This video is from a 1994 interview with Dick Cheney in which he gives reasons why the U.S. did not invade Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War:
(Via Crooks and Liars.)
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Colin PowellCondie RiceRumsfeldChaneyThat leaves one person responsible for the mess .. Laura Bush?
At least the moral justification would have been there in 1991. We certainly didn’t stop at the German and Japanese borders back in 1945. Back in 1991, we didn’t even need to invade further with our own forces to get rid of Saddam. The Shi’ites and Kurds rose against Saddam in early 1991 while our forces were still occupying the southern, mostly desert, regions of Iraq. A few air strikes and logistical efforts in support of these Shi’ite and Kurdish rebellions (which Saddam was barely able to crush), and these folks would have finished off Saddam internally with the Iraqi people doing the work themselves. George H.W. Bush’s failure to at least do this much really pissed me off and I didn’t vote to re-elect him in 1992.
Richard, it appears you are an expert on all things, local and international.
And president Bush, in April 2002, vowed in Afghanistan to avoid the syndrome of “initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.”
That statement was, of course, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.
Republicans are liars. Have we yet learned?
We could have taken 1% of the money we spent in Iraq, and turned Afghanistan into a paradise……
I know one thing Republicons won’t do.
Go to the Egyptian Theater, and watch No End In Sight. http://www.noendinsightmovie.com The story of the botched (purposefully I suspect) occupation of Iraq. Starring Larry Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff), General Grange, “Dick” Armitidge, and other fine soldiers who were attempting to put Iraq back together, but faced the mind blowing incompetence of the Bushies…..
Most of the Iraqis were glad we got rid of Saddam, but instead of making their lives better, we helped turn Iraq into a nightmare at every turn. You can’t miss this movie. Mind blowing example of how pathetic Bush, and his buddies are.
The little girl in charge of traffic in Baghdad, who of course had no traffic experience, but probably graduated from some christian school.
And Papa Bush also wrote in his book that the reason he didn’t finish off Saddam in GWI was that it would have been a huge mistake. We now know he was right.
And what say the right wing whackjobs?
….Crickets
And while we’re on the topic of things said in 1994 by Republicans that they wish they could take back, here’s what Rudy Giuliani said in 1994:
“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
http://www.rmchronicle.com/ind.....38;id=1138
Hey what about the role Goldy’s radio show guest Dan Savage played in starting the war?
http://www.thestranger.com/sea.....?oid=12237
“War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times.”
Now THAT is “savage love.” THAT Dan Savage-he sure told those stupid-squish head lefties off good didn’t he?
@8 Dick
Tx for the great citation. I am very much akin to Savage on this issue. He (and I) were right in 2002 .. except for one thing, we terribly misjudged the incompetence of Bush.
Now, I worry that the same naivety afflicts thoise who want an immediate withdrawal. Strategic retreats are very difficult to handle, anyone who thinks GW can lead such a retreat shoul reread Dan’s column.
Wrong. It’s not that invading iraq was a good idea that was mishandled bu inbcompetent, inep, corrupt, reality-chalenged ideologues, even that this was also true.
It was ALWAYS a bad, and stupid, idea to invade and occupy Iraq. It was ALWAYS a criminal enterprise to attack and invade another nation in the absence of a prior attack by them. It was ALWAYS a mistake to put thousands of American troops on the ground to hold a nation FROM ITS OWN PEOPLE when those people will inevitably resent and oppose the Occupiers.
What has happened was predicted by people who know about it, and easy to predict by even a csual observer.
What happened was OPPOSED the the large majority of Americans who said that inspections should continue and no attack was justified.
9 SJ
Didn’t we already go cer this? Name five players–you know, people in a position to affect things–who advocate “immediate withdrawal.”
Otherwise, stop using it as a straw man.
@9 In a later article Dan Savage made the same point as you about how the war was a good idea-the problem is that Bush fucked it up. Yet the things that went wrong are exactly the things the war opponents predicted would go wrong. You and Dan Savage and your president were wrong. I don’t expect you to admit it; because to admit it would be to acknowledge your personal responsibility for the carnage. And, of course, the dead can not be brought back to life. Nor can the physically and psychologically wounded be made whole again. It will take decades to undo the damage you irresponsible fools have done. And by the way-if you are under 41 years old the military will allow you to enlist and fight in your glorious war. Dan Savage’s role of America’s favorite cocksucker precludes his enlistment. But I’m sure that Jews from Seattle are acceptable.
Check this out about how the Bushies have destroyed our military:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html
@11 you got it right. Seattle Jew has it wrong.
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08.....ms.html?hp
Dick @ 12 and elsewhere,
Ummm…maybe you should start your very own anti-Dan Savage blog.
I see that http://DanSavageWatch.blogspot.com is available!
@3 Richard isn’t an expert on winning elections. His track record as a candidate is something like 0-14.
Very witty Darryl. Not on par with the edgy wit of Dan Savage, America’s favorite cocksucker, but witty none the less. You should consider starting your own Dan Savage fan blog where you can make excuses for his pro-war behavior and celebrate all that is Dan Savage.
Horsesass portrays itself as a liberal blog and yet associates with enthusiasm with a conservative pro-war asshole like Dan Savage. Go figure!
“War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times.” Dan Savage Oct. 2002
@12 Anyone who understood Iraqi culture would have questioned the wisdom of removing Saddam. An armed Saddam would have been a problem to his Arab neighbors, but after GWI he was pretty much disarmed. Saddam kept the lid on Iraq’s ethnic tensions. Remove the lid and those tensions explode, costing more lives than were lost in Saddam’s repressions, and with no end in sight. Not only in hindsight, but also in foresight, it wasn’t a smart thing to do. Thing is, knowledgeable people knew that BEFORE the Texas Bull rampaged into the china shop. Chalk this one up to wilfull stupidity.
Darryl and Goldy, it’s interesting (hypocritical?) how tolerant you are of behavior in Dan Savage that you find intolerable in a Republican.
“In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize… or we’re going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.” Dan Savage Oct. 2002
How about if, instead of Dan Savage, Goldy gets Robert Murray on his show? Murray’s a real fun guy — anti-union, global-warming denier, Gore-basher, gives money to people like G.W. Bush, Katherine Harris, and George Allen. One of his coal mines has been cited 2,700 times for fines totaling $2.4 million since 2005. Maybe Murray can share his expertise on safe mining practices. Then Goldy could ask him why he doesn’t do those things.
Speaking of global warming, is it warm enough for you dumbass,chicken little, “the earth is coming to an end” donks. hehehehe
Thanks for jinxing summer by the way. Next summer please talk about the coming ice age, I want it to be warm.
Man I don’t blame the right wing inbred traitors for trying to change the subject away from their hero WHATADICKSUCKER Cheney saying invading Iraq would be a mistake. If they let that subject dominate this thread they’d be forced to explain to us how DICKLESS was wrong then and right now – or is it the other way around? Must suck to be a right wing coward.
20-21 DR
How off-topic of you! But since you asked:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s tories/s105.htm
But wait, there’s more:
http://news.nationalgeographic .com/news/2007/01/070104-warme st-year.html
There’s also news from the National Academies’ National Research Council.
http://news.nationalgeographic .com/news/2006/06/060623-globa l-warming.html
I was just waiting for that.
I’ve seen a lot of weird, over the top, controversial, opinionated, forceful, and even idiotic posts on Horsesass before; but I’ve never seen a moderator-as Darryl does above- suggest to a poster that he go form his own blog.
In a thread holding Cheney accountable for previous statements, the poster criticized Dan Savage for previous pro-war statements he had made. Hmmmmmmmmmmm apparently the criticism of Savage hit Darryl close to home.
The alt/liberal/blog/news community in Seattle is small and incestuous. They are the cool kids! They interview one another and meet for beers. They are so cool that sometimes Joel Connelly or even the Mayor drop by for a visit and a cold one. Is this because they are influential or harmless?
DR
But it’s not hot today in Seattle, so you must be right. It’s not like there’s a heat wave across the rest of the country or anything. Oh, wait….
http://today.reuters.com/news/.....DATE-1.XML
http://www.sun-herald.com/breakingnews.cfm?id=2998
re 9: You were wrong then and you are very likely wrong now. THAT scenerio has apparently not occurred to you.
25 Hannity
Or you could go by there and have a beer and meet them. But you wouldn’t, would you?
That’s funny, saying that the liberal community in Seattle is small.
Maybe Mr. Savage was foolish enough to believe our President, and Vice President. Most people at that time did not know they were pathological liars, and would do anything to start a war, even claim Saddam was 6 months away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Mushroom cloud, mushroom cloud, mushroom cloud etc. I was an idiot for believing the crap that came out of Bush’s mouth. I now know better.
Even though they lied us into war, acquiring Iraq may have worked, if they wanted it to. If they really wanted a peaceful Iraq, they would have let the State Dept. rebuild it instead of a bunch of college kids…..
Go watch No End In Sight. It will make you sick. If you support Bush, DO NOT go see it. You will leave in tears, and probably jump off a bridge.
At one time presidents who lied were held accountable. What happened?
@28 A close read would reveal that I wrote “alt/liberal/blog/news community” emphasis on NEWS COMMUNITY! And why in the world would I want to participate in a circle jerk?
@29 “At one time presidents who lied were held accountable. What happened?”
I’m glad you asked: “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”
http://www.washingtonspectator.....chment.cfm
Daddy Love @ 10
I think military action can also be used to protect human rights, as Bill Clinton did in Haiti in 1994 and in Kosovo in 1999. But several conditions have to apply. This would include international backing — genuine support by the community of nations, not having minor coalition partners who are there mainly because of bribery or arm-twisting. And genuine commitment to actually allowing the people of the country to determine their destiny — and to take responsibility to implement that destiny.
We didn’t have any broad-based international backing to invade Iraq this time around. Some of the nations who would most logically ally with us — such as France and Germany — were dead set against our plans. As were many of the nations who were part of the truly broad-based military action against Iraq back in 1991.
Nor did we have any genuine commitment to the “Iraqi” people actually exercising self-determination. What the so-called “Iraqis” (an artificial political grouping drawn up by the British and French when carving up the Ottoman Empire after World War One) really want is independent national status for each major ethnic groups. The Shi’ites in the south want to run much of the country for themselves and ally with their co-religionists in Iran. The Kurds in the north want nationhood for themselves — and (alarmingly to our good “friends” the Turks) that same nationhood for their ethnic brethren to the north. The minority Arab Sunnis (about 20%) wouldn’t mind to continue running the country, but since they can’t do this, certainly want to at least control the several provinces where they are the majority.
We don’t want these things, which is why our troops are still there in the middle of a civil war where we are being “neutral” and fighting against all factions at the same time. Nor did we want these things in 1991 — otherwise we would have done just a little bit to aid the Iraqis who rose against Saddam back in 1991 after Iraq was defeated in Kuwait.
They are the cool kids! They interview one another and meet for beers.
Smear..
Why should they talk to Republicans? The typical Seattle Republican who votes for whatever nutcase runs against Jim McDermott is to the right of KVI and KTTH. I see the signs in their yards each election season and I see the 17 percent or so figure next to the nutcases’ election returns.
The Dan Evans style Republican is staying out of politics because she is not welcome in her own party. And why would they risk the approbation of the BIAW-style fanatics or their own families by hanging out and talking to Democratic activists?
Yesterday’s Republican = Today’s Democrat
I suggest all the true Republicons stay in your holes, and do not search for truth. If you find it, you may not be able to handle it.
We do need the Republicon Party to stand up for the people that believe in what “It used to” stand(s) for. The problem is today’s Republicon is full of hate, fear, and bloodlust, and must be neutralized for the good of our country, and the world. When the “Real” Republicons put Bush behind bars, and eliminate the corporate control, and the talibangelicals, and become conservative again, America will begin to heal….
IMPEACH!
“They interview one another and meet for beers.”
@32 uhhhhhhhh they do interview one another and meet for beers. Hardly a smear. Calling that statement a smear is like saying that Dan Savage who has built a national reputation bragging about cocksucking and rim jobs is smeared when someone calls him America’s favorite cocksucker.
Ok Darryl, I’m off to set up my blog.
31 RP
Gee, no international suport? If you’re going to justify and defend the invasion/Occupsation using that line of reasoning, which BTW the administraiton did not, don’t you think it might have been just a teensy bit more important that there was also in 2002 no active humanitarian crisis!? You know, something that would have, like, justified the extreme action of invasion? Leaving alone the question of toppling the legitimate government of Iraq, there was not even a justification of invasion to protect the hypothetical victims of some sort of hypothetical ongoing attack.
But I can think of few more empty and meaningless exercises than to try to find some sort of new and differnet after-the-fact justification. The administration tok us into war by hyping Iraq’s WMD, particularly by amplifying their nonexistent nuclear capability (already being reported on by the IAEA) into a current and imminent threat to the USA.
The FACT that not a single WMD program, material, or even precursor chemical or active program were found probably precipitated the Bush invasion even though at the time the American public overwhelming opposed military action before the completion of inspections.
30 Hannity
Lordy, you A-holes are mind-mnumbingly predictable. Your response to every situation is to quote some sort of op-ed.
Why don’t YOU read some actual REPORTING (aw, you hate the news, and I can guess why) of the conclustions of people who have been involved in actual impeachments.
Of course there are the grounds for impeachment against Bill Clinton.
“Because we have the votes.”
– Newt Gingrich
BTW, I do read quite closely. And (A) You used “alt/liberal/blog/news community” with NO emphasis on “news” other than in your mind, and (B) it seems clear to me that you would interpret this vague hand-wave as you please no matter what. I cherry-picked your blather to needle you.
You don’t WRITE “closely.” Try precision sometime.
Poor Cindy Sheehan was lie to the second time and treated like a dumb blond. The far left used her for propaganda to support their lies and she felt that Bush killed her only son for nothing. Voting for Socialist Democrats is worst than being a Republican today. They all LIE just to gain power if you read what the press prints.
OH I FORGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger is the Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the Socialist Democrats Party today just like Paul Joseph Goebbels was in Hitler Germany. His Nazi friends taught him the trade when he visited them in jail.
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA
Even as they call for an end to the war, Democratic
presidential candidates are setting out positions that
could leave the U.S. engaged in Iraq for years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08.....038;emc=th
President Andrew Johnson notified Congress on February 21, 1868, that he had removed Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War and replaced him with Adjutant-General Lorenzo Thomas. It took the House of Representatives only three days to impeach him for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Meanwhile, Stanton refused to abandon his office and had Thomas arrested for attempting to exercise the duties of the Secretary of War.
Johnson’s trial in the Senate, which he did not attend, began on March 23 and was presided over by Chief Justice Salmon B. Chase. There were eleven articles of impeachment. On May 16, the Senate voted on the eleventh article, which included many of the charges contained in the preceding articles. Johnson was acquitted by one vote; the 35-19 count was just short of the necessary two-thirds majority.
Editorial
Harper’s Weekly, March 7, 1868
THE PRESIDENT AND THE LAW:
http://www.impeach-andrewjohns.....l/vi-2.htm
Gee klake, I thought that all Democrats were calling for immediate withdrawal. I think you guys need to huddle up and get your story straight.
let’s see, Republicans are against blacks, Latinos, women, Macacas, feminazis, welfare cheats (blacks), the poor….
Are there enough rich white men left to elect one?
Hannity @ 25
“I’ve seen a lot of weird, over the top, controversial, opinionated, forceful, and even idiotic posts on Horsesass before; but I’ve never seen a moderator-as Darryl does above- suggest to a poster that he go form his own blog.”
Hey Dick…why are you being such a dick as to post under multiple names and referring to your previous comments under the name “Dick” as though it wasn’t from you? We frown on such sock puppetry ’round here.
Oh…and the feigned surprise is sweet, Dick…but many times I’ve suggested to trolls that they go start their own blog. Usually when they show a certain unnatural obsession….
“In a thread holding Cheney accountable for previous statements, the poster criticized Dan Savage for previous pro-war statements he had made. Hmmmmmmmmmmm apparently the criticism of Savage hit Darryl close to home.”
Not at all…my comment (which you found “very witty” @ 16) was directed at your sock puppetry; it wasn’t really about Dan Savage.
Clearly, in addition to your apparent schizophrenia, you have an unnatural obsession with Dan Savage.
Seek help, dude.
@11 Daddy Love inter alia
Daddy Love has it exactly right … who iS backing percipitous withdrawal? To start with, explicitly, Richardson and Kucinich. Equally important, however, is the impression that Edwards give that >heBUT their ability to do so may be hindered if this campaign goes badly and I am not at all sure that the netroots are ready to support a policy other than rapid withdrawal.
I suspect that a Bidden like announcement by Hillary or Barack would be bad for their PRIMARY campaign. I also suspect that both campaigns are doing all they can do to avoid the need to make a commitment on this issue at least until after the primary.
I’m trying to figure out the exact year that D. Cheney went insane. (He almost seems sane and thoughtful in that interview).
@12 # Dick says:
Yet the things that went wrong are exactly the things the war opponents predicted would go wrong. You and Dan Savage and your president were wrong. I don’t expect you to admit it; because to admit it would be to acknowledge your personal responsibility for the carnage. And, of course, the dead can not be brought back to life. Nor can the physically and psychologically wounded be made whole again. It will take decades to undo the damage you irresponsible fools have done. And by the way-if you are under 41 years old the military will allow you to enlist and fight in your glorious war. Dan Savage’s role of America’s favorite cocksucker precludes his enlistment. But I’m sure that Jews from Seattle are acceptable.
@17 Rabbit says
Anyone who understood Iraqi culture would have questioned the wisdom of removing Saddam. An armed Saddam would have been a problem to his Arab neighbors, but after GWI he was pretty much disarmed. Saddam kept the lid on Iraq’s ethnic tensions.
@27 headless lucy says:
You were wrong then and you are very likely wrong now. THAT scenerio has apparently not occurred to you.
@19 Daddy Love
It was ALWAYS a criminal enterprise to attack and invade another nation in the absence of a prior attack by them. It was ALWAYS a mistake to put thousands of American troops on the ground to hold a nation FROM ITS OWN PEOPLE when those people will inevitably resent and oppose the Occupiers.
SJ responds:
WADR, There is nothing all that new in the US or any other country taking the initial action in a war or even
starting a pre-emptive war. Clinton attacked Sudan and Reagan attract Libya without prior action form those governments. The US was fighting against Japan before Pearl Harbor too.
Did Germany attack the US before we declared war or did we justify this on the assumption that they would join Japan after Dec 7? BTW, you do know that we were engaged against Japan in China BEFORE Dec 7? BTW did Germany or England first declare war against the other?
Your position presumes that war is always motivated on both sides by national gain rather than national defense. I think that is terribly simplistic? Should Lincoln have allowed the South to secede? Should Israel have waited in 73 for Egypt to invade? Was the US threatened in WW1?
War is just one strategy to achieve ends and no worse than some others if the war is justified morally. In a global world, other tactics may be even more hellacious. For example, a large part of the issue in re the Golan Heights is that the Golan controls all of the water supply of Israel. For Israel to withdraw from the Golan, they need to believe Syria will not harm the flow of water. If the golan is ceded to Syria and Syria starts building dams what should Israel do?
Returning to Bush’s war, a very large, perhaps majority, of strategic thinkers agreed on the need to invade Iraq because of two issues: 1. assymetric warfare and 2. was via surrogate. On the former issue Bush’s pathologic lying has poisoned the well, but most reports prior to the invasion assumed that Saddam was in possession of weapons of terror. The only area that there was consensus on was that he no longer had nuclear capability. Other terror weapons, anthrax, chemical poisons, bioengineered bad things were assumed ot be available. To this day it is unclear why he did not have these things. One optimistic theory is that the dictator was being undermined by folks under him. This may distress you, but I suggest you read The Gathering Storm for a pre-war estimate of Iraq’s challenges.
On the second issue, it is all too easy to pass of the Hussein regime as not being =Iran or el Qaeda. Again the mendacity of Bush has obscured the real issues. Hussein certainly di have ambitions and had the resources to support, inter alia, the radical side of Fatah. As long as Arafat and others knew that the Iraqui army wold back them up, the culture of corruption that we still can;t fix would go on. If the new Palestinian Kadimah party actually succeeds, to a large extent this will be the result of the disappearance of Iraq from the Holy Playing Grounds.
The issue now ought not to be whether liberals were wrong in supporting the war. The real issue for all of us is how best to dal with the situation post GWB?
I think Bidden’s stand is close to being correct.
Was Dick Cheney lying then, or lying now….or in both situations?
And BTW, who cares what that guy thinks?
43 SJ
Don’t confuse COMPLETE withdrawal with IMMEDIATE withdrawal.
Kucinich says (http://www2.kucinich.us/iraqplan):
So US troops would be withdrawn over a period of AT LEAST a few months, and there would always be an armed force in place, just not one made up of US troops.
Richardson sayd (http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq):
Again, troops out over the time necessary to remove them, and other troops in place. Why do you talk about things you don’t know about as if you do?
If you mean “an immediate commencement” for withdrawal, you should say so, but also that would not make the point you’re trying to make.
Try again. Five this time.
‘Fortunate Son’ by J. Fogerty neatly captures the youthful hypocrisy of present-day chickenhawks, like our current illegitimate administration. This is what he had to say about Iraq early on in that conflict. If you think that withdrawing to Kurdistan is “bugging out”, you are very mistaken.
‘Déjà Vu All Over Again’, J. Fogerty
Did you hear ’em talkin’ ’bout it on the radio
Did you try to read the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I’ve heard it all before
It’s like Deja Vu all over again
Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score
Did you hear ’em talkin’ ’bout it on the radio
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I’ve heard it all before
It’s like Deja Vu all over again
One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin’ ‘cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma’s crying
She’s lost her precious child
To a war that has no end
Did you hear ’em talkin’ ’bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I’ve seen this all before
It’s like Deja Vu all over again
45 SJ
I was specifically talking abot the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. We invaded and occupied neither Sudan nor Libya. I also do not hold those actions up as a justufucation for Bush actions. The US should adhere to the international conventions to which it is party (and which have the force of law in the US), from the Kellogg-Briand Treay to the UN Charter to the Convention Agaianst Torture.
Wars of aggression=illegal. War in self-defense=legal.
The Libya and Sudan attacks were pretty much illegal. Not only the US but most other countries get away with illegal atacks. It does not justify them. Do not try to justify Bush’s attack using them.
Kenneth Pollack’s book was a bunch of bullshit. Think what you like about the state of information vis-a-vis Iraqi WMD in the summer of 2002, by the spring of 2003 we had a WEALTH of information about their WMD stockpiles and capabilities, and the answer was: there AIN’T ANY. Don’t try to justify the March 2003 invasion using information from 2001-2002.
BTW, WTF? Germany (and Italy) declared war on us days after the Japanese attack in WWII. Didn’t you know that? How fucking hard it that to look up?
You don’t know shit. Really.
@50 I am not intersted in knowing shit and am not certain who formally declared war first /p Dec 7. In fact, however, we were at war well before Pearl Harbor.
I also supect strongly that ol Adfolp[h would have willingly accepted us as an ally should we have wanted that. The uS was not threatened in any way by WWII. We entered a foreign war to project our interests and principles.
@48 Nope, I am not confusing immediate with complete. I know that the extremists on the witdraw now side understand that this needs ot be done carefully. Why they would trust GW wiht such a job puzzles me.
In contrast Bidden, HRC, and BO have left themselves open to the idea of along term presence. IMHO that is statesman like on their parts.
52 sj
Withdrawal from our incredible blunder and subsequent abject failure is not extremism. It is in fact a solidly mainstream position.
51
Your assertion re: WWII that “we were already at war” is sophistry in the face of the US suffering an attack and subsequent declarations of war from other countries.
Also, that discussion tends to obscure rather than illuminate our current predicament, which is, after all, the point.
51
If you are going to try to use it to argue a position maybe you better GET certain.
Lessons from the past.
Nixon was in an eery way like Edwards or Richardson or Kucinich, except I doubt RN believed what he was saying.
The analogy that frightens me is that many Americans voted for this evil man kin the belief that he did have a plan. I do not think any of the pro total withdrawal folks, except Kucinich, is naive enough to believe in total withdrawal but their positions could haunt them later.
Look, it is hard to reconcile diplomacy with candidacy. Still I would hope that once he or she is elected in November 08, BO or HRC will immediately begin QUIETLY to pursue the best solution we can achieve. This willr equire working with France, Russia, and Germany to see how they can help. Bush fucked these pople for no reason. Next we need to make our position on the Kurds clear, probably by working with the Kurds and the Turks to arrive a t a modus vivendi.
NONE of this can be done openly.
I am far less clear on the resolution in the South. Is there a way of our mamanging the intershiite strife? Clearly we ant to keep the Iranians out of whatever happens. Similar issues arise in Sunniland. Our current approach is Bushist*. The reality is that there is no credible Sunni government. We are backing warlords rather than any central government. While this si good short term strategy, in the long run we will not solve things this way.
Oxford Worldish Dictionary, 2075 edition:
* Bushism Referring to the fanatasy filled politics of the George Bush presidency of the early century. Combines a feeling of belief in a deity, disbelief in science, and confidence that the Deity is on our side.
ant. realism.
@54 FWIW, we fired on Germany long before Dec. 7. But that is legalism and irrelevant to what we should have done.
For the moment, leave aside your dismissal of Pollack and imagine instead that something horrible happens and Pakistan falls to its extremists. Suddenly we have an el Qaeda allied, Iran ally with nukes. No questions the nukes are there.
To make matters worse, lest imagine that the new leaders are as crazy as Stalin or Hitler.
Would you stand on principle?
@54
FWIW
On September 1, the beginning of the German attack, Great Britain and France sent Hitler an ultimatum – withdraw German forces from Poland or Great Britain and France would go to war against Germany.
On September 3, with Germany’s forces penetrating deeper into Poland, Great Britain and France both declared war on Germany.
In other words, England and France declared pre-emptive war on Germany. Were they wrong?
As for the date of declaration, the facts are that Germany declared war on Dec. 11, after we had declared war on Japan.
We had committed acts of war before then but why should anyone care? Do you think the uS should not have eneteed WWII because we were not atacked by Germany? If the Jpas had been smarter and not drawn us in, would you aregure we should have staid out of WWII?
SeattleJew said:
Oh? Is supporting and encouraging one side in a conflict the same as being at war?
We did not have United States forces in combat with Axis forces prior to Pearl Harbor. It was no secret that we supported the Allied cause, just as Spain supported the Axis cause, but we were not yet at war.
In those days, we were a civilized nation that considered a formal declaration of war to be an important part of the process. The President presented the facts to Congress, who then made the decision whether or not to put US Armed Forces into combat. That decision was clear and unequivocal.
Not minimizing the responsibility of Congress in this case, as they went along with a vague “authorization”, but that authorization had several conditions which were promptly ignored by the Bush administration.
(Side note – almost everyone forgets that the authorization had the stipulation that force could only be used if Iraq refused to cooperate with UN inspectors and give up its store of WMDs. Iraq complied with the inspectors and had no WMDs to give up.)
There was no formal declaration of war, and our forces attacked another country upon the order of the President.
– Related subject –
Along with the rest of this mess we have made, apparently we are unwilling to help those Iraqis that have helped us.
Some 9,000 Iraqis are working as translators for US forces. They are consided prime targets for insurgents. Almost all have been threatened, many have been killed.
Only about 1,000 can leave Iraq and come to the US.
Good story on this at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/.....cnn_latest
SeattleJew:
Your comment:
Considering the mutual defense treaties in place at the time, no, but your assumption that it was a pre-emptive declaration of war does not take those treaties into consideration. There was a mutual defense treaty that obligated Britain and France to come to the aid of Poland if it was attacked. (C’mon, SeattleJew. This is elementary school history.)
Had Iraq directly attacked a nation that had a mutual defense treaty with us, we would have been justified in declaring war on them. This fact has been one of the things keeping Israel alive (no, not the only thing) over the past half-century.
@21 WTF are you talking about? I’ve been posting all summer, “Hey wingnuts! How do ya like this fucking ICE AGE we’re in?” Guess you don’t read much.
Apparently this idiots believe that if they deny the existence of man-caused global warming enough times it’ll go away.
these not this
@26 I’ll bet it gives the families of those miners a warm glow knowing their loved ones sacrificed their lives so people in California and Texas could run their air conditioners.
@29 “At one time presidents who lied were held accountable.”
When was that?
@30 “And why in the world would I want to participate in a circle jerk?”
Good question. An even better question is why the real Sean Hannity wants to be a circle jerk leader, and why virtually every rightwing blogger wants to be a circle jerker. None of these people want a real debate. I can’t think of a single rightwing blog that doesn’t censor and ban opposition posters.
The answer, of course, is they can’t win a real debate so they put their faith in lying and name-calling.
And that doesn’t work when other people call bullshit on them.
For example, this hoary piece of wingnut bullshit: http://www.snopes.com/politics.....ldstar.asp
Daddy 37 – Good point.. you just reminded me…
Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred because he LIED to grand jury in a failed attempt to conceal a pattern of predatory behavior in connection with a felony assault case that he settled for $800k on the advice of his wife.
Can ya imagine being too fucking dishonest to be a lawyer? Pathetic…
I sure hope The Smartest Woman In The World gets the moonbat nomination.
She is 100% unelectable.
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
8 MORE YEARS
@45 “War is just one strategy to achieve ends and no worse than some others if the war is justified morally.”
War is qualitatively different from everything else, and nothing else is as bad as war. The moral approbation attaching to those responsible for wars is in a class by itself; and the moral justification required for war is equally unique. It is not at all unreasonable for moral people to demand that wars be fought only in defense of self or others.
That, of course, was the case with Britain’s declaration of war on Germany, and America’s pre-Pearl Harbor assistance to China: In each case, the Axis aggressor invaded an ally that Britain or America had promised to defend.
@45 “To this day it is unclear why he did not have these things.”
This isn’t mysterious: He was bluffing. (And ended up outsmarting himself; certainly, Saddam bore a large share of the blame for the U.S. invasion for letting the world believe he did have such weapons.)
What flies over most people’s heads is who Saddam was trying to bluff, which of course were the same people he would have pointed the weapons at if he’d had them: His Arab neighbors.
Saddam’s ultimate goal was Arab unity under his leadership. His idea was that if he could not accomplish this end by persuasion, he would accomplish it by force. For example, he didn’t give Kuwait a choice about becoming a province of Iraq. (It should be noted, however, that the Kuwaitis invited retaliation by siphoning oil from the Iraqi side of the oilfield that straddles the border between the two countries.)
Roger ..
I think this is getting silly. Is “war” worse than the systematic extermination of indians in the US, worse than slavery? worse than the Holocaust?
Is war worse than economic warfare that deprives people of a way to live?
All of these are horrible! The main issue now should be who do we make the best of the mess we are in?
56
I am to imagine that “Pakistn falls to its extremists.”
How does this happen? Pakistan is a majority Sufi (still Sunni) Muslim nation, with a decided minority that is “fundamentalist” Sunni Muslim. They are 97% Muslim, with approximately 77% Sunni and 20% Shia. Are these Shia “extremists” who will defy the majority to ally with Shi’ite Iran? Are these Sunni “extremists” who will ally with Iran even though Iran opposes their Taliban allies in Afghanistan? Neither seems likely.
Are they elected or is there a coup? Did Musharraf allow elections? I think his totalitarian rule is the most DEstabilizing thing happening in Pakistan now because it delegitimizes his government in the eyes of the people and CAUSES discotent to explode into violent opposition.
Anway,for the sake of argument let’s say that somehow what you would like to hypothesize does occur. We talked and negotiated constntly with the Soviet Union for fifty years with nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Would I negotiate? You bet your ass. Would I invade and occupy? No fuckign way. Does that clarify?
Leaders as crazy as Hitler? He was in power six years before ANYONE went to war with him, and he was invading other nations arond him. I will assume for the sake of our disucssion that Pakistan is not one of the preeminent industrial powers that has built a huge and extremely capable military machine, as Germany was and did, and that therefore they are not invading neighboring nations. Do I talk? Yes. Do I invade and occupy? No.
And Stalin? Really? Did we invade the Soviet Union during Stalin’s reign? Seems to me that (a) we watched him ally with Germnay and did nothing, then (b) allied militarily with them. What kind of lesson do you want me to take from that?
If it makes sense to ally militarily with the new fucking crazy leaders of Pakistan (as unlikely as I think your scenario to be), I’d do it.
By the way, what is India doing in your scenario?
Crap. I’m a little late.
69
Funny how few people call sexual harassment “a felony assault case.”
57
Mutual defense agreements are recognized under international law such that an attack against one nation in such an agreement is considered to be an attack on the others.
@50 You are correct that Germany declared war first. And that SJ is distressingly ignorant of easily researched historical facts.
To a Republican, being successful at bedding women is sexual predation. Idiot.
Do you remember what Clinton looked like not all that many years ago? Do you think with his power, position, and looks that he found it difficult to find women?
Seattle Jew
All of this “well, so-and-so did this” or “well, these guys did that” is so much smoke you’re blowing up our asses.
If you have a substantive argument to make about president Bush illegally invading and occupying Iraq that asserts some sort of “moral” or other justification, then make it and stop tap-dancing.
78 RR
No shit. But you know, I’ll admit to being surprised by it. And by the stream of bullshit and obfuscation that followed.
@69 “Can ya imagine being too fucking dishonest to be a lawyer?”
Yeah. For example, I can’t imagine YOU being a lawyer.
@73 Your semantics are getting silly. The extermination of American Indians was conducted by means of waging war against them. The Holocaust, strictly speaking, was not a “war” in the conventional sense of the term, but occurred in the context of war and was a product of war.
Is war worse than slavery? That’s a loaded question, of course. But I think the answer is yes, because war kills and maims more people than slavery does. I hope you understand the Civil War was not fought to end slavery; and that Lincoln would have let the South keep slavery if they agreed to stay in the Union.
How do you deprive a people of the economic means of survival by means other than war?
MTR
Clitnon was disbarred (for five years) in Arkansas, for God’s sake. If he were pursuing a law practice, do you think that was going to slow him down or drive him bankrupt? He hasn’t practiced law anywhere since the early ’80s.
BTW, neither the articles of impeachment nor the order of disbarment match your assertion. Don’t let that slow you down, though, big guy. I’m pulling for you AND your delusions.
@81 I don’t know what to make of SJ. I seem to recall he described himself as a retired professor. I would not ordinarily expect to see a professor of anything make the spelling mistakes, logic mistakes, and factual mistakes that sometimes perforate his comments. On the other hand, there’s often a sublety and depth in his arguments that simply doesn’t exist among the ignorant segment of the population typified by wingnuts. Who is SJ? I think I can say what he is: A political maverick.
@84 MTR should just pay his gambling debt. Everything else is out of his depth.
85
I knwo what you mean about “sublety and depth in his arguments.” But as John Barelli noted, this stuff in here today is grad-school history. So, what? He can think but not remember? It’s like Memento.
Speaking of the miner tragedies, I thought wingnut ideology was that the owners of the enterprise were taking all the risk?
Seems to me the only people dying are the miners. Wehould make it very risky to put people in conditions that are less safe than they could be by burying the mineowners or their CEO in the hole where the miners died.
I’m predicting there’d be a lot less dying all the way around.
#79 headless lucy says:
Are you implying any woman would gladly give themselves to Clinton? Would you? What about Kobe Bryant and his alleged rape, considering his power, money and looks do you think he found it difficult to find women?
Or do you mean rape can only happen if the man is poor & ugly?
Oh yeah, I know, you hate me, you really hate me.
#83 Roger Rabbit says:
How many Japanese are still suffering because of our war with japan? How many blacks are still suffering because of slavery?
85 Roger Rabbit
We have met at DL, I am the wild haired fellow. If you go to SeattleJew you likely will remember me.
No I am not retired, not being as smart as you I still live on a salary.
Spelling, ai there is the rub. Not sure why I have this problem. I have never learned to type properly, was dyslexic until 3rd grade, learned to write in Latin rather than English .. lots of reasons here.
As for facts, I would suggest you look more carefully. While I am susceptible to error, it is rare. In this case Daddy is nitpicking. One could argue that our declaration of war in Japan amounted to a declaration on Germany but on Dec. 11 when Germany declared war on us, I think it was pretty clear.
Beyond all that, I would certainly argue that we would have saved a lot of people’s lives if we had intervened earlier in Europe. At one point, before he was allied to Adolph, Mussolini sought our support in opposing Hitler. We refused.
Back at the current and far more important issues, I think we are discussing how to go form where we are now in Iraq. At one end we have irredentist, perhaps delusional President. I have read no serious writer who thinks Bush is fit to lead this effort. Nor have I read anyone who thinks Bush’s claptrap Baghdad “democracy” is worth supporting.
That leaves, however, many alternatives. Getting out as soon as possible could, by definition, be done. Other than the demagogues of the left, I have yet to here ana rguemtn that this makes sense for any reason other than domestic politics. Moreover, if folks actually read the O’Hanlon/Pollack piece, they suggest some of the issues we should deal with. These include securing the Kurdish peace,.developing an oil resource in Anbar, and bringing some kind or order to the South. Nothing they said, or that I have heard, tells us how all this is to be done and sane discussion seems to be a lost cause.
So, how does this effect my political choices? In my lifetime demagoguery has caused far more harm than any good it has done. Of the Dems, only three seem to me to be taking reasonably restrained positions on what they would do. I hope this continues for the leaders of the pack.
A maverick? I am pretty consistent in my affiliations but that is not necessarily true of the name brand parties. To me the shopping list of issues that the publicans and the Dems stand for are both inconsistent and absurd.
@83 Roger Rabbit
The extermination of American Indians was conducted by means of waging war against them. The Holocaust, strictly speaking, was not a “war” in the conventional sense of the term, but occurred in the context of war and was a product of war.
If by war we mean what it usually means, then no the indigenous natives were rarely destroyed by war. Far more effective were smallpox and economic measures. Seattle is an especially clear issue. The Indian war here alsted a day orso and was far less important than the remaking of the Duwamish and Lake Washington that destroyed the native habitat.
Is war worse than slavery? That’s a loaded question, of course. But I think the answer is yes, because war kills and maims more people than slavery does.
I assume you have nefver talked with an African/American about this.
How do you deprive a people of the economic means of survival by means other than war?
slavery, removal of resources required for life style, diversion of water or other resources, requirement for cultural accommodation in order to make a living, colonization by a larger population, etc. etc.
@80 .. Daddy love
If Bush’s fantasy had worked, I doubt many would be questioning the legality of what he did anymore than we all today question the legality of Lincoln’s effort to enforce the Union vs, the rebels effort to have the original colonies secede from Britain.
In any case I am not sure why this is so important. The issue in tis thread is, I think, what we should do now. Do you think we should withdraw now? under GW’s leadership?
@78 RR
Not as ignorant as DL seems to want me to be. As it were I ASKED who first declared war, the US or the Third Reich. I did not know. Is honesty bad?
As it turns out he answer is complex because we declared war on Japan so, i would guess we were technically at war with Hitler before he called us on the issue.
A far more important issue, it seems to me, is whether there is some reason for the US to declare itself as not willing to make pre-emptive war ..that is war unless we are first formally attacked or someone declares war on us. In an era of 25 minute ballistic missles carrying nuc warheads and the potential for other forms of mas destruction, this question seems inane to me.
re 89: “Are you implying any woman would gladly give themselves to Clinton?”
No. Are you implying that the odds are with him or against him? I’m saying: Is it reasonable to assume that a person like Bill Clinton would have more or less difficulty than say, Richard Nixon in getting laid without resorting to rape, whores, or diapers?
I’m saying that he would not have any more reason to rape a woman than Keith Richards, or, for that matter, P-Diddy.
#92 SeattleJew says:
I am sure roger rabbit has some african/american friends.
@74 Daddy Love
The majority of Pakistanis are sufi???? Can you give me a reference for that??? I thought sufi opposed sharia?
As for the rest, we must be living in alternative universes. There is certainly a possibility of Pakistan falling to an extremist government and there has been quite a lot written about this. Could Pakistan reamin fairly safe ? yes. Could it also be radicalized abough to give terrorists nukes? yes to that too.
I suspectg where we WOULD agree on Pakistan and Iran and even N. Korea is that we need to do all we can to avoid that eventuality. What I miss on the left and the right is a discussion of what we might be able to do to help see that Pakistan goes away from gterrorism.
@96 I agree and I would bet they consider the effects of slavery as the equal of any war.
Folks the easy way to end the war is to win it not become a defeatist like the far left. Oh I forgot you all are losers and don’t know how to win. Roger are you still selling bumper sticker on Freeing Tibet? Yep! and Roger knows everything on how to be a Nazi.
OH I FORGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger is the Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the Socialist Democrats Party today just like Paul Joseph Goebbels was in Hitler Germany. His Nazi friends taught him the trade when he visited them in jail.
#98 SeattleJew says:
Worse than a war. At least in a war once it’s over it’s over. Bigotry won’t disappear for another couple generations. Of course there will always be a few on the fringe, but the children of the hip hop generation will be long past it.
SeattleJew says:
A far more important issue, it seems to me, is whether there is some reason for the US to declare itself as not willing to make pre-emptive war ..that is war unless we are first formally attacked or someone declares war on us. In an era of 25 minute ballistic missles carrying nuke warheads and the potential for other forms of mass destruction, this question seems inane to me.
It is really mute you launch no questions ask. They could be anybody and not even a nation. When Bush gave us the green light to hunt down the terrorist no nation was safe from our vengeance. They could meet the same faith as the Greek city state of Melos after Athens wipes them of the planet. The women and children were sold off as slaves and the Athens to over their island for themselves. Roger have you heard from your friend Dr. E lately, maybe the INS pick him up after posting on this website.
Looks like Mitt Romney is from the CHICKENHAWK wing of the GOP. As usual, we have another hypocrite claiming the so-called “WAR ON TERROR” is the most important fight of our time – where are Mitt’s five combat – aged sons? Sitting on their fat asses here in the good old USA while other people’s kids do the dirty work. Chickenshit chickenhawks – welcome to the GOP!
43 US service men and women were killed in Iraq in the last two weeks. None of them were relatives of GW Bush. All 36 combat-aged Bush relatives must not agree with Monkeyface that this is the “MOST IMPORTANT CONFLICT OF OUR TIME.” Why else wouldn’t they be there where the action is?
CHICKENHAWKS! Just like their hero GW.
Daddy Love says:
Seattle Jew
All of this “well, so-and-so did this” or “well, these guys did that” is so much smoke you’re blowing up our asses.
If you have a substantive argument to make about president Bush illegally invading and occupying Iraq that asserts some sort of “moral” or other justification, then make it and stop tap-dancing.
Daddy Love what President Bush did was invade many nations and your friends that you voted for support that invasion with their vote. No questions ask, they even supported all the evidence submitted as being nothing but the truth so help me God. Yep a fine job they did and now they claim they were dumb as a bunch of rocks. All that college education did not do them any good either. Now they are spewing more lies, and pissing off Sweet Cindy Sheehan. Wow!!!! what bunch of suckers. Big Daddy you don’t need justification today to defend your country or your friends. Moral point of view is like ass holes everyone has one and they all looks different depending on what’s your vantage point.
PuffyButtPretendingToBeBlackSays says:
43 US service men and women were killed in Iraq in the last two weeks. None of them were relatives of GW Bush. All 36 combat-aged Bush relatives must not agree with Monkeyface that this is the “MOST IMPORTANT CONFLICT OF OUR TIME.” Why else wouldn’t they be there where the action is?
CHICKENHAWKS! Just like their hero GW.
Hey Pretender how many of your relatives are now or have been in the military since 911? One thing for sure they don’t make name tapes that you could list your dumb ass name. Yep we find cowards in all different colors but you can’t miss the yellow strip. Folks who flew jets into our cities and killed people for no reason? Yep thats right you can’t answer that question for it did not ever happen, right.
Poor silly Klake, off his meds again. If Bush had given the “green light” why didn’t he get Bin Laden when they had him cornered? Why do they allow Al Queda free reign in the border regions? Why turn a blind eye while the Saudi’s fund extremists?
And why do you continue to rant meaningless foolishness?
Hey Klake Sux Dix – me and my family fought more war than any three publican pretenders on this board – but that said, it doesn’t matter. You see – being the inbred, cum-drunk, mental midget you are – you don’t get the concept here. You see I am not saying the war is worth fighting. But those who are, your cowardly Publican friends, well they say it IS worth fighting – but they aren’t over their fighting it. That makes them chickenhawks. Like you – they’re afraid. They’re traitors AND they’re cowards. Now get back on your knees and keep sucking that prison dick. That’s all you’re good for cunt.
K says:
Poor silly Klake, off his meds again. If Bush had given the “green light” why didn’t he get Bin Laden when they had him cornered? Why do they allow Al Qaeda free reign in the border regions? Why turns a blind eye while the Saudi’s fund extremists?
And why do you continue to rant meaningless foolishness
For a Government worker you should know those answers. Funny we didn’t see you over there providing us all that support on catching the bogyman. Nope you are here complaining about the poor results and mucking up everyone’s day. The Saudi’s might fund extremists but you support their terrorist by running up the white flag and buying prayer rugs to practice your new religion. Al Qaeda has its good and bad days but you can count on them having more bad than good in the near future. Now Mr. K (wimp) please informed me what this nation should change in foreign policy and how you would change it to win this war? Sell bumper stickers to encourage Osama bin Laden to turn himself in to Jimmy McDermott?
PuffyButtPretendingToBeBlackSays says:
Hey Klake Sux Dix – me and my family fought more war than any three publican pretenders on this board – but that said, it doesn’t matter. You see – being the inbred, cum-drunk, mental midget you are – you don’t get the concept here.
It appears that your mother didn’t teach you any English or respect. If you can express your self like an old drunken sailor you really bring nothing to the table. Now it appears that you are the one who has a problem with FEAR. You hide behind a phony name like Mr. K and have no class like John Barelli but he does a better job of expressing himself. Before you make an issue about someone being a coward you might try posting with your real name. No you are not only a coward but will hide under his mother dress when danger appears.
Hey Klake Sux Dick – I’ll tell you my real name face to face at the next DL. Show up if you aren’t married to an AIDS-infested cunt. If you DON’T show up, I’ll assume you ARE married to an AIDS-infested cunt. The last publican pretender I called out to DL is STILL hiding under YOUR mother’s dress bitch. Why aren’t you over in Iraq you fucking coward? Why isn’t Baby Bush’s family over there? Why aren’t Mitt Romney’s five combat-aged sons over there? I’ll tell you why – because you’re all chickenshit chickenhawks like WHATADICK Cheney who had “other priorities” when it was his turn in Nam. Or like Limpdick Limbaugh who had a boil on his ass and was worried it would pop. Or like Handjob Hannity who was of the perfect age to enlist for Gulf War I but like most cowardly publicans, was back home here where it’s safe. You and your kind are all for wars that other people’s kids have to fight because – yes I’ll say it again – you’re cowardly cunts!
@101 Klake
You do not seem to have read the news for the last two years. Yes, most of the nation supported GW’s intent to get el Qaeda wherever it was. He lied. When he heroically led the American Military into Iraq, along with his sidekick Tony, Bush was living in a fantasy already described by Cervantes.
Assuming he was not lying, the other rational assumption is that he drank too much or has become to infatuated with Jesus. In either case, against the advice of all our allies, other than
Sancho PanzaTony Blair, as well as Colin Powell and virtually every military leader willing to talk publically, the CIC did all the wrong things. He went in with too few allies, too few troops, and too few plans for what would happen should the Iraquis fail to fall down in awe after the shock of the invasion. We went in, left the borders unguarded, dismantled the only existing government, and stage managed a democracy worthy of some high school civics exercise.The only reason I bother to explain all of this to you is so that others here will understand that my belief that there were good reasons to go into Iraq has nothing to do with what Bush did to deceive the American people. He and
Darth Vaderhave done vast damage ti our country even if, as I believe, there were reason to invade Iraq. Lying is bad. I suspect Presidents have lied before, but no one has ever dne this much harm.So, for the others who find my ideas quirky, If I had my druthers we would now be having a debate over what we can rescue form this debacle. I fear that in an effort t extricate us from this mess, we could INCREASE the damage he has done.
Finally, if we are to withdraw I would no more trust
Don QuixoteBush andSanchoChaney to manage that withdrawal then I would trust their friend Brownie.#73;
SeattleJew says:
Roger ..
I think this is getting silly. Is “war” worse than the systematic extermination of indians in the US, worse than slavery? worse than the Holocaust?
Is war worse than economic warfare that deprives people of a way to live?
All of these are horrible! The main issue now should be who do we make the best of the mess we are in?
—————-
I have an idea Seattle Jew. Let’s impeach, prosecute, and then send Bush, and Cheney to the Hague. Their war crimes number in the dozens by now. We can then ask the world to help us clean up their / our mess once we have shown them we mean to change, and stop invading non-threatening countries to try to control their oil.
Until Bush is behind bars, we are all in this alone.
More for Klake
Congratulations. You pissed me off enough to get featured in the Pessimism column at SeattleJew.
Puffybut
Klake may not be old enough to come to DL without his Mommie.
@112 Facts
I have a better idea. If it were responsible the Publican part would call a closed oor meeting at Camp David and announce that Bush and Chaney and decided to sit out he rest of their administration and turn over what is left to Secretary Gates and Rice. Bush could still be prexy like some
latter day Russian Czar before the Bolshies. The pres can be trotted out to sign things and cheer on the easter egg hunt.
@92 “Far more effective were smallpox …”
I think you should look further into this. Of all the atrocities committed against Indians, this one may be urban legend.
Credible evidence is lacking of intentional infection of Native Americans with smallpox. On the other hand, North America’s indigenous populations were vulnerable to European diseases, and the accidental introduction to the continent of these diseases (including smallpox) devastated those populations. However, in those days people didn’t know about germs or understand how infectious diseases are transmitted, much less design ways to transmit them.
ROVER RESIGNS! The latest cocksucker from the Bush Regime has tucked tail and run. This is what the Publicans do best. They tuck tail and run. What a bitch. He knows Congress is after him so he’s bailing out. Bye bye you fucking cunt. America is better off without you.
We finally found out Klake’s real identity!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ge11m.html
98 SJ
Could a giant wave flood New York City tomorrow? Yes to that too. The question is not what is possible, it is the likelihood of a given scenario. Would a nation who sees their huge, prosperous, developed, populous next-door-neighbor as an existential nuclear threat GIVE AWAY their nuclear weapons? One might say reasonably that the answer is no.
There are lots of people thinking about this and doing work in the area. Check out the House testimony of Joseph Cirincione, Senior Fellow and Director of Nuclear Policy for the Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.or.....timony.pdf
Reagrding nuclear terrorism, he says in part:
The point is, it seems to me, is that we need to do the difficult and patience requiring work of engaging nations with nuclear weapons into an effective nonproliferation scheme, and to discourage such nations from straying. I would posit, however, that invasion and occupation is one of the LEAST effective ways of achieving this. And the leaders of other nations, by and large, are rational actors, at least as rational as ours, which perhaps isn’t saying much. Accepting simple-minded notions of the leaders of other nations as “madmen” is playing into the hands of the crazy war hawks in our country.
108 klake
Like you care what Democrats want to do in Iraq. All you want to do is fling your feces.
But here are some ideas from http://www.americanprogress.rg:
Tell us more about selling bumper stickers to encourage Osama bin Laden to turn himself in to Representative McDermott…
97 SJ
I can’t find my original source for the Sufi estimate. I have found other things:
So 65% of the madrassahs are run by (and presumably for) 7% of the population. The Wahhabis are fewer that even the Ahle Hadith (1%). Few fundamentalist extremists is the point I wanted to make.
I’ll keep looking.
According to IMAGINING SUFISM: RECONSTITUTING THE CHISHTI SABIRI SILSILA IN CONTEMPORARY PAKISTAN (http://web.archive.org/web/200.....zehnal.doc), the Deaobandi, Wahhabis, and Ahle Hadith are opposed to Sufism. They make up bout 9% of Pakistan’s population. This may imply that the majority is at least friendly to Sufism, but is far from establishing it.
A post on http://interact.sunnirazvi.org.....,1266,1266 claims that “The Barelvis [78% of Pakistani Muslims] follow many Sufi practices, including use of music (Qawwali) and intercession by their teacher.”
It may be less accurate to say that people in Pakistan “are” Sufis, but rather that the majority follow Sufi religious practices, which tend to be inclusive, tolerant, and loving (and thus more or less politically moderate and not extremist or fundamentalist).
Same post:
” Indeed, nearly 85% of South Asia’s Sunni Muslims are said to follow the Barelvi school, closer to Sufism. The remaining 15% of Sunnis follow the Deobandi school, more closely related to the conservative practice of Islam.”
Rove is gone! What an ugly legacy this poor excuse for a man has wrought.
He’s going to take it easy for a while and scribble out a book with a tidy multi-million dollar advance from Rupert Murdoch. It will be a self-serving tome full of the lies, smears and distortions that are his trademark.
He’ll jump into the next presidential fray as architect of vote suppression and dirty tricks for Rompin’ Rudy or Fred Thompson.
If Hillary hands the White House to Rudy or Fred, Rove has a cush job as head of the RNC continuing to pull the strings of his beloved Republican Party. Almost seven years in the White House is too much for anyone.
Make no mistake, he will keep his hand in.
@115 Roger Rabbit
I agree. My point was that the colonization of N America did far more harm than a war. Intent is not the point. Missionaries certainly do harm but they intend good.
@119 You are saying the same thing I am, the only difference is pessimism vs optimism. of course I beleive in using all means. As to whether I beleive that Pakistan will be well governed .. I reamin an aetheist.
@121
Pakistan has a sufficient Muslim population that it accepts Islamic law. As for the other sects, none of these sounds Sufi.
@123 Daddy Love
The Sufis were an importnat movement and it is good to know that slects remain in other sects. The core irredentismk of Islam, however is worrisome.
On Rove
Sounds as if the Publicans have finally gotten a baby sitter in the W House. I wonder who watches the kids when Condi is away.
Rove can now retire to Texas where we can expect to see him soon on an episode of TO CATCH A PREDATOR!
128
Irredentism is claiming a right to territories belonging to another state on the grounds of common ethnicity and/or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. You think that Islam is, at its “core,” irredentist? Would you care to, I don’t know, support such a claim about 1 billion people, from Indonesians to Punjabis to Arabs? I think we can safely leave out Islam’s original spread in the 7th to 15th centuries. Let’s talk about now.
Do you also believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us?
Do you also believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us?
This is prevalent fear among neo-cons as described in that recent piece in the Guardian (I think) about the National Review cruise.
The neo-cons believe Muslims are hyper-breeders and will eventually crowd out all the natives. They think Europe is doomed in that regard.
I believe there are over 1 million muslims in this country. The right-wing panic is composed of fears about both muslim and hispanic birth rates.
No comment. Enough’s been said here about the fear-twisted minds of the right wing.
#95 headless lucy says:
Was richard nixon ever accused of rape? Did richard nixon ever have to settle out of court in a sexual harassment suit? Did nixon ever have sex with a young intern and then lie about it? Was nixon ever impeached?
If clinton was such the cat’s meow, why did he have such a problem with women? Of course, I’ll admit he probably did bed lots of women that we never heard about.
133
Richard Nixon couldn’t get a blowjob from Bob Allen with a fistful of $20 bills.
It’s hardly likely that Pakistan will be under sharia law. In early June Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) voted to introduce Sharia law, and in response the central government (read: Pervez Musharraf, who is the State) removed the head of the provincial police and the chief civil servant. These men are the two most senior administrative officers of the province, and they were replaced by men who must report directly to Islamabad. This action shut down that effort for a time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2962874.stm
The NWFP, to the surprise of no one, is the largely autonomous mountain region that is predominantly Pashtun and is home to large numbers of ethnic Pashtun refugees from Afghanistan, many who were allied with the Taliban. It is also where OBL and the other Al Qaeda have re-established themselves. As an aside, the NWFP border with Afghanistan was drawn by the British in the late 19th century specifically to divide the Pashtun, and it is a border they have despised ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....r_Province
So a movement to impose conservative Sharia Islamic rule in that province? Completely understandable. Will such a movement spread to the rest of Pakistan? Unlikely.
BTW, there won’t be any withdrawal from Iraq while Bush is CiC. None. The Democrats are trying to use their majority to highlight the issues that they think will expand their majority, which happily coincide with the views of the majority of Americans.
Unlike the crazy crap the Republican Congressional majority wasted all of our time on.
arryl and Goldy, it’s interesting (hypocritical?) how tolerant you are of behavior in Dan Savage that you find intolerable in a Republican.
“In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize… or we’re going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.” Dan Savage Oct. 2002
137
Yes, Dick, it wasn’t Dick Cheney on television telling us that “Saddam Hussein has reconstituted nuclear weapons,” nor Condolezza Rice and Chimp telling us that the “smoking gun” might come in the form of a mushroom cloud, nor all of you fools bleating on about how “Clinton thought there were WMDs,” nor the incomplete and inaccurate information supplied to the Congress to pressure their assent to authorize the use of force right before the 2002 elections, oh no.
It was Dan Savage’s column in the Stranger that got us into Iraq, no doubt about it. I remember well the day the Chimp had it read to him for the first time. Once Dick explained it, it all made perfect sense, and he was convinced!
I’m not arguing that “It was Dan Savage’s column in the Stranger that got us into Iraq.” I’m arguing that as one of the voices added to the Bushies voices promoting and supporting the war Savage bears some of the responsibility for what has happened. Compared to Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, Savage’s role is minor, but he is responsible for some of the carnage nonetheless. I don’t know how to spell that out any more clearly. And I don’t hear you saying that Dan Savage bears NO responsibility for this war.
So Seattle’s liberals can associate with Dan Savage and applaud his wit, and say that other people were fooled by the lying Bushies too; but he is a war monger asshole whether you like it or not.
140
You’re right Dick, I have not said that Dan Savage bears no responsibility for this war. And if you want to make him your life’s work, you go boy! I applaud your passiona nd that I imagine will be your dedication in your dogged pursui of his bony ass. I would be curious to know what Ol’ Dan is saying NOW about the war.
In the meantime, I’ll turn my attention to prosecuting the assholes in power in DC who DID invade Iraq, and to creating a stronger Democratic majotrity to challenge them.
NOW Dan is saying the war was a good idea but Bush fucked it up.