Democrats & Liberals Archives

Character Issues

During the recent NFL draft one of the phrases often repeatd by GM’s and coaches was “character issues.” Will he do his job? Will he sacrifice for the team and can he be held accountable for his actions?
If a guy running around with a ball should have these traits, why not our Executive branch of government?
Let’s take a look at the starting lineup.

Brown(Left Field), Wolfowitz(Left Field), Rumsfeld(Left Field), Tenet(Left Field), Gonzales(Left Field) and Libby(Left Field). It looks like the entire administration is in... you guessed it...left field(flam-tap)

What do these gentlemen have in common besides holding current or past positions in the Bush administration?
I’ll tell you.
They shouldn’t have been in the positions they had or have and they proved this by bumbling and stumbling their way into trouble when they were called upon to do their jobs.
When you think of the Bush administration there are two things that jump out at us.
Incompetence and a lack of accountability.
The incompetence is clearly evident; it seems to be a prerequisite to enter into the locker room of Bush/Cheney. The lack of accountability, was do in most part to a GOP held Congress(We'll call that bad coaching).
When George Walker Bush leaves office and heads back to civilian life, I would not recommend him for a position in say… personnel. I don't see him going into any pro-Presidential Hall of Fame either.
On a scale of 1-10 let’s rank his cronies…oops I mean appointed staff(The Team) based on competency and accountability. Thanks to Wikipedia we are able to highlight the lowlights of the Bush/Cheney failed administration. Talk about a long season.

Michael Brown:

Competency 0

Before joining the DHS/FEMA, Brown was the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001. After numerous lawsuits were filed against the organization over disciplinary actions, Brown was forced to resign.
After Bush entered office in January 2001, Brown joined FEMA as General Counsel.
President Bush formally nominated him as deputy director on March 22, 2002, and the Senate confirmed him many months later. Soon thereafter Allbaugh left government and President Bush nominated Brown again in January 2003 for the directorship[12]. Brown was sworn in to his position on April 15, 2003.
Before that, shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Brown served on the Consequence Management Principals' Committee, which acted as the White House's policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, Bush asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan. In August 2002, Bush appointed him to the Transition Planning Office for the new Department of Homeland Security, serving as the transition leader for the EP&R Division. As undersecretary, Brown also directed the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Integration Center, the National Disaster Medical System and the Nuclear Incident Response Team.
On August 31, 2005, following Hurricane Katrina being named an "Incident of National Significance," Brown was named the Principal Federal Official and placed in charge of the federal government's response by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. On September 7, 2005, Coast Guard Chief of Staff Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen was named Brown's deputy and given operational control of search-and-rescue and recovery efforts.
On September 9, 2005, Chertoff relieved Brown of all on-site relief duties along the Gulf Coast, officially replacing him with Allen. Brown remained Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Brown told the Associated Press that "the press" was making him a scapegoat for the allegedly slow federal response to the hurricane.
“Heck of a job Browmie!”
Accountability 0

Paul Wolfowitz:

Competency ½

According to Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2006), by Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, in which they detail the behind-the-scenes decision-making that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, during the initial months of the Bush Administration and prior to the September 11th attacks, "Wolfowitz sought to enlist the Joint Staff's support to develop a strategy for aiding an anti-Saddam resistance.
Wolfowitz later explained: "9/11 really was a wake up call and that if we take proper advantage of this opportunity to prevent the future terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction that it will have been an extremely valuable wake up call.”
In the first emergency meeting of the U.S. National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily - it was doable," and, according to Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case." The idea was initially rejected, mainly at the behest of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front – against Saddam. Powell was excluded." Out of this came the creation of what would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption" and American unilateralism, as well as the war on Iraq which the PNAC advocated in their earlier letters but first there was Afghanistan to deal with.
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001 and victory was declared on March 6, 2002. Shortly after the start of this conflict Wolfowitz demonstrated his belief in American unilateralism when on October 10 George Robertson, then Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, went to The Pentagon to offer NATO troops, planes and ships to assist Wolfowitz rebuffed the offer saying, "We can do everything we need to." Wolfowitz would later go on to publicly announce, according to Kampfner, "that 'allies, coalitions and diplomacy' were of little immediate concern."
Wolfowitz had a plan to sell the war to the more skeptical members of the administration as well as the general public as he later clarified "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." [24][25]
The job of finding these WMD and providing justification for the attack would fall to the intelligence services, but, according to Kampfner, as cited by Hersh, "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believed that while the established security services had a role, they were too bureaucratic and too traditional in their thinking." As a result, borrowing an idea from their old Team B days, "they set up what came to be known as the 'cabal', a cell of eight or nine analysts in a new Office of Special Plans (OSP) based in the U.S. Defense Department." According to a Pentagon source also quoted by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker the OSP "was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States."
In January 2005, Wolfowitz was nominated to be president of the World Bank.
How is giving your girlfriend a high paying job loaded with perks a conflict of interest?

Accountability 0


Donald Rumsfeld:

Competency -1

During his period as Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East (November 1983 – May 1984), Rumsfeld was the main conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein, then fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
Rumsfeld was a founder and active member of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank dedicated to overthrowing Saddam Hussein with military force. He co-signed a January 29, 1998 PNAC letter calling for President Bill Clinton to implement "regime change" in Iraq
Rumsfeld was named Defense Secretary soon after President George W. Bush took office in 2001.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld led the military planning and execution of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld pushed hard to send as small a force as possible to both conflicts, a concept codified as the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
Rumsfeld's plan resulted in a lightning invasion that took Baghdad in well under a month with very few American casualties.
We all know how well that’s going." I guess you go to war with the Defense Secretary you have. He’s not the Secretary you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Accountability 0


George Tenet:

Competency ½

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured the President that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case" After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context. (Tenet indicated that the comment was made pursuant to a discussion about how to convince the American people to support invading Iraq, and that, in his opinion, the best way to convince the people would be by explaining the dangers posed by Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." i.e., the public relations sale of the war via the WMD, according to Tenet, would be a "slam dunk."
The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces has proved unproductive and no stockpiles of WMD were found following the occupation of the country. The case of the invading governments for a legitimate war against Iraq had been based largely on the threat of WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein, supposedly on the strength of reliable intelligence assessments, including evidence that could not itself be made public. Thus a failure subsequently to find any banned weapons or programs became a considerable embarrassment for Tenet and the CIA.
President George W. Bush voiced support for Tenet's efforts, stating, "George Tenet did a superb job for America. It was a high honor to work with him, and I'm sorry he left."
If you want to hear all about Tenet not being Tenet and that it was not him seen behind Colin Powell while Powell whored himself for Bush and country in front of the U.N. or if you’d like to read about redefining terms like “slam-dunk”, by all means buy his book.

Accountability 0


Luis “Scooter” Libby:

Competency 1

senior White House official who was convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair. Libby's lawyers announced that he would seek a new trial, and, if that attempt fails, they will appeal Libby's conviction. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "said he didn't expect anyone else to be charged in the case. He noted also that he had been unable to formulate charges against anyone else in the CIA leak grand jury investigation because of the obstruction of justice by Libby. Before being indicted, he was the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, assistant to the Vice President for national security affairs, and an assistant to President George W. Bush, from 2001 to 2005. Libby is "the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Libby was indicted on five felony counts (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury) by a U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel as part of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, a federal inquiry "into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity," a possible violation of criminal statutes, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 793. Libby was not charged with violating those particular statutes. He resigned his government position on the same day that he was indicted.
Libby's criminal trial, United States v. Libby, began on January 16, 2007. On March 6, 2007, Libby was found guilty on four of the five counts with which he was charged: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators. Libby's lawyers announced that he would seek a new trial, and, if that attempt fails, they will appeal Libby's conviction.
The sequel “Scooter II The Pardon” will be in theatres soon.

Accountability 6

Alberto Gonzalez:

Competency -4

current Attorney General of the United States. Gonzales was appointed to the post in February 2005 by President George W. Bush. While Bush was Governor of Texas, Gonzales had served as his general counsel (1994-1997). Subsequently he served as Secretary of State of Texas (1997-1999) and then on the Texas Supreme Court (1999-2000). From 2001 to 2005, Gonzales served in the Bush Administration as White House Counsel.
(Apparently he still thinks he does)
Under Gonzales's leadership the Justice Department and the FBI have been accused of improperly, and, perhaps illegally, using the USA PATRIOT Act to uncover personal information about U.S. citizens.[2] His role in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys has led several members of Congress to call for his resignation.
The Executive Order 13233, drafted by Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001 shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, attempted to place limitations on the Freedom of Information Act by restricting access to the records of former presidents.
Gonzales authored a controversial memo in January of 2002 that explored whether Article III of the Geneva Convention even applied to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in detention facilities around the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The memo made several arguments both for and against providing Article III protection to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He concluded that Article III was outdated and ill-suited for dealing with captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He described as "quaint" the provisions that require providing captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". He also argued that existing military regulations and instructions from the President were more than adequate to ensure that the principles of the Geneva Convention would be applied. He also argued that undefined language in the Geneva Convention, such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment", could make officials and military leaders subject to the War Crimes Act of 1996 if mistreatment was discovered.
In 2004, when this memo was leaked to the press, Gonzales said about the memo in Senate confirmation hearings that "... I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department."
Gonzales also authored the Presidential Order which authorized the use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects. He fought with Congress to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy task force documents from being reviewed. Gonzales was also an early advocate of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. He is also accused of being involved in the decision to allow foreign combatants in U.S. custody to be deported to nations that allow torture, in order to extract further information from them; he denies that he has ever supported this measure.
On June 23, 2006 Gonzales, along with Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole gave a high level press briefing involving the Miami bomb plot to attack the Sears Tower.
On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany for his alleged involvement under the command responsibility of prisoner abuse by writing the controversial legal opinions.
On December 7 2006, eight United States Attorneys were notified by the United States Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the George W. Bush administration made the determination to seek their resignations. Although the Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, critics have claimed the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party ("loyal Bushies", in the words of D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s former chief of staff) or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party.
Bush Administration Trivia:
“I know nothing” is a quote from Sergeant Shultz( 60’s show Hogan’s Heroes) or oft used response from Alberto Gonzales when questioned by Congress?

Accountability ?

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at May 11, 2007 1:41 PM
Comments
Comment #220100

WOW - I love it!!

I wish you had put the Head Coach and Manager’s credentials in there also. It’s always enjoyable to read about George’s failures and Dick’s profiteering.

Posted by: bandman at May 11, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #220105

Yeah, Bandman, just can’t get enough of reading about the failures of Bush; makes it easier to remember the talking points, I guess.

What’s truly “enjoyable” is the fact that Chenney was (absolutely) correct; our (true) enemies see Iraq pullout out as a Victory. Nice going liberals!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 11, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #220110


True Character Issues

and Again

Posted by: Kirk at May 11, 2007 7:23 PM
Comment #220113

And your point .. most of these people said that they were wrong and that it was a mistake. Have the reps said anything to the people that just maybe they were wrong . No they have not. And anwar still has only six months of oil did you know that if cafe ratings are raised to 41 mpg the U.S. would not need any oil from the middle east.

Posted by: Jeff at May 11, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #220115

My point is that these people were all for it when it was politically expedient to do so. As soon as it looks like they can gain more political capital by opposing it they cut and run.

Like it or not the president is the only one on that video who has the courage to follow through with his convictions and see the job completed.

Posted by: Kirk at May 11, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #220116
And anwar still has only six months of oil

Wow, so you are THE Preminent Geologist who knows more than the US Geological Survey? How many times have you been to ANWAR with your geophones and conducted Seismic testing?

Posted by: Kirk at May 11, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #220121

Andre
It’s nice to see a few people that can not be dis-swayed from the fact that our Country has been
the victim of the greatest scam ever pulled, an
even worse, we are inundated by a great many people
trying to convince the rest of us that the great lies being told, are a mistake, but are ready and
willing to continue defending an promote that same
great lie. Talk about moral character, I see very
little of that these days! CHARACTER

Posted by: DAVID at May 11, 2007 9:24 PM
Comment #220127

ANDRE = Excellent Post


———————————————————————————-

Posted by: DAVID at May 11, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #220128
our Country has been the victim of the greatest scam ever pulled

David,

You are 100% correct there. The scam of the old bait and switch, stick your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing liberal vote.

Kerry summed up the position of the left very well when he said “I was for it before I was against it”.

Libs with an assist from mainstream media try to deny or shove under the rug the fact that they all made the statements concerning the dangers posed by Iraq and its WMD. Then when faced with the video they like Jeff try to excuse it by saying I was wrong then or I was misled then but NOW I am on the right side of the issue.

If that were true, IF they were wrong then and made that colossal a blunder when they voted for the “joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” why do any of them have a job now. Why do any of them have a shred of credability with the left voters?

If someone in Corporate America made such an egregous error in judgement they would be on the street in a heartbeat. So why not the politicians?

The reason is that they were not wrong then, they absolutely did the right thing to vote for the resolution. They have now stuck their fical finger into the air, felt the changing winds of opinion of our instant gratification society and once again done a reactionary 180. Our society has come to expect every thing in an instant, instant pudding, microwave popcorn, e-mail, video on demand etc. Unfortunately they don’t understand that the war on terror can’t be microwaved and the libs seeing their oppotunity to pounce, jump on the band wagon with their surrender demands.


Posted by: Kirk at May 11, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #220131

I believe the Maine question would be, why not have a Global initiative fighting terrorism? For
All the right reasons without all the rhetoric.

Posted by: DAVID at May 12, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #220139

Andre,

The AG’s name is Alberto Gonzales, not Roberto Gonzalez.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 12, 2007 7:33 AM
Comment #220140

“You get the government you vote for” so shut up.
Oh I’m sorry, Bush didn’t win the popular vote did he?
Let me rephrase, “you get what you allow the government
you voted for to turn into.”

The White House doesn’t have revolving doors for a simple reason.
Nobody there knows how to operate one.

Posted by: Robert Burns at May 12, 2007 7:47 AM
Comment #220146

Kirk-
I think the American people are more than willing, more than able to defend themselves and to protect this country.

They just don’t want to do it your way. You consider that not defending themselves, not protecting this country. That, though, is merely your opinion.

The Right can be so elitist on the matter, so unwilling to acknowledge that people want to help, and that as a Democracy, the strategies that will work best are the ones with broad public support.

But still, the Republicans have to have things their way. That’s what’s killed your party’s chances.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #220151

“our (true) enemies see Iraq pullout out as a Victory.”

You far-fringe righties need to GET REAL in the worst way! Anyone with a lick of sense can see that our true enemies: AL QAEDA (rather than Iraqi nationals intent on sectarian violence, civil war, and driving the American occupation out of their country), know that the entire four year long Iraq debacle has been an enormous victory for them.

“cut and run.”

After four years, during which we’ve seen 3393 US soldiers killed, and 25,242 wounded, and spent 425,000,000,000 (and counting) dollars in Iraq, how bloody dense and disconnected from reality would our people need to be to call withdrawing from the worst foreign policy disaster in the entire history of this country “cut and run”?
Seriously, there must be something gravely wrong with those who want “stay and die for nothing” or “stay and spend ourselves into total ruin.”

If I may paraphrase Mr. -1 Competency: Rummy, our greatest problem seems to be that we went to war in the wrong country with the blithering, incompetent idiots we’ve got, not the intelligent and wise leadership we desperately need.

Andre, nicely done. If you had continued with this list of (in)competence tallying of the people within Bush Administration (including Bush and Cheney), no doubt your post would have become unmanageably long.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 12, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #220156

Adrienne,

If I needed to know how to prep a canvas, or mix a series of colors to reach a certain hue, I would take your advice without question. In military tactics however, your comments show your lack of experience.

Posted by: tomd at May 12, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #220159

tomd,
If you want to take my advice on the topic of art alone, that’s fine. If you want to dismiss the rest of what I write, that’s also fine. From my own perspective, if I wanted to craft the comments of a rightwing troll, and bring nothing but flamebait to any discussion topic in this blog, I might choose to follow your example. However, I am absolutely certain I won’t.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 12, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #220164

Adrienne,

Wow! Such venom.
I considered the first part of my comment as a sincere compliment. I caught your comment where you compared techniques to prepare to do a painting to what someone like me would do It made sense.
I questioned your experience in military tactics, but perhaps I was wrong.

Posted by: tomd at May 12, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #220166
these people were all for it when it was politically expedient to do so. As soon as it looks like they can gain more political capital by opposing it they cut and run.
This kind of jingoistic crap has got to stop.

First, if you go back and read what many members of Congress said at the time of the vote to authorize the use of force, it was that the “vote for the war” was no such thing. It was a vote to authorize the President to use force, in the hope that a show of solidarity would lead to a diplomatic solution. We know now that the Bush League had no desire (and/or no ability) to use diplomacy at all. But screaming “they voted for the war” is at best misleading, and at worst a deliberate lie.

Second, a diplomatic solution is not the same thing as “waving the white flag” or “cut and run”. That’s just an absurd statement. Every major war - every one - has ended with some kind of a formal, diplomatically-negotiated treaty. If you don’t believe in diplomacy, then the ONLY other possible resolution to this conflict is to kill every single one of our enemies. And their children. And their children’s children. Forever.

Down that path lie such great and glorious “victories” as Pol Pot’s killing fields, Josef Stalin’s gulags, Mao Tse Tung’s cultural revolution, and Adolf Hitler’s ultimate solution.

That way lies madness. It’s antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for. And there is only one possible name for people who think that is an acceptable solution:

Warmonger.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 12, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #220173

ElliottBay,

I’m pretty sure you went to a government school, but even they know that voting to authorize the President to use force is the same thing as voting to authorize the war.

“Second, a diplomatic solution is not the same thing as “waving the white flag” or “cut and run”.”

Deplomacy is usually used DURING the fighting with the enemy secure in the knowledge that you will fight to the finish.

“Every major war - every one - has ended with some kind of a formal, diplomatically-negotiated treaty.”

Yes It’s called a surrender.

“If you don’t believe in diplomacy, then the ONLY other possible resolution to this conflict is to kill every single one of our enemies. And their children. And their children’s children. Forever.”

I like deplomacy. Set up a meeting with OBL for me. Terrorists don’t exactly have a State Department.

Posted by: tomd at May 12, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #220174

tomd:
“Wow! Such venom.”

No, I’m just not shy about issuing tat whenever a flamebaiting tit is shoved in my face.

“I considered the first part of my comment as a sincere compliment.”

Sure you did.

“I questioned your experience in military tactics, but perhaps I was wrong.”

No tomd, what you were actually doing was attempting to insult me by questioning my intelligence with your remark. Tell me, do you question the military experience of all the generals who are currently, or who have already called Iraq a complete disaster that is destroying our military? The latest of these happens to be Major General John Batiste who retired from the army early in order to be able to say what he really thinks of the president and the war after serving as the Commanding General of the First Infantry Division in Iraq.
Here is an ad he just made for a group called VoteVets.org. Incidentally, he was just fired by CBS (where he has been working as a consultant since his retirement) for making this ad. You might also want to listen to what he had to say when he appeared on Countdown.

PS. I attended Princeton University on a scholarship (while I am an artist, my major wasn’t in Fine Art), but an Ivy League education isn’t necessary to be able to grasp the idiocy of our invading Iraq, or the totally incompetent way the war has been waged, or the insane expense to both our soldiers lives, and limbs, and to our nations great economic detriment.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 12, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #220175

I have no idea how many times I’ve posted these words, but here we go again…alQaida trembles in its collective shoes that we will actually pull out of Iraq. They currently have the best training ground they could possibly have, the best recruiting territory in the world and a chance to kill some Americans to boot. What more could they want than for us to spend our way into oblivian, so that we can’t afford to protect our borders or ports? Pulling out is WINNING!!!!!

Posted by: Marysdude at May 12, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #220185

“No, I’m just not shy about issuing tat whenever a flamebaiting tit is shoved in my face.

“I considered the first part of my comment as a sincere compliment.”

I honestly did.

“Sure you did.”

OK…No more compliments. I didn’t mean to feed your paranoia.


“I questioned your experience in military tactics, but perhaps I was wrong.”

“No tomd, what you were actually doing was attempting to insult me by questioning my intelligence with your remark.”

No Adrienne,
I was actually questioning the tactic of telling our enemy when we are leaving. I led nine men in combat in VietNam. I was there when Honoi Jane sat on the anti-aircraft gun in Honoi. I understand fully how it feels to watch your friends die while politicians and people at home are dissing you. Any boost in the enemy’s morale presents a greater challange and hazard for our troops. Giving the enemy our withdrawal schedule is absolutely BAD military tactic.

“Tell me, do you question the military experience of all the generals who are currently, or who have already called Iraq a complete disaster that is destroying our military? The latest of these happens to be Major General John Batiste who retired from the army early in order to be able to say what he really thinks of the president and the war after serving as the Commanding General of the First Infantry Division in Iraq.
Here is an ad he just made for a group called VoteVets.org. Incidentally, he was just fired by CBS (where he has been working as a consultant since his retirement) for making this ad. You might also want to listen to what he had to say when he appeared on Countdown.”

No, I don’t question their experience. I don’t agree with them. I instead agree with the 90%+ of the other generals and the troops on the ground. A great place to get the troops own view is their own blog at www.milblog.com.

“PS. I attended Princeton University on a scholarship (while I am an artist, my major wasn’t in Fine Art)”

Congratulations…WAIT! Scratch that. I promised no more compliments.

“but an Ivy League education isn’t necessary to be able to grasp the idiocy of our invading Iraq, or the totally incompetent way the war has been waged, or the insane expense to both our soldiers lives, and limbs, and to our nations great economic detriment.”

I haven’t mentioned your education and don’t really care if it’s from a community college or Harvard, nor how it was paid for. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I. I just happen to be a little more experienced than you in military matters. I’m NOT TRYING to be offensive, just honest.

Posted by: tomd at May 12, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #220194

“Will he do his job? Will he sacrifice for the team and can he be held accountable for his actions?”

This can not only be asked of the exaulted jock class but of the American working class as well, who pay the freight for these bread-and-circuses gladiators society geneflects towards.

Will the worker do monotonous, mind-numbing, soul-stealing work for slave wages, and still be a good soldier—in other words, shut up?

Will the worker take the fall for corporate greed, bad and corrupt business dealings, and sheer incompetence? Without health insurance? Pensions? What’s that?

Most of all, will the worker be accountable for a failing, inhuman, ruthless economic system that rewards the very few while penalizing the many? Will he assume the blame for not attending night school and working two and three jobs so little Jimmy can go to junior college and be a bus mechanic (at half the wages his union grandfather worked for), and jumping through all sorts of guilt trips the business class will lay on him, (after all, it’s his own fault for being stupid). Will he be polite and respectful to any corporate raider who decides to piss on him, then ship his job to Indonesia, paying real slaves pennies on the dollar, and calling it “The Invisible Hand”, like it’s God or something and just as inevitable as the sun coming up every morning? Yes? Your hired—right after you sign this form which waives your right to sue us for anything, and you pee in this cup, proving you’re innocent.

The American worker just got a devastating knee injury from a crappily maintained field, and the ‘coach’ just put in the second string temp worker—flown in from Malaysia

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 12, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #220200
After four years, during which we’ve seen 3393 US soldiers killed, and 25,242 wounded, and spent 425,000,000,000 (and counting) dollars in Iraq, how bloody dense and disconnected from reality would our people need to be to call withdrawing from the worst foreign policy disaster in the entire history of this country “cut and run”? Seriously, there must be something gravely wrong with those who want “stay and die for nothing” or “stay and spend ourselves into total ruin.”

Adrienne,

This foreign policy is being carried out to make up for the near total lack of response to the repeated attacks on the US during the previous administration. You see, just like on the school yard, as long as you let a bully push you around their bullying just continues to increase in intensity. Our policy had displayed all too often that US service members or citizens could be slaughtered with more than a cruise missle or two lobbed in your general direction. Thank God we finally have a Commander in Chief with the fortitude of his convictions to fight back.

Stay and die for nothing? you have almost reached Reid depths with that one. What an insult to the brave young men and women who volunteer to serve in our military both new recruits and those who choose to reenlist. Both at rates higher than the targets set by the military.
Enlistment / Retention

Spend our selves into total ruin? Are you serious with that statement or just relying on the fact that 99% of people in the US will not take the time to do the research to prove your statement wrong? You see, even using the number that you state of $425,000,000,000 that is less than 4 percent of the Federal Expenditures over the same period. Let me repeat that less than 4 percent. Far from spending our selves into total ruin.

Posted by: Kirk at May 13, 2007 12:41 AM
Comment #220208

All WB Writers: Hey I delete my email bank every semester as I have a student email account. So I don’t know the email to email the writers string. Moreover it hasn’t let me log in to Movable Publishing Format for over three days please someone email David or someone so I can know whats going on.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 13, 2007 3:24 AM
Comment #220210

True GW hasn’t been perfect but he didn’t sell the country’s military secrets out to china like say slick willy . he has the courage to fight terror and not cut and run unlike 90 out of 100 Dems . And cosidering who could have been in office Gore or Kerry we should all be grateful for GW

Posted by: Steve Boucher at May 13, 2007 8:10 AM
Comment #220216

Steve- I believe seventy two percent of most polls
disagree with your assessments.

Posted by: DAVID at May 13, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #220236

Myself i have a problem with governing by the poll numbers…..

yes a majority of the citizens want us out of iraq

BUT…

also a majority of Americans want the borders closed

A majority of Americans are against gay marriage

A majority of Americans are also against all forms of abortion (small majority but a majority nontheless)

Why does this issue have anythign to do with what the American public wants all of a sudden when they are not listened to on anything else?

Posted by: RHancheck at May 13, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #220244

I am afraid your problem with poll numbers, may be
a mute point. As we have seen, the polls do an will
most likely determine job security, for the next major election, I would suggest that politicians pay
close attention to them because not too, may be
at their own peril.

Posted by: DAVID at May 13, 2007 8:10 PM
Comment #220270

Kirk, Tomd, Steve,

The invasion of Iraq has done what(positive) for Amerca?

I look forward to your responses.

Slick Willy? Parroting Rush Limbaugh makes you sound desperate. Blaming Clinton for the misguided, corrupt and poorly managed “war on terror” is one of the most pathetic and sad ways the GOP-Bush apologists defend this idiot of a President.

Tomd,
One of the last people you want to argue with would be Adrienne. She is well informed, articulate and tenacious.
You are a Bush apologist and that gives you very little to work with given the level of incompetency this administration has repeatedly demonstrated.

The Democrats voted for the war too. That’s your argument.
That’s how you defend the, arguably, worst administration in U.S. history?
Wow.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 14, 2007 8:36 AM
Comment #220272

Andre, thanks very much for your kind words.

Tomd:
“paranoia.”

Rather than addressing what I had written in my first post, you immediately snipered it with a personal attack by questioning whether I can be taken seriously when I make comments about this war. It’s funny how you righties do this when most of us on the left have had enough sense to listen to what the military generals have been saying during the course of this war. Meanwhile, your idiot president (who also has no experience in war), choose to ignore the advice of his generals, has racked up an enormous pricetag in blood and spending, and has failed at every single objective he supposedly set out with when we pre-emptively and illegally invaded Iraq.

Kirk:
“Spend our selves into total ruin? Are you serious with that statement”

Yeah, I’m serious with that statement. Just like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was serious with this statement on ABC’s ‘This Week’back in March:


this mindless kind of banter about, well, if we leave, the whole place falls apart; we can’t leave; we can’t even think about leaving. Wait a minute: You just showed on your screen the cost to the American people of the last three years.
It’s helping bankrupt this country, by the way. We didn’t think about any of that and not just the high cost of lives and the continuation of that but our standing in the world.
And I would define it this way. Are we better off today than we were three years ago? Is the Middle East more stable than it was three years ago? Absolutely not. It’s more unstable.


And just like super fiscally conservative Republican Ron Paul was serious with this statement made before the House of Representatives:

In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.”

Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.

The problem with a large segment on the right is that you clearly aren’t even listening to the intelligent fiscal conservatives within your own party. You’re just going mindlessly along with the dumb-ass Neocons and swallowing every scrap of their moronic propaganda whole. Not only does this make the Bush apologists look like complete fools, it is in fact destroying the Republican party, and royally f*%king up this country for many, many years to come.

Please, wrap your minds around this fact: The moron who said that Social Security was in such crisis that it can’t be saved is the same moron who lied us into this Iraq debacle — spending TEN TIMES more than what he told us the war would cost four years ago — the very money that could have funded Social Security for decades until the Baby Boomer hump was well passed. Now that you’ve considered that, you might also want to do a bit more reading:

From the Christian Science Monitor:
Are Iraq War Costs Spinning Out of Control?

From McClatchy:
Price tag for war in Iraq on track to top $500 billion

Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #220282

Adrienne,

“You far-fringe righties need to GET REAL in the worst way! Anyone with a lick of sense can see that our true enemies: AL QAEDA (rather than Iraqi nationals intent on sectarian violence, civil war, and driving the American occupation out of their country), know that the entire four year long Iraq debacle has been an enormous victory for them.”

That’s not what Al Qaeda is saying: Qaeda’s Zawahri says Iraq bill shows U.S. defeat.

“Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri said a U.S. congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was proof of Washington’s defeat.”


In fact, he sounds more like democrats and anti-Bush nuts than he does the “far-fringe righties”, take a look at some of the quotes and tell me who he sounds like:

“The ones who have stirred up strife in Iraq are those who today are begging the Americans not to leave”

“mocked Bush for saying that a U.S.-backed security plan for Baghdad was showing signs of success.”

“The success is only for his pocket and Halliburton”

Posted by: rahdigly at May 14, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #220285

Why would any one believe what Al Qaeda spins ?
I believe I would rather see a POLL as to what the
Iraqi people want for their own Country! I can’t
understand how an American could possibly speak to
their wants, an needs??

Posted by: DAVID at May 14, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #220287

rah,
Who gives a flying crap what Al Qaeda says? According to them everything we could possibly have done would be proof of our defeat and would be right in keeping with their grand plans to destroy this country. Even if we’d managed to kill Bin Laden along with every single one of his top henchmen (instead of “not being all that concerned about him”), this would also have been claimed as a enormous victory, since it would have inflamed their hatred, bolstered their intent, and grown their ranks for jihad.
Why can’t you Bush apologists manage to scrape together enough sense to finally see the bullshit games these terrorists play with every single comment they make? Not only are you giving them the power to constantly intimidate and terrorize you, but you are cheering on your moron president as he catastrophically f**ks up our country from one end to the other, breaks our army, and drives us straight into bankruptcy.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #220288

rhadigly

it seems from reading this article that Zawahiri would actually rather we stay in Iraq.

“We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed…”

Don’t you see that by having us in Iraq it makes it that much easier for them to kill Americans. Leave, they don’t want us to ever leave.

Posted by: Tony CO at May 14, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #220291

Rahdigly,

Desperate times requires desperate spin.

If we stay we get our soldiers killed. If we leave they fight each other and we keep our military here to protect U.S. citizens.
The GOP want you to think the terrorists will swim here w/WMD strapped to their asses and kill you. They want you to think that without our military in Iraq things will fall apart. I have a secret I’d like to share with you Rahdigly…It’s already fallen apart over there!

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 14, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #220296

David, Adrienne, Tony and Andre,

You’re not paying attention to what the (true) enemy is saying; we (certainly) should be concerned to what our (true) enemy is saying, in order for us to defeat them. They sound very similar to the dems and the anti-Bushies with those quotes. And, I’m glad they want to fight us there; they know they can’t beat the US straight up. That’s why their strategy is to stir up anti-American hatred with the media and anti-war/Bush crowds and have them urge for “pullout”; just like we did in other wars and conflicts, including Vietnam. Al Qaeda has mentioned that before; yet, since some of you don’t care for what they say, you wouldn’t know that.

Osama Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda Intends To Launch “A Media Campaign … To Create A Wedge Between The American People And Their Government.” (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)


Ayman al-Zawahiri: “There Is No Hope In Victory.” ZAWAHIRI: “This is the fumbling that precedes the defeat. Bush and Blair are hiding the true disaster they are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet.” (Al-Qaeda’s Al-Zawahiri Predicts Failure of US ‘Crusade’ Against Muslim States, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/7/05)

“Osama Bin Laden: America’s “Combat Strategy Is Heavily Dependent On The Psychological Aspect Of War… Which Hides The Cowardice And Lack Of Fighting Spirit Of The American Soldier.” BIN LADEN: “It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy’s combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war due to its large and efficient media apparatus and of course its indiscriminate aerial bombing which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier.”(Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)


Adrienne, you say: “Anyone with a lick of sense can see that our true enemies: AL QAEDA (rather than Iraqi nationals intent on sectarian violence, civil war, and driving the American occupation out of their country), know that the entire four year long Iraq debacle has been an enormous victory for them”. Yet, I just listed an article that has Al Qaeda’s #2 (Not Iraqi nationals) claiming victory from an US pullout in Iraq (IRAQ; not Afghanistan!!); the same (pullout) strategy the dems and anti-Bushies have been championing for years. Now, when I cite this source, you say “Who gives a flying crap what Al Qaeda says?” Oh, ok. The United States military cares what they say, that’s who! All the US military’s supporters care, as well.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 14, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #220299

rahdigly

understand that al qaeda is like the Iraq information minister Tariq Azziz — meaning you don’t take anything they say publicly as legitimate.

Posted by: Tony CO at May 14, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #220301

rah:
“You’re not paying attention to what the (true) enemy is saying; we (certainly) should be concerned to what our (true) enemy is saying, in order for us to defeat them.”

Right, I never pay any attention to what they say, because according to them, everything is a victory that they fully intended, which I know is nothing but bullshit. You quoting them at length as if this bullshit should be taken credibly and seriously, is actually a victory for them. In order to defeat terrorism, we must only study what they DO and how they opperate. NEVER listen to what they say.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #220302

Tony & Adrienne,

Oh, so now you guys don’t care about what the enemy says?! Yet, when Bush says he’s “not that concerned about him (Bin Laden)”, you use it against him and say that’s why we are losing the war. Pathetic! You’re going to have do better than ignore what the enemy says; remember, it was that same ignoring that led to the build up of 9/11. Anyone remember that event?!!

Also, I noticed none of you (Adrienne in particular) haven’t even bothered to address the fact that Al Qaeda’s leader (not the Iraqi National’s) has stated that the Iraqi bill “shows US defeat” in Iraq; the same bill the dems and anti-Bushies have been championing for years. Anyone want to step up and defend the enemy (I mean the Democrats) on this one?!! :-)

If you do, then maybe you can answer why the dems sound similar to what the Al Qaeda is saying and about Iraq and Bush.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 14, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #220311

rah:
“Oh, so now you guys don’t care about what the enemy says?!”

Right, you won’t ever see me quoting Al Qaeda. Like I said: I believe we should only care about what they do, and how they operate.

“Yet, when Bush says he’s “not that concerned about him (Bin Laden)”, you use it against him and say that’s why we are losing the war.”

Yes, because how bloody stupid does a US president have to be to say he’s “not all that concerned” with the mastermind of 9/11? To not do anything but oil up his chainsaw for another round of brush-cutting during one of his many Texas vacations, rather take a few preventative measures after receiving an intelligence memo that said: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”?

“Pathetic!”

Indeed, our president is pathetic.

“You’re going to have do better than ignore what the enemy says;”

My Pet Goat. You Bushco apologists need to start doing better than acting like chickens with your heads cut off every time the terrorists issue another BS grandiose public statement about how everything we could do will be a victory for them.

“remember, it was that same ignoring that led to the build up of 9/11. Anyone remember that event?!!”

How could any of us forget that Bushco ignored all of the warnings that Clinton and Richard Clarke issued regarding Al Qaeda when he took office? Seems as though only two things could have brought that on. Either total stupidity, or an overriding desire for new Pearl Harbor so he could fight the war his cronies had long been hoping and planning for.

“Also, I noticed none of you (Adrienne in particular) haven’t even bothered to address the fact that Al Qaeda’s leader (not the Iraqi National’s) has stated that the Iraqi bill “shows US defeat” in Iraq;”

And I notice that all you’re doing is listen to Bushco’s fearmongering, and Al Qaeda’s leaders when they talk about how everything is a “US defeat” and yet another “victory” for them. Me, I’d much rather listen to what the miltary generals, and intelligent members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have been saying.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #220312

rah

well if al qaeda says we are conceding defeat in iraq then we better stay, wouldn’t want them to claim victory would we. you’re missing the point, you can’t listen to what they say.

on bin laden… not caring about what they say is a whole different ball of wax than not being concerned with the main perpetrator of 9/11. i really don’t understand how at this point in time you can still be such a big bush fan — are you not reading and seeing the realities. oh right, anything that is negative towards Bush and his policy must be liberal spin.

Posted by: Tony CO at May 14, 2007 5:32 PM
Comment #220316

so are these generals that are speaking out pathetic?

http://www.votevets.org/

Posted by: Ton CO at May 14, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #220329
“well if al qaeda says we are conceding defeat in iraq then we better stay, wouldn’t want them to claim victory would we.”

Exactly! We (definetly) wouldn’t want them to “claim victory”!!!! Being “played” by their very own strategy will (indeed) allow them to achieve victory; our military (and their supporters) don’t want that. Do you?!

“Me, I’d much rather listen to what the miltary generals, and intelligent members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have been saying.”

Excellent, it’s about time; great to have you aboard. Here’s what General Petreaus said recently: DoD News Briefing with Gen. Petraeus from the Pentagon.

Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq. There have been some significant successes in this arena as well, including the detentions — detention of the heads of the Sadr secret cell network, the Iraqi leader of an explosively formed projectile network from Iran, the former deputy minister of Health and his facility protection security force brigadier, who had effectively hijacked the Ministry of Health, and a national police officer accused of torture, with several of these detained by Iraqi forces. Sunni insurgents and the so-called Sunni resistance are still forces that must be reckoned with, as well. However, while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening. We will continue to engage with Sunni tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders to support the newfound opposition of some to al Qaeda, ensuring that their fighters join legitimate Iraqi security force elements to become part of the fight against extremists, just as we reach out to moderate members of all sects and ethnic groups to try to drive a wedge between the irreconcilables and the reconcilables, and help the latter become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.


Now, do you agree with the General in charge in Iraq, or do you just agree with the Generals that disagree?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 14, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment #220345

Is your Hour Glass Half full or Half empty??!

Posted by: DAVID at May 14, 2007 9:19 PM
Comment #220362

rah,

Do we listen to a General who makes a statement from the high perch, in a lost cause, or from a long list of generals who no longer feel the need to carry on the farce?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 14, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #220401

rah,
I’ll second what Marysdude said.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 15, 2007 10:00 AM
Comment #220422

Mary & Adrienne,

I go with the Commander in Charge of Iraq, who is in Iraq. He’s getting the intel from the troops (both Iraqi and US) fighting the (true) enemy and he’s getting the real news from the Iraqi gov’t along with the Iraqi people; and all they need from us is a little support. Yet, that’s asking too much now isn’t it?! That would mean some of you would (actually) have to get off your (selfish) anti-war/Bush bashing and support the mission.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 15, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #220485

rah,

I will not challenge the aptitude of your august commander to develope the Iraq stupidity into something constructive. Although, his predecessors have failed, big time. But something constructive falls way short of any goal so far mentioned, far short of any strategy for a democratic Iraq, and far short of military ‘victory’. That being the case, wouldn’t it just make more sense to bring our troops home, let them rebuild our National Guard, help us protect our borders and ports? Can you not see that our United States is more vulnerable without enough military/guard on the home front on this ‘war on terror’?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 15, 2007 11:39 PM
Comment #220516
“wouldn’t it just make more sense to bring our troops home, let them rebuild our National Guard, help us protect our borders and ports?”


No. I don’t think bringing our troops home will make sense; I believe it would be devestating to our troops and the Iraqis . Others believe that it would be devestating, as well. Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results

Here’s what some of our soldiers said:

-“Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes”

-“It’s still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave.”

-“Take us out of that vacuum—and it’s on the edge now—and boom, it would become a free-for-all,”

-“This is a worthwhile endeavor, nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed.”

Posted by: rahdigly at May 16, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #220519

>>we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed.”

Posted by: rahdigly at May 16, 2007 12:23 PM

rah,

If we were in Vegas, I’d be derelict if I didn’t discourage you from pouring good money after bad. It’s the same with Iraq. We’ve wasted enough lives and money in this stupidity. From now on it’s just like craps, losing more lives and throwing away more money on a situation we no longer control. Luck deserted us, we are there in a situation that lacks honor, can NEVER be ‘won’, so let’s cut our loses and come back home.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 16, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #220529

Mary,

“we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed”
Posted by: rahdigly at May 16, 2007 12:23 PM

rah, If we were in Vegas, I’d be derelict if I didn’t discourage you from pouring good money after bad. It’s the same with Iraq. We’ve wasted enough lives and money in this stupidity. From now on it’s just like craps, losing more lives and throwing away more money on a situation we no longer control. Luck deserted us, we are there in a situation that lacks honor, can NEVER be ‘won’, so let’s cut our loses and come back home.


That quote you pasted was an actual quote from Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division; one of several Soldiers in Iraq that commented in this article: Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results

“This is a worthwhile endeavor,” said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. “Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed.”


So, (now) do you disagree with the soldier?! Would you tell him the “Vegas” dereliction comment?!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 16, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #220577

rah,

Who it comes from changes nothing…the answer to your question is YES!

It was cited in your post as something you agreed with. If you don’t agree with your own cite…mea culpa…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 16, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #220634

Mary,

“Who it comes from changes nothing…the answer to your question is YES!”

YES?!!!! You would (Actually) tell that soldier, who is fighting over there in Iraq, “If we were in Vegas, I’d be derelict if I didn’t discourage you from pouring good money after bad. It’s the same with Iraq. We’ve wasted enough lives and money in this stupidity. From now on it’s just like craps, losing more lives and throwing away more money on a situation we no longer control. Luck deserted us, we are there in a situation that lacks honor, can NEVER be ‘won’, so let’s cut our loses and come back home.” This is what you would tell that soldier?!!! The same soldier who said: ““This is a worthwhile endeavor, nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed.” You would tell this person that his “mission” can never be won and let’s cut “our” losses and come back home?!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 17, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #220650

rah,

What part of ‘yes’ are you having trouble with?

I would give the same advice I posted to ANYONE who would use Iraq as some sort of social experiment. An experiment that has cost and will cost several thousands of lives.

Please hear this…we are in a dishonorable mess of our own choosing. The only somewhat reasonable way out is to LEAVE. If we do not pull out we will be pouring good lives and good money after BAD!!! The person you quote so generously is wrong. Why would I not give him that advice?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 17, 2007 1:44 PM
Post a comment