The idiot wing
In his Feb. 5 commentary, “Blame America first and last,” Charles Krauthammer makes the frequent complaint so often heard on Rush Limbaugh’s radio talk show: The left always blames America for anything and everything that goes wrong in Iraq.
Not so. We all live in America, whether we are politically right or left. You can lay the blame for the civil war, if you will, on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been dead for more than eight months. But al-Qaida never would have gotten into Iraq if Bush hadn’t gone to war.
Lay the blame not on America, but the idiot wing of the Republican Party which nominated our two-headed President, George Walker Cheney.
Joy Privette, Elizabeth
It gets so old to hear yet another liberal spout off about our President. How convenient selective amnesia is. You always forget Kerry, Clinton and other Democrats voted for action in Iraq. The liberal stance for Iraq is to cut and run and let the terrorists take over and multiply until they attack us again. Our President is fighting to protect our country while wimps like you and Gore yell “the sky is falling..”
Posted by John Walker on February 28, 2007 05:29 AMMs. Private doesn't want to blame the Democrats who dismantled the CIA during the 1990s, she just wants to blame Bush for bad intelligence in 2002. She doesn't want to question why ex-President Clinton is now an employee of Qatar, an Arab government. She would rather blame Bush.
When Krauthammer wants to blame the left, she says we're all Americans. Then she blames the Republicans, whom she apparently feels are not Americans.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on February 28, 2007 06:12 AMIt is amazing that people like Walker and Watkins try to shift the focus to Clinton. The Bush administration was guilty of gross stupidity or worse in sending American lives into combat with the idea that it would be easy, that they really didn't need all that equipment, that a small force would do nicely, and that they'd be back home not just by Christmas but by Labor Day.
So has the Bush administration accumulated a track record which indicates we should trust its judgments?
Feb. 7, 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
March 11, 2003 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."
March 16, 2003 Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
How many American lives were sacrificed on the altar of their ignorance and incompetence?
Walker calls Joy a wimp for criticizing President Bush. What Walker doesn't realize is that the real wimps are people like him, the "yes" men who refused to criticize the President. I expect Walker thinks that only a wimp would go to war with a sufficient force, sufficiently protected.
No one would buy a used car from Nixon and no one should trust the judgments of the Bush administration on how to fight a war.
Posted by Jerry Lyons on February 28, 2007 07:00 AMthey have been brainwashed by rush limbagh and sean hannity , jerry!
there is NO undoing that kind of manipulation.
not saying that far left liberal talking heads are any better ( see air america )
we will see what our democratic elected congress does in the next few years ( probably nothing though ) but they have their chance now.
Posted by Frank on February 28, 2007 07:51 AMI wish that just once writers like Mr.Watkins would provide a link where I could find the reference to the enabling legislation whereby the Democrats( the minority party in Newt Gingrich's contract on America congress) dismantled the CIA, the military ,or any other part of our nation. I'd gladly study that legislation and assign blame for any lasting effects based on that study.Of far greater significance, in my opinion, than any action the Clinton administration may have taken against the CIA was the bush adminstration's establishment of the Office of Special Plans as a means of circumventing and marginalizing the intelligence professionals at the CIA.
Posted by patrick on February 28, 2007 08:35 AMThis just reminds me of the 04 elections when Kerry took some heat over voting on reducing spending on weapons systems, most notably the Black Hawk helicpoter. Yes Kerry did vote to reduce spending, an action that was recommended by the then Secetary of Defense Dick Cheney. Before accusing the Democrats of single handly dismantling the CIA and the military during the Clinton administration, remember that Republicans held the majority of both houses of Congress from 1994 to 2006. D'oh
Posted by Sean on February 28, 2007 08:59 AMJohn Walker it is comments like yours that get really old. Sure those people voted for the resolution to use force, with the understanding tht it would be use only if necessary. No body forced the idiot in the WH to invade Iraq. He did this in an attempt to build a legacy of that of a WAR PRESIDENT.
No Democrat has a "cut and run" policy as you state, that is merely Right Wing spin. But since you have all the answers, what is your solution to deal with the civil war in Iraq that is killing our troops and costing us billions of dollars?
Posted by Ron on February 28, 2007 09:34 AMYo Ron: The idiot in WH was under compulsion to invade Iraq reminding me of Joe Mormonism (Mitt Romney) that god sent an angel to behead Joe if he did not implement the principle of polygamy:
“God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem of the Middle East. If you will help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” Source: Ha’aretz (Israeli periodical), June 24, 2003 FT 8/03
The "idiot" but more like delusional, hears a voice from an invisible Jewish dude who ascended into heavenly turf. r22037yahoo
Posted by Richard Grimes on February 28, 2007 10:29 AMYour comments are great Richard Grimes. The delusdional "idiot" in the WH is exactly that. And this war was as much about protecting Israel as it was anthing. Check out the web sight for the Project for the New American Century or PNAC. Also check into "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Those two things pretty well sum up the reasons and who were the driving forces behind the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by Ron on February 28, 2007 10:46 AMJerry,
I remember that three weeks into the invasion the press was reporting that the troops were floundering in a quagmire. About three weeks later Baghdad fell and Saddam's stature was torn down by the citizenry.
The quotes you select need to be placed within the context of the time.
The problems we're having stem not from the military aspect of the operation but from the occupation that followed and there is a good deal of fertile territory for accusations and finger-pointing.
But now is not the time. The troops are at the beginning of a push to control Baghdad in what is arguably, the last chance for those 12 million people who waved ink-stained fingers at the cameras in defiance to achevie a decent orderly society.
All I am saying is, give war a chance.
Posted by Jim J on February 28, 2007 11:02 AMMr. Grimes, you keep citing this supposed quote of President Bush from Ha'aretz. Why don't you provide some context? Why don't you mention that this was taken from the supposed "minutes" of a meeting between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts. Why don't you mention that this is how Abbas characterized Bush's words, and not necessarily what the president actually said. Considering his audience for these comments and considering the propensity of actors in that arena in particular to twist the truth to their own ends, I don't consider Abbas a reliable source for much of anything.
Posted by on February 28, 2007 11:07 AMIt is so nice that all you children can throw sticks and stones.
Just remember it could change and your tone could get you beheaded after 08.
Ok I'm through and you can go back to all your name calling and feel good about your selves.
Have a nice day and please go buy some of Algores energy credits to help reduce the warming in the world.
Posted by Bobby-Jo on February 28, 2007 11:14 AMWe should have never gone into Iraq under the pretense of going after WMD's without valid proof. But, it is better to be fighting and killing radical Islamist terrorists over there than it is to be fighting them over here. The whole thing seems to be orchestrated by the Council on Foreign Relations though.
Posted by Jay on February 28, 2007 11:17 AMRichard Grimes, if I had an email address or phone number, I would enjoy talking to you.
Ron
Posted by Ron on February 28, 2007 11:22 AMJIm,
!) Your timing is wrong as to when the statue fell.
2) It has been documented that the statue was demolished by US forces as Iraqis watched.
You have no credibility when you can't get your facts right.
Posted by on February 28, 2007 11:50 AMComments for Patrick and Ron:
Patrick,
The president appoints the head of departments and then that head is approved or rejected by congress. The department head handles the budget of that department (in submitting requests). I agree that it would be impossible for a department to completely cut funding without the approval of congress, but the point is intelligence was cut and it hurt our country (hindsight being 20/20). To lay blame on one party or the other makes no sense, as WE ALL were fooled into thinking that Iraq had WMD. Sadaam did kick out the inspectors, they didn't find the weapons, or proof of their destruction while they were inspecting, and we KNOW FOR A FACT Iraq had WMD's, they used them on the Kurds in the 80's. That is not disputable. We were all fooled. All of us. To blame now is counter-productive to the task at hand.
Ron,
You asked what should we do? Hisotry teaches us a tremendous lesson, doesn't it (yet in our "we want it all and we want it now world" it is hard to think that way). In post ww2, we established military bases in countries that we defeated, and in regions that would give the US a strategic influence. My (rather uninformed opinion as I am not on the ground in Iraq, nor do I plan on it - yes very selfish of me), would be to allow the generals to do what THEY feel is best. If that means there is collateral damage, than so be it. It is a war. If they feel that the best case scenario would be to allow for the democratic split of Iraq into three States (meaning countries, not like our states), similar to what occured in post cold war Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, then I would prefer that outcome. While I would be disappointed to see a country split for religious reasons, it may be the best case scenario.
Regardless of what occurs, the stability of the region demands a police presence (in this instance the United States Miliatry). Without it, what is now a bad situation, becomes an intollerable situation. The debate should not be about funding, or an illegal war (I still don't get that arguement, Congress approved the war, and the war powers granted to the President in OVERWHELMING fashion), but rather a conversation with the Iraqi government on when THEY feel they will be able to handle the problems their country faces and work to achieve that goal of autonomy.
Again, history will teach us that post war is the most difficult time for a developing country. Look at our own civil war. There are STILL hard feelings in the south, almost 150 years later.
The Vagaries of Religious Experience Edge, 2005 Some religious people regard scientists as foul heathens, which is terribly unfair. We aren’t all that foul. On the other hand, we do tend to be heathens. The most fundamental principle of science is that beliefs must be predicated on empirical evidence — things that everyone can see, touch, taste, and measure — and in more than two thousand years of recorded history, no one has yet produced a shred of empirical evidence for the existence of God. That hasn’t kept most people from believing. For as long as pollsters have been asking the question, roughly 90% of Americans have been claiming to believe in God, and a sizeable majority believes that God takes a personal interest in their lives and intervenes to help them. When President Bush said, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did,” most Americans were not alarmed to learn that their leader was receiving orders that no one else could hear. America is an unusually religious nation, but even in the world’s least religious nations the majority of people claim to believe in God. r22037@yahoo.com
Posted by Richard Grimes on February 28, 2007 12:10 PMDan2, You are aware that the US, along with France Germany and Russia, provided funding and material assistance that allowed Sadam to acquire the gas he used on the Kurds aren't you? And that the republican controlled congress at that time quashed a resolution to condemn the attack. Good foreign policy, give a rogue regime weapons then use that as an excuse to invade them. That makes the US culpable but those peaceful Kurds still love the US. It's a strange world.
Posted by J on February 28, 2007 01:24 PMJim J, the question is not whether to give the Iraqis a last chance but how best to give them a last chance.
When the Joint Chiefs unanimously consider that the surge can result in a setback, when General Abizaid says that a surge will aid the enemy, when people like Oliver North oppose a surge, when people like Senator John Warner oppose a surge, when a number of other Republican senators oppose a surge, when Great Britain refuses to join the surge, then there is reason to believe that surge is a bad idea.
There is heavy opinion that the Iraq government has been disinclined to do what it should because it can hide behind American troops. Sending in more American troops to hide behind does not seem to be the way to solve that problem.
I must admit that I find myself wondering if a surge just might work. But I am not a military man. While General Petraeus' feeling that the surge will. or is it "might"?, work is enough to give a person pause, what I think is wrong is for people to claim that backing away from the surge would be to abandon the Iraqi people because it is arguably the better way to help them succeed. If the surge should fail, as so many experts across the spectrum think it will, both the United States and Iraq will be in a much, much worse position than they are now. It may then be too late for the Iraqi government to have its back against the wall and finally do what it needs to. And it is also true that a person in President Bush's shoes is naturally going to be greatly inclined to grasp at even straws since it would be a devastating blow to his presidency and his legacy if it would turn out that what we needed was to encourage the Iraqis to do fix the problem themselves by not providing them with even more of an excuse to rely on us.
Posted by Jerry Lyons on February 28, 2007 01:33 PMDan2, you are absolutely correct, we know for a fact that Iraq HAD WMDs in the 1980. There is no evidence that he had any when we invaded. Obvioulsy you do not hesitate to mislead which is exactly what the Bush idiots did to get us into this mess in Iraq.
Posted by Ron on February 28, 2007 02:37 PMRon you are wrong about WMD. True that WMD were not found in the Quantity nor Quality, but were found all the same.
So are you saying that Saddam disposed of the WMDs and did not use the press to cheer him on for being the huminitarian of the world for disposal? I guess he was that kind of a guy that he did not need nor want that coverage. What a guy.
I agree it is a mess, dont get me wrong, but lets keep the facts as they are correct.
Posted by bwr on February 28, 2007 02:51 PMJerry,
I am not a military man either and I don't dicount your misgivings.
If this latest ploy fails then we may very well lose Iraq and the war on terror will be more difficult. If we succeed the war on terror will be easier. Either way the war will go on.
My point is that the surge is on and with the troops are in harms way I think the message for the enemy is "The finest fighting force in the world has been turned loose on you, the American people are behind them all the way and you have no hope of success."
Posted by Jim J on February 28, 2007 03:03 PMbwr, I agree that facts should be kept correct, however I see that you do not practice what you preach. Point us to the evidence about the WMD that you are so sure of.
Posted by Ron on February 28, 2007 04:16 PMRon not sure if my last comments will be posted.......said a dirty word Bi#$. So not sure if it will get through.
[it didn't -- ed]
But did go to Google
and did find if you search on chemical weapons found in iraq, (also Biological) you will see many articles stating found weapons.
bwr..do you buy into the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat? do you believe that we went into war as a last resort? do you really think we were going to see the mushroom cloud as Rice stated?
Posted by on March 1, 2007 07:35 AM7:35 post,
Do I think there was a threat? Yes
Imminent? No.
Do I think they were working on Nuclear or other WMD technology? Yes I do. Within Iraq or in partnership outside of Iraq. But again I do not have the luxury of looking at any sensitive documents that would prove either way. All I have is what the Press tells us. Now there is an above board group that I want to bet all my $$$ on. I think we are in a different world now (Beyond and not because of any specific president or admin) This has been boiling for years.
To say that "NO" WMDs were found is false and very misleading if only because it takes less than 2 minutes to validate.