Democrats & Liberals Archives

There's No "War on Terror"

President George W. Bush cannot make a speech on any subject without blurting “war on terror.” What he calls the “war on terror” is fundamental to his governing philosophy. But there is no “war on terror.” We do, however, have two separate, but huge, world problems: gangs of terrorists attacking innocent civilians and nations pursuing nuclear weapons.

Bush's constant use of the "war on terror" has annoyed me from the beginning. How on earth can you have a war on terror? Terror is an emotion. Today, I see many people decorating their homes so they may scare or terrorize kids on Halloween.

This is not the type of terror Bush is talking about. Definitely not. He is trying to make you feel scared of losing your life. He wants you to feel real terror. Instilling fear in Americans has been and is the reason for the phrase "war on terror." When you are afraid, you tend to do as you are told; Bush stays in control.

However, we were definitely attacked on 9/11. We were terrorized and 3000 of us were killed. After such a catastrophe, rational people should ask who did it. We did ask and we found out that a group of gangsters under the name of Al Qaeda did it. So America attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, was pursued and he got away.

Here we made a huge mistake. Instead of pursuing Osama bin Laden and bringing this terrorist to justice, we left Afghanistan and attacked Iraq, which at that time had no Al Qaeda members.

What we started in Iraq is a war. It is not a "war on terror," nor is it even a "war on terrorists." It is a war brought about by the proliferation or the perception of proliferation of nuclear weapons or WMD.

When India and Pakistan got the bomb, Bush said all is well, because India and Pakistan balance each other. Now that Iran and North Korea are working on nuclear bombs, Bush is against both of them. Why? Japan will no doubt develop a bomb to balance North Korea's bomb, and Iran's bomb will balance the bombs Israel has. All this balance is called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

MAD has worked before. However, there definitely must be a limit, after which we may blow up the entire world. To prevent this terrifying end to the world, we must find a way to stop nuclear proliferation. A rational person should look to the possessors of the most nuclear bombs: Russia and U.S., each of which has more than 5,000 of them.

Russia and U.S. should return to cutting down their nuclear arsenals in order to show the world how to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons. In this way they may be able to reactivate the nuclear proliferation treaty that has been dormant of late.

There is plenty of danger in the world. But it does not help us that our president is terrorizing us with his "war on terror." Through diplomatic and military means we can destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Through the bold reduction of american nuclear bombs and through diplomacy, we can bring the world back from the brink of world destruction.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 10, 2006 7:05 PM
Comments
Comment #187519

Paul Siegel,
You’re right about Bush.
He is in denial.
So is Rumsfeld.
They are dangerous.
We have 2,747 U.S. troop deaths.
We have 20,468 U.S. troops wounded and maimied.
There are 232 coalition troop deaths.
There are 48,693 Iraqi deaths.
I’m not a Democrat, but Bush is making me sick running around saying the Democrats “are soft on terror”, the “cut and run party”, and the “party of obstructionists”.
That is one of the most disgusting displays I’ve seen by a President in a long, long time.
Bush and Rumsfeld are in denial.
The thing is, having made the huge blunder of invading a country based on flawed intelligence, things could have turned out much better in Iraq. But, when politicians started making military decisions, there was nothing but blunders thereafter. Rumsfeld made seveal blunders, but the worst is letting politics control military decisions, instead of military conditions (i.e. trying to fight the war on the cheap, trying to lie about the severity, the cost, and the problems, etc.).
Not to mention, it was an unnecessary war based on flawed (or trumped up) intelligence (take your pick).
And, look at Afghanistan. That’s where the real terrorists were, and still are. The Taliban are regrouping and growing. Opium sales are funding it. Another blunder (to let that continue).

The incompetence is staggering, and it is causing more death every day it continues.

How many people must die to prove that Bush and Rumsfeld didn’t make any mistakes?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #187521

BTW, I’m not a Repuglican either, and for very good reasons.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #187524

That is, I used to be a Republican, but no more, and never again. In fact, I used to think there wasn’t much difference between Republican politicians and Democrat politicians, and still think politicians of both parties are extremely irresponsible, but Republican politicians are starting to look more repulsive than ever. Sorry, I usually don’t like to be partisan, but the Republican politicians are starting to pull ahead slightly in the race of which politicians are the party of the “most irresponsible”, “most bought-and-paid-for”, “most look-the-other-way”, and “most corrupt”.

However, don’t get carried away, because the “IN PARTY” ususally is more corrupt, but this administration and its Republicans are working on setting a new record. However, I have no doubt, when Democrats become the new “IN PARTY” will go right back to their old tricks too.

That’s why we need to clean house in both parties.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #187526

In a functioning democracy politicians are nothing moe than a reflection of those who elect them……..thank God our current politicians have been elected by about half of those eligible to vote having done so.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at October 10, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #187534

I think we went into Iraq for the right reasons that are now proven wrong. That said, good article that restates a lot of Democratic talking points. I would be very interested in where you think the war on terror should be waged “today” since we cannot, unfortunately reverse time. Do we set a timeline for withdrawal? Do we put more troops in because the war is now in Iraq because of our mistake? Do we focus more on Afghanistan?

I believe that despite our originat intent the main war on terrorism is now in Iraq thanks to our mistake. However, we must stick with the war there to win the terror war, or at least win the battle.

Posted by: Edge at October 10, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #187539

Somewhere there’s a two-headed calf being born under a blue moon because I actually agree with Paul about something.

I also find “the war on terror” to be an insipid namby-pamby and fairly ridiculous term.

It’s as if Roosevelt and Congress had declared war on “the terrible shock of being suprise-attacked” after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

It’s a symptom of our politically-correct era that we try to fight our enemies without actually naming them—lest they be offended.

The enemy should be named: it is radical Islam and all the so-called moderates of the Islamic world who make excuses for the retrobates in their midst.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 10, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #187540

Paul,

and Iran’s bomb will balance the bombs Israel has. All this balance is called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

MAD has worked before.

Yeah, MAD worked when two superpowers full of people who actually valued their lives were afraid of being killed by each other. Iran is run by Islamic radicals who would love to die in a nuclear war with Israel in order to get those virgins they’re all so fond of. Your argument pretty much collapses from there, but it was worth a shot, I guess.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 10, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #187544

Bush did not say “all is well” when Pakistan and India went nuclear. That’s just plain ridiculous.

For starters, Pakistan and India tested their nukes in 1998 while Bush was still governor of Texas. Oops.

Bush’s only involvement was heading off a nulear war between the two countries shortly after coming into office, which in the long term may prove to have been a mistake considering Pakistan’s probable involvement in the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. India would have suffered terrible casualites, but they would won that war and Pakistan would now be a smouldering heap.

If Musharrif ever falls from power in Pakistan, we may eventually find ourselves in a three front nuclear conflict.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 10, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #187548

“I would be very interested in where you think the war on terror should be waged “today” since we cannot, unfortunately reverse time.”

No, you can’t reverse time. You CAN, however, get rid of the guys that screwed the pooch in the first place given their track record for bad judgement and stop blaming the other side for not having a fullproof plan for reversing the FUBAR they didn’t create.

Posted by: Observer at October 10, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #187550

Neo-con Pilsner-
Why declare war on the Moderates of Islam? Why add that difficulty to all the others we face? Many of these folks don’t care for these people anymore than many Christians and Americans care for the the fundamentalists like Falwell and Robertson.

The Middle East, though, is not like our country. There’s a big premium put on not selling out your fellow Muslim or Arab to others, even if you’re wanting to hack them to pieces for their crimes yourself. Rather than work against this, or villify them for this, let’s adjust to this, and see what we can do to get them, in their informal way, to help us get our enemies.

One thing is that these people don’t like to be pushed to an answer. To them, this for us/against us paradigm is rather rude, disquieting. They’re going to approach diplomacy more informally, giving hinted rather than clear answers. Telling you that they are your friends might be their way to tell you yes. They’re going to talk to you with the subtlety of an old friend, where you don’t need obvious, blunt answers.

As for letting the war between Pakistan and India go?

Well, the trouble with your approach is that you underestimate just how much of a shitstorm can come out of wars like this. It’s easy to casually speak of a Nuclear war, but what experience do you have that the damage or consequences from the war won’t spread? None. We can’t even be sure that this war won’t end up causing more problems.

Ultimately, we have plenty of history of what happens when supposedly under-control conflicts spin out of control. We should not wish for such anarchy anywhere. America’s interest are not in having the next World War.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #187553

Stephen, there was an element of hyperbole to my expressed wish that a nuclear war would have taken place between Pakistan and India.

I don’t really wish that, but I do fear that sooner or later a major showdown is coming, and if has to happen I’d rather see it happen while the sworn enemies of democratic nations are still relatively weak.

As for adjusting to the primitive tribal instincts that prevail among so many Muslims which require them to never sell out their brothers, no matter what evil deeds they’re responsible for, we can only afford to be patient with that up to a point. Plenty of Germans didn’t support Hitler, but that didn’t make the Holocaust any more palatable.

“Declaring war” on moderate Muslims is not how it should go down in any case. Appealing to their conscience alone, however, is a failed policy, as is almost everything else we’ve tried.

In Kosovo we fought to save Muslims. We’ve pressed for Turkish inclusion in the EU. Many of the streets where rioters burn the American flag and shout “Death to America” and have been for generations now were paved with American dollars.

I’m 100% with anybody who says we need to break our dependence on foreign oil and give ourselves a freer hand. What we don’t take care of now, we’re going to have to take care of later, and eventually “moderate Muslims” are going to have to make a hard choice between the rage of the “Arab Street” and the rage of the American street.

It’s their choice, but so far we haven’t given them enough incentive (and I don’t mean dollars) to act in their own best self interest. At some point that means they’ll have to choose between facing down the evil in their midst or suffering real consequences.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 10, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #187562

You guys need to read a book called ” The Case for Democracy” by Natan Sharansky, then you will see where Bush is headed with this. Think about where we would be if Sadam were still in power today. Read some history. No war has ever gone perfectly right yet it is the nature of man to be war like. As long as there are Sadams, Kim Jongs, Amadenajahds and the like there will b conflict and war. The real question is who is willing to stand up for freedom. Read the book.

Posted by: Bud at October 11, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #187567

Calling the terrorist problem a “gang” is about the most under stated way of addressing it that I can think of.

There are a billion muslims in the world I’ve heard? At least lets say there are LOTS. The muslim religon has been hijacked to the point where I’ve seen moderate American muslims speak on TV only with their identity hidden so that extremists in america don’t kill them for speaking out against terror. get it? Moderate muslims for the most part and particualarly in the middle east fear for their lives and will not openly oppose the radicals that have hijacked their religion.

Radical clerics are in control. They are breeding terrorists in every nation where there is a significant number of muslims.

Bush calls it a war, you call it a gang. Well, whether you like it or not, this “gang” is at war with you. With america. It most likely will take another 9-11 to get the democratic party on board. Maybe it will take a 9-11 under a democratic president because it seems virtually impossible that the democrats could get behind a republican to fight terrorists.

Posted by: Stephen at October 11, 2006 3:25 AM
Comment #187568

Oh, and as for your recounting of current events. Please call American troops and nato troops in Afghanastan who are on the ground killing Taliban and Al Qaeda and let them know you have declared that we have “left Afghanastan”.

Posted by: Stephen at October 11, 2006 3:28 AM
Comment #187571

For a long time I accepted the premise that the world is a better place without Saddam. I now find myself wondering if that’s really true. At least he acted as a counterbalance to Iran and kept his boot on the necks of the Islamic radicals. Granting that the Iraqi people suffered greatly under his rule, are they really any better off today? I don’t know the answers, only the questions.

Posted by: trublu at October 11, 2006 4:19 AM
Comment #187572

Paul Siegel,

A few issues with your post. First, you said that Bush said that India and Pakistan had to balance each other when they went nuclear. In point of fact, they went nuclear in 1998 under Clinton. Bush was the governor of Texas at the time, so his opinion at the time doesn’t really matter. Second, you say that Russia and the US should reduce their nuclear arsenals. In point of fact, before 9/11, Russia and the US reached an agreement to halve thier nuclear arsenals. While this mainly eliminated outdated systems and kept the most accurate, stealthy, and powerful weapons, it still is a large reduction.

That being said, a reduction by half of our nukes really doesn’t change much. Its like 2 people each holding a loaded pistol pointed at the other’s chest. In my little metaphor/similie, ach gun holds 16 rounds, so both sides agree to take out 8 rounds, but still have 8 rounds in loaded and cocked pistols pointed at each other’s chests. Would you feel any safer? To make it even more fun, lets pretend that the 8 rounds taken out are old roundnoses and the 8 remaining are +P high velocity jacketed hollowpoints. Not a fun situation.

As far as the issue of Iraq vs Afghanistan goes, we did not significantly reduce troop levels in Afghanistan to prosecute the Iraq war. Huge numbers of additional troops in Afghanistan would probably be of little help as the terrain requires light infantry and Special Forces, not heavy armor. Furthermore, our rapid mobility through aerial dominance allows us to use our troops more efficiently than in previous conflicts. Catching/killing bin Laden doesn’t depend on larger numbers of troops but on finding him. If we know where he is, we have more than enough Soldiers to take him and his ragtag bodyguards. I realize that you’re not a big fan of the Iraq war, and being involved in it myself, I agree. That being said, I think it is wrong to say that the war in Iraq impeded the search for bin Laden.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 11, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #187574

1LT B,
A question for you since you are actually in this conflict. Isn’t Afghanistan a more mountainous terrain and Iraq more of a flat desert-like terrain? If so, doesn’t the terrain in Iraq make it more suited for the type of armament we use?

I grant the fact of the need to be versitile in recognition of terrain when at war but I was only thinking of what happened to the USSR when they tried and lost in Afghanistan.

Posted by: The Griper at October 11, 2006 5:45 AM
Comment #187576

The Griper,

Afghanistan is indeed far more mountainous than Iraq. iraq has some mountains in the east and north, but is generally fairly flat as you describe. The problem is that our fight here is urban. As a result, we are very limited in the types of weapons we can use. For example, one of our Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launchers can spread munitions and devestate a square kilometer, but this isn’t a very attractive option in an urban setting. Because of our commitment to try and limit Iraqi civilian casualties, we are very restrained in the weapons we can use and the actions we can take.

Because Afghanistan is far more rugged but less urban, we can more easily use weapons such as heavy air bombs and artillery, especially since our targets there tend to hide out in remote caves where there aren’t many civilians to worry about hurting. We have the advantage of 20+ years of advancement in technology to conduct very targeted strikes against specific Taliban positions coupled with a large rebel army. While the Northern Alliance couldn’t do much against the Taliban on its own, the air power and Special Forces assistance we gave them allowed them to crush the Taliban and continues to give us an edge over these terrorist when we can find them.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 11, 2006 7:04 AM
Comment #187577

1LTB, I think it is useful to take Paul’s assessment at face value. President Bush has used the term “war” in its most literal sense to try to invoke wartime powers of the executive over the rest of government and her people, the way FDR did when our fleet was attacked in Hawaii.

But, there are differences between the WWII threat and this fostered by a people seeking to repel America’s influence in their homelands. The WWII axis powers constituted a genuine threat to invade, take over, and rule other nations. That is not the threat al-Queda poses toward the U.S. And this is a fundamental difference in a number of ways.

Did we call out our Military to attack the neo-nazi and Aryan radical groups in the U.S. and around the world that fueled McVeigh’s bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma city? Of course not. The reason was, the military’s expertise is not intelligence gathering, infiltration, identification, and arresting underground members of cult groups. That was and is the expertise of the FBI.

Similarly, the expertise we need to fight Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations is not our Military, but, our CIA, NSA, and State Department in promoting an international manhunt, infilitration, interdiction, and arrest of these small underground groups. In other words, what is needed is COVERT action abroad where these groups are operating and forming. Covert action does not fuel terrorists recruiting campaigns. Military invasions of other nations on false pretenses and bombing their innocent civilians does grow the enemy, as the NIE pointed out.

Having built my own home with own two hands, I can tell you, efficiency comes with using the right tool for the job. I once tried using a wood handled screwdriver to tap in a brad into a piece of molding which was sticking out about a quarter inch. All I succeeded in doing was splitting the handle on my screwdriver. The brad was still sticking out.

Our military is the wrong tool for fighting the fundamentalist Islamic terrrorist movements, except, in certain cases where a surgical strike is needed on a defended site of them.

And Paul is right. Turning America into George Orwell’s 1984 all in the name of protecting ourselves from terrorist infiltrations here at home, makes our government a bigger threat to our way of life and liberty than the terrorists. The terrorists are going target thousands of Americans at a time. The Bush government is targeting the freedoms and liberties of 300 million Americans for abuse by a police state.

On my scale, that makes the Bush administration’s threat of police state abuses upon my, and my daughter’s future liberty and freedoms greater than that posed by handfuls of terrorists. At every level of police power from the local to the U.S. Senate and FBI in our country, there have been abuses of citizen’s rights and liberties, by individuals and small groups within those policing agencies.

Nowhere, is there more proof and evidence of power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, than in the historical records of our policing agencies throughout our history, beginning with the Salem witch trials and ending with the growing number of innocent victims being released from our prisons due to new DNA evidence technology.

Granting any policing organization, from the White House to our local Sheriff, broad sweeping powers to invade and surveil without oversight and habeas corpus judicial review, is a nightmare awaiting a sleepy population’s REM cycle.

I have seen the enemy, and there are two. One from without, and the other from within. I fear the one within far more.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #187583

David,
Your post has enough info to fuel an entire thread. Excellent!

I have beeen grinding my molars with each repetition of the phrase “war on terror”. Had we confined our war on terror to covert incursions and remaining in Afghanistan, would the Great Leader be able to say we were in a war? I think not.

I just do not see reasoned, logical discourse coming from the red side where the “war on terror” is concerned. I’m interested in reading 1Lt B’s
response, as he seems among the more reasonable of those on the red side.

Do we have to invade nations to prevent terrorists from nuking New York? I think not.

Perhaps the greatest thing about you ideas is the non-contentious style that they are brought across with. A distinct lack of the defensiveness which marks the rhetoric of the other side. Go read SE’s new piece on the red side. We need something bigger than a nuclear-armed N. Korea before we can swing public opinion back to the republicans and save the elections.

A sentiment like that (and it is my paraphrase of what he said) could be misconstrued by people who hate America and want the terrorists win as being a wish for a terrorist attack or something of that nature which would throw the election to the Republicans out of fear.

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 11, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #187584

to remer
that was the finest posting i have read in the months that i have been reading blogs please do more. thank you

Posted by: albert at October 11, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #187585

So, David, are you saying you would rather have some “liberty and freedoms” back and allow terrorist attacks on our country every few months? It would be OK with you if we had another 9/11 as long as you had “freedom”?

Tell me, what freedoms exactly have you personally lost? How is your life really different than before the war on terror?

Posted by: nchoosier at October 11, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #187591

Why is it that we tell our children when they have a problem with someone that they should talk thru it, Fighting will not solve the problem. Yet we do the exact opposit. Why did no one ask why the terrorists attacked us, and try to work in fighting that problem. There would be a lot less fighting right now. Koreas leader for instance, my guess is that he would like to be considered one of the big boys on the block and not always pushed aside. Would there be any way to work on that? Would it work? I don’t know but I bet it would get more results then telling him he is not big enoug to play. Maybe I just live in a dilusional world where things could be solved by just talking them out like we tell our children.

Posted by: Lyle Nussbaum at October 11, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #187598

David,
Excellent post. I’ll try and respond paragraph by paragraph, though I do agree with much of it. You are correct that al Qaeda does not pose the same type of threat that Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union did. That being said, they do indeed pose a threat. The Taliban government, by providing sanctuary to bin Laden and his minions, was an accessory to an act of war and it was correct that we removed them from power.
We did not call the military to handle neo-nazi groups for several reasons. First, there was no need, the FBI, ATF, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement had more than adequate resources to handle those wastes without calling in the military. Second, it is not the military’s job to act as a police force, especially domestically. You may recall that all 50 governors, including Jeb Bush, came out against plans to make it easier to Federalize the National Guard. While the military often has a role in disaster relief, domestic policing is best left to the police.

You are largely correct in your assessment of the utility of the military against terrorist organizations. However, I do think that Bush would need more powers than he had pre-9/11 to accomplish this. Were I in the CIA, I doubt I would have much issue with putting a bullet into bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or a wide variety of other undesirables, but I would want a written guarantee that I wouldn’t have my ass extradited to the “World Court” or whatever nation I carried out an assassination in. Even if it was never announced, I would want Senate approval to carry out operations like that were I Bush, or any president.

As far as 1984 goes, I think we’re just bound to disagree on this. I don’t see the threat of a police state as anything near the threat that you do. Part of this is what I would call a change in the understanding of a reasonable expectation of privacy. It might be argued that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not have my internet usage tapped and monitored in my home, but if I’m looking up kiddie porn, I think I’ve lost that. By the same token, if I’m getting phone calls from Pakistan, especially if they’re from a known terrorist, I don’t think I have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, Clinton took quite a bit of flak for proposing essentially the same program in the 90s, primarily as a way of updating outdated laws that dated back to when the only way I had of communicating was one land line in my house and snail mail.

I do feel that a far stronger independent oversight is needed for Bush’s programs, but I simply fail to see them as anywhere near as threatening as you do. I think that my experience in the military, where all of my electronic communications and living quarters are subject to monitoring and inspection at any time makes me less sensitive to what civilians would see as an invasion of privacy, but I still pretty much stand by my opinion. I doubt that we’ll agree on an issue as fundamentally important as this with opinions as divergent as we hold, but thanks for your post. It was very well written and gave me a lot to think about.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 11, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #187600

David,
Kudos, I am in complete agreement with you, the real danger comes from within. Well said.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 11, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #187607

1LT B, the FISA court provided legal and ample authority for surveillance of suspected terrorist communications - WITH OVERSIGHT! Without oversight, the door to bring back Sen. McCarthy’s Red Scare subpeoneas, and intimidate Americans for nothing more than their political views is WIDE OPEN!

Rather than change the law, Pres. Bush took it upon his own authority to circumvent the law. That is authoritarian rule, no matter how you cut it. That is the heart of the danger of a police state, which Bush and this Republican Congress have opened. When authority can enforce laws while exempting themselves from them, “1984” is at hand.

One other point. If a phone call from a terrorist is all that is needed to get the American government to intrude upon the freedoms and liberties of its own citizens without judicial review, then look for the smart and adaptable terrorists to begin making a whole slew of phone calls to Americans randomly selected from our own phone books. We could not have handed the terrorists a greater weapon with which to pit our own people and government against each other.


Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #187608

My humble thanks to those who appreciated the validity of the arguments posed in my 1st comment to 1LT B.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #187609

nchoosier said: “So, David, are you saying you would rather have some “liberty and freedoms” back and allow terrorist attacks on our country every few months?”

That is a false choice and framing of the question. The fact is, we can preserve our freedoms and liberties AND interdict and prevent terrorist attacks. Surveillance with judicial oversight and review gives us both - a protection against abuse by people in our own government - and the power to surveil those suspected of wanting do our people harm.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #187610

If we were really in a “war”, on terror or otherwise, we’d have all our incoming ship cargo inspected; we’d have everything on every flight inspected, people & cargo; we wouldn’t be letting chemical and nuclear plants plan & provide their own security; we’d be raising taxes, not cutting taxes on the rich; we wouldn’t be told to “go out and buy stuff” to keep the terrorists away; we would close our borders securely…

I don’t think there is any real and big threat from terrorists here in the U.S. if one has to judge by the actions of our government…and if there is a real threat, then our government is acting quite cavalierly with our lives…

Either way the government is lying to us all.

Posted by: Lynne at October 11, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #187615

Lynne, most obvious of all, we would not be permitting 1 million unidentified persons of foreign origin to be crossing our borders unstopped and largely undetected. That flies in the face of every lie ever told by Republicans, Bush, and Democrats since 9/12/2001, that they are working to make us safe.

If invasion by terrorists IS a real threat, a real response to our porous borders was mandated long before invading Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Either the threat wasn’t real, or our government’s politicians utterly, totally, and completely failed in their mission to protect and defend these United States and its citizens.

There is simply no other logical way to parse this issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #187616
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Neo-con Pilsner- Why declare war on the Moderates of Islam? Why add that difficulty to all the others we face?
Neocon-Pilsner wrote: The enemy should be named: it is radical Islam and all the so-called moderates of the Islamic world who make excuses for the retrobates in their midst.
It should not go unnoticed that the “so-called” moderates are silent and/or make excuses, BUT, that by itself does not equate to a crime, and does NOT make them the enemy. However, support (actively and/or monetarily) of terrorists is a crime. And, there are some groups in the U.S. that are actively funneling money into terrorist organizations. That’s where focus our should be. And on the Taliban in Afghanistan. And on Al Qaida. Not a civil war in Iraq. Not nation building. That is a misuse of the military. Also, invading nations based on flawed (or trumped up) intelligence, resulting in 50,000+ deaths, should be avoided. That could possibly generate more hatred; maybe create more terrorits, eh? Talk about:
Stephen Daugherty wrote: “add[ing] that difficulty to all the others we face?”
David R. Remer wrote: Nowhere, is there more proof and evidence of power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, than in the historical records of our policing agencies throughout our history, beginning with the Salem witch trials and ending with the growing number of innocent victims being released from our prisons due to new DNA evidence technology.
That’s why I no longer support the death penalty. Government can not be trusted. Innocent people have been executed. One is too many. Our legal system is somewhat dysfunctional. Murderers go free. Repeat offenders go free. Innocent people are executed. There should be much less margin for error here, and knowing that the system is dysfunctional is reason enough to end the death penalty. Instead, put ‘em to work; a lifetime of making restitution would be better.
Paul Siegel wrote: This is not the type of terror Bush is talking about. Definitely not. He is trying to make you feel scared of losing your life. He wants you to feel real terror. Instilling fear in Americans has been and is the reason for the phrase “war on terror.” When you are afraid, you tend to do as you are told; Bush stays in control.
Exactly. Fear mongering. It’s truly disgusting and insulting. I can not remember a better example of fear mongering. And the hypocrisy of losing focus on Afghanistan, losing focus on Al Qaida, and portraying nation buidling in Iraq as the “front on the war on terror”, makes it even more disgusting.
  • Even Clinton’s sexapades are no comparison.
  • Even Nixons’s Watergate is no comparison.
  • Even Eisenhower’s U2 scandal is no comparison.
  • Even Kennedy’s blunder at the Bay of Pigs is no comparison.
  • Even FDR’s negligence for Pearl Harbor, Japanese/American internment in WWII, and toying with money supply is no comparison.
  • Even Woodrow Wilson’s promotion of mob rule is no comparison.
  • Even Bush 41’s “read my lips” is no comparison.
  • Even Warren G. Harding’s isolationism is no comparison.
  • Even Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal is no comparison.
  • Even Grant’s corrupt government is no comparison.
  • Even Carter’s blunders of the hostages in Iran is no comparison.
George W. Bush (in my opinion, despite some rankings) is one of the worst presidents ever.
  • Bush started an unnecessary war, largely based on WMD that were never found, killing 50,000+ people, 2747 (as of 10-OCT-2006) U.S. troops, 20,468 wounded and maimed (as of 10-OCT-2006) U.S. troops, hunrdreds deaths of coalition troops.
  • Bush and Rumsfeld are misusing the military.
  • Bush for Rumsfeld let military policy be shaped by politicians instead of military conditions. Bush
  • Bush and Rumsfeld failed to provide body armor for our troops, while Bush and congress voted on massive pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and bridges to nowhere, and under-funded health care for troops and veterans.
  • Bush ignored general’s recommending more troops to get the job done correctly, and decided to fight the war “on the cheap”, and discouraged any recommendations to the contrary.
  • Bush and Rumsfeld awarded multi-billion dollar contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.
  • Bush is now fear mongering more than usual, right before November-2006 elections.
  • Bush for trying to use terrorism, 9/11, and fear to rally his base voters (truly disgusting; especially in view of the loss of focus on the Taliban in Afghanistan, fighting the war in Iraq “on the cheap”, etc.).
  • Bush gave Americans the impression there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; Some Americans still believe that.
  • Bush questions peoples patriotism if they don’t agree with him. He calls them “soft on terror”, “the party of cut and run”, “the obstructionist party”.
  • Bush alienated our allies, and chose a childish go-it-alone attitude, earning him the well deserved “cowboy” label.
  • Bush ignored warnings of Bin Laden’s intentions to attack the U.S. prior to 9/11, ignored warnings about securing airline cock-pits, ignored warnings about airport security, and said crap (afterwards) like “we never imagined”.
  • Bush ran up record level debt with record spending, borrowing, and money-printing, and there will be consequences for that later.
  • Bush ignores the borders and ports, and refuses to enforce existing laws, while hypocritically stressing the importance of Homeland Security.
  • Bush can never admit a mistake. That’s why he’ll never fire Rumsfeld. To admit a mistake would be too horrible to face. Over 50,000 deaths is too horrible to face. Never happen. To Bush, everyone else must be wrong, and it’s all hind-sight.
  • Bush and the Supreme Court rubber-stamped 6 cases per day of eminent domain abuse (legal plunder; tens of thousands of cases since 1998), in this era of corpocrisy, corporatism, and government FOR SALE.
  • Bush (to buy votes; and it worked) created yet another, vast, costly, mismanaged Medicare Prescription Drug plan.
  • Bush did not level with Americans about the cost of Medicare (Bush told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would cost much more) ?
  • Bush continues to mismanage Social Security and plunder surpluses.
  • Bush lost his veto pen; looks the other way, and essentially paved the way for massive pork-barrel, corpocrisy, corporatism, and corporate welfare.
  • Bush has grown government even larger, to nightmare proportions.
  • Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy. Capital gains taxes (10% to 15%) are less than the average tax rate (21%).
  • Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility is creating rising inflation and foreclosures. It’s almost as though Bush and Congerss have declared class-warfare on the middle-income-class too ?
  • Bush has fostered the corpocrisy and corporatism that is creating a healthcare system that is increasingly expensive and deadly; killing Americans due to growing corpocrisy and corporatism resulting in pill-pushing pharmaceuticals and a complicit FDA that is killing 106,000 people per year, and medical mistakes that are killing 195,000 per year, and making billions doing it.
  • Bush reduced action against improper drug advertising by 80% .
  • Bush’s bullying around the world is not creating allies. It’s creating enemies.
  • Bush has done nothing to reduce our energy vulnerabilities, despite the D.O.E. and it’s $24 billion annual budget (that’s 64 million per day).
  • Bush cut FEMA funding, that helped lead to the problems after hurricane Kartrina.
  • Bush has done litte about the rising cost and falling quality of public education. In fact, tax dollars are being funneled into private education (a misuse of tax dollars that undermines public education).
  • Bush’s so-called rosy economy has seen rising foreclosures for the last 18 months.
  • Bush’s so-called rosy economy has seen for falling median incomes since 1999.
  • Bush endorsed outsourcing with thousands of American workers having their jobs shipped overseas.
  • Bush did nothing about significant election fraud.
  • Bush derided “nation-building” during the 2000 debates, then engaged American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.
  • … more …
Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #187619

“LONDON (Reuters) — American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates.”

Bush started an unnecessary war, largely based on WMD that were never found, killing 50,000+ people, 2747 (as of 10-OCT-2006) U.S. troops, 20,468 wounded and maimed (as of 10-OCT-2006) U.S. troops, hunrdreds deaths of coalition troops.

It’s much, much worse than we thought…

Posted by: Lynne at October 11, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #187620

Lynne, Bush responded to this report today saying it is not credible. When asked what is the amount, he said he did not know, and there is no accurate method of knowing. But, that report is not credible.

Check out the logic. Bush is arguing the number is unknowable, and any number which might reflect badly on his invasion of Iraq, therefore, cannot be credible.

Rove rehearsed him well on that one.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #187623

In the aftermath of the bombings in Spain, London and Indonesia, not to mention the millions of Muslims chanting “death to America” every Friday after prayer, I take the threat very seriously. The Lefts inability to acknowledge evil is truly something to marvel.

Posted by: joe18750 at October 11, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #187626

i wanted to address the “pre 9/11 intellegence” quote from above. first of all, had the president not been vacationing, golfing, and otherwise not at work perhaps that sunny day would have been like any other fall day. the president has not been held accountable. what we are saying, we are not the terrorist. we should not be held in the same regard. do not tap my line because a middle eastern men rammed planes into buildings. tapping our phone lines shouldn’t be the first line of defense in protecting america.

port security - inspect every container coming into america. simple, easy, and to the point.

airline security - (although expanding government at certain levels, it has proven needed) hire people who actually have law enforcement training. understading/education will only make us safer. train these people to know what to look for rather than standing there w/a wand and confiscating baby shampoo.

joe18750 - we understand evil - heck you voted him in twice. but just because this president has made america unsafe, do not infringe on my rights. by making me afraid to be american, and to hear day after day we are targets for terrorism.

what happened to the days when we were the greatest country in the world, and proved it by our good deeds. where the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. rather than having color coded graphs telling me how incredibly at risk we are. and by the way, the chanting for death to america has grown stronger, and louder in the last 6 years.

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #187628
It’s much, much worse than we thought…

Lynne, what is “it” and why is “it” worse? Please explain more or are you just using scare tactics to make everyone terrified of, in your opinion, how poorly the war is going and how much everyone hates America so that the Dems can win back the house?

Posted by: Matt at October 11, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #187629

sign me off as still waiting to be greeted as a “liberator”.

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #187630

Thank you Joe…

IMO this post describes in detail why I support the republican effort. (in spite of some of the stupid things it has done) The alternatives are myopic at best and pure nonsense at its worst.

Posted by: cliff at October 11, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #187632

Matt: did you read the entire post?…the number of deaths is most likely much, much more than have been admitted by the US…maybe not as many as the 655,000 “counted” by public health officials, but considering the lack of electricity and clean water, “collateral damage” is far worse than we can fathom.

“It” is the number of deaths, which, if you’d read the entire message, you should have been able to comprehend…not sure why you find this unclear.

Posted by: Lynne at October 11, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #187634

Mar,

Are you actually trying to suggest had the president been phyisically in his office on the day of the attacks they would not have happened?? An assertion like that needs a little more rationale behind it to even come close a viable conclusion.

Second, are you trying to assert that by the president allowing international wiretaps of phonecalls in which one party is suspected of being a member of al queda is a less effective means of fighting terrorism or a terroist threat than searching the millions of ships and billions of cargo containers that enter this country every year? Have you any idea what it takes to conduct a seearch of that magnitude, even for one day and its cost, not only in terms of the search but also in terms of delay?

Airline security got an “A” grade from 911 commission’s 5 year review of its suggestions, need I say more.

As for the fact that we are targets of terrorism, why does it bother you to hear that daily. It may sound old and you may not like the idea but it is a reality. Sometimes, as I hope you have learned in other aspects of your life, we have to be reminded of and continually recognize bad realities in our lives. Deal w/ it.

This is still the greatest country in the world and we have proven it daily by the liberation and continued support of millions of new persons living under democracies. Its an awesome accomplishment and should never be taken lightly. That chanting, my friends, has only grown louder because we are strengthening our position as the greatest country in the world and we continue to do great deeds; thats the kind of thing that make persons full of hate like the Iranians following prayers, of all things, hate us more.

Posted by: Matt at October 11, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #187636

Wow!
650,000 ? ! ?! ?
Much worse if that is true?
That’s 13 times worse than some reports, and 20 times worse than Bush reported previously.
The report says someone examined their methodology and found nothing wrong with it?

There are several other sources showing other numbers that are somewhat the same (about 50,000): (1), (2), (3)
However, those smaller numbers don’t include deaths related to environment, disease, injuries, some sectarian violence, lack of medical facilities and infrastructure, etc.

At any rate … see Bush’s pattern?
To Bush, no bad news has any credibility.
That’s also part of the problem in Iraq.
Bush and Rumsfeld can not adapt to changing situations, if the news/situation is bad. If the news is bad, their solution is to “stay the course”, and call anyone who disagrees “weak on terror”. Nevermind Afghanistan, and the Taliban, Bin Laden still running loose, and wide open ports and borders.

Of course, all of this means little to Bush and Rumsfeld. The evidence of massive blunders is ALREADY apparent (even to many of their former supporters), and that is not sufficient to admit any mistakes.

Today, Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes. He was annoyed, and said this was the 5th time someone asked him that. He said Abu Graihb hurt us.

That’s it? What about the long list things above? What about no WMD? What about fighting the war in Iraq “on the cheap”, despite early and subsequent warnings to increase troop levels to get the job done correctly, and to stop worrying about how it looks (for fear of losing American voters’ support)? Bush is either lying or delusional. After all, he called this a “crusade” (those are his Bush’s own choice of words). Either way, it is a dangerous situation. Other events are not comforting. Bush must save face, no matter how many must die to prove him right.

So, Rumsfeld’s job is safe until 2008, but Rumsfeld will probably resign before the end of 2008 (if not sooner).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #187639

Gosh Mar, I thought you may have been trying to make a broader, more relevant point than how many people have died since the war began. Sounds like you are still, however, using the alleged deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians to scare people into voting for the Dems. I thought you guys were against any kind of reality check that recognizes the grave threat.

Thing about it is Mar, while you fret about the number of deaths and use it a means to justify the need to leave, I use it for just the opposite reason. Their deaths only emboldens me that we have to win this things so the living will not suffer the same consequence and the dead will not have died in vain. It also reminds me of the threat of terrorism and what it can do and why we need to continue fighting it…over there.

Posted by: Matt at October 11, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #187640

WE MUST FIND A WAY This is what we have been hearing from Democrats for so long.George Bush Says we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them in the U.S,A. ONE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT THE PEOPLE WE FIGHT ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THIER OWN COUNTRY.Bin-Laden and the Tali-ban had a country Afghanistan when they attact the World Trade Center.Democrats will have you beleive that this is just a Gang that we are dealing with.The worst attack on American Soil and they call it a gang.You can compare the attack on pearl harbor with the attack of 9-11 The death the distruction the utter fear that the American people felt was felt again on 9-11.All though Paul wants you to beleive this is a gang of thugs we are dealing with.Two Towers Gone the pentigon Bombed in the early hours of 9-11 all most 3000 lifes gone.Most of which no remains have ever been found.Explain to me what kind of gang has the power to exact such fear on a Country that has helped other Country’s over and over again in every Disaster known to Man kind.Now some would have you beleive that there is nothing to fear but a gang of thugs.Think about this do you in all honesty want folks with this way of minamizing an attack like 9-11 making decision on the safety of our Country?Politics is a crooked Buisness on both sides But you fully understand where George Bush stands on protecting our Country.What you get from The Democrats is WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY.Do you want to wait on some one to find a way to protect the Future of your Childrens Safety?If you want to wait by all means you should Vote for the Democrats.If on the other hand you want to kill those who are trying to kill Americans by all means Vote Republican.Your Life could depend on it.

Posted by: PETRO at October 11, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #187642

geez matt, didn’t say a thing about war casualties. are their deaths coming back to haunt you?

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #187644
PETRO wrote: … if you want to kill those who are trying to kill Americans by all means Vote Republican. Your Life could depend on it.

PETRO,
The focus should have been on the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Right? They are behind 9/11 .

Not Iraq.
Remember, no WMD.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Or, are you one of those that believe that?
Are you saying we should have invaded Iraq despite the absence of WMD ?

PETRO,
You are trying to cloud the issue.
Terrorists, and the Taliban in Afghanistan had nothing to do with Iraq. Trying to imply connections between the two is perpetuating the same lie Bush helped foster.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #187645

yes, i truly believe that if the president was in washington, on july 10, 2001 and received the memo stating “al qaeda planning attack in u.s.” perhaps something could have been done. he was playing golf, and if you look up what he had done since taking office in january of 2001 until the attacks, you would agree with me that he just simply wasn’t doing his job.

now, tell me how unamerican and short sighted i am, love it!!

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #187647

I’m happy I started a pretty good discussion. I must add my congratulations to David. He told it like it is.

As an aside, I did not dare write this article, though I thought of it, a few years ago. I would have been lynched.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 11, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #187655

d.a.n. Not invading Iraq would have been the biggest blunder in the history of warfare.Not only would you be fighting Bin-Laden but Saddam as a Known Terrorest himself would have sent fighters and weapons and money to Afghanistan to kill our troops.The leader of Iraq would have sent Bombs Men and money to fight Americans as well.Syria would have done likewise.What part of war do you folks not understand?One of usama’s gang members as as Paul calls them sent a message yeasterday to his gang members as Paul has called them to fight untill we make it to the White House.The Boods are gang members the Crips are gang members the people we are fighting in thier own words want to kill every single American that Breath’s today.In short had we not invaded Iraq that would have been an impeachable offence for George Bush and if you don’t understand that well thats just another good reason to vote Republican.

Posted by: PETRO at October 11, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #187658

So to put the red arguments from this thread simply and in a row:

Islam is evil and thus a plague on the western way of life;
we went to war in Iraq for the right reasons that ended up being the wring reasons, but we still need to stay the original course (regardless of its fundemental flaws);
the only way to combat “terrorism” is to negatively affect the constitutional rights of US citizens;
all negative assessments of the “war on terror” are not credible, and no credible reports exist (yet we have enough info to say that the present course is the correct one);
winning the war on terror (which cannot be defined) is paramount to any domestic interest; hard-line foreign policy is only a necessary reaction to hatred towards America, which is the root cause of problems and NOT a symptom;
the only way to fight fire is with fire; not talking with foreign leaders helps to make them do what you want them to do;
…and my favorite: if the US military does not take an active and offensive role in the war on terror, we will be attacked every few months.

Did I get everything? I’d hate to not be on board with every aspect of the Bush/neo-con “plan”…after all, thinking is treason, and that helps the “enemy” (Islam?).

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 11, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #187661

“The Lefts inability to acknowledge evil is truly something to marvel.”

That’s because they first require a workable definition for the word “evil” … and even then, all they seem to want to do is keep re-assessing to make sure it’s the right thing to do and won’t cause more problems than it solves.

…bastards.

By the way, keep repeating the following: “a vote for a democrat is a vote for Al Qaida.”

That’s just sound advice from a well researched, non-partisan position which cares equally for all Americans. We don’t have any credible assessments of the effects of our presence in nations we currently occupy as part of the war on terror (even basic things like death tolls), but we do know enough to definitively say that the republican approach is better than the democrat approach (which requires planning and is therefore a version of “cut and run”).

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 11, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #187667

kev23 - i think you forgot to address the one about dems not knowing anything about war. perfect summary!!

petro - i agree w/the impeachable part, not the offense. the true sin petro, is the lying part. did OUR president lie about wmd? does he hold fear over us like a puppet master? when polls are down does the republican machine send out messages of fear, threats against our way of life? it’s this country today, and another tomorrow based soley on repub popularity? did the republican party ever throw fear amongst us to further their agenda? did or did the president allow a leak to out a c.i.a. agent?

if the answers are yes to any of the preceding, that is an impeachable offense.

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #187668

The only things i have to say in regards to all of this is:

1. The reasons we went to war with Iraq are irrellevant now. They only declare whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Once we began war the only question becomes whether or not we will fight to win it or fight to lose the war. that is a fact.

2. Winning a war will always result in more deaths than losing a war. that is a fact.

3. Winning a war will always cost more than the cost of losing a war. that is a fact.

then there is the case of using statistics to back up your stance. the problem here is the use of half truths rather than full truths to determine whether or the cause of winning the war is lost. that is, whether winning is your cause and you are not backing the idea of a losing cause.

1. you cite civilian casualties. civilian casualties says nothing in regards to whether or not you are winning or losing a war.
2. you cite mistakes made but what mistakes were made by the insurgents and how does that affect their cause?
3. you cite casualties of our troops but no where do i ever see the casualty count of the insurgents or the number captured. how does this affect their cause?

presenting a one sided arguement only declares what cause you are fighting for. i know which cause i fight for but i am also realistic enough in regards to war as to want to know all the facts before i declare a cause for anything but the cause of Victory. The soldiers i support deserve and expect that from us before we tell them they lost.

Posted by: The Griper at October 11, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #187671

oopsy,,i apologize for the double posting.

Posted by: The Griper at October 11, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #187672

Petro said: “One of usama’s gang members as as Paul calls them sent a message yeasterday to his gang members as Paul has called them to fight untill we make it to the White House.”

I know this would not have occured to you, so, I will suggest a question to you. Do you think that message was random, without purpose, or timing for effect? If so, then, there is little to discuss.

If not, then, could it be, OBL’s group is seeking to influence our elections by scaring Americans into reelecting Republicans who have become the most successful recruiting tool for al-Queda, well beyond their wildest expectations?

Now, if al_Queda is too dumb to not consider the purpose and timing of such remarks, then, they really aren’t all that potent a threat, are they. On the other hand, if that message was designed for effect, and you as a Republican supporter are using their message to support Republican reelection, do you not feel like a puppet of al_Queda?

Of course not, that would be too much cognitive dissonance to handle for a loyalist follower of party, do or die.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #187676
Winning a war will always result in more deaths than losing a war. that is a fact.

Tell that to the South as a result of losing the War Between the States…

Posted by: Lynne at October 11, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #187677

David the enemy does not care if you are red or blue if you are breathing and you are American they want to kill you.For them this is for all the marbles.There is no peacefull solution to this problem.The dicision the American people must make is Who will better protect our Country those who see the threat and are fighting the threat or those who think this is just a gang of thugs that we are fighting.You act as if there is no more threat this is some how a figment of George Bush’s imagination.Ithink the message from the enemy is real.Islam beleives you must warn those you want to distroy and they have been warning Democrats and Republicans alike for decades.If 9-11 and the attacks on other nations does not get your attention if it dos’nt proove to you they are serious you are dangerous to not only yourself but a danger to the whole world.

Posted by: PETRO at October 11, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #187680

Give our troops any task, they will excel. Only our civilian leadership which directs where, when, how, and with what to fight, can lose.

It is possible to place our troops in a losing scenario to no fault of their own. Viet Nam was one such scenario. The Korean war was another. You would think we would have learned the lesson of limited engagement in other nation’s civil wars. But, Bush paid for his history class, rather than earning a passing a grade with attention and learning of the material.

Just today, it is reported that the Iraqi parliament passed an autonomous regions law to take effect in 18 months. That guarantees a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites for many years to come. Asking our troops to solve their civil war is like asking well trained and highly expert diamond cutter to dismantle an atomic bomb. Civil war resolution in foreign lands IS NOT what our troops are meant to be doing. Its like trying to use a saw to drive in a screw.

It is the most egregious affront and misuse of our soldiers lives and limbs to ask them to resolve the Iraqi civil war for our civilian leader’s political purposes and with our leader’s constraints on where, when, and how.

Our military has the capacity to end this civil conflict in Iraq, and if asked to do so, they will. But the only way they can accomplish that task is to bring in the air force and annhilate the entire Sunni populations and neighborhoods in Iraq, leaving only Shiites and Kurds to unify Iraq, which is doable. But, our civilian authority is not about to allow our military to accomplish that mission.

Therefore, the Bush administration is wasting their lives on a mission that cannot succeed because of the constraints the Administration places on our forces. And that is an IMMORAL use of our armed forces.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #187681

and there it is! democrats are “dangerous to the whole world”. the only thing i am surprised about, it only took you 17 hours to go there.

the focus of the republican party should be to stop thinking of dems as the enemy, and find those who are. follow-up has always been the problem. remember wanted dead or alive.

since we have the “great protector” in office, we really shouldn’t be all that worried right?
which is it. we are totally protected by the republicans, or we should constantly look over our shoulders for the bad guys. mixed messages, mixed policies, mixed emotions.

this election, the old “spin and win” will not work. the house of lies will fall this fall.

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #187682

griper-

Every one of your “facts” has fatal flaws and plenty of history and examples to contradict them.

By the way, if you don’t know what you’re fighting for, or who your enemy is, how can the cause of “victory” ever be defined? Is it that our troops are to fight by taking wild stabs in the dark until we have the benefit of hindsight?

This “cause of victory” is meaningless and only designed to sway the intellectually lazy people into a childlike pissing contest. Who cares what your fighting for so long as you “win” right? How’d that go in Vietnam, by the way? Oh that’s right, we failed to accomplish any of our objectives, we left the nation to the Communists, and some still called it a victory. Seems to me, the word “victory” is, at best, misleading.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 11, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #187685

PETRO, if the terrorist threat is real, why are our borders wide open to them? Either the threat is real, and the Republican government is derelict in its duty, or the threat was never what the Republicans want us to believe it is.

Secondly, you don’t use an atom bomb to bring down a one story building. The consequential damage is too costly, though an atom bomb will indeed bring down the building. The same analogy applies to the terrorist cells. You don’t launch a national invasion of a country like Iraq in the hopes it will attract the enemy like bees to pollen. The collateral damage costs more to repair than the invasion is worth, in international relations, in troop and tax dollar losses, and in public support here at home, as polls demonstrate we are now witnessing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #187688

Not to mention the fact that most of the bees won’t be attracted to poisoned pollen. They know the difference.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #187692

thought it was “mission accomplished” in iraq. now, that we have entered the war, and we should only be concerned about whether we fight to win or to lose. fight to win or lose what exactly. no, really, what are we fighting for?

griper you are so wrong on almost everything you have written - is that another republican deflection? winning a war costs more than losing a war? what about wwI.

let me fill you in on one other fact. civilian casualties mean nothing on a war? you, are dead wrong. we will eventually look for the remaining survivors to help piece their country back together. if their death totals continually rise, they will turn against us, and the war will spiral out of control. have we reached that point? i hope not, but we are very close to it.

Posted by: mar at October 11, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #187701

mar asked: “fight to win or lose what exactly. no, really, what are we fighting for?”

Sen. John Warner (R) answered that best in his press conference last week. He said we are NOW fighting to keep the Iraqi oil revenues from funding terrorist organizations.

OIL! It is what we critics have been saying this war was about even before we invaded when Congress was deliberating. Oil has always been part of the reason this Iraq war took place. If it were WMD, N. Korea would not exist today.

N. Korea announced it was going to build nukes. N. Korea built the nukes. N. Korea announced it was going to develop delivery vehicles for nukes. N. Korea tested their delivery vehicles. N. Korea said it was going to test its nuke. N. Korea tested its Nuke. And throughout all this, Bush has not invaded N. Korea. What is the difference?

Simple! OIL! Iraq has it, N. Korea doesn’t. End of story.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #187703

kevin23,

How can victory ever be defined? the answer is easy.

look at history and let it define it for you. WWII Victory was clearly declared over Germany andd over Japan. Victory was clearly declared by the colonies over Great Britain in the revolutionary war. Victory was clearly declared in the civil war.

if you study each of these wars you will see a common denominator to victory. every war that has a clear victory has this common denominator. And when you use this common denominator in regards to the war in viet nam you’ll see that the viet cong and north viet nam was victorious.

you should, by now realize that just because someone declares victory only is declaring his opinion and opinions are not valid. so i stand by my statement as factual.

lynn, ok i’ll tell that to the south who lost.

“South, in order for you to have won the civil war would have cost you more lives than you have lost already in the war”

thus i stand by my statement lynn.

Posted by: The Griper at October 11, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #187704

My gentle Dems, what “The Griper” was saying, his broader point that is (regardless if you agree w/ his factual assertions), is that by looking to only one side of the argument, you can’t make an informed or even logical conclusion on what to do next. You can’t make an argument for w/drawal, as it appears thats what you all would like, w/out assessing the costs borne on both sides. It is easy to list out American/civilian casualties, and as I have repeatedly and specifically said is a scare tactic used by the Dems to make people think the W is evil, w/out acknowledging the positive accomplishments as well (i.e. 20 million people no longer living under a brutal dicatatorship, thousands of terrorists killed, Al Queda in Irag self-acknowledged as weakened, new schools built by our troops, etc. etc. etc.). Focusing solely on the costs and not the benefits of this war is either intellectually dishonest, or, as my friend Mar is so concerned about, dangerous to our country.

BTW, it was UBL who said in the weeks preceding the 2004 presidential election that the red states would be targets in the next terrorist attack and the blue states would be spared. From this it is apparent UBL preferred Dems to win (since he actually thinks by threatening attacks people will change their vote), thus, the conclusion runs that if you vote for Dems, you are casting the same vote UBL would. I know you all hate to hear that and you probably don’t remember that news story since it got little to no attention from the MSM but it is true.

Posted by: Matt at October 11, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #187705

Matt,

“BTW, it was UBL who said in the weeks preceding the 2004 presidential election that the red states would be targets in the next terrorist attack and the blue states would be spared. From this it is apparent UBL preferred Dems to win (since he actually thinks by threatening attacks people will change their vote), thus, the conclusion runs that if you vote for Dems, you are casting the same vote UBL would.”

Really?

From;

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html

“On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term….

“At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: ‘Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.’”

McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table. Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush’s aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their “eye-to-eye struggle” ended.

But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.”


Imagine that.

Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #187706
PETRO wrote: d.a.n. Not invading Iraq would have been the biggest blunder in the history of warfare.

Why not, I ask?
Check it out.

PETRO wrote: Not only would you be fighting Bin-Laden but Saddam as a Known Terrorest himself would have sent fighters and weapons and money to Afghanistan to kill our troops.
PETRO, Al Qaida and Bin Laden’s scum hit the NY twin towers on 11-Sep-2001. The war in Iraq didn’t begin until 19-Mar-2003. That’s a year and a half later. What was Saddam waiting for, eh? Sorry, but that’s a dumb argument. Saddam was stupid, but not stupid enough to give us credibility.
PETRO wrote: The leader of Iraq would have sent Bombs, Men and money to fight Americans as well.
PETRO, Is that bombs with a capital B ? Ohhh…well, that’s an altogether different matter. NOT! The U.S. was in Afghanistan almost immediately after 11-Sep-2001. Saddam never sent any of those things to Afghanistan.
PETRO wrote: Syria would have done likewise.
PETRO, Syria doesn’t have much. Syria is not a threat.
PETRO wrote: What part of war do you folks not understand?
PETRO, Did it ever occur to you that you are wrong? Are you sure you aren’t a shill? No offense, but seriously … your statements seem so simple minded, it makes me suspicious.
PETRO wrote: One of usama’s gang members as as Paul calls them sent a message yeasterday to his gang members as Paul has called them to fight untill we make it to the White House.
PETRO, No one is arguing that Al Qaida is the enemy. However, you (like Bush did) are confusing Al Qaida with Iraq. They are different. If Iraq still had WMD by 2003, Bush may have barely had a reason (still debatable) to invaide Iraq. But, Iraq didn’t have WMD. Blix was right. Bush was wrong. But, to make matters worse, Bush and Rumsfeld are severely mismanaging the war in Iraq.
PETRO wrote: The Boods are gang members the Crips are gang members the people we are fighting in thier own words want to kill every single American that Breath’s today.In short had we not invaded Iraq that would have been an impeachable offence for George Bush and if you don’t understand that well thats just another good reason to vote Republican.
PETRO, … never mind. I’d have better luck arguing with a fence post.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2006 5:55 PM
    Comment #187707

    Really? You are really going to post as authority for your proposition a ultra left-wing site as Consortium News? Not only are the factual bases for this conclusion not supported by any evidence other than simple assertions, but the conclusions drawn therefrom are even shakier. UBL threatended by Zarqawi? I think there would have been more efficient and direct ways of accomplishing UBL’s alleged goal (which itself makes no sense since UBL had recently declared Zarqawi Al Queda leader in Iraq) than by saying if you vote Dem you won’t get attacked. Nevertheless, the conclusion still stands. A vote for the Dems, at least w/ regard to the 2004 election, was the same vote UBL would have made. Your parsing of his motive is at the very least unconvincing. Do you think UBL has changed his mind w/ regard to the 2006 elections? Maybe he’ll do us all a favor and reaffirm his desire that Dems take over.

    Posted by: Matt at October 11, 2006 6:02 PM
    Comment #187708

    Matt,

    “You are really going to post as authority for your proposition a ultra left-wing site as Consortium News?”

    So where are your factual sources, or are you just attempting to bludgeon us with hyperbole?

    Please, feel free to pick any ultra-right wing site as your “authority”.

    Or did you come to your conclusion by reading something that “felt good” to you?

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 6:16 PM
    Comment #187709

    Here’s another;

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=1962

    In a perfect world, the Bush Administration wouldn’t try to spin this, because if they acknowledge and therefore amplify Osama’s political importance, “the terrorists”, to borrow a popular refrain from three yaers ago, “win.”

    But in Partisan World, the Republicans were barely able to contain their glee as they went spinning away. “When people look at that guy (Osama), they understand we are at war,” said Mr. Bush’s campaign manager, Ken Mehlman. “And they want to make sure that their commander-in-chief does.”

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 6:22 PM
    Comment #187710

    And this;

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/bush_says_osama.html

    “The al-Qaeda leader’s video diatribe about Bush, four days before the election, signaled voters “that if bin Laden doesn’t want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush,” the president told Washington Examiner reporter Bill Sammon. The Examiner is on day two of a five-part series based on Sammon’s new book Strategery.”

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 6:25 PM
    Comment #187713

    In my search through the web I was able to find, and read a transcript of the Bin Laden tape.

    A translation from CNN;

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

    “Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential nominee John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”

    IMHO, his verbal attack seemed aimed more at Bush Sr, than President Bush.

    In his tape he expressed no support for either Bush or Kerry, yet it was spun both ways, and we know how it turned out.

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 7:23 PM
    Comment #187716

    griper-

    The war on terror is not a battle for territory, nor a battle between two legitimate states as your examples suggest…which is my point. Define for me who the enemy is in this war.

    And how can you honestly say that it takes more casualties to win than to lose? If you compare a situation to its opposite then you’re right. But that isn’t reality. Wars are won long before their ever fought. Planning saves lives. Strong will by itself will be used against you.

    Matt-

    Where are the sources of this ridiculous claim about OBL being quoted as saying he’d spare blue states. Even in NYC, there are Repubs and dems living next door to each other. What purpose would those comments serve?

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 11, 2006 7:58 PM
    Comment #187717

    Kevin23,

    He claimed that OBL said it 2 weeks before the election in 2004.

    The transcript from the tape of Oct 29th 2004, which I can only presume Matt is refering to, is at the CNN link I provided above.

    Nowhere in the transcript does OBL refer to red states or blue states.

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 8:07 PM
    Comment #187718

    Rocky-

    I’ve read the stuff in your link before. It says nothing close to the meaning attributed to it by Matt…at least as far as I can see.

    Matt? You quoted it…now that you’ve drawn some interest, how about letting us in on where you get this information about OBL’s partisan interests. I think we’d all love to know OBL’s personal viewpoint…but excuse me if I’m skeptical that it was ever actually or realistically reported to any western media. Is this one of those Rush Limbough “facts”? The ones that look a whole lot like baseless opinion, but since they say something that re-inforces your viewpoint they must be true?

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 11, 2006 8:23 PM
    Comment #187722

    Bin Laden never spoke about red states and blue States, but the CNN transcript was long ago deemed incorrect. It translated the words “ay wilaya” to mean “nations” though it actually means states. Even translators of the Middle East Research Institute agreed that Bin Laden was directing his remarks to individual US States and that “ay wilaya” could not mean nations.

    If that’s not enough, one of the Al Qaida-linked websites where statements from Bin Laden and others regularly deliver their messages to the outside world sought to clarify Bin Laden’s words so there’d be no misuderstanding. They wrote:

    Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,’ it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy.

    It’s impossible to read this as meaning anything other than US states because other nations do not get to vote in US elections.

    Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 11, 2006 9:33 PM
    Comment #187723

    Neo-Con,

    “Bin Laden never spoke about red states and blue States, but the CNN transcript was long ago deemed incorrect.”

    A source please.

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 9:50 PM
    Comment #187724

    Rocky, here is a link to MEMRI’s statement on the matter.

    It also includes a full translation of Bin Laden’s speech.

    I see no reason for Democrats to get defensive about this, however, because they weren’t the ones saying this. It’s not like they entered into this agreement with Bin Laden. He can say whatever he wants, and he says all kinds of nonsense.

    Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 11, 2006 10:11 PM
    Comment #187727

    Rocky,

    Also consider that MEMRI was founded by a former colonel in the Israel Defense Forces. Also take note that he’s administered Facility 1391, a prison described by critics as “Israel’s Guantanamo”.

    I took that from Wikipedia, but the point is that MEMRI is as credible on Middle Eastern affairs as Condi and Rummy and our Pres. Also keep in mind that Israel insists Iran is only a few months away from having a deliverable nuke.

    One of my greatest fears is that Bush will extend his “CRUSADE” to include nuking Iran. IMO that could spell doom for the USA and possibly the planet. But, if you believe you’re doing god’s bidding I guess that’s OK.

    KansasDem

    Posted by: KansasDem at October 11, 2006 11:02 PM
    Comment #187729

    Neo-Con

    “I see no reason for Democrats to get defensive about this, however, because they weren’t the ones saying this.”

    I suppose if I were a Democrat I might even care. I am only looking for the truth.


    KansasDem,

    I believe somewhere between the two translations lay the truth.

    My problem with Bush is his mule-brained, my way or the highway approach to governing.
    His act may play well in the trailer parks, but I hope he isn’t fooling many more than that.


    My kingdom for someone with no axe to grind.

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 11:20 PM
    Comment #187730

    Neo-Con,

    Couldn’t our allies in the “war on terror” be considered US states? (You’re either with us or against us.)

    We do make quite a few demands.

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 11:28 PM
    Comment #187731

    Rocky,

    Did you hear Bush’s explanation of “stay the course” in his news conference today? I can’t for the life of me remember the name or script of the movie, or even the actors name, but I think it had Dolly Parton in it, and the “politician” kept singing a little ditty about doing a “little side-step”.

    We’ve been getting a little side step for several years now, and I’m really sick of it. This side-step is accompanied by an ample amount of BS. I’m just amazed that anyone stills buys it.

    KansasDem

    Posted by: KansasDem at October 11, 2006 11:34 PM
    Comment #187732

    Could that be the “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”?

    It would seem appropriate.

    Posted by: Rocky at October 11, 2006 11:38 PM
    Comment #187738

    kevin23,

    War is war. every war is about power and control. territory is only a tool that can be used to measure the extent of power and control as possessed.

    And if you reread my post my examples were used for the purpose of defining victory and declaring each has a common denominator. that same definition and common denominator is just as valid in the war of terror. So your conclusion cannot be considered as a valid conclusion of my post.

    As for my definition of who the enemy is, i have to admit a smile came across my face when i saw that question. it’s nice to see you are intelligent enugh to try to trap someone into a foolish answer.

    one does not define who one’s enemies are. one knows their enemy by the fact of their declaration of being your enemy. so, if you cannot define your enemy in this war, kevin, it is only because you haven’t been listening to them. they have been declaring themselves for years now.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 12, 2006 12:47 AM
    Comment #187749

    “Could that be the “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”?”

    Yep, Charles Durning as the Governor:

    “Ooh, I love to dance the little sidestep / Now they see me, now they don’t / I’ve come and gone / And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step / Cut a little swath / And lead the people on!”

    KD

    Posted by: KansasDem at October 12, 2006 6:41 AM
    Comment #187754

    Kevin23 and Rocky,

    Here you go.

    http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=312

    OR http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003746.php

    (see the bottom)

    Isn’t it strange that the MSM never reported on this? Most would understand it to be a true October Suprise but when ultra left-wingers control the content and subject of the MSM, no one would ever get to hear that.

    The point is is that no matter what the translation is, the entire content of the speech chides (thats a kind word) Bush and appears to endorse his opponent (Kerry). I agree w/ you, however, that it should never matter what UBL says and he should never affect our choices. Still, it is a fact worth considering that UBL appears to feel severely threatened by Bush and pushing for anyone else to take his spot. I take comfort in the fact UBL fears and despises Bush.

    Posted by: Matt at October 12, 2006 8:58 AM
    Comment #187784

    Mar,
    the president has made America less safe? Sorry that’s just a disconnect from reality. Plug back in before you’re consumed by your partisanship.

    Kevin23,
    you need a working definition of evil? Son you must be a graduate student. Only a college campus could pound that type of foolishness into someone. Go ask any ten year old, they’ll tell you.
    Siegal,
    sir you would not of been lynched a few years ago for your opinion. You would of only exposed your buffoonery a few years sooner.

    Posted by: joe18750 at October 12, 2006 12:31 PM
    Comment #187785

    d,a.n. Bottom line is there is no war worth fighting in your eyes that is why we have to keep Authority out of the hands of those who see things through Anti-America Rose colored Glass’es.The Rose being for those called the enemy.

    Posted by: PETRO at October 12, 2006 12:32 PM
    Comment #187816

    Joe18750-

    Then your assumptions make you ignorant.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 12, 2006 3:00 PM
    Comment #187819

    Griper-

    “one does not define who one’s enemies are. one knows their enemy by the fact of their declaration of being your enemy”

    How typical. What great responses. I must be stupid to not know who the “evil” people are. After all, they are shouting it at me, right?

    So when Bush says we have to re-define article 3 of the Geneva conventions to give men in the field “much needed clarity and guidence”, he is just being stupid too? When troops constantly complain that the enemy hides among civilians, they are just stupid?

    Let me tell you what is stupid: declaring war on a strategy (NOT a defined group of people), relating this new “war” to the age old religious doctrine of natural law (good v. evil), and just expecting that everyone knows exactly what to do, who to kill, who to negotiate with, who to occupy, and what tactics are allowable.

    I think your responses have been very telling of the fact that your approach is half-assed and based on a complete lack of respect for the complicity of world politics.

    NO…people do not see good and evil in the same way. No…the enemy which shoot at us do NOT go around announcing themselves as the enemy. No…the rhetoric of arab leaders are nowhere near uniform on the subject of America being an enemy. No…you shouldn’t hold a sovereign state accountable for anything other than the official actions or knowing non-feasance of that government.

    Anarchy under the guise of good v. evil is one of the biggest pitfalls to plague societies since the beginning of time. Don’t fool yourself into believing everyone thinks like you, and don’t be dumb enough to believe that “evil” will just present itself on a battlefield. That is utterly niave.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 12, 2006 3:17 PM
    Comment #187822

    Petro,

    yes there are those who find no justification in any war. they are commonly defined as “pacifists” but being a pacifist does not exclude them from government. we are a government of checks and balances. and there are those who are not pacifists that would be a check on those who are in government. pacifists enjoy the same rights as you and I do. And while the constitution declares that wars are an justifiable act it doesn’t prevent a pacifist from not seeking to wage in war or convince others not to wage war.

    and remember too, that those pacifists would only gain control if there are enough people in society as to vote them in. thus we’d then be called a country of pacifists. this would be a situation you and I may not be pleased with but one we’d have to accept if we believe in the democratic process.

    the only problem with a situation as above is the we who would be the minority would also have to accept the consequences of it and realize that the cost of waging war later would be greater.

    some would say that we would still have the right to dissent but dissent only serves to divide a nation and fighting a war when a nation is divided does not aid in the support of any victory that would be desirable. dissent only serves to divide a nation in groups of those who support victory and those who support defeat.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 12, 2006 3:23 PM
    Comment #187824

    joe18750 - the president does make this world unsafe. sorry, welcome to reality. now, plug back in before you’re consumed by your partisanship. mar

    Posted by: mar at October 12, 2006 3:36 PM
    Comment #187825

    kevin23,

    you asked me to define the enemy. any definition a person could give in this war could never be specific enough to exclude those who are not an enemy. and no definition could be generalized enough to include any potential enemy of the future. and you know this and if i tried to create a definition you would have jumped all over it to show just how foolish I was and how wise you are. so, considering that the only way to know the enemy is to allow him to declare himself.

    the best example of this is osama bin laden. he is not the enemy because we defined him as such. he is the enemy because he declared himself as our enemy by his own words and actions.

    As for what President Bush does and is required to do by virtue of his office, that is irrelevant because you were asking me for my definition not his.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 12, 2006 3:45 PM
    Comment #187826

    Griper My point is basicly what you said in your last paragraph.A nation devided does not aid in the support of any victory that would be desirable.All I ask is to let the Pro’s fight the war.Americans must stop feeding the enemy Fuel to beat George Bush.Isay again when you weaken the President Of The United States Of America with propoganda that aids those who even you will agree are the enemy you weaken the United States of America.Every time Murtha or Kerry open thier mouths Usama uses them as talking points for extremest Islam.

    Posted by: PETRO at October 12, 2006 3:46 PM
    Comment #187829

    Mar,
    I think the world is safer with this President but what was at issue was America. Now Siegals point was about terrorist, and since we haven’t been attacked since September 11 is proof enough of our Presidents efforts.

    Kevin23,
    can you be anymore witless? I asked you nothing. You lamented not having a definition of evil. I only provided you a source. Pay attention.

    Posted by: joe18750 at October 12, 2006 4:07 PM
    Comment #187831
    The Griper wrote: dissent only serves to divide a nation in groups of those who support victory and those who support defeat.

    The Griper,
    What makes you think anyone who dissents (i.e. opposes the war in Iraq) supports defeat of our U.S. troops?

    No doubt a few low-lifes like that exist, but your statement above does not make any such distinction.

    There are lots of people that disagree with the war in Iraq, but do NOT wish for the defeat of our U.S. troops. Even though many disagree with the war, they would like the effort to be successful, and end ASAP. Anyone that wishes and hopes for the defeat of our U.S. troops has something seriously wrong with them. But, there is a huge difference between a dissenter and someone who wishes defeat of our U.S. troops.

    Someone who does not support the war in Iraq is not necessarily a pacifist either, because many support the war in Afghanistan (to defeat the Taliban and terrorists), but simply do not agree with the reasons for the diversion into Iraq, and the loss of focus on Afghanistan. Especially, since Iraq really had no WMD, and since Iraq was actually in pretty sad shape. The intelligence was very negligently flawed (or trumped-up). Take your pick.

    Lumping everyone into neat little cubby-holes (dissenters and conformists) might be easier for some simple minded people, but it does not even remotely resemble reality, and attempts to unfairly label people with justifiable reasons for dissent as unpatriotic, pacifists, cut-and-run, etc. That sort of lame, unsubstantiated, hyperbolic rhetoric does not hold up even to the most minimal scrutiny.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with dissent when it is for the right reasons. Dissent in itself is not a problem. Dissent is disagreement. If a nation is divided, then there may be a very good reason for it. The reasons for dissent are what is important. Not the dissent itself. Want to discuss the reasons? Or, resort to labeling and unsubstantiated rhetoric?

    By the way, this is the very same thing George Bush is doing now. But, Bush is in denial (BIG time). The reasons and facts are not on his side, but he can never admit it, and the difficulty in ever admitting it increases as the number of people die trying to prove him right. That possibly makes him (and Rumsfeld) dangerous. Their blunders are not just hindsight. Many of their blunders are subsequent to advance warnings, AND afterward too. Two major blunders warned of early on were (1)trying to fight the war on-the-cheap for fear of losing the support of the American people, and (2)letting political factors, such as that shape military policy, instead of military conditions. There are many more bludners. Such as no WMD. That’s a big one. Such as the truly poor conditions and barely functioning infrastructure in Iraq. The fact is, Iraq was NOT enough of a threat to justify a pre-emptive invasion. Call that dissent if you like, but those are just the facts. There’s a difference.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2006 4:15 PM
    Comment #187838

    Griper-

    “the best example of this is osama bin laden. he is not the enemy because we defined him as such. he is the enemy because he declared himself as our enemy by his own words and actions.”

    And yet we can’t even find him. We know exactly who he is, what he does, and what he looks like. He’s declared himself an enemy. Now what? Washington wants to know, I’m sure.

    Joe18750-

    you said:

    “Son you must be a graduate student. Only a college campus could pound that type of foolishness into someone. Go ask any ten year old, they’ll tell you.”

    I said:

    “Then your assumptions make you ignorant”

    Stop being so aggressively abrasive that you lose sight of reality. You need to calm yourself and stop acting as if you can get away with being wrong and childishly insulting at the same time. I don’t even know what your point was with all of the aimless and ignorant shitballs you just flung at various indeserving targets.

    If you want to have a debate, then act like it.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 12, 2006 4:49 PM
    Comment #187839

    for the spelling nazis: indeserving = undeserving

    So sorry. =P

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 12, 2006 4:50 PM
    Comment #187847

    “The Griper wrote: dissent only serves to divide a nation in groups of those who support victory and those who support defeat.”

    Wow. I wish we didn’t have strict TOS rules here cause I’d LOVE to use some vulgar expletives in responding to this nonsense.
    Tip for ya: Dissenters FOUNDED America. Dissent is the #1 right given to us in the Constitution. There is NOTHING more American than Dissent.
    That said: mo&#@*&#*%#%&*&@#%*&@%#%&**%@#*&er.

    Posted by: Observer at October 12, 2006 6:37 PM
    Comment #187851

    “…since we haven’t been attacked since September 11 is proof enough of our Presidents efforts”

    It’s only proof enough for people with very low standards.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 12, 2006 7:17 PM
    Comment #187857

    “It’s only proof enough for people with very low standards. “

    Translation: bush voters.

    Posted by: Observer at October 12, 2006 7:50 PM
    Comment #187871

    I am not a republican or a democrat, I’m an independant. (I still believe in a multi-party system rather than a 2 party system we seem to have today).

    Regardless of all that, when does the “war on terror” end? Is it supposed to last until all terrorism is eliminated? Even if just limited tp Al-quida. this “war” could last for many years or decades. Are we supposed to grant full presidential war powers to the president during this time? Bush and his cabinet claim access to the full powers, fortunately congreess does not seem to agree. What powers would the president have if he had the full emergency powers? Would he effectively be a dictator? If his successors followed the same policy during the duration how would are government change? Would the balance of power shift dramaticly (and dangerously) to the executive branch?

    Sorry if this is a little off topic, hopefully not much, but I would like to know just what actions the president thinks he has the authority to implement and what the effects would be to our way of life in the long term.

    Posted by: Miles at October 12, 2006 8:56 PM
    Comment #187875

    Miles-

    Bush subscribes to the Unitary Executive Theory a constitutional theory that he supposedly learned about from a professor at Harvard Law while a student. I have heard conflicting info about where the theory originally came about, but the point is that it has since evolved into an entire body of work in law journals across the nation. Most legal scholars outright reject the idea, because it essentially says that all foriegn affairs decisions are solely vested in the executive branch. Go to Wikipedia and type it in. There is a pretty good basic explaination.

    The short answer is, yes, he does believe that the president should effectively be the most powerful branch of government. No checks or balences on certain powers. The executive having ultimate authority over the interpretation of the constitution. It’s scary stuff. If you read Prof. Woo from UC Berkeley’s justifications for the inherent powers in the executive branch, and then read the federalist papers and the constitution, you can immediately see how far they’ve gotten from the true spirit of the constitution.

    It’s not a conspiracy theory, there is a whole team of people who work out of Cheney’s office who do nothing but review legislation for violations of this theory. Then they use signing statements to dilute anything contrary to it.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 12, 2006 9:25 PM
    Comment #187878

    A couple of hundred followers of o.b.l. plan and commit attacks against American interests, financed mostly from Saudi oil wealth, and Bush declares war against a country that had nothing to do with it. Maybe he felt he needed revenge because Saddam tried to have his father assasinated. Before G.W. was elected, we were warned he bankrupted every thing he was in charge of. George W. is the worst president this country has ever had!!!! He is responible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people. I would like to know how many of them were al-quida. I hope the first thing the Demacratic controled Senate or congress does is impeach the idoiot and begin the criminal investigations.

    Posted by: g.w. rove at October 12, 2006 10:02 PM
    Comment #187914

    observer,
    your response to my statement of dissent is a good example of the problem of having a one sided view of things.

    there isn’t one word in my post that declared dissent as being unamerican or anything other than being american. i said it was devisive and it is.

    yes, dissenters founded our nation but in dissent didn’t it divide the colonies from the very government that had rule over them at the time? and didn’t that dissent place them in opposing camps in regards to war?

    in congress isn’t a nay vote a declaration of dissent to the passage of any vote and doen’t that place them and those who vote yae in different sides of the issue? without dissent there can be no thing as democracy but it also shows division.

    as to war if victory is unjustified that only leaves defeat as justified. so in that who is being unamerican, the side that supports victory or the side that supports defeat? to my way of thinking it would be the side that supports victory. for he then would not be supporting justness and what can be more unamerican than that?

    so, next time before you decide to cuss me out i’d suggest you first understand where i am coming from and from what basis i use. attacking another’s viewpoint in ignorance is an act of foolishness and i have no intention of thinking you foolish yet.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 13, 2006 4:29 AM
    Comment #187915

    D.A.N

    my use of the word pacifist was used in response to what someone else described of another. i never said that all who dissent in regards to a war were pacifists. but every pacifist will dissent from every war.

    and i never said defeat of the soldiers i simply said defeat.

    don’t read more into my words than what i have said.

    and you know what is funny? i write a post in defense of someone yet others feel as if i am attacking them even when that post had nothing to say to them or about them. oh well.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 13, 2006 5:01 AM
    Comment #187939
    The Griper wrote: don’t read more into my words than what i have said.

    The Griper,
    I didn’t read anything extra into your words. Not at all. What you said was quite clear, and corroborated by many other comments …

    The Griper wrote: dissent only serves to divide a nation in groups of those who support victory and those who support defeat.

    Looks pretty darn clear to me. Pretty black and white, which is the problem with that statement.

    Trying now to spin it another way is not likely fool anyone.

    The Griper wrote: and i never said defeat of the soldiers i simply said defeat.
    Same thing.
    The Griper wrote: i never said that all who dissent in regards to a war were pacifists. but every pacifist will dissent from every war.
    Griper, What you said is that dissenters support defeat. What you said about pacifists is shown below …
    The Griper wrote about pacifists: Petro, yes there are those who find no justification in any war. they are commonly defined as “pacifists” … and there are those who are not pacifists that would be a check on those who are in government. pacifists enjoy the same rights as you and I do… . and remember too, that those pacifists would only gain control if there are enough people in society as to vote them in. thus we’d then be called a country of pacifists.

    So, that doesn’t explicitly say “every pacifist will dissent from every war”. Still, such a statement is incorrect too, because the definition of a pacifist is one who opposes the rush to war and prefers diplomacy first, but that definition does not say a pacifist always rules out the necessity or unavoidability of war.

    The use of the word “pacifist” and “dissenters” here is just another one of the other labels being tossed about, just like George Bush running all around calling Democrats “cut-and-run obstructionists”, “the party of cut-and-run”, the “soft on terror”, etc., etc., etc. The goal and motivation is fairly clear to see.

    Personally, what George Bush is doing is one of the more disgusting displays I’ve seen by any president in quite a long, long time. But, I understand why he’s doing it.

    George Bush is in denial, which is a psychological process in which a human protects themself by blocking their awareness of reality. Bush can’t face the reality that he is probably one of the worst 5 presidents in the history of the U.S. Bush can not admit his mistakes, and the rising number of deaths makes it even harder to face. He refuses to believe anything that makes it appear as if he made a mistake. The more evidence that comes to light, the more he will reject it, no matter how many people will have to die to prove him right. Likewise with Rumsfeld. Neither are capable of admitting massive blunders, which possibly makes them dangerous.

    George Bush and Rumsfeld display all of the symptoms of denial:

    • Simple denial of facts (such as the possibility of 600,000 or more deaths in Iraq). Refusal to believe the were no WMD. Even when none were found, Bush said there was.

    • Minimizing of the facts. Well, we’ve seen lots of that, such as Bush reporting and maintining no more than 30,000 deaths in Iraq, and downplaying the civil war, etc.

    • Rationalizing, which we’ve seen lots of too, such as “We’re better off without Saddam” (regardless of the cost), “Saddam was a threat” (despite the fact that Iraq had no WMD), “it’s hard work” (despite the contradiction with the minimalizing), “mistakes are made in all wars”, “if we could have ever imagined”, etc.

    • Intellectualizing or Generalizing, such as claiming it is a “crusade”, or the “front on the war on terror”, or “it is making us safer”, etc.

    • Blaming, such as accusing Democrats as being “cut-and-run obstructionists”, “soft on terror”, “weak on terror”, etc. (despite the fact that many Democrats supported Bush).

    • Diversion, such as “I’ve already been asked that question 5 times”, “That’s a nice suit”, “We need an amendment against Gay marraige”, etc.

    • Bargaining, such as demanding concessions from Democrats, pass this spending bill so we can complete the job in Iraq, or other back-room deals, etc.

    • Passivity, such as simply ignoring the problem, saying “it’s beyond our control”, etc.

    • Hostility, such as “I’ve already been asked that question 5 times”, “I never said Saddam was behind 9/11” (despite the many attempts to imply a connection), “they are the party of cut-and-run obstructionists” (and other similar hostile, and unjustified attacks), implying those that oppose the war in Iraq are pacifists or unpatriotic, or cowards, despite the fact that those same people supported the war against terrorists in Afghanistan and simply don’t see the logic of the diversion in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 11:07 AM
    Comment #187980

    D.A.N.-

    Interesting. But I thought the human brain only consisted of a little person wearing white and having a halo over their head, and another little person dressed in red with a pitchfork and tail. You see, these two little people represent the entirety of human existance: good and evil.

    Your theory just sounds like a bunch of liberal non-sense. You must have gone to school or something. Hell, you probably even think that you know more than me because you read books.

    Next you’ll be telling me that I descended from a monkey. Let me tell you something: my mother was no monkey! And the mere fact that you called my mother a monkey means that you are wrong about everything.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 13, 2006 1:35 PM
    Comment #187984

    d.a.n,

    ok, since in your opinion the term “pacifist” does not fit the description of someone who finds no justification in any war then what term would be suitable? when you have decided on a word suitable, go back to my post and mentally replace the word pacifist with whatever word you like. i see nothing in the word pacifist that someone would or should feel ashamed of if he really feels that there is no war that can be justified. and if he was a member of congress i would expect him to vote in accordance to that belief when the issue of war came up. but that is only my opinion.

    as for the idea that defeat= defeat of the soldiers. what of a time if the soldier was winning the war militarily but defeat was political as can easily happen? the only requirement for that is that the politicos have a perception that we are defeated but in reality we were winning.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 13, 2006 1:52 PM
    Comment #187986

    Griper-

    How do you seperate the “politicos” from the soldiers? Aren’t they on the same side? One takes oders from the other…so are they not part of the same pyramid? Aren’t they being funded from the same source? Do they not represent the same people? Are they not equally as likely to be targetted by the enemy?

    What in the world are you TRYING to say?

    And just because you have a narrow definition of “pasifist” does not make it the true meaning or even the best meaning of the word.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 13, 2006 2:27 PM
    Comment #187987

    By the way: pointing out spelling errors is anit-American.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 13, 2006 2:29 PM
    Comment #187988

    …and “anit” is latin for “anti”

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 13, 2006 2:34 PM
    Comment #188005
    Kevin23 wrote: D.A.N.- … Your theory just sounds like a bunch of liberal non-sense. You must have gone to school or something. Hell, you probably even think that you know more than me because you read books… . And the mere fact that you called my mother a monkey means that you are wrong about everything.

    Huh? Is that satire, or serious? Hard to tell sometimes.

    Griper,
    The definition of pacifist debatable, because there are degrees of everything. But, you seem to believe a pacifist is anti-war, regardless, no matter what. Whatever the meaning though, the use of the word, here, is being used by some in a negative connotation, like Bush calling people “weak on terror” if they don’t go along with him.

    The definition of pacifist is only clouding the original issue, even if the use of the word is also being used improperly, corroborated by your statement to PETRO,

    The Griper wrote:
    “thus we’d then be called a country of pacifists. this would be a situation you and I may not be pleased with”.

    But, you then write …

    The Griper wrote:
    i see nothing in the word pacifist that someone would or should feel ashamed of if he really feels that there is no war that can be justified.

    Back to the original issue, which is the comment you made, which I originally commented on.


    The Griper wrote: dissent only serves to divide a nation in groups of those who support victory and those who support defeat.

    The problem with that statement is that it is portraying dissenters as people who support defeat (of any aspect of their nation or government). That is simply incorrect, since dissenters don’t necessarily support defeat.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 5:52 PM
    Comment #188009

    D.A.N.-

    It was pure satire…sorry to scare you.

    But it does sound eerily similar to some of these posts I’m afraid.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 13, 2006 6:22 PM
    Comment #188018

    Kevin23,
    Yeah…good job…you had me goin’ there for a minute.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 6:58 PM
    Comment #188019

    Yes, scary.
    Because it’s not too dissimilar from actual posts.
    It made me wonder though, because that didn’t sound like the usual Kevin23. : )

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2006 7:00 PM
    Comment #188077

    kevin23,

    every post i wrote is consistent with each other. if you want to pick my posts apart based on definition of words rather than meaning then you are only here to argue not convince. if you want to impose your viewpoint on another rather than try to understand, fine, go ahead.

    i gave the opportunity to replace the words you didn’t approve of but you refused to accept the opportunity but decided to attack my use of the words instead.

    i do not mind defending my position on any issue i declare myself on but to spend time defending use of words is a waste of time especially when it is only a matter of absoluteness rather than applicability. neither learns anything from that.

    Posted by: The Griper at October 14, 2006 7:03 AM
    Comment #188164

    Griper-

    Don’t kid yourself. You didn’t defend your position at all, and my beef (as I’ve said over and over again) is with this idea that we can just send in the military to fight “evil” and that every soldier knows exactly what that means. This is the premise for every point you have made, and it is just flat out idiotic. I am not imposing any viewpoint in response to your rantings…I just want people like you to understand exactly what it is you are saying. And it is obvious that you haven’t the slightest clue…after all, you’d send soldiers in harms way before you could define their mission. Then you call anyone who wants to stop and figure things out a pacifist. THAT, my friend, is the definition of imposing a viewpoint.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 14, 2006 2:46 PM
    Comment #188171

    And Griper-

    Consistency is not the end-all-be-all in political banter. If you are consistently wrong and keep repeating an argument premised on a logical falacy, all the consistency in the world just assures that your “position” remains idiotic.

    Maybe it’s time for a change…time for some actual thought to go into these “positions”. I know that its easier to parrot the BS that comes from your corrupt leaders and radical right websites, but it is much more personally rewarding to learn something every now and again.

    I learn quite a bit by reading people’s comments here. And as a result, maybe my comments are not perfectly consistent. That is called being a human being who cares about their personal growth. A lack of willingness to think things through combined with a desperate need to be “consistent” is a great recipe for arrogant ignorance. One need only look at the sad state of affairs in the White House to see where that road leads.

    If you’d like to end all of this BS phychoanalysis and get on with a debate, then I’m more than happy to indulge. But don’t blame anything on words…you choose them for their meaning and their meaning alone. Trying to “replace” them is to change your mind about the meaning…thus you will not be “consistent”. So where does this lead us?

    Would you care to answer any of my counterpoints? Or would you like to keep taking personal offense and try to make me out to be some kind of bad guy for making you explain yourself when you sound off your rocker? I just want to know how the hell people like you can believe themselves to be based on any kind of logic. Thus my not letting you have a free pass to post irresponsible crap…after all, kids could be reading. What about the children? (hehe…sound familiar?)

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 14, 2006 3:07 PM
    Comment #188360

    Kevin23,

    The Griper doesn’t have a chance.
    He cleverly changed the subject from dissent to pacifists. It’s a typical “cloud the issues” tactic. Have you seem my web-page about such tactics? The demonizing of anyone who notices “no WMD”, “loss of focus on Afghanistan”, etc. is getting old. Most Americans are NOT falling for it.

    Good luck, but I don’t think your counterpoints will be addressed. The most you can hope for is more spin and rhetoric, since you are a traitor, a pacifist, a dissenter, “weak on terror”, “a cut-and-run obstructionist”, etc.

    It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 10:24 PM
    Post a comment