, Halliburton also provides air traffic control support; produces 74 million gallons of water a month for consumption, hygiene and laundry; deploys as many as 700 trucks a day to deliver essentials to American forces; and provides firefighter and crash-rescue services, as well as working to restore Iraqi oil infrastructure.

The above information is taken from Wikipedia.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #134933

So in response to an essay and the points contained within it you should say that the person writing it and those like him just hate
Bush and will support the death of thousands of their own countrymen if it makes him look bad? What kind of a jackass debating method is that? I just can’t get my mind around the fact that someone thinks that because I am a liberal I am glad soldiers of our army die every week. What the hell does that have to do with legit questions about the decisions to get into this war and the decisions made on how to conduct it? Is the president now a Emporer with direct communication with the gods making any disagreement a blaspheme?

Posted by: ten ravis at March 20, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #134936

Well, it certainly works well as far as propaganda goes… You have to admit that it works which is why the Democrats should not be afraid of using such tactics…

Unfortunately, the Democrats suck at playing politics, for the most part, which is why they’ve been getting schooled by Republicans for the past few decades.

But that’s the way it works. Whether or not it’s a legit question is irrelevant when you can’t string together enough votes to do anything about it.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #134939

///
mals2003, thank you for the biggest laugh of the day, you made me think of Dr. Strangelove, with Colonel Bat Guano, President Merkin Muffly,
General Turgidson, and General Jack D. Ripper

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #134945

Duano,

Cindy Sheehan is glad her son died. It has given her the celebrity she has lusted after her whole life. Casey didn’t even communicate with his mom.

Do you actually think that a mother is happy that her son has died fighting for a cause that is false and hopeless; who are you to judge the way a person mourns when their family member has died. Why don’t you join Cheney and go hunting, I’m sure Cheney will be the one not coming back after the hunting trip.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 21, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #134960

Rocky,

The really sad part about this isn’t that you actually belive this, it’s that you had the balls to write it.

Oh, you know, it takes no balls to write craps quite anonymously on a forum. Only some keyboard and english skills, at most.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2006 5:01 AM
Comment #134967

Once again, all you infinitely intelligent liberals can’t resist resorting to name calling when someone makes a truthful statement. Can you honestly say that if Iraq suddenly became paradise and Dubya’s approval rating skyrocketed that you would be truly happy? After all, you guys are the only ones who care about the troops who always vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. And I noticed that nobody rose up to defend their fellow lib, Richard Belzer, who stated the true liberal position, without spin. He admitted the real idea you guys have that the troops are just a bunch of kids that were headed to jail if not for the military, and they’re pretty stupid, so their opinion of the war is of no consequence. You do realize that Casey Sheehan didn’t have many good things to say about his mother, right? He didn’t agree with her communist, anti-semitic rantings, and he hadn’t spoken with her for years. Sadly, she chooses to exploit the heroic death of her son to gain fame and get her face in front of a TV camera. How can she state that the people who killed her son, and continue to kill innocent women and babies, are “freedom fighters”? And as far as balls go, my name is Duane Williams and I live in Lancaster, Ohio. I’m pretty easy to find, and if you think you’ve got the balls to do something about any of the things I have posted, you are more than welcome to try. (and fail, miserably)

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #134969

Phillipe,

I just read on another post that you’re French. So are you raising the white flag to me right now, or will you wait until you hear a firecracker go off?

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #134970

I mean Philippe.

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #134972

Duano,

Oh, you know, it takes no balls to write craps quite anonymously on a forum. Only some keyboard and english skills, at most.
I just read on another post that you’re French. So are you raising the white flag to me right now, or will you wait until you hear a firecracker go off?

As I’m not anonymously posting here, you could have figure all by yourself that I’m both french and using my real name (yeah, I know, what a strange idea!).
Google it all by yourself if you want… Anyway, please be my guest, prove me that I’m wrong about writing what you wrote on this thread don’t require being brave. I can’t wait to see your arguments. Meantime, enjoy french bashing as much as you could take, it’s free - both as in “beer” and as in “free speech”.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #134973

Duano,
If the situation in Iraq become a “paradise” and the troops return home, I will gladly fly to Lancastor Ohio and yell in the town square that
” I was a fool and you were correct.” I’d fly there and kiss your ass on T.V. if things just became more positive and Bush stopped pushing our government away from Democracy.
You accuse me of not supporting our troops, yet your only argument to prove your position is the position of Richard Belzer, nothing that I wrote. What did I write that proves I would rather see failure in Iraq and the death of our soldiers.
A weak argument is just that, weak. You certainly don’t boost your argument by inviting people to come to Ohio and kick your ass. It makes your argument even weaker.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 21, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #134974

Chris,

Sadam killed 7000 people. Not Millions. The USA has now killed 250,000 Iraqis.

If you’re going to make up numbers off the top of your head, at least try to keep them somewhat realistic.

Ten,

I just can’t get my mind around the fact that someone thinks that because I am a liberal I am glad soldiers of our army die every week.

The problem is, many people make it look that way because they are trying to use the war for political purposes. The opposition to the war has been very sloppy and that’s why such accusations arise. The Democrats have been in such a hurry to play politics that they haven’t taken the time to play good politics. As Zeek said…

Well, it certainly works well as far as propaganda goes… You have to admit that it works which is why the Democrats should not be afraid of using such tactics…
Unfortunately, the Democrats suck at playing politics, for the most part, which is why they’ve been getting schooled by Republicans for the past few decades.
But that’s the way it works. Whether or not it’s a legit question is irrelevant when you can’t string together enough votes to do anything about it.

Well said Zeek. Welcome back!

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 21, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #134975


Chris-

Please provide source for your assertion that Sadaam has killed 7,000. Are you referring to those he personally pulled the trigger on, or total killings during his regime? If it is the former, I have no problem believing it. If it’s the latter, you probably need to check into the history of Iraq under his control. He was responsible for the deaths of at least several hundred thousand of his fellow Iraqis.

Posted by: John Back at March 21, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #134976

Andre,

I posted the warm invitation because a frenchman, of a subspecies of humans born without testicles, accused me of not having any balls because I write “anonymously”. Not anonymous any more. And I wasn’t inviting people to kick my a$$, I said to try, because libs and Frenchies couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #134978

Duano,

“And I noticed that nobody rose up to defend their fellow lib, Richard Belzer, who stated the true liberal position, without spin. He admitted the real idea you guys have that the troops are just a bunch of kids that were headed to jail if not for the military, and they’re pretty stupid, so their opinion of the war is of no consequence.”

Oh, you mean the failed comedian, talk show host, actor?
Is he the Charlie Daniels of the left?
Isn’t he the guy that Hulk Hogan put that sleeper hold on?

The one thing that Limbaugh doesn’t teach his sychophants is that, even though their entitled to their opinions, it doesn’t mean that those opinions are correct.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #134979

Duano,

“Not anonymous any more. And I wasn’t inviting people to kick my a$$, I said to try, because libs and Frenchies couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.”

You’re not forgeting that without the French, there probably wouldn’t be a United States.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #134983

Duano,

And, BTW, publishing your address isn’t particuly brave, just foolish.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #134986

To sum up the right wing points here:

  • Halliburton is not a well run company

  • All liberals think like a 3rd rate comic/actor (Beltzer)

  • Cindy Sheehan was glad to lose her son as it got her on tv

  • All french people are cowards

Seriously, is there a single point I missed Aldous, can you start off every single thread with the post you started this one with. At least we immediate filtered out most of the right side bs.

Posted by: Paul D at March 21, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #134988
You’re not forgeting that without the French, there probably wouldn’t be a United States.

Rocky, there’s prescription and USA paid this “debt” by freeing us from nazis in WWII. Duano have all rights to enjoy french bashing. After all, who care?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #134989

Phillipe,

People on the far right need someone to blame for America’s dismal showing in Iraq.

After all, if the French and Germans had joined in the fight everything would be right with the world now.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #134990

To all,

Why are we responding to this guy?
It is obvious Duano has no real point. His position is that we all hate Bush and our troops.
It’s simplistic and requires no thought. I think we can all agree to let him have his position so that he’ll take it and go home.
This is for you Duano:
Richard Belzer is the official voice of the (LIB,DEM,LEFT,FRENCH etc.) party.
All of us(LIB,DEM,LEFT,FRENCH etc.) hate our troops. We the (LIB,DEM,LEFT,FRENCH etc.) hate Bush and our country and are only interested in weakening our great nation and emboldening the enemy(Opps, I mean “Freedom Fighters”)while promoting our homosexual agenda for the abortionist lezbian movement that we are constantly trying to force down the throats of the “good god-fearing right.” Duano I’m sorry for speaking against the war. We were justified in attacking Iraq. Which justification would you like me to use? WMD, Regime change, Iraqi Freedom or taking the fight to the enemy? They’re all eqully great.
We’ve all been brain-washed by M.Moore and Hilary and therefore should be more appreciative of your attempt to set us straight.
Hows that Duano?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 21, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #134992

IMO what’s sad is that someone like Duano, by making ridiculous assertions such as those regarding the pain felt by a mother over the loss of a son, manage to detract from meaningful conversation.

BTW great article Andre.

Some weeks ago, on a different thread, I mentioned that there were few fair comparisons between the war in Iraq and Vietnam. I stated then that one comparison that did fit was the “hit and run” approach of trying to defeat the enemy. W himself reminded me of that speaking from Cleveland yesterday about our “victory” in Tal Afar. He made a perfect example of the “hit and run” strategery. Paul Rieckhoff correctly refers to it as “a game of Whack-a-Mole” here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/happy-stinkin-anniversar_b_17583.html

I also mentioned how this kind of “hit and run” strategy tends to “blur” the ability to define friend and foe.

Then yesterday I read this:
“US military investigators have flown to Iraq to study reports that marines shot dead at least 15 civilians, including seven women and three children.” The full story is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4827424.stm

Today the news is equally bleak:
“Military probes killing of Iraqi family”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060321/ts_nm/iraq_dc_260

Part of “winning hearts and minds”? Or breeding new terrorists? I wonder.

Of course I realize that both of these reports are still under investigation, but I also know that the true stories of war “indisrections” quite often don’t see the light of day until years after the end of the conflict. The “official” version regarding incidents of “collateral damage” is quite often later disputed as has been the case of the “freindly fire” death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.

What were the positives again?
KansasDem
PS: let the libby bashing begin.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 21, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #135030

Duano:

Hey, Duane Williams in Lancaster, Ohio- Word around Lancaster is that the only balls you know anything about are the ones that bounce off your chin. John Leouses,Hammond Indiana.

Posted by: John Leouses at March 21, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #135040

Andre:
“Why are we responding to this guy?
It is obvious Duano has no real point. His position is that we all hate Bush and our troops.
It’s simplistic and requires no thought. I think we can all agree to let him have his position so that he’ll take it and go home.”

I totally agree. People who do nothing but spout off nastiness we should begin to ignore. They’re not here to debate or share interesting information, but only to fling insults at liberals at large. Who gives a crap what they think? I know I don’t.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #135057

Andre,

I think you summed it up rather nicely. Finally, a lib admits the truth.

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #135063

///
I must rise to the defense of Richard Belzer, a terrific actor and comedian. I believe he would make a better POTUS, than any Bush anywhere. On topic, Belzer good, Bush bad.

As a person of partial French ancestry, with relatives buried in Louisiana going back to the 1820s, I must also rise to the defense of our cousin Philippe. What is civilization? Civilization IS French! Sometimes it has a little Italian dressing on it, but civilization is basically French. In Russian, the words that have to do with living in anything better than a mud hut are of French origin. French was the international language, until relatively recent times. England, with all the institutions that were transferred here, is Diet French, or French Lite. How many states have a town or county named Fayette, or Lafayette? The French government of his time could have put their resources to work fighting in Ireland or Scotland, but they had more faith in us, in our founding fathers, and in the future.

I am not very fond of the current French government, in which so many members have suspiciously aristocratic sounding names, but France is good, the French are great, and cousin Philippe is a welcome addition to the true blue forum.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #135073

Duano,

“I think you summed it up rather nicely. Finally, a lib admits the truth.”

So, what you’re saying is that all conservitives are facist, nazi, bigots.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #135074

The USA has now killed 250,000 Iraqis.
Posted by: Chris at March 20, 2006 08:12 PM

President Bush has stated 30,000 killed and no one disputed this number. Most of the Media coverage consisted of suprise that he mentioned a number at all.

No balls or brains, what brillance eminating from such a lifeless rightwing void!
Intelligent design at it’s best.
Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 20, 2006 10:05 PM

Not fair to Right Wing or ID supporters. You’re associating apples with some type of rot and it’s not legitimate.

Nobody would even bother bringing it up if it had not formerly been associated with the VP.
Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2006 10:07 PM

True. The Administration’s enemies are using every weapon that can be thought of to their advantage. I currently believe the enemies of the Administration and of the conservative movement has the media in their arsenal.
I think that most of the media has focused on the bad side. Look at how Fox is being criticized for portraying a view that has not been in the media over the last 3 decades.
Thanks to Britt Humes and Juan Williams, I actually saw a truthful and passionate exchange about this administration’s use of survailance tactics.
And it didn’t make an impression because someone uttered a brilliant revelation. It made an impression because someone finally was able to reiterate what has been apparant for years and the rebuttal wouldn’t, couldn’t hold up.

were it not for… well there’s a list of shady deals.
Do I have any proof? No, only a set of highly suspicious circumstances.
Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 10:37 PM

This makes my point.

Often I watch the media, particularly if it pertains to media bias, and I laugh as 5 media journalists are trying to convince each other the media isn’t bias. It’s like Congress policing it’s own members, don’t you think?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #135080
Cindy Sheehan is glad her son died. It has given her the celebrity she has lusted after her whole life. Casey didn’t even communicate with his mom.

Posted by: Duano at March 20, 2006 07:53 PM

As you can see, with Regressives, it’s impossible to separate the Message from the Messenger…

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 21, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #135090

Jeesh! One note from a real righty and you freeze like popsicles!
Hello?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #135098

WHAT IS WIRE TAPPING?

I know wire tapping. My father was a wire tapper. You, congress. You are no wire tapper.

Hey, this is fun!!!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #135108

Weary Willie, I said that I have no proof for want of telling the truth.

I do, however, believe that I could quite effectively argue that Halliburton is most certainly operating in a corrupt fashion. My point is that billions of dollars going to Halliburton from the government most likely point to corruption, but it’s technically possible that I’m wrong.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #135113

Duano,from Ohio, you were spouting the Bible a few weeks ago and much to my chagrin, I thought you might have some class and some brains. Though I’m not religious in the least, it pisses me off when I fall again for that “he’s a Christian, he’s got to be alright” crap. Damn. What happened to turning the other cheek? Sh*t.

Posted by: ray at March 21, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #135115

That’s kool. I don’t discount there may be some indiscretion. I know the President made some mistakes. The “mission accomplished” was short sighted. I just find it odd that there is just so much that is going wrong and so little going right.

I first have to suspect my information. I find the arguments against the war to be shallow. I find support for the war in general.

As far as polls go. I’ve never been polled.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #135117

Zeek, I too am glad to see you back. Just let old tired ted or whatever the hell he’s going by now alone, and he’ll go bother somebody else. Later.

Posted by: r at March 21, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #135118

That would be Tired Tim.
He’s not here.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #135119

And mind your manners.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #135126


WHAT IS WIRE TAPPING?

I know wire tapping. My father was a wire tapper. You, congress. You are no wire tapper.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #135131

I have never understood why Juan Williams is on that show with Britt Hume. Its not like he ever gets equal time. I used to watch some of all 4 of the Sunday morning shows, but the Fux show, and Russert just bug me too much. Now I mute George Will most of the time. How much propaganda are we expected to hear, to be fair and balanced news listeners. When a person repeatedly spins and lies, their credibility is lost. Why would anyone continue to listen to them?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #135134

Weary Willie, when in history has a prolonged war EVER been beneficial?

However, you seem to be melding the start of the war with Halliburton which was not my intention. I think Halliburton is a separate issue from the war in Iraq for the most part.

Out of curiosity, what are you supports for the war?

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #135137

Iraq is Babalon. It has the most water.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #135140

Terrorists have been attacking us all my life. No one has fought back.

Ronald Reagan fought back and defeated the current enemy, the USSR. The “Peace Dividend” brought division.

We suffered attack after attack and considered each one a police action.

The attack on New York may have been another police action if we had elected a democret. But George W. Bush was elected and he committed himself and this country to an end to this misguided thought.

I don’t think a democrat would have done that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 21, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #135161

Weary Willie, what in the name of sanity are you talking about?

USSR?
Police Stations?
Current enemy?
Terrorists?
Iraq is Babylon?
What is your point?

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #135218

“People who do nothing but spout off nastiness we should begin to ignore. They’re not here to debate or share interesting information, but only to fling insults at liberals at large. Who gives a crap what they think? I know I don’t.
Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 02:58 PM”

Adrienne,
You’re right. It gets to a point where debate and discussion become pointless. Regardless of what we’re discussing, debating, or arguing someone interjects some total nonsense that ultimately distracts everyone.

If it happened only occasionally I would think, “oh well sh** happens, we all get sidetracked once in a while”, but certain “posters” seem hell bent on derailing almost every post.

Then again maybe we should make assumptions like seems to be the “modus opporandi” of said “posters” and jump to the conclusion that every moment we allow them to spend here is one less moment they can kick a dog or berate a child.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 22, 2006 3:30 AM
Comment #135219

Well said, KansasDem.

… every moment we allow them to spend here is one less moment they can kick a dog or berate a child.

Or the reverse :-(

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 22, 2006 4:53 AM
Comment #135232

Weary Willie,

“I first have to suspect my information. I find the arguments against the war to be shallow. I find support for the war in general.”
1) Where do you get your information?
2) What specific arguments against the war are you referring to?
3) Where are you finding this support?
You mention suspect information, yet you are vague and don’t offer details on your position. If you don’t see that no-bid contracts awarded to Cheney’s company, who’ve already entrenched themselves as the unofficial 7-11 of the whitehouse war machine,are suspicious, I don’t know what to say.
If you don’t find the fact that the Bush administration has changed the justification for war several times, as troubling and suspect, it’s your right.
If you want to see this administration as wise to ignore all of the sdvice from war tested generals on how to fight this war, feel free.
Please don’t try to tell me that the media made this stuff up. It really happened and or was said by actual people involved in the administration.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 22, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #135362

First quote “We’re making good progress in Iraq.”
Then immediately to the Negatives.
One sentence is used out of context and half of the opening remarks are devoted to quoting people who criticize the one sentence. Responses from sources reflect the question asked. That question relates specifically to that one sentence.

I suppose the question asked of these sources was “Do you believe leaving Iraq now would be like giving Germany back to the Nazis, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has said?”

This is not unlike the media assasination of Dan Quayle’s “Family Values” speech.

The list of sources progress toward opinions, and calls for a resignation, and ends with opinions of senators. One, whose party affiliation isn’t mentioned but is quoted liberally, and the “Indiana Republican” who “chose neither to defend nor to criticize Rumsfeld.”

Maybe Richard Lugar was getting in his car and he hears someone yelling, “Senator, what can you tell us about RumsfWHOOMPH! the door shuts and his driver takes off.
He did chose neither.

Next:
“The cost:” The post goes into numbers and predictions by experts, progresses to the montra of everything wrong and nothing right.

Then:
“The positives:” Another healthy dose of sarcasm. Progressing to the montra of everything wrong and nothing right.
Ending in:
More sarcasm.

1) I’ve been getting my information from the media.
2) This post is specific but it relates to the last thirty years.
3) By support do you mean opinion that agrees with me, or should I specifically mention every sound bite in the last thirty years? I retract that.
3) Your question is vague.


If you don’t see that no-bid contracts awarded to Cheney’s company, who’ve already entrenched themselves as the unofficial 7-11 of the whitehouse war machine,are suspicious, I don’t know what to say.

I don’t see it because you haven’t presented the evidence. You can send it registered mail to your local sherrif and it will be investigated. Otherwise it is opinion.


If you don’t find the fact that the Bush administration has changed the justification for war several times, as troubling and suspect, it’s your right.

Did the Bush administration actually change the justification for war or has it been nit-picked over the last three years to the point where approval is the lowest. Name one of the justifications made for war that you would say is a non-issue. Which one is not important?


If you want to see this administration as wise to ignore all of the sdvice from war tested generals on how to fight this war, feel free.

I don’t think you have all the access to the war tested generals. I really don’t think they would talk to you if you did. I watched, only recently, a documentary portraying a typical patrol in Iraq, not in this year. The soldier aquired a phone number from an Iraqi citizen. Would you have that phone number protected, as you say now? Wouldn’t you want to know if that phone number was used in these United States? The media doesn’t think so and some politicians didn’t until someone opened the issue formally.

“Senator Kerry, What do you think of the resolution Mr. FeingWHOOMP!”. The door shuts and his driver takes off.


That is called a weapon lost. The ability to get a phone number on the battlefield and search our records to see if it was used in our country. This ability is now being countered because the ability is not a secret any longer. Let’s thank some news paper who thinks the first amendment carries no responsibility whatsoever.

I remember during the second world war a code was cracked and we could read the information the enemy thought was secure. We allowed the enemy to believe it was secure by not making it evident we could read what they were saying. The German U-Boat fleet was destroyed because of this secret.
This wiretapping issue, by “Issue” I mean the politically motivated concoction of mistrust fomented by the media, has damaged our war effort.

Iraqi citizens have access to mobile phones. They love ‘em. But, our media just told them we can listen to them because they don’t like this administration. Terrorists wouldn’t know we could listen if the media didn’t see this issue as a weapon for political gain.

Please don’t try to tell me that the media made this stuff up.

They aren’t that smart.

either he doesn’t know history or he’s simply demagoguing.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as National Security Adviser under President Carter.

I probably shouldn’t go there.

But I will. Ask him why an embassy was taken hostage.


The use of spin and propaganda is at a record high.
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at March 20, 2006 04:33 PM

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 22, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #135386

Willie,

The Embasy was taken because we were stupid enough to allow the Shah to come here for medical treatment.

BTW,

“This is not unlike the media assasination of Dan Quayle’s “Family Values” speech.”

I was part of a show that Dan Quayle spoke at. He gave the same speech. and made the same mistakes in the same places.

Unfortunatly Bush makes Quayle look like a brain surgeon.
What is it with the Republican Party that they elect dolts. The last two nominees with any sense at all were Georges father and Dole, and both got beat by the same guy.

Go figure.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #135392

drip…drip…drip…

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 22, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #135393

Btw,

There for awhile I thought they were going to make Quayle make that speech until he got it right.

“Iraqi citizens have access to mobile phones. They love ‘em. But, our media just told them we can listen to them because they don’t like this administration.”

We can do so much more than only just listen to them, we can triangulate with the cell sites and find them within one hundred meters, and if the cell phone has GPS we can pinpoint them within a foot.

State secret my ass.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #135396

Oh, and Willie, this technology has been around since the cell phone became popular, and the military has had GPS for years.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #135400

These comments reflect the shortsightedness of our President. He assumed the liberated would welcome us with open arms and adopt our way as the only way.

He assumed they all had cell phones and knew we were going to liberate them and they were all contimplating their lives while they enjoyed they’re Starbuck’s latte. They were sure they were walking around with a locater in their pocket and every word they said was being listened to. They just knew that. And it didn’t matter a whig if we just made it a national issue for kicks and giggles and political power.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 22, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #135457

Willie,

What the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2006 11:07 AM
Post a comment