« Donald Rumsfeld is a Genius | Main | Bad Republicans »

October 23, 2006

Comments

Mike

Bawdy...your point is well taken. There certainly is "something rotten in Denmark"! Except it is Washinton, D.C. in this case. As for collusion between parties? what is new? Both parties said they were lied to... and the President said her was misinformed about WMD... so they blame it on the buracracy...faceless and not political buracracy...

csm

The president might have said he was misinformed about WMD, but it is not just a "whoops, didn't know" issue. Bush explicitly stated to congress that he wanted the big-stick threat of war to wave at Iraq to enable negotiations to continue. When Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq the weapons inspectors were back and we should have allowed them to continue their job. If Bush had acted honorably, that is what would have happened. Instead, when given the authority to commit troops in Iraq Bush wasted little time doing it...

BAWDYSCOT

Like I have said, WMD and democracy are not the reasons we are in Iraq. And I don't think it was oil either, as many Americans cynically think. That would be way too easy. WMD and the silly idea of democracy in Iraq are ideas the electorate would possibly buy into, and did for awhile, while the real reasons would never have flown.

Bev

csm: "When Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq the weapons inspectors were back and we should have allowed them to continue their job. If Bush had acted honorably, that is what would have happened."

This is exactly how we know Bush that WANTED to invade Iraq.
Any cautious President -- especially without the support of "Old Europe" to invade -- would have given the inspectors whatever time they needed. Seriously, why would anyone do otherwise? What was there to lose?

So... why DID he want to invade?

bawdy: "...while the real reasons would never have flown."
But we don't even know the real reasons!
How f'd up can a situation possibly be?

fcc

"Bush gets his Supreme Court nominees through, he gets to torture terrorists, he gets faith-based NGOs the money they want, everything he wants he gets(oh yeah, invade Iraq too)."

Bawdy

Most of these are positive things. I want SOMETHING done for my tax dollars other than bickering. But, he did not get one of his SCNs through as you have conviently forgotten which is why we have Alito. As well, without dem support none of these intiatives would have passed. What makes you so sure with a few more dems somehow these things would not been realized anyhow? Number one needs to be some real action on our boarders. An absolute disgrace which I hope is adressed with real action in the near future.

csm

The Dems have been woeful as the minority in terms of being an opposition party. They should've pressed and fought on many issues, torture at #1, but Alito included. And I'd really like someone in Congress who would stand up and fight the unconstitutionality of faith-based initiatives, but that is not likely to happen any time soon.

Bev

Does everyone who cares about ethics in DC know about this site:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/
(Bill O'Reiily fans should ignore; you'll have heart failure)

Today's news on the site:
It appears the WH shredded some records regarding visits by Jack Abramoff.

Thomas Williams

I could care less about Old Europe. The only nation in Old Europe with a spine is the United Kingdom. They other are slowly being consumed by materialism and state support. We have a problem with materialism don't get me wrong; otherwise, how do you explain these big SUV's on the road in a time when gas prices are up like they are? France and Germany didn't want us there because they are the ones who were making the profits from the Oil For Food Program. Each entity in this sorry little tale has much to answer for. We can't make policy for the health of our nation on the feelings or attitudes of Old Europe. New Europe understands what it is to be under oppressive regimes and face some of the things the people of Iraq, the Sudan, and North Korea are going through, which is why they have supported the operation in the limited ways they have. Iraq has turned into a mess. But we can't just leave the Iraqi people hanging. It is incumbent upon us to somehow find a solution. I haven't heard a real one from either the Democrats or the Republicans.


Tom

csm

How much less could you care, Tom?

Bev

Tom: "Iraq has turned into a mess. But we can't just leave the Iraqi people hanging."
Oh, who told you that?

Oh, GWB, the same guy who told you that the mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003.
"Accomplished" means COMPLETED.

Tell the following families that our troops HAVE to stay, even though the commander-in-chief announced aboard an aircraft carrier, with a bunch of hoopla, that the mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003 --
that "WE" can't leave the Iraqi people hanging:

"Thursday, October 26, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Widespread fighting in the volatile Anbar province in western Iraq took another heavy toll on U.S. forces Wednesday, as four Marines and one sailor were killed in action, military officials said."

If you CARE to know, there are experts who say the complete opposite of what Bush says about staying vs. leaving Iraq.
(oh, and btw, THEY were right and BUSH was wrong before Bush decided to invade.
More Bush propaganda: "EVERYONE saw the same intell and they agreed with us.")

BAWDYSCOT

fcc,

The SCN you alluded to was shot down by Republican conservatives not Democrats, if you remember.

Tom,

The only Iraqis you need to worry about are the Sunnis as they look to be the odd men out. The Kurds have their territory and oil. The Shia in the south have a ton of oil and the Iranians(mostly Shia) will look after them. The only reason we are going to stay in Iraq for a very long time is to keep the Iranians at bay. If we leave they take over southern Iraq, hell they are basically calling the shots now anyway. They are the reason the violence level has increased recently, and there is some talk this is happening because of the mid-term elections here. If Bush and the Republicans look bad they just might not get reelected(I realize Bush can't get reelected). I don't feel bad though because this is the bed Bush and his party have made for themselves. Again, the law of unintended consequences bites the non-forward thinkers in the ass. Couldn't see and insurgency coming, didn't think it was happening when it stared them in the face and now we have an embolden Iran which is a much bigger kettle of fish. Lets take on the world fcc, we are the CEO and a superpower to boot.

Mike

The strangest outcome of the Iraq War is that Sunni's success and ours are still linked...sans Saddam. Yet, they are the ones that are the minority...as they have always been. They were our most likely ally for us to divide and control Iraq. It was to the Sunni's advantage to be linked with a super power.

BAWDYSCOT

Advantage, hell, its more a matter of survival, they have no oil.

Mike

Yes, advantage. They had everything to gain and nothing to loose...that is why we put Saddam into power originally to divide the state and have a foothold in Iraq...we finally took him out... at the bidding of? This leaves the Sunni high and dry...literally.

Thomas Williams

About France and Germany, I could care less about their policy stances because it is an appeasement policy based on the changing demographics of their population; not on a moral or ethical belief. Bawdy, if it takes splitting the country up, I don't have a problem with it. We just need something to allow the ordinary Iraqi to be able to go to work and feed his/her family. Bev, I have been against this strategy in Iraq for a quite a while now; it makes no sense politically or militarily. As for North Korea, the previous administration did nothing to stop the research into nuclear weapons as we now have the evidence of. At least, the Chinese and Russians have agreed to some sanctions. How much the Chinese or Russians will actually enforce the sanctions is still an open question. The Sudan is such a mess that unless a substantial military force is put into the area and enforces a zone between the combatants the fighting will continue. The question is, do we want to be the ones who supply this force? Something needs to be done there, but do we want to keep getting involved in other people's messes? I don't know of any short term solution to the Iranian issue. All we can do is some covert ops to assist dissident groups as much as we can without any direct link to us. Maybe through the Kurds of northern Iraq.


Tom

BAWDYSCOT

Thomas,

You might not have a problem if Iraq splits up, but this administration does and I'll bet we stay there for years to block Iran.

I agree with you about getting in everyone else's messes; just tell that to fcc. He thinks we are the CEO of the world.

BAWDYSCOT

Thomas,

Do you really want to mess with the Iranians? Really?

Mike

McKinder wrote a book called "Power Politics" it is the book to read to understand his concept that controlling the "heartland" of a territory is key to command and control, and dominance.

Mike

McKinder's theories are respected world-wide... if we relinquish control of the heartland of the Middle East... Iran will take it. Where does that leave us? and Old Europe? The Ottoman Empire based on religion is the power point...with control of the oil resouces it becomes a dominating force. We become the cleanup guys for the Arabs and Muslim clerics.

Thomas Williams

I really believe Old Europe has surrendered already. As far as Iran, their meddling in Iraq through covert ops is already a given. I don't think our returning the favor is wrong. I am not talking about troops in Iran, I am talking of monetary support for the dissident groups or maybe non-traceable other support as needed. We could do it through Afghanistan or Iraq.

Tom

Bev

Thomas, I find this comment interesting:
"About France and Germany, I could care less about their policy stances because it is an appeasement policy based on the changing demographics of their population; not on a moral or ethical belief."

Yeah, I've been called an appeaser by this administration too. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it isn't slander.

Before the invasion of Iraq, France said they wanted the inspectors to finish the job. Wow! What a novel idea!
They also had the guts to say that, in this day they didn't feel WAR, especially wars where nations invade other nations, was the only way to solve these problems.
They also said that if the inspectors DID find WMD's and Saddam didn't give them up, they would join the US in full force.

That sounds pretty moral and ethical to me.

I don't know the story on Germany.
France caught my eye because our GOP Congress made me sooooo proud.
Their response was to change French Fries to Freedom Fries on the Congressional cafeteria menu.
Yea, we sure hold the moral and ethical ground here.

Also, this one:
"I don't know of any short term solution to the Iranian issue."
Do you have no faith whatsoever in the power of prayer?
(oh, maybe that's another idea that your crony fcc LOL's about?)

Mike

Strategic Intelligence is constantly reworking the scenerios of probibility. Our assent to power can just as easily deflate based on lack of oil and gas...to power our industries and armed forces. That is reality at the international level of economic geography...

Behind it all is the focus of the powers that be... where they are and where they should be. It is easier to base your propoganda plan on a religious furvor (Masood), then on racism (Hitler), Communism (political constructs), or nationalistic identity. This is Masood's attempt...to separate the political targets of Islam fundamentalists from an internationally based effort and make them seem a localized event that is not connected to the Islamist movement.

Bev

Oh, and my husband held the tomahawk to saddam hussein's head while he agreed to the "no-fly" zone.
ya know what the "no zone" did?
it essentially divided Iraq into THREE parts.
fancy that!

Thomas Williams

No, Bev you conveniently forget France was caught with their hands in the cookie jar in Iraq through the Oil for Food program and weapons sales. The French haven't, in history since World War I, really had a spine to fight. The Iraqis weren't giving real access to their research programs and fought every step of the way. They ignored multiple UN resolutions and the French fought everyhing we tried to open up the process. The French wanted no real teeth to the resolutions. When in the Corps it was common knowledge that we might train with the French, but couldn't count on them being there when the chips were down. Oh, and I don't look at prayer as a short term solution; it is something you practice in privacy and don't talk about. It might happen short term with prayer; but not necessarily.


Tom

Bev

Gosh, Tom, no end to the propaganda you get from Bill O'Reilly.
And it there something you feel is particularly ethical or moral about having or not having "a spine to fight"?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Syndicate This Site


  • Add to My Yahoo!