Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 12, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Your perception as to the cynicism of the times and the trend of those Republicans and Democrats who have sold their souls to their respective parties clearly explains the attacks against Governor Perdue and Lt. Governor Taylor in this election process.

You are correct that Governor Perdue has been a successful governor…much more successful than the Republican controlled General Assembly…you know, that “largest collection of losers that can be found anywhere unless it might be in a prison.” Despite the fact that he was elected by the teachers of Georgia, their families and friends (with a little help from the “flaggers”) in a rejection of the “illogic” of Roy Barnes, Governor Perdue has done very well. Barring the emergence of some real scandal, he will be easily returned to office.

That being true, it does not prove that Georgia has turned into a Republican state. In fact, if the Democratic Party were to offer some moderate candidates (strong on defence, law enforcement, and immigration control; fiscally responsible; yet socially progressive) the story might be quite different. Currently, the Democrats are dominated by the fanatic left wing. While Lt. Governor Taylor, Secretary Cathy Cox, and others are not that far to the left, they are tainted this year by that perception.

Nationwide there is a change in the air. In Congress, I suspect the House of Representatives will be taken by the Democrats. Speaker Pelosi…that is a chilling thought. The Senate likely will remain Republican, but there are no guarantees. In either event, little will change. Due to the fact that the majorities in both Houses of Congress will be so small, little in the way of meaningful legislation is likely too emerge.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 12, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

Something changed in the blog, since 7:15!

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 12, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

In response to the topic now posted,

2.We are NOT engaged in a war against “terrorism!” We are engaged in a war against “Islamist Fanaticism,” which makes use of “terrorism” as a strategy. Until that school of thought is utterly destroyed or incapacitated, we will NOT be successful. The way to defeat the “Fanatics” is to make the consequences of their actions so severe upon their “enablers” that their support system will expell them. Quite honestly, I don’t believe even “Georgie” Bush has the guts to do what really needs to be done to effect victory.

Were it not for the War, we would be discussing the actions of President Kerry…what a horrible thought…this morning!

By Van

September 12, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

In this mornings questions, I firmly believe that the left and the right can agree on #1. We all want the best for this country, we have division on how and what.

I am going to skip to #3. In a situation akin to Hamas and Israel, the left fringe must accept that George W. was fairly elected and is the legitimate President. Without this piece, there is no need to go further.

Back to #2. Of course it was not a criminal act. For the life of me I can not understand how anyone can rationalize an attack against a nation as a criminal act.

If I break into your house, I violate the law, If I attack your country, which law am I violating, Mine says it is okay, your does not. Mine says you are a non-believer and therefore fair game, your says otherwise.

It just seems so simple.

By Brian Curtis

September 12, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

And it seems equally simple to those on the other side that #2 is an important question that the current administration has answered incorrectly.

Of COURSE terrorism needs to be fought—but not with military forces. You can’t fight terrorism with an army any more than you can fight inflation with one.

The “war” rhetoric has clouded the issue and induced a lot of knee-jerk patriotic rhetoric that prevents us from addressing the problem in a smarter, more effective way. Because it’s easier to bomb stuff and wave flags and cheer than to do the hard work of ferreting out criminal organizations.

By not the President, the country

September 12, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

very brief comment: I personally don’t care one way or the other if George W Bush succeeds as President. I care very much if the country succeeds. But, then again, I don’t root for any individual over the good of the nation.

By Van

September 12, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

If the people on one side want to kill you, you would not fight to win? How do you defeat an aggressor? Yes, they are the aggressor, they attacked us, repeatedly and often. We have turned the other cheek too many time. Over the past 20 some odd years, they have shown us what they are, they need to see what we are made of. Instead of them rocking our world, we need to ramp up and rock theirs.

By The Way

September 12, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Bush’s speech last night: At last he defined the mission, and enunciated the geo-political justification for the Iraq War.

“I am often asked: Why Iraq when Saddam didn’t do 911? Answer: He was a clear threat. Our congress and the UN saw this threat.”

What threat did our congress and the US see? The deduced threat from the evidence that Saddam did 911!!!

I was wondering when BUSH would finally say, “Because I said so!”

That’s the vestiges of our grand ideology and the reasons to misspend a trillion dollars moving sand around in the Iraqi desert: “Because I said so.” (smells like a crusade to me, pal)

Every argument that law, wooten, realisp, and timeforthetrots has proffered in the last three months has just been betrayed by their president in one sentence: “Because I said so”.

Also, I’m very disappointed in Bush for mentioning one of the 911 widows who has most flagrantly profited from and is clearly enjoying her husbands death. Why agrandize the shrill 911 groupies? Why couldn’t this woman just take the money and shut up. I think Ann Coulter needs to speak today at ground zero and correct this political blunder by Bush last night.

Because I said so.

By Scooter

September 12, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Good honest debate should include the recognition that Saddam had corrupted the Oil for Food Program in an effort to erode sanctions and had every intention of reconstituting his WMD programs once our “allies” had sanctions lifted. Not removing Saddam from power would have allowed him to continue on that course.

By Van

September 12, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

The Way,

Well you just lost me on that one, “Because I said so.” Is that all it takes for the democrats and the republicans to vote for the war, what a bunch of wimps we have in Congress.

By Brian Curtis

September 12, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Van: There’s something we can all agree on. Vote the corrupt bastards out!

By brian

September 12, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

What’s a day in a lib’s life without moaning about Ann Coulter. Misery loves company. All who think that Bush singled out and spoke about a 9/11 victim, family, or suvivor last night for the very first time all say yea!

By Brian Curtis

September 12, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Side note: Isn’t it great to get some actual discussion accomplished before Andy shows up to sh** all over it?

By getalife

September 12, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

There no filters in the truth Jim.

For instance, last night w had the nerve to ask for unity.

The truth is he had unity and threw it away to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

They are sending mixed messages about this truth that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 to confuse the voters.

We will win if we are united with the world and have honest, compentent leadership.

By The Way

September 12, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Bush’s criteria for war: Saddam a clear threat. Evidence? 911 links.

‘nuff said.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

I thought President Bush was honest last night. “Although Saddham was not linked to 911, he was a threat” If Americans are too studpid too understand that, then shame on them. The President was merely pointing out that our government was looking at the world in a different way. Instead of containment and a defensive posture (i.e.) law enforcement, our governmnet chose to go on the offensive. Iraq may or may not have been a mistake, but I believe the motivation and the strategy was sound. However, the execution of the Iraq war should be debated. And the President should be asking for unity. The Islamic Fascists do not just want to kill the American Republicans.

By Southern Democrat

September 12, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

I’m not quite sure I completely understand your proposed parameters for our ongoing debate, but I think I would have to respectfully disagree and simply ask you, would you have agreed to these parameters during a discussion of the “success” of President Clinton’s presidency at the height of the impeachment frenzy? I would certainly love for President Bush to succeed in making this country safer and providing opportunity for all, but he has failed me at every turn. Further, I think that most moderate Dems would WELCOME any criticism that our moderate GOP friends would levy against the president and would not deem it “arming” the far left, but a recognition that our current path is one to further DISASTER.

Sadly, I think that many members of the right that I respect: intelligent, patriotic, compassionate people, are falling victim to the same blind loyalty that paralyzed members of the left during the Clinton years.

In just the last week, the CIA, Pentagon, senior Republican members of Congress, judges, and former diplomats have all openly attacked the Bush-Cheney leadership for its handling of both the War on Terror and Iraq.

For goodness sake, remove the scales from your eyes, people! You’re just like the Clintonian brainwashed! Let’s ALL think outside the box for once.

By Harold

September 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Harold would like to see what’s best for America. However, what’s best is not “Defensive Driving.” It’s “Cooperative Driving.”

Instead of continuing to try to build our own road, why can’t we jump on the train and get along with everybody else? Even the smelly guys we don’t particularly care for?

What we forget as a nation is we are not Saudi Arabia’s neighbor. We are not Pakistan’s neighbor. We are not Iran’s neighbor. When attackers attack unprovoked, they attack their neighbors.

They want to steal their neighbors’ resources. So why does Al Qaeda attack? Are they tryign to steal our resources? Nah. They “hate us for our freedoms.”

If Al Qaeda just wants to destroy freedom, they can attack small free countries that are much more convenient and safe to attack than the United States of America.

Nobody ever asks “Why us?” when we are told “They attack because they hate freedom.” There are plenty of other free countries.

Harold says the United Arab Emirates has enough freedoms to be quite worthy of attack. Why not destroy the UAE? It’s just right there! Why attack the USA? Why? WHY?

Why does Al Qaeda not want to destroy the New Zealand infidels? Why not bring down the towers in Hong Kong? How about “Death to Dublin?”

USA is not the freest but is the furthest. What motivates these people to want to attack us “for our freedom” when there are so many other free nations that are more easily accessible and more easily destroyed?

Does New Zealand even have armed forces?

We have got to stop buying the “they hate us for our freedoms” line and question why they really are attacking and also question why our government’s war mantra is “they hate us for our freedoms.” It is so very clearly untrue.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

One of the analyst last night, may have been Krauthammer, said that the real question in his mind was, because this is clearly an extended war effort which may require more, not less, was is this generation of baby boomers up for this war, like our fathers and grandfathers before us were when called upon? Are we ready to put down our blackberry’s and remote controls and pick up rifles and hand grenades?

As much as folks here like to poke fun at my lifestyle, suv, etc. I would be the first to tote a rifle and defend my country, as would most of the “bubbas” that the left like to make fun of around here. I think we are being naive if we think it isnt coming to that. Maybe thats what scares the hell out of the leftist?

Our way of life is at stake. They will not stop or go away. There is no peace with these fanatics. We fight them and kill them or they kill us. If the American people fall prey to the leftist who say that is just rhetoric, we will pay for it greatly.

I wonder if anyone is really thinking in those terms regarding this war, or is the feel that this can get taken care of through peaceful negotiation, UN sanctions, etc. I think clearly the President and others made the case last night that this battle has to be fought now, on thier turf, and even the president referenced more force and comittment being needed if we are to win, and we WILL WIN.

As someone said last night, wanting this event in history to be over because you dont like it or agree with it, isnt going to make it be over any sooner.

By The Way

September 12, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

There is a new spin from the White House about Iraq. I first heard this about 2 weeks ago:

“Our decades-old policy in the middle east, of establishing dictators to keep things peaceful, has failed. So we formulated a new strategy.”

War as a foreign policy strategy! I dont see any problem going forward with that, do you?

It’s too easy to shoot down the President’s reasons for war. Every blogger on the left is instantly another Thomas Paine. (Unavoidable when the facts scream out injustice and deception).

What argument has the Right left? The middle has left The Right only Lewinski. They can rightly run her right up the flag pole to see if anyone is left standing at attention. (Part of the middle of me does come to attention)

We invaded Iraq because Clinton was a sexually promiscuous and shamefully immoral man. Now that is hard to debate against. Clinton should have been focusing on shock and awe (instead of jock-n-jaw), and maybe he would have killed Osama. Never mind that the 911 conspirators were independent of osama and would have attacked anyway, with or without him. News flash for the Right: Osama is a figure head. (there’s that Lewinski link again).

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

It is blindingly obvious that the left do NOT have America’s best interests at heart. Otherwise they would NOT continuously sneer, carp, criticise, undermine and even treasonously expose numerous policies, practices and tactics etc vital in the war on terror.

The minor matters of a smattering of abuse by poorly trained/led soldiers at Abu Ghraib and the non issues of CIA prisons, NSA surveillance, Club Gitmo, alleged but not proven abuses by a handful of US soldiers etc have little significance individually, but collectively can be used (interchangeably) to screech about how evil the Americans are as they’re used as constant global media and political jackhammers to batter Bush with.

Compared with the way WW2 was fought and the prevailing will to win national agenda back then was approached these issues individually are of no consequence to any American’s life/existence - unless of course a political frenzy can be whipped up to get Bush with. And the left have gleefully and slavishly done this at every opportunity with gleeful appeaser support from much of the EU and deep antipathy from much of the often rabidly anti-US mohammedan world.

There was NO sense at the start, let alone now of the imperative need to win in Iraq by the vile left. Only to beat Bush and cut and run when a real actual war against nazi like terrorists doesn’t end up as ‘clinical and as clean’ as say Call of Duty. Hence visceral sneering and unrealistic time frames about what are thankfully still pretty small casualty numbers and countless other leftist outrages are heaped on the mission, drip drip drip style.

Quiet legitimate criticism of tactics, troop levels, use and provision of equipment, Iraqi training issues etc is one thing, giving aid and comfort to the enemy as many leftists have done repeatedly is utterly unacceptable. The mindset of the left and its poisonous acolytes in the media has NEVER been “what do we need to do/achive etc to win”! Its been how can we score points against Bush et al. How can we portray Iraq as a failure militarily and politically and undermine the troops - even if undermining the troops is more of a by product of this get Bush mindset than an actual specific cynical intent.

It is imperative to win this war, it will take years of grinding intermitent engagements Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia etc style because it is NOT a traditional war as the enemy is shadowy and not in a distictive uniform of a given country. The enemy often presents ill defined, diffuse targets and is culled from across the whole mohammedan world - with often varying internecine agendas and objectives. The left deliberately either ignores or minimises this, for cynical political reasons.

The tactics needed including harsh interrogation are pathetically and very publicly screeched about by the left - as if they really care what happens to el quaeda terrorists who are out to kill all of us - they dont distinguish between NY Slimes, LA Slimes, BBC appeasers, Cindy Sheehan types etc and normal folks in the west who simply want to end mohammedan fascist terrorism as quickly and efficaciously as possible, unlike the left.

All the left increasingly care about is that Bush and the allies can be further undermined so they can maybe get their political power back. Thus the notion that lefties want to see Bush succeed is chillingly hilarious, just look at the venom and hatred directed at a twice elected president. The left’s lies about the liberation of Iraq before even a shot was fired answer that question. Remember how we were told that overthrowing Saddam would immediately result in an environmental nightmare, generate millions of refugees, would take forever as we were bogged down in a Vietnam like struggle and cost at least many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives. All this would happen before we ever managed to overthrow this arab Nazi.

Instead of saying and thinking what can we do to help win in Iraq and ensure the mohammedan fascists are defeated the left simply sit by the sidelines unwilling to lift even a political finger to help. They wont even STFU!!

By Dusty

September 12, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I’m not sure I quite understand about the “safe harbor”. You followed that by saying Bush supporters are giving ammunition to the other side. Are you saying “turn the other cheek”? Keep your ammunition dry? Forgive and forget? Be “above” it all”? Keep a clean slate???

I know that “The meek shall inherit the earth” but I am not sure they will be elected. (Oh, ye of little faith!) I think there may be stingrays in the safe harbor.

By @@

September 12, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Jim:

I appreciated the comment made by President Bush last night, that the passengers of Flight 93 gave us our first victory in the war on terrorism.

Are we collapsing? Sometimes it sure looks like it when you look at our political bickering and the bickering among our citizens. Reinstate the draft and remain in Iraq. At this point, there’s no pulling out. It would be a great victory for the terrorists and create the vacuum that they desire. One from which they can expand on their operations and against the will of 12,000,000 Iraqis who voted for something better.

I took a look at a NYT article (something I’m not inclined to do) fraternizing with our enemy and all, but this was an interesting look into the enemies mind:

This essay, called “The Day Smoke and Dust Covered New York’s Sky,” was posted to a Qaeda-affiliated Web site:

Some believe that if Bush were to leave then the situation would improve and become stable. But the eternal truth is that there is no difference between Bush and the one who preceded him, or the one who will succeed him, and for a very simple reason: cloning is an inherent property of the American presidential personality. Every new president is a perfect copy of the previous one…

Who our President is doesn’t matter to the enemy. We are the enemy. This is our war. We should realize that and act like a formidable foe and the world should support the efforts of the U.S. and coalition forces.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

You make some very valid points. However you will notice that the very Republicans that are standing with the Democrats are the ones that are currently running for election or re-election. Just like Al Gore did when distancing himself from President Clinton in 2000. Unfortunately it is hard to put much credence in anything they say or do. I have a healthy suspicion for all politicians. I just happen to agree with the strategy of this administration. Granted I have had some reservations for the way the Iraq war was handled, but I understand why he (Rumsfeld) chose to conduct the war the way he did. It is convenient for all to play Monday morning quarterback after the fact. I didn’t hear Kerry, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi etc. questioning the strategy prior to the invasion.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

I repectfully believe there is a fourth filter: the plan to address Islamists or terrorists or whatever you wish to call the evil-doers. There is only one plan out there. Until there is a second plan, there can be no conversation, only sniping and “mindless” defense.

Bush and the Republicans have articulated their plan, and most people - excluding the wilfully blind - are able to understand the plan. We await the alternative (or perhaps the alternative is nothing but chatter and “spitballs.”)

By The Way

September 12, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

October’s Discover Magazine has two articles worthy of note. An interview with Newt Ginrich about Science. And an expose about Einstein cheating on his wife.

Irony like that must be one of the seven seals of doom, or certainly covered in a Nostradamus quatrain.

Newt is proud of his accomplishments in science.. You’ve got to read that interview. Newt expressed himself profoundly about science. I cant believe his handlers let him expose his intellectual prowess like that.

Einstein was a Uber-Clinton, who had the arrogance to reflect upon how weird life was when a “researcher of the cosmos” must lower himself for earthly matters. If there ever was a must read, this is it.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

To be honest, you have to address the elephant in the room.

What if we never invaded Iraq?

Would OBL and his gang be gone?

Would we be united with the world to fight terror?

Would the Afghanistan war be over?

Would we be better off financially and militarily?

By Harold

September 12, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

The final filter

To want Bush to succeed as President, you have to want his goals to be met.

Does Harold want his goals met? Yes! His are the same goals as any president.

However, his methods are not moving us towards his goals. His methods are moving us in the wrong direction.

Harold would love for his goals to be met, but Harold would not love for his methods to be successful. They won’t meet his goals.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

War as a foreign policy strategy! I dont see any problem going forward with that, do you?

I dont see it like that. I see it as Liberty and Freedom as a foreign policy strategy, and it has worked thoughout history time and time again.

By Curious Observer

September 12, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Regardless of opinion of the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, it’s impossible to isolate it and the general war on terror-mongers as the sole basis for “what’s best for our country.”

You cannot expect this country to be unified when the present administration and the Republican Congress (a) enact taxation policies that grossly favor the privileged, (b) use the levers of government to support regressive social policies—e.g., restrictions on stem cell research, opposition to Plan B, support of an anti-abortion agenda, kow-towing to the Christian right; (c) appoint judges more on the basis of political agenda than on qualifications; (d) openly violate or ignore laws passed by Congress; and (e) demonize the opposition as godless and unprincipled.

Like it or not, the majority of voters in this country will not be dragged into supporting the present regime merely because we have troops in combat. And many have the intelligence to see the folly of trying to convert Iraqi factions that have been at war with one another for centuries into good little supporters of democracy and respect for those who take contrarian views.

Attitudes toward this administration and the “war on terror” are not formed in a vacuum. If Bush really thinks that he can make the “war on terror” the basis for unifying this country, he will be sadly disappointed come November. Yes, we understand the “plan,” and we don’t like it one bit.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

And the big one, would w have the popularity and credibility to deal with other countries?

By JK

September 12, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

When the SCotUS said “Stop counting the votes” in December 2000, I wasn’t happy about it. But I accepted that I couldn’t change it, and hoped for the best. I hoped my misgivings were wrong. Nine months later, I replaced my Gore sticker with a flag sticker, hoping in earnest for necessary and continued unity. (My flag was already flying in the front porch — no need to run out and buy one.) Such a horrible thing would surely wake us up to the value of life and relying on, and taking care of, each other. Standing together was our strength! I WANTED TO BELIEVE IN US!

But that was short lived. The new administration opened a flood gate, letting all the Republican resentment from the ’90s pour into every aspect of government. They didn’t just want to change things, they wanted to wipe away any good thing any Democrat ever tried to do. “IT’s OUR GAME NOW! F—K YOU!” They didn’t just start changing things, they did it while slandering and deriding those who had power before them. They kept secrets. They got angry when people asked questions.

They perpetuated this with an unprecedented PR machine that made a point of belittling anyone who didn’t get in line. It wasn’t enough to stand as an American caring about what’s best for America. If we didn’t worship at the Bush altar, we were belittled — in the office, in the neighborhood, at family gatherings, in church, and in the media every day. After more than five years, they still blame not just Democrats, but powerless individuals like ME for everything, and take responsibility for nothing.

Here’s MY truth, Mr. Wooten: I wanted George W. Bush’s Presidency to succeed a darn sight more than any Republican I know wanted Bill Clinton’s Presidency to succeed in the 90’s.

Now some a—hole on your blog is going to call me names for speaking the truth. And you want to know if we can talk? Heh.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Curious @ 10:00, your program is (1) to enact income redistribution throughout the tax policies in addition to the direct welfare programs, (2) use the levers of government to facilitate the new cottage industry of harvesting human embryos and encouraging abortion wherever possible, (3) appoint more judges who would favor Kelo-type expropriation of property, (4) pass more laws to erode the power of the executive branch rather than treat it as an equal partner or as the “quick response” element of government, and (5) demonize the opposition as heartless and evil. And all of this is more important than snuffing out the Islamists.

I think you should run on your program. I would welcome a straight ideological vote.

By The Way

September 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Einstein loved “thought experiments” where he imagined himself riding on a beam of light away from a clock at noon. He imagined himself looking back at the clock as he rode away at the speed of light. The clock would always read 12:00. (the light from the 12:01 position would never catch up to him) Hey! Einstein predicted the VCR!!!

Thought Experiment:

I imagine Bush as being correct about WMDs and a 911 link. Yes, we should invade Iraq. Then I imagine the “mission accomplished” speech as the correct move, because we did remove Saddam and the WMDs were no longer a threat.

Then I imagine the Iraqi people establishing a democratic republic where everyone can vote for who they want in office. Our small military contingent remains there defending freedom against remnants of Saddam’s army who went underground and still fight a guerilla war, which is a common problem throughout history and certainly not Bush’s fault.

Then, I imagine that the people of Iraq, unaware about the west’s historical difficulties of establishing liberty are actually living the consequences of their own socio-political history, that is, they are forced to openly confront the facts of post world war one events in establishing the present geo-configurations; and post ww2 CIA carved hegemony which left the majority Shia population under the thumb of a Sunni Dictatorship from which they suffered grievously.

The Iraqis, in the thought experiment, have to face the realities of the western-bestowed socio-theological consequences of all the artificial and arbitrary political meddling and rearranging of the populations that has occurred in the past 100 years.

Now I imagine Bush reading a history book about Iraq and finding out why his Grand Ideological World Struggle has been downgraded to Fantasy Island, where the front lines of the 911-born global war on terror is in the streets of baghdad.

Bush keeps looking back at the book he read on 911, (Mein Pet Kampf), where history books can never reach him.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

It is absolutely insane to stir up the hornets nest in the Middle East and not secure our borders and country

They are leaving us wide open for another attack. It took them 8 years between the WTC attacks.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

JK, as one who believes W has accomplished nothing on the domestic front, I would be delighted to learn what “good thing any Democrat has done” was changed. I think there is nothing fitting that description, as nothing has been done. The Republican discontent with W is directly attributable to his failure to undo 40 years of socialism.

By Bush Lied

September 12, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Jay Bookman’s op/ed from today’s ajc.

Jim, you’re trying to change the subject.

If I recall, the GOP spent millions and millions of dollars and wasted countless amounts of time and energy trying to impeach Clinton and dismantle the Democrats.

Now the incompetence of the GOP is shining through, like a bright light, yet all it can do is change the subject:

Revelations of no WMDs in Iraq show deception, incompetence at work

Published on: 09/12/06

History will show that the U.S. government terrified its own citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Time and again, Americans already shaky in the wake of Sept. 11 were warned by their leaders that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that unless we intervened, the Iraqi leader might provide those weapons to his allies in al-Qaida.

If we waited to take action, President Bush warned, the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

We now know, of course, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no programs to create them. Last fall, the CIA apparently concluded that there had also been no pre-war ties between Saddam and al-Qaida terrorists, a finding seconded by a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee made public just last week. The committee found that the Bush administration had good reason to know that no such ties existed, but persisted in those claims anyway.

The administration responded to that finding in typical fashion, with White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissing the report as old news. What we need to do is look forward, not backward, Snow argued last week.

There’s some truth to that, of course. The news out of both Iraq and Afghanistan is increasingly glum, and as Snow suggests, we can’t allow ourselves to be distracted by meaningless debates about the past.

However, questions about the honesty, wisdom, judgment and competence of our current leadership are far from meaningless. We are not debating the relative merits of Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams; we are attempting to decide whether our current leaders can be trusted to handle the challenges we face.

It matters, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney now says that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq even if it had known that Saddam had no WMD and no ties to al-Qaida. Intrigued by the admission on “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Tim Russert pressed the point with Cheney:

“So if the CIA said to you [in 2003] ‘Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way,’ you’d still have invaded Iraq?”

Yes, Cheney said.

In other words, Iraqi WMD weren’t the reason we went to war, they were merely the excuse that Cheney and his colleagues needed to scare up public support. That’s a relevant piece of information as Americans try to decide how much faith they can put in this administration.

Last week, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid gave his fellow Americans another relevent piece of data concerning the basic competence of the Bush administration.

Scheid, who is about to retire, was a colonel with U.S. Central Command in 2002, helping to plan the invasion of Iraq. According to Scheid, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld banned Pentagon officials from planning for a post-war military occupation, to the point that he warned officers that “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need to prepare for an occupation.

The incompetence that reveals is mind-numbing, and is no doubt responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers, in addition to tens of thousands of Iraqis. And it matters — it matters very much — that the people responsible for such blunders are still in power, still making decisions and still setting policy.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

I do hope someone is keeping a complete record of the writings of The Way and Getalife. Those definitely need to be published by the Republicans two days before the elections.

By Georgia Gal

September 12, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

“Bushlied” @ 10:17, the Kurds will be delighted to learn that Saddam did not use WMD on them.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Why fakelaw?

You have a problem with honesty and reality?

How in the world does a lawyer have time to blog all day?

Be honest.

By Jim Wooten

September 12, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

By “safe harbor,” Dusty, I mean a conversation among well-intentioned folks of the left and right, without hidden agendas, a discussion that has as its sole purpose some consensus about what’s best for future generations. And, you’re right, there are too many stingrays in those waters now.

To Southern Democrat: I acknowledge that I did not wish the better part of Clinton’s domestic agenda well — NAFTA and welfare reform, to the extent he supported it, are the exceptions. But I would like to think that had Clinton been President at 9/11 I would have been respectful enough to the Office to frame my disagreement in a way that wouldn’t undermine his efforts to defeat our enemies abroad.

Let me say, too, Southern Democrat, that your posts are consistently constructive in advancing this dialogue. We certainly disagree on many/most matters, but your comments make for a more productive debate.

As jmblaw noted recently in response to a question raised about the tone of some of the discussions, I would agree with his observation that there are most always two distinct threads of conversation going on here. One is jousting for entertainment. Another is substantive. Posters often shift back and forth, depending on mood, time of day, how the conversation has evolved and who-knows-what. It does concern me that posters like MClark take some of it personally and seem genuinely distressed by it.

With rare exception, unkind things are said about us all here by people who don’t know us. Since MClark is a fellow Vietnam vet, I’m especially troubled that he finds legitimacy in blog challenges to his service or to taunts that can have no factual basis.

I’m still intrigued by the blog’s possibilities to get past the barriers to honest conversation. I guess what I’m asking here is that posters recognize the gamesmanship aspects of it and leave on the table those taunts that are going to tempt you simply to reply in-kind if that’s not your sport.

When posters turn reflective, as many did yesterday, it does help the rest of us to understand why you say and think the things you do. Some of the more interesting people I “know” assemble here and, frankly, I am left more hopeful that the country can address some of its more intractable problems productively on blogs.

By Harold

September 12, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Harold says Einstein was a goober. If the light from the clock is never catching up to him, he will never be able sense/see it.

He will look back and see nothing at all rather than see a clock reading 12. The lightwaves reflecting the image of the 12 will always be just behind his perceptors.

If you are going the speed of light, you cannot see any light that’s going in the same direction as you. If you “turn around,” you will see nothing at all!

By getalife

September 12, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Ga. gal,

In a war, there must be sacrifices by the people. Placing a magnetic ribbon on a car is not sacrificing anything.

Only a small group of families are sacrificing in this war over and over again. Another clue is not to cut taxes in war time. Another clue is united we stand, divided we fall. Another clue is to give the troops everything needed to win.

Get a clue.

By Bluer

September 12, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Yesterday, I was one of those foreseeing civil war at home some time in the future, so my answers are filtered through that prism.

1) Many Americans do not have America’s traditional best interests at heart. Nor they consider themselves Americans in the conventional sense. They see America’s interest as a subset of the world’s interest. If in their mind America’s interest is not in the world’s interest, and that is most of the time, they will come down on the latter’s side every time. A setback for America in this regard is a victory for the world.

2) Terrorism is a tactic, not an end unto itself. We are at war with believers of Islam whose goal is to spread it around the world and kill those who don’t convert. They use terror to help accomplish this goal. Those who believe that “law enforcement” will stop these people are fools. Exactly what laws are they proposing to enforce and how? No, we are not fighting a conventional “storm the beaches” war, but police work is not going to stop a religious crusade all by itself.

3) This goes back to no.1. If a president governs and/or has a foreign policy that in eyes of many Americans is not in the world’s best interest, then they want to see him fail, because to them that failure is a victory for the world.

We are divided into two camps. Those who feel America is the best hope for the world and those feel the world’s best hope is to contain America. These views are poles apart and can’t coexist indefinitely

By JK

September 12, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I do not wish to answer your questions. Not because I don’t have any answers, but because for the months I’ve been reading here, I know it’s just a game to you: (1) Ask a dem a question (2) Whatever answer they give, point out that their point doesn’t really matter because [insert xyz] (3) Claim superior understanding and knowledge.

I’ve seen lots of valid examples stated here, and you have no interest in them whatsoever. You only wish to “prove” how much smarter you are than anyone else. I don’t believe you are clueless as to what happened in the 90’s and need me to explain it. Find another sucker.

By Barbara

September 12, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Jim, excellent article today. On a quick note, I too always enjoy Southern Democrat’s posts. Sometimes he downright stops me in my ultra-conservative tracks with his thought-provoking questions and comments. As I have stated in an article several months ago, I think we need both conservative and liberal minded folks to balance this country, and based on the way the parties have alligned, the conservatives tend to lean Republican, and the liberals tend to lean Democrat. I hate to use this comment because it came out a most dispicable person over a most overblown issue, but Can’t we all get along?

I’m not sure I can agree that everyone has this country’s best interest at heart in some of the actions they’ve taken. Undermining the office of the President during a time of war, or speaking out publicly against the President on foriegn soil during war are certainly not actions that are in the best interest of this country.

I’ll admit too, that after Clinton was in office a while, and after many episodes of sexual misconduct came to light, I no longer wanted to see him be successful either. Perhaps that was wrong of me. I view the Office as representative of this country, and in my opinion using power for sex is just not good representation of this great nation.

I continue to think that the best way for all of us to come closer together is to venture into more and more bi-partisan opportunities, and to advertise, even exploit (not in the bad sense) the successes that come from these ventures. That would be a good start. Pick a cause; any cause, and successfully move forward with a bi-partisan group leading the efforts. Show the doubters in this country that it can be done. Unfortunately though, I think Bush has been one of the best at trying to bring bi-partisan leadership in, and he has never been given fair credit for it.

I don’t know if we’ll ever get back to respecting each party for their strengths, and working together, but sadly, I know for sure it won’t happen during Bush’s presidency. There’s been too much mud slinging and hard feelings on both sides.

By JUST FOR JK

September 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

de·bate (d-bt) KEY

VERB: de·bat·ed , de·bat·ing , de·bates VERB: intr.

To consider something; deliberate. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

Your argument about cutting taxes does not hold water. If you think about it! What good would it do to raise taxes during this time of war? The federal government has pulled in more revenues because of lower taxes. I know liberals don’t believe in in supply-side economics, but it is a fact. Our government pulled in more revenues during the Bush Administration than it did during the Clinton years, due to lower tax rates. The problem is spending! If the government raised taxes, it would have made the deficit even worse. So, a more effective sacrifice during a time of war would be for the government to cut spending on non-war related items.

By Watta Load

September 12, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

I do want to see the president successful in defeating terrorism…I personally don’t think his current path is headed for success but I don’t dislike the man for that. I can also agree to Jim Wooten’s “safe harbor” concept…with the exception of this blog :).

I do dislike Bush for other reasons though and do not wish him personal success at all because I don’t want another president like him. His coddling of the religious right, his dumbing down of science (“we should teach intelligent design”), his confusing and decisive domestic ploys like marriage amendments and stem cell bans, and his arrogant royal decree “I’m the decider” all turn me away from embracing this man…and he is a man, not a country and not America.

By Cal

September 12, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Can somebody explain to me what this My Way and Harold are saying? I can’t make heads or tails out of it and I’m betting most others can’t either.

My way, When you shine a flashlight in one ear does that beam of light exit from the other? It’s sure blinding me.

If you’re referring to visiting history, it’s made everyday, not only in the past. This is a type of conflict that has never been fought before. The objective of the enemy is the same as Hitler’s but the tactics are different. They’re not restricted by borders.

While you’re reminiscing on that beam of light, just make sure it’s not a bolt of lightning running up your backside and inflaming your hemmorhoids. Taking that chance could be harmful to the rest of us.

Try to keep your hemmorhoids in check here. Please!

By Janine

September 12, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Mr. W. Regarding your #2 filter. You seen to be ignoring Midsouth’s assertion that terrorism is a strategy and that we are , in fact, are engaged in a war against Isamic Fanaticism. It is very misleading to label it otherwise. THroughout history religious fanaticism has fomented wars ,so your comment about many phases…successes, setbacks, etc. over a very long period of time is indisputable. However, in the present battle, [and again, I emphasize with MidSouth ] against Islamic Fanaticsm, it seems that if we , as a country were committed to winning, Bush, Rumsfeld,et.al would be doing a better job of committing and supplying troups …and be using a winning strategy. Certainly we , the big , strong USA could take Iraq in short order if we truly committed to doing so. It is ridiculous to believe otherwise. THis is where I part with the Bush administration.

By To Condescending A--hole

September 12, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Con·de·scend: to assume an air of superiority

De·cline: (a) to refuse to undertake, undergo, engage in, or comply with (b) to refuse especially courteously, as in to decline an invitation

By Georgia Gal

September 12, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Post Script to the third point of my earlier post: To the so called Americans who go to other countries and criticize America/President and then say “but I support our troops” I have one reply: ask a VietNam Vet what he/she thinks of Jane!!! Yes I absolutley defend your freedom to criticize anything you want to about this country but do it here at home keeping it within the “family”. To me, going abroad to voice your discontent to our enemies is like a husband and wife going to the town square or the mega mall to have a public spat!

Getalife: I didn’t say I always agree with how this war is being fought. As a retired Resource Advisor who struggled for the funds for equipment to support our activated Reservists, I may possibly know more than you think about how well the troops are/are not equipped! I also agree with the need for unity but whether we are united or not does not negate the fact of the war!

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Janine,

You are correct in your assertion that we could completely destroy Iraq. Unfortunately for us to do that, we would have to kill around 10 million innocents. I don’t think that would go over well with most Americans and other nations for that matter. The problem that we face is winning without destroying. Look at the world condemnation put on Israel for simply defending itself. It is a tough situation. At some point, I agree with you. If the Iraqi people cannot stand up, then we will simply have to cripple Iraq and get out.

By it's baiting, stupid

September 12, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

I check this column out from habit. Before Jim started his blog, I read his column even though I disagreed with much of what he said, sometimes, his arguments provided clarity and always led me to think longer and harder about what I thought and why.

I don’t read his blog as often… one reason only, really. It’s all baiting. Gone are his thought provoking, intelligent columns — now if I read his blog, it’s usually just trying to stir up an argument. I wonder if Jim gets paid by the post… hmmmm…. since that’s possible, this is my last post. I don’t want to encourage this political baiting.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

feminazi JK glibly writes of “speaking the truth” … how nauseating is that!!

ALL of what appears on here is opinion - some - usually conservative opinion, is better informed than other more leftist opinion, but not necessarily because its (often) the opinion I support. Its just that conservatives historically tend to be more factual, logical and honest in debate than the left are.

The rest of JK’s deep bitterness is very illuminating and reflects how fundamentally dishonest the left are. Bush won FL, by a small margin admittedly but he won and the left simply would NOT accept that! NO one but a nutter would have wanted the AlBore in charge on 9/11 … his response would have been a joke and we would be far less secure than we are now. Although there is NO absolute security in life either for a country or individuals … and the lefties systematically ignore this on here!! A balance has to be struck and Bush has largely struck the right balance.

There’s a standard joke in Israel that if a couple were having sex on the pavement (sidewalk to those not fully familiar with the English language) in Tel Aviv there would be dozens of folks standing around telling them how to do it. The Israelis also have a saying that there are 4 million or so Prime Ministers in the country.

Here in the states there is far less widespread interest in the political process than in Israel … so its the knuckle dragging blame America left and the visionary patriotic right and a few bleating centrist moderates who engage one another.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

GA. gal,

Unlike Jim, I know this is an anonymous blog and many lie like jbmlaw and realist.

Body, hummer armour and helmet protection?

Your thoughts?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

feminazi JK is being very spiteful to jbm today for NO reason … that’s kind of sad!!

jbm doesn’t overtly wind up the left quite like some others do … huge proud smirk … and this is the ungracious thanks he gets!!

By HCantrell

September 12, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Is America’s best interest your highest concern? I don’t think anyone would be here if that wasn’t the case. The problem is that what I believe to be in the best interest of the country is almost always different than others. Even parents disagree with what’s best for the kids at times. The problem is when one side conflates disagreement from the other to a lack of patriotism or a wish for ill will to befall the country. This “filter” in and of itself is superfluous, offensive and should have been left out.

The second filter then is whether you believe we are in a war against terrorism and if so, are you committed to winning? Of course we are in a war on terrorism, I seriously doubt any thinking American believes different. Further, I believe we are all committed to winning. The angry conversation begins when we talk about how we should best go about winning. Many, if not most, (and I am one) see the Iraq War as a distraction from the real war on terror.** A morass where vast sums of money and lives are being dumped, both of which would have been better served fighting the real war on terror. History shows time and again that leaders who divide their forces and attempt to fight on two fronts do so at their own peril. To win the war on terror we must be committed to fighting the war on terror.

The final filter is this: Do you want to see George W. Bush succeed as president? Absolutely. If GWB fails then we fail as a country. But does my desire for his success mean that I am willing to toss aside my right as an American to dissent. Hell no! I lost my father in WWII as he fought for my right to live free. That freedom, which came with such a high price not only gives me the right, but demands that I speak when I believe our leadership takes us in the wrong direction. I refuse to bow to the screamers of the world.

I voted for GWB because I am a Republican. Only after he took office did I realize that the brand of Republican that I was raised has passed from the political stage and has been replaced by some new brand of creature. The questions above retain the undercurrent of arrogance and partisan “jingoism” that continues to foment the “angry conversation.” The first two filters are offensive in that they assume that there are Americans out there who do have the country as a priority and who do not want to see us win the war on terror. I know that those types exist, but I would venture to say that no one who cares enough to risk character assassination in this blog would fall into that category. The final one seems more like a litmus test than a filter. The question should never be about the personality of the President, but about the success of the country itself.

For the conversation to end we need to drop such ridiculous notions and talk with one another, rather than to one another.

We are, after all, all Americans.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Also Ga. gal,

The military is calling for billions to replace equiptment.

Why?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

I see maggot brain is in feminazi JK mode again!!

Bush really needs to start mass deportations of the leftists … smirk

By The Way

September 12, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Wooten, make your case for the Iraqi War first, then accuse the left of hoping Bush doesn’t succeed, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Do you even know how vague your phrasing is?

Make your case for war. You’ve avoided that like the plague. (dont blame you, it’s indefensible.

Bush took the 911 link away. Even Cheney’s abandoned the WMD link.

Make your case for war. Try to describe what a “victory over our enemies” would look like in Iraq.

Define, “our enemies” in Iraq.

Define how a peace would affect the Sunni/Shia/Kurd triad.

Or failing that, define, “Stay the course”, in light of Bush’s new strategy that replaces the older, failed strategy of CIA carved hegemony to establish and perpetuate middle east peace and security.

We on the left can only use the words that Bush himself explains the war with. We dont pull non sequiturs our of our patoots.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Watta Load,

The president did not ban stem cell research, he simply withelf federal spending on research. Private companies and states can fund if they so choose. As far as inteligent design, it is just a way of combining the two trains of thought. There are legitimate scientists who support inteligent design. The theory of evolution is not fallable, there are questions remaining that have not been answered. My thought process is that My God is all powerful enough to create evolution.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Another nasty fascist comment from “lie’s”.

No wonder we ignore you.

By The Way

September 12, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Harold needs to shine a light in a place other than where the sun dont shine.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

see how easy it is to wind you up maggot brain!!

By Southern Democrat

September 12, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

Stewart,

I think you are right to a large extent. Politicans are many times motivated by elections rather than principles, sadly.

Jbmlaw,

I, respectfully, have been disappointed by your recent posts as they have contained a much more venemous, partisan rhetoric than is your norm, but I will spread the blame onto some of the spiteful postings of the left and assume you are merely responding in kind.

As I know you are student of history, I want to throw out a few historical facts before I answer your challenge regarding a new plan.

During the Reagan years, Osama bin Laden and the mujahadeen of Afghanistan were our staunch allies as they battled their Soviet invaders. Similarly, Saddam and his military were seen as a huge asset as they fought against the fundamentalist Iranian regime. President Clinton, because of poor leadership at home, was not able to summon the national will to put out the fires in Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen that led to the bolstering of al Qaeda and other terrorist movements.

The new plan I would propose is simple (I think I posted it once before): withdraw from Iraq immediately and let the Iraqis decide the path of their country. Keep a task force for interdiction at the ready (with NATO) for any terrorism hotbeds. Isolate Iran. Develop alternative energy resources here. Secure our borders. Save lives.

If our President is intent on spreading freedom and liberating those under the thumb of dictators, force him to be consistent and work to “liberate” Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, etc.

I will have more to post when I can return later…

By getalife

September 12, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Hell “lies”, I do not get wound up until my third cup of coffee.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Harold needs to get over his bitterness at being banned from having a driving licence for life and being too poor to afford a car, petrol and valid car insurance.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Getalife,

Uhhh, do you think that equipment gets destroyed in time of war?

By Realist

September 12, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

JK, Im sorry to hear you sound so dejected and out of sorts this morning. Has all this “rally around the President” stuff got you down? I know you and so many others have longed to see Mr. Bush go down in flames, though I admit your effort at it is thinly disguised most of the time. It must be terribly disheartening to watch the tide turn in his favor.

Ive said time and time again hon, leave this politicin’ to men folk and dont worry your sweet little behind over such matters. Surely these heavy matters are bound to cause unsightly wrinkles unbefitting a woman.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

yeah you do maggot brain … BTW coffee is bad for the arteries - so keep drinking loads of very strong cups everday … smirk

By getalife

September 12, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Duh Stewert,

My point is, being in Iraq has decreased our military to fight the war on terror.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

sweet little behind ????

It sure as hell aint little and as for sweet??? angry black widow spiders have nicer dispositions!!

bet some lefty moron calls me a “racist” for that!!

By Southern Democrat

September 12, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Barbara,

Thank you for your kind words. I truly enjoy reading the thoughtful posts on here written by everyone, particularly those with whom I disagree… I do think that Mr. Wooten has been successful in fomenting a forum in which we can all express ourselves and better understand how others think.

To bolster your point, one thing that President Bush does not get NEARLY enough credit for from EITHER side of the aisle is his commitment to diversity in his administration. The criticism of his nominees from the left for their “treason” to their race or gender is UNBELIEVABLY harmful to the promotion of diversity and opportunity for all. I hope that the trend of seeing women and persons of color in positions of the highest importance will continue after this president, regardless of their ideologies.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

withdraw from Iraq immediately and let the Iraqis decide the path of their country.

SD, Im not going to get into a long drawn out debate, jbmlaw can defend himself.

But your “plan” falls apart immediately after your first step highlighted above. If we withdraw before Iraq can defend herself, it will not be the Iraqis deciding her path, it will be the Islamic Fanatics and terrorist who step in and claim Bahgdad, just of they have clearly stated they intend to do. You seem intelligent, what part of this are you not getting or disagreeing with?

By Janine

September 12, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

**The war on terror is not a war against a nation….not Iraq, not Iran, not any nation. It is a war against a creed, convictions, a philosophy. Therefore, when we attempt to fight against it, it is almost like fighting the wind. It’s everywhere! And when it organizes, it is a typhoon .

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

The president’s first priority is to look out for American interest. I know its not popular, but the middle east is very important to our national interest. So it makes sense for us to spread democracy into the middle east prior to Cuba, Venzuela, etc. With that said, I whole-heartedly agree that we need to become non-dependent on middle eastern oil. That means alternative fuels, domestic drilling and exploration, etc. Unfortunately we are all (Democrats, Republicans, unions, enviromentalists, etc) are putting our own special interest before the survival of our nation. I am confident that will change at some point in time. But I am scared to death of what will bring us to that point.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

The war on terror is not a war against a nation….not Iraq, not Iran, not any nation. It is a war against a creed, convictions, a philosophy. Therefore, when we attempt to fight against it, it is almost like fighting the wind. It’s everywhere! And when it organizes, it is still a nebulous enemy, difficult to annihilate. Therein lies our problem. The more we fight it, the more recruits it attracts.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Realist, Actually Tehran will claim Bagdhad, and then the will claim Riyadh, Bahrain, and then they will go after Jerusalem and all hell will break loose.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Sorry about that double post.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

btw SD, I meant to mention, I read your plan of allowing NATA forces to address terrorist “hotbeds” after a supposed US troop withdrawl. First of all, I think to minimize the terrorists’ organization and power as “hotbeds” is underestimating thier current abilities. Also, if US troops are overwhelmed today, as the left wants us to beleive, do you maintain that NATO forces can keep the terrorist at bay better or as adequately as US forces are doing currently?

It just doesnt add up in my book.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Janine, Is your premise that we not fight? I guess we can allow them to blow themselves up in our country for a couple of centuries until we are all converted to Islam and then the problem will go away.

By JK

September 12, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Baiters: Your bait is rancid. Not interested, thanks.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Stewart

no they wont … iran will claim the shiite areas of iraq - the sunni areas will instantly gravitate toward syria and likely jordan too. the sunnies hate the shiites to the point they will actually fight together against them. your doomsday scenario is entirely wrong.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Stewart, I lump Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in with the likes of Bin Laden and the rest of them. They seem to have the same stated goals.

By Georgia Gal

September 12, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Body, hummer armour and helmet protection? Your thoughts?

Sorry, Getalife, but what the heck is your question? I don’t know anything about hummer armour. I worked for/with the Civil Engineers and they were regularly purchasing body armour, construction type supplies, and even a couple of fire trucks! As I said, my job was to come up with the funding. I did not make the purchases so I don’t have a lot of knowledge about the equipment purchased. I would request a description of the equipment and a statement as to it’s use and requirement. Believe it or not, there are equipment lists that state equipment required by each troop and a lot of that equipment, ie, body armour, has a shelf life which requires replacement at regular intervals. Also if body armour is damaged in any way it is no longer usuable and has to be replaced. Perhaps that answers your question about why equipment needs to be replaced. If you still doubt my veracity, well all I can say is “Sorry, buddy, but your doubt doesn’t negate my 20 years of proud service to my country!

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Your bait is rancid

not as rancid as your bitter Bush hate!

By Watta Load

September 12, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Stewart,

I don’t intend to hijack this forum on evolutonary theory, but my position stands…Bush has dumbed down and stifled science….by the way my background is in zoological science so you don’t need to explain to me what ID is…or more important…what it isn’t!

ID has no credibility as science…as faith perhaps…but not science…and for the leader of our country to maintain that it should be taught as science does nothing but motivate our brightest to go to Hong Kong and Singapore and Japan.

By The Way

September 12, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Bush’s speech also has given me an estimate of just how much he intends to spend, which then gives me an estimate of how long we stay. The formula is: when 90% of the money gets into the hands of the crooks who invented this business deal called war-in-iraq, then we’ll spin a victory and withdraw.

The contracts already written going forward total a trillion dollars, (Cheney’s estimate), thus we stay another seven years at the present rate of filching public funds of 100 billion per year (when’s the last time you read, “filching?”)

Why? Because the the insurance industry would get left holding the bag if we pull out now, and that aint gonna happen. Those reconstruction and service contracts are a done deal, pal.

Insurance rules the world. Know that. Believe it. Internalize it.

If you use Bush’s argument, then we should have invaded Iraq after Oklahoma City, or after the 1993 attack on the Trade Towers. In fact, pick a terrorist attack and THAT same attack can be a reason to invade Iraq, using Bush’s logic.

History’s judgement: The war in iraq doesn’t fit in any global terror war strategy whatsoever.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Time to tell the truth,

Your dreaming. Iran will overwhelm Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They will not worry about the killing of innocent civilians. The shiites are already a majority and the sunnis will not have Saddham to protect them. The Iranians have already exerted their influence over Syria. If the US does not intervene, my premise will absolutely come true.

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Conversation can only take place when ONE that people see that America is not for everyone but only the priveledged, TWO that wars on others should stop and the moneys spent at home on those in need here. THREE that we have a president for everyone and not just those who support him and benefit from him, he that does not deserve any support and should fail so that someone who understands our needs and not just those of oil, war, and hate on others who can not defend themselves either.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Not a chance, Stewart! I just think our resources can be better utilized. Having billions consumed in one country seems to me unwise when there are so many underground Islamic Fanatics throughout the world plotting terroristic activities against the USA. It seems to me that putting more resources into undercover operations,locating and infiltrating these groups would be a better plan. That is what has kept the US from being attacked in the last 5 years…NOt the war in Iraq. What tHe rest of the world, [including those aforementioned groups,] sees in Iraq, the is inability of the USA to get even this tiny country under control…and it does nothing if not empower and encourage the terrorists.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

1). Democrats and Republicans will all say what’s in the best interest of the nation. The obvious difference of course is what it is that each party thinks is better. Republicans feel a strong military, defense, and national security as well as limited taxation on individuals are the most important. Democrats think social causes like “free” universal healthcare for all and “free” college for all are the most important (everything is “free” in a socialist liberal’s world when you can just tax the successful to shreds; how can one “take” from the poor when said poor have nothing to begin with???). We don’t need a strong military from a liberal standpoint because that’s what the UN is for. One local liberal quack politician out in the Bay Area actually stated on record that local police and firefighters can handle the job of security and defense and to do away with the military altogether. That’s an extremist liberal view of course, but they are out there. Either way, there will never be agreement on any of the above issues.

2). Liberal Democrats and the War on Fanatical Islam is a fallacy. This topic has been covered over and over here. The left sums their stance up by saying “Republicans are just using scare tactics on the American people” or “If we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone.” Liberals do not understand that we can’t just sit down and talk with these evil people. “Where’s Osama? Where’s Osama?” they parrot over and over and over. Funny, I never heard them wondering where Osama was when Clinton was in office and had no less than three different opportunities to get him. Besides, we right (correct)-thinking folks know what their response would be if we ever DO capture him: “Well, he’s not that important. There are more willing to take his place.” Capturing Osama would not shut them up, and we know it. There’s always something else to cook up in the liberal kettle and b!tch about.They snubbed the killing of beheading master al-Zarqawi as relatively meaningless, so why would they stop there?

This mentality is nothing new of course. Just like they hated Reagan and called him a cowboy for escalating the Cold War spending in the ‘80s. After the USSR collapsed of course, the left refused to give Reagan any credit for it by saying things like “Well, the USSR was going to collapse anyway” or “Afghanistan bankrupted the USSR.” As if, as IF the USSR spent all that money on fighter/bomber development, the Buran space shuttle that never flew, and a host of other things totally intended for the Afghan front. Laughable. Liberal Democrats will never, EVER credit ANY Republican administration for anything. It’s the way their childish liberal over-emotionalized mindset is.

3). Well that about sums up why this nation hasn’t moved forward collectively in the six years since Election 2000. Democrat anger is not directed at Bush per say. Outside of McCain, they would be skinning any Republican in the White House alive. As has been mentioned so many times here, it’s about revenge for how Clinton was treated. What escalated the situation was what happened in Florida. Democrats, six years later, still think Bush “stole” the election. Google “Bush stole election” and you’ll come up with no less than 6,000,000 hits.

These Democrats think something was taken from them rightfully accorded to them. They claim that minorities were turned away at polling by police roadblocks and other intimidation techniques. Amazingly, to this day, not one individual has come forward to say under oath that s/he was turned away from a vote booth because of intimidation by law enforcement or any other entity. Democrats thought that changing the recount rules right in the middle of a recount was perfectly fine, until the Florida Supreme Court and then the US Supreme Court said otherwise.

But don’t ask Democrats about thrown out ballots. In Palm Beach County alone, nearly 20,000 absentee ballots were thrown out, about 75% of which were military. Also, don’t ask Democrats about that vote recount machine that was found in the back of a Palm Beach Democrat politician’s assistant’s car. Only FoxNews and ABC covered the story. Nah, no liberal media bias out there. The only people still complaining about “Selected not Elected” Bush is the minions of the Democrats in Washington. Senators and US Reps. long ago stopped with the nonsense for the most part, but not their supporters. Nobody in Washington is even questioning the legitimacy of the Ohio vote in 2004. Funny how Democrats never question close state election results when it tilts their way (or if more votes gives them an election than there are registered voters). Wisconsin for example had Kerry win by 11,384 out of 2,967,624 total votes cast. No questions, no whining from Republicans. Were the situation reversed, Democrats would have raising holy hell and screaming “VOTER IRREGULARITIES!!!” “DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!”

No, nothing has really changed since 1980, 2000, 2006…

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Monarch,

Everyone in America is privileged pal! Go visit Africa, Vietnam, Indonesia and you will see what under-privileged is. It may take hard work, but everyone can make it in this country.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Ga. gal,

For not understanding the question, you answered it but I should have asked it better.

The families of the troops had to buy body armour and Rumsfeld was asked by the troops about hummer armour before it was supplied.

Cher and others came up with a program for helmet protection because there were many troops getting head injuries due to lack of protection in their helmets.

The troops are coming home with mental problems and the funds have been cut for their services.

These are the facts, feel free to debate them.

By Van

September 12, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Monarch Hames,

Not everyone agrees with you. America has plenty to give to everyone. Where else can a college drop out, from a single parent family work for a major company and succeed - if you want it bad enough, you can work to get anything.

Your “that wars on others should stop and the moneys spent at home on those in need here” Noble thoughts that do not work in real life. If we do not establish a defence of our homes and country, then we will be taken over by someone. No defence means nothing to defend.

Your last point is very disturbing, how would you select a President?

By Janine

September 12, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

time for the truth : I’m with you on the 11:35 post to Stewart…I believe that Stewart’s scenario was feared when we left Viet Nam…horrible consequences were predicted….Turns out nothing even remotely like those predictions occurred.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

IF we were to allow Stewarts claims to play out, which is a slight possibility, it would mean dropping the big one on the ME. Hmmm, wonder if Bush and strategist arent considering all that and thus stating over and over we must STAY THE COURSE and continue to fight. Could be.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Janine,

You have a legitimate point. Maybe fighting Iraq was a mistake! But the President is absolutely right when he says that a bigger mistake would be to pull out of Iraq. It would enbolden our enemies and create another Afghanistan (i.e. training ground). We must figure out a way to be successful there. It is also true, that the Iraq conflict sucked in a lot of Al-Quada terrorists into the fight. And I would rather fight them there than on US soil. Now I am not here smoking crack thinking that there are not terrorist members here in the US. HOwever, I think we have done quite a bit of damage to them.

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Were the babys raped in New Oleans priveledged? Was Cynthia, Bill, Andy priveledged when they were attacked and brought down for speaking out? Was it the priveledged that got washed from their homes? Is the priveleged that that buy up lands and add to their plantations on the graves of those who tilled the soil while he is governor - yes

By CJ

September 12, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Speaking from the Left - yes - America’s best interest is my highest concern. Although, I don’t think that people on the Left believe that we should do what is in America’s best interest without considering the impact of our actions on others. You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I tend to get the impression that people on the Right aren’t concerned about how America’s actions affect others outside of our borders.

Yes – I agree that we’re in a war against terrorism, and I’m committed to winning. Unfortunately, I lost hope that our President, Vice President and Defense Secretary have the competence to win.

Mr. Wooten – people on the Left and Right clearly trust different resources. Many on the Right trust Ann Coulter. I don’t. Many on the Left trust Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as do I. Because of Mr. Kennedy’s recent analysis of exit polls from the 2004 election, I do not believe that President Bush is the legitimate, fairly elected president. Nor, do I believe that he was legitimately elected in 2000. However, I’m accepting what I cannot change.

Having said that, yes – I want to see George Bush succeed as President. In fact, I would love to be proven wrong. It would be great if tax cuts would result in such growth that we can grow our way out of the national debt. I’d love to see Democracy spread throughout the Middle East. I wish that Bush would defeat the terrorists decisively through the military action he’s taken. I’d love to see the size of government shrink considerably without damaging the economic infrastructure that separates us from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, I don’t believe these actions would produce the intended results.

By Harold

September 12, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Harold is saying that light enters your eyes at the speed of light. If your eyes are also going the speed of light, no light traveling in the same direction will enter them.

It is like if have just robbed a bank and you are running 15 MPH and trying to hop into your getaway minivan (with its tailgate ajar. you put the money in the back and the driver took off without you) that is just in front of you also going 15 MPH, but you cannot muster anything faster than your 15 MPH, so you can jump up all day long behind this minivan but you will never get into the minivan unless you can get yourself going faster than 15 MPH.

Being that you have no ability to run faster than 15 MPH, you’ll never get into the minivan.

And being that light can not go faster than the speed of light, it will never make it into your eyes if you are traveling the speed of light and looking back!

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Your dreaming. Iran will overwhelm Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They will not worry about the killing of innocent civilians. The shiites are already a majority and the sunnis will not have Saddham to protect them. The Iranians have already exerted their influence over Syria. If the US does not intervene, my premise will absolutely come true.

NOPE … wrong again mate.

The Iranians are NOT capable of conquering, let alone holding such a huge area as the Arabian peninsuala, the Gulf and Iraq. They would be fiercely opposed by a huge alliance of well armed arab armies and insurgents which would make Iraq look like a sunday afternoon picnic. There is a Gulf States co-operation pact. Probably the Turks would get involved if things looked bad to them in their region, which would likely trigger a NATO involvement. There is NO Iranian influence over Syria - what they do have is a recent mutual pact to maximise efforts to undermine the US and Israel.

Also the Israelis would not sit still for an Iranian army as close as Jordan. The Iranian Army is still mostly poorly equipped and trained and it would rely extensively on conscripts who would not be highly motivated. The Iranian regime is despised by the vast majority of the people. it performed poorly against Iraq in the 1980’s - mostly that was WW1 style enagagements and casualty numbers and ended up largely a stalemate. If this vast Iranian expansion ever occured Syria would immediately move against Hizbollocks in Lebanon … no way would Syria stand for its influence there being replaced by Iran.

All you do is focus on the Iranian shiites -you obviously dont actually think things through very deeply!

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

I believe that Stewart’s scenario was feared when we left Viet Nam…horrible consequences were predicted….Turns out nothing even remotely like those predictions occurred.

Janine, over three million South Vietnamese were slaughtered by the Viet-Cong once we left. I may be a little over-zealous in my predictions if we lose Iraq, but just the possibility of it is not worth the risk.

By Fallacy

September 12, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Markus,

The fallacy in your leaving the idea that the Democrats and the left are the reason the country has not “moved forward collectively in the six years since Election 2000” is that the Republicans control all branches of Government.

The left can scream and holler all it wants but it is the will of the Republicans that win out at the end of the day. The left was ardently opposed to the nominations of both Alito and Roberts, but could do nothing to stop them. The left was ardently opposed to the tax package, but could not stop it. The left was ardently opposed to the bankruptcy bill but it went through.

If, as you say, the country is not moving forward, then you as a member of the right must take responsibility for that. Reagan faced the same opposition party and he succeeded. The complaining of the left may be annoying, but in the real world it has no effect and can not change legislation, court appointments or the conduct of the war. If complaining was of any consequence whatsoever I dare say Rumsfeld would have been out long ago. Complaints may p** you off, but its votes that count and you, for the time being, have the most votes.

Your side constantly complains about people not accepting personal responsibility, well now is your chance. Step up.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Stewart It seems to me that staying in Iraq for years and years and not succeeding is what is going to, as you say, “embolden our enemies”. In addition, you mention Afghanistan!!!! Whatever success we had there was short lived….Hasn’t it returned to almost where it was before we attempted to “fix it” ?* As to “figuring out a way to be successful in Iraq*”…, I don’t think we can be successful without total commitment and while your suggestion that we have to find a way of “winning without destroying” is an ideal solution, it just isn’t realistic….Don’t think it’s possible!

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Time to tell the Truth, Your analysis holds water if we are able to keep Iran from producing nuclear weapons. As far as the Iranians getting together with the Syrians. Western leaders believed the same about Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. There are countless cases in history of “supposed” enemies getting together to fight the dominant power. In many instances, they were successful.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Fallacy-

“The fallacy in your leaving the idea that the Democrats and the left are the reason the country has not “moved forward collectively in the six years since Election 2000” is that the Republicans control all branches of Government.”

With all due respect, Bush has not vetoed one bill drawn up by congressional Democrats. Not one! Bush handed over education reform to Ted Kennedy & Dem. Co. Bush allowed post 9/11 Dem ideas like Tom Daschle’s “you can’t professionalize until you federalize” security employees at airports (doing that didn’t increase security vs. the private sector… it just added more union employees to the fed payroll that can’t be fired).

I think you misunderstood the “moving forward” mentality. Moving forward means more than getting policy through. Moving forward means healing the rift shown and sheer animosity shown that the Democrats have had since the Election 2000 results. Democrats as well as the media have been successful at bad-mouthing Bush at every turn and not giving him credit for a single thing. If that’s your idea of “moving forward” I’d sure hate to see your concept of looking backwards.

“Your side constantly complains about people not accepting personal responsibility, well now is your chance. Step up.”

With all due respect, I have only heard the “accountability” and “take responsiility” words from Democrats and liberals in Washington as well as on this blog and in the mainstream media on Republican leadership. “Personal responsibility” with regards to being an individual in this nation is a completely different topic.

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Janine, Yes there are flare ups in Afghanistan as we speak. That should be expected. Our enemies will fight to the death. WE have gangs running through our cities on a daily basis. There will always be turmoil. We are still in Germany and Japan right now as we speak 50 years later. So yes it is very likely that we can be successful and be in Iraq 10 to 20 years from now. But I respect your opinion.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Stewart @12:10…Not sure about that 3 million figure killed after the war……can’t find that anywhere. But I do know that about 4 million were killed during the war,….20 million displaced …and more killed , especially children, due to the chemicals we sprayed on the rice fields…so is it 6 of one, half dozen of the other….and between a rock and a hard place???

By Janine

September 12, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Stewart And I yours!

By Barbara

September 12, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Stewart, Janine and TFTT, I was not much of a history buff (or a world geography buff either - yuck!), so I am really enjoying your discussions/predictions. I don’t know enough to surmise what might happen over there, and no history background to think of. I think your back-and-forth on these issues is very interesting. Thanks.

By JK

September 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Fallacy, thank you for your common sense post. I have made many such similar statements. Prepare to have your education, parentage, intelligence, sexuality, and the size of your rear end maligned momentarily.

They do not step up because it’s easier to keep blaming those not in power. And because “it’s more fun to step on throats” than to have a meaningful conversation.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Janine, Until you get your head out of your anti-Bush a* you wont see the light for the day.

How is overthowing a murderous dictator, holding first time free elections, rebuilding infrastructure, and installing a new elected soveriegn government NOT SUCCEEDING in your view? These things dont happen overnight !!

By Fallacy

September 12, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

I misinterpreted your meaning of moving forward. My mistake.

I do have to disagree with you as the causes of the rift. I believe there is more than enough responsibility in that arena to go around for both sides. For every blowhard like Franken over here there is Coulter over there. War is hard and divisive and to ask those who oppose it to sit idly by is unrealistic. Do members of the left go too far in their criticism? Yes, there we can agree. But that is a mirror that must be gazed into by the right as well. We should never let those would seek to divide, on either side, bring normal guys like us to each others throats.

We have different views of politics. But we are still fellow Georgians (of which I am very proud) and fellow Americans. This is no game and we don’t need to score points off of one another. I’ll listen to you without insult or attack if you’ll do the same.

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Until a president is voted for by all and none is kept from the voter booth because they are not one of the priveleged or right color then there is no president. For two times we have been without one since our last legal president for all. All hope that he returns next time

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Stewart

dont understand your point at all @ Iran and Syria … at present they have a kind of Moscow/Berlin type co-operation pact as in early WW2 … which will change quickly if the Syrians feel the need or feel threatened.

There is no dominant power local/regional in the region - Iran is NOT the dominant power - it seems as if it wants to be - but has yet to prove anything other than its nasty rhetoric and some stirring in Iraq and Lebanon.

Your triple axis power example is a poor one - the japs were never able to deliver even if they wanted to - too far way and they had a very different agenda/and an emperor god!

By Janine

September 12, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Realist…Though it may at times not seem so, I am not anti Bush. I voted for him and he is my president. The discussion was about succeeding against terrorist acts against our country and Islamic fanatics role in that. THere is of course no doubt in anyone’s mind that the US succeeded in overthrowing Saddam, etc. But the terrorism rages on!!!

By getalife

September 12, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Another elephant in the room, democracy in the Middle East:

“The visit by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reflected the complex relationship between mostly Shiite Iran and Iraq’s government, dominated by Shiite allies of Tehran. Ties have grown stronger between the two, including new oil cooperation.”

By Realist

September 12, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

No, no , no darling Janine. You are sidestepping the issue. You stated that we are NOT SUCCEEDING in Iraq. I pose to you that we not only succeeded ousting Saddam but also that the Iraqis have held democratic elections and installed a soveriegn government in a region where ten years ago the thought of that would have seemed absurd. I apologize for the anti - Bush remark.

But please tell me, how is it the US is not succeeding in Iraq? Is it because there is still some outbreaks of sectarian violence? That is to be expected and may well go on after our departure, and certainly isnt formidable enough to disrupt our ongoing and SUCCESSFUL mission. So again I must ask, how is it the United States Military is not succeeding again?

By Stewart

September 12, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Janine, Keep searching. You will find it. Oh and by the way..We didn’t start the war. The north vietnamese invaded the south. Yea we made mistakes during that war, just like we do in all.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Janine

the terrorism is increasingly largely of another kind now - its localised internicene mohammedan hatred and a power struggle. its too simplistic to just call this phase terrorism. this is actually how mohammedans are - otherwise they simply wouldn’t actually be doing this!! clearly there are innocent victims - but others are just being killed as they battle or attack one another.

its not a civil war - not yet - just settling of old scores and some new ones. note the kurds are largely uninvolved in this. as is most of Iraq which is still largely peaceful. its metro Baghdad and the sunni triangle/border areas.

By Rod

September 12, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

As usual, TFTT can’t do anything but insult others and call them names. Pitiful really - she has all that time on her hands and instead of doing something constructive, she insults others. Her inferiority complex is coming through (is it really a complex since she actually is inferior?).

By Richard

September 12, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Hey tftt - “japs” is considered a racial insult - like the “n” word. Learn some manners.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Janine, Im sorry, I wasnt intending to be rude or condescending. I just get intense regarding some of these blanket partisan lies that get spewed about Iraq and our efforts there.

I actually beleive you and I hold some of the same views. I encourage everyone to look beyond the rhetoric and be sure you arent falling prey to thoughtless bandwagoning of thinking Bush is dumb and Iraq is killing soldiers for nothing. Its a bunch of BS with no other goal than to swing power back to the dems. Thats it. Nothing more.

By Redneck Convert

September 12, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

I wish people would debate more about what’s good for the country.

Like after church on Sunday. This fellow decides not to agree with my politics. So I used what I learned on this here cite. I used some of “time for the truth’s” weapons. I called the guy “bollux,” and “twit,” and a few other choice words. Then I used some of those initials that stand for dirty words, like Realist and Markus do.

I guess I won the debate. The guy just walked away and never said one more word.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Ok Realist, I don’t think I will succeed in clarifying my definiton of success here…but here goes…I grant you all of your points about our successes in the areas that you mention. However, as Mr. Bush has said over and over, we are in a war against terrorism [even though I still think terrorism is a strategy and the war is against Islamic Facism]. And I do not see success in that pursuit..and I don’t see Iraq as the key to that success. There are other strategies that would see more apt to bring success against the terror that we fear.{ See the 11:50 post}

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Southern @ 11:14, I would respectfully disagree with most of your observations, but as JK points out at 10:40, any examination of another’s opposing opinion is a game and unfair to leftists.

The Left does not want to debate, it merely wishes to shout down the opposition. You are correct in noticing that I have less patience for the spewing than in times past. I believe my catty comments are significantly less obnoxious, and I proffer those to attempt to highlight the lunacy that has gone before. I am trying to elevate the discussion with my notes, but perhaps, by pointing out the low quality of the posts, I feed the morons?

As to JK’s comments, do you believe rebuttal or debate of opposing views is appropriate here? My philosophy has been to leave no substantial but false statement unchallenged. JK posted a silly and indefensible statement, and I challenged it. JK has been one of the brighter leftists on this blog, and in the remote event I had missed something in the past five years, I was willing to allow her the slam dunk. Instead, she cowered.

Thus my inquiry to you, Southern: do we challenge ideas or not? Is mere discussion sufficient to poison the atmosphere? As my friend TFTT pointedly - and I think correctly - notes on the blog today, conservative arguments are often unanswerable, or the answer the leftists would proffer is humiliating to the left. Is that the core problem with “debate,” that one rule is that leftist rhetoric is to go unchallenged?

By Realist

September 12, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

great comment Redneck.

Now go SIUYA!

TFTT, You are spot on. Its not like those boys can lay down their AK’s and go get a 9-5 job somewhere. Fighting is all they know. I think what Bush is envisioning is a slow change with the goal of giving them other choices than violence and fighting. Its a huge undertaking. Maybe impossible, but worth trying.

By Janine

September 12, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Realist Apology accepted, no offense taken.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

No Janine, Im thinking you missed the Presidents oval address last night. More than once he stated we are at war with fanatic islamics and that the war extends beyond Iraq. The ultimate goal for our children and grandchildrens future is stability in the Middle East, not just Iraq. To achieve this, we must give those who have never know anything but violence, other choices. As I said above, its a huge undertaking, but worth the effort.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

moron rod and Little DICK (gedditt) slither out and spoil the largely polite tone on here… typical hateful liberals!!

redneck moron

I have never used “twit” on here that I can recall though I have VERY justifiably called liberals tw@ts in the past.

Perhaps if tried actually adding facts and logic to your debates as Realist, Markus and myself do you might get someone to respond to you!! I suppose you were in Harold’s church, where half the congregation is permanently kneeling during the service!!

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

japs japs japs japs japs japs japs … is that enough yet for ya Little DICK??

By Harold

September 12, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

SQUIRREL!

By Georgia Gal

September 12, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

These are the facts, feel free to debate them Getalife, I can’t believe you would lower yourself to challenge me to a battle of wits since you so obviously consider me unarmed. I do however have one honest and sincere question for you before I head out to a dental appointment: I have known reservists from units all over this country and with The Guard’s 48th such a large presence in this state I know several of them and also have several friends with family members who served proudly in the desert. Of all these first hand contacts I have never heard of any troop who was not issued the required personal safety equipment and had to depend on family to purchase it for them. Have you?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

democRAT

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

While I agree with the thrust of Stewart’s 12:10 reubttal to Janine, I disagree with a portion of the facts he cites.

The Viet Cong were essentially wiped out by the Tet offensive, and the invasion of South Vietnam was almost entirely a North Vietnamese crime. The blood bath following that take over was less in Vietnam than throughout the rest of the region, where the leftists were suddenly ascendant. Approximately 2,000,000 died in Cambodia between 1976 and 1981, and that was the great killing field of South East Asia.

Allowing that widespread murder was an evil act caused directly by acts of the Democrat-controlled Congress of the United States, despite the best efforts of Republican Gerald Ford, an honorable but then-powerless man.

I think Stewart is correct in his forecast of similar bloodshed in the Middle East, in the event we are not smart enough to learn from history.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

My goodness.

Jim,

Please notice the ones name calling and uncivil are the wingnuts.

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

There is more racism than japs or vulgar names being called. I have been called cocoon to my face here and no word of protest was raised but by me.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

the name calling ones?

you mean like you maggot brain … plus moron rod and Little DICK!!

I just hand it back!! its called being fair and balanced … try adding that network to your HARD NEWS TV viewing!!

By The Way

September 12, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Bush’s false premise for war: That given a choice, the Iraqis would choose freedom and liberty. Sez who? Given a choice, the Shia are aligning with Iran, our enemy.

There’s a movement in the Iraqi Parliament right now to separate Iraq into the Kurdish north, the Shia south, (both rich in oil) and the Sunni west (barren).

The Sunnis dont like this plan. Iraq is where we were in 1859. They got there quick? No, they’ve been in 1859 for 14 centuries.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

I protest LOUDLY with you Monarch — its despicable - we need to lynch them for that!! Its utterly unacceptable and I am as outraged as you are!!!

Lets get the hate crimes unit involved and break out the national guard!!

By same game, different players

September 12, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Clinton didn’t catch OBL and stop 9/11. Bush hasn’t captured OBL (heaven only knows what OBL is planning next). Clinton decieved the people about sex in the White House. Bush decieved the people about … well, I’m not sure what exactly, but it seems WMD are as good a thing as any to start with. Clinton failed to pass his big initiatives on Health Care, Bush failed to pass (so far) his big initiative on immigration. Clinton isn’t leading the country now. Bush is the President. One good thing about Bush (thanks for the mention of it earlier) is his committment to diversity. I think he really tries to put the best person he can find into a job. Like any boss, sometimes he picks the wrong guy (heck of a job, brownie??)

The country is in a war against extremists who are willing, not just to kill, but also to die, for their cause. Federal deficeits are bigger than ever. The housing market is cooling off and could be a harbinger of a slower economy, our national borders aren’t nearly as secure as we would like, our military is stretched thin in way too many areas…. and we are sitting around trying to decide who is wrong and responsible for this mess. Guess what — every single citizen of the United States is responsible. We, the people, are responsible for where we are economically, in world politics, militarily, socially. You and me and everyone of us has to step up, stop blaming the other side, take responsiblity for what our government is doing and do something. It’s not enough to slap a bumper sticker (a la the B****** sticker) or a magnet (like the ubiquitous “support the troops” ribbons).

You want to stop the angry conversation. Shut up. Put your money where your mouth is and do something productive. You wanna support the troops, volunteer with the USO or donate blood, or give cash to the organizations helping out the families. You want to stop the war? Get off your a$$ and go vote. Lobby your representatives. You want stem cell research, go back to school and learn something about it, donate to foundations supporting the cause.

No one on this blog will present an idea here that a national politician will suddenly adopt to change what he or she is doing. Quit whining, left and right, and do something. There won’t be time for angry conversations, we will be too busy making a difference.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Dont worry Monarch “Pappy” Hames. Everytime I get called a cracker or chaulkie on here, I just go out and kill another baby seal or steal another black man’s job. Makes me feel gooooooooooood!

By Harold

September 12, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Better watch out Chalky! You go stealin’ a black man’s job and the Mexican that already stole it first will knife you!

By So much hotair

September 12, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

@same game, different players

You win todays soapbox award!

By Amanda

September 12, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

I personally don’t think being called a cocoon is bad. That is where beautiful butterflies come from!!

Are you sure the guy did’t have a bad studder and really said c-c-c-coon!

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Time and Realtits and all those who laugh your true selves talk through a screen and show you for what you are - decendants of those who held others in chains. You floods might try for us, but no flood can wash the sins from

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

watch out Harold that illegal freeloading knife wielding mexican type will be escaping on your beloved CCT bus with you!!

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

decendants of those who held others in chains

WOW … pappy sure is gettin uppity with the racebaiting. I was COMPLETELY on your side until just now …

BTW pappy - I NEVER held anyone in chains or lynched anyone nor did anyone in my ENGLISH family bubba … I am the first to cross the Atlantic in my family. The Royal Navy had anti-slaving patrols on the Barbary Coast 200 years or so ago. Lord Wilberforce was one of my direct ancestors!! So go choke on a chocolate moon pie!!

By Pedro Manuel Martinez Diago Sanchez

September 12, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

It no a knife you gringos! It a carpet cutter to do my yob !

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

tallking of floods pappy … what do you think of the old Peter Gabriel song Here Comes The Flood? Kind of like the old Genesis isn’t it?

BTW what does “Pappy” mean - does it refer to a wise old man or grandad or something? I just used it cos “Realtits” did .. real clever put down that pappy!!

By Southern Democrat

September 12, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw,

Yet again your insightful post gave me pause. It is funny to me how similarly we analyze things, but just come to different conclusions. Your complaints about the lack of ability to reasonably and rationally discuss important topics with liberals sound exactly like my complaints about many of my more conservative friends! I feel like I am being stonewalled so many times and called more names than I care to think about by intelligent, thoughtful people.

I also think, jbmlaw, that we are similar in our desire to do the right thing and end suffering wherever possible with minimal intrustion into the rights of people to go about their lives.

In the spirit of honest debate and your absolutely correct admission of our nation’s culpability in allowing mass murders in Southeast Asia, I would ask you why do you think that neither the GOP nor the Democrats paid any mind to the genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan until it was too late? Why are we still ignoring the religious wars crippling many African nations (some led by Muslim fundamentalists)? Won’t these countries (I’m speaking of Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Tanzania) become breeding grounds for fundamentalism and terrorism? Why can’t we start providing aid and support now before these countries are theocracies? (I guess what I’m asking, too, is do you think that a policy of Cold War containment might be successful in this war on terror?)

By Harold

September 12, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Harold is fairly sure that Pappy meant “You floobs,” not “You floods.”

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

time for the truth is not sure harold is being sincere here … lets ask Pappy to make sure …

Pappy what exactly did you mean?

By Realist

September 12, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Monarch, In all seriousness, the extremes that myself and others go to in an effort to be funny, are the same extremes you go to trying to be serious. Its almost like you are living in the 1950s still.

By Harold

September 12, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Well, Harold can only guess what Pappy meant, but “floods” makes the kind of sense that doesn’t. “Floobs” fits perfectly and is just one dyslexic keystroke away.

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Only one can flood the world though others try to and burn down churches and homes. But only one can bring flood and fire to world. Will you mock others and make racist jokes then ?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

But only one can bring flood and fire to world.

But that only happens on South Park which is just an adult cartoon pappy!!

By Harold

September 12, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Harold is mistaken! Pappy meant “floods.” Sars, dude!

By Realist

September 12, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Is this really where we all want to be when Jesus comes back. Talking about floobs?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Monarch - seriously mate, let me know where there’s a burning church next month and I’ll bring some chestnuts to roast!! I love roasted chestnuts in the early autumn!

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

time for the truth was right as usual and harold was wrong as usual, Pappy meant floods and time for the truth is pleased that pappy meant floods and not floobs!!

What a giant relief!! so that’s finally sorted out then. see we get there on here in the end!!

By harold

September 12, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

So problem solved for the day. What shall tomorrow’s blog bring?

By Nikoshi

September 12, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

What dah fruck is froob?

By Redneck Convert

September 12, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why this Monarch guy wants to keep bringing up race problems. Sure, my relatives stretched a few necks back in the old days, but they’ll put you in jail for it now, except maybe in Gwinnett or Cobb county. But then, I say any county that can produce tftt, Realist, Markus, and jbmlaw is OK in my book. I’m kinda proud that TFTT’s politics was so right-wing that they ran him out of England.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

tomorrows blog harold will bring loads of pinko nutters screeching Bush Lied! Bush Lied! like demented marxist parrots, a few sullen misandrist posts from JK and a very welcome reappearance by the very anal moron Clark to claim yet another ludicrous pyhrric cyber victory!!

By Harold

September 12, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

a froob is a noob who isnt paying for an mmorpg, but harold said floob

By JK

September 12, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, Re: your 1:04, paragraph 3: Let me break this down for YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES in a way YOU can understand, and reiterate my response to Mr. Wooten’s topic: I do NOT believe we can have a conversation, live together, or come together in unity as we once did, even if we are attacked again tomorrow. I do not believe you are interested truth, in our (fellow Americans’) well-being, opinions, feelings, the facts upon which they are based, or the context of our lives, knowledge, or experiences that bear forth these opinions. You (“conservative” bloggers and columnists) don’t care what we think, what we need, or what we contribute. Your half-hearted pretentions are transparent. We have no future together — literally, metaphorically, symbolically, or in any other way. There are plenty of people on the planet who enjoy conversing with “bright leftists” and have some measure of respect for our peace-loving hearts and truth-seeking minds. Your patronizing, condescending, word-twisting tactics are not the very special skill you seem to think. Not bitter, not angry, just over you, your buddies, and your kind. In short, draw up the papers, dude: D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Where do I sign? Is that clear enough, “lawyer” man?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Monarch mate … you still there?… I’ve got my chestnuts now!!

By harold

September 12, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

but seriously folks the 3 filters to honest conversation are AM talk radio, Fox News and NPR.

if bush junior would “accidentally” missile all them like he did al jazeera that time, the conversation might just turn polite

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

There are plenty of people on the planet who enjoy conversing with “bright leftists” and have some measure of respect for our peace-loving hearts and truth-seeking minds

WOW … those hormones sure are running wild today JK!! I bet you could run a full marathon on whatever you’ve been taking!!

but in the real chemical free world leftists aren’t at all bright, they only want the kind of peace that will destroy America and they despise the truth unless its their Bush hate version!!

By Monarch Hames

September 12, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Sounds like the 1950s - yes, read your own hatred and racist words. Not one priveledged voice is raised. All afraid to stand up against the bigots.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

When did JK become a full on self proclaimed LEFTIST? I thought she was selling herself as a moderate around here?

Exactly as Ive always thought. A moderate is nothing but a leftist who hasnt had thier turn at the bong yet.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Southern D @ 1:51, thanks for your thoughtful, measured note - and for your earlier chastisement. Within your earlier rebuke, I request one affectation - I am fiercely ideological, but not particularly partisan. While I am with Repubs 90% of the time, I part with them favoring free immigration, and eliminating drug and traffic laws (at least at the Federal level.) In all honesty, there are only a few people on this site I am comfortable challenging - you, Midsouth, Barbara, TFTT (yes, we disagree occasionally), and there were a few harder leftists I previously thought worthy, although I now harbor doubts. There are others I think worthy - e.g., Markus, but I’ve had no reason to challenge him yet. There are many others whom I enjoy reading, but whom I prefer to not challenge - don’t want to crush the flowers, so to speak.

Know-it-all that I am, I can suggest a possibility on why, despite similar reasoning, you and I conclude issues differently: our Rawlsian perspective. (John Rawls, for the Googlers among us.) You and I start with a different values calculus before Rawls’ curtain forms - you with a bias toward the charitable safety nets, I with a bias for elevation of individual freedom. With those different value sets, even the same reasoning will lead to different conclusions.

Thus, your “minimal intrusions” on individual rights are magnified in my calculus. Your “minimal safety net protections” become intolerable intrusions for me (if you will forgive me a little hyperbole.)

As to your excellent observation on Rwanda and Sudan (and for a little you could have reached back to Biafra or Ethiopia, or outside the political context to the prior generation’s cyclonic disaster in Bangladesh or the current AIDs epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa), I would attempt to escape with a legal argument: assumption of risk. We injected ourselves into South Vietnam, and thus embraced an obligation; similar with Iraq.

It is not that the gathering storms in Rwanda or Sudan were unnoticed, or unworthy, but African disasters are not imbued with our religious traditions as are historic places in the Middle East. The despotism of Africa generally shuns the name, although not the practices, of our long-time Communist enemies. Peculiarly, I think our history of slavery in this country, normally a source of embarassment for us, is softened - against our sensibilities - when we contemplate the possibility that our local friends of color are saved the grisly current African fates only due to one horrific American history.

I think you are correct in citing Somalia, etc, as potential breeding grounds for terrorists. And certainly there is a history of violence against American interests in Africa. I probably do not agree that “carrot without stick” is an appropriate inoculation.

Containment - the US policy against communism from 1946 until 1981 - was arguably a slowly-losing doctrine. Only Reagan’s reversal, into a more direct challenge - Star Wars - broke the back of communism. I am more inclined to try to conceive a back breaker for the Islamists; I don’t have it yet, so I suppose containment is the best we can do, until then.

By True Red

September 12, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

according to old Pappy Monarch over yonder we got a sh*itload of churches and houses to rebuild tomorrah. I might be able tah finely fine some werk if mah foot aint still swole in the mornin.

By Nikoshi

September 12, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

ahhhhhh sooooooo

talking to lawyer like hitting own self in head with hammer. it feel so good when you stop.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Nikoshi, you brighten my day.

By Nikoshi

September 12, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

ahhhh jbm practice ancient art of kill em with kindness. i myself prefer ah kill em with curare.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Monarch … talking of the 1950’s, and be honest now mate - on a scale of 1 - 10 - how big an Elvis fan are you?

I hate these Bush hate bigots too Pappy. With you all the way on that!!

Nikoshi … any chance of you eating some velly bad sushi and then you be velly sick!!

By Nikoshi

September 12, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

ahhhh soooo

sushi for stupid american. only stupid american pay so much for fish and rice! So stupid!!!

By Barbara

September 12, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Alright now TFTT. I’ve got two bones to pick with you. First, I think I’d probably be at least a 6 on the “Elvis fan measuring stick”. (He was the King, ya know. And he could sure sing!)

And if I catch you roasting chestnuts over a burning church, I’ll give you a good ole southern whuppin! I still have hopes of convertning you pal! Who loves ya????

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

banzai

MESSAGE TO NIKOSHI SPONSORED BY TOYOTA USA

Nikoshi must stop wanting be Geisha girl!! only stupid Nagasaki survivor want be Giesha girl when so old and ugly!!

By brian

September 12, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Nikoshi, no chopstick fo yu!

By Nikoshi

September 12, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

ahhhh soooo

careful now american GI rankee, we already have nuke! show nikoshi respect or ka-broooey!

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Barbara … the Elvis thang was but a gentle dig at Pappy - not Elvis. Chestnuts always taste better when roasted over a slow burning church. I actually put on a couple of pounds because of all the chestnuts I ate in AL a while back when those naughty college kids from Birmingham were being very naughty with matches.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

Macaca!

By Satan

September 12, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Damn TFTT, your’e evil! So I’ll be seeing you soon then?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Nikoshi is name of new karate chop … chop tastes velly nice microwaved with inbred Jap royal family seaweed soup and Hirohito jr. sauce.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Satan just invention of stupid Japs for new Playstation game - executing Nikkkon rednekkks!!

By Realist

September 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Well the lefties appear to have packed it in. Is Babs in town early to sign autographs or did they finally legalize weed and they’re all at waffle house?

Will check back later.

By Bemused Humanist

September 12, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten;

I am constantly bemused by how opinion is presented as “fact” on this blog.

With regard to Ronald Reagan “winning” the Cold War, it should be noted that the policy of containment of USSR expansionism was formulated by the State Department’s George Kennan in the late 1940’s, and had been adhered to by every president, both Democrat and Republican, from that time until the Soviet collapse. Indeed, one can argue that the Democratic presidents proved most committed to that policy, with Truman fighting in Korea, JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and LBJ introducing ground troops in Vietnam. (Interestingly, of late Robert McNamara casts his efforts to enlarge the US effort in Vietnam as necessitated by the realpolitik of the Cold War.)

Second, it was clear in 1975 that money alone could not save the corrupt and ineffectual Saigon government, and the idea that Gerald Ford and the United States would have reintroduced ground troops into Vietnam in 1975 except for the obstructionism of the Democratic-controlled Congress is patently absurd. As Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated the recovery our POWs and withdrawal of our remaining troops, the goal of the Nixon policy was to allocate a “decent interval” between the time we left and the inevitable demise of Thieu and his government. Virtually no one on any part of the political spectrum wished to prolong our involvement in Southeast Asia during the brief Ford presidency of 1974-1976.

By Redneck Convert

September 12, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Sure glad Barbara brought up conversion, but I suspect TFTT is a lost cause. Me, I believe the pastor when he says The Rapture is coming in a couple years, so I’m not making any more trailer payments. No point in paying for something that will just get left behind.

The pastor also says gay marriage will make all our own marriages invalid, but I’m not getting my hopes up yet.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

“Bin Ladin generally opposed
collaboration with Baghdad.”
— Senate Intelligence Committee report

“When the aide pressed Bush to get involved in the PDB that said, “Osama determined to strike in US,” he stood there waiting for an answer until Bush finally told him,
“You’ve covered your a*, you can go now.”

That’s as involved as Bush or Cheney got until the towers fell, but Disney’s bogus movie claims they were all over it.”

“Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots. Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope. Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.”

By Cricket

September 12, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

chirp

chirp

chirp

By Rod

September 12, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Great comments by an AJC staffer with integrity (obviously not Jim):

History will show that the U.S. government terrified its own citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Time and again, Americans already shaky in the wake of Sept. 11 were warned by their leaders that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that unless we intervened, the Iraqi leader might provide those weapons to his allies in al-Qaida.

If we waited to take action, President Bush warned, the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

We now know, of course, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no programs to create them. Last fall, the CIA apparently concluded that there had also been no pre-war ties between Saddam and al-Qaida terrorists, a finding seconded by a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee made public just last week. The committee found that the Bush administration had good reason to know that no such ties existed, but persisted in those claims anyway.

The administration responded to that finding in typical fashion, with White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissing the report as old news. What we need to do is look forward, not backward, Snow argued last week.

There’s some truth to that, of course. The news out of both Iraq and Afghanistan is increasingly glum, and as Snow suggests, we can’t allow ourselves to be distracted by meaningless debates about the past.

However, questions about the honesty, wisdom, judgment and competence of our current leadership are far from meaningless. We are not debating the relative merits of Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams; we are attempting to decide whether our current leaders can be trusted to handle the challenges we face.

It matters, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney now says that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq even if it had known that Saddam had no WMD and no ties to al-Qaida. Intrigued by the admission on “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Tim Russert pressed the point with Cheney:

“So if the CIA said to you [in 2003] ‘Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way,’ you’d still have invaded Iraq?”

Yes, Cheney said.

In other words, Iraqi WMD weren’t the reason we went to war, they were merely the excuse that Cheney and his colleagues needed to scare up public support. That’s a relevant piece of information as Americans try to decide how much faith they can put in this administration.

Last week, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid gave his fellow Americans another relevent piece of data concerning the basic competence of the Bush administration.

Scheid, who is about to retire, was a colonel with U.S. Central Command in 2002, helping to plan the invasion of Iraq. According to Scheid, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld banned Pentagon officials from planning for a post-war military occupation, to the point that he warned officers that “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need to prepare for an occupation.

The incompetence that reveals is mind-numbing, and is no doubt responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers, in addition to tens of thousands of Iraqis. And it matters — it matters very much — that the people responsible for such blunders are still in power, still making decisions and still setting policy.

— Jay Bookman, for the editorial board (jbookman@ajc.com)

By brian

September 12, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

No Saddam and Osama contact eh? Someone is lying:

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

By Barbara

September 12, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Easy now, Redneck Convert. You a) condemn TFTT (when we’re not supposed to judge); b) are not being a good steward of what God has given you (if you’re not paying for your home); and c) mock God (with your comments about the rapture and marriage). Before you pluck the splinter from TFTT’s eye, better pull the log out of yours.

By Watta Load

September 12, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

For Jim Wooten,

Speaking of Jay Bookman and on the subject of angry conversation…how do you and he get along at the ajc given you seem to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and basically publish columns that directly contradict each other?

By getalife

September 12, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Well, there is your honesty Jim.

Well said Jay Bookman.

He should get a blog.

By Realist

September 12, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

And it matters — it matters very much — that the people responsible for such blunders are still in power, still making decisions and still setting policy.

Jay “Booger” Bookman will get to cast his vote just like the rest of us. Until then, here’s a tissue, stop crying!!

NEXT!

By Amanda

September 12, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Wattaload, My understanding is that Jim slaps Jay around and makes Jay bring him his coffee, like any good conservative man would treat a liberal limp-wrister.

By Dusty

September 12, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Come quick, Nihoshi, bring Sumi bouncer ah so soon.

Rod serving cold Bookman terroryacki on cracked plate with liberal octopus suckers and pickled egg head. Too much dim dim. Not enough sauce.

By brian

September 12, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

anyone who comes on this blog posting libbie propganda from a libbie AJC columnist should be IP blocked here permanently

By Atlanta Lawyer

September 12, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Too often the left does not realize that September 11 began a War on Terror, not the War on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is clearly a part of that war, but the war is not limited to Al Quaeda. The War is against Terrorism, not just Al Quaeda, because 9/11 showed the extent of the damage terrorists could do and the dangers of waiting for them to attack (i.e., the law enforcement approach). That danger would be magnified many times over if terrorists ever obtained WMD.

Saddam clearly hated us, liked WMD and was a supporter of terrorism, even if we have no proof that he supported Al Qaeda. Would he have given WMD to terrorists for use against us if he could avoid having the WMD traced back to him? The likelihood that he would was too great to responsibly ignore and he would have had WMD. The sanctions were breaking down and he clearly was planning to reconstitue his WMD program once sanctions were gone.

So we have weakened Al Qaeda and removed Saddam, both successes in the War on Terror. What we have not done in the War on Terror is to confront and deal with the S** brand of terrorism. That involves confronting Iran, which is and will be the next front in the War on Terror, though it is hard to say what form that front will take.

By getalife

September 12, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

A lawyer?

Please, not with that kind of argument. You are missing the word Afghanistan genius. That is where the war should have stayed and we would be in a position to take care of other problems like Iran.

By JK

September 12, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Atlanta Lawyer, You make some valid points about being vigilant. While “terror” is not a specific enemy we can bomb, it is prudent to keep tabs on those who would use it against us, and to thwart such efforts in time. Historically, intelligence has been the key.

It’s not whether, but HOW we do this, however, that is a matter of contention among Americans. I always have to ask, “Who is paying for this?” Many say that the “war on terror” has been mismanaged with regard to both strategy and money. While that may be OPINION, the FACT is that our treasury has been emptied, we’re living on borrowed cash, and there’s no end-scenario in sight. Given the FACTS, I have to ask, what is truly the best way to proceed, how much would it cost to invade Iran, and is our military equipped and manned to handle yet another front? There’s more to victory than swagger and lipservice; somebody has to die, and somebody has to pay the bills. Thoughts?

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Iraq needed liberating regardless of WMD’s which are likely in Syria or buried somewhere in Iraq as tmany of their militreay hardware like planes were. They had at least some WMD’s but have cleverly kept them hidden thus far. Those huge heavily armed late night convoys to Syria a couple of days before the liberation had something very sensitive in them.

The cowardly pinko left will find any excuse and any half truth to hammer Bush with. The thoughts of some far left ajc pinko aren’t worth the spit from a dried up possum!!

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Welcome Atlanta Lawyer, I’ve not previously had privilege to read you before. Well-written.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

Please forgive redundancy @ 5:06.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

Bemused @ 3:53, your memory is defective. Republicans were up in arms over the Democrats’ refusal to fund the South Vietnam defense in 1975, no matter what you say. There was Democrat concensus, not a national one; Democrats had firm control of both houses of Congress in 1976.

Also, you suggest - in silence - that containment was Ronald Reagan’s policy; isn’t that false? Whereas every president before Reagan, playing defense only, gave up territory to the communists, Reagan (I have today signed legislation outlawing Russia forever - the nukes launch in five minutes) changed the tone and policy to offense. He repudiated MAD, favoring SDI, to the great horror of Kissinger and everyone to Kissinger’s left. Brokeback.

By earnestly

September 12, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Let’s all be honest!! I don’t care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. If you blindly follow a leader just because he is in the same political party, you are not doing the country any service. I think that it is time for Republicans to face the fact that their president manufactured reasons to attack Iraq, failed to plan that attack and has embroiled us in an un-winnable situation. Don’t fool yourselves, this type of war cannot be won, just as Korea and Vietnam could not. We will “cut and run”. It’s just a question of how many civilians and soldiers will have to die first. By the way, I’m not a liberal or a democrat, just someone who has their eyes open.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Also, Bemused, in 1980 all experts affirmed that the Soviet was as powerful as ever. That was Jimmy’s (“we have lost our irrational fear of communism”) reason for not opposing the Afghanistan invasion.

Had your criticism mentioned the names of Lady Thatcher or Pope John Paul, you would have received my affirmation. You, however, merely deny.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Earnestly, you are a leftist, without regard to your self-view.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

Only Leftists believe the sky is always falling. Conservatives will win this war.

By jbmlaw

September 12, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Without help from the leftists.

By time for the truth

September 12, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

so the bitter hate filled leftist jackals are at it again … Sean even the dim slut madonna rejected you Penn and the ugliest butch hag in texas that cretinous dixie chix have both been peddling more Bush hate instead of sticking to their job as egocentric ignorant celebrities.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,153398810_,00.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/articledisplay.jsp?vnucontent_id=1003120850

By Markus

September 12, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

Some of my most favorite humorous posts here are ones like, “I’m no liberal or democrat, but the fact that Republicans must face that their president manufactured reasons to attack Iraq..blah blah blah.”

Dressing up a pig in a different cocktail dress will not get you a better date, liberals. The ooze of liberalism always seeps through.

Hey earnesty:

“If you blindly follow a leader just because he is in the same political party, you are not doing the country any service.”

I have not heard one disagreement liberals and democrat constituents have with these people:

Barbara Boxer Nancy Pelosi Chuckie Schumer Howard Scream Al Gore John Kerry John Edwards Ted Kennedy

Now, I think many times Republicans here have exposed their problems with Bush, not the LEAST of which is that he’s hardly, HARDLY a conservative. No, methinks the left has the blind following thing down pat. They didn’t give a damn in 2004 who was going up against Bush before it became Kerry… remember the letters ABB? Blind following indeed.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

Hugo Chuvit Chevez, one of the darlings of the radical loonbat left like Cindy Sheeplehand, has said this about the WTC collapses:

“A building never collapses like that, unless it’s with an implosion.”

Sounds like the kook fringe left here. Amazing how all these radical jackass liberals can be experts on everything huh? From military strategy to structural engineering, these @ss clowns think they know everything based on a B.S. degree in Google. There have been no less than ten documentaries on how the WTC collapsed from PBS to Discovery Channel. From the designer of the buildings themselves to the workers, all gave input as to why they failed, including MIT structural engineer analysts.

But no, liberals read some BS out there, God knows where it starts, and suddenly just because it makes Bush look bad, it’s the spoken word truth. Yep, liberalism is not only a sickness, it’s a religious cult.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Tuesday night happy hour peanuts for thought:

Gas goes up a nickel, and headlines ROAR with news on how it’s sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and consumer wallets.

Gas goes down by over a quarter over a couple weeks, and it never even makes the news.

By peter

September 12, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

Another funny story you spin…….gee if some other large country decided that they are being threatened by a smaller country, and so they decide to invade……..are they right in doing so?

Basically you agree we have the right to invade anyone we see as a threat?

So who decides the Republicans or Democrates?

And anyone who doesn’t agree with a president who “Prays” before invading, is Left Wing?

HA HA HA to all your ethics…..or lack there of.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

Spicoli calls Bush a “beezlebub-and a dumb one.” Whatever the hell that means in liberal twinkletoes fairyland. This is the same clown that couldn’t even figure out how to sit his stoned liberal @ss down in a small boat trying to “save people” in New Orleans. What an idiot. This is the same jackass that actually met with Saddam’s goons in Iraq. Gotta love those Hollywood liberal sideshows every time they open their ignorant, truly uneducated mouths.

I’msowasted!

By getalife

September 12, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

You can always count on Macaca to throw up on this blog everyday about this time.

Like clockwork and the end of the shift at Taco Bell.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Damn TFTT! I need to check ^^up^^before posting links. It’s the second time I posted the same on after you this week LOL.

By peter

September 12, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA Atlanta lawyer….”Saddam clearly Hated us”…gee did he tell you personally……or something you are spinning?

Gee did Saddam clearly hate us when we gave him his weapons to be the adversary of Iran, when we were afraid of them?

Gee without his heavy hand that country would always be at civil war…the factions hate each other not just us….the reason Al Qaeda is there in full force seems to be that Saddam is not in power opressing anyone……….thus we have openned a free for all.

By Markus

September 12, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Yeah that’s right gotnolife-

I only live 15 minutes from the office these days. No BS commute time for me like the old days living way out for affordable housing. Making more money and stepping all over the backs of those poor people has it’s advantages.

By Bemused Humanist

September 12, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten:

Jmblaw @ 5:13 misses the obvious: namely, that both sides in 1975 knew that further “funding” of Saigon would have been futile. Our involvement in Vietnam was finished. What he references viz. the Republican “outcry” was mere theatre.

Truman fought in Korea against the Chinese. JFK brought us to the brink of Armageddon in Cuba and Berlin. Lyndon Johnson spent our nation’s lives and treasure in Vietnam.

Reagan invaded Grenada.

I can make a better argument that next to spending promiscuously on the military, the most effective Cold War policy we had during the Reagan years was to broadcast the TV series “Dallas” into the Eastern Bloc in order to get the repressed capitalist juices of the locals flowing — big time.

(Now THAT was offensive.)

By Barbara

September 12, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this

Peter, surely you’re just being obstinate? Sadam hates us. Even when we gave him wheapons, which we did for a purpose. I’m no history buff, but even I know that! It’s a pretty generally accepted belief that Sadam wants to do us in. Even many libs will give that much.

Markus, I’m jealous! I have a 35 mile commute! Getlost is just jealous of you too. That’s why he goes after you all the time. However, I only have to commute 2-3 times a week instead of every day big, huge smirk! so I guess that makes up for some of it!

Y’all have a good night.

By peter

September 13, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

No Barbra I am not being obstinate, so we give the guy (Saddam) a bunch of weapons, and then try to dictate to a “dictator” for our own use, duhhhhhhhh……..as you put it, “for a purpose”…….was it too blind to be able to see we couldn’t control him?

And the Markus guy with his last comment….”Stepping all over the backs of poor people has it’s advantages”……..so what advantage is that?

Is that how a Republican feels…….has it ever phased you that the soldiers we “use” to fight these made up wars are by in large from the poor sector of our society?

So what are you saying Markus…….let’s use these poor folks as soldiers, and then when they come home, we should step all over them for personal gain?

Gee how American and Patriotic you are, is this a typical Republican, and Right Wing attitude? Do you go to church on the weekend, and then walk all over the poor people during the week? Which religion teaches that?

Is this any way to treat a fellow American?

And Barbara did you just pass over that comment as if it was all cool, and is that the reality you come from as well?

Gee Jim Wooten, are you feeling the same way……..the conservative right has no issues with stepping on the backs of the poor Americans, as Markus states in his writing?

By Barbara

September 13, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Come on Peter. Now you’re being obstinate and disingenuous. Sadam took the weapons; we were working covertly. One can never be absolutely sure how that will work out.

As for Markus’s comments, you know that was just a jab meant to stir you up. You are pretending outrage over such an obviously baiting statement. You’re not fooling anyone.

By brian

September 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Peter you need to get a grip on yourself and grow a spine. People here on all sides say things just to get a rise out of others for fun if nothing else. No harm, no foul. Regarding above, I have seen many cases where a leftie here says that a wealthy neocon got wealty by stepping all over poor people to get there, which is a completely rediculous accusation. So you need to grow up and get over it.

By peter

September 13, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Gee Brian……….I guess that spine would come out of my back, and then I could use it as a weapon, I could first “step on the poor” and then use that spine like a sting ray……..ha ha ha…….I see we are a little ANGRY this morning……..

I guess growing up means that we all fall in line and just back the Republican Right, much in the same fashion as one former poster here noted, the Left followed Clinton during his years in office!

A little bantor is allot of fun…… BUT it would be more fun if a little intelligence is actually put forth!

By Markus

September 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Hey peter-

“I guess growing up means that we all fall in line and just back the Republican Right”

Look up at the top of this blog: it’s called THINKING RIGHT. If you don’t like this blog and the right-wingers on it, get out and quitchabellyaching already. You really ARE spineless if you think people here are trying to change your mind. I sure as hell don’t expect anyone to change my mind when visiting a liberal blog. Why do you mindless myrmidons on the left feel threatened by those that you don’t agree with?

Finally, what I said, in a joking way as two others have defended above, was just that: a JOKE. You liberals shoot hyperbole all the time here to get your points across.

Bottom line? If you don’t like what you read here or are so self-concious of your positions that you are afraid you may change, leave. You know where the door is.

By peter

September 13, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Yes Marcus I know where the door is……. funny you made a silly comment such as “Stepping on the back of poor people”………with ZERO regrets, showing you are tasteless when it comes to human compassion………now you decide to defend that tasteless remak, calling it a JOKE!!!!!!!!

Marcus you talk about me being “self conscience”……and in the mean time you write without a conscience knowing very well the soldiers are the “poor people” of this country…….and of course you have little to say back in the way of intelligent conversation, but quick to name call like a little girl, or a spoiled child.

Just because I call you out on that silly remark, I am “labled” and of course “spineless”………ha ha ha……..gee so much for the intelligent banter on this post.

So you and Brian has proven it is all about name calling and putting other folks down that don’t see things as you do…….wow you sound allot like the Republican led congress…….and if this Blog is about “thinking right”….did your parents teach you to be so “right” in your thinking that poor people are the monitary opportunity we should step on? Or did you learn that on your own?

My take on this is actually you are not joking about stepping on poor people that are Americans……..apparently that is what makes you happy…….and of course judging others on a whim, and following a party like a puppy dog.

Being independent, not to the Left or Right, is just that…….I don’t blindly follow either side, I figure out what makes the most sense, no matter who’s party spews it out……….ha ha ha……calling me spinless………

You got a great joke going Marcus……. why don’t you tell that to a group of poor people!

I guess this is what Jim Whooten had in mind when he started this debate…….to have tastless jokes and name calling go on….Go Marcus! Go Brian! give us more of that intelligent banter!

By Barbara

September 13, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Excuse me Peter?!?!?!?!??!?! What do you mean by saying Markus was “name calling like a little girl”?!?!?!?!?!? I’m a girl, and I’m only 5’3” so that makes me little, and I am highly offended by your comments. Do you have a problem with women? Or just short people? Or both? And you criticize someone else’s compassion?

By peter

September 13, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

Go Barbara……you get them “little girl”……

Then again it is OK to step on poor people for monitary gain…..and call people names that don’t agree with your thoughts………

I guess maybe you are only say 7 years to 11 years old????……..that would make you a “little girl”…….and if you reread what I wrote, I said quick to “name call LIKE a little girl”, or a spoiled child…

Then again maybe you would prefer being called a “little girl” over say something like an intelligent woman???????

Gee more intelligence……….WOW!!!!!!!!!

By Barbara

September 13, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this

Peter, you don’t see your own hypocracy do you? You criticize others for “name calling”, but your very last shot at me insults my intellegence. Hypocrit. But of course, we’ve already learned that about you.

By John

September 17, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

On Jim Wooten’s three filters to “honest” conversation— the “do you want to see George W. Bush succeed as president?” First of all, what kind of question is that? Most people (if not all that stop and think about it) want any president— even Bush— to succeed. For anyone to actually want Bush to fail would be the equivalent of wanting us all to fail. It’s a stupid question to begin with. Theodore Roosevelt said, “patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.” Secondly, Bush himself is incapable of success, no matter what support he has. Bush had phenomenal support after 9/11 and squandered it— he himself, his advisors, and administration did it all on their own. No one else helped them do it or can be blamed for it. The Bush presidency has proven itself to be the worst in history. The most disastrous. No one with a straight face at this point can argue otherwise. Bush himself is completely incompetent. And with influences like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the other neocons he’s surrounded with, how can anyone elsewhere in this administration— or other branches of government— or even outside government— with any competence themselves, wield any influence or provide any kind of support at all to make it any different than it has been in this administration? Bush has demonstrated beyond shadow of doubt he is incapable of competent or even rational leadership. He claims to talk to God— to use Bush’s own words when asked, his “higher father”— to advise him on matters like invading Iraq. Does that mean it’s really God who’s incompetent? This is so silly! I believe the one most intelligent, competent and rational decision that Bush could make right now involving Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, and every other world or domestic issue we’re confronted with is to immediately resign from office (Cheney first). He would have overwhelming support from everyone— including a likely grateful and relieved GOP, and even the delusional aficionados trying to use specious arguments like this to con the rest of us into believing anything positive and hopeful about this disaster of a presidency. Support would pour out also to Bush’s and Cheney’s replacements who would then be saddled with the overwhelming task of cleaning up this mess, reversing the damage already done, and at the same time move forward restoring this country to the shape it was in before this “fairly elected president” fouled it all up. Face it, regardless of the level of support, success anywhere on anything will NOT come from the Bush presidency.