Post #32
… or Libertarian….
OK, this post is tongue-in-cheek, but, really, I find more to agree with Loretta Nall who is running for Governor of Alabama – “Vote Nall Y'all ... It's Just Common Sense,” http://www.nallforgovernor.com/ -- than almost anybody else. Read her platform… and look at her boobs!
Loretta says, “This article is from Brand Week Magazine a national marketing firm which names my ads the ‘Most Honest of the Political Season:’”
* * *
Political Ads Gone Wild
October 30, 2006
Yet, the most honest ad belongs to Loretta Nall, the Libertarian candidate for governor of Alabama. Nall's Web site features a cartoon picture of the candidate; when people donate money to the campaign it is pushed into her décolletage. The more you donate, the more you get to see. For enough money, she removes her blouse to reveal a tank top with a picture of her opponents on it and the words: "The biggest boobs in Alabama politics." Nall e-mailed: "I think the ads and the T-shirts have been so effective because it bares [sic] all the markings of mocking the authorities. It brings humor to an otherwise dull, boring, same old, same old political season . . . People love an underdog." And boobs!
* * *
If Loretta runs for the White House in 2008, she’s got my support… with both hands!
* * *
As governor of Alabama I would have no real power to influence the Iraq war policy, but I feel that you have the right to know exactly how I feel on that issue and on the concept of war in general.
As a Libertarian I'm not a pacifist. I believe that only defense is legitimate.
I like to believe that no one wants or likes war. Under the current US administration I am having something of a hard time holding onto that belief.
Having said that, I support our troops but I do not support the Iraq war.
In the beginning and in the aftermath of 9/11 I did support it. I, like millions of other Americans, believed our president when he said there were WMD's and that Iraq was somehow tied to the terrorist attacks that befell our nation. I understood our mission there to be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
That mission was accomplished in three days and our brave troops did one hell of a job. They should have been applauded, commended and given the highest amount of respect for carrying out their objective. And then they should have been brought home to their families.
But, they are still there and no one seems to be able to say with any degree of certainty just exactly what they are fighting for or how long this war will last or how many more will have to die.
Alabama did not choose to send her sons and daughters off to fight this illegal war. That choice was made for us.
That choice has cost the lives of 43 Alabama soldiers. 24 of that 43 were under the age of 30 and 17 of those were 25 years old or younger.
These are just kids, our kids, only a few years out of high school. Many of them likely signed up for the GI bill because they came from impoverished families and had few options for acquiring a college degree. They had their whole life ahead of them.
Now they are dead.
I support the immediate withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq. As Governor of Alabama I will call for the immediate withdrawal of our National Guard troops and I believe Alabama should hereafter retain sovereignty over her state militia.
* * *
States’ rights. Did ya hear that?
* * *
Our elected officials say the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Apparently our elected officials have decided to remedy that situation by taking away all of our freedoms so the terrorists won't hate us anymore.
The willingness of our elected officials both here at home and in Washington, D.C. to participate in the obliteration of our constitutional rights and civil liberties is disgusting and revealing….
* * *
What a political candidate… and a woman!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Post #31
Why vote for Democrats? Security.
Perhaps Democrats can stop the policies of the George W. Bush administration which are making us less secure. There’s too much at stake.
Look, according to members of Bush’s own administration as shown by the National Intelligence Estimate, we are creating more jihadists in Iraq -- something that’s been said for years and years by Democrats and nutty bloggers.
But who are these jihadists? Well, they are NOT Iranian nuclear scientists or North Korean goose-steppers or British citizens – all of which require different approaches. These jihadists are the foot-soldiers for terrorism – these are the suicide bombers and suicide pilots.
We don’t have anything to worry about from these jihadists, the foot-soldiers. Oh, sure, the Saudis need to be worried, and the Israelis, as always, need to be worried, and our embassies in Africa and our warships in Middle Eastern ports. But our worry is the Osama Bin Ladens who are inspired by our presence in Iraq – nuts who are capable of organizing a terrorist networks capable of hitting us here in America.
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after three years and the inspiration of three Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas? For Gawd’s sake, let’s not wait 30 years as Condi wants or build permanent basis.
We are less secure under the leadership – or lack thereof – of Bush. Let’s hope the Democrats can make us more secure. Check http://planforiraq.com/ , the plan of * cough, Democrat, cough * Senator Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations:
“Sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is now the major impediment to stability and progress in Iraq. No number of troops can solve that problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires a sustainable political settlement, which is the primary objective of our plan.
“The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues. We would increase economic aid, ask the oil-rich Arab Gulf states to fund it and tie all assistance to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program. We would convene a regional conference to enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and create a Contact Group of the major powers to enforce their commitments. And we would ask our military to draw up plans to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007 - enough time for the political settlement to take hold.
“The course we're on has no end in sight. This plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.”
I don’t know if it will work, but it’s better than the nonsense coming out of Bush. Maj. Gen. John Batiste told Mark Benjamin at Salon.com that he thinks the country might still be successfully carved up among the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans want to bring our troops home immediately, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives. Batiste hopes that a Democratic-controlled Congress can push back more forcefully against President Bush, who continues to argue in favor of establishing democracy in Iraq, and against partitioning the country along sectarian lines.
Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “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? The course we're on has no end in sight. Joe Biden’s plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure.
Why vote for Democrats? Security.
Perhaps Democrats can stop the policies of the George W. Bush administration which are making us less secure. There’s too much at stake.
Look, according to members of Bush’s own administration as shown by the National Intelligence Estimate, we are creating more jihadists in Iraq -- something that’s been said for years and years by Democrats and nutty bloggers.
But who are these jihadists? Well, they are NOT Iranian nuclear scientists or North Korean goose-steppers or British citizens – all of which require different approaches. These jihadists are the foot-soldiers for terrorism – these are the suicide bombers and suicide pilots.
We don’t have anything to worry about from these jihadists, the foot-soldiers. Oh, sure, the Saudis need to be worried, and the Israelis, as always, need to be worried, and our embassies in Africa and our warships in Middle Eastern ports. But our worry is the Osama Bin Ladens who are inspired by our presence in Iraq – nuts who are capable of organizing a terrorist networks capable of hitting us here in America.
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after three years and the inspiration of three Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas? For Gawd’s sake, let’s not wait 30 years as Condi wants or build permanent basis.
We are less secure under the leadership – or lack thereof – of Bush. Let’s hope the Democrats can make us more secure. Check http://planforiraq.com/ , the plan of * cough, Democrat, cough * Senator Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations:
“Sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is now the major impediment to stability and progress in Iraq. No number of troops can solve that problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires a sustainable political settlement, which is the primary objective of our plan.
“The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues. We would increase economic aid, ask the oil-rich Arab Gulf states to fund it and tie all assistance to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program. We would convene a regional conference to enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and create a Contact Group of the major powers to enforce their commitments. And we would ask our military to draw up plans to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007 - enough time for the political settlement to take hold.
“The course we're on has no end in sight. This plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.”
I don’t know if it will work, but it’s better than the nonsense coming out of Bush. Maj. Gen. John Batiste told Mark Benjamin at Salon.com that he thinks the country might still be successfully carved up among the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans want to bring our troops home immediately, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives. Batiste hopes that a Democratic-controlled Congress can push back more forcefully against President Bush, who continues to argue in favor of establishing democracy in Iraq, and against partitioning the country along sectarian lines.
Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “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? The course we're on has no end in sight. Joe Biden’s plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Post #30
Subject: Finally, Iraq Explained...
The War in Iraq Is Going Either Very Well or Very Poorly... Or So-So... I Think
An Editorial by Frank J.
After listening to the numerous opinions on the Iraq War, it has become quite obvious that something is happening in that country. The current state of affairs will most certainly be detrimental to the Middle East's future unless it is beneficial or of no effect whatsoever. This goes doubly for Iraqis themselves. And I can say that with great certainty as it the opinion of the numerous pundits who have been to Iraq or read a book on Iraq or saw numerous news stories on Iraq as well as the numerous pundits who have listened to those pundits. While some (or many) may argue that some (or many) of those opinions are based more on biases than facts, it is important to remember that that doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Unless they are wrong... but they may not be. So keep that in mind.
So how did Iraq end up it's current state? This is quite directly attributable to the success or failure of the Bush Administration... unless of course things happened that were completely out of their hands. The consensus of opinion, though, is that the blame lies somewhere unless it was no one's fault. It's hard to argue with that... but some will anyway. Obviously, Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops needed unless he got the number right or possibly sent too many. This caused the Iraq War to be a front or distraction to the War on Terror, which we all agree is an important fight or a blunder that never should have been started. According to those in the know, and those not in the know, and those who don't know what they know, this should all have some or no effect on the future.
So, is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? This is a good question unless it's missing the point. According to some and many and some of those many, the current number of American lives lost in the war is unacceptably high or very low or about what's expected. This is quite obvious if you look to other American wars which are good measures or misleading, as the battles in them were quite similar to today except for the differences. All agree, though, that the sacrifice of our soldiers should or should not be respected as they are dying for our freedom or for no reason whatsoever. Certainly no one would celebrate those deaths other than those who do. And that's a good/bad thing (or vice versa).
And what about the Iraqis who died? This is important to consider unless it is irrelevant. Everyone agrees that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have died as a result or regardless of this war... except for those who put the number in the millions or much less. Obviously, this is a number different or the same as those who would have died under Saddam... though those number could have been exaggerated or underestimated. But life is certainly better or worse for Iraqis now if you discount those for who things have remained the same. That's why many Iraqis are angry or happy or ambivalent, and can expect a bright or bitter future or more of the same. What experts and expert-sounding people do agree on (for the most part) is that there will be a future of some sort.
What is important or pointless is establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. This easily attainable to impossible, but requires us to stay the course or do a completely different strategy… unless it's more prudent to just give up. What everyone agrees on, though, is that a stable democracy is what will bring peace to region unless a friendly dictator would be more practical or we should just get out of there and not care either way.
The Iraq War certainly is something. All agree that there is an Iraq and that stuff is happening there. Also, it is quite certain that some sort of action/inaction is required by the U.S. Less certain is whether out of the thousands of people commenting on Iraq, if any of them actually know anything. What I do know for sure, though, is that I'm hungry... unless I'm misinterpreting a feeling of nausea, that is.
-----
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Victorious Quagmire: Yet Another Book About Iraq from Someone Clamining to Know What's He's Talking About" and "Bacon Calms the Mind: A Look at the Root Causes of Islamic Terror".
http://www.imao.us/archives/006418.html
Subject: Finally, Iraq Explained...
The War in Iraq Is Going Either Very Well or Very Poorly... Or So-So... I Think
An Editorial by Frank J.
After listening to the numerous opinions on the Iraq War, it has become quite obvious that something is happening in that country. The current state of affairs will most certainly be detrimental to the Middle East's future unless it is beneficial or of no effect whatsoever. This goes doubly for Iraqis themselves. And I can say that with great certainty as it the opinion of the numerous pundits who have been to Iraq or read a book on Iraq or saw numerous news stories on Iraq as well as the numerous pundits who have listened to those pundits. While some (or many) may argue that some (or many) of those opinions are based more on biases than facts, it is important to remember that that doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Unless they are wrong... but they may not be. So keep that in mind.
So how did Iraq end up it's current state? This is quite directly attributable to the success or failure of the Bush Administration... unless of course things happened that were completely out of their hands. The consensus of opinion, though, is that the blame lies somewhere unless it was no one's fault. It's hard to argue with that... but some will anyway. Obviously, Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops needed unless he got the number right or possibly sent too many. This caused the Iraq War to be a front or distraction to the War on Terror, which we all agree is an important fight or a blunder that never should have been started. According to those in the know, and those not in the know, and those who don't know what they know, this should all have some or no effect on the future.
So, is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? This is a good question unless it's missing the point. According to some and many and some of those many, the current number of American lives lost in the war is unacceptably high or very low or about what's expected. This is quite obvious if you look to other American wars which are good measures or misleading, as the battles in them were quite similar to today except for the differences. All agree, though, that the sacrifice of our soldiers should or should not be respected as they are dying for our freedom or for no reason whatsoever. Certainly no one would celebrate those deaths other than those who do. And that's a good/bad thing (or vice versa).
And what about the Iraqis who died? This is important to consider unless it is irrelevant. Everyone agrees that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have died as a result or regardless of this war... except for those who put the number in the millions or much less. Obviously, this is a number different or the same as those who would have died under Saddam... though those number could have been exaggerated or underestimated. But life is certainly better or worse for Iraqis now if you discount those for who things have remained the same. That's why many Iraqis are angry or happy or ambivalent, and can expect a bright or bitter future or more of the same. What experts and expert-sounding people do agree on (for the most part) is that there will be a future of some sort.
What is important or pointless is establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. This easily attainable to impossible, but requires us to stay the course or do a completely different strategy… unless it's more prudent to just give up. What everyone agrees on, though, is that a stable democracy is what will bring peace to region unless a friendly dictator would be more practical or we should just get out of there and not care either way.
The Iraq War certainly is something. All agree that there is an Iraq and that stuff is happening there. Also, it is quite certain that some sort of action/inaction is required by the U.S. Less certain is whether out of the thousands of people commenting on Iraq, if any of them actually know anything. What I do know for sure, though, is that I'm hungry... unless I'm misinterpreting a feeling of nausea, that is.
-----
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Victorious Quagmire: Yet Another Book About Iraq from Someone Clamining to Know What's He's Talking About" and "Bacon Calms the Mind: A Look at the Root Causes of Islamic Terror".
http://www.imao.us/archives/006418.html
Friday, October 20, 2006
Post #29
Subject: We are Rome….
It’s all over, people. The American grand experiment with democracy is finished. I refer of course to George W. Bush being able to name as enemy combatants whoever he chooses. The President is The State.
The other day, 10/17, the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – this Act does away with habeas corpus, the right of anybody to know why they have been imprisoned, if the President does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.
On Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show this past Tuesday night, he talked with Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University:
“OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”
“Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?”
“TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.”
Hillary Clinton, Bob Woodward, John McCain, Jerry Falwell, you, me – we could all disappear tomorrow. Dissent, it’s what enemy combatants do. The First Amendment is null and void. Criticism of the President is permitted only with the President’s consent.
Farfetched? Consider: The new Democratic majority in Congress begins Impeachment against this President – Treason, failing to support and defend the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, setting up his own kangaroo courts is Treason. Nancy Pelosi will be gone.
“OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
“TURLEY: It does. And it‘s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.
“Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
"It couldn‘t be more significant. … The Congress just gave the president despotic powers….”
We are Rome. Oh, sure, the façade of democracy will remain… for a while. But the true heartbeat of a democracy, the marketplace of ideas, has been silenced. History will long debate as to why the greatest nation in the world so willing betrayed its own ideals and values – why we went out with a whimper… not a bang.
“TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won‘t be kind to President Bush.
“But frankly, I don‘t think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? … But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.”
And the terrorists have won. No, the stated objective of Osama Bin Laden has not been achieved – we have not left the Middle East. But the terrorists have won a victory that they could not even have dreamed of – we have committed national suicide.
Subject: We are Rome….
It’s all over, people. The American grand experiment with democracy is finished. I refer of course to George W. Bush being able to name as enemy combatants whoever he chooses. The President is The State.
The other day, 10/17, the President signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – this Act does away with habeas corpus, the right of anybody to know why they have been imprisoned, if the President does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.
On Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show this past Tuesday night, he talked with Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University:
“OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”
“Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?”
“TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.”
Hillary Clinton, Bob Woodward, John McCain, Jerry Falwell, you, me – we could all disappear tomorrow. Dissent, it’s what enemy combatants do. The First Amendment is null and void. Criticism of the President is permitted only with the President’s consent.
Farfetched? Consider: The new Democratic majority in Congress begins Impeachment against this President – Treason, failing to support and defend the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, setting up his own kangaroo courts is Treason. Nancy Pelosi will be gone.
“OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
“TURLEY: It does. And it‘s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.
“Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
"It couldn‘t be more significant. … The Congress just gave the president despotic powers….”
We are Rome. Oh, sure, the façade of democracy will remain… for a while. But the true heartbeat of a democracy, the marketplace of ideas, has been silenced. History will long debate as to why the greatest nation in the world so willing betrayed its own ideals and values – why we went out with a whimper… not a bang.
“TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won‘t be kind to President Bush.
“But frankly, I don‘t think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? … But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.”
And the terrorists have won. No, the stated objective of Osama Bin Laden has not been achieved – we have not left the Middle East. But the terrorists have won a victory that they could not even have dreamed of – we have committed national suicide.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Post #28
Subject: more hypocritical politicians stuff
“Once again we get to see a politician playing the Janus-faced game; by this time I'm sure you have heard or read about that fool from Florida, Mark Foley…. I've seen this sort of thing happen over and over in the decades that I've been watching politics. Another incident that I particularly remember was about twenty years ago, when a just-elected district attorney for some county up in Texas' bible belt in east Texas, who ran on a platform of cleaning up his county and ridding it of vice, got caught in one of them adult bookstore peep-show rooms giving some biker a blowjob…. And of course, all the times that I've read about from the past, when cops would raid some red-light district bordello and among the customers would usually be some of the local politicians and/or other pillars of the community like lawyers, preachers, cops, etc. After all, them is usually the people who could afford to spend the $$ for leisure activities, lol.”
The above comes from an exasperated e-pal. I too have seen this type of hypocrisy often enough that, when I hear somebody campaign on “family values,” I’ll vote for his opponent, figuring “Mr. Family Values” is banging his daughter!
I quote from the column “Mark Foley's and Moral Clarity” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from October 10, 2006:
“As of today, this is a Republican scandal. A GOP congressman was responsible for the sordid messages to pages. The House GOP leadership failed to investigate rigorously. And some GOP staff and members may have lied and may have covered up. Any Republican who is proven to have done so should be removed from any position of power.”
Chris Matthews paid Pat Buchanan the highest compliment the other day when he said that Pat had rather be right than be elected. But Pat blew it with his next paragraph of the same column:
“But to have the party of gay rights, many of whose leaders have marched in gay pride parades alongside the pedophiles of NAMBLA, acting "shocked, shocked" at GOP torpor in outing and ousting its flaming gay member is, to put it mildly, unconvincing.”
I saw a grown Congressman whining on TV the other day that the real story was “What did the Democrats know, and when did they know it?” Good Lord. If Hillary herself knew in July, how does that lesson the Republican’s lack-of-accountability?
Subject: more hypocritical politicians stuff
“Once again we get to see a politician playing the Janus-faced game; by this time I'm sure you have heard or read about that fool from Florida, Mark Foley…. I've seen this sort of thing happen over and over in the decades that I've been watching politics. Another incident that I particularly remember was about twenty years ago, when a just-elected district attorney for some county up in Texas' bible belt in east Texas, who ran on a platform of cleaning up his county and ridding it of vice, got caught in one of them adult bookstore peep-show rooms giving some biker a blowjob…. And of course, all the times that I've read about from the past, when cops would raid some red-light district bordello and among the customers would usually be some of the local politicians and/or other pillars of the community like lawyers, preachers, cops, etc. After all, them is usually the people who could afford to spend the $$ for leisure activities, lol.”
The above comes from an exasperated e-pal. I too have seen this type of hypocrisy often enough that, when I hear somebody campaign on “family values,” I’ll vote for his opponent, figuring “Mr. Family Values” is banging his daughter!
I quote from the column “Mark Foley's and Moral Clarity” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from October 10, 2006:
“As of today, this is a Republican scandal. A GOP congressman was responsible for the sordid messages to pages. The House GOP leadership failed to investigate rigorously. And some GOP staff and members may have lied and may have covered up. Any Republican who is proven to have done so should be removed from any position of power.”
Chris Matthews paid Pat Buchanan the highest compliment the other day when he said that Pat had rather be right than be elected. But Pat blew it with his next paragraph of the same column:
“But to have the party of gay rights, many of whose leaders have marched in gay pride parades alongside the pedophiles of NAMBLA, acting "shocked, shocked" at GOP torpor in outing and ousting its flaming gay member is, to put it mildly, unconvincing.”
I saw a grown Congressman whining on TV the other day that the real story was “What did the Democrats know, and when did they know it?” Good Lord. If Hillary herself knew in July, how does that lesson the Republican’s lack-of-accountability?
Friday, October 06, 2006
Post #27
Three options concerning Iraq, more thoughts:
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1 and repeated in other posts, I said three options – my additions in [brackets]….
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.
[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 terrorists organization and the governments that harbor them.” – yes! Iraq was a mistake. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion. The idea of “pre-emptive war” – well, in Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, reading the account of General ‘Spider’ Marks and his inability to get a straight answer as to what to look for in the way of WMD, makes it clear that Washington did not really buy the WMD argument itself. So, it comes down to getting rid of Saddam and hoping something positive would bloom – in other words, spreading democracy at gunpoint. That has never worked – why did they think it would now? Iraq is not winnable.]
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
[Iraq is not winnable. I know I’ve recently been infatuated with more troops and greater effort. But I’m now thinking Iraq is not winnable –– no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.]
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.
[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.]
Well, #1 is wrong – a false choice #2 is morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home….
Three options concerning Iraq, more thoughts:
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1 and repeated in other posts, I said three options – my additions in [brackets]….
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.
[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 terrorists organization and the governments that harbor them.” – yes! Iraq was a mistake. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion. The idea of “pre-emptive war” – well, in Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, reading the account of General ‘Spider’ Marks and his inability to get a straight answer as to what to look for in the way of WMD, makes it clear that Washington did not really buy the WMD argument itself. So, it comes down to getting rid of Saddam and hoping something positive would bloom – in other words, spreading democracy at gunpoint. That has never worked – why did they think it would now? Iraq is not winnable.]
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
[Iraq is not winnable. I know I’ve recently been infatuated with more troops and greater effort. But I’m now thinking Iraq is not winnable –– no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.]
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.
[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.]
Well, #1 is wrong – a false choice #2 is morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home….
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Post #26
Subject: Party like it's 1969!
Congress ready to celebrate end-of-war party
Politicians have $20 million set aside, despite poor news out of Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military’s top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year’s defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The funds for “commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan were originally tucked into last year’s defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
* * *
I originally found the above article – of which there is more – at http://www.msnbc.com and wanted to get a few good quotes from the discussion on their message boards, but the posts were being added faster than I could read. But I did get one:
“Ghoulish, nothing short of ghoulish. Only delusional fools like those running this country today would celebrate such a calamity as this has been. And doing so, under these circumstances, disgraces every life lost their. We should not be celebrating, we should be mourning the needless loss of American lives, the betrayal of the American people by its leadership, and the irreparable harm done to American, its image and its values that will stain and burden us for decades to come. Now it is time to mourn, not to celebrate...the only celebrating to be done is when these people are put out of office and, for the first time in our history, criminally prosecuted for treason and fraud. Then, when that is done we can truly say as Americans, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"!!!!”
Four Americans died today, and, as always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1, 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.”
Well, #1 is getting farther and farther away – let’s declare victory and come home. Let Bush have his victory dance – just stop the killing! I hope the next President can do a better job with the War on Terror….
Subject: Party like it's 1969!
Congress ready to celebrate end-of-war party
Politicians have $20 million set aside, despite poor news out of Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military’s top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year’s defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The funds for “commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan were originally tucked into last year’s defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
* * *
I originally found the above article – of which there is more – at http://www.msnbc.com and wanted to get a few good quotes from the discussion on their message boards, but the posts were being added faster than I could read. But I did get one:
“Ghoulish, nothing short of ghoulish. Only delusional fools like those running this country today would celebrate such a calamity as this has been. And doing so, under these circumstances, disgraces every life lost their. We should not be celebrating, we should be mourning the needless loss of American lives, the betrayal of the American people by its leadership, and the irreparable harm done to American, its image and its values that will stain and burden us for decades to come. Now it is time to mourn, not to celebrate...the only celebrating to be done is when these people are put out of office and, for the first time in our history, criminally prosecuted for treason and fraud. Then, when that is done we can truly say as Americans, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"!!!!”
Four Americans died today, and, as always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In post #1, 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.”
Well, #1 is getting farther and farther away – let’s declare victory and come home. Let Bush have his victory dance – just stop the killing! I hope the next President can do a better job with the War on Terror….
Friday, September 29, 2006
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. Quoting Pat Buchanan from post #22, “If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms [Islamic-fascists] that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.” And I said, “Of course, George W. Bush will NOT inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in. And that is a failure of leadership.”
We are not at war with Islam. We have adversaries, enemies, rivals around the world – including those who (mis)use Islam – requiring different approaches. I think it was right “to make no distinction between terrorists organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I supported going into Afghanistan on 9/12, and I think Pakistan ought to be next. I appreciate “the best defense is a good offense” – Bush has coached a bad offense. Afghanistan has not been won – poor execution. Iraq was a mistake and has not been won – poor execution of a bad idea. An air strike against Iran would be foolish. The only way to insure that Iran is nuclear-free is a full-scale invasion, an invasion that will be much more costly than an air strike. Bush is setting up for strike three.
I saw yesterday a book in the library: Why America Lost the War on Terror. Well, let me say the War on Terror is NOT lost – yes, our current administration has set us on the wrong course, but eventually we’ll get there. And “the wrong course” is spreading democracy at gunpoint. Speaking of Bush’s democracy project, when did peeps begin to support that? Was it before or after no WMD was found? If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, how would that stop planes from flying into buildings? Winning rhetoric for a lost cause.
A group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter – see my post #14 – calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states “the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.” Yes, we are less safe – a child born in Iraq today, will he be more or less likely to fly a suicide plane into the White House in 20 years? I think “more likely” – if the War on Terror will last 40 years, we have squandered five years and Bush is determined to continue his failed policies until he leaves office. Victory in the War on Terror could have been ours in 2041 – now, we’ll have to wait until 2049. Thank you, George W.! [rolleyes] I hope the next President will set us on the road to victory.
On a personal note, I only blog once a week or so – just felt I had to do something. Obviously I do not know everything – probably very little – and have some nutty ideas myself. But Freedom of Speech and all that. Yes, the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – get it good. Seriously, I try to avoid “slogan-eering” – “Bumper Sticker” politics, I call it. I do not always succeed. :p The slogan I’ve used elsewhere on the ‘net “Support our troops – bring em home” – well, on my blog, it’s obvious that it goes farther: “Support our troops – bring em home… from Iraq… and send em to Afghanistan.” I understand where peeps are coming from – I too may have supported the democracy project if we had finished in Afghanistan. I hope I made clear where I’m coming from. I’m often accused of not clearly and fully explaining myself. I hope, too, we can toast each other in 40 years….
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. Quoting Pat Buchanan from post #22, “If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms [Islamic-fascists] that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.” And I said, “Of course, George W. Bush will NOT inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in. And that is a failure of leadership.”
We are not at war with Islam. We have adversaries, enemies, rivals around the world – including those who (mis)use Islam – requiring different approaches. I think it was right “to make no distinction between terrorists organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I supported going into Afghanistan on 9/12, and I think Pakistan ought to be next. I appreciate “the best defense is a good offense” – Bush has coached a bad offense. Afghanistan has not been won – poor execution. Iraq was a mistake and has not been won – poor execution of a bad idea. An air strike against Iran would be foolish. The only way to insure that Iran is nuclear-free is a full-scale invasion, an invasion that will be much more costly than an air strike. Bush is setting up for strike three.
I saw yesterday a book in the library: Why America Lost the War on Terror. Well, let me say the War on Terror is NOT lost – yes, our current administration has set us on the wrong course, but eventually we’ll get there. And “the wrong course” is spreading democracy at gunpoint. Speaking of Bush’s democracy project, when did peeps begin to support that? Was it before or after no WMD was found? If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, how would that stop planes from flying into buildings? Winning rhetoric for a lost cause.
A group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter – see my post #14 – calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states “the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.” Yes, we are less safe – a child born in Iraq today, will he be more or less likely to fly a suicide plane into the White House in 20 years? I think “more likely” – if the War on Terror will last 40 years, we have squandered five years and Bush is determined to continue his failed policies until he leaves office. Victory in the War on Terror could have been ours in 2041 – now, we’ll have to wait until 2049. Thank you, George W.! [rolleyes] I hope the next President will set us on the road to victory.
On a personal note, I only blog once a week or so – just felt I had to do something. Obviously I do not know everything – probably very little – and have some nutty ideas myself. But Freedom of Speech and all that. Yes, the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – get it good. Seriously, I try to avoid “slogan-eering” – “Bumper Sticker” politics, I call it. I do not always succeed. :p The slogan I’ve used elsewhere on the ‘net “Support our troops – bring em home” – well, on my blog, it’s obvious that it goes farther: “Support our troops – bring em home… from Iraq… and send em to Afghanistan.” I understand where peeps are coming from – I too may have supported the democracy project if we had finished in Afghanistan. I hope I made clear where I’m coming from. I’m often accused of not clearly and fully explaining myself. I hope, too, we can toast each other in 40 years….
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Post #24
Subject: NIE report declassified
This is important because members of George W. Bush’s administration – and not just nutty bloggers – are telling him he is wrong. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
From http://www.cnn.com/ticker:
The White House has declassified key portions of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006.
Key quotes from the declassified document:
"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere."
"The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. "
[Yes, Iraq has made us less safe and will continue to make us less safe and less safe. Unless we win. So, yes, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and will be an even bigger mistake. Unless we win. Unfortunately, Bush has no clue how to win. What about a withdrawal? Look, as I said in Post #1, let’s win… or leave. There is no middle ground – leaving is the same as staying the course… without the deaths. Of course, leaving now will put us over three years behind in a 40-year effort to win the War on Terror – that is better than squandering the extra time until Bush leaves office.
Good Lord, why is this so hard to see?]
From http://www.c-span.org:
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee held an oversight hearing on the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. Retired military leaders testified about decision making at the Department of Defense, prosecution of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the readiness status of U.S. forces. Several called for the resignation of Defense secretary Rumsfeld saying he had poorly planned for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency, and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment. In his testimony Major General John R.S. Batiste charged that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration "did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq." He also told the committee, "If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."
[Batiste had a well-thought-out plan for winning… even at this late date. I need to find that.]
Subject: NIE report declassified
This is important because members of George W. Bush’s administration – and not just nutty bloggers – are telling him he is wrong. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
From http://www.cnn.com/ticker:
The White House has declassified key portions of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006.
Key quotes from the declassified document:
"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere."
"The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. "
[Yes, Iraq has made us less safe and will continue to make us less safe and less safe. Unless we win. So, yes, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and will be an even bigger mistake. Unless we win. Unfortunately, Bush has no clue how to win. What about a withdrawal? Look, as I said in Post #1, let’s win… or leave. There is no middle ground – leaving is the same as staying the course… without the deaths. Of course, leaving now will put us over three years behind in a 40-year effort to win the War on Terror – that is better than squandering the extra time until Bush leaves office.
Good Lord, why is this so hard to see?]
From http://www.c-span.org:
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee held an oversight hearing on the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. Retired military leaders testified about decision making at the Department of Defense, prosecution of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the readiness status of U.S. forces. Several called for the resignation of Defense secretary Rumsfeld saying he had poorly planned for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency, and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment. In his testimony Major General John R.S. Batiste charged that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration "did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq." He also told the committee, "If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."
[Batiste had a well-thought-out plan for winning… even at this late date. I need to find that.]
Monday, September 25, 2006
Post #23
Subject: ... more dyin'
I was wrong in Post #1 – the troops are NOT coming home. Apparently, George W. Bush really means that our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
U.S. Army extends 4,000 tours of duty in Iraq
Germany-based brigade operating in Ramadi area to stay on extra weeks
NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE
WASHINGTON - In a new sign of mounting strain from the war in Iraq, the Army has extended the combat tours of about 4,000 soldiers who would otherwise be returning home, defense officials said Monday.
The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, which is operating in the vicinity of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, will be kept in place for several weeks beyond its scheduled departure, the officials said. The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been formally announced by the Pentagon.
Also, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that “some units” are being sent to Iraq ahead of schedule, although he offered no details. Rumsfeld declined to discuss the case of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored, saying that as a general matter some units, “from time to time,” are extended in Iraq.
The brigade’s home base is in Germany. The soldiers’ families were notified on Monday that instead of going home in early January as scheduled, the brigade would be kept in Iraq until February — an extension of about six weeks, one of the officials said. Army officials also have notified members of Congress.
The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq. They are not the first to be extended.
In late July the Army extended the Iraq tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker Brigade. About 300 soldiers from that unit had already returned home and were required to go back to Iraq. The brigade is now operating in Baghdad.
The reasons for these extensions are different, but they both reflect the fact that the Army is hard pressed now to maintain rotations for Iraq and Afghanistan at the current pace. The 172nd was extended by four months in order to strengthen U.S. forces in Baghdad, where commanders are trying to avert a full-scale civil war.
The 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division was extended in order to allow its replacement unit, the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, a minimum 12 months between overseas tours, the official said. The 3rd Infantry has already served two tours in Iraq, including the initial invasion of the country in March 2003.
Last week, the top American commander in the region said the U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed.
Until sectarian violence spiked early this year, Bush administration officials had voiced hopes that this election year would see significant U.S. troop reductions in what has become a widely unpopular war.
The Army has a stated goal of giving active-duty soldiers two years at home between overseas combat tours, but it is unable to achieve that “dwell time,” as the Army calls, because it does not have enough brigades to meet the demands of simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be a problem now if the situation in Iraq had improved enough to allow the Army to reduce its presence as originally planned.
Army Secretary Francis Harvey told The Associated Press last week that the amount of time between deployments has shrunk this year from 18 months to 14 months. In the case of the 3rd Infantry, it appears at least one brigade will get only about 12 months because it is heading for Iraq to replace the extended brigade of the 1st Armored.
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Subject: ... more dyin'
I was wrong in Post #1 – the troops are NOT coming home. Apparently, George W. Bush really means that our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
U.S. Army extends 4,000 tours of duty in Iraq
Germany-based brigade operating in Ramadi area to stay on extra weeks
NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE
WASHINGTON - In a new sign of mounting strain from the war in Iraq, the Army has extended the combat tours of about 4,000 soldiers who would otherwise be returning home, defense officials said Monday.
The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, which is operating in the vicinity of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, will be kept in place for several weeks beyond its scheduled departure, the officials said. The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been formally announced by the Pentagon.
Also, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that “some units” are being sent to Iraq ahead of schedule, although he offered no details. Rumsfeld declined to discuss the case of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored, saying that as a general matter some units, “from time to time,” are extended in Iraq.
The brigade’s home base is in Germany. The soldiers’ families were notified on Monday that instead of going home in early January as scheduled, the brigade would be kept in Iraq until February — an extension of about six weeks, one of the officials said. Army officials also have notified members of Congress.
The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq. They are not the first to be extended.
In late July the Army extended the Iraq tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker Brigade. About 300 soldiers from that unit had already returned home and were required to go back to Iraq. The brigade is now operating in Baghdad.
The reasons for these extensions are different, but they both reflect the fact that the Army is hard pressed now to maintain rotations for Iraq and Afghanistan at the current pace. The 172nd was extended by four months in order to strengthen U.S. forces in Baghdad, where commanders are trying to avert a full-scale civil war.
The 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division was extended in order to allow its replacement unit, the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, a minimum 12 months between overseas tours, the official said. The 3rd Infantry has already served two tours in Iraq, including the initial invasion of the country in March 2003.
Last week, the top American commander in the region said the U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed.
Until sectarian violence spiked early this year, Bush administration officials had voiced hopes that this election year would see significant U.S. troop reductions in what has become a widely unpopular war.
The Army has a stated goal of giving active-duty soldiers two years at home between overseas combat tours, but it is unable to achieve that “dwell time,” as the Army calls, because it does not have enough brigades to meet the demands of simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be a problem now if the situation in Iraq had improved enough to allow the Army to reduce its presence as originally planned.
Army Secretary Francis Harvey told The Associated Press last week that the amount of time between deployments has shrunk this year from 18 months to 14 months. In the case of the 3rd Infantry, it appears at least one brigade will get only about 12 months because it is heading for Iraq to replace the extended brigade of the 1st Armored.
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Friday, September 22, 2006
Post #22
Osama Bin Hitler? Pt III
Who are you? I really want to know. 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. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
“… President Bush’s assertion that we are ‘at war with Islamic fascism’ and ‘Islamo-fascism.’
“After the transatlantic bomb plot was smashed, Bush said the plotters ‘try to spread their jihadist message… Islamic radicalism, “Islamic fascism” they try to spread it… by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.’
“Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives… who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran into the same ‘Islamo-fascist’ kill box, then let Strategic Air Command do the rest.
“But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
[“Lazy,” in Bush’s Washington? The crowd who was asleep on 9/11 – their own threat-assessment after taking office had “international terrorism” as #7, the crowd who has not finished in Afghanistan or Iraq, the crowd who will not enforce immigration laws, the crowd who stood by while American citizens starved to death in New Orleans. “Lazy?” Surely, you jest, Pat.]
“If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.”
[Of course, George W. Bush will NOT inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in. And that is a failure of leadership.]
“America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.
“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.
[Please listen: “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.]
Osama Bin Hitler? Pt III
Who are you? I really want to know. 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. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
“… President Bush’s assertion that we are ‘at war with Islamic fascism’ and ‘Islamo-fascism.’
“After the transatlantic bomb plot was smashed, Bush said the plotters ‘try to spread their jihadist message… Islamic radicalism, “Islamic fascism” they try to spread it… by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.’
“Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives… who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran into the same ‘Islamo-fascist’ kill box, then let Strategic Air Command do the rest.
“But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
[“Lazy,” in Bush’s Washington? The crowd who was asleep on 9/11 – their own threat-assessment after taking office had “international terrorism” as #7, the crowd who has not finished in Afghanistan or Iraq, the crowd who will not enforce immigration laws, the crowd who stood by while American citizens starved to death in New Orleans. “Lazy?” Surely, you jest, Pat.]
“If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.”
[Of course, George W. Bush will NOT inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in. And that is a failure of leadership.]
“America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.
“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.
[Please listen: “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.]
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Post #21
Subject: Here we go again....
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
… from MSNBC.com….
IAEA: 'Outrageous' inaccuracies in Iran report
House letter 'dishonest' in case against Tehran, official says
VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran’s nuclear capability is “outrageous and dishonest” in trying to make a case that Tehran’s program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
The letter, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran’s nuclear program “for concluding that the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to construct weapons.”
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran’s request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report’s version “incorrect and misleading.”
“In addition,” says the letter, “the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for ‘not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.”
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written “to set the record straight.”
The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.
ElBaradei’s criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff’s investigation of suspicions Tehran’s nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Good Lord. This is not hard. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over – we can and should get what we want.
The stick, the BIG stick: We need to make clear, if a nuclear bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, we will fry Iran – Iran needs to pressure its terrorist puppets around the world to play nice. If a nuclear bomb goes off in a Tokyo, North Korea will be gone. Any country upwind from the fallout – can ya say China? – will face pressure to pressure those countries that live on the edge.
A carrot: If Iran or North Korea want peaceful nuclear energy, then good ol’ American nuclear technology they shall have! Butter em up, play nice, invite em over for a nation-wide tour – like Khrushchev during the ‘50s, debate em on TV.
What will NOT work is an air strike. I saw today a newspaper column by that darlin’ neo-con, Charles Krauthammer, that laid out the costs of an air strike. That was fine – as far as it went. The only way to insure that Iran is nuclear-free is a full-scale invasion, an invasion that will be much more costly than an air strike – Duh! The only nuts who believe an air strike against Iran is the way to go are the same nuts who thought democracy would bloom in Iraq and across the Middle East if only Saddam was dethroned.
Help! The inmates are running the asylum!!
Subject: Here we go again....
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
… from MSNBC.com….
IAEA: 'Outrageous' inaccuracies in Iran report
House letter 'dishonest' in case against Tehran, official says
VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran’s nuclear capability is “outrageous and dishonest” in trying to make a case that Tehran’s program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.
The letter, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran’s nuclear program “for concluding that the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to construct weapons.”
In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran’s request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report’s version “incorrect and misleading.”
“In addition,” says the letter, “the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for ‘not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.”
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.
An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written “to set the record straight.”
The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.
ElBaradei’s criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff’s investigation of suspicions Tehran’s nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Good Lord. This is not hard. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over – we can and should get what we want.
The stick, the BIG stick: We need to make clear, if a nuclear bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, we will fry Iran – Iran needs to pressure its terrorist puppets around the world to play nice. If a nuclear bomb goes off in a Tokyo, North Korea will be gone. Any country upwind from the fallout – can ya say China? – will face pressure to pressure those countries that live on the edge.
A carrot: If Iran or North Korea want peaceful nuclear energy, then good ol’ American nuclear technology they shall have! Butter em up, play nice, invite em over for a nation-wide tour – like Khrushchev during the ‘50s, debate em on TV.
What will NOT work is an air strike. I saw today a newspaper column by that darlin’ neo-con, Charles Krauthammer, that laid out the costs of an air strike. That was fine – as far as it went. The only way to insure that Iran is nuclear-free is a full-scale invasion, an invasion that will be much more costly than an air strike – Duh! The only nuts who believe an air strike against Iran is the way to go are the same nuts who thought democracy would bloom in Iraq and across the Middle East if only Saddam was dethroned.
Help! The inmates are running the asylum!!
Friday, September 15, 2006
Post #20
Where are we? I’m including Keith Olbermann’s essay from his MSNBC show that he gave on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 – and will be repeated tonight, by the way. Now, some of the rhetoric is over-the-top, but this is a personal note written by somebody who was personally affected by 9/11. Ann Coulter would not understand why I’m posting this. Keith’s basic point is right – George W. Bush squandered an historic opportunity to provide leadership. Instead, he fooled people into supporting a nutty political theory. Thank you, George W.! [rolleyes]
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
Subject: 9/11
Sept. 11, 2006
This hole in the ground
Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.
And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.
Five years later this space is still empty.
Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.
Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
Five years later this country's wound is still open.
Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.
Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.
Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President -- and those around him -- did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?
Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.
So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."
When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Where are we? I’m including Keith Olbermann’s essay from his MSNBC show that he gave on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 – and will be repeated tonight, by the way. Now, some of the rhetoric is over-the-top, but this is a personal note written by somebody who was personally affected by 9/11. Ann Coulter would not understand why I’m posting this. Keith’s basic point is right – George W. Bush squandered an historic opportunity to provide leadership. Instead, he fooled people into supporting a nutty political theory. Thank you, George W.! [rolleyes]
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
Subject: 9/11
Sept. 11, 2006
This hole in the ground
Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.
And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.
Five years later this space is still empty.
Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.
Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
Five years later this country's wound is still open.
Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.
Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.
Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President -- and those around him -- did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?
Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.
So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."
When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Friday, September 08, 2006
Post #19
Osama Bin Hitler? Pt. II
Continued, the “Nazi” speech, the address at the 88th annual American Legion National Convention delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:
With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased? Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
[Uh, Pakistan?]
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
[“fundamentally different” – not Nazis? Look, we need a comprehensive approach: Diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and, yes, the military rooting out Al-Qaeda camps and toppling governments that harbor them – NOT spreading democracy.]
And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?
[NOT America – George W. Bush! Well, OK, Bush is not the source, but he’s no help either. And, most importantly, his actions have NOT made us safer – we are less safe today, five years after 9/11.]
These are central questions of our time, and we must face them and face them honestly.
[“honestly” – there’s a strange word in Bush’s Washington! :p]
We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.
But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.
[I understand. I also know who is dividing – “with us or against us.”]
The struggle we are in -- the consequences are too severe -- the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of "Blame America First."
[Yep, “Blame Bush!”]
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
[NO confusion here – you are wrong, Mr. Rumsfeld. And, ultimately, your boss. The insistence on forcing liberty’s march at gunpoint has made us less safe by setting up a breeding ground for those who want to do us harm.]
Iraq, a country that was brutalized by a cruel and dangerous dictatorship, is now traveling the slow, difficult, bumpy, uncertain path to a secure new future under a representative government that will be at peace with its neighbors, rather than a threat to their own people, to their neighbors, or to the world.
[But how is this making us more safe? If democracy bloomed tomorrow in Iraq, tell me how that’ll stop planes flying into buildings?]
Osama Bin Hitler? Pt. II
Continued, the “Nazi” speech, the address at the 88th annual American Legion National Convention delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:
With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased? Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
[Uh, Pakistan?]
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
[“fundamentally different” – not Nazis? Look, we need a comprehensive approach: Diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and, yes, the military rooting out Al-Qaeda camps and toppling governments that harbor them – NOT spreading democracy.]
And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?
[NOT America – George W. Bush! Well, OK, Bush is not the source, but he’s no help either. And, most importantly, his actions have NOT made us safer – we are less safe today, five years after 9/11.]
These are central questions of our time, and we must face them and face them honestly.
[“honestly” – there’s a strange word in Bush’s Washington! :p]
We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.
But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.
[I understand. I also know who is dividing – “with us or against us.”]
The struggle we are in -- the consequences are too severe -- the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of "Blame America First."
[Yep, “Blame Bush!”]
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
[NO confusion here – you are wrong, Mr. Rumsfeld. And, ultimately, your boss. The insistence on forcing liberty’s march at gunpoint has made us less safe by setting up a breeding ground for those who want to do us harm.]
Iraq, a country that was brutalized by a cruel and dangerous dictatorship, is now traveling the slow, difficult, bumpy, uncertain path to a secure new future under a representative government that will be at peace with its neighbors, rather than a threat to their own people, to their neighbors, or to the world.
[But how is this making us more safe? If democracy bloomed tomorrow in Iraq, tell me how that’ll stop planes flying into buildings?]
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Post #18
Osama Bin Hitler?
I’m sure that anybody who is reading this blog has heard of the “Nazi” speech, the address at the 88th annual American Legion National Convention delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tuesday, August 29, 2006. I want to give my impressions.
First, it is well-written.
- There are bullets – strategic pauses, l-o-n-g involved phrases followed by short phrases and other rhetorical devices that make this speech an easy listen and an easy read.
- There are personal notes. On a personal note, I’ve read Gerry Spence’s How to Argue and Win Every Time – or something like that :p – and understand the powerful effect of personal notes.
Second, some of the thinking is just,… well,… wrong. The concerns about the actual Nazi link are overblown. I’ve eliminated the “red meat” – those parts designed to get applause; surprisingly, most of the speech is “red meat” – and gotten to the points. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
It's a privilege to work with a president who is determined to protect our flag. … We are fortunate to have a leader of strong resolve at a time of war.
[Uh, when did Congress declare war? Ya know, George W. Bush, the Constitution, that document you’re supposed to protect and defend – when did Congress follow that document? When did ya ask? I thought, after 9/11, ya said that, if we change the way we live, the terrorists win. Now, we are at war. What happened?]
Through all the challenges, he remains the same man who stood atop the rubble in Manhattan with a bullhorn vowing to fight back. The leader who told a grieving nation that we will never forget what was lost. And the President who has worked every day to fulfill his vow to protect the American people and to bring the enemy to justice or to bring justice to the enemy.
[Good Lord. Pay attention to this blog sometime, Don Rumsfeld, and see your “Great Leader” in action.]
That year -- 1919 -- turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.
Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.
It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!"
I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.
[Aaahhh – I’ve included that section to show the folly of reading too much into history’s lessons. It was not a “strange innocence” – it was a reading of history: The Great War, WWI, occurred because of NOT talking.
More later….]
Osama Bin Hitler?
I’m sure that anybody who is reading this blog has heard of the “Nazi” speech, the address at the 88th annual American Legion National Convention delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tuesday, August 29, 2006. I want to give my impressions.
First, it is well-written.
- There are bullets – strategic pauses, l-o-n-g involved phrases followed by short phrases and other rhetorical devices that make this speech an easy listen and an easy read.
- There are personal notes. On a personal note, I’ve read Gerry Spence’s How to Argue and Win Every Time – or something like that :p – and understand the powerful effect of personal notes.
Second, some of the thinking is just,… well,… wrong. The concerns about the actual Nazi link are overblown. I’ve eliminated the “red meat” – those parts designed to get applause; surprisingly, most of the speech is “red meat” – and gotten to the points. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
It's a privilege to work with a president who is determined to protect our flag. … We are fortunate to have a leader of strong resolve at a time of war.
[Uh, when did Congress declare war? Ya know, George W. Bush, the Constitution, that document you’re supposed to protect and defend – when did Congress follow that document? When did ya ask? I thought, after 9/11, ya said that, if we change the way we live, the terrorists win. Now, we are at war. What happened?]
Through all the challenges, he remains the same man who stood atop the rubble in Manhattan with a bullhorn vowing to fight back. The leader who told a grieving nation that we will never forget what was lost. And the President who has worked every day to fulfill his vow to protect the American people and to bring the enemy to justice or to bring justice to the enemy.
[Good Lord. Pay attention to this blog sometime, Don Rumsfeld, and see your “Great Leader” in action.]
That year -- 1919 -- turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.
Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.
It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!"
I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.
[Aaahhh – I’ve included that section to show the folly of reading too much into history’s lessons. It was not a “strange innocence” – it was a reading of history: The Great War, WWI, occurred because of NOT talking.
More later….]
Friday, September 01, 2006
Post #17
Subject: The Soldier and the Nun
A soldier came to a fork in the road and saw a nun standing there. Out of breath he asked, "Please Sister, may I hide under your skirts for a few minutes. I'll explain WHY later."
The nun agreed.
Just a moment later, two Military Police came running along and asked, "Sister, have you seen a soldier running by here??"
The nun replied, "He went that way."
After the MP's disappeared, the soldier crawled out from under her skirt and said, "I can't thank you enough Sister, but you see I don't want to go to Iraq."
The nun said, "I think I can fully understand your fear."
The soldier added, "I hope you don't think me rude or impertinent, but you have a great pair of legs!"
The nun replied, "If you had looked a little higher, you would have seen a great pair of balls....I don't want to go to Iraq either."
Subject: The Soldier and the Nun
A soldier came to a fork in the road and saw a nun standing there. Out of breath he asked, "Please Sister, may I hide under your skirts for a few minutes. I'll explain WHY later."
The nun agreed.
Just a moment later, two Military Police came running along and asked, "Sister, have you seen a soldier running by here??"
The nun replied, "He went that way."
After the MP's disappeared, the soldier crawled out from under her skirt and said, "I can't thank you enough Sister, but you see I don't want to go to Iraq."
The nun said, "I think I can fully understand your fear."
The soldier added, "I hope you don't think me rude or impertinent, but you have a great pair of legs!"
The nun replied, "If you had looked a little higher, you would have seen a great pair of balls....I don't want to go to Iraq either."
Monday, August 28, 2006
Post #16
Winning in Iraq… for dummies! Pt. II
OK, our national debate is “We broke Iraq – do we fix it… or leave it?”
To fix it, the first step is to follow that impediment to an imperial Presidency, the Constitution. Ask Congress to declare war. With a declaration of war, there’d be no need to argue that a “blank check” from Congress allows for a seizure of War Powers.
With War Powers, get the draft going. Look, Iraq has 27 million people, and I think we ought to have one soldier to keep a 24/7 eye on every Iraqi – give an Iraqi five-minute bathroom breaks and conjugal visits to married couples. OK, that is an exaggeration, but ya get the point – we need a much larger force to secure Iraq, and probably only a draft can meet our needs. Plus, a draft without deferments will spread the sacrifices required. How important is democracy when Jen Bush goes!?! :p
Other War Powers, I’m sure, will be seized – rationing gas, for example. We’ve been told that this is a war we cannot afford to lose – doesn’t that mean some sacrifices by all of us, including the country club set, will be necessary? The truth is that we CAN afford to lose Iraq – Afghanistan will determine our future. That is where the declaration of war needs to be.
To leave it, without a declaration of war, immediately load our troops on planes and fly them home. Isn’t it an impeachable offense to send troops into harm’s way without a declaration of war? Well, gosh, it ought to be.
Today, I am in favor of fixing. However, by the time Bush leaves office, circumstances around the world may have changed, a new foe may have risen, and it may be in our interests to leave and concentrate elsewhere. But never should anybody forget – George W. Bush got us into this mess, and he won’t get us out!
Winning in Iraq… for dummies! Pt. II
OK, our national debate is “We broke Iraq – do we fix it… or leave it?”
To fix it, the first step is to follow that impediment to an imperial Presidency, the Constitution. Ask Congress to declare war. With a declaration of war, there’d be no need to argue that a “blank check” from Congress allows for a seizure of War Powers.
With War Powers, get the draft going. Look, Iraq has 27 million people, and I think we ought to have one soldier to keep a 24/7 eye on every Iraqi – give an Iraqi five-minute bathroom breaks and conjugal visits to married couples. OK, that is an exaggeration, but ya get the point – we need a much larger force to secure Iraq, and probably only a draft can meet our needs. Plus, a draft without deferments will spread the sacrifices required. How important is democracy when Jen Bush goes!?! :p
Other War Powers, I’m sure, will be seized – rationing gas, for example. We’ve been told that this is a war we cannot afford to lose – doesn’t that mean some sacrifices by all of us, including the country club set, will be necessary? The truth is that we CAN afford to lose Iraq – Afghanistan will determine our future. That is where the declaration of war needs to be.
To leave it, without a declaration of war, immediately load our troops on planes and fly them home. Isn’t it an impeachable offense to send troops into harm’s way without a declaration of war? Well, gosh, it ought to be.
Today, I am in favor of fixing. However, by the time Bush leaves office, circumstances around the world may have changed, a new foe may have risen, and it may be in our interests to leave and concentrate elsewhere. But never should anybody forget – George W. Bush got us into this mess, and he won’t get us out!
Friday, August 25, 2006
Post #15
Winning in Iraq… for dummies!
The way to win in Iraq is so simple and obvious. Unfortunately, George W. Bush cannot see the way out of the forest for the trees of neo-con lunacy. As plainly stated by Bush, our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
The first thing we need is an honest full debate of what our national interests are. Say what you will about Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, apologize for Bush’s faulty intelligence, I think everyone can agree that there was not a full disclosure of evidence, pro and con. As Pat Buchanan said on The McLaughlin Group, Bush acted as a prosecutor – picking and choosing evidence to support his case. Did Bush run for President or prosecutor-in-chief!?! :p
OK, so what are our national interests?
WMD – or stopping the spread thereof. Before Bush invaded Iraq, I said his policy of “pre-emptive war” was wrong – not only is it wrong to start fights, nobody likes a bully, but the first time he is wrong will limit our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other pre-emptive wars which might even be more necessary. Oh, what a difference if there had of been WMD in Iraq!
9/11 – bringing justice to those who caused it. “No distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I still support our troops in Afghanistan rooting out Al-Qaeda training camps. I supported that mission on 9/12 and still do – despite Bush’s bungling of that job too!
Democracy – and the spread thereof. NO! Democracy does NOT bloom at gunpoint. The march of liberty is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured and supported. But no force – democracy has never bloomed at gunpoint, and there is no reason to think it will now.
Fightin’ ‘em on the streets of Baghdad instead of Main Street – does anybody really believe that anymore? Did the terrorists who plotted to blow up planes over the Atlantic have Baghdad addresses? It seems to me that killing tens of thousands of Arabs on TV is NOT helping us.
What, then, are our national interests in Iraq?
Well, we broke it – do we fix it… or leave it? After WWI, we left. Of course, the aftermath of WWI led to WWII. We fixed the aftermath of WWII. But we broke Vietnam and left without WWIII breaking out. I doubt the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – can understand such a simple straight-forward concept, especially when the concept makes them look like self-serving fools! But we broke Iraq….
I plan for my next post to be a look at the costs of fixing or leaving….
Winning in Iraq… for dummies!
The way to win in Iraq is so simple and obvious. Unfortunately, George W. Bush cannot see the way out of the forest for the trees of neo-con lunacy. As plainly stated by Bush, our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
The first thing we need is an honest full debate of what our national interests are. Say what you will about Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, apologize for Bush’s faulty intelligence, I think everyone can agree that there was not a full disclosure of evidence, pro and con. As Pat Buchanan said on The McLaughlin Group, Bush acted as a prosecutor – picking and choosing evidence to support his case. Did Bush run for President or prosecutor-in-chief!?! :p
OK, so what are our national interests?
WMD – or stopping the spread thereof. Before Bush invaded Iraq, I said his policy of “pre-emptive war” was wrong – not only is it wrong to start fights, nobody likes a bully, but the first time he is wrong will limit our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other pre-emptive wars which might even be more necessary. Oh, what a difference if there had of been WMD in Iraq!
9/11 – bringing justice to those who caused it. “No distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I still support our troops in Afghanistan rooting out Al-Qaeda training camps. I supported that mission on 9/12 and still do – despite Bush’s bungling of that job too!
Democracy – and the spread thereof. NO! Democracy does NOT bloom at gunpoint. The march of liberty is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured and supported. But no force – democracy has never bloomed at gunpoint, and there is no reason to think it will now.
Fightin’ ‘em on the streets of Baghdad instead of Main Street – does anybody really believe that anymore? Did the terrorists who plotted to blow up planes over the Atlantic have Baghdad addresses? It seems to me that killing tens of thousands of Arabs on TV is NOT helping us.
What, then, are our national interests in Iraq?
Well, we broke it – do we fix it… or leave it? After WWI, we left. Of course, the aftermath of WWI led to WWII. We fixed the aftermath of WWII. But we broke Vietnam and left without WWIII breaking out. I doubt the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – can understand such a simple straight-forward concept, especially when the concept makes them look like self-serving fools! But we broke Iraq….
I plan for my next post to be a look at the costs of fixing or leaving….
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Post #14
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.
With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.
[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]
… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.
It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?
LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.
GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.
[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]
MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?
GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.
MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?
GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?
GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.
MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?
GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.
[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.
Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?
GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.
[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?
GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.
MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?
GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?
[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?
GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.
MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.
GARD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.
GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.
MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.
[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.
With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.
[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]
… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.
It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?
LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.
GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.
[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]
MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?
GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.
MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?
GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?
GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.
MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?
GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.
[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.
Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?
GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.
[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?
GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.
MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?
GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?
[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?
GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.
MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.
GARD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.
GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.
MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.
[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Post #13
Bush links Lebanon to war on terror
President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy
This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.
[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]
Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]
He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”
[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]
Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”
He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.
“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.
[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]
The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.
[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]
Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.
[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]
With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.
“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”
Bush argued that his approach is working.
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]
Bush links Lebanon to war on terror
President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy
This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.
[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]
Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]
He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”
[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]
Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”
He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.
“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.
[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]
The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.
[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]
Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.
[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]
With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.
“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”
Bush argued that his approach is working.
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)