Post #63
Subject: Re: Happy B'Day
... where does time go? Twenty years ago, something new and exciting happened to me nearly every day. Now, it's just a new ache and pain every day! The only bright side of turning 42 – yesterday, by the way, I be eligible to be President! :p
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Post #62
Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests
Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech before the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, advocating revisiting the original 2002 Iraq War resolution. Senator Biden also said that although leaving Iraq is necessary, we should also focus on what we leave behind. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.
Remarks prepared for delivery. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
"Iraq's Future and America's Interests"
The Brookings Institution
February 15, 2007
This is a time of tremendous challenge for America in the world.
We must contend with the on-going war in Afghanistan, the genocide in Darfur, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the rise of China and re-emergence Russia, the growing insecurity of our energy supply, the fragility of our climate, and the threat posed by radical fundamentalism.
[Yes, we continue to bleed in Iraq, making the War on Terror longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. It is no wonder that Osama wants us to stay in Iraq, bleeding and taking our eyes off him.]
But one issue dominates our national debate: Iraq.
If we deal with it successfully, we can recover the freedom, flexibility nd credibility to meet these other challenges
Listen to the debate about Iraq here in Washington. It centers on a false choice that is also a bad choice: Do we continue on President Bush's failing course and hand off Iraq to the next President? Or do we just leave and hope for the best?
[The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, George W. Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. We can still get a positive outcome. But only if Bush shows some leadership and gives up his “utopian” dream.]
[I find or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. So does MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on his show, “Enough is enough. … You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.” Sending 21,000 more American targets for a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President is morally reprehensible – nothing short of murderous.]
[Let’s just declare victory and come home. From my Post #27, “I saw on TV the other day a ‘talking head’ ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said ‘We’ll see.’ In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.” Since no one seems to be interested in doing the hard work to get a positive ending in Iraq – indeed, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President, I think we ought to get out… now!]
I believe there is a better choice. It is still possible to bring our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads to the Middle East.
That must be our goal.
Leaving Iraq is necessary -- but it is not a plan. We also need a plan for what we leave behind.
Nine months ago, with Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, I proposed just such a plan. Go to "PlanForIraq.com." to read its details.
Our plan recognizes that there is no purely military exit strategy from Iraq. Instead, we set out a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq -- one that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and offers us a chance to leave with our interests intact.
Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests
Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech before the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, advocating revisiting the original 2002 Iraq War resolution. Senator Biden also said that although leaving Iraq is necessary, we should also focus on what we leave behind. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.
Remarks prepared for delivery. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
"Iraq's Future and America's Interests"
The Brookings Institution
February 15, 2007
This is a time of tremendous challenge for America in the world.
We must contend with the on-going war in Afghanistan, the genocide in Darfur, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the rise of China and re-emergence Russia, the growing insecurity of our energy supply, the fragility of our climate, and the threat posed by radical fundamentalism.
[Yes, we continue to bleed in Iraq, making the War on Terror longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. It is no wonder that Osama wants us to stay in Iraq, bleeding and taking our eyes off him.]
But one issue dominates our national debate: Iraq.
If we deal with it successfully, we can recover the freedom, flexibility nd credibility to meet these other challenges
Listen to the debate about Iraq here in Washington. It centers on a false choice that is also a bad choice: Do we continue on President Bush's failing course and hand off Iraq to the next President? Or do we just leave and hope for the best?
[The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, George W. Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. We can still get a positive outcome. But only if Bush shows some leadership and gives up his “utopian” dream.]
[I find or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. So does MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on his show, “Enough is enough. … You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.” Sending 21,000 more American targets for a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President is morally reprehensible – nothing short of murderous.]
[Let’s just declare victory and come home. From my Post #27, “I saw on TV the other day a ‘talking head’ ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said ‘We’ll see.’ In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.” Since no one seems to be interested in doing the hard work to get a positive ending in Iraq – indeed, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President, I think we ought to get out… now!]
I believe there is a better choice. It is still possible to bring our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads to the Middle East.
That must be our goal.
Leaving Iraq is necessary -- but it is not a plan. We also need a plan for what we leave behind.
Nine months ago, with Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, I proposed just such a plan. Go to "PlanForIraq.com." to read its details.
Our plan recognizes that there is no purely military exit strategy from Iraq. Instead, we set out a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq -- one that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and offers us a chance to leave with our interests intact.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Post #61
Subject: What is our mission?
I’m not trying to be a smart-ass – just a befuddled average American. But why are our troops being slaughtered in Iraq?
It seems that the Republican argument against even discussing our strategy in Iraq boils down to “A public debate will hurt morale and make it harder to accomplish our mission.” Well, the first part – “morale” – has no meaning. Will bad morale make a gun not shoot straight? But it is that second part – “mission” – which has my concern.
When we went into Iraq, our mission was #1 – to hunt down, capture and destroy WMD. Well, #1 was not necessary – as I believed, the first time we were wrong has limited our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other hunts which might even be more necessary. Can ya say Iran?
Indeed, George W. Bush: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I’m not buying your tales about Iran. If Iran is a threat, handle it – beating the drums in public is unseemly, politely-speaking.
When we went into Iraq, our mission was #1a – to remove Saddam from power. And #1a was accomplished -- we “got” Saddam. As I said in my Post #3, but didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag?
In my Post #13, I quoted Bush, “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.”
In last weeks press conference, Bush did not mention democracy – only that we were fighting extremists. Are they the terrorists who fly planes into buildings? From my Post #22, we cannot defeat our enemy if we do not know who the enemy is. I quote from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006. “Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first.” Bombing Iran, democracy blooming in Iraq or invading Syria will NOT stop planes from flying into buildings. Our enemy is in Afghanistan – the enemy who should be the focus of our military.
What is our mission?
Subject: What is our mission?
I’m not trying to be a smart-ass – just a befuddled average American. But why are our troops being slaughtered in Iraq?
It seems that the Republican argument against even discussing our strategy in Iraq boils down to “A public debate will hurt morale and make it harder to accomplish our mission.” Well, the first part – “morale” – has no meaning. Will bad morale make a gun not shoot straight? But it is that second part – “mission” – which has my concern.
When we went into Iraq, our mission was #1 – to hunt down, capture and destroy WMD. Well, #1 was not necessary – as I believed, the first time we were wrong has limited our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other hunts which might even be more necessary. Can ya say Iran?
Indeed, George W. Bush: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I’m not buying your tales about Iran. If Iran is a threat, handle it – beating the drums in public is unseemly, politely-speaking.
When we went into Iraq, our mission was #1a – to remove Saddam from power. And #1a was accomplished -- we “got” Saddam. As I said in my Post #3, but didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag?
In my Post #13, I quoted Bush, “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.”
In last weeks press conference, Bush did not mention democracy – only that we were fighting extremists. Are they the terrorists who fly planes into buildings? From my Post #22, we cannot defeat our enemy if we do not know who the enemy is. I quote from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006. “Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first.” Bombing Iran, democracy blooming in Iraq or invading Syria will NOT stop planes from flying into buildings. Our enemy is in Afghanistan – the enemy who should be the focus of our military.
What is our mission?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Post #60
Subject: WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:
Obviously, some right-wing nut is saying “See, what John Glenn said about the Iraq War is correct.” Senator Glenn supposedly wrote:
“When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider the following:”
“a. FDR led us into World War II.” That is a total misunderstanding of history – a surprise coming from a veteran who ought to know better. FDR prepared us for war – giving material aid to our friends… until that day which will live in infamy. George W. Bush started this war – Iraq had not attacked us nor were they about to. We had more pressing needs – and still do. Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to his neighbors or most importantly to us. Saddam was also an effective counter-weight to Iran.
“b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.” That’s true. It’s also true that we did not declare war on Germany until Hitler declared war on us. That is one of the great “What If’s….” of history: Suppose Hitler had not declared war on us.
“c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us.” That is correct. And things there did not finish so well for us.
“d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam "conflict" in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.” That is correct. And things there did not finish so well for us either. You’d think, that after a while, it’d become obvious that it is not a good idea to pick fights. Another great “What If….” of history: Suppose Kennedy had lived and gotten us out of that mess before we got too far in – as evidence suggests he was beginning to re-think the commitment.
“e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.” Yes, he did – he used the shady Gulf of Tonkin incident to bully Congress into going along with his war. What is it about Presidents from Texas!?! :p
And of course Nixon couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. What a small man. At least Hillary has promised to pull the plug in ’09.
“f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia. Bosnia never attacked us.” And Bosnia is not a quagmire. Perhaps Clinton knows more about being a Commander-In-Chief than the Weasel! :p “He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.” If ya read the 9/11 Report, ya’d know that is an urban myth. Is it too much to ask a Senator to read the 9/11 Report!?! :p “Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.” Well, once on American soil. Who was President on 9/11?
Indeed, I saw a telling video of a White House briefing:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and the – they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that..
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Fact #1: Clinton NEVER had an offer Bin Laden’s head.
Fact #2: Bush did.
Those pesky facts! :p
“g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.” But not finished off the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, provided aid and comfort to our enemy by setting up a killing ground for our troops and emboldened others and has killed more Americans than Bin Laden on 9/11.
“Our Commander-In-Chief has done a GREAT JOB as far as I am concerned.” Does “GREAT JOB” include the fact that, four years into combat, our HumVees still lack the necessary armament? “The Military morale is high!” How many dead soldiers did ya dig up to get that opinion!?! :p
Looks like John Glenn has been the victim of identity theft….
Subject: WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:
Obviously, some right-wing nut is saying “See, what John Glenn said about the Iraq War is correct.” Senator Glenn supposedly wrote:
“When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider the following:”
“a. FDR led us into World War II.” That is a total misunderstanding of history – a surprise coming from a veteran who ought to know better. FDR prepared us for war – giving material aid to our friends… until that day which will live in infamy. George W. Bush started this war – Iraq had not attacked us nor were they about to. We had more pressing needs – and still do. Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to his neighbors or most importantly to us. Saddam was also an effective counter-weight to Iran.
“b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.” That’s true. It’s also true that we did not declare war on Germany until Hitler declared war on us. That is one of the great “What If’s….” of history: Suppose Hitler had not declared war on us.
“c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us.” That is correct. And things there did not finish so well for us.
“d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam "conflict" in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.” That is correct. And things there did not finish so well for us either. You’d think, that after a while, it’d become obvious that it is not a good idea to pick fights. Another great “What If….” of history: Suppose Kennedy had lived and gotten us out of that mess before we got too far in – as evidence suggests he was beginning to re-think the commitment.
“e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.” Yes, he did – he used the shady Gulf of Tonkin incident to bully Congress into going along with his war. What is it about Presidents from Texas!?! :p
And of course Nixon couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. What a small man. At least Hillary has promised to pull the plug in ’09.
“f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia. Bosnia never attacked us.” And Bosnia is not a quagmire. Perhaps Clinton knows more about being a Commander-In-Chief than the Weasel! :p “He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.” If ya read the 9/11 Report, ya’d know that is an urban myth. Is it too much to ask a Senator to read the 9/11 Report!?! :p “Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.” Well, once on American soil. Who was President on 9/11?
Indeed, I saw a telling video of a White House briefing:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and the – they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that..
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Fact #1: Clinton NEVER had an offer Bin Laden’s head.
Fact #2: Bush did.
Those pesky facts! :p
“g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.” But not finished off the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, provided aid and comfort to our enemy by setting up a killing ground for our troops and emboldened others and has killed more Americans than Bin Laden on 9/11.
“Our Commander-In-Chief has done a GREAT JOB as far as I am concerned.” Does “GREAT JOB” include the fact that, four years into combat, our HumVees still lack the necessary armament? “The Military morale is high!” How many dead soldiers did ya dig up to get that opinion!?! :p
Looks like John Glenn has been the victim of identity theft….
Friday, February 09, 2007
Post #59
Subject: Blood is on their hands.
The Republican Senators who are blocking a debate on different resolutions about the “New Way Forward” are cowards. We expect a public accounting. Do you support the slaughter of American troops in Iraq? Yes? No? Why?
We expect Senators to go on the record. Republican Senators apparently lack the you-know-whats to say what they believe. By hiding behind a filibuster, those Senators allow us to assume the worse.
Why would anyone support the continuous and seemingly endless slaughter?
“The Iraq War IS the War on Terror.” The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy.
“I owe loyalty to the office of the President/a Republican President/George W. Bush.” I think that kind of loyalty is misplaced – Senators ought to be loyal to those who elected ‘em. I got an e-mail from an Iraq veteran: “I feel obligated to give my brothers and sisters in combat the best chance to succeed. This means that I can no longer exist on blind faith – I must see answers and actions.”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. From MSNBC’s “First Read:”
“In a speech this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in DC, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson laid out his foreign policy vision, calling for a ‘new realism’ to restore America's leadership in the world. He began by criticizing what he said is the Bush Administration's dogmatic approach to international affairs – which he said has squandered America's military power, depleted its financial resources, emboldened its enemies, and isolated its friends. ‘So America needs to take a different path… We must work with our friends, our enemies, and everyone in between.’ Playing off of Bush's memorable ‘axis of evil’ line, Richardson also called for an ‘axis of reason’ to confront urgent global problems.”
And Republicans say…!?! “It’s not our place to have a clue.” Well, maybe the Senate is not your place either.
Subject: Blood is on their hands.
The Republican Senators who are blocking a debate on different resolutions about the “New Way Forward” are cowards. We expect a public accounting. Do you support the slaughter of American troops in Iraq? Yes? No? Why?
We expect Senators to go on the record. Republican Senators apparently lack the you-know-whats to say what they believe. By hiding behind a filibuster, those Senators allow us to assume the worse.
Why would anyone support the continuous and seemingly endless slaughter?
“The Iraq War IS the War on Terror.” The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy.
“I owe loyalty to the office of the President/a Republican President/George W. Bush.” I think that kind of loyalty is misplaced – Senators ought to be loyal to those who elected ‘em. I got an e-mail from an Iraq veteran: “I feel obligated to give my brothers and sisters in combat the best chance to succeed. This means that I can no longer exist on blind faith – I must see answers and actions.”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. From MSNBC’s “First Read:”
“In a speech this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in DC, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson laid out his foreign policy vision, calling for a ‘new realism’ to restore America's leadership in the world. He began by criticizing what he said is the Bush Administration's dogmatic approach to international affairs – which he said has squandered America's military power, depleted its financial resources, emboldened its enemies, and isolated its friends. ‘So America needs to take a different path… We must work with our friends, our enemies, and everyone in between.’ Playing off of Bush's memorable ‘axis of evil’ line, Richardson also called for an ‘axis of reason’ to confront urgent global problems.”
And Republicans say…!?! “It’s not our place to have a clue.” Well, maybe the Senate is not your place either.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Post #58
Subject: The Iraq War, a practical view
We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. We should leave Iraq immediately and take our lumps now. The Iraq War has created a situation where the only options are “bad” and “badder” – another day in Iraq will only make things worse as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.
Subject: The Iraq War, a practical view
We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. We should leave Iraq immediately and take our lumps now. The Iraq War has created a situation where the only options are “bad” and “badder” – another day in Iraq will only make things worse as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)