Bush admits administration leaked CIA name

[Kefka]

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346

[Warriorbird]

Oh my.

[Gan]

Interesting development.

[Ilvane]

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

~~~~~~~

Can I just laugh? Please?

[Kembal]

Maybe he's hoping this gets missed in all the other stuff that's happening? Like Congress focusing on Harriet Miers refusing to show up for a subopena?

[Skirmisher]

My but it's good to be the king.

[Sean of the Thread]

My but it's good to be the king.

You're spot on! No president should be able to use his executive powers unless we the people give him permission and approval!! Oh wait we did when we elected him. My bad.

[Parkbandit]

My but it's good to be the king.

Yea, because being a King and a US President are the same.

:rolleyes:

[grapedog]

Yea, because being a King and a US President are the same.

:rolleyes:


apparently to some...it is. Illegal Wire Tapping, Picking a fight with Iraq after lying to the American public...just in general being a fucking douchebag. I could go on and on about all the fuck-up's the president has overseen over his 2 terms in office. But it's a waste of my time because most of the people who like Bush are to obtuse to have an open mind about it.

I voted for Bush the first time...i really regret that. Didn't make that same mistake twice though...

I'm not a politician...so I can change my mind when new ideas are presented to me, without being a flip-flopper! woohoo!

[Skirmisher]

Yea, because being a King and a US President are the same.

:rolleyes:

If it were up to the shrub it would be yes.

He is THAT arrogant in believing that his puny brain is so far ahead of the rest of us that anyone who disagrees with him is simply an obstacle to be squashed or barring the ability to do that, to be ignored.

[Sean of the Thread]

So sayeth skirm!

[thefarmer]

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

Am I the only who thinks that despite frequent challenges to the contrary, Bush continues to think and act like he can do anything he chooses and that he expect the country to just go along with it?

[sst]

What do you mean think thefarmer, he does and it works for him.

[Back]

What do you mean think thefarmer, he does and it works for him.

Works as in “he gets away with it”. Amazingly this is true.

Works as in “he is an effective and popular leader”, not so much.

[Skirmisher]

What do you mean think thefarmer, he does and it works for him.

What "works" for Bush hasn't been working out so great for the country.

[Necromancer]

That's precisely the problem. There is now, and always has been, a significant gap between Bush's ideology and the country's well being.

What really kills me is that it in no way guarantees us a democratic president. It's one thing to let someone get away with this stuff while they're in office (there's just not much we can even do), but it's a whole new batch of issues when you know that it won't even matter when we CAN do something about it.

[Back]

That's precisely the problem. There is now, and always has been, a significant gap between Bush's ideology and the country's well being.

What really kills me is that it in no way guarantees us a democratic president. It's one thing to let someone get away with this stuff while they're in office (there's just not much we can even do), but it's a whole new batch of issues when you know that it won't even matter when we CAN do something about it.

Can you really blame a consumerist society for being apathetic?

I agree, its a crime beyond even reasonable proportions... but who is really to blame here?

[TheEschaton]

Television.

[Parkbandit]

If it were up to the shrub it would be yes.

He is THAT arrogant in believing that his puny brain is so far ahead of the rest of us that anyone who disagrees with him is simply an obstacle to be squashed or barring the ability to do that, to be ignored.


LOL.. spoon fed ignorance.

Grats... not that I'm surprised though.

[Parkbandit]

I agree, its a crime beyond even reasonable proportions... but who is really to blame here?

Capitalism is to blame Comrade.. flee to Cuba imo.

[TheEschaton]

PB, the PC would be about half as fun, if you weren't here to set up ludicrous straw men and then knock them down, all the while ignoring the house burning down around you.

But then again, I stopped prefering fun over reason and rationality when I became an adult.

[Parkbandit]

PB, the PC would be about half as fun, if you weren't here to set up ludicrous straw men and then knock them down, all the while ignoring the house burning down around you.

But then again, I stopped prefering fun over reason and rationality when I became an adult.


LOL.. when you became an adult. Too funny.

Seriously.. re-read the spew and ignorance on this thread so far by you whacko libs.. then tell me you've even come close to reason or rationality. An adult? Not when you are being spoon fed your 'news' then tossing it around here like it's a fact.

But hey, keep it coming. I am having fun here.. watching you fools blame everything from Gas prices to Global Warming on Bush. My god.. he should be King with the power he wields in your tiny brains.

Typical Lib:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/typical.jpg

[Skirmisher]

LOL.. spoon fed ignorance.
...


The irony of those words coming from you is funny.

[Stanley Burrell]

We've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants.

[Necromancer]

Wait, are you serious? You should write Bush a letter- maybe he's got a place for you in his administrative army of political and social isolation.

He admited that someone in his department probably leaked information about the identity of a CIA operative- a felony that compromises both the agent's life AND national security (so much for him being the tough guy who'll do whatever it takes for national security, eh?). Someone WAS in fact convicted of such, and he waived their punishment with no fear whatsoever about reprocussions nor concern about ethical violations and abuse of position.

We're not talking his brother-in-law who got into an automobile accident. We're talking about an agent being sold out because her husband dared to question the administration in a public LTE. Bush or someone very close to him likely authorized the 'leak', and now he's being handed the safety he was promised. And, even if that's not the case (highly unlikely), then you're faced with the stark reality that Bush is abusing his position on a whim.

I, for one, am exhausted with the conservatives in this country who are taking the worst page from Bush's book and refusing to so much as acknowledge the shit going on around them; favoring ideology in lieu of reality. Clinton lies about an affair, and everyone gets up in arms, and we say, "Okay, I mean he DID lie under oath. You're playing a political game, but we can't help but admit to an ethical violation, as well as a legal one." Bush lies to the American public *repeatedly* and *unabashedly*, and you stare it in the face and call it spoon-fed liberal ignorance. Ignorance? We've got it all documented. You've got him quoting in papers that he'd track down and fire anyone who leaked information on an agent, and then you have him getting them off the hook. You've got the Brittish government admitting that their talks with the US made it clear that the Administration was looking to find any reason possible to invade another country- that our President gave approval to lie in any way necessary. We have records of his State of the Union where he SHOWED US A PICTURE of a compound he swears we used for biological weapons when we actually had zero proof, and it turned out...no weapons. In that same State of the Union he presented us with other pieces of 'evidence' that the UN and his own team had already thrown out as fabricated. You have proof of a man who has been illegally capturing prisoners and detaining them against the laws set down by the Geneva Conventions and who has been sending them to be tortured all the while swearing that the US NEVER allows such an option and then REFUSING to sign legislation banning *torture*.

Enough of your blinders. You and yours have a LOT of blood on your hands. So do the rest of us, but as the radical right is so fond of saying, asking for forgiveness and making amends is the first step out of sin.

May the screams of the dying, the dead, and the tortured haunt all of your damn dreams you immoral POS.

[Sean of the Thread]

You guys act like this sort of shit is unique to this administration.

[Latrinsorm]

Someone WAS in fact convicted of suchScooter Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI, but was never even accused of actually leaking the information. If you're going to make a big ol' post about reality vs. ideology, I think it's only sensible to not go flying off into supposition, don't you? :)
You've got him quoting in papers that he'd track down and fire anyone who leaked information on an agent, and then you have him getting them off the hook.Scooter Libby resigned in 2005. What's Bush supposed to do, hire him just so he can fire him again?

It's puzzling to cite the British as the same documents that you feel demonstrate our administration's lyingness simultaneously demonstrate the British concern over Iraq's use of WMD. Are we supposed to conclude that the US in general and Bush in particular somehow managed to trick or befuddle a sovereign nation's entire intelligence force?

I think that this is generally the problem, by the way. In response to people who refuse to admit any wrongdoing, folks throw up everything they can think of, even when some of it contradicts other parts of it. It's not really that hard to find stuff Bush did that was wrong, why be ridiculous?

[TheEschaton]

To quote you guys, "Just cause it happened before doesn't excuse it now!!!!!11"

[Parkbandit]

Wait, are you serious? You should write Bush a letter- maybe he's got a place for you in his administrative army of political and social isolation.

He admited that someone in his department probably leaked information about the identity of a CIA operative- a felony that compromises both the agent's life AND national security (so much for him being the tough guy who'll do whatever it takes for national security, eh?). Someone WAS in fact convicted of such, and he waived their punishment with no fear whatsoever about reprocussions nor concern about ethical violations and abuse of position.

We're not talking his brother-in-law who got into an automobile accident. We're talking about an agent being sold out because her husband dared to question the administration in a public LTE. Bush or someone very close to him likely authorized the 'leak', and now he's being handed the safety he was promised. And, even if that's not the case (highly unlikely), then you're faced with the stark reality that Bush is abusing his position on a whim.

I, for one, am exhausted with the conservatives in this country who are taking the worst page from Bush's book and refusing to so much as acknowledge the shit going on around them; favoring ideology in lieu of reality. Clinton lies about an affair, and everyone gets up in arms, and we say, "Okay, I mean he DID lie under oath. You're playing a political game, but we can't help but admit to an ethical violation, as well as a legal one." Bush lies to the American public *repeatedly* and *unabashedly*, and you stare it in the face and call it spoon-fed liberal ignorance. Ignorance? We've got it all documented. You've got him quoting in papers that he'd track down and fire anyone who leaked information on an agent, and then you have him getting them off the hook. You've got the Brittish government admitting that their talks with the US made it clear that the Administration was looking to find any reason possible to invade another country- that our President gave approval to lie in any way necessary. We have records of his State of the Union where he SHOWED US A PICTURE of a compound he swears we used for biological weapons when we actually had zero proof, and it turned out...no weapons. In that same State of the Union he presented us with other pieces of 'evidence' that the UN and his own team had already thrown out as fabricated. You have proof of a man who has been illegally capturing prisoners and detaining them against the laws set down by the Geneva Conventions and who has been sending them to be tortured all the while swearing that the US NEVER allows such an option and then REFUSING to sign legislation banning *torture*.

Enough of your blinders. You and yours have a LOT of blood on your hands. So do the rest of us, but as the radical right is so fond of saying, asking for forgiveness and making amends is the first step out of sin.

May the screams of the dying, the dead, and the tortured haunt all of your damn dreams you immoral POS.


Damn.. I wish I had room on my signature line for another really stupid quote.. because this whole pile of shit would go there. I especially love your ending..

You should be a fiction writer... you seem to have a knack for it.

[Skirmisher]

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job"

[Nieninque]

Can you really blame a consumerist society for being apathetic?

Yes.


I agree, its a crime beyond even reasonable proportions... but who is really to blame here?

Voters.

[Necromancer]

Oh, sorry, my bad. He didn't kill anyone, he was just convicted of holding a smoking gun over a dead body. But sure, okay, it was just obstruction of justice. He was just caught covering up a leak, not doing the actual leaking (which is virtually impossible to prove, of course).

I don't expect Bush to do anything, but clearly he did when he nullified the sentencing. So it's a little late to pull that line.

And, finally, distracting from the Administration's blatant attempts to mislead the country by pointing out the UK's fault in the situation isn't actually a functional excuse.

[Gan]

Oh, sorry, my bad. He didn't kill anyone, he was just convicted of holding a smoking gun over a dead body. But sure, okay, it was just obstruction of justice. He was just caught covering up a leak, not doing the actual leaking (which is virtually impossible to prove, of course).

I don't expect Bush to do anything, but clearly he did when he nullified the sentencing. So it's a little late to pull that line.

And, finally, distracting from the Administration's blatant attempts to mislead the country by pointing out the UK's fault in the situation isn't actually a functional excuse.

ROFL @ teh rhetoric.

"BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!"

:deadhorse:

[Gan]

Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI, but was never even accused of actually leaking the information. If you're going to make a big ol' post about reality vs. ideology, I think it's only sensible to not go flying off into supposition, don't you? :)Scooter Libby resigned in 2005. What's Bush supposed to do, hire him just so he can fire him again?

It's puzzling to cite the British as the same documents that you feel demonstrate our administration's lyingness simultaneously demonstrate the British concern over Iraq's use of WMD. Are we supposed to conclude that the US in general and Bush in particular somehow managed to trick or befuddle a sovereign nation's entire intelligence force?

I think that this is generally the problem, by the way. In response to people who refuse to admit any wrongdoing, folks throw up everything they can think of, even when some of it contradicts other parts of it. It's not really that hard to find stuff Bush did that was wrong, why be ridiculous?

Since I dont quote Latrin often (in a supportive way), I thought I would go on record and say this deserved repeating (in a supportive way).

[Skirmisher]

ROFL @ teh rhetoric.

"BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!"

:deadhorse:
I'm pretty sure many of the families of the soldiers who are brought home dead each week don't think the Iraq war and the decisions surrounding it are a dead horse.

[Alfster]

I'm pretty sure many of the families of the soldiers who are brought home dead each week don't think the Iraq war and the decisions surrounding it are a dead horse.

Don't join the military then

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure many of the families of the soldiers who are brought home dead each week don't think the Iraq war and the decisions surrounding it are a dead horse.


Bush has ALOT more explaining to do than just the war in Iraq.

Here's a list of top 10 accidental deaths in America. BUSH IS LYING EVERYDAY AND PEOPLE ARE DYING AS A DIRECT RESULT!!!!!!!

1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200

2. Falls
Deaths per year: 14,900

3. Poisoning by solids and liquids
Deaths per year: 8,600

4. Drowning
Deaths per year: 4,000

5. Fires and burns
Deaths per year: 3,700

6. Suffocation
Deaths per year: 3,300

7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500

8. Poisoning by gases
Deaths per year: 700

9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures
Deaths per year: 500

10. Machinery
Deaths per year: 350

When was the last time Bush addressed ANY of these accidental deaths? That mother fucker is Hitler!!

(While every life is important and shouldn't be trivialized, 3600 soldiers in 4 years is the most successful military effort in the history of mankind)

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm pretty sure many of the families of the soldiers who are brought home dead each week don't think the Iraq war and the decisions surrounding it are a dead horse.

Thank goodness they all volunteered for the job.

[Sean of the Thread]

Bush has ALOT more explaining to do than just the war in Iraq.

Here's a list of top 10 accidental deaths in America. BUSH IS LYING EVERYDAY AND PEOPLE ARE DYING AS A DIRECT RESULT!!!!!!!

1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200

2. Falls
Deaths per year: 14,900

3. Poisoning by solids and liquids
Deaths per year: 8,600

4. Drowning
Deaths per year: 4,000

5. Fires and burns
Deaths per year: 3,700

6. Suffocation
Deaths per year: 3,300

7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500

8. Poisoning by gases
Deaths per year: 700

9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures
Deaths per year: 500

10. Machinery
Deaths per year: 350

When was the last time Bush addressed ANY of these accidental deaths? That mother fucker is Hitler!!

(While every life is important and shouldn't be trivialized, 3600 soldiers in 4 years is the most successful military effort in the history of mankind)

HOLY SHIT IMPEACH THAT BASTARD ALREADY!

[Skirmisher]

Bush has ALOT more explaining to do than just the war in Iraq.
...

And you had started off so well.

[grapedog]

(While every life is important and shouldn't be trivialized, 3600 soldiers in 4 years is the most successful military effort in the history of mankind)

Except for Kosovo and the first Iraq war...and I'm sure there are a few others out there.

Don't blame all the Bush hate on liberals either...I'm a republican and I think Bush is a fucking douche-bag. I'm just not a right wing conservative fuckstick with a closed mind...I'm a more "middle of the road" republican asshole.

[Sean of the Thread]

Skirm you've always been fifth to second on the political thread retard chart but you're rapidly approaching Ilvane status.

[TheEschaton]

Errrrr, PB, none of the deaths in Iraq are "accidental".

-TheE-

[LazyBard]

(While every life is important and shouldn't be trivialized, 3600 soldiers in 4 years is the most successful military effort in the history of mankind)



I almost never agree with your political views but I can respect that you have your own views and stand staunchly by them.

But please don't tell me you actually think the war in Iraq is actually successful or that we are gaining ground.

[Sean of the Thread]

I almost never agree with your political views but I can respect that you have your own views and stand staunchly by them.

But please don't tell me you actually think the war in Iraq is actually successful or that we are gaining ground.

........

Do you people live in another dimension?

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, it's called reality.

[Daniel]

ooooohhh

[Back]

ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!

[Sean of the Thread]

rofl

[thefarmer]

........

Do you people live in another dimension?

Does this mean you believe that the war in Iraq is a success?

[Gelston]

We are here to help the Iraqis, because inside every hodgie there is an American trying to get out.

[Parkbandit]

Errrrr, PB, none of the deaths in Iraq are "accidental".

-TheE-

Friendly fire is now on purpose?

Nice point, but once again.. you are the loser.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, it's called reality.

LMAO.

Really? I have really yet to see proof of this in any of your political posts. Weren't you the one that claimed you would live in a fantasy world when the real world is so bad?

[TheEschaton]

A) All our soldiers who die in Iraq, do so because of a direct decision by George W. Bush. Bush did not order people to start falling, or stairs to start being steep, or something. Your analogy fails, utterly.

B) I said I would prefer to focus on on obtaining and reaching for a world which does not yet exist, when the current one sucks this badly.

[Davenshire]

A couple of points.

It is really sickening that all you wool over your eyes party psycophants who voted this embarrassment in not for one but TWO terms continue to defend him. Seriously guys, Albert the first monkey in space could be doing a better job, since he'd probably listen to his cabinet/party better. Although I think a treat for good deeds/shock for bad ones might actually work on George W.

And then All is see is the same old bullshit half assed retorts. NO arguements other then the old weak ass yer spelling suxzors/ you don't know what you are talking about. Must have a REALLY strong base if thats all you can throw back. If anyone is ignorant (in your eyes) try and square them away, not mock & belittle them. That is about as chicken shit as you can get.


I was a strong McCain supporter way back when. I wanted to see someone other then a "look where my money can get me growing up in privilege, going to the same trough" candidate. Look who all the sheep voted in. Did any of you slappies actually listen to him during the debates? He can't even verbalize his thoughts coherently.

He takes executive privilege about 15 steps past what he should. His tone of voice and attitude of "I am the President my word is stone- who are you to question me" is a joke. The Majority voted him in, he isn't King. I can't even stand listening to his babbling on television radio anymore. He really does a good job representing us to the rest of the world.

Anyone with a little bit of reading and looking at him from a different angle other then (republican/this man who i voted for can do no wrong) can get a bit of a grasp of this President.

Soon after he got in- Richard Clark (who served under Reagan, Clinton, and Geoge W. father) came out with Against all enemies. before you write this guy off please take a look. Just one of many whistle blowers aghast at this administration. Someone with some credentials and good points, not some spotlight artist.

I grew up watching John Wayne and hating hippies. Hell I STILL hate hippies, but I can understand veterans protesting this war. We are trying to give/bring Democracy to a country that wasn't ready for it. They haven't bled enough for it. They need to want it bad enough as a whole to make it work with a little help. Not be a bunch of separate groups all trying to grba a piece of the pie for themselves. Half these bastards can't even look past there religion/ hate to make peace.

Most of what our troops are doing over there currently it seems is serving as a target for all the freaks/terrorists while the Government tries to stabilize. I don't appreciate our military patriotic families getting bled white. Not all soldiers took the job because of the money/ security as some of you fuckers seem to imply. I'd rather have them back over here raising families and enjoying the fruits of their labors.

We are giving more then a little help. And our jackass President went in for the wrong reasons. I very much doubt, "bringing democracy to the poor huddled masses" of Iraq was at the top of his list.

Iraq really brings to mind how glad I am I was born in the US where the founding fathers had the foresight to put things right form the get go in the Constitution. We're all created equal. Some think they are more equal then others, and it is our job to set them right.

We really need to get away from voting in all these slap dicks who want to be President for the wrong reasons. George W. is a prime example of this.

I have to end this with a quote that pretty much fits currently-

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. "-Hermann Goering

People as a whole really need to understand how much their vote means, who they are voting for, and what they can accomplish. I feel sorry for the next slob coming into he position be it independent/democrat/republican. They can try to edge the helm a little bit in the time they are given and try to clean up the horrific mess left for them. it'd be better if we all grass roots looked before we leaped and didn't have these problems in the first place.

[thefarmer]

Friendly fire is now on purpose?

Nice point, but once again.. you are the loser.

Friendly fire isn't... but an armor-piercing mine placed by the enemy is.

[Parkbandit]

A) All our soldiers who die in Iraq, do so because of a direct decision by George W. Bush. Bush did not order people to start falling, or stairs to start being steep, or something. Your analogy fails, utterly.

B) I said I would prefer to focus on on obtaining and reaching for a world which does not yet exist, when the current one sucks this badly.

1) Actually, it was Congress that authorized the use of force.

2) You are a joke.

[TheEschaton]

Congress supported the President's decision to use force.


Try again.

[Sean of the Thread]

They still authorized it.

[Latrinsorm]

since he'd probably listen to his cabinet/party better.I was thinking about this the other day. Bush is a guy who doesn't fall in lockstep with his nominal party affiliation: this has been brought up for years. How can people seriously consider this to be a bad thing? Look up the Great Leap Forward, see how great it is when people devote themselves mindlessly to the Party. It's baffling how you can invoke the Founding Fathers in the same post as desiring stronger party affiliations.

Isn't it a little ironic to follow "NO arguements other then the old weak ass yer spelling suxzors" with "[Bush] can't even verbalize his thoughts coherently."?
Half these bastards can't even look past there religion/ hate to make peace.For someone so quick to claim the intellectual high ground with "Anyone with a little bit of reading", you're shockingly ill-informed on Iraqis, Muslims, and Islam.
where the founding fathers had the foresight to put things right form the get go in the Constitution.Yeah, they sure did. Hey, tangential aside, does the number .6 remind you of anything? How about 1920? 13?

[Stanley Burrell]

I was thinking about this the other day. Bush is a guy who doesn't fall in lockstep with his nominal party affiliation: this has been brought up for years. How can people seriously consider this to be a bad thing? Look up the Great Leap Forward

Because, and no offense intended, his separatism is the same kind that made Bin Laden spiritual.

King Idiot's spending like a drunken sailor has turned many-a Republican supporter I've seen against an approval rating.

There is only one true constant paradigm shift that has gone above and beyond to supercede typical politics IMHO -- And that is in every facet of the planet affected by Dubya's Bornagain status as ruler of the free world coinciding with the age of the 9/11 epoch.

[Alfster]

A couple of points.


You're fucking retarded.

[Warriorbird]

Apparently according to Bush Nixon didn't have to resign. He could've just said a felony was commited by his administration...then said that it was time to move on.

[Latrinsorm]

Because, and no offense intended, his separatism is the same kind that made Bin Laden spiritual.

King Idiot's spending like a drunken sailor has turned many-a Republican supporter I've seen against an approval rating.

There is only one true constant paradigm shift that has gone above and beyond to supercede typical politics IMHO -- And that is in every facet of the planet affected by Dubya's Bornagain status as ruler of the free world coinciding with the age of the 9/11 epoch.I'm guessing that this post was intended to indicate that Bush's actions on their own have been in various ways unacceptable. That's not at all what I'm talking about, however: I'm talking about the people who denigrate Bush's actions merely because they aren't "Republican".

[Parkbandit]

Congress supported the President's decision to use force.


Try again.

Incorrect. Without Congress, Bush couldn't have tricked everyone into going to war to make billions on oil revenue and to kill the dictator that threatened his Dad.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm guessing that this post was intended to indicate that Bush's actions on their own have been in various ways unacceptable.

:clap:

[Clove]

Congress supported the President's decision to use force.

Try again.

How does that distinction differ from Parkbandit's?

au·thor·ize
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
1. to give authority or official power to; empower: to authorize an employee to sign purchase orders.
2. to give authority for; formally sanction (an act or proceeding): Congress authorized the new tax on tobacco.
3. to establish by authority or usage: an arrangement long authorized by etiquette books.
4. to afford a ground for; warrant; justify.

[Kembal]

Backtrack a second from the issue of Congressional authorization...

I still haven't heard the answer to this question: Why do you guys that believe the Iraq war is successful currently think that to be the case?

[Sean of the Thread]

Our country isn't experiencing chaotic anarchy due to Iran and Iraq dumping the US dollar?

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, we staved off an inevitable devaluation of our dollar. Is that like the inevitable mushroom cloud if we let Saddam just continue on?

[Kembal]

Yes, suddenly, we'd be in total anarchy if Iraq and Iran started pricing their oil in euros instead of dollars. (not that it would've happened, since all of OPEC has to agree to it.)

Would you like to back up your claim with any actual facts?

[Sean of the Thread]

Yes, suddenly, we'd be in total anarchy if Iraq and Iran started pricing their oil in euros instead of dollars.

Pretty much life as we know it would come to a grinding halt when the dollar is worth less than a peso.

But hey you tree huggers already know all about that. Carry on.

[Kembal]

Amazingly, I believe the dollar would still be a pretty good reserve currency even if some countries started pricing oil in euros instead of dollars. Which would mean the dollar would not become worth "less than a peso."

But by all means, please assert that's the rationale for the war. We didn't go fight to bring democracy, to find WMDs, defeat Al-Qaeda, or anything else. Nope...we went to make sure oil wouldn't be priced in euros.

Somehow, I think the families of more than 3000 soliders would find that less than comforting.

[Sean of the Thread]

Not amazingly I think you're stupid. Especially for speaking on behalf of soldiers families. Idiot.

Go find a nice tree to rub your cock and balls on and perhaps you'll become stimulated enough to come back with something substantial to discuss.. not just what your starbuck's buzz tells you.

[Parkbandit]

Backtrack a second from the issue of Congressional authorization...

I still haven't heard the answer to this question: Why do you guys that believe the Iraq war is successful currently think that to be the case?

Is successful is not the same as still going on.

Mistakes were made... changes have been made. The surge is now in it's first 30 days and on a number of accounts seems to be working as it is intended.

The question you should be asking.. is why do some members of Congress feel the need to press for a withdrawal of troops now.. instead of waiting until September when Petraeus is supposed to address Congress with an update? We've been there for 4 years already.. what difference does another 2 months really make? Are Democratic members of Congress afraid that if this surge does work.. that their entire platform will be shown as the pile of steaming shit it always has been? Why is Harry Reid so concerned about passing some measure in the Senate that has zero chance of getting through the House, let alone a guaranteed veto?

[TheEschaton]

Jon Stewart does a whole thing on this "Mistakes were made", bit. Just say, "We made a mistake"!

[Kembal]

Is successful is not the same as still going on.

Mistakes were made... changes have been made. The surge is now in it's first 30 days and on a number of accounts seems to be working as it is intended.

The question you should be asking.. is why do some members of Congress feel the need to press for a withdrawal of troops now.. instead of waiting until September when Petraeus is supposed to address Congress with an update? We've been there for 4 years already.. what difference does another 2 months really make? Are Democratic members of Congress afraid that if this surge does work.. that their entire platform will be shown as the pile of steaming shit it always has been? Why is Harry Reid so concerned about passing some measure in the Senate that has zero chance of getting through the House, let alone a guaranteed veto?

On a number of accounts seems to be working as it is intended?

You recognize that even if we have a limited number of military successes on the ground, that there's been no real steps toward a political resolution by the Iraqi parliament, nor does it appear they will be getting there anytime soon? And with no political resolution, the surge will become meaningless.

[Kembal]

Not amazingly I think you're stupid. Especially for speaking on behalf of soldiers families. Idiot.

Go find a nice tree to rub your cock and balls on and perhaps you'll become stimulated enough to come back with something substantial to discuss.. not just what your starbuck's buzz tells you.

Heh. I don't drink coffee. Inventive insult though.

How about we assume I've taken some economics courses, and I'm familiar with macroeconomics and the currency exchange market? (Or even better yet, that I have a degree in economics?)

There are two secenarios you posit with your argument:

1. If the point of the war was to assert our military power and show OPEC we mean business in terms of oil, well, that's been achieved. OPEC hasn't seriously discussed denominating oil in euros for the past 3 years. Why not start withdrawing, put a base in the Kurdish region, and leave the Iraqis to their own devices?

2. If the point of the war was to gain control over some oil supplies in order to ensure that they are always denominated in dollars, then again, why not put a base in the Kurdish region and withdraw? Heck, get the Iraqi parliament to pass the oil revenue-sharing law, and we're really set.

It's not that I like either one scenario. In fact, I find them extremely distasteful. But if the point of the war is really to make sure there are sources of oil denominated in dollars, then why are we still there?

As for the argument that the dollar would go in the shitter if oil was denominated in euros, that would again be premised on the idea that many wealthy countries would suddenly dump their dollar reserves for the euro. Considering that would put a hammer to U.S. economic growth, and that many foreign countries have investments in the U.S. and that in most cases, their balance of trade with the U.S. is wildly skewed in their favor, they'd have no interest in a dollar devaluation. Which, of course, is why OPEC wouldn't ever really do it, because they have the same economic linkages.

[thefarmer]

Is successful is not the same as still going on.

Mistakes were made... changes have been made. The surge is now in it's first 30 days and on a number of accounts seems to be working as it is intended.

The question you should be asking.. is why do some members of Congress feel the need to press for a withdrawal of troops now.. instead of waiting until September when Petraeus is supposed to address Congress with an update? We've been there for 4 years already.. what difference does another 2 months really make? Are Democratic members of Congress afraid that if this surge does work.. that their entire platform will be shown as the pile of steaming shit it always has been? Why is Harry Reid so concerned about passing some measure in the Senate that has zero chance of getting through the House, let alone a guaranteed veto?


Perhaps Democrats are afraid that if they don't continue their momentum (however much or little you think that is) to force a deadline for eventual troop withdrawal, Bush will not set one. Even if Petraeus comes back with a negative evaluation of the surge, there's no promise that Bush will listen to him. He doesn't have a stellar record of listening to anyone that disagrees with him.

I don't have the paper hand at the moment, but if I recall correctly, the Iraq Study group (Baker, Hamilton, etc) had an entire lists of things that could and should be done differently that Bush ignored almost, if not entirely.

The difference of two months is a two more months US troops are on the ground and in harms way.

And if Petraeus does come back with a negative assessment and says it's a hopeless cause, would it even matter to you? Or would you continue to think that the that Democrats and their entire platform is 'steaming pile of shit'? Somehow I don't think anything would change your mind. Bush will simply come up with another brilliant idea and you'll say just say "Mistakes were made... changes have been made. "

[Clove]

Somehow, I think the families of more than 3000 soliders would find that less than comforting.

Whenever someone quotes the death toll of American military personnel in Iraq it has a less than dramatic effect for me. Especially considering the past hysteria about how we were entering another Vietnam.

While it is sad that Americans have lost family members in the service, however you feel about the reasons for the war the American casualties have been light.

Consider between 1965 and 1968 approximately 19,000 servicemen and women lost their lives in Vietnam.

Consider also (according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) that between 1980 and 1995 there were over 17,000 accidental deaths in the military (a mean average of approx. 1,150 a year).

[Back]

While it is sad that Americans have lost family members in the service, however you feel about the reasons for the war the American casualties have been light.

You may think it light. You may think the number of Iraqi civillian deaths are light. I think thats sick, twisted and horrific.

[Alfster]

I'd rather see an american death toll at 3k as opposed to 19k

I'd also say that number is light

[Warriorbird]

So light that we ban images of the dead.

[Parkbandit]

You may think it light. You may think the number of Iraqi civillian deaths are light. I think thats sick, twisted and horrific.

And I think you are an idiot.

It's not a question of morals or anything like it. It's a numbers question.

The 3600 casualties are light, compared to the other wars the United States have been involved in. We lost 291,557 in WWII. We lost 53,402 in WWI. We lost 47,424 in Vietnam. We lost 191,163 in the Civil War.

Stop spinning it like OMG! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEAD! THEY ARE EVIL!!!

Dumbass.

[Clove]

You may think it light. You may think the number of Iraqi civillian deaths are light. I think thats sick, twisted and horrific.

There's nothing twisted about it. One of the early arguments against the invasion and occupation were fears that it would turn into a quagmire of Vietnam proportions that would result in a high casualty rate for American soldiers. It has not. For an operation of this scale (an invasion and occupation of a country with a population of 25 million) American casualties have been light. Period.


So light that we ban images of the dead.

Unless you think those images will support a greatly increased casualty total, I don't see what your point is.

[Parkbandit]

You may think it light. You may think the number of Iraqi civillian deaths are light. I think thats sick, twisted and horrific.

And I think you are an idiot.

It's not a question of morals or anything like it. It's a numbers question.

The 3600 casualties are light, compared to the other wars the United States have been involved in. We lost 291,557 in WWII. We lost 53,402 in WWI. We lost 47,424 in Vietnam. We lost 191,163 in the Civil War.

Stop spinning it like OMG! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEAD! THEY ARE EVIL!!!

Dumbass.

[CrystalTears]

Second time's the charm? :D

[Parkbandit]

Second time's the charm? :D

Besides Backlash needing things told to him over and over again until he understands it.. fucking IP I was 'borrowing' was very, very weak and didn't show me that it posted, so I posted it again.

It is just as true the 2nd time.. so I'm leaving it.

[grapedog]

I've seen a lot of dren spoken here about this or that.

No one has really spoken to the fact that Bush and his administration lied to the american people. I couldn't give two shits about Congress...congress is just as bloated and fucked up as the White house is and neither serve to make our lives better daily. Bush is a lier, a cheat, an idiot and makes us look like fools every time he is on the air. Watching Bush speaking in public is like watching a Ben Stiller movie...it's just embarrassing.

Every time Bush has to pause after a few words so he can digest the next part of his prepared speech without actually understanding what he's saying. When he stumbles through explanation of simple concepts...it's just sad. His stupid little laugh like he gets the joke or because you just don't understand what he's trying to say. Those are just a few of the broad points against Bush...there are PLENTY of other points that could be made about that asshat.

Bush just does to show that really, anyone with cash, can become President...you don't need charisma or intelligence.

Again, I'm a republican...so don't go blaming the liberals for all the Bush hate.

[DeV]

There's nothing twisted about it. One of the early arguments against the invasion and occupation were fears that it would turn into a quagmire of Vietnam proportions that would result in a high casualty rate for American soldiers. I always thought the comparisons were based a little more on reality. Such as nature, duration, and scale of the war. The American public's initial support of the Iraq war and subsequent lack of support the longer the war waged on. Then there's the entrance and exit strategy. I do think the differences far outweight any minor comparisons, but they are at least worth learning from the past in any case.



Unless you think those images will support a greatly increased casualty total, I don't see what your point is.It's a tad unrealistic to base the comparisons of this war with Iraq around the number of casualties, but that's just me. With the medical and technological advancements we've made over the years it could be argued that infantry duty is just as intense as it was in Vietnam, even though the death rate is considerably lower thanks to improvements in the military medical field.

The number of soldiers in Vietnam doesn't equal the number of soldiers fighting in Iraq either, which kinda makes the numbers point moot.

[Parkbandit]

I've seen a lot of dren spoken here about this or that.

No one has really spoken to the fact that Bush and his administration lied to the american people.

That's because most people with a brain realize it's nothing more than political spin and all you have to do is look at the Wall of Text to find out the prevailing thought prior to Bush even coming onto the National political scene.

Oh wait.. you still don't realize this. My bad.



Again, I'm a republican...so don't go blaming the liberals for all the Bush hate.

I don't just blame the liberals. I also blame uneducated, ignorant fools

[grapedog]

That's because most people with a brain realize it's nothing more than political spin and all you have to do is look at the Wall of Text to find out the prevailing thought prior to Bush even coming onto the National political scene.

Oh wait.. you still don't realize this. My bad.



I don't just blame the liberals. I also blame uneducated, ignorant fools

Wow....look at that, Parkbandit dodges another conversation by pointing to some stupid "WoT" cliche and calling someone names...

People like you are whats fucking wrong with this country. You can't even have an actual discussion about topic thats not positive about your candidate without getting your nuts in a twist. Thats fine, I expected that...

I just like bringing it to light over and over and over.

Maybe you could find me 20-30 links to other "news" sources about why you're right...that would be pretty cool and you would dodge actually having to have a fucking thought rolling around in that empty spot on your shoulders.

[Gan]

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing http://www.webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?lie00004.wav=lying')) /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>

Please be sure you use the term Lie correctly. Because I'm thinking if Bush actually LIED to the American people, we would have seen impeachment hearings already.

[CrystalTears]

Yes because when you begin your discussion with "Bush lied and is a fucking idiot", it's easy to see why it continues in the same flow.

[grapedog]

Please be sure you use the term Lie correctly. Because I'm thinking if Bush actually LIED to the American people, we would have seen impeachment hearings already.


you really think so? thats unfortunate...

[Gan]

you really think so? thats unfortunate...

Way to back up your thoughts there buddy.

:clap:

[Clove]

I always thought the comparisons were based a little more on reality. Such as nature, duration, and scale of the war. The American public's initial support of the Iraq war and subsequent lack of support the longer the war waged on. Then there's the entrance and exit strategy. I do think the differences far outweight any minor comparisons, but they are at least worth learning from the past in any case.

It's a tad unrealistic to base the comparisons of this war with Iraq around the number of casualties, but that's just me. With the medical and technological advancements we've made over the years it could be argued that infantry duty is just as intense as it was in Vietnam, even though the death rate is considerably lower thanks to improvements in the military medical field.

The number of soldiers in Vietnam doesn't equal the number of soldiers fighting in Iraq either, which kinda makes the numbers point moot.

It doesn't compare to Vietnam, that was my point. As I mentioned before, early opponents often made comparisons to Vietnam and it just hasn't panned out that way.

I was also pointing out that quoting the casualties involved in Iraq isn't an argument. It's an armed conflict, soldiers die in armed conflicts and given the scale of the conflict the casualties have been light.

Present an argument to me about its cost, prosecution, moral righteousness and I'll listen. Hell tell me that you're a pacifist and against all war, I respect that. Quoting the casualty rate only confirms that, yes, our military is on active duty in Iraq.

[Gan]

Dont forget to adjust your comparison dollars to equate to 2007 dollars if you're going after costs of WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam.

[grapedog]

plus, the insurgency is in it's death throes...and we've won the war.


Way to back up your thoughts there buddy.

I'm at work right now, I'll give this statement some attention tonight or tomorrow morning. I still can't believe that you don't believe Bush has lied to the American public...thats fucking scarey.

[Gan]

Again... define lie.


(define sex) - sound familiar?

[Clove]

Dont forget to adjust your comparison dollars to equate to 2007 dollars if you're going after costs of WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam.

Present value?! You want us to put context around our scarey numbers? What next!

[Gan]

LOL

[DeV]

It doesn't compare to Vietnam, that was my point. Yes, and in making your point you quoted some inaccuracies that needed to be addressed. That was my point. Early opponents often made comparisons to Vietnam which I find hard to believe had a lot to do with the casualties of war, considering it'd need to be a couple of years in and a couple hundred thousand more soldiers stationed in Iraq to even began to compare those numbers. So my point was more geared toward clearing up the oddity of this particular comparison so early on as well bringing to light some of the reasons why they shouldn't be made at all. The comparisons I was hearing at the onset of the war didn't involve casualties is more to my point.

In any case your post was the first I read in this thread to mention Vietnam, forgive me if you weren't the first to bring it up, hence my response.



I was also pointing out that quoting the casualties involved in Iraq isn't an argument. It's an armed conflict, soldiers die in armed conflicts and given the scale of the conflict the casualties have been light. I agree, but you failed to mention why those casualties have been lighter. Not to mention there are a lot of soldiers who have been maimed for life, but that's neither here nor there. I agree with you that it's not a valid argument, but I think we disagree as it pertains to the reasons this is the case.


Quoting the casualty rate only confirms that, yes, our military is on active duty in Iraq.Correct.

I do however disagree that nothing about this war, or any war before this has simply NO comparisons what so ever to Iraq or any other war being fought currently. I haven't been sold on that one yet, but I'm willing to bet I'll be waiting on a proponent of this war to relay some hard evidence to the contrary for quite some time.

[Clove]

...Early opponents often made comparisons to Vietnam which I find hard to believe had a lot to do with the casualties of war, considering it'd need to be a couple of years in and a couple hundred thousand more soldiers stationed in Iraq to even began to compare those numbers. So my point was more geared toward clearing up the oddity of this particular comparison so early on as well bringing to light some of the reasons why they shouldn't be made at all. The comparisons I was hearing at the onset of the war didn't involve casualties is more to my point...

Many of the comparisons by early opponents don't involve casualty numbers. They are comparing other similarities (for context see article below); but in my opinion, in the course of making the comparison they implied doom in the shape of mounting casualties for the future- which has not yet come to be.

Regardless of the reasons, my personal feeling is that >4,000 military deaths resulting over four years from an invasion of a country as advanced and populated as Iraq is a low toll. And I think people who go around quoting the casualty number are (what's the word I'm looking for) using rhetoric instead of making arguments for their position.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0419-11.htm

Published on Monday, April 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse
by Robert Freeman


A virtual cottage industry has sprung up comparing Iraq with Vietnam. And well that it should. Vietnam cost the lives of not only 58,000 Americans but of three million Vietnamese. Neither the US nor the Iraqi people nor the world need another such horror.

***I don't know about you, but opening paragraphs like that sure do imply horrible death tolls to me***

The similarities between Iraq and Vietnam run both shallow and deep. The shallow similarities are obvious and can serve to signal our attention. But it is the deeper similarities, those that shape policy and drive alternatives, that should signal our fears. For they point to the possibility of an outcome perhaps even more calamitous than in Vietnam.

Both Iraq and Vietnam were founded on lies. In Vietnam, the original lie was that an impoverished nation of pre-industrial age farmers posed a threat to the mightiest empire the world had ever known. The Gulf of Tonkin hoax was the manufactured excuse to jump in with all guns blazing. And the Pentagon Papers were the meticulous, irrefutable chronicle of the litany of all the rest of the lies.

With Iraq, we don’t need to wait for a Pentagon Papers to know the trigger or the extent of the lying. It is already notorious. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Connections to Al Qaeda. Complicity in 9/11. A “cakewalk”. Being welcomed as “liberators”. A “self-funding” war. “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction.” Reducing global terror. Mission Accomplished. The real question in Iraq is not whether the Bush administration has told any lies but rather, almost literally, whether it has told any meaningful truths.

Both wars quickly became guerilla wars. In Vietnam, the battlegrounds were jungles, rice paddies, and small rural hamlets. It was the antithesis of the set-piece battle style of warfare the U.S. military had been built and trained for. In Iraq the battlegrounds are city blocks with houses, apartments, stores and schools. In both settings, the enemy controls the timing, scale, and place of engagements.

They shoot opportunistically and quickly melt away into their surroundings. Combatants are indistinguishable from civilians with the result that eight civilians are killed for every combatant. This understandably alienates the civilian population from its “liberators” while increasing its support for the resistance—an inescapable and fateful cycle. In Vietnam, this process became mockingly known as “winning the hearts and minds of the people.” It hasn’t been graced with a name yet in Iraq.

Both wars used the palpable fiction of “democracy” to pacify the American public into quiescence. In Vietnam, “democracy” took the form of a clique of wealthy, urban, Catholic dictators running a country of poor, rural, Buddhist peasants. After the US had its puppet, Diem, assassinated in 1963, it took two years and seven different governments before a suitably brutal but still obeisant figurehead could be found.

In Iraq, a “governing council” of US-appointed stooges pretends to represent Iraqi interests by handing over almost all industries to large U.S. corporations—all of which just happen to be munificent donors to the Republican party. Commenting recently on the handover of “sovereignty,” US proconsul Paul Bremmer noted in seemingly oblivious irony that, “There’s not going to be any difference in our military posture on July 1st from what it is on June 30th.” This is democracy™ for foreign subjects, American style.

But there are still deeper bases for comparing Iraq with Vietnam. It is these that are most disquieting for America’s prospects.

Both wars were against victim nations already deeply scarred by colonial domination. It is this legacy that poisons all U.S. sanctimony about installing “democracy” in Iraq. Vietnam was dominated for over a century by first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and eventually the Americans. But all the Vietnamese people ever wanted was to be free of such domination, to craft for themselves their own destiny, much as the American colonists had done in their revolutionary war.

Iraq, too, bears the scars of a long and repressive colonial legacy. It was created in the aftermath of World War I, literally carved out of the sand by the British for the sole purpose of controlling the world’s oil supply. The US helped Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party overthrow the uppity Karim Qasim in 1963 but its purposes were the same as the British’s: to control the world’s supply of oil. The aggressively disinformed American public is unaware of this legacy and, therefore, the reason behind Iraq’s vociferous resistance to its would-be “liberation.”

Still deeper in meaning is the strategic context of the two wars. Both wars were fought in the vanguard of grand U.S. strategy. In Vietnam, the strategy was “Containment,” George Kennan’s famous formula for stopping the Soviet Union from expanding its empire. Eisenhower’s overwrought and ultimately disproved version had dominoes falling from Laos and Cambodia, on to Thailand and Burma, all the way to India.

In Iraq, the grand strategy is global hegemony. It is the neo-conservatives’ vision of the once-in-a-millennium chance to dominate the world. With the Cold War ended and no plausible military challenger in sight, such a chance must not be let to pass, certainly not for want of sufficient “manhood”. Iraq is simply the first tactical step in this vision, the basis for controlling the world’s oil and, thereby, the US’s strategic competitors. This is the reason the Pentagon plans to leave 14 military bases in the country indefinitely—to project military power throughout the Persian Gulf, site of 55% of the world’s oil.

Finally, it is the ideological context that perhaps most eerily presages (and dooms) the U.S. role in Iraq—just as it did in Vietnam. The Vietnam quagmire was formed in the toxic aftermath of World War II. When China fell to the communists in 1949, Republicans mounted an ideological dragnet to purge the government of those who had “lost China.” This morphed into Joe McCarthy’s witch hunts of the 1950s that targeted supposed “communist sympathizers” throughout the country.

It was close personal knowledge of these ideologically-driven purges that drove Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and even Nixon to aver that they would never allow the U.S. to fail in Vietnam for fear of being portrayed as “soft on communism.” Despite the fact that all of these presidents were warned—repeatedly—that Vietnam was unwinnable, all “soldiered on”, dooming ever more soldiers and civilians to death and destruction.

For years, the public rationale for U.S. involvement in Vietnam had been to keep Vietnam out of the hands of communists. But in March 1965, before the massive escalation that would make the war irreversible, Pentagon briefers told President Johnson that the true U.S. goals in Vietnam were, “70% to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat; 20% to keep South Vietnam (and adjacent territories) from Chinese hands; 10% to permit the people of Vietnam a better, freer way of life.” This is the smoking gun of the ideological aversion to withdrawal.

And so, because of the strategic imperatives of containment and the ideological pressures of McCarthyism, the U.S. couldn’t stay out of Vietnam. But because of the colonialist taint, the nature of guerilla war, the ludicrous fiction of “democracy”, and the foundation of lies that undergirded the entire venture, it could never win either. This was the essential, inescapable, tragic dilemma for America in Vietnam: it could not manage to stay out; but it could never manage to win.

Much the same can already be said of Iraq. Bush’s latest post-hoc rationale, that “we’re changing the world,” betrays a near-messianic obsession to stay. Such compulsion is impervious to mere logic or facts. Steadily increasing violence and chaos are cheerily parried with ideological divinations that these are actually proof we are winning! In psychiatric wards, this would be dismissed for what it actually is: dangerous delusion.

But as was the case with successive presidents in Vietnam, the necessity “to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat” now drives Bush policy more than anything else. And we should be clear: this goes far beyond the need to simply maintain appearances until November. If the U.S. is driven from Iraq, the credibility of U.S. force and the potency of U.S. power in the world will be irreparably damaged, far more than it was by the loss in Vietnam. This is why Iraq may actually become worse than Vietnam.

The reason is that military force has increasingly become the principal tool of persuasion for the U.S. in the world. Unlike the 1960s when its economy was still the envy of the world and its ideals were still the model for many nations, the U.S. economy is now a wreck and U.S. ideals are in tatters.

The private U.S. economy is so uncompetitive it runs a half trillion dollar a year trade deficit with the rest of the world. And the U.S. lives so far beyond its means it runs a half trillion dollar a year federal budget deficit. It must go, hat in hand, to the rest of the world to borrow these sums, well more than two billion dollars a day. This is hardly a model of economic vibrancy. And the U.S.’s civic culture—what the neo-cons once lauded as “the soft power of ideas”—is now feared and mocked by much of the world, including former allies. And herein lies the danger.

What is the point of spending more on the military than all of the rest of the world combined if it cannot deliver when called upon? In Vietnam, General Curtis LeMay answered this question with his famous dictum: “We’ll bomb them back into the stone age.” And Nixon tried, mightily. During one twelve-day period in December 1972 (the “Christmas Bombings”), the U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on North Vietnam than it had dropped during the entire period from 1969 to 1971, the military height of the war. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

This is now the danger for both Iraq and the U.S. Because of Bush’s strategic commitment to global hegemony and his messianic ideological persuasions, the U.S. cannot get out of Iraq; but because of the realities of colonialism, guerilla war, phony democracy, and the foundation of lies to justify it all, it will not be able to win either. Does this sound familiar?

Worse, the forces for moderation in Vietnam (such as they were) are nowhere in sight in Iraq. There is no independent media capable of calling out the emperor’s nakedness. There is no China next door to threaten another Asian land war should U.S. aggression become too heinous. There are no allies the U.S. needs to heed for its Cold War against the Soviet Union. In fact, without the Soviet Union, the U.S.’s former allies look more and more like its future competitors. Hence its public derision for their counsel of restraint.

Finally, if Iraq falls, Bush’s cabal of neo-conservative policy makers, never so much concerned with American interests as they are with their own, will be decisively, publicly, embarrassingly repudiated. All of this is a formula for potential catastrophe.

The damage to U.S. prestige in the world for its illegal invasion of Iraq is already done. The danger now is that in his desperation to “avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat,” the repudiation of his entire presidency, and a generation-long disdain for U.S. military power, Bush will resort to apocalyptic barbarism. This is exactly what Nixon did trying to salvage “peace with honor” in Vietnam. It is this temptation that only the American public can force Bush to resist.

Robert Freeman writes about economics, history, and education. He can be reached a

[DeV]

Many of the comparisons by early opponents don't involve casualty numbers. Precisely.




in the course of making the comparison they implied doom in the shape of mounting casualties for the future- which has not yet come to be.I see where you're coming from, but as a opponent of the war from the onset I can say with no hesitation that that makes little sense and should have been at the very bottom of the comparison totem pole, if not completely removed from it altogether. US casualty numbers in Iraq won't come anywhere close to echoing those from Vietnam. Technology has changed the face of war, period.

And regarding the wall of text article you posted, I skimmed it, but the opening paragraph doesn't even accurately reflect the remainder of the article from the little I've read. It seems to focus more on domestic and diplomatic politics than anything else, then again, I could be wrong and in that case skimming, ftl.

[Clove]

Precisely.


I see where you're coming from, but as a opponent of the war from the onset I can say with no hesitation that that makes little sense and should have been at the very bottom of the comparison totem pole, if not completely removed from it altogether. US casualty numbers in Iraq won't come anywhere close to echoing those from Vietnam. Technology has changed the face of war, period.

And regarding the wall of text article you posted, I skimmed it, but the opening paragraph doesn't even accurately reflect the remainder of the article from the little I've read. It seems to focus more on domestic and diplomatic politics than anything else, then again, I could be wrong and in that case skimming, ftl.

See, we don't disagree. The casualty numbers don't belong in an argument about whether or not the United States should have used military force in Iraq. It is useless rhetoric.

And yes, the article has little to do with casualties, but that doesn't stop the author from putting the worry in the mind of the reader in his opening paragraph. Other articles comparing Iraq to Vietnam exploit the same opportunity.

[Warriorbird]

I've pretty much given up on Iraq debates. Republicans will mostly stick to their views that "The war is going well!" through thick or thin because to do anything else would be politically embarassing.

[Parkbandit]

Wow....look at that, Parkbandit dodges another conversation by pointing to some stupid "WoT" cliche and calling someone names...

People like you are whats fucking wrong with this country. You can't even have an actual discussion about topic thats not positive about your candidate without getting your nuts in a twist. Thats fine, I expected that...

I just like bringing it to light over and over and over.

Maybe you could find me 20-30 links to other "news" sources about why you're right...that would be pretty cool and you would dodge actually having to have a fucking thought rolling around in that empty spot on your shoulders.

LOL.. you really should stop posting.. you would look less dumb.

You start your post out with BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED mantra.. then expect to be treated like an adult in an adult conversation?

Do us all a favor.. save it for your Moveon.org pals. The PC already has it's wackjob freak.. and that's Backlash. If you want a title fight, give him a call.

[Warriorbird]

Refer to my last post, grapedog. Parkbandit HAS to say the war is going well. Parkbandit HAS to say we're there for the right reasons. Parkbandit HAS to say the spending couldn't have been spent better elsewhere because he's bought into Bush's "compassionate conservative" thinking (IE, not conservative thinking at all).

[Parkbandit]

I've pretty much given up on Iraq debates. Republicans will mostly stick to their views that "The war is going well!" through thick or thin because to do anything else would be politically embarassing.


Name one semi-credible Republican that posts here who believes the 'War is going well".

I'll await something to back up your claim.. otherwise, I'll continue to believe you are full of shit.

[Warriorbird]

"We're only 30 days into the surge!"

:chuckles:

[Parkbandit]

"We're only 30 days into the surge!"

:chuckles:


Is that your backup? So that now is translated into Liberal to "The War is going well"

Thanks for proving my point that you continue to be full of shit.

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles: Thanks for admitting the war isn't going well!

Thumbs up! It's all I was after.

[Kembal]

Name one semi-credible Republican that posts here who believes the 'War is going well".

I'll await something to back up your claim.. otherwise, I'll continue to believe you are full of shit.

Sean2's not credible? After all, his standard for success appears to be that oil is not demoninated solely in Euros, and well, oil isn't being denominated solely in Euros.

[Parkbandit]

:chuckles: Thanks for admitting the war isn't going well!

Thumbs up! It's all I was after.


Boy, you showed me.

Or were called out for being a dumbass.. and got burnt.

I'll let the readers be the judge as you continue to demonstrate your bullshit.

[Back]

See, we don't disagree. The casualty numbers don't belong in an argument about whether or not the United States should have used military force in Iraq. It is useless rhetoric.

And yes, the article has little to do with casualties, but that doesn't stop the author from putting the worry in the mind of the reader in his opening paragraph. Other articles comparing Iraq to Vietnam exploit the same opportunity.

Ok, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here as I would find it hard to fathom how anyone can trivialize the losses we, the coallition and the Iraqi civillians have sustained... but, regardless of argument, and especially of context, statements you have made in this thread might lead people to believe you are.

First you compare losses with Viet Nam to claim the losses are light to rationalize this war, then in this post you claim speaking of losses is useless rhetoric and doing so is an exploitation of an opportunity. I’m failing to understand your point(s).

This is my point if it wasn’t crystal clear. Compare this war to any other war all you want, ANY losses are unacceptable, in my opinion, in this particular war in Iraq.

[grapedog]

LOL.. you really should stop posting.. you would look less dumb.

You start your post out with BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED mantra.. then expect to be treated like an adult in an adult conversation?

Do us all a favor.. save it for your Moveon.org pals. The PC already has it's wackjob freak.. and that's Backlash. If you want a title fight, give him a call.

Again, more clichéd crap...I'm not the one avoiding any semblance of a real discussion.

I didn't say anything about all about our troops dying, so take your "Bush Lied and People Died" mantra somewhere else. All you do is post the same bullshit over and over again how anyone who disagrees with you is either a liberal(which I'm a republican), stupid(which is how you like to perceive people who have a different opinion than you) or childish(because they don't give two shits what you think and call you out for the fucking blinder wearing horses ass that you are).




1. Yea, because being a King and a US President are the same.
2. LOL.. spoon fed ignorance.
Grats... not that I'm surprised though.
3. Capitalism is to blame Comrade.. flee to Cuba imo.

This one is a long one...filled with credible information.

4. LOL.. when you became an adult. Too funny.

Seriously.. re-read the spew and ignorance on this thread so far by you whacko libs.. then tell me you've even come close to reason or rationality. An adult? Not when you are being spoon fed your 'news' then tossing it around here like it's a fact.

But hey, keep it coming. I am having fun here.. watching you fools blame everything from Gas prices to Global Warming on Bush. My god.. he should be King with the power he wields in your tiny brains.

Typical Lib:

5. Damn.. I wish I had room on my signature line for another really stupid quote.. because this whole pile of shit would go there. I especially love your ending..

You should be a fiction writer... you seem to have a knack for it.

6. Bush has ALOT more explaining to do than just the war in Iraq.
Here's a list of top 10 accidental deaths in America. BUSH IS LYING EVERYDAY AND PEOPLE ARE DYING AS A DIRECT RESULT!!!!!!!

...
When was the last time Bush addressed ANY of these accidental deaths? That mother fucker is Hitler!!

(While every life is important and shouldn't be trivialized, 3600 soldiers in 4 years is the most successful military effort in the history of mankind)(which was wrong, but he ignored that so lets move on, just like Bush and the CIA Leak.)

7. Friendly fire is now on purpose?

Nice point, but once again.. you are the loser.

8. LMAO.

Really? I have really yet to see proof of this in any of your political posts. Weren't you the one that claimed you would live in a fantasy world when the real world is so bad?

9. 1) Actually, it was Congress that authorized the use of force.(after Bush sold them on lies)

2) You are a joke.

10. Incorrect. Without Congress, Bush couldn't have tricked everyone into going to war to make billions on oil revenue and to kill the dictator that threatened his Dad.

11. Is successful is not the same as still going on.

Mistakes were made... changes have been made. The surge is now in it's first 30 days and on a number of accounts seems to be working as it is intended.(there it is folks, Mistakes were Made...Changes have been Made.)

12. And I think you are an idiot.

It's not a question of morals or anything like it. It's a numbers question.

The 3600 casualties are light, compared to the other wars the United States have been involved in. We lost 291,557 in WWII. We lost 53,402 in WWI. We lost 47,424 in Vietnam. We lost 191,163 in the Civil War.

Stop spinning it like OMG! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEAD! THEY ARE EVIL!!!

Dumbass.(eh...whats 3600 dead soldiers in a war we were sold that had no basis in fact. I think we've surpassed how many people were killed in the 9/11 bombing though...thats some kind of benchmark.)

13. That's because most people with a brain realize it's nothing more than political spin and all you have to do is look at the Wall of Text to find out the prevailing thought prior to Bush even coming onto the National political scene.

Oh wait.. you still don't realize this. My bad.

I don't just blame the liberals. I also blame uneducated, ignorant fools

14. LOL.. you really should stop posting.. you would look less dumb.

You start your post out with BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED mantra.. then expect to be treated like an adult in an adult conversation?

Do us all a favor.. save it for your Moveon.org pals. The PC already has it's wackjob freak.. and that's Backlash. If you want a title fight, give him a call.

17. Boy, you showed me.

Or were called out for being a dumbass.. and got burnt.

I'll let the readers be the judge as you continue to demonstrate your bullshit.



Thankfully you're here to set us all straight with your pearls of wisdom Parkbandit...so glad you could contribute....no really, because without you there wouldn't be that typical ignorant conservative republican to laugh at.

[Clove]

Ok, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here as I would find it hard to fathom how anyone can trivialize the losses we, the coallition and the Iraqi civillians have sustained... but, regardless of argument, and especially of context, statements you have made in this thread might lead people to believe you are.

First you compare losses with Viet Nam to claim the losses are light to rationalize this war, then in this post you claim speaking of losses is useless rhetoric and doing so is an exploitation of an opportunity. I’m failing to understand your point(s).

This is my point if it wasn’t crystal clear. Compare this war to any other war all you want, ANY losses are unacceptable, in my opinion, in this particular war in Iraq.

I compared the losses to those of Vietnam since the Iraq War has been often compared to Vietnam by its opposition. I also compared the losses to average annual accidental deaths in the military as evidence that there has not been a high military casualty rate for an operation of this size and duration.

That wars have casualties is not an argument for going or not going to war (unless you're a pacifist). All wars have casualties.

If a casualty rate is exceptionally high (which in this case it isn't) it could be used as an argument for how poorly a war is executed, but I haven't seen you criticize the strategy only that it shouldn't have been undertaken in the first place.

[Sean of the Thread]

In this case it's EXTREMELY low for an operation of it's size.

[Back]

I compared the losses to those of Vietnam since the Iraq War has been often compared to Vietnam by its opposition. I also compared the losses to average annual accidental deaths in the military as evidence that there has not been a high military casualty rate for an operation of this size and duration.

That wars have casualties is not an argument for going or not going to war (unless you're a pacifist). All wars have casualties.

Was that the point of your comparison? Because if it was I totally disagree that arguments for war do not take into account casualties.


If a casualty rate is exceptionally high (which in this case it isn't) it could be used as an argument for how poorly a war is executed, but I haven't seen you criticize the strategy only that it shouldn't have been undertaken in the first place.

Both the reasons and the execution for the war in Iraq are both botched, in my opinion. Regardless, your arguments are starting to take on a circular pattern where you cite losses as light to make your argument for, then disparage those who don’t make comparisions and think that all losses are unacceptable in this particular war.

[Clove]

Was that the point of your comparison? Because if it was I totally disagree that arguments for war do not take into account casualties.



Both the reasons and the execution for the war in Iraq are both botched, in my opinion. Regardless, your arguments are starting to take on a circular pattern where you cite losses as light to make your argument for, then disparage those who don’t make comparisions and think that all losses are unacceptable in this particular war.

You're a moron.

I said that unless you're a pacifist it's useless to point out that a war shouldn't be fought because there will be casualties since that is a given condition of a war. It's ironic that you mention circular logic since that is exactly what such arguments exhibit.

I said that casualty rate IS relevant if you're criticizing how WELL a war is fought.

[Back]

You're a moron.

I said that unless you're a pacifist it's useless to point out that a war shouldn't be fought because there will be casualties since that is a given condition of a war. It's ironic that you mention circular logic since that is exactly what such arguments exhibit.

I said that casualty rate IS relevant if you're criticizing how WELL a war is fought.

And I am saying that it is a consideration for both. Thats all.

[Parkbandit]

Thankfully you're here to set us all straight with your pearls of wisdom Parkbandit...so glad you could contribute....no really, because without you there wouldn't be that typical ignorant conservative republican to laugh at.


I would love to return the compliment, but as of yet, we've seen nothing resembling wisdom in any of your posts.

[grapedog]

I would love to return the compliment, but as of yet, we've seen nothing resembling wisdom in any of your posts.

I don't expect you to. i don't say anything with the lowest common denominator in mind...unlike our president.

[Back]

You're a moron.

Thats a great argument if that were true. I use it all the time myself, justly I might add.

Not sure what to make of you yet. You seem to be on the edge. Not so blind as to justify everything on word, yet seemingly afraid to face the truth.

Is truth hard?

[Clove]

Thats a great argument if that were true. I use it all the time myself, justly I might add.

Not sure what to make of you yet. You seem to be on the edge. Not so blind as to justify everything on word, yet seemingly afraid to face the truth.

Is truth hard?

I use the term "moron" justly in your case. I don't have a better description for someone who knows how to read, but doesn't understand what they read.

[Warriorbird]

Step your insult game up, all of you.

;)

I mean...it's basically okay if an administration commits felonies...as long as it is for the greater good, right?

Hot Fuzz style!

http://www.samscam.co.uk/images/hotfuzz-dalton.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I mean...it's basically okay if an administration commits felonies...as long as it is for the greater good, right?



It's ok if the President tricks all members of Congress via Jedi Mind Control... as long as it is for the greater good, right?

OMG! It is fun to make shit up.. and not have to support it with any facts!!

Let me try again...

"This administration is responsible for the collapse of World Trade Tower #7. They had this planned all along to cover up the Enron scandal"

Holy shit.. it IS FUN!

[Warriorbird]

When precisely did you detune from reality? I had you tuned back for a moment when you admitted the Iraq War wasn't going well.

Leaking a covert agent's name is a felony. Bush admitted his administration did it.

[Latrinsorm]

Leaking a covert agent's name is a felony. Bush admitted his administration did it.Well, almost. "I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person."

[Gan]

When precisely did you detune from reality? I had you tuned back for a moment when you admitted the Iraq War wasn't going well.

Leaking a covert agent's name is a felony. Bush admitted his administration did it.

I suppose you're also going after the reporters who publicized said leaked information...?

[Ilvane]

They should go after the reporters who released it as well, of course. If information was given that was not supposed to be, there should be consequences to it, as George Bush promised would happen when he found out who did it.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Bush promised that they would be fired. Hire him back so that he can fire him! Yeah!

[Warriorbird]

Libby != at fault for this, just covering it up.

[Ilvane]

Actually, anyone related to the leak. That would have to include Rove, huh.

No wonder he didn't stick to his promise..heh.

Angela

[Clove]

Actually, anyone related to the leak. That would have to include Rove, huh.

No wonder he didn't stick to his promise..heh.

Angela

And their families!

[Clove]

Bush promised that they would be fired. Hire him back so that he can fire him! Yeah!

Then he can pardon them :D

[Parkbandit]

Actually, anyone related to the leak. That would have to include Rove, huh.

No wonder he didn't stick to his promise..heh.

Angela


Have to include Rove? I'm sure that if there was any evidence to this, the DA would have brought about charges.

Maybe instead of making shit up ala WB, you should stick to the facts. Or better yet, post something stupid and then once someone calls you out on it.. delete it after people have already quoted it.

[Kembal]

Hey, guys, only one reporter published the information: Robert Novak. All the other reporters that it got leaked to decided not to use it.

BTW, Rove was involved in the leak. He was the one who told Matt Cooper of Time. (he went before the Grand Jury 4 times...the fourth time was the one that saved him from perjury charges, according to Fitzgerald's latest affadavit.)