Democrats & Liberals Archives

Memos

The President of The United States of America, Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld assured us that war was not inevitable, it was a last resort that would be used by the U.S. to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” We were the “good guys” and they were the “bad guys.” It was evident what had to be done. We had no choice but to attack, right?
We didn’t want to, right?

"Nobody wants war." G.W. Bush
"We do not condone torture." G.W. Bush

Downing Street Memos 2002:

"Part of the administration's apparently growing credibility problem may be the result of recent disclosures about prewar planning, including what has come to be known as the Downing Street memo, reflecting notes of a July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. The memo said that the Bush administration had decided to go to war and that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

"The administration has dismissed the conclusions of that memo, but the memo's wide circulation may have raised new doubts or reinforced old suspicions about Bush's motives for going to war.


War Memos 2006:
From Hardball:
“MATTHEWS: As we mentioned earlier today, "The New York Times" reports that a secret memo shows President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were set on an unswerving path to war, even as they publicly kept the door open to negotiations at least six weeks before the war began.

The memo is a summary of a meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, on January 31, 2003. Highlights of the memo appear in the new edition of the book "Lawless World" by Philippe Sands. This new edition is out in Great Britain, but currently not here in the U.S., as of yet.”

From the New York Times:
“In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.”

“The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.(Psychic Friends Network candidates?)

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.(Hunting trip with Cheney?)


I thought we were the "good guys."


Torture Memos:

“The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes-and that it might even apply to Bush administration officials themselves- is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.”

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes-defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions-such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners-was "undefined." (Forcing them to watch The 700 Club?)

I did not make the memos up. I did not read the memos on a partisan "liberal" post or site. They were written by officials of the British and U.S. governments. They are not part of a smear campaign by the "FarLeft." If the contents of the above mentioned memos disturbs you, then by all means act immediately and have those U.S officials removed from office at once. Call London and ask that the British do the same.
Are the memos outrageous? Yes.
Are any of us surprised? No.
Is this proof of what we have been trying to convince the Bush "sheep" supporters for years?
Yes.
Will they open their eyes and recognize that?
Probably not.


Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at March 28, 2006 9:12 AM
Comments
Comment #136320

The full story is coming out. The more we know the better. Everything has its contexts. On the red side, I have linked to various reports and information coming out of the Iraq conflict. We are seeing that Iraq was a more dangerous and unstable place than many now believe.

It is time for the second draft of history. We have concentrated on what went wrong on our side and the mistakes we made. This is good and proper. But the right context will look at the whole picture (the other side too.) Documents are now starting to be available for that.

I am reasonably confident that when all the passions cool and the fog lifts, we will find that we were not the perfect guys, but we were the good guys and that we were on the right side.

Posted by: Jack at March 28, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #136325

Great post, I was just wondering if there are any links to the memo itself or anything, I’d like to be able to show it to some people who still support Bush if possible.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at March 28, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #136326

This sounds like something the “Flying Buzzard” would write…

Posted by: Cliff at March 28, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #136327

I’ve been aware of both these memos for some time and have been waiting for the all powerful ubiquitous mainstream media to report on them. The truth is Bush was planning an Iraq invasion before 9/11 even happened, immediately after campaigning on a “no nation-building” platform.

Posted by: Max at March 28, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #136329

Libertyman13,
Thanks.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/news/war.php

Cliff,
Excellent commentary. You really added to the discussion. your reference to a “flying buzzard” had that certain confusing stupidity that will spark further mindless remblings of little value.
Well done.


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 28, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #136331

Max I don’t doubt that Bush would have planned, pre 9/11, for regime change in Iraq given it was the stated foreign policy of the U.S. as defined by P.L. 105-338 (Oct. 1998). That he actually did it was the only difference between him, his father, and WJC.

Posted by: George in SC at March 28, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #136335

Jack,
Thanks for wasting my time reading a “I’m O.K.” assessmentby the U.S. military about the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
This is where you get your “bright side” of Iraq?
Do you do your own employee evaluation?
Should the mother of one of the pageant contestants judge the pageant?
Should I let my students give themselves grades?
This report is a joke.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 28, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #136352

Dont know if this is different, or more of the same….if it duplicates, then sorry..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo. html?hp&exb =1143435600&en=b6593aee0e01d384&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 28, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #136353

“We are seeing that Iraq was a more dangerous and unstable place than many now believe.”

pure inanity.

“It is time for the second draft of history.”

history is what happened, jack. i keep trying to explain this to you neocons; you don’t get to rewrite it after the fact. sorry. (psst; try doing it *right* in the first place - then no ‘second draft’ would be necessary)

“We have concentrated on what went wrong on our side and the mistakes we made. This is good and proper.”

HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! how inordinately unpatriotic of you! question the king?! careful!- the other neocons might ostracize you!

….IMPEACH this incompetent ASS

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 28, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #136355

I don’t understand why the downing street memos hasn’t really been covered by any significant news source. It seems like the biggest news in the nation to me, yet no one seems to know or care.

Posted by: Josh at March 28, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #136357

the president stated clearly after 9-11 he would err on the side of the american people.had he not went into iraq with sadam shooting at our airforce thumbing his nose at the world community on resolution after resolution refusing to let inspectors do thier job sending 25000 dollors to every family of every young human bomb that exploded in isreal his presidency would have been a complete failure.as it stands PRESIDENT BUSH will go down in history as being the president that changed the world for the better.a man with back bone under the very worst of conditions.i know that back bone is something that liberals dont have.kerry is to iraq as kerry was to viet nam.wesley clark is to iraq as wesley clark was to viet nam.get the picture?so the jest of this story is cowards dont win wars they prolong wars.cut and runners dont win wars they make wars more difficult.please let the big boys solve this problem and you can join forses with the next enemy.its sad to say but liberals will all ways be around to help the enemies of the united states.

Posted by: john counts at March 28, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #136358

Andre, bravo! Excellent post as usual.

Yes indeed. This is confirmation of what all of us (well, those of us who are not members of the Bush*t Cult) knew after reading The Downing Street Memos.
But of course, This NYT article reveals things even more clearly. And supposedly there is within U.K. law professor, Philippe Sands book “Lawless World” (not yet available in this country) mention of YET ANOTHER memo that the NYT didn’t decide to comment upon in that article. That one is supposedly a memo covering a conversation between Colin Powell and Jack Straw (UK counterpart to our Secretary of State) in which Powell talks about the fact that if they didn’t have enough evidence to get a second UN resolution, then there wouldn’t be enough evidence to justify our invasion of Iraq.

The frustrating and maddening thing to me is that up until very recently, to know about any of these many smoking guns, people have had to get their news off of the internet, and by reading what the international press has been saying (and they’ve been saying plenty). You couldn’t find it in our mainstream press or on television at all. But I’m just now beginning to truly take hope.
Clearly Bush and his entire Neocon Cadre need impeaching in the worst way, and just recently the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post finally came out with stories that covered the growing sentiment around the country for impeachment. Now, with this story, the NYT has finally decided to write about something which was truly explosive news in the UK (and all over the rest of the world, actually) this past February when Sand’s book first came out.

Still, it’s rather depressing to me that the Times article is written in such a tip-toeingly passive tone — obviously they don’t (gasp) want to cut the crap by boldly drawing any conclusions about any of these diabolical revelations that have come to light. And by that I mean the Downing Street Memos, and these latest ones.
Personally, I don’t have the problem that the Times has, because since 2000 I’ve made it a habit to read what’s been coming from international news sources on a daily basis. I’m also able to logically draw my own conclusions, thank-you-very-much. And thankfully, so can a whole lot of other people, including many of the fine folks like yourself who write articles and post daily to Watchblog.

George Bush and his gang of Neocons Thugs are nothing but SCUM!
America deserves better!!!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #136359

Andre,
I dont think the public has generally been in the know on presidential international strategies and plans for all administrations. I dont have a problem with that then or now.

But when you are as bold and as wrong as W has been, I dont think you should keep getting more chances to be right. Enough already.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 28, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #136361

For the record, let me state that I am a Democrat. I disapprove of the Bush presidency and the decision to go to war in Iraq. That said, I am discouraged by some posts by those who share my beliefs. For example, calling Jack’s comments “pure inanity” goes a bit too far, IMHO.

I personally disagree with Jack on a number of issues. But I find his writings to be thoughtful and intelligent, even quite insightful much of the time. Certainly worthy of respect, despite however much I might disagree with him.

I would ask that those who write here show this kind of respect to our conservative friends, the kind of respect we often complain isn’t given to us on the red side.

In other words, thanks for your input, Jack. I disagree with your conclusions, but I appreciate being challenged in my worldview.

Posted by: Steve Westby at March 28, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #136368

Andre

It is not a good news story. But if you actually read the report, you find a lot about Saddam’s regime, WMD, ties with terrorists etc. that the first draft of history is glossing over. When we get time to look at all the facts and put them in context everyone will be better off.

Diogenes

Don’t do much historiography, do you? There are several recently published biographies of Ben Franklin. Which one is the correct one?

The term (2nd draft) comes from the saying that journalism is history’s first draft. It usually gets many more than two. (I mention Franklin because the “first draft” was very unfavorable, but his reputation improved each year).

If only neocons know that about history, you guys are in trouble. Nobody gets it right the first time (or ever really) and all history needs to be evaluated in light of subsequent develops or of facts the people at the time were largely unaware.

Steve

Thanks. Where do I send the money :-). Re disagreeing with me, most people disagree with me. In fact I often disagree with myself over time. I am making a graph of the various things I am called to see which are the most common.

Posted by: Jack at March 28, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #136371
as it stands PRESIDENT BUSH will go down in history as being the president that changed the world for the better

Keep dreaming.

Posted by: Grant at March 28, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #136372

pure inanity. we knew how dangerous iraq was. we know how dangerous iraq is. bush has not made things better - but entirely worse. we know this. moreover, we know that there are far more dangerous and iniquitous countries with which we should be dealing. anyone who has actually been following the neocon posts….

“We have concentrated on what went wrong on our side and the mistakes we made. This is good and proper.”

…recognizes the utter absurdity of this claim. neocons have continuously denounced the introspective analysis necessary to discover where ‘we’ went wrong, and what mistakes ‘we’ made, as unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worst.

those of us who have questioned the motives and actions of this beloved administration are said to be aiding and abetting the terrorists! - and now jack wants to posture as though he were an avid supporter of such introspection? now questioning the war is “good and proper”?!?!

bull. i’d like to see him post that on the red side. only a democrat would accept such a ridiculous non-concession. or - perhaps it isn’t really bush’s fault that he’s a criminal, either? it’s really society’s fault he broke the law and subverted the constitution. after all, isn’t it really our own faults for making it so easy for him to do so? maybe *we* should be impeached, instead.

www.impeachAmerica.org

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 28, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #136374

I don’t get it either. We post about documents where our president talks candidly and straightforwardly about deceiving the American people for the purpose of going to war and all we get in response is (I paraphrase): “It’s really good to be asking these questions. In the end, I am sure the analysis will show what great guys we are.” Also: “I am not surprised at all.”

Blink. What?

If true, this is the most outrageous act of any president in our history, and he should go to jail without pardon, no more analysis required. Right?

Jack, and all neocons, if this is true you want Bush in prison right?

Posted by: Max at March 28, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #136380

Diogense

You have me confused with your stereotype.

Have you ever heard me call anyone a traitor (on the red or blue side), or any pejorative name at all (expect liberal or leftist). Have I ever shut down any debate in any way approaching that sort of thing?

I have always believed in figuring out what went wrong and what went right and have posted like that. You are the guys that don’t want to permit analysis. When someone starts off with the premise that the president is a criminal, it is hard to believe they have an open mind.

Read my Tranformational Bush written almost a year ago. I explain why I support the president but I also include things like “President Bush knew that taking action against Saddam was a risk, not only for the country but also for his presidency”, “By the time of the Iraq crisis, President Bush knew that there was no evidence of an operational link between Iraq and Al Qaeda”, “Our president made mistakes” and “U.S. troops were not welcomed as liberators in most places.”

Which of those neocon ideas do you find objectionable or different from yours? Of course the difference is that mine come with analysis.

Posted by: Jack at March 28, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #136384

Max hit on the correct phrase…

If true…
If true…
If true…
If true…
If true…

Ah…Truth….elusive as ever…claimed by all, yet truly proven by none.

Posted by: Discerner at March 28, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #136386

Discerner,

Funny - I don’t think you answered my question. If true you want him in jail right?

Posted by: Max at March 28, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #136387

the human plague is a sickness called liberalism.it infects humans of all races,gender and social scales.it first attacks the brain then the spine.the only cure for this illness is the truth.since it infects the brain first its very hard to convince the brain dead victum that he or she can not think rationally any more.this outbreak started in california and has spread all over the u.s.a. and canada.but help is on the way.to get involved and help distroy this plague please vote republican in the up coming elections.the first sign of this illness is insisting the u.s.a. has a hand in every evil thing that happens around the world.just remember to solve this problem vote republican.

Posted by: john counts at March 28, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #136389

Jack,
You stated “If only neocons know that about history, you guys are in trouble. Nobody gets it right the first time (or ever really) and all history needs to be evaluated in light of subsequent develops or of facts the people at the time were largely unaware.”

So are you saying that Bush II has learned from the Bush I mistakes in the Middle East?

Because I liked Part I better. Although I did like the “Shock and Awe” part of the sequel, Part I seemed to be much cheaper.

In all seriousness, give me a break! Bush has not learned from his own mistakes. Not to mention he doesn’t read the news. Why the heck would he learn from the mistakes in history?

Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #136390

the human plague is a sickness called liberalism.it infects humans of all races,gender and social scales.it first attacks the brain then the spine.the only cure for this illness is the truth.since it infects the brain first its very hard to convince the brain dead victum that he or she can not think rationally any more.this outbreak started in california and has spread all over the u.s.a. and canada.but help is on the way.to get involved and help distroy this plague please vote republican in the up coming elections.the first sign of this illness is insisting the u.s.a. has a hand in every evil thing that happens around the world.just remember to solve this problem vote republican.

Posted by: john counts at March 28, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #136392

Diogenes:
“only a democrat would accept such a ridiculous non-concession.”

I’m a Democrat, and I don’t accept it. I agree the things that Jack said in his post (and others which sound just like that) were pure inanity also.
Question: Why do you feel the need to lump us all together by saying something like the above, simply because you don’t vote for Democrats?

“or - perhaps it isn’t really bush’s fault that he’s a criminal, either? it’s really society’s fault he broke the law and subverted the constitution.”

Nope. It’s his and his henchmen’s fault alone — and they should all go down for it.

“www.impeachAmerica.org”

Unfortunately (at least for you) Diogenes, the only way you’ll actually see that happen is if Americans vote Democrat in the next election.

Steve Westby,
Just because Jack says something that is purely inane doesn’t mean I think that overall he’s unintelligent, because I think he’s obviously a very bright guy. Indeed, I’ve told him so myself on several occasions in the past. As far as the level of respect I choose to give him goes, for me it depends entirely upon the way in which he decides to make his many and various arguments in this blog — so naturally, it’s going to vary. And, I’ve noted that the very same is true of his replies to others who post here often.

If someone is going to lay out their opinions for others to read all the time, one has got to develop both concise communication skills, and a rather sturdy and thick hide, don’t you agree?

Jack:
“When someone starts off with the premise that the president is a criminal, it is hard to believe they have an open mind.”

Much as I believed that Bush was unconstitutionally handed the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court, I did not start out with the premise that he was a criminal in any way, shape or form. But as things began being uncovered and disclosed (despite his administrations insane amount of secrecy), my opinion of him began to move in that direction. I now have no doubts whatsoever that he is in fact, a criminal who has no right to remain in office.
It’s truly hard for me to understand how anyone could learn of so much damning evidence against him, and watch what has unfolded over the course of his presidency, and still believe that he deserves their unwavering support. This is why I must use the word “Cult” to describe it. There seems no other explanation than that for individuals to keep denying something which they should be able to consider with their rational mind, as well as see the results of with their own eyes.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #136393

“if this is true you want Bush in prison right?”

Since when do we convict and punish somebody based on IF’s?

Posted by: kctim at March 28, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #136394

Thanks John!

Now people will really see how smart you conservatives are.

Note: Please keep posting until the election!

Just in case we have another close one.

Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #136396

Jack,

Actually, you can send the check to…no, just kidding…. =)

I hope this isn’t veering off the topic too much, but I actually believe strongly that this issue of respectfulness is critical for Dem’s political chances in the future. Why? Because the Dems have lost ground primarily because they’re perceived as being too extreme on certain issues (e.g., on the partial birth abortion issue). To regain an image of being reasonable, we must act, well, reasonably. Which includes disagreeing with due candor but also with all appropriate humility and respectfulness.

To merely hurl insults at those who disagree with us is ultimately to damage our own credibility, our own image as a party of reason and moderation.

Posted by: Steve Westby at March 28, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #136397

Living with your heads in the sand must be nice….one can just dream of perfection and can deny or reject the truth.
I don’t think we have enough time to sit around and wait for history to undo all that this administration, led by the biggest idiot and most prolific liar in a long time, has done to us.
We do have some hope now, what with the polls indicating a movement of awareness that’s growing, and hey…..it’s kind of a kick to make people wonder what we’re grinning about !!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 28, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #136399

Adrienne wrote:

If someone is going to lay out their opinions for others to read all the time, one has got to develop both concise communication skills, and a rather sturdy and thick hide, don’t you agree?

Sure. But I didn’t post what I did because I felt Jack needed protecting. I did it because I believe that these discussions are most productive when they create understanding and new insights, rather than simply trading insults. And also because (as I just posted) I think it is ultimately in Dem’s best interests (indeed, in our country’s best interests) for us to do so.

Posted by: Steve Westby at March 28, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #136400

kctim:
“Since when do we convict and punish somebody based on IF’s?”

There is no IF about the Downing Street Memos. They’ve been authenticated by Blair himself. These latest memos, as the NYT article points out:

Stamped “extremely sensitive,” the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair’s most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book “Lawless World,” which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president’s sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident. Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain’s Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information.
On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president’s public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair.

There is no IF here. Moreover, these memos and what the president was saying at the time to Congress and the American people are not at all the same. He lied about the need to go to war in Iraq. And for this, and many other reasons where there are no longer any IF’s, the president and all the men who aided and abetted his criminal actions, must be impeached.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #136402

Couple things, then comment.

1. Why is the house conservative (jack) ALWAYS the first one to post? Does he get some kind of email notification before we do?? Just wondering.

2. Do idiots like John really think their ridiculous rants with all sorts of “lib” stereotypes and grand proclamations about our mental illness, REALLLY think their posts effect anyone? Does he think were devestated by his wit? That some on the fence voter will lean conservative because of his blathering? Just wondering.

Comment: The new conservative tactic is quite masterful. They are CAREFULLY admitting to “minor” errors in judgement from bushco, then quickly adding qualifiers like “we all thought” or “honest mistake” when we DIDN’T all think and the mistakes were anything but honest.
Sorry jack, but EVERYONE outside the neocon inner circle warned that the post invasion would go EXACTLY like it has. FUBAR. MANY sources warned about the validity of the intel that was being manufactured. We PREDICTED huge amounts of money dissapearing down No Bid contract wormholes into pockets of bush contributors and cronies.
No, I’m pretty sure the FINAL DRAFT of history will record this period under the heading “The Time When American Went Off Track”. And bush will join Nixon under the cloud of disgrace.

Posted by: Norby at March 28, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #136403

thank you norby for admitting the libs have a illness thats A start.

Posted by: john counts at March 28, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #136404

Steve:
“I did it because I believe that these discussions are most productive when they create understanding and new insights, rather than simply trading insults.”

For me it isn’t meant to insult Jack to say that something he wrote is purely inane. It just is what it is.

He wrote:
“We have concentrated on what went wrong on our side and the mistakes we made. This is good and proper. But the right context will look at the whole picture (the other side too.) Documents are now starting to be available for that.”

He gave us a document prepared by Bush’s administration as “the other side”. And the Downing Street Memo’s he and many others have entirely discounted for a very long time — quite in spite of the fact that they’ve been authenticated by Blair himself.

“I am reasonably confident that when all the passions cool and the fog lifts, we will find that we were not the perfect guys, but we were the good guys and that we were on the right side.”

These documents are proof that they lied, but Jack wants to talk about this using words like “passion and fog” — as if it’s all in our minds that these documents are the real deal. He’s clinging to the idea that Bush is a good guy who did what he did for all the right reasons, despite the fact that these documents show that he did not. Like diogenes said, it’s pure inanity.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #136406
1. Why is the house conservative (jack) ALWAYS the first one to post? Does he get some kind of email notification before we do?? Just wondering.

He has nothing more valuable in his life than to creep blogs and spout party line dribble? Don’t know, just a guess.

Posted by: Grant at March 28, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #136409

Hello, Adrienne.

I do not disagree with what you write. I believe the administration misled the country in its run up to war. I’m simply being careful about the words we choose.

My handy-dandy computer dictionary defines “inane” as: “Lacking intelligent thought or content.” IMHO, this is tantamount to calling someone stupid — or, at a minimum, calling their ideas stupid (I’m not sure which people find more insulting, to be honest). I disagree with Jack’s read on things (as you do), but I don’t think his position is “inane.” Just wrong.

Posted by: Steve Westby at March 28, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #136410

Adrienne,

“He’s clinging to the idea that Bush is a good guy who did what he did for all the right reasons, despite the fact that these documents show that he did not. Like diogenes said, it’s pure inanity.”

That is the “Fog” which most conservatives cling to. At times in the past (before the facts and memos)it was educational to debate rational going into the war. Now it is just sad.

Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #136412

Well…. No conservative took me up on my dare of publicly agreeing or disagreeing that if Bush misled the public into supporting going to war he should go to jail.

Cowards. You might as well come out and say what we all know, which is you would support him no matter what he’s guilty of. It doesn’t bother you in the slightest if he duped the American public.

Posted by: Max at March 28, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #136415

Steve,
Not to be overly pedantic, but my Webster’s defines inane when used as an adjective as:
1: Empty, Insubstantial 2: lacking significance, meaning, or point: Silly
It is in this sense that I agreed with that assertion regarding what Jack has written in this thread. But, this in no way suggests that I believe the word automatically applies to everything that Jack writes in these columns.
Yet, I also agree with you too, it is not simply inane, but wrong as well.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #136416

Steve Westby,
No, Jack is not “inane.” But many of his comments are. He quotes himself by saying ” “Our president made mistakes” yet contridicts himself in posts like this…

“I am impressed by the Bush team. All I can see is that step-by-step, Bush is achieving his agenda and making it the new status quo. Tax cuts, Afghanistan, midterm Republican gains in Congress, rapid victory in Iraq, reelection and more Republican gains in Congress, Iraq elections, tort reform - the list just keep on growing. Bush’s opponents keep on underestimating him.”

Care to comment?

Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #136417

You’re right Vic….there is a sadness in seeing the President recognized as a sneaky, underhanded, deceitful man. Of course this man didn’t have far to go and the trip was short and easy….the sad part is really that the entire world has watched this happen and our standing as a world leader has suffered.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 28, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #136419

Sandra Davidson,

Exactly.

Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #136421

Vic, Sandra,
Absolutely.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #136422

///
1996
banned any Americans from committing war crimes… breaches of the Geneva Conventions…punishments for violators… outlawing outrages upon personal dignity and inhuman treatment of prisoners. Who was president then? I was proud to support him, and still proud of him.

2006
Authorized Americans to commit war crimes, ignored the Geneva Convention, CIA flights, torture, prison at Gitmo, etc. Guess who is president? The people who support him no matter what he does, are the people who voted for him no matter what he said. He campaigned for president saying the opposite of what he actually did, right? So why are the people who voted for him still supporting him? Brainwashing? Hynosis? Conspiracy of Pure Evil?
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 28, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #136423

“Question: Why do you feel the need to lump us all together by saying something like the above, simply because you don’t vote for Democrats?”

adrienne, i did not mean to imply that all democrats would accept jack’s argument - merely enough to lend it undue credence.

jack, i suggest you use your historiography to completely remove any association between bush and neoconservatism. regardless, no matter how you analyze the historical accounts of others, you will not come to a “new” history in which bush did not fuck everything up and all of us over. good luck bud.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 28, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #136426

…please excuse the language.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 28, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #136427

Norby:
“We PREDICTED huge amounts of money dissapearing down No Bid contract wormholes into pockets of bush contributors and cronies.”

Should I assume you’ve read about this today?:
Undisclosed documents shed light on further Halliburton billing abuse; $57m in new questioned charges

“No, I’m pretty sure the FINAL DRAFT of history will record this period under the heading “The Time When American Went Off Track”. And bush will join Nixon under the cloud of disgrace.”

I think Bush’s unconstitutional actions, lying, and abuses of power have now completely surpassed Nixon’s. That these things have gone totally unchecked and unpunished thus far is also a disgrace that the current GOP majority in Congress will also be heavily burdened with when the historical record of this era is finally written.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #136430

Adrienne, I predict that whenever this Iraq nonsense is over, they will be tens of billions that disappeared, in addition to the overbilling. No one will be able to account for that money, it will just be out there in some offshore bank accounts, providing funding for some new CIA like organization, doing whatever it wants completely outside the observation of anybody.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 28, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #136436

Iraqgate

[http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html]

[http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h9205191.htm]

[http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm]

[http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC profits.htm]

we should seize assets from corporation like we did in 1945 senate hearings. If you build them up
in the name of free trade and we have to clean up
their corp messes seize their asses.

(flying buzzard) ?
is it cirling to the right
does it have only one right wing
could it be?
it’s aaaaa

Pigeon

Posted by: js at March 28, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #136444

ohrealy,

If the money were in gov’t coffers, I would be OK with it. It’s more likely in DicksBush et. al. Swiss accounts.

Has anyone else noted that now that Bush has addmitted there were no WMDs AND that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the right wing has either:
gone pretty quiet on the DC front and shifted to secondary (nonsense?) issues like a wall on the Mexican border or
regurgitating Bush spin without even thinking about what’s being said?

Posted by: Dave at March 28, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #136463

does anyone still believe that going into Iraq had anything to do with terrorism or principles and not about the fact that the west was running out of oil and iraq has enough to get us (“Us” meaning the west) through the first part of this century. That Cheny and daddy Bush , via george bush, used spreading democracy, WMD and terrorism as reasons that the american and british public will buy? Halliburton scaming billions while being the largest and really the only company that is getting any contracts out of this? and WHO was the director of that before being VP? and who, but the bush family was heavily connected to, not only the company, but the Saudi family, who also was looking at Iraq to increase their oil property?

Posted by: juyde at March 28, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #136464

The problem here is the insularity of the modern Republican party. Only certain attitudes, and certain sources are trusted, and anything that smacks of what the leadership has determined to be too liberal is discarded as ideologically tainted.

Such behavior, regardless of what organization it strikes always starts a vicious cycle of withdrawal from external sources, until it becomes nearly impossible for the dedicated that remain to believe anything those outside the group say. Evidence doesn’t help, because of the requirements of organizational imprimatur for that evidence, and the fact that those who lead the group often have a vested interest in having their supporters believe a certain version of the truth.

It’s a losing strategy, ultimately. It’s why the Dems lost. It’s why the communists and the fascists lost. It’s why the Republicans will lose their majority, if not now, then in just a few short years time.

They are building a critical mass of people who have found themselves faced with an unpleasant choice: abandon the movement that began with Reagan, or let this current administration and this current congress continue to make a mess of the country. Blind optimism has met a brick wall, in the form of a troubled war on terror, a monstrous deficit, and a congress that seems to have betrayed every principle of theirs it was supposed to defend.

You can’t build up this much resentment, this much of a sense of betrayal, and not pay for it eventually. I’m saddened by each additional misdeed I hear of the Republicans, but I’m not that angry most of the time. I may get annoyed with some of the people here, but its mainly because they’ve made these points before, and have failed to shore them up with anything more than ideological fervor and rhetorical trickery.

Ultimately, this summer will be time for us Democrats to make our push. We have our opportunity, and if we’re willing to give Americans half a chance to know the strength of our ideals, they’ll be more than happy to leave the dark ages of the Republican majority behind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #136466

I think we should all take a breath and watch what happens next. It is an election year. Republicans are in total control of the entire agenda from both the white house and congress, some could even argue the suprem court now too.
When this all comes out only one party will be able to take the credit, REPUBLICANS! Iraq, terrorisim, national debt, Afganistan (little country with no military to speak of were still fighting) etc. etc. etc.
I have confidence the American People will judge this administration accordingly. Onside will soon win.

Posted by: Rusty at March 28, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #136478

So I am the skunk at the Bush bash. I am flattered that so many people have invoked my name. It is better to be talked about than not talked about.

Re Bush lying - the disconfirming question you have to ask is why.

Assume Bush lied about going to war. That is a big thing. Why? Yeah, I know to make profits for Halliburton and avenge his father.

How about Tony Blair?. Remember that the Brits have an intelligence network in the Middle East that is at least as good as ours, so Bush couldn’t trick him. Does he also own stock in Halliburton? Did Saddam threaten his father?

Or another coalition partner, Alexander Kwasniewski. The Poles were among the those who built Iraqi infrastructure in the 1970s & 80s when they were part of the Soviet sphere and Saddam was a Soviet client. Their sources in Iraq are as good or better than ours. More stock options in Halliburton? I don’t recall that Saddam tried to kill his father.

John Howard of Australia, although Halliburton owner?

Or maybe Bush is just so clever that he can convince all these leaders. Blair and Kwasniewski were both from left of center parties, but I guess Bush was clever enough to bring them along. Of course, if they know that they are all lying they also know that nobody will find WMD. BUT if they are so dishonest, why not just plant evidence?

So why?

Franklin Roosevelt misled the country in 1940. He did it because he thought that the threat justified it. I don’t think Bush did the same, but there are two options you can believe. You can believe Bush misled the nation because he thought the threat was sufficient to justify that course of action (a la Roosevelt). Or he sincerely believed what he said and so did Blair, Kwasniewski, Aznar, and Howard. Otherwise they were all lying and you have to answer the why question.

Posted by: Jack at March 28, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #136489

Max,

Sorry for the delay…Work has to be done sometime.

To spend time discussing “if’s” does not solve anything.

You asked this:
“If this is true (your post) you want Bush in prison right?

I say:
If Bush remains innocent, will you vote Republican?
If Kennedy continues to lie, will you try to get him voted out?
If Iraq is a success will say that Bush was an amazing President?

“If’s” serve no purpose and are purely hypothetical…

As I said before Max;

Truth…elusive as ever…claimed by all, yet truly proven by none.

Posted by: Discerner at March 28, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #136495

Memos
///
SD, Imprimatur is a religious terminology, like propaganda. The Bush supporters are more like a religion than a political group. See Such Men Are Dangerous, the fanatics of 1692 and 2004, about manipulation for an ideological agenda, power and wealth, by Frances Hill.

The right wingers that post here in the blue column are a strange bunch. Few of them make any contribution to discussions, most are just here to deny, disparage, disrupt, and distract.

If I voted for a Democrat who said our foreign policy had to be humble and we should not be involved in nation building, and then did the opposite after he was elected, I would be looking for another candidate.

The Rpblcns are not looking for candidates, they are waiting to be told who the new leader will be, to get the imprimatur, as SD puts it.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 28, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #136502

Jack

There are more than two options to beleive. I believe Bush decided to invade Iraq the same day he decided to run for president as some kind of personal family vendetta. Had he the capacity to analize all the implications he may have chozen not too and the people around him with the capacity and duty to do so were more interested in securing energy supplies for that American Century crap than giving good advice. Also most of his advisors are part and parcel of the military/industrial complex Eisenhauer warned about,left over cold warriors whose whole paradigm demands a continueing unwinable conflict to justify massive theft of wealth for weapons production,mostly useless and very dangerious.
Bush acted like a monarch in that respect. That is why the founders gave the power to declare war to congress. With both houses in control of the whitehouse they failed in their duty. Many were duped. Europe was at war for centuries because kings like war.They say horse racing is the sport of kings. Wrong,the real sport of kings is artillery. The English parliment actually confiscated the crown jewels once to prevent the king from pawning them to finance another war.


John Counts

By calling two decorated American heros cowards you have lost the right to any politness. When are you going to enlist? Or are you just one more Rep chicken hawk like your fearless leader. You want to steriotype liberals? We can do that too. I’ll bet you are too fat and drunk for the military.

Posted by: BillS at March 28, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #136515

Bill

What about Blair, Kwasniewski, Howard and Aznar among others? They signed on to help Bush with his personal vendetta?

Posted by: Jack at March 28, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #136533

Why would Bush lie? To get something he did not think he could get with the truth. If he had told voters how qualified and tentative all of his evidence was, they would not have gone with a pre-emptive strike. His motives could be pure, he could honestly believe the war was necessary and that lying to get it was therefore the right things to do. Still, though, he lied, and about a matter where lives were and are at stake- where thousands of lives have now been lost.

Halliburton? My sense of many Republicans is that they simply don’t see a line being crossed when government body or agency does good things for business. I doubt this is what they started the war for, but I doubt also that they would have sufficient scruples to really find the conflict of interests of such extensive involvement of a VP’s company in no-bid contracts troubling, like many of the rest of us do.

As for FDR misleading the country, that he did, but in his case, the threat turned out to be real, and his precautions and plans came back to help us. Here, the opposite has happened Three years into FDR’s war, and we had the Germans on the edge of defeat. In this war? We’re still trying to defeat an enemy who never should have arisen in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #136536

The project for the NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.(PNAC)

To promote American global leadership,advocating
the use of force in Iraq to “protect our vital
interests in the Gulf”

Rumsfeld was a founder and active member of the

Project for the new American Century.

This is a letter from the PNAC Janurary 26 1998.

To The Honorable William J. Clinton.

http://www.theindyvioce.com/index.blog? entry-id=417960

no plans to invade or nation building.

Posted by: js at March 28, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #136546

Jack

You asked about our allies motivations. A better question is why so few. The Poles probably felt felt a debt to ant American president. Blair,that is easy,He saw an opportunity to bolster Britains word position with the US picking up most of the tab in blood and treasure. Remember this is Britain we are talking about. They have never been shy about a colonial adventure. The Aussies? They would rather fight than f*** and they like to f*** a lot.Speculation is fun but my question to you is how can you still support this administration after so many, many tragic blunders even if you supported the invasion. If you want a list I will supply one. I am sure others will help.

Posted by: BillS at March 29, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #136549

“What about Blair, Kwasniewski, Howard and Aznar among others?”

Before Bush set about breaking our military by grossly over-extending it, and bankrupting this nation by taking us into Iraq, and allowing his friends at Halliburton and Bechtel to take the opportunity to blatanty rip-off the US taxpayer, I’m sure that “The Coalition of the Willing” leaders considered our military a truly invincible force that would quickly crush Saddam’s forces. I also think that they wanted to believe the administrations soothing assertions that Iraqi’s were going to be so glad to finally be free of Saddam and his brutal henchmen that they would greet all of our troops with flowers.
The likelihood of an insurgency and sectarian violence I don’t think they counted upon, at all. Nor Rumsfeld’s complete mishandling of the war. Nor the idea that basic infrastructure for the Iraqi’s would still be non-existent for so long a time. I don’t think they had, or could have had any idea that Bushco never really did draw up a warplan for after “Shock and Awe”. Seriously, I’m certain none of them even entertained this insane notion during the lead up to the war.

I also think it very likely that Greed played a significant part in their willingness to help us invade and wage war against a country that the Project for the New American Century had long ago decided was first on their list of Never-Ending War for Empire and Middle Eastern Oil Profits. After all, if it seemed clear to the leaders of those countries that Bush had been planning to go in come hell or high water, why not grab onto the brass ring of greedy opportunism?
Unfortunately, this hasn’t paid off for any of those leaders. No, instead it has now only increased their chances for their countries to become targets for all kinds of Al Qaeda terrorism.

Furthermore, it seems obvious that the reason The Coalition has become Not-So-Willing over the years is undoubtedly because they see that their earlier faith and optimism in Bushco’s ability to wage war successfully had been horribly misplaced.
Still, they are probably consoling themselves with the fact that the numbers they committed were always merely a token gesture. For aside from Britain, none of them ever felt beholden to spend much money upon in this war. Surely these men must have realized from the start that their role was really only to become part of the Neocon’s propaganda campaign to convince American’s that at least we were not entirely alone when we began sending our troops off to die and be maimed for the most half-assed and disgraceful of reasons.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 29, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #136552

Excellent post, Andre. You know what’s the wackiest part of the new memo:

When President Bush — knowing that no WMDs were going to be found in Iraq — started throwing out plans to provoke Saddam into starting a war.

I can’t believe Bush wanted to disguise a US spy plane in UN colors and then fly it over Baghdad until Saddam took a pot shot at it. That’s just as dumb as the CIA trying to get Castro to light up an exploding stogie!

God, Bush is such an embarrassment.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 29, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #136578

john counts,
I know that this will cause discomfort for you, and I do apologize…

I am a liberal, a disabled vet and a supporter of “staying the course” (i.e., cleaning up our mess) in Iraq. I did not believe the evidence presented justified the invasion of Iraq. Many Democrats that did were basing it upon evidence presented to them by the President (who now, it appears, didn’t believe the evidence of WMD himself).

We Democrats and Liberals did support the invasion of Afganistan… so you cannot say we are “soft on terrorism” and simply partisan aginst the President at the expense of not defending our borders. We just believe in punishing the right people for the crime they did commit… not everyone in the middle east who disagrees with us and is Muslim.

Much was made of Kerry… for partisan reasons… I have found through my study of Republican spin… if you say a word or a name with a sneer enough it takes on a whole, meaningless connotation. People begin to accept it without looking at it carefully. Such was Kerry and his reputation and his “image”. Fact is… whether he was in a boat being shot at or sitting in a whore house in Siagon… he was there.

“Flippity-Flop” or some such trash like that. A person votes, learns new evidence or is persuaded that maybe there were issues that change his perspective… would that person be a moral person by changing his vote? Or, would be be moral by maintaining his position even though it was no longer the “correct” position?

Denial of the truth to maintain a “backbone” is an interesting visual… since we do not think with our backbone.

Now… here come the real rub… one of those things I hope a bit of time is taken before replying…

Democrats and Liberals opposed to the war with Iraq (not talking about Afganistan here, we supported that) did so based upon their interpretation of the evidence presented to them by this President… we are being proven to be right. We maintained it then and are maintaining it now based upon our brain… not backbone.

Republicans and Conservatives supported this war based on the evidence presented by the President. Much of it is turning out to be wrong. Also, the body count is rising, the cost in dollars is way beyond what anyone predicted… and they are now moving away from the war.

Why? Becuase it isn’t fun any more. It isn’t guided missles and our tanks taking out 10 of theirs. It is messy, bloody and costly. Some are waking from their blood lust with an emotional hangover and they look around and do not like what they see…

They are the ones changing, or “Flippity-Flopping”. They are the ones that are questioning their prior convictions. They are the ones that are now saying that things are “too tough” and the ones who’s backbone now need to be considered.

I have always respected Gen. Powell. I read his Powell Doctrine when it came out and I believed that it would prevent just this scenerio from happening. He was shut out in this administration and fed information to the UN that he was questioning, but was assured that it was accurate. I believe this was after President Bush discussed with PM Blair that Sadam probably didn’t have WMD.

Sec. of State Powell said it was “You broke it, you fix it.” before the war started. Based on that belief, I do believe that we are now morally obligated to fixing the damage we caused in an optional war.

It is the only thing we can do morally. What is funny is how often and for so many different reasons the Republican Conservative idea of moralilty differs from mine.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 29, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #136587

Adrienne and Darren7160,

Excellent comments.

John,

Ignore the fact that Adrienne and Darren7160 have intellectually refuted all of your mindless ramblings and do as Vic suggested,”keep posting.”
You’re funny, in a sad, pitiful way.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 29, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #136620

darren first of all thank you for your service and bravery.being an ex military man im sure you understand the importance of the ability of the u.s.a. to fight a global war.iraq happens to be the exact spot we need to be in.guess who is next door?i think where i and most liberals differ is the fact that i see the war that we are fighting in iraq and the wars possibly to come as real.liberals just cant see the global war as a global war.i beleive that one day i will watch a nuke explode live while im watching fox news.this god forbid will force this country to take this global war serious.as far as weapons of mass distruction in iraq i wouldnt get to far ahead of myself.you are over looking the obvious. evel men do not just wake up one day and say well its time to spread love now.in a perfect world you folks would be right on it but as you know this is not a perfect world.so we need a president like george bush to make the hard decision’s that most liberals just are not able to make.its like looking out for your little brother.one day i think liberals will evolve into bush bakers but like with reagan only after he proves the cut and runners wrong.by the way when was the last time the united states did something that liberals agreed with?

Posted by: john counts at March 29, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #136642

when was the last time the united states did something that liberals agreed with?
Posted by: john counts at March 29, 2006 11:33 AM

We voted in Clinton.

Posted by: Dave at March 29, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #136659

Andre, thank you.

Darren, as usual you’ve made very salient and intelligent points. (Even though I disagree that we should remain in Iraq — you say we have the responsiblility to clean it up, but I don’t think the Iraqi’s want or will allow us to be the ones to do that, instead all they want is for us to get the hell out of their country.) But I wonder if you realize that the kinds of things that those of us on the left have been saying are being completely lost on those we direct them toward? Once in while I’ll make a half-hearted attempt at a brief dialogue with that sort, but for the most part, I’ve given up trying to debate anything with people whose sole purpose here is simply to attack anyone who is Liberal, Left or a Democratic voter.

Look at Johns last post — that’s the kind of thing I normally skip right over.
Unfortunately, such sentiments are indicative of a truly huge segment of our society. An enormous number of our fellow American citizens have absolutely no real understanding or knowledge because they actually believe every last bit of the propaganda that the Neocon’s have been feeding them for years (this includes an intense hatred of people like us). And clearly they aren’t getting any of their news from sources outside of that spin and slime machine, because if they had tried to expand their reading (assuming they actually do make an attempt to read the news), they’d be too ashamed, or at least a little more hesitant, to say the kinds of things they do.
Which only points up the fact that Liberals and have still not found a way to counter all that disinformation and hatred they’re being spoon-fed — and it may well be the nations undoing.

It seems clear that the country is first going to have to be driven right over the cliff before many people will even begin to question the GOP talking points and other related nonsense they spout off on a daily basis. I mean, for pity’s sake, the majority of these folks are not even listening to what politicians within their own party are now saying! Instead they’re just hanging all their hopes and wishes on whatever simplistic and idiotic words are issued from Fox News Anchors, and George Bush’s Neocon-puppet mouth.

Take a look at what Republican congressman and chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde recently said in a speech:

“Our power, then, has the grave liability of rendering our theories about the world immune from failure. But by becoming deaf to easily discerned warning signs, we may ignore long-term costs that result from our actions and dismiss reverses that should lead to a re-examination of our goals and means.”
“A broad and energetic promotion of democracy in other countries that will not enjoy our long-term and guiding presence may equate not to peace and stability but to revolution … There is no evidence that we or anyone can guide from afar revolutions we have set in motion. We can more easily destabilise friends and others and give life to chaos and to avowed enemies than ensure outcomes in service of our interests and security.”
“We are well advanced into an unformed era in which new and unfamiliar enemies are gathering forces, where a phalanx of aspiring competitors must inevitably constrain and focus options. In a world where the ratios of strength narrow, the consequences of miscalculation will become progressively more debilitating. The costs of golden theories [by which he means the worldwide promotion of democracy] will be paid for in the base coin of our interests.”
“A few brief years ago, history was proclaimed to be at an end, our victory engraved in unyielding stone, our pre-eminence garlanded with permanence. But we must remember that Britain’s majestic rule vanished in a few short years, undermined by unforeseen catastrophic events and by new threats that eventually overwhelmed the palisades of the past. The life of pre-eminence, as with all life on this planet, has a mortal end. To allow our enormous power to delude us into seeing the world as a passive thing waiting for us to recreate it in an image of our choosing will hasten the day when we have little freedom to choose anything at all.”

Far too many people on the right are not reading or hearing these kinds of speeches (or even soundbites of them), and they are not searching them out. Indeed, the sources of their “news and information” want such comments to be kept as far away from them as possible — and Lord, does it ever show.

Btw, I took Hyde’s quotes from this very good op-ed that appeared in yesterday’s Guardian:
Imperial overreach is accelerating the global decline of America
The disastrous foreign policies of the US have left it more isolated than ever, and China is standing by to take over

Posted by: Adrienne at March 29, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #136690

adrienne im guessing when you speak of reliable news sources you mean dan rather cnn maybe cris mathews?thank you for making my case.

Posted by: john counts at March 29, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #136693

sorry adrienne i left your most important news sourse out AL JAZEERA.

Posted by: john counts at March 29, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #136718

Republicans Lies:
Reagan and Iran Contra. Reagan had more people indicted in his 8 years in office than all of the presidents in history before him. In republican eyes is it ok for them to lie because they are lying for the good of the country.

Bush Jr. same thing. In the eyes of republicans it is ok for him to lie because the end will justify the means. No matter how many lives it costs.

But, oh my GOD! Don’t lie about having sex with an intern. That could be the end of the good old USA as we know it…

Posted by: Rusty at March 29, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #136732

john counts
Would that he could read.

Posted by: ray at March 29, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #136761

Q. Why would Bush lie?
A. Bush didn’t care if the reason for invading Iraq was a lie or the truth. He needed a reason - ANY reason - to go to war. That’s why he kept changing his rationale.

Why?

Because his political advisors had told him before the 2000 election that no sitting American president has ever - EVER - been voted out of office. He knew that he would have a lot more political capital to spend as a wartime president than he’d have as a peacetime president. Here’s the source

john counts,
Thanks for proving that Darwin was wrong.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 29, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #136769

Adrienne,

Great post, thanks. My fear is that the people you (we) are concerned with probably can’t even understand what Hyde said. Especially those people who can’t use capitals.

Posted by: Dave at March 29, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #136771

///
Adrienne, Henry Hyde is retiring this year, so maybe he decided to act like an elder statesman for once in his life. I was in his district until the last reapportionment. I will be as happy as can be if the Rpblcns lose that seat this year. He is an arrogant sanctimonious hypocrite, who really belongs in his party.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 29, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #136776

Adrienne wrote:

This is confirmation of what all of us (well, those of us who are not members of the Bush*t Cult) knew after reading The Downing Street Memos.

Actually, we knew it more than 1 Year and 3 Months before the Downing Street Memo was published, when Paul O’Neill revealed that the Cheney Regency had been planning to invade Iraq since before they even took office.

Has everyone forgotten THIS:

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked.

“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, ‘secret,’ says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

? ? ? ? ?

Actually, some of us (including Adrienne) knew it even before Paul O’Neill exposed it. We knew it and we warned about it. “Beware!” we said, “If you allow this talking monkey and his Evil Puppeteer to gain admission to Power, they will start an unnecessary War in Iraq!” - for reasons I have already posted in another thread.

In fact, they were *UPSET* that the attacks of 9/11 happened, BECAUSE IT THREW OFF THEIR WAR-PLANNING BY AN ENTIRE YEAR. They wanted to “roll out the New Product” in March of 2002 - remember??? - but they had to delay it a year because first they had to do the necessary war: the one in Afghanistan.

(OF course, even that war might not have been necessary, had Condoleeza, Tricky Dick, and Bushbaby paid attention to “Bin-Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.“…)

But did anyone *listen* to us??? HELL NO, they didn’t listen! “Moderates” and the Press were too busy trying to be “journalistically objective.” They wanted to proivide a Moral Equivalency between the Message of the Left and that of the Right.

Well, WAKE UP, and smell the Kevlar burning. We TOLD you what was going to happen:

- There would be Wars, and rumours of Wars,

- The Environment would suffer, both Globally and Locally,

- Civil Rights would be curtailed, and Human Rights around the world would be threatened,

- We would spend trillions on our Military - *again* - buying Guns for the American People instead of Butter,

- The very Ideal of America - than which it is nothing more, if you are a true patriot of this land - would be diminished, and we would be diminished in the eyes and heart of the World…

And lo, it came to pass.

For they marched in their millions, in ignorance and apathy, the monkeymass: they voted for tire-changing, babysitting, pizza-eating Bush; they voted for Nader - and, when the Vote was disallowed, and the Resident In Chief had been Appointed instead of Elected, they sat `round their television sets, watching “Survivor” and “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” so they could be coerced into buying CheezWiz and WonderBread and Crelm Toothpaste and a baby’s arm holding an apple.

And THEN after they’d had a Taste, they came back and did it (or, rather, *didn’t* do it) AGAIN, in 2004…

Frankly, America deserves the upcoming Nookewlur War With Canada.


As for “john,” hear he iz - a shinning egg sampel of Cunsurvativ Thot - in hiz own wurdz:

…had he not went into iraq…let inspectors do thier job sending 25000 dollors…in isreal…cowards dont win wars…cut and runners dont win wars…you can join forses with the next enemy…its sad to say…its very hard to convince the brain dead victum…help distroy this plague please vote republican in the up coming elections…the libs have a illness thats A start…im sure you understand…i beleive that one day i will watch a nuke explode live while im watching fox news…take this global war serious…i wouldnt get to far ahead of myself…you are over looking the obvious…evel men do not just wake up one day and say well its time to spread love now…we need a president like george bush to make the hard decision’s…sorry adrienne i left your most important news sourse out AL JAZEERA..

Very good, john! Your eloquence is only surpassed by that of such great modern Conservative orators as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. I believe you have perfectly framed the debate:

why shud producks of the cunsurvativ-fundid edjewkashun sistem [home schooling, anyone?] be aloud to Vote?iz not thier Kritikal Thing king abillaty in kwestyun?am they not jist so much crud in the americun geerz gumming up the wurkz?

Jesus wept.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 29, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #136781

///
Yahoo Betty Burke!

Sometimes I wonder if some of the Rpblcns who keep posting here are required to do it by some group that is providing them with Rpblcn welfare, food baskets from church.

And jesus wept for his boyfriend lazarus.
It is the shortest verse in the b book.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 30, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #136791

john counts,
Thank you for your kindness. As an ex-military person, it was always my hope that my willingness to serve my country was not license to use me and my fellow service people lightly.

That is whey I was so impressed with the Powell Doctrine when it came out. It showed, to me, that thoughtful consideration would be used before asking me to risk my life.

I served from 1977 to 1987 when our biggest opposition was the Soviet Union. Reagan’s identification of them aside, I did not see them as the Evil Empire… their empire was evil… there were evil men, they did have large stockpiles of what we now call WMDs. I trained to be prepared to prevent their aggression… but I did not hate them, nor did I fear them.

It was rumoured one time that the Soviet navy might be making ports of call to Athens… which meant I would surely meet them in the bars… I figured I would just buy them a beer and then afterwards make sure to report the contact. The point… we were all “Brothers in Arms” and serving our country with the hope that reasonable men would use us reasonably.

We had the perfect opportunity to lead from a position of not only strength, but from a moral high ground. Most nations of the world were fully behind us, those that weren’t did have moderates within their population that were not pleased with the attack.

Invading a country does not protect us from terrorists developing or acquiring WMD. For, even in an occupied country the borders are porous enough to allow smuggling (as we see in Iraq), the knowledge is still there, and we end up resorting to intelligence and law enforcement, but now in their country.

If there is a mushroom cloud shown on Fox, or any other station… it won’t be because we didn’t invade enough countries.

Heck, from a civil rights and expectations of privacy perspective… I would guess that terrorists development of a WMD might be easier in a democracy where there isn’t a state apparatus watching their every move with spies throughout the neighborhood.

I do not want to take away from any of the tragedy of the 9-11 attack. However, besides the fact that the planes gave us such a chilling image, and the numbers of victims was large… it was a terrorist attack like many others throughout the world. The difference being it was here!

We are a nation of 300 million people! It takes days to travel from one border to the other! Yet, it seemed to me that we lashed out in fear and anger at the first target… 300 million people! That is an incredible amount of people when contemplated…

Terrorists have been around forever… some we have called freedom fighters, some terrorists, some patriots as in the case of our founding fathers. The degree of violence varies and the reasons behind the fighting are shaded in differences… but it is the tool of the powerless (relatively) to the powerful.

Law enforcement has always been the best alternative… it isn’t fast, it isn’t glamorous and it doesn’t always satisfy the blood lust and need for immediate action which we feel must be sated, but it works so much better. I realized when the tv show COPS first came out… Americans love to sit and watch misery and tragic lives… I guess it makes them feel superior. To me, it saddens me. I know about crime.. I had to have a gun in my kitchen drawer when I lived in So. CA… but that doesn’t stop the sadness.

Israel and Lebanon, America and Vietnam, USSR and Afghanistan, Soviet Union and the Eastern European Countries, England and Ireland, America and Iraq, America and Somalia/Haiti… These are some of the examples where force was used to try to create change…

Possibly we should learn something from this. Force is not the appropriate means of winning friends and influencing people. Is there any way in this world that anyone, for any reason, could invade America and convince us it was for the better? I do not think so.

If there were weapons of mass destruction then it is likely that our response was appropriate. However, the evidence presented did not sway me to the fact that they had them. Also, the evidence of a link between terrorists and Iraq did not convince me.

Many people were willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt… After all, he had the best and the brightest. He had the full weight and power of our intelligence agencies as well as those of other countries to draw from. However, what I was being told did not correspond with what I knew.

The real world is mentioned… which is good. There will always be someone willing to spill the beans.. which brings me to a question:

If there were WMD they had to have been handled by a great many people. Development, manufacture, storage and maintenance, transportation, training for deployment… why has no one taken the opportunity to “cash in” on their knowledge? In the real world, some lowly tech or some scientist of some military person would be speaking out. I know that the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force says that there were weapons and they were moved. But, it seems that he has no first hand knowledge and no evidence.

There is an expression that Conservatives used to use to kind of focus our charity on the world… “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”—Author unknown

I believe that this can also mean that by setting an example, by persuading him, by thinking long term we can help people understand that there are alternatives. Every hypocrisy, every short falling of American to act morally gives more aid and comfort to the enemy than any speech in Congress. It gives proof, undeniable proof that can be used against us.

I would prefer that the proof could be open discussion where we do not fear being arrested, labeled as evil or vilified. Because, in a country such as Iraq there are 3 major factions, none large enough to completely rule from a legal basis… therefore, compromise, respect for other views and freedom to express them openly must be modeled so it can be seen that blood does not need to be shed when there is disagreement… and that the minority is protected in more than just words, but in fact.

As a liberal that served and knew a lot of them like me while serving… It would be wrong to assume that just because we believe in rationally thinking about causes and effects, that we aren’t willing to dehumanize entire populations based on the actions of a few, that we prefer to react in a reasonable manner with a reasonable response… that we don’t “get it”. We do.

Adrienne,
I completely understand your position. See, as a liberal… it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

I have always said that trying to get liberals to disagree is like herding cats… but it provides for an airing of differing views, points of view that may not have been considered and then a means to try to meet the needs (versus the wants) of all. This is the complete opposite of GROUPTHINK, which is the clear problem with the Think Tanks and the Neocons that got us into this mess.

Different thoughts or beliefs shouldn’t be labeled as “evil”, “unpatriotic”, “unAmerican” or some such stuff. Imagine the results of the analysis leading up the the war if people were allowed to question assumptions, defend positions and express viewpoints? That is what intelligence analysis is supposed to do… infer information from many different pieces of the puzzle… but how can it be a moral issue or a patriotic issue if one person sees the parts forming a cow and another sees a deer? For, the picture will be revealed and motivates will not change what it becomes… just our accuracy of the prediction.

Believe me, I do not want to say that we have a moral obligation to clean up this mess… especially if it in any way implies an approval of why we have to do it. The right thing is not always the easy thing… but it will still be the right thing.

We can disagree on what is right… and that is why I love America. Not because of the good fortune of being born here… but because of the ideals by which it stands.

Some say that living our ideals can allow others to take them from us… I say that at least we fought… surrendering my ideals is a worse thing to contemplate.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 5:05 AM
Comment #136795
We can disagree on what is right… and that is why I love America. Not because of the good fortune of being born here… but because of the ideals by which it stands.

So then, you firmly agree with the following statements:

- The American Flag best serves as a symbol of American Liberty when it is allowed to be set afire.

- An American Citizen has the absolutely right to do whatever they choose to do with their own bodies.

- American Citizens have the absolute right to do whatever they want to do with each other as consenting adults.

Nice to have that settled. `See you around.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 30, 2006 6:05 AM
Comment #136813

Betty,
Flag Absolutely. I agree that the protection of free speech as illustrated by burning the American flag can illustrate the protection of unpopular speech. It isn’t the popular speech that really needs protecting. Have I ever burned a flag? Nope. Don’t with to either.

Our own bodies I presume to mean abortion. Yes, I have and continue to support the woman’s right. If it means allowing a person to ingest harmful, illegal substances then I have a bit of a problem with that. I believe in legalizing pot.. but not cocaine or speed or many other things.

Consenting Adults My daughter called last night to read me an article she found about people trying to deny adoption privileges to same sex couples. I asked if she was trying to ruin my day and she laughed. We then talked about how men and women have done more to ruin the sanctity of marriage than any gay couple possibly could. How a relationship, marriage is supposed to be about mutual love, respect and devotion to each other. A child raised with these things will come out just fine… regardless of the sex of the couple.

I have also supported gays in the military long before President Clinton with his “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” I explained to my fellow airmen that they weren’t that hot and not every gay person would really want them.

I do hope that settles any questions you seem to have about my beliefs.

Do I fail a litmus test based upon my answers? Instead of possibly having disagreements am I now condemned to hell? A bad person? A member of the Axis of Evil? A person with no redeemable qualities?

It is like the pledge of allegiance… if not give freely… then are we really pledging anything? It comes from the heart. America’s flag represents something that cannot be tarnished or destroyed by destroying the symbol itself… Heck, I don’t even like the whole elephant and donkey thing…. can I still vote?

People don’t seem to understand… when we react to provocative behavior we have surrendered our own will to them.

We allow them to pull the strings and watch us dance… we give them the power. We try to teach children this about other children teasing (just ignore them, they will get tired of it and go away… reacting is just encouraging them) but we somehow forget all that when we are having it done.

The flag is material. Of itself, it has no meaning… a person would get pretty tired of burning them if people didn’t react. Ho hum, not impressed… seen bigger fires at the boy scouts brigade last Saturday…


Jack,
I went back to your original post to see if we were getting off tack here…

Okay, second phase of history… things going right… maybe you could lead us off? Feel free to number them… chronologically, alphabetically or in order of importance will be fine.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #136827

Betty
I’m curious as to what you think has been “settled?”
As does Darren, I too firmly believe in those statements.
Do you actually think I have one ounce of “liberal” in me? lol

Your little “test” is nothing but narrow minded nonsense that keeps the people fighting amongst themselves. It proves NOTHING.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #136911

kctim,
For failure to conform completely, do you think they will take our secret decoder rings? Gosh, I really like mine. It opens from the top and everything!

Anyone who is absolutely 110% behind everything a political party stands for either is unique and defies the odds… or has surrendered their indenpendace.

There is a lot of compromise within parties… the Democrats air theirs, the Republicans seem to try to keep it a secret… however it is starting to show.

Many people, middle of the road Americans were sold on voting for the Republicans because of national sercurity or as a way to “send a message of support” to the President and the world. That cannot be construed that they all agreed with everything else the Republicans and the President may wish to do.

Many people switched over to the Republican party because of their stand on abortion… they might disagree with the Republicans on every other issue, but they are single issue voters, not die hard supporters of the Republicans on other issues. Same with guns.

It is interesting… like being, say a Christian, only I can say whether I am one or not… based upon my beliefs. Others may not view me as a Christian, but that doesn’t effect my being a Christian. Same with political parties. I am a Democrat because I say I am a Democrat. Some may, like Christianity, call me heretical, a sinner, a piss poor example of a Democrat… that is fine.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 30, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #136917

Darren
I think the majority of voters have surrendered their independence.
The far right and the extreme left now control their respective parties and the country while the people are content with swimming in a shrinking circle.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #137066

kctim,
Sadly, most shrinking circles I am familiar with surround a drain.

I do have hope for America. I really do believe in the long term rightness of democratic rule… Like many graphs, if we view it in too small of a scale we see incredible peeks and valleys.. but if we pull it back and look at it from a longer period it is much more stable.

Sure, it is fun sometimes to find a particular sentence (while disregarding the context) to “ding” someone with… but overall, a reasonable, logical, rationale discussion is much more satisfying and advances the cause.

Maybe it is just my own personality… maybe it is a liberal thing… I don’t know… we don’t have secret meetings we go to and collaborate on all this… at least none I have been invited to.

I am a skeptic and I naturally defy authority. A poll taker was saying that if the question is asked “Should we continue to…” versus, “What to you think of the proposal…” then there are completely different responses from the same people.

Why? Because, so many are fearful of changing what has already or always been done. I automatically look to see the underlying assumptions of why it was done that way and if there is a better way.

This can cause resentment in the extreme liberal, as well as probably conservative, arenas. I resent people assuming they know what is best for me and that I should surrender my thinking to them.

If someone told me that I had to support abortion I would seriously look them in the eye and reconsider my position… just out of spite and independance. Tell me what you believe, not what I sould believe. We can go from there.

Many conservatives believe that this is what Liberals do… demand that they do their thinking for you. Not so…. at least not more than some conservatives.

I agree with true conservatives that my ideas, beliefs and opinions should be based on my study and interpretation of the evidence… not based upon what others think. I do not however believe I have to be a conservative to do that. I can do it as a liberal based upon the studying and interpreting I have done… not because (especially not because) I am told to believe something.

I am pro-death penalty though I get a sick feeling anytime anyone dies in “my name”.

I an pro-choice but I wish that as a great nation we had a menu of options available to choose from so no one has to make this terrible choice because they have no other choice.

I was pro-NAFTA even though the execution of it has been a major disappointment to me and makes me even more skeptical when something else, like CAFTA is proposed.

I am pro-gun, which I do own one… and I like to say, it is not for “hunting” or “collecting” it is a $75 .380 Saturday night special good for one thing… shooting anyone that tries to hurt me or mine in my home.

I believe in the stock market and private capitalization… but I do not believe that CEO’s should rob a company when they are really just glorified employees… tax cuts should be reasonable and life welfare reform, companies should be held accountable for the money lost as tax revenue and prove that it is benefiting us (money is fungible and that is a who different subject). These should be tax cuts… not tax payers gifts.

Blindly supporting companies and worshiping the CEOs leads to ENRON, Global Crossing, the Savings and Loan scandals and insider trading. These do more damage than just about anything to the shareholders and the confidene in Capitalism to “police” itself.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 31, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #137109

Dave:
“Great post, thanks.”
No, thank you, Dave! :^)
“My fear is that the people you (we) are concerned with probably can’t even understand what Hyde said. Especially those people who can’t use capitals.”

It’s my fear too. That’s what I meant when I said that so many of these folks seem to be hanging all their hopes and wishes on the most simplistic and idiotic stuff that Faux News and the president decides to feed them. Things geared to the lowest common denominator — the dimwits among us. People who couldn’t even grasp what Hyde was saying in that speech, let alone actually take those words to heart.

Ohrealy:
“Adrienne, Henry Hyde is retiring this year, so maybe he decided to act like an elder statesman for once in his life. I was in his district until the last reapportionment. I will be as happy as can be if the Rpblcns lose that seat this year. He is an arrogant sanctimonious hypocrite, who really belongs in his party.”

Believe me, I don’t like Hyde either — and haven’t for many years. Still, what he said in that speech is absolutely correct and was very well said. I only wish the people in his party would begin lending an ear when one of them manage to make such intelligent and astute comments, rather than just repeating the mindless GOP talking points of the day, week or month.

Darren:
“See, as a liberal… it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.”

I do hope you were directing that toward John Counts rather than myself! After all, I don’t go around telling anyone that “the human plague is a sickness called conservatism that must be destroyed” or even anything close to that. I rail against the Neocon’s, sure, but I always take the time to point out the reasons for my distain of their ideologies, rather than try to flamebait people in general.

“I have always said that trying to get liberals to disagree is like herding cats…”

:^) That’s funny, but I would say that getting us all to agree on something is truly the harder task! And in my opinion that’s why the GOP is always accusing Dems of having no ideas or message. But instead, what we’ve really got is so many ideas and so many possibilities we want the ability to pick and choose from, that this seems to confuse them. Maybe this is because in their party for the past twenty years all their ideas and messages have been fed out in simple soundbites and zippy catchphrases — so no doubt what we have to say seems far too complex and cerebral for them to relate to?

“Believe me, I do not want to say that we have a moral obligation to clean up this mess… especially if it in any way implies an approval of why we have to do it. The right thing is not always the easy thing… but it will still be the right thing.”

Sorry Darren, but I strongly disagree we can manage to do “the right thing” at this point. In fact, we’ve done so much wrong from the very beginning of this war that I find this statement rather ironic. Which is not to say that despite our going in for all the wrong reasons we didn’t have the chance to do right by the Iraqi people, because at one time we could have. But all the opportunities for that have now slipped right through our hands. It isn’t right to make our troops stay in Iraq simply to keep the lid on their civil war forever — or worse, begin fighting it for them.
No, it’s time, in light of the fact that the Iraqi people want us gone, and the fact that our troops are now only targets for more and more violence, to leave.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t continue to airlift in medical and humanitarian aid where needed. And that doesn’t mean we still can’t give them the means to rebuild their infrastructure (logically this should happen AFTER their civil war is over), because I think we can still do those kinds of “right things”. But the chance to win the hearts and minds of the people is long gone — all due to the half-assed way this administration waged the war, inititated torture and extraordinary rendition on innocent people, used chemical weapons on civilians, and didn’t find a way to secure the peace.
That’s why I think “the right thing” for us to do now is to put the wellbeing and safety of our troops before that of the Iraqi people — at least until their civil war is over. Also, with the way we’re bankrupting our nation with this war, it’s time to consider whether “the right thing” to do is get our own house in order. Otherwise in the future, we won’t be able to help anyone survive in the years to come, including the citizens in our own country, who (I believe) should always be our first priority.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 31, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #137115

By the way, I hope you’ll all forgive me for being such a tardy replier to this thread. I’m currently so unbelievably busy, and trying to move to a new house, that I simply haven’t had the time to keep up, or post very often. Sorry about that, you guys.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 31, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #137176
Do I fail a litmus test based upon my answers?

Nope.

Instead of possibly having disagreements am I now condemned to hell?

`Not my decision to make.

A bad person?

Nope. :o)

A member of the Axis of Evil?

Not Foreign enough.

A person with no redeemable qualities?

Obviously not.

I was just “checking” - probing, if you will, since you posted about the American Ideals, in so many words.

You see, the subject is one which is extremely dear to my heart: there are so many these days who style themselves as “American Patriots” but know nothing about the concept.

A true American Patriot supports Dissent, Societal Progress, Human Rights, and Civil Liberties even at the expense of their own tastes and preciously held opinions.

When someone bandies about the concept of American Ideals, I like to check and see if they meet the above definition. Because there is a difference between those who truly embrace the American Ideal and those who merely toss the phrase about, when what they really want is to curtail Human Rights, dilute or do away with Civil Liberties, and squelch Societal Progress. There is no Moral Equivalency between the one position and the other. The one person is, truly, an American Patriot; the other is - truly - a Domestic Enemy. If that’s not “objective” enough for you, I don’t really give a damn. There is no “objectivity” to be had between the Message of the destroyers of the American Ideal (no matter how many Flags they wrap themselves in or how many Freedom Fries they proudly consume without Heinz Catsup), and the Message of true American Patriots.

That having been said, I understand fully your “WatchBlog Paranoia,” and take no offence at your Reaction whatsoever.

(Still, it’s a shame you cannot see the same Logical Fallacy that exists with applying the death “penalty” as does with banning flag-burning as a means of protest. I suppose, in your mind, that Killing a person because they are Bad for having Killed a person, and Killing a person is Bad, so we must Kill them - makes perfect sense. *Sigh*. But - who knows? - you seem like an openminded fellow: maybe I can change your mind some day…)

:o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 31, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #137177
Betty I’m curious as to what you think has been “settled?” As does Darren, I too firmly believe in those statements. Do you actually think I have one ounce of “liberal” in me? lol

Yep. In fact, you do by definition if you “firmly believe in those statements,” as you just said you do.

You have just embraced:

- Toleration of even the burning of the American Flag as a means of protest.

- A woman’s right to choose whether or not she will have an abortion.

- Gay marriages.

These are LIBERAL concepts, Tim - or have you not been watching the news?

Good on you for embracing them! You might become an excellent Progressive yet!

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 31, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #137295

Well Betty,
I guess this thread is dead and gone too far down the page at this point, because it seems no one is going to reply any longer.
Anyway, how is everything with you? Good, I hope! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at April 1, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #137364
Well Betty, I guess this thread is dead and gone too far down the page at this point, because it seems no one is going to reply any longer. Anyway, how is everything with you? Good, I hope! ;^)

All is well. Spring is in the offing, if not in the air, and the wee Memos flutter down from On High likesay - Cherry Blossoms on Capitol Hill - (or, like Talking Point Posts in WatchBlog, you choose your own metaphor).

Groundhogs stir in the depths of the earth like Evil Plots turning in the dark heart of Dick Cheney. Birds wing through the sky, chirping like the guidance-control on a JDAM, as both fly unerringly towards their destinations. The swallows come home, as do the Body Bags, and a sense of New Growth and new Military Campaigns fills the air, made fragrant by the aromas of blooming flowers and burning cordite.

`Couldn’t be better.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 1, 2006 8:41 PM
Post a comment