Post #40
Subject: We don’t have a dog in this fight.
From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:” “Even after 9/11, Americans were skeptical of marching to Baghdad until we were told Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and probably intended to use them on us. Americans had to be lied into war. … Americans … want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences. … But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Good Lord, people. This is getting so old. Let’s get out Iraq… now. Rest our troops for other, more important battles in the War on Terror. Let’s go ahead and face the consequences of “losing” a war that we shouldn’t have started in the first place. If one of those consequences is Impeachment, so be it. And, yes, I’m talking about George W. Bush and those in Congress who voted for the “blank check.” And de-neo-con! :p
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Post #39
Subject: Iraq Update
On Sunday, November 19, 2006, Senator Joe Biden's Op-Ed on Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission, "The Minimum Necessary," appeared in the Washington Post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY
As the Baker-Hamilton Commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the President and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.
[Good Lord. The George W. Bush administration will use the Commission for political cover – that is, they will blame Democrats and Bush’s father’s cronies for “losing” Iraq. But wait – isn’t that a cynical view, that Bush would make politics a higher priority than what is good for America? Tell the families of the American citizens who starved to death in America while Bush played the guitar at a political rally what Bush’s priorities are. Nero fiddled – Bush strummed….p]
Ouir current policy in Iraq is a failure. We are past the point of an open-ended commitment. We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer -- though it may become a necessity -- just to go with no concern for what follows. The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind.
[Who cares if there is chaos in Iraq? I don’t – as long as there are no terrorist training camps set up. Who cares if Iran invades to get a piece of the pie? Again, I don’t. Oh, sure, we screwed it up – it’d be nice for us to fix it. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that we bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? Well, I’ll give all of Biden’s article here – it’s nice, a hell of a lot better than “Stay the Course,” but his plan is not really necessary.]
Six months ago Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I proposed a detailed answer to that question….. We had two fundamental premises: first, that the main challenge in Iraq is sectarian strife, for which there is no military solution; second, to putting all of our hopes on building a strong central government cannot pay off because there is no trust within or of the government and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic services to the Iraqi people.
We argued instead for a strong federal system, as provided for in the Iraqi constitution, that gives its main groups breathing room in regions while preserving a central government to deal with truly common concerns; a fair sharing of oil revenue to make those regions economically viable; a jobs program to deny the militia new recruits, and a major diplomatic effort to secure support for a political settlement from Iraq's neighbors.
Doing all those things would enable most of our troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to contend with concentrations of terrorists.
Baker-Hamilton need not embrace the details of our plan. But to win broad support, it must contend with three points central to our plan and to the prescriptions of most senior Democratic leaders.
First, Baker-Hamilton must tackle the issue of U.S. troop deployments. Most Democrats believe we should begin the phased redeployment of our troops in the coming months but not set a hard deadline for their withdrawal. We would refocus the mission of those who remain on counterterrorism, training, logistics and force protection.
The best way to get the Iraqis to concentrate on making the hard political decisions and compromises is to make clear to them that the presence of our troops in their present large numbers is not open-ended. Even if it made strategic sense to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq beyond next year, we could not do so without doing real damage to the volunteer military: sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours, extending deployment times from 12 to 18 months, ending the practice of a year at home between deployments, fully mobilizing the Guard and Reserves, and returning demobilized soldiers to Iraq through a back-door draft.
Second, Baker-Hamilton must propose a clear political road map for Iraq. Democrats agree that as we redeploy we must exert maximum pressure on the Iraqis for a sustainable political settlement that deals with federalism, sharing oil revenue and the militias. Redeployment alone is not a plan -- it is a means to help bring about the political settlement needed if we are to avoid a full-blown civil war and regional conflict.
Third, Baker-Hamilton must speak to the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Democrats would convene an international conference and stand up an oversight group of major countries to support a political settlement in Iraq -- or, if chaos ensues anyway, to help contain its fallout within Iraq. There can be no sustainable peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors, including Iran, Syria and Turkey. All major Iraqi factions should be included in the conference -- and, as at the Dayton Conference for Bosnia, we should keep them there until all agree to a way forward.
[Aaahhh – heady days in Tehran…. :p]
At the same time, simply convening a conference is not enough. We need a clear plan for our troops, a political strategy for Iraq and a mechanism like the oversight group to hold the neighbors to their commitments. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can meet Americans' growing expectations. It also can help inform the critical debate on Iraq that I intend to hold in the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee, in close collaboration with my Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Lugar. These intensive and extensive hearings will put a light on what options remain for America to start bringing our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos.
Subject: Iraq Update
On Sunday, November 19, 2006, Senator Joe Biden's Op-Ed on Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission, "The Minimum Necessary," appeared in the Washington Post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY
As the Baker-Hamilton Commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the President and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.
[Good Lord. The George W. Bush administration will use the Commission for political cover – that is, they will blame Democrats and Bush’s father’s cronies for “losing” Iraq. But wait – isn’t that a cynical view, that Bush would make politics a higher priority than what is good for America? Tell the families of the American citizens who starved to death in America while Bush played the guitar at a political rally what Bush’s priorities are. Nero fiddled – Bush strummed….p]
Ouir current policy in Iraq is a failure. We are past the point of an open-ended commitment. We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer -- though it may become a necessity -- just to go with no concern for what follows. The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind.
[Who cares if there is chaos in Iraq? I don’t – as long as there are no terrorist training camps set up. Who cares if Iran invades to get a piece of the pie? Again, I don’t. Oh, sure, we screwed it up – it’d be nice for us to fix it. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that we bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? Well, I’ll give all of Biden’s article here – it’s nice, a hell of a lot better than “Stay the Course,” but his plan is not really necessary.]
Six months ago Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I proposed a detailed answer to that question….. We had two fundamental premises: first, that the main challenge in Iraq is sectarian strife, for which there is no military solution; second, to putting all of our hopes on building a strong central government cannot pay off because there is no trust within or of the government and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic services to the Iraqi people.
We argued instead for a strong federal system, as provided for in the Iraqi constitution, that gives its main groups breathing room in regions while preserving a central government to deal with truly common concerns; a fair sharing of oil revenue to make those regions economically viable; a jobs program to deny the militia new recruits, and a major diplomatic effort to secure support for a political settlement from Iraq's neighbors.
Doing all those things would enable most of our troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to contend with concentrations of terrorists.
Baker-Hamilton need not embrace the details of our plan. But to win broad support, it must contend with three points central to our plan and to the prescriptions of most senior Democratic leaders.
First, Baker-Hamilton must tackle the issue of U.S. troop deployments. Most Democrats believe we should begin the phased redeployment of our troops in the coming months but not set a hard deadline for their withdrawal. We would refocus the mission of those who remain on counterterrorism, training, logistics and force protection.
The best way to get the Iraqis to concentrate on making the hard political decisions and compromises is to make clear to them that the presence of our troops in their present large numbers is not open-ended. Even if it made strategic sense to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq beyond next year, we could not do so without doing real damage to the volunteer military: sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours, extending deployment times from 12 to 18 months, ending the practice of a year at home between deployments, fully mobilizing the Guard and Reserves, and returning demobilized soldiers to Iraq through a back-door draft.
Second, Baker-Hamilton must propose a clear political road map for Iraq. Democrats agree that as we redeploy we must exert maximum pressure on the Iraqis for a sustainable political settlement that deals with federalism, sharing oil revenue and the militias. Redeployment alone is not a plan -- it is a means to help bring about the political settlement needed if we are to avoid a full-blown civil war and regional conflict.
Third, Baker-Hamilton must speak to the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Democrats would convene an international conference and stand up an oversight group of major countries to support a political settlement in Iraq -- or, if chaos ensues anyway, to help contain its fallout within Iraq. There can be no sustainable peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors, including Iran, Syria and Turkey. All major Iraqi factions should be included in the conference -- and, as at the Dayton Conference for Bosnia, we should keep them there until all agree to a way forward.
[Aaahhh – heady days in Tehran…. :p]
At the same time, simply convening a conference is not enough. We need a clear plan for our troops, a political strategy for Iraq and a mechanism like the oversight group to hold the neighbors to their commitments. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can meet Americans' growing expectations. It also can help inform the critical debate on Iraq that I intend to hold in the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee, in close collaboration with my Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Lugar. These intensive and extensive hearings will put a light on what options remain for America to start bringing our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Post #38
Subject: Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush
The missteps of our President and the civilian leadership in Washington can – and do – fill books. From not having enough troops to begin with to not handing over sovereignty soon enough, you’d think this President had come into office with no foreign policy experience! :p
Blame whoever you want. Dick Cheney who promised we’d be greeted as liberators, Don Rumsfeld who ran over the military, Tommy Franks who said we had enough troops, Colin Powell who want along with this mess, Hillary who voted the “blank check.” The list goes on and on. But the bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. When History is written, Bush will get the blame.
Really, tho, that’s not fair – Bush did not “lose” Iraq, it was never his to “win.”
Please, somebody give me a historical example of a “democracy project” that worked. I can’t think of one. People are not automatically inclined to democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted an educated society. Democracy is a wonderful thing – for mature educated societies that embrace it. But people don’t like being bombed. The fact of that simple truth being overlooked will mean that History will judge Bush as having “lost” Iraq.
Yep, I’ve said elsewhere that the War on Terror will last generations – 40 years – and cost 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and will be won in an unforeseen way. I still believe that – that‘s the War on Terror, NOT the foolishness in Iraq. Iraq has been a drain on the War on Terror.
Suppose Al-Qaeda sets up camps in France tomorrow and the French government harbors them. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good thing Bush has uttered in six years. Please, bring our soldiers back home. Free our troops up to fight and destroy the real enemy of the US – Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda!
Remember 9/11!!!
Subject: Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush
The missteps of our President and the civilian leadership in Washington can – and do – fill books. From not having enough troops to begin with to not handing over sovereignty soon enough, you’d think this President had come into office with no foreign policy experience! :p
Blame whoever you want. Dick Cheney who promised we’d be greeted as liberators, Don Rumsfeld who ran over the military, Tommy Franks who said we had enough troops, Colin Powell who want along with this mess, Hillary who voted the “blank check.” The list goes on and on. But the bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. When History is written, Bush will get the blame.
Really, tho, that’s not fair – Bush did not “lose” Iraq, it was never his to “win.”
Please, somebody give me a historical example of a “democracy project” that worked. I can’t think of one. People are not automatically inclined to democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted an educated society. Democracy is a wonderful thing – for mature educated societies that embrace it. But people don’t like being bombed. The fact of that simple truth being overlooked will mean that History will judge Bush as having “lost” Iraq.
Yep, I’ve said elsewhere that the War on Terror will last generations – 40 years – and cost 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and will be won in an unforeseen way. I still believe that – that‘s the War on Terror, NOT the foolishness in Iraq. Iraq has been a drain on the War on Terror.
Suppose Al-Qaeda sets up camps in France tomorrow and the French government harbors them. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good thing Bush has uttered in six years. Please, bring our soldiers back home. Free our troops up to fight and destroy the real enemy of the US – Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda!
Remember 9/11!!!
Friday, November 17, 2006
Post #37
Subject: Dyin’ for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore. And the Iraqi elections were another chance to declare “victory.”
Our civilian leadership has lost the peace. Military success has been squandered. 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?
As Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show Monday, said:
“Now, I think that our troops can certainly point to all of that. We have had, however, many problems doing what the president wanted, which was really to “bring democracy” and get people who have been warring with each other forever to come together.
“I think you have someone like Joe Biden, who is about to be chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, saying, look, let‘s deal with reality. And I think there is one crackpot view, if I might use your word, and that crackpot view is to keep on doing what we are doing.
“… I don‘t think “losing” and “winning” are the operative words. I think, what should our policy be to resolve this situation?” And place us on the “winning” side of the War on Terror. If Bush really wanted to win the War on Terror, he would have installed an ally and not leave it up to the Iraqis to elect an ally.
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Democrats are probably reading the country right. Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.
“But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.
“While our leaders never thought through the probable result of invading an Arab nation that had not attacked us, we had best think through the probable results of a pullout in 2007.
“We are being told that by giving the Iraqis a deadline, after which we start to withdraw, we will stiffen their spines to take up greater responsibility for their own country. But there is as great or greater a likelihood that a U.S. pullout will break their morale and spirit, that the Iraqi government and army, seeing Americans heading for the exit ramp, will collapse before an energized enemy, and Shias, Sunnis and Kurds will scramble for security and survival among their own. … [A] collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States -- emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world -- is a real possibility.”
So? I guess I’m too selfish, but how does that affect me? I’ve got a nephew who turns 18 next year. Should I support “Stay the Course?”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , also said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Americans are not driven by some ideological vocation to reform mankind. We do not have the patience or perseverance of great imperial peoples. If an issue is not seen as vital to our own liberty and security, we will not fight long for some abstraction like democracy, self-determination or human rights.”
Exactly. I’m looking out for #1. me. I don’t want to see a body bag with my nephew’s name on it – for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Subject: Dyin’ for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore. And the Iraqi elections were another chance to declare “victory.”
Our civilian leadership has lost the peace. Military success has been squandered. 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?
As Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show Monday, said:
“Now, I think that our troops can certainly point to all of that. We have had, however, many problems doing what the president wanted, which was really to “bring democracy” and get people who have been warring with each other forever to come together.
“I think you have someone like Joe Biden, who is about to be chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, saying, look, let‘s deal with reality. And I think there is one crackpot view, if I might use your word, and that crackpot view is to keep on doing what we are doing.
“… I don‘t think “losing” and “winning” are the operative words. I think, what should our policy be to resolve this situation?” And place us on the “winning” side of the War on Terror. If Bush really wanted to win the War on Terror, he would have installed an ally and not leave it up to the Iraqis to elect an ally.
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Democrats are probably reading the country right. Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.
“But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.
“While our leaders never thought through the probable result of invading an Arab nation that had not attacked us, we had best think through the probable results of a pullout in 2007.
“We are being told that by giving the Iraqis a deadline, after which we start to withdraw, we will stiffen their spines to take up greater responsibility for their own country. But there is as great or greater a likelihood that a U.S. pullout will break their morale and spirit, that the Iraqi government and army, seeing Americans heading for the exit ramp, will collapse before an energized enemy, and Shias, Sunnis and Kurds will scramble for security and survival among their own. … [A] collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States -- emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world -- is a real possibility.”
So? I guess I’m too selfish, but how does that affect me? I’ve got a nephew who turns 18 next year. Should I support “Stay the Course?”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , also said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Americans are not driven by some ideological vocation to reform mankind. We do not have the patience or perseverance of great imperial peoples. If an issue is not seen as vital to our own liberty and security, we will not fight long for some abstraction like democracy, self-determination or human rights.”
Exactly. I’m looking out for #1. me. I don’t want to see a body bag with my nephew’s name on it – for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Post #36
Well, I got an e-mail with the following comment from another blog:
“Baker/Hamilton will cause the new Democrat majority to effectively ‘Stay the Course’ simply because the new Democrat majority leadership can successfully add: The victory margin for the tightest 15 House races that went Democrat total ~100K votes, which means that just over 50K votes going from the Democrat candidate to the Republican (that’s 1.6% of the votes cast in those 15 closest district races) would have retained GOP control of the house. In the Senate it’s even narrower, VA needed 3,616 GOP votes to change the outcome of the VA Senate race and retain the Senate; Montana only needed 1,424 GOP votes to keep the Senate for the Republicans.
“The Democrat leadership knows how precariously narrow this victory was. They can’t gain any more votes by going further left, so if they want to retain power then need to pick up more voters from rightward of their current positions - especially since they won’t have the Republican-controlled congress to run against next time around. “
I assume my take is wanted. :p
OK, the Republicans can add, too. How many Democrats won as Democrats by campaigning to “Stay the Course, Keep Floundering?” How many Republicans will win in ’08 by supporting a five-year disaster?
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show yesterday, said:
“The fact of the matter is, 60 percent of the Iraqi people in a recent poll said it was OK to shoot and kill an American. Why do we want to send more over there? Seventy percent of the Iraqis say when we leave things will get better. So if we‘re doing this for the Iraqi people, why don‘t we listen to them, as well as to the American people?
“So, it‘s just an awful policy. It isn‘t working. I think people like Joe Biden, who has said, look, we need a political solution, we need a practical, political solution to sit the parties down, separate the warring factions, give them their own semiautonomous regions, keep a federal government in Iraq, have the oil divided equally among all the parties, and bring in the international community to peace the thing, that‘s what we really need now. Not more of the same.”
Of course, the smart thing to do is to pull a “John McCain” and call for 100,000 more troops now – by ’08, more troops will not be an option, and McCain can run against that cut-and-run Democratic Congress, saying that his way would have won.
But that is wrong. Again, from yesterday, Boxer said, “… when I went to Iraq the last time, General Casey was very clear. He said that our presence there in a large footprint is counterproductive. That is fuelling terrorism, and that is exactly what the intelligence estimate said, that our presence there is fueling terror. Sending more troops isn‘t going to help us at all. There already is chaos in Iraq. And our own intelligence people are saying that our presence there is fueling the chaos.”
George W. Bush has dug us a hole, and his only solution is to keep digging. The American people have spoken – “Stay the Course” is finished.
Well, I got an e-mail with the following comment from another blog:
“Baker/Hamilton will cause the new Democrat majority to effectively ‘Stay the Course’ simply because the new Democrat majority leadership can successfully add: The victory margin for the tightest 15 House races that went Democrat total ~100K votes, which means that just over 50K votes going from the Democrat candidate to the Republican (that’s 1.6% of the votes cast in those 15 closest district races) would have retained GOP control of the house. In the Senate it’s even narrower, VA needed 3,616 GOP votes to change the outcome of the VA Senate race and retain the Senate; Montana only needed 1,424 GOP votes to keep the Senate for the Republicans.
“The Democrat leadership knows how precariously narrow this victory was. They can’t gain any more votes by going further left, so if they want to retain power then need to pick up more voters from rightward of their current positions - especially since they won’t have the Republican-controlled congress to run against next time around. “
I assume my take is wanted. :p
OK, the Republicans can add, too. How many Democrats won as Democrats by campaigning to “Stay the Course, Keep Floundering?” How many Republicans will win in ’08 by supporting a five-year disaster?
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show yesterday, said:
“The fact of the matter is, 60 percent of the Iraqi people in a recent poll said it was OK to shoot and kill an American. Why do we want to send more over there? Seventy percent of the Iraqis say when we leave things will get better. So if we‘re doing this for the Iraqi people, why don‘t we listen to them, as well as to the American people?
“So, it‘s just an awful policy. It isn‘t working. I think people like Joe Biden, who has said, look, we need a political solution, we need a practical, political solution to sit the parties down, separate the warring factions, give them their own semiautonomous regions, keep a federal government in Iraq, have the oil divided equally among all the parties, and bring in the international community to peace the thing, that‘s what we really need now. Not more of the same.”
Of course, the smart thing to do is to pull a “John McCain” and call for 100,000 more troops now – by ’08, more troops will not be an option, and McCain can run against that cut-and-run Democratic Congress, saying that his way would have won.
But that is wrong. Again, from yesterday, Boxer said, “… when I went to Iraq the last time, General Casey was very clear. He said that our presence there in a large footprint is counterproductive. That is fuelling terrorism, and that is exactly what the intelligence estimate said, that our presence there is fueling terror. Sending more troops isn‘t going to help us at all. There already is chaos in Iraq. And our own intelligence people are saying that our presence there is fueling the chaos.”
George W. Bush has dug us a hole, and his only solution is to keep digging. The American people have spoken – “Stay the Course” is finished.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Post #35
Subject: ... more political dead weight
Dead woman wins Jerauld County race
PIERRE, S.D. - A woman who died two months ago won a county commissioner's race in Jerauld County on Tuesday.
Democrat Marie Steichen, of Woonsocket, got 100 votes, defeating incumbent Republican Merlin Feistner, of Woonsocket, who had 64 votes.
Jerauld County Auditor Cindy Peterson said she believes the county board will have to meet to appoint a replacement for Steichen. Peterson said she'll check with the state's attorney to be sure that's the process.
Peterson said voters knew Steichen had died.
"They just had a chance to make a change, and we respect their opinion."
-----
At least, she has a good excuse for doing NOTHING!
Subject: ... more political dead weight
Dead woman wins Jerauld County race
PIERRE, S.D. - A woman who died two months ago won a county commissioner's race in Jerauld County on Tuesday.
Democrat Marie Steichen, of Woonsocket, got 100 votes, defeating incumbent Republican Merlin Feistner, of Woonsocket, who had 64 votes.
Jerauld County Auditor Cindy Peterson said she believes the county board will have to meet to appoint a replacement for Steichen. Peterson said she'll check with the state's attorney to be sure that's the process.
Peterson said voters knew Steichen had died.
"They just had a chance to make a change, and we respect their opinion."
-----
At least, she has a good excuse for doing NOTHING!
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Post #34
Secretly, I’m pulling for Republicans. Two more years of screwing us, the Republican party will be delivered into the dustbin of History. A sweeping victory will await Hillary Clinton in 2008 – she will be greeted as a liberator.
Really, I’m pulling for Democrats. I realize that a Democratic victory in ’06 will make things politically tougher in ’08. However, the most important thing is to stop Americans being killed in Iraq. A Democratic victory in ’06 will mean Republicans in ’08 will blame Democrats for losing Iraq – tho the reality is that Democrats in ’06 were charged with cleaning up the mess of George W. Bush.
Secretly, I’m pulling for Republicans. Two more years of screwing us, the Republican party will be delivered into the dustbin of History. A sweeping victory will await Hillary Clinton in 2008 – she will be greeted as a liberator.
Really, I’m pulling for Democrats. I realize that a Democratic victory in ’06 will make things politically tougher in ’08. However, the most important thing is to stop Americans being killed in Iraq. A Democratic victory in ’06 will mean Republicans in ’08 will blame Democrats for losing Iraq – tho the reality is that Democrats in ’06 were charged with cleaning up the mess of George W. Bush.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Post #33
The political flailings of George W. Bush.
Oh, wait, that should be “failings” -- but “flailings” works just as well. :p
First, as I said in Post #31, 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?
There were two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore.
Now, the course we're on has no end in sight – thanks to Bush’s impossible definition of “victory.” Joe Biden’s plan – again see Post #31 -- can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure. “Victory.”
Second, Bush is making the mistake of equating the Iraq folly with the War on Terror. No, it’s not – Iraq can be lost, as Bush seems determined to do, and the War on Terror won. We lost in Vietnam – tho Bush gallantly defended us from the hostile Mexican Air Force – but still won the Cold War.
Third, war? What war? To me, “war” means sacrifice, a shared sacrifice – Jen Bush patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Laura Bush planting a “Victory” garden on the White House lawn, Paris Hilton paying higher taxes. But I heard a Republican on TV justify fiscal irresponsibility by “war.” Huh?
With just a few of adjustments in his rhetoric, Bush can save his legacy. No, there’ll be no Mt. Rushmore in his future, but at least he won’t be ridiculed and hated as the President who ruined us. As Pat Buchanan said in “American Dien Bien Phu?” in his October 3, 2006 column:
“France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu in Indochina lead to a second war of national liberation in Algeria, the fall of the Fourth Republic and the call for Gen. de Gaulle to assume power. The general did, and he rang down the curtain on the French Empire.
“Are we facing an American Dien Bien Phu?”
Bush has lost Iraq by not claiming “victory” when it was his, and he’s trying to hand off closing the curtain on the American Empire to his successor. More than 100 Americans died in Iraq during October. Please, Bush, get it right….
The political flailings of George W. Bush.
Oh, wait, that should be “failings” -- but “flailings” works just as well. :p
First, as I said in Post #31, 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?
There were two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore.
Now, the course we're on has no end in sight – thanks to Bush’s impossible definition of “victory.” Joe Biden’s plan – again see Post #31 -- can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure. “Victory.”
Second, Bush is making the mistake of equating the Iraq folly with the War on Terror. No, it’s not – Iraq can be lost, as Bush seems determined to do, and the War on Terror won. We lost in Vietnam – tho Bush gallantly defended us from the hostile Mexican Air Force – but still won the Cold War.
Third, war? What war? To me, “war” means sacrifice, a shared sacrifice – Jen Bush patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Laura Bush planting a “Victory” garden on the White House lawn, Paris Hilton paying higher taxes. But I heard a Republican on TV justify fiscal irresponsibility by “war.” Huh?
With just a few of adjustments in his rhetoric, Bush can save his legacy. No, there’ll be no Mt. Rushmore in his future, but at least he won’t be ridiculed and hated as the President who ruined us. As Pat Buchanan said in “American Dien Bien Phu?” in his October 3, 2006 column:
“France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu in Indochina lead to a second war of national liberation in Algeria, the fall of the Fourth Republic and the call for Gen. de Gaulle to assume power. The general did, and he rang down the curtain on the French Empire.
“Are we facing an American Dien Bien Phu?”
Bush has lost Iraq by not claiming “victory” when it was his, and he’s trying to hand off closing the curtain on the American Empire to his successor. More than 100 Americans died in Iraq during October. Please, Bush, get it right….
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
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!
… 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!
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)