Post #79
Subject: Where did that bright idea come from!?! :p
The Pentagon played fast and loose with the truth in order to “spin” the Iraq War. The death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch became tools for propaganda.
Pat Tillman, a one-time National Football League star, was killed on April 22, 2004, after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, was in a convoy behind his brother when he was killed, but didn’t see it. Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in initially portraying his brother's death as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.
"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Tillman testified before Congress. "Revealing that Pat's death was a (friendly fire) fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," said Tillman. "We have now concluded that our efforts are being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served," he said.
Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, contended that the federal government invented "sensational details and stories" about the death of Tillman and the rescue of Lynch in Iraq. "The government violated its most basic responsibility," said Waxman. "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman added. "That didn’t happen for the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars."
Tom Davis, R-Virginia, questioned how Tillman's death was handled by the military, saying it was a "disservice" to have let "a myth outrun the facts" about his death.
Good Lord. And on it goes…. * sigh *
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Post #78
Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”
“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007
Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:
* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.
The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.
There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.
The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.
But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.
In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
* * *
The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p
But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?
Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?
I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.
Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”
“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007
Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:
* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.
The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.
There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.
The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.
But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.
In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
* * *
The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p
But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?
Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?
I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Post #76
Subject: A word about Don Imus
Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].
Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.
I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”
It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!
I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.
Subject: A word about Don Imus
Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].
Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.
I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”
It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!
I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Post #75
Subject: A modest proposal
There is one word, a solution for all of our troubles in Iraq: VENEZUELA! https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html
“Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of ‘democratic socialism,’ which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples. “
Hugo Chavez is a bad man. He called George W. Bush “the devil.” He’s against globalization. And nothing screams international terrorism like “democratic socialism!” :p I’m sure our government can cherry-pick the evidence into scaring us all.
But why Venezuela? Oil. Hugo Chavez is sitting on a lot of oil. Our steady supply of oil can be from there if we invade. Certainly, military operations would be a lot easier against a close neighbor just across the Gulf of Mexico than half-a-world away.
And the Iraqis don’t appreciate us. I’m sure that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in Venezuela! :p
In my Post #74, I quoted “The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer: “But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality.” Uh, that is my whole point: In 2007, yes, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Our real enemy that has/is working on an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
So, let’s refocus on Afghanistan and trade a steady supply of oil from Iraq for a steady supply of oil from Venezuela.
Subject: A modest proposal
There is one word, a solution for all of our troubles in Iraq: VENEZUELA! https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html
“Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of ‘democratic socialism,’ which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples. “
Hugo Chavez is a bad man. He called George W. Bush “the devil.” He’s against globalization. And nothing screams international terrorism like “democratic socialism!” :p I’m sure our government can cherry-pick the evidence into scaring us all.
But why Venezuela? Oil. Hugo Chavez is sitting on a lot of oil. Our steady supply of oil can be from there if we invade. Certainly, military operations would be a lot easier against a close neighbor just across the Gulf of Mexico than half-a-world away.
And the Iraqis don’t appreciate us. I’m sure that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in Venezuela! :p
In my Post #74, I quoted “The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer: “But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality.” Uh, that is my whole point: In 2007, yes, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Our real enemy that has/is working on an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
So, let’s refocus on Afghanistan and trade a steady supply of oil from Iraq for a steady supply of oil from Venezuela.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Post #74
Subject:: Martians are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
http://www.townhall.com/
“The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, its comparative unimportance vis- a-vis Afghanistan is the least serious.
And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
[Also, point out to the Martian that Afghanistan – “a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure” – was the place where 9/11 came from. The Martian would not understand why we have not finished in Afghanistan.
[Also, point out to the Martian that the atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” will come from Afghanistan not Iraq. Osama loves us being in Iraq, slowly bleeding to death and giving him a recruiting poster. For every day America is in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited?]
If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. … But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities of the ground. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk in order to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the ``good war'' in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging anti-war Democrats to increase funding that is really needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.
[Yes, the wise Martian would answer the question with a question. What is America’s interests? America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]
* * *
There were two points emphasized in the discussion forum for that column.
First, the Iraq war is/was about oil. Saddam was a threat because he sat on a lot of oil. There is no ideological struggle, no spreading of democracy. Bush says that he wants a government that can protect itself – what he really means is “protect our supply of oil.”
Second, we – probably – will have to return to protect our supply of oil. Our presence, our military presence, in the Middle East is required as long as Americans drive SUVs. The threat of terrorism takes a backseat to the threat of a cut-off of oil.
I say us returning is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. The next President will have to manage the aftermath. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military. Until then, let’s keep our focus on our real enemy that has an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush,” our enemy in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Subject:: Martians are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
http://www.townhall.com/
“The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, its comparative unimportance vis- a-vis Afghanistan is the least serious.
And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
[Also, point out to the Martian that Afghanistan – “a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure” – was the place where 9/11 came from. The Martian would not understand why we have not finished in Afghanistan.
[Also, point out to the Martian that the atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” will come from Afghanistan not Iraq. Osama loves us being in Iraq, slowly bleeding to death and giving him a recruiting poster. For every day America is in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited?]
If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. … But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities of the ground. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk in order to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the ``good war'' in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging anti-war Democrats to increase funding that is really needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.
[Yes, the wise Martian would answer the question with a question. What is America’s interests? America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]
* * *
There were two points emphasized in the discussion forum for that column.
First, the Iraq war is/was about oil. Saddam was a threat because he sat on a lot of oil. There is no ideological struggle, no spreading of democracy. Bush says that he wants a government that can protect itself – what he really means is “protect our supply of oil.”
Second, we – probably – will have to return to protect our supply of oil. Our presence, our military presence, in the Middle East is required as long as Americans drive SUVs. The threat of terrorism takes a backseat to the threat of a cut-off of oil.
I say us returning is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. The next President will have to manage the aftermath. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military. Until then, let’s keep our focus on our real enemy that has an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush,” our enemy in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Post #73
Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.” Pt. II
I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said last week regarding John McCain’s view, “… that just today, the U.S. embassy put out an all-hands bulletin to its personnel inside the green zone. The green zone‘s that fortified part of central Baghdad, guarded by hundreds of U.S. troops, surrounded by 17-foot-high concrete blast walls. The new directive, all embassy personnel must wear flak jackets and helmets any time they‘re leaving any building inside the green zone. They‘re also not allowed to congregate by that palace pool, the site of some fairly raucous parties in recent years. And nonessential personnel are not even allowed inside the embassy compound. Why? Because insurgents have been pelting the green zone with literally dozens of rockets and mortars in recent days, and two Americans have been killed in the past week in these attacks. So people inside the green zone, inside supposedly the most secure part of Baghdad, don‘t feel much safer this week than they did last week.”
How many of those dead Americans would say the surge is working!?!
Retired general Barry McCaffrey, who was recently in there with General Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders, wrote “No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO,” nongovernmental organization individual, “nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi without heavily armed protection.”
Again, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said, “Conditions are Baghdad today are still pretty grim. There are certain places where things have improved. I will hand McCain and the administration that point. But by and large, the city is still incredibly dangerous, incredibly dangerous to foreigners and dangerous to Iraqis. I‘m in touch with Iraqis all the time. They‘re still living under an incredible climate of fear. They‘re still afraid to go out and about. They don‘t know whether the trip they‘re making to the market or the mosque or to work is going to be the last trip they ever make. So there‘s still a climate of fear. I don‘t think that the Iraqis would take the same sanguine view that Senator McCain has.
So, what’s going on? Why would McCain carry water for George W. Bush? Uh, politics, pure and simple, politics – McCain is not really carrying Bush’s water, tho. McCain is probably privately hoping that the surge fails and that the Democrats pull the plug. He can run for President, saying “if the surge had of been substantial and sustained, as I’d wanted. it would have worked – after all, I saw progress in early ’07.”
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.
McCain’s interest = running for President.
Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.” Pt. II
I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said last week regarding John McCain’s view, “… that just today, the U.S. embassy put out an all-hands bulletin to its personnel inside the green zone. The green zone‘s that fortified part of central Baghdad, guarded by hundreds of U.S. troops, surrounded by 17-foot-high concrete blast walls. The new directive, all embassy personnel must wear flak jackets and helmets any time they‘re leaving any building inside the green zone. They‘re also not allowed to congregate by that palace pool, the site of some fairly raucous parties in recent years. And nonessential personnel are not even allowed inside the embassy compound. Why? Because insurgents have been pelting the green zone with literally dozens of rockets and mortars in recent days, and two Americans have been killed in the past week in these attacks. So people inside the green zone, inside supposedly the most secure part of Baghdad, don‘t feel much safer this week than they did last week.”
How many of those dead Americans would say the surge is working!?!
Retired general Barry McCaffrey, who was recently in there with General Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders, wrote “No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO,” nongovernmental organization individual, “nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi without heavily armed protection.”
Again, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said, “Conditions are Baghdad today are still pretty grim. There are certain places where things have improved. I will hand McCain and the administration that point. But by and large, the city is still incredibly dangerous, incredibly dangerous to foreigners and dangerous to Iraqis. I‘m in touch with Iraqis all the time. They‘re still living under an incredible climate of fear. They‘re still afraid to go out and about. They don‘t know whether the trip they‘re making to the market or the mosque or to work is going to be the last trip they ever make. So there‘s still a climate of fear. I don‘t think that the Iraqis would take the same sanguine view that Senator McCain has.
So, what’s going on? Why would McCain carry water for George W. Bush? Uh, politics, pure and simple, politics – McCain is not really carrying Bush’s water, tho. McCain is probably privately hoping that the surge fails and that the Democrats pull the plug. He can run for President, saying “if the surge had of been substantial and sustained, as I’d wanted. it would have worked – after all, I saw progress in early ’07.”
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.
McCain’s interest = running for President.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Post #72
Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.”
I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. Of course, McCain also said, “General Petraeus goes out there [into Baghdad] almost every day in an unarmed HumVee.” McCain later omitted any claims about unarmed HumVees, saying that he meant that there are neighborhoods that are safe and that General Petraeus does go out into Baghdad.
It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p
That George W. Bush would paint the surge as a success is really no surprise. Do ya really think in, say, June that Bush would say “My fellow Americans, the surge has not worked – Americans have died in vain,” really? But what is surprising is how soon and how rah-rah the cheerleading is.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said before Congress that he was disturbed to hear one of his military officers say it will be fall before they have a good idea how well the latest Baghdad campaign is going. He said he hopes that Gen. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, will be able to make that evaluation by summer.
But Bush needs somebody to blame for his own mess. The Senate passed a bill requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from “the civil war in Iraq.” In a 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008. Po’ Mr. Bush – to be stuck holding the bag! Ya can kiss being baseball commissioner ‘bye. :p
Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon -- yes, Mr. Smith, I haven’t forgotten my Post # 45 – in voting for the measure. So, that is two Republicans who put America’s interests above Bush’s interests.
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind.
Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.
Supporting Bush’s interests over America’s interests were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman who argued against a withdrawal timetable on the floor of the Senate, saying, "It is clear that for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq." For the first time!?! Haven’t you've been so optimistic before, Joe, telling us all about the great progress? Remember the 2006 campaign!?!
Aaahhh – carrying water!
Also, “Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way,” said Senator Richard Shelby, Republican, Alabama. Well, it might take the target off their back! :p
Look, seriously, what are going to do if our military is needed elsewhere tomorrow? 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 can carry his own water. “The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous," Bush said in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington.
Somebody please tell Bush that the Iraq war – after we didn’t find WMD and after we overthrew Saddam, our military objectives – has been disastrous. And that continuing to flounder will be even more disastrous by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, our real enemy in Afghanistan as we continue to bleed in Iraq.
"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, start providing vital funds for our troops and get a bill to my desk that I can sign into law," Bush said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." Yes, Bush is at fault for a war that is, as Pat Buchanan said in my Post #67, “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.”
Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.”
I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. Of course, McCain also said, “General Petraeus goes out there [into Baghdad] almost every day in an unarmed HumVee.” McCain later omitted any claims about unarmed HumVees, saying that he meant that there are neighborhoods that are safe and that General Petraeus does go out into Baghdad.
It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p
That George W. Bush would paint the surge as a success is really no surprise. Do ya really think in, say, June that Bush would say “My fellow Americans, the surge has not worked – Americans have died in vain,” really? But what is surprising is how soon and how rah-rah the cheerleading is.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said before Congress that he was disturbed to hear one of his military officers say it will be fall before they have a good idea how well the latest Baghdad campaign is going. He said he hopes that Gen. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, will be able to make that evaluation by summer.
But Bush needs somebody to blame for his own mess. The Senate passed a bill requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from “the civil war in Iraq.” In a 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008. Po’ Mr. Bush – to be stuck holding the bag! Ya can kiss being baseball commissioner ‘bye. :p
Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon -- yes, Mr. Smith, I haven’t forgotten my Post # 45 – in voting for the measure. So, that is two Republicans who put America’s interests above Bush’s interests.
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind.
Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.
Supporting Bush’s interests over America’s interests were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman who argued against a withdrawal timetable on the floor of the Senate, saying, "It is clear that for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq." For the first time!?! Haven’t you've been so optimistic before, Joe, telling us all about the great progress? Remember the 2006 campaign!?!
Aaahhh – carrying water!
Also, “Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way,” said Senator Richard Shelby, Republican, Alabama. Well, it might take the target off their back! :p
Look, seriously, what are going to do if our military is needed elsewhere tomorrow? 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 can carry his own water. “The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous," Bush said in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington.
Somebody please tell Bush that the Iraq war – after we didn’t find WMD and after we overthrew Saddam, our military objectives – has been disastrous. And that continuing to flounder will be even more disastrous by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, our real enemy in Afghanistan as we continue to bleed in Iraq.
"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, start providing vital funds for our troops and get a bill to my desk that I can sign into law," Bush said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." Yes, Bush is at fault for a war that is, as Pat Buchanan said in my Post #67, “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.”
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Post #71
Subject: Fwd: “Let's say I break into your house.”
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house) .
According to the protesters: You are Required to let me stay in your house. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan. You are Required to Educate my kids. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family. My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, (except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.
I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for . . . Well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of showing cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.
Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?!
* * *
OK, I included the above from my e-box as it made me really think about immigration.
Let’s continue the “house” metaphor. I break into your house and find 20 other people who broke into your house and live there. “But Mr. John Smith,” you say, ‘arrived at Ellis Island from England in 1902, and he’s been a good citizen ever since.” And you want me to play by the rules, right?
Well, Mr. John Smith is really John Blacksmith – and really old, by the way :p – and Jack the Ripper. When immigrants used to arrive in this country, there were no rules – immigrants gave whatever name they wanted and didn’t worry about background checks And how many stories have you heard Italian grandmothers who refuse to learn English? It’s a Hollywood staple.
But, yes, times have changed. Because of the threat of terrorism, I’d like to see every immigrant documented but none who contributing members of society deported. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses….”
Still a problem? Don’t cry to me when some Native-Americans want to evict you! :p
Subject: Fwd: “Let's say I break into your house.”
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house) .
According to the protesters: You are Required to let me stay in your house. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan. You are Required to Educate my kids. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family. My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, (except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.
I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for . . . Well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of showing cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.
Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?!
* * *
OK, I included the above from my e-box as it made me really think about immigration.
Let’s continue the “house” metaphor. I break into your house and find 20 other people who broke into your house and live there. “But Mr. John Smith,” you say, ‘arrived at Ellis Island from England in 1902, and he’s been a good citizen ever since.” And you want me to play by the rules, right?
Well, Mr. John Smith is really John Blacksmith – and really old, by the way :p – and Jack the Ripper. When immigrants used to arrive in this country, there were no rules – immigrants gave whatever name they wanted and didn’t worry about background checks And how many stories have you heard Italian grandmothers who refuse to learn English? It’s a Hollywood staple.
But, yes, times have changed. Because of the threat of terrorism, I’d like to see every immigrant documented but none who contributing members of society deported. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses….”
Still a problem? Don’t cry to me when some Native-Americans want to evict you! :p
Friday, March 23, 2007
Post #70
Subject: Patience is a virtue, Pt.. II
As I said in my Post #69, “I don’t know what to be patient about.” Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means. Since George W. Bush can not define “winning,” I’m thinking like Joe Biden – “winning” is “ending this war without leaving chaos behind.”
As I said in my Post #69, “Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you [Bush] have failed as a war leader.” The binding bill requires that the President:
1. Transition our forces now to a new, more limited mission of training Iraqis and denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. Um, that’s Al-Qaeda, Mr. Bush – remember them? They fly planes into buildings. They are also already in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. Begin the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq within four month.
3. Complete the withdrawal of our combat forces by March, 2008, except for a limited number necessary to carry out the limited mission.
You, Mr. President, George W. Bush, have no clue. Your indignation over the House bill passed today just shows that you have not even read the bill. Your catch phrases, your slogans, your inability to define what we are fighting for or even who we are fighting, you and your Iraq war are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. No, sir, I have no more patience.
Subject: Patience is a virtue, Pt.. II
As I said in my Post #69, “I don’t know what to be patient about.” Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means. Since George W. Bush can not define “winning,” I’m thinking like Joe Biden – “winning” is “ending this war without leaving chaos behind.”
As I said in my Post #69, “Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you [Bush] have failed as a war leader.” The binding bill requires that the President:
1. Transition our forces now to a new, more limited mission of training Iraqis and denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. Um, that’s Al-Qaeda, Mr. Bush – remember them? They fly planes into buildings. They are also already in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. Begin the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq within four month.
3. Complete the withdrawal of our combat forces by March, 2008, except for a limited number necessary to carry out the limited mission.
You, Mr. President, George W. Bush, have no clue. Your indignation over the House bill passed today just shows that you have not even read the bill. Your catch phrases, your slogans, your inability to define what we are fighting for or even who we are fighting, you and your Iraq war are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. No, sir, I have no more patience.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Post #69
Subject: Patience is a virtue
I am sorry, Mr. President, George W. Bush, I have no more patience. Oh, I know you haven’t asked anything of me except patience. There have been no calls from the White House to grow Victory Gardens. There has been no overtime for factories that build HumVees. No rationing gas, no ban on overseas travel, no draft. But four years is enough.
Why, then, am I out of patience? It’s simple really: I don’t know what to be patient about. Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means.
When Berlin fell, I knew we had beaten Germany in WW II. Japan signed a surrender. Even the Cold War was based on the idea of the Soviet Union ending. Um, Iraq?
Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you have failed as a war leader.
Joe Biden said in an e-mail, “Just as important, as we transition the mission and draw down our forces, our bill requires the President to pursue a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq to secure a political settlement. That's exactly what the Biden-Gelb plan offers.” http://www.PlanForIraq.com “In short, what I'm proposing is a plan to end the war in Iraq without leaving a mess behind. What the President proposes is no end in sight.”
You want patience… for what, Mr. Bush, for what? I’d be willing to forgive the sneaky way you got us into this mess and the ways you’ve mishandle nearly every step along the way, if only….
Subject: Patience is a virtue
I am sorry, Mr. President, George W. Bush, I have no more patience. Oh, I know you haven’t asked anything of me except patience. There have been no calls from the White House to grow Victory Gardens. There has been no overtime for factories that build HumVees. No rationing gas, no ban on overseas travel, no draft. But four years is enough.
Why, then, am I out of patience? It’s simple really: I don’t know what to be patient about. Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means.
When Berlin fell, I knew we had beaten Germany in WW II. Japan signed a surrender. Even the Cold War was based on the idea of the Soviet Union ending. Um, Iraq?
Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you have failed as a war leader.
Joe Biden said in an e-mail, “Just as important, as we transition the mission and draw down our forces, our bill requires the President to pursue a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq to secure a political settlement. That's exactly what the Biden-Gelb plan offers.” http://www.PlanForIraq.com “In short, what I'm proposing is a plan to end the war in Iraq without leaving a mess behind. What the President proposes is no end in sight.”
You want patience… for what, Mr. Bush, for what? I’d be willing to forgive the sneaky way you got us into this mess and the ways you’ve mishandle nearly every step along the way, if only….
Friday, March 16, 2007
Post #68
Subject: The classic errors
I ran across a blog post entitled “DON’T STOP THE WAR!” If I may -- my responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Why would we want to stop this war?
(1) We're winning
[And how do you define “winning?” Killing more enemy troops – combatants? guerillas? – than losing our own? That was a mistake in Vietnam and is a mistake in Iraq today. Remember the body counts of Vietnam and how we were constantly being told we were turning the corner because we were killing more than were being killed? We killed over a million North Vietnamese – over 20 times what we lost – but did not win that war. Unfortunately, George W. Bush seems to not understand that, for every Iraqi he kills, there are two more who were originally supporters of democracy who are now jihadists and willing to fly planes into buildings.]
(2) It's the right thing to do
Most importantly: the only thing that "anti-war" protesting at home does is KILLS OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD. I remember the news reports in 1991 and all the networks talking about how we were "fighting for oil." I remember how it made us feel knowing that there were people at home who did not appreciate the blood we were expecting to shed.
[I hate to sound like a smart-ass, but, really, how does that work? I hear it all the time. If you are on patrol in Baghdad and you come under attack, how does Dan Rather make your gun not shoot straight? If you are wounded, will the Army doctor not work hard on you because his daughter is home in college makin’ love not war!?! :p]
… I've shed blood to fight this evil. Don't lessen my sacrafice. You don't have to agree with everything Bush & Co. do, I certainly don't, but don't let them do to this generation what they did to mine in 1991 -- pull out before the job is finished, ensuring that our enemy will live to once again terrorize the innocent.
[Uh, your mission was accomplished in ’91. – take pride in that. But, after the higher-ups in the Pentagon concluded that Vietnam was lost, how did sending over 20,000 more troops to their deaths lesson the sacrifice of those who had already died? In my Post #65, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show, “And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. 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.” The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests – just like in ‘91. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests – that is why I say Bush’s “New Way Forward” is nothing short of murderous.]
(3) Our enemy isn't about to stop until he's dead
… This war isn't going to end even when we're finished in Iraq. This is a battle for the survival of Western civilization.
[Yes, 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. Killing Arabs on TV is not helping – indeed, we are breeding new terrorists.]
I am a US Marine veteran. I have been to Iraq (1991), I have met the enemy, and I am very much aware that he cannot be reasoned with, he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be bribed or bought off, and he will never, ever stop killing innocent people until he is dead. The minute we surrender to terrorism in Iraq, they will return this war to OUR shores and start bombing OUR schools, OUR churches and shopping malls and killing OUR people.
[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 as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. 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.” Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” “the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”]
You can't "stop" the war BECAUSE THE ENEMY HASN'T QUIT. Jane Fonda thought she could do that in 1968 when America was about to achieve a military victory, and because of her THOUSANDS of American servicemen were killed or wounded by an enemy which gained renewed morale after her visit to North Vietnam.
[I wasn’t aware Jane Fonda was a General who followed political orders to send troops into combat. :p Why don’t you blame those really at fault for Vietnam – Johnson who turned Vietnam into a quagmire and Nixon who couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. The Iraq War itself, Bush’s Vietnam, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real 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.]
Subject: The classic errors
I ran across a blog post entitled “DON’T STOP THE WAR!” If I may -- my responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Why would we want to stop this war?
(1) We're winning
[And how do you define “winning?” Killing more enemy troops – combatants? guerillas? – than losing our own? That was a mistake in Vietnam and is a mistake in Iraq today. Remember the body counts of Vietnam and how we were constantly being told we were turning the corner because we were killing more than were being killed? We killed over a million North Vietnamese – over 20 times what we lost – but did not win that war. Unfortunately, George W. Bush seems to not understand that, for every Iraqi he kills, there are two more who were originally supporters of democracy who are now jihadists and willing to fly planes into buildings.]
(2) It's the right thing to do
Most importantly: the only thing that "anti-war" protesting at home does is KILLS OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD. I remember the news reports in 1991 and all the networks talking about how we were "fighting for oil." I remember how it made us feel knowing that there were people at home who did not appreciate the blood we were expecting to shed.
[I hate to sound like a smart-ass, but, really, how does that work? I hear it all the time. If you are on patrol in Baghdad and you come under attack, how does Dan Rather make your gun not shoot straight? If you are wounded, will the Army doctor not work hard on you because his daughter is home in college makin’ love not war!?! :p]
… I've shed blood to fight this evil. Don't lessen my sacrafice. You don't have to agree with everything Bush & Co. do, I certainly don't, but don't let them do to this generation what they did to mine in 1991 -- pull out before the job is finished, ensuring that our enemy will live to once again terrorize the innocent.
[Uh, your mission was accomplished in ’91. – take pride in that. But, after the higher-ups in the Pentagon concluded that Vietnam was lost, how did sending over 20,000 more troops to their deaths lesson the sacrifice of those who had already died? In my Post #65, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show, “And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. 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.” The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests – just like in ‘91. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests – that is why I say Bush’s “New Way Forward” is nothing short of murderous.]
(3) Our enemy isn't about to stop until he's dead
… This war isn't going to end even when we're finished in Iraq. This is a battle for the survival of Western civilization.
[Yes, 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. Killing Arabs on TV is not helping – indeed, we are breeding new terrorists.]
I am a US Marine veteran. I have been to Iraq (1991), I have met the enemy, and I am very much aware that he cannot be reasoned with, he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be bribed or bought off, and he will never, ever stop killing innocent people until he is dead. The minute we surrender to terrorism in Iraq, they will return this war to OUR shores and start bombing OUR schools, OUR churches and shopping malls and killing OUR people.
[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 as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. 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.” Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” “the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”]
You can't "stop" the war BECAUSE THE ENEMY HASN'T QUIT. Jane Fonda thought she could do that in 1968 when America was about to achieve a military victory, and because of her THOUSANDS of American servicemen were killed or wounded by an enemy which gained renewed morale after her visit to North Vietnam.
[I wasn’t aware Jane Fonda was a General who followed political orders to send troops into combat. :p Why don’t you blame those really at fault for Vietnam – Johnson who turned Vietnam into a quagmire and Nixon who couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. The Iraq War itself, Bush’s Vietnam, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real 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.]
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Post #67
Subject: Hypocrisy….
Good Lord. We have a new winner in the “hypocrisy sweepstakes.” Just when I thought it was safe to read some right-wing nuts, I run across “Martyr of the War Party “ by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , March 7, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The conviction of Scooter Libby on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice is first of all a human tragedy.
A man who served his country at the highest level, who sat in every morning at the senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, has been dishonored and disgraced, and will be disbarred. Unless his conviction is overturned, or he is pardoned, Libby will go to prison. His life will end with an obituary that declares in its headline and lead paragraph that he was a convicted Dick Cheney aide.
Yet, this was a narrow case. Libby's convictions call to mind Martha Stewart's, who went to prison for lying to investigators about a crime she did not commit. Libby has been convicted of lying about the outing of a CIA classified officer, a crime for which no one has been indicted.
Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was outed as a CIA "operative," was no longer covert and had not been so for half a decade when her name was pushed out of the White House to the press. Joe Wilson, her husband, target of the White House vendetta, yet contends that not only was her career destroyed, a crime was committed -- and that is why the CIA demanded an investigation.
Yet it was an arrogant and stupid thing Libby did. He lied to the FBI, to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, to the grand jury. He fabricated a story about where he learned about Wilson's wife, when, as sworn testimony proved, he learned it from Vice President Cheney and was himself moving it to the press.
[The rule of law, Pat, the rule of law – that’s how they got Clinton. Getting a “Monica” from Monica was not a crime, but he lied about it. And he was impeached. No sob stories from the right about the “human tragedy.” What goes around, comes around. I knew one day the right would get caught by their own stringent attitude – well, judgment day is here, Pat, and you have plainly showed that the law you respect only applies to the other side. I’m disappointed.]
However, this was about a larger issue than the narrow question of whether Libby lied about leaking the role of Valerie Plame in having her husband sent to Niger to investigate a report that Iraq had been seeking "yellowcake," a critical component in a uranium enrichment program.
That larger issue is this: Were we misled, were we deceived by our government, as the White House made the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Did neoconservatives at the Pentagon cherry-pick the intelligence, stovepipe it to the vice president's office and Libby, and then feed it to sympathizers and collaborators in the media, to stampede our country into a war against a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us?
In short, were we lied into a war in Mesopotamia that is breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam?
And why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?
This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.
The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war.
And, lest we forget, the media, too, played a supporting role in pushing this nation into an unnecessary war. Columnists and commentators assured us there was a nexus between Saddam, al-Qaida and 9-11, a "Prague connection" between Muhammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence. We were told Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was working on nuclear weapons, that enrichment of uranium was being done secretly around the country, that if we did not act now, we faced a nuclear-armed Iraq that would surely transfer atomic weapons to al-Qaida terrorists. Said Condi Rice, our proof of WMD might well come in the form of a mushroom cloud above an American city.
[George W. Bush was speeding, and the cops let him go. Bush had a wreck. Yes, the cops get fired. But the responsibility for the wreck belongs to Bush. I find it sad that any Senator who voted for this mess is still in office, and I raise my eyebrows over who is running for President. But, at the end of day, Bush is at fault for a war that is “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.]
Scooter Libby will not lack for legal defense funds as he pursues his appeal, and there will be demands for his pardon before Bush goes home. For Scooter is a martyr of the War Party. Scooter did what he had to do to get us into this war. Then he did what he felt he had to do to discredit Joe Wilson, because Wilson was out to discredit the White House case for war. And in the end, we are unlikely to know the truth of why it was we went to war. For that record is sealed in minds and souls.
[Yes, we are unlikely to know. Let’s get out – with a positive ending, if we can. But let’s get out.]
Subject: Hypocrisy….
Good Lord. We have a new winner in the “hypocrisy sweepstakes.” Just when I thought it was safe to read some right-wing nuts, I run across “Martyr of the War Party “ by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , March 7, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The conviction of Scooter Libby on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice is first of all a human tragedy.
A man who served his country at the highest level, who sat in every morning at the senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, has been dishonored and disgraced, and will be disbarred. Unless his conviction is overturned, or he is pardoned, Libby will go to prison. His life will end with an obituary that declares in its headline and lead paragraph that he was a convicted Dick Cheney aide.
Yet, this was a narrow case. Libby's convictions call to mind Martha Stewart's, who went to prison for lying to investigators about a crime she did not commit. Libby has been convicted of lying about the outing of a CIA classified officer, a crime for which no one has been indicted.
Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was outed as a CIA "operative," was no longer covert and had not been so for half a decade when her name was pushed out of the White House to the press. Joe Wilson, her husband, target of the White House vendetta, yet contends that not only was her career destroyed, a crime was committed -- and that is why the CIA demanded an investigation.
Yet it was an arrogant and stupid thing Libby did. He lied to the FBI, to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, to the grand jury. He fabricated a story about where he learned about Wilson's wife, when, as sworn testimony proved, he learned it from Vice President Cheney and was himself moving it to the press.
[The rule of law, Pat, the rule of law – that’s how they got Clinton. Getting a “Monica” from Monica was not a crime, but he lied about it. And he was impeached. No sob stories from the right about the “human tragedy.” What goes around, comes around. I knew one day the right would get caught by their own stringent attitude – well, judgment day is here, Pat, and you have plainly showed that the law you respect only applies to the other side. I’m disappointed.]
However, this was about a larger issue than the narrow question of whether Libby lied about leaking the role of Valerie Plame in having her husband sent to Niger to investigate a report that Iraq had been seeking "yellowcake," a critical component in a uranium enrichment program.
That larger issue is this: Were we misled, were we deceived by our government, as the White House made the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Did neoconservatives at the Pentagon cherry-pick the intelligence, stovepipe it to the vice president's office and Libby, and then feed it to sympathizers and collaborators in the media, to stampede our country into a war against a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us?
In short, were we lied into a war in Mesopotamia that is breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam?
And why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?
This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.
The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war.
And, lest we forget, the media, too, played a supporting role in pushing this nation into an unnecessary war. Columnists and commentators assured us there was a nexus between Saddam, al-Qaida and 9-11, a "Prague connection" between Muhammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence. We were told Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was working on nuclear weapons, that enrichment of uranium was being done secretly around the country, that if we did not act now, we faced a nuclear-armed Iraq that would surely transfer atomic weapons to al-Qaida terrorists. Said Condi Rice, our proof of WMD might well come in the form of a mushroom cloud above an American city.
[George W. Bush was speeding, and the cops let him go. Bush had a wreck. Yes, the cops get fired. But the responsibility for the wreck belongs to Bush. I find it sad that any Senator who voted for this mess is still in office, and I raise my eyebrows over who is running for President. But, at the end of day, Bush is at fault for a war that is “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.]
Scooter Libby will not lack for legal defense funds as he pursues his appeal, and there will be demands for his pardon before Bush goes home. For Scooter is a martyr of the War Party. Scooter did what he had to do to get us into this war. Then he did what he felt he had to do to discredit Joe Wilson, because Wilson was out to discredit the White House case for war. And in the end, we are unlikely to know the truth of why it was we went to war. For that record is sealed in minds and souls.
[Yes, we are unlikely to know. Let’s get out – with a positive ending, if we can. But let’s get out.]
Friday, March 09, 2007
Post #66
Subject: Repeal Iraq War Resolution
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The text below is from The Boston Globe.
* * *
Congress Should Repeal its Authorization to Use Force in Iraq
February 27, 2007
Two weeks ago, Congress made clear its opposition to President Bush's plan to send more US troops to Iraq.
Opposing the surge is only a first step. There needs to be a radical change in course in Iraq. The pressure is building on Congress -- especially Republicans -- to act if the president will not.
The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted Bush in 2002 to use force in Iraq.
We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.
Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. We should set as a goal removing from Iraq all US combat forces not necessary for this limited mission by early 2008, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends.
Congress also should make clear that the troops should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a civil war.
Repealing and replacing the 2002 authorization is not micromanagement from Washington, it is matching our soldiers' mission to the changing realities in Iraq.
Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"
Everyone wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon and as safely as possible. There is great political reward in saying, "I can get us out the fastest."
But while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. There needs to be a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East.
Nine months ago, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and I proposed a plan, which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact.
The plan would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives; bring the Sunnis in by guaranteeing them a fair share of the oil; enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and the world's major powers to promote the plan with the Iraqis; and withdraw US combat forces by 2008. You can read the details at PlanForIraq.com.
The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.
Since the onset of sectarian war, there is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. There is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon.
There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: A foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon.
That leaves federalism -- an idea a majority of Iraqis have already endorsed in their constitution.
Our plan offers a way to make federalism work for all Iraqis. And it offers the possibility -- not the guarantee -- of producing a soft landing in Iraq. That would be the best possible outcome for Iraq and for America.
Subject: Repeal Iraq War Resolution
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The text below is from The Boston Globe.
* * *
Congress Should Repeal its Authorization to Use Force in Iraq
February 27, 2007
Two weeks ago, Congress made clear its opposition to President Bush's plan to send more US troops to Iraq.
Opposing the surge is only a first step. There needs to be a radical change in course in Iraq. The pressure is building on Congress -- especially Republicans -- to act if the president will not.
The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted Bush in 2002 to use force in Iraq.
We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.
Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. We should set as a goal removing from Iraq all US combat forces not necessary for this limited mission by early 2008, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends.
Congress also should make clear that the troops should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a civil war.
Repealing and replacing the 2002 authorization is not micromanagement from Washington, it is matching our soldiers' mission to the changing realities in Iraq.
Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"
Everyone wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon and as safely as possible. There is great political reward in saying, "I can get us out the fastest."
But while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. There needs to be a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East.
Nine months ago, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and I proposed a plan, which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact.
The plan would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives; bring the Sunnis in by guaranteeing them a fair share of the oil; enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and the world's major powers to promote the plan with the Iraqis; and withdraw US combat forces by 2008. You can read the details at PlanForIraq.com.
The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.
Since the onset of sectarian war, there is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. There is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon.
There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: A foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon.
That leaves federalism -- an idea a majority of Iraqis have already endorsed in their constitution.
Our plan offers a way to make federalism work for all Iraqis. And it offers the possibility -- not the guarantee -- of producing a soft landing in Iraq. That would be the best possible outcome for Iraq and for America.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Post #65
Subject: The immorality of the Iraq War….
In my Post #62, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show. I think his whole quote is telling – especially from the right – and worthy of a whole post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Well, I‘ll tell you what. I‘ll tell you where I am right now on this war. I supported the war from the very beginning. Anybody that has watched this show for four years knows I was one of the biggest supporters of the war. And I was a big supporter for the war because it came about a year after the 9/11 attacks. We had our CIA director, everybody else, said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were all wrong. I wanted to go into Iraq because I believed at the time it was in America‘s best interests.
[Yep, George W. Bush pissed on your leg and said that it was raining! :p Actually, I respect that you were scared shitless – I was, too. Shame on Bush for his disregard of the truth, the whole truth, and his “New Way Forward,” an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President.]
That‘s all I cared about. I didn‘t care about world peace. I didn‘t care about spreading democracy across the globe. I wanted to protect America. At some point, you‘ve got to say what‘s in America‘s best interests, after we found out that Saddam Hussein didn‘t have nukes, and now that there‘s no Saddam Hussein—at some point, you have to start asking, When is your neighbor going to step up to the plate? When are they going to take care of the mess in their own yard, in their own back yard?
[We created that mess. But you are correct, Joe: At some point, you throw up your hands and just leave. Intellectually, I agree with Joe Biden in my Post #62 and #64 – we must do the hard work to get a positive outcome in Iraq. But, emotionally, I’m ready to face the bad consequences – the Iraq civil war that spreads across the Middle East, a cut off of oil, Iran armed with an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush.” The longer we stay, the worse things will be when we do leave.]
How many more young Americans from California, from Kansas, from Georgia, from Maine, have to die because Iraqis, as Pat Buchanan said, who were willing to have 500,000 of their own people slaughtered in a war against Iran, or the Afghanistan people, who stood up to the Soviet Union for almost a decade—how much longer do Americans put everything they have, give up their young, give up billions of dollars, soon to be trillions of dollars, for countries that just don‘t seem to want democracy and freedom enough to actually fight for them themselves?
That‘s a question that most Americans are finding themselves asking. And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. 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.
[The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests.]
Subject: The immorality of the Iraq War….
In my Post #62, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show. I think his whole quote is telling – especially from the right – and worthy of a whole post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Well, I‘ll tell you what. I‘ll tell you where I am right now on this war. I supported the war from the very beginning. Anybody that has watched this show for four years knows I was one of the biggest supporters of the war. And I was a big supporter for the war because it came about a year after the 9/11 attacks. We had our CIA director, everybody else, said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were all wrong. I wanted to go into Iraq because I believed at the time it was in America‘s best interests.
[Yep, George W. Bush pissed on your leg and said that it was raining! :p Actually, I respect that you were scared shitless – I was, too. Shame on Bush for his disregard of the truth, the whole truth, and his “New Way Forward,” an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President.]
That‘s all I cared about. I didn‘t care about world peace. I didn‘t care about spreading democracy across the globe. I wanted to protect America. At some point, you‘ve got to say what‘s in America‘s best interests, after we found out that Saddam Hussein didn‘t have nukes, and now that there‘s no Saddam Hussein—at some point, you have to start asking, When is your neighbor going to step up to the plate? When are they going to take care of the mess in their own yard, in their own back yard?
[We created that mess. But you are correct, Joe: At some point, you throw up your hands and just leave. Intellectually, I agree with Joe Biden in my Post #62 and #64 – we must do the hard work to get a positive outcome in Iraq. But, emotionally, I’m ready to face the bad consequences – the Iraq civil war that spreads across the Middle East, a cut off of oil, Iran armed with an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush.” The longer we stay, the worse things will be when we do leave.]
How many more young Americans from California, from Kansas, from Georgia, from Maine, have to die because Iraqis, as Pat Buchanan said, who were willing to have 500,000 of their own people slaughtered in a war against Iran, or the Afghanistan people, who stood up to the Soviet Union for almost a decade—how much longer do Americans put everything they have, give up their young, give up billions of dollars, soon to be trillions of dollars, for countries that just don‘t seem to want democracy and freedom enough to actually fight for them themselves?
That‘s a question that most Americans are finding themselves asking. And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. 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.
[The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests.]
Friday, March 02, 2007
Post #64
Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests, Pt. II
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 military surge in Iraq is not a solution - it is a tragic mistake.
If we should be surging forces anywhere, it is in Afghanistan.
I'm glad the President has recognized what many of us have been saying for years: unless we surge troops, hardware, money, and high-level attention into Afghanistan, it will fall back into the hands of the Taliban, terrorists and drug traffickers. I support the steps he announced today but I hope they are the first steps - not the last - in a recommitment to Afghanistan.
[Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.]
We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.
The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq.
Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies. We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.
[Yes, for God’s sake, somebody tell us what we are doing in Iraq! 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.”]
For our sake and for the sake of the Iraqi people, we should be focused on how we get out of Iraq with our interests intact.
Everyone wants to bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible. But tempting as it is, we can't just throw up our hands, blame the President for misusing the authority we gave him, and walk away without a plan for what we leave behind.
So I'll end where I began.
Leaving Iraq is a necessity, but it is not a plan. We need a plan for what we leave behind. That is what I have offered.
Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests, Pt. II
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 military surge in Iraq is not a solution - it is a tragic mistake.
If we should be surging forces anywhere, it is in Afghanistan.
I'm glad the President has recognized what many of us have been saying for years: unless we surge troops, hardware, money, and high-level attention into Afghanistan, it will fall back into the hands of the Taliban, terrorists and drug traffickers. I support the steps he announced today but I hope they are the first steps - not the last - in a recommitment to Afghanistan.
[Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.]
We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.
The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq.
Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies. We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.
[Yes, for God’s sake, somebody tell us what we are doing in Iraq! 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.”]
For our sake and for the sake of the Iraqi people, we should be focused on how we get out of Iraq with our interests intact.
Everyone wants to bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible. But tempting as it is, we can't just throw up our hands, blame the President for misusing the authority we gave him, and walk away without a plan for what we leave behind.
So I'll end where I began.
Leaving Iraq is a necessity, but it is not a plan. We need a plan for what we leave behind. That is what I have offered.
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.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Post #57
Subject: NoMoreTroops.com
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
Subject: What you can do to Stop the Escalation in Iraq
The President and members of his administration are working overtime to convince Americans, and the world, that their proposal to send 21,000 more young men and women into Iraq -- escalating the war -- can salvage their failed policies there. Like millions of Americans, I have listened to the President's proposal but fear that it will only make the situation worse. Escalating the war in Iraq, and possibly into Iran and Syria now, is not a solution -- it is a tragic mistake. Now we need your help. I've launched a new website so you can add your voice to the growing chorus opposing the President's proposal. Please visit
www.NoMoreTroops.com
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Subject: NoMoreTroops.com
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
Subject: What you can do to Stop the Escalation in Iraq
The President and members of his administration are working overtime to convince Americans, and the world, that their proposal to send 21,000 more young men and women into Iraq -- escalating the war -- can salvage their failed policies there. Like millions of Americans, I have listened to the President's proposal but fear that it will only make the situation worse. Escalating the war in Iraq, and possibly into Iran and Syria now, is not a solution -- it is a tragic mistake. Now we need your help. I've launched a new website so you can add your voice to the growing chorus opposing the President's proposal. Please visit
www.NoMoreTroops.com
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Friday, January 26, 2007
Post #56
Subject: An interview with TheDaF
WHO ARE YOU? Nobody important. I have no training or experience to deal with this – politics in general ranks #3 or #4 on my list of interests, and the Iraq War is the #1 political issue of our time. I’m just an ordinary Joe with internet access. I’d be delighted to be read around Washington, but, if nobody reads, that’s OK, too. I just felt I had to do something, ya know….
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITIICS? I’m a liberal with conservative leanings. Or a conservative with liberal leanings. I am a libertarian who believes in the New Deal. I’m a Constitutionalist who believes the Constitution is living document. I pick and choose which principles to follow – unless of course realism dictates I abandon all principles. I am a unique American – just like everybody else! ;p
CAN YOU SUM UP THE IRAQ WAR? We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” 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 immediately.
BUT WAIT – WON’T AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL LEAVE A BAD SITUATION IN IRAQ? Yes, from my Post #52, quoting George W. Bush, “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” Actually, I see worse things. But the Iraq War has already created that situation – 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. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… 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. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history – that’s why I was impressed with Hillary’s announcement to enter the race for ’08. She seemed to understand the stakes.
Subject: An interview with TheDaF
WHO ARE YOU? Nobody important. I have no training or experience to deal with this – politics in general ranks #3 or #4 on my list of interests, and the Iraq War is the #1 political issue of our time. I’m just an ordinary Joe with internet access. I’d be delighted to be read around Washington, but, if nobody reads, that’s OK, too. I just felt I had to do something, ya know….
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITIICS? I’m a liberal with conservative leanings. Or a conservative with liberal leanings. I am a libertarian who believes in the New Deal. I’m a Constitutionalist who believes the Constitution is living document. I pick and choose which principles to follow – unless of course realism dictates I abandon all principles. I am a unique American – just like everybody else! ;p
CAN YOU SUM UP THE IRAQ WAR? We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” 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 immediately.
BUT WAIT – WON’T AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL LEAVE A BAD SITUATION IN IRAQ? Yes, from my Post #52, quoting George W. Bush, “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” Actually, I see worse things. But the Iraq War has already created that situation – 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. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… 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. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history – that’s why I was impressed with Hillary’s announcement to enter the race for ’08. She seemed to understand the stakes.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Post #55
Subject: George W. Bush’s “State of the Union” – as should be delivered….
My fellow Americans, the state of the Union is about to get stronger. Effective at Noon tomorrow, I shall resign as President, and Dick Cheney shall resign as Vice-President. The next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shall take over. May God bless her.
I made a mistake. I 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.”
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. 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. I didn’t plan to fail; I failed to plan for what comes next for Iraq. I was expecting “sweets and flowers.”
Now, I can’t get us out of where we obviously should not have been in the first place. I reject the counsel of those who got us into this mess and now call for a broader war. But I don’t know what to do now. That’s why I’m resigning. Over 3000 deaths for my mistake is more than I can stand. Hopefully, someone else can stop this mess.
May God bless America….
Subject: George W. Bush’s “State of the Union” – as should be delivered….
My fellow Americans, the state of the Union is about to get stronger. Effective at Noon tomorrow, I shall resign as President, and Dick Cheney shall resign as Vice-President. The next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shall take over. May God bless her.
I made a mistake. I 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.”
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. 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. I didn’t plan to fail; I failed to plan for what comes next for Iraq. I was expecting “sweets and flowers.”
Now, I can’t get us out of where we obviously should not have been in the first place. I reject the counsel of those who got us into this mess and now call for a broader war. But I don’t know what to do now. That’s why I’m resigning. Over 3000 deaths for my mistake is more than I can stand. Hopefully, someone else can stop this mess.
May God bless America….
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Post #54
Subject: George W. Bush is right! Pt. II
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last Wednesday on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
[W]e will continue to pursue al-Qaida and foreign fighters. Al-Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al-Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al -Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al-Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
[Good Lord, Ms. Bush. I question your evidence. If there is one thing we should have leaned these past few years, we question your honesty. But, even if true, don’t you remember your own words -- “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them?” Then, invade Iraq again. I will support you. But get out now – wait until there is a good reason to invade Iraq. 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 – why not finish in Afghanistan? As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… 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. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….]
[S]tabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
[Good Lord. Bush’s “New Way Forward” is to provoke a regional war.]
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.
[No shit, Sherlock. But why is our military kidnapping Iranians?]
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time – As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p I question, tho, your definition of who we are fighting. 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.”]
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
[But NOT militarily. Read your own speech! :p]
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
[How does the President know that -- “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror?” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?]
Subject: George W. Bush is right! Pt. II
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last Wednesday on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
[W]e will continue to pursue al-Qaida and foreign fighters. Al-Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al-Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al -Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al-Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
[Good Lord, Ms. Bush. I question your evidence. If there is one thing we should have leaned these past few years, we question your honesty. But, even if true, don’t you remember your own words -- “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them?” Then, invade Iraq again. I will support you. But get out now – wait until there is a good reason to invade Iraq. 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 – why not finish in Afghanistan? As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… 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. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….]
[S]tabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
[Good Lord. Bush’s “New Way Forward” is to provoke a regional war.]
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.
[No shit, Sherlock. But why is our military kidnapping Iranians?]
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time – As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p I question, tho, your definition of who we are fighting. 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.”]
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
[But NOT militarily. Read your own speech! :p]
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
[How does the President know that -- “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror?” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?]
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Post #53
Subject: Fighting terrorism can be sexy!
On the TV news yesterday, I saw a reporter interview a “terrorism expert” about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece. To paraphrase:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Well, it’s hard. We need good intelligence to find out who these people are and what they are planning to do before they do it.”
Wrong answer. To the simplistic neo-con way of viewing the world, a simple sexy approach is needed. Yesterday should have been:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad!”
Oh, wait – the terrorists involved in attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece have been identified as Greek terrorists with quarrels with the Greek government. That fact stands in contrast to the lazy neo-con way of lumping all of our enemies into one basket and lumping into the category of enemy by race, religion and region. Have ya ever heard “the only good Arab is a dead Arab?” I suggest neo-cons read the Declaration of Independence – especially that “all men are created equal” part.
Subject: Fighting terrorism can be sexy!
On the TV news yesterday, I saw a reporter interview a “terrorism expert” about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece. To paraphrase:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Well, it’s hard. We need good intelligence to find out who these people are and what they are planning to do before they do it.”
Wrong answer. To the simplistic neo-con way of viewing the world, a simple sexy approach is needed. Yesterday should have been:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad!”
Oh, wait – the terrorists involved in attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece have been identified as Greek terrorists with quarrels with the Greek government. That fact stands in contrast to the lazy neo-con way of lumping all of our enemies into one basket and lumping into the category of enemy by race, religion and region. Have ya ever heard “the only good Arab is a dead Arab?” I suggest neo-cons read the Declaration of Independence – especially that “all men are created equal” part.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Post #52
Subject: George W. Bush is right!
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last night on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.
[Yes. Exactly. The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure.]
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
[Ummm, well, the “new” strategy – more of the same, a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President and making the War on Terror longer and harder.]
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
[Yes. Our military has won the war.]
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
[Yes, too. George Weasel Bush has lost the peace.]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
[Why is that clear now? Why wasn’t it clear on November 6?]
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
[Oh, puh-lease. We all know how much respect the Iraq Study Group really gets in the White House.]
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.
[Yes. There are only bad options. 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.]
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
[The Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse.]
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
[Yes. “For the safety of our people, America must” get out of “Iraq…” now. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea tomorrow? Do we respond? With what Army? Suppose Iran sets up terrorists training camps? Do we invade? Ya bet we do – but with what Army? We are bleeding to death in Iraq. “Run, run, run away, live again to fight another day.” Ya know, I think George and Barbara never let lil’ George W. play in a playground. :p]
Subject: George W. Bush is right!
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last night on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.
[Yes. Exactly. The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure.]
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
[Ummm, well, the “new” strategy – more of the same, a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President and making the War on Terror longer and harder.]
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
[Yes. Our military has won the war.]
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
[Yes, too. George Weasel Bush has lost the peace.]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
[Why is that clear now? Why wasn’t it clear on November 6?]
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
[Oh, puh-lease. We all know how much respect the Iraq Study Group really gets in the White House.]
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.
[Yes. There are only bad options. 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.]
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
[The Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse.]
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
[Yes. “For the safety of our people, America must” get out of “Iraq…” now. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea tomorrow? Do we respond? With what Army? Suppose Iran sets up terrorists training camps? Do we invade? Ya bet we do – but with what Army? We are bleeding to death in Iraq. “Run, run, run away, live again to fight another day.” Ya know, I think George and Barbara never let lil’ George W. play in a playground. :p]
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Post #51
Subject: … on the IraqStudyGroup
Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , wrote the following on December 12, 2006. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The IraqStudyGroup report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
[Yes. And in a similar way, George W. Bush and his “New Way Forward” to be announced tomorrow night is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President. Shame on Bush for his willingness to sacrificc more American lives for his own legacy.]
The "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission may be right.
[Uh, Iraq IS a lost cause – the reality IS it was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake. The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer.]
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush’s rejection of our advice that lost the war."
[Good Lord. Just hold on for two more years, scare the Democrats into not ending this mess, then the neo-cons can have “McCain’s War” – and we can lose another four years in the War on Terror. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p]
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense. "If only we had known then what we know now — that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein — we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld’s Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light." The Democrats’ defense begs these questions: Why didn’t you know? Why didn’t you find out? Why didn’t you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
[Amen. The obvious answer: Political cowardice. That’s why I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around Hillary’s coronation in ’08 – on the most important issue of our time, she was on the wrong side. And still is.]
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
[Amen, again. Of course, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just about political cover for himself.]
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today’s establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon’s War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
[Unsurprising, too, still, deaf ears in Washington….]
Subject: … on the IraqStudyGroup
Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , wrote the following on December 12, 2006. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The IraqStudyGroup report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
[Yes. And in a similar way, George W. Bush and his “New Way Forward” to be announced tomorrow night is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President. Shame on Bush for his willingness to sacrificc more American lives for his own legacy.]
The "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission may be right.
[Uh, Iraq IS a lost cause – the reality IS it was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake. The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer.]
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush’s rejection of our advice that lost the war."
[Good Lord. Just hold on for two more years, scare the Democrats into not ending this mess, then the neo-cons can have “McCain’s War” – and we can lose another four years in the War on Terror. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p]
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense. "If only we had known then what we know now — that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein — we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld’s Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light." The Democrats’ defense begs these questions: Why didn’t you know? Why didn’t you find out? Why didn’t you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
[Amen. The obvious answer: Political cowardice. That’s why I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around Hillary’s coronation in ’08 – on the most important issue of our time, she was on the wrong side. And still is.]
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
[Amen, again. Of course, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just about political cover for himself.]
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today’s establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon’s War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
[Unsurprising, too, still, deaf ears in Washington….]
Friday, January 05, 2007
Post #50
Subject: No More New Troops in Iraq
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq, one idea has emerged as his leading option: to surge more troops into Baghdad in a last ditch effort to stabilize the city.
There is one big problem with that option: in the absence of a political settlement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it will not work. We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again.
And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain. If the President proposes ecalation in Iraq, I will oppose him and so will many of my colleagues in Congress.
In January, I intend to hold a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. I have already invited Secretary of State Rice to testify. It is my hope that these hearings will generate a bipartisan consensus around the best way to move forward in Iraq and convince the President that "surging" additional forces into Baghdad is not the answer.
[OK, Joe, but no “invites,” no “convincing” – the ball is in your court. The November elections have given you and Congress the power – Subpeona Conni and force her to testify about Bush’s “New Way Forward.” And, if the answers do not make sense, cut off the money for this God-foresaken mess in Iraq. Be a leader – Stand up. If you want to be President, the time is now to start acting Presidential!]
Subject: No More New Troops in Iraq
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq, one idea has emerged as his leading option: to surge more troops into Baghdad in a last ditch effort to stabilize the city.
There is one big problem with that option: in the absence of a political settlement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it will not work. We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again.
And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain. If the President proposes ecalation in Iraq, I will oppose him and so will many of my colleagues in Congress.
In January, I intend to hold a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. I have already invited Secretary of State Rice to testify. It is my hope that these hearings will generate a bipartisan consensus around the best way to move forward in Iraq and convince the President that "surging" additional forces into Baghdad is not the answer.
[OK, Joe, but no “invites,” no “convincing” – the ball is in your court. The November elections have given you and Congress the power – Subpeona Conni and force her to testify about Bush’s “New Way Forward.” And, if the answers do not make sense, cut off the money for this God-foresaken mess in Iraq. Be a leader – Stand up. If you want to be President, the time is now to start acting Presidential!]
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Post #49
Subject: 2007 – it’s hotter than an oven!
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In my Post #1, I quoted from “Is defeat now an option?” – the June 27, 2006 column by Pat Buchanan at http://www.theamericancause.org/ :
“We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”
Yes, I said, three options:
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
In my Post #27, I said, “Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organization and the governments that harbor them.’ – yes! Iraq was a mistake.”
Iraq was a violation of Bush’s own anti-terrorism policy, ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.’ As I also said in my Post #27, “There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion.” What will Bush do if democracy blooms in Iraq tomorrow and they vote to harbor terrorist organizations? He don’t have no Army. :p
As I also said in my Post #27,”no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.” I personally favor #1, but, well, #1 is wrong – a false choice.
The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. I find #2 or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home.
Again, 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.”
Let’s “Get out… now!” and get back to the War on Terror….
Subject: 2007 – it’s hotter than an oven!
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In my Post #1, I quoted from “Is defeat now an option?” – the June 27, 2006 column by Pat Buchanan at http://www.theamericancause.org/ :
“We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”
Yes, I said, three options:
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
In my Post #27, I said, “Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organization and the governments that harbor them.’ – yes! Iraq was a mistake.”
Iraq was a violation of Bush’s own anti-terrorism policy, ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.’ As I also said in my Post #27, “There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion.” What will Bush do if democracy blooms in Iraq tomorrow and they vote to harbor terrorist organizations? He don’t have no Army. :p
As I also said in my Post #27,”no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.” I personally favor #1, but, well, #1 is wrong – a false choice.
The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. I find #2 or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home.
Again, 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.”
Let’s “Get out… now!” and get back to the War on Terror….
Friday, December 29, 2006
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!”
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!”
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)