Post #48
Subject: The future is now!
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.”
Uh, we are already there. The Iraq War – George W. Bush’s folly – will haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.
History will condemn Bush and his administration for the wanton disregard of the truth – before and during the war. From WMD to the constant “turning the corner” and “making progress,” what was once fear-mongering has now given away to mindless cheerleading. Shame on Bush for getting us into what he can’t get us out of.
History will also condemn those who originally supported this mess for the reason of politics – a fear of opposing a popular President. Where was Hillary Clinton? Our leaders who should have known better?
But, ultimately, History will judge us, the American people, harshest of all. Why were we so blind to support liberating, to get a ”democracy that’s an allay in the war on terror?” Judging from my e-mails, peeps were scared shitless of WMD – when the invasion did not find any WMD, our invasion became a liberation. I’m still waiting for sweets and flowers. :p
Our military objectives were removing Saddam and WMD. I opposed that – we had Saddam boxed in and another more important battle in Afghanistan. But those objectives were obtainable – and they were. Our occupation should have ended then. That’s why I say “Get out… now!”
A “democracy that’s an allay in the war on terror” is a political objective – our military cannot and should not be asked to achieve this. Yet, Bush wants to send 30,000 more American targets to Iraq. There is your “endangering Americans” right there. :p
But my “Get out… now!” is not rooted in some ‘60s Peace & Love ideology. My stand is practical. Look, we are bleeding to death in Iraq – our troops may be needed tomorrow, somewhere, more urgently. If we can leave with honor, great. If we have to leave humiliated, OK – I certainly don’t give a damn about saving the image of George Weasel Bush. The important thing is to “Get out… now!”
Friday, December 29, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Post #47
Subject: “OK, smarty pants, what would you do if…?
I get that a lot. It’s easier to criticize than to offer a real alternative.
So,…
The set-up: I’m the President. I’m sitting in the Oval Office wondering why my intern staff does not look like The Girls Next Door. The CIA Director walks in. “Mr. President,” he says, “Iran will have a nuclear bomb within six months.”
The question: “What would you do?”
First, I’d raise my eyebrow and ask, “Is this a slam dunk!?!” Seriously, I’d ask to see the evidence. The only evidence George W. Bush saw of Iraq’s WMD was Dick Cheney drooling – apparently. :p
Second, I’d pick up the phone and call the President of Iran – I can’t pronounce or even spell his name, but I’d definitely have him on speed-dial: “Hey, Ahmad, baby – how are you doing? What do you think of Donald Trump giving Miss USA a second chance? … Yes, decadent American blonde – gotta love it! I think The Donald told her ‘No more partying in public. The next time you feel the need to party, come on up to my place. And bring that Miss Teen with ya.’ … Yep, haha, decadent American businessman! Actually, I think Miss Nevada deserved a second chance even more – her indiscretion was in the past. But those pictures did her in. Ya got those pics? Well, I’ll e-mail ‘em to ya.
“Hey, I hear that ya starting a nuclear program. That’s smart – oil won’t last forever. Buy American, haha – our technology is better than that Russian crap.
“While I got ya on the phone, let me invite ya over for an All-American tour, the Grand Canyon, Disneyland, whatever ya want to see. And, of course, a speech to Congress. … Yes, I’d love to see Tehran – have your people call my people.”
I’d hang up, roll my eyes and mutter ‘That s.o.b. wants me to visit his desert!’ See, Bush has never leaned to keep your friends close but your enemies even closer – indeed, Bush’s self-righteous approach to foreign policy has gotten nuclear weapons in North Korea, a program in Iran, and a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq.
Third, I’d call the Secretary of Defense: “Draw up plans for a full-scale invasion of Iran within five months. None of that half-hearted air-strikes nonsense, I want to see 1000 tanks rolling over the Afghan border. How long will it take to get those tanks ready and in place? You got five months. You may want to come over here and rummage through Cheney’s old desk. :p”
At the five-month mark with troops in place, if diplomacy has failed, I’d ask Congress to declare war. The #1 lesson of Vietnam was commit the country BEFORE committing the troops. With a declaration of war,…
[drools]….
Subject: “OK, smarty pants, what would you do if…?
I get that a lot. It’s easier to criticize than to offer a real alternative.
So,…
The set-up: I’m the President. I’m sitting in the Oval Office wondering why my intern staff does not look like The Girls Next Door. The CIA Director walks in. “Mr. President,” he says, “Iran will have a nuclear bomb within six months.”
The question: “What would you do?”
First, I’d raise my eyebrow and ask, “Is this a slam dunk!?!” Seriously, I’d ask to see the evidence. The only evidence George W. Bush saw of Iraq’s WMD was Dick Cheney drooling – apparently. :p
Second, I’d pick up the phone and call the President of Iran – I can’t pronounce or even spell his name, but I’d definitely have him on speed-dial: “Hey, Ahmad, baby – how are you doing? What do you think of Donald Trump giving Miss USA a second chance? … Yes, decadent American blonde – gotta love it! I think The Donald told her ‘No more partying in public. The next time you feel the need to party, come on up to my place. And bring that Miss Teen with ya.’ … Yep, haha, decadent American businessman! Actually, I think Miss Nevada deserved a second chance even more – her indiscretion was in the past. But those pictures did her in. Ya got those pics? Well, I’ll e-mail ‘em to ya.
“Hey, I hear that ya starting a nuclear program. That’s smart – oil won’t last forever. Buy American, haha – our technology is better than that Russian crap.
“While I got ya on the phone, let me invite ya over for an All-American tour, the Grand Canyon, Disneyland, whatever ya want to see. And, of course, a speech to Congress. … Yes, I’d love to see Tehran – have your people call my people.”
I’d hang up, roll my eyes and mutter ‘That s.o.b. wants me to visit his desert!’ See, Bush has never leaned to keep your friends close but your enemies even closer – indeed, Bush’s self-righteous approach to foreign policy has gotten nuclear weapons in North Korea, a program in Iran, and a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq.
Third, I’d call the Secretary of Defense: “Draw up plans for a full-scale invasion of Iran within five months. None of that half-hearted air-strikes nonsense, I want to see 1000 tanks rolling over the Afghan border. How long will it take to get those tanks ready and in place? You got five months. You may want to come over here and rummage through Cheney’s old desk. :p”
At the five-month mark with troops in place, if diplomacy has failed, I’d ask Congress to declare war. The #1 lesson of Vietnam was commit the country BEFORE committing the troops. With a declaration of war,…
[drools]….
Friday, December 22, 2006
Post #46
Subject: Greetings
Holiday Greetings
For My Democrat Friends: "Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not wthout due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."
For My Republican Friends: "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!"
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Post #45
Subject: A genuine change-of-heart… or a search for political cover?
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
From CNN [drumroll]:
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
As the Iraq war clearly worsens, some U.S. Senators who voted for the war have now come out against it. One of them is now deeply, deeply frustrated about the current course, and is out blasting the Bush administration's strategy. Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon had this to say late last week about Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Senator, a powerful, emotional statement I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about face?
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up.
[Uuummm, a vote, yes – does that mean you, Mr. Smith, will not vote any more funds for this God-foresaken mess? After all, Congress controls the purse. Will you not vote to pay to send 30,000 more American targets? Or are you just looking for a campaign slogan?]
And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.
[That “establishing democracy” part is what should have given you pause, Mr. Smith, to begin with – establishing democracy is NOT a military objective. Removing Saddam and the threat of WMD are military objectives. We have won. Why we continue to have sitting ducks in Iraq is beyond me – actually, I have a pretty good idea, but my Mama taught me not to speak ill of the mentally deficient. :p]
BLITZER: So you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?
SMITH: I have concluded that. You know, this is a fight, when you get right down to the root of it, between Sunnis and Shias that goes back a millennia of time over who is the rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed. That is not our fault. That is not our fight and that's not something we can fix.
And I felt I had to speak out, because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice. And this is not.
[You are so right, Mr. Smith. We have won the Iraq War militarily. But we cannot succeed military with what is a political problem.]
BLITZER: So let me repeat the question. Who should be held accountable for what you believe has now become -- and I'll just use the word fiasco or disaster or some word along those lines?
SMITH: Well, I think all of us with positions of responsibility are accountable. But, clearly, I can't be quiet anymore. I'm leveling this charge at no one man or woman, but I am clearly saying that the American people will and should hold us accountable.
So if you've got something to say, now is the time to say it. Either let's fight the war intelligently for an objective that is obtainable, or let's admit it and figure out how to preserve the lives of our soldiers.
[The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle – George W. Bush will get the blame. And he should. Oh, History will harshly judge neo-cons, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. A special paragraph will be reserved for those who first supported this mess, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. However, those who have a genuine change-of-heart get a footnote. We’ll see, Mr. Smith, just how genuine you are – you’ve used your voice, now use your vote,]
BLITZER: Because morally speaking, if you do conclude it's futile right now and that a year from now it's not going to make any difference what the U.S. does, that the situation is still going to be a sectarian civil war -- your words -- is it moral to keep U.S. men and women in harm's way, let another thousand or so Americans die over the next year if it's simply going to wind up exactly, if not worse, than it is right now?
SMITH: It is not right to do that. Let me also add, though, that we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation.
There are ways to reposition on the borders of Iraq to take on terrorist jihadists from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. And these are the people that we want to fight. That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake, not just for Iraq's.
[Yes, the War on Terror is our fight; the Iraq War is not. Glad to have you on board.]
BLITZER: Knowing what you know now -- and obviously with hindsight we're all a lot smarter -- if you had to do it over again knowing that no WMD in Iraq, no al Qaeda connection, knowing 3,000 Americans were going to be killed, $400 billion spent, $2 billion a week, would you have voted for that resolution...
SMITH: No.
BLITZER: ... to support this war?
SMITH: As I said in my floor statement, had I known there were no WMD there, I would not have voted for it. But I do want to add that I believe it's a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein. I think there would have been other ways to do that without the cost in life and treasure that our current approach has led us to. … [T]hat the time is now to rethink this and reposition the American war against terrorism.
Subject: A genuine change-of-heart… or a search for political cover?
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
From CNN [drumroll]:
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
As the Iraq war clearly worsens, some U.S. Senators who voted for the war have now come out against it. One of them is now deeply, deeply frustrated about the current course, and is out blasting the Bush administration's strategy. Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon had this to say late last week about Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Senator, a powerful, emotional statement I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about face?
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up.
[Uuummm, a vote, yes – does that mean you, Mr. Smith, will not vote any more funds for this God-foresaken mess? After all, Congress controls the purse. Will you not vote to pay to send 30,000 more American targets? Or are you just looking for a campaign slogan?]
And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.
[That “establishing democracy” part is what should have given you pause, Mr. Smith, to begin with – establishing democracy is NOT a military objective. Removing Saddam and the threat of WMD are military objectives. We have won. Why we continue to have sitting ducks in Iraq is beyond me – actually, I have a pretty good idea, but my Mama taught me not to speak ill of the mentally deficient. :p]
BLITZER: So you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?
SMITH: I have concluded that. You know, this is a fight, when you get right down to the root of it, between Sunnis and Shias that goes back a millennia of time over who is the rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed. That is not our fault. That is not our fight and that's not something we can fix.
And I felt I had to speak out, because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice. And this is not.
[You are so right, Mr. Smith. We have won the Iraq War militarily. But we cannot succeed military with what is a political problem.]
BLITZER: So let me repeat the question. Who should be held accountable for what you believe has now become -- and I'll just use the word fiasco or disaster or some word along those lines?
SMITH: Well, I think all of us with positions of responsibility are accountable. But, clearly, I can't be quiet anymore. I'm leveling this charge at no one man or woman, but I am clearly saying that the American people will and should hold us accountable.
So if you've got something to say, now is the time to say it. Either let's fight the war intelligently for an objective that is obtainable, or let's admit it and figure out how to preserve the lives of our soldiers.
[The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle – George W. Bush will get the blame. And he should. Oh, History will harshly judge neo-cons, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. A special paragraph will be reserved for those who first supported this mess, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. However, those who have a genuine change-of-heart get a footnote. We’ll see, Mr. Smith, just how genuine you are – you’ve used your voice, now use your vote,]
BLITZER: Because morally speaking, if you do conclude it's futile right now and that a year from now it's not going to make any difference what the U.S. does, that the situation is still going to be a sectarian civil war -- your words -- is it moral to keep U.S. men and women in harm's way, let another thousand or so Americans die over the next year if it's simply going to wind up exactly, if not worse, than it is right now?
SMITH: It is not right to do that. Let me also add, though, that we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation.
There are ways to reposition on the borders of Iraq to take on terrorist jihadists from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. And these are the people that we want to fight. That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake, not just for Iraq's.
[Yes, the War on Terror is our fight; the Iraq War is not. Glad to have you on board.]
BLITZER: Knowing what you know now -- and obviously with hindsight we're all a lot smarter -- if you had to do it over again knowing that no WMD in Iraq, no al Qaeda connection, knowing 3,000 Americans were going to be killed, $400 billion spent, $2 billion a week, would you have voted for that resolution...
SMITH: No.
BLITZER: ... to support this war?
SMITH: As I said in my floor statement, had I known there were no WMD there, I would not have voted for it. But I do want to add that I believe it's a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein. I think there would have been other ways to do that without the cost in life and treasure that our current approach has led us to. … [T]hat the time is now to rethink this and reposition the American war against terrorism.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Post #44
Subject: It's Time to Say "Thanks!" – again, Post #12….
I got the following e-mail again recently, and I feel that now is an appropriate time to add it:
”If you go to this web site, http://www.letssaythanks.com/ , you can pick out a thank you card, and Xerox will print it and send it to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the Armed Services. How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one. Pass this on to your members and friends! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our soldiers received bunches of these? Our TROOPS need to know we are behind them!”
Subject: It's Time to Say "Thanks!" – again, Post #12….
I got the following e-mail again recently, and I feel that now is an appropriate time to add it:
”If you go to this web site, http://www.letssaythanks.com/ , you can pick out a thank you card, and Xerox will print it and send it to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the Armed Services. How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one. Pass this on to your members and friends! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our soldiers received bunches of these? Our TROOPS need to know we are behind them!”
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Post #43
Subject: George W. Bush has gotten into quite a mess.
Why it was wrong to invade Iraq:
- The Iraq War was inhuman, a violation of basic human decency. It’s wrong to pick a fight. Whether you’re President or a schoolkid in a schoolyard, it’s just wrong to pick a fight – morally, ethically, against your religion, whatever. Something tells me that Bush has never been a schoolkid in a schoolyard. :p
- The Iraq War was not in our interest – the threat was NOT clear and imminent. Oh, I, too, was scared shitless of the prospect of a mushroom cloud. Now, if Saddam’s sons had bought plane tickets for New York and wanted to check “Atomic Bomb” into luggage, I would have signed up to ride a tank into Baghdad – indeed, I said at the time that it was irresponsible and reckless to wait for the U.N…. if the threat was so clear and imminent. I also said at the time that, the first time Bush is wrong about WMD, it will be more difficult to invade another country – even if there is better evidence against that other country. But, as we now know, there was no reason to be sacred shitless – shame on Bush for his disregard of honesty and the truth.
Of course, Bush will say – as he has already done – that the clear and imminent threat was a “gathering storm.” Let’s see:: 1. Saddam was a bad man. 2. Saddam, one day, might possibly get some bad weapons. 3. A bad man with bad weapons might possibly be a bad situation. Does anybody outside of the Vice-President’s office still follow that logic?
- The Iraq War was a distraction from and a drain on the War on Terror. As I feared, we lost our focus on the enemy who attacked us, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Now, we are bleeding to death. What happens if Cuba invades Florida, if Al-Qaeda sets up camps in the Sudan, if terrorists hit a U.S. ship in a Yemen port, if the London subway is bombed, if North Korea invades South Korea?
- The Iraq War was illegal. I know that many right-wing nuts have no respect for international law. But the ultimate irony is that we are violating the very international law we wrote. America used to have ideals and values which we proudly wrote down. See, after World War II, we decided to have trials to hold peeps accountable for that mess – the problem was that there was no law against what were, according to us, obvious illegal acts. So, we wrote the Law – one of the charges we brought against those on trial was conspiracy to wage aggressive war. A prosecutor could cite Bush’s first Cabinet meeting. :p
And that is to say nothing about a war conducted without Congress declaring war.
Good Lord. I do hope the next President who wants to take us to war will ponder my points.
Subject: George W. Bush has gotten into quite a mess.
Why it was wrong to invade Iraq:
- The Iraq War was inhuman, a violation of basic human decency. It’s wrong to pick a fight. Whether you’re President or a schoolkid in a schoolyard, it’s just wrong to pick a fight – morally, ethically, against your religion, whatever. Something tells me that Bush has never been a schoolkid in a schoolyard. :p
- The Iraq War was not in our interest – the threat was NOT clear and imminent. Oh, I, too, was scared shitless of the prospect of a mushroom cloud. Now, if Saddam’s sons had bought plane tickets for New York and wanted to check “Atomic Bomb” into luggage, I would have signed up to ride a tank into Baghdad – indeed, I said at the time that it was irresponsible and reckless to wait for the U.N…. if the threat was so clear and imminent. I also said at the time that, the first time Bush is wrong about WMD, it will be more difficult to invade another country – even if there is better evidence against that other country. But, as we now know, there was no reason to be sacred shitless – shame on Bush for his disregard of honesty and the truth.
Of course, Bush will say – as he has already done – that the clear and imminent threat was a “gathering storm.” Let’s see:: 1. Saddam was a bad man. 2. Saddam, one day, might possibly get some bad weapons. 3. A bad man with bad weapons might possibly be a bad situation. Does anybody outside of the Vice-President’s office still follow that logic?
- The Iraq War was a distraction from and a drain on the War on Terror. As I feared, we lost our focus on the enemy who attacked us, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Now, we are bleeding to death. What happens if Cuba invades Florida, if Al-Qaeda sets up camps in the Sudan, if terrorists hit a U.S. ship in a Yemen port, if the London subway is bombed, if North Korea invades South Korea?
- The Iraq War was illegal. I know that many right-wing nuts have no respect for international law. But the ultimate irony is that we are violating the very international law we wrote. America used to have ideals and values which we proudly wrote down. See, after World War II, we decided to have trials to hold peeps accountable for that mess – the problem was that there was no law against what were, according to us, obvious illegal acts. So, we wrote the Law – one of the charges we brought against those on trial was conspiracy to wage aggressive war. A prosecutor could cite Bush’s first Cabinet meeting. :p
And that is to say nothing about a war conducted without Congress declaring war.
Good Lord. I do hope the next President who wants to take us to war will ponder my points.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Post #42
Subject: The Emperor has no clothes, and he is whistling through the graveyard! :p
What will George W. Bush do with the Iraq Study Group report? He will use it as political cover, saying that he tried the bipartisan approach but Iran would not talk – therefore, Bush will say, Iran and the Democrats are to blame for the mess stirred up by the media in Iraq.
What Bush fails to understand is that the whole policy of pre-emptive war – a war to prevent war – is wrong. Is George Orwell working in the White House?
~ Insert your favorite drunken-frat-boy-as-President joke here. ~
As Pat Buchanan said on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show the other night, “I don‘t think the problem is simply not enough troops for the occupation. I think the idea from the beginning of going in there and going to rebuild and reconstitute and remake and reshape this ancient country based on American ideas was utopian to begin with.”
And doomed to failure. Five years, ten years, twenty years – eventually, the Iraqis will throw off the shackles of occupation. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) on the House floor four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?" The other day, in an article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, Baldwin said, "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."
Of course, it was a blank – the whole neo-con world view is lazy, shallow. From my Post #40, from Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
From that Washington Post article, the incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke four years ago stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
From that same Washington Post article, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar. "They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. From the Iraq Study Group report, “As the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. … neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized." A real leader would admit his mistakes and try to correct them. I think all we’ll see from this President is naked back-flips through the graveyard. :p
Subject: The Emperor has no clothes, and he is whistling through the graveyard! :p
What will George W. Bush do with the Iraq Study Group report? He will use it as political cover, saying that he tried the bipartisan approach but Iran would not talk – therefore, Bush will say, Iran and the Democrats are to blame for the mess stirred up by the media in Iraq.
What Bush fails to understand is that the whole policy of pre-emptive war – a war to prevent war – is wrong. Is George Orwell working in the White House?
~ Insert your favorite drunken-frat-boy-as-President joke here. ~
As Pat Buchanan said on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show the other night, “I don‘t think the problem is simply not enough troops for the occupation. I think the idea from the beginning of going in there and going to rebuild and reconstitute and remake and reshape this ancient country based on American ideas was utopian to begin with.”
And doomed to failure. Five years, ten years, twenty years – eventually, the Iraqis will throw off the shackles of occupation. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) on the House floor four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?" The other day, in an article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, Baldwin said, "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."
Of course, it was a blank – the whole neo-con world view is lazy, shallow. From my Post #40, from Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
From that Washington Post article, the incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke four years ago stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
From that same Washington Post article, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar. "They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. From the Iraq Study Group report, “As the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. … neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized." A real leader would admit his mistakes and try to correct them. I think all we’ll see from this President is naked back-flips through the graveyard. :p
Friday, December 01, 2006
Post #41
Nah, nah, fib, fib –
Who lost Iraq?
George W. Bush did….
OK, grow up, children. Pat Buchanan appeared on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show the other day and said, “The United States is about to suffer an historic defeat here. We can‘t dictate the destiny of that country if we‘re going to pull out. And the way I see it is: We‘re pulling out.”
Yes, Pat, and don’t forget that it is reality that is making us pull out – not Democrats, not nutty bloggers, not Michael Moore, but the reality of Bush’s insistence of fighting this war on the cheap. Bush broke the Army.
Pat also said, “I think the United States—if you‘re not going to win the war—and we‘re not—you‘re going to have to accommodate yourself to the new reality.”
Exactly. We are not going to win. The number of troops needed now to save any kind honor is a physical impossibility – how can Bush recruit more troops when he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table? At least, we’re safe from Al-Qaeda in Argentina. :p
But how about a little honor by following Joe Biden’s plan? Pat said, “I think it‘s a plan that looks very good on paper, but I think that it‘s been bypassed by events. I think, in 2003-2004, the United States—it was a unipolar situation. The United States was the big power in Iraq, in all parts of it; I don‘t think that‘s true anymore.”
Yes. Events have passed us by. Our troops are bogged down in a civil war. I take the opposite view of Bill O. – I think it’s unpatriotic to bury your head in the sand. We have lost. To stay the course now is nothing short of murderous.
Nah, nah, fib, fib –
Who lost Iraq?
George W. Bush did….
OK, grow up, children. Pat Buchanan appeared on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show the other day and said, “The United States is about to suffer an historic defeat here. We can‘t dictate the destiny of that country if we‘re going to pull out. And the way I see it is: We‘re pulling out.”
Yes, Pat, and don’t forget that it is reality that is making us pull out – not Democrats, not nutty bloggers, not Michael Moore, but the reality of Bush’s insistence of fighting this war on the cheap. Bush broke the Army.
Pat also said, “I think the United States—if you‘re not going to win the war—and we‘re not—you‘re going to have to accommodate yourself to the new reality.”
Exactly. We are not going to win. The number of troops needed now to save any kind honor is a physical impossibility – how can Bush recruit more troops when he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table? At least, we’re safe from Al-Qaeda in Argentina. :p
But how about a little honor by following Joe Biden’s plan? Pat said, “I think it‘s a plan that looks very good on paper, but I think that it‘s been bypassed by events. I think, in 2003-2004, the United States—it was a unipolar situation. The United States was the big power in Iraq, in all parts of it; I don‘t think that‘s true anymore.”
Yes. Events have passed us by. Our troops are bogged down in a civil war. I take the opposite view of Bill O. – I think it’s unpatriotic to bury your head in the sand. We have lost. To stay the course now is nothing short of murderous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)