Spring, you know what I'm talking about.
I worked outside with the laptop today. Looking forward to many more days of that.
yea, she's soft and fuzzy... I think I just heard Paul sneeze. Sorry Paul.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
04/07/2008 22:43 #43946
one of those daysCategory: life
03/28/2008 09:52 #43812
Iraq Going BadlyCategory: war
This has not turned into huge news yet for some reason. So in case you hadn't heard.
The Green Zone in Baghdad has been under rocket attack for the past 4 days. That's where the government and the US offices and Embassies are. It's a fortified city. US personnel have been advised to avoid traveling outside and sleep in reinforced structures.
The southern port city of Basra is basically occupied by Shi'ite militias. The government ordered them to hand over their weapons by today, I'm guessing that's not going to happen.
Bush thinks everything is swell, Sounds more like 1984 doublethink propaganda to me.
Chuck Hagel (R) Talks about Bush being Alice in Wonderland.
This doesn't sound good,
"Military: Troop Strains Putting US at Risk"
The Point, we can't solve other people's problems. If they can't work it out, we can't fix it for them. The Iraq war is now a completely political problem. We can't fix it, but we don't want embarrass ourselves. The Republicans in particular, have a lot riding on this flaming turd, especially with the election coming up.
The Surge brought a temporary lull in violence, but in the meantime we didn't get any progress in the government. All this time, and we haven't built anything that will last. 4,000 deaths, 40,000 wounded us soldiers and 5 years, and 500,000 billion so far.
The Green Zone in Baghdad has been under rocket attack for the past 4 days. That's where the government and the US offices and Embassies are. It's a fortified city. US personnel have been advised to avoid traveling outside and sleep in reinforced structures.
The southern port city of Basra is basically occupied by Shi'ite militias. The government ordered them to hand over their weapons by today, I'm guessing that's not going to happen.
Bush thinks everything is swell, Sounds more like 1984 doublethink propaganda to me.
Chuck Hagel (R) Talks about Bush being Alice in Wonderland.
This doesn't sound good,
"Military: Troop Strains Putting US at Risk"
The Point, we can't solve other people's problems. If they can't work it out, we can't fix it for them. The Iraq war is now a completely political problem. We can't fix it, but we don't want embarrass ourselves. The Republicans in particular, have a lot riding on this flaming turd, especially with the election coming up.
The Surge brought a temporary lull in violence, but in the meantime we didn't get any progress in the government. All this time, and we haven't built anything that will last. 4,000 deaths, 40,000 wounded us soldiers and 5 years, and 500,000 billion so far.
dcoffee - 03/29/08 00:26
Great points Peter, I like hearing different perspectives like that. You're right on a lot of points like having three separate countries, and the screwed up boundaries. You know Americans have gone through periods where we kill each other too, nobody worked it out for us. Imagine Britain comming over here and trying to break up the civil war, or solve slavery.
Thanks for the updates James, you rock.
Great points Peter, I like hearing different perspectives like that. You're right on a lot of points like having three separate countries, and the screwed up boundaries. You know Americans have gone through periods where we kill each other too, nobody worked it out for us. Imagine Britain comming over here and trying to break up the civil war, or solve slavery.
Thanks for the updates James, you rock.
metalpeter - 03/28/08 18:09
So I never watch the News but today I did catch some of this story before I went to work. The problem is that when you have people who hate each other and want to fight there is only one way to stop them and that is with a powerful leader like Sadam. You can't really have a country run by the people when certain groups want to kill each other. But yet we are the ones who took out the army and Sadam and now we have no way to fix the problem, oh and the one person who could maybe put things back together was hung. I know the Europeans fucked it up with how they have cut up countries and made the lines wrong. But I think that is really the only thing to do in Iraq and make it 3 seperate states with different laws and leaders that fit that areas view.
So I never watch the News but today I did catch some of this story before I went to work. The problem is that when you have people who hate each other and want to fight there is only one way to stop them and that is with a powerful leader like Sadam. You can't really have a country run by the people when certain groups want to kill each other. But yet we are the ones who took out the army and Sadam and now we have no way to fix the problem, oh and the one person who could maybe put things back together was hung. I know the Europeans fucked it up with how they have cut up countries and made the lines wrong. But I think that is really the only thing to do in Iraq and make it 3 seperate states with different laws and leaders that fit that areas view.
james - 03/28/08 13:51
I don't know what this isn't huge news.
Our boy al-Maliki gave the Mahdi army a deadline to disarm. They ignored it. Then the government created a gun-buy-back program, in essence bribing the al-Sadr. Now they have pushed the deadline to April, 8th. Now members of the Iraqi army and police are flocking to al-Sadr.
Our president is handling this like he is the economy. Our goals in Iraq are in deep shit but we are getting a glowing report from president Bush despite all indications the opposite is true.
Excellent post. Thank you.
I don't know what this isn't huge news.
Our boy al-Maliki gave the Mahdi army a deadline to disarm. They ignored it. Then the government created a gun-buy-back program, in essence bribing the al-Sadr. Now they have pushed the deadline to April, 8th. Now members of the Iraqi army and police are flocking to al-Sadr.
Our president is handling this like he is the economy. Our goals in Iraq are in deep shit but we are getting a glowing report from president Bush despite all indications the opposite is true.
Excellent post. Thank you.
03/27/2008 12:39 #43806
My Superdelagate LetterCategory: political
We now know that it is almost imposable for Clinton to win the nomination through democratic means. She would have to get around 70% in all the remaining states. And asside from a "political meteor" hitting Obama, this is not going to happen. But she seems not to notice or care, and it's likely that her candidacy will just go more and more negative as this thing drags on. Her only hope is that the 800 superdelegates at the Convention will appoint her as the winner, and ignore the voters who worked so hard to make their opinions known. This undemocratic attitude really rubs me the wrong way. If votes don't matter there is no hope for this country.
More people are saying that the Clintons don't care how much they damage Obama or the party, Clinton wouldn't mind a McCain presidency cause she could run again in 2012. Not saying it's true, she's just making weird choices and statements.
Read an article yesterday, Clinton Donors write Scathing Letter to Pelosi
Kind of bothered me they were insisting the Superdelegates give Clinton the nomination, like they have the right.
Another good Article by David Brooks in the NY Times "The Long Defeat"
Not obeying the will of the voters really bothers me, so I decided to write a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the DNC. I faxed it to Reid and Pelosi, emailed to the DNC.
Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, et all
If the Democratic Party overturns the vote of the public and chooses Hillary Clinton during the convention, at best you will alienate a generation and validate their cynicism about American Politics. But the damage will likely go well beyond that. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents will stay home, others like myself will vote for a third party, and many more will vote for John McCain.
The truth is, Americans believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, but they don't believe in the politicians or the political system. This is why we have horrible voter turnout, even in presidential elections. If you can inspire people to get off the couch and vote, Democrats will win elections year after year.
If you don't take the opinion of the voters seriously, they will not trust you, and they will not vote for you. To win an election you need votes more than anything else. If you begin the presidential election with the candidate who did not receive the most votes, you will be at an enormous disadvantage, and the mistrust of the voters will carry on for years to come.
The Democratic Party needs somebody who can champion our principles, and get results, someone who is more trustworthy and convincing than the right wing. An eloquent person who can speak in terms that Americans identify with. Someone from a working class background who we can relate to and respect.
A candidate who inspires people will always get results, because once you convince the public that something is the right thing to do, politicians have no choice but to go along or lose their seat. You need a better salesman at the bully pulpit, someone who believes deeply in the values of the party, and clearly puts the good of the country above themselves
My story. I switched my party affiliation to Democrat, just so I could vote in the primaries. This time in history, and this election are so important that I needed to make my opinion known. In New York State voters must switch a year in advance, I took that step and I voted for Barack Obama. I'm also a small business owner, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I read the news, and have a BA in Political Science. I'm not quiet about my opinions, I vote every single year, even in local elections. There are lots of people like me, potential Democrats who need some reassurance that you will not let us down.
The people have voted, and we will continue to vote for the candidate we prefer. Do not ignore our votes in the primaries, or you will not get our vote in the general election, or in future elections.
Dcoffee
More people are saying that the Clintons don't care how much they damage Obama or the party, Clinton wouldn't mind a McCain presidency cause she could run again in 2012. Not saying it's true, she's just making weird choices and statements.
Read an article yesterday, Clinton Donors write Scathing Letter to Pelosi
Kind of bothered me they were insisting the Superdelegates give Clinton the nomination, like they have the right.
Another good Article by David Brooks in the NY Times "The Long Defeat"
Not obeying the will of the voters really bothers me, so I decided to write a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the DNC. I faxed it to Reid and Pelosi, emailed to the DNC.
Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, et all
If the Democratic Party overturns the vote of the public and chooses Hillary Clinton during the convention, at best you will alienate a generation and validate their cynicism about American Politics. But the damage will likely go well beyond that. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents will stay home, others like myself will vote for a third party, and many more will vote for John McCain.
The truth is, Americans believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, but they don't believe in the politicians or the political system. This is why we have horrible voter turnout, even in presidential elections. If you can inspire people to get off the couch and vote, Democrats will win elections year after year.
If you don't take the opinion of the voters seriously, they will not trust you, and they will not vote for you. To win an election you need votes more than anything else. If you begin the presidential election with the candidate who did not receive the most votes, you will be at an enormous disadvantage, and the mistrust of the voters will carry on for years to come.
The Democratic Party needs somebody who can champion our principles, and get results, someone who is more trustworthy and convincing than the right wing. An eloquent person who can speak in terms that Americans identify with. Someone from a working class background who we can relate to and respect.
A candidate who inspires people will always get results, because once you convince the public that something is the right thing to do, politicians have no choice but to go along or lose their seat. You need a better salesman at the bully pulpit, someone who believes deeply in the values of the party, and clearly puts the good of the country above themselves
My story. I switched my party affiliation to Democrat, just so I could vote in the primaries. This time in history, and this election are so important that I needed to make my opinion known. In New York State voters must switch a year in advance, I took that step and I voted for Barack Obama. I'm also a small business owner, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I read the news, and have a BA in Political Science. I'm not quiet about my opinions, I vote every single year, even in local elections. There are lots of people like me, potential Democrats who need some reassurance that you will not let us down.
The people have voted, and we will continue to vote for the candidate we prefer. Do not ignore our votes in the primaries, or you will not get our vote in the general election, or in future elections.
Dcoffee
dcoffee - 03/27/08 20:18
Funny I just checked my email and MoveOn.org got pissed off about the same thing today. The letter from Clinton Donors to Nancy Pelosi. They put it this way;
"Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are Threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.
It's the worst kind of insider politicsâ€" billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters."
Funny I just checked my email and MoveOn.org got pissed off about the same thing today. The letter from Clinton Donors to Nancy Pelosi. They put it this way;
"Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are Threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.
It's the worst kind of insider politicsâ€" billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters."
joshua - 03/27/08 15:24
Nah - Ron Paul is finished.
Nah - Ron Paul is finished.
dcoffee - 03/27/08 14:31
Sitting out! whoa not a good term. voting third party is one of the most bad-ass things you can do! I always vote third party, even if I vote for a Democrat it's usually on the Working Families line.
Anyone else wondering if Ron Paul is going to make a Libertarian run?
Sitting out! whoa not a good term. voting third party is one of the most bad-ass things you can do! I always vote third party, even if I vote for a Democrat it's usually on the Working Families line.
Anyone else wondering if Ron Paul is going to make a Libertarian run?
janelle - 03/27/08 14:08
Cynthia McKinney??? Really? I need to start following my own party more closely. If she gets the nomination, looks like I'll be one of those people sitting out on this election.
Cynthia McKinney??? Really? I need to start following my own party more closely. If she gets the nomination, looks like I'll be one of those people sitting out on this election.
mrmike - 03/27/08 14:08
I agree with you Josh. Hillary has been almost "Sybil-esque" in taking on whatever personality to get the night's soundbite. Lying about the Bosnian trip repeatedly is just the latest tidbit.
It's interesting watching them run out of things to talk about. After almost a year of campaigning before the primary season began, both are grasping at straws and Hillary especially is saying whatever (Witness yesterday's hopping on the Rev Wright bandwagon) happens to suit that day.
I agree with you Josh. Hillary has been almost "Sybil-esque" in taking on whatever personality to get the night's soundbite. Lying about the Bosnian trip repeatedly is just the latest tidbit.
It's interesting watching them run out of things to talk about. After almost a year of campaigning before the primary season began, both are grasping at straws and Hillary especially is saying whatever (Witness yesterday's hopping on the Rev Wright bandwagon) happens to suit that day.
dcoffee - 03/27/08 13:51
I'm toying with the idea that the Clintons want revenge on the Republicans for how they tortured and impeached Bill when he was in office.
I think once we got to the general debates Clinton supporters would end up voting for Obama, when him and McCain are next to each other, they'll see the difference.
Some of Limbaugh's republicans might have voted for Clinton instead of McCain, but they can stay home instead, not sure.
A lot of Obama supporters on the other hand, especially if there's an undemocratic convention upset, they will stay home or vote third party. We're talking about a couple hundred thousand refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils in every state, I'm just making that number up, but there would be a huge turnout difference. Watch, if Obama is the nominee, record breaking turnout numbers.
Cynthia McKinney is probably going to be the Green Party nominee too, she would definitely take a chunk of the vote against Hillary.
I'm toying with the idea that the Clintons want revenge on the Republicans for how they tortured and impeached Bill when he was in office.
I think once we got to the general debates Clinton supporters would end up voting for Obama, when him and McCain are next to each other, they'll see the difference.
Some of Limbaugh's republicans might have voted for Clinton instead of McCain, but they can stay home instead, not sure.
A lot of Obama supporters on the other hand, especially if there's an undemocratic convention upset, they will stay home or vote third party. We're talking about a couple hundred thousand refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils in every state, I'm just making that number up, but there would be a huge turnout difference. Watch, if Obama is the nominee, record breaking turnout numbers.
Cynthia McKinney is probably going to be the Green Party nominee too, she would definitely take a chunk of the vote against Hillary.
joshua - 03/27/08 13:19
What is said about Hillary Clinton is true. She is willing to do whatever it takes, and if that means fracturing the party even more than it already is and making the Convention unworkable, then so be it. She and Bill think they have a divine right to be back in the White House, are watching a dream slip away right before their eyes - bottom line, they are pissed off. Even the surrogate Clintonoids are angry - Carville is a disgrace for calling Richardson "Judas."
More and more information is coming out suggesting that if Obama wins, Clinton supporters will vote McCain, and if Clinton wins, Obama supporters will either stay home or vote third party. Based on the Democrat on Democrat vitriol I've read and heard over the past few months I am not surprised if this would turn out to be the case. All partisanship aside, I'm astonished at the infighting the Democrats are doing.
Honestly, if I were a betting man I would put my dough on this ending a tad ugly.
What is said about Hillary Clinton is true. She is willing to do whatever it takes, and if that means fracturing the party even more than it already is and making the Convention unworkable, then so be it. She and Bill think they have a divine right to be back in the White House, are watching a dream slip away right before their eyes - bottom line, they are pissed off. Even the surrogate Clintonoids are angry - Carville is a disgrace for calling Richardson "Judas."
More and more information is coming out suggesting that if Obama wins, Clinton supporters will vote McCain, and if Clinton wins, Obama supporters will either stay home or vote third party. Based on the Democrat on Democrat vitriol I've read and heard over the past few months I am not surprised if this would turn out to be the case. All partisanship aside, I'm astonished at the infighting the Democrats are doing.
Honestly, if I were a betting man I would put my dough on this ending a tad ugly.
03/13/2008 21:15 #43656
News RoundupCategory: politics
So much News So little time.
Pentagon Cancels Release of Report that finds Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda.
"An exhaustive Pentagon review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network."
This is not news to me, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, they wanted to overthrow the bastard to have a chance at religious theocracy in Iraq. Bush wanted to link these two bad guys to have a justification to invade Iraq on a wave of post 911 blood-thirstiness. And it worked, when we invaded 70% of the country thought Saddam was "personally involved" in the 911 attacks, even though there were no Iraqis on the planes, but Americans didn't get that either. Propaganda anyone? Stop taking what politicians say in a speach as the official fact. Especially when we're talking about war. *cough* Iran *cough*
If I knew there was no link, Why didn't Hillary Clinton? "(Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Clinton October 10, 2002
Anyway, the report, with the obvious conclusion, finally coming from the Pentagon, is not going to be quite as public anymore. If they don't talk about it, maybe it will just go away right?
Put that together with the fact that almost 4,000 of our soldiers have died in Iraq alone, many more wounded. Fighting for our.. um.. what.. our right to tell other nations what to do? I'm not sure anymore.
And we've been there for 5 years on March 19,
And it's costing us 12 Billion per month and over 3 trillion so far, 50 times more than the 60 billion predicted in 2003,
Add that to higher oil prices, stronger terrorist networks, and a less stable world, and a less safe USA, and you might want to... oh I don't know Impeach the President!
Deep Breath... next
The Iraq War is only 2% of media coverage.
No news is Good news... for the bush administration and McCain at least, if we don't hear about Iraq it must be going great. A perfect time to cancel the release of the Pentagon Report so Iraq doesn't become news again. The lack of media coverage is partly to blame for the fact that only 20% of Americans know we're about to hit 4,000 dead in Iraq
At least I'm talking about Iraq here right? I'm doing my part.
Admiral Fallon, the top US commander for the Middle East Abruptly Resigns.
Who is this guy? Probably the highest ranking officers in position of power trying to talk sense into a bush administration hell bent on World War III. You know telling Bush it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran.
What? We'll be greeted as liberators! More Kool-Aid Please.
Quoting Fallon
"This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."
Bush Quote Instead
"Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy."
Talking trash and telling countries they are pert of the "Axis of Evil", and we might bomb their country if we feel like it, doesn't help anybody, every time bush gets on the TV and threatens Iran it makes us less safe.
Read more about Fallon resigning .
Presidential Politics.
The math is against Clinton, she needs about 64% in all states to overtake Obama, not happening.
The only way she can win is if the super-delegates appoint her at the convention, against the will of the people. That sounds pretty terrible right, we have all kinds of young people voting for the first time, huge turnout, new grassroots networks, and millions of people believing that if they vote, they can take back the government. Protesting in the streets didn't work, but maybe voting will, that's how everyone tells us democracy works right?
But the Democratic party could just say, thanks for your opinion, I know you spent months of your life working for this candidate, but you can't have him. You don't know what the hell your doing, let us take care of the government, you're too stupid to be trusted with that kind of power.
The Democratic party has no desire to snub their voters at a time like this. I know it was supposed to be Clinton's turn to be president, sorry, I'd like to see a woman president too. But Barrack Obama is just a better candidate.
But Clinton is counting on the super-delegates appointing her in the end. Probably the reason her campaign keeps mentioning Obama as a splendid Vice President, but a terrible Commander in Chief, like that makes any sense. But maybe, she can convince us that really it was her turn, but she will let Obama be VP.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign had a private meeting in DC with her big donors today "the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate."
I have bad news for Clinton, she's not winning the popular vote or the delegate count, and she's right that those things do matter.
I'm starting to think The Clintons really want their power back so they can get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton, and going after him for all those years. They were a royal pain in the ass, and still are. I think the Clintons have their pockets full of smear tactics and venom that they were intending to use on the Republicans, but Obama has been getting their dirty tricks cause he got in the way.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Sorry.. I know this is long already and I wanted to get straight to the point here. What the fuck is that? And this woman hung around for an entire week before voluntarily resigning her post as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign?
Obama has gotten to this point because he's black... funny, cause that didn't work for Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton... We've had a black presidential candidate almost every election for the past 30 years. But Ms. Geraldine Ferraro can say that crap and pretend it's fair, it's objective, it's just the truth nobody wants to admit right? No, it's a smear tactic, meant to win points with other racists. Obama got this far because he's a good candidate. Because he's run a good campaign, and risen above petty attacks like this.
And Hillary had this to say "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal." yea, take that, I love Black people.
On the Obama Campaign, an Staffer named Samantha Powers called Hillary a "Monster" and was gone the next morning. Hillary still has not condemned Ferraro's remark. Not to mention the Muslim thing that came from her campaign chair in Iowa, and the Drug Dealer thing, and the Obama doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance thing... yea real cool. If the truth doesn't work, make something up.
Olberman did his homework and found at least 3 occasions where Ferraro said the same crap about Obama. But the media is taking it out of context... sure they are. Interesting, the first time we herd about Ms. Ferraro this campaign season, she was calling Obama, Edwards, the Media, and the entire nation sexist for confronting Hillary. Ok she may be right about the nation, and about Chris Matthews. But now that someone is calling her statements Racist, she thinks that the Obama Campaign owes her an apology for calling her racist. And she's not even close to being sorry for what she said.
Here's Olbermann
"Senator Clinton Isn't A Republican, As Far As I Know" 't-a-r_b_91187.html
Found that title while looking for some sources for this entry it cracked me up. The title is a play on Hillary's response to the muslim garbage "there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said on 60 minutes.
Anyway, there's all the news that's fit to bother me, for now.
Pentagon Cancels Release of Report that finds Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda.
"An exhaustive Pentagon review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network."
This is not news to me, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, they wanted to overthrow the bastard to have a chance at religious theocracy in Iraq. Bush wanted to link these two bad guys to have a justification to invade Iraq on a wave of post 911 blood-thirstiness. And it worked, when we invaded 70% of the country thought Saddam was "personally involved" in the 911 attacks, even though there were no Iraqis on the planes, but Americans didn't get that either. Propaganda anyone? Stop taking what politicians say in a speach as the official fact. Especially when we're talking about war. *cough* Iran *cough*
If I knew there was no link, Why didn't Hillary Clinton? "(Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Clinton October 10, 2002
Anyway, the report, with the obvious conclusion, finally coming from the Pentagon, is not going to be quite as public anymore. If they don't talk about it, maybe it will just go away right?
Put that together with the fact that almost 4,000 of our soldiers have died in Iraq alone, many more wounded. Fighting for our.. um.. what.. our right to tell other nations what to do? I'm not sure anymore.
And we've been there for 5 years on March 19,
And it's costing us 12 Billion per month and over 3 trillion so far, 50 times more than the 60 billion predicted in 2003,
Add that to higher oil prices, stronger terrorist networks, and a less stable world, and a less safe USA, and you might want to... oh I don't know Impeach the President!
Deep Breath... next
The Iraq War is only 2% of media coverage.
No news is Good news... for the bush administration and McCain at least, if we don't hear about Iraq it must be going great. A perfect time to cancel the release of the Pentagon Report so Iraq doesn't become news again. The lack of media coverage is partly to blame for the fact that only 20% of Americans know we're about to hit 4,000 dead in Iraq
At least I'm talking about Iraq here right? I'm doing my part.
Admiral Fallon, the top US commander for the Middle East Abruptly Resigns.
Who is this guy? Probably the highest ranking officers in position of power trying to talk sense into a bush administration hell bent on World War III. You know telling Bush it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran.
What? We'll be greeted as liberators! More Kool-Aid Please.
Quoting Fallon
"This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."
Bush Quote Instead
"Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy."
Talking trash and telling countries they are pert of the "Axis of Evil", and we might bomb their country if we feel like it, doesn't help anybody, every time bush gets on the TV and threatens Iran it makes us less safe.
Read more about Fallon resigning .
Presidential Politics.
The math is against Clinton, she needs about 64% in all states to overtake Obama, not happening.
The only way she can win is if the super-delegates appoint her at the convention, against the will of the people. That sounds pretty terrible right, we have all kinds of young people voting for the first time, huge turnout, new grassroots networks, and millions of people believing that if they vote, they can take back the government. Protesting in the streets didn't work, but maybe voting will, that's how everyone tells us democracy works right?
But the Democratic party could just say, thanks for your opinion, I know you spent months of your life working for this candidate, but you can't have him. You don't know what the hell your doing, let us take care of the government, you're too stupid to be trusted with that kind of power.
The Democratic party has no desire to snub their voters at a time like this. I know it was supposed to be Clinton's turn to be president, sorry, I'd like to see a woman president too. But Barrack Obama is just a better candidate.
But Clinton is counting on the super-delegates appointing her in the end. Probably the reason her campaign keeps mentioning Obama as a splendid Vice President, but a terrible Commander in Chief, like that makes any sense. But maybe, she can convince us that really it was her turn, but she will let Obama be VP.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign had a private meeting in DC with her big donors today "the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate."
I have bad news for Clinton, she's not winning the popular vote or the delegate count, and she's right that those things do matter.
I'm starting to think The Clintons really want their power back so they can get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton, and going after him for all those years. They were a royal pain in the ass, and still are. I think the Clintons have their pockets full of smear tactics and venom that they were intending to use on the Republicans, but Obama has been getting their dirty tricks cause he got in the way.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Sorry.. I know this is long already and I wanted to get straight to the point here. What the fuck is that? And this woman hung around for an entire week before voluntarily resigning her post as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign?
Obama has gotten to this point because he's black... funny, cause that didn't work for Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton... We've had a black presidential candidate almost every election for the past 30 years. But Ms. Geraldine Ferraro can say that crap and pretend it's fair, it's objective, it's just the truth nobody wants to admit right? No, it's a smear tactic, meant to win points with other racists. Obama got this far because he's a good candidate. Because he's run a good campaign, and risen above petty attacks like this.
And Hillary had this to say "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal." yea, take that, I love Black people.
On the Obama Campaign, an Staffer named Samantha Powers called Hillary a "Monster" and was gone the next morning. Hillary still has not condemned Ferraro's remark. Not to mention the Muslim thing that came from her campaign chair in Iowa, and the Drug Dealer thing, and the Obama doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance thing... yea real cool. If the truth doesn't work, make something up.
Olberman did his homework and found at least 3 occasions where Ferraro said the same crap about Obama. But the media is taking it out of context... sure they are. Interesting, the first time we herd about Ms. Ferraro this campaign season, she was calling Obama, Edwards, the Media, and the entire nation sexist for confronting Hillary. Ok she may be right about the nation, and about Chris Matthews. But now that someone is calling her statements Racist, she thinks that the Obama Campaign owes her an apology for calling her racist. And she's not even close to being sorry for what she said.
Here's Olbermann
"Senator Clinton Isn't A Republican, As Far As I Know" 't-a-r_b_91187.html
Found that title while looking for some sources for this entry it cracked me up. The title is a play on Hillary's response to the muslim garbage "there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said on 60 minutes.
Anyway, there's all the news that's fit to bother me, for now.
joshua - 03/17/08 12:39
David the point of the surge was to crush violence! It wasn't going to create a political solution - for that matter liberals have claimed for years that the military is incapable of creating a political solution, which is something I tend to agree with. To the degree that it could have had anything to do with politics, our surge bought the Iraqis time to create one for themselves to come up with a solution, which they have not done. They are deciding their own future and are taking their sweet ass time doing it.
Anyway thats not why I've posted - your journal entry popped in my head today when I was reading the news - an article in the Miami Herald addressed the exact topic you were interested in. Check it out -
:::link:::
A direct quote -
"There is always news out there if you look for it," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "What too many news organizations were doing was covering the car bomb du jour, and when the car bombing ceased, the coverage ceased."
I told you they were focused on the negative stuff only, and being lazy to boot. Now we have the word directly from the horse's mouth.
David the point of the surge was to crush violence! It wasn't going to create a political solution - for that matter liberals have claimed for years that the military is incapable of creating a political solution, which is something I tend to agree with. To the degree that it could have had anything to do with politics, our surge bought the Iraqis time to create one for themselves to come up with a solution, which they have not done. They are deciding their own future and are taking their sweet ass time doing it.
Anyway thats not why I've posted - your journal entry popped in my head today when I was reading the news - an article in the Miami Herald addressed the exact topic you were interested in. Check it out -
:::link:::
A direct quote -
"There is always news out there if you look for it," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "What too many news organizations were doing was covering the car bomb du jour, and when the car bombing ceased, the coverage ceased."
I told you they were focused on the negative stuff only, and being lazy to boot. Now we have the word directly from the horse's mouth.
dcoffee - 03/14/08 13:02
Thanks Josh, I hope people read the whole thing, I try to be specific, direct, and a bit entertaining. And you know I really value different opinions, especially those from the non-neo-con type conservatives like yourself.
About your War opinion, there has been a reduction in violence, but the political progress has not been made. That was the point of the surge, so I don't view it as a success.
If you were a militia and the Americans are at full strength, and they're handing you cash to "keep al Qaeda out of the neighborhood" you might want to wait it out instead of attacking the them. But are we building anything that will stick around after we leave? Because we do have to leave, we can't continue to spend this kind of money, going into debt, just to blow stuff up and rebuild it overseas. Where's all this money going anyway, to Haliburton, so they can do substandard work that ends up getting torn down because it's a health hazard? Then Halliburton moves their headquarters to Dubai? I thought war was supposed to help _our_ economy, not Dubai. And what's up with the gas prices, if the plan was to steal their oil we failed at that too.
sorry I digress.
We do have Iraq News today apparently, and you can say I told you so, cause it's bad news.
- Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress' -
:::link:::
Oh one last thing. This is one of the reasons why I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh without swearing. To be fair, you only said we "don't want to hear good news" and that holds more water. But just to make the point, Liberals do not want to surrender or let the terrorists win. Sure bad news allows me to say I told you so, but we don't want to surrender, we want to be safe just like everyone else. We just don't believe force is the best tool. I know there are bad guys out there who won't listen to anything else, but we should prove the need for force beyond any doubt, and through that process, we prove to the world that we are a just and honest country that doesn't deserve hatred. The only way toward peace is to prove that we are good, just, and honest. You know the crap we've pulled with other governments, we got some work to do. That's part of what makes me so angry at Bush.
PS, thanks for the nomination Drew! Season's not over yet though.
Thanks Josh, I hope people read the whole thing, I try to be specific, direct, and a bit entertaining. And you know I really value different opinions, especially those from the non-neo-con type conservatives like yourself.
About your War opinion, there has been a reduction in violence, but the political progress has not been made. That was the point of the surge, so I don't view it as a success.
If you were a militia and the Americans are at full strength, and they're handing you cash to "keep al Qaeda out of the neighborhood" you might want to wait it out instead of attacking the them. But are we building anything that will stick around after we leave? Because we do have to leave, we can't continue to spend this kind of money, going into debt, just to blow stuff up and rebuild it overseas. Where's all this money going anyway, to Haliburton, so they can do substandard work that ends up getting torn down because it's a health hazard? Then Halliburton moves their headquarters to Dubai? I thought war was supposed to help _our_ economy, not Dubai. And what's up with the gas prices, if the plan was to steal their oil we failed at that too.
sorry I digress.
We do have Iraq News today apparently, and you can say I told you so, cause it's bad news.
- Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress' -
:::link:::
Oh one last thing. This is one of the reasons why I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh without swearing. To be fair, you only said we "don't want to hear good news" and that holds more water. But just to make the point, Liberals do not want to surrender or let the terrorists win. Sure bad news allows me to say I told you so, but we don't want to surrender, we want to be safe just like everyone else. We just don't believe force is the best tool. I know there are bad guys out there who won't listen to anything else, but we should prove the need for force beyond any doubt, and through that process, we prove to the world that we are a just and honest country that doesn't deserve hatred. The only way toward peace is to prove that we are good, just, and honest. You know the crap we've pulled with other governments, we got some work to do. That's part of what makes me so angry at Bush.
PS, thanks for the nomination Drew! Season's not over yet though.
joshua - 03/14/08 12:18
Eh, anytime somebody commits their time and effort to lengthy posts involving civics, I think the person at least deserve attention and a proper reading of what he wrote.
Eh, anytime somebody commits their time and effort to lengthy posts involving civics, I think the person at least deserve attention and a proper reading of what he wrote.
dcoffee - 03/14/08 12:13
I know this is long guys, don't be intimidated I really enjoy one sentence comments too. Perhaps my longest post ever, but I try to make it entertaining.
I know this is long guys, don't be intimidated I really enjoy one sentence comments too. Perhaps my longest post ever, but I try to make it entertaining.
jason - 03/13/08 23:04
I fully plan on reading all of this epic post carefully soon, but first thought that came to my mind was:
I'm pretty sure that it has long since been reported and admitted by the government that no "operational links" (think about what exactly that means or doesn't mean) existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I don't think that's the information our government wants to keep hidden. What is it? I suppose right now we can only guess.
I was shocked by what Ferraro said, and imagine if someone said something like that about Hillary, except that the insinuation was that the fact Hillary is a woman is the reason for her rise to the top. The Sisterhood would shit a solid fucking brick.
That is just straight up wrong wrong wrong, and I don't believe it for one second concerning Obama. I'm not even an Obama supporter, I probably will never vote for him, but I understand his blackness isn't what attracts people to him. She's a repeat offender, and deserves scorn for it. The cynical side of me says it was planned, for a surrogate to say the scandalous shit instead of the candidate.
I still have to read it all, and I probably won't (as usual for me) agree with all of it or even respond but you've made the effort and so I'll check the rest of it out later.
I fully plan on reading all of this epic post carefully soon, but first thought that came to my mind was:
I'm pretty sure that it has long since been reported and admitted by the government that no "operational links" (think about what exactly that means or doesn't mean) existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I don't think that's the information our government wants to keep hidden. What is it? I suppose right now we can only guess.
I was shocked by what Ferraro said, and imagine if someone said something like that about Hillary, except that the insinuation was that the fact Hillary is a woman is the reason for her rise to the top. The Sisterhood would shit a solid fucking brick.
That is just straight up wrong wrong wrong, and I don't believe it for one second concerning Obama. I'm not even an Obama supporter, I probably will never vote for him, but I understand his blackness isn't what attracts people to him. She's a repeat offender, and deserves scorn for it. The cynical side of me says it was planned, for a surrogate to say the scandalous shit instead of the candidate.
I still have to read it all, and I probably won't (as usual for me) agree with all of it or even respond but you've made the effort and so I'll check the rest of it out later.
joshua - 03/13/08 22:00
There is nothing more hilarious to me than a career liberal like Geraldine Ferraro being accused of being a racist by OTHER LIBERALS! Democrats always eat their own. The Clinton slash and burn tactics have come to bite them in the back... and I don't know why she wouldn't condemn Ferraro. Allow me to take the piss for a second - I think its because she's a woman!
I know that its incredibly unfashionable to say so, but the reason why Iraq isn't a big ticket item in the news is because the news is far less negative than it used to be - at this point every credible news organization acknowledges that things are improving in the country. As you well know David, savvy news readers understand that negative news always comes first because, well, it sells papers and gets website hits. People reject this because they expect the impossible - perfection. These people are not military experts and don't know the foggiest thing about it, really. Not to mention that most of the people complaining believe that the soldiers are the cowards and that the people running to Canada are heroes.
Lets be honest - the people that are complaining don't want good news anyway - they never have and they never will. Its really that simple. The biggest crime the press has committed isn't the lack of reporting but the lack of reporting on the progress in the country. These "patriots" in the media have done our country a grave disservice because of their personal hatred of President Bush.
The $3T estimate as its been assembled is wrong. The book is littered with examples of "fuzzy math," as the example I cited previously with death benefits illustrates. The government pays $400k per death to the family. The government itself, as the authors illustrate, value the life of a person who died due to health and safety concerns at $7m. One figure is the actual payout, and the other figure is the one that isn't actually paid out - I'll give you one guess as to which is used in the $3T estimate. The book is littered with examples like this that compromise the entire exercise.
The truth is that we have, to this point, have spent $800b or so. Its a staggering amount of money. When its said and done its unreasonable to think it could easily double or triple. What I want is a credible study, and I'm sorry but the Stiglitz book is not when they include examples as I've shown.
I won't get into the obvious agenda-driven baggage the economists' co-author harbors - she is releasing a book in June about how government money should go into more socialist-style public services. Where do you suppose she wishes that $3T went? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is going to skew her work, and to be honest, it shows in an embarrassing way. In reading the book it becomes patently obvious that the conclusion came before the beginning.
Sure, the author is a Nobel laureate, but so is Yassir Arafat, Jimmah Carter and Al Gore. There is a differentiation between the scientific and, well, fluff awards that I willingly acknowledge, but I think Stiglitz has tarnished his credibility by having his name on the book. Its as if he traded his scientific credibility for liberal popularity, because as usual, the details never matter that much when you get the answer you like.
As for Obama - wait until we see who plays the race card once the general election season hits. Then we can talk about who is being cynical! Anyone want to wager with me that not Obama, but a campaign surrogate or classic race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson will be the ones to cry racism when people start scrutinizing Barack Obama? Obama has absolutely, positively gotten a free pass up to this point. The rhetorical question - why is that?
There is nothing more hilarious to me than a career liberal like Geraldine Ferraro being accused of being a racist by OTHER LIBERALS! Democrats always eat their own. The Clinton slash and burn tactics have come to bite them in the back... and I don't know why she wouldn't condemn Ferraro. Allow me to take the piss for a second - I think its because she's a woman!
I know that its incredibly unfashionable to say so, but the reason why Iraq isn't a big ticket item in the news is because the news is far less negative than it used to be - at this point every credible news organization acknowledges that things are improving in the country. As you well know David, savvy news readers understand that negative news always comes first because, well, it sells papers and gets website hits. People reject this because they expect the impossible - perfection. These people are not military experts and don't know the foggiest thing about it, really. Not to mention that most of the people complaining believe that the soldiers are the cowards and that the people running to Canada are heroes.
Lets be honest - the people that are complaining don't want good news anyway - they never have and they never will. Its really that simple. The biggest crime the press has committed isn't the lack of reporting but the lack of reporting on the progress in the country. These "patriots" in the media have done our country a grave disservice because of their personal hatred of President Bush.
The $3T estimate as its been assembled is wrong. The book is littered with examples of "fuzzy math," as the example I cited previously with death benefits illustrates. The government pays $400k per death to the family. The government itself, as the authors illustrate, value the life of a person who died due to health and safety concerns at $7m. One figure is the actual payout, and the other figure is the one that isn't actually paid out - I'll give you one guess as to which is used in the $3T estimate. The book is littered with examples like this that compromise the entire exercise.
The truth is that we have, to this point, have spent $800b or so. Its a staggering amount of money. When its said and done its unreasonable to think it could easily double or triple. What I want is a credible study, and I'm sorry but the Stiglitz book is not when they include examples as I've shown.
I won't get into the obvious agenda-driven baggage the economists' co-author harbors - she is releasing a book in June about how government money should go into more socialist-style public services. Where do you suppose she wishes that $3T went? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is going to skew her work, and to be honest, it shows in an embarrassing way. In reading the book it becomes patently obvious that the conclusion came before the beginning.
Sure, the author is a Nobel laureate, but so is Yassir Arafat, Jimmah Carter and Al Gore. There is a differentiation between the scientific and, well, fluff awards that I willingly acknowledge, but I think Stiglitz has tarnished his credibility by having his name on the book. Its as if he traded his scientific credibility for liberal popularity, because as usual, the details never matter that much when you get the answer you like.
As for Obama - wait until we see who plays the race card once the general election season hits. Then we can talk about who is being cynical! Anyone want to wager with me that not Obama, but a campaign surrogate or classic race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson will be the ones to cry racism when people start scrutinizing Barack Obama? Obama has absolutely, positively gotten a free pass up to this point. The rhetorical question - why is that?
drew - 03/13/08 21:43
great post. I nominate this for best political post of the 2008 primary.
great post. I nominate this for best political post of the 2008 primary.
03/19/2008 21:51 #43732
War 5 Years, Numbers & AnalysisCategory: war
As you may know, today is the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq. 5 years, and so little to show for it.
Somebody once wrote that it's easier to fool somebody into accepting a Big Lie. We all commit small lies, but when it comes to life and death, it's hard for us to believe somebody would trick us, and lie about something that serious. Something like war.
America was fooled on purpose.
I tried to stop it.
And as time goes on there is more and more evidence like the Downing street Memo, which tell us that the "reasons" for the war, were nothing but excuses.
WMD, links to terrorists, nuclear weapons, "We don't want the Smoking Gun to be a mushroom cloud". All of it, just for the sake of Fear. This was not an investigation. The goal was always war. A better goal for a democratic nation would be justice, order and stability.
The congress and the press failed us. They believed the Whitehouse, instead of scholars and generals. They followed the herd, instead of getting a second opinion.
Today, there are no good options in Iraq. We leave, and Iraq falls apart. We stay, and America falls apart.
We have nothing good to show for ourselves after 5 years.
National Debt, international hatred, economic crisis...
These are deep wounds, serious problems, that we willfully brought upon ourselves.
And the fact that we've gotten rid of some punk dictator, and trained a couple thousand Iraqis to manage their country again doesn't make me feel better about it.
Fuck the War.
War Numbers,
Timeline before the war 2001-2003, How this all started.
Remember this.
First Ultimatum: We demanded Saddam let Weapons Inspectors in or face war. Saddam let them in by November 2002. Iraq is stubborn at first, but making concessions and actively disarming.
March 2003, Hans Blix is in Iraq looking for WMD, publishes the first Weapons Inspection report, Things going well, cooperation.
Dispite progress Bush strangely "advises" UN Inspectors to leave the country in the middle of their work. Next day...
Second Ultimatum: Saddam Leave the Country, and take your two sons with you in 48 hours, or else we bomb you. (this impossible request, on live TV, is what realy led to war. Saddam agreed to inspections, so Bush just raised the bar to an impossable height)
I challenge you to go back and read some of this. We lived through it, but in retrospect we can see just how bogus these claims were.
September-November 2002 is interesting, that's when Bush speaks to the UN, the US Congress passes the Authorization to use force in Iraq, and Saddam Lets the UN Inspectors into the country.
Also interesting the just before the war after about March 7 2003, Check out some of the news articles published then, it feels like 1984.
Bush in his own words
Timeline of the War 2003-2008
Just browse through this timeline, it highlights some of the major news with photos and gives details. you'll be amazed at all the stuff the you haven't thought about in a while.
Articles
Buffalo News Article
UK Article, inside Iraq
War Hurting the American Economy
War and the Working Class
Share your Thoughts, Links, and News Articles below.
Somebody once wrote that it's easier to fool somebody into accepting a Big Lie. We all commit small lies, but when it comes to life and death, it's hard for us to believe somebody would trick us, and lie about something that serious. Something like war.
America was fooled on purpose.
I tried to stop it.
And as time goes on there is more and more evidence like the Downing street Memo, which tell us that the "reasons" for the war, were nothing but excuses.
WMD, links to terrorists, nuclear weapons, "We don't want the Smoking Gun to be a mushroom cloud". All of it, just for the sake of Fear. This was not an investigation. The goal was always war. A better goal for a democratic nation would be justice, order and stability.
The congress and the press failed us. They believed the Whitehouse, instead of scholars and generals. They followed the herd, instead of getting a second opinion.
Today, there are no good options in Iraq. We leave, and Iraq falls apart. We stay, and America falls apart.
We have nothing good to show for ourselves after 5 years.
National Debt, international hatred, economic crisis...
These are deep wounds, serious problems, that we willfully brought upon ourselves.
And the fact that we've gotten rid of some punk dictator, and trained a couple thousand Iraqis to manage their country again doesn't make me feel better about it.
Fuck the War.
War Numbers,
Timeline before the war 2001-2003, How this all started.
Remember this.
First Ultimatum: We demanded Saddam let Weapons Inspectors in or face war. Saddam let them in by November 2002. Iraq is stubborn at first, but making concessions and actively disarming.
March 2003, Hans Blix is in Iraq looking for WMD, publishes the first Weapons Inspection report, Things going well, cooperation.
Dispite progress Bush strangely "advises" UN Inspectors to leave the country in the middle of their work. Next day...
Second Ultimatum: Saddam Leave the Country, and take your two sons with you in 48 hours, or else we bomb you. (this impossible request, on live TV, is what realy led to war. Saddam agreed to inspections, so Bush just raised the bar to an impossable height)
I challenge you to go back and read some of this. We lived through it, but in retrospect we can see just how bogus these claims were.
September-November 2002 is interesting, that's when Bush speaks to the UN, the US Congress passes the Authorization to use force in Iraq, and Saddam Lets the UN Inspectors into the country.
Also interesting the just before the war after about March 7 2003, Check out some of the news articles published then, it feels like 1984.
Bush in his own words
Timeline of the War 2003-2008
Just browse through this timeline, it highlights some of the major news with photos and gives details. you'll be amazed at all the stuff the you haven't thought about in a while.
Articles
Buffalo News Article
UK Article, inside Iraq
War Hurting the American Economy
War and the Working Class
Share your Thoughts, Links, and News Articles below.
dcoffee - 03/20/08 18:25
Another link, Quotes from the Iraq War Sales Pitch
:::link:::
Cost, Casualties, time, troops, cakewalk
Another link, Quotes from the Iraq War Sales Pitch
:::link:::
Cost, Casualties, time, troops, cakewalk
dcoffee - 03/20/08 13:30
Great New Documentary
Leading to War: See Where the Truth Lies :::link:::
Lots of video clips from the sales pitch for war.
One more thought. Right before the war, the UN Inspectors were in Iraq looking for weapons. The US kicked them out before they were done. Why not let them collect new evidence, and finish their work, before deciding if there was an imminent threat that justified invasion?
The Bush administration wanted to invade, and they knew there was no justification. They had private reasons for war, WMD and terrorism were only excuses that would never be proven, but they sounded good to a public terrified by 911.
Great New Documentary
Leading to War: See Where the Truth Lies :::link:::
Lots of video clips from the sales pitch for war.
One more thought. Right before the war, the UN Inspectors were in Iraq looking for weapons. The US kicked them out before they were done. Why not let them collect new evidence, and finish their work, before deciding if there was an imminent threat that justified invasion?
The Bush administration wanted to invade, and they knew there was no justification. They had private reasons for war, WMD and terrorism were only excuses that would never be proven, but they sounded good to a public terrified by 911.
dcoffee - 03/20/08 12:47
To Clarify,
When this president went to war he trusted Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Condi Rice. These people are not qualified to predict anything about the Middle East, except where the oil is.
Before going to war you should get the opinion of people who have actually lived there (wow what a concept), Diplomats and ambassadors who have negotiated with leaders in the Middle East. Scholars who spend their lives studying a region, visiting, researching and analyzing trends.
The problem during the lead up to this war, the media, Congress and the Executive branch neglected the opinion of scholars, diplomats, ambassadors, experts, and generals. They didn't want to listen, because the vast majority of experts were saying Bush was full of shit, they were resigning in protest, publishing books and articles, and otherwise trying to speak out, but America didn't listen. We still haven't accepted our failure.
If I knew this was bullshit, and I was just some college student at a state school, why couldn't congress figure it out?
To Clarify,
When this president went to war he trusted Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Condi Rice. These people are not qualified to predict anything about the Middle East, except where the oil is.
Before going to war you should get the opinion of people who have actually lived there (wow what a concept), Diplomats and ambassadors who have negotiated with leaders in the Middle East. Scholars who spend their lives studying a region, visiting, researching and analyzing trends.
The problem during the lead up to this war, the media, Congress and the Executive branch neglected the opinion of scholars, diplomats, ambassadors, experts, and generals. They didn't want to listen, because the vast majority of experts were saying Bush was full of shit, they were resigning in protest, publishing books and articles, and otherwise trying to speak out, but America didn't listen. We still haven't accepted our failure.
If I knew this was bullshit, and I was just some college student at a state school, why couldn't congress figure it out?
joshua - 03/20/08 12:05
I think academics are useful as advisers but NEVER on actual policy making. Academics just aren't equipped for politics, nor can they make military decisions.
James you don't need to defend your humanities education! Without the humanities human culture would be a blank page.
I think academics are useful as advisers but NEVER on actual policy making. Academics just aren't equipped for politics, nor can they make military decisions.
James you don't need to defend your humanities education! Without the humanities human culture would be a blank page.
james - 03/20/08 11:18
Jason, experts on a region are very often professors, Humanities professors. An English professor has not helped the president make a decision on international affairs since Clinton deployed an armada of sestinas to Bosnia.
Just wanted to stick up for my useless humanities education.
Jason, experts on a region are very often professors, Humanities professors. An English professor has not helped the president make a decision on international affairs since Clinton deployed an armada of sestinas to Bosnia.
Just wanted to stick up for my useless humanities education.
jason - 03/20/08 09:56
As always, I appreciate the post. See the thing is for me, I absolutely MUST distinguish between what is real, not real, cold hard fact, or simply supposition. As Carl Sagan said, and I use this quote all the time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I take this attitude whether the claim is that Iran has a nuke, or whether the claim is that we were fooled on purpose.
Generals are the military equivalent of top corporate executives. Some of the motivations are the same. They also have different opinions about how a task can be accomplished. They are not monolithic. The biggest complaint I heard from Generals back in the beginning was that the politically motivated "light footprint" idea was nonsense, and that you needed a real force to get the job done right. Looking back it is hard to disagree.
Now, as far as scholars are concerned, I wonder what scholars you mean. If a sitting President were to take their cues on National Security, War and Peace from some random Humanities professor, or media studies professor, or English professor, I would say without a doubt they are a damned fool, and embarrassingly unfit to be our CIC. Now, if you were to ask an expert on the region for information on the pulse of the area, and what exactly their concerns are, what the cultural challenges are, if that's what you meant, then I would agree.
Of course, it is obvious to everyone that the aftermath has been handled abysmally, and was ill considered. All this money and blood and I can't say exactly what we've bought. One thing I can guarantee you is that the committed anti-war types who want an instant pullout, and impeachment, will never ever get what they want. That road leads only to a dead end. As I've said before, we are stuck eating our shit sandwich, and have to develop a smart plan to get the hell out without rendering useless everything we've done to this point. That is what you will get from a President Obama.
One last thing, I have to say this, I have an extremely cynical view of Liberal Elites like those at The Nation. They don't understand the military, they do not want to understand the military, other than as a humanitarian org, and a working class, Union, blue collar guy like my father would NEVER be allowed into their circles or little soirees. They think of people like my Dad as little people to be taken care of, to have things decided for them by the Elites. No, no, no. Fuck that. Sorry, just a little rantish side thought there.
As always, I appreciate the post. See the thing is for me, I absolutely MUST distinguish between what is real, not real, cold hard fact, or simply supposition. As Carl Sagan said, and I use this quote all the time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I take this attitude whether the claim is that Iran has a nuke, or whether the claim is that we were fooled on purpose.
Generals are the military equivalent of top corporate executives. Some of the motivations are the same. They also have different opinions about how a task can be accomplished. They are not monolithic. The biggest complaint I heard from Generals back in the beginning was that the politically motivated "light footprint" idea was nonsense, and that you needed a real force to get the job done right. Looking back it is hard to disagree.
Now, as far as scholars are concerned, I wonder what scholars you mean. If a sitting President were to take their cues on National Security, War and Peace from some random Humanities professor, or media studies professor, or English professor, I would say without a doubt they are a damned fool, and embarrassingly unfit to be our CIC. Now, if you were to ask an expert on the region for information on the pulse of the area, and what exactly their concerns are, what the cultural challenges are, if that's what you meant, then I would agree.
Of course, it is obvious to everyone that the aftermath has been handled abysmally, and was ill considered. All this money and blood and I can't say exactly what we've bought. One thing I can guarantee you is that the committed anti-war types who want an instant pullout, and impeachment, will never ever get what they want. That road leads only to a dead end. As I've said before, we are stuck eating our shit sandwich, and have to develop a smart plan to get the hell out without rendering useless everything we've done to this point. That is what you will get from a President Obama.
One last thing, I have to say this, I have an extremely cynical view of Liberal Elites like those at The Nation. They don't understand the military, they do not want to understand the military, other than as a humanitarian org, and a working class, Union, blue collar guy like my father would NEVER be allowed into their circles or little soirees. They think of people like my Dad as little people to be taken care of, to have things decided for them by the Elites. No, no, no. Fuck that. Sorry, just a little rantish side thought there.
dcoffee - 03/20/08 08:57
Axis of Evil, one down two to go.
Axis of Evil, one down two to go.
paul - 03/19/08 22:29
I don't know what you are talking about. I feel so much safer without Saddam's finger on the nuclear weapons, right?
I don't know what you are talking about. I feel so much safer without Saddam's finger on the nuclear weapons, right?
james - 03/19/08 22:24
They grow up so fast. One day you are participaiting in a 'die in' and then BAM it is five years later and you have run out of inconvenient spots to pretend you are dead.
They grow up so fast. One day you are participaiting in a 'die in' and then BAM it is five years later and you have run out of inconvenient spots to pretend you are dead.
She looks very much like the cat I had growing up--long orange fur, bushy tail, slightly persian-esque features. Brings back memories.
I was just telling a friend today that I know its spring when the cats have relocated to bask in the 'sun spots' they haven't seen in 5 months or so.
yes, spring is in the air!