Resolved: Iraq is a mess.
If there’s anyone present who still believes there isn’t any comparison between this and Vietnam -- other than Michael “there isn’t any comparison between this and Vietnam” Deaver, the former Reagan aide -- let him speak now, or forever lose eligibility for the Blindest of the Blind Hall of Fame.
History isn’t just repeating itself. It’s mocking us. Every bloody day we hear this glib administration cite the rosy progress of a perpetually grim situation, with its generals in tow, nodding in self-denying but sycophantic agreement.
Meanwhile we’re back to counterinsurgency improvisations, frontless battles, body counts, indigenous-personnel training, fuzzy justifications, budget-blasting, a seething public at home, world scorn, and just plain disgust with how we got there and why we can’t get out.
Resolved: Iraq is a mess and getting much messier.
The only comic relief is the vice president, what with his “last throes” silliness and all -- whom and which even the secretary of defense can’t flee fast enough.
Would Donald use those words? “I didn’t use them, and I might not use them,” he said last week with typical Rumsfeldian clarity. The dang thing could “go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever…. We don’t know.” Odd. They used to.
Rumsfeld, of course, is a master of the diversionary downplay; the subtle insignificance; the casual “I’m not saying anything new here” tactic when dropping a political bombshell. An occupation of “12, 15 years, whatever” was not something even to be insinuated 18 months ago. Today he delivers the horrifying prospect with a yawn.
And now the revelation that he and his brassy sidekicks have been negotiating with Iraqi terrorists. When asked about reports that the U.S. military has twice met with mortar-toting, American-targeting Sunnis to cut a deal, Rumsfeld nonchalantly replied “there have probably been many more [meetings] than that.” In other words: “There’s no news -- yawn -- in this explosive revelation -- yawn -- that we’re now talking turkey -- yawn -- with the guys killing our soldiers. Gee, I’m surprised you’re even interested.”
Resolved: Iraq is a mess, getting messier, and about to implode.
Ultimately, others will take the fall for this failed war, one that from the get-go, as former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “has been conducted with tactical and strategic incompetence.”
The jig is up -- so the right needs a chump. And when the U.S. presence is finally forced out there, because no one supports it here, guess who will get the blame.
You got it. Liberals.
Never mind what every pollster and politician, left and right, knows today: “What’s interesting in this decline in support for the war is that it has sprung from the public itself,” said the Pew Research Center’s director. “It wasn’t led by politicians or by an antiwar movement.”
You won’t hear that from the right in the war’s aftermath. What you’ll hear is that the left and its elected hacks began weakening America’s resolve. We had it won, the right will say, until the embedded Liberal Elite once again badmouthed America and sweet-talked the masses astray. What you’ll hear is that things were going swimmingly. Sure we had a bump here and there, but no real setbacks. You’ll hear that all was according to plan -- precisely what the president absurdly claimed last night.
We would have had the Middle East under wraps today, the right’s fantasy will continue -- a veritable heap of desert-flowering democracy, if it just hadn’t been for those liberals undermining our determination, abetting our enemies, disdaining our military might and upending our righteous cause.
Given the right’s well-oiled attack machine and well-justified reliance on Americans’ notoriously short memory to boot, today’s reality will get buried by tomorrow’s carefully fashioned historical myth: “Liberals cost America the war.”
Just like Vietnam.
Care to bet?
"George, you've got some splaining to do"
Posted by: John McGilvray | June 29, 2005 at 09:57 AM
Of course they'll try and blame the libs. Really wtf else can they do? But you know, I don't think it's going to stick. The obvious one liner comeback is too easy "You Own This War".
And while we've been bombarded with exemplars of how horrifically ill-informed much of America is, and along with too many examples of deluded religious lunatics, the nation acted much differently after 9-11 than it normally does; and that effect is wearing off. I don't think BushCo truly appreciates how much of his original popularity was simply a patriotic function of the country reeling in shock. I think, they think, that's normal.
Posted by: ~DS~ | June 29, 2005 at 10:09 AM
Do *I* care to bet? Not on your life!
The sad truth of this whole mess is that Bush is never going to be able to stand up and tell the American people the real reason why you're in Iraq - Peak Oil. That what America has basically done is set up a big police station called Iraq smack dab in the middle of 2/3 of the remaining oil on the planet. It's a desperate, hamfisted attempt to stabilize a region that is vital to the economic well being of the entire world.
Problem is that if Bush actually fessed up about this the insurgency would REALLY pick up, and may well spread to every country in the region where there are US troops (which is to say, all of them). Not to mention that such an admission would cause shockwaves the world over that no one could predict.
As a Canadian who's had many American friends over the years I feel so very sad for progressive thinking Americans who have to live with a regime that's tipping dangerously close to fascism. This isn't the America I grew up learning about. It's an evil, twisted regime that will go down in history as arguably the worst that's (yet) been seen.
Seriously guys...I feel so bad for you all.
Posted by: Greg | June 29, 2005 at 10:11 AM
Won't work this time. If Chimpy's fakery has established anything, it's that Lincoln's old saw about fooling the sheeple is TRUE.
The problem for Chimpy is that this generation of Amurikans is not QUITE ignorant enough of history to ignore the paralells.
Posted by: Marblex | June 29, 2005 at 10:29 AM
i think the fact that 60% of the american public wants the troops home NOW without the prodding of any political or social leader or an anti-war movement, bodes well for us and ill for bushco.
during vietnam the reich wing always had the anti-war movement (and its admitted excesses) to blame for every drop in public support. they don't have that now and for that reason it will be very difficult to blame the 'loss' on the liberals.
it's bush's (and the neocon's) war 100%. hopefully, they will be reviled through the rest of our history as they deserve to be.
Posted by: born free | June 29, 2005 at 11:15 AM
I quoted and linked back to this post, at Political Strategies, this morning at About.com.
You've got it right.
Posted by: Deborah White | June 29, 2005 at 11:21 AM
Americans are impatient with the war on Iraq, because it has not produced the one result most everyone, right and left, is hoping for. Americans will not be happy with our latest adventure until the draft is established and starts siphoning off large numbers of young people. When the draft re-starts, Americans will turn around and take a positive view of the conflict, as hundreds of thousands of people, individually selected with an eye to ridding the country of its "less disireable" elements.
There may be a short period of dis-satisfaction until people get the whole thing straight, but only a l;ittle time will be required for the public to learn that the draft will be run on the same "cash and carry" lines as the rest of the government, and the "right people" and their children are in no danger of being selected. Those likely to complain will quickly learn that any complaints will set off a thorough search of the complainers family for draft elegible members.
Americans may not be convinced that the Iraq war is doing a lot of good for the people of Iraq, but when the advantages of individual conscription are made evident, when they begin to see the benefits which accrue from having the power to simply ship off the less disireable to the Army, they will stand up and cheer the war, and any future conflicts.
I don't think it will take very long for Bush and his administration to see that re-starting the draft is the key to gaining domestic support for his continual warfare policy.
Posted by: Mooser | June 29, 2005 at 12:04 PM
As quoted, above --"they will be reviled through the rest of our history as they deserve to be."
True. But the longer 'their' history lasts, the more likely the muck will cover us all.
Right now there are still some, like Greg from Canada, who see a difference between the bushmob and Progressives That will not last forever. The muck will get thicker and deeper and wn't just wash off.
Posted by: Cole... | June 29, 2005 at 12:22 PM
Now remember boys and girls war is HARD WORK. I'm still waiting with great anticipation for Barbara and Jenna to go sign up-considering he made an unually shameful plea for our youngsters to run right down and sign up.
I just wonder if we can make it another three years. This country is pretty much down the tubes thanks to president smirky smirk chicken hawk. But I guess China will own us anyway so hey, what the heck???
Posted by: Jan | June 29, 2005 at 12:56 PM
We'll be blamed and if that doesn't stick, the Iraqis will be blamed for not learning to be killers fast enough. Wonder if anyone told the Iraqis before the war that they would be required to join our/their army and kill people, even their own neighbors? I bet we never mentioned that little part of the deal. We'll get rid of Saddam but you'll have to start killing people. Nope bet that wasn't talked about.
Posted by: pissed off patricia | June 29, 2005 at 02:40 PM
Since cowardice and sexual preference runs in families, I would assume that the Bush twins are Scared Lesbians. Therefore, are inelegible for service like their ChickenHawk daddy.
Posted by: David | June 29, 2005 at 02:46 PM
Mooser says the draft will motivate people to support war by gleaning the chaff from the wheat. What a jerk! How old is Mooser? Does Mooser have any male children who are draft age? I do and I think if a draft begins it will drive parents into the streets and inspire an overt anti-war movement. As a Viet Nam Era Veteran I am astounded by dumbshit comments like those of Mooser.
Posted by: kurt | June 29, 2005 at 02:48 PM
Mericans see $3.00 a gallon gas coming and everything else inflating except their pay check if their lucky enough to even have one. On top of that they see the killed in action number climbing daily and the drip drip drip of death is starting to wear their resolve down.
Nevertheless, the left will be blamed for the loss in Iraq. Rove's speech the other day in NYC was the opening shot of the whose to blame for losing Iraq stab in the back whinning you always hear from these fascists pigs. The MSM will deliver this line up daily to the sheeple and it will be accepted by the same assholes that elected him. Why u ask because someone has to take the blame and in Corp. Amerika shit rolls downhill.
Posted by: glennk | June 29, 2005 at 03:06 PM
The miserable, pandering, Boy-King, prick is down and some "Democrats" are refusing to kick him.
Of course it's the "librul's" fault, where else could they find a bogeyman on short notice? The key here is that if the people that started this miserable war weren't abject failures and totally incompetent -
There would be no need for blame.
Now is the time for the loyal opposition to go for the throat. Bipartisanship only works when the other party isn't cloaked in brown shirts.
I want to hear more on investigations, commissions, and the dreaded "I - word."
Impeachment.
Starting an unwinnable war based on lies is worse than an illicit blow-job.
Posted by: Tony | June 29, 2005 at 03:28 PM
If one extends the Iraq-Vietnam analogy to its' logical conclusion, it is a given that liberals (or at least Democrats) will indeed take the fall for this sorry era, but for reasons even more simple than those raised at the beginning of this thread. Bush (in this and only this scenario) is LBJ in 1968, the reluctant (or so he said in 2002) warrior, and like that Texan this one may (oh please oh please)see his party swept out of power because of the conflict's unpopularity. Will a Democratic President in 2008 immediately pull our troops out? Did Nixon?
Now ask yourself; who does pop culture blame more for the quagmire of Vietnam? LBJ or Nixon? True, Bush owns this war for now, but unless the 2008 winner pulls a Reagan Iranian hostage miracle, someone else is going to pay the mortgage.
Posted by: Red State Blue Heart | June 29, 2005 at 06:06 PM
Regarding Mooser's comment that a draft will drive up support for this illegal war. I strongly dissagree. I have no children draft age yet but that won't stop me from from taking to the streets to oppose this illegal war of choice/greed. The lying chickenhawk draftdodger war monger need to put HIS feet on the ground in Iraq and fight this nightmare for himself. While he is at it he can bring with him the Brave 101 Fighting Keyboardists.
This war is illegal, based on lies and greed.
Period. No sane person with half a brain would think otherwise.
This President needs to removed from office before our whole system goes belly up. EVeryday he is office another nail goes into the coffin of the USA.
Posted by: TruthToPower | June 29, 2005 at 06:35 PM
Sure they're going to try to blame the libs, but if someone in the Dem party doesn't grow some b**ls then they just might make it stick. Instead of running for cover when the mud flies and waiting to see how it effects the polls there needs to be a concerted effort by Dems all across the spectrum to combat the hypocrisy. Granted the "liberal media" isn't covering it but can't we get someone other than a California Dem to come out on the issues?
If California Senetors and Reps are on the fore front they will only be marginilized as leftist whackos.
Posted by: Carl | June 29, 2005 at 06:40 PM
Actually, if Bush DID level with the American People and tell them the war was all about securing American ownership and control of Iraq's vast oil reserves as thwe world starts to run out of oil.... I think they would back him 100%.
Posted by: Orion | June 29, 2005 at 07:13 PM
Psst. The Wall St. Journal thinks things are just fine in Iraq... but the progress in 'under-reported.' Just 'thought I'd share that bit of Kafaesque editorializing.
Meantime...I still haven't heard the word 'LIAR!' being screamed from the rooftops. That's what's wrong here. The left is still tiptoeing around political correctness. Time to stop. One blogger said it right:
Sometimes you just have to speak the truth!
George W. Bush, One Lying Son of a Bitch
Enough is enough. Political correctness is no longer an option when discussing George W. Bush or the members of his administration. They are very simply lying bastards who have done and continue to do irreversible harm to the world.
In tonight’s speech, Bush managed to use the word “terror” or “terrorist” 31 times during the first 25 minutes.. He referenced 9/11 6 times. He invoked the name of Osama bin Laden 3 times.
Much more here:
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=31
Posted by: Reg | June 29, 2005 at 08:09 PM
King George will get by with this crap. I am so disillusioned - the neo-cons got by with the Patriot Act, WMD lies, Abu Grahib, No Bin Lauden in custody, no Al Queda in Iraq, Every Child is Left Behind, Mad Cow is in the country and no one cares, Gitmo abuses....
But despite all this, and despite that I protested against us getting into the war, I find myself in the sickening position of wondering if maybe pulling out now from Iraq really is irresponsible? Does anyone else have these doubts?
Posted by: speedymarie | June 29, 2005 at 08:24 PM
You've hit the nail on the head. The liberals are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort because they can't allow it to succeed. They can't stamd for Bush to have a victory. Yep--public opinion is turning--- because of the constant pounding of the leftist liberal media. If you want a real barometer just ask the troops themselves. By far, the vast majority of the guys and gals actually doing the heavy lifting support the war effort and want to see the job compled while you guys sit back here in the comfort of the land of plenty and do everything in your power to see that they fail. You would love it if we just reinstalled Sadam back to power.
Posted by: headBuzz | June 29, 2005 at 10:11 PM
As a veegan--i don't give a rats ass about no stinkin' mad cows desease.
Posted by: the clam | June 29, 2005 at 10:16 PM
The liberals are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort because they can't allow it to succeed. They can't stamd for Bush to have a victory..........
The libs don't have to do a thing! This war is a looser and you can thank the Dummy for that. Another Victory like "Mission Accomplished"? Give me a break!
Posted by: azmtnman | June 29, 2005 at 11:31 PM
It's an evil, twisted regime that will go down in history as arguably the worst that's (yet) been seen.
Seriously guys...I feel so bad for you all.
Thank you for your concern and sympathy. We Progressives need it. As you said, this fascist regime will go down in history as the most costly ever to what America was. I don't recognize it any more as the country I was proud of. And, I blame it all on the bush administration and their hidden agenda. Why did we go to war with Iraq? Answer that accurately and you've got the agenda. I can't.
Posted by: azmtnman | June 29, 2005 at 11:45 PM
Folks, I think Mooser was engaging in satire, not seriously advocating those positions. As for headBuzz, I wonder how he manages to drink Elephascist Media Kool-Aid with his head rectally inserted as it is.
From internal exile, Kid Charlemagne
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne | June 30, 2005 at 01:49 AM
Hell, they can blame me personally as long as we get our people out of there and stop the horror.
Posted by: OldFatMan | June 30, 2005 at 06:33 AM
The said truth is that Bush & Co. will never be made to clean-up the mess they have made. The "I'm a Manager"-President follows the typically offensive practice of many a corporate leader: he causes irreparable damage and then is allowd to leave with no more than " a cloud" over his leadership ability, a blot on his resume, a group of unhappy 'shareholders', and a tax-paying public stuck with the clean-up bill. And , of course, no regard whatever for the ill-will, death and destruction he brought about. He is being let-off as no more than a corrupt CEO.
Posted by: gtash | June 30, 2005 at 06:33 AM
Headbuzz is the perfect example of how the wingnut narrative is being updated.
Unfortunately, if history is any guide, Red State Blue Heart is correct. Bush's successor--- whom I fervently pray is a competent Dem--- will be stuck with the national downer of "cut and running."
The Progressive's best hope is to start an impeachment movement. Not because it's realistic but simply to offer an alternative to the propaganda onslaught from the MSM and the grand wingnut propaganda machine. Remember, journalism is the first draft of history. If we don't start correcting journalistic accounts then the Mighty Wurlitzer will let Bush off and blame the liberals for Iraq.
Posted by: ExileDawg | June 30, 2005 at 07:50 AM
As for blaming (so-called) liberals, all we have to do is keep asking them:
- who started it?
- and why?
And,
- who caused us to lose so badly?
I wonder if it has anything to do with the Iraqi citizens themselves (now called "insurgents")?
Posted by: Bruce Conway | June 30, 2005 at 08:33 AM
Blame Canada!
Posted by: spear | June 30, 2005 at 01:07 PM
Those who say that Iraq is unlike Vietnam weren't in either spot. The starkest similarity is that we lost 58,000 troops in Vietnam for NOTHING and we'll lose countless more in Iraq for NOTHING! We'll accomplish as much in Iraq as we did in Vietnam. "When will they ever learn?"
Fat old men start wars and strong young men die in them.
Posted by: doubtom | June 30, 2005 at 01:28 PM
For one thing NOBODY that my husband is stationed with wants to re-enlist when they come home. And for another thing, someone needs to remind the right that they can't have it both ways. When things are going good for them they say the liberals are ineffective whimps. But when the going gets tough, it's always the liberals' fault. If liberals are so whimpy and ineffective, then how come they all of a sudden have so much power to ruin the plans of the right?
Posted by: Anne Keb | July 01, 2005 at 02:36 PM
Dear PM Carpenter,
Iraq and Vietnam are totally different. I am a Nam vet, I just go back home from my second R&R is 6 months. I received the extra vacation due to a large body count (we killed 104) during an operation on the North Western Border/Region, my platoon received the same reward.
The differences are as follows:
1 Despite what you read in the paper and see on TV, the Iraq’s out side of Baghdad like us for the most part, they just want us to leave as soon as possible and we are working on that.
2 The soldiers moral is much higher, and they truly believe in what they are doing the right thing
3 We don’t kill indiscriminately as in Nam
4. After an operating in a town, especially when there is a lot of collateral damage or civilian deaths we stay and make reparations. For the deaths it’s hard but our wife’s will help via sat phone and interpreters to sooth the grieving mothers and occasional father, we come back to check on the widowed mom and their kids.
5. The civilian population helps us, they tell us were the bad guys are, they show use were the IED’s are being made and hidden. The are tuning on the terrorist, I think because the big Z, (that what we call em) is killing everyone, kids, moms, you name it
6. They feed us that never happened in Nam.
I could go on and on but I want to add one thing, when our Senators or Congressman get on TV and slam the president or our government, it helps the enemy. One week ago, on our way to the airport a suicide car bomber with the phrase “American are Nazis, Durbin Says So” painted on his truck slammed into an ammunition truck carrying spent ordnance casings (they are expensive that’s why we send them back to get reloaded) The loser died for nothing. Every time you guys say Iraq is a quagmire our troops are hurt. If Durban, Kennedy, Boxer, and a few others cam over here we would have a very choice words for them
Posted by: Gregory | July 01, 2005 at 02:59 PM
"I could go on and on but I want to add one thing, when our Senators or Congressman get on TV and slam the president or our government, it helps the enemy. One week ago, on our way to the airport a suicide car bomber with the phrase “American are Nazis, Durbin Says So” painted on his truck slammed into an ammunition truck carrying spent ordnance casings (they are expensive that’s why we send them back to get reloaded) The loser died for nothing. Every time you guys say Iraq is a quagmire our troops are hurt. If Durban, Kennedy, Boxer, and a few others cam over here we would have a very choice words for them."
Gregory:
What crap. It is the DUTY of every citizen of the US to criticize the government when it screws up -- and Iraq has been a monumental screw-up from the get-go. That's what democracy is all about, not being some slobbering, flag-waving knuckle-dragger who would kill anybody anywhere because "the pResident says so."
We are NOT going to remain silent when 1700 kids get killed, when tens of thousands of Iraqis get killed, when hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on a war that the pResident lied us into. If that hits too close to home for you, well tough s**t. Frankly, morons like you who follow orders blindly are part of the problem, not the solution. For the nth time, there were no WMDs, there was no al-Qaeda connection...you know, the reasons your CINC gave you for sending you thousands of miles away without the proper equipment and manpower to do your job effectively.
Stop being such a blind dumbnass.
Posted by: seth | July 01, 2005 at 04:45 PM
I am not saying they should not be able to speak their mind; however they should show so forethought prior to making inflammatory statements. Go back to WW2 and see if our Senators were making comments similar to Durban’s. I am student of history and can tell you with a good degree of certainty that United States Senators were not making statements such as Durbin’s. Durbin’s comment undoubtedly got some of the guys in my brigade killed. He aided the enemy.
I don’t particularly agree with why I am here. I have a job to do and the mission will be completed.
It’s unfortunate that you chose to lower the level of discourse into the gutter by calling me a moron, but of course that just illustrates your education level or perhaps you are so blinded by hate that you have lost your ability to think rationally.
Regarding troop levels and WMD.s The troop levels are perfect. WMD’s: Our media has overlooked or glossed over evidence and more importantly it's not privy to some very revealing information. Set up an algebraic equation and solve for WMDs and you will get IRAN.
Finally, the terror currently does not hit to close to home for you, but with an attitude such as yours it will. Count your blessing and be grateful that you have a leader with fortitude and guys like me and my unit that will lay their life on the line so you can burn the flags, blame America, slam the military, insult the commander in chief or what ever act semi seditious act you might find enjoyable.
Good Luck
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory | July 01, 2005 at 05:39 PM
I am not saying they should not be able to speak their mind; however they should show so forethought prior to making inflammatory statements. Go back to WW2 and see if our Senators were making comments similar to Durban’s. I am student of history and can tell you with a good degree of certainty that United States Senators were not making statements such as Durbin’s. Durbin’s comment undoubtedly got some of the guys in my brigade killed. He aided the enemy.
I don’t particularly agree with why I am here. I have a job to do and the mission will be completed.
It’s unfortunate that you chose to lower the level of discourse into the gutter by calling me a moron, but of course that just illustrates your education level or perhaps you are so blinded by hate that you have lost your ability to think rationally.
Regarding troop levels and WMD.s The troop levels are perfect. WMD’s: Our media has overlooked or glossed over evidence and more importantly it's not privy to some very revealing information. Set up an algebraic equation and solve for WMDs and you will get IRAN.
Finally, the terror currently does not hit to close to home for you, but with an attitude such as yours it will. Count your blessing and be grateful that you have a leader with fortitude and guys like me and my unit that will lay their life on the line so you can burn the flags, blame America, slam the military, insult the commander in chief or what ever act semi seditious act you might find enjoyable.
Good Luck
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory | July 01, 2005 at 05:40 PM
[I am not saying they should not be able to speak their mind; however they should show so forethought prior to making inflammatory statements. Go back to WW2 and see if our Senators were making comments similar to Durban’s.]
Have people been silenced during wars? You bet. But those were dark times in our history, not bright ones -- unless one is of a fascist mindset.
[I am student of history and can tell you with a good degree of certainty that United States Senators were not making statements such as Durbin’s. Durbin’s comment undoubtedly got some of the guys in my brigade killed. He aided the enemy.]
More total BS. A comment from a senator can't lead to death in Iraq any more than some dumb article in Newsweek can. The bottom line is you want to stifle all dissent, no matter how you paint it.
[I don’t particularly agree with why I am here. I have a job to do and the mission will be completed.
It’s unfortunate that you chose to lower the level of discourse into the gutter by calling me a moron, but of course that just illustrates your education level or perhaps you are so blinded by hate that you have lost your ability to think rationally.]
Stop talking and acting like a moron then.
[Regarding troop levels and WMD.s The troop levels are perfect.]
Stop reading from your dittohead talking points. Troop levels have been insufficient from the start. Ask GEN Shinseki, who told anybody who would listen to him. It's the main reason why things got bogged down and kids got killed. That and a lack of equipment and training.
[WMD’s: Our media has overlooked or glossed over evidence and more importantly it's not privy to some very revealing information.]
Oh please. There have been no reports of WMDs. None. Until there are, can the "secret information" crap. Just more BS from the current pResident to get people like you to buy in to his baloney.
[Set up an algebraic equation and solve for WMDs and you will get IRAN.]
A perfect non-sequitur for the Bush world.
Just because you want to make war on the Muslim world, don't count me in. And besides, what about Saudi Arabia -- you know, where the overwhelming majority of the hi-jackers came from?
[Finally, the terror currently does not hit to close to home for you, but with an attitude such as yours it will.]
What attitude? That it's NOT okay to lie the nation into a war, then fight it with dazzling incompetency? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Period.
[Count your blessing and be grateful that you have a leader with fortitude and guys like me and my unit that will lay their life on the line so you can burn the flags, blame America, slam the military, insult the commander in chief or what ever act semi seditious act you might find enjoyable.]
Your actions have made the world a less safe place. I'm not going to sugarcoat it just because you're in the military.
The problem with you is you actually believe this crap. There was no terrorist activity in Iraq until US troops -- that's you -- occupied it. And now you want to defend this disastrous mistake by adopting fascist policies that would stifle all dissent. You actually don't see anything wrong with stopping anybody from saying anything bad about what the pResident is doing, do you? You would shut everybody up, if you could, wouldn't you? And what would you have left afterward? It certainly couldn't be called a democracy could it?
And yet you don't see the irony. You claim to be "defending democracy" but you would trample all over that democracy if someone questioned your actions.
Posted by: seth | July 01, 2005 at 06:17 PM
Seth
No one is stifling descent. I speak the truth. Also your winning my argument for me, read your reply again. Further I am not at Gen Shinseki’s level and don’t see him in my chain of commanded (perhaps your spelling is incorrect or he has been transferred)
What is a ditto head??? Its difficult to have a discussion with you went I don’t know the terms. Please be civil in your discussion, mean spirited comments only hurt you and diminish your argument. (I should not have to tell you this).
Obviously your not a military person so let me help you with the art of war, things change, war is a very dynamic thing and it’s very difficultly to plan. There is much more going on in Iraq than killing and horror. We are literally scaring the pants off of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt etc.
They understand better than you that even a hint of freedom in Iraqi will bring uprising upon their populace.
I want to let you know something about my self. We are all volunteers, I am a Ga National Guard Sgt Major (recently promoted) I took a $70,000 year pay cut to come to Iraq, (I was making 164,400) at my civilian job as a Senior Vice President for a very large Manufacturing Company
My men and I have come here to bring freedom to Iraq and to make sure that the WMD programs and weapons that were moved don’t ever come back. Seth, they were here, they have been moved, that’s all I can say. There are geopolitical reasons that the WMD issue has been given up. They were in Iraq; we found some of them on the rat trails/roads into Syria I am not tiring to hide behind the veil of secrecy I am not taking like a moron you should try to open your mind, you seem to be a progressive person, if my assessment is true then you must abide by your beliviefs and listen to each side of the story
The troop level commet that you have made brobably comes from guys that have rotated out who are clueless, they are just mad or have a beef. The general you quoted probably believes in what he is saying, but if he makes the comment while in uniform on duty, they he is wrong and should be disciplined. (It’s a military thing, join and you will understand)
Yes I know were the majority of the hijackers came from. Perhaps you could try to put things into prospective; I don’t have time explain to you why it does not really matter where the hijackers came from. You have to look at the bigger picture
And finally I want you and all who disagree to feel free to say what ever your heart desires. You can say all your want and you won’t be killed, in Syria or Iran if you try what you are trying now you would be executed. I hope you can see the difference. The only exception is for the Senators and the Media, their comments are killing my soldiers. You can disagree all day long but it’s true. Along time ago politics stopped at the waters edge, those days are gone now and I have the flag draped coffins and a dog tag for each lost troop to prove it.
One day Seth, you will understand the gift that my and my men are giving you, we are making sure that you can burn the flag and do what ever, I pray to God that I make it back home
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory | July 02, 2005 at 09:21 AM
Gregory as a seinor VP your spelling is terrible. But that's minor. General Shinseki wasn't the only one who spoke up about troop levels. And if the troop level is sufficient why weren't they able to put a guard on the Al Qaqa munitions dump. For that matter any of the dumps the "insuurgents" are looting for IED ingredients. The body armor and Humvee armor issues have been know for some time now. As to Durbin, I would think that the photos that came out of Abu Ghraib would have been enough to push average Iraqi citizens into taking up arms. Oh, how about some proof as to what was written on that suicider's truck.
Posted by: usedmeat | July 02, 2005 at 10:47 AM
I would consider blaming me for ending the Iraq disaster a badge of honor.
Posted by: A Liberal | July 02, 2005 at 12:13 PM
Unusedmeat,
Sorry about the spelling I have been back for just a day and 3 hours and have been partying like there is no tomorrow (Yes. Sr. Vice Presidents Party) . My spelling has suffered but I am now rested and have de-stressed a bit so I will be able to communicate better now. Besides you try flying 20+ hours and then have your girlfriend want you to answer a person like Seth.
Regarding the proof on the bombers truck: Think about it, there is not much left of bombers trucks upon denotation. Further, we are generally not thinking about taking pictures of truck that might try to kill us but if you can stomach it and G2 agrees I will send you pics of the aftermath, caution its very graphic (don’t review them on a full stomach). Additionally, I will ask G2 if they will allow me to send the after actions reports/statmentensts, etc. to you so you can at least read for yourself.
Also do you really believe our media, except FOX, would broadcast the Durbin comment, even if the networks happened to get a shot do think they would show the footage? Enough of us have rotated back to the US that we now view CBS, NBC and ABC, Olberman as our emery. This is sad but it is the way my troops feel. You should note that many of the pool reporters will not show their affiliation for just such the aforementioned reason, when asked they lie, and pull out some fake FOX emblem.
Body Armor: This issue has been blown way out of proportion by the media, we realized the problem in the field and made the vehicles hardened. If fact the kits that maintenance installed on our hummers suck and we will remove parts of them, except for the glass. However you’re correct it would have been nice to have the up-armored vehicles going in to battle.
The Abu Ghraib photos did not really make any difference to the average Iraq citizen. They have seen far worse, In fact their opinion was more like this (I am paraphrasing now “is that all they (the US) are doing to these criminals” or “in the old times they would have been thrown off a building or mutilated”. To put it plainly they were unimpressed by the photos, they really could have cared less. Only the US media and AL Jazzera made a big deal about it and even in Baghdad AL Jazzera was shoed (shoed an American term for when Persian’s show distain for something or someone) When Persian’s throw shoes at some one or show the bottom of their shoe they are ridiculing you. We call it being shoed
The guard issues on the ammunition dumps: We missed this one, like I said war is hard to plan, we were more concerned about taking the Baghdad. I have only read that we missed ammunition dumps that we should have destroyed.
Thanks for not being mean
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory | July 02, 2005 at 01:17 PM
Seth
[No one is stifling descent. I speak the truth.]
Because Fox News and the pResident told you so...
[ Also your winning my argument for me, read your reply again. Further I am not at Gen Shinseki’s level and don’t see him in my chain of commanded (perhaps your spelling is incorrect or he has been transferred)]
I'm not at all surprised you don't know who Shinseki is. He was the Chairman of the JCS before Rumsfeld booted him out because he had the temerity to say we needed more troops from the get-go. I do find it fairly astounding that you don't know any of the background, the many discussions about needed troop strength -- not for the invasion, that was a piece of cake because we'd already knocked out most of Saddam's military in 91 and since, but trying to occupy a country that size, with so many different factions, with only 140,000 troops. Anybody with any sense could see that wasn't going to work.
[What is a ditto head??? Its difficult to have a discussion with you went I don’t know the terms. Please be civil in your discussion, mean spirited comments only hurt you and diminish your argument. (I should not have to tell you this).]
If I had any respect for you I would be polite.
[Obviously your not a military person so let me help you with the art of war, things change, war is a very dynamic thing and it’s very difficultly to plan.]
Spare me the lecture. I did my time. And I work with military everyday. And I see many, many of them jumping ship.
[There is much more going on in Iraq than killing and horror. We are literally scaring the pants off of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt etc.
They understand better than you that even a hint of freedom in Iraqi will bring uprising upon their populace.]
Meaning what? That you will have brought revolution to every country in the Middle East? Sounds like something out of the Book of Revelations. The religious wackos will be happy. Congrats.
BTW, don't count your chickens before they're hatched in Iraq either. It's just as likely that the country will split into 2-3 parts the minute you leave. Or that what's left behind will be much closer to the government in Iran -- remember them, the guys who really were our enemies in the 70s and 80s, the reason we armed Saddam, so he could fight them?
The fact is nobody, anywhere, knows what the outcome of Bush's escapade is going to be. It could just as easily spark off a real world war, not the phony WW3 the neocons swear is taking place.
Which is only one reason, tho a big one, why going into Iraq was a moronic thing to do. Why do you think the pResident lied about it? WMDs? Al-Qaeda? All lies. But it was the only way he was going to get his little war with Saddam.
And you're okay with that. It's perfectly okay that your CINC lied to you. That he sent you and your buddies into harm's way on a pack of lies.
[I want to let you know something about my self. We are all volunteers, I am a Ga National Guard Sgt Major (recently promoted) I took a $70,000 year pay cut to come to Iraq, (I was making 164,400) at my civilian job as a Senior Vice President for a very large Manufacturing Company]
Well, if that doesn't prove you're a moron, then nothing will. No, I take it back, you're not a moron, you're just a sheep. Then again, better a blind follower like you is sent over there than my kids or my neighbor's kids. In fact, I think it is the duty of everyone who voted for the pResident to sign up himself or send his/her kids. There should be no enlistment problem -- if conservatives would stop being hypocritical.
[My men and I have come here to bring freedom to Iraq and to make sure that the WMD programs and weapons that were moved won’t ever come back. Seth, they were here, they have been moved, that’s all I can say. There are geopolitical reasons that the WMD issue has been given up.]
I realize that it probably helps you to believe that, but if it's the case, where's the proof? The UN inspectors found nothing. The US inspectors say they found nothing. Sorry, it just sounds like more propaganda BS from the neocons. They're good at that. Just look in the mirror.
[They were in Iraq; we found some of them on the rat trails/roads into Syria I am not tiring to hide behind the veil of secrecy I am not taking like a moron you should try to open your mind, you seem to be a progressive person, if my assessment is true then you must abide by your beliviefs and listen to each side of the story]
LOL. So you're saying progressives listen to both sides of the story but conservatives don't? Okaay.
[The troop level commet that you have made brobably comes from guys that have rotated out who are clueless, they are just mad or have a beef. The general you quoted probably believes in what he is saying, but if he makes the comment while in uniform on duty, they he is wrong and should be disciplined.]
Come back when you've learned a little of the "history" going into the war...
[(It’s a military thing, join and you will understand)]
LOL. Drop the military insider crap, doesn't work. Been there, done that.
[Yes I know were the majority of the hijackers came from. Perhaps you could try to put things into prospective; I don’t have time explain to you why it does not really matter where the hijackers came from. You have to look at the bigger picture]
If only the neocons had. Face it, you've been sold a bunch of lies. There were no terrorists in Iraq until you brought them there. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Nothing.
The bigger picture is that the neocons have bumbled into a war they can't win which was totally unrelated to al-Qaeda -- you know, the people actually responsible for 9-11.
Unless you mean, by bigger picture, the pResident and company's desire to control the world's oil supplies.
[And finally I want you and all who disagree to feel free to say what ever your heart desires.]
What you don't seem to realize is that you don't have the right to permit me to do anything. It is my right as a citizen of the US. And fighting in Iraq is doing nothing to protect my rights or ensure my safety. Nothing.
[You can say all your want and you won’t be killed, in Syria or Iran if you try what you are trying now you would be executed.]
Which is probably what you and the rest of the neocons and their followers would love to be able to do. It's such a pain having to deal with all us pesky truth-tellers.
[I hope you can see the difference. The only exception is for the Senators and the Media, their comments are killing my soldiers. You can disagree all day long but it’s true.]
No, what is killing American kids is the utter incompetency of the people who sent them over there.
[Along time ago politics stopped at the waters edge, those days are gone now and I have the flag draped coffins and a dog tag for each lost troop to prove it.]
If those coffins really meant anything, there would be no restriction on showing them as they arrive at Andrews. They may mean something to you personally, just as they mean something to me -- I absolutely hate the fact that American kids are being sent to die for a stupid war that the nation was lied into, it makes me furious -- but those coffins mean nothing to the people who are calling the shots in Washington.
[One day Seth, you will understand the gift that my and my men are giving you, we are making sure that you can burn the flag and do what ever,]
LOL, you seem to be fixated on this concept of flag-burning. I suppose it helps you get thru the day, believing that those of us who tell the truth about how we were lied into a war that was poorly planned and poorly implemented, that we're just a bunch of flag-burners. Unfortunately for you, we're not.
And unfortunately, and this is something you can't admit because it would call into question everything you think you stand for, you are serving no cause by being in Iraq. You were sent there under false pretenses, to fight a war your pResident was planning before 9-11.
[I pray to God that I make it back home]
I, too, hope you go and return in peace.
Posted by: seth | July 02, 2005 at 07:55 PM
Seth:
Your interaction with Gregory has been very instructive. I have always been taught to watch what one does, not what one says. You are the perfect example.
Gregory is a warrior but his discourse is civil, that of a diplomat; he carries an olive branch and all he asks is that you listen.
You, on the other hand pay big lip service to peace and attack like a savage. You have no respect for a fellow human unless they are willing to swallow your party line. You have a terminal superiority complex.
If there is a dittohead, it is you and the other entirely mind numbed robots who take their marching orders from George Soros and his underlings, Dick Durban, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. Your sound bites are identical to every one of your clones and come directly from BuzzFlash and MoveOn.org. You are parrots. There is no original thought in your tirades. None. It's almost like you cut and paste the stuff.
And lastly, you're an elitist biggot. You believe that the primitive hoards of the middle east are neither capable of nor deserve to live under anything that even resembles a democratically elected government. I though you liberals believed in democracy and equality for all.
Or maybe you truly believe that Sadam was a wonderful leader that everybody wanted and that everyone could speak freely without fear of disappearing (as you get to), that there were no mass graves and that making prisoners get naked, having sex in front of them and letting dogs bark at them was worse than anything Sadam ever did at Abu Grahib.
Yes, 1700 Americans have lost their lives but it's not a stupid war. If the French had not done the same for us during our revolution, you probably wouldn't have all those wonderful rights you so proudly proclaim. If 600,000 hadn't given their lives in the War Between the States, black people might still be property. If nearly half a million hadn’t given their lives in WWII, we probably would be wearing swastikas and you probably wouldn't have all those wonderful rights you so proudly proclaim. If we hadn’t persevered in the Cold War we might be just another “Republic” in the United Socialist Soviet Republics. If we had “preemptively” taken out Hitler in 1933 or Stalin in 1945 we might have saved millions of lives.
Yes, many innocent died in all these wars, but the tyranny and oppression was much worse.
Here's a simple question for you Seth: Would you rather live in America today under George Bush or in Iraq as a Shiite under Sadam pre US invasion? Obviously you are going to sidestep the question and not give a direct answer.—it requires thinking.
Posted by: headBuzz | July 02, 2005 at 11:42 PM
Seth,
My troops have not always been ok with the levels, their position has changed because we now have a new Iraq battalion attached to our task force. The Iraqis are brave and hardened, but need more training; they want to be in the lead. Now that I have had a chance to watch TV, I now see where you’re getting the troop level questions. I was watching TIVO replay (what a great thing) of Cookie Roberts (forgive me if I spelled her name wrong) interviewing Gen Franks Wife about some book, she asked about troop levels, What the heck does that have to do with anything epically since she was taking about some book. It seems like everyone is fascinated about troop levels. Additionally, I hate to get off point but it seems that the media and the democrats want to discredit us, bring us down, and illustrate every bad thing that happens. I am not sure why they do this but it seems to have the effect of giving the public a biased view of the operations and even worse it emboldens the terrorist. We are kicking butt and the networks don’t illustrate the progress. I have yet to see one positive story/article/commentary etc about Iraq since I got back. This is a sad commentary on the objectivity of our media.
Troop levels are not the answer but training the Iraq’s is the key. The Iraq’s have balls, I mean they are tough, they stand in line, get blown to bits, and then they comeback day after day. We respect them. Although they are a bit slow, we are working hard to bring them up to our standards.
Regarding the comments about my statement about scaring the pants of the other dictatorial states: You should understand that Iraq ordeal has nothing to do about religion, (you seem preoccupied with religion). The only religion that we engage in is during the memorial services for our fallen. Oh, and sometimes I pray when I believe that I am in danger of being killed or when I am kneeling over a troop who is horribly wounded. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen and a few others are afraid that when Iraq stabilizes and voting becomes common place the dictators are afraid their populace (the masses) will demand the same. Christianity is used by the dictators as a scare tactic, they are afraid of losing power, for good reason. Actually Al Jazzera disseminates allot the information for us, about elections and democracy. In way Al Jazzera is doing us a big favor.
((Well, if that doesn't prove you're a moron, then nothing will. No, I take it back, you're not a moron, you're just a sheep. Then again, better a blind follower like you is sent over there than my kids or my neighbor's kids. In fact, I think it is the duty of everyone who voted for the pResident to sign up himself or send his/her kids. There should be no enlistment problem -- if conservatives would stop being hypocritical. ))
Regarding the above statement: Your children and your neighbor’s children are safe due to the actions and sacrifice of others. I see you have a tendency of calling our commander “pResident”. I thought you were a bit more mature than to call a true leader names. By the way Leadership among other things means doing or taking action that other find unpopular. Its hard to be a leader, trust me.
Judging from your frame of reference I don’t think you have enough life experiences to really understand what you are saying so I will give you a pass.
Coffins: The reason the coffins are not allowed to be photographed in mass is at the request of the families, do your homework!
Seth, open your mind and try, just try for a couple of hours to understand the danger that we are up against. Drop the worn and tired arguments. If what you believe is really true the president would not be in office today
Seth, I am very disappointed in your inability to engage in civil discourse. I hope that one day you will finally solve the algebraic equation I gave you. When I was younger I used to have beliefs such as yours. I grew up and learned by opening my mind.
Seth, I am going to enjoy the rest of my leave so let me depart with the following:
My company employees 31,700 people in 47 divisions throughout the world (I am next in line to be President, the board has already voted.) The company is a publicly held defense contractor, so you see I do put my life where my mouth is) I have 244 people named Seth on the rolls. I return in DEC 05 (If make it back alive) I will try to find you so that we can have lunch or perhaps dinner. I am a people person and never give up on wayward thinkers. In the mean time I will have my researchers review your comments and statements and fact check them. Despite your hateful speech and derogatory statements I forgive you. Ashonta will reply for me on this website when she has finished her checking. Please don’t treat her the same way that you have treated me. She is a female
Good luck
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory | July 03, 2005 at 12:38 PM
[Here's a simple question for you Seth: Would you rather live in America today under George Bush or in Iraq as a Shiite under Sadam pre US invasion? Obviously you are going to sidestep the question and not give a direct answer.—it requires thinking.]
Not all wars are worth fighting. The American Revolution -- which by the way was fought by Americans, *with* the help of the French, not *by* the French as your analogy would suggest -- was worth fighting. The civil war was worth fighting, although the outcome you cite -- emancipation of blacks -- was not the primary reason the North fought the South. World War II was worth fighting.
The Spanish-American war was not. Nor was World War I. Nor Korea. Nor Vietnam. Nor Iraq. I have noticed a tendency here to try to wrap the Iraq invasion with the same flag and false patriotism used to justify our participation in WW2. That's a load of hogwash, something invented by neocons -- after the fact -- to try to persuade people that Iraq was a good thing, despite knowing, in their heart of hearts, that their leader lied the nation into war with proven-false claims about WMDs and connections to al-Qaeda. Further, who made us the policemen of the world? Who gave us the right to invade sovereign countries that pose no danger to us? We invaded another nation. End of story.
Finally, your proposed analogy, strained as it is, that somehow I should consider myself lucky that I'm not a Shiite under Saddam, is feeble. Are you seriously suggesting that if we had not invaded Iraq, we would wind up as Shiites living under Saddam? If not, what's your point?
I feel lucky to be living in the US, but I also worry where madmen with no scruples, who would lie to take this nation into war, would take us. And no, I'm not going to sit back and carry on a polite discussion with someone who doesn't have the sense to realize how he's being used to carry out a false, vain-glorious mission in another country, where he has no business being. You don't like that, you feel my rhetoric too strong, pfft...go tell someone who cares.
Now, you suggest that I do not think the people of the Middle East capable of democracy. How you arrive at that conclusion, I do not know. However, I will say, democracy is not something that the neocons can overlay upon a country that is not ready for it.
And it certainly is NOT worth the deaths of 1700 American kids just to try it to see if it'll work. And that's exactly what this administration has done. With no guarantee at all that what we leave behind won't be ten times worse than what was there in the first place.
Should the US be working toward democracy in the Middle East? Absolutely. Should the US impose democracy by force? Absolutely not.
Finally, you make the profound and revealing mistake of thinking I am a Democrat. Democrats are toads. If the Democrat party had one collective set of cajones we would be on our way out of Iraq.
What I do not understand is how seemingly intelligent people such as yourself are capable of being deluded by the neocons, when all the evidence shows that Bush and company made false statements about WMDs and connections to al-Qaeda. Those were the justifications for invading Iraq. There was no serious discussion of "bringing democracy to Iraq" until the WMD and al-Qaeda claims were shown to be false.
I, however, think it is a very serious thing when a president lies to the American people, sends 140,000 American kids off to fight a poorly conceived and poorly equipped war, spending $200 billion and counting, killing countless Iraqi civilians -- all this for a war he was itching to start from the moment he entered the White House.
Posted by: seth | July 03, 2005 at 07:03 PM
Seth,
[My troops have not always been ok with the levels, their position has changed because we now have a new Iraq battalion attached to our task force. The Iraqis are brave and hardened, but need more training; they want to be in the lead. Now that I have had a chance to watch TV, I now see where you’re getting the troop level questions. I was watching TIVO replay (what a great thing) of Cookie Roberts (forgive me if I spelled her name wrong) interviewing Gen Franks Wife about some book, she asked about troop levels, What the heck does that have to do with anything epically since she was taking about some book. It seems like everyone is fascinated about troop levels.]
You are so far behind the learning curve on the discussions of troop levels, that there's not much point in going forward. Everybody who was not tied to the initial plan put together by Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld are convinced that not enough troops were used to occupy Iraq. I can't help you if you don't go back and do your homework.
[Additionally, I hate to get off point but it seems that the media and the democrats want to discredit us, bring us down, and illustrate every bad thing that happens. I am not sure why they do this but it seems to have the effect of giving the public a biased view of the operations]
Go cry in somebody else's beer. If anything, the media has gone along with this war, unquestioning, for far too long.
[and even worse it emboldens the terrorist.]
Sorry, that dog won't run either. Terrorists are emboldened because (a) you're there and (b) they're not enough of you there to adequately patrol the situation.
[We are kicking butt and the networks don’t illustrate the progress. I have yet to see one positive story/article/commentary etc about Iraq since I got back. This is a sad commentary on the objectivity of our media.}
See my comment above. Most of the major media have been puppets for neocon propaganda since 9-11.
[Troop levels are not the answer but training the Iraq’s is the key.]
And it has been the key for two years. Too bad your fearless leader(s) hasn't done anything about it.
[The Iraq’s have balls, I mean they are tough, they stand in line, get blown to bits, and then they comeback day after day. We respect them. Although they are a bit slow, we are working hard to bring them up to our standards.
Regarding the comments about my statement about scaring the pants of the other dictatorial states: You should understand that Iraq ordeal has nothing to do about religion,]
I never said it did. Go back and reread my comments. Or better yet, read up on the entire situation, not just what you know from looking out your jeep.
[(you seem preoccupied with religion). The only religion that we engage in is during the memorial services for our fallen. Oh, and sometimes I pray when I believe that I am in danger of being killed or when I am kneeling over a troop who is horribly wounded. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen and a few others are afraid that when Iraq stabilizes and voting becomes common place the dictators are afraid their populace (the masses) will demand the same.]
That's nice in theory. But it is still no justification for the deaths of 1700 American kids.
[Christianity is used by the dictators as a scare tactic, they are afraid of losing power, for good reason. Actually Al Jazzera disseminates allot the information for us, about elections and democracy. In way Al Jazzera is doing us a big favor.]
Again, the theory is fine, but the reality is not playing out that way. The future of Iraq is anything but certain. And is not worth the lives of 1700 American kids, not for some theoretical outcome.
The problem was/is with al-Qaeda. That's where the White House should have focused. Not Iraq -- which had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
Yes, democracy in the Middle East is a good thing. But not at the point of a gun.
((Well, if that doesn't prove you're a moron, then nothing will. No, I take it back, you're not a moron, you're just a sheep. Then again, better a blind follower like you is sent over there than my kids or my neighbor's kids. In fact, I think it is the duty of everyone who voted for the pResident to sign up himself or send his/her kids. There should be no enlistment problem -- if conservatives would stop being hypocritical. ))
[Regarding the above statement: Your children and your neighbor’s children are safe due to the actions and sacrifice of others.]
You sound like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.
My children are safe because we the American people have fought to keep them safe. But Iraq has nothing to do with keeping them safe. End of story.
[I see you have a tendency of calling our commander “pResident”. I thought you were a bit more mature than to call a true leader names.]
You're a riot. True leader? Hahaha. None of the neocons you're following blindly are true leaders. The pResident failed at everything he tried before he ran a dirty campaign against McCain and won the Repub nomination in 2000. AWOL from the ANG. Ran an oil company into the ground. Almost ran the Texas Rangers into the ground.
Where was he, when the warnings came in about al-Qaeda, a month before 9-11? On his "ranch" pretending to be a rancher. What did he do about that memo warning of the al-Qaeda attack? Nothing.
What did he do when he heard about the WTC? He continued reading My Pet Goat, then hopped on his plane and headed AWAY not toward the capital.
How did he convince the Congress to go to war? With bogus information. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. No connection to al-Qaeda. No WMDs.
That's leadership? Please.
[By the way Leadership among other things means doing or taking action that other find unpopular. Its hard to be a leader, trust me.
Judging from your frame of reference I don’t think you have enough life experiences to really understand what you are saying so I will give you a pass.]
LOL, nice try. I would imagine that my "life experiences" are a bit broader in range and understanding than yours.
[Coffins: The reason the coffins are not allowed to be photographed in mass is at the request of the families, do your homework!]
Coffins are NOT allowed to be photographed singly either. Tell me, why hasn't your leader bothered to go observe his respect to any fallen soldiers? Because he either (a) doesn't care or (b) wanted to keep up the false impression that everything was going swell in Iraq. You pick.
[Seth, open your mind and try, just try for a couple of hours to understand the danger that we are up against. Drop the worn and tired arguments. If what you believe is really true the president would not be in office today]
You'd think not, wouldn't you?
[Seth, I am very disappointed in your inability to engage in civil discourse.]
No, you're disappointed that I haven't swallowed the garbage and lies the neocons have thrown out to justify this unjust, unnecessary war.
[I hope that one day you will finally solve the algebraic equation I gave you. When I was younger I used to have beliefs such as yours. I grew up and learned by opening my mind.]
Again, nice try. What you might have said is that when you were younger you used to have beliefs, but now you only know what supporters of this false war tell you. I can imagine that if I were in the same position, I might have no other choice than to believe the lie, as you do.
[Seth, I am going to enjoy the rest of my leave so let me depart with the following:
[My company employees 31,700 people in 47 divisions throughout the world (I am next in line to be President, the board has already voted.) The company is a publicly held defense contractor, so you see I do put my life where my mouth is) I have 244 people named Seth on the rolls. I return in DEC 05 (If make it back alive) I will try to find you so that we can have lunch or perhaps dinner. I am a people person and never give up on wayward thinkers.]
LOL, I don't care if you're the Queen of England, you're still full of crap.
[In the mean time I will have my researchers review your comments and statements and fact check them.]
You're just full of BS aren't you?
[Despite your hateful speech and derogatory statements I forgive you. Ashonta will reply for me on this website when she has finished her checking. Please don’t treat her the same way that you have treated me. She is a female]
I would hope and expect that Ashonta, your wife I assume, can take care of herself. I have no argument with her.
Posted by: seth | July 03, 2005 at 07:39 PM
Seth,
I am at the airport now with the wife and kids, but I just had to get one more comment in:
You’re quite amusing and I enjoyed toying with you, but one day reality is going to come crashing in on you big-time. You should stop deluding yourself.
Thank goodness your not one of our employees (our people work really fast), so Ashonta will not need to interact with with you; and no, Ashonta is not my wife, she works in HR.
Additionally Stet, and I mean this as friend, stay your league, you will be much happier and wont appear so silly when you attempt to verbally duel with people who have been around the block a time or two.
One things for sure I am glad that your not one of my employees. I was going to have a serious reevaluation of our policies.
I will pray for you in the mean time.
Your friend
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory | July 03, 2005 at 11:43 PM
SETH:
You’re absolutely right about the civil war. It wasn’t about freeing the slaves, although fortunately that was one of the outcomes. Lincoln really didn’t really give a whit about the slaves. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the southern states. It took an amendment to the constitution to actually free the slaves. The real reason for the war was "saving the Union" --that is, to conquer the declared sovereign nation of The Confederate States of America and bring it back under United States rule. Folks around here call still call it the War of Northern Aggression and consider Lincoln a war criminal. They would disagree with your assessment that it was a war that should have been fought.
[“Should the US impose democracy by force? Absolutely not.”]
1)See above.
2)As for the “neocons” being able to overlay democracy on people who aren’t ready--it has been done numerous times in our history and very successfully, I might add. We did it to the Allied controlled portion of Germany after we conquered them in 1945. It was a bloody struggle as there was strong insurgency. It was made up of those who wanted to hang on to the old regime because they had power and privilege. It took years of US occupation to bring it about. We still have troops there, except the Germans get very nervous when we talk about taking any of them out. (It’s the money we spend there) There was strong opposition in this country too. Compare the outcome to East Germany where the Soviets imposed communism on their quadrant. We did the same the same to Japan, after we conquered her. We “imposed” democracy in South Korea too. Compare to North Korea. Were any of these nations “ready” for democracy?
We did it in the Philippines(which we took in the Spahish American War), and much of Central America. I’m not blind to the outright colonization of parts of the world by the US, especially in Central and South America. Much wrong has been done partly out of greed(the United Fruit company in Guatemala, Panama Canal etc) and partly out of ideology. (The CIA overthrow of Salvador Alliende during the Nixon Administration) But overall, most every country that has been a colony or protectorate of the US is now self determining or well on the way to being so.
It has also been done by the Brits in India and Egypt and elsewhere. Their former colonies also tend to be democratic. By contrast, the former colonies of the French are basket cases.
Were you this angry when Clinton bombed (invaded) Iraq in 98? We didn't send in ground troops or take casualties, but we still went to war. Many innocent civilians were killed or injured. Take a look at the following website at the transcripts of Clinton explaining why we must bomb Iraq and the need for regime change. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html Sounds eerily like Bush in 02-03. This Iraq project has been in the works since even before Bush and the neocons---or is Clinton a neocon too?
[Finally, you make the profound and revealing mistake of thinking I am a Democrat]
If you look closely I never identified you with any political party. You just regurgitate their propaganda, word for word, line for line.
[“You don't like that, you feel my rhetoric too strong, pfft...go tell someone who cares.” ]
Actually I really don’t give a rat’s ass—but this kind of rhetoric reflects a condition I call microcephalic (similar to the condition atmospherecephalic first illustrated by Salvador Dali.) cephalic meaning head or cranium and---well you know what micro means……
Posted by: headBuzz | July 04, 2005 at 12:20 AM
My instincts tell me that "Gregory" is a Republican shill that hasn't been within 5 time zones of a war zone in his life. Much like G.W. Bush and the rest of the crew that brought us the disaster whose oh so predictable failure they are now oh so predictably trying to blame on their political opponents.
Gregory, quit your lying and realize that there are people dying for some very sleazy people's agenda. And most of them are probably a lot smarter than you, they just f-ed up by signing up during the latest Bush war for profit.
Posted by: Ernesto Del Mundo | July 10, 2005 at 03:18 AM
I'm a 17 year old asian girl who is extremely interested in the politics of the United States. Simply because.. well whatever you guys do, affects every citizen across the globe.
Some people don't seem to realize that it is not only the American public that has been lied to and therefore affected, the rest of the world are now also skeptical . Can you blame me? i fully supported your going into iraq prior to doing any research whatsoever, believing the main english channel here in Hong Kong. Then i did some research.
I've just read the entireity of this page and feel that supporters of the war never really answer or deal with anything about the Lies that G.W.B has spewed. what i mean by this is their reiteration and insistence of the validity and CONCRETENESS of their evidence. I don't understand how they can go from so many apparent leads,eventually found to be fabricated to giving up on the WMD search silently and unnoticably.
from my side of the globe it is clear that the main argument for invading was to rid Saddam of the WMD. That was the emphasis. along with the " You can't distinguish between Iraq and the terrorists" then later finding that there were no real ties.
When 9/11 occurred we were all in shock. It was a tragedy that should never ever be repeated. What i hate is that such an event could be exploited in such a way to gain public support when the civilians were and still are understandably scared and vulnerable. Iraq has no ties to 9/11.
I can say for at least a couple hundred people that our view of America has been skewed slightly because of how the president has not been "trialed" for his falsified information. We here in Hong Kong can see that yes, Iraq will probably be better with democracy but... is it really such a great example to invade based on UNFOUNDED statements that are later altered slightly to allow for loopholes? I dont support any party but from what i can see, and the the glaring fuck up of the British Dossier, is that well, the Blair Bush marriage will never apologise for lying. Don't immediately write me off as some child that watched Michael Moores propaganda and decided to jump on your perceived bandwagon.
I've actually done a lot of research and the rest of the world do see how the UN inspectors were disregarded, how continuing searches were disallowed.
The blatant disregard for global opinion also somewhat scares me because what if one day Bush decides that he's scared that China's becoming too strong and accuses us of having WMD? oh wait, we do. and so do North Korea. who apparently threatened to turn you into a "sea of fire". Not that you haven't tried to deal with them but to me, that poses a more imminent threat than Iraq was then.
One little fact that i find strange. That the United States asked Rwanda for support in the war. Rwanda? for support to impose democracy ( which sounds to me like an oxymoron anyway) when they are dealing with internal civil war and genocide seems a little dubious. a little desperate.
Someone said, i'm not sure whom, that they have yet to see any commentaries that are pro-war.
I spend have my life in Hong Kong and half my life in Canada, i watch the news, i gather information from all sources and i have yet to see anything coming from MAINSTREAM MEDIA (any american news channel) that has said anything destructive on the war
"last throes" to the more recent " this could go on for 8.. 15 years. "
Until now. Simply because the Administration can no longer support their tangled web of deceit.
This has nothing to do with supporting the troops.If anything I hope the best for all of you out there.
again, please . please don't disregard me as a child.
Posted by: addie | July 15, 2005 at 08:25 PM
ps. i also find it a little un-nerving that the second anyone says anything about the method of spreading democracy.. someone jumps up and accuses you of being a Saddam Lover. my response is i never said that i was a saddam supporter , i just dont agree with the was your government harnessed support for the war. Always. undoubtedly. even with one of my american friends here they tell me that im a bleeding heart bloody liberal
From what i've observed, the Democrats need to bloody get off their asses and stop being so wishywashy with their stances. but anyway.
just my two cents.
thanks for listening.
Posted by: addie | July 15, 2005 at 08:29 PM
HA dubya's done it again
was there ever any doubt that the liberals would take the rap for georges short sighted oil-mongering plunders?
not in my mind atleast, good article enjoyed reading it,later.
Krupp out
Posted by: leo Krupp | August 07, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Well thanks Canada -- This is not the United States that I grew up with either. I am happy that you see the crippling difference that 40 years of excessively Liberal domestic policies have upon a at one time great nation.
For the self important idiots who think that the "liberals" are going to be left shouldering the blame for Iraq - all I say to your cowardly sort is first, you still do not understand politics or war. Second, it is obvious that you do not possess the stature to stand and fight when your county AND its Liberal and Conservative electorate unanimously voted to go to war over 9/11. You seem to leave out that we were targeted and pretend that we all just ended up in Iraq for the hell of it. Fourth, you are ignorant of world and US history - we were targeted by Bin Laden during Clintons Administration and even before this. Most importantly, you liberals believe conservatives and soldiers to be so stupid that we pull a map out of ass or devise a plan on the kitchen table. There were several terrorist attacks upon United States personal and posts. Where you beleive Iraq had no connection to 9/11 comes from your burying your heads in sand. There is ample connection and its all very obvious too.
In fact, Mr Bush acted upon 9/11 based exactly upon the same intelligence that Mr Clinton chose not to -- Mr Bill had the intelligence but he chose not to take Bin Laden out and instead lied to you and I that he "Did not have sex with that woman!"
President Bush on the other hand has basically told the Teliban and others "Fuck you - I'm going to get your ass - no more terrorism on my turf!" NO other President has acted in this manner - Yet, you liberals create a pretense that there is such a strong anti-war sentiment in the UNited States - you are wrong! I served in Iraq in 2004 and my neighbors fly their white star flags which identifies the number of sons are currently overseas. I have WWII heroes living on my block. How can the families of soldiers not be supportive of their sons and daughters in Iraq or Afghanistan? You libs actually believe that once one commits to war, that you can change your mind. Its ridiculous, but when your girl friend dumps you because she tires of your liberal candy-ass cowardly unmanly ways, you BEG her to reconsider. No way! She "Decides NOT to stay with you right?" She stands her ground after speaking her mind didnt she?"
Dear Libs, sorry, one cannot expect to sneak out of war after the fact.
I do not hold you cowards responsible, I feel sorry for you because you do not hear the call to serve -- it is the culminating act that precedents manhood -- I served in Vietnam in 1972 and joined again on September 12 2001. A real man -- no, a true American -- would have done the same. Our Constitution does not call its citizens to be part of any anti-war movement - stupids!
It clearly asks you to step forward and protect your country and state from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. I dont hold you responsible, but cowards like you are unAmerican, and fundamentally a waste of oxygen. Your politicians ALL voted in favor of our invading Iraq based on Clintons and Bushes best Intelligence -- Lets have a Congress with balls to stick to their committment --
This is no different from the Continental Congress which met in 1775 with then General George Washington. Everyone was on his ass to end the war with Britain, too many are being killed, maimed, it costs too much, we dont have the proper gear, food, uniforms, supplies...on and on. Washington just reminded them that the first shot at North Concord bridge was not one of rebellion but one that demarcated that American citizen-soldiers will stand strong, united and as one against a common enemy.
This is the call to serve that you cowardly, feminine, women-like Liberals do not hear.
Hold you responsible? Ha! What a joke! You are not made of the substance to manage that type of responsibility. All you can manage is hold a anti war poster and shout seditious slogans.
Your type are hopeless.
Posted by: Chaser | July 27, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Posted by: Chaser | July 27, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Dear Annie Keb;
Because there are so many of these womanized, feminized, raised by mommy, very wimpy Liberals who are NOT affected by the rules of a great nation (Vietnam 1972-73) required of us. 40 years of excessively liberal domestic policies have as I say feminized your American male, and only a few hear the call to serve their country. Liberals, stay home and create reasons as to why war is wrong, yet when the politicians and diplomacy fails, we are called upon to kick ass. The United States did not lose Vietnam - every fight I was in we inflicted heavy casualties upon the enemy. Every major battle resulted in hundreds of annihilated Vietnamese fighters. When we began to get replacements who were more interested in smoking pot out of a shotgun than in keeping watch - thats when we began to lose the war at home -- Several, including both of my brothers re-enlisted to conduct two tours each in Nam -- I only got to do one tour as the conflict was over. However I served in Iraq in 2004 and then Louisiana (Katrina duty) in 2005.
There are too few manly men anymore who understand what it is to be a male, a good man, a man of honor. Hell if I didnt want to fight I wouldnt either - but I and my family was raised with all of our uncles having served in WWII .
Liberals are cowards - walk down an alley and ask one to escort you. You'll see what cowards are made of I am sure.
Gotta go
Chaser
Posted by: Chaser | July 27, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Dear Annie Keb;
Because there are so many of these womanized, feminized, raised by mommy, very wimpy Liberals who are NOT affected by the rules of a great nation (Vietnam 1972-73) required of us. 40 years of excessively liberal domestic policies have as I say feminized your American male, and only a few hear the call to serve their country. Liberals, stay home and create reasons as to why war is wrong, yet when the politicians and diplomacy fails, we are called upon to kick ass. The United States did not lose Vietnam - every fight I was in we inflicted heavy casualties upon the enemy. Every major battle resulted in hundreds of annihilated Vietnamese fighters. When we began to get replacements who were more interested in smoking pot out of a shotgun than in keeping watch - thats when we began to lose the war at home -- Several, including both of my brothers re-enlisted to conduct two tours each in Nam -- I only got to do one tour as the conflict was over. However I served in Iraq in 2004 and then Louisiana (Katrina duty) in 2005.
There are too few manly men anymore who understand what it is to be a male, a good man, a man of honor. Hell if I didnt want to fight I wouldnt either - but I and my family was raised with all of our uncles having served in WWII .
Liberals are cowards - walk down an alley and ask one to escort you. You'll see what cowards are made of I am sure.
Gotta go
Chaser
Posted by: Chaser | July 27, 2007 at 02:55 PM