In response to my Friday column, Doug goes off on an odd tangent (as I’ve noticed a lot of antiwar people do) and suggests I’m asking him to "ignore" all sorts of mean, nasty, ugly things that he sees as having happened on the run-up to war, and since then.
What?!?!? I’m not asking anybody to ignore a damn’ thing. I have even specifically brought up some of the things you mention. I insist that everyone be fully cognizant of all the facts, including all the screwups of Bush and company. How much clearer can I make that? Where we seem to jump to separate planets is when I insist that everyone also recognize the two most salient facts: There are good reasons to be in Iraq (whether the president understands them or not), and even if you disagree with that, there is no alternative now but to persevere in that endeavor.
What is it about the English language that I can have so much trouble communicating those thoughts to people?
No, scratch that. Answer this question instead. It is critically important, and maybe if you approach it thoughtfully, we can at least get on the same subject, even if we’re not on the same page:
Whatever you think of what has happened so far, what do you want to see happen NOW?
As you answer, remember that Bush, no matter what anyone says or does, will be president until January 2009. It would also be helpful if you address in your answer this related question: Whatever course we take, do you think the nation will get through it as divided and angry at itself as it now is?
Postscript: A couple of other things, just to Doug… first, this was George Bush’s war — right up until the point the first soldier’s boot hit Iraqi soil in 2003. After that, as I’ve also made clear, it’s belonged to us. And it WILL belong to us long after Mr. Bush is gone from the scene. (That fact is at the crux of what I’ve been trying to communicate.) Second: I don’t even understand why you would ask me whether I would support Mrs. Clinton in the same situation (it must be one of those questions only a partisan mind could concoct). Of course I would, in exactly the way I "support" Mr. Bush: There’s not much at all that he’s done on other issues that I would defend, but I know that my country needs to be united for us to succeed in Iraq. Actually, I might support her on more issues than I do Mr. Bush — it would be hard for anyone to screw up as many things as he has done. A side note, though: You don’t actually think she has any chance of being elected, do you? I certainly hope not. If the two main political parties once again offer us a choice (meaning: no choice) between two polarizing, extremely partisan figures, we all might as well move to another continent, because our national goose will be thoroughly cooked.
Related Posts
What I want to see happen now:
1. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from
Iraq. Bring them home.
2. Take a large chunk of the money that would have been spent on this unwinnable war and put it into counter-terrorism programs within the CIA. The war on terrorism is going to be won by finding and killing terrorists, not by trying to export American democracy. We need more Jack Bauer’s and fewer Private Ryans.
3. Slip Saddam the same drugs they gave to Milosevic. If Saddam was the problem, why haven’t we taken care of the problem? Allowing him to pontificate at his trial only emboldens his followers. Why didn’t someone just shoot him in his little hole in the ground and be done with it? I mean, Dan Rather was able to sit across from him in an interview on Feb. 24, 2003.
And the CIA couldn’t get close enough in the past ten years???
4. Have George Bush stand in front of the American people and say, “I am implementing a WAR SALES TAX of 1 cent on every gallon of gasoline sold. We will pay for this fight together.”
5. Double, redouble, and quadruple the effort and funding to find and kill Osama Bin Laden.
6. Use federal funds to pay The State to allow Brad Warthen to do reporting on the war on terror from the frontlines. I know he’s itching to get over there, let’s give him every opportunity to do so.
7. Have a national day of mourning for
those soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Make it September 11 and make it a federal holiday from this point forward.
8. Two words: Cheney Resigns
9. Two more words: Rumsfeld resigns
10. Take the money we’d save from being in Iraq and put it into Homeland security, including:
a) Closing our borders to ILLEGAL aliens
b) Protecting power plants and water supplies
c) Protecting our national rail system
Unfortunately, any program run by the government will be a model of inefficiency and corruption (for reference, see how well the airline security issue was handled. We’re all safe now from the dreaded nail clipper faction of Al Queda).
Is that enough, Brad? I could keep going.
Besides “Staying the course” and “Rallying around the flag” and “Letting Bush Do His Thing”, do you have some specifics?
I want to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Frist, DeLay, etc, etc, etc. impeached, then hauled before the Hague to face war crimes charges.
Now that we know that one our spies inside Saddam’s top echelon gave us WMD details which matched exactly the places we found…
…. and we have 3,000 pages of new transcripts of their WMD programs as late as 2002, and…
…. we have videotape of Saddam discussing the WMD he hid from UN inspectors…
… it is about time the Seditious Left dropped the lies about there being no WMD.
Conservatives and Republicans, who for the most part would find a Hillary Clinton presidency a 4 year torture period, would nevertheless support her 100% in any war efforts. That is what patriots do and we are American patriots. Why cannot the left understand that simple fact?
Doug, number 1. was the only one that answered my question, and that would be tantamount to national suicide. After Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq in 91 and Mogadishu (and Somalia was one of the factors that led to 9/11), we can never run again.
So we can count out your plan.
The rest of the stuff sounds fine, particularly number 6. Wait a minute — I guess we can’t implement 2 or 10, since we’re not going to do item 1. Or maybe we could, if you’d get serious with your “war tax,” and raise it more like a dollar. I’d be right behind you.
Want more specifics? Read the Friedman column we’ll be running over the weekend. He gets it.
And I think ol’ Andy’s already been taking some of those drugs.
Finally, let me add “ditto” to what Dave said, since the same is true for those of us who don’t consider ourselves to be either “conservatives” or “Republicans.”
Dave, I think the left understands the point you’re making. It’s just that we don’t believe you. Why should we think that conservatives and Republicans would give 100% support to “any war efforts” by President Hillary Clinton?
Here’s my view of the Iraq fiasco:
I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. Three years later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.
I can’t take credit for that eloquent denunciation, though. It was actually voiced by Tom DeLay on the floor of the House of Representatives, April 28, 1999 (except that I had to change his “One month later” to “Three years later”). And, of course, “the President” whose war effort (in Kosovo) he was lambasting was a Democrat. So I guess that’s different. In 2003, with a Republican in office, DeLay had a different view of people who criticized U.S. policy: “I think it’s hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives is wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now.”
You read those passages and tell me who’s the hypocrite here. If those aren’t enough, you can easily find lots more examples from DeLay and other Republican leaders:
* http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=76
* http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=24148
* http://www.slate.com/id/27730/
As for Brad’s question, it’s hard to give a quick answer. For starters: Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld all resign. President Hastert would have a better chance of making a clean break with the past. His objectives should be a substantial reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq in the near future, plus a realistic strategy for complete withdrawal. To do that he’ll need to internationalize the occupation. That means giving real control to some people the right doesn’t like (such as the UN), cancelling Halliburton’s contracts, etc.
I must have missed the part where conservatives and Republicans rallied behind Bill Clinton all those years.
Some more ideas:
11) When Rumsfeld resigns, replace him with Wesley Clark.
12) In a show of true bi-partisanship, replace Cheney with Lieberman giving the members of The State’s editorial board their finest “See, look how smart we are!” moment.
13) Every time a U.S. soldier dies, we show the funeral on television if the family allows it. Our kids need to see the cost of war as well as the sacrifice those soldiers make. We don’t need to hide it.
The problem with this war is that it is being run by politicians with political motives. It’s as much Karl Rove’s war
as it is Bush’s.
Brad – do you still favor a “stay the course” strategy if civil war erupts in Iraq? If so, which side do we back?
Brad wrote:
>Doug, number 1. was the only one that
> answered my question, and that would be
>tantamount to national suicide.
How? What would happen? You obviously have the scenario figured out. Will America be conquered by terrorists?
Seems like when we pulled out of Vietnam, it didn’t do a whole lot to weaken us as a nation. Seems like we handled that whole Cold War thing with moderate success. Or did I miss the part where Russia took advantage of our weakened resolve and communism prospered throughout America.
That was that “Red Dawn” movie, right?
We can stop terrorists. We can’t impose our values on countries that have been around a whole lot longer than the U.S.
We should be a country built around national DEFENSE, not nation building.
Knave, stop telling tells out of school. No self-respecting Republican would support HillBill. I would never support her…and that has nothing to do with party lines. Back to the playground to make up more fibs…
I’ll choose to add “ditto,” rather, to the ideas of our Founding Fathers who gave us the very basis of questioning authority, especially when we feel that said authority is overreaching its bounds or otherwise acting in a way contrary to the standards set forth by those same Founding Fathers.
True patriots don’t seek to just keep up appearances. That’s a British television show, at most.
True patriots uphold the ideals and self-evident truths plainly presented for posterity’s perusal by our preeminent paters. Two of the most basic of these is the responsibility to not blindly follow your leadership and to freely register your objections.
How many projects in this life actually flourish more from mindless encouragement rather than from well-constructed criticism or outright protest?
To me, patriotism and courage are demonstrated by speaking up in the face of a wrong so that the wrong may be righted, not humming along while a world leader pretend pretends.
I think another historical George (almost 230 years ago)tried to similarly benefit by propagating your prescription for patriotism. Brave MEN (with full grasp on the concept of nation and our role in it) stood in his way and tailored the greatest ensemble our life’s rich pageant may ever know.
For him, on the other hand, the parade didn’t go so well. The emperor had to avail himself of an entirely new set of clothes.
Bush (put whatever title you want on him, from Republican to Moderate to Liberal or even Democrat)will be relegated to the bargain bin of history. He did not handle his duties with care. Blood leaves stains.
Everyday, less and less consumers are buying what he’s selling.
Regardless of the label…
1. Define “victory” in the “Global War on Terror.” If we are staying in Iraq until this “war” is over, or until the citizens of this country no longer resist our occupation, or largesse as you believe, then it will truly be a war without end. We should review the seemingly antiquated “Powell doctrine” of clearly defined, specific goals with a determined endpoint to avoid future disastrous policies and outcomes.
2. Halt construction of permanent bases to demonstrate to the world this was not an exercise in empire building. Denounce PNAC goals of permanent US presence in Iraq to project US influence and power in Middle East.
3. Use diplomatic force to put the responsibility of forming a national unity govt. on the Iraqi elected leaders. Althought the current situation is a result of our policy decisions, we can not “babysit” chaos, civil war, and sectarian “barbarism”, and our presence only inflames tensions. We must have a timetable for withdrawal to return the country to the Iraqis. We can and should continue financial and diplomatic support, but our soldiers are “sitting ducks” and we are the target of wrath from all sides. We have overseen the election of an Iraqi govt under an Iraqi constitution and it is about time to leave. Our men can not be held hostage in a hostile country in the midst of a civil war because “more violence might occur if we leave”. Our presence does not appear to be stopping the bleeding. This is truly an untenable position for those who “support the troops”.
3. Denounce “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war by shifting emphasis of “promoting democracy” via military force/violence to the diplomatic and economic support of liberal/democ forces in authoritarian countries. Our present policy violates intl law and we would allow no other country to adopt such a policy.
4. Recognize that the “GWOT”, which is a war vs. radical religious fundamentalists, is not effectively fought through “promoting democracy” with military force. Conflating these two issues has caused significant harm to our foreign policy and resulted from a toxic combination of 9/11 over-reaction with pre-existing PNAC philosophies of US exceptionalism, corporate opportunism, and global US dominance. The theory that democracies don’t foster terrorism is not proven and is counter-intuitive esp in light of the exposure of all 9/11, London, and Madrid terrorists to Western Democracies. Radical religious fundamentalism can result from the perceived threat of social change/modernization, cultural humiliation, and the sense of oppression by western power/influence. Radical Islamism has only been made more popular and its message more effective by the past 4 years of US policy. We must fight, kill, neutralize the radicals committed to jihad while addressing the dysfunctional nature of Muslim socities with deft diplomacy, the support of our allies, and supporting change from within.
3. Stop all no-bid contracts and enforce thorough auditing of military expenditures. Corruption, fraud and cronyism has led to the misuse of funds in excess of “oil for food” fiasco. Refer to >23 bill of Iraqi oil money essentially unaccounted for in past three years(London Guardian). Need I mention the continual scandals of US companies in the use/misuse of US tax dollars?
4. Implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission-it has been over 3 years-the grades must come up on the next report card-3 F’s, 2 D’s, and a C are not acceptable and someone must be held accountable.
5. Abide by international treaties and laws-the Non-Prolif treaty, ABM treaty, Geneva Conventions, Convention on Torture, the Intern Criminal Court, etc. We must hold ourselves to the same standards by which we hold others. Follow US rule of law-expain why FISA, which was written to prevent exactly this type of Pres over-reaching, won’t allow us to “catch the terrorists.”
7. Include costs of war in annual Pentagon budget to allow open debate/analysis and to make country aware of actual cost. 2007 budget increases spending 7% not incl the wars (10 bill/month). Each US household is now responsible for 10,000 of war costs (est 1 trillion in comprehensive costs.)
8. Stop blaming the “media” for not reporting the “good news”. They are risking their lives to report the truth,even if it is not your desired result. We have heard this from the beginning, and it is now clear that overwheming violence, death and chaos does reflect reality at the present time. Would we have been better served and more well informed with more “handing out candy” stories over the past 3 years? As has been said by a skeptical patriot, “news is what the government does’nt want you to know, the rest is just publicity”
I was pondering Brad Warthen’s question while I was at the gas station, filling up the Suburban at $2.499 a gallon.
1. History shows that once the U.S military establishes a presence, we tend to stay (e.g. Korea, Guantanamo Bay, Germany, etc.). We will maintain a military presence in the Middle East for decades until such time as we no longer need Middle Eastern oil. President Bush should make this point clear to the American people and discuss exactly where our Middle Eastern outposts will be.
2. Evaluate our world wide distribution of military personnel and determine where we can draw down and reduce numbers. This would allow for re-allocation of fresh forces to the Middle East and allow solders to be cycled out more frequently.
3. There will be no stopping the civil war. The United States had its own civil war, complete with brother fighting brother. Iraq will have its civil war but with an overriding religious element and a tribal society. If you have seen the news footage of some of these folks beating themselves in the head as they protests in the streets, or whipping themselves with something akin to a cat-o-nine tales until they bleed (as a religious observance.), you get the idea that those folks just don’t think like us. They have long memories, they carry decades or centuries long grudges, and some of them hate us and want to kill us. So get used it and plan accordingly.
4. The military strategy should be to geographically contain the civil war to the smallest possible area and not allow the entire region to be engulfed in civil war.
5. The military strategy should be to transition from the role of military occupier and law enforcer to that of military and logistics adviser to the native forces. We should support the “good guys” (whoever the heck that is) who will work to keep this country together. Unfortunately this means that once again, we will probably end up supporting some portion of the government or population that acts in a despotic manner towards the other side.
6. America should show its kindness, as well as its might. (That’s just the Christian in me.) A national “Sister City” programs should be established for the entire country of Iraq where every city, town , and village in Iraq is adopted by a few American towns and cities. Shower them with kindness (and toiletries) in a national goodwill campaign. It might just save some soldier’s life. (I assume that Iraqi’s love their children, too.)
7. Friedman theorized that no two democracies that had a McDonald’s ever went to war against each other. Our culture is our greatest weapon. McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, KFC, Pepsi, and Hollywood are the mercenaries of this new century.
8. Just as a previous president set a national goal for putting a man on the moon, this president should set a national goal, complete with timeline, for withdrawing from imported foreign oil and gas and achieving true energy independence. With new energy sources and efficiencies in place, the market can be our mercenary and starve the terrorists of their oil revenues. This would leave them with drug revenues and their American investments to fund terrorism.
9. The energy potential for methane hydrates [SEARCH KEWORDS: METHANE HYDRATES]should be explored, particularly the vast deposits that lie off the South Carolina coast. To quote a published government fact sheet:
“The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.”
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
Basically, Methane Hydrate is methane gas bound up in ice. There are enormous, untapped deposits laying at the bottoms of ocean all over the world. Since natural gas is mostly methane, it is conceivable that you could extract the methane and inject it into the existing natural gas pipeline distribution system running across the state. This could make the Great State of South Carolina an energy exporter and provide enough revenues to reduce or eliminate property taxes and state income taxes.
(If Brad Warthen and his ilk want to serve the public good and help reduce our dependence on imported oil from countries ruled by despots, then start reporting on this stuff.)
10. With all touting about the hydrogen economy, why the heck aren’t we taking a harder look a WATER for an energy source. It’s like when my kids are thirsty. I tell them to get a drink of water from the kitchen sink. There is a whole faucet full of the stuff, it is the cheapest stuff on earth, and it is reasonably pure.
Just something to think about as gasoline climbs back up to $3.00 a gallon (and beyond.)
My answer to Warthen’s second question is this:
Implement the Murtha plan.
My answer to Warthen’s first question:
“I insist that everyone also recognize the two most salient facts: There are good reasons to be in Iraq (whether the president understands them or not), and even if you disagree with that, there is no alternative now but to persevere in that endeavor.
What is it about the English language that I can have so much trouble communicating those thoughts to people?”
********************************************
is this:
It’s got nothing to do with the English language. Everybody understands what Warthen is saying. They just don’t believe it. Warthen wants to pretend that his claims are facts that others have a duty to recognize, rather than claims that he needs to present evidence to support. What Warthen needs to realize is that being a lazy, cowardly hypocrite willing to sacrifice the lives and taxes of others to promote his fantasies, while contributing nothing himself, does not make him an authority on foreign policy or any other subject.
Now, in response to a comment by Doug, above, Warthen says this:
“Doug, number 1. was the only one that answered my question, and that would be tantamount to national suicide.”
The answer to this, of course, is:
No it wouldn’t.
Warthen simply presents his assertion without evidence; it is not incumbent on anyone to accept it. Once again, Warthen seeks to conflate patriotism with acceptance of his fantasies. Once again, failure to accept the racist fantasies of a cowardly freeloader does not make someone unpatriotic.
Warthen’s response to Doug epitomizes the qualities that have made Warthen such a failure as a journalist and as a human being. Warthen does not give any analysis or evidence for his position; instead, he simply assumes that his position is the correct one. Basically, Warthen’s argument is the argument from authority, with himself as the authority.
But an argument from authority, with Warthen (of all people) as the authority, is the hollowest of arguments.
Dave, conservatives and Republicans didn’t support Clinton’s war efforts when he was president, and the only reason they didn’t was that he was president. They opposed the exact same policies that they would have supported if they had been implemented by a Republican president.
Clinton stopped the genocide in Kosovo without the loss of a single American life. Republicans were bitterly opposed to this acccomplishment, for no other reason than that it was accomplished by Clinton.
That’s because, contrary to your claims, Republicans and conservatives are not patriots. Look at yourself. You don’t care about America. You don’t even care one way or another about the Iraq war. You only see the Iraq war as a mechanism to claim for yourself a monopoly on patriotism, all the while supporting yourself by accepting handouts contributed from the tax money paid by people whom you despise, but who are better Americans than you are in every respect.
Hey, Brad, every time I read your latest column I get angrier. Your first paragraph is really a condescending insult.
“IT’S OK TO WANT the United States to succeed in Iraq, and still disapprove of President Bush. Really. It’s allowed.”
I dare you to say this personally to Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). Even at 74, this former Marine would probably whip your butt for your implications.
I guess that you’d call Murtha a defeatist. (But, not to his face.) Dave, our Trade School Fascist, would probably call him a traitor. (Dave’s not too bright. He might say it Murtha’s face– once.)
Here’s a snippet about Murtha.
“What sets Murtha apart from most fellow Democrats is his close connection to different layers of the armed services. The congressman regularly visits with wounded troops, but he also talks to battle commanders. “Jack Murtha is one of a kind,” said Rep. Curt Weldon (Pa.), one of the few Republicans who rose in Murtha’s defense during the Friday night House debate. “He is an example for all us in this body, and none of us should ever think of questioning his motives, his desires or support for our American troops.”
Here’s what Murtha suggests to do next:
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.
My plan calls:
— To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
— To create a quick reaction force in the region.
— To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
— To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
= = = =
So the next time you pretend that there are no other alternatives to “staying course” be aware that there are plenty of alternatives. And, be aware that supporting the troops doesn’t mean wasting their lives and blood in a futile conflict that was a fraud from the beginning.
RTH – Murtha, who isn’t yet a traitor but is close to it, suggested we redeploy (euphemism for surrender) the troops to Okinawa. That would make for real quick return capability right? Most Marines are ashamed of this old washed up, overfed has been. Marines don’t surrender. Murtha’s plan is right out of OBL’s playbook. Disgraceful.
Try this:
We take all the 12 million illegals and put them in the military, send them as replacements to Iraq. Since military service is also a path to citizenship, the illegals should jump at the chance.
Let’s see how much they really love this country.
I guess I am anti-war, Brad, because I didn’t think it needed to be started. At least not without counting the cost, and laying it out before the American people as well as possible. And the reason given was because of WMD.
Anti-war is not the same as anti-military (despite Mary’s statements, I am not “hiding” behind anything), and I am still grateful for the sacrifice of those who lay their lives on the line. I agree with all you have written. Now we are there; we have to see it through.
Where do we go from here? Work a lot on education, for one thing. Teach languages and political science and history. Teach them well. Teach classics in literature; help our younger generation to understand how other cultures live and think.
When I say teach languages, I do not mean two years of Latin like I was offered in high school. Two years of any language is not even a good start. People here think they have learned a language if they can order something to eat at a French restaurant. “Spanish is an easy language,” one hears all the time. Not if you read Spanish literature, and begin to understand the Spanish mindset.
When I went to Germany, I discovered how language poor I was. Taking Latin in high school there meant studying it for at least four years, sometimes seven. It meant not only translating Caesar, but a whole lot more, including the church fathers. I thought I had a decent grasp of Hebrew and Greek, but I discovered that I had not even learned to pronounce it carefully. When I made a visit to Erlangen and sat next to theology students, I realized I didn’t know much.
We deserve the image that we have in much of the world of the “shoot-em up cowboy” — run in and blow everybody away. We could use trained Arabic speakers and people with training in anthropology in Iraq; people who know and understand culture. That our government and military doesn’t have much of that, was painfully evident after 9/11, when they even advertised on TV, seeking Arabic speakers.
If we are going to do nation building, then we have to count the cost, and make it plain. And we have to do the work. If all we have is “shock and awe” weaponry, Hollywood DVDs, and “Cliff’s Notes” on history and culture, or even worse, Time magazine, then I’m afraid that we will accomplish far too little.
There have been many empires in world history. Sounds like you are advocating something completely different. I am just not sure we are up to it.
All of which is not to say that we do not have some very fine people in military and government who are doing a great job in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I have had the privilege of meeting a few of those. But my impression, which I freely admit can err, is that we have far too few of such.
Brad,
You will never convince the selfish and cowardly elements of society to fight for their nation. They are just hoping the war won’t touch them while they live out their lives of being entertained by media and shopping.
Brad, good to put the question directly like that. You’ve received many eloquent replies above. I particularly agree with Jim’s point #1 about the so-called Global War on Terror. Also agree very much with Doug on many counts. You asked, so I’m answering. I don’t favor 100% immediate withdrawal this very instant, but a clear indication and schedule of a phased withdrawal.
Immediate firing of Rumsfeld. Forced resignation of Cheney. Tell Colin Powell he will not be regarded as a “disloyal soldier” if he finally tells all that he wants to tell. Bush makes international acknowledgement of tremendous misjudgement with whole Iraq mess, in return for avoiding formal censure by Congress. Intense, prolonged, and relentless international (some UN, some not) parleys with major leaders of the world on methods to fight terrorism, encourage resolution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, and keep the impending Iraqi civil war contained within its borders. Continue pressure on Iran to prevent nuclear weapons capability. Continued breakup of Al-Qaeda cells where possible. Continued improvement of domestic security within consensus-agreed-upon limits on infringement of civil liberties.
Accept that “Terror” is not a state, a nation, that it can never be guaranteed to be 100% eliminated. Acknowledge that the US, no matter what it does for good or ill in the world, will continue to be a terrorist target simply because it is the most powerful nation in the world, and that as a democracy, it will inherently be more vulnerable to terrorism than repressive dictatorships.
Final word: We did not run in Vietnam, Brad. Or rather, we should have “run” much earlier. Vietnam was a blot on America’s legacy in the world, not the fault of those who fought there, but the mendacious, short-sighted, and immoral leaders who sent them there.
Phillip – I see you don’t even propose that Saddam Hussein acknowledge his murderous behavior, nor even Osama Bin Laden. I am sure you would propose to them let’s let bygones be bygones and leave in peace. Then to even suggest that our nation, the greatest nation ever formed on this planet, kowtow in disgrace to the terrorist filth of the world leaves me beyond words. If we just simply disarmed ourselves then we wouldnt be the “most powerful” nation on earth and everyone would be nice to us. I only can hope that a few people who think like you and the “surrender now” crowd are managing the campaigns of the left wingers in the fall elections and also in the 08 election. There will be hope that sanity prevails after all if your positions are the stated positions of the left.
Pious wish – that Lee, Dave, and Mary Rosh would all get put together on a slow boat to China, or wherever, so the rest of us could have a civilized debate, without all the name-calling.
Civilized debate would require some of you knowing that posting facts with names of the sources is not “name calling”.
“Then to even suggest that our nation, the greatest nation ever formed on this planet”
This isn’t Canada.
BLSaiken – Your comment sounds like the neighborhood ninny, who, after continually being left off the ball team when the captains pick sides, says to the other ninnies, “Lets not play with them anymore”. You don’t like name calling but if you could you would censor some of us with passionate opinions off of the blogsite.
Andy, I am not sure I understand your comment above. Canada is a great nation, no doubt. It is interesting that the Canadian government has made it clear that American draft dodgers and deserters are no longer welcome there. But, they can always go to the anti-American communist paradise called Cuba.
BL, you’re right. Dave, I’m concerned about you. You evidently choose not to understand that I select my words carefully to express exactly what I mean. Let’s try this again, Dave.
1) What did I say that implies I want anything less for Saddam or Bin Laden, especially, than what they rightfully have coming to them? As we all know by now, the diverted effort into Iraq has certainly not made us able to capture Bin Laden, perhaps weakened our chances. Yell at your President, not me. He’s the one who seems unconcerned about Bin Laden’s continued existence.
2) Where did I suggest that the US “kowtow” to terrorists? I simply stated a fact. Let’s assume for the moment that our intentions are always good in the world. Simply by being a symbol of success, of dominance in the world, by being #1, we will be targeted by fanatics who resent us. I did not in any way suggest that this targeting is justified. I did not suggest that we disarm just so people will like us more. But, to the extent that we wish to use our military might to influence the world in the way we see fit, that does come with a price. Now we can accept that price, try to minimize it. These are just facts of life, Dave. Read history.
But the phrase “War on Terror” is an Orwellian lie, Dave. The Bush administration and folks like Brad view terrorists in too much of a traditional military fashion, I feel. Their view of “cause-and-effect” is hopelessly rooted in the lessons of WWII and the Cold War. You have said as much in comparing terrorists to Nazi Germany. In evil, yes. In the nature of the enemy we’re fighting, no. Terrorism is not a state, a nation. By its very nature terrorism is asymmetrical warfare. Especially if the perpetrators are willing to die in carrying out an attack, it is probably impossible to guarantee that we are going to be able to forestall every single instance.
Secretary Rice and others have said as much when they say in effect “we have to be right every time, the terrorists only have to be right once.” Obviously the largest efforts have to be in the realm of prevention of rogue nuclear attack, or a “dirty bomb,” simply because of the sheer potential number of victims. How do we best keep track of nuclear material on the loose out there? Guess what, Dave? By co-operation with other democratic nations who have just as much to lose and who have just as much right to exist as we do.
How will the War on Terror end? If we wipe out every single Al-Qaeda member tomorrow, then the day after that some right-wing Japanese kook might poison the Tokyo subway again. Or a rabid Hawaiian monarchist might machine-gun a few people on Waikiki beach. That’s terror, right? How long are those wiretapping policies going to go on? Are they really just about dealing with Al-Qaeda? The point is, let’s use real words about real problems, not propaganda designed to make Americans react emotionally and to stop thinking.
So Dave, please go back and read my comment carefully. I am acutely aware every day of the privilege that it is to live in the most economically and militarily powerful and (at least for now) free country in the world. But I recognize that this comes with a price. (Of course, there is–and has been– a huge price paid for US dominance by millions of non-Americans around the globe, but let’s leave that alone for the moment.)I want my country to behave with rationalism, to act intelligently and creatively to face these challenges.
It is not a contradiction to feel that this is the greatest nation on earth while still respecting that other peoples in other nations might feel that way about their lands. It has been my great fortune to travel extensively over the course of my life, to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Australia, and to 46 of our 50 states. On my father’s side, my family has been in the US for over 250 years, dating back to my great-great-great-great-grandfather’s emigration from Germany. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to patriotism. I am patriotic, but not nationalistic, for nationalism has led to hundreds of millions of deaths of innocents throughout world history. And most certainly, I will not accept being accused of favoring the kowtowing of the US to terrorists.
This demagoguery is the mode that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney seem to have bequeathed to American politics, and you, Dave, appear to be one of its finest practitioners. We who opposed the war and/or the current occupation will not stand for being accused of favoring surrender to terrorists. Next time you post, Dave, please step back from your emotions and read carefully the words of the person whom you wish to attack.
Phillip – When I read your post I noticed that you want many concessions from the Bush administration and admission of misjudgement and in effect an international apology. You didnt say anything explicitly about the good that has been done by removing the Hussein mob from power. You also don’t recognize that Al Qaeda is severely damaged and operationally hampered. Not one word of gratitude either about no attacks on US soil since 9-11 yet many have been prevented. Maybe if I knew you better I would know you do have some acknowledgement of these positives. But I took you as being completely one-sided and I read that day in and day out from the Bush haters, so if I categorized you wrongly then that was my mistake. That is how I perceived that premise about kow-towing to terrorists but after doing some close reading I can take that back. You are right about no real end to the war on terror. The problem with ending it on any terms other than complete destruction and dismantling of Al Qaeda and their subsidiaries is that to do so would engender a worldwide enegerization of this fanatical Islam movement. In their world, it would be that Zarqawi and Bin Laden have slain the giant, just like David to Goliath. That is totally unacceptable as I see it. Look at the boldness and aggressiveness of Iran, basically a backward third world nation with pockets lined with oil money. Now we are seeing similar big talk from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Exxon owns around a 50% stake in their oil fields, having discovered that oil in normal business transactions. We may see Chavez nationalize all of that which to me would be an act of war on us. So I agree the problems dont end with the demise of Al Qaeda. One thing I have very little faith in is international cooperation. Look at what the French and Russians did with Iraq and the oil for food scandals, let alone possibly working directly to give our military positions to the Iraqi Republican Guard. The Chinese have little reason to help us in any way – international cooperation is a dubious exercise at best.
You ask how long the wiretap policies will go on? I would wonder why they would not be permanent. I travel internationally too, and if I call the US from Malaysia and begin discussion about blowing up a bridge, building, school, or stadium then I sure hope our government is listening. How can anyone be against that is something I dont understand. We do have the enemy within, the most recent example being right up in UNC Chapel Hill where the Muslim tried to kill a number of innocent college students. This was glossed over like “who cares”. Maybe the next time the next Muslim like him detonates about 5 sticks of dynamite. I have kids at Clemson so that struck home to me.
You and arent too far off on some of our thinking, but I take a much harder line on dealing with those who would even think of doing harm to any US citizen or even any citizen of the world. That is fine, we can all have our opinions. Mine are not propaganda or posturing just as I consider you to be sincere.
How about and explanation from the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly in the 1990s to “bring about regime change in Iraq by any means possible”?
Clinton made 32 speeches saying he was dropping 80,000 tons of munitions on Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction which were being concealed from the UN inspectors. Where is the list of those sites, and the followup inventory of the actual destruction?
Some of you might be interested in the following (this is Muslim Awareness week at USC Columbia):
5:30 p.m., April 3, Law School, Room 160
The Future of Iraq
Speaker: Qubaid Talabani (Son of Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq)
Oh, and here is the rest of the week:
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
7:00 p.m. Heath Science Building, Room 114
Islamic Contributions to Society
Speaker: Dr. S. Rasid Naim
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
7:00 p.m. Heath Science Building, Room 114
Islam and Muslims in North America
Speaker: Sheikh Musa Ramsey
Thursday, April 6, 2006
7:00 p.m. Heath Science Building, Room 114
What Do the Muslims Believe?
Speaker: Imam Adly
Oops, I forgot the whole thing for this evening:
Monday, April 3, 2006
5:30 p.m. Law School, Room 160
The Future of Iraq
Speaker: Qubaid Talabani (Son of Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq)
8:00 p.m. Law School Auditorium
Islamic Minorities in the West
Speaker(s): Various speakers (panel?)
Being a relative newcomer to Columbia, I looked up the law school on the map; looks like it is off of Assembly, across from the Carolina Coliseum. The only visitor parking I can see close by is along Greene street. Can you Gamecocks help out an ignoramous?
I agree with Dog. I think it’s important to add what won’t happen if we bring the troops home immediately.
The threat from terrorists will not increase. (Even if we did have a few medium size attacks that resulted in a few dozen Americans killed, that would still be fewer than the number of soldiers who are dying each year now in Iraq. But I don’t think that will happen).
Our respect in the world community will not decline. In fact, quit the opposite. Most nations do not respect us because of our continued occupation of Iraq.
The number of Iraqi civilians killed will not increase. I firmly believe that once we’re out of the picture violence will continue for a while until one faction or the other gains the upper hand and imposes some sort of discipline on the country. It may not be pretty, but hey, what we have now certainly isn’t a thing of beauty.
Isreal will not be at any greater risk.
It’s just mind boggling to me that after the Vietnam experience people still believe we can solve things with endless military involvement in a nation’s affairs. Once we pulled out (of Vietnam) it became a relatively benign and peaceful nation within 10 years. And the US became THE world’s only super power during the same decade. Why does nobody ever point that out. I think much the same will happen once we pull out of Iraq.
Bin Laden’s latest threat, from his former bodyguard in our custody, is a nuclear attack on the US, using weapons obtained from Saddam Hussein. I think he expects to kill more than “a few dozen” Americans.
Bud, because reality doesn’t fit into the
rightwing world view.
You’ll probably get replies like the following:
(1) Fifth column traitors stabbed us in the back.
(2) X number of Vietnamese died in camps and X fled to escape after we left.
(3) International respect declined for a super power that would abandon an “ally” at its “moment of greatest need.”
(4) Terrorists attack us now because they think that we’ve been unwilling to take casualties since ‘Nam to protect our country.
Like every good lie, these are deceptions based on a kernel of truth. (Well, except for the traitor meme, the favorite of our Patriotism Cops Dave and Lee. That meme is designed to appeal to simpletons.)
#2 may be tragically true but is irrelevant. Just like Iraq, we were mislead into ‘Nam– told that all of SE Asia would fall “like dominos” to Communism if we didn’t stop it. We failed to impose our political system on a nation in civil war. Vietnam was a forgotten corner of Asia that held no real importance to the U.S. It became a client-state of the USSR because it had no choice to win against the other superpower.
The U.S. did lose respect internationally– but not because we withdrew and allowed the Vietnamese to settle their own affairs. Our military was unable to fight succeed against guerrillas who had perfected their tactics for decades against the French. Our politicians were blinded by superpower arrogance and stupiditiy. Only a firestorm of domestic dissent kept them from continuing an endless waste of money and lives.
The lesson that clever terrorists took from ‘Nam was to operate outside of the nation-state structure as much as possible.
Unfortunately, people who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The people in power now drew all the wrong conclusions from ‘Nam.
They did realize that Americans are unwilling to sacrifice blood and treasure if there’s no threat to American. So they fabricated the WMD threat. When that proved to be a lie they fell back on a secondary lie: we fight terrorists in Iraq to keep them from attacking us here. Since no hard evidence can definitively disprove this false theory, they feel quite free to repeat the Big Lie for propaganda purposes.
If OBL obtains nuclear weapons the source is far more likely to be (1) the x-USSR (2) North Korea, or (3) our “ally” Pakistan since Iraq han no functioning nuclear program.
Of course, leaving OBL at large; turning Iraq into an Islamist rallying cry/terrorist training school instead of wiping up al Qaeda networks would really be at fault for giving OBL time to regroup after Afghanistan.
Since Lee and Bush supported all those actions I suggest that they top our list of traitors.
The US lost respect internationally in Vietnam thanks to the likes of John Kerry, Hanoi Jane, the NY Times, Walter Cronkite and a cast of other anti-American idjits. Nixon listened to the State dept. and agreed to fight a politically correct war. Had the PC crowd been back burnered, there would have been no withdrawal from the swamp of Vietnam and perhaps 5 million people would not have been slaughtered in Vietnam and Cambodia. We as a nation are too concerned about what Europeans think. Had we fought the war properly, Hanoi would have been vaporized. Enough said on how the left and the weaklings in Congress lost the war.
As for today, why are we spending $10 million dollars to try and defend Moussaui? Absolutely ridiculous. Here is a guy who had the 9-11 plans on his computer, and then admitted to being the 20th hijacker, yet kept quiet while our fellow US citizens burned to death. Here is my solution for him. I would put 10 starving wild boar hogs in a pen, then drop Mr. Muslim Hijacker wannabee martyr into the pit. Lets put this on worldwide television to show the rest of his kind what their end will be. Actually, this would get all time reality show ratings. Hmmmm, counting all the money we could make right now!!!!!!!!!!
RTH- you aren’t a traitor at all, you are simply a liberal appeaser to our enemies. That sums it up. To you, Bush is the enemy, yet if you or your family were the victims of terrorist attacks, you would squeal like one of those wild boars about not being protected.
The president of Iran said he will exterminate the Jews as soon as they get the bomb. Do you have any sympathy for all the decent and God fearing Jewish in Israel?
Hey, Brad, something just struck me about your question: YOU should be the one to answer it!
Remember, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results.
“Whatever you think of what has happened so far, what do you want to see happen NOW?”
I was under the impression that Brad had already answered that question in his previous column. Or what more are you wanting him to write?
I must have been asleep when I read the paper over the weekend. What was the gist of the Friedman piece that Brad referred to? (I don’t have my Sunday paper anymore; it gets passed around the neighborhood.)
With regard to my post a few days ago about name-calling, I think Dave’s post yesterday at 4:15 proves my point – whether or not he thinks I’m a ninny. Pot, meet kettle.
Dave writes:
“Had the PC crowd been back burnered, there would have been no withdrawal from the swamp of Vietnam and perhaps 5 million people would not have been slaughtered in Vietnam and Cambodia. ….. Had we fought the war properly, Hanoi would have been vaporized.”
I guess as long as we’re the ones doing the slaughtering it doesn’t count somehow. Right-wing logic is simply bizarre.
Impeachment is the most important issue facing Constitutional government in the United States. Impeachment will determine whether the American people will hold the Bush administration accountable for its High Crimes and Misdemeanors: the supreme international crime — a war of aggression, rampant militarism, torture, surreptitious laws and treaties, and economic policies that steal from the poor and middle class to further enrich the rich.
Impeachment is also the test that will determine whether We, the People of the United States, still have the power to affect the conduct of our own elected officials and the will to exercise that power.
George Bush seeks $2.77 trillion for the 2007 Fiscal Year budget providing for more military aggression and less education, health care and other programs for the people.
He has nearly three more years to take our country into more wars maybe in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, or Sudan; three more years to trash the Bill of Rights at home and destroy all respect for the United States abroad; three more years to enrich the rich, impoverish the middle class and poor, undermine the U.S. economy and burden future generations of Americans with burdens they cannot bear.
Our impeachment ad in the New York Times on January 27, 2006 shows we can make a difference. It generated tens of thousands of new votes for impeachment.
The New York Times carried the Impeachment message in the first section, full page, to readers of more than a million copies of the National Edition and the New York Edition of the New York Times.
More newspaper ads, more votes for Impeachment, more organizing and fundraising can make Impeachment a major issue in the 2006 midterm Congressional elections. A committed effort over the next months can move Impeachment to the forefront in the elections and to the floor of the House of Representatives which has the “sole power of Impeachment,” and onto the Senate for trial.
Ads in newspapers in Congressional Districts can help activate impeachment organizing to bring the issue home to members and candidates where their election will be decided.
Only Impeachment will warn the next Presidents that the American people will hold them accountable if they lawlessly lead us into wars, aggression and criminal acts to control foreign government and exploit their peoples.
Only Impeachment will assure governments and peoples around the world that the American people understand what their government has done, that the American people are strong and good, and have impeached and removed their lawless leaders from office for violating all the principles America has always espoused, and that We, the People of the United States will remain vigilant and see to it that the government of the United States will hereafter seek peace, friendship, equality of nations and peoples, and respect for the human dignity of every child, woman, and man on Earth.
I urge you to enlist now in the Impeachment Movement for the duration, to organize your community in the struggle and to raise and contribute funds essential to secure the Impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other civil officers found to have committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
Bud, our military had to fight the Vietnam war with handcuffs on. Why fight a war against the N. Viet communists yet draw an artificial line where our troops could not venture past that line? Militarily, we won the Vietnam war, but it was lost politically at home. As for Hanoi itself, we could have dropped leaflets instructing residents to leave within 48 hours to save their own lives. So I am not implying genocide. After that, the entire city should have been leveled. Keep in mind that this is what the US military did in Japan to at least 8 cities. Roosevelt, a widely reknowned right winger, ordered the fire bombing (with napalm) of those Jap cities. More Japanese citizens died from firebombing than from the atomic bombs dropped on two cities. Oops, I take that back, we have expunged the destruction of civilian targets in Japan from our collective national history and my memory worked properly for just a second there. After all, worse war crimes were committed at Abu Graib when terrorists had to wear women’s undies, according to the leftists in America.
Bill, how does Ramsey Clark have time to impeach our President and also have time to defend Saddam Hussein? He must be one heckuva great lawyer. Ramsey is truly a role model for the Democratic leftwing.
The Bush administration is carrying out the policy on Iraq which was established under the Clinton administration, by an overwhelming support of the Democrats in the Senate. They just lacked the will and ability to do what they wanted done.
I broadly agree with you but here’s a concern:
Brad, if everyone took your position, then would we perpetually wage war under the command of our GOP masters?
Consider:
1. Any President can cross the Rubicon at any point — congressional approval seems optional for many of our wars. Plus, there appears to be no shortage of justifications.
2. Once they’ve done so, they receive your unconditional support for their war (although you may detest all other policies which are simultaneously thrust upon the populace) because not doing so would be disastrous.
3. They determine that the war will continue through their reelection and the next election.
4. The populace elects another Republican President because, for whatever reason, they are believed to be more adept at war (via practice, perhaps?).
5. Return to 1.
It seems to me that, in order maintain a healthy balance, our democracy demands heterogeneous viewpoints on this subject. It needs a critical mass of folks like you, Brad, who support those waging war so that we are strong enough as a nation to do so effectively. It also needs a crowd of folks who provide the very opposition you criticize, lest we end up embroiled in too many wars.
The problem we have is a bunch of Democrats who were all for invading Iraq when they were in power, and voted for it in 2002, but now want to undermine the war in order to undermine the Republicans.
Bentley – Congress voted to authorize the administration to send troops into battle. Also, do you consider 9-11 as an act of war against us? That alone justifies the Iraq war, Afghanistan, and several more to come. Remember, W told the world that any nation that supports or funds terrorists is against us. There you go, very simple. Also, your theory doesn’t hold up when you realize that Roosevelt took us into WWII, Truman into Korea, Kennedy into Vietnam. It’s about time the Republicans got to start a war, agree?
There are good reasons to be in Iraq (whether the president understands them or not), and even if you disagree with that, there is no alternative now but to persevere in that endeavor.
Gee, you make it sound like being in Iraq is a goal in and of itself.
And guess what, it may be our actual goal – establishing a permanent presence in Iraq: http://tinyurl.com/qtttr
So cheer up, Mr. W. It doesn’t look as if we’re leaving anytime soon, though to most Americans, it looks as if the longer we’re there, the worse things get.
There are good reasons to be in Iraq (whether the president understands them or not), and even if you disagree with that, there is no alternative now but to persevere in that endeavor.
Btw, love the reasoning: “Even if you think there are no good reasons to be in Iraq, there is no alternative but to remain in Iraq.”
You know, that kind of circular argument may be why you’re having a hard time getting some of your readers to come around to your way of thinking.
The problem we have is a bunch of Democrats who were all for invading Iraq when they were in power, and voted for it in 2002, but now want to undermine the war in order to undermine the Republicans.
Wrong, again, Lee.
At least you’re consistent.
In 1998 even the Repub leadership wasn’t advocating invasion. In 2002 Bush was charged to use force only if diplomatic methods wouldn’t work. He made only a token effort to move the UN towards enforcement.
Of course, evidence is coming out nearly daily that Bush had no intention of doing anything but invading Iraq– even with intel known to be faulty.
====
From SourceWatch.org:
On October 5, 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm)(PL 105-338), by an overwhelming majority. On October 7, the companion bill, S. 2525, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, “establishing a program [to] support a transition to democracy in Iraq.”[1] (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/10/981009-in.htm)
Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, commented:
“This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way. Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine, enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam’s yoke to fight the battle against him.”
According to Senator Bob Kerrey:
“Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a portent new tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance America’s interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East.
========
From the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
[…]
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
[…]
Dave,
Since we had no business in Vietnam in the first place we certainly would have been correctly condemned as war criminals if we’d followed your tactics.
In case you missed it, the Tonkin Gulf incident was fabricated. We had no legitimate reason to wage war against the Vietnamese.
The WWII analogy won’t fly. Japan attacked us and we formally declared war on Japan. At least we had a fig leaf of legality to justify killing all those Japanese civilians.
As for changing epithets from traitor to appeaser, you’re still an ignorant, blockhead. Repeating mouldy rightwing fairy tales about how the “military could of won the war” proves it. It’s on par with the Nazi propaganda about how “Jewish betrayal” kept Germany from winning WWI.
And, it’s just about as accurate.
A traitor supports the enemy.
RTH – So Pearl Harbor provided the USA with a “fig leaf” of legality to kill Japanese civilians. You are so far to the pacifist left that you could be a spokesman for Al Qaeda and if you said that in the presence of WWII veterans you would probably have to spend 6 months in a hospital recuperating.
Breaking news, the US Military won the fight in Vietnam. Leftist politicians handed the victory to the communists, including John F. Kerry. Facts.
Wait, according to the structure of that last sentence, John Kerry is a communist.
Huh…is that a fact?
No one said John Kerry was a communist.
His anti-Vietnam group did enjoy the financial support of the KGB, according to documents and interviews obtained by several British historians.
Bill Clinton’s lies to avoid the military draft and flight to England and then to Moscow do not make him a communist.
Even Ralph Nader’s campaign office being in the office of CPUSA does not make him a communist but, like Kerry, and Clinton, unfit to hold office in America.
Lee, if you look at the way his sentenced is structured, he IS saying Kerry is a communist. Acch! Nevermind. Grammar eludes you.
I can barely believe we agree on the non-taxation of cigarettes. Politics does, indeed, breed strange bedfellows.
No smoking in bed, Lee.
And then I misspell the word “sentence”… (haha!)
I give up. Dave and Lee take this round.
Today’s headline:
Mosque Explosion Kills 46 in Iraq
I guess if we “stay the course” we can
just wait til there’s no Iraqis left and
then just go in and take all the oil.
Hmmm… maybe GWB had a plan after all.
Hey Doug, Way to go, take all the oil just like we did in Kuwait. Yea, let’s do that again, one more time.
Dave,
Do your summer vacation plans include a week at the Baghdad Hilton? With democracy busting out all over, I’m sure it will be the hot spot for neocons.
Repeat the mantra:
“Last throes… last throes… last throes”
Death toll from today’s mosque attack is up to 79. If a similar tragedy occured in the U.S., it would be 24×7 coverage on Fox and CNN. In Iraq, it’s the price of progress and another bump on the road to freedom.
Doug, just like the 10,000 who drowned in New Orleans after Bush had the levees dynamited. The US fought a civil war and in 3 days of battle at Gettysburg over 50,000 Americans died. If you were alive back then, would you be cowering and hiding from the action. Gaining liberty in Iraq is being paid for by blood but the Iraqis are proving that price is worth it. Now you can go back to watching American Idol or the Masters Golf match and you feel better that you are rock solid anti-war. You are a Mogadishu man – Brad pegged you from the git go.
I’m sure the families of the dead Iraqis are praising America today.
I’m a realist. When I see people blowing up churches on a daily basis, I tend to think that is not a good sign of progress.
As a Christian, I also do not believe in killing innocent people, especially in the name of exporting our version of democracy to people who don’t want it. I’m for national defense, not preemptive strikes based on shoddy information which then became a nation building exercise for people who don’t want our assistance. We don’t have to be the world’s policeman and big brother… all we’ve done is lit the fuse on a powder keg.
Still wondering when you or any member of your family is planning that trip to scenic Baghdad.
Oh, yeah, three more American soldiers were killed yesterday. Guess we’ll have to wait for the bodycount to reach 3000 before people take notice again. People like those nice round numbers… like Bush’s approval rating now 25 points below Clinton’s and Reagan’s at the same point in their second terms. The only target Bush has left is Nixon pre-resignation.
It’s not just Democrats who have wised up to Bush… I know… it’s the media’s fault. Keep telling yourself that.
Hope your prayers are answered tonight and more people die in the name of truth, justice, and the American way.
Doug, by the way I am glad you are posting today. I need a mental break from doing my taxes and this is it. Iraq is a giant mess. It was long before we got there thanks to Uday, Qusay, and Saddam and company. Poison gas on Kurds, mass graves, what else can we cite? Yes, they are still blowing themselves up in and around Mosques. The only good thing about is that it is happening there instead of on Fifth ave. in NYC, or Assembly in Columbia, SC. Muslims to me are basically near hopeless but there should be enough with a brain over there to run their own country. They need some time to get their government set up and for the most part we will leave (except for a token military presence) and Iraq should become a member of the free world. You may find it interesting that churches are still being destroyed and ethnic violence continues in Bosnia-Serbia. We still have troops there but they mostly stay in the background as support. By the way, I have one cousin in Serbia who is a helicopter repair specialist and a nephew in Iraq who is a Marine sniper.
So yes, we did light the fuse on the powder keg, but the press isnt reporting that our military and the Iraqi military are literally devastating Al Qaeda day in and day out. This will be brought to a bloody end but a positive end, and the US will be better off and safer for it. That is what this is all about, not Bush’s poll ratings. He isnt running again and he just doesnt care about Gallup polls. He is a true man of principle and courage and history will show that.
History will have to be the judge of the Iraq situation…. I’ll leave it at that.
History will place G.W. Bush with Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, as a liberal with a vision of what America’s role in the world should be.
Dave, you say this:
“So yes, we did light the fuse on the powder keg, but the press isnt reporting that our military and the Iraqi military are literally devastating Al Qaeda day in and day out.”
True, true. They’re also not reporting that there’s a unicorn in my back garden.
I know this is like asking Jay Leno to actually produce a laugh from someone with well-developed sense of humor, but, Lee, what is your evidence for such a preposterous claim?
Statements of obsequiosness are unacceptable answers.
Capital A – You obviously are blinded by your hatred of President Bush so NO answer will be acceptable to you. Just believe Lee on his word, try that.
You’re sounding more and more like your hero and role model with every posting, Knave. Toting that company line like a champ…
Here is coverage of the speech at USC by the Iraqi President’s son last week. The anti-war “folks” won’t want to hear him say this: Following the lecture, I asked Talabani if it is disheartening for the Iraqi people to hear and read the words of Americans who are so vehemently opposed to our efforts in Iraq.
“Yes,” he responded, “because what is a very honorable debate among your society and among the American Congress is being translated in Iraq as a sign of division and a wavering U.S. commitment to democracy in Iraq. This of course has an adverse affect on the morale of the Iraqi people, the government, even the security forces. Most dangerously, the terrorists are emboldened. They know that by influencing public opinion in different countries, they can affect policy. That’s exactly what Al Qaeda did in Madrid.”
See USC Speech on Iraq!
Do you believe in fairies! Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!
–J.M. Barrie
Which returns us to the point I made days ago: if you can be that easily dissuaded in a fight for democracy, for your own country no less, then you didn’t deserve democracy. Democracy must be seized by your own hands and at great, usually tragic, cost. See also: World History.
Democracy is not a gift. It is a hard earned goal set by a previous generation which is then transmuted into a birthright by the blood, sweat, dedication and forthright nature of posterity.
Besides, we were told we were entering Iraq because of threats to national security, not to nation build. Of course, only the most ignorant among us believed such a pledge.
Capital A – Based on your reasoning, American slaves never deserved the gift of freedom they received from others. They didnt (with few exceptions) fight for it, in fact, a goodly number of the slaves fought for the South. You have an interesting laissez-faire philosophy as far as taking any responsibility as a human, let alone any kind of Christian, to help others gain liberty. God freed the Jews from the bondage of the Pharoah in Egypt. Quite a meddler God seemed to be. Shouldn’t we be following his example? We are made in his image, although I can’t attest to Mary and what image she is cast from. Some censored ones come to mind.
Dave, you once again prove that your dishonesty is nearly as great as your stupidity. Capital A wasn’t saying that it is never appropriate to help others achieve democracy; he was saying that if the Iraqis were the sensitive plants portrayed by Mr. Talabani’s alleged statements, they don’t deserve democracy. As supposedly portrayed by Mr. Talabani, the Iraqis are so weak and cowardly that they were disheartened by the existence of dissenting voices in the United States. If the Iraqis are really that weak, there’s nothing anyone can do to help them, and that’s what Capital A was pointing out.
And I have to say that you don’t really believe in helping others achieve democracy. Not if helping others achieve democracy involves more effort than sitting on your sofa living off of handouts.
Mary, the more you and Capital A complain about and criticize Bush, you are directly aiding and abetting the terrorists. Can’t you even believe an Iraqi who lives it every day? I know you won’t, you don’t want to hear facts. Lee said it earlier, traitors help the enemy. He is right.
Cap A,
You’ve gotta give Dave some cred.He’s a much better comedian than Leno.
Mary, thanks for the assist. After a long soccer match, I really didn’t feel like overexplaining what should be apparent to one who is obviously “touched by an angel.” I often wonder who the audience is that kept Walker, Texas Ranger on the air for eight strong seasons. Then, along comes Knave, six guns a-blazin’.
Such a simple person with “simple” answers for complex issues… It wouldn’t be so bad, if he would simply not seek to annoy and infect others with his simplicity. I’ve heard of the “noble savage” archetype, but is there such a thing as the “noble idiot”?
Reading a book instead of getting a daily Rush would be a page in the right direction for Knave.
To further elucidate my points, I submit that Knave’s arguments are also specious because American slavery is not comparable to the plight of Iraqis. Freedom and democracy were already ideas that were embedded in the minds of Americans. To free slaves was to correct an error in or an ignorance of certain facets of that system, not to introduce an entirely new paradigm which had no established basis in that culture.
Also, God didn’t win any wars for the Jews. You must’ve missed that part where Moses rallied the Jews to protest.
Human hands did the killing, the fighting, the winning. God is not some fairweather fan who sits on one sideline or the other depending upon which group of His children sends him the best tickets. At least, no God I would worship would behave this way.
Now, Knave, I ask you: Did we go into Iraq to serve as saviors or did we go there because there were supposedly WMDs? I seem to remember Bushdaddy saying it was the latter, and, if that’s so, why were you even bothering to question my Christian devotion? Your beloved leader didn’t even go into this conflict to save souls.
If you’re about to somehow suggest that “doing good” was a secondary or tertiary reason that Bushbaby invaded Iraq, then he lied to the American people. He lied. A sin. A sin is a sin is a sin, Knave.
Remember when you were upset when Clinton lied about having sex in the White House with Ms. Lewinsky? Knave, this is (terms you’ll understand) 50 kajillion times worse. Needless blood and oil stains trump those of semen, Knave. Come now. Surely, you’re starting to get it?
You see the trouble you get into when you want to play President, yet not follow the rules of law as set forth by the Founding Fathers, Knave?
Knave, please just try to think with some nuance and complexity for once and not just parrot what some obese pill popper serves up for daily addiction over the platter of the airwaves. To paraphrase Moses, no man is a slave without thinking himself as such.
You’ve pledged your allegiance to a very flawed man, a representative of a failed generation that includes Bill Clinton. Those of us who oppose you on these boards are bonded to the ideals of America. That’s why we are so offended and offensive towards anyone who would use or who supports using this great enterprise (in which we are all investors) for personal or ill-gotten gains.
If you can’t see that, Knave, then you truly are just a jester as reported by bill, and you are proof that tragedy is a thought away from comedy.
And another thing…
“Goodly,” Knave?
An adverb as an adjective?
You ARE a comedian. A…goodly…one at that.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” — Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
And yeah, Clinton did seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. The problem was that Bush subsequently made up lies about weapons that no longer existed by 2002, so he could pick a fight with Iraq – a fight he is now losing.
Once again the leftists want to ignore actual facts, but what else is new. While the left, and Hans Blix, were totally convinced that Saddam had gotten out of the nuclear business, documents now being translated show that he was still meeting with his nuclear staff shortly before the war was launched. It is obvious, and eventualy will be proven, that the Russians and French helped Saddam to remove or hide elements of his nuclear weapons program. It was in the self interest of these nations to help him, since they were taking money to help the madman. Saddam was also aiding and abetting Al Qaeda and had been actively developing a program for suicide bombers. He has admitted that his regime paid $25k to the families of suicide bombers. Also, for the mentally handicapped out there, poison gas IS a WMD and it was used by Saddam. Oh, you say, minor point there, let’s just ignore that one and move on. You will ignore any facts that would give support and justification to the conduct of this war. You have made that obvious so I may as well be debating with a billboard sign that always says the same thing back to me.
As for the Bush lied nonsense, it is just that. The man does not lie, plain and simple. Leftists cannot stand the fact that this man’s honesty is beyond reproach with their treasonous itch to get back at the GOP for impeaching the Slickmeister. It’s never going to happen, because even if the loons in the House were to gain a majority and vote to impeach, the Supreme Court will toss the conviction. So, get over it.
As for Walker, Texas Ranger, it is still on as you seem to be a true fan, with your knowledge they were on for 8 seasons. Perhaps a closet fan. I realize a liberal may have a few “issues” letting other liberals know that they actually enjoyed a TV show where real guns were fired. Oooooooooh, that would be scary stuff. But, if it gets too violent, you can switch channels and watch reruns of Will and Grace. Now there’s a nice show for liberals.
Mary, there you go again. You state that we are losing the war in Iraq. Bush isnt over there firing bullets so you really are stating that our military is losing the war. The plain fact is our military, and more importantly the Iraqi military, is winning the war, moreso every day. You are projecting what you want to happen since you pray every day that “Bush” loses the war. How about thinking about the impact of that statement on our brave soldiers who are out there risking their lives every day so we can enjoy freedom.
Dave, leave entirely aside the question as to whether a sober person would take from these documents the same conclusion that you are taking from them. Let’s just deal with one point you made. You say this:
“Also, for the mentally handicapped out there, poison gas IS a WMD and it was used by Saddam.”
And to this, I have just one question:
. . .when?
Knave, I think the “Walker issue” perfectly encapsulates the differences between your side and the side I tend to support.
I enjoy Walker as one of the most unintentionally comedic shows to ever grace the airwaves. You enjoy it as the fulfillment of some sort of consevative WASP fantasy where the “great white hope” leads his Texan troubadours to the tune called “justice” (read: violence). Don’t forget Trivette as his aide de colour serving the role of a modern day Tonto.
“How pale face always know what to do?! His white wisdom will save us!”
I can see the inanity in the plot situations (not to mention the iffy acting), but many in its audience seemed to take it as something that affirms their conservative worldviews. Maybe it was the constant bloodshed from this show alone that turned the states of its mainstay audience red?
I enjoy seeing things go BOOM! as much as the next guy, if there is a necessity for such violence. It should be the last and final resort because people cannot come back from the dead. What is complex about that idea?
I mean, did you think that the entire point of a film like the Clint Eastwood directed Unforgiven was just to have exciting gunshots go off everywhere, see a lot of blood and produce a terribly high body count just to make the film seem like it was “doing something”?
Or did you see that it was a film of intelligence designed to highlight, among other complexities, that violence should be avoided at all costs because once its draws you in, you become infected and can never totally escape its beck, its call or its horrific outcomes? There is a terrbile finality to it all, Dave, that is not to be considered lightly.
If you picked the former, all it takes is a little introspection and rejection of mental laziness to see it as the latter. It doesn’t take great “book learning” or any adherence to elitism. Thinking is it, simply.
I don’t honestly think you’re an idiot, Dave, as I’ve previously stated my faith in my fellow man. I do, however, think that you are a bit of a lazy thinker. You’re pretty standard in your beliefs and as such, you think that others are just as straightforward, plain and easily categorizeable.
Violence is necessary at times. For this reason, I am a gun owner and do possess a Conceal/Carry License. Anyone who has gone through such training or even the more rigorous,insightful education provided to those who would use a gun in their line of employ hopes that he/she never has to use it. If this wasn’t so, I would have already put a slug in my TV (Ellllvis style) everytime a Will and Grace commercial came on due to sheer annoyance produced by stereotypical characters and lethargic “comedy.” Walker is honestly funnier, by far!
——-
What Bushbaby authorized is inexcuseable. His production company should have been shut down long ago and all ticket sales refunded. To be honest, I’m not sure if he lied or was just too simple to understand the ramifications of such widespread release based on such a limited script.
Surely, he’s a Walker fan, right? After reviewing the rule of law, it is clear what any lawful man would have done/should do. Involving an entire country in a family shootout isn’t even to be a consideration. America must agree because (based on recent opionion polls) the illegal bombings are bombing at the box office.
For the soundtrack, I must borrow a line from a country song you may have heard of before: This killing time is killing me.
Count Newt Gingrich as the latest member of the seditious left wing pacifists:
Article Published: 04/11/06, 2:55 am
VERMILLION – Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
============================
Who’s next?
Mary Rosh uses the bluff lie technique of Democrats cornered by the fact of their party’s overwhelming support of bombing and invading Iraq right up to 2001 – the claim that Clinton got rid of all the WMD they now claim never existed.
Where were these WMD located?
What were they?
Where are the bombing analyses with the percentage of hits on target and damage?
Mary, Saddam gassed the Kurds and also Iranians in the 90’s. From interviews with some of his key generals, right before the US troops crossed into Iraq, Saddam leveled with his own generals telling them he did not have the poison gas to use on the coalition troops. The generals thought that was their only possible defense against the superior US military. Iraqi troops had gas masks with them. This information made the generals realize they had been lied to by Saddam and the desertion began en masse. Now, if Saddam let on to the whole world that he had WMD and poison gas, and also had his direct report generals believing it, would Bush et. al. have been prudent to say —- No, we won’t believe that at all. Then, if Saddam had that arsenal in place, people like yourself, the safe at home second guessers, would have blamed Bush for NOT preparing for gas attacks. YOu can’t have it both ways.
The left decries every bomb dropped by our military under a GOP president and C in Chief, but could care less when Clinton and Wesley Clark bombed the Serbian TV station and the Chinese embassy, let alone a train filled with women and babies.
Dave, you say this:
“Mary, Saddam gassed the Kurds and also Iranians in the 90’s.”
OK, that’s what I thought. So your remark about the use of poison gas was totally irrelevant to your argument, which was that there was a present threat of weapons of mass destruction.
And I don’t care about what information you think you discern from “interviews” as reported by Newsmax-or-wherever-you-got-them-from. Remember, what you “know” in the throes of your D.T. hallucinations is not the same as what a sober person knows.
And even if there is any truth in the reports of the interviews, the fact is that inspectors on the ground looking freely for weapons of mass destruction found none. And there in fact were none. And none have been found to this day. Before Bush picked a fight with Iraq (which he is now losing) he had ample evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and continued to have ample opportunity to continue to ascertain whether any weapons of mass destruction were present, with no danger to U.S. service people, and at very little cost. Instead, he looked forward only to the opportunity to prance around on an aircraft carrier, and started a losing military campaign, costing the lives of 2360 U.S. servicepeople so far (none of them yours) and costing untold billions of dollars (none of which was paid by you). You don’t care about any of those costs, because you don’t care about America.
You talk about what people like me would or wouldn’t have done if the imaginary arsenal had been in place, but it wasn’t in place, and it was well know at the time-again, by sober people-that it wasn’t in place. What would have happened if you were right and we were wrong is irrelevant, because we were right and you were wrong.
Now, as to the Kosovo campaign, what exactly happened? Were there any targets bombed other than a TV station, the Chinese Embassy, and a train?
The fact is that Clinton stopped the Bosnian genocide without the loss of a single life of a U.S. service member. We, of course, unlike you, mourn the loss of a single innocent life. But Clinton saved untold thousands of innocent lives through his actions. You don’t care at all about the innocent lives that were lost; you simply attack everything Clinton did for no reason other than that it was Clinton who did it.
Clinton halted an act of genocide without the loss of the life of a single U.S. soldier. That is a great achievement, no matter how much a miniscule personage like you tries to denigrate it.
The fact is that Clinton is a better man than the whole Bush family put together, and he’s certainly a better man than you. Clinton worked to make this country better. You have done nothing to benefit this country. You have contributed nothing to this country. You have done nothing your entire life other than collect handouts; yet you sit and rail against the halting of a great crime against humanity for no reason other than that it was Clinton who halted it.
And you don’t really care about bringing democracy to Iraq. If you did, you’d be over in Iraq helping to bring democracy. Yet you eschew the opportunity, preferring, instead, to support yourself from handouts collected from the tax money of men and women who are your superiors in every respect.
Clinton was in office for 8 years while literally declining the offer to take Bin Laden into custody. Because of his apathy and neglect, over 3000 Americans were slaughtered on 9-11. I notice that you never mention that day. To liberals, it really didn’t happen. That act that day put us into the forced position of going to war. Obviously you would choose to have let Al Qaeda continue to grow and thrive because you cannot find anything that could ever happen that would justify defending this country. When I asked you that earlier, you answered that the benefits would have to outweigh the costs. I say damn the costs, this is about survival and winning at ALL costs. Islamic fanatics cannot be negotiated with, they can only be hunted down and destroyed. I know you would rather sit down and have tea with them, and negotiate, and just like they slit the throats of innocents, like kidnapped peace workers, your head would roll. Since you look at war and military service as a spectator sport, you simply do not understand the truth. You can’t handle the truth.
What did Clinton do to prevent Rwanda genocide? Muslims were slaughtering Christian blacks in the Sudan, what did your hero do there. Please go rent Blackhawk down and see what he did.
Karadic and Hlawik are living freely in Serbia, appearing on TV, walking the streets, yet NATO has not been able to find and arrest them for war crimes. That has been over ten years ago. Bush has ONLY been trying to get Bin Laden since 9-11. Give him 5 more years and then complain.
The miraculous rebirth of a civilized Iraq is happening day by day, citizen by citizen, family by family. You are going to feel very ashamed as this unfolds with all of your spectator (sitting blindly thousands of miles away) views of lose, lose, lose. You won’t even believe a 1st LT. who just spent a year there. That says it all.
“Clinton was in office for 8 years while literally declining the offer to take Bin Laden into custody.”
I know all about that Bizarro World story. There was no offer to deliver bin Laden into custody. What there was, was a representation by a poseur by the name of Mansoor Ijaz that he was authorized to deliver bin Laden to the U.S. if the U.S. would lift sanctions that had been imposed on Sudan for genocide. He was not authorized to speak for Sudan and there was no genuine offer to turn over bin Laden.
“Because of his apathy and neglect, over 3000 Americans were slaughtered on 9-11. I notice that you never mention that day.”
Because of WHOSE apathy and neglect? Clinton did everything he could to get Bush to pay attention to terrorism, but Bush was too busy crawling before the Chinese. I mention September 11 all the time. It is the day that Bush felt that the most important thing for him to do after being informed that the United States was under attack was to sit doing absolutely nothing, listening to a story about a goat, and then, after he finally composed himself, to run like a coward around the country.
It is a day that occurred after Bush had spent the whole month of August on vacation, during which he had received Presidential Daily Briefings entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” and responded by going fishing.
“That act that day put us into the forced position of going to war.”
…against whom?
“When I asked you that earlier, you answered that the benefits would have to outweigh the costs. I say damn the costs, this is about survival and winning at ALL costs.”
Of course you do. You don’t pay any of the costs. You aren’t going to fight. You aren’t going to pay your fair share of taxes. You aren’t going to support yourself through your own labor. For you, “costs” consist of sitting around collecting handouts.
But for people who are loyal to America, and who shoulder the costs and sacrifices needed to sustain America, as well as reap its benefits, the costs and risks to America of any particular course of action are to be contemplated seriously.
What if the costs of attacking Iraq were the creation of an Iran-Iraq alliance that posed a nuclear threat to the United States?
What if the costs of attacking Iraq were allowing terrorists to reclaim Afghanistan as a base of operations?
What if the costs of attacking Iraq were the destruction of America?
To you, though, none of these make any difference, because to you it’s enough to spout a couple of pious platitudes and leave it at that. You talk about “winning at any cost” when you’re not going to bear any of the costs or contribute to the victory in any way. But an analysis of the costs is vital, because such an analysis is crucial in answering the question you don’t care about, but I do:
Is action X good for America, or bad for America.
You ask what did Clinton do to prevent the Rwandan genocice, my answer is, not enough. But you don’t care about that, as will be seen by your answer to the following question:
What did Bush do to prevent the Darfur genocide?
Or the following question:
What are Bush’s and Clinton’s comparative records on genocide prevention?
You don’t care about what either president actually did; you only care about attacking Clinton and making excuses for Bush.
I’m interested in what the 1st Lieutenant has to say, certainly, but I want to know what facts he bases his analysis on.
I read somewhere that one supposed piece of good news was that U.S. medical personnel were doing a lot of good work treating Iraqi children who had suffered burns. My view on that was that such acts reflected great credit on them, but before I decided whether I thought that was good news or not, I wanted an answer to the following question:
How did those Iraqi children get burned so that our medical personnel had to treat them?
Bush is cleaning up the mess left by Clinton’s fear of touching tough foreign policy issues.
New reports coming out of Iraq show sectarian violence is abating. Much to the dismay of our lose the war crowd, we are winning in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on the run. The Shiites aren’t taking the civil war bait. Bush and Rumsfeld are looking like geniuses now.
Yes, according to the information below, they are looking like men of MENSA. To parapharase you, if you won’t believe former generals, who will you believe?
Doug asked who was next. Next is now…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12313869/
Democrats are angry because even with the inept Republicans at the controls, the economy has recovered from the Clinton tax increases and stagnation, and the enemies he let run wild are being hunted down and exterminated. Pakistand, Libya and other Muslim nations have surrendered their nuclear and chemical weapons to the US.
Syria and Iran are backing the terrorists in Iraq in a desperate effort to prevent us from having a stable base of operations to use against Syria and Iraq.
TYPO CORRECTION: “..base of operations against Syria and Iran.”
I have worked for several corporations where the mgt. subordinates and middle management were in disagreement with the senior level bosses. So, some of the generals, after departing the military organization, express dislike for the boss’s approach. Whoopee dee. That is called human nature. I think what the generals have to say should be seriously considered and then only one person gets to make the decision on Rumsfeld, W. I fully trust his judgement. We all remember that Clinton had 8 long years to promote his perfumed prince diversity and gay rights officers, like Wesley Clark, and some of the doubting Thomases are in that pack. Gen. Zini is another.
The real important facts are that insurgent attacks are lowering in number, AQ is having real difficulty recruiting new thugs, and the population is not taking the civil war bait that AQ and the radical democrats in America so sorely want.
You know, Dave, that’s weird, because I read in the paper today that insurgents just blew up a police convoy.
So where did you get the information that things are bright and cheery in Iraq and everyone has a pony? Another one of your D.T. hallucinations?
Based on Dave’s comments concerning homosexuals, I guess it’s safe to assume that there will be enough shellfish left for me to consume at the local fish camp tonight. Good Friday, indeed.
Corporations don’t usually re-hire employees who have had notoriously failed runs during previous incarnations, yet, decades later, Rummy and the Dick are back in the starting lineup.
I know of their misplays that we have seen reported on the nightly news ad nauseum. What I’m most afraid of (after this Administration’s sorry title run is ended) is what we’ll find out that went on in the clubhouse (far from the madding crowd).
For our national team’s sake, (when Bushbaby and the brickbat boys are oooouutttta there!!!), I’m praying we discover that there were little more than a few more foul tips on top of all the record-setting timeouts and strikeouts.
Mary, Since you need to register to read the Wash Times, here is most of the article in an excerpt:
Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general saysBy Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 14, 2006
Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.
The group’s failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year “was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed,” said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.
“They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism,” he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Gen. Vines’ statement came as news broke that coalition and Iraqi forces had killed an associate of Osama bin Laden’s during an early morning raid near Abu Ghraib about two weeks ago.
Rafid Ibrahim Fattah aka Abu Umar al Kurdi served as a liaison between terrorist networks and was linked to Taliban members in Afghanistan, Pakistani-based extremists and other senior al Qaeda leaders, the military said yesterday.
In the past six months, al Kurdi had worked as a terrorist cell leader in Baqouba. Prior to that, he had traveled extensively Pakistan, Iran and Iraq and formed a relationship with al Qaeda senior leaders in 1999 while in Afghanistan.
He also had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, formed while he was in Iran and Pakistan, and joined the jihad in Afghanistan in 1989, the military said. He was killed March 27.
Gen. Vines said the foreign terrorists had made a strategic mistake when they tried to intimidate and deny Iraqis a way to vote.
“I believe Zarqawi discredited himself with the Iraqi people because of his willingness to slaughter Iraqi people,” he said.
What the story says is that some guy gave a speech.
So let’s see what we have here.
On the one hand, more than 40 U.S. service members are killed during the first 2 weeks of April, and just in the last couple days we have an incident where insurgents blow up a police convoy, and we have incident where 2 U.S. Marines are killed and 22 injured.
On the other hand, we have some guy giving a speech saying that everything is bright and cheery in Iraq and everyone has a pony.
Do you believe in fairies? Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!
–J.M. Barrie.
Democrats, led by the NY Times, have been screaming for the resignation of Rumsfeld since the day he took office.
They were silent on the military commanders who resigned rather than take orders from draft-dodger and Soviet stooge Bill Clinton.
There were zero commanders who resigned under Clinton because he was a Soviet stooge. Why? Because the Soviet Union did not exist while Bill Clinton was president. If you’re going to be critical of someone at least get your facts right. As for draft dodgers – Bush and Cheney take the cake. Bush failed to show up in Alabama for National Guard duty, failed to get his required physical (to fly F-102s) and left the guard well before his 6 year tour was up.
As for Mr. “other priorities” Cheney he received 5, count ’em, 5 draft deferements while thousands of other young Americans died in Vietnam.
Question – Do you know the best way to protect yourself if you go hunting with the Vice President?
Answer – Wear a North Vietnamise Army uniform.
History Lesson
* The Soviet Union was going strong when they invited Bill Clinton to Moscow as a Vietnam war protester, while he was dodging the draft by lying to his draft board about being in ROTC.
History Lesson #2
The Boston Globe investigated GW Bush’s military service and found the attended so many extra drills that they had to make him stop flying jets. He had more than enough hours to leave the Texas National Guard a month early in order to matriculate at Harvard Business School.
Lee, “history” means stuff that REALLY HAPPENED, not events you experienced only subjectively during an OxyContin-induced hallucination.
Mary, what is your aversion to facts all about? GW Bush wore the US military uniform with honor and was discharged with honor. The slickmeister at one point received an extremely urgent and national security critical phone call but he refused the call because he was in the middle of receiving intern lip service in the oval office. That phone call was from his own security staff requesting permission to blow Bin Laden to smithereens while they had him in the sights. When the perverted draft dodger finally got back to national security business, the opportunity was lost to take out Bin Laden. The white trash in the oral office is now just a bad memory to most of us.
Dave, I have no aversion to facts. But I, unlike you, understand the difference between objective and subjective facts. Objective facts are those that relate to events and conditions that originate OUTSIDE the brain of the observer. The “facts” that you and Lee “observe” aren’t objective facts having an origin in reality, but subjective impressions resulting from brain atrophy arising from years of indolence, amplified by various chemical interactions.
Impressions gained during a period of hallucinations caused by alcohol withdrawal don’t reflect “facts.” Impressions resulting from the ingestion of crystal meth don’t reflect “facts.” Impressions originating from a haze caused by the abuse of OxyContin don’t reflect “facts.”
Red Mary now accuses the Boston Globe of making up stories about how LT Bush fulfilled his Guard service. Why would her hometown paper, which supported John Catch-22 Kerry, lie to make Bush look good?
Lee,
Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. So lets separate the two.
Fact – George W. Bush failed to get his required physical in order to continue flying F-102 fighter jets. This is not an opinion. It is not in dispute. Bush himself has not denied it. That is why Bush stopped flying jets. Period. End of story. No rebutal possible.
Fact – George W. Bush failed to complete his 6 year service requirement in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) before leaving for law school. Again, that is a fact. Period. End of Story. No rebuttal possible.
Opinion – George W. Bush failed to get his physical because he was afraid he would test positive for illegal drugs. There is much circumstantial evidence to support this opinion but it’s still just an opinion. Bush himself has offered other excuses for not getting his physical but I believe the drug explaination is certainly plausible.
Opinion – Bush was allowed to leave TANG early because he was virtually useless. Since he was not eligible to fly and Vietnam was winding down there was no reason to keep him on at taxpayer expense. The “earned extra time” story is just another opinion. The Boston Globe itself has this to say about Bush:
“But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service — first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School — Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.”
Perhaps Bush eventually made up the time (that would be an opinion since there is much about this story in dispute) but in 1973 it is clear Bush had not keep his military commitment.
Correction. I said law school instead of business school in the previous post.
Bush and several pilots didn’t bother to get a physical because they were leaving the Guard in the next 30 days, and most of the fighter planes had been deployed to active duty, anyway. – Boston Globe
George Bush requested a 30-day early leave from the TANG to attend Harvard Business School, so he would not have to wait another year and reapply. Because LT Bush had already attended extra drills and had over 600 hours of extra attendance, his commanding officers approved his request. – Boston Globe
Those are the FACTS, not the opinion of anyone.
It is my opinion that Clinton and Gore supporters are so filled with hate and embarassment over Clinton and Gore flunking out of school due to drug abuse (according to their classmates and close friends), that they conjured up the cocaine smear of G.W. Bush.
The author of a smear book had it recalled by the publisher when he admitted it made it up. That’s another fact.
Lee, speaking of drug abuse, what could be the explanation for your evident inability to read the Boston Globe?
If you search using:
**Boston Globe on Bush National Guard**
This is the beginning of the first article you get:
********************************************
Bush fell short on duty at Guard
Records show pledges unmet
September 8, 2004
This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team — reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.
In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush’s military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service — first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School — Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.
He didn’t meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.
********************************************
So, what could be the reason for your constant claims that the Boston Globe says things it doesn’t say?
Alcohol?
Crystal Meth?
OxyContin?
Or simply dishonesty, laziness and ignorance arising from the shiftlessness and lack of initiative caused by a lifetime of dependence on handsouts?
If you didn’t bother to read all the news about Bush and the TANG back in 2000, and just expect to run out and grab the first article found by a search engine in 2006, expect to remain ignorant on the subject.
Brad Warthen asked the anti-Americans (not anti-war, so long as their party is waging it) what they would do now.
Their response is avoidance, and a chorus of lies from the Gore 200 dirty tricks unit. That’s why we have no alternative but to stay the course with Bush and the GOP. The opposition has not plan, only sedition.
John Kerry promised repeatedly in the 04 campaign to sign his form 180. Instead, he signed a limited release of his military records. This was to keep off record his dishonorable discharge which Carter pardoned him for before leaving office. All of these records are sealed but have leaked out. Jk was not provided a standard form DD214 because he had collaborated with the enemy while still in Active Reserves. Thus, no honorable discharge. So, if we want to talk about someone who dishonored the country, let’s get back to John Kerry. He is still at it – “US soldiers are breaking into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night, terrorizing women and children”. Yes, that is the flagship man of the Dem party. The real American disgrace.
Lee, whether my search was comprehensive or not is irrelevant (although the articles carried along with them links to what appears to be a complete archive). The fact is that the first article that came up, from the paper YOU referred to, says the OPPOSITE of what you say the paper reports.
So I put it to you again. What causes your inability to accurately read and relate the contents of the Boston Globe?
Is it:
Alcohol?
Crystal Meth?
OxyContin?
Or simply the dishonesty and shiftlessness that you learned from a lifetime of taking handouts?
Dave, I’ll say the same thing to you that I said to Lee. For a record to have “leaked out,” there has to have been a record that existed in PHYSICAL REALITY. The fact that you or someone, in a psychotic episode induced by withdrawal from alcohol or indulgence in drugs of abuse, subjectively perceived or imagined the contents of a “leaked record” is irrelvant.
Mary, why won’t John Kerry release his full Form 180 as he promised? Bush released his. Also, why didn’t Bill Clinton release his medical records to the public? Bush released his. Could it be the treatment for drugs on the Clinton record? Or STD? There has to be a reason Clinton and Kerry won’t do full disclosure with the public. Bush has hid nothing. That is a fact.
Was Bushbaby’s love of the nose candy noted on his medical reports? Or was that white pony hidden in some fine stable?
Was it also noted that he had to do a complete 180 concerning his approach to his own life or else Bushlaura would leave?
Why is it that so many prominent Republicans have chemical dependency problems yet attack people with the same problems under the guise of “the War on Drugs”? Remember that illusory “war” which was all the rage before the currently fashionable one?
Capital A is still spreading the lies about Bush long after his source has admitted the story was a fabrication, his book has been withdrawn from stores, and his publisher has apologized for being duped by the Gore campaign.
And the critics of the war effort still have no ideas of their own, nor the will, to fight the terrorists, at home or abroad.
Rush lied about himself, too, huh, when he admitted his substance abuse after years of lambasting celebrities, politicians and the public for the very addiction he kept hidden? He could have served a greater purpose by serving as an example to those with similar problems, yet he chose the path of the ego.
We’re through the looking glass here, Lee. Get off the red pills.
Yes, Clinton was lame, too, for “not inhaling.” The difference is that he didn’t impugn others who did. In fact, all the aforementioned politicians/talking heads are representatives of a generation that has failed America and whose chances for lasting positive impact have and are going up in smoke.
This is actually quite fun seeing how people can live in such denial about the facts. So Lee and Dave I give up on trying to convince either you of the truth. For whatever reason you are blindly loyal to the president. If Bush was caught strangling a baby you would believe he was simply attempting the Hiemlick manuever. And please do not mention Clinton or Kerry. I’m no big fan of either one. But, whatever they did is irrelavent to this discussion. For the rest of you here are the 3 reasons Bush himself gave for not getting his TANG physical. Do any of these make sense? You decide. This is the last I’ll say on this issue.
Story #1) “Bush’s campaign aides have said he did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston.” [Boston Globe 5/23/00].
The Truth
· In fact as the Boston Globe goes on to state “flight physicals can be administered only by certified Air Force flight surgeons, and some were assigned at the time to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, where Bush was living.”
Story #2) Then in June, campaign officials told the London Times Bush did not technically need to take his flight physical. “As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam,” according to campaign spokesman Don Bartlett.
· Any suggestion that he had simply decided to “give up flying” prior to his suspension, with two years remaining on his commitment and nearly one million dollars (in real terms) invested in his training is not plausible. It is not up to an Air National Guard pilot to decide whether or not he “intends” to fly.
· “If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out” said retired Major Bobby W. Hodges [Boston Glove 5/23/00]
Story #3) In the same article, Bush campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett told the newspaper that Bush was aware back then that he would be suspended for missing his medical exam, but had no choice because he had applied for a transfer from Houston to Alabama and his paperwork hadn’t caught up with him. “It was just a question of following the bureaucratic procedure of the time,” Bartlett said. “He knew the suspension would have to take place.”
· The exam was required to be completed in the three months preceding his birthday, July 6, 1972. A three month window seems adequate to avoid being suspended from flying.
So which is it: his family physician, he didn’t have to take the exam, or a bureaucratic snafu?
By July 6, 1972, G.W. Bush had no plane to fly, no fuel, 600 hours of excess drill time, had been accepted to Harvard Business School, which started classes August 18. Why bother to take another flight physical when he was not going to fly?
PS: There was not even a reliable test for many of the drugs which the Bush haters claim as the reason he didn’t take the exam, without any evidence or witnesses to that smear.
It is all a diversion from the real drug abuse of Clinton and Gore, and the thread topic… that the Democrats have no idea of how to defend America.
Why did Bushlaura threaten Bushbaby with the termination of their marriage (in your mind), Lee?
If it wasn’t the drugs, was it the repeated business failures or was it something else that you’ve concocted to make history more palatable? You’re quite the alchemist, but you’re mining fool’s gold.
Bushbaby has never successfully followed through on a venture in his life that wasn’t reshaped or reformed with Bushdady’s money…or the quid he “earned” that grew out of Bushdaddy’s stock. Now, you’re seeking to do the same for him regarding his personal life.
Clinton is just as flawed, just differently so. Why do you defend Bush at all costs? If only you protected the writ of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights as vehemently…
In short, why the man-crush?
Why can’t the Democrats offer any alternative plans to how they would run things?
Capital A, take a look at Nifong, the DA up in Durham, if you want to see how a liberal rotten Democrat scum has no regard for the law or our rights of any kind. Sort of like Ronnie Earl. This guy has charged and arrested one kid who wasnt at the party while the strippers were there. This guy simply wanted some people booked to appease the fired up local black race hustlers. But again, this is what liberals do, talk constantly about the sacred need to protect individual rights, but in practice they have zero regard for the constitution. Hillary was the same way while rifling through, criminally I might add, over 500 fbi files of opponents and competitors. So, keep talking the good game and party line of the need to respect rights, but facts are facts.
By the way, the idiots who hired 2 black strippers were truly idiots of the worst kind. My guess is they came from wealthy liberal families and thought they were doing the black girls a favor, entertaining the hoity toity of Duke. They opened themselves up for what happened but I still think even an idiot should be treated properly in the justice system. Obviously Dem politicians could care less.
Dave, none of your “facts” map to any kind of reality. Remember, “facts” are descriptions of events and phenomena as they exist in the world. A subjective impression produced by overindulgence in drugs or alcohol doesn’t constitute a “fact”.
Anyway, your objection to the D.A.’s actions has nothing to do with evidence or lack of evidence. You are simply outraged at the idea that white men aren’t entitled to rape black women with impunity.
What are you going to do, put on your sheet and go up to Durham and protest?
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png
Hmmm, how many of these squares will Lee and Dave hopscotch onto in their next three posts? Care to go for BINGO?
Mary, in your weird hateful world, you think its fine to arrest a college kid(s) on poor or nonexistent evidence. That is what your role model regime in the Kremlin used to practice so I know you condone it. Where are all the individual rights and liberties liberals when something like this happens? Not to be found of course. Liberals have repeatedly shown they will use police power to even murder US Citizens whenever they want to. I reference Waco, Texas and the use of a military tank against a cult of idiots, women, and children. I also cite Ruby Ridge. These were your liberals in power using the force of the government against citizens. Yet liberals don’t want to protect our borders against non-citizens. Do we see a pattern here – called “Let’s destroy this nation”. I see it and so do many others.
Capital A – They need to add a few bingo squares for you. One would be “Gotcha, you mispelled a word so I am so smart and “erudite” while you are a dunce”.
Second would be for Mary. “Whatever you respond, or whomever, is a rotten piece of garbage.” I like Mary when s(he) holds back the rhetoric like that.
Anyway, C-A, how about posting something about the subject at hand istead of attempting to attack other posters? That would be a real change for you.
Duhave, you’re the same guy who wished posters a happy Easter and goodwill toward men in one post, and then accused a fellow poster of having “beady snake eyes” just a few moments later. You’re the same guy who took my post concerning Bushbaby and somehow got off on the exit towards Raleigh-Durham.
Look in the mirror, Dave. You’ll see a closed-minded child…or maybe you won’t since you do seem to miss the obvious so often.
I don’t think I’m smarter than you. I’ve never posted that. That is your own inferiority complex shining through. Most people grow out of that.
You post hateful and derogatory messages concerning racial minorities because they “aren’t American” or just won’t “learn the danged language.” Well, that’s the same frustration I have with you for not bothering to edit your posts or spell basic words correctly.
Doesn’t feel too good when someone publicly embarrasses you with your own words, does it, Dave?
Let’s stop attacking those we see as powerless just because we think no one will come to their aid or defense, shall we?
That would be the most American thing to do. Word.
If the Duke lacrosse team had just called the strippers “interns”, the press might have left them alone.
Dave, I’m not addressing the strength of the evidence – although when you call the statement of a black woman “nonexistent” evidence, we learn something very important about you. No doubt you and your sheet-wearing friends dream of a return to the days when the testimony of a black person wasn’t allowed in court.
I am addressing the fact that your conception of “reality” does not match events observable in the physical world. The so-called “alibi” drawn from the statement of the cab driver does NOT establish that the guy wasn’t there; the defense attorneys are engaging in some heavy interpretation and claiming that the timeline shows that he didn’t have time to do the alleged acts. I’m suspicious of such a claim, but what I DO know is this – the “fact” that he wasn’t there at all exists only as a subjective impression in your tortured imagination.
I have long contended that you and Lee are crazy, based on the fact that no evidence could cause you to change your opinions, and that, I think, is the very essence of craziness – a failure to relate your actions and perceptions to events as they exist in the world. You have now given me definitive proof, at least as far as you are concerned, with this statement:
“I also cite Ruby Ridge. These were your liberals in power using the force of the government against citizens.”
The Ruby Ridge incident occurred in August 1992, when Bush was president.
q.e.d.
You’re right – “no evidence” will not change my opinion. So far, there is no evidence of a sexual assault, and no corroborating witness.
Mary, just because I mentioned the race of the participants doesn’t mean I am racist in my thinking. What a ridiculous assertion. By the way, OJ, in your mind, was innocent all the way. You possess a reliable double standard on everything you read about. You WANT the white boys at Duke to be guilty, and to be punished. That shows through your comments, so you will hang onto every piece of nonsensical non-evidence to rationalize your own agenda.
As for Ruby Ridge, Bush I may have been president, but he, unlike Bill and Hillary at Waco, was not involved in what would have registered as a routine police action. No, the leaders in the FBI made those decisions, and guess who appointed those leaders. Bingo, the pervert Bill himself. So I still hold Bill accountable for Ruby Ridge also.
CA – Why use words like racist, hateful, degogatory when I am stating my opinion, not calling you names? As for being ashamed of my wordsmithing, that is a joke. This is a blog, not my Ph.D. dissertation. I type fast and am not truly interesting in wordsmithing per se. If so, I would do everything in MS Word, spell check it, and then post it in. You come across as a frustrated burn-out English teacher. But I like you because you always have a response, even if the racist stuff is a little over the top. I find it funny how white liberals just love to pull out that race card and point it to high heaven. It must make all of you feel so good and self righteous. Then, you go back home to your lily white neighborhood where if a black drives down the street the alarms go off on the neighborhood crime watch. Of course, the black folk can come in and clean houses and cut grass, just don’t be doin no snoopin around and especially keep yo eyeballs off’n the white girls. That is you and Mary I bet. In saying that, I don’t think you and Mary are racist at all, it is simply human nature, almost biological. Not totally unlike dogs, we all have a claimed territory, we just don’t (most of us anyway) happen to walk around peeing on the boundaries to mark it. So lighten up, and give some Lee Way on the wordsmithing.
Dave, I call you a racist because you are claiming nonexistent “facts” in order to overcome an allegation of a crime, and because you are only claiming such nonexistent “facts” the race of the accused and the accuser.
In addition, I call you a racist because, according to you, the statement of the alleged victim constitutes “no evidence”. There was a time in South Carolina when the word of a black person wasn’t admissible in court, but that time is long past, no matter how much you and your other sheet-wearing friends want to return to it.
“No, the leaders in the FBI made those decisions, and guess who appointed those leaders. Bingo, the pervert Bill himself.”
How did he appoint them before becoming president?
“So I still hold Bill accountable for Ruby Ridge also.”
An event that happened in 1992, before he became president.
As I said before, if we needed any more proof of your insanity, this is it.
Mary, I know Sen. Robert Byrd, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader, is one of your heroes. Contrary to your babble, I am a proud non-racist and have never belonged to the KKK, while Byrd was a statewide leader of the Klan. He is one of your kind, not mine. Furthermore, let’s let the facts come out but if the black girl made this stuff up to cop a few bucks, I would like to see her get a 20 year prison sentence. If any of the Duke crowd raped her, then also a 20 year sentence. Do you think it’s racist that the only black team member was waived from the dna testing. What if, in her drunken stupor, she was raped and didnt realize it was the black player. Justice for all I say.
Whoever said I was entirely white? How can I be a burnout at my early age when I’ve never touched the illegal drugs that our current President, the subject of your man-crush, has? Just more of your ill-informed, not-so-subtle and racist remarks.
Do you value education or do you not? Or do you just value it when you can throw it in the face of those less (or those who you perceive to be less) enfranchised than yourself?
Give Hispanics and others new to the language some slack, as well. You ask for the same quarter that you would not extend towards others when, very often, your charity and your opinions aren’t worth a dime.
You SHOULD like me because I own you on these boards. With the barest expense of common sense and wordplay, I’ve sold and bought your emotions repeatedly. You’ve become angry and emotional which leads creedence to Mary’s charge that you may be a bit unstable. That fact doesn’t bother me so much because a good court jester should be a little bent.
Besides, your excuse should be that s/he’s pounded you countless times with the warhammer of weary wisdom while I’ve pecked away at you with rapier wit. It could all be avoided if you didn’t harass the citizenry.
So, now that you have been owned, where may I get a refund in these taxing times?
It was the usual cast of Democrat prosecutors, Al Sharpton, and other race-baiters in the media who immediately tried to turn this Duke incident into a racial one, and stir up a lynch mob.
Capital A, although this repartee is bordering more and more on the silly side, you give yourself away with the concept of owning someone. Maybe you fantasize about being a slave owner. Just a thought. But, if I were to be a slave, believe me, a wuss like yourself could never control me. Your multi-syllabic words don’t impress anyone either. The real question is, do you have any ideas or thoughts for making the world a better place? If yes, you haven’t demonstrated much of it here. Your extreme hatred and disrespect of our President is unusual and you should give it some thought. Especially if you are in a position to influence impressionable young minds.
Putting Mary’s thoughts and wisdom in the same sentence really lays out where your mind is for all to see. Even Herb, a nice guy who is pretty open-minded, is an object of scorn and hate to her. You and her are a team, I will grant you that. But, then again, since your thinking has been in the marginal fringe left, I can understand your inner bitterness at feeling so powerless. Get used to it, the American people aren’t gullible enough to elect a pacifist weakling in the next election. As I have said before, it will be two pro-war, pro-military candidates running against each other. Great!!!!!!!!
Dave, unlike YOUR hero, Strom Thurmond, who raped a black woman and had a daughter by her, and then dishonorably refused to acknowledge her as his daughter, even when by doing so he might have embraced his last chance to avoid hell, Senator Byrd many years ago repudiated his racist past and expressed his shame for his past racist behavior, instead of continuing it up until the day he died.
We are more concerned with the liberal racism of the present.
Mary, the esteemed Senator Byrd used the N word in a nationally televised interview just about 2 years ago. He has the gullible like you buffaloed, but that leopard never changed his stripes. Repudiate in public, but privately he has never changed his thinking. Strom’s family owned up to his love child, but Bill Clinton never did take ownership of the Williams child, who by the way, really resembles the Slickmeister. I just saw a recent picture of him last week.
Lee is correct, only recently the leftist liberals practiced ethnic profiling against the United Arab Emirates ONLY because they were Arab. Pretty hypocritical behavior by the race baiters in America.
Dave, again, it doesn’t matter what someone’s drug-induced subjective impressions are. What matters is whether your perceptions map to some kind of verifiable reality. Your “secret knowledge” of what Byrd privately thinks is irrelevant, and your “knowledge” of Clinton’s child is similarly irrelevant, because you have know way of knowing about either issue. Your constant claims of “knowledge” unfounded on any evidence, or contrary to all known evidence, give ever greater evidence of your mental instability.
As for the U.A.E., the concerns of the great majority of Americans about the ports deal had nothing to do with whether the country is Arab or not. Our concerns include the fact that the country is an Islamist monarchy, that their “alliance” with the United States is weak, and of very recent vintage, that they U.A.E. royal family are friends of Osama bin Laden.
For you, the analysis begins and ends with the fact that Bush wanted to do the deal. For loyal Americans, that isn’t enough. For loyal Americans, what was much more important was whether or not the deal was good for America.
Mary, I find it interesting that you have a problem with a country being an Islamist monarchy, but are 100% against an Islamic country becoming a democracy. Iraq for example. Now, sit back, take a deep breath, and think that through, logically for a change, not with hate filled emotion.
The old liberal attitude towards the Middle East and all of Africa and Asia, is to ship them food and advisors, a secular missionary effort as part of the “white man’s burden”.
President Bush is a bit more progressive. He realizes that the failure of socialism as a replacement for the colonialism of the liberal white West cannot be solved by importing billions of people to America, nor by propping up the next degraded dictator. He knows that these nations have to adopt Western notions of civilization and free markets, or be exterminated.
The left in America will hang their hat on one distorted and overhyped notion, for example that Cuba doesnt charge its citizens for medical care so their medical care is the greatest in the world, ergo they must have a better nation than the USA. Meanwhile, I know a guy who vacations in Cuba and brings with him cans of tuna and levis packed in separate suitcases. Those “goodies” buy him a motel room, booze, and even beautiful girls for a week. I don’t agree with the whoring around aspect, but this guy is single and does not reside in the US. But anyway, this is the liberal notion of a great society. Cuba???
Dave, sometimes I wonder if you are a self-parody. It is difficult to imagine anyone exhibiting the combination of dishonesty and stupidity that appears in your posts.
I have never said I was against an Islamic country becoming a democracy, nor am I aware that anyone opposed to the Iraq war is against an Islamic country becoming a democracy. What I am against is the United States starting and losing a war to promote the fantasies of chickenhawks such as yourself and Warthen, who contend that simply mouthing the mantra “democracy is good” justifies any level of sacrifice, so long as you’re not the ones making the sacrifice.
Questioning whether the U.A.E. is sufficiently reliable to be entrusted with operating U.S. ports is not the same as advocating an invasion in order to change their government.
If you really care anything about the safety of America, or about brining democracy to Islamic countries why aren’t you advocating an attack on the U.A.E?
The answer is that you don’t care about democracy and you don’t care about the safety of the U.S. You only care about advocating war so that you can claim for yourself a monopoly on patriotism. But if you were a true patriot, you would be shouldering some of the sacrifices you urge upon others.
Mary, I hate to burst your bubble but the UAE company that you hate so much is running the port of Miami, at least in the same sense they would have been “running” other East Coast ports. But, now you don’t hear the liberal cowards griping about Miami, they really dont have anything against the UAE, they just wanted 15 minutes or a few days of Bush hate on network TV and in the typical American hating NY Times and WA Post. They got it so who cares about Miami right? You fit right in with that weasel weakling crowd.
Also, bigtime correction, Strom Thurmond never raped anyone. The mother of the girl has said it was consensual. That really breaks your heart I bet. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton did rape Juanita Broderick. Sadly, he got away with it. Put some ice on it, Mary.
Dave, once again, reality consists of things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, not someone’s subjective, drug-induced impressions.
Now, it’s interesting that you say the mother of the 80-year-old “girl” has said that Thurmond’s impregnation of her when she was 16 and he was 22 was consensual. Where did you get this information, in a séance? From a D.T. hallucination? Where?
And why did she tell you, when she wouldn’t tell her daughter? Ms. Washington-Williams says that the circumstances of her conception were never discussed with her.
Perhaps if Mary knew that Bill Clinton is a paid lobbyist for the UAE, and that they bought his house in Chappaqua, they would stop their racial profiling of them. They just had a reaction because they thought the UAE was an ally of America and President Bush in the war on terror.
Mary, the relationship between Strom and the black lady was not a one night stand. It was a long drawn out relationship. That rules out rape to most sane people. Get it???
Lee, I find that Mary ignores truth, such as my pointing out that the UAE company manages the Miami port. She or it simply ignores anything that is not part of the hate Bush chant. Actually I hope these idjits keep it up as it will ensure that another GOP adult will be elected in 08. George Allen or Condi Rice. Or run as a team. They would win.
“Mary, the relationship between Strom and the black lady was not a one night stand. It was a long drawn out relationship.”
Where did you GET this information from? Why (and how?!) did she tell you this, when her daughter doesn’t say anything about it, and says the circumstances of her conception were never discussed with her?
Again, a “fact” is a piece of information related to some event or condition that exists in OBJECTIVE REALITY.
There is NO evidence that what you say is true. What you and the rest of your sheet-wearing friends want to believe is true doesn’t count. What counts is what there is evidence of.
What there is evidence of, is that Strom Thurmond, at 22, impregnated his familiy’s 16-year-old maid, never acknowledged the daughter he fathered, and paid hush money to her at the same time he was constantly railing against affording black people the same rights as white people, with a large part of his racist rhetoric relating to fears of interracial sex.
You and your sheet-wearing friends can try to explain that away as much as you want, but those are the facts.
Mary, if someone pays hush money to any other person, they are acknowledging ownership, plain and simple. Would I walk up to a stranger on the street and pay hush money, no. I would have to own up to a reason for doing it. Now that is logical.
OTOH, Jesse Jackson fathered a child via his secretary and attempted to pay nothing, then got the Rainbow coalition to pay out it’s “hard earned extortion money” for it.
Democrats in the Hating Left can only hope of instant citizenship for the criminal immigrants, so they can merge with La Raza to outvote real Americans.
George Bush said in personal conversations that he supports having citizenship granted to “criminal immigrants,” and has said publically that he thinks it’s a good plan to open the way toward citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been in the country for five or more years. Obviously a member of the hating left.