Post #102
Subject: Self-inflicted wounds
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “The debate on Iraq takes a turn,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, August 24, 2007.
“WASHINGTON -- After months of surreality, the Iraq debate has quite abruptly acquired a relationship to reality. … [F]air-minded observers … agree that the surge has yielded considerable military progress….”
The surge has worked. We’ve whacked that mole. Even if true, that argument – we.ve whacked that mole – is irrelevant to the debate about how to best get us out of Iraq. And make no mistake: It is in America’s interest to get out; it is only in Nutty neo-cons’ interest to send more Americans to their deaths as they search for somebody to blame for their, uh, Nuttiness.
But, hey, look: “at the national political level the Maliki government remains a disaster.”
Um, yes, Maliki has not followed the script.
Of course, what neo-cons do not seemed to have grasped yet: Freedom forced is not freedom at all. “[F]reedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The choice is difficult because replacing the Maliki government will take time and because there is no guarantee of ultimate political success.”
Therefore, more Americans should die?
“Nonetheless, continuing the surge while finally trying to change the central government is the most rational choice because the only available alternative is defeat -- a defeat that is not at all inevitable and would be both catastrophic and self-inflicted.
What is inevitable is that the whole lazy, shallow neo-con way of viewing the world, when taken from the pages of academics and applied to foreign policy, will be catastrophic… but not self-inflicted. I did not vote for this mess!
Friday, August 31, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Post #101
Subject: ...back to Vietnam
"The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest … is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes....The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next.” – Lyndon B. Johnson, April 7, 1965.
Shortly after the 1965 speech, Johnson surged – he increased the number of U.S. troops sent to the war zone. By the end of that year there were about 200,000 Americans in Vietnam. Our combat involvement in that war would last for eight more years with more than 55,000 American deaths.
“We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we know how the others ended, and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today.” -- George W. Bush, August 22, 2007
And I thought you just said, Mr. President, you were going to learn from history. What about the costs of a war that is not winnable? No matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion. And you lack the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
“The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America not attack America.” – Bush, August 22, 2007.
But even turning Iraq into the 51st state will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “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.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not. So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," -- Bush, August 22, 2007
No debate here: We were lied into Vietnam, we were lied into Iraq -- as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.” We left Vietnam with our tail between our legs, we will be leaving Iraq. The only question is how much tail Bush will leave us with?
I’m including Johnson’s 1965 speech. Perhaps those in the White House can see the folly of Bush’s democracy project, the Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
Or perhaps the Weasels will learn that things will surely turn around in a few months if the critics in Congress and the press will just shut up. Let’s go back into Vietnam and get it right! :p
***
Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.
Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam’s steaming soil.
Why must we take this painful road? Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?
We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.
This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.
We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.
Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South. This support is the heartbeat of the war.
And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.
The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.
Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?
We are there because we have a promise to keep. Over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise.
To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.
We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.
We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia -- as we did in Europe -- in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."
Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves-only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.
We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.
We do this in order to slow down aggression.
We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.
We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.
We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist.
I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: Armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to the challenge.
Because we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending.
Subject: ...back to Vietnam
"The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest … is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes....The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next.” – Lyndon B. Johnson, April 7, 1965.
Shortly after the 1965 speech, Johnson surged – he increased the number of U.S. troops sent to the war zone. By the end of that year there were about 200,000 Americans in Vietnam. Our combat involvement in that war would last for eight more years with more than 55,000 American deaths.
“We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we know how the others ended, and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today.” -- George W. Bush, August 22, 2007
And I thought you just said, Mr. President, you were going to learn from history. What about the costs of a war that is not winnable? No matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion. And you lack the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
“The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America not attack America.” – Bush, August 22, 2007.
But even turning Iraq into the 51st state will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “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.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not. So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," -- Bush, August 22, 2007
No debate here: We were lied into Vietnam, we were lied into Iraq -- as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.” We left Vietnam with our tail between our legs, we will be leaving Iraq. The only question is how much tail Bush will leave us with?
I’m including Johnson’s 1965 speech. Perhaps those in the White House can see the folly of Bush’s democracy project, the Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
Or perhaps the Weasels will learn that things will surely turn around in a few months if the critics in Congress and the press will just shut up. Let’s go back into Vietnam and get it right! :p
***
Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.
Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam’s steaming soil.
Why must we take this painful road? Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?
We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.
This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.
We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.
Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South. This support is the heartbeat of the war.
And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.
The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.
Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?
We are there because we have a promise to keep. Over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise.
To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.
We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.
We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia -- as we did in Europe -- in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."
Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves-only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.
We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.
We do this in order to slow down aggression.
We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.
We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.
We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist.
I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: Armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to the challenge.
Because we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Post #100
Subject: Dick Cheney has been a Nut since ’97! :p
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
… from 1994:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
… from “’Hardball’ with Chris Matthews,” Friday, August 17, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MATTHEWS: OK. Now we know we had 9/11 subsequent to that. But the points that he made had to do not with the world situation the United States faces, Melanie, but with the situation in Iraq as it’s likely to take place, as it has taken place once we attempted to occupy.
MELANIE MORGAN, RIGHT-WING NUT AND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:: OK. Well, let me just first of all say that Dick Cheney of September 10th was different one that of September 11th. And you glossed over that very quickly.
[What a load! Dick Cheney was obsessed with Saddam on 9/10 – 9/11 just gave him an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if he had to lie about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama?]
MATTHEWS: But Iraq was Iraq.
MORGAN: We have had 3,000 American lives lost as a result of.Islamic terrorists who attacked us in this country.
MATTHEWS: I knew you would say that. How does that relate to how the outlook in Iraq was the same then as it has turned out to be now? He had it right about Iraq. Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
MORGAN: We have had some very serious things take place. We are in Iraq for the right reasons. We are trying to stop the spread of the Islamic terrorism.
[Uh, how does that work? Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that stopping the spread of Islamic terrorism?]
CRAIG CRAWFORD, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, I do think there is an 9/11 component. Let me just attempt this explanation, is one I’ve heard from sympathizers to Cheney, is that he really came to believe after 9/11 that our more pacifist policies, not going after Hussein, pulling out of Lebanon in the Reagan administration, had led to emboldening terrorists and led to 9/11. Therefore he was….
MATTHEWS: Right. But how did going back into Iraq lessen the emboldenment?
CRAWFORD: I think he, what has been explained to me is he believed that it was time to show great strength, and preemptive doctrine meant a lot to him, that going into Iraq would send a signal knot rest of the world, other countries harboring terrorists, and how tough we would be.
[No, Cheney and his pals had a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11. Yes, we’ve sent a signal…. * sigh *]
Subject: Dick Cheney has been a Nut since ’97! :p
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
… from 1994:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
… from “’Hardball’ with Chris Matthews,” Friday, August 17, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MATTHEWS: OK. Now we know we had 9/11 subsequent to that. But the points that he made had to do not with the world situation the United States faces, Melanie, but with the situation in Iraq as it’s likely to take place, as it has taken place once we attempted to occupy.
MELANIE MORGAN, RIGHT-WING NUT AND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:: OK. Well, let me just first of all say that Dick Cheney of September 10th was different one that of September 11th. And you glossed over that very quickly.
[What a load! Dick Cheney was obsessed with Saddam on 9/10 – 9/11 just gave him an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if he had to lie about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama?]
MATTHEWS: But Iraq was Iraq.
MORGAN: We have had 3,000 American lives lost as a result of.Islamic terrorists who attacked us in this country.
MATTHEWS: I knew you would say that. How does that relate to how the outlook in Iraq was the same then as it has turned out to be now? He had it right about Iraq. Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
MORGAN: We have had some very serious things take place. We are in Iraq for the right reasons. We are trying to stop the spread of the Islamic terrorism.
[Uh, how does that work? Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that stopping the spread of Islamic terrorism?]
CRAIG CRAWFORD, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, I do think there is an 9/11 component. Let me just attempt this explanation, is one I’ve heard from sympathizers to Cheney, is that he really came to believe after 9/11 that our more pacifist policies, not going after Hussein, pulling out of Lebanon in the Reagan administration, had led to emboldening terrorists and led to 9/11. Therefore he was….
MATTHEWS: Right. But how did going back into Iraq lessen the emboldenment?
CRAWFORD: I think he, what has been explained to me is he believed that it was time to show great strength, and preemptive doctrine meant a lot to him, that going into Iraq would send a signal knot rest of the world, other countries harboring terrorists, and how tough we would be.
[No, Cheney and his pals had a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11. Yes, we’ve sent a signal…. * sigh *]
Friday, August 17, 2007
Post #99
Subject: Uh, waiting for a written apology….
Karl Rove, political super-genius, has been smoked out and gotten on the run. George W. Bush’s Brain is beating the posse out of town and heading to the Republican stronghold he built in Texas to write a book. Will he apologize for the injury he inflicted upon this country?
Yes, Rove gets credit for engineering two Presidential wins. The most generous assessment I’ve seen lately of the Bush administration is that Bush wanted to get elected but didn’t care for governing. Rove should have realized this by 2004 – his participation in the 2004 campaign was a Crime Against Our Country.
Now, we are stuck in a war that reality says was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake – he followed a political theory which said that a little military pressure here or there would thwart bigger problems. Unfortunately, that political theory does not identify the “here or there” where military pressure should be applied. It is plainly obvious that Iraq was not one of those “here or theres.” I condemn Rove for not knowing this by 2004 and giving us more of the same.
The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer. 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. Rove faces the harsh judgment of History for his role in giving us a lazy, shallow way of viewing the world.
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. But Bush wants to keep digging, and Rove gave him a shovel.
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history and to try to recover from Rove. At least, he didn’t create that Republican majority he wanted – indeed, Rove helped to splinter the Republicans as more and more conservatives realize that Bush’s “neo-con” is NOT conservative at all.
Subject: Uh, waiting for a written apology….
Karl Rove, political super-genius, has been smoked out and gotten on the run. George W. Bush’s Brain is beating the posse out of town and heading to the Republican stronghold he built in Texas to write a book. Will he apologize for the injury he inflicted upon this country?
Yes, Rove gets credit for engineering two Presidential wins. The most generous assessment I’ve seen lately of the Bush administration is that Bush wanted to get elected but didn’t care for governing. Rove should have realized this by 2004 – his participation in the 2004 campaign was a Crime Against Our Country.
Now, we are stuck in a war that reality says was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake – he followed a political theory which said that a little military pressure here or there would thwart bigger problems. Unfortunately, that political theory does not identify the “here or there” where military pressure should be applied. It is plainly obvious that Iraq was not one of those “here or theres.” I condemn Rove for not knowing this by 2004 and giving us more of the same.
The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer. 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. Rove faces the harsh judgment of History for his role in giving us a lazy, shallow way of viewing the world.
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. But Bush wants to keep digging, and Rove gave him a shovel.
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history and to try to recover from Rove. At least, he didn’t create that Republican majority he wanted – indeed, Rove helped to splinter the Republicans as more and more conservatives realize that Bush’s “neo-con” is NOT conservative at all.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Post #98
Subject: George W. Bush goes to a bar....
President Bush decides to leave the White House and go out to sit in a local bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush sitting at the end of the bar?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's him." So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you doing in here?"
Bush says, "I'm planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, I'm going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde chick with big hooters."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big hooters? Why kill a blonde with big hooters?"
Bush turns to the bartender and says, "See? I told you, nobody gives a rat's ass about the 140 million Muslims".
Subject: George W. Bush goes to a bar....
President Bush decides to leave the White House and go out to sit in a local bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush sitting at the end of the bar?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's him." So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you doing in here?"
Bush says, "I'm planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, I'm going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde chick with big hooters."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big hooters? Why kill a blonde with big hooters?"
Bush turns to the bartender and says, "See? I told you, nobody gives a rat's ass about the 140 million Muslims".
Friday, August 10, 2007
Post #97
Subject: Lessons Learned?
If I was a moderator at one of those seemingly weekly Presidential debates – or if I had access to the technology to make a YouTube vid, I’d ask one question: Good or bad – what lessons have you learned from the Iraq War? Presumably, these lessons will be applied during a future [candidate’s name] administration.
To me, all lessons flow from the idea of… A Declaration of War. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is the undeclared wars which gives us trouble. There’s a lesson there.
Commit the country BEFORE you commit the troops. And as George W. Bush has shown, make that “Commit the country honestly BEFORE you commit the troops.” Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have been manipulated by fear.
The Powell doctrine – as followed successfully in ’91 – overwhelming force with a limited objective. At Bush’s press conference yesterday, he clearly reiterated his neo-con world view – that is, American troops will continued to be slaughtered in Iraq until ’09 for… WHATEVER! Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have supported this stupidity.
From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “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.”
When I started this blog a little over a year ago, I felt the Iraq War was winding down – truly. Our Army was nearing the breaking point, and the Republican party could not stand “stay the course.” I wanted to take a few parting swipes as Bush and his lazy, shallow neo-con world view were swept into the dustbin of history.
Now, our Army is stretched so thin that I can only pray no trouble breaks out someplace. The Republicans took a beating – the American people have spoken. And Bush stands, steadfast and sure, blind and deaf.
May God help us all.
Subject: Lessons Learned?
If I was a moderator at one of those seemingly weekly Presidential debates – or if I had access to the technology to make a YouTube vid, I’d ask one question: Good or bad – what lessons have you learned from the Iraq War? Presumably, these lessons will be applied during a future [candidate’s name] administration.
To me, all lessons flow from the idea of… A Declaration of War. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is the undeclared wars which gives us trouble. There’s a lesson there.
Commit the country BEFORE you commit the troops. And as George W. Bush has shown, make that “Commit the country honestly BEFORE you commit the troops.” Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have been manipulated by fear.
The Powell doctrine – as followed successfully in ’91 – overwhelming force with a limited objective. At Bush’s press conference yesterday, he clearly reiterated his neo-con world view – that is, American troops will continued to be slaughtered in Iraq until ’09 for… WHATEVER! Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have supported this stupidity.
From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “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.”
When I started this blog a little over a year ago, I felt the Iraq War was winding down – truly. Our Army was nearing the breaking point, and the Republican party could not stand “stay the course.” I wanted to take a few parting swipes as Bush and his lazy, shallow neo-con world view were swept into the dustbin of history.
Now, our Army is stretched so thin that I can only pray no trouble breaks out someplace. The Republicans took a beating – the American people have spoken. And Bush stands, steadfast and sure, blind and deaf.
May God help us all.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Post #96
Subject: Never trust a man named Dick! :p
… from “CNN LARRY KING LIVE,” an interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, July 31, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Vice President Dick Cheney -- powerful, controversial, backer of a war that most Americans now oppose. Seen by some as the enforcer for an administration under siege. Vice-President Cheney answering some tough questions, next on LARRY KING LIVE.
[Ya know it will be an easy night for Dick when the host promises “tough questions.” :p But of course Dick would not go where there really were tough questions.]
KING: Don't you ever say, maybe I'm wrong?
CHENEY: No. I think what we do is we look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do. And the -- and weigh the evidence. And there's a lot of debate and discussion. We went through the exercise at the beginning of this year, you may remember, when the president decided to put more forces into Baghdad. That's a time when we evaluated a whole range of options; when we talked to a wide number of people with a variety of viewpoints; met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff; talked to outside military experts, as well as the politicos on the ground; and made a judgment. The president made a decision then, and the -- and I think it was the right decision that was to go with the surge.
[I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale to anybody who believes there was “a lot” of debate and discussion on the surge! :p Just like the War itself, the decision was made, and the rationalizations have followed,]
KING: ...in retrospect, you would still go into Iraq?
CHENEY: Yes, sir.
KING: So those 3,000 plus lives have not died in vain?
CHENEY: No, sir. Larry, you worry about every single casualty. And...
[And… what? Ya got to break a few eggs to get an omelet, right, Dick?]
KING: Do you feel the burden of it?
CHENEY: Absolutely. When you're in one of those positions -- the president obviously has the biggest burden. I shared some of that when I was secretary of defense during Desert Storm. There are times when you make decisions to commit military forces when you know that one of the results of that is going to be that there are going to be American casualties, that American soldiers are going to die. It's one of the most difficult things anybody has to do. It goes with being president of the United States. And we have to have somebody prepared to make those decisions.
[Um, did Dick Cheney just call George W. Bush callous?? :p Seriously, Dick, how do you “feel the burden?” Sleepless nights, hand-written notes, birthday gifts for orphans? Uh, wait – now I see: The burden is to be felt by the President. No blood on your hands, right, Dick?]
CHENEY: And I firmly believe, Larry, that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy. … There are always things in war that happen that nobody anticipated, surprises, things that don't go exactly as planned, that's the nature of warfare. But that doesn't mean the strategy isn't -- isn't the correct strategy, that the objective isn't the right objective. … When he [Bush] is finished, I'm finished. We walk out of here on January 20th of '09 and I think we'll be able to hold our heads high knowing we did the best we could for the country.
[Um, no, Dick – ya’ll have not done what is best for this country. This country was manipulated into supporting a war against a threat of non-existent WMD and non-existent links between Saddam and Osama. And ya’ll couldn’t get Osama, why not get Saddam? The objective was to get rid of Saddam – there was no strategy, no plans for what comes next. Now, we are in hole, and your only idea is to keep digging. And how is that best for this country? The threat of terrorism is still here. Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that best for this country? Well, you did the best you could – and that is truly sad.]
Subject: Never trust a man named Dick! :p
… from “CNN LARRY KING LIVE,” an interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, July 31, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Vice President Dick Cheney -- powerful, controversial, backer of a war that most Americans now oppose. Seen by some as the enforcer for an administration under siege. Vice-President Cheney answering some tough questions, next on LARRY KING LIVE.
[Ya know it will be an easy night for Dick when the host promises “tough questions.” :p But of course Dick would not go where there really were tough questions.]
KING: Don't you ever say, maybe I'm wrong?
CHENEY: No. I think what we do is we look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do. And the -- and weigh the evidence. And there's a lot of debate and discussion. We went through the exercise at the beginning of this year, you may remember, when the president decided to put more forces into Baghdad. That's a time when we evaluated a whole range of options; when we talked to a wide number of people with a variety of viewpoints; met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff; talked to outside military experts, as well as the politicos on the ground; and made a judgment. The president made a decision then, and the -- and I think it was the right decision that was to go with the surge.
[I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale to anybody who believes there was “a lot” of debate and discussion on the surge! :p Just like the War itself, the decision was made, and the rationalizations have followed,]
KING: ...in retrospect, you would still go into Iraq?
CHENEY: Yes, sir.
KING: So those 3,000 plus lives have not died in vain?
CHENEY: No, sir. Larry, you worry about every single casualty. And...
[And… what? Ya got to break a few eggs to get an omelet, right, Dick?]
KING: Do you feel the burden of it?
CHENEY: Absolutely. When you're in one of those positions -- the president obviously has the biggest burden. I shared some of that when I was secretary of defense during Desert Storm. There are times when you make decisions to commit military forces when you know that one of the results of that is going to be that there are going to be American casualties, that American soldiers are going to die. It's one of the most difficult things anybody has to do. It goes with being president of the United States. And we have to have somebody prepared to make those decisions.
[Um, did Dick Cheney just call George W. Bush callous?? :p Seriously, Dick, how do you “feel the burden?” Sleepless nights, hand-written notes, birthday gifts for orphans? Uh, wait – now I see: The burden is to be felt by the President. No blood on your hands, right, Dick?]
CHENEY: And I firmly believe, Larry, that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy. … There are always things in war that happen that nobody anticipated, surprises, things that don't go exactly as planned, that's the nature of warfare. But that doesn't mean the strategy isn't -- isn't the correct strategy, that the objective isn't the right objective. … When he [Bush] is finished, I'm finished. We walk out of here on January 20th of '09 and I think we'll be able to hold our heads high knowing we did the best we could for the country.
[Um, no, Dick – ya’ll have not done what is best for this country. This country was manipulated into supporting a war against a threat of non-existent WMD and non-existent links between Saddam and Osama. And ya’ll couldn’t get Osama, why not get Saddam? The objective was to get rid of Saddam – there was no strategy, no plans for what comes next. Now, we are in hole, and your only idea is to keep digging. And how is that best for this country? The threat of terrorism is still here. Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that best for this country? Well, you did the best you could – and that is truly sad.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)