Post #16
Winning in Iraq… for dummies! Pt. II
OK, our national debate is “We broke Iraq – do we fix it… or leave it?”
To fix it, the first step is to follow that impediment to an imperial Presidency, the Constitution. Ask Congress to declare war. With a declaration of war, there’d be no need to argue that a “blank check” from Congress allows for a seizure of War Powers.
With War Powers, get the draft going. Look, Iraq has 27 million people, and I think we ought to have one soldier to keep a 24/7 eye on every Iraqi – give an Iraqi five-minute bathroom breaks and conjugal visits to married couples. OK, that is an exaggeration, but ya get the point – we need a much larger force to secure Iraq, and probably only a draft can meet our needs. Plus, a draft without deferments will spread the sacrifices required. How important is democracy when Jen Bush goes!?! :p
Other War Powers, I’m sure, will be seized – rationing gas, for example. We’ve been told that this is a war we cannot afford to lose – doesn’t that mean some sacrifices by all of us, including the country club set, will be necessary? The truth is that we CAN afford to lose Iraq – Afghanistan will determine our future. That is where the declaration of war needs to be.
To leave it, without a declaration of war, immediately load our troops on planes and fly them home. Isn’t it an impeachable offense to send troops into harm’s way without a declaration of war? Well, gosh, it ought to be.
Today, I am in favor of fixing. However, by the time Bush leaves office, circumstances around the world may have changed, a new foe may have risen, and it may be in our interests to leave and concentrate elsewhere. But never should anybody forget – George W. Bush got us into this mess, and he won’t get us out!
Monday, August 28, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Post #15
Winning in Iraq… for dummies!
The way to win in Iraq is so simple and obvious. Unfortunately, George W. Bush cannot see the way out of the forest for the trees of neo-con lunacy. As plainly stated by Bush, our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
The first thing we need is an honest full debate of what our national interests are. Say what you will about Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, apologize for Bush’s faulty intelligence, I think everyone can agree that there was not a full disclosure of evidence, pro and con. As Pat Buchanan said on The McLaughlin Group, Bush acted as a prosecutor – picking and choosing evidence to support his case. Did Bush run for President or prosecutor-in-chief!?! :p
OK, so what are our national interests?
WMD – or stopping the spread thereof. Before Bush invaded Iraq, I said his policy of “pre-emptive war” was wrong – not only is it wrong to start fights, nobody likes a bully, but the first time he is wrong will limit our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other pre-emptive wars which might even be more necessary. Oh, what a difference if there had of been WMD in Iraq!
9/11 – bringing justice to those who caused it. “No distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I still support our troops in Afghanistan rooting out Al-Qaeda training camps. I supported that mission on 9/12 and still do – despite Bush’s bungling of that job too!
Democracy – and the spread thereof. NO! Democracy does NOT bloom at gunpoint. The march of liberty is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured and supported. But no force – democracy has never bloomed at gunpoint, and there is no reason to think it will now.
Fightin’ ‘em on the streets of Baghdad instead of Main Street – does anybody really believe that anymore? Did the terrorists who plotted to blow up planes over the Atlantic have Baghdad addresses? It seems to me that killing tens of thousands of Arabs on TV is NOT helping us.
What, then, are our national interests in Iraq?
Well, we broke it – do we fix it… or leave it? After WWI, we left. Of course, the aftermath of WWI led to WWII. We fixed the aftermath of WWII. But we broke Vietnam and left without WWIII breaking out. I doubt the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – can understand such a simple straight-forward concept, especially when the concept makes them look like self-serving fools! But we broke Iraq….
I plan for my next post to be a look at the costs of fixing or leaving….
Winning in Iraq… for dummies!
The way to win in Iraq is so simple and obvious. Unfortunately, George W. Bush cannot see the way out of the forest for the trees of neo-con lunacy. As plainly stated by Bush, our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
The first thing we need is an honest full debate of what our national interests are. Say what you will about Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, apologize for Bush’s faulty intelligence, I think everyone can agree that there was not a full disclosure of evidence, pro and con. As Pat Buchanan said on The McLaughlin Group, Bush acted as a prosecutor – picking and choosing evidence to support his case. Did Bush run for President or prosecutor-in-chief!?! :p
OK, so what are our national interests?
WMD – or stopping the spread thereof. Before Bush invaded Iraq, I said his policy of “pre-emptive war” was wrong – not only is it wrong to start fights, nobody likes a bully, but the first time he is wrong will limit our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other pre-emptive wars which might even be more necessary. Oh, what a difference if there had of been WMD in Iraq!
9/11 – bringing justice to those who caused it. “No distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I still support our troops in Afghanistan rooting out Al-Qaeda training camps. I supported that mission on 9/12 and still do – despite Bush’s bungling of that job too!
Democracy – and the spread thereof. NO! Democracy does NOT bloom at gunpoint. The march of liberty is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured and supported. But no force – democracy has never bloomed at gunpoint, and there is no reason to think it will now.
Fightin’ ‘em on the streets of Baghdad instead of Main Street – does anybody really believe that anymore? Did the terrorists who plotted to blow up planes over the Atlantic have Baghdad addresses? It seems to me that killing tens of thousands of Arabs on TV is NOT helping us.
What, then, are our national interests in Iraq?
Well, we broke it – do we fix it… or leave it? After WWI, we left. Of course, the aftermath of WWI led to WWII. We fixed the aftermath of WWII. But we broke Vietnam and left without WWIII breaking out. I doubt the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – can understand such a simple straight-forward concept, especially when the concept makes them look like self-serving fools! But we broke Iraq….
I plan for my next post to be a look at the costs of fixing or leaving….
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Post #14
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.
With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.
[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]
… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.
It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?
LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.
GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.
[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]
MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?
GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.
MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?
GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?
GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.
MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?
GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.
[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.
Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?
GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.
[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?
GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.
MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?
GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?
[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?
GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.
MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.
GARD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.
GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.
MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.
[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.
With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.
[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]
… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.
It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?
LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.
GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.
[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]
MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?
GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.
MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?
GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?
GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.
MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?
GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.
[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.
Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?
GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.
[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?
GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.
MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?
GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?
[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?
GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.
MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.
GARD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.
GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.
MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.
[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Post #13
Bush links Lebanon to war on terror
President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy
This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.
[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]
Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]
He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”
[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]
Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”
He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.
“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.
[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]
The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.
[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]
Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.
[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]
With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.
“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”
Bush argued that his approach is working.
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]
Bush links Lebanon to war on terror
President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy
This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.
[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]
Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]
He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”
[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]
Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”
He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.
“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.
[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]
The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.
[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]
Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.
[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]
With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.
“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”
Bush argued that his approach is working.
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]
Friday, August 18, 2006
Post #12
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home.html
The above link is a site that will send a free printed postcard to an American Soldier. You can choose a pre-printed design or upload your own.
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home.html
The above link is a site that will send a free printed postcard to an American Soldier. You can choose a pre-printed design or upload your own.
Post #11
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. I guess it is too much to expect those who spent the Vietnam War years ducking military service to actually have paid attention to the lessons of that war. Again:
1. We intervened where out interests were NOT. We had to save the South Vietnamese from those Godless Communists. No, there was no historical connection with Vietnam, such as their help during our Revolution. No, there was no economic reason, such as our dependence on cheap Vietnam T-shirts. The reason we were in Vietnam was because of the “domino theory” – we had to fight ‘em on the streets of Saigon instead of the streets of San Diego. But did the “domino theory” work after we left? Has it ever worked? I am slack-jawed when people suggest a “domino theory” for Iraq – that is, a blooming democracy in the Middle East will inspire its neighbors to be… WHAT!?! Um, isn’t Israel a blooming democracy?
2. We intervened for dishonest reasons. Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq had WMD/9-11/liberating… or whatever the excuse is this week. A lie is when ya knowingly tell something wrong or tell something ya are in a position to know is wrong. So, George W. Bush lied to us as members of his own administration tried to tell him he was wrong. Where is the “faulty intelligence?” Look in the mirror.
3. We intervened half-heartedly. Colin Powell had it right during the Gulf War – overwhelming force. I’m listening to retired General Robert Gard, Jr. on Hardball with Chris Matthews right now, and he is exactly right. I need to get that transcript.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. I guess it is too much to expect those who spent the Vietnam War years ducking military service to actually have paid attention to the lessons of that war. Again:
1. We intervened where out interests were NOT. We had to save the South Vietnamese from those Godless Communists. No, there was no historical connection with Vietnam, such as their help during our Revolution. No, there was no economic reason, such as our dependence on cheap Vietnam T-shirts. The reason we were in Vietnam was because of the “domino theory” – we had to fight ‘em on the streets of Saigon instead of the streets of San Diego. But did the “domino theory” work after we left? Has it ever worked? I am slack-jawed when people suggest a “domino theory” for Iraq – that is, a blooming democracy in the Middle East will inspire its neighbors to be… WHAT!?! Um, isn’t Israel a blooming democracy?
2. We intervened for dishonest reasons. Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq had WMD/9-11/liberating… or whatever the excuse is this week. A lie is when ya knowingly tell something wrong or tell something ya are in a position to know is wrong. So, George W. Bush lied to us as members of his own administration tried to tell him he was wrong. Where is the “faulty intelligence?” Look in the mirror.
3. We intervened half-heartedly. Colin Powell had it right during the Gulf War – overwhelming force. I’m listening to retired General Robert Gard, Jr. on Hardball with Chris Matthews right now, and he is exactly right. I need to get that transcript.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Post #10
Subject: Ann Coulter
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
"Endnotes in Coulter's latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods
"On July 7, Media Matters for America asked Random House Inc. whether it would investigate charges of plagiarism lodged against right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). Steve Ross, senior vice president and publisher of Crown Publishing Group and publisher of the Crown Forum imprint -- divisions of Random House Inc. -- responded to Media Matters by stating that charges of plagiarism against Coulter were 'trivial,' 'meritless,' and 'irresponsible,' and defended Coulter's scholarship by stating that she 'knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless.'
"This was hardly the first time Coulter and her defenders have offered the large number of footnotes contained in her book as 'evidence' of the quality of her scholarship. Also on July 7, Terence Jeffrey, editor of conservative weekly Human Events, defended Coulter's book on CNN's The Situation Room by citing her '19 pages of footnotes.' And when similar questions were raised about her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, June 2002), Coulter repeatedly cited her '35 pages of footnotes' as evidence that her claims were accurate.
"In response, Media Matters decided to investigate each of the endnotes in Godless. We found a plethora of problems.
"Among other things, Coulter:
"misrepresented and distorted the statements of her sources;
"omitted information in those sources that refuted the claims in her book;
"misrepresented news coverage to allege bias;
"relied upon outdated and unreliable sources;
"and invented 'facts.'"
Please, fans of Ann Coulter follow the above link for more. Also, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607170003
"On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann reported that right-wing pundit 'Ann Coulter has been knocked off the pages of one of the heartland's better newspapers because of complaints by conservatives,' who 'felt their views were being misrepresented.' Olbermann interviewed Doug Neumann, the opinion page editor of The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, about the newspaper's decision to discontinue publishing Coulter's syndicated column. Olbermann said, 'History tells us ... that political lightning rods are rarely vanquished by their foes, but usually instead by their friends,' adding that the Shreveport Times in Louisiana has asked its readers if it too should drop the Coultergeist column and replace her with another conservative writer."
Oh, well, Ann Coulter remains eye candy! :D
Subject: Ann Coulter
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
"Endnotes in Coulter's latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods
"On July 7, Media Matters for America asked Random House Inc. whether it would investigate charges of plagiarism lodged against right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). Steve Ross, senior vice president and publisher of Crown Publishing Group and publisher of the Crown Forum imprint -- divisions of Random House Inc. -- responded to Media Matters by stating that charges of plagiarism against Coulter were 'trivial,' 'meritless,' and 'irresponsible,' and defended Coulter's scholarship by stating that she 'knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless.'
"This was hardly the first time Coulter and her defenders have offered the large number of footnotes contained in her book as 'evidence' of the quality of her scholarship. Also on July 7, Terence Jeffrey, editor of conservative weekly Human Events, defended Coulter's book on CNN's The Situation Room by citing her '19 pages of footnotes.' And when similar questions were raised about her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, June 2002), Coulter repeatedly cited her '35 pages of footnotes' as evidence that her claims were accurate.
"In response, Media Matters decided to investigate each of the endnotes in Godless. We found a plethora of problems.
"Among other things, Coulter:
"misrepresented and distorted the statements of her sources;
"omitted information in those sources that refuted the claims in her book;
"misrepresented news coverage to allege bias;
"relied upon outdated and unreliable sources;
"and invented 'facts.'"
Please, fans of Ann Coulter follow the above link for more. Also, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607170003
"On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann reported that right-wing pundit 'Ann Coulter has been knocked off the pages of one of the heartland's better newspapers because of complaints by conservatives,' who 'felt their views were being misrepresented.' Olbermann interviewed Doug Neumann, the opinion page editor of The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, about the newspaper's decision to discontinue publishing Coulter's syndicated column. Olbermann said, 'History tells us ... that political lightning rods are rarely vanquished by their foes, but usually instead by their friends,' adding that the Shreveport Times in Louisiana has asked its readers if it too should drop the Coultergeist column and replace her with another conservative writer."
Oh, well, Ann Coulter remains eye candy! :D
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Post #9
Terrorist threat level is red, and it is an indictment of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.
Obviously, Al-Qaeda is NOT finished – I was wrong in “Post #8” about Al-Qaeda being finished, but I was right in that we didn’t finish in Afghanistan. Bush’s paranoid obsession with Saddam has led to this point.
Thank you, George W. – five years after 9/11, and what have we got?
Terrorist threat level is red, and it is an indictment of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.
Obviously, Al-Qaeda is NOT finished – I was wrong in “Post #8” about Al-Qaeda being finished, but I was right in that we didn’t finish in Afghanistan. Bush’s paranoid obsession with Saddam has led to this point.
Thank you, George W. – five years after 9/11, and what have we got?
Friday, August 04, 2006
Post #8
I read the news the other day about another American soldier killed in Iraq. What caught my eye was that this soldier left behind a two-week-old daughter, a daughter he will obviously never know. Will George W. Bush have the decency to escort the girl down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say?
The answer to the first question is, I’d think, a BIG “no.” But I’m sure that many “Bushies” would object that the first question is unfair, that no President should be asked to do that. Oh, really?
Toward the end of WW II, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt was touring Army hospitals full of amputees and other disabled soldiers, he appeared in his wheelchair – his handicap was a carefully guarded secret – to let the soldiers know that their lives weren’t over, there were still contributions to be made. Ronald Reagan was well-known for his personal, hand-written notes in times of tragedy. I doubt that Bush has that much character.
But suppose a frail Bush in his 80s did escort the soldier’s daughter down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say? The girl’s father missed her first steps, her first day of school, her prom, her graduation. How could Bush justify her father’s death as not being in vain?
The obvious first justification is that there were no major terror attacks on American soil – until Democrats started sniping. Well, that’s assuming that there will be a major attack sometime in the future. But let’s look at what has worked in the war on terror:
1. Intelligence. By the very nature of intelligence work, we will never know for sure the hard work and the brain-power that went into our safety – of course, some of it no doubt has been pure luck. But, considering human nature, as we get farther away from 9/11, the focus will lesson. In many ways, the war on terror is a race against time. Can we convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us more harm?
2. Fighting “over there” in the hills of Afghanistan. Our successes have yielded much valuable information. Al-Qaeda, as a terrorist organization capable of harming us “over here,” is finished. However, by not cutting the head off the snake, we have insured that Al-Qaeda’s spirit will live on. Indeed, our next big threat, according to the Pentagon, is home-grown terrorists who sympathize with Al-Qaeda.
What has not worked is our diversion into Iraq. We didn’t finish in Afghanistan, and we set up a new breeding ground for terrorists.
Perhaps Bush can convince the girl that just being a soldier and providing for his family is honorable thing. But Damn… that Iraq mess….
I read the news the other day about another American soldier killed in Iraq. What caught my eye was that this soldier left behind a two-week-old daughter, a daughter he will obviously never know. Will George W. Bush have the decency to escort the girl down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say?
The answer to the first question is, I’d think, a BIG “no.” But I’m sure that many “Bushies” would object that the first question is unfair, that no President should be asked to do that. Oh, really?
Toward the end of WW II, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt was touring Army hospitals full of amputees and other disabled soldiers, he appeared in his wheelchair – his handicap was a carefully guarded secret – to let the soldiers know that their lives weren’t over, there were still contributions to be made. Ronald Reagan was well-known for his personal, hand-written notes in times of tragedy. I doubt that Bush has that much character.
But suppose a frail Bush in his 80s did escort the soldier’s daughter down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say? The girl’s father missed her first steps, her first day of school, her prom, her graduation. How could Bush justify her father’s death as not being in vain?
The obvious first justification is that there were no major terror attacks on American soil – until Democrats started sniping. Well, that’s assuming that there will be a major attack sometime in the future. But let’s look at what has worked in the war on terror:
1. Intelligence. By the very nature of intelligence work, we will never know for sure the hard work and the brain-power that went into our safety – of course, some of it no doubt has been pure luck. But, considering human nature, as we get farther away from 9/11, the focus will lesson. In many ways, the war on terror is a race against time. Can we convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us more harm?
2. Fighting “over there” in the hills of Afghanistan. Our successes have yielded much valuable information. Al-Qaeda, as a terrorist organization capable of harming us “over here,” is finished. However, by not cutting the head off the snake, we have insured that Al-Qaeda’s spirit will live on. Indeed, our next big threat, according to the Pentagon, is home-grown terrorists who sympathize with Al-Qaeda.
What has not worked is our diversion into Iraq. We didn’t finish in Afghanistan, and we set up a new breeding ground for terrorists.
Perhaps Bush can convince the girl that just being a soldier and providing for his family is honorable thing. But Damn… that Iraq mess….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)