Wise Up Dems. It is too Important to be Goofy

“It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

That is Joe Liberman. He is right.

I excerpted what follows from WSJ, rather than link since many of you don't have the premium page. I thought it might provoke an interesting discussion AND it is also right. It is clear that this generation of Democrats is not up to the standard of their own party or the Republicans of the Truman era. Excerpts follow:

Mr. Lieberman recalled Cold War history when Harry Truman, was trying to build alliances to resist Communism amid ferocious criticism from many Republicans, including their Senate leader, Ohio's Robert Taft. But a GOP Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, stepped forward to support Truman, and the bipartisan "containment" strategy was born.

"I completely disagree with him," said Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader who went so far as to associate herself with the isolationist Taft Republicans of the early Cold War years. "I agree with a Republican Senator, Senator Robert Taft," she said, who "said that disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy." She doesn't want to win; she wants to quit.

MoveOn.org is talking about a primary challenge to Mr. Lieberman in 2006. This liberal animosity toward him speaks volumes about how far left Democratic foreign policy has shifted since Bill Clinton's Presidency. The same Senate Democrats who voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and for the war in Iraq in October 2002 are now claiming they were duped and it was all a mistake.

The Taft Republicans of the late 1940s never made it to the White House; Dwight Eisenhower won in 1952 as the heir to the GOP's Vandenberg wing. Smart Democrats who want to win in 2008 aren't going to do it as the party of pessimism and retreat.

Posted by Jack at December 12, 2005 4:09 PM
Comments
Comment #101607

Jack,

interesting points made here. I don’t think that you characterize the Dems correctly as a whole. I doubt that the majority oof Dems feel that we can quit the fight. That is not possible if we do not want to collapse the region. But, the point to this is answers. The president said today that knowing the information he knows now (NO WMD’s, NO tie to Al-Queida, NO Enriched Urinanuim) he’d still go to war. So why are we there?
Simple question. No truth from the office and over 2100 American Soldiers dead, and 30,000 Iraqi’s dead and countless wounded on each side. The republicans started the rhetoric of unpatriotic to questioon, non supporting of the troops. All anyone ever wanted was the REAL answers for the conflict. This would not even be a question if 1 WMD, or Terrorist Camp were found. This is the question that gnaws at everyone.
Question the administration yes, but, support the forces with funds and that without question till we get them home.
Remember the republican congress spent 3 years invcerstigating Clinton and proved that he cheated on his wife. Not a criminal offens, although the lie was. But, his crime was not near as detrimental to this nation as the one this adminstration has committed. Which is more important to the nation for investigate? Honesty and integrity is what he said he would bring back to the white house but all we have is secrecy.

Posted by: Thomas G at December 12, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #101612

Hi Jack,

I agree that it is silly to attack Liebermann. He is entitled to his opinion.

On the other hand, I disagree with his opinion. If our country is pursuing a dangerously flawed policy, then it is encumbent upon us to stand up against that policy. Let me give a hypothetical example — let’s say the president decided to invade Mexico. Stupid in the extreme? Sure. Never going to happen? You’re right. But we’re just speaking hypothetically.

So in this hypothetical, the president goes off of his rocker and takes such a step. Are we as Americans truly honor-bound to support him once the war starts — despite the costs?

I think a strong moral argument can be made that if the president does something utterly stupid, we are obligated to do our utmost to oppose it. Especially in times of war. We lose far more credibility by supporting such an action than opposing it.

You may disagree with those who think the Iraq war is an example of such poor decision-making. But that doesn’t mean they’re unpatriotic for opposing the president.

Posted by: Steve Westby at December 12, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #101615

Thomas

President Bush relied on the same intelligence everybody else did. The general opinion was that Saddam had WMD. That is why all those Democrats voted for the resolution. That is why we made regime change a policy in 1998.

It turns out the intelligence was incorrect. That is the real answer you are looking for. We can’t change the past and must deal with the present. What Lieberman says in the first paragraph is true.

If you think Bush (and with him his government including Democratic appointees (like Tenet) and many career civil servants) lied, you have to answer the question - why?

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 4:58 PM
Comment #101616

The best way to support our troops is to insure they are not sent on wild Goose chases without the equipment or strategy to win. Anything else is just vain lip service.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #101618

Steve

You can disagree with the war or how we got into it. But it is everyone’s duty now to produce the best possible result for the U.S.

If you believe that the Pelosi/Murtha/Dean approach is best for the U.S., fine. Ask yourself this, however, if Bill Clinton were president would you advocate the same thing? If the answer is yes, it is an honest disagreement of policy. If the answer is no, you have to search yourself for your true motives.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 5:03 PM
Comment #101622

If the past is any indicator, we follow this President’s as if he were credible at our own peril.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 12, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #101625

Jack:

Its interesting that Lieberman was the darling of the Democratic party, being their chosen Vice Presidential candidate, just 5 years ago. How quickly one goes from a party leadership position to being a pariah. He sure musta got stoooopid fast, right?

I agree that Lieberman is right. But many Democrats want to continue the fight over how we got into Iraq—they see that as their winning ticket. If they were in a sinking boat, they’d be fighting over who caused the hole…arguing the whole time as they sank beneath the waters, never once thinking to plug the leak.

Thomas:

I don’t think that you (Jack) characterize the Dems correctly as a whole. I doubt that the majority of Dems feel that we can quit the fight. That is not possible if we do not want to collapse the region.

Perhaps the majority of Dems doesn’t think we can quit. But Democratic leadership, at least in the voice of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, DOES think that we need to quit. Perhaps Dems should vote in leaders who think as they do. If they accept Pelosi and Dean, then they must accept their leadership direction or denounce it. They cannot simply wet their fingers to see which way the wind is blowing.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 12, 2005 5:14 PM
Comment #101626

David

If you have not already, read “Truman” by David McCullough. Acrimony was running really high back then too. Truman was the Senator for Pendergast, you recall and not considered by many to be competent to be president. Republicans did what was good for the country, at least some did. Others behaved more like Pelosi and Dean are doing today.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 5:14 PM
Comment #101633

Laura Ingraham once said “The sad thing is, is that there is a party that is more focused on regaining power than they are on protecting the country.”

That statement is proven each and every time the leaders of the Democratic party open their mouths. Why advocate retreat from a war where we have not lost a single battle if not for politcal reasons or claim that it is a war that we can’t win? And none of this “out of context” spinning.

Is this a case of blind hatred for a man dictating party policy or a grand longing for the position held during the Clinton years? It certainly isn’t policy based on what is best for America, because the Democrats have offered no alternate policy, aside from abondoning the Iraqi civilians and letting all the deaths of American soliders be in vain.

Posted by: Duane L at December 12, 2005 5:28 PM
Comment #101635

Jack,
MoveOn.org took off when Republicans put a sitting president on the witness stand to testify about his sex life.

Personally, I don’t care for MoveOn, its shrill tone, or its reflexive disagreements with Bush.

On the other hand, reap what you sow. The shrill Republicans richly earned the existence of an organization like MoveOn. Lieberman too, he voted with Republicans to impeach a president for lying about his sex life.

Oh, by the way, a president shouldn’t mislead the country when it comes to war. A president shouldn’t use war to distract people from a recession, or to whip up a patriotic frenzy prior to a midterm election.

People take it hard. National security is not just a matter of campaign-style politics. And for fundamentally dishonest people like Bush & Cheney, who use war for their own political ends, no slack is justified, none at all, not until they’re hounded in shame from office.

Don’t worry. We’ll get through this. The country will be ok. First there’s a matter of taking out the trash.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2005 5:34 PM
Comment #101641

Jack,

The point about lieberman switching his stance is questioning the adminstration is not a bad thing, done in the right way. Just ask simple questions. Then the other person should be compelled to answer. If the bush adminstration would answer the question as to why and then stand their ground or would admit a mistake, any mistake, and take responsability for it then the debate would not be festering as it is. That is the problem we are having. Why no answers and just “talking points”? This war will end. But, at what cost.

joebagodonuts,

Yessir you are correct. They chose that leadership and no one is going after them in the right way. i did not choose them, I voted but their leadership is their choice. They need to stand up for thier constituents and themselves not a party line, as well as the other side. Most politicians, repubs included “wet their finger and sees what way the wind blows”. I don’t think either side is handling this properly and if the democrats could have run a halfway decent campaign this would be a different situation, we’d probably be attacking kerry for staying when he said he’d leave.

My problem is with the way the debate has been handled. No one in the white house answers questions, just rhetoric and name calling. As I said in another comment on a differnet post, the art of compromise and debate is lost in this nation. question authority, but, be willing to accept the answers.

Posted by: Thomas G at December 12, 2005 5:52 PM
Comment #101642

Our military discovered, and destroyed several terrorist camps during the Iraq war.

If Bush should be investiated, Then why not Clinton for lying about osama not doing any harm to America when he turned down the offer to take him into custody.

If the democratic presidents would stop dismanteling our military to put money in other places, our military would have the things they need. Thank’s to republican presidents, the money gets put back into the military. Without a strong military, our country is weak, and easier attack. That is simple common sence.

The terrorist are loosing, and desperate. It’s past time to stop complaining, and win this war.

Posted by: rick at December 12, 2005 5:56 PM
Comment #101648

Duane L, as opposed to throwing away more good lives staying indefinitely in a cause that will ultimately be decided by Iraqis, not us, anyway. We had the opportunity to save 25,000 American lives in Viet Nam by doing what we eventually did, years earlier.

We face the same decision today in Iraq. Pres. Bush is not withholding a date for the end of our occupation of Iraq for the purpose of cheating the insurgents out of a planned date, he is withholding it because he can’t envision a time during his presidency when he can withdraw from Iraq without losing face having committed himself to total victory in Iraq over the insurgents and terrorists. The insurgents and terrorists will be there for many years to come. I say we give the Iraqis a deadline by which they must rely upon their own military to defend their country, and declare Mission Accomplished on that date and put a halt to anymore American casualties and draining of taxes from our next generation’s paychecks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 12, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #101650

rick,

What war are you talking about? The one in afghanistan or Iraq. Contrary to republican points they are not the same. The war begun after 9/11 was just and correct and is unfinished. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear “our forces diceoverd and destroyed a terrorist cell in……” but we do not hear that. We invaded a country on faulty intelligence, the war in iraq is unfounded and we are stuck trying to rebild a nation with a culture we as a government and a nation do not understand nor are we trying to. With the knowledge of faulty intelligence this adminstration has taken our NATIONAL GUARD and deployed them to foreign lands to defend them, where were they when the hurricanes hit and where with they be if we are attacked now? Ask yourself were the camps there prior to the invasion or are they “rebel” camps in a civil war brewing. The war needs to be won, yes, but what is the plan?, what was the plan at the outset? What are the real goals?

Posted by: Thomas G at December 12, 2005 6:19 PM
Comment #101652

there are some asking, When can we get our troops home, let’s get out now. something to consider, Do we still have troops in Japan? how about Germany? after 60 years we still have a presence there. also, How long did it take those countries to regain balance and then turn into powerful democracies?…. Quite awhile

dogselur

Posted by: dogselur at December 12, 2005 6:31 PM
Comment #101654

Dogselur,

Great Point. But, there always seems to be one, the conflicts were different. Not better but more justified. We did not invade and stay in other conflicts we have been in. We have Bases all ove the world, we did not have to invade to get them. yes it will take time, but, it just needs to be handled better, maybe by a president that can prove his service record and one that doesn’t shy away from defending his, or people that actually know the cost personally.

Posted by: Thomas G at December 12, 2005 6:37 PM
Comment #101657

Jack,

If the Bush administration saw “the same intelligence” as the Dems, then how do you account for the fact that ten days after 9/11, the Presidential Daily Briefing said that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, and yet the Bush administration continued to say that there WAS a link for months?

Thomas G,
Well said. There needs to be a distinction made between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, which is, as you said, not at all the same thing.

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” —Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 12, 2005 6:44 PM
Comment #101660

Jack,

I think it is virtually despicable to frame the Iraq question by using the Korean War, especially because of how it distorts the circumstances.

We fought in Korea because a democratic state we had helped establish was invaded by an army of 150,000. Korea was like the first Gulf War, where we fought to liberate an ally.

The Republicans who opposed Truman did not believe North Korea was an ally worth defending.

And in Korea, we knew EXACTLY who the enemy was. It’s ironic that you should use the Korean War as your post, as the Korean War was the last conventional war we fought.

Iraq was a pre-emptive strike against an oppressive regime which was, in the most generous interpretation of the facts, later discovered to not pose any threat to the US and was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

When defending our homeland, you support the president. When he invades a country and is mistaken (many would say dishonest) about the reasons, he better not hide behind MY flag.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 12, 2005 6:50 PM
Comment #101661

Both sides need to stop being goofy. We need to find an acceptable solution. The right won’t budge. The left is at least putting forth other ideas. The left says we need an exit strategy. They have proposed timelines of 6 months, in 2 years, or until it’s done. But, I think the underlying thing we all want is an exit strategy. Does anybody want us there indefinitely? How and when do we get to a point that we can leave? We need to demand that the White House define the terms “victory”, “mission accomplished”, “win”. Not this bullshit of “When Iraq stands up, we stand down”. What the hell does that mean? How do we know when they have stood up enough for us to stand down. The president and the right have become good at using vague language. I don’t know if this is because there is some underlying agenda that we don’t know about, or if they simply don’t know what they are doing. But in any case we have an obligation to our troops and to our country to demand that the White House be straight with us about what is going on in Iraq and the war on terror. And if they won’t then yes we have an obligation to the safety of our troops to demand withdrawal.

So, the question is how long do we let this continue before we demand better? How many more need to die before we say oh, I guess we should have had a better plan. A more specific plan. Some believe we have already passed that point. Does the President know what he is doing or doesn’t he? And if he doesn’t then we need to get him out of there and get our troops out of there.

There is no excuse for the lack of communication on such an important issue between our executive branch and our legislative branch. It is this lack of communication that has led to our current situation.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 6:50 PM
Comment #101663

and Jack, in Korea, we are welcome, certainly in comparison to how we are viewed in Iraq.

It’s interesting that in Korea, where we fought to defend an ally, it was the Republicans who wanted to cut and run, and let the whole peninsula fall to the current N Korean lunatic’s father.

It’s fifty years later and Republicans still don’t consider North Korea a threat. The past keeps being repeated…

Posted by: CPAdams at December 12, 2005 6:57 PM
Comment #101665
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” —Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) Posted by: ElliottBay at December 12, 2005 06:44 PM

That is the smartest thing I’ve ever seen Bush say. Maybe that’s why he doesn’t recognize it. This post in and of itself shows the goofiness of the right. They bitch and moan that the left has no ideas. But when the left comes forward with an exit strategy for their beloved war, then they twist it into “cut and run” and start calling us names. Nobody, except Republican Duncan Hunter, has proposed “cut and run”. Even Dean advocates an exit strategy over 2 years.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 7:04 PM
Comment #101666

Jack wrote:

If you believe that the Pelosi/Murtha/Dean approach is best for the U.S., fine. Ask yourself this, however, if Bill Clinton were president would you advocate the same thing? If the answer is yes, it is an honest disagreement of policy. If the answer is no, you have to search yourself for your true motives.

Actually, I’d agree that disagreeing for disagreement’s sake (or purely for the sake of causing political damage) is unhealthy. But, IMHO, most people criticizing the president truly have doubts about the reasons we went to war, the viability of our continued presence there, etc.

That said, I think a healthy debate about how to proceed from here is good. But let’s avoid the mistake that seems so prevalent of questioning the motives behind people’s positions (e.g., making baseless insinuations questioning their patriotism).

Posted by: Steve Westby at December 12, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #101672
Wise Up Dems. It is too Important to be Goofy

Goofy? Do you know what a dangerous position this administration has put us in? It is one thing to bomb and destroy threats, specific targets. It is quite another to militarily occupy and force our will on another nation. Why is the right so blinded to the dangerous road this President has taken us down?

The President today said (rather glibly) 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war on terror. If we started this war over the anger of the death of 2,986 people on 9/11, how angry do you think they are going to be at us for killing 30,000 of their citizens?

The war on terror is not a conventional war, so using conventional methods will not work. We need to identify specific threats and targets throughout the area and destroy those targets. We will never gain safety from occupying nations and killing tens of thousands of their citizens.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 7:31 PM
Comment #101676

Jack, perhaps you’d better stick to what Republicans want and not what Democrats should do. Obviously we are on different sides of the fence than you. Why don’t you listen to OUR advice to persuade the President to come clean with the American people and start telling the unabashed truth on the conditions and direction of the ‘war’ effort. We’ll go along with what is best for America as WE see it.

But… don’t ask us to ‘just go along’ with the current actions and directions. Suppose you were with two cops who convinced you a known gang member had a gun, then when they next spotted him they proceeded to chase him down, knock him in the head, and search him for the gun which they never find. Next, they claim he must have ditched the gun, then they rob him of his oil (oops! I meant wallet), then proclaim to everyone that he meant to strike first and everyone knew he was a bad guy anyways. THEN, they convince the city police force to spend a LOT of money to dismantle the gang. With the money in hand, the two cops start handing their friends wads of cash doing little to actually rid the neighborhood of gangs and pi$$ing off the whole neighborhood in the process.

Would you go along with the two rogue cops, or would you protest? You’re saying just to go along, right?

Posted by: Rick at December 12, 2005 7:36 PM
Comment #101678

Clarification:

The President today said (rather glibly) 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war on terror. If we started this war over the anger of the death of 2,986 people on 9/11 that Iraq had nothing to do with, how angry do you think the Iraqis are going to be at us for killing 30,000 of their citizens?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 7:43 PM
Comment #101679

Phx8

Republicans treated Clinton poorly. But there is a difference between being goofy with domestic politics and being goofy with the nation’s security.

We disagree about people being misled by Bush. I can’t think of any reasons Bush (plus all the democratic appointees such as Tenet and career civil service) would mislead the country into going to war. Bush’s popularity was phenomenon in 2002. He didn’t need to risk it on a war unless he thought it was the right thing to do.

Anyway, as Lieberman says, we are in the war now and GW Bush is president. Those tow things are true and won’t change. So do you think Pelosi and Dean are helping or hurting their country? I think they are doing damage.

Thomas

What question do you want answered? The President laid out his reasons for the war in the State of the Union 2003. That is the speech where he said that Iraq was not yet an imminent threat and we had to deal with it before it became one. Some of the intelligence was wrong. Democrat in the Senate believed it too.

Re terrorist cells being destroyed, you do read that in the papers all the time. We just killed another leader last week.

Elliot
No operational link between Saddam and 9/11, but there is plenty or reason to believe Saddam and Osama were fellow travelers. When we chased Zarqawi out of Afghanistan of all the countries in all the world, where did he feel was the safest place to go?

CPAdams

I didn’t do it. Joe Lieberman made the historical comparison and so did Nancy Pelosi. But they were not talking about Korea per se. They are talking about the Truman Doctrine, the defense of Greece and the formation of NATO. This happened before the Korean war.

Jay Jay

The left has no solution that is different from Bush’s idea but quitting. The President said at the start of the war the U.S. troops would stay as long as necessary and not a day longer. We should stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up. What else can we say? Is there a Dem plan that is different? Oh yeah, just leave in six months.

Steve

Reasonable post. I think we can and should talk about the validity of our continued presence. Doubts about how we got there are not grounds for a debate at this time. Historians will decide that. Today passion rules and she never rules wisely. The debate today is just “the president lied – no he didn’t.” It doesn’t matter much for where we are now. It is like nagging the driver who may have made a wrong turn and now is on the RR tracks. It is important to avoid the train, not argue about how we got there.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 7:50 PM
Comment #101680

RIck

If you can explain how we can make money by spending 200 billion in order to secure oil revenues of 20 billion (which we didn’t even take BTW), I will listen to your robbery analogy. Otherwise just cut it out. Blood for oil sounds interesting, but makes no sense to anyone who can count up to twenty.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #101681

I realize that Bushco paid for news in Iraq, but does anyone really think that the Iraqi’s don’t know that this country attacked them with faulty intelligence? That they know better than any of us if they had WMDs or not? What would we do if we were attacked by a foreign power, because they had faulty intelligence? Would we just say, Oh, that’s ok, it happens to the best of us? If we want to win the war on terror, we have to start with our most basic tool, our intelligence agency.
Until we can trust that, we have lost.

Jack,

We should stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up. What else can we say?

Well, lets see you could say how do we reach that point. There is nothing wrong with having a strong plan that meets certain goals in a certain amount of time. Being weak about reaching goals is no way to run a war. If we demand that from this President and he refuses, then we have an obligation to get our citizens out of harms way.

Again, how do we know when they have stood up enough to allow us to stand down?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 8:03 PM
Comment #101684
Doubts about how we got there are not grounds for a debate at this time.

This is like when the right kept saying “this isn’t the time to point fingers” during Katrina. If not then, when? It was all that finger pointing that finally got this dead weight President off his ass and do something.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 8:07 PM
Comment #101685
If you can explain how we can make money by spending 200 billion in order to secure oil revenues of 20 billion (which we didn’t even take BTW), I will listen to your robbery analogy. Otherwise just cut it out. Blood for oil sounds interesting, but makes no sense to anyone who can count up to twenty.

But Jack,

Wouldn’t it have been much better and less deadly to put that 200 billion into making our own country less vulnerable to terrorist?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 8:09 PM
Comment #101688

Jay

You can legitimately criticize how the war is being waged today and what we plan for the future. But talking about the intelligence failures of the past is useful only if we are talking about how to improve.

I can understand why those who oppose Bush like to play the Bush lied gambit. It is clear that we had mistaken intelligence. That is a fruitless debate. We will not be able to prove either side of the argument to the other side’s satisfaction. It may be years or forever before we know. People still say that Roosevelt planned Pearl Harbor or they deny the Holocaust. Why is it a fruitless debate? Because it won’t change anything. Bush WILL be president until 2008, whether he lied or not.

I think Iraq has made us safer in the U.S. and if we can help bring democracy (even imperfectly) to the region it will be a quantum leap. This is a legitimate debate, BTW. Maybe we can discuss it on a different thread.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 8:22 PM
Comment #101691

Jack,
You’re being purposefully obtuse. We both know Iraq possesses the third largest oil reserves in the world, with potential for exploration to discover even more. We’re talking about one of the most valuable commodoties in the world. Furthermore, the $200 billion is taxpayer dollars, not dollars from Big Oil. They contribute huge amounts to the Bush administration, of course, like other White House cronies, and that $200 billion goes to more than just Big Oil, doesn’t it? War profiteers. Used to be considered an obscene phrase. Finally, the potential profits for Big Oil, especially if they can sign PSA’s, are enormous:

“The estimated cost to Iraq over the life of the new oil contracts is $74 to $194 billion, compared with leaving oil development in public hands. These sums represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi state budget.


• the contracts would guarantee massive profits to foreign companies, with rates of return of 42% to 162%.”

Enough? Need more? Hopefully this will be the last time we see statements about Iraq’s oil not providing enough of an incentive.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2005 8:34 PM
Comment #101693

The quote from above comes from www.crudedesigns.org

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2005 8:35 PM
Comment #101704

But Phx8

We didn’t take the oil. And Saddam was willing to sell as much as we wanted to buy at below market prices.


Jay

We held an election last year and will again next year. Bush has the consent of the governed. We hold elections to determine those things. We don’t speculate on them.

I am sorry that I keep on repeating, but we didn’t have a zero option. Iraq was a horrible place before we went in. It has the potential for being a better place now.

Thousands of Iraqis were dying each year as a result of Saddam’s oil for food corruption, his general mismanagement and murderous policies. Some of the same people who criticize the U.S. did studies showing that as many as 50,000 Iraqi children were dying each year. They blamed sanctions, not Saddam (surprise).

Sovereignty is an interesting question. You quote Jefferson on consent of the governed and apply it to an obvious democracy like the U.S. And in the very same post you talk about RESTORING sovereignty to Iraq. Do you mean that Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq? He certainly controlled the place, but by any consent of the governed criteria he was not the legitimate ruler.

Expat

It is the oil, but not for the reasons you think. Oil is money. That is true. Money is power. If Saddam has oil he can buy power, as he did. In addition he could disrupt the region on which the world economy depended. If Saddam was just evil without the oil to make him super evil, he would be Robert Mugabe, a local menace but no Saddam Hussein. Oil made Saddam dangerous. So it was about oil because oil is money is power is threatening.

Re Arabs - I don’t believe any culture in incapable of democracy. It gets to be self fulfilling if we never try.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 9:58 PM
Comment #101705

Thomas,

You’re question of what am I talking about. The post you are refering to were comments made to earlier posts. I didn’t put the’re names to the responces.
Post said- not one terrorist camp has been found in Iraq. Actually, we have found several terrorist camps in Iraq, and destroyed them.
Post said- Bush should be investigated for the Iraq war. I said- Clinton should be investigated for saying osama had’nt done any harm to America when he turned down the opportunity to take osama into custody for questioning. osama took responsibility for the Cole attack, and the first twin towers attack. Both attacks were before Clinton turned down the offer to get osama.
Post said- Bush sent our military to war without enough weapons and equiptment. I said- Our last two democratic presidents seriously dismantled our military by taking funds away for other things.Including Clinton taking funds away from the C.I.A. and letting several agents go for a lack of funds. Afrer 911, the democrats tried to blame Bush for not having enough C.I.A. agents to get the right information abut wmd’s. Well, It was Clinton’s fault the agents were limited in manpower. Our republican presidents have put funds back into the military, and getting them the products that they need.

Posted by: rick at December 12, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #101711

Hi Jack,

“President Bush relied on the same intelligence everybody else did.”

No he didn’t. My intelligence sources (major media) were far better than what Bush was using. I knew Bush was wrong about the aluminum tubes and the unmanned drones.

“If you think Bush (and with him his government including Democratic appointees (like Tenet) and many career civil servants) lied, you have to answer the question - why?”

The answer is obvious. They wanted to convince us to go to war so they lied.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 10:22 PM
Comment #101718

I, myself, am happy that Bush will be in office for 3 more years. At the rate he is going, the GOP will be as they were during Nixon’s rule. Go Bush!!!

Posted by: Aldous at December 12, 2005 10:33 PM
Comment #101720

Jack,
“This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority (1) of Iraq’s oilfields – accounting for at least 64% of the country’s oil reserves – for development by multinational oil companies.

Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

(from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x175201)

Some conservatives saw the perfidy of France & Russian refusing to cooperate with the US in its invasion of Iraq. They believed France & Russia were protecting their own interests, their own oil companies, which were exploring signing long-term contracts worth billions with the Baathists.

Strangely enough, some of those same conservatives cannot see US motivation for replacing the French & Russian oil companies with American companies.

To sign a contract, a country must be legitimate in the first place, capable of signing long-term, legally binding contracts. Undoubtedly this is one of the driving forces behind the pacing of elections in Iraq. The US must, must, must have an Iraqi government capable of signing binding contracts.

Will these contracts take the form of PSA’s? Will Chalabi sign away his people’s resources for his own faction’s gain? Will the Iranians and SCIRI go along with this?

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2005 10:42 PM
Comment #101723

Louis

Than you knew more than all those Senate Democrats who loudly raved and swore that Saddam had WMD. I guess they didn’t read the major media that you did.

Your answer the the war question is a tautology. They lied to get us into a war because they wanted to convince us to go to war.

Bush’s popularity in 2002 was great. He had nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) going into Iraq unless he thought it was the right thing to do.

If you want to read quotes from major media and important Democrats, follow the the link>.

Many people are good at predicting the past. The future is harder. That is why so many people theoretically made fortunes with their investments, but don’t really have the money. The funny thing is that they often really believe it.


Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #101725

Phx8

It depends on what they are paying for the oil and what the deal will be. I don’t have any trouble with the market working. The problem I had with the Russian, Chinese and French firms was that they were coopted by Saddam, not the other way around.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 11:05 PM
Comment #101726

Jack,

We held an election last year and will again next year. Bush has the consent of the governed. We hold elections to determine those things. We don’t speculate on them.

Your right, except that when new information comes to light, information that may do harm to our country or reputation or safety, then we have a right to demand change.

The President has put us between a rock and a hard place. We really need to find a way to make this right and I don’t see us doing that under this administration. I realize the 2004 election was ligit, but sometimes for the best interest of the nation, the people need to stand up and protest and sometimes call for extreme measures. That is why it is important to debate the issue of lies and corruption leading up to this war now. We need to show the world that the 30,000 people who lost their lives are worth our time and energy to get to the truth. It isn’t good enough to just say oh well, the people have spoken. If it comes out that there were misdeeds done by this President then it is important that we remove him.

The important part of your statement about the study that blamed deaths on sanctions instead of Saddam, is who do the Iraqi’s blame? If it is us, and it comes out that 30,000 of their people died because of a lie, we will be in a heap of shit.

Do you mean that Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq? He certainly controlled the place, but by any consent of the governed criteria he was not the legitimate ruler.

Let’s stick to the issue at hand, I really am not concered if Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq or not. I am talking about what we need to do going forward. We need to leave Iraq as an independant and sovereign nation. As in a governance. Sovereignty does not mean democracy. Jefferson was talking about America, not Iraq.

You quote Jefferson on consent of the governed and apply it to an obvious democracy like the U.S.

I’m not really sure what you mean by this. And the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitution based republic.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 11:06 PM
Comment #101727

From the Wall Street Journal…

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007669….

Pretty concise!…..Damn Good advice….Get on Lieberman life boat, or be “left” to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic…

Posted by: Firstteam at December 12, 2005 11:09 PM
Comment #101728

Aldous,

I respectfully disagree with you. The longer this administration is in office the greater danger we are in. His glib speech he gave today, makes shivers go up my spine. He is a danger to our security and our freedom. I am not saying that as a partisan, I am saying it as a citizen with grave concerns about the direction this President is leading us. If we get attacked it won’t matter how much rule the GOP has.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 11:11 PM
Comment #101730
Get on Lieberman life boat, or be “left” to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic…

It is really frustrating that everybody is looking at this issue from a partisan stance. We need to open our eyes and look at what is really happening. We are traveling a dangerous road to our doom. If we don’t wake up soon 9/11 is going to look like child’s play.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 11:15 PM
Comment #101731

You would think the shear terror of 9/11 would have been enough to open people’s eyes, but it has blinded us more. We looked for a leader and found one in Bush. Unfortunately, as time has gone by that leader has led us down a dangerous path. We have military might yes, but we need to win this war on terror by using our intellect as well as force. Force by itself is just going to get us killed.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 11:23 PM
Comment #101732

Jay

Jefferson was talking about all people, not just Americans.

Sovereignty is trickier than you think. Do you accept any dictator as sovereign if he manages to take over a country that was sovereign? I don’t. If you do, you have no criteria at all to support or oppose anyone.

Sorry about the democracy technicality. The U.S. obviously runs on the basis of the consent of the governed.

Bush is the legitimate president. There is no reason to believe he would be turned out if we held an election tomorrow. But we are people who live under the rule of law, in any case. We have rules for elections. We have procedures. They have not been subverted. You have no basis except your supposition that everyone hates Bush. Disapproval rates are not the same as wanting to get rid of a legitimately elected president and they change every day and depend on the question asked. You will recall that Dems thought people hated Bush in November last year too. They were wrong.

Firstteam
I think that is the same one I based this article.

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2005 11:24 PM
Comment #101734


The Declaration of Independence is an American document that severed ties with the King of England. It is not talking about all people, it is talking about people of the United States of America. Jefferson may have felt this way about all people but that is not the purpose of this particular document.

Do you accept any dictator as sovereign if he manages to take over a country that was sovereign?

Absolutely not. A sovereign government is the one recognized and accepted by the people not one that is forced. That is why I say we need to leave Iraq a sovereign nation. A governance that the people recognize as the supreme authority over state matters. If we push a Democracy on Iraq, but they want a Communist state and organize a Communist state after we leave, and recognize the communist state as the supreme authority over state matters then the sovereign government is communism, not democracy.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 11:39 PM
Comment #101740

Jack, it is about an American economy hooked on oil energy like a junkie is hooked on heroin. Read the Project for a New American Century. American control over crucial energy supplies is mandated. Look at the signees of that pact. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and on, and on. Now, about the vast sums of money allocated and unaccounted for… private contractors are having a field day and you know it. Yet there is little or no press because the Republican controlled Congress will not provide oversight. Had the U.S. hired Iraqi contractors, we would have reduced the Iraqi unemployment, could have secured important support from prominent and well connected families and tribal groups, and could have done at least as well the American privateers at protecting the electrical grid and water supply which has been hit so many times the country is a total disaster.

Sorry Jack, this is going down as the biggest cash grab, bank heist, American swindle since, well, in history. If I EVER hear the Republicans bring up TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS again, I swear I’m going to go beserk on someone.

Now spending 200 billion to make 20 million makes no sense when it is YOUR OWN money you are spending… but if I can spend 200 billion of SOMEONE ELSE’S money to make 20 billion well… that’s exactly what’s happening isn’t it????

Face it. The administration has lied again and again. Has held countless secret meetings. Has silenced critics within and without its own party and administration. Has paid off media, produced propaganda, and put on dog and pony shows that bear little truth. Has played the ‘who wrote the memo’ game and worn out the talking points to avoid real answers over and over until the American people have caught on - they’re being played. If the speculation seems wild and outrageous. If the conspiracies seem out of bounds or over the top… well, that’s what happens when you’ve run a disinformation campaign for years and years. Cry wolf enough and soon no one believes you when the real wolf comes.
Government for the People - by the people. Toss out the looters and pilferers. Send their sons to clean up this mess.

Posted by: Rick at December 12, 2005 11:48 PM
Comment #101744

Info
2 days ago bin ladens 2nd in command asked jihadists throughout the world to attack oil storage facilities,kind of amazzing to me that as they still try to get fires under control the british government is stating it was completly accidential,with 5% of all oil in england storred there and having been called upon to attack oil facilities i personal find it difficult to believe they could accuratly gauge the cause of such an explosion until its been out and investagators have had a chance to look around.sounds to me like the british government may be stalling a bit to try to keep people calm,however if it turns out that it was a worker who sabatouged the plant ,perhaps a muslim sympathieser then i see additional riots simalar to those in australia the last 2 days .if the jihadists listen to al zawahari and carry out additional attacks on fuel storage sites ,refinererys ,and tanker ships this war could move to a new and very dangerous level rapidly,while pushing oil prices to new highs,which in turn could do what bin ladens had in mind since day one ,Namly to destroy our economy , as well as send most of the world into a depression.meanwhile we all continue discussing the war on christmas and whethor torture of these rabid animals should be allowed,only comparison that i can think of was the back biting that occured just prior to the demise of the roman empire.WHEN WILL WE TAKE OUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND AND DISCUSS HOW TO BEAT THESE PEOPLE.hope this evokes some thoughtfulness regarding this for it seems way to high a coincedence this accuring 2 days after that tape was aired.

Posted by: rylee at December 12, 2005 11:51 PM
Comment #101746
Bush is the legitimate president. There is no reason to believe he would be turned out if we held an election tomorrow. But we are people who live under the rule of law, in any case. We have rules for elections. We have procedures. They have not been subverted. You have no basis except your supposition that everyone hates Bush. Disapproval rates are not the same as wanting to get rid of a legitimately elected president and they change every day and depend on the question asked. You will recall that Dems thought people hated Bush in November last year too. They were wrong.

Jack,

This is all well and good. But we as a country have the right to stand up and demand change. If it is not voluntary change, then we have the right to petition congress for a redress of grievances. I do not hate Bush, I hate his policies and I believe strongly that he is leading us down a dangerous path. Bush did win the election, I am not denying that. But he won with the votes of a small percentage of the actual U.S. population. If that part of the population stood up and demanded redress of grievances, the government would be obligated to act. Whether people voted or not the Constitution covers all citizens. It would be possible to cause change just among those that didn’t even vote at all, or who aren’t even registered to vote. Just because Bush had enough support to win the election doesn’t necessarily mean he has the support of the whole nation.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 11:53 PM
Comment #101748

rylee,

I agree, we must learn from other countries that have been sucessful in fighting terrorism. Australia has had great sucess at gathering intelligence and thwarting terror. France, yes France, is probably the most sucsessful in fighting terror. Although some of their methods would be considered highly unconstitutional here. The point is we need to join with our allies who have faced terror and examine what works and what doesn’t.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 12:01 AM
Comment #101750
There is no reason to believe he would be turned out if we held an election tomorrow.

Jack,

I know our Constitution does not provide for it, but if a recall vote were held tomorrow, not a presidential election, but a recall vote, I think he would be in a lot of trouble. Maybe we need to petition congress to pass an amendment to allow for a public recall vote of the president.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 12:07 AM
Comment #101757

Mr. Bush is president and has his obligations. Citizens who disagree with him also have their obligations and should use every legal means at their disposal to change policies they consider wrong and dangerous.

If some pundits don’t agree with this, then they shouldn’t say they’re in favor of democracy. They might be happier living in huge swaths of the Middle East where leaders go unchallenged.

Just for the record, I’m not an advocate of an immediate troop pull out in Iraq. But I respect those who make those arguments and am always willing to listen to their reasoning.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at December 13, 2005 12:27 AM
Comment #101761

Reed,
A reasonable comment. But when this country goes so far down the wrong road, it makes it extremely difficult to ever go back.

Liberals were right about Iraq. They were right when 23 liberal Senators voted against the Resolution for Iraq. Liberals were right when they protested in the millions.

But how can we ever go back? How can liberals bring the country back to the most basic ideals which give us our decency? In the words of T.S. Eliot, “after such knowledge, what forgiveness?”

How can the US ever stand for human rights after all that has happened? How can the US regain its honor, after seeing its reputation so badly blackened through the use of torture? How can the US ever stand for the rule of law? In our heart of hearts, most of us like to think of the US as something special, a leader in the world community, offering a vision of something fine and good. Instead, we’re becoming increasingly isolated. We represent ‘pre-emptive war’ and the expedience of the strong, not respected at all, to be feared only as long as the killing strength lasts.

Posted by: phx8 at December 13, 2005 12:47 AM
Comment #101762

Jack,

You’re telling us to wise up? Bush has been the one giving the finger to anyone and everyone he can since he’s become president. It is nice though to see him coming to grips with reality a bit lately, accepting unscripted questions at the end of his speeches, and doing, albeit too little, some of activities we’ve come to expect as basic requirements from a sitting president.

Posted by: Max at December 13, 2005 12:49 AM
Comment #101765

Question,
Has there ever been a case of two true democracies starting a war with each other?
answer?

Therein lies the reason to make this democracy stick in Iraq. Hard times are ahead, but these are the seeds.

Posted by: dogselur at December 13, 2005 1:04 AM
Comment #101772

Dog,
Democracies making war on each other? The Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Spanish-American War are all examples of conflicts between democracies. Also, sorry to point this out, but Hitler started out being democratically elected.

But, throw in enough restrictions, and the number of countries which qualify as pure democracies becomes so small, the original statement about democracies not atttacking one another becomes meaningless.

Posted by: phx8 at December 13, 2005 1:21 AM
Comment #101783
Has there ever been a case of two true democracies starting a war with each other?

What is your definition of a “true” democracy? If you define democracy as a system of government in which policy is set by unpunished, unrestricted debate among the citizens of a nation and put into action by their elected representatives, then all of the these conflicts were between two democracies.

American Revolution, 1775-1783 While Great Britain had a monarchy it also had a democratically elected independant parliament. The U.S. had not established it’s governance till after the war and the Decleration of Independance, but was running under a provisional coalition that was based on the British democratic model.

American Indian Wars, 1776-1890 Many Native American tribes were based on Democratic principles such as the confederation of Iroquoian.

French Revolutionary Wars, 1793-1799 Although France was not considered a stable democracy at the time.

Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799

Anglo-American War, 1812-1815

Franco-Roman War, France vs. the Roman Republic.
1849 Both were democracies although they were both under a year old.

Occupation of Veracruz, 1861-62 democratic Britain helped invade Veracruz part of democratic Mexico.

First World War, 1914-18 the Imperial Reichtag was democratically elected in Germany.

Occupation of the Ruhr, 1923 Although Germany did not fight back.

Second World War, 1940-45 the British bombed Finland

First Indo-Pak War, 1947-49 India vs. Pakistan although both were new democracies

Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92 Croatia vs. Yugoslavia

Border War, 1995 Ecuador vs. Peru. President Fujimori of Peru exercised emergency powers and had suspended the constitution in 1992. But was a democracy prior.

Fourth Indo-Pak War 1999 India vs. Pakistan


Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 2:15 AM
Comment #101784
But, throw in enough restrictions, and the number of countries which qualify as pure democracies becomes so small, the original statement about democracies not atttacking one another becomes meaningless.

phx8 & Dog,

Are there any “true” or “pure” democracies? I think all democracies are a mix of governance types. America is a constituional based republic, not a pure democracy.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 2:19 AM
Comment #101794
If Bush should be investiated, Then why not Clinton for lying about osama not doing any harm to America when he turned down the offer to take him into custody.

If the democratic presidents would stop dismanteling our military to put money in other places, our military would have the things they need. Thank’s to republican presidents, the money gets put back into the military. Without a strong military, our country is weak, and easier attack. That is simple common sence.

The terrorist are loosing, and desperate. It’s past time to stop complaining, and win this war.

I agree in principle with everything you write. If Clinton can be investigated why not Bush? Why put all our money into porkbarrel projects? Why not win this war by investing in it intelligently and planning effectively? This administration has shown it’s incapable of doing the above. The cliches that the Republican party is the party of financial common sense has gone out the window.

Posted by: Max at December 13, 2005 2:58 AM
Comment #101813

Jack,

we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

The White House didn’t need any of us for that. Most of its credibility worldwide has wanished way before your fellow citizens started to worry about.
And sadly, not much was made since to restore some.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 4:38 AM
Comment #101815

BTW,

disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy

Disagreement is essential to a governing democracy, whatever time. It’s when people stop whinning that you should start worry.

Your frenchly,

PS: french are professional whinners. It doesn’t make France democracy better, though. But maybe it help to keep it a democracy.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 4:44 AM
Comment #101818
President Bush relied on the same intelligence everybody else did.

I really hope he did.
But it seems he or his team behind his back choosed to ignore it when that didn’t match his policy.

As he didn’t fired his team so far, I guess he knew it. Or he’s just manipulated. Both are very scary. Such twisted claims and his unilateralist pre-emptive doctrine did most of the damage to his “presidential” credibility worldwide.

The lack of WMDs, of terrorist camps, of Iraquis flower welcoming, of aftermath plan to win peace after the battle and the fact that more than half of americans actually back him did the rest…

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 4:58 AM
Comment #101825
When we chased Zarqawi out of Afghanistan of all the countries in all the world, where did he feel was the safest place to go?

Qualifying Iraq as the safest place to go for anyone, even before march 2003, is really being blind.
Please, stop kidding yourself.
After losing Afghan battlefield, Zarqawi came to Iraq to setup Al-Quaida cells in the perspective of an imminent american invasion there. He was redeployed in the next most probable battlefield, as any fighting leader will be during a supra-national conflict…

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 5:27 AM
Comment #101834

Jack,

Iraq was a horrible place before we went in.

I’m happy you stop considering Iraq being the safest place to go.

Oil made Saddam dangerous. So it was about oil because oil is money is power is threatening.

See? I really agree with you here.
Oil control was Saddam’s actual WMD. And your boys actually found a huge stockpile of such WMD on the ground, no doubt here. IIRC, they even rush to protect them ASAP…

Sadly, Bush never said his Iraq War was justified by the threat Saddam was posing by his control on third largest oil fields.
One could wonder why, right?

Your frenchly,

PS: Saddam was planning to shift from petrodollar to petroeuro in december 2002. Iran is now planning the same for 2006…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 6:15 AM
Comment #101836

Frenchly,
“But it seems he or his team behind his back choosed to ignore it when that didn’t match his policy.”


Wasn’t the “yellow cake Uranium that Saddam sought to buy from Niger” from British Intelligence, not French Intelligence? And didn’t the British investigation prove it was credible and still stand behind it to this day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

“The Butler Report issued after a review by the British government concluded that the report Saddam’s government was seeking uranium in Africa was credible.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 13, 2005 6:44 AM
Comment #101837

All

Now glides in the mighty Sicilian Eagle with these predictions for the rest of the year(The Eagle is always right you know).

1.The elections in Iraq will go off with not too much bloodshed,capping a year when 3 (Count ‘em) three elections were held…adopting a constitution and electing a permanent government faster than America did after the American Revolution.

Tweny five million people will taste democracy for the first time in their lives.

2.The president will get a deal done on extending the Patriot act,an act that has been important in having helped to prevent terror attacks in America.The most important number is zero…zero attacks here since 9/11.Remember that.

3.The president will get a deal done on immigration before the eled of the year,although the guest worker program won’t get thru.

4.The ecomony will continue to hum along …creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs this year and blunting the foolish “our best jobs are leaving America” nonsense.Biotech,medicial,defense still powers on.

5.The Federal budget will be cut to compensate for Katrina

6.Bush will end the year with a 46% approval rating(up 4 more points from where it is today and once the budget cut numbers are announced or good news come tfrom Iraq will bounce to 50%.

Taken as a whole,guys like me have a whole lot to write about on a pretty successful year…and can negate pretty much anything that the Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi/ crowd can or will throw.

7.Hillary and Joe will make their move to bring sense back into the Democratic party…marginilizing the above three(after a bitter internal struggle) and once accomplished will be a formidable challange to the GOP in both the ‘06 and ‘08 elections.

8.Shrwed theorist (Like the old Sicilian Eagle) who realize this will act accordingly and move to assure a GOP White House happens.

9. Meanwhile,theories like Dave Remer has continue to develop as the country realizes that a two party system no longer is workable,and simeoultanesouly a three party liberal,moderate and conservative party politicial theory emerges on the horizon,slowly replacing the corrupt system that we have.

Anyone seen Burt lately?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 13, 2005 6:59 AM
Comment #101848

Hi Jack,

“Then you knew more than all those Senate Democrats who loudly raved and swore that Saddam had WMD. I guess they didn’t read the major media that you did.”

I hold Senate Democrats accountable for their stupidity in supporting Bush’s idiotic assertions about Iraq.

If I had a clue they certainly should have.

“unless he thought it was the right thing to do.”

The neocons thought Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. This was one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard from my government.

“Many people are good at predicting the past. The future is harder.”

I predicted what’s happening in Iraq. There were many military experts who predicted it.

I have a vague familiarity with some 6000 years of recorded history of the Middle East. Given the history of the region it was extremely obvious what was going to happen when we went into Iraq.

I was very much against going into Iraq because I was convinced it was the going to be the worst strategic decision made in the history of this country. I thought, and think, it’s going to cause incredible harm to our country.

My last sentence gets at the patriotism associated with the situation in Iraq. If I wished my country ill I would have been all for going into Iraq.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 8:03 AM
Comment #101850

Jack,
President Bush and Congress should of and NEEDS TO get their hands out of Iraq. The biggest problem that we are having in Iraq and the War on Terror is that ABSOLUTLY NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON! Pick and choose a team of advisors and administrators to stay in Iraq until the President can once again stand up and say “Mission Accomplish.” No problem, but where is the plan? Given the fact that the President’s own party members have called their action of “total incompetence” on more than one occassion, does the Republican Party Leadership of Congress have the Answers?

Failure to be able to answer these questions directly shows that even Congress better get their collective act together or risk a major transfer of power. Now, let Karl Rove try to spin out of that especially since the last time the Voice of America was played so close to the out of bounds line of politics that some of been caught in misquoting what is known to be right and true. VOID.org and others will not keep voting for political leaders that will not level with them.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 13, 2005 8:09 AM
Comment #101864

Jay

We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT. ALL MEN are created equal etc. Does this sound like it was meant only for Americans? And as these ideas have spread to much of the world, it is clear that not only Americans believe in them.

I agree that the Iraqis should have the government the people of Iraq choose. They did not have it under Saddam. They are much closer to having it now. Of course the test of democracy is the second and third election. As in many post-colonial regimes, we had one man, one vote, one time.

Re legitimate president - you don’t have a valid argument. We held elections according to our law. We will hold them again next year. Our representatives have the right to impeach a president. We have checks and balances. We Americans specifically rejected mob rule more than 200 years ago. That is why we managed to keep our constitution for longer than anyone else in the world and - besides that brief unpleasantness in the 1860s - it worked remarkably well.

You have the right to stand up and complain. You don’t have the right to change the government except through the democratic means we have so wisely and well used for more than 200 years.

No president has ever had the support of the whole nation. It is neither possible nor required.

Rick

Securing oil supplies is not the same as grabbing them. I don’t have a problem with securing resources we need for our (and the world economy) and keeping from being used as blackmail by tyrants and potentates. As I wrote to Phx8 it depends on the terms of the deal we make with the owners. I am in the “extraction” industry in that I grow trees. I hope someone buys my timber and I want to get a good deal. It is not exploitation unless I am coerced to sell or someone is coerced to buy. The price of the commodity varies with demand.

Phillpe

Bush laid out the problem with Saddam in his 2003 State of the Union speech. WMD was the most prominent (that is true) but there were many other reasons. The same goes for UNSC 1441. BTW that includes lots of reference to WMD. Presumably the other members of the Security Council also believed it to be true. That is a UN not a U.S. document.

Jay

The war itself was much less difficult than predicted. In some respects the very fast and successful war made the aftermath more difficult. With the fast movement, we bypassed some strongholds. It saved both American and Iraqi lives, but made trouble later. Some estimates of U.S. casualties were in the tens of thousands. IF we had told the world in 2002 that we would have lost 2000 American after two years, they would have called that crazy.

If you hold the Dems responsible, please do so. That includes Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden etc.

Re history - History turns. When it does it moves quickly. Nobody predicted the rapid fall of the Soviet Union. I was there for that one and all those who say it was inevitable only know that after the fact. In fact during the 1980s the mainstream left leaning analyst/academic community called anyone who predicted the fall of the Soviet empire a right wing nut. I was in Vienna the DAY the wall came down listening to experts tell me that communism was stable. If you listened really carefully, you probably could have heard communism crumble.

Re Iraq - for most of its 6000 year history, the place we call Iraq was controlled by outside forces. These outsiders held the place and it was relatively peaceful (compared to most other regions). I don’t know what lesson you could draw from that.

Posted by: Jack at December 13, 2005 9:06 AM
Comment #101867

Hi Jack,

“Bush laid out the problem with Saddam in his 2003 State of the Union speech.”

Bush lied about the aluminum tubes in that speech. It had been reported for several months before the speech that the aluminum tubes wern’t used for nuclear centrifuges.

Occupiers haven’t faired well in the Middle East. A powerful force is allowed to enter relatively undisturbed and then dies “the death of a thousand cuts” over the years.

What’s happening in Iraq was very easy to predict. The neocons were stupid not to see it.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 9:15 AM
Comment #101868

Hi Jack,

“Nobody predicted the rapid fall of the Soviet Union.”

That’s true. A lot of us predicted what was going to happen in Iraq though.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 9:17 AM
Comment #101878

rahdigly,

Wasn’t the “yellow cake Uranium that Saddam sought to buy from Niger” from British Intelligence, not French Intelligence? And didn’t the British investigation prove it was credible and still stand behind it to this day?

Yes. The same Bristish Intelligence claimed that their evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium. Plus IIRC the “credible” proofs were never shown so far, but the lack of evidence were very visible. Sadly, Rummy’s “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is voided today with your guys on the ground with nowhere iraqi nuclear programs to be found…

Niger uranium mines are actually controlled by French firms under the AIEA umbrella. One will think that you could trust French intelligence as much as British one on this issue, no?
But I guess even before the late 2002 split between US and France, the White House can’t trust a non aglo-saxon source.

Oh well. I can’t trust this White House anymore too, that’s all fair.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 9:46 AM
Comment #101881
The most important number is zero…zero attacks here since 9/11.

Guess what sicilianeagle: even most of nations who opposed the iraq war had zero attack on their soil.
And many didn’t have to pass Patriot Act-like bill for that. UK did, that didn’t protect them from London attacks.

What’s your point? That never again your country (or UK or mine for that matter) will be attacked by terrorists? That’s it’s substainable forever? That by reducing your freedom you’re more safe? But safe of what? Fear?

Get real.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 9:58 AM
Comment #101888

Louis

We do not now nor ever had the intention of occupying Iraq. The President said as long as it takes and not a daylonger.

But history does not show that occupiers have a particularly hard time in the region. The Ottoman Turks controlled the place for hundreds of years. (Turks - BTW - were and are a foreign power to the region. They are just closer) The Romans ran Mesopotamia until they got sick of it and left for reasons having more to do with trouble on their western borders. Persians (also non-Arabs) controlled the place much of its history. The most successful occupiers were the Arabs. Mesopotamia was not Arab and Arabs did not live there in great numbers until 700. BTW - the most “Italian” part of the Roman Empire was N. Africa. That we can’t tell that now shows how effective the Arab occupation was. And the Arabs have controlled and occupied the (non-Arab) Kurdish lands since about that time. The British and the French successfully rules Muslims for more than a century and a half with minimal investment. Just because everything eventually comes to an end does not mean it was unsuccessful

But I recognize that I am drifting. It is important not to take the wrong lessons from history.

Phillipe

1441 show the consenus of world intelligence about Iraq in late 2002.

Posted by: Jack at December 13, 2005 10:06 AM
Comment #101893

Phillipe, the Patriot Act nonsense is just that, nonsense. I challenge you to find one violation of your freedoms since the PA was enacted. Libs are merely using the PA as one their many hollow scare tactics. Louis, how are you, I see that most of the world should have consulted with you prior to the Iraq engagement. “The death of a thousand cuts”, have you been talking with Zarqawi lately. “What’s happening in Iraq was easy to predict”, so you did predict two successful elections with millions of Iraqi’s lining up to cast their vote in the third and final free election this Thursday, you also predicted that Saddam would on trial in front of his peers, that a representational government would have been in place crafting Iraq’s first ever inclusive constitution. Wow, you are something. I know though the government is just full of terrorists, according to you those stupid Iraqi’s don’t know who to vote into office huh?

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #101895

Hi Jack,

“We do not now nor ever had the intention of occupying Iraq.”

We’ve killed some 30,000 Iraqis. We’ve got all sorts of armed troops on the ground there. We’re seen as occupiers by the Iraqis.

The emperor Valerian didn’t do at all well in Persia.

On balance history shows that occupying in the Middle East is a dicey proposition.

The situation in Iraq was extremely easy to predict. Many in the Pentagon and Colin Powell saw this situation coming.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 10:31 AM
Comment #101904

Frenchly,
“The same Bristish Intelligence claimed that their evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium… Niger uranium mines are actually controlled by French firms under the AIEA umbrella. One will think that you could trust French intelligence as much as British one on this issue, no? “


The problem is that it was the British Intel that Bush was citing, not the french. And, if you really want to go there with regards to the French controlled Uranium mines in Niger, then take a look at this:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0802niger.htm

“A French intelligence operation to safeguard Niger’s uranium industry and prevent weapons proliferation, inadvertently led to the forging of documents relating to an apparent clandestine uranium trade with Iraq, western intelligence officials say.”

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031001-101113-2642r.htm

“Without this safeguards agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency can’t require Niger to tighten security and has no authority to inspect production or shipments. Niger produces lightly processed uranium, or yellowcake — the raw material for enriched uranium used as fuel for nuclear reactors or an atomic bomb. Few safeguards. Despite global fears that terrorists or so-called rogue nations could acquire ingredients for a bomb, the U.N. agency doesn’t see Niger as a major risk. Its yellowcake “would require considerable conversion and processing to be usable for nuclear weapons,” agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. “We don’t start tracking this stuff until it’s in a form suitable for reactor fuel.”


Also, here’s some info on whether Saddam had Uranium and nuclear fuels:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

“In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam’s nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 13, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #101906

Louis, “the situation in Iraq was extremely easy to predict”? Really. So who in the Democratic party predicted three successful elections, an inclusive constitution, a 200,000 strong military and security force and Saddam on trial? Because they would be true visionaries.

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 10:54 AM
Comment #101927

Lets all just give up and let the government do whatever they want, no questions asked. I mean, these are the best and the brightests, Ivy League educated Anglos whom are infallible.

Who cares if people die? Who cares if the rich get a free ride? Who cares if poor people here can’t get adequate medical care? Who cares if we deficit spend? Who cares if we ease enviromental regulations to favor polluters if it “helps the economy”? Who cares if the neo-cons hijack religion and twist it’s ideas to fit their agenda? Who cares if anyone who resists any of the previous statments is villainized simply because they want better for us all?

Who cares? Me.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 13, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #101928

Who cares what Lieberman says?

90% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans should be voted out of washington, they are human waste IMO and should NOT BE TRUSTED to run (or fix) this country.

They (dems & repugs) are in large part the reason why THINGS NEED TO BE FIXED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! F*** ‘em all.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 13, 2005 11:51 AM
Comment #101935

Jay,

Phillipe, the Patriot Act nonsense is just that, nonsense. I challenge you to find one violation of your freedoms since the PA was enacted.

You win. As I am a french citizen, Patriot Act can’t violate any of my freedoms thanks to my citizenship.
Wait. Maybe it still could?
8-\

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 12:13 PM
Comment #101941

Jack,

You exemplify the thought process of the right. You are talking in circles and trying really hard to make something out of a comment from left that simply wasn’t there and has nothing to do with the point at hand. My point of citing the Declaration of Independence was to show that we have a right, a duty to force change on our system of governance when that system no longer represents the people. Certainly these principles apply to all people, but this document was written specifically to declare American Independence. Therefore I believe we have a special duty to follow these principles.

Re legitimate president - you don’t have a valid argument. We held elections according to our law. We will hold them again next year. Our representatives have the right to impeach a president. We have checks and balances.

Jack, just stop it now. When did I ever say that this president was not the legitimate president? In fact I went out of my way to say he is the legit president. My whole point is that the American people have a duty to make sure that it’s governance is representing them. If they are not then we have a right, a duty, to petition the government for redress of grievances. It is all part of being an American.

If enough of America were to stand up and demand changes, then the government has an obligation under the Constitution to act. This principle really seems to bother you. Why? Are you afraid if we start reminding Americans of their responsibilities to hold government accountable that enough will stand up and demand change? Part of our governance is representation. Are you against the idea that the people need to demand that our representatives actually represent us? Yes, we voted them into office, but that is not where our obligations end. We must demand that once they are in office, they truly represent us, and hold them accountable when they don’t.

Just because in the past, Americans have done a poor job of holding their representatives accountable in Washington, doesn’t mean that it has to continue. Those checks and balances you talk about are not working. Therefore it is the duty of all Americans to become the checks and balances. To hold their representatives responsible for their work while in congress. One way to do that is through the electoral process. Hopefully people will take the time to find out how their representatives in congress represented them. Unfortunately, congress has made that difficult task to do. If you don’t agree with their record then you need to vote for change. Nobody should base their vote on the twisted campaigning that goes on today. People need to base their vote strictly on the candidates record esp. incumbents.

As d.a.n. often says we can do it the peaceful way or we can do it the painful way. Either way it must happen if we want to continue to be Americans in the traditional sense of the word.

You have the right to stand up and complain. You don’t have the right to change the government except through the democratic means we have so wisely and well used for more than 200 years.

This is my whole point of citing The Declaration of Independence. Our governance was created not through democratic means, but because the governed became fed up with the King of England and fought for change. The founding fathers left us a document that tells us that we do have the right and a duty to change the government when it is no longer deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. This does not necessarily have to happen through democratic means. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

We can do it the peaceful way or the painful way, It’s up to us.

No president has ever had the support of the whole nation. It is neither possible nor required.

Your right, but when the President losses the support of the majority, then those people have the right to demand change. And our government has a Constitutional obligation to act on those demands. If the government does not, then we have a right to turn to the principles held in the Declaration of Independence. If that ever happens just depends on how far Americans lets government go, before the majority has had enough and demand change.

If you hold the Dems responsible, please do so. That includes Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden etc.

We need an investigation into who knew what and when did they knew it. Anybody, Democrat or Republican or Independent (Is he still there, I’m not sure) that purposely skewed intelligence to go to war, needs to be held responsible. If that includes Hillary, Jay and Joe then so be it. You seem to be against such an investigation, and would prefer that History writes what happened. Why? Are you afraid of what would be turned up and who it is turned up on? It is better that we investigate now and find out the truth, so that we can make any wrongs right. If we wait till it is too late, and it comes out that this war was based on lies and misdeeds, no matter who did them, we will find ourselves in very dangerous position.



Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 12:25 PM
Comment #101945

Jack,

You exemplify the thought process of the right. You are talking in circles and trying really hard to make something out of a comment from left that simply wasn’t there and has nothing to do with the point at hand. My point of citing the Declaration of Independence was to show that we have a right, a duty to force change on our system of governance when that system no longer represents the people. Certainly these principles apply to all people, but this document was written specifically to declare American Independence. Therefore I believe we have a special duty to follow these principles.

Re legitimate president - you don’t have a valid argument. We held elections according to our law. We will hold them again next year. Our representatives have the right to impeach a president. We have checks and balances.

Jack, just stop it now. When did I ever say that this president was not the legitimate president? In fact I went out of my way to say he is the legit president. My whole point is that the American people have a duty to make sure that it’s governance is representing them. If they are not then we have a right, a duty, to petition the government for redress of grievances. It is all part of being an American.

If enough of America were to stand up and demand changes, then the government has an obligation under the Constitution to act. This principle really seems to bother you. Why? Are you afraid if we start reminding Americans of their responsibilities to hold government accountable that enough will stand up and demand change? Part of our governance is representation. Are you against the idea that the people need to demand that our representatives actually represent us? Yes, we voted them into office, but that is not where our obligations end. We must demand that once they are in office, they truly represent us, and hold them accountable when they don’t.

Just because in the past, Americans have done a poor job of holding their representatives accountable in Washington, doesn’t mean that it has to continue. Those checks and balances you talk about are not working. Therefore it is the duty of all Americans to become the checks and balances. To hold their representatives responsible for their work while in congress. One way to do that is through the electoral process. Hopefully people will take the time to find out how their representatives in congress represented them. Unfortunately, congress has made that difficult task to do. If you don’t agree with their record then you need to vote for change. Nobody should base their vote on the twisted campaigning that goes on today. People need to base their vote strictly on the candidates record esp. incumbents.

As d.a.n. often says we can do it the peaceful way or we can do it the painful way. Either way it must happen if we want to continue to be Americans in the traditional sense of the word.

You have the right to stand up and complain. You don’t have the right to change the government except through the democratic means we have so wisely and well used for more than 200 years.

This is my whole point of citing The Declaration of Independence. Our governance was created not through democratic means, but because the governed became fed up with the King of England and fought for change. The founding fathers left us a document that tells us that we do have the right and a duty to change the government when it is no longer deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. This does not necessarily have to happen through democratic means. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

We can do it the peaceful way or the painful way, It’s up to us.

No president has ever had the support of the whole nation. It is neither possible nor required.

Your right, but when the President losses the support of the majority, then those people have the right to demand change. And our government has a Constitutional obligation to act on those demands. If the government does not, then we have a right to turn to the principles held in the Declaration of Independence. If that ever happens just depends on how far Americans lets government go, before the majority has had enough and demand change.

If you hold the Dems responsible, please do so. That includes Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden etc.

We need an investigation into who knew what and when did they knew it. Anybody, Democrat or Republican or Independent (Is he still there, I’m not sure) that purposely skewed intelligence to go to war, needs to be held responsible. If that includes Hillary, Jay and Joe then so be it. You seem to be against such an investigation, and would prefer that History writes what happened. Why? Are you afraid of what would be turned up and who it is turned up on? It is better that we investigate now and find out the truth, so that we can make any wrongs right. If we wait till it is too late, and it comes out that this war was based on lies and misdeeds, no matter who did them, we will find ourselves in very dangerous position.



Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #101946

Hi Jay,

“Louis, “the situation in Iraq was extremely easy to predict”? Really.”

Really!

It was obvious that the Shiites were going to align themselves with Iranian Ayatollah’s. It was obvious that freedom wasn’t going to occur their. The Constitution in Iraq states that no law shall conflict with the laws in the Koran…..that’s a recipe for religious tyrany and religious tyrany is rampant in Iraq.

It was obvious that things would go very badly for us in Iraq and that is what is happening.

Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists…..Do you agree that’s not a good thing?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 12:30 PM
Comment #101948

If we are not willing to fight for American principals then we deserve everything that is going to happen to us. Wake up America and take this country back.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #101956

I find it unconscionable that we are willing to fight and die to protect American principles abroad, but we are not willing to fight for those same principles here at home. Our own government is the biggest threat to our way of life, not an outside enemy. We can do it the peaceful way or the painful way. (sorry to keep borrowing your words d.a.n. but they are so true)

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 12:38 PM
Comment #101963

Again Louis, that is extremely prejudice of you. The “terrorists” that currently occupy the new Iraq government have yet to demonstrate any act of terrorist violence and were actually placed there by the voting public of Iraq. If they respect soveriegnty and human rights, it is not our place, nor the worlds, to denigrate their affiliations, is it?

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #101965

Hi Jay,

“Again Louis, that is extremely prejudice of you.”

I stated a fact. Why are you accusing me of prejudice?

“The “terrorists” that currently occupy the new Iraq government have yet to demonstrate any act of terrorist violence”

You are wrong about that. They are currently perpetrating terrorism in Iraq.

“If they respect soveriegnty and human rights, it is not our place, nor the worlds, to denigrate their affiliations, is it?”

They do not respect human rights. It is our place to hold them accountable for being vicious thugs.

I can respect the right of the Iraqis to vote in terrorists. I don’t think we should be supporting terrorists there though.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 12:47 PM
Comment #101968

Louis, “prejudice” is simply prejudging. So you want to hold the new Iraqi government accountable for being thugs but you did not want to hold Saddam accountable. How does that work?

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 12:53 PM
Comment #101973

Hi Jay,

““prejudice” is simply prejudging.”

You have a point. I did prejudge what was going to happen in Iraq.

Prejudging is necessary before committing massive military resources.

“you did not want to hold Saddam accountable.”

When did I say that? I’m a firm believer in holding people accountable.

Do you think it’s right that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #101984

I find it unconscionable that we are willing to kill 30,000 Iraqis and sacrifice 2,349 coalition troops to fight for the American way, but we are not even suppose to question the very government that is threatening our way the most, our own.

I find it unconscionable that we are fighting and dieing and killing to spread freedom to the Middle East, and at the same time our own government is working hard to curb our own freedoms here at home.

I find it unconscionable that we have spent over 200 billion in our defense abroad, but we have done little in our defense at home.

I find it unconscionable that we are using vast American resources to rebuild Iraq, but we have allowed New Orleans slip into neglect.

I find it unconscionable that we are willing to help the rich, but we turn our backs on the poor.

I find it unconscionable that we protect marriage by denying it.

I find it unconscionable that we protect families, by vilifying them.

I find it unconscionable that we protect freedom of religion, by having it forced on the masses through the government.

I find it unconscionable that…that we have done nothing to make any of this right.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #102006

We are not united. We are a divided country and if we REALLY want peace at home we need to face facts and divvy up the territory lest we kill each other off and no one is left to believe or not believe anything anymore.

Posted by: jo at December 13, 2005 1:41 PM
Comment #102007

Jayjay

Re the Declaration et al. If the governed of the U.S. were sufficiently fed up, they could demand a change and they would get it. But they are not. Opinion polls bounce all over the place. Bush had a approval rating almost into 80th percent at one time. Last week he was down in the mid 30s. Now he is in the mid 40s. The Dems in Congress are under 30 in some polls. Americans may not like what they got, but they do have to choose among real alternatives. That is what happened last November.

I saw this once before with Clinton in 1995. Everybody said that a generic Republican could beat the pants off Clinton. But there were no generic Republicans, only real ones and none of them could beat Clinton. I bet a generic Democrat could beat Bush, but none of the real ones.

People answer opinion polls in ways different than they behave in real life.

Posted by: Jack at December 13, 2005 1:42 PM
Comment #102009

Phillipe

I just noticed your earlier post about Zarqawi feeling safe in Iraq. He went there in late 2001. Even if he was confident the U.S. would invade, he had to wait a year and a half. He didn’t feel very threatened during that time, evidently.

When I said Iraq was horrible, I of course did not mean for terrorists, Saddam allies and Saddam. For them it was great.

Posted by: Jack at December 13, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #102013

Jay,

I challenge you to find one violation of your freedoms since the PA was enacted.

Roving wire taps? Access to medical records? Sounds like an invasion of privacy to me. That’s one.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 1:50 PM
Comment #102085
If the governed of the U.S. were sufficiently fed up, they could demand a change and they would get it. But they are not.

Jack,

They are not yet. The government cannot continue on it’s current path of corruption, deception and secrecy. This is true for both sides of the aisle. Eventually we will be fed up and try to change what is happening. Whether we are able to do that peacefully through elections, or if we have to do it by force, remains to be seen. There is a point at which people will turn on the government. I believe we are quickly moving in that direction.

I work with people who prayed that Bush would win re-election in 2004. They rallied each other during the election returns, and you could not say a bad thing about Bush around them. I have seen those strong attitudes and support change in as short as a year. I suspect this is happening around the country. It really doesn’t matter who we voted into office, what matters is what he does once he is there, and what we find out about what he did while there.

The people of California democratically elected Gray Davis to the Governorship, but successfully recalled him on the grounds of “gross mismanagement of California Finances by overspending taxpayers’ money, threatening public safety by cutting funds to local governments, failing to account for the exorbitant cost of the energy , and failing in general to deal with the state’s major problems until they get to the crisis stage.”. If we can democratically recall a governor for the mismanagement of a state, then why do we not have the same option with the most powerful leader in the country, when he mismanages our tax dollars, mismanages a national disaster and mismanages the war in Iraq? Why can our congress vote to Impeach a President for lying about his private sex life, but not even bring up the subject for a President whose mismanagement has caused the deaths of thousands. He should be impeached over his mismanagement of Katrina, alone. And why can we spend millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate a stain on a little blue dress, but we cannot investigate whether anybody lied or misled us into the war in Iraq, that killed tens of thousands? This makes no sense. None.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 4:03 PM
Comment #102089

IF that happens, I will be surprised. It won’t be the first time. But I have heard a lot of things like this that have not come to pass.

Happy fitzmas.

Posted by: Jack at December 13, 2005 4:09 PM
Comment #102154

Jack,

When I said Iraq was horrible, I of course did not mean for terrorists, Saddam allies and Saddam. For them it was great.

Any fact to backup this claim?
Does Zarquawi was hosted by Sunnis or any Saddam related themselves?

I think Zarquawi just came in Iraq as any other foreign terrorists still do these days: Iraq borders are way too open. If the US most powerfull military can’t catch them when they cross the border now, how could you expect Saddam could do it in late 2001, busy like hell he was trying to keep his all smoke & mirrors dictorial arabian leadership above water level…

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 13, 2005 6:41 PM
Comment #102160

Philippe

All I know is that is where Zarqawi went and that is prima facie evidence that Al Qaeda terrorist didn’t come to the Iraq only with the U.S. invasion.

We don’t know exactly when Al Qaeda arrived. But we do know that Al Qaeda was set up in Iraq before U.S. troops deployed to Iraq and nearly two years before the invasion. Whether Saddam permitted them or was unable to keep them from setting up operations, it is evidence against the oft repeated assertion that Saddam would not allow and/or ran such a tight country that Al Qaeda could not set up.

Posted by: Jack at December 13, 2005 7:10 PM
Comment #102180

Louis, you KEEP asking that same old tired question again and again. Answer: YES. I think it is right that Americans (my brother-in-law and son) put their life on the line to help secure peace in an unstable part of the world. And tell me what your plan was to hold Saddam accountable. Containment? Saddam was laughing all the way to the bank on that one.

JayJay - roving wire taps? medical records? How many times have yours been checked? And do you really think they couldn’t have accessed those means of surveillance without the PA? C’mon. Your reaching big time on that one.

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 8:24 PM
Comment #102223

Hi Jay,

“YES. I think it is right that Americans (my brother-in-law and son) put their life on the line to help secure peace in an unstable part of the world.”

You are deflecting. Do you think it’s good that troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists?

You aren’t able to answer that are you?

“And tell me what your plan was to hold Saddam accountable.”

Going into Iraq the way we did was a huge strategic mistake. Just because I think Saddam should be accountable doesn’t mean perpetrating incredible stupidity in Iraq is a good idea.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 11:04 PM
Comment #102224
How many times have yours been checked?

I don’t know. The extent of Patriot Act abuse is still unknown because of excessive secrecy enshrouding its use.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act created roving wiretaps in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigations. Section 206 erodes the basic constitutional rule of particularization by allow the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. Section 206 also created “John Doe” roving wiretaps – wiretaps that need not specify a target or a device such as a telephone.

The patriot act also infringes on our rights to due process. The Patriot Act authorized federal law enforcement power to arrest and indefinitely detain material witnesses.

The material witness statute has been used to detain individuals whom the government believes has information concerning a terrorist investigation. It has failed to provide them their rights to counsel, an initial hearing to determine whether the individual poses a flight risk, and prevented the individuals from contacting family members that they have been arrested. Most of these “material witnesses” have not been charged with any crime and were proven innocent.
Brandon Mayfield is a Portland, Oregon resident who is a convert to Islam and an attorney. Mayfield was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant. Attorney General Gonzales acknowledged before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Section 218 of the Patriot Act was implicated in the secret search of Mayfield’s house. FBI admitted that it entered Mayfield’s house without a warrant based on criminal probable cause and copied four computer drives, digitally photographed sever documents, seized ten DNA samples and took approximately 335 digital photographs of Brandon Mayfield’s home.
Another example is the use of “pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices to track detailed information about Internet use. Telephone pen/trap orders, as they are known, permit the government to obtain a list of telephone numbers for incoming or outgoing calls with a court order not based on probable cause. However, Internet addressing information reveals much more detail, such as the specific web pages viewed or search terms entered into a search engine. When Congress expanded the government’s power to get pen/trap orders for Internet communications in the Patriot Act, however, these differences between telephone and Internet communications were ignored. Congress failed to specify rules to ensure that the privacy of ordinary Americans web surfing and e-mail habits were protected.
Delayed notice search warrants, or “sneak-and-peak” warrants, allow investigators to enter an individual’s business or dwelling to obtain limited and specific information for an investigation and notifying the individual of the search at a later date. Section 213 of the Patriot Act overturns the seven-day rule and instead allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite “reasonable time.”
The statute authorizing the use of “national security letters” as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, and telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records. The letters can be issued simply on the FBI’s own assertion that they are needed for an investigation, and also contain an automatic and permanent nondisclosure requirement.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 11:06 PM
Comment #102225

Louis, Yes, Yes and Yes. I think it is a very good thing that we are supporting terrorists.

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 11:09 PM
Comment #102230

Hi Jay,

“I think it is a very good thing that we are supporting terrorists.”

It doesn’t look like a question of whether the terrorists will win in Iraq. It seems to be a question of which terrorists win.

If the terrorists win we lose.

I think your view is despicable. You think that America’s finest should fight and die to support terrorists. I think that our troops should be fighting terrorists rather than supporting them.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 11:37 PM
Comment #102233

It’s a stupid question Louis. It essentially assumes that everyone that would assume control in Iraq is a terrorist. They have a completely view on life than you do Loi=uis and that doesn’t mean it is inherently bad. There are good people associated with SCIRI. I think your view of the Iraq people is despicable.

Posted by: Jay at December 13, 2005 11:49 PM
Comment #102236

And be honest, you don’t know what the hell you would have done with Saddam and neither does the left. You, and they, only feel comfortable criticizing someone who actually did do something. That’s despicable.

Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2005 12:02 AM
Comment #102237

Jack,

No operational link between Saddam and 9/11, but there is plenty or reason to believe Saddam and Osama were fellow travelers. When we chased Zarqawi out of Afghanistan of all the countries in all the world, where did he feel was the safest place to go?
Fellow travellers? A religious extremist and the ruler of a secular government? There is almost NO convincing evidence of ANY sort of collaboration. About the ONLY thing they had in common was their geographic location.

Why would someone who wants to kill Americans go to Iraq? Gee, ya think it could be because the Bush administration conveniently provided him with over 100,000 targets? C’mon Jack, you gotta do better’n that.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 14, 2005 12:03 AM
Comment #102278

Hi Jay,

“It’s a stupid question Louis. It essentially assumes that everyone that would assume control in Iraq is a terrorist.”

I assume no such thing. There are significant numbers of terrorists in the Iraqi government.

I think it’s extremely depraved that our soldiers are fighting and dying to support them.

“There are good people associated with SCIRI.”

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution is running death squads consisting of Iraqi security forces…..WE’RE PAYING PEOPLE TO BE TERRORISTS.

“I think your view of the Iraq people is despicable.”

I condenmn terrorists. Please tell me what is despicable about that?

Seriously Jay, what is wrong with having contempt for terrorists?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 7:41 AM
Comment #102293

Elliot

He was in Iraq more than a year before the U.S. buildup and nearly two years before the invasion. Even if he anticipated the invasion, that is a long time to be roaming a fascist country that controls the movements of its people. Or trys to.

We have two options. Either Saddam did not control his country well enough to keep out his “sworn enemies” or they were not his enemies and he didn’t try to keep them out. In either case, Iraq was not free of Al Qaeda before the invasion, as some people say.

The idea that AL Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before the U.S. invasion is wrong no matter which version you believe. That is the one thing that remains constant.

Posted by: Jack at December 14, 2005 9:11 AM
Comment #102294

Louis, are there no good people in Iraq? Who would you want to assume power? Everyone associated with SCIRI runs death squads? IMHO, you are strictly politically charged here and this is one of the last straws you have to hold onto.

Elliot, yeah you’re right Saddam and UBL never even knew each other. What did they have in common? How about a crazed desire to destroy the west at any and all cost. There are Americans all over Europe and the middle east and they found plenty of targets all the time. The fact is the left would not have done anything about any threat because:
A. They have a weak moral compass of right and wrong and will excuse those that perpetrate crimes to lack of understanding.
B. Their self-loathing and disdain for all that is America leads them to conclude that maybe we deserved it.
Although you are very good at criticizing someone who actually gets up off his ass and does something about it.

Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2005 9:24 AM
Comment #102300

Jack,

We have two options. Either Saddam did not control his country well enough to keep out his “sworn enemies” or they were not his enemies and he didn’t try to keep them out. In either case, Iraq was not free of Al Qaeda before the invasion, as some people say.

Not being your enemy doesn’t make you a friend.
And unfortunatly, many countries were/are not free of Al Qaeda presence. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Spain. Indonesia. Tchetchen. Several europeans nations, UK, Spain & France included. Iraq. Probably all had or have “more or less” dormant Al Qaeda cells in their soils. US was not free before 911 and sadly maybe still isn’t.
I guess Saddam didn’t saw Al Qaeda as his most threatful issue to fix. Keeping his dictatorship and himself alive was, probably.

Hidden/dormant terrorist cells is very hard to find. Ask Israel. They really can’t be suspected of being friend or even tolerant with palestinian terrorists!

The idea that AL Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before the U.S. invasion is wrong no matter which version you believe. That is the one thing that remains constant.

Al Qaeda was operating in Spain, Indonesia, UK in the last years. With far more visible (and killing) evidence.

Did you plan to attack every country that happens to have Al Qaeda cells in their soil? In such case, pre-emptive doctrine allow you to do it even without any proven evidence, right? Because such hard evidence was never found in Saddam - Al Qaeda link case…

Anyway, if it was to be the plan, then WWIII is already there and indeed US are at war against virtually the rest of the world (ROTW) as islamic terrorism is spread all over the world…
A US vs ROTW war will be very disastrous for everyone and most probably US will lose in the ends.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 14, 2005 9:51 AM
Comment #102312

Philippe

I am addressing a very specific charge sometimes made that the Iraq invasion brought the terror organization to Iraq where Saddam’s iron hand had kept it out. That is clearly not the case.

You are right that actually rooting out terrorist organizations is hard to do. But Iraq was different than the other places you mention because it was a fascist highly controlled place where few things were left alone and where people who didn’t agree with Saddam were quickly killed.

Anyway, the argument that Al Queda was not operating in Iraq before the invasion is false. That is what I am aiming at. That terrorists are other places is true.

Posted by: Jack at December 14, 2005 10:07 AM
Comment #102313

Phillipe, I understand Bush is preparing to invade and occupy France after Iraq.

Your Americanly,

Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2005 10:12 AM
Comment #102351

Jay,

Phillipe, I understand Bush is preparing to invade and occupy France after Iraq.

Wait. Before Iran!?!
Or does the White House confuse Iran and France?
Quick, please someone should tell them to stop using Google Maps for their foreign policy decisions. CNN fall last month in the same trap!

Plus, some facts to know about France:
- no oil fields;
- world largest french population place;
- all of them are lazy;
- manual transmissions cars everywhere;
- one bathroom, in Versailles. Used once.
- no oil fields;
- all french lives on welfare;
- no showers. not a single one;
- land of stinking cheeses. no teeth brush;
- no oil fields;
- no jobs;
- bad english (or any foreign language for that matter) skills;
- half french are atheists;
- f*cking non standard units system;
- intifada in progress;
- land of the world best professional whinners;
- no oil fields.

So, when I could see the point for invasion (Rice’s “punish France” consequence), I failed to see occupation motivation(s).
Oh. Did I say “no oil fields”?

Your frenchly,

PS: I’m glad you used the word occupation and Iraq in the same sentence…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 14, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #102360

We would only invade and occupy from May 15-June 15 and maybe come back in early fall to make sure things were okay.

We can share the cheese with Iran.

Posted by: Jack at December 14, 2005 12:34 PM
Comment #102370

Jack

We would only invade and occupy from May 15-June 15 and maybe come back in early fall to make sure things were okay.

Sounds like an american tourist schedule.
Wait, I said “tourist”, not “terrorist”!

We can share the cheese with Iran.

Stop using chemical weapons in Middle East.
Please.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 14, 2005 12:50 PM
Comment #102388
Or does the White House confuse Iran and France?

My frenchly,

It wouldn’t suprise me, after all the White House confused Iraq with OBL. I don’t put anything past them, and I don’t think many world leaders do either. A very dangerous position to be in, wouldn’t you say?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 14, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #102485

I will say it again for the 100th time….Klinton and Congres passed and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998……Klinton didn’t have the balls to take a chance and fulfill it…..he was to busy playing with Monica
and looking for an easy “Legacy”!

Bush did Klintons job for him….just like Republicans have had to do for 50 years:
Clean up after Demwit blunders!!!

Posted by: Lug at December 14, 2005 6:34 PM
Comment #102532

Hi Jay,

“Louis, are there no good people in Iraq?”

Of course there are good people in Iraq.

“Who would you want to assume power?”

As a practical matter Allawi is our only hope right now. He’s a bit of a tyrant but he’s on our side.

“Everyone associated with SCIRI runs death squads?”

I don’t think so. I guess that many in the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution sympathize with the death squads that are run by the Supreme Council.

Does it strike you as odd that our troops are fighting for “The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution”?

“IMHO, you are strictly politically charged here and this is one of the last straws you have to hold onto.”

That’s bullsit. I’m against our troops fighting to support terrorists. You seem to think it’s a great idea for our troops to be fighting and dying to support terrorists.

What prompted your “last straw” bullshit by the way?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 9:04 PM
Comment #102555

What prompted the “last straw” comment is that I sincerely believe our mission is soon to be accomplished and most dems are still holding on to the “lost cause”, “quagmire” argument. Millions of Iraqi’s including sunni’s are voting today and finalizing a constitution and governing body. THAT’S HUGE! The Iraqi military and security forces are improving and growing daily. We will begin bringing troops home next year. It appears that Bush (and the decent people of Iraq) won, the left lost. I am still wainting for an answer to the question of what the left would have done to confront this threat. IMHO, the left is all bark and no bite.

Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2005 11:26 PM
Comment #102556

Phillipe, whoa manual transmissions and no tooth brushes, forget it.

Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2005 11:29 PM
Comment #102651

Hi Jay,

“most dems are still holding on to the “lost cause”, “quagmire” argument”

I think we’ll be stuck in Iraq for a long time. I haven’t been making the “quagmire argument”. You’re mislabeling my arguments and then attacking me for saying stuff that I haven’t said.

“The Iraqi military and security forces are improving and growing daily.”

The Iraqi security forces are riddled with terrorists. Police drive around Baghdad with pictures of al Sadr on their cars.

“I am still wainting for an answer to the question of what the left would have done to confront this threat.”

What threat are you refering to? Saddam wasn’t a threat compared to Somolia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, or Iran.

If you’re talking about an answer to what to do in Iraq now niether side has the answers.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 7:50 AM
Post a comment