Bush’s bull-headed stance on display
The article on President Bush’s bull-headed stance on the Iraq war (“Flat out of patience, Dems tell president,” July 13) just further verifies the diminishment of the office of president by showing his refusal to listen to the American public through its congressional representatives when he said he doesn’t think Congress ought to be running the war.
Never mind the previous outrage of a personal indiscretion of a president with a blabber-mouthed intern, this current administration has far exceeded that conduct in gross immorality.
In my mind, the lying and hyping of intelligence to attack another county is probably the unforgivable epitome of immorality — the cold, calculating deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and, in particular, the deaths and maiming of our soldiers.
Lillian Norgren, Denver
I wonder if the same type of critisizm could have been said about a guy named Winston Churchill?
Posted by rockymountain on July 30, 2007 01:52 AMBy "cold and calculalting" do you mean like the guys who ran the airplains into the twin towers? That kind?
Spare us the lefty loonie spin.
rockymountain - let's see if I can say this in small enough words for you to understand: Iraq had nothing - I repeat - NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (2 Bush administration lies that have now cost more American lives than 9/11). In fact, almost 6 years after 9/11, the mastermind (Osama bin Laden, a Saudi prince - and most if not all of the hijackers were also Saudis, while NONE were Iraqi) is still running free - and thumbing his nose at the US. If Mr. Bush had the integrity to go after him, instead of getting side-tracked by his vendetta against Saddam Hussein, perhaps that would not be true.
Posted by Mary on July 30, 2007 03:34 AMmary how come your boy bill and hill never went after him for his attacks on the US?
if by hiding in a cave and running re run tapes of your self is thumbing your nose, may be you should go join him and sit down and tell him clinton will be back soon and he wont have to hide anymore.
PLEASE! Let's just "CULL the HERD of GOP FELONS". Bush can be eradicated for criminal negligence, shirking of his sworn duties, which led to 3K deaths on 9/11. If that doesn't work, then let's nail him for being a UCMJ felon (40+ years AWOLee, deserter, and illegel separation/discharge). Bring down the Bush-Klan. "W" and his pappy are guilty of high crimes and misdeameanors. They conspired and violated Preident Truman's executive order which "desegregated" all of our military units. They "resegregated" all of our military units when they carned out a NAM sanctuary for "W" in the racially segregated Texas Air National Guard (violated Civil Rights Act of 1964 too).
Felon appoints fellow felon. Alito is a "W" clone. He is also a UCMJ felon (AWOLee, deserter, and illegal separation/discharge). Alito got "7" years of "free" college education (JD/undergrad degrees) courtesy of the taxpayer funded US Army's ROTC program. He incurred a "11" year active duty military service obligation as a result of these gifts. Go online and review Alito's "bio", and there is no mention of Alito ever completing this obligation. He blew off this obligation under the guise of him being a federal law clerk. Federal clerk status doesn't supercede the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
GOP "funning" and exterminating blacks as they do Iraqis. Where's Obama, NAACP, and Congressional Black Caucus-CBC (comical blacks in congress), when you need'em? Their are a host of 'White" officers in NOLA's US Army Corps of Engineers, who should be court martialed ASAP, under the UCMJ, who are guilty of shriking their duties and dereliction of their duties, which caused 1500 black deaths during NOLA's Katrina. The catastrophic failuers of NOLA's dewatering system was caused by a lack of "oversight and stewardship" by these White officers, who are accountable and responsible for those systems being properly maintained (preventive, predictive, and corrective maintenance actions), as required by OEM's. Rummy should be charged too.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on July 30, 2007 06:02 AMTo the 5:24 poster ( no name, I wouldn't sign mine either with such idiotic reasoning). Clinton went after Bin Laden, but didnt catch him and neither has Bush. BUT Clinton didn't think the next best thing was to start WWIII with a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US!!! Why can't you rightwingers understand this outrage??? Bush abandoned the pursuit if Bin Laden to ATTACK another country becaude we 'thought' they might be againsy us...hell, that describes over half of the world right now!!! Attacking Iraq because of 9/11 makes as much sense as attacking Mexico or Canada for it! When Japan attacked the US in 1941 we declared War on JAPAN, not on Russia or Iraq or Australia. We went after the ATTACKERS!!!
Posted by jimmyd on July 30, 2007 06:54 AMMr. Bush needs to go. The man has taken bull-headed to an all new level. Impeach.
Posted by truthy on July 30, 2007 07:38 AMWhooo, the loonies came out of the woodwork on this one! Good humor reading these moronic posts!
Posted by on July 30, 2007 07:40 AMJimmyd...we also went after Germany as you may recall..then Italy, and the Axis of Evil. So your point is stupid.
Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because of 911, that was a political spin that morons started believing. Iraq was invaded because they refuse to comply with sanctions.
You people need to quit being media sheep.
Posted by on July 30, 2007 07:43 AMPosted by on July 30, 2007 07:43 AM
"Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because of 911"
Except the President ..
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 07:53 AMSorry Chuckie. The prez gave 21 resolutions for the war in Iraq. Congress approved it. Not a single one of them even mentions 911 and only 7 mention WMDs
Sorry, I know, facts suck and don't provide the deep meaning you get from bumper stickers.
Posted by Dravur on July 30, 2007 08:27 AMThe democrats including H. Clinton, Kerry, Murtha, etc. voted for action against Iraq. But now that the terrorists are fighting back by killing women and children the democrats want us to run away and hide with out tails between our legs. Nice message to the terrorists!
Posted by MJ on July 30, 2007 08:36 AMThe Bush haters club seems to have a hard time grasping the fact that no one ever said Iraq was behind 9/11.
I guess bad talking points die a slow death.
Posted by KW on July 30, 2007 08:51 AMevery politician in America knows how to manipulate people. Bush wouldn't have been able to convince the sheep in America to go after Sad Ham if 9/11 hadn't occurred.
So, maybe the CONS are not completely wrong in their claim that Bushie never said there was a direct correlation between 9/11 and Sad Ham, but he DID know that he could act with impunity (from the CONS) if he were do attack a soveriegn nation, AFTER 9/11.
And, look: he was correct. So many Cons are still under the impression that Bushie was correct and justified in his attack of innocent people.
Posted by Sheila on July 30, 2007 09:40 AMevery politician in America knows how to manipulate people. Bush wouldn't have been able to convince the sheep in America to go after Sad Ham if 9/11 hadn't occurred.
So, maybe the CONS are not completely wrong in their claim that Bushie never said there was a direct correlation between 9/11 and Sad Ham, but he DID know that he could act with impunity (from the CONS) if he were do attack a soveriegn nation, AFTER 9/11.
And, look: he was correct in his assumption that he could manipulate, successfully, many people. So many Cons are still under the impression that Bushie was correct and justified in his attack of innocent people.
Posted by Sheila on July 30, 2007 09:40 AMBush is stringing this out in the desperate hope that he can leave this quagmire to the next president & go cut brush in Crawford - something he's actually good at.
The "legacy" of this dim bulb & his gang of crooks, liars & war profiteers is that his successors are going to be cleaning up this God-awful mess for generations. How is it possible to so completely screw up so many things in such a small amount of time?
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 09:47 AMThank you, GW, for your bull-headed efforts to keep us safe....even the loonie libs who think global warming is a bigger threat than global Islamic terrorism. Even Bubba Clinton believed Iraq had nuke/chemical/biological weapons (google 'Operation Desert Fox' and hear the liar-in-chief tell America why we had to attack Iraq in '98). 9/11 happened happened becasue the Clintonistas failed to do anything...anything...to pursue terrorist from the first WTC attack on (oh, and there was an Iraqi involved then). I guess Dems can only support wars started by Dems (FDR, Truman, Kennedy). Rather than fight Islam-fascists, Clinton attacked the Balkans---with no UN approval....we're still there.
Posted by buff driver on July 30, 2007 09:49 AMThank you, GW, for your bull-headed efforts to keep us safe....even the loonie libs who think global warming is a bigger threat than global Islamic terrorism. Even Bubba Clinton believed Iraq had nuke/chemical/biological weapons (google 'Operation Desert Fox' and hear the liar-in-chief tell America why we had to attack Iraq in '98). 9/11 happened happened becasue the Clintonistas failed to do anything...anything...to pursue terrorist from the first WTC attack on (oh, and there was an Iraqi involved then). I guess Dems can only support wars started by Dems (FDR, Truman, Kennedy). Rather than fight Islam-fascists, Clinton attacked the Balkans---with no UN approval....we're still there.
Posted by buff driver on July 30, 2007 09:49 AMBush leads based on principle, not the polls. The military and Commander in Chief need to direct the war. We lost in Vietnam when the media and left turned public opinion against the war. The North Vietnamese knew that all they needed to do is wait. History is starting to repeat itself. The terrorists are waiting for the same thing to happen again.
Posted by Marcy on July 30, 2007 09:50 AMSheila "attack of innocent people." You must be talking about Al-quada killing innocent people. Because that is exactly how they fight. They PURPOSELY kill innocents. You better understand that al-quada hids behind women and children. But I guess you don't care if they continue to blow themselves up along with groups of civilians.
Posted by MJ on July 30, 2007 09:50 AMThank you, GW, for your bull-headed efforts to keep us safe....even the loonie libs who think global warming is a bigger threat than global Islamic terrorism. Even Bubba Clinton believed Iraq had nuke/chemical/biological weapons (google 'Operation Desert Fox' and hear the liar-in-chief tell America why we had to attack Iraq in '98). 9/11 happened happened becasue the Clintonistas failed to do anything...anything...to pursue terrorist from the first WTC attack on (oh, and there was an Iraqi involved then). I guess Dems can only support wars started by Dems (FDR, Truman, Kennedy). Rather than fight Islam-fascists, Clinton attacked the Balkans---with no UN approval....we're still there.
Posted by buff driver on July 30, 2007 09:51 AM"Bush leads based on principle, not the polls..."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 10:18 AMI seem to remember Clinton lobbing some cruise missiles at Osama's camp. The second he did, the right wing loonies immediately started to yell "He's just trying to cover up for his sexual infidelities". So Clinton stopped. He's even stated in retrospect, he should have ignored the pressure and continued onward. But then again, after Columbine and Oklahoma, domestic terrorism seemed much more of a threat than Osama.
Any student of history realizes that the Balkans are was part of the area of Europe that was responsible for the last 2 world wars. Preventing a third seems like a good idea. Clinton also realized it was easier to occasionally bomb suspected WMDs than invade a country and try and rebuild it. Clinton: Not the best president we ever had, but definitely a sight better than the rest of the ones in my lifetime.
Posted by Roger on July 30, 2007 11:04 AMRegardless how you feel about this President, or this war, the President has not only the Constitutional Power to "run the war" as Commander in Chief, but he was also given Congressional Authority to use the United States Military Force in Iraq, "as he determines to be necessary..."
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...
and
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
(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.
(edit note: Included the specific authorization as it applies to use of Military force in Iraq. For the entire authorization visit this link http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
This is not an endorsement of the President, his policies, or his actions in Iraq. This comment is directed at Ms. Norgren, to inform her that regardless of her personal feelings, the President is acting within his Constitutional, and Congressional authority. Buyers remorse is a real term for a reason. We are seeing our Congress display it over and over and over again.
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 11:12 AMWe keep telling the truth. Neither Bush
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18, 2003
(CBS)
Quote
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
President Bush.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
Nor Cheney
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
Nor anyone else said Saddam had a direct connection to the attack of 9/11
And once in a while we see a bit of light dawning
"So, maybe the CONS are not completely wrong in their claim that Bushie never said there was a direct correlation between 9/11 and Sad Ham..."
Posted by Sheila on July 30, 2007 09:40 AM
Let's call that progress - of a sort.
Keep telling the truth here even if we'll never get the diehards on board.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 11:20 AMIt is pretty convenient for Repugnant supporters to forget who was President on 9/11/2001. Bush has kept us safe from terrorism except that time, which somehow does not count.
And if the Bush administration cannot handle hurricane Katrina, an event that they had sufficient warning over, what makes you think they can handle a surprise terrorist attack?
I hate to say anything that lets Bush off the hook; however, watching PBS 2 hours on the sixties, it is clear Kennedy and Johnson lied to get America into the fiasco of Vietnam; therefore Bush's lie to Congress and the People reinforces what the Founding Fathers felt: Trust the President but always cut the cards which means power corrupts so keep a President well neutered irrespective of gender.
Decide Corner: The Catholic cabal, five Supremes, the Vatican five thrust the Vatican dagger into America's Organic Law, Constitution by turning Bush into an imperial presidency by blowing a huge hole in the Wall that separates Church and State.
W. Bush gives $billions to Christianity. The cabal blesses him while Scalia and Thomas, a Brown Italian and a Black African want to do to the Founder's Wall what Islam did to the twin towers. Two non-founders militate against the Founders: I despise these five traitors especially the two minority (fill in the blank).
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for a complimentary copy of FreeThought T on July 30, 2007 11:30 AMRoger,
Thank you. Your post is spot on. I remember the summer of '98, when all this went down. Those who thought Clinton's blow job (two words or one? I never could figure that out) was the end of the world were shocked, shocked! - at him firing those missles in an attempt to get a guy who was not yet on most Americans' radar. I remember the constant comparisons to that movie "Wag the Dog." I heard right-wing commentators bring that up and call the missles "Monica bombs."
Funny how all that has been swept under the rug by the current haters. Now the party line is "Clinton never did anything." It's funny how history - even history of nine years ago - can completely change forms to suit agendas.
Posted by Jeff on July 30, 2007 11:38 AMDrew,
Love your comments from 9:47 this morning. It is AMAZING to me how some things are much worse, and some are so much better. As an example (policies directly affected by the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress):
1. highest gas prices ever
2. erosion of liberties with the Patriot Act
3. No plan for funding or ending the "war on terrorism"
4. UNCONTROLLED spending
5. Lack of Federal dollars for "no child left behind"
6. Teri Schivao (what a mess)
That is just off the top of my head. There were however some very nice developments out of this administration:
1. Tax breaks (for everyone that pays taxes)
2. Lowest unemployment since 1999/2000 and with those two years, the lowest since 1970.
3. highest stock market EVER
4. doing SOMETHING about terrorism (I believe it was General Patton that said, "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.")
But that is really all I can think of off the top of my head too.
Will this President "ruin" America? I doubt it. Will he be remembered as the "worst" in history? I doubt that too (one only really has to look at U. S. Grant, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and Richard Nixon - for what he did to the country). Nor will this President be remembered as the Greatest, or even in the top 30. My humble opinion...
Marcy,
I wish that things were as simple and easy as you make them sound.
What would you consider a "win" in Iraq? Total and permanent elimination of all terrorists around the world? Do you really think that is an achieveable goal?
Contrary to what the president would have you believe, all the terrorists in the world are not operating in and around Iraq.
Have you read the recent news resports about how Al Qaeda is as strong as they have ever been? Check it out:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/07/17/al-qaeda-stronger-than-ever-says-new-report/
By remaining in Iraq, the US is providing a great training opportunity for new terrorists to learn our tactics and get some hands-on experience killing American soldiers. That is really the only thing that is happening there right now.
We can stay for another 10 years and kill another 50,000 Iraqis -- but terrorism is not going to be defeated by a limited war in one part of the world. (That's why Bush calls it the "Global War on Terror" -- even though 99 percent of our efforts are currently focused in Iraq.)
Terrorist organizations are like the mythological hydra. When you cut off one head, two grow back to replace it.
Also, our military is not unlimited. We only have so many soldiers and so many tax dollars to continue the fight.
In addition to being in Iraq, we are still in Afghanistan, Boznia and Herzigovina -- not to mention we are still fighting warlords in the Sudan and the Horn of Africa.
The bottom line here is that our forces are stretched very thin. Also, we need the help of the international community to help conduct a global campaign against terrorist organizations.
Although the US is still the most powerful nation on Earth, we can't do everything by ourselves.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 30, 2007 11:42 AM
Dan2,
your "pro" points:
* tax breaks" - yes, the biggest beneficiaries being the wealthiest of the wealthy - what you didn't mention was record deficits & climbing - since this is the only president ever who gave tax breaks in a time of war - shouldn't this be in the "negatives" column.
* "highest stock market ever" - well, as the market always goes up in the long run, couldn't about any president claim that?
* Unemployment rate - I'll cede that it remains low.
*"3. No plan for funding or ending the "war on terrorism" is what you say under the "positives." And then in the "negatives" you claim that he needs credit for doing SOMETHING about terrorism. Aren't these 2 points contradictory? - and WHAT has he done about terrorism - besides being a great recruiter for Al Qaeda through his disastrous misadventure in Iraq? And he STILL hasn't instituted the 911 commission recommendations - how long after they came out?
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge some of this guy's multiple failures. I think you're dead wrong in saying that he's not in the running for the title of worst president in history.
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 12:06 PMDan 2: "highest stock market EVER"
Did you notice how much better life is for you now that the stock market went higher? I expect those living on the bottom rungs of life were excited to see that. And did the quality of your life change for the worse now that the stock market has gone lower? Ah, the thrill of seeing those paper profits, then seeing them disappear. But isn't that what life is about, paper profits?
Posted by Truth on July 30, 2007 12:08 PMAccording to Dan 2, General Patton said: ""A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
But who was it that said: "A poor plan, poorly executed, is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
Nobody that I know of. How about you, Dan2?
Posted by Truth on July 30, 2007 12:12 PMThe bottom line is that Bush is a man of courage.The liberal Democrats do not understand this because they operate from the principle of cowardness.They think it is being "Bull Headed "when you fight for something.Bush and Republicans stick to their guns where most Democrats are afraid to even own them.
Posted by An American on July 30, 2007 12:18 PMSean,
President Bush was in office for less than 7 months.
The planning for those attacks began in In mid-1996, according to Khalid Mohammed from Wikipedia.
I am not making a judgment on the Clinton or Bush Administrations. I am pointing out the time frame for full disclosure. And additionally, Bin Laden appeared for the first time on the FBI's 10 most wanted list in June 1999, yet still remains at large. I think above all else, we need to be realistic...
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 12:24 PMUn American
Why don't you run for president since you & Bush have about the same IQ? And being president of the trailer park committee probably gives you some credibility.
Oh, and incidentally, even though I know you like it, "cowardness" is not a word.
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 12:28 PMMJ: It would be easier to PROVE that Santa Claus exists than it is for you to PROVE that Al Q exists.
What I mean is this: you have been told to believe that Al Q was somehow directly and completely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You choose to believe this. But, have you ever, of your own accord --- and independent of any influence, such as political affiliation, religious dogma, etc... ---- tried to find an address, contact person or any other form of PROOF of EXISTANCE of an organization such as Al Queda?????? AND, have you also tried to ---- INDEPENDENTLY AND WITHOUT INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION ---- seen any proof that this organization, actually are responsible for the attacks on 9/11????
This is overlooked so often. How sad.
One more thing: Yes, the Iraqis are innocent. They didn't ask to be blown up any more than any other group of people attacked by maniacs.
Don't worry Repugnants, Iraq is such a mess due to a total lack of planning, understanding of the region and culture and pure incompetence that it will haunt the next administration, and don't worry it will be a Democratic one, that it will provide enough fodder for the bloggers and pundits.
You will not have a shortage of things to criticize that is for sure because Iraq has become a damned if US troops stay and damned if they leave. S no matter what happens after 2009 you will be able to find fault in it.
Dan 2: "2. Lowest unemployment since 1999/2000 and with those two years, the lowest since 1970."
When Clinton took office in January 1993, the rate was 7.4%. When he left office, it was 4.0%. It was lowered 3.4% under Clinton.
When Bush took office, it was 4.0%. It is now 4.5%. It has been raised 0.5% under Bush.
Although it is now 4.5%, during most of Bush's term, from 9/2001 to 7/2005, it It ran between 5.0% and 6.3%. From 7/2005 to 6/2007, it ran around 4.6% plus or minus, with a low of 4.5%.
Historically, until Bush, the unemployment rate has run quite low during wartime. But that was when presidents urged people to go to work instead of to Disneyland.
Posted by Truth on July 30, 2007 01:09 PMDrew - If someone has an IQ beneath yours and lives in a trailer park, are they less of a person?
What if they vote democrat?
What if they need health insurance?
Do you still hate them?
Posted by KW on July 30, 2007 01:12 PMI told, you, KW - I LOVE both you and Un-American - even though you are low-IQ trailer-park dwellers. I'd like you more if you were Democrats, though.
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 01:22 PMTruth - To answer your stock market question... Yes, I do enjoy the benefits.
Most every employee has access to a 401K. If you have been investing wisely for the last few years the rate of return has been fantastic.
Your idea that it's only paper profit and will disappear is up to the individual. If the market goes in the dumps again as it did beginning in 1999/2000 you need to change your investment strategy so your gains won't be eliminated.
But I'm sure this didn't really need explaining to you, did it?
Posted by KW on July 30, 2007 01:56 PMTruth,
The stock market (or at least the Dow Jones) is an indicator of the health of the US economy. Since it has climbed above 14,000 for the first time EVER, (before this year, the previous record was 1999 when the dow climbed above 11,000), and one of the key factors was the crash of the stock market in 1929 that led to the great depression, then yes, the Dow and the stock market is a HUGE indicator of the health of the national economy.
If you want to be arrogant and ignorant, feel free, but economics will say yes, this is true.
And, the good part of the plan for using military force in Iraq has been to bring justice to Saddam, end sanctions against Iraq, and the creation of a democratically elected congress in Iraq, and the absolute verification of no WMD's. That is good. The rest of what we are doing in Iraq is a mess and policy needs to reflect the reality of what that war has become. I think in all honesty, we had a plan to depose Saddam, but that was about it.
Drew,
If the rich pay the most taxes, then they benefit the most from a reduction in taxes. I do disagree that a normalization of the tax code and the war effort do not contradict each other. I would have liked to see cuts in domestic spending, and maybe the introduction of a national sales tax to help off-set the costs of this action. But as far as tax cuts, keep on cutting. The total cost of the Iraq war after 4+ years, is about $400 Billion, or about the same as taxes collected from the cigarette industry EVERY YEAR.
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 02:01 PMDan 2,
You said:
"If the rich pay the most taxes, then they benefit the most from a reduction in taxes. I do disagree that a normalization of the tax code and the war effort do not contradict each other."
OK - but my point is not who gets the major portion of a tax cut - it is WHY is there a tax cut at all in a time of war? This is unprecedented and incomprehensible when you consider the fact that we are already swimming in debt at a record level. Does it not bother you that your children are going to be in hoc to the Chinese, Japanese, Arabs and others? And you want to "keep on cutting?"
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 02:17 PMTo the Republican faithful who credit George W. Bush for a record-high DOW Jones average -- did you happen to notice that the market fell by more than 300 points in one day a few days ago?
Does Bush get "credit" for that too?
It is assinine to credit the president when our economy is going well. The president doesn't control the economy -- the market does.
By the way -- every time the United States has been involoved in a prolonged conflict, it has boosted our economy.
The bottom line is -- war is good for business. If you don't believe that, just take a look at the increased value of the thousands of shares of Halliburton stock that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invested in before the war.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 30, 2007 02:20 PMTruth,
I'm not making a side by side comparison, as I am a big Clinton fan (Bill). The reality is the dynamics changed on Sept. 11, 2001, as they did with hurricane Katrina. The fact that unemployment is so low now, is amazing, and shows the health of the economy.
Historically, we had conscription, which compelled men into military service. When men leave jobs for the service, people need to take those jobs, hence the unemployment rate lowers. With our war in Iraq, we don't have conscription, so the only jobs that need to be replaced, are National Guardsmen that called to active duty. Not to mention the sheer size of the military during those conflicts, and the related population figures and the percentage of those people enlisted in the military during conflict compared to citizen data.
Here is the historical number of military personnel throughout our 20th and 21st century conflicts:
WWI - 4,743,000
WWII - 16,353,700 (11,535,000 were drafted
Korea - 5,764,100
Vietnam - 8,744,000 (1,728,344 were drafted)
Gulf War - 2,750,000 (none drafted)
Current - 1,417,000 (none drafted)
Maybe it would help to include the US population during those times:
1917 - 103,268,000
1942 - 134,859,553
1951 - 154,877,859
1968 - 200,706,052
1991 - 252,153,000
2007 - 301,139,947
But, I guess you are right Truth, without looking at any other significant data, unemployment did go down during war time, and now maybe we can understand why, when during WWII 12% of the POPULATION was off serving the military.
Dan2:
Do you wish to revise your statement?
"Since it has climbed above 14,000 for the first time EVER, (before this year, the previous record was 1999 when the dow climbed above 11,000), "
I'm sorry, but didnt the dow have to hit, say, 12000, and then 13000, on its way to 14000? And wouldnt those have also been record highs?
Not to mention....I remember in 1994-5 when the dow hit 2000. And when bush took office it was right around 11000...meaning that under Clinton, the dow rose about 8-9000 points. Under bush the dow has gone from about 11000 to 14000....a rise of about 3000 points.
Posted by Tbone on July 30, 2007 03:06 PMDrew,
It doesn't bother me that my children, or grandchildren will pay down the debt, just as my parents and grandparents didn't worry about me paying it down, because when it is all said and done, it won't EVER be paid down. It will be forgiven for access to commerce, just as the US has forgiven debt. That is what happens. There are many economists on both sides that argue for and against paying off the dept. It is mostly political, as no one is going to "write a check" to China to pay down our debt. It is, as Truth likes to point out, "paper money," and nothing more.
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 03:11 PMTbone,
Since all of those records occurred THIS year (if you read my statement the previous high BEFORE this year was 11,000) I don't feel I need to revise my statement.
I'm not saying that under the Clinton administration the economy wasn't booming. It absolutely was, and President Clinton was a genius in not getting in the way, and enacting sound fiscal policies (other than suing Microsoft Corp). That was a tremendous thing. But because times were good, doesn't mean that they are now bad under Bush. There shouldn't always be this "well, it was this under so and so..." bull crap that both Democrats and Republicans like to throw out there.
The economy is strong, very strong, in the face of international conflict and domestic disasters (regardless of the response from FEMA, New Orleans would have been destroyed no matter what from hurricane Katrina).
Tree Hugger,
You have a very simplistic understanding of the economy. The market is influenced by acts of Congress, Presidential Decrees, acts of "God", and other factors. The "reason" for the big 300 point drop was the data release of home sales and trends that the GOVERNMENT releases. The influence the Government has is tremendous when it comes to the market and the economy.
While the President may not control the economy, policies and practices certainly influences the economy. You MUST recognize that, right?
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 03:26 PMT-Bone,
Your memory is not what it should be. Here is some info for you.
The Dow brook 2000 on 1/8/87
3000 on 4/17/91
4000 on 2/23/95
5000 on 11/21/95
6000 on 10/14/96
7000 on 2/13/97
8000 on 4/16/97
90000 on 4/6/98
10,000 on 3/29/99
11,000 on 5/3/99
12,0000 on 10/19/06
13,0000 on 4/25/07
Dan 2:
"It will be forgiven for access to commerce, just as the US has forgiven debt. That is what happens..."
Yes, that is what happens - to countries like Zimbabwe, Zambia and Cambodia - through the offices of the World Bank. I hope I am long dead if & when that scenario arises for the US, because we'll be part of the Third World and Chinese will probably be the international language of commerce.
And you say "this is paper money and nothing more." Really? And the billions that have to be spent each year to simply service this debt - not even pay it down? Is that just "paper money?" What could we have spent the debt service money on over here? Think of how many more wars Bush could've paid for!
Conventional wisdom says that prolonged deficits will raise interest rates as borrowers are crowded out of credit markets, thus negatively affecting long-term economic growth. Why? Because business won't be able to borrow for plant & equipment & consumers won't be able to borrow for big ticket items.
Maybe you should rethink your flippant "it's just paper money" remark?
And "no one is going to "write a check" to China to pay down our debt?" What happens when China - for whatever reason (political, the Euro is more attractive, etc?) decides to cash in their treasuries? Do you really think the implications are benign?
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 04:25 PMDan2
"The stock market (or at least the Dow Jones) is an indicator of the health of the US economy. "
Yep, like in September 1929, things were just great!
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 04:25 PMKW, JJ etc.
Let's get back to this assertion:
"Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because of 911"
Which KW and Jimmy J. think is true because Bush never said Iraq attacked us on 9-11.
But read the statement again:
"Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because of 911"
Clearly different than:
"Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because they attacked us on 911"
What about Bush and friends mantra that 9-11 changed everything. We can no longer play defense, we need to play offense etc. etc.
Our preemptive war policy was (supposedly) born on 9-11 (smart people know it was earlier see PNAC) and was the premise upon which the decision was made to invade Iraq.
We made the decision to invade Iraq because of 9-11. The President has said it. He continues to say it. Prove me wrong.
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 04:48 PMCharles B,
You may as well forget it - I've been back & forth with those two on that same topic numerous times - JJ & KW would rather DIE than admit that Bush/Cheney have continuously tried to link 911 and Iraq -regardless of the evidence. You may as well debate your pet hamster.
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 04:55 PMCharles B,
We did invade Iraq because of 9/11.
After we expelled Ira from Kuwait we left Saddam in charge Iraq because Saddam did not pose an immediate threat to us and provided a counter-balance to the Imans in Iran
The attack on 9/11 changed that. Once the War on Terror began, Saddam's state-sponsorship of terrorists made him a threat to our vital interests.
So it was because on 9/11 we took Saddam down. But no one, outside of the leftist Bush hasters, has said that Saddam played a direct role in 9/11.
You know this really doesn't seem that difficult.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 05:30 PMDrew and Charles B.
I think that there was always an implied link between Iraq (not Saddam, but Iraq) and 9/11, as most Americans are idiots (harsh but true), or should I just say political novices and fairly intellectually lazy?
And isn't that EXACTLY what brought the run on the banks Charles? The STOCK MARKET CRASH OF 1929? Didn't that play a MAJOR role in the Great Depression? Add to that the dust bowl and you see skyrocketing unemployment and the worst US economy ever.
Drew,
You make a good point, and one that I have philosophically discussed in the past. It would not be in China's interests at all to call on a debt that the US is either unable or unwilling to pay. Why? Because China depends so heavily on the consumerism of the United States, and militarily, would not be able to sustain a long war to "collect." It's kind of like trying to collect from the mafia. Good luck, because it just isn't going to happen. It would cost more in the long run to collect, than it would to forgive, and China knows that, from a fiscal perspective.
Now, I am no economist, and my knowledge level is econ 250 in college, so I am not an expert on this matter at all. But from my economic knowledge and my history degree, I am fairly confident that the "debt" is nothing more than another talking point, and nothing more. I would much prefer to see a balanced budget, than anything else, but until we as citizens live within our means, how do we have the audacity to expect our government to live within our means?
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 05:38 PM"Saddam's state-sponsorship of terrorists made him a threat to our vital interests."
Is that the new rational for invading Iraq?
Republicans are just plain repugnant and the sooner they drive themselves to political obscurity the sooner their dangerous and simplistic ideology will stop threatening this country with ruin.
Sean and Drew , you better hurry Keith O is starting!
Posted by on July 30, 2007 06:04 PMSean,
"Saddam's state-sponsorship of terrorists made him a threat to our vital interests."
Is that the new rational for invading Iraq?
No, there's nothing new there.
From John King
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 6, 2003 Posted: 10:55 PM EST (0355 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has "no intention of disarming" and presents a direct threat to the United States that must be confronted -- with or without U.N. approval, President Bush said Thursday.
"The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people," Bush said in his prime-time news conference.
"My job is to protect America, and that's what I'm going to do," he said. "I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives.... I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat."
That's called reality and it doesn't change.
What's new is this fabrication that Bush claimed(usually "over and over again" although mysteriously none of the actual quotes seem to make the assertion) Saddam plotted 9/11.
That's called fantasy and it will never become real no matter how many times you repeat it.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 06:07 PMDan2
"And isn't that EXACTLY what brought the run on the banks Charles? The STOCK MARKET CRASH OF 1929? Didn't that play a MAJOR role in the Great Depression?"
Are you saying the economy was chugging along just fine prior to the crash? Speculative trading and investing on borrowed money was the cause of the wildly inflated market in 1929. It was smoke and mirrors. Today's hedge funds are yesterday's margin buys. I don't trust the market as a good indicator of overall economic strength, sorry.
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 06:43 PMJJ,
The original assertion was:
"Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because of 911"
Which is clearly wrong.
You seem to want to argue about something completely different... Of course this is your normal M.O., so what's new?
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 06:51 PMCharles B,
I don't know where you found your "original assertion" and I don't expecially care.
I made the truth clear. You want to ignore it because you have no interest beyond your agenda.
Al leat Grimes has the integrity to post
"I hate to say anything that lets Bush off the hook; "
Being more delusional than Grimes is quite the feat but you've managed it.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 07:37 PMJJ,
"I don't know where you found your "original assertion" and I don't expecially care."
Then why did you get involved in the conversation?
"...you have no interest beyond your agenda."
What is my "agenda" Jimmy J?
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 08:10 PMHa-ha-ha-ha.
This is just to classic. The longest serving Republican senator's house is being searched by the FBI and the IRS. It seems that Ted Stevens Alaska R (of course) is in a bit of trouble for being a corrupt politician.
Between the boondoggle in Iraq, repeated examples of Republican incompetence, sex scandals, cronyism and plain old corruption the Republicans are done.
Tell me why again these pigs can claim the moral authority?
My God; I've never seen so much spin of facts, from both sides, since watching some drunk fraternity fools dismounting a ride at Six Flags.
You folks ought to get together and syndicate this comedy.
Posted by on July 30, 2007 08:36 PMJJ,
"I don't know where you found your "original assertion" and I don't expecially care."
Then why did you get involved in the conversation?
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 08:10 PM
Because you brought me into it
KW, JJ etc.
Let's get back to this assertion:
"Nobody has said we invaded Iraq because of 911"
Which KW and Jimmy J. think is true because Bush never said Iraq attacked us on 9-11.
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 04:48 PM
Now how about if you quite the dodging and word games and try to acknowldge the truth?
Bush never said that Saddam was direclty linked to 9/11.
I know it's a bitter pill but if Grimes can swallow it then I'll bet you can too.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 08:38 PMSean
You got to your Change-the-Subject moment pretty early in this one.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 09:00 PMJJ
I am not changing the subject but wading into that cesspool called Republican values. Really it is all inter-connected. Republicans have proven to be untrustworthy and incompetent. They cannot even get away with being corrupt and committing adultery. They cannot manage a war, save a city from disaster and drink responsibily. The Republicans are failures at whatever they try.
Remember, those who can can, those who can't have an R after their last name.
JJ
I am not changing the subject but wading into that cesspool called Republican values. Really it is all inter-connected. Republicans have proven to be untrustworthy and incompetent. They cannot even get away with being corrupt and committing adultery. They cannot manage a war, save a city from disaster and drink responsibily. The Republicans are failures at whatever they try.
Remember, those who can can, those who can't have an R after their last name.
JJ:
You're correct, and I apologize. I did bring you into it.
That doesn't change the fact that your argument is a straw-man.
The reasons they presented for attacking Iraq just don't add up. They didn't then, and they don't now. No amount of parsing words will change that underlying truth. Some of us weren't under the 9-11 spell when the whole Iraq fiasco was in it's early stages. I'll admit that for a moment I was charmed by what seemed like humanity from Bush, but the charm ended the second it became clear that they would invade Iraq.
What did you think back then? Were you enamored of the idea? Did you think it would go swimmingly?
Would it kill you to give some credit to the people who saw the problems in advance and tried to warn us?
Would it kill you to admit that in retrospect it was a bad idea?
Probably...
But I understand. Bush is your guy. He's the fantasy quarterback you drafted and now you gotta ride that horse because what else are you gonna do? Admit you are/were wrong?
Not you Jimmy Jay.
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 09:50 PMWhat if…? What if one day soon, we wake up in a very different Republic? The laws now in place could allow an unthinkable nightmare, martial law and canceled elections. What if in the balance of 2007, there were more acts similar to Virginia Tech? And then let’s say in late fall 2007 there is an act of violence that has loose, but evident ties to Islam. What if the incidents increase going into 2008?
What would we do if there were attacks at shopping malls, K-12 schools, churches and synagogues? What would happen if the attacks culminated in large scale WMD attacks in several major metropolitan areas during the months of September and October 2008 causing horrific casualties?
The general public would panic and demand the government do something protect them. And our government would be more than happy to oblige.
Under current law (namely the Patriot Act and several Executive Orders), the President could declare martial law, federalize all National Guard troops (the few that are not in Iraq/Iran) and Congress cannot, by law, review the declaration of martial law for six months!
The elections would have to be “temporarily postponed” because of the millions of people who became disenfranchised, who could not vote because the infrastructure in their communities had collapsed.
What if?
Posted by on July 30, 2007 09:59 PMCharles B,
You have said that Bush tied Saddam directly to the attacks of 9/11 and now you have learned that you were wrong. Bush never made the connection.
Now in response you decide that I must have supported the invasion and can't bring myself to admit I was wrong. You of course assume the US is defeated in Iraq.
I have some news that you may find unsettling -the Patreus strategy might be working. Check the NY Times op-ed last Sunday.
Consider that Charles - what if we do actaully "Win this thing" in Iraq?
There's a what if? for you. Success in Iraq would be your worst nightmare.
But just consider - What if the troops are successful, a stable Iraq emerges and victory in the war on terror is advanced by the invasion of Iraq?
It's too horrible for you to contemplate.
You will be satisfied only by defeat, retreat and an ensuing blood bath because that is what is required to humiliate your arch-enemy Bush.
The troops are fighing in the field and you are rooting for the enemy because you hope for some sort of wierd political victory in a US defeat. That is disgraceful.
Sean,
That's called fantasy and it will never become real no matter how many times you repeat it.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 06:07 PM
Of course you changed the subject and now you start up the mud-slinging slurs which is your default position.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 11:53 PMJJ continued to embellish:
"You have said that Bush tied Saddam directly to the attacks of 9/11"
Citations please!
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 06:43 AMJJ said:
"I have some news that you may find unsettling -the Patreus strategy might be working. Check the NY Times op-ed last Sunday."
That would be the Op-Ed by O'Hanlon and Pollack right? The same O'Hanlon who said this back in 11-20003?: (NPR)
LIANE HANSEN: Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution. He just returned from a Pentagon-sponsored visit to Iraq and he's in the studio. Welcome back, Michael. What's it like in Iraq?
MICHAEL O'HANLON: Well, it's obviously tough. It's a little better, however, than I thought for a couple of reasons. One is I think the counterinsurgency effort is going fairly well. Now obviously, you mention the number of attacks per day that continue; it's a real concern. We're still losing troops. Everyone's aware of that. The truck bombings in August were tragic. The assassination of the Governing Council member was tragic, but overall, the counterinsurgency mission seems to be going well in that we are taking out a lot more people than we're losing and I believe we're using force fairly selectively and carefully on balance.
There's some mistakes here and there. Also, security is pretty good in most of the country despite the fact that it's not good everywhere and that we certainly hear the reports of violence on a daily basis.
HANSEN: You say it was better than you thought. What were the surprises? Were there any?
O'HANLON: I would say that the main surprise for me was probably that one could travel around the country, even flying over contested areas, with relatively confident sense of security. There wasn't as much need to avoid certain areas as I might have expected.
There is obviously violence. There was violence in some of the regions that we visited on the days we were there. But you're talking about specific, isolated acts just like you would get in an American city. I'm not trying to say that this is a country at peace, but overall, we really do run most of the country together with our Iraqi partners and the resistance forces are very small pockets who operate only at a given moment here or there. . . .
HANSEN: The Defense Department this past week announced the mobilization of 10,000 soldiers from the Army National Guard. The Bush administration has been trying to get countries—actually, mainly trying to get countries to sign up for peacekeeping responsibilities. Is the contingent, do you think, of the 160,000 American and British troops in and around Iraq sufficient?
O'HANLON: My impression is it's roughly sufficient. I would probably go a little higher. But the bigger problem is just sustaining that number is going to be very hard, and that's the reason we have to call up more National Guardsmen.
And here's O'Hanlon's description of their "access" in Iraq:
"But we only had a couple days there. We talked primarily to American officials. However, we could be quite prying and we could really push them. And I think overall, nonetheless, I was reassured. We didn't meet a lot of Iraqis who could tell us how things were going, but on balance, I think we had some access."
There's a bunch more examples of why O'Hanlon's reporting should be dismissed here.
TIP: JJ, here's where you attack the messenger.
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 07:02 AMJimmy Jay ascribed motives to me as follows:
"Consider that Charles - what if we do actaully "Win this thing" in Iraq?
There's a what if? for you. Success in Iraq would be your worst nightmare.
But just consider - What if the troops are successful, a stable Iraq emerges and victory in the war on terror is advanced by the invasion of Iraq?
It's too horrible for you to contemplate.
You will be satisfied only by defeat, retreat and an ensuing blood bath because that is what is required to humiliate your arch-enemy Bush.
The troops are fighing in the field and you are rooting for the enemy because you hope for some sort of wierd political victory in a US defeat. That is disgraceful."
Jim-Jim, please provide examples of things I have written that support your above contentions.
Good luck.
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 07:04 AMCharels B
Remember this one?
Now how about if you quite the dodging and word games and try to acknowldge the truth?
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 08:38 PM
No need for research - it's easier just to ask questions and tell the truth.
Did Bush claim that Saddam was directly implicated in the 9/11 attacks and that he intended to inviade Iraq as a consequence of that involvement?
Or are you just trying to use the fact that 9/11 changed our foreign policy to create the impression that Bush made the claim?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 07:04 AMCharles B,
Let's just try to continue on that same truth-telling path,
Do you hope the Petreus will work on not?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 07:12 AMCharles B,
Let's just try to continue on that same truth-telling path,
Do you hope the Petreus strategy will work on not?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 07:13 AMWhen one talks about Republican values, actually the lack thereof, it is hard not to get dirty.
Look at this way JJ, you are the last of a dying breed, a Republican who still supports Bush. Maybe you can take some pride in that since you cannot take any pride in the President.
JJ:
I note you didn't address anything I posted, but instead chose to "move on".
I'll take that as a retraction..
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 08:16 AMCharles B
Retraction of what?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 08:32 AMSean,
If you try, you will find avoiding ad hominem slurs and arguing the points on topic provides the hygiene you are missing.
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 08:36 AMSean - Are you under the impression that the reps have real problem with corruption and the dems hands are clean?
Would you like to compare side by side the corruption of each party to see which side is the dirtiest?
I'm not standing behind any party here as they are all crooks in my book and should be swepted from office. You just seem fixated on promoting the rep side of scandal while ignoring the face in the mirror.
Why is that?
Posted by KW on July 31, 2007 10:17 AMJJ:
A retraction of your contention that I want us to "lose" in Iraq. A retraction of your claim that I said Bush said we were attacking Iraq because they were directly responsible for 9-11.
Either back your claims up or retract them. A third option is your usual tactic of just moving on to your next bit of idiocy.
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 10:42 AMOnce again Drew shows his hatred for the poor that live in trailer parks.Drew thank you for correcting me no the word"cowardness".I know that Democrats ,like you ,are very familiar with all forms of the word"coward" because the word discribes what you are so well.We Republicans hardly use the word because it does not fit what we stand for.PS If you Democrats can make up facts about the war why can't we make up words.
Posted by An American on July 31, 2007 11:16 AMAn American hilariously claimed:
"We Republicans hardly use the word (coward) because it does not fit what we stand for"
Anybody want to count up the number of times Un American used the word coward? Say in the last week? Shall we set the over/under at 250?
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 11:50 AMThe reason that Charles B is counting the amount of times I use the name coward is because it strikes a nerve with him because he knows it is true.All the issues that the Democrats support are based on cowardness".Not a word but fits Democrats so well."I think it would help if the Democrats look the word up.I am not going to do your homework for you.
Posted by An American on July 31, 2007 12:15 PMAn American:
If you're an idiot, reply to this post.
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 12:36 PMCharles B,
Last chance. This is real simple -
Did Bush claim that Saddma had a direct hand in 9/11 or not?
Charles B - I'll back James Jones up. I've seen you post here many times trying to claim Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq.
Usually you, Wes, drew, etc... make the nutty statement "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" in you Bush bashing tirades.
I consider it a rather flimsy statement because whenever we call you (or the others) on it you wiggle and try to change the intent of your post.
Bottom line, only the Bush haters try to imply that Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11 in your effort to smear the true reasons we are there.
Posted by KW on July 31, 2007 12:53 PMUn-American:
"I am not going to do your homework for you."
From your spelling, syntax and logic it would appear that you've never done ANY homework. Must be that trailer park home-schooling coming to the fore.
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 12:58 PMYo James Jones: Imposed upon me in my cradle by my Catholic parents and grandparents was the drug of delusion; however, I kicked the habit. By age 21, I was clean and non-delusional. It is W. Bush whose delusion has the Jew from the "loins of David" transmogrified into a Christian God talking into his ear.
Deicide Corner: I am now non-delusional enough to be an atheist; I am intelligent enough to be an atheist; someday I will have the courage to be an atheist.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com, Deicide ffrf.org. Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on July 31, 2007 01:17 PMIt took the Democrats 40 years in power to reach the level of corruption that Republicans managed in six. Add Republican incompetence and their fixation on tax cuts, because they sure don't have anything else to run on, and you have the ingredients for a totally ineffective government.
On the bright side though, most Americans have seen that the party of fiscal discipline and morals has neither.
Grimes,
It ought to be pretty obvious that the self-deluded first must convince himself that he is rational. He must become his own proselyte.
It doesn't take courage to imagine life is lived in a rational world and also lived without consequences. It doesn't take courage to accept the design and deny the designer. It does take the delusion of a man primarliy concerned with his own comfort.
Where have the great atheist thinkers gone?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 01:39 PMKW,
You seem more familiar with the type than I - how do you account for the fact that it is so difficult to pin them down on a postion with the most simple, straight-foreward question?
There is an aversion to clarity that defies reason.
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 01:45 PMCharles B,
i have posted numerous articles that show how Bush, Cheney & co tried to link Saddam & 911.
No one ever claimed that Bush came right out & said it. But KW & JJ ignore all the evidence since they would never do anything that show Bush & Cheney in a bad light. They probably have little shrines to them at home.
It's a futile exercise trying to argue with people who lack logic & basic intelligence - just give it up. When you look at the empty-headed imbecile in the White House & realize that this is their hero, it stands to reason that they would have the same characteristics.
Here another article - from the Christian Science Monitor in 2003:
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 02:00 PMDid you notice the title of the article above, Charles B? - let me repeat for JJ and KW's benefit, since they're a little slow:
" THE IMPACT OF BUSH LINKING 9/11 AND IRAQ"
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 02:09 PMDrew,
We appear to have differing views here. We can either believe this view from the Washington Post
Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."
Or we can believe the Drew view
Bush is the idiot genuis who convinced the American people that Saddam plotted 9/11 while telling everyone there was no evidence he had anything to do with it. Sounds like an evil Rove scheme- Lie by telling the truth.
Yes, bush has linked Al Qaeda with Iraq. He has also linked them with Afghanistan and Germany.
So far we have everyone (Sheila, Grimes and now you anyway) admitting that Bush did not "come right out and say it."
Everyone except Charles B. of course.
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 02:53 PMJJ,
Well, if you'd like me to cite 2 dozen or more credible articles that report on Bush/Cheney deliberately linking Saddam & 911 - I'd be happy to do so. You seem to have glossed over & ignored the ones I posted in the past - seems to be a pattern here.
And isn't it funny that the only time Bush/Cheney fess up to the fact that there is no Saddam-911 connection is when someone challenges them while they are in the act of implying a connection. As Kerry did in the presidential debate.
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 03:12 PMAnd actually, JJ, I'd say that conflating fact & fiction a la 911 and Saddam IS an evil Rove scheme. I don't expect the Imbecile-in-chief to come up with something like that on his own.
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 03:16 PMJames Jones,
Very interesting - I just happened to look up the article that you quoted above (Washington Post) - and it seems that you left out of your quote some rather important information from the story. Why would you do that JJ - because it would make your story less credible?
Here's where the story carries on - right after where you stopped. You been taking lessons in disingenuousness from Karl Rove, JJ?:
Although that belief came without prompting from Washington, Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconception by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before the war with Iraq. "The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists," said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
The poll's findings are significant because they help to explain why the public continues to support operations in Iraq despite the setbacks and bloodshed there. Americans have more tolerance for war when it is provoked by an attack, particularly one by an all-purpose villain such as Hussein. "That's why attitudes about the decision to go to war are holding up," Kohut said.
Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.
Drew
"And isn't it funny that the only time Bush/Cheney fess up to the fact that there is no Saddam-911 connection is when someone challenges them while they are in the act of implying a connection. As Kerry did in the presidential debate."
Not that funny. They were lying/telling the truth well before that:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18, 2003
(CBS)
Quote
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
President Bush.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
Nor Cheney (9/14/2003)
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
Posted by James Jones on July 30, 2007 11:20 AM
You can "cite 2 dozen or more credible articles that report on Bush/Cheney deliberately linking Saddam & 911" if you like. Just make sure you always remind everyone that Bush never "came right out & said it." That ought to clear things up.
So what did Kerry think? Here's a report from the Boston Globe
Kerry says he'd still vote to authorize Iraq war
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff August 10, 2004
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. -- John F. Kerry for the first time yesterday said he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
What do you think there is to gain from undermining confidence in the intitial decision?
If you want us to pull out of Iraq now, then why don't you just make the case instead of trying to re-write history?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 03:40 PMJJ,
Yeah - same old same old - but I notice you never addressed my observation on your "selective" citing of the article from the Washington Post .
"What do you think there is to gain from undermining confidence in the intitial decision?"
What confidence? - the point is that this administration is a bunch of scumbags who lied to get us into this war and then (when no WMDs were found) repeatedly lied to insinuate that Saddam was behind 911 and that that was justification for this useless war that has KILLED 4,000 Americans so far. And there is still no end in sight.
And you think that we still have to "make a case" for getting out of Iraq?
Man - talk about delusional!
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 04:04 PMdrew - Are you so inept that you believe anything if it's in writing.
This isn't the first time you try to use the "title" of a news article to claim the content as fact. Let me explain it to you, just because the outlet makes a claim in the title doesn't mean they didn't stretch the truth or even outright lie about the content of the article.
It's called an eyegrabber. AP is notorious for this tactic.
If the article itself doesn't carry the facts to support the title then it's worthless for you to offer it as proof.
Get it??? I sure hope so.
James - To answer your question above, it's called wiggle room.
Libs are notorious for wiggling out of the true intent of their comment once someone exposes them for it.
Kinda like Kerry's "botched joke."
Posted by KW on July 31, 2007 04:23 PMI see KW - so the dozens of articles out there about Bush & co "stretching" the truth on Saddam & 911 are all "eyegrabbers." And you say that I "use the "title" of a news article to claim the content as fact." Did you notice, KW, that I actually posted a large portion of 2 articles above - or are the facts irrelevant to you, as usual?
Of course, you're such a media expert that I remember you claiming that a Washington Post news article was an "editorial." With your expertise you should be working at Fox News. You're too much, KW. You & James Jones are like the wingnut version of the Bobsey Twins - but he's the "smarter" one.
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 04:50 PMKW,
You say in a previous post:
"Usually you, Wes, drew, etc... make the nutty statement "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" in you Bush bashing tirades."
I'm interested for you to elaborate on that and let all us know exactly what is "nutty" about "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 05:00 PMdrew,
I quoted form the article insufficient detail to ensure that the point was not made out of context. If that is not true then it is a simple thing to provide the context that makes the portion I quoted false.
The fact you havve not done that evidence syou are not interested in the truth, only in casting aspersions.
Yes, You do have to make the case for retreating from Iraq just as you have to make the case for staying. The question revolves primarily by asking the question - What happens if we retreat?
So if I understand your last post you are arguing for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. OK - Then what?
What happens in Iraq?
How do we wage the war on the terrorists after we've brought the troops home?
At some point, the Democrats have to address the question.
KW - And they need the wiggle room because they know they're wrong? That's the bit that defies reason.
Kerry's different - he wasn't joking.
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 05:04 PMNo, JJ, you selectively quoted the portion of the article that supported your point - it mysteriously stopped right before the portion of the article that wouldn't have supported your argument. Hmmm?
"How do we wage the war on the terrorists after we've brought the troops home?" Gee, how about attacking them in Afghanistan & western Pakistan for starters - you know, where Osama & his henchmen are?
Al Qaeda in Iraq formed & became active AFTER our involvement started - but I'm sure you know that.
And there have been plenty of persuasive arguments from military & civilian experts that we should withdraw to bases in the region (with easy access to Iraq if necessary) & leave behind a small core of military to carry on training the Iraqi army. There's one solution.
The problem is that Bush has so messed up the balance of power in the Middle East that his successors are going to have to deal with this for generations. This is the history of W Bush - screw up, walk away and leave others to clean up your mess.
Posted by drew on July 31, 2007 05:16 PMdrew,
If you think you can disprove something I have quoted then do it - or just type Hmmmm? if you prefer and move on.
OK, let's just ignore what would happen in Iraq if we simply retreated and get to the second part of the question.
Your strategy is to abandond Iraq and redeploy the troops to Afghanistan and focus on the hunt for Bin Laden - correct?
That introduces a couple of questions:
First, do you think we should invade Pakistan if necessary?
Second, If we capture or kill Bin Laden, what will be the result?
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 05:47 PMJAmes Jones, if you are going to partially quote me and call it a 'win', I shall do the same. You say:
Yes, bush has linked Al Qaeda with Iraq. He has also linked them with Afghanistan and Germany.
Please see my earlier post wherein I asked if ANYONE can PROVE that Al Kaida really exists. Bush and his cronies have cooked this 'evil' up to scare the beejebers out of so many ignorant people, who, when hearing a foreign name, respond with fear and its correspondent anger and suspicion. (which leads to wanting to cause pain and injury to said unknown). Bushie knew this was the one sure-fire way to get the idiots of America on board with his plan of attacking an innocent group of people and sending desperate young men and women (who, for lack of a real education... the majority of the soldiers --- some are educated, but they are in the minority) into a horrible war-zone to fight his battles.
Please forward any proof of address for Al Kaida. Specific Address. Specific Proof of existance. I can proof Santa Claus easier than you can proof Al Q. Bush made a connection that doesn't even exist. He's a lying ba$tard who should face not only impeachment but a Crimes Against Humanity charge.
JJ, the War on terror is best left to the FBI, ATF and other domestic bunglers.
Clinton caught the '93 WTC bombers and they are in prison. The idea that terror can be fought overseas using military lives as target practice is incredibly inept.
Our Military is the best in the world. Designed to take real eatate, destroy opposing defenses, hardware, and lives, we can overtake as well as the then feared Blitzkrieg. The common weakness remains the same, occupation. The Vichy French held power with draconian punishment.
The martial law that Iraqis see does not have the brutal consequences for insurrection. We either must occupy with an iron fist, using unabashed evil stormtrooper tactics. Or just bail, there is no happy medium.
Taking the multiple billions spent monthly and defending the homeland makes more sense. The ports are still open, the border is a joke. Airline travel is no more secure than 911. But then, if the threat is so awful, why am I as likely to die in a lightning storm?
After 911 I told everyone I met, "living right is the best revenge". Why not be the home of the brave? Without bravery in living our lives, we shall be without freedom.
Posted by Holy Reality on July 31, 2007 07:52 PMKW offered:
"Charles B - I'll back James Jones up. I've seen you post here many times trying to claim Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq."
Oh that settles it, KW backs him up, so it must be so.
Care to back him up with a link to or quote of something I've actually written?
You're still a joke little buddy.
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 09:22 PMHoly Reality,
Living right, or well, is the best revenge. But that reality does not authorize us to ignore the evil that men will do.
Clinton treated the attacks on the WTC, Cole, Somalia, etc. not as acts of war but as crimes requiring not a military, but a police, response. That policy seemed to work well and we were all generally satisfied with the approach until 9/11/2001.
The Clinton approach was not sufficient to prevent a handful of religious fanatics from murdering 3,000 Americans one bright morning without warning and without mercy.
Their only crime was to be an American.
Now that act may have been a "one-off" event or, it may be a part of a larger pattern. Given similar attacks on civilians in Indonsesia, India, Spain, England, Egypt, Jordan, Thailand and Nigeria, I am inclined to think it is part of a larger, granted amorphous, movement.
Statistically you are more endangered by lightening. That is true if you live in the US but less true if you live in Israel. I see no reason to think that our fate would be differentiated from the Jews. They may start there but, we remain the great enemy.
Chants of "Death to the US, Death to Israel" mean exactly that.
I don't think you can discount the possibility that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 because we have taken the battle to the enemies home - the middle east.
Whatever many Americans believe, the terrorists, especially Al Qaeda (Yes Sheila there is an Al Qaeda), think that the battle for Iraq is vital. We should pay more attention to that fact.
I don't agree that airline travel is no more secure. I do agree that our border with Mexico is a joke. The political classes do not understand the importance of making the border a barrier.
Having said that, we will always be subject to clandestine evil because we are, and it is important we remain, a free society.
So we have to find a way to fight this savagery that has been visited upon us without sacrificing our freedom. That is the challenge and we must not get stuck on Iraq.
Posted by James Jones on July 31, 2007 09:42 PMJimmy J:
I never said Bush claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11, so what is the point of answering your silly question?
The point is that the question allows you to avoid the underlying truth: That Bush and Co. used 9-11 as a pretext for invading Iraq. His handlers skillfully conflated 9-11 and Iraq as often as they could as Drew has shown. The purpose was to mislead the American people into believing that the invasion was just and necessary; it was to win support for their P-NAC experiments that have gone so terribly wrong and cost us so much. Jim-Jim do you agree with the hegemonic goals of the P-NAC supporters
The worm has turned Jim. Unlike you, the American people don't have an appetite for endless and ineffective wars.
The fact that you were and are so wrong about so many things, especially in the area of foreign policy, is a good indicator that your opinions about Iraq are useless. You're an awful prognosticator, just like your hero Willy Kristol and all his "serious" friends.
You never answered my question Jim-Jay: Did you think invading Iraq was a good idea before we went in? Let me guess...
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 09:49 PMCharles B,
So you, like Drew, think the idiot/genuis Bush convinced the American people that Saddam was behind 9/11 while telling the American people that there was no evidence Saddam was behind 9/11.
And you have been victimized by those of us who thought that when you said Bush lied, we thought you meant that Bush well - lied. So you refuse to fall into the trap of simply answering straight-forward questions.
If you can convnce yourself that Bush lied by telling the truth, then you have no trouble attribuing all sorts of positions to me, or anyone else, that have never been taken. You have tha ability to see beyond the actual words that are offered to divine the intent.
In my opinion you have no genuine interest in the topics discussed here which is why you have nothing interesting to offer. Your posts are a repetition of the daily platitude offered up as a pretext to mock, insult and jeer to no purpose beyond intellectual self-gratification. I will leave you to it.
Posted by James Jones on August 1, 2007 06:20 AM"If you think you can disprove something I have quoted then do it - or just type Hmmmm? if you prefer and move on."
It's quite simple, JJ, I showed how you cherry picked a passage from a news report & left out the piece that would flatten your argument - typical disingenuous con behavior - the "Hmmmm" was the sound of me allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.
"OK, let's just ignore what would happen in Iraq if we simply retreated and get to the second part of the question." Didn't I answer that already - or did yo just ignore that too? What's your solution?- to stay in Iraq in perpetuity? When are you signing up to deploy?
And:
"First, do you think we should invade Pakistan if necessary?"
"Second, If we capture or kill Bin Laden, what will be the result?"
1) If Bin Laden &co are in western Pakistan - absolutely
2) We would have nabbed the person reponsible for the worst attack ever on US soil & we would've further decapitated Al Qaeda.
Fairly obvious, don't you think?
Posted by drew on August 1, 2007 07:29 AMJJ,
_______________________________________
"The Clinton approach was not sufficient to prevent a handful of religious fanatics from murdering 3,000 Americans one bright morning without warning and without mercy."
_______________________________________
But the Clinton approach was abandoned when Bush inaugurated. Bush proceeded to order the FBI to back off the Bin Laden money trail, that was his very first order as POTUS. Then Bush tossed all the Clinton work on tracking down the Cole bombers. And don't forget the PDB in August 2001 warning Bush of attacks. The FBI agents finding more specific threats, then quashed by top brass. The Bush Administration(regime) would have been nowhere without 911. The planned Iraq invasion never would have gained traction without 911.
The popular "3000 Americans" icon warmongers chant is a misnomer. It was more like 2700 and many were of foreign nationalities, this was the WORLD Trade Center after all.
_______________________________________
"Living right, or well, is the best revenge. But that reality does not authorize us to ignore the evil that men will do."
_______________________________________
Are you a Christian? Many devout Christians appear to have forgotten their savior's words. Such as, "Love your enemies", "Bless those who persecute you", and don't forget,"When struck, turn the other cheek", and my favorite,"Pray in your closet".
And your closing points,
_______________________________________
"Having said that, we will always be subject to clandestine evil because we are, and it is important we remain, a free society.
So we have to find a way to fight this savagery that has been visited upon us without sacrificing our freedom. That is the challenge and we must not get stuck on Iraq."
_______________________________________
, are correct.
We will always be subject to clandestine evil. What is the price of liberty? ETERNAL VIGILANCE, our constitution will always be in more danger from enemies within, than from phantom menaces like Islamic Jihad.
We must NEVER sacrifice our freedom, but that is what is happening now. The big three laws; Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, and The Military Authorization Act passed in October 2006. Among other minor fine tuning bills, these now give the president near dictatorial powers.
WE can be arrested in the night, held, tortured and denied a lawyer. Never see a court where we learn what we are accused of. Fabricated evidence is allowed, and you are not able to contest it. We cannot even tell our families, friends, and neighbors that we are under investigation.
Our gr8 Decider is one declaration of a national emergency from Martial (not Marshall) Law. We no longer have nine of our original ten amendments in our Bill of Rights. (We still are not required to house British soldiers.)
Contrary to the Rovian line, I do not wish to see the terrorists win, I wish to see our government follow the law. Defend our constitution, not destroy our republic, and what it has meant over the years.
Posted by Holy Reality on August 1, 2007 09:01 AMDrew,
The situation in the middle east is a little mor complicated then you realize.
First, it we rapidly withdraw our security forces from Iraq, the secterian violence will erupt on a significant scale, Iran will undobtedly sieze the moment to invade and take control of long sought after oil fields. Arab nations (notably Saudi Arabia) will react to stop the Iranian takeover and a full-fledged Sunni/Shia war will follow. Turkey will probably invade Kurdish areas on the north. That conflagration will spill over into Iran, Lebanon and Jordan.
Oil production will come to a halt and the world economy will plunge into a depression.
The small US force you will leave behind to train the Iraqi army will be slaughtered in the first weeks.
Against the back drop you propose to invade Pakistan.
Pakistan is a Muslim dominated country currently ruled by a military dictatorship which is hanging by a thread. The US invasion will lead to a mutiny among the military, the dictator will be overthrown and we will find ourselves engaged in a war with a Islamic theocratic nation ruled by the same sort of religious fanatics that run Iran. The difference between Iran and Pakistan though is that Pakistan is currently a nuclear power who will not hesitate evey weapon in their arsenal against our invading troops.
They may even use this opportunity to attack their long-time enemy India which would put the largest deomcracy in the world with their own Muslim problem at great risk.
And this is because you think the capture of Osama will cause Al Qaeda to lose their will and collapse. Assuming of course that Osama is still alive.
So there are one or two problems with your approach that you have not taken into account.
The risks may exceed the benefits especially if Osama has already passed away.
You are due credit however for actually addressing the questions. That is more than any of the Democrat would-be Commander-in-Chiefs have done.
Posted by James Jones on August 1, 2007 11:58 AMJJ,
I agree that some of your points have validity. These are all scenarios, though, that are well under way in that region. What I'd like to see you admit is that this potential conflagration was put in motion by our president whose ill-advised invasion has added fuel to the fire in the whole region & set the course for an almighty blowup.
This is what happens when people in power neither study nor understand the lessons of history.
And I'm talking about leaving an "adequate" force in Iraq, rather than a "small" force.
And I don't think that surgical strikes (as the Israelis do) against our enemies in W. Pakistan would provoke action against us - since we're about the only ally Musharraf has.
Posted by drew on August 1, 2007 12:17 PMdrew,
There are many thing we can usefully discuss and agree or disagree on. For instance, Musharraf will undoubtedly hang with us but if we undermine him and he loses his grip that won't help us. That consideration has to be balanced.
I don't believe I have ever taken a postion here and whther it was a good idea to invade Iraq. I will say that reasonable people can disagree..
The reason I don't take a position is not because I want to duck the question. The reason is that I think the question is academic at this pont. By that I mean, even if you think invading was a bad idea, that does not make retreat now is a good idea.
The question of staying on and trying to foster a stable government or getting our troops out of harms way (which we all want)
should be argued on its own merits.
That includes evaluating the situation on the ground, the probability of our success and the consequences of our leaving.
The potential for the conflagration I described does exist whether we stay or go and that, again, is all part of the discussion.
What I do object to is the discussion that has been the topic of this thread (to the extent that those of us actually discuss the topic) is what Bush did or did not do, said or did not say is 2-3 years ago is pointless when the troops are battling every day.
Bush will be out of office in a year and a half or so and the threat of terrorism will still be there. We can't afford to get stuck of Iraq or Bush.
Posted by James Jones on August 1, 2007 01:00 PMJJ,
Obama said the same thing about Pakistan today. Damn right - they shouldn't be getting billions in aid from us & not do anything about hordes of Al qaeda in that country. The "war on terror" should attack terror at its source:
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
JJ,
I agree with your point that a sudden pullout would be disastrous.
You & I will never agree on this administration - and I know that what matters is what happens right now - but I do regret the apparent lack of planning and the fact that the whole operation seems to be run on an ad-hoc basis. I think that the Iraqi regime should be given benchmarks & goals - otherwise what is the incentive for them to stand on their own feet?
i guess we'll agree to disagree, which is unusual in this forum.
Posted by drew on August 1, 2007 01:11 PMDrew,
We can agree that the policies of the Bush administration in rebuilding Iraq since we deposed Saddam have been woefully inadequate. I have never been the avid Bush supporter you often read about here.
My hope is that Petraeus has things on track. But make no mistake - if the prospects are not good, the troops need to be out of there. We cannot not risk the life of a single troop if Iraq is a hopeless cause. And when we leave we need a solid plan on how we move forward.
We will know more next month.
Posted by James Jones on August 1, 2007 01:32 PMHoly Reality,
Your attempt to absolve Clinton and lay the responsibilty for 9/11 exclusively on Bush is unnecessary, niave and probably partisan.
You inquire about my personal religious views. That is a) pretty bizarre in this context and b) none of you business.
I will however tell you that your understanding that Christian dogma teaches that that the lambs must allow themelves to be lead to the slaughter to gain salvation displays ignorance on a spectacular scale. You cannot make such statements if you have even a rudimentary understanding of either the theology or the history of Christianity.
The major difference between us in your conclusion is that we are concerned about different things.
You are concerned that the US is sliding toward a Stalinst state where you will be hauled off at night by jack-booted thugs never to be heard of again.
I am concerned by the Islamo-fascism which kidnaps and beheads truck drivers, machine-guns young boys playing soccer and fires rockets into Israeli school buses.
I doubt either of will be able to persuade the other on this question.
How about if we let history judge which of us has the genuine concern?
Posted by James Jones on August 1, 2007 05:07 PMJJ said:
"So you, like Drew, think the idiot/genuis Bush convinced the American people that Saddam was behind 9/11 while telling the American people that there was no evidence Saddam was behind 9/11."
When pressed, of course Bush/Cheney had to relent. That doesn't mean that they didn't engage in purposeful propaganda as illustrated on this thread for your benefit. You say the above as thought it's impossible, but it's pretty accurate except the "genius" part.
"And you have been victimized by those of us who thought that when you said Bush lied, we thought you meant that Bush well - lied."
Citations please. I don't think I ever said Bush lied about the Iraq/9-11 link. Not that you have to outright lie in order to mislead.
"then you have no trouble attribuing all sorts of positions to me, or anyone else, that have never been taken."
When did I do this? Citations!
"In my opinion you have no genuine interest in the topics discussed here"
Once again, your opinion is worthless.
Your entire last post avoided any serious discussion of the issue of Bush's dissembling.
Everything's black and white with you Jimmy Jay, which is why you're so consistently wrong.
Did you support the invasion before it began Jim? -Speaking of direct questions left unanswered.
You feel I should be answering your irrelevant questions, but somehow never address any issues where you stand to lose ground.
Posted by Charles B on August 1, 2007 05:07 PM"The reason I don't take a position is not because I want to duck the question. The reason is that I think the question is academic at this pont. By that I mean, even if you think invading was a bad idea, that does not make retreat now is a good idea."
Actually, your position before the attack of Iraq is relevant as far as determining what weight your ideas about what we should do next should be given.
Why not listen to people who accurately predicted what would happen if we invaded? They seem to be the ones with a track record of knowing what the hell they're talking about.
If you admit you were pro-invasion, your credibility takes a hit. Admitting you were wrong would be a start towards gaining it back.
So it is relevant and you know it, which is why you won't answer.
It's little wonder you adore Bush. You both are equally adverse to personal accountability.
Posted by Charles B on August 1, 2007 05:14 PMCharles B &drew,
Not that it really means anything, but here's a bit of doggerel that deals with some of the current opposition:
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush;
Here we go round the mulberry bush, all the rest of this posting.
JJ says this; but he doesn’t say that. Or was it that, not this?
He doesn’t remember. But you must be wrong.
He meant it was neither. You must go along,
Or, “Disrespectful you are”, he says with a hiss.
Oh! Left is right; and upwards is down. Or is it turn-about?
And both of them do go round and round;
Spinning and twirling all over the ground;
And through the air too, you may have no doubt.
Don’t bother with logic in answer to me. I know none from the start.
Context means nothing when I pronounce
Judgments on meaning, and then denounce
Whoever, and all, who would from their dooms depart.
I’m always right. I’m never wrong. No matter what I say.
I always make sense, and take great offense
At any suggestion I’m the slightest bit dense,
MY writings trump yours, and all the rest, in every possible way.
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush;
Here we go round the mulberry bush; JJ is doing the posting.
Very truly yours,
Larry, Curley, and Moe,
The Three Stooges
Makes just about as much sense as anything else I've read from them here.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 1, 2007 06:01 PMWell done OG, and I know, but I can't help it sometimes. As you say, it's what makes this forum fun.
Posted by Charles B on August 1, 2007 07:16 PMCharles B,
But then again, there's the one on another line who insists that: "Lower tax rate equals more revenue."
Hogwarts School of Voodoo Economics, maybe?
I didn't think even Harry Potter could make more out of less - or something out of nothing - even with a magic wand. But, that's how the Republicans have come to manage the budget. Or anyway, so says the poster.
Fun! Indeed!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 1, 2007 07:45 PM