Woman to Woman

By USinUK

September 3, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry, but Shaunti’s assertion is ridiculous on so many levels, it’s really hard to pick where to begin.

1) Why are we “impatient” with Iraq?? Because we shouldn’t have gone in to begin with. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and, until we invaded, nothing to do with the War on Terror. 2) Why are we “impatient” with Iraq?? Because we were lied to - there were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam WAS cooperating with the UN inspectors, there were no “mobile weapons factories”. 3) Why are we “impatient” with Iraq?? Because many of us saw the invasion for what it was - a means to keep the GOP in power in Congress. It had nothing to do with oil, it was just a big stick so that anyone questioning the president could be called an “appeaser” or a “traitor”. A majority of Americans are tired of having our patriotism called into question because we don’t march in lock step with Bush&Co. 4) Why are we “impatient” with Iraq?? Because there never was a definition for Victory, so who knows when we’ll get out??!! The whole “we’ll stand down when they stand up” isn’t a measurement of victory - it’s a point on a timeline, but what are these people standing up FOR??? 5) Why are we “impatient” with Iraq?? Because we’re nearing the 3,000 casualty mark and we’re no closer to achieving peace there than we were when we started. In fact, if you look at it from the perspective of sectarian violence, Iraq is WORSE off than it was before we went in.

Lastly, pick up a paper and read, Shaunti - you’re worried about the start of a Civil War??? Criminey, woman. That horse has already left the barn.

By USinUK

September 3, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

oh, and one more thing … O’Hanlon and Pollack have NEVER been critics of the war … they’ve been two of the biggest cheerleaders …

for more info read this article about the trip itself and [this article] (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/index.html) that provides LOADS of quotes from 2003 onward …

they’ve been advocates for the war since 2003, so quoting them as “the newly converted” is specious at best.

By Lyrazel

September 3, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Its easy to tell Shaunti has no relatives serving because never once does she confront the issue of the lengthening of terms to be served. Never once does she admit that ‘commitment’ has ALREADY been made by the hundred thousands of our troops above and beyond their call of duty AND STILL IS BEING MADE BY THE SAME FEW—but no sacrifice was ever called upon the citizens of America (except to shop to sustain the economy and tax breaks for big petrol-guzzling SUVs). We have all seen how this administration never paid attention to substandard care for our soldiers or their families until it was exposed and now there is no $$$. There is no help for citizen soldiers who had their month long commitments be stretched to 4—> 18 month terms, who saw their jobs and businesses lost, saw their homes foreclosed on and suffer the agony of watching from afar as their family unit crumbles under the pressure of an absent parent. The current administration has lost America’s standing as keepers of peace and replaced it as: warmongers of greed. The administration has allowed American infrastructure and its people to be put on eternal hold because of the cost of maintaining military in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan (o, how is that going today, Fearless Leader). They have allowed our borders to become zones for easy illegal infiltration and allowed the current administration to issue false edicts of potential terrorism to keep up the status quo of fear by saying that American military dominance in the Middle East is our only hope of personal safety. This administration has been found guilty of numerous infractions of law and more ‘errors of judgement’ have been exposed. They believed Iraq would be a cakewalk and they believed it would be an ideal place to establish American military bases They believed the Iraqi people would just love us and roll over and play good subservient and let us tap their wealth of oil reserves for taking out Saddam. Shaunti has never mentioned the good administrations use of secret jails in foreign countries to detain ‘suspects’ or operatives of nor of illegal wiretapping and surveillance of citizens guilty of being of dissenting opinions about the US involvement in Iraq.

As each employee of the Bush administration jumps ship one really gets an idea of how “Stay the course” is the last hurrah from a captain and crew who have already ditched the sinking ship.

By chuck

September 3, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

USinUK, sounds like you are in the right place. Good that you are over there with the cut and run British crowd.

Let’s look at your typical Democratic talking points:

Let’s just skip the first 2. They are specious arguments at best. Let’s just say that if ANY LIES were told, which they weren’t then the entire leadership of the Democratic party was complicit in both the telling and the constant repeating of them until they felt the POLITICAL winds changing and began to act as if they had never heard of voting to support the war.

As for #3, How ridiculous is that? The Republicans are NOT in control of congress are they? Had they turned their backs on their country and the brave men and women defending us like the democrats did they could have probably kept control. Many, though unfortunately not all, of the republicans actually believe in what they were sent to Washington to do. If you want to see a party that will say and do anything to stay in power, look no further than YOUR party.

As for your 4th point, while I don’t think we should necessarily be in the “nation building” business, that is where we are. The plain truth of the matter is that there is no definitive definition of victory. However there is at least a fuzzy definition of victory. It is defined as creating a stable democracy in the middle of the Middle East. We should have gone in with twice as many troops as we did to begin with. That was the worst mistake we made there. We could have prevented a lot of things that are now causing problems in Iraq.

Finally, we NEED to be patient in Iraq. We need to be committed to finishing the job there. We need to send troops currently stationed in Germany, Japan, Poland and everywhere else we have them and truly go in and put down any semblance of insurgency. We need to have the political will to understand that it won’t be pretty. Some innocents will die along with the terrorists, but we have to do it anyway. If we don’t double the number of troops in Iraq and do what is necessary,we need to face the fact that our national security will require us to stay there atleast 5-10 more years. If we bring back “Shock and Awe”, we can get out of there by Christmas. We are going to need to leave a sizeable forc there for the forseeable future to help maintain stability and to help gaurd the borders and pipeline, but the combat troops should be able to leave.

So stay there in the UK Princess.

By Bully kicker

September 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

So stay there in the UK Princess.

Who do you think you are telling her what to do, Chickenhawk Chuck? Do you think slurping the president’s weener gives you the right to boss other Americans around? Go fight the war yourself if you love it so much. Chickenhawk. Chickenbleep.

By Anonymous

September 3, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

US in the UK has already nailed all the points that need to be made.

How, exactly, are Americans supposed to be more “patient” with a proven mistake? If we start crushing even more insurgents more often, and with fewer casualties, will that make this illegitimate war suddenly “okay”? Of course not.

Iraq doesn’t deserve the time, money, and lives we’ve already wasted on it, let alone any more. Americans are aware of that fact, and calls for “patience” are going to fall on deaf ears. Maybe Bush should get used to being on the receiving end of that for a change.

By Mike Toreno

September 3, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Chickenhawk Chuck, what you and Feldhahn don’t understand, or don’t admit, is that a willingness for OTHER people to die doesn’t make you brave. Wishing to stop the sacrifice and death of others doesn’t make you a coward. You’re the one that’s a coward, because you talk about how “we” should do this and “we” should do that, when you’re not the one doing any of it. All you and Feldhahn are doing is sitting on your sofa watching the war on TV, and cheering whenever Bush prances around in his flight suit.

Your local recruiting office opens tomorrow. From the look of Feldhahn, it looks like she meets the newly relaxed enlistment standards. You and Feldhahn can head to your local recruiting office tomorrow and sign up to undertake the sacrifice you urge upon others. Or, you can continue to sit on your sofa, watching the war on TV, and acknowledge that the two of you are nothing but lazy, cowardly, hypocritical pieces of garbage.

By Viagrass

September 4, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this

It’s been such a long time since I last saw you. http://www.info.netfast.org/weight-loss-pill/site_map.html >comparison loss pill weight [url=http://www.info.netfast.org/weight-loss-pill/site_map.html]comparison loss pill weight[/url]

By Billy

September 4, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

oh, and one more thing … O’Hanlon and Pollack have NEVER been critics of the war … they’ve been two of the biggest cheerleaders…they’ve been advocates for the war since 2003, so quoting them as “the newly converted” is specious at best.

Let’s not forget the New York Times. They’ve been nothing if not complicit in the run up to the war and its “justification” after the fact.

Here’s what I’m talking about.

Even after public opinion had shifted to a majority that opposed the war, the NYT still defended (and defends, as Shaunti shows us) this historic calamity. This smacks of right-wing perceptions of the “liberal” media. They always trot out NYT as the “flagship” — the “liberalist of the liberal”, if you will — when neither NYT nor the media as a whole are remotely as liberal as the right would like to believe and, in reality, have a tendency to run to the right quite frequently.

By Craig also

September 4, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

Well said USinUK. And just today it comes out that the Decider lied to us yet again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/washington/04bremer.html?hp

By USinUK

September 4, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

Oh Chuckles … I love-love-LOVE how you want to blithely skip over points 1 and 2 …

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Nothing. Nada. Niente. It doesn’t matter how many times Cheney tries to conflate the two, the fact remains - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The majority of the bombers were Saudis and they trained in Pakistan. In fact, even the Pentagon reported there was no link between Al Quaeda and Saddam. While you’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts.

Secondly, being lied into a war. Congress does NOT have access to the same intel that the WH does. They were told what the WH wanted them to know - specifically, that there were WMD (despite the fact that there were reports questioning that premise).

The fact that you don’t even want to engage in a conversation about those two issues tells me VOLUMES about your integrity.

Thirdly - I don’t know if you remember the elections of November 2002 (when Sen. Max Cleland’s patriotism was called into question) and November 2004 (Terror Threat Orange!!! Run for your lives!!!) … THAT is what I’m talking about when I say the invasion into Iraq was manufactured to get Republicans elected. Republicans know that they poll stronger on security than Democrats, so they hoped they could pull a repeat of Gulf War I, complete with parades and 90% approval ratings to sweep the elections. We have a Democrat-controlled House and Senate now because people are finally starting to see through the BS.

As for your disgusting “some innocents will die with the terrorists” … oh, yeah … THAT will win hearts and minds. The fact that we’re killing and torturing innocents NOW is what is creating new terrorists everyday. I’m SO sure you’d gladly turn a blind eye if someone killed a child of yours, or a nephew or a grandmother and just write it off as “oh, well, they were trying to bring in democracy … you gotta break a few eggs and all that …”

I don’t care if you sign up or not. I just wish you’d WAKE UP.

By USinUK

September 4, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

Billy … don’t get me started on the NYT (Judith Miller) and WaPo (Fred Hiatt) in the run-up to the war and their blind belief in everything Ahmed Chalabi said … GAH.

If you’re looking for a good book, check out “What Liberal Media” by Eric Alterman.

By lovelyliz

September 4, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

It took us less time to win World War II than what it’s taking us to perhaps, maybe, kind of sort of, meet 3 out of 18 benchmarks in Iraq.

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Operation Iraqi Freedom, as it turns out, was never a war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush’s war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take of his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq, the line between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity-to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they (screw) things up.

from an article in this current issue of Rolling Stone.

And we wonder why Americans have become impatient with the money being thrown away in Iraq? And impatient with the fact the Bush adminstration has not brought ANY charges against the Haliburton-ish companies directly ripping off the federal government? Charging for 42,000 meals a day at one base when only 14,000 were actually served? for example.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 4, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Well said USinUK very good and valid points.

Don’t mind Chuck, I think deep down he thinks that the Iraq War is the fault of the liberal democrats and the libral leaning media. I think he thinks the reason why we didn’t find any WMD’s was because of liberal democrats and the libral leaning media; and also the reason why we’ve ignored North Korea; have restarted the cold war with Russia; have totally alienated Iran; can’t find Bin Laden in Afghanistan, AND have made the US look like a bunch of monkeys on steroids is because of the liberal democrats and the libral leaning media.

In Chuck’s eyes, if it wasn’t for the liberal democrats and the libral leaning media; Bush would’ve been hailed the hero and patriot he really is — instead of the incompetent drunk clown that the liberal democrats and the libral leaning media have portrayed him to be.

It’s all their fault.

By USinUK

September 4, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Susie … hahaha … tell me what you REALLY mean ;-)

By Mara

September 4, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

it’s not really chucks fault he has such a skewed view of the so-called GWoT and the Iraq War. Turns out it’s the fault of the “liberal” media -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html

The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

and Chilao - did you hear that they’re thinking about privatizing routine military health care in Iraq, too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090201157.html

Many U.S. noncombat activities in Iraq are performed by contractors. In supplying background information, the Army recognized that “the exact number of contractors who need and desire routine health care services is unknown.” For guidance, however, it disclosed that there were “approximately” 750 routine civilian health-care visits per month at military treatment facilities on three U.S. bases in Iraq.…

The Army believes that health-care facilities, “including radiological, laboratory and pharmacy ancillary services” would “benefit the contractor population,” which is nearly as large as the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq. According to one estimate, more than half are Iraqis, some 20 percent are American citizens and about 30 percent are from another country.

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

No, Mara, but it would not surprise me.

In that same Rolling Stone, there is an article of a private contractor who went over to work on refrigeration, that his specialty, but his employers assigned him to work on Humvees, without even the proper tools to change a tire and he was learning Humvee repair via manuals on the base. And then for a ride back to the base when he went out on a call, he was told to get in a truck, turns out it was the lead truck he learned when they took off, and it hit an IED.

The company’s comments to his wife, $500,000 in medical bills later: He should not have been in the lead truck and it is not our fault if he let his insurance expire(after he came home 1/2 blown up, as they did cover his time in Germany hospital)

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Finally, we NEED to be patient in Iraq. We need to be committed to finishing the job there. ……… We need to have the political will to understand that it won’t be pretty. Some innocents will die along with the terrorists, but we have to do it anyway. If we don’t double the number of troops in Iraq and do what is necessary,we need to face the fact that our national security will require us to stay there atleast 5-10 more years

I don’t keep up with this blog that much, but weren’t you the same guy a couple of months ago who was repeating the Rummsfeld logic that “less is more” and that we didn’t need a surge?

You keep saying how “we” should support this war; what are the personal sacrifices that you are willing to make in order to advance and complete this “WAr On TError”? Are you willing to do what our forebears did in WWII by having gas rations and War Bonds? Are you willing to sacrifice your child/grandchild/neice/nephew etc. for this war? Are you willing to sacrifce 30% of your income for this war? Are you even willing to sacrifice your CAR for this war and buy and maintain only gas/electric hybrids? Are you willing to use 45% less gas during the winter, use less fuel during the summer; walk more and drive less; catch mass transist; etc. for this war?

You stated above that We need to have the political will to understand that it won’t be pretty; how strong is your willpower? Can you sustain a frugal, scaled down lifestyle for the 5-10 years you say it will take to win this war?

Do you have any salient points that you come up with on your own or are they just all Faux News soundbites? Just asking.

By JT

September 4, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

My president told me Mission Accomplished on May 1, 2003. My apologies for being impatient four years later.

I was taught that you completed a task, then announced it was done, not the other what around. Had we had this president when I was growing up, maybe I could have gotten away with telling my teachers my homework was complete, and when they asked to see it, I could have just said, “Be patient.”

BTW Shaunti: do you remember the initial estimate for the cost of the war. Hah! That’s funny stuff. Can you write us a commentary about that please?

By chuck

September 4, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

USinUK I skipped over points 1 and 2 because they are IRRELEVENT NOW. It doesn’t matter at this point whether we were lied to or NOT. As for the claim that the Congress did not see the same intelligence reports as the White House, that is a lie. The intelligence committee sees the same intelligence as the President. They then confirmed the essence of the intelligence to the rest of Congress. As a usual liberal, you only read the news that actually confirms your own world view. The truth of the matter is that WMD’s HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ.

Just one report from the National Ground Intelligence Center to congress shows that if you care to look.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/IraqWMDDeclassified.pdf

Another report from the Iraq Survey Group (small segment pasted in. URL below) also said the following:

A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and “that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N.” Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn’t have a biological-weapons program?

“Reference strains” of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. “We thought it was a big deal,” a senior administration official said. “But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of ‘starter set.’”

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, “not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit.”

“Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.”

“Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] — well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates].”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

Secondly, I don’t know of ANYBODY who says that Saddam planned 911. Talk about perpetuating urban myths. But he did have plans to further destabilize the region through the use of WMD’s against his enemies…including the allies of United States in the region.

So if you want to debate those irrelevent points, bring it on, but you will lose it on THE FACTS every time.

By JohnF

September 4, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

I believe that Chuck’s comments are accurate as to how we could “win” this war…we’d have to throw everything at them and totally shut down the ability of all Iraq to move about freely…which really means we have done nothing for ourselves or for Iraq..we will have replaced a repressive regime with an even more repressive regime..the US occupiers.

The majority of Iraqi citizens probably wish we had never “liberated” them…at least they had dependable water and electricity.

By Craig also

September 4, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

100 miles, Chuck? Wow we really were in danger….

So Chuck gets his/her news from Fox and World Net Daily.

Who could have seen that one coming????

By chuck

September 4, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Yes Debbiedolittle. If it comes to those things I am perfectly willing to do them. I don’t think that it will at this point, but I am ready for that contingency if my country needs it. And remember that I said the only way we will be there for that time period is if we don’t accept the facts and get the people we need in there to do the job.

BTW, I have NEVER said we didn’t need the surge. I’ve been calling for more troops in Iraq since late 2004. If you would like to check that out please feel free to peruse the back issues of this blog and it will bear that out.

EVERYTHING I write is original to me unless I say otherwise. As for “faux” news, (BTW that is such a trite and meaningless little attempt to minimize what is one of the better sources of NEWS in America) I don’t really watch Fox News except very occasionally, just as I occasionally watch ABC news. I get my news from the 3-4 newspapers I read online every day (AJC, WSJ, NYT, Washington Times). I suppose you get most of your information from the “Communist News Network”. See, I can do that too, but it’s STILL MEANINGLESS.

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

uh huh. TOLD YA; he only listens to Faux News and that’s where he gets all his points from. NOT the UN Comission sent to look for the WMD’s; not the pre-war intelligence telling them that there were no WMD’s; no not any of that stuff!! Faux News said there were WMD’s and that’s all that count in Chuck’s mind. Next posting he’ll spout another soundbite. Get ready.

By JokesOn

September 4, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

As for the question whether “We are winning the war in Iraq,” you have to define the word “we.”

If you are one of the stakeholders in the Federal Reserve, big business, or a politician who wants to continue the empire while filling your pockets, we are winning.

If your one of the many ordinary people paying for this war in taxes and blood, you are out of luck.

Face it, our country has been turned into a fascist empire right before our eyes. What else do you call a country where all the money is privately owned by a small group of people, even if they CALL themselves the Federal Reserve?

You know that the Federal Reserve lends money to the government to print and recieves intrest on it that YOU pay back, right?

Wake up, you are no longer in the world you would like to think.

By JokesOn

September 4, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

And remember that I said the only way we will be there for that time period is if we don’t accept the facts and get the people we need in there to do the job.

Buddy, we have 3 bases that we are currently building there. These are facilities built so that they can house hundreds for the next 20-50 years. We have never had any intention of leaving.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

And just to show you how the “news organizations” SLANT the news is this quote from MSNBC:

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

Look at how they characterized the report from the chief weapons inspector Deulfer. The portion in BOLD is not in the report at all. They quoted the report then editorialized something that was not in the report. In fact the report outlined over 500 discoveries of WMD’s. It certainly did not say that they found nothing. That’s what you poor liberals depend on for news.

By 2D

September 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Lovelyliz… You might want to rethink your comparison of the current Iraq operations to WWII.

It took sevral years to defeat the stated governments of our enemies (Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito). It took a few weeks to defeat Saddam and send him hiding into a hole in the desert.

The subsequent time in Iraq has been more difficult than expected, but not at all unlike what we saw after other wars in which we fought. There was violence in Germany after WWII that required us to leave troops for security reasons. we left troops in Okinawa for a very long time to quell keep peace and protect Japan. We still have troops in Korea since there was never an end to the war, merely a “cease fire”.

Make sure you have some semblence of your comparison points before you make analagies. The one you made was of apples and oranges.

By lozen

September 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Chuck: There is a god! There is a god! Yes there is! I say there’s a god so there is a god! Our president is good and the war is good! Our president is good and the war is good! Yes they are! I say the president is good and the war is good so the president and the war are good! Authoritarianism and its root.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

BTW you can read that whole MSNBC fabrication on their website:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

the New King George, from a Brit perspective:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/31/opinion/main3225699.shtml

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

speaking of teachers back hard at work, where’s Monica?

Oh, wait, did I just answer my own question?

now that’s funny.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Craig, you are obviously obtuse. 500 kilometers is over 300 miles and plenty of distance to reach ALL of our allies in the Middle East.

The article came from “Fox News” only because they linked directly to the congressional summary. If you had actualy GONE THERE you might have seen that and wouldn’t look like such a fool right now.

So Debbiedoesatlanta…bite me.

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

They quoted the report then editorialized something that was not in the report. In fact the report outlined over 500 discoveries of WMD’s. It certainly did not say that they found nothing. That’s what you poor liberals depend on for news.

Chuck, not to trivialize anything that you’ve read or heard on Faux News, but, if they’d really found over 500 discoveries of WMD’s; don’t you think that Bush,Cheney, Rumsefeld would’ve still been crowing about being right? I mean come on, those guys are not known for their “humility” or their “unwillingness to take credit”; (google Mission Accomplished for a reference).

The report you speak of, do you have a link to it? Since you quote it in your comment I deduce that you’ve read it for yourself and have the link for everyone else to glance at it too. We don’t want to be blinded anymore by the biased liberal medias attempt to brainwash us. We want to read the report for ourselves — please post the link. Thanks.

Also, you speak again of the surge, yet you fail to mention that when seasoned commanders in the military who have actually been to war and/or was in the military uniform getting dirty, (that means NOT Georgie), first suggested the surge Rumsefeld et al. said no. NOW after a lot of wasted months and lives, they, (Georgie and “advisors” snicker); think the surge is the be all end all to get us through. Why wasn’t the opinions of the original commanders, (Colin Powell) taken into consideration then? Why do you think that a surge would NOW work when the eliminate of surprise has been eliminated?

Just asking.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Sort of like computer geeks hard at work huh Chilao.

Another source:

Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials—ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads—some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the “No-WMD Myth” (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

By Mara

September 4, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

hey, chuck? Since you have all these “facts” at your fingertips….does that mean that you believe President George W. Bush is a liar?

President Bush gives a statement to reporters on the findings issued yesterday (Oct 6, 2004)by the Iraq Survey Group led by Charles A. Duelfer. Here is a transcript of Bush’s comments. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14897-2004Oct7.html

BUSH: “The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there….The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong.”

George Bush says they didn’t find the WMD’s. You say they did and support that with Fox “News” and WND links. I guess that means you either know more about the situation than Bush, Bush knows we found the weapons and decided to lie about it, or we haven’t found the stuff you say we found and Bush isn’t lying.

So…how shall we call this one?

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

I am not a Geek, I’m Not, I’m Not, I’m Not!

Stolen from the plate frame for a VW convertible Cabriolet, driven by a 17 y/o Beach Bunny: I am not a Brat, I’m Not, I’m Not, I’m Not.

By How It REALLY is

September 4, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

As we all knew-George was going to go after the guy who tried to kill his dad. Next, we SHOULD have taken over the oil fields to lower gas prices which are putting American’s in the Bankruptcy line. Then, we should install our own government because we all know ARABS CANNOT rule themselves! They need a Dictator or a Military person to tell them what to do. Look at all the Arab Countries-except for maybe Egypt and Turkey, ALL arab countries are ruled by a King, Dictator, Military person, etc. the arab rule is-arabs agree not to agree with each other. Thus, the Sunni and the Shiites are not going to agree with each other nor the Kurds. It’s like putting the Bloods and the Crypts in charge-you’re not going to get cooperation. We need to put in our own government and rule these people with an iron fist-that is all they know.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

My gosh debbie, how stupid are you? This came from the Iraq Survey Group that did all of the inspections after the invasion NOT FROM FOX NEWS YOU IDIOT.

I read the SUMMARY of it which I posted a link to above. That is the only part of the report that has been declassified.

Additionally, I think Rumsfeld is an IDIOT too. He should have been canned early on. In fact, the thing that has gotten Bush in the most trouble is that he is TOO LOYAL. Not a bad trait to have as a man, but not real useful if you want to be successful in politics…and that’s a shame. The surge would NOT have been a surprise then. I don’t know where you got that idea, but it was never proposed as such. It was the right thing to do then and it’s STILL the right thing to do.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Another source of the information for you Debbie, the LIBERAL Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

By chuck

September 4, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

and another:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm

By JokesOn

September 4, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

We need to put in our own government and rule these people with an iron fist-that is all they know.

We originally put someone in charge. His name was Sadam.

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

rule these people with an iron fist-that is all they know.

that was one of the points made by Arabs to Rory Stewart, in the book I mentioned recently, Prince of the Marshes.

I also continued and read his earlier book, he WALKED from Herat to Kabul, the 400 miles directly through the mountains, spending most nights in a new village. Tajik, not Pashtun. This right after the Taliban fall, January, 2002, in the winter.(duh)

By lozen

September 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

“Saddam Hussein was a unique threata sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror, operating in the world’s most volatile region.” *And my daddy didn’t like him, he threatened my daddy, so I kicked his a— for daddy! Not to mention my family’s millions that my daddy and granddaddys made in gas and oil for the past three generations.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

No Mara, read it carefully:

did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there

That is not the same thing as saying that they did not find any WMD’s. They found a different kind and different amounts of WMD’s than what they expected to find.

By NetBanker

September 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

USinUK I skipped over points 1 and 2 because they are IRRELEVENT NOW. It doesn’t matter at this point whether we were lied to or NOT. Are you kidding me?! It doesn’t matter if we were lied into starting a war?!! Bill Clinton lying about a BJ mattered enough to try to impeach the man, but possible lies leading to 3,000 dead U.S. troops (let alone the numbers of Iraqis) and BILLIONS spent on credit doesn’t matter?! A committment of an additional 5-10 years and untold MORE billions (since none of the rest of the world is ponying up…then again why should they since they didn’t attack or support the attack) as well as more dead soldiers that may be the result of lies and it doesn’t matter?!

Hey kids! About this liberal news media thing…I’ve been thinking about that and it just doesn’t seem like a valid claim to me, but likely for a completely different reason than most think. When I look at the schlock of the ‘liberal’ media it seems to me that they (the media) are complicit in the campaign of disinformation to America. They’re right there feeding us crap about Britney, who is in rehab this week, focus on fashion, etc. that really is a bunch of fluff to distract us from the fact that we are engaged in a war (without an actual declaration of war, btw), we are spending billions in Iraq, etc. If one compares the contents of our ‘liberal’ media to the media of other nations one realizes how little substance American media acutally contains. This just doesn’t strike me as a ‘liberal’ position if the media is as opposed to the current administration as is claimed by the right. Seems to me like the American media is playing right along with the leaders of the country in keeping most of the public blissfully unaware of real issues and instead focused on nonsensical fluff. Thoughts?

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

You hit the nail on the head, Net. Local news speak of Bush with a reverence that somehow I never heard/detected when they mentioned Clinton, when he was President, so it is not the OFFICE.

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

oh, Rory Stewart’s earlier book is The Places In Between.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Hey NetB. You misunderstood me. It is Irrelevent NOW as far as this topic goes. The fact is that like it or not WE ARE IN IRAQ. That’s the point. Regardless of what happened or didn’t happen in the past, we have a situation NOW that we have to deal with. That was the point I was making.

In addition, I am somewhat certain that we were NOT LIED TO during the time period leading to the war. There may or may not have been some faulty intelligence, but I’m not even so sure about that. For the past couple of years there have been growing reports from Syrian dissidents that there are Iraqi WMD’s in several locations in Syria. Some chemical agents have appeared in northern Iraq that purportedly were stored either in an Northern Iraq storage facility or from a cache in Syria. Another report said that the Iraqis were known to have 1.7 metric tons of a chemical nerve agent. That would fit in an area the size of a garage, one report said, and we are looking for it an area the size of California. We may or may not find those weapons, but it doesn’t matter as far as what we do NEXT.

We still have to stabilize Iraq or be prepared to spend decades there. I am not willing to see the greatest country on the face of earth tuck its tail and run from a little punk nation like Iraq.

ON the other hand, if there was PROOF that this whole thing was a fabrication, I’d be in favor of impeachment myself, but I would also include the Congressional leadership on BOTH sides of the aisle who saw the same intelligence and would have had to be complicit in the lie, if such a lie exists.

By chuck

September 4, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Gotta run for now. Video is almost over and have to get these kids out of here. Later.

By lozen

September 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Net, right again. The first two don’t count! We should just believe everything they said after that! Okay, Chuck. Let’s say just for a minute that you’re right. Saddam had two bombs. Now tell us how that made him a greater threat than Iran? Tell us how two old weapons (probably with the U.S.of A. inscribed on the side since old Bush and co. supplied him with arms in the past) justify billions of dollars out of every citizens’ pocket (except the very wealthy like the Bushes and Cheneys), thousands of lives, a war that goes on and on, loss of constitutional rights, wiretapping of american citizens, and the billions that have disappeared in Iraq (out of our pockets) via Halleburton and subsidiaries? (The Pentagon: Gee. we don’t know where it went.)

By NetBanker

September 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

They found a different kind and different amounts of WMD’s than what they expected to find. And why was this really OUR concern since they were highly unlikely to ever have been used against Americans? In an odd way, wasn’t having Saddam in power a plus for America seeing as how he liked neither Syria nor Iran and it seems as though both of those countries were a tad afraid of him after the Iran-Iraq war? Now instead of worrying about a crazy Arab leader they both use the presence of the ‘Great Satan’ occupying Arab land (and holy Islamic sites to boot) as a rallying cry for their own peoples as well as other anti-American Arabs.

By Mara

September 4, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

chuck - They found a different kind and different amounts of WMD’s than what they expected to find

Ah. Personally I read the transcript to say that the weapons he said were there…weren’t. NOT that there were weapons, just not the ones we thought.

But to clarify what I think you believe it says…”even though the intelligence that was used to whip up the frenzy of fear was wrong, it doesn’t matter because we discovered that he was doing something else that we wouldn’t have liked him doing”? And since we caught him doing something, even though it wasn’t what we thought it was, then everything is hunky-dorey? No harm, no foul?

Somehow when we were warned about WMD’s in the pre-war scarefest, I didn’t get the feeling that they were talking about a score of decaying warheads, a few barrels of pesticide suitable for use as a nerve-agent base, and the scattered remnants of pre-OIF munitions. Probably because we were told that the weapons were in Iraq, that we knew where they were, and that we would find stockpiles of them.

You and other die-hard BushLovers believe that these deadly materials were found. The administration, the Pentagon, the “liberal” media, and even the inspectors themselves say they found no viable weapons. Hmmmm. It must be one of those liberal tin-foil-hat conspiracies intended to destroy America.

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Chuckie, Chuckie Chuckie…..

So Debbiedoesatlanta…bite me

Your real age and maturity level is showing with that comment!! But, this is what one can expect from someone who worships Faux News and Conservative Right Wing Garbage Rags as the only true news sources.

OK back to basics:

From your WA POST link I found this tidbit, (that you conveniently forgot to mention):

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

How very “republican” of you to have not told the full story. The link you posted from Mens News Daily is just another Faux News wannabe “newspaper” spouting off more “conspiracy theory” garbage. Good try though!! Better luck next time.

By JokesOn

September 4, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

NetB,

This just doesn’t strike me as a ‘liberal’ position if the media is as opposed to the current administration as is claimed by the right. Seems to me like the American media is playing right along with the leaders of the country in keeping most of the public blissfully unaware of real issues and instead focused on nonsensical fluff. Thoughts?

Hate to buy into the conspiracy theories, but I think your notion is very accurate.

We have one side that bolsters the wrongs being done and another that diverts our attention of any real issues by use of entertainment like briteny spears. Either way, americans are not noticing the scary truths or asking the hard questions.

Chuck,

ON the other hand, if there was PROOF that this whole thing was a fabrication, I’d be in favor of impeachment myself, but I would also include the Congressional leadership on BOTH sides of the aisle who saw the same intelligence and would have had to be complicit in the lie, if such a lie exists.

Forever the binary thinker! All or nothing all the way is your motto.

By lozen

September 4, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Binary thinking is so right:

Good vs. Evil God vs. Devil Christian vs. Muslim Black vs. White Evil Axis vs. Pure and Holy God’s Country The Bible says … vs. ‘It don’t matter…’ Loony Liberal vs. Good conservative Think as I do vs. You are wrong, wrong, wrong “Love it or leave it” vs. “Those who stand up when gov’t is wrong are the true patriots.”

I could go on and on.

By lozen

September 4, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Organized religion in the west, using the bible, teaches us to worship, praise, obey, bow down to, and never question our LORD, our KING, our MASTER. I can certainly see why all the kings and rulers of yore and would be kings of today love that good old religion and that book! Organized religion in the east, using the Koran …..

By NetBanker

September 4, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

I am not willing to see the greatest country on the face of earth tuck its tail and run from a little punk nation like Iraq. Ahhhh…and we get to the heart of the matter…PRIDE. One of the 7 deadly sins, no? We need to be realistic here that this isn’t just about “a little punk nation like Iraq.” It’s also about Al-Qaeda (which has no national affiliations), Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. There are a lot of complex situations and politics going on in a culture that we don’t tend to understand well. Our entanglement is about Sunni and Shiite politics as well as historical religious rift as much as it is about the relationships with and between Iraq’s neighboring countries. This whole thing goes waaaaay beyond “a little punk nation.”

By NetBanker

September 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

The fact is that like it or not WE ARE IN IRAQ. That’s the point. Regardless of what happened or didn’t happen in the past, we have a situation NOW that we have to deal with. That was the point I was making. Chuck…I more or less assumed that is what you meant and while I hear that line of reasoning all the blessed time in corporate america I just don’t fully buy. What it realistically comes down to is a distraction from holding those who got us into a royal mess accountable which is usually the darn leaders. Yes, we do need to deal with the problems at hand, but the ‘deciders’ who got us into the mess in the first place should have to a pay a price for that other than a loss of popularity.

This type of situation isn’t too far off from the boy who cried wolf. The difference is that we’ve been fed a steady stream of changing justifications for war that have just as steadily been exposed as less than truthful. Top that off with a large dollop of bravado, a sprinkling of self-aggrandisement, a lack of solid planning, waste and fraud totalling in the low billions, no definition of victory, a world mostly turned against us and it’s not a wonder that most Americans aren’t buying what the Administration is selling when it comes to the Iraq war or that we’ve become impatient.

JokesOn…I hadn’t really thought about it from a conspiracy point and I’m not entirely sure that I would buy that idea, but the charge of liberal media just doesn’t seem to fit well. I’ll have to poke around, but it is my impression that most of the media in the country are owned by conglomerates that are conservative in nature. Wouldn’t that be a hoot if true that ‘conservative’ companies control or have ownership of the ‘liberal’ media?

By JokesOn

September 4, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

JokesOn…I hadn’t really thought about it from a conspiracy point and I’m not entirely sure that I would buy that idea, but the charge of liberal media just doesn’t seem to fit well. I’ll have to poke around, but it is my impression that most of the media in the country are owned by conglomerates that are conservative in nature. Wouldn’t that be a hoot if true that ‘conservative’ companies control or have ownership of the ‘liberal’ media?

I really am not into them (conspiracies) either, but after watching a 2hour documentary on the history of the Federal Reserve and its continued influence (yes, on both sides of the media - conservative and liberal) I am somewhat shook up.

I will get the name of it (was on you tube) and post it tomorrow. It is scary even if only 1/4 of it is factual.

By Mara

September 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - This type of situation isn’t too far off from the boy who cried wolf. The difference is that we’ve been fed a steady stream of changing justifications for war that have just as steadily been exposed as less than truthful. Top that off with a large dollop of bravado, a sprinkling of self-aggrandisement, a lack of solid planning, waste and fraud totalling in the low billions, no definition of victory, a world mostly turned against us and it’s not a wonder that most Americans aren’t buying what the Administration is selling when it comes to the Iraq war or that we’ve become impatient

And that’s just the Iraq fiasco. How about if we add in all the domestic issues he’s ignored or mishandled like New Orleans, border and port security, the shredding of the Constitution, the tanking economy and the distrust of a scandal-weary electorate?

He’s had chance after chance to lead the country and he chose instead to fritter the opportunity for the sake of saving face. Impatient doesn’t even describe what I am. Disgusted and dismayed are closer.

By JokesOn

September 4, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

NetB,

Look up “Zit Giest” on you tube. I would be interested in hearing a non-biased persons take on it.

I generally feel that if presented with enough random occurances (like dots on a page) one can come up with any patteren they wish, but this movie struck me.

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

And that’s just the Iraq fiasco. How about if we add in all the domestic issues he’s ignored or mishandled like New Orleans, border and port security, the shredding of the Constitution, the tanking economy and the distrust of a scandal-weary electorate?

Com’on, man, they are all doing A Heck of a Job. LOL

By Chilao

September 4, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

reminds me of a Funny Times cartoon, Bush strutting along, in his wake is all these fiascos, as he says to the person, a reporter, walking with him, “Off to do another Heck of a Job.

By Bella

September 5, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this

We shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The whole idea was a big mistake. Downright foolhardy. Why should the American people want to wallow, embrace, and nurture a mistake? People who are madly in love with George W. Bush are the only people calling for patience.

By USinUK

September 5, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

Chuckleberry … If you read the question at the top of the page, it is “Why are Americans impatient with Iraq” … not “hey, why can’t everyone be like Chuck?”. The majority of Americans do think they were lied to and think we never should have gone into Iraq to begin with. Maybe on Planet Chuck, being lied into a war by the people who lead the US isn’t important, but on Planet Earth - where the rest of us live - it’s VERY important. So, maybe why we went in isn’t relevent to you and you just want to deal with the situation and stay as long as it takes (btw … do you have any kids there? brothers? sisters? cousins?? If not, it sure must be a strain for you to say “Stay the course … as long as it takes … blahblahblah). To a majority of Americans, invading a country on a number of false premises is VERY important and DOES make an impact on why we want to get troops out of there sooner rather than later.

Secondly, did you even bother to read beyond the lede in the WaPo article you quoted??? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that article says what you think it says”:

*The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. (emphasis mine)

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.*

In other words - there were no WMDs. Not 500. Not 50. Not 5. None. That horse is officially dead.

Lastly, the White House has 24 hour access to the NSC, the Pentagon and intelligence officials that Congress does not. So, sorry, but your assertion that they are all making decisions based on the same access to the same information is nothing but a whole lotta WRONG.

By 2D

September 5, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Mara… Interesting how the President becomes the reason for everything that has gone wrong over the last few years. It amazes me that one person could have that much power!

Hmmm, let’s see. New Orleans. A city that sits below sea level is hit by a category 4/5 hurricane, which breeches the levees and fills the “fish bowl” in which the city sits. The mayor of the city and the governor of the state did NOTHING to assist the situation until it was too late. Maybe, the local authorities should have been more keenly aware of the pending situation and evacuation citizens (lots of buses were standing by and never used). But we should lay all of the blame at the Federal Government? Gimme a break.

Hmm, let’s see. A tanking economy. Fuel prices have gone up and interest rates are readjusting which are causing a money crunch for many Americans. I guess the President forced all of those people to buy houses they can’t afford at interest rates that will readjust and bury them. I guess the Presdient forces people to live 50 miles from their work, drive huge SUVs and gobble up gas like there’s no tomorrow.

I gotta agree with you on immigration and border security. If it were up to me, I’d round up every suspicious person, make them prove they’re legal and if they can’t, then kick ‘em out. I work with too many folks who have emmigrated legally and seen what they’ve gone through to simply wave the white flag and let all of the scum-sucking, border-jumping, law-breakers stay here. It’s an issue of both national security and fairness.

Not sure how I feel about the ports. I understand both sides of the issue. However, using similar sentiments as my last paragraph, I feel more comfortable with the ports being managed by our government or at the very least, American interests.

Totally disagree with you on the “shredding” of the Constitution. If anyone has done that, I believe it is the Federal Court system. Over time they have become defacto legislators rather than arbiters of justice and deciders of whether a law is or is not Constitutional.

Bottom line is this… I think that far too many people want to lay our problems at the feet of the Federal Government. In many situations, if we, the people, made better decisions many of the problems would not be occurring or at the very least, not be so devastating. And quite frankly, I believe that bailing people out of those bad decisions does nothing but hurt our society over time, not to mention, it angers people like myself who work hard, make smart decisions and see my tax dollars go to “help” those idiots who put themselves in terrible spots.

By Mara

September 5, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Surprise, surprise! Another “imminent” terror plot disrupted on the eve of a less-than-encouraging report on the “progress” of Bush’s War.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090500209.html?hpid=topnews

So here we have another instance of a “terror plot” being disrupted by American and allied intelligence. The implication being that the President is, at least, keeping the homeland safe and we should believe him when he insists that the terrorists will strike us here if we don’t kill them there. Amusingly enough, if you read through the article you’ll find that the “imminent threat” was neither imminent nor a threat.

“German investigators said the suspects had obtained 12 barrels of hydrogen peroxide, a common ingredient in homemade bombs.” … “[Investigators] said the German cell wouldn’t have gotten very far. They said agents intervened at one point and secretly replaced the stash of hydrogen peroxide with another substance that would have rendered bomb-making attempts futile.”

so be grateful that Mr. Bush is having such success against the Keystone Terrorists who, evidently, can’t tell peroxide from Perrier. Who knows what other dastardly plots will be disrupted?! After all, the Petraeus Show is scheduled for the 15th…

By Chilao

September 5, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

That German situation brings up an interesting thought. Once Iraq is a nice pro-western democracy and all the terrorists there have been exterminated, which country will be next? Lebanon? Somalia? The Sudan? Germany? The UK?

By USinUK

September 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

2D

… ever heard the phrase “the buck stops here” …?? There was a time when Presidents took responsibility for what happened on their watch. This president? Not so much.

No one blames W for Katrina hitting New Orleans. They blame him for the response. Or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof. Because Bush moved FEMA from being an independent agency to falling under the DHS rubrick, not only was there more bureaucracy to deal with, there was a man in charge who knew nothing about emergency management. The responsibility for that lies at the feet of the president.

Add that to their statements that “no one could have foreseen that the levees would fail” - when NWS announcements the night before Katrina hit outlined - in all caps - that the Cat 5 hurricane could cause levees to fail, resulting in mass flooding, etc … it just beggars the imagination that you think no one should blame this administration for the shambles of a recovery.

Should Nagan and the governor have done more to get people out of the path?? Of course - but, when the hurricane hit and the people were stranded at the Superdome and on their rooftops, there was NO excuse for the administration not to activate every national guardsman from Savannah to Seattle to help those people.

As for the economy, I just love-love-LOVE how a bad economy is NEVER the responsibility of a Republican President (see: Bush I in 1991 and Bush 2 in 2001), but a good economy is never because of a strong Democratic President (see: Clinton in 1997-2000).

But, that’s neither here nor there. Fact is, this economic situation has been a long time coming - the Fed NEEDED to mop up excess liquidity by raising interest rates. Investors had lost ALL perspective on risk and were looking for return wherever they could get it, especially investing in untested derivative products, ABS and MBS. A correction was bound to happen. It’s called a business cycle for a reason.

However, where housing is concerned, right now, there’s about a 7-8 month inventory of previously owned homes on the market and nearly as many new homes, if they sell at the current rate. If you start foreclosing on deliquent homeowners, all you’re going to do is drive down property values by flooding the market with more inventory. Should subprime homeowners have gotten a loan in the first place?? good god, no. But, now the contagion has moved beyond subprime as Adjustable Rate Mortgages are about to cause more regular homeowners into foreclosure (ARMs are going to be resetting for a huge number of homeowners over the next 18 months - and these people work and pay taxes, just like you).

For all those related problems, I blame Alan Greenspan who was the one who encouraged homeowners to use ARMs.

Which leads me to the only good thing W has done - nominate Bernanke. He’s a good Fed Chairman and he will take good care of the country.

As for your “the courts are shredding the constitution” … I’m sorry but are you kidding me??? The courts have not made the decision to hold prisoners without trial (hello, right to a speedy trial), wiretap without warrant (hello, search and seizure), and short-circuit free speech (hello, arresting people at Presidential events for having a No Bush t-shirt). Criminey, the courts may make decisions you don’t like, but they are able to support it with the Constitution - this administration has pretty much labelled the Constitution as “quaint”

By USinUK

September 5, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Chilao -

Unless cars start to run on Bangers-n-Mash*, I can’t see a UK invasion happening anytime soon …

… but, if I was Canada, I’d start looking over my shoulder …

*(bangers-n-mash = sausages and mashed potatoes)

By Jack

September 5, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

2D. You forgot that the collapsed bridge was Bush’s fault too.

Lions and tigers and bears….Oh My!

By 2D

September 5, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

USinUK… “The buck stops here”??? Gimme a break. One President said that. As far as I’m concerned, the buck should rarely, if ever get to the President. The Federal Government was only designed to have a few roles and ever since FDR mucked everything up, the Federal Government has become a caretaker. I guess living in the UK has only deepened your dependence on a “Nanny State”.

I think we may be able to agree on passing blame and congratulations on the economy to a President. However, in your examples, I find it difficult to blame Bush for the economy in 2001. Are your kidding me? He had just taken office and his administration was the cause of the economic downturn? That example merely betrays your blind hatred of President Bush.

Quite frankly, I don’t believe Presidents have nearly as much influence over the economy as the media would like us to think. Sure, some of their policies may provide some influence, but wholesale shifts of the economy take place over a long period of time. The 2001 recession was a result of factors and speculative actions that had been taking place for the past three years, at least.

Quick question(s)… If NWS reports before Katrina hit foresaw the collapse of the levees under the impending storm, why in goodness’ sake did Ray “Chocolate City” Nagan not order people to evacuate? Why did Landreaux not order a state of emergency? Why do we look for the Federal Government to bail us out? Two words “Nanny State”.

Another quick question… If the economy is so bad, why is the unemployment rate below 5%? Any socialist, European country able to boast that type of figure?

Can’t argue too much about some of your Constitution examples. I have read those things took place, but I guess I’m far more tolerant of those things than say, creating abortion laws where there is no Constitutional basis, or creating an immediate legalization of same sex unions. The Consitution does not provide the judicial branch the authority to dictate law to the legislature. They are vested with the responsibility of interpreting and arbitrating the laws which are passed by the legislature.

By lozen

September 5, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

USinUK, that’s the way I read it too. Maybe Chuck thinks the first part is true and then the “liberal media” changed the next part to deny that they found WMD! Because every one of the quotes he posted sounded to me as if they said nothing was found except some old stuff that couldn’t do anything.

By Mara

September 5, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

2D - Interesting how the President becomes the reason for everything that has gone wrong over the last few years. It amazes me that one person could have that much power!

uh, first of all, we were discussing the reasons Americans might be getting impatient with the Iraq war, NOT “blaming” the president…unless you do think that the president is responsible for everything. Do you deny that the Gulf Coast is still struggling? Do you deny that the economy is looking grim? Do you deny any of the points I put out there for consideration? I never said that Bush was “responsible” for the problems, I said that he had shown too much “Don’t blame me…” and too little leadership. But to your points…

regarding New Orleans…you should look at the timeline to find out what happened when instead of just stating right-wing talking points. Whether you accept it or not, Blanco declared a state of emergency on the 26th which triggered the activation of Louisiana’s emergency response and recovery program, commanded by the state representative of the Office of Homeland Security & Preparedness…i.e. FEMA, a FEDERAL program. Unfortunately, FEMA had already been stripped of most of its competent career employees, a lot of its funding, and was led by a Bush crony who was woefully lacking in emergency management experience. Katrina hit three days later. Believe what you like. The responsibility for coordinating emergency response teams and evacuations had been firmly handed to the Bush Administration as soon as Blanco declared the state of emergency. And let me remind you of words spoken by Bush himself - “Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency. When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I, as President, am responsible for the problem.”

and I haven’t even addressed the issue of his “…vision for the future, in this city and beyond: We’ll not just rebuild, we’ll build higher and better.”

• the tanking economy. Of course spending $200 million every single day trying to force the Iraqi’s to get along has absolutely nothing to do with the economy. Nor did the changes to banking and lending laws. Or the fact that the rich get tax shelters while the poor lose deductions. In an era of record corporate profits, real wages for Joe Six-pack haven’t risen in years. Exxon and BP are pulling billion dollar profits while Jill and Joe are wrapping pennies to gas up the old ‘89 Taurus. Affordable housing has been converted to condo’s selling for hundreds of thousands leaving The Six-Packs nowhere to find a home except the suburbs or even exurbs. But then you know how much everyone enjoys hour long commutes so it’s probably a treat for them.

• shredding of the Constitution. Please look at how the writ of habeus corpus has been assaulted, not by the courts, but by an administration who has declared that the dangerous times we live in requires us to “temporarly” suspend our rights. Look at what was done in the name of “security” at the 2004 Republican Convention in New York. Look at the telecom companies collaborating with our government to spy on American citizens. Look at Homeland Security infiltrating and compiling dossiers on anti-war groups like the Quakers and Granny’s For Peace. We now have the government arresting an American citizen on American soil, refusing to allow him council, refusing to charge him, refusing his right to face his accusers and finally, after years of “enhanced interrogation” give him a day in court, not in the spirit of Justice, but because the court ordered them to. And by then he was so damaged that he couldn’t aid his own defense.

By the way…part of the job of the Supreme Court is to judge the Constitutionality of a given law or a particular action by a government entity. And I agree about bailing out the people who purchased homes they couldn’t afford. I work hard too, and I did my homework before buying a home. It shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone that a person making 35,000 per year can’t make the mortgage payments on a 500,000 home.

By Jack

September 5, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Want to store those in your basement Lozen? Old WMDs are still WMDs. Would you like mustard gas on that?

By JokesOn

September 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

The Federal Government was only designed to have a few roles

Yet as the “decider” he took on more than those and in an absolute manner.

I would rather live in a “nanny state” than an “obtuse, abusive, power hungry, father state.” I understand that many like to be controlled and have absolute guidelines given to them.

By jhpoke

September 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

Measuring Unemployment

This calculation of unemployment rate is criticized for many reasons

by counting part-time workers as fully employed, the calculation understates unemployment

there are numerous workers who, after unsuccessfully seeking employment, become discouraged and drop out of the labor force. The number of discouraged workers is larger during recession. Because discouraged workers are not counted, this calculation understates the unemployment rate

People provide false information

By Mara

September 5, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

another kook for Archie to mock -

N. KINGSTOWN, R.I. — A man has been charged with extorting more than $20,000 from his elderly mother by repeatedly threatening to kidnap her beloved cat and demanding ransom, police said.

Garry Lamar, 47, was arrested Friday and released on $200 bail. He has been ordered to stay away from his 78-year-old mother, Mary Lamar Grancher.

He started threatening to kidnap his the cat just over a year ago, after his mother kicked him out of her home, accusing him of abuse, North Kingstown Police Sgt. Daniel Ormond said “This isn’t just a family cat,” Ormond said. “She actually called this cat her companion since she lived alone.”

During the past year, Lamar allegedly kidnapped the cat once and made kidnapping threats on an almost weekly basis, Ormond said. Police don’t believe the cat was harmed but are continuing to investigate.

Grancher made at least two dozen payments totaling more than $20,000 in cash and checks to her son. Authorities are still sorting through her financial records to determine the precise amount.

Hi Jack! :^)

By lozen

September 5, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

Ya know it’s much worse to give women the right to control their own bodies and give homosexuals the right to marry (when did the court do that?) than taking rights away from citizens!. Then damum liberals.

By lozen

September 5, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

Them damum liberals.

By excel-1

September 6, 2007 1:00 AM | Link to this

HIV positive people may, may not work in health organizations

By Mara

September 6, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

&!%$#@/*&?!@ Spam!!!!

anyhoo…

Ron Paul in last nights GOP debate on U.S. forces leaving Iraq: “The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. … Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely.”

the more I hear of the man the more respect I have for him…even though our politics are opposing on many other issues.

By thos

September 6, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Dishonesty or simple incompetence? Perhaps Shaunti Feldhahn has a job waiting for her in a press office in D.C. 1.) Bush… emphasized it “could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.” He said this in reference to the military campaign, after the invasion began, not to justify the occupation. If Bush asked for a commitment of 4,000+ Coalition Forces dead, tens of thousands gravely wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered, he might have had less success selling this misadventure.
2.) …two high-profile critics on Iraq…O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack…say the troop surge is working. Not critics of the invasion or occupation at all. And their trip to Iraq was completely choreographed. They have admitted this. 3.) Civilian casualties have dropped by a third The military is no longer counting attacks like the one on two small Yazidi village as “sectarian violence.” More than 500 people died at the hands of insurgents. 4.) American troop levels can decline in places like Mosul because the Iraqis lead security. * Mosul is a multi-ethnic city on the edge of Kurdistan. It has little in common with other large Iraqi urban areas. 5.) *timetables invite chaos Most Iraqis believe the American occupation is the primary cause of violence and that when we leave fighting will decline. Why believe the Bush Administration when they been wrong about everything else thus far?

By lozen

September 6, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

I agree totally with Ron Paul on that one Mara. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything those people tell us. Well, most of us don’t anymore. There are just a few like Chuck left.

By USinUK

September 6, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

2D said: As far as I’m concerned, the buck should rarely, if ever get to the President. The Federal Government was only designed to have a few roles and ever since FDR mucked everything up, the Federal Government has become a caretaker.

Well, I really don’t think the 2 are related. The fact is, the President gets to appoint the cabinet he wants - if he places more importance on cronyism than on finding the best person for the job, then, I’m sorry, the buck DOES stop at his feet. It was Carter’s greatest fault, it’s Bush/Revisited, as well.

As for the Federal Government only being designed to do a few roles, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but things have changed a bit since the 1700s. We have indoor lavs now. And electricity. The internet. The country is not an agrarian society anymore. Sorry, but just as the constitution is a living document, the federal government is a living entity that needs to expand (and contract) as necessary to serve the people.

As for the President/Economy connection, you said, “He had just taken office and his administration was the cause of the economic downturn? That example merely betrays your blind hatred of President Bush” … you missed my point. I think Presidents actually have very little impact in the success or failure of the economy. I think the best they can do is create policy that encourages growth and behavior and keeps the US books in order - the rest is up to the marketplace, investments, technological trends, etc. (And, before you lecture me on the role of Congress in the budget, yes I know the House Approps is where the budget process begins, but the President sets the tone).

Now, for a quick-fire response to your questions. 1) New Orleans - Nagan DID order the evacuation of the city. You may not remember footage both sides of I-10 being opened to get people out of the city, but I do. Should more have been done to help the poor and the elderly? Of course. But, again, the issue is that the administration claimed to not realize that people were stuck in the Superdome for days without food, water or electricity. The reserves are usually ordered into tornado-devastated areas within 24 hours - why weren’t they in NO?? Nagan begged for help. The governor begged for help. Where were they???

2) Unemployment readings are misleading, as another writer noted. They lump part-time work in with full-time work. They stop counting people who fall off unemployment benefits. And, lest we forget, not all jobs are created equal - as was noted during the presidential elections, people are losing high-paying jobs like manufacturing and are finding work in the service industry (retail, etc) - those don’t pay as well and definitely don’t have the same benefit package. The unemployment rate is only 1 measure of the economy - there’s also trade balance, inflation (consumer and producer), production, money supply, factory orders, etc.

3) Lastly, your comment on the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade didn’t happen in a vaccuum - it followed 2 other important decisions - one allowing married people to have access to birth control and one that allowed single people access. Do you think the Supremes overstepped the mark there, as well? Or do you think government is overstepping the mark passing laws prohibiting birth control?

Just my £.02.

By Mara

September 6, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

lozen - did you hear that Bill Richardson declared that God himself wants Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus? I guess he wants to take up the Christianist mantle from Gods’ other confidant, George Bush. Sheesh.

I guess my “yeah, I might vote for him” list just got one name shorter.

By lozen

September 6, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Dear Friends,

There’s something you can do to help the world’s poorest women.

Several pro-choice senators plan to repeal President Bush’s “global gag rule,” which blocks U.S. funds from going to any overseas health clinic if it uses its own, private, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, give referrals, or even take a public pro-choice position.

Take action now and urge your senators to vote to repeal the global gag rule. There’s a link at naral.com to email them.

Thanks for taking action today to ensure that women around the world aren’t denied critical health services because of bad Bush policies!

By lozen

September 6, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

OOOppps. Here’s the correct link for NARAL.

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/senglobalgag091207/wx7wn634fendiiw?

By Chilao

September 6, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

My list just got shorter as well (although that is sort of irrelevant as I usually vote third/fourth party, depends on how close the vote for my state will be, but we can usually assume GOP will carry). One wonders if he/Richardson was being facetious? LOL

However, one commentary I just read, (and I heard about his comments here first), suggested that it was unfortunate that the only Democratic candidate with any foreign policy experience was driven Insane by it.

By lozen

September 6, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Yeah Mara. Was Richardson serious? I’ve heard some negative stuff from New Mexico friends about his time there as governor. But then, who in gov’ment do we not hear negative stuff about? I think sometimes they all must be power-hungry egomaniacs to ever get involved in gov’ment.

By Mara

September 6, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Chilao - the only Democratic candidate with any foreign policy experience was driven Insane by it

LOL!! Too funny! But I do have to point out that Joe Biden has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for over 30 years, so HE actually has the most experience in foreign policy of all the candidates. But your quip IS hilarious anyway :^)

By Mara

September 6, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

lozen - actually I disagree with you on that. I think that most people get into politics because they want to make a difference. They have issues dear to their hearts and policies that they believe will make life better for their fellows, and think the best way to help is to become one of the ones making the rules. Unfortunately the pragmatism and compromises needed to actually get things done in Washington (or the State Capital for that matter) are not kind to the starry-eyed idealist. And I can’t even imagine the pressures and temptations that must be part and parcel of having so much power. Especially once politics becomes a career and the politician has been in the “game” long enough to know what they can get away with and what they can’t. Power corrupts, and the more power one has, the easier it is to be corrupted.

But I do think that most, even those with whom I vehemently disagree, had at one time, the very best of intentions.

By Mara

September 6, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

NetBanker - why the populace seems to think that politicians are or should be better at morality than non-politicians?

I haven’t really thought about this much but here’s what I got so far -

politicians are seen as “public servants”. To most that indicates some degree of interest in actually serving the people, that is to say, a certain degree of selflessness. Those who help others are often given credit for being more compassionate, more patient, more caring, more decent, and more honest than those whose “community service” is limited to writing out a check to some charity or another. That’s what I think people subconsiously believe about politicians as a whole.

The Republicans have a bigger problem with this expectation than the Democrats do simply because they make the claim that they are on the side of morality and decency while the Democrats are little more than immoral, hippie-dippy, free love, wussie hedonists who want to burn the churches, take your bible and force your kid to get pregnant and have an abortion. When a Republican falls from their perch of moral superiority it’s a lot harder to forgive them for not being what they claimed to be than it is to forgive the Democrat who never claimed to be anything other than a regular Joe.

By NetBanker

September 6, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

Mara I think you have a pretty good track on it. I hadn’t really thought about it much either, but it seemed a good point and this is always a good group for those discussions.

I am sooooo not motivated at work these days. We’re all just sitting around waiting for the announcement of who is getting canned and who stays in a big corporate reorg. It’s been dragging on for a couple of weeks and I think there is more upbeat energy in a funeral home than my office. We’re all pretty much at the point of “Just tell me!” so we can go on with our lives instead of putting decisions and plans on hold.

By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth

September 7, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

I suggest that we start now reducing our troop levels in Iraq.It should take about as many months as it will take Iraqi forces to be in shape to take over by themselves.With Hillary Diane, I favor a residual force to attack al-Qaeda, train the Iraqis and guard the border. Thus I show the strawman of precipitous withdrawal as such! This shows enough patience! Our troops are overdrawn; we have to concern ourselves on our own country and do elsewhere what is more easilty done as was done in Kosovo,etc. Cheney-Bush have so mismanaged this unnecessary war! Yes, I am glad Saddam is no more,but we could have handled him differently so as to obviate the carnage that is happening now in Iraq. America-love it and make it better! And before Cheney-Bush further destabalize the region by attacking Iran, we need tough diplomacy with it as we have with North Korea[ That stunned me!]