Post #95
Subject: Ann Coulter fights the War!
… from “’Hardball’ with Chris Matthews,” Tuesday, June 26, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MATTHEWS: Here‘s a question e-mailed to us from James Campbell from Fort Story, Virginia. “Why do you and many other conservatives preach and demand that we stay in Iraq as long as it takes? Why not lead by example and go to your local recruiting office or perhaps send one of your loved ones as a good sergeant? P.S., in case you didn‘t know, the Army has increased the enlistment age to 42.”
COULTER: For one thing, I would like our troops to win, so no, I don‘t think me being over there holding a tiny little gun is going to help.
MATTHEWS: You‘re not Private Benjamin, eh?
COULTER: And point two, I mean, all of this taunting about, Oh, why don‘t you sign up—I don‘t think Democrats want to go down that line. Overwhelmingly, the troops are right-wingers who support the views of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and that goes for military veterans, as well, even the older ones, who tend to get more liberal as they head towards Social Security.
[Um, what was the answer? Again, Ann, why not sign up? I’m sure that Jenna Bush would like some company! :p George W. Bush keeps asking for “sacrifice.” Who is he asking? C’mon, Ann, a little – how about helping Laura Bush tend that Victory Garden? Candy striping at Walter Reed? It’s called “Put up or shut up!”]
COULTER: I don‘t think we even need more troops. I think we need to be less worried about civilian casualties. I mean, are the terrorists—are Islamic terrorists a more frightening enemy than the Nazis war machine? I don‘t think so. Fanatics can be stopped. Japanese kamikaze bombers—you can stop them by bombing their society. We killed more people in two nights over Hamburg than we have in the entire course of the Iraq war.
MATTHEWS: Who should we bomb in Iraq?
COULTER: The insurgent forces. I mean, we did in Afghanistan last week hit Taliban. And what do we hear in “The New York Times”? Amnesty is crying because some civilians were hit. Well, that happens in a war, and I‘d rather have their civilians die than our civilians die!
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that we win the war on terrorism by killing lots of Arabs on international television? Do you think it helps the case?
COULTER: I don‘t know if it needs to be on international television.
MATTHEWS: Well, it is.
COULTER: I don‘t think it makes a difference. Look, I thought you were saying that was, like, one of the advantages. I don‘t think it needs to be on international television. But yes, you can destroy the fighting spirit of fanatics. We‘ve done it before. We know how to do it. And it‘s not by fighting a clean little hygienic war.
MATTHEWS: What do we do with teenagers now, who are, say, 15 years old now, who want to grow up to be terrorists? How do we stop them from growing up to be terrorists? How do we win the war against terrorism, in other words?
COULTER: I think I‘ve just said it. You cannot fight a clean, hygienic work. I mean, I think we either have to get rid of this secular religion of FDR, or we have to get rid of the idea of a hygienic war because that was not a clean, hygienic war, World War Two. We killed a lot of civilians, and we crushed the Nazi war machine. And the idea that Nazism, which was tied to a civilized culture, was less of a threat than the Koran, tied to a Stone Age culture, I think is preposterous! If we want to win this war, we absolutely could. And I think we‘ve been too nice so far.
MATTHEWS: Well, the Nazis—we defeated them rather well by going into Berlin, and certainly, the U.S. Army and the Soviet army did that job. Right now, we face an Islamic world of about a billion people. We face an Arab world of over 300 million people. We don‘t just face on country, we face a people. How do we convince them, the people who are open-minded about it, not to join the terrorists? How we do it?
COULTER: You destroy the will of fanatics. And it doesn‘t matter how broad it is, it can be destroyed. And yes, this is a trickier war because it‘s spread out. It‘s not just one country. ... we need to attack. But a lot of the things that we need to do, such as listening to terrorists in this country with—you know, on al Zarqawi‘s speed dial, we have liberals in this country screaming bloody murder about how we treat terrorists captured who are at Guantanamo, whether—whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being water-boarded? … If this is a country that is worried about that—and I don‘t think it is—then we may as well give up right now.
MATTHEWS: Do you worry that killing civilians, even accidentally as part of collateral damage or by the way things happen in war, friendly fire that that‘s going to encourage more young people to become...
COULTER: No.
MATTHEWS: ... enemies of the United States?
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no!
MATTHEWS: Why not?
COULTER: No! No. Because you are destroying the society that has produced these monsters. And you win by killing the other side and not allowing your side to be killed. Withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We could definitely fight it a little bit harder. I mean, I understand why Rumsfeld wanted to have a small footprint. It is a little bit different since it wasn‘t a country attacking us, it is this ideology that has spread throughout the Middle East. Yes, that makes it a lot trickier. But the small footprint didn‘t really work. Americans are getting fed up. Democracies don‘t like to go to war, so we‘re going to have to wrap it up quickly and destroy the fighting spirit of the fanatics.
MATTHEWS: We‘ve been in this war, as you know, since ‘03. How many years do you think this president or any president can prosecute a war of this kind with the American people‘s support?
COULTER: Well, I mean, what‘s the alternative?
[Um, a withdrawal. Let us learn that our military is not the answer to every problem. Let us save what is left of our military and use it on missions appropriate to the military: Hunting down and destroying terrorists training camps and toppling the governments that harbor them. Let us be prepared to go back into Iraq if we have to.]
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking a political question. How long can he stay in the field with this war? How long can he keep it up?
COULTER: I think—I don‘t—I do not get the sense that—your question—a long time because I do not think the country is burning with anti-war fervor. Except on your show,
MATTHEWS: Are you concerned that come September, when we have this report from General Petraeus out of the field in Iraq on how we‘re doing, that if it‘s not a conclusively positive report, that a lot of people like Susan Collins and Olympia Snow and John Sununu, Eastern Republicans, are going to split from the president? Are you concerned?
COULTER: I‘m not really one to add up votes or figure out who‘s going where or who‘s going to be voted out of office and become a former senator. I know Bush is going to become a former president. There‘s going to be a shakeup, and I hope it doesn‘t take another terrorist attack for Americans to realize the war on terrorism isn‘t going away just by saying, Oh, it‘s just a bumper sticker. They‘re still coming at us!
[Yes, they are. Even if we succeeded in turning Iraq into the 51st state or killing every Iraqi, would that translate into a “win” in the War on Terror? Do we need to swing bigger or smarter?]
Friday, July 27, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Post #94
Subject: Deluded or dishonorable?
Ah yes – that is the question. Once again, neo-cons are saying “The surge is working,” “The light is at the end of the tunnel,” “One more push” – pick your favorite Vietnam-era cliché. :p
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “Washington vs. The Surge,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, July 13, 2007:
“WASHINGTON -- Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, … the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq. … The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug."
Um, some Republicans have not “lost heart” but realize that playing an endless game of “Whack-A-Mole” is not in America’s interests.
“… Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy. … The costs are heartbreakingly high -- increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. … In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al Qaeda.”
Um, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not “the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost” – that is the Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden. Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view that George W. Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. 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.”
To use the terms that Charles used in his column – ”Deluded or dishonorable” (which I used for this column, by the way) – it is deluded not to recognize the differences in our enemies. And it is dishonorable to continue to support what is so obviously a mistake just because you cannot admit you supported mistake. Why place your interests above America’s interests?
Subject: Deluded or dishonorable?
Ah yes – that is the question. Once again, neo-cons are saying “The surge is working,” “The light is at the end of the tunnel,” “One more push” – pick your favorite Vietnam-era cliché. :p
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “Washington vs. The Surge,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, July 13, 2007:
“WASHINGTON -- Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, … the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq. … The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug."
Um, some Republicans have not “lost heart” but realize that playing an endless game of “Whack-A-Mole” is not in America’s interests.
“… Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy. … The costs are heartbreakingly high -- increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. … In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al Qaeda.”
Um, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not “the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost” – that is the Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden. Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view that George W. Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. 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.”
To use the terms that Charles used in his column – ”Deluded or dishonorable” (which I used for this column, by the way) – it is deluded not to recognize the differences in our enemies. And it is dishonorable to continue to support what is so obviously a mistake just because you cannot admit you supported mistake. Why place your interests above America’s interests?
Friday, July 13, 2007
Post #93
Subject: Hot for Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
Taryn Southern, the girl who is Hot for Hillary, has a MySpace, http://www.myspace.com/tarynsouthern and a blog, http://hott4hill.blogspot.com/ and an official 'site, http://www.taryn-southern.com/ ....
Subject: Hot for Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
Taryn Southern, the girl who is Hot for Hillary, has a MySpace, http://www.myspace.com/tarynsouthern and a blog, http://hott4hill.blogspot.com/ and an official 'site, http://www.taryn-southern.com/ ....
Friday, July 06, 2007
Post #92
Subject: The sad tale of the rule of law and “Scooter” Libby
I am disappointed that George W. Bush “protected” his “friend” – not surprised, just disappointed. And that is what is sad.
Bush had a chance to stand for the rule of law, the idea that no man is above the law, the founding principle that this is a nation of laws not men. NO – he said that the penalty imposed by a Republican judge was “excessive.”
“Excessive!?!” Libby has already paid his debt to society, his $250,000 fine. I would have to sell my house, my car and my first born to BEGIN to pay that! :p
But Libby will have a hard time finding work, right? I mean, he is disgraced, right? I bet that there is already a set at Fox Studios for “The ‘Scooter’ Libby Show!” :p
Before the trial started, all I heard was “30 years;” after the trial, “10 years.” So, I thought 30 months was pretty Damn lenient – especially compared to what perjury and obstruction of justice will usually get ya.
Aaahhh – Bill Clinton did it! Despite Bush’s promise to restore honesty and integrity to the White House – that video clip is on YouTube, a favorite defense of Bush is that Clinton was involved with “controversial” clemency. That defense does not fly because Clinton never pardoned anybody who was being investigated for illegal activities within the White House. And that is the rub.
George W. Bush – a man of honor, integrity, high moral standards – your moral compass is broken! You violated your own DOJ guidelines and your claims to be “better” than Bill Clinton in deciding clemency. Why?
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Post #91
Subject: Happy B’Day!
In Post #1 of this blog, I offered responses and additions to the column, “Is defeat now an option?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ .
Pat said, “ We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
Yes, I said, we have 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.
A year later, and how do things look now?
I am more convinced than ever that the Iraq War 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. In my Post #88, I quoted Pat Buchanan, “We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!” Nor do we have the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
But even that will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not.
So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
Success – that’s what we want. The ultimate irony is that a withdrawal – or accepting defeat, as I’m sure neo-cons will say – is our best chance for success. Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war. We must not leave chaos behind. We must stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from London -- :p -- uh, Afghanistan.
Surging… again is nothing short of murderous. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.
Subject: Happy B’Day!
In Post #1 of this blog, I offered responses and additions to the column, “Is defeat now an option?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ .
Pat said, “ We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
Yes, I said, we have 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.
A year later, and how do things look now?
I am more convinced than ever that the Iraq War 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. In my Post #88, I quoted Pat Buchanan, “We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!” Nor do we have the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
But even that will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not.
So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
Success – that’s what we want. The ultimate irony is that a withdrawal – or accepting defeat, as I’m sure neo-cons will say – is our best chance for success. Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war. We must not leave chaos behind. We must stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from London -- :p -- uh, Afghanistan.
Surging… again is nothing short of murderous. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Post #90
Subject: ... will we never learn?
… from “Hamas in Gaza: Trouble All Around,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, June 22, 2007:
“WASHINGTON -- Gaza is now run not by a conventional political party, but by a movement that is revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist. Worse, Hamas is a client of Iran. Gaza now constitutes the farthest reach of the archipelago of Iranian proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi Army (among others) in Iraq, and the Alawite regime of Syria.”
I admit, I’m not obsessed with Israel, but, really, a “revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist” group – what does that have to do with us? “Hamas is a client of Iran.” So? Um, wasn’t East Germany a client of the Soviet Union? But Iran is arming the insurgents in Iraq, killing our troops – I hear neo-cons say. Just like we armed the Afghan rebels who killed Soviet occupiers?
Maybe we should invade Iran. But, if we invade because they are arming rebels, let’s be consistent – think about how such a change in policy may effect us down the road. Consider the consequences.
But back to Hamas….
“The policy implications are obvious. There is nothing to do with the self-proclaimed radical Islamist entity that is Gaza but to isolate it. No recognition, no aid (except humanitarian necessities through the U.N.), no diplomatic commerce. “
And this will help how? Didn’t “isolation” get us an atomic bomb in North Korea? What is that quote about insanity being trying the same approach over and over and expecting a different result?
Speaking of insanity,… :p
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, INDIANA: In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Get our soldiers out of there. That’ll make them safer. Get our presence out of there. That’ll make us safer as a nation. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUGAR: In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Our security interests call for a downsizing and redeployment of United States military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. In 2003, we witnessed the costs that come with insufficient planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. It is absolutely essential that we not repeat the same mistake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
In other words, it’s time for Plan B… from a crowd who obviously had no Plan A! :p
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I said earlier that it’s going to be a long, hot summer. It’s going to be tough. But on the other hand, it is absolutely vital, and this is one of the things Dick Lugar agrees on; in succeeding in Iraq. The question is, how best to do it. We think it’s important to give this plan a chance to succeed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.
Subject: ... will we never learn?
… from “Hamas in Gaza: Trouble All Around,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, June 22, 2007:
“WASHINGTON -- Gaza is now run not by a conventional political party, but by a movement that is revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist. Worse, Hamas is a client of Iran. Gaza now constitutes the farthest reach of the archipelago of Iranian proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi Army (among others) in Iraq, and the Alawite regime of Syria.”
I admit, I’m not obsessed with Israel, but, really, a “revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist” group – what does that have to do with us? “Hamas is a client of Iran.” So? Um, wasn’t East Germany a client of the Soviet Union? But Iran is arming the insurgents in Iraq, killing our troops – I hear neo-cons say. Just like we armed the Afghan rebels who killed Soviet occupiers?
Maybe we should invade Iran. But, if we invade because they are arming rebels, let’s be consistent – think about how such a change in policy may effect us down the road. Consider the consequences.
But back to Hamas….
“The policy implications are obvious. There is nothing to do with the self-proclaimed radical Islamist entity that is Gaza but to isolate it. No recognition, no aid (except humanitarian necessities through the U.N.), no diplomatic commerce. “
And this will help how? Didn’t “isolation” get us an atomic bomb in North Korea? What is that quote about insanity being trying the same approach over and over and expecting a different result?
Speaking of insanity,… :p
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, INDIANA: In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Get our soldiers out of there. That’ll make them safer. Get our presence out of there. That’ll make us safer as a nation. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUGAR: In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Our security interests call for a downsizing and redeployment of United States military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. In 2003, we witnessed the costs that come with insufficient planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. It is absolutely essential that we not repeat the same mistake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
In other words, it’s time for Plan B… from a crowd who obviously had no Plan A! :p
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I said earlier that it’s going to be a long, hot summer. It’s going to be tough. But on the other hand, it is absolutely vital, and this is one of the things Dick Lugar agrees on; in succeeding in Iraq. The question is, how best to do it. We think it’s important to give this plan a chance to succeed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Post #89
Subject: SPAM? Attention, neo-cons:
Are ya tired of branding the world?
Ready for retirement??
The place to be…
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
See democracy bloom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEOGE W. BUSH: I just returned from Baghdad, and I was inspired to be able to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Rockets red glare provided by sectarian violence.
Entertainment at
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
Hunting with ‘Dead Eye’ Dick Cheney
Comedy with the ‘known unknown’ comic, Don Rumsfeld
Baseball, our recreational league organized by George W. Bush
We’ll even help with financing.
Our own financial guru, Paul Wolfowitz, will help you afford your ticket to paradise.
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
where every neo-con should go
(pizza delivery NOT available)
Subject: SPAM? Attention, neo-cons:
Are ya tired of branding the world?
Ready for retirement??
The place to be…
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
See democracy bloom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEOGE W. BUSH: I just returned from Baghdad, and I was inspired to be able to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Rockets red glare provided by sectarian violence.
Entertainment at
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
Hunting with ‘Dead Eye’ Dick Cheney
Comedy with the ‘known unknown’ comic, Don Rumsfeld
Baseball, our recreational league organized by George W. Bush
We’ll even help with financing.
Our own financial guru, Paul Wolfowitz, will help you afford your ticket to paradise.
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
where every neo-con should go
(pizza delivery NOT available)
Friday, June 08, 2007
Post #88
Subject: Somebody else has it exactly right….
Don’t ya just hate that!?! :p
Joe Scarborugh, http://joe.msnbc.com , has my respect. He is one of the few who ran for Congress and campaigned for term limits and promised not to seek re-election beyond what he felt was an appropriate term, and he didn’t. Joe followed his beliefs instead of clinging to power.
Unfortunately, Joe was wrong about the Iraq War. He thought it was in our national interests to remove the threat of WMD and Saddam. But now, Joe sees it is in our national interest to leave.
…from Joe’s MSNBC show, 'Scarborough Country,' May 29. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: America suffers through its deadliest month in Iraq in more than two years over the past 29 days. U.S. armed services are stretched to a breaking point, and the world is more dangerous today than at any time since the early morning hours of 11, 2001. And yet no one in Washington seems to know how to win this war, strengthen our military or make Americans safe. Why? Because once again, politics is trumping common sense.
Now, on the Republican side, congressional leaders have blindly followed the president, who continues to believe that the war on terror begins and ends in Iraq. He is wrong. It does not. But Iraq is one front in the war on terror. And despite what Bush haters say, we are in a war against Islamic extremists who want to destroy America and kill you and your family.
But that war has many fronts. We face threats from Iran, who‘s been at the epicenter of world terrorism since ‘79, from Afghanistan, where the Taliban is gaining strength and being given safe haven, from Pakistan, where Islamic extremists sympathetic to bin Laden are more likely than not to gain control of nuclear weapons within the next five years. And yet Mr. Bush and the Republican Party can only focus on Iraq, Iraq and Iraq.
You know, that strategy is the foolhardy equivalent of Dwight Eisenhower deciding that he was going to move all of our troops into North Africa in 1942 and either win or lose World War II on that front, regardless of the realities across Europe and the rest of the world.
Now, Republicans need to wake up and realize we are fighting a war against terrorism, not just a war against terrorists in Iraq. And we can‘t win that battle right now so long as Sunnis are blowing up Shiites, Shiites are blowing up Sunnis and both are blowing up each other. It is time to redeploy or troops to other fronts where U.S. power and might can make a difference. And right now, that place is not Iraq and Iraq alone.
Pat, we talked this morning about how the situation in Iraq keeps getting worse, and yet it seems like politicians in Washington, D.C., have their feet planted in cement and can‘t face the realities on ground, across the region and across the world. What are we going to do?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think what the politicians in Washington fear, Joe, is if they follow their convictions and vote to defund the war, the disaster in Iraq will become a calamity. But as we talked this morning, there‘s a lot of time bombs ticking. Olmert in Israel is going be, I believe, pitched out. His likely successor, Mr. Netanyahu, will do his best to engage Iran and to engage the United States in a war with Iran. Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan is really on the ropes politically. If he goes down, you‘ve got an Islamic republic with nuclear weapons. Karzai—he is the mayor of Kabul. The Taliban is making a comeback. In what Brzezinski calls the “arc of crisis,” Joe, nothing really seems to be going well.
SCARBOROUGH: And Pat, you know, you talked about some very interesting things. You talked about what was going on in Israel. You talked about a coming war with Iran, between Israel and Iran. It probably is going to happen. The United States is going to be dragged into that. You talked about Pakistan, what‘s happening there. You talked about Afghanistan.
BUCHANAN: Pakistan‘s the most dangerous county on earth.
SCARBOROUGH: Pat, you and I have been saying that for a long time. It is without a doubt the most dangerous country on earth. Even if Musharraf‘s not assassinated, he may be ridden out of town on a rail.
I want you to take a look, though—just today—this is the violence in Iraq just today, where we‘ve basically put all of our chips on the table. We moved into this one place in Iraq, while Pakistan, while Iran, while all the—I mean, it‘s amazing that all the troops, all of our investment—today, five Britons kidnapped from a government office. A minibus explosion killed 23, wounded 68. Pick-up truck explosion killed 17, wounded 55.
BUCHANAN: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Forty were abducted at a fake checkpoint in Samarra. Of course, this past month, the deadliest month since November of 2004. Pat, we could put another 100,000 troops in Iraq, and Sunnis would keep blowing up Shia, Shia would keep blowing up Sunnis. Pat, why are we doing this?
BUCHANAN: Look, let me give you some numbers. We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We got commitments to fight all over the world on behalf of 50 or 60 countries. The United States is playing empire with a wonderful little army, but it is small, Joe. You can‘t do it. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!
SCARBOROUGH: That‘s another example of our politicians betraying the American people, not being grown-ups, Don Rumsfeld saying that he was going win wars on the cheap, that we‘re going to be able to cut the military...
BUCHANAN: They genuinely fear—I fear that this thing‘s going come down and it is going to be awful. And if I were up there, even though I would have voted against going to war, I would have a very tough time voting with Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan, who had the courage to go up there and vote with the Democrats to defund it because I fear what is going happen afterwards, Joe. I think when president says, You pull out, and this thing is coming down and it‘s going to spread all down the peninsula, he may be right.
[So, there ya have it – it is not in our interests to stay. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. But the fear of ending George W. Bush’s Iraq War and the bad things that will happen has paralyzed our “leaders,” for-lack-of-a-better-word! :p]
[Yes, things will be bad – better to face the bad stuff now than another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years down the road when things will be worse and we will be weaker.]
Subject: Somebody else has it exactly right….
Don’t ya just hate that!?! :p
Joe Scarborugh, http://joe.msnbc.com , has my respect. He is one of the few who ran for Congress and campaigned for term limits and promised not to seek re-election beyond what he felt was an appropriate term, and he didn’t. Joe followed his beliefs instead of clinging to power.
Unfortunately, Joe was wrong about the Iraq War. He thought it was in our national interests to remove the threat of WMD and Saddam. But now, Joe sees it is in our national interest to leave.
…from Joe’s MSNBC show, 'Scarborough Country,' May 29. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: America suffers through its deadliest month in Iraq in more than two years over the past 29 days. U.S. armed services are stretched to a breaking point, and the world is more dangerous today than at any time since the early morning hours of 11, 2001. And yet no one in Washington seems to know how to win this war, strengthen our military or make Americans safe. Why? Because once again, politics is trumping common sense.
Now, on the Republican side, congressional leaders have blindly followed the president, who continues to believe that the war on terror begins and ends in Iraq. He is wrong. It does not. But Iraq is one front in the war on terror. And despite what Bush haters say, we are in a war against Islamic extremists who want to destroy America and kill you and your family.
But that war has many fronts. We face threats from Iran, who‘s been at the epicenter of world terrorism since ‘79, from Afghanistan, where the Taliban is gaining strength and being given safe haven, from Pakistan, where Islamic extremists sympathetic to bin Laden are more likely than not to gain control of nuclear weapons within the next five years. And yet Mr. Bush and the Republican Party can only focus on Iraq, Iraq and Iraq.
You know, that strategy is the foolhardy equivalent of Dwight Eisenhower deciding that he was going to move all of our troops into North Africa in 1942 and either win or lose World War II on that front, regardless of the realities across Europe and the rest of the world.
Now, Republicans need to wake up and realize we are fighting a war against terrorism, not just a war against terrorists in Iraq. And we can‘t win that battle right now so long as Sunnis are blowing up Shiites, Shiites are blowing up Sunnis and both are blowing up each other. It is time to redeploy or troops to other fronts where U.S. power and might can make a difference. And right now, that place is not Iraq and Iraq alone.
Pat, we talked this morning about how the situation in Iraq keeps getting worse, and yet it seems like politicians in Washington, D.C., have their feet planted in cement and can‘t face the realities on ground, across the region and across the world. What are we going to do?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think what the politicians in Washington fear, Joe, is if they follow their convictions and vote to defund the war, the disaster in Iraq will become a calamity. But as we talked this morning, there‘s a lot of time bombs ticking. Olmert in Israel is going be, I believe, pitched out. His likely successor, Mr. Netanyahu, will do his best to engage Iran and to engage the United States in a war with Iran. Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan is really on the ropes politically. If he goes down, you‘ve got an Islamic republic with nuclear weapons. Karzai—he is the mayor of Kabul. The Taliban is making a comeback. In what Brzezinski calls the “arc of crisis,” Joe, nothing really seems to be going well.
SCARBOROUGH: And Pat, you know, you talked about some very interesting things. You talked about what was going on in Israel. You talked about a coming war with Iran, between Israel and Iran. It probably is going to happen. The United States is going to be dragged into that. You talked about Pakistan, what‘s happening there. You talked about Afghanistan.
BUCHANAN: Pakistan‘s the most dangerous county on earth.
SCARBOROUGH: Pat, you and I have been saying that for a long time. It is without a doubt the most dangerous country on earth. Even if Musharraf‘s not assassinated, he may be ridden out of town on a rail.
I want you to take a look, though—just today—this is the violence in Iraq just today, where we‘ve basically put all of our chips on the table. We moved into this one place in Iraq, while Pakistan, while Iran, while all the—I mean, it‘s amazing that all the troops, all of our investment—today, five Britons kidnapped from a government office. A minibus explosion killed 23, wounded 68. Pick-up truck explosion killed 17, wounded 55.
BUCHANAN: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Forty were abducted at a fake checkpoint in Samarra. Of course, this past month, the deadliest month since November of 2004. Pat, we could put another 100,000 troops in Iraq, and Sunnis would keep blowing up Shia, Shia would keep blowing up Sunnis. Pat, why are we doing this?
BUCHANAN: Look, let me give you some numbers. We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We got commitments to fight all over the world on behalf of 50 or 60 countries. The United States is playing empire with a wonderful little army, but it is small, Joe. You can‘t do it. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!
SCARBOROUGH: That‘s another example of our politicians betraying the American people, not being grown-ups, Don Rumsfeld saying that he was going win wars on the cheap, that we‘re going to be able to cut the military...
BUCHANAN: They genuinely fear—I fear that this thing‘s going come down and it is going to be awful. And if I were up there, even though I would have voted against going to war, I would have a very tough time voting with Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan, who had the courage to go up there and vote with the Democrats to defund it because I fear what is going happen afterwards, Joe. I think when president says, You pull out, and this thing is coming down and it‘s going to spread all down the peninsula, he may be right.
[So, there ya have it – it is not in our interests to stay. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. But the fear of ending George W. Bush’s Iraq War and the bad things that will happen has paralyzed our “leaders,” for-lack-of-a-better-word! :p]
[Yes, things will be bad – better to face the bad stuff now than another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years down the road when things will be worse and we will be weaker.]
Friday, June 01, 2007
Post #87
Subject: Terror threat level should be red….
What does the Department of Homeland Security do?
A man infected with a particularly tough strain of TB got on an airplane at an American airport and flew. We knew who he was. But he had to turn himself in before the threat was over.
Suppose this had of been an unidentified terrorist? The most non-reassuring comment I heard was from a government official who said that we had no plan to deal with this threat.
Foolishly, I thought the Department of Homeland Security identified terrorist threats and planned on how to deal with them.
Subject: Terror threat level should be red….
What does the Department of Homeland Security do?
A man infected with a particularly tough strain of TB got on an airplane at an American airport and flew. We knew who he was. But he had to turn himself in before the threat was over.
Suppose this had of been an unidentified terrorist? The most non-reassuring comment I heard was from a government official who said that we had no plan to deal with this threat.
Foolishly, I thought the Department of Homeland Security identified terrorist threats and planned on how to deal with them.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Post #86
Subject: Are ya scared yet?
"Here in America, we are living in the eye of a storm," George W. Bush said. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."
In a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this past Wednesday, Bush asserted that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets. He stressed that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists.
Who is this bin Laden fellow, and why haven’t we gotten him? :p
Wait – is Bush talking about the 9/11 bin Laden? The man who has been marginalized, the man who is dying of kidney disease, the man who has been smoked out and gotten on the run – that bin Laden? The bin Laden of Al-Qaeda?
“Al-Qaeda has expanded in organization and capabilities,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before Senate Appropriations Committee on May 8, adding that it “reestablished itself in western Pakistan [and is] training new recruits.”
"Bin Laden is using Iraq to kill and demonize the United States while remaining secure and planning further operations in Pakistan," said Rand Beers, national security adviser to John Kerry's 2004 Democratic presidential campaign.
Then, why are we in Iraq?
Beers contended that the Bush administration was releasing intelligence to buttress the argument that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism while a number of intelligence sources say the most recent attacks or planned attacks against the U.S. and its allies have originated in Pakistan instead.
Bush said that while the Sept. 11 attacks occurred in 2001, Americans still face a major threat from terrorists. "In the minds of al-Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down payment on violence yet to come…. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America, … Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny,'"
A war of destiny, U.S. troops are in the middle of fights among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Gawd help us all.
"As global terror threats remain very real, President Bush is sinking more money and sending more troops to referee Iraq's civil war, when those precious resources would be better spent in finishing the mission left unaccomplished in Afghanistan," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress think tank.
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina, said, “I think that they [Bushies] thought this would be a quick, you know, easy joy ride through Iraq, get rid of this thug, Saddam Hussein, and be home by Christmas in 2003. And then like kids playing with matches, it blew up in their faces, and ever since, they‘ve been retrofitting rationales for it.”
So, it boils down – are ya safer now than in 2002? Do ya support Bush’s Iraq folly with its ever-changing rationale, or do ya think the next President needs to do a better job identifying our enemy and determining our national interests?
Yes, I’m scared!
Subject: Are ya scared yet?
"Here in America, we are living in the eye of a storm," George W. Bush said. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."
In a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this past Wednesday, Bush asserted that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets. He stressed that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists.
Who is this bin Laden fellow, and why haven’t we gotten him? :p
Wait – is Bush talking about the 9/11 bin Laden? The man who has been marginalized, the man who is dying of kidney disease, the man who has been smoked out and gotten on the run – that bin Laden? The bin Laden of Al-Qaeda?
“Al-Qaeda has expanded in organization and capabilities,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before Senate Appropriations Committee on May 8, adding that it “reestablished itself in western Pakistan [and is] training new recruits.”
"Bin Laden is using Iraq to kill and demonize the United States while remaining secure and planning further operations in Pakistan," said Rand Beers, national security adviser to John Kerry's 2004 Democratic presidential campaign.
Then, why are we in Iraq?
Beers contended that the Bush administration was releasing intelligence to buttress the argument that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism while a number of intelligence sources say the most recent attacks or planned attacks against the U.S. and its allies have originated in Pakistan instead.
Bush said that while the Sept. 11 attacks occurred in 2001, Americans still face a major threat from terrorists. "In the minds of al-Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down payment on violence yet to come…. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America, … Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny,'"
A war of destiny, U.S. troops are in the middle of fights among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Gawd help us all.
"As global terror threats remain very real, President Bush is sinking more money and sending more troops to referee Iraq's civil war, when those precious resources would be better spent in finishing the mission left unaccomplished in Afghanistan," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress think tank.
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina, said, “I think that they [Bushies] thought this would be a quick, you know, easy joy ride through Iraq, get rid of this thug, Saddam Hussein, and be home by Christmas in 2003. And then like kids playing with matches, it blew up in their faces, and ever since, they‘ve been retrofitting rationales for it.”
So, it boils down – are ya safer now than in 2002? Do ya support Bush’s Iraq folly with its ever-changing rationale, or do ya think the next President needs to do a better job identifying our enemy and determining our national interests?
Yes, I’m scared!
Friday, May 18, 2007
Post #85
Subject: VoteVets.org, Pt. II
… from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” May 10, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
OLBERMANN: From Eric Shinseki, the four-star general who was criticized by, of all people, Paul Wolfowitz when he said at the start that the war would require several hundred thousand troops, do these ads that you and General Eaton and General Clark have done for VoteVets.org, there seemingly has never been this much public friction between the military and the civilian leaders. What moved you to make these ads and moved you to make them now?
BATISTE: Keith, it really is quite extraordinary. I was moved to make this ad working with VoteVets because I care about our country, and I care about our soldiers and Marines and their families.
I‘m a patriot, as are the rest of us in VoteVets. VoteVets is not an antiwar organization. [And neither is this blog. I think war can be justified and is appropriate under some circumstances. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is undeclared wars which give us trouble. There’s a lesson there.]
We‘re focused on what‘s best for this country. We‘re focused on being successful and winning the effort against global terrorism. And we‘re damn sure focused on doing what‘s right for our great military. [America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]
OLBERMANN: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?
BATISTE: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who‘s relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq. [Poor execution of a bad offense. “The best defense is a good offense” – a bad offense leaves us bare.]
Sadly, we‘re missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There‘s no unity of effort between the agencies. [George W. Bush is focused on getting the military to do all the heavy lifting – the military should not be asked to do it all. Perhaps Bush has an inflated view of the military from his service in the Texas Air National Guard! :p]
It—the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we‘re wasting our time. [In other words, soldiers are dying in vain. Yes, Bush’s dream – “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” -- cannot be accomplished by the military alone. But a positive outcome is still possible – Bush will not or cannot provide the leadership necessary. And soldiers are dying in vain.]
If we don‘t get this right, we‘re going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that‘s the last thing we can do.
OLBERMANN: General, are you encouraged, are you disinterested in, are you interested in what happened Tuesday at the White House between these 11 moderate Republicans and the president, and this discussion of the political implications of this? Do you see this as some sort of watershed moment?
BATISTE: Keith, I think so. Four of the 11 congressman were members that the VoteVet ad is targeting. I think that speaks volumes.
Subject: VoteVets.org, Pt. II
… from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” May 10, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
OLBERMANN: From Eric Shinseki, the four-star general who was criticized by, of all people, Paul Wolfowitz when he said at the start that the war would require several hundred thousand troops, do these ads that you and General Eaton and General Clark have done for VoteVets.org, there seemingly has never been this much public friction between the military and the civilian leaders. What moved you to make these ads and moved you to make them now?
BATISTE: Keith, it really is quite extraordinary. I was moved to make this ad working with VoteVets because I care about our country, and I care about our soldiers and Marines and their families.
I‘m a patriot, as are the rest of us in VoteVets. VoteVets is not an antiwar organization. [And neither is this blog. I think war can be justified and is appropriate under some circumstances. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is undeclared wars which give us trouble. There’s a lesson there.]
We‘re focused on what‘s best for this country. We‘re focused on being successful and winning the effort against global terrorism. And we‘re damn sure focused on doing what‘s right for our great military. [America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]
OLBERMANN: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?
BATISTE: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who‘s relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq. [Poor execution of a bad offense. “The best defense is a good offense” – a bad offense leaves us bare.]
Sadly, we‘re missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There‘s no unity of effort between the agencies. [George W. Bush is focused on getting the military to do all the heavy lifting – the military should not be asked to do it all. Perhaps Bush has an inflated view of the military from his service in the Texas Air National Guard! :p]
It—the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we‘re wasting our time. [In other words, soldiers are dying in vain. Yes, Bush’s dream – “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” -- cannot be accomplished by the military alone. But a positive outcome is still possible – Bush will not or cannot provide the leadership necessary. And soldiers are dying in vain.]
If we don‘t get this right, we‘re going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that‘s the last thing we can do.
OLBERMANN: General, are you encouraged, are you disinterested in, are you interested in what happened Tuesday at the White House between these 11 moderate Republicans and the president, and this discussion of the political implications of this? Do you see this as some sort of watershed moment?
BATISTE: Keith, I think so. Four of the 11 congressman were members that the VoteVet ad is targeting. I think that speaks volumes.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Post #84
Subject: VoteVets.org
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18592759/site/newsweek/
May 10, 2007 - If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan, ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape—and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians—that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing—or something very worrying.
No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste—only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars—effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says. Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.
The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected."
The issue being raised by Batiste and other vocal ex-generals—he's joined in the TV ads by another recently retired two-star general, Paul Eaton—is whether they should have spoken out more aggressively at the time they were serving about Rumsfeld's refusal to send more troops and resources to Iraq. Rumsfeld's minimalist approach to occupation was a key error, it is now widely acknowledged, that opened the way to the bloody chaos in Iraq today. Now, the civilians at the Pentagon are criticizing the ex-generals for their silence at the time—saying they should have been more activist during their time in uniform if they had wanted their views known. Raymond Dubois, a Vietnam vet who was Rumsfeld's principal staff assistant from October 2002 to May 2005 and later undersecretary of Defense, says he knew Batiste well, and recommended him for his promotion. When Dubois first heard about Batiste's postretirement objections, he says, "I was nonplussed. I thought to myself, 'This isn't same guy who talked to me in my office' about Iraq."
Dubois, who says he still admires Batiste, adds: "I was with [former deputy Defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz when we went to Iraq to visit with John and his First Infantry Division in Tikrit. I sat next to Batiste on the one side and Paul sat on other side. I can remember the opportunities—that's in the plural—that both Paul and I gave to John [to speak out]. I encouraged John to have private meetings with Paul. He had worked with him for two solid years [as Wolfowitz's assistant]. I find it a little incredible—and I used that word advisedly—that he would not have mentioned something to Paul." In one meeting, Dubois recalls, Rumsfeld asked Batiste during a visit to Tikrit on Christmas Eve of 2004, with media present, whether he had received the resources he had asked for. Batiste declined to say for the cameras. "He talks now about being put on the spot by Rumsfeld in front of the press," says Dubois. "C'mon, you're a general officer, you're a big boy."
Batiste says that Dubois doesn't know the whole story. "I was extremely vocal within my chain of command," he says. Batiste says he communicated his specific concerns about lack of troops to his former superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of multinational forces in Iraq, and his successor, Gen. George Casey. "And yes, I did have a meetings in Iraq with Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld. Regarding the disputed meeting during Rumsfeld's trip, he says, "In our culture within the military, you don't air the dirty laundry, certainly not with the international and national press." But Batiste adds: "I do remember speaking to both those guys about the frustrations of picking up a brigade element of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in contact with the enemy and moving to another location in Iraq 200 to 300 miles away to deal with an emergency. When you do that you create an immediate vacuum. … It's the whack-a-mole game. They're doing the same thing now."
Batiste adds that the U.S. Army is now "at a breaking point." America's armed forces won't leave Iraq right away—even if the president agrees to withdraw. "It will take between eight and 10 months to uncoil all that stuff and move it out in good order. We have an obligation to leave that country in best shape we can. But what's more important for us right now is to get our great military home. We need to rearm it and refit it and get ready for next phase. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book."
The question lingers: should the debate between military commanders and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have been more robust in the crucial early stages of the war? Even Dubois admits that the Army can't afford to lose top performers like Batiste. As a result, we may be witnessing a new set of rules being drawn up for civilian-military relations—rules that could forever change this crucial partnership in American political life. Today's sense of frustration among the military brass has been redoubled by the knowledge that this is the second time in the last two generations that things have broken down. In Vietnam too, generals stayed silent when they should have voiced their reservations about how the civilians were handling and politicizing a war. Col. H.R. McMaster, a highly regarded Army officer whose tactics in Tal Afar, Iraq, have been praised by Bush, made this argument in his 1998 (and recently reissued) book, "Dereliction of Duty." The point was also raised eloquently by former secretary of State Colin Powell in his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey." Powell wrote: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons…" As we now know, almost all of these military officers did quietly acquiesce, along with Powell.
The debate rages on today. Even Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has been recently accused of concealing his true assessment of the Iraq situation by backing Bush's surge plan. (Interviewed last fall by Iraq Study Group members at Fort Leavenworth, where he was finalizing the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus was quite plain in backing an accelerated effort to train Iraqis, not add more American troops, according to former Rep. Leon Panetta, a member of the group.)
Batiste says he remains a "diehard Republican" and has no intention of wading directly into the presidential campaign à la McClellan and MacArthur. He took part in the VoteVets.org campaign, he says, because it's a "nonpartisan group." (VoteVets.org describes itself as a political action committee whose goal "is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." The cofounder, Jon Soltz, said he "came up with the concept" for the ad himself. He and Wesley Clark, the former general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, recruited Batiste and Eaton.)
Still, Batiste and the other rebellious ex-generals are testing the limits of military decorum, shifting lines that have been in place for two centuries. While they disagree about who said what and when, both Batiste and Dubois concur on one central point: the importance of the military speaking candidly in real time to the Pentagon. "The flip side of civilian control is [for the military] to speak truth to it—not impertinently, not with disdain, but you have an obligation," Dubois says. Will the generals working with the new secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, handle things differently? The course of the Iraq conflict—and the way America wages future wars—may depend on it.
Subject: VoteVets.org
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18592759/site/newsweek/
May 10, 2007 - If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan, ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape—and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians—that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing—or something very worrying.
No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste—only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars—effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says. Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.
The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected."
The issue being raised by Batiste and other vocal ex-generals—he's joined in the TV ads by another recently retired two-star general, Paul Eaton—is whether they should have spoken out more aggressively at the time they were serving about Rumsfeld's refusal to send more troops and resources to Iraq. Rumsfeld's minimalist approach to occupation was a key error, it is now widely acknowledged, that opened the way to the bloody chaos in Iraq today. Now, the civilians at the Pentagon are criticizing the ex-generals for their silence at the time—saying they should have been more activist during their time in uniform if they had wanted their views known. Raymond Dubois, a Vietnam vet who was Rumsfeld's principal staff assistant from October 2002 to May 2005 and later undersecretary of Defense, says he knew Batiste well, and recommended him for his promotion. When Dubois first heard about Batiste's postretirement objections, he says, "I was nonplussed. I thought to myself, 'This isn't same guy who talked to me in my office' about Iraq."
Dubois, who says he still admires Batiste, adds: "I was with [former deputy Defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz when we went to Iraq to visit with John and his First Infantry Division in Tikrit. I sat next to Batiste on the one side and Paul sat on other side. I can remember the opportunities—that's in the plural—that both Paul and I gave to John [to speak out]. I encouraged John to have private meetings with Paul. He had worked with him for two solid years [as Wolfowitz's assistant]. I find it a little incredible—and I used that word advisedly—that he would not have mentioned something to Paul." In one meeting, Dubois recalls, Rumsfeld asked Batiste during a visit to Tikrit on Christmas Eve of 2004, with media present, whether he had received the resources he had asked for. Batiste declined to say for the cameras. "He talks now about being put on the spot by Rumsfeld in front of the press," says Dubois. "C'mon, you're a general officer, you're a big boy."
Batiste says that Dubois doesn't know the whole story. "I was extremely vocal within my chain of command," he says. Batiste says he communicated his specific concerns about lack of troops to his former superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of multinational forces in Iraq, and his successor, Gen. George Casey. "And yes, I did have a meetings in Iraq with Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld. Regarding the disputed meeting during Rumsfeld's trip, he says, "In our culture within the military, you don't air the dirty laundry, certainly not with the international and national press." But Batiste adds: "I do remember speaking to both those guys about the frustrations of picking up a brigade element of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in contact with the enemy and moving to another location in Iraq 200 to 300 miles away to deal with an emergency. When you do that you create an immediate vacuum. … It's the whack-a-mole game. They're doing the same thing now."
Batiste adds that the U.S. Army is now "at a breaking point." America's armed forces won't leave Iraq right away—even if the president agrees to withdraw. "It will take between eight and 10 months to uncoil all that stuff and move it out in good order. We have an obligation to leave that country in best shape we can. But what's more important for us right now is to get our great military home. We need to rearm it and refit it and get ready for next phase. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book."
The question lingers: should the debate between military commanders and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have been more robust in the crucial early stages of the war? Even Dubois admits that the Army can't afford to lose top performers like Batiste. As a result, we may be witnessing a new set of rules being drawn up for civilian-military relations—rules that could forever change this crucial partnership in American political life. Today's sense of frustration among the military brass has been redoubled by the knowledge that this is the second time in the last two generations that things have broken down. In Vietnam too, generals stayed silent when they should have voiced their reservations about how the civilians were handling and politicizing a war. Col. H.R. McMaster, a highly regarded Army officer whose tactics in Tal Afar, Iraq, have been praised by Bush, made this argument in his 1998 (and recently reissued) book, "Dereliction of Duty." The point was also raised eloquently by former secretary of State Colin Powell in his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey." Powell wrote: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons…" As we now know, almost all of these military officers did quietly acquiesce, along with Powell.
The debate rages on today. Even Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has been recently accused of concealing his true assessment of the Iraq situation by backing Bush's surge plan. (Interviewed last fall by Iraq Study Group members at Fort Leavenworth, where he was finalizing the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus was quite plain in backing an accelerated effort to train Iraqis, not add more American troops, according to former Rep. Leon Panetta, a member of the group.)
Batiste says he remains a "diehard Republican" and has no intention of wading directly into the presidential campaign à la McClellan and MacArthur. He took part in the VoteVets.org campaign, he says, because it's a "nonpartisan group." (VoteVets.org describes itself as a political action committee whose goal "is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." The cofounder, Jon Soltz, said he "came up with the concept" for the ad himself. He and Wesley Clark, the former general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, recruited Batiste and Eaton.)
Still, Batiste and the other rebellious ex-generals are testing the limits of military decorum, shifting lines that have been in place for two centuries. While they disagree about who said what and when, both Batiste and Dubois concur on one central point: the importance of the military speaking candidly in real time to the Pentagon. "The flip side of civilian control is [for the military] to speak truth to it—not impertinently, not with disdain, but you have an obligation," Dubois says. Will the generals working with the new secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, handle things differently? The course of the Iraq conflict—and the way America wages future wars—may depend on it.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Post #83
Subject: A secret unauthorized leak of the advance copy of Gen. Petraues‘ September report
No, not really. I do not have friends in high places or low places. But I do know what Gen. David Petraues will say: “The surge is working. We have made progress. We have not made enough progress to leave, but we have made enough progress to justify staying.”
Bill Bennett would not bet against my tea leave reading! :p
Of course, Petraues will hit all the high spots in defending George W. Bush’s folly – Bush said, “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” But Petraues will duck the crucial question: Of Bush’s stated goals, which one(s) is/are an appropriate use of our military?
Bush just wants to leave office with troops in Iraq. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “The President said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, I think it‘s important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long [the troops] will be involved, and when they would be withdrawn. Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activity.” And he’s relying on Petraues to give him cover.
Bush wants to prolong the war – he can’t admit that he made a mistake. And our military is paying the price. He took us to war unnecessarily – Iraq did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq – Bush did not plan to fail; he failed to plan. He took us to war without enough troops and without the right equipment for the troops we did send or the proper care for those who came home wounded.
Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home. Can ya say Greensburg, Kansas?
Bush has declared war against his own – our – Army. And he claims that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy. Doesn’t Bush realize that emboldening the enemy is the one mission his failed policy has accomplished?
Aaahhh – but we are fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers – a plot the FBI says was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD. A New Jersey store clerk noticed the suspicious video. Um, what does Bush’s criminal crime-fighting powers have to do with this? More importantly, why didn’t the surge in Baghdad stop this?
Petraues knows….
Subject: A secret unauthorized leak of the advance copy of Gen. Petraues‘ September report
No, not really. I do not have friends in high places or low places. But I do know what Gen. David Petraues will say: “The surge is working. We have made progress. We have not made enough progress to leave, but we have made enough progress to justify staying.”
Bill Bennett would not bet against my tea leave reading! :p
Of course, Petraues will hit all the high spots in defending George W. Bush’s folly – Bush said, “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” But Petraues will duck the crucial question: Of Bush’s stated goals, which one(s) is/are an appropriate use of our military?
Bush just wants to leave office with troops in Iraq. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “The President said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, I think it‘s important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long [the troops] will be involved, and when they would be withdrawn. Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activity.” And he’s relying on Petraues to give him cover.
Bush wants to prolong the war – he can’t admit that he made a mistake. And our military is paying the price. He took us to war unnecessarily – Iraq did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq – Bush did not plan to fail; he failed to plan. He took us to war without enough troops and without the right equipment for the troops we did send or the proper care for those who came home wounded.
Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home. Can ya say Greensburg, Kansas?
Bush has declared war against his own – our – Army. And he claims that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy. Doesn’t Bush realize that emboldening the enemy is the one mission his failed policy has accomplished?
Aaahhh – but we are fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers – a plot the FBI says was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD. A New Jersey store clerk noticed the suspicious video. Um, what does Bush’s criminal crime-fighting powers have to do with this? More importantly, why didn’t the surge in Baghdad stop this?
Petraues knows….
Friday, May 04, 2007
Post #82
Subject: Jihad Joe vs. Afghan Ali
"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"
John Edwards, former Senator and current Democratic Presidential hopeful, wants to know. He submitted that question for the GOP Presidential debate last night -- about a third of the debate questions were from submissions to Politico.com. Take away the verbosity [!?!] and you have the whole Iraq war boiled down: “… a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or… we need a broader approach?”
Who are we fighting? On May 1 – a day that will live in infamy, George W. Bush said “It‘s true that not everyone taking instant life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home, but many do.”
So, does Jihad Joe who wants to blow up the Baghdad Babes, uh, Adult Entertainment Club deserve the same military approach as Afghan Ali who wants to fly a plane into the White House?
Bush also said, “Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.”
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. 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.”
Bush continued, “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.”
Who? Jihad Joe or Afghan Ali? Does it make sense to spend blood and treasure fighting Joe at the expense of Ali? All I heard at the debate was that we needed to swing bigger – nobody said ”smarter.” * sigh *
Subject: Jihad Joe vs. Afghan Ali
"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"
John Edwards, former Senator and current Democratic Presidential hopeful, wants to know. He submitted that question for the GOP Presidential debate last night -- about a third of the debate questions were from submissions to Politico.com. Take away the verbosity [!?!] and you have the whole Iraq war boiled down: “… a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or… we need a broader approach?”
Who are we fighting? On May 1 – a day that will live in infamy, George W. Bush said “It‘s true that not everyone taking instant life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home, but many do.”
So, does Jihad Joe who wants to blow up the Baghdad Babes, uh, Adult Entertainment Club deserve the same military approach as Afghan Ali who wants to fly a plane into the White House?
Bush also said, “Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.”
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. 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.”
Bush continued, “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.”
Who? Jihad Joe or Afghan Ali? Does it make sense to spend blood and treasure fighting Joe at the expense of Ali? All I heard at the debate was that we needed to swing bigger – nobody said ”smarter.” * sigh *
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Post #81
Subject: Iraqis are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
… by George F. Will, Sunday, April 22, 2007. georgewill@washpost.com
* * *
Republican Presidential candidate, Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin's Governor and four years (2001-05) as Secretary of Health and Human Services, says, regarding Iraq, he would challenge that country's government to relegitimize the U.S. presence by voting to ask U.S. forces to remain. If the government does not, the United States would leave. If it does, it should then encourage voluntary ethnic rearrangements by establishing federalism -- strong governments in all 18 provinces -- where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can cluster under governments of their kind. Then it should divide oil revenue, one-third to the national government, one-third to the provincial governments and one-third to Iraqi individuals, much as Alaska does with its oil trust fund.
* * *
So, in other words, our presence in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis – not us. We leave or impose the Biden plan. There’ll be no debate about our interests – the Iraqis will determine that.
Of course, that is better than letting Martians be in charge of our foreign policy – Post #74. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer’s main qualification in a “neutral observer” is a simple and unquestioning willingness to swallow “neo-con” garbage. At least, the Iraqis are not neutral.
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
We need to think ahead. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. That is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. The next President will have to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military.
Subject: Iraqis are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
… by George F. Will, Sunday, April 22, 2007. georgewill@washpost.com
* * *
Republican Presidential candidate, Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin's Governor and four years (2001-05) as Secretary of Health and Human Services, says, regarding Iraq, he would challenge that country's government to relegitimize the U.S. presence by voting to ask U.S. forces to remain. If the government does not, the United States would leave. If it does, it should then encourage voluntary ethnic rearrangements by establishing federalism -- strong governments in all 18 provinces -- where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can cluster under governments of their kind. Then it should divide oil revenue, one-third to the national government, one-third to the provincial governments and one-third to Iraqi individuals, much as Alaska does with its oil trust fund.
* * *
So, in other words, our presence in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis – not us. We leave or impose the Biden plan. There’ll be no debate about our interests – the Iraqis will determine that.
Of course, that is better than letting Martians be in charge of our foreign policy – Post #74. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer’s main qualification in a “neutral observer” is a simple and unquestioning willingness to swallow “neo-con” garbage. At least, the Iraqis are not neutral.
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
We need to think ahead. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. That is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. The next President will have to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Post #80
Subject: Who’ll stop the rain!?!
Creedence Clearwater Revival lyrics
Long as I remember the rain been comin down.
Clouds of mystry pourin confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages, tryin to find the sun;
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain?
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats. A nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible – “unwinnable,” and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there. "They don't see the surge working," says pollster Peter D. Hart. Instead, they are saying "we need to get out."
Yes, we do. We need to stop the bleeding for what is “unwinnable.” This month, we learned that recent graduates of West Point are choosing to leave active duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades. George W. Bush's policies are literally driving out some of our best young officers. For every day we are in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited, how many of our best soldiers give up the military, how many Osamas do we inspire – all for what is “unwinnable?”
Indeed, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.
Bush claimed that by sending him a bill he would somehow be forced to veto, the military would have to extend the tours of troops already in Iraq. Extending those tours, Bush said, "is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country." But yet the very next day, the administration announced it was extending the tours of every U.S. ground troop in Iraq by three months.
That kind of double-speak is so typical of what comes out of Bush, and we’re supposed to have confidence in that! Enough is enough.
Heard the singers playin, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together, tryin to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin, fallin on my ears.
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the rain?
Subject: Who’ll stop the rain!?!
Creedence Clearwater Revival lyrics
Long as I remember the rain been comin down.
Clouds of mystry pourin confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages, tryin to find the sun;
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain?
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats. A nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible – “unwinnable,” and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there. "They don't see the surge working," says pollster Peter D. Hart. Instead, they are saying "we need to get out."
Yes, we do. We need to stop the bleeding for what is “unwinnable.” This month, we learned that recent graduates of West Point are choosing to leave active duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades. George W. Bush's policies are literally driving out some of our best young officers. For every day we are in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited, how many of our best soldiers give up the military, how many Osamas do we inspire – all for what is “unwinnable?”
Indeed, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.
Bush claimed that by sending him a bill he would somehow be forced to veto, the military would have to extend the tours of troops already in Iraq. Extending those tours, Bush said, "is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country." But yet the very next day, the administration announced it was extending the tours of every U.S. ground troop in Iraq by three months.
That kind of double-speak is so typical of what comes out of Bush, and we’re supposed to have confidence in that! Enough is enough.
Heard the singers playin, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together, tryin to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin, fallin on my ears.
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the rain?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Post #79
Subject: Where did that bright idea come from!?! :p
The Pentagon played fast and loose with the truth in order to “spin” the Iraq War. The death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch became tools for propaganda.
Pat Tillman, a one-time National Football League star, was killed on April 22, 2004, after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, was in a convoy behind his brother when he was killed, but didn’t see it. Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in initially portraying his brother's death as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.
"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Tillman testified before Congress. "Revealing that Pat's death was a (friendly fire) fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," said Tillman. "We have now concluded that our efforts are being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served," he said.
Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, contended that the federal government invented "sensational details and stories" about the death of Tillman and the rescue of Lynch in Iraq. "The government violated its most basic responsibility," said Waxman. "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman added. "That didn’t happen for the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars."
Tom Davis, R-Virginia, questioned how Tillman's death was handled by the military, saying it was a "disservice" to have let "a myth outrun the facts" about his death.
Good Lord. And on it goes…. * sigh *
Subject: Where did that bright idea come from!?! :p
The Pentagon played fast and loose with the truth in order to “spin” the Iraq War. The death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch became tools for propaganda.
Pat Tillman, a one-time National Football League star, was killed on April 22, 2004, after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, was in a convoy behind his brother when he was killed, but didn’t see it. Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in initially portraying his brother's death as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.
"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Tillman testified before Congress. "Revealing that Pat's death was a (friendly fire) fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," said Tillman. "We have now concluded that our efforts are being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served," he said.
Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, contended that the federal government invented "sensational details and stories" about the death of Tillman and the rescue of Lynch in Iraq. "The government violated its most basic responsibility," said Waxman. "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman added. "That didn’t happen for the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars."
Tom Davis, R-Virginia, questioned how Tillman's death was handled by the military, saying it was a "disservice" to have let "a myth outrun the facts" about his death.
Good Lord. And on it goes…. * sigh *
Friday, April 20, 2007
Post #78
Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”
“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007
Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:
* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.
The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.
There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.
The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.
But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.
In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
* * *
The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p
But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?
Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?
I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.
Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”
“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007
Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:
* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.
The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.
There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.
The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.
But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.
In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
* * *
The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p
But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?
Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?
I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Post #76
Subject: A word about Don Imus
Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].
Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.
I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”
It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!
I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.
Subject: A word about Don Imus
Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].
Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.
I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”
It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!
I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)