This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 12, 2006 6:58 PM. The previous post in this blog was Sneak preview. The next post in this blog is Always the AOL. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Summing up the lie

Finally, the former frat president, now our President, has managed to get out a coherent sentence that encapsulates the fundamental falsehood that continues to take lives, including many young American lives, in Iraq:

"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."

You can keep saying it, Junior, but it's a lie, and more and more Americans are figuring that out.

Comments (64)

Not enough. It seems like we're always hearing about low approval ratings these days. What I don't understand is how anyone still approves at all.

Notice how he didn't say all of Iraq? Maybe that's because we have basically written off Anbar province which includes Ramadi and Fallujah. I seem to recall a lot of good young Americans dying there. Now al Qaeda is the strongest faction in charge and it's using this province as a recruiting base, while President Bush leaves several hundred of our soldiers to wander around in an area the size of New Hampshire waiting to be attacked. Thank goodness the GOP is so good at foreign policy and military matters. Just imagine how bad this would be if they really sucked at it.

One more thing Jack. Just like Clinton, Berger et al, being afraid of the channel 7 movie about 9/11, suck it up and understand it was something that G.W. inherited from the sperm smeared former president!!

I just saw a Bushie t-shirt for sale with the Goebbels quote, "If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Bush and his ilk are very good liars, and I don't think most Americans recognize it. They keep adjusting their "lie" and repeat it in different settings. Its effect seems subliminal.

Just because this was not a true fact before the war does not mean that it is not true now. Bush has created a situation where he may actually be right although for the wrong reasons.

Notice I said, "may" so discuss the issue, don't flame me.

PS: Bill, what the hell you thinking! :-)

If the safety of America depends on the fight for Iraq, why do we only have 130,000 troops there?

The "outcome" on the streets of Baghdad will be a decade or more of civil war. How that makes America safe is beyond me.

The only possible logic here is that by fomenting civil strife and providing a large American military presence as an easy target, we're drawing the most dangerous kooks to Iraq, to fight us there. But how long are we going to keep that up -- forever? And do we really think it's going to deter attacks on U.S. soil?

If anything, we're creating thousands more haters who will eventually pull another 9/11, or much worse, over here.

Travis, here's the story from NBC:
WASHINGTON - A new military intelligence report offers up the most pessimistic assessment yet of military prospects for al-Anbar province, the vast no-man's land in western Iraq that has seen some of the fiercest fighting of the war — from hard-hit Fallujah to the provincial capital Ramadi, which the U.S. military has never controlled.

A top secret report by a Marine Corps intelligence officer says there's no chance the U.S. military can end insurgent violence in al-Anbar, and no viable government institutions or chance for political progress anytime soon.

Even more ominous, military officials say al-Qaida in Iraq has rushed to fill that political vacuum. Military officials tell NBC News al-Qaida's also recruiting increasing numbers of Iraqi Sunnis into the terrorist group.

The Marine intelligence report says there were never enough American troops in al-Anbar from the beginning. In fact, one senior military official tells NBC News it would take 50,000-60,000 more U.S. ground forces to secure al-Anbar, and that's not going to happen.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Tuesday there has been some military and economic progress in Anbar, but for the first first time, it appears the U.S. military is preparing to concede a large piece of Iraq to the enemy and leave it entirely to the Iraqis to eventually sort it out.

something that G.W. inherited from the sperm smeared former president

Even assuming that the Rush Limbaugh Wet Dream Show were true (which I doubt), I'm not talking about Al Qaeda. I'm talking about Iraq. They're different -- very different -- or at least they were until the Chimp turned most of the world against us.

Al Qaeda has learned that it's more difficult to achieve their objectives from rotating hideouts in the mountains of Pakistan. Five years without an encore: that's not because they wouldn't like one.

In order to grow and train their ranks, finance and plan operations, and infiltrate target countries, they require the complicity of one or more countries that sympathize with their cause and will refuse extradition requests from the United States.

The Taliban (previously, Yemen, and the Sudan) provided this cover to Al Qaeda in the past.

If Iraq is permitted to descend further into civil war, a power vacuum (much like Afghanistan after the Soviets left) would permit the most violent faction to sieze control of Baghdad, or even a large portion of Central/Southern Iraq (Kurdish provinces excepted). The most violent faction would likely be allied with Al Qaeda, or exploit Al Qaeda operatives as their enforcers.

In either instance, an American retreat would be trumpeted as an Al Qaeda and/or Islamist victory that is likely to lead to further attacks on American interests and (eventually) to a WMD attack on America.

If you all think Bush is just fear mongering, you run the risk of being proven dead wrong.


Dave J.: do great minds think alike, or did you forget to attribute your paraphrasing the Politicalwire.com website that published the SAME COMMENT?

"as President Bush claimed last night, why do we have just 130,000 troops in Iraq?"

would be trumpeted as an Al Qaeda and/or Islamist victory that is likely to lead to further attacks on American interests and (eventually) to a WMD attack on America.

Oooooh, WMD -- that's soooooo scary. Let's repeal the Constitution and invade Iran, too.

Bush has got the Islamic trumpet going regardless of the outcome. Nothing we do (or omit) now will do anything but "lead to further attacks." Further attacks are coming; it's just a question of how many, and how intense. Bush is bringing about more, and worse.

This isn't his life, where he could screw up anything and his father's friends would bail him out. This is the future of the world, and he's doing to it just what he did with every enterprise he's ever been handed -- running it into the ground.

You can pat him on the back while he does it if it makes you feel better.

"Five years without an encore"

Another nincompoop for whom nothing counts if it happens outside the United States.

They're different

That's just it. We'd be in Iraq today with or without 9/11. Without 9/11 though, one does wonder what the rationale would be for staying the course.

Al Qeada prior to 9/11 was a group of about 1,000 zealots based mostly in Afganistan. Iraq was a war of choice and so now it might be a front in this endless WOT, it sure wasn't the hell before. So what do you have now. We probably now have 10,000 zealots based in Afganistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran all ready to lay down their life in order to kill a single American. The War in Iraq is compounding our problems and will make securing this country much more difficult.

Good lord. I find myself agreeing with both Travis (no big surprise) and Mister Tee in one thread? Scary.

Leaving Iraq unstable would surely be a serious setback. Yet that apparent fact does not excuse the poor judgement that lead to this monumental strategic mistake. It's not like the warnings were unclear:

"To those who choose to use force and think they can resolve the world’s complex problems through swift and preventive action, we argue the need for determined action over time. For today, to ensure our security, we have to take account of the multiplicity of the many crises and their many facets, including their cultural and religious dimensions. Nothing lasting in international relations can therefore be built without dialogue and without respect for the Other, without exigency and abiding by principles, especially for the democracies that must set the example. To ignore this is to run the risk of misunderstanding, radicalization and spiralling violence. This is even more true in the Middle East, an area of divisions, long torn apart by strife, whose stability must be a major objective for us.


To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through the action in Iraq, we say they run the risk of failing in their objective. The irruption of force in this area which is so unstable can only exacerbate the tensions and divisions on which the terrorists feed."

Speech by M. Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the United Nations Security Council, New York 19.03.2003

There's a lot of people out there that are going to have a damn hard time admitting that France was right and we were wrong. It'd be funny, except for all the limbs and lives this misjudgement has cost.

Dave J.: do great minds think alike, or did you forget to attribute your paraphrasing the Politicalwire.com website that published the SAME COMMENT?

(Shrugs) Dunno, guess we think alike. I don't read Politicalwire.com. Seems like a pretty obvious point to me.

They are different but not unrelated. Al-Qaeda and Iraq were interconnected prior to 9/11 but not because Saddam was going to hand over bio or chemo weapons to Osama.

9/11 occurred because the US and UK maintained a presence in the gulf for 10 yrs to "enforce" UN sanctions while the remaining coalition of the '91 War left us holding a $h!t sandwich, to use a military euphemism.

The Iraq situation had to be resolved after 9/11 without the US appearing weak. However, Bush and his advisors got drunk on the quick victory over the Taliban and did not grasp that the victory over the Taliban did not translate into a clear victory over Al-Qaeda and instead diverted efforts and focus to bring democracy to Iraq. What a joke.

Now we are in Baghdad but we are no longer holding a $h!t sandwich, we are face deep into the whole buffet.

At this point, forcing the US out of Baghdad during the Bush administration would be a huge victory for fundamentalist. Pulling out with a new administration would be a failure but at least the nation could shrug and blame it mostly on an anomaly of the prior presidency. My concern is that the new administration will be too quick and hard-pressed to resolve the conflict and inevitably it will over-correct. The world hates Bush so much, it should be more than willing to welcome a new "progressive" administration without our government conceding too much. What is left of the rational Middle East will renew efforts to force Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hammas to reign in its military wing. Even extremists get battle fatigue.

I’m afraid we have another year and change of this mess.

Mister Tee said: "Five years without an encore: that's not because they wouldn't like one.
TK: I assume you're repeating the talking point du jour... sorry, no president could say their personal presence has (presumably) done a better job of protecting than another. After 9/11, any president would have shifted more resources into our protection. And by all indications, Osama has more incentive keeping some NeoCon like Bush in office, and timing is everything...

MrT:"...sympathize with their cause and will refuse extradition requests from the United States"
TK: Do you honestly think Al Qaeda is worried about extradition laws? What about Bush's 'buddy' Musharraf, whom Bush just swore was still our ally in the war on Terror? I'm confused Mr. T, on the off chance that Osama was or is in Pakistan, wouldn't extradition be a likelihood?

Mr.T:"The Taliban (previously, Yemen, and the Sudan) provided this cover to Al Qaeda in the past"
TK: True, and that's why our initial actions in Afghanistan had wide bipartisan and worldwide support. But the Baath party in Iraq IS NOT THE F-ING TALIBAN! They couldn't be more different of a threat.

Mr.T:"If Iraq is permitted to descend further into civil war, a power vacuum (much like Afghanistan after the Soviets left) would permit the most violent faction to sieze control of Baghdad, or even a large portion of Central/Southern Iraq (Kurdish provinces excepted)"
TK: 'Much like Afghanistan' is right... the common denominator? Unnecessary quagmire. We didn't learn from our own mistakes from Vietnam, or the Soviet's escapades in Afghanistan, or...
The civil war is on Bush's hands.

Mr.T:"The most violent faction would likely be allied with Al Qaeda, or exploit Al Qaeda operatives as their enforcers"
TK: You know this based on, what, your gut? Bush's political mantra? Al Qaeda isn't a political party, nor does it want to put a target on it's back by aligning directly with a government. The Republicans haven't been able to see two feet in front of them for six years... Iraq wasn't an Al Qaeda problem before we got there, and they couldn't predict a nationalistic uprising and insurgency. This election IS a referendum on these bozos, no matter how much they want to spin it...

Mr.T:"In either instance, an American retreat would be trumpeted as an Al Qaeda and/or Islamist victory... if you all think Bush is just fear mongering, you run the risk of being proven dead wrong."
TK: Funny, Osama said the SAME thing the other day. Bush and Osama just keep finishing each other's sentences lately, don't they? Plus... an Islamist victory? Shouldn't people in Islamic countries decide what kind of government they want? Or are we deciding for them? (A: Yes!)

You're falling for the CW that all the pundits are selling: 1. The existence of any terror threat = Bush is Right, GOP must be kept in power. Wha?? How does that figure? Terrorism has always existed as a threat to us, it just surprised Bush. Instead of fighting the silent, unglamorous intelligence war, we're treated to another Vietnam and we're nearly a Trillion dollars poorer. Yeah, we should listen to Dear Leader Bush.

Vote the bums out.

"Now we are in Baghdad but we are no longer holding a $h!t sandwich, we are face deep into the whole buffet."

Well said. :-)

Leaving Iraq unstable

You will never leave it any other way, and it was quite stupid ever to have expected otherwise.

Moments ago on the Tonight Show: "The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report this week saying there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al-Qaeda. Well, thank God we found that out before we did something crazy."
It got a good laugh and prolonged applause which was cool. I used to be happy just to get one on - now it has to have a strong reaction.
I also really liked Travis's line above, but as usual those show-offs at the Daily Show stole the show. They had that ad where a celebrity interprets what someone says. So they had President Bush saying a few lines from his 9/11 speech, interpreted by Little Richard.
Comedy gold.

You guys are sooooo enamored with the party line (Bush lied about WMDs) that you've convinced yourselves that WMDs are never going to be deployed against us?

The simple fact remains that Saddam researched and stockpiled chemical weapons, and even used them against the Kurds and Iran. He MAY HAVE destroyed them (or transported them to Syria), but he continued to behave in a manner that was consistent with somebody with a weapons program he was trying to hide.

Why? Because he assumed the potential threat represented by these "ghost" weapons would further dissuade his enemies from attacking him. Ironically, the fear of the ghost weapons served as the most marketable argument in favor of preemption, and it also gained traction in the United Nations. Regretably, the Bushies put too much emphasis on the WMD threat, while spending too little time on the other reasons (he was rebuilding his conventional forces, he was unpredictable, he tried to assasinate a U.S. President, he was paying incentive bonuses to the families of homicide bombings, etc).

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is not a straw man invented by the Bushies. WMD's have been kept in their cannisters/rockets/bunkers (in large part) because of the knowledge that any state that deployed them against another would likely encourage that 2nd state to escalate to their most deadly weapons.

Think of it as MAMS (Mutual Assured Mass Suffering) instead of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). In short: the use of WMD's can be deterred by the threat of a retaliatory strike ("2nd strike") with even more horrorific consequences.

When you remove the nation state from the equation, and assume that WMD's may be used against us by an ethereal terrorist organization with nothing to lose (and presenting no 2nd strike targets of any value), then the MAMS deterrence is effectively null and void.

September 11th shows that even convetional weapons/tactics may be deployed in a such a way to kill large numbers of civilians. That's what made 9/11 such a huge tactical success for Al Qaeda: they took a piece of transportation equipment owned by somebody else, and turned it into a kerosene filled guided missile. Then they flew it into the two most densely occupied structures on the eastern seaboard (the Twin Towers), hoping that the collapse of those buildings would destroy many of the surrounding buildings. Evil yes, but brilliant too.

Do any of you really believe that Saddam Hussein didn't have a big ol shit eating grin on his face when the towers collapsed? Don't you think it's possible (even likely?) that he was thinking, if these Islamists can bring America to their knees by stealing a few jets, just imagine what they could do with some chemical or biological weapons? And if Iraq (or North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India) is able to provide WMD technology or knowledge to Al Qaeda in such a manner that the association goes undetected, then America will have nobody to retaliate against.

Sure, I am hypothesizing about the unknowable. But it is likely that those who despise us would begin acting in concert at some point in the future: September 11th merely underlined the effectiveness of assymetrical warfare and the ability to use our own assets (and open/tolerant society) against us in a non-conventional manner.

Bush didn't invent the threat of WMD's, and it's looking more and more likely that the eventual deployment of WMD's on American soil will occur after Bush has left office.

QUESTION: how many Democrats think their President is going to take the bulk of the criticism if they are sitting in the White House when the WMD's start killing large numbers of Americans? It won't be the President's fault (per se); those who developed and deployed the weapon will be at fault. Do you think the American Public will be open to that kind of nuance the second or third time a WMD goes off?

It seems unlikely, and the occupant of the White House at that time is going a natural target for their hostilities. Y'all hate Bush and call him a Nazi or a fascist: the fact remains that he has presided over a period of domestic tranquility post September 11th. Just wait until his predecessor declares martial law in an effort to stop the next chain of WMD attacks, and suspends habeus corpus, or is forced to quarantine large swaths of American cities/states in order to stop the transmission of an infectious biological weapon, or in an attempt to limit further WMD deployments to their entry/storage locations.

It may sound paranoid, until it happens. And y'all might be surprised at how "anti-American" or undemocratic your Democratic response is going to be.

Most Americans would agree that there is nothing else we can do militarily to make Iraq into a safe democracy. There appears to be an unlimited supply of bomb makers, masked gunmen and plain old murderers who, like their neighbors, are consumed with the destruction of Israel. And as long as we blindly support Israel, the United States will be Target #2.

I just wish that we could move the level of debate to a more civil tone, minus the quick insult of words like NeoCom, nincompoop, liar and chimp.Having lived decades of my life with John "Bluto" Blutarski as a role model, I may be the wrong guy to make this point. There is a clear, obvious disagreement over our policy in Iraq, but that would be better illuminated by calm debate and discussion, rather than name calling.

The best chance you get for most politicians to tell the truth comes at the time when they can no longer run for office.The President can't be said to be running for election or personal politicing, and he probably isn't planning to write a book which dosen't have pictures. Let's at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes what he is saying. Be vigorous in your disagreement, be strong in your opposition and be wise in planning the politics of changing the decision makers. Lose the venom.

Freedom of speech has an intoxicating nature when we can accent our points with insults and impute bad will to those we disagree with. More people will listen to the message when it comes without shrill, meanspirited language.

Bring the boys home...

Bring the boys home...

Back when I was marching against that last insane war, age 17, I remember being a little offended at that "boy" label. If they were gonna draft my butt, at least accept that I'm a MAN. (In the image of Lee Marvin and John Wayne).

Now, age 55, and I see the faces in the paper, read their ages, guys too young to have ever gotten to walk into a bar and ordered a beer...

Bring our boys home.

"the fact remains that he has presided over a period of domestic tranquility post September 11th."
Here I thought you were an idiot, but you are really a satirist.

Tom: you're welcome to disagree, but you need to give a little more insight into WHY you disagree, rather than simply making a personal attack.

9/11 was a horrorific tragedy which was (in my view) inavoidable given the ingenious plan the attackers developed, and the (mostly Federal) policies --"chinese wall", political correctness, bureaucratic layers, and CYA thinking -- in effect at the time.

Post 9/11 we experienced a quick economic recovery, a tremendous housing boom, and (most importantly) no follow on attacks by Al Qaeda on U.S. soil. The Dow Jones 30 Industrials are 3% below the previous high-water mark, unemployment is low (and declining). That's "Domestic Tranquility".

Yes, we are fighting a guerrilla war on two fronts, and there has been tremendous loss of life and tax dollars in that pursuit. Nevertheless, the war is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not in Manhattan or Minnesota.

The Domestic Tranquility parts seems
obvious to me. If you disagree, please explain why.

Actually Mr. Tee, I bet Saddam knew his days were numbered when the towers collapsed so I doubt he was smiling. But, Saddam, being who he is, misplayed his hand.

Mr. Tee,

Where do terrorist anthrax attacks fit into your notion of post-9/11 domestic tranquility?

I'm sure glad we got the folks who did that.

Also, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided, just like the millenium plot was avoided.

Maybe if Condoleeza Rice had taken seriously the warnings of Richard Clarke rather than demoting him.

Maybe if GW Bush hadn't ignored the findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission in early 2001, which had studied the issue of terrorist threats and determined that a domestic terrorist attack was imminent. You may recall that GW Bush instead appointed Cheney to chair a task force on domestic terrorism instead ("Thanks, Hart-Rudman commission, but we'll take care of this"). Of course, Dick's task force never met.

Maybe if GW Bush had taken seriously the August 6 PDB rather than telling the CIA briefer who delivered it that he had covered his ass and then heading out to hit some golf balls and remaining on vacation for most of the month.

Maybe if the Department of Defense had identified terrorism as one of its priorities in 2001. You may recall that the list of its priorities that it issued on Sept. 10, 2001 did not include terrorism.

The truth is that we'll never know whether 9/11 was unavoidable, but it's far from certain that it was.

Oh, mr. tee please stop if I blow one more cup of Starbucks Colombia Narino Supremo out my nose and ruin another R.A.C.C. grant application I'm going to send you a bill.

"the war is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not in Manhattan or Minnesota."

And we are so proud of you guys! Which country are you deployed to, again, Mister Tee: Iraq or Afghanistan? Thank God such a brave and tough guy as yourself is protecting us over "there" with your mohawk and gold chains so we don't have to fight them over "here," since of course our invasions of those two countries have somehow made it impossible for Al Qaeda to attack Manhattan or Minnesota in the future. Kudos to you!

Happy Day 1822 of FREEDOM to Osama BinLaden, who killed nearly 3,000 Americans five years ago.

So why doesn't our shaky President go to Pakistan and get em?

Don't know. Ask him at the next GOP fundraiser since he says he doesn't know nor care about OBL anymore.

BTW, Greedy Old People, you should note Monica's blue dress did not blow up, the Twin Towers did.

On W's watch.

When we leave, the mostly Shiite Iraqi army that we are training and equipping will start killing lots of Sunnis.

So it's not like staying, and training the Iraqi army, is a safe strategy, becasue we could end up helping a genocide against the Sunnis.

Pentagon says they found 104 dead Iraqis scattered through the streets of Baghdad. S-c-a-t-t-e-r-e-d.

The heads were behind the 7/11... bodies by the gas station... and arms and legs in various trees and bushes around town. The "bits and pieces" of people are all heading to the BRAND NEW MORGUES the U.S. is building in Baghdad because when the US flag flies high there is death and destruction and doom everywhere.

W's silly little oil war has cost you and me half a BILLION dollars in three years... heading for $1,000,000,000... way too many zeroes for our chickenhawk chickensh!ts to comprehend.

Brother Gary hit the nail on the head. The left's venom has destroyed their ability to discuss politics with any civility. Would you really want your children reading your posts? This may explain the death of Air America.

"The left's venom has destroyed their ability to discuss politics with any civility." When you say 'left' are you talking about your left or my left because your left would be my right if we were facing each other.

Jack hit the nail on the head. Bush's decision to invade Iraq and accompanying lies has destroyed his ability to discuss Iraq with any credibility. Would you really want your children joining the National Guard? This may explain the death of the administration's lie, pushed for 5 years, that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Way too many zeroes for this gal, too.

Make the cost of the Iraq fiasco about $1,000,000,000,000 total.

Yup. A trillion.

Gee Daphne, did you have as much venom for Clinton when he wasted hundreds of Serbs in '99?

During the previous administration, Al Qaeda attacked the WTC, the USS Cole, a Marine barracks overseas, and a couple embassies overseas. Nothing was done then. I really dont think that the current administration is the only one responsible for what is going on...

Heya Chris. I remember facts.

Like Clinton winning the Bosnian war without losing one American life. Not one.

Serbia started the trouble, Clinton ended it. Fast.

Remember, Chris?

Durbovnik does. Split too. And how many of Serbia's "nations" have voted to stay with the bloody butchers of Belgrade?

None. Croatia, Montenegro and pals have all formed their own countries.

Try www.cia.gov on your way to the Army Recruiting Office where you do not have to take a number, they have plenty of time for chickenhawk suckers like you.

So it's all about American lives lost, huh? You wouldn't have had a problem if Bush just flung 10,000 cruise missiles into Iraq?

Please Daphne, you'd hate Bush even if he was Mother Theresa.

Furthermore, I have a hard time believing you give a crap about US soldiers.

Hi Chris. Wind your watch. Bosnian War was early 1990's. You are off by almost a decade.


So, when did Iraq shoot at us? Never, ever, never. Heck, Rummy even hugged Saddam and said "Heckuva Job, Saddie!" for Reagan before he sent arms to Contra nun-rapers in exchange for Middle East hostages.

Your President Bush says Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

Bosnia War = provoked. US kicked ass in days. No US dead.

Iraq War = W bored and needed a beer. And great diversion from "The Pet Goat" and the not disputed Bush-binladen business connection going back 40 years.

Again, Chris, sign up for WW3 or you're just a chickensh!t chickenhawk.

Oh well so much for discussing poliltics with civility. Give 'em 'ell Daphne! You go girl! Open up a can of whoop ass, go medival on them! Whooooohoooooo!!!!

So it's all about American lives lost, huh? Innocent civilians don't matter? You wouldn't have had a problem if Bush just flung 10,000 cruise missiles into Iraq?

Please Daphne, you'd hate Bush even if he was Mother Theresa.

Furthermore, I have a hard time believing you give a crap about US soldiers.

And at what point did I defend Serbia and Milosevic?

"... 10,000 cruise missiles into Iraq?" Hardly necessary.

For years, leading up to the 2003 invasion, the US controlled all of the airspace over Iraq to the extent that 2/3 of the airspace was off limits to Iraqi aircraft. From time to Iraq was bombed, - for what ever reason. Weapons inspectors were again on the ground in Iraqi.

At that time I too believed the WMD bull, but I did not see how this dictator and country were a threat the US, given how tied down he was.

In the spring of 2003 the eyes of some people I know well twinkled at the "shock and awe" that our armed forces were bestowing on Saddam. Their eyes are much duller now.

IMHO history will be harsh on Bush and his lust to be a "war president."

I'm just going to add two quotes here. The first sums up my feelings about debating the 'necessity' of this war online:

"When you argue with your inferiors, you convince them of only one thing: they are as clever as you." - Irving Layton

The second sums up my feelings about Bush:

"What a dumb f***." - Natalie Maines

When republicans get their non-factual asses handed to them, they inevitably cry 'foul'. 'Politics of Hate' this, 'The Angry Left' that, 'Unhinged'... Amazing that they carry a big stick in talking points, but they wet the bed when held accountable for their shallow views. Fresh out of easily debunked myths or catch phrases? Easy! Just attack the messenger and avoid the biggest issues!

That's the kind of stimulating debate you get when a guy like Bush in office. Words just flowing out of some puppet's mouth, generalities without meaning... nothing but talk radio-honed rhetoric.

Well boo-frickin hoo. It's time these gasbags stop putting party before country, and realize the obvious.

Daphne: would it make any difference that the 104 bodies were dismembered by the bad guys? How about all those folks that were beheaded (on videotape) by Islamo-Fascists?

Is it worth distinguishing between those who have elevated war crimes to a daily occurrence, while American violations (though infrequent) are often publicized and the perps prosecuted?

Ginseng: I believe there is sufficient evidence available to conclude that Al Qaeda was likely responsible for the Anthrax Attacks. The simple fact that we've seen no subsequent attacks suggest those responsible are dead or hunkered down. If it was a domestic terrorist, suffice it to say that he leveraged the post 9/11 fear for maximum effect, but he only managed to kill 5 people. If were going to use body counts to determine the severity of the loss, that's roughly equal to the number of Oregonian bicyclists/pedestrians who were mowed down by cars in the past 6 months.

I don't think those losses (however tragic) have destroyed domestic tranquility

Heya Mr. Tee as the GOP wishes Osama ANOTHER Happy Day of Freedom (Day 1824) courtesy of W who disbanded the OBL unit to save money.

Big diff on the dead, scooter. The slaughtered women and children in the streets and schools of Baghdad DID NOT ASK FOR THIS WAR.

The GIs and greedy contractors (making $5,000 a day) asked for it. And got it.

So, why aren't you fighting over there in WW3?


Mr. Tee,

I disagree that body counts determine the severity of the loss of tranquility that comes with terrorism. Terrorism, by its very definition, works by using specific, unpredictable actions to spread fear. While the anthrax attacks may not have killed many, it certainly spread fear throughout many large cities, if not most of the country.

Wait... didn't they find that anthrax was traced to a strain from our military? Everyone seems to think it was an inside job, not Al Qaeda.

It's also interesting that, because Bush likes to trot out any and all terrorist threats, they completely dropped the whole Anthrax threat. Nothing about an ongoing investigation, nothing about following leads or catching terrorists.

It's all fishy, and I wonder about the timing of the anthrax scare as it relates to 9/11 and the drumbeat to invade Iraq.

Mister Tee says who the hell cares about five hard-working, taxpaying Americans who chocked to death on their vomit from the still unsolved anthrax attack, POST 9/11.

Speaking of math, Mr. Tee, know what your odds are of being killed by AlQaeda in the USA?

Same as being hit by a comet.

But W says Halley's Comet is coming back early since FEAR IS ALL THEY GOT, folks. Boo!

So, tell us again, Mr. Tee and Chris, why you refuse to fight in what W calls World War Three?


Daffy, you're obviously too delusional and bitter to be reasoned with. You just spew the same rhetoric over and over without any meaningful dialog. Hence my reluctance to engage you and your inane comments.

Case in point; you continually berate those who support our troops and their mission, but aren't in active duty. Do you feel the same for people who support the police and/or fire department? Do I have to become a cop in order to support their mission?


You continue to soil yourself in public by BACKING TWO WARS YOU REFUSE TO FIGHT.

So, we know where you stand.

Behind your mommy, like ol' W, and all the chickensh!t chickenhawks.

So, for the final time, why do you refuse to fight the enemy?

You Muslim? Or just scared to die in the desert? We are all waiting for your answer. Well?

"you continually berate those who support our troops and their mission, but aren't in active duty. Do you feel the same for people who support the police and/or fire department? Do I have to become a cop in order to support their mission?"

Bad analogy: Bush is not sending police and fire fighters by the thousands to invade and occupy an unarmed non-threatening oil-rich country without provocation.

No, he's doing that with the National Guard, and it is quite expensive and a strain. It could not handle Katrina.


Also, please pay my federal income taxes for me. Thanks!

Well, Chrissie, if I may call you that, TWO Bojack posters have called you out on your cowardice.

So, see you at the Army Recruiting Office on 82nd Avenue?

Guess what? Eight chairs and no waiting!!!!

But, the recruiters usually nap most of the day, since the poor would rather be poor than dead, so you may have to wake 'em up.

Remember, Chris, it's the oil, stupid!!!!

No Sam, it's not a bad analogy. Congress, not just Bush voted to send troops to a country which was a threat. And yes, Iraq was a threat. The Bush I administration new it. The Clinton administration new it. A huge majority of congress knew it. (Moreover, congress overwhelmingly voted to stay in Iraq. What does that tell you?)

Our military is VOLUNTEER. Just like police and fire. They know the dangers and overwhelmingly support their mission.

And Daffy, if you haven't seen one already, consult a shrink. You've got a major case of OCD.

Hey everyone! Get a load of this!

Chris, this board's NUMBER ONE chickensh!t chickenhawk is lecturing the rest of us about our voluntary army, you know, the one no one is volunteering for since there are no WMD, no link to AQ, no mushroom cloud, nada, just W's bloodthirst for oil, the Bush family business.

As for dinner tonight, I'm thinking Fried Chicken(hawk).

Got any recipes Chris?

"Our military is VOLUNTEER. Just like police and fire." The pay and benefits though are not as good, and you have no union. I also don't think it's going to be volunteer much longer either though I hope I'm wrong about that for everyone who has kids turning 18 in the near future.

Memo to all cowardly chickenhawks!

Pentagon reports they have found another 50 bodies scattered, in pieces, here and there, in Baghdad.

So, DOD is BUILDING A MOAT AROUND BAGHDAD to stop the baddies. Yes, it's true. A moat. In the desert.


The AQ bad boyz are winning because able-bodied bloodthirsty Republicans like Chrissie and Mr. Tee have refused to fight for their country they say they love, but hate.

Daphne, please. This is not a chat board, and you're over the top.

I want to say I am sorry to you and all the readers.

Your blog, Bojack, is one of the very few that I find intereesting, even if I disagree, so I will stop the flaming, if that is what it is.

Sorry, again.

"Iraq was a threat."


"Our military is VOLUNTEER. Just like police and fire."

Unlike police and fire, our military is not being overstretched to pursue foolish adventures in Mesopotamia.

So, answer Daphne's question: Have you volunteered for the military?

If not, why not?

Clicky Web Analytics