With all the talk we’ve had in the last few days of the Republicans who were at the presidential debate in Columbia, it’s interesting to pause and read Peggy Noonan’s column from Saturday, "The Man Who Wasn’t There." Here’s an excerpt:
He is running a great campaign. It’s just not a declared campaign. It’s a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his
intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn’t homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn’t it bad that colleges don’t teach military history? How about that Sarkozy — good news, isn’t it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.
These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they’re not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That’s an unusual sound.
Regarding the Thompson video she talks about, here’s that link again.
She’s being a little naive on that one. His dig at Michael Moore wasn’t "almost . . . deliberately unclear." It was quite deliberately clear.
Related Posts
We are ready for Thompson
This is a great post. Peggy Noonan’s article is not her first, but second noticing the absence of Fred Thompson from the debates. I believe the former Reagan insiders like FDT. Clearly, he has garnered much attention in the Internet Nation, but I agree we are ready for FDT and he better start hiring staff in IA, NH and SC asap. I would imagine in 2-3 weeks from now, we will talking about FDT’s candidacy. I am sure, well I hope, he will kick off his campaign with a National Tour covering at least 5-10 cities. With that tour under his belt, I agree with blogging and video content posted on his web site, he will do well. Fortunately, South Carolina is not a far trip from his home in Northern VA.
Anyone can say the things that Thompson says, and indeed more true conservatives should be saying them. Conservatives win elections when they say these kinds of things and can demonstrate that it isn’t just talk. Additionally, when conservatives win saying these things, they can rightly assert that they have a meaningful mandate to enact policies consistent with these ideals. But I wonder what real qualifications Thompson has to be POTUS? I mean other than being witty and a Senator once, what has he done? I don’t know, I’m just asking…I don’t remember him for any real accomplishments as Senator. Has he got an accomplished record that I’m missing? Ed
ed –
You asked about what Fred Thompson has done. While not all of this has been triple-checked, you can take these facts about Fred Thompson to the bank.
Mike…I went to your link. Surely, this man is the Son of God. Ed
I guess we all try to make jokes, and they sometimes come out wrong, but that last comment seems sacrilegious to me.
Anyway, here is whom I would like to see run for president.
And here is who I would like to be the president. I understand he’s available soon. If we don’t amend the constitution and snap him up right away, we’re a lot of bloody fools.
Mark –
Lou would be an interesting candidate and I’d like to see him run, probably for different reasons.
One big obstacle a guy like Dobbs faces that the current mayor of New York doesn’t is cash on hand to finance a presidential bid. I really do believe that is a problem, but know that it can be quite simply rectified by removing any and all campaign contribution limits while requiring full disclosure.
Right now, the only folks who can afford to mount a credible campaign are those who can successfully appeal to party-affiliated deep-pocket contributors or who have a mid-size fortune of their own that allows a knucklehead to become a US senator or Governor of New Jersey.
That leaves out a whole bunch of folks like Dobbs. Who was it that thwarted LBJ’s re-election? Why Clean Gene, a guy financed by Minnesota rich guys. Now what was wrong with that, other than most of us didn’t know who the heck was funding McCarthy?
With our silly campaign-finance reform statutes, particularly the limits on contributions, we’ve created a stealth funding system where “independent” groups hide their funding while pursuing political advantage. With full disclosure we’d have more fun with wackier candidates and know who was doing the funding.
Brad –
What about this guy? You’ve got energy independence, great relations with Iran, and international respect — very few have anything bad to say about him or his country and live to talk about it.
I apologize for my last comment. I knew when I wrote it that it wasn’t right. I was “in the zone” however and attempting to be cute in badinage with Mike…not an excuse, but there it is. Ed
Tony Blair in Iraq: War Criminal Admits Guilt
Felicity Arbuthnot
May 20, 2007
As Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Baghdad on Saturday, for an ‘unexpected’ visit, to bid the Iraqi people he has helped decimate, farewell, he was welcomed by mortar rounds which fell in the ‘International Zone’, the illegally squatted palace of former President Saddam Hussein. Just: ‘usual business..’ said his spokesman airily. Hope Blair and his entourage brought a spare pair of trousers, Whitehall’s mandarins are not known for towering courage in the face of adversity, more for fiction writing, aka ‘dodgy dossiers’. A bad tempered Blair, delusional as ever, talked of ‘signs of progress on security.’
‘ I have no regrets about removing Saddam …’, said the man, the corpse of whose premiership will for ever lie in Mesopotamia’s sands, with the possible million souls he and his Washington masters have sent – and continue to send – to their graves – and that is only since March 2003. No mention of the weapons of mass destruction he assured the world, threatened the very existence of the West and could be launched ‘in forty five minutes.’
‘Removing Saddam’, whose leadership and government’s sovereignty was guaranteed by the UN? No shame for sharing responsibility for the lynching of Iraq’s President and colleagues, whose remaining legitimate government have been held, for over four years? No regrets about committing Nuremberg’s ‘supreme crime’, a war of aggression? Turning the country into a radioactive wasteland from use of uranium weapons? Denying water, electricity, medicines and medical equipment (in contravention of the Geneva Convention) schooling, even gasoline in this possibly largest oil producer on earth? ‘No regrets’ at the ongoing deaths of at least one hundred people a day, the destruction of an entire civil society, sado masochistic and other war crimes committed by his troops in the south; their uncounted Pinochet style disappeared? Nearly one sixth of the country internally and externally displaced, most, like the Palestinians, without valid passports, credentials (all changed after the invasion, most Iraqis too frightened to approach the relevant Ministries imposed by the US and UK.) ‘No regrets’? And in front of the world’s media. If the lawyers at the International Criminal Court in the Hague have not got all they need now, they should consider a career move.
‘The future of Iraq should be determined by Iraqis …’ said Blair, standing next to honoury Iranian ‘Prime Minister’ Nuri al Maliki and Iraq’s non Arab, Kurdish ‘President’, Jalal Talabani, who wants the best of all worlds, independence for Kurdistan and the retention of his rule there and the top job in Iraq. Iraqis complain that in all the Ministries now – if they dare approach them (and indeed in Embassies abroad) they need to field a bank of Farsi (Persian) speakers and those who only speak Kurdish, before finding someone who speaks Arabic. ‘We need to take advantage of the possible momentum in Iraqi politics …’ said another Blair spokesman. ‘Momentum’? What stratosphere is planet Whitehall on?
‘He builds palaces while his people starve’, was the Blair-Bush mantra during the embargo years. Now the British and Americans are the illicit residents of Iraq’s palaces, remaining state buildings, bases (another war crime) as the people for whom, they, as the occupying force, are responsible, starve, flee and die in hospitals decimated by liberation, whose facilities are non existent and over half of whose doctors have been killed or fled for their lives, under what some careful analysts call ‘black ops’ operations to set Iraqi against Iraqi by the US and UK. Iraqis did not fight each other before the invasion, so what changed? Divide and rule?
Blair (more trousers?) was welcomed by further ordnance as he stood in a base where the British troops, seemingly, cower, in Basra -‘ the war is lost and the troops in retreat’, a correspondent commented of the British last week – an area now ruled too dangerous for Britain’s Prince Harry to deploy with his troops. In Basra, Blair seemed especially dismissive of Iraqis. When an Iraqi journalist asked him about Iraq’s future he replied tetchily that the ‘authoritative voice’ of Iraq was ‘President’ Talabani and the question should be addressed to him as ‘ the authentic voice of Iraq’ . He clearly had not read the day’s Guardian either, where in extensive coverage of the south in general and Basra in particular, their correspondent was greeted by an Iraqi General with a handshake and : ‘ Welcome to Tehran’, referring to the near total Iranian influence in everything under British watch and largely facilitated by their errors. The troops themselves watched Blair with stony faces. ‘It is important that neighboring countries understand and respect’ (Iraq’s sovereignty) said Blair, the man from far away who slavishly followed his Master’s Washington follies.
As Blair arrived to the Baghdad bang, the airwaves were awash with former President Carter’s scathing assessment of the Blair years. His : ‘Support for Bush had been a major tragedy for the world’, he had been ‘loyal, blind and subservient.’ Iraq’s invasion had been ‘unjustified, unnecessary … a tragedy for the Iraqi, American and British people.’
That tragedy, the depth of which Blair could never comprehend, is encapsulated by Layla Anwar, an Iraqi blogger, who wrote of a friend who said this week: ‘I wake up in the morning and death sits next to me. I have my tea and she has one too. I walk and she accompanies me. I go to sleep at night and she is in my bed. I see death, I hear death, I smell death … she is everywhere. When she will pick me up, is only a question of time.’
Blair will return to the UK to some pretty scathing press, from the comment left by a reader on the Sunday Herald : ‘ Blair, just go will you, you murdering, lying filth’, to former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, who told BBC Radio 4, the same day : ‘Nothing can be done about Iraq except to put a sack over his head.’
The Messianic Blair, who joined George Bush’s ‘crusade’, trespassed in Iraq’s palaces, is involved in a global goodbye tour which will last forty days, the time, for believers, Christ wandered alone in the wilderness. Speculations as to his future are myriad. However, in the recent Channel 4, soaringly spirit lifting docudrama ‘ The Trial of Tony Blair ‘, his tenure in Downing Street ended with him heading in an armored police van for Heathrow Airport and for trial the Hague. Now he has admitted his guilt to the world, fittingly in Baghdad, here’s hoping.
Those who question Thompson’s credentials, I ask you, what credentials does Barak Obama have? Certainly less than Thompson has, yet we never hear Obama’s credentials questioned.
Of course you hear Obama’s credentials questioned — or you’re just not listening.
I would say Thompson’s credentials exceed those of Obama. Of course, they fall far, far short of McCain’s.
Oh, and bill, thanks so much for the 1,100 words of overheated, emotional psychotic blather about the finest leader of any country in the world today.
Let’s try to keep the length of these comments down a bit — particularly if they aren’t “comments,” but just extensive cut-and-paste.
You’re welcome,but obviously ignorant and uninformed.Of course,you will choose to stay that way.You’re undying support for McCain and the illegal “war” in Iraq are all the proof I need.Bush,Cheney,and Blair are war criminals.
You are mired in the idiocy of corporate media.The truth is out there,why do you ignore it?(Hint,ya ain’t gonna get it from Thomas Friedman).
And to reiterate-
“Blair’s support for Bush had been a major tragedy for the world’,he had been ‘loyal, blind and subservient.’Iraq’s invasion had been ‘unjustified, unnecessary … a tragedy for the Iraqi, American and British people.’
Jimmy Carter
“Psychotic blather”?
“finest leader of any country in the world today.”
Psychotic blather.
Uh-oh Bill. You’ve stepped on Big Brother’s (Brad’s) toes. You may soon get Roshed. Great article though.
Bill,
You label Brad as ignorant and uninformed, yet your words expose you as the pot that called the kettle black.
Combat operations in Iraq are part of the Gloabl War on Terror and were authorized by the U.S. Congress. There is nothing illegal about them. If they were illegal, then most current anti-war Congressional leaders like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Harry Reid would be just as culpable. They voted for it based on the exact same information provided to Pres. Bush.
I’ve been in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain. I can assure you that if any eyes need opening, they reside in your skull.
I would encourage you to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan to meet a few of the folks you support. If you can book time between their bombings of markets, public roads and schools, they’ll be glad to introduce you to Islamic fanaticism’s version of free speech. Should you be fortunate enough to return with your head, your opinion of who was “ignorant and uninformed” will no doubt be changed.
There is no “War on Terror”.As I’ve said before,that’s an oxymoron.If you buy into that one,bon voyage.
Brad, I don’t know what it is that makes you such a stooge for McCain, but you absolutely border on psychosis with it. I’ve read on Drudge and TownHall today that McCain got into a shouting match with Senator Cornyn yesterday and screamed the f-bomb at him. I tell you, McCain is a self-absorbed old maniac with delusions of grandeur, and we will rue the day that we elect him president. He is a barely contained bag of semi-violent emotions, and explodes with alarming regularity in this kind of loss of control. I not only question his judgement (soft porn and mutilation of the first amendment), I question his grip on sanity. I swear I do not understand why Arizonans keep electing him as their senator, but I fervently wish they’d just stop…for the good of the country. I was literally sick to my stomach every day of Clintons’ presidency from 1998 (when Lewinsky hit the news) until he was gone, but I tell you I vote for Clinton a thousand times before I’d consider voting for John McCain. Ed
I find it amazing that the Republicans would be looking for more far-right conservatives, such as Fred Dalton Thompson to run on their ticket. You would think that they would be looking for someone a lot more moderate and mainstream, because the country is tired of far-right conservatives, and all of the polling data points that out. That is why this next election will be the Democrat’s to lose. Meaning that the most people want a Democrat to be the next president, and if the Republicans are to really compete with that, they will have to come up with a candidate that is a far cry from President Bush and all of the far-right conservatives. I think that on the Republican side, Rudy Guiliani is the closest person to that that they have. But, even he may not be considered moderate enough for the general public, who is really looking for someone more like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Al Gore to win in ’08.
Lue, there is much wrong with what you say, but if you truly believe that the “general public is looking for someone more like Hillary…” then you have deep underlying problems which makes discussion of superficial things pointless. The general public is most definitely NOT looking for someone more like Hillary, and as weak right now as we conservatives are for a variety of reasons, I hope beyond hope that we get Hillary to run against. Any one of the four you mention ~ Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Gore can be destroyed by either the truth, or their records, or both. You may have some candidates on the liberal side with potential to win, but it won’t be any of these four clowns. Ed
ed pontificates to Luevonia “…then you have deep underlying problems which makes discussion of superficial things pointless.”
This from someone who cites Sludge and Townhall as authorities! Townhall, in particular, is a cesspool of reactionary reichwing knuckledraggers while Sludge is merely a rightwing propaganda stooge.
Speaking of “deep underlying problems–” anyone who can read either site without feeling the need for a shower has “problems” galore.
Bill,
Dissecting the definition of war is a luxury enjoyed only by those not waging it. You clearly lack the experience or understanding of warfare to comment meaningfully upon it.
On the plus side, your response was a masterpiece of jibberish reflecting no logic, fact or mature thought. You have a bright political future.
By the way, have you summoned the courage to buy a ticket to Iraq where you can protest amid the action? I thought not.
M. Light, you ridicule Bill because he suggests there can be no such thing as a “war on terror”. It’s refreshing that people are starting to understand that very truth. There really is no such thing as a war on terror. What we’re doing in Iraq is waging a war against a group of people who use terrorist tactics as the U.S. government chooses to define it. Terrorism can be delivered in many ways. It can be a suicide bomber or an American bomber using cluster bombs. Either way the result is the same, a horrible death to the recipients.
Many, if not most of the combatants we face in Iraq are just tired of watching their homeland occupied by an imperialistic foreign superpower. Many are Sunnis who want only to be left alone but are hunted down like dogs by their Shiite rulers. Many are just fighting to avenge some atrocity that was committed against a loved one. Are these people really terrorists”? As for “war on terror” that’s nothing but a term coined by the far right to elicit fear in the minds of voters. Yes, Iraq is a horrible place. But unlike the people of Iraq Americans have a choice. It’s time to bring our troops home and let the people of Iraq solve this as best they can. And if Iran decides to intervene, so be it. That would really not bother me at all.
huh? Ed
Just a simple question for you RTH: No matter what you think about my sources, do I have any of the facts wrong about the McCain f-bomb story? The fact that you don’t like either the truth or where the truth comes from matters not. It is what it is. Deal with it. And if you agree with Lue about Hillary, Obama, Gore and Edwards then I’d simply say that there is much to question about your mental state as well. No matter what you think of me, I invite you to please please please keep thinking that Hillary can be the next POTUS. And be sure to vote that way too, won’t you? (This may just be easier than I thought for conservatives) Ed
Bud,
I’m not ridiculing Bill at all. I’m merely pointing out that like many Americans devoid of experience in the profession of arms, he’s all too eager to comment upon it.
Bill exhibits weak to no knowledge of the law, yet he promotes the American president and vice president as “war criminals.” Does the same apply to Democratic Presidents Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt and Wilson for commanding military action?
Call it a War on Terror, War on Islamic Fundamentalism, World War III, it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that a frightening number of our citizenry are oblivious and/or indifferent to a very real threat to our way of life. Those we’re fighting don’t bother with the trivia of war-menclature. They know it’s war and they call it that with fervor and conviction.
You state, “It’s time to bring our troops home and let the people of Iraq solve this as best they can. And if Iran decides to intervene, so be it. That would really not bother me at all.”
How convenient for you. It does bother me because I’ve seen the brutal threat first hand. I never want my family to see it, so I’d prefer to fight the SOB’s on their turf.
There is a sizable, perverse segment of Islam whose members don’t care whether you are for or against operations in Iraq. They don’t care that you’re American, European, Russian or Fijian. They don’t care if you believe their threat is real. They only care that you are not Muslim and further, not their brand of Muslim. They believe it’s their duty to kill such unbelievers and they’ll be rewarded for doing so. It’s really that simple which makes it that much more frightening. It’s a difficult concept for a Westerner to understand until you see it and hear it for yourself.
Note that I have not favored either the left or right of the political spectrum in my posts. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is a world issue.
However it is an American burden because few other nations have the ability or fortitude to confront it. America’s political leaders must nurture our fortitude through unity. All this petty Red State/Blue State bickering does nothing to promote victory. It may win an election. It won’t win a war.
Lastly, don’t think for one moment that Islamic fanaticism can’t be eradicated or at least marginalized. It can be, but not without the will of the American people. I just pray no further catastrophes see our shores before that will awakes.
M. Light, we have plenty of catastrophes in this country in spite of spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in a place half way around the world. London, Madrid, Virginia Tech, the Utah Mall incident are examples. Yet random acts of violence claim a trivial number of lives compared to the garden variety safety issues we deal with daily. Just check out the State newspaper today regarding the double fatal crash on I-26.
As for the fanatical terrorists, the best way to deal with them is to use good intellingence and police work to hunt down the worst of them and try to work with the moderates in the region to address the economic issues in the region. All our half trillion dollar military intervention has accomplished is to INCREASE the number of fanatics. And now Al-Qaeda has found a funding source and is re-grouping in Pakistan. How has that made us safer?
Bud,
There is nothing random about terrorist acts. They are well thought out and executed plans. As far as their consequences claiming “a trivial number of lives,” tell that to the family of a 9/11 victim. Poor choice of words on your part, Bud.
You inaccurately equate law enforcement with combat operations. They are very different. The VT gunman was not part of an overall strategy to overthrow western governments. London, Madrid, and of course 9/11, were just that.
You assert, “As for the fanatical terrorists, the best way to deal with them is to use good intellingence and police work to hunt down the worst of them and try to work with the moderates in the region to address the economic issues in the region.”
That’s an excellent idea and it’s exactly what’s going on. The intelligence assets of the West’s most powerful countries are focused on fanatical Islamic elements. Unfortunately, unlike what you see on “24” intelligence is never 100 percent accurate–not even close.
The hunt for “the worst of them” is ongoing in more than 100 countries around the world including our own.
With which “moderates in the region” do you suggest we work? If you mean Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi (though I hesitate to call Saudi moderate)among others, then we’re already doing that.
You’re not safer now than before 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq. Nor will you be for many years to come. Islamic fanaticism has been spreading unchecked for over 30 years through Republican and Democratic administrations. Only now are we attempting to pursue it. The number of fanatics would have grown with or without our invasion.
“All our half trillion dollar military intervention has accomplished is to INCREASE the number of fanatics.” An incorrect and irresponsible statement, Bud. Talk with some of the military civil engineering and medical personnel from South Carolina about their work in the Middle East. Then look them in the eye and tell them all they’ve done is increase Islamic fanaticism. You may want to wear a helmet!
M. Light, why don’t you tell that to motorcycle riders? Just this morning a motorcyclist was killed in front of the Lexington Hospital. They are the ones dying because they don’t wear helmets. Fact is, I will almost certainly die from something other than a terrorist attack. Yet we devote trillions trying to combat the terrorists. If we’re trying to save lives we couldn’t come up with a more inefficient application of resources. We talk very little about the problems that actually do claim large numbers of American lives.
But it’s actually worse than inefficiency here. If our heavy use of military assets actually prevented terrorist attacks then we could have a debate on whether this is the best use of limited resources. But we’re actually INCREASING our risk from terrorists because of our military involvement in Iraq. Far from being an irresponsible statement it is a claim supported by more and more evidence every day. What is irresposnsible is the fear mongering used by the war supporters. It disgusts me to hear all this baloney that we’ll die if we don’t leave our troops in some dessert hell indefinitely. If we pull our troops from that troubled country they can be used for missions that actually make us safer.
Now you’re suggesting that military resources be used to support OSHA regulations and force people to wear motorcycle helmets. Brilliant.
Now I know what Churchill meant when he said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
Fear mongering? No, just personal experience. Don’t you find it interesting that those whose lives are on the line, believe in the cause, while those who call for their return enjoy the comfort of home?
Sleep tight knowing that others with far greater courage than you are engaging a vicious enemy so that you can be concerned about traffic accidents.
OK M. Light,
I’m a veteran-I’ve got an honorable RE-1 discharge (I’ve got my DD-214 to prove it). My dad and all my uncles fought against the fascists in WWII. I grew up in a military neighborhood. I think the war is BS, and I have said it was BS from day one. Am I a coward? No. Am I somehow unpatriotic? No, far from it.
Maybe if you took a minute and thought about it you would realize that the people that support the “cause” in Congress are overwhelmingly a bunch of draft dodgers and hedonistic wussies. These people wouldn’t lift a finger to defend this country against anything, yet they are perfectly willing to send you, or me, or my kid to get killed over a lie.
What is the lie? The lie is that Iraq caused 9/11. It’s the lie that Bush and Cheney told the American people over and over again to get us into this mess to begin with. Bush did in fact did use fear mongering to silence the political opposition. The Bush administration has done everything possible to distort America into their twisted vision. It’s unfathomable to reflect upon how low this administration has taken America in such a short time. Bush’s un-American innovations include: instituting torture against enemy combatants, refusing to follow the Geneva Conventions, suspending Habeas Corpus, sending combatants to third party countries to be tortured, illegal wire-tapping , pre-emptive warfare, trying to nullify the Fourth Amendment, gerrymandering the Judiciary for political purposes, needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people, needlessly getting tens of thousands of our own troops either killed or seriously wounded, starting a civil war, and a host of other un-American policies. Al Qaeda on the other hand has barely suffered a scratch because we were fighting the wrong war at the wrong place!
So, since the Bush administration sucks, and since the Bush Administration is the major proponent/instigator of the war-and the “cause”-then what in the hell does that say about you?
You’re calling Bud a coward, and you have no right to do that. Plenty of people have come to realize that they were lied to, and that the war is a mistake. Bud knew that it was a mistake from the beginning-a long time before most other folks caught on to the truth.
Are you a soldier or a Republican Party operative? Who told you that you are a professional soldier? Did the Constitution tell you that-or did reactionary military officers tell you relate this to you. You know what a professional soldier is don’t you? – a mercenary. You’re not a mercenary are you? Of course not. Then maybe should stop calling yourself a professional soldier.
You say that you have served the country-and that’s fine with me. But if you are still in the military, then its important to understand who works for who-people in the military work for the people of the United States, and people in the US for the most part no longer support the war and they want us out. Soon this will be political reality as well. Either the war is going to be over by the next election, or a bunch of people are going to be unelected from Congress-and then the war will end.
Mark,
First of all, thank you for your service. Secondly, I still serve as does my brother. I’ve spent four tours in the Middle East.
Third, I enjoy hearing thoughtful opposition to the war. The problem is most Americans like Bud haven’t taken the time to educate themselves about it. They feign “concern” about soldiers without knowing anything about them or their accomplishments in the field. Learn first, then comment.
Fourth, believing the intelligence assessment and acting appropriately is not a lie just because the assessment was inaccurate. All intelligence assessments are.
It wouldn’t have mattered who was sitting as POTUS. Given the situation after 9/11, they would have been derelict for not invading Iraq given the information in that assessment. That’s why support was so overwhelming in Congress–in both parties. Read the congressional debates of the time if you don’t believe me.
You say, “the Bush administration sucks.” I’m not disagreeing with you, but how about you put a little thought into your comment. Hopefully “sucks” is not the best you can do.
According to you, war supporters in “Congress are overwhelmingly a bunch of draft dodgers and hedonistic wussies.” Your labels aren’t limited to war supporters. Are you suggesting Hillary Clinton is a proud, selfless veteran?
Your rants about Bush’s un-American innovations are so inaccurate there isn’t enough space to address them here.
As for being a professional soldier, I am proud to say that I am. So are the vast majority of the over 2 million men and women serving this country in the armed forces. You must not have done well in the service thinking you were anything but professional. I’m sure your commanders were thrilled to have an unprofessional on their hands.
I’m not a Republican Party “operative.” Why do you and others insist on putting people into neat little Republican or Democrat boxes instead of just addressing the issues?
I didn’t call Bud a coward. What I said was, “others with far greater courage than you are engaging a vicious enemy.” Nobody has more courage than our young troops.
As for working for you, I don’t. I’d never have taken the job if that were a requirement. If you had remembered the oath you took when you joined the service, you’d know I don’t work for the “people of the United States.”
M. Light, I find it offensive that you would accuse me or anyone else of ignorance just because of our staunch opposition to American military involvement in Iraq. Yet you cavalierly blow off what it without a doubt the most important, indisputable fact about the whole sordid affair. It’s simply NOT TRUE that the Iraqi government was involved in 9-11. The president has acknowledged it. Case closed. Yet that was one of the most important reasons for invading the damn place. And it continues to be falsely used, by the war supporters, as a justification for American military presense.
Here are some facts. Horrible as it was the number of Americans killed on 9-11, about 3,000, is fewer than have died in Iraq. It is also less than 1/10 the number who die EVERY YEAR in traffic crashes. Bill Clinton had the right idea. He relied on skilled counter-terrorist professionals to monitor the activities of the fanatical terrorist organizations. He also vigillantly kept an eye on Iraq and worked to build working relationships with moderates in the region. His efforts were by no means 100% effective but they did keep terrorist activities largely at bay. Fewer American sericemen died on his watch than on any other since WW-II. Americans were respected around the world. These efforts were enormously effective in dealing with terrorists and they did not burden the taxpayers with expenses that could work to combat crime and other problems in America.
The results were impressive. Crime statistics dropped significantly during the Clinton years. America’s highways were safer. Bush has turned both situations around. Violent crime rates are up. The mileage death rate on America’s highways increased in 2005 for the first time in nearly two decades. Americans and Iraqis alike are dying in staggering numbers. And for what? So that a resurgent Al-Qaeda stationed in Pakistan now has a new funding source, disgruntled Iraqis.
So we have trillions wasted fighting an enemy that basically did not even exist prior to 2003. The enemy that did do us harm on 9-11 is now resurgent and well financed. We have lost respect from all corners of the earth. Gasoline prices soar. Hospital costs and college tuition skyrocket. Crime is increasing. People are slaughtered on the highways. This is the true cost of our misadventure in Iraq. Jimmy Carter, an honorable navy veteran, had it right. George W. Bush really is the worst president ever.
Hey, ed, I’m certainly not a McCain fan. I agree with you that Brad has some bizarre fixation with McCain that blinds him to the AZ Senator’s deficiencies. (Of course, my disagreements with McCain vary wildly from yours.)
I’ll seldom respond to your posts because you believe whatever flavor of far-right-wing propaganda propounded by TownHall inmates (and complicitly supported by Drudge) is “truth.”
You don’t just cite the “f-bomb” incident as “truth,” you go on to add: “He is a barely contained bag of semi-violent emotions, and explodes with alarming regularity in this kind of loss of control.”
This is little more than a rehashing of a right-wing character assassination. Accusing political opponents of mental illness is standard fare for the right wing attack machine (and other proponents of authoritarianism like the x-USSR authorities, the Cuban security apparatus, the Red Chinese etc.)
Basically, I agree with Luevonia. Americans are sick of the incompetent right wing ideologues in the Bush Administration. OTOH, you’d apparently just like a little more competent regime of right wing ideologues.
I’m willing to bet that you think Monica Goodling– the poster child for Bush’s ideology over competence policy– had the correct idea for transforming the government into a partisan political machine. She was just a little young and inexperienced, unlike her mentor, Karl Rove.
As a practical matter, I don’t favor Hillary’s candidacy. However, electing just about any of the top tier Dem candidates would be preferable over any Rethuglican (announced and unannouced). The GOP has purged itself of any viable moderates. There is no ground between the theocrats, the plutocrats, and the proto-facists of the GOP for a candidate who isn’t ideologically extreme and inflexible.
Just to set the record straight-I did well in the Navy, and granted, I did try to do my best for the sake of serving the American people. I joined the Navy in large part because I admired my dad, and he had served in the Navy on an LCT during WWII.
In memorial to my uncles-Palmer Mattox (Army Air Corps), Whit Whittington (Navy), Doc Whittington (Army), and Pete Broome (Marine Corps)-I remember everything that you told me-thanks for putting an end to fascism. You suffered through the depression and lost your youth. Tough as nails- but not a mean bone in you. You made a better America when you came back. You’ll always be me heroes.
Just to set the record straight-I did well in the Navy, and granted, I did try to do my best for the sake of serving the American people. I joined the Navy in large part because I admired my dad, and he had served in the Navy on an LCT during WWII.
In memorial to my uncles-Palmer Mattox (Army Air Corps), Whit Whittington (Navy), Doc Whittington (Army), and Pete Broome (Marine Corps)-I remember everything that you told me-thanks for putting an end to fascism. You suffered through the depression and lost your youth. Tough as nails- but not a mean bone in you. You made a better America when you came back. You’ll always be me heroes.
“my heroes”, that is.
RTH, electing just about any of the top tier Rep candidates (announced and unannounced) would be far preferable over any D-rat.
Lexie, I’ve got an idea for a hit reality show on Faux Noise. The next debate for the candidates from the party of torture should feature various actual forms of torture conducted by the GOP hopefuls.
The first round would feature three candidates (chosen by lot) who would inflict electric shocks to “sensitive” parts of three victims.
The next three candidates would each waterboard a victim until he or she answered certain questions.
Each successive round would feature more– what is the word they use– “enhanced interrogation.” Pulling out fingernails with pliers should separate the real wackos from the pretenders.
Just to tie the torture competition in with the Rethuglicans’ other hot button issues, the victims should be illegal aliens who were proven to have used an emergency room or gotten welfare.
Include tele-voting for the most hard-core candidates and I see lots of ad dollars plus a great recruiting tool for the Naz– I mean, the GOP.
Ed,
Yes, I do think that the country is ready for a Democratic President. All of the polling data of the past year has pointed that out. And, as for you saying that Hillary can be soundly defeated by the Republicans, it had better be Rudy Guiliani, because he is the only Republican candidate right now that is moderate enough to win the White House in ’08. And, even he may have a problem winning, simply because he is a Republican, and as I have stated before, because of the way that the Republicans have conducted themselves, and have been running this country over the last 6 or so years, people are now very weary of them, especially the far-right conservatives of your party. So, someone like Fred Dalton Thompson will not be able to defeat either Hillary, Edwards, Gore, Richardson, or even Obama, because I think that the county would rather elect a woman, a black man, or a Hispanic man, than take another chance with a far-right Republican like either one of the Thompsons running on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, etc. Guiliani is the only one that you have that can give us any kind of real challenge, and it will be tough for even him.
Personally I can’t wait for Fred Thompson to announce. If he doesn’t announce I will back up on either Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter.
Hummer:
There is no way that either Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter will be able to win, because Ron Paul is essentially an unknown and Duncan Hunter is too conservative for the nation. The nation as a whole is tired of ultra-conservatives. They want someone more moderate. And, although Ron Paul is more moderate than some of the Republicans who are running the country now, like I said, he is an unknown and the Republicans will not nominate him.
The Republicans had better be thinking about finding and nominating someone who is a middle-of-the-road moderate. I don’t even think that a moderate-conservative has a good chance of winning the Presidency. So, the Republicans had better be trying to find someone who can match wits with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Al Gore.
I feel an overwhelming need to address the blatant misinformation propagated by “Bud” in his last post – Bud, first of all, President Bush never, repeat, NEVER said – nor did he imply, intimate or otherwise suggest that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Find me a quote where Bush says Saddam was behind 9/11. I’ll give you a dollar for each quote you can find. Free hint – you ain’t gonna get any of my money, because there are no quotes. You are perpetuating a left-wing myth that I read on lefty blogs – somehow, liberals have got it in their minds that Bush went to war in Iraq because he thought Saddam was behind 9/11. He didn’t. Bush saw Saddam’s blatant refusals to abide by the terms and conditions of the cease-fire agreement Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War as a THREAT – a threat that needed to be dealt with before the threat materialized into an something worse. Bush was right to depose a threat who had already been beaten on the battlefield once before, yet refused to surrender. For president Bush NOT to have taken Saddam out knowing in advance that Saddam was routinely violating UN resolutions demanding his cooperation in disarming himself – THAT would have been an impeachable offense.
Moving on to your next bizarre statement – You apparently were enamored with Bill Clinton’s method of dealing with terrorism, which, if we’re honest about it, amounted to not doing much about terrorism at all. Clinton lobbed an occasional missile into the empty mud huts of some abandoned training camps in lame, token gestures that accomplished nothing. Lets be more specific – Clinton’s method of “dealing with terrorism” begat the first WTC attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, The US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. If you’re going to seriously make the claim that Clinton’s terrorism policies were effective, I’d like some of whatever you’re smoking, please.
Next is a mish-mash of logical fallacies attempting to equate the deaths of 3000 Americans at the hands of the 9/11 terrorists with the number killed in traffic accidents and domestic crime incidents…this makes no sense in the context of the discussion, which is how best to deal with TERRORISTS. We’ve ALWAYS had traffic accident deaths. We’ve ALWAYS had murders. We’ve NOT always had planes hijacked by jihadists and flown into buildings, killing thousands of our own countrymen. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Your last statement about Bush being somehow responsible for a resurgence of crime and traffic deaths is so completely bizarre that I have to wonder if you really are smoking some sort of illegal substance.
Bottom line – president Bush acted on the intelligence provide him at the time, and did so in a manner he thought necessary to protect his country from future terrorist threats. The fact that some disagree with his actions, like our worst president ever, Jimmy Carter, just validates his actions.