The Pelosi plan for Irak [Archive] - Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum

josedesucre

03-13-2007, 11:55 AM

This is today's Washington Post main editorial piece.
(The WP is a liberal newspaper)

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq
It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; A16

THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest. And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

The House bill lists benchmarks for Iraqi political progress and requires that President Bush certify by July 1 that progress is being made toward them. By October, Bush would have to certify that the benchmarks all had been reached. This is something of a trick, akin to the inflexible troop readiness requirements that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) wanted to impose to "stop the surge." Everyone knows that the long list of requirements -- including constitutional changes, local elections and the completion of complex legislation -- couldn't be finished in six months. In that case a troop withdrawal would have to begin immediately. If there was no "progress" by July, it would have to begin then and be completed by the end of the year.

Congress should rigorously monitor the Iraqi government's progress on those benchmarks. By Mr. Bush's own account the purpose of the troop surge in Iraq is to enable political progress. If progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered. But aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls. Ms. Pelosi's strategy leads not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.

jackpine savage

03-13-2007, 12:07 PM

so what is your plan?

josedesucre

03-13-2007, 03:49 PM

I posted the editorial, so obviously in this instance I agree with the WP. What Pelosi apparently is looking for is yet another fight with Bush to satisfy some -or all- of her constituents, but as the editorial points out, that wouldn't serve the long term interests of the country as a whole.

jackpine savage

03-13-2007, 04:28 PM

I have to agree with you there. There is a large leftist, enti-war component to the Democratic Party, larger than I had apparently imagined, that is determined to pull US forces out of Iraq at all costs. This bothers me. While I think the war was a mistake and has been seriously mismanaged I realize that there should be a well thought out plan detailing how the US can withdraw its forces. It should have contingencys for the various suprises that are bound to appear, and most of all it should not set in stone anything. I wonder how Pelosi will respond if there is a massacre that follows any US withdrawal. Will she be calling for the US to go back in or will she sit back as innocent people get butchered and do nothing.

ITSABOUTTIME

03-13-2007, 05:51 PM

jackpine savage

03-13-2007, 05:54 PM

I wish that weren't true but you are probably right. Seems like both parties have been taken over by the radical extremes. When I hear some of the far left Dems spouting off about things I want to hit them. When I hear the far right wackos if the GOP spout off I just want to drink and forget.

ITSABOUTTIME

03-13-2007, 06:04 PM

How about Pelosi's promise to clean out corruption then appointing dollar Bill Jefferson to a comittee

jackpine savage

03-13-2007, 06:08 PM

Sad, the problem with politicians these days is that even the appearance of impropiety should encourage them to resign, not necesssarily from the Congress but from any committee leadership as in this case.

josedesucre

03-13-2007, 07:08 PM

IWhile I think the war was a mistake and has been seriously mismanaged I realize that there should be a well thought out plan detailing how the US can withdraw its forces. It should have contingencys for the various suprises that are bound to appear, and most of all it should not set in stone anything.

I agree with you too. Yes, the circumstances that led to the war are debatable, and of course there have been mistakes. However, there are things that IMHO can not be ignored: 1) we can not withdraw and clear the way for the bad guys to take over; if we do, it would be just a matter of time for us to have to go back, and the toll would be considerable larger, since then we will probably have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran; 2) the terrorist's war against the US was declared years before Bush was even in the picture; it was just his luck to have to be the one that gave the order to join the battle. If Irak was not a part of that war then, it is now, and if we withdraw, we lose. That is not an acceptable outcome, because it is not going to stop there. 3) the whole affair is a matter of national security, and we should leave politics aside. I really feel a knot in my stomach when I see the anti-war fanatics heckling and boicotting the military recruiters in colleges and high schools. What the heck do they want? Disarm and surrender?. I doubt the enemy will even be satisfied with that, but even it they do, I wont, and don't believe the majority of Americans will accept that either. The world has always been a dangerous place, and if we want peace, we must be prepared for war.

Marcus

03-13-2007, 07:15 PM

Bush has made the world a more dangerous place for us anyways. BTW, you are spelling "Irak" wrong on purpose...I hope.

Bill McIntyre

03-13-2007, 07:19 PM

I wonder how Pelosi will respond if there is a massacre that follows any US withdrawal. Will she be calling for the US to go back in or will she sit back as innocent people get butchered and do nothing.

I think its not a matter of IF there will be a massacre, but WHEN, and that is entirely dependant on when we leave. If we leave now, there will be a massacre now. If we leave two years from now, there will be a massacre two years from now, but in the interim more Americans will be killed.

It absolutely sucks that we did this to the Iraqi people, but its done and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Saddam wasn't very nice, but he was a strong leader who kept a lid on the sectarian violence while providing a counter to the Iranian Shiites. He is gone now, and they will have to find their own new Saddam. Its just that he is more likely to be an ally of the Iranians.

bgbill

03-13-2007, 07:19 PM

Bush has made the world a more dangerous place for us anyways. BTW, you are spelling "Irak" wrong on purpose...I hope.

I agree that Iraq is a mess, but do you recommend that he does as Clinton did and ignore the situation?

Clinton is the one who emboldened Bin Laden, by not doing anything about the previous attacks on us, it was a sign of weakness, and the terrorists realized it, and thought that the United States wouldn't do anything about 9-11.

Pelosi Can't Understand Normal Thinking.

bgbill

03-13-2007, 07:21 PM

I think its not a matter of IF there will be a massacre, but WHEN, and that is entirely dependant on when we leave. If we leave now, there will be a massacre now. If we leave two years from now, there will be a massacre two years from now, but in the interim more Americans will be killed.

It absolutely sucks that we did this to the Iraqi people, but its done and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Saddam wasn't very nice, but he was a strong leader who kept a lid on the sectarian violence while providing a counter to the Iranian Shiites. He is gone now, and they will have to find their own new Saddam. Its just that he is more likely to be an ally of the Iranians.

Bill,

You really should lay off the pain killers, even though Iraq is a mess, the people are a lot better off with us there, than when Sadadam ruled the place.

junior

03-13-2007, 07:27 PM

Clinton is the one who emboldened Bin Laden

I think Reagan did a pretty good job of this as well...if I'm not mistaken. Military training and weapons aside, we built the man.

Bill McIntyre

03-13-2007, 07:32 PM

Ask the hundreds of thousands who have fled to other countries if its better.

People could go shopping or go to work without worrying about suicide bombers. People could be married to a person of the other brand of Islam and it was fine.

I saw an interview recently with a woman who had run a beauty shop for years and was married to a Sunni while she was Shiite, although neither of them was militant either way. First she was told that she and her husband would be killed, so he took the kids and went to Syria. Then the local Shiite thugs told her she could do hair and makeup because it was an affront to the faith, so she was put out of business and had to join her husband in Syria.

At least neither of them or their kids was blown up while simply shopping for groceries. The place is total anarchic hell and getting worse all the time.

jackpine savage

03-13-2007, 07:36 PM

Marcus

03-14-2007, 08:12 AM

Clinton didn't completely ignore the situation. He tried to take Bin Laden out with some Tomohawk cruise missles.

Besides...it wasn't Bin Laden I was referring to. When I said that Bush has made the world a more dangerous place, I was referring to Iraq.

I agree that Iraq is a mess, but do you recommend that he does as Clinton did and ignore the situation?

Clinton is the one who emboldened Bin Laden, by not doing anything about the previous attacks on us, it was a sign of weakness, and the terrorists realized it, and thought that the United States wouldn't do anything about 9-11.

Pelosi Can't Understand Normal Thinking.

Stone'em

03-14-2007, 09:14 AM

Bill,

You really should lay off the pain killers, even though Iraq is a mess, the people are a lot better off with us there, than when Sadadam ruled the place.

Well said :beer:

Bill McIntyre

03-14-2007, 09:44 AM

Bill-what I am worried about is a massacre as you think will indeed happen. Then what? Do we sit idly by and let thousands, maybe more, get butchered and do nothing like we did when it occurred in Rwanda and Srebrenica. Invading Iraq was incredibly stupid of Bush, it just reinforced what I had always thought of the man, but how can we just sit by if a genocide were to occur. It would be our fault and it would be another stain on the US if something like that happened and we did nothing.

So what is your alternative? Do we establish permanent bases and try to stand between them for 50 years, 100 years, or what? They are dying in the dozens per day as it is, and we are dying with them.

I don't pretend to have a good answer for this thing. But its so broke that I doubt we can fix it.

josedesucre

03-14-2007, 10:34 AM

My 2 cents is that we shouldn't give up yet. The multilateral talks underway hold some promise. And, it would be a good thing if -at least in this issue- we could put politics aside for a little while and stop giving wrong signals to the bad guys. Dissent is normal and fine within a democracy, but the enemies read that as a sign of weakness that encourages them to wait us out. Unfortunately, the dislike for Bush seems to prevent any agreement that could be seen as an honorable way out.

bgbill

03-14-2007, 03:21 PM

Marcus

03-14-2007, 03:34 PM

Marcus,

Clinton had many opportunities to take out Bin Laden, yet he did not, show me a verifiable link that states Clinton tried to take him out.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

bgbill

03-14-2007, 03:49 PM

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
Marcus,

Isn't that the aspirin factory that Clinton attacked and killed the cleaning people in, when he tried to divert attention away from him getting a blow-job by Monica?

firefyterx

03-14-2007, 10:07 PM

Gee Bill thats not what I hear from my friends who have actually been serving over in Iraq. He says while people are in a hurry for things to settle down they are definately glad we got rid of Sadam.

Bill McIntyre

03-14-2007, 10:30 PM

Gee Bill thats not what I hear from my friends who have actually been serving over in Iraq. He says while people are in a hurry for things to settle down they are definately glad we got rid of Sadam.

I guess the troops are going to be able to find Iraqis who tell them what they want to hear (especially if we have something that they need), and you are going to be able to find troops who tell you what you want to hear.

Marcus

03-15-2007, 07:47 AM

Marcus,

Isn't that the aspirin factory that Clinton attacked and killed the cleaning people in, when he tried to divert attention away from him getting a blow-job by Monica?

Uh...negative.

bgbill

03-15-2007, 07:50 AM

Uh...negative.

Uh... Affirmative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

Marcus

03-15-2007, 07:56 AM

Uh... Affirmative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

I think you posted the wrong link. I didn't read anything in there that says he attacked an aspirin factory and then told the American public that he blew up some terrorist camps in an attempt to kill Bin Laden.

Christof

03-19-2007, 12:04 PM

Anyone see the recent poll taken in Iraq?
I was surprised at the numbers... Seems more want us there than not, and more think the country is better and has a better future than while Saddam was in power....

And just to poke Bill in the eye again, you give credit to Saddam for keeping the peace.. I agree that he did... But the way he did it makes waterboarding look like a kindergarten tea party... We could have cleaned this mess up quick had we been as vicious as he was, literally scaring them into compliance, but alas, we are too "civilized" and even our light methods of interrogation are touted as "extreme torture tactics" by a large portion of this country, including Bill I would guess....

Bill McIntyre

03-19-2007, 02:13 PM

And just to poke Bill in the eye again, you give credit to Saddam for keeping the peace.. I agree that he did... But the way he did it makes waterboarding look like a kindergarten tea party... We could have cleaned this mess up quick had we been as vicious as he was, literally scaring them into compliance

Well of course we could, but that would hardly be an improvement over Saddam, would it? We would have replaced an Iraqi dictator with a foreign dictator. At least some of the Iraqis, the Sunnis, were happy with Saddam. All of them would have been unhappy with us acting like Saddam, and Iraq's neighbors would not have thought it was really neat to have us turning a Middle East country into the 51st state.

In any event, we were told that the Iraqis would be throwing flowers in front of our troops, that the country would turn into a democracy, and that the war would be supported by revenues from Iraqi oil. None of that happened.

Bill McIntyre

03-19-2007, 02:19 PM

I Googled "poll of Iraqis" and this was the first hit. Doesn't sound like they are exactly happy.
*************************************
WASHINGTON, March 19 -- Six in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going badly, and only one-third expect things to improve in the next year, a poll published on Monday showed.

The survey of 2,212 Iraqis, sponsored jointly by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network, found that four years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraqis said their daily lives have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy.

The optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005, before landmark legislative elections, has nearly vanished.

The survey represents a dramatic deterioration in just 16 months, a reflection of how the security situation and quality of life in Iraq have unraveled. In an ABC News poll in November 2005,seven in 10 Iraqis said their lives were good and nearly as many predicted things would get better.

Kurds, who make up 15 to 20 percent of the Iraqi population, describe the fewest problems and express the most optimism about progress in the next year. Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of the population, say they're struggling, but many remain hopeful about Iraq's long-term future. Sunni Arabs, another 15-20 percent of the population, express almost universal desperation, according to the poll.

Conditions in Baghdad are worse than elsewhere for Sunnis and Shiites. Of the 429 Baghdad residents surveyed, no one felt safe in his or her own neighborhood. Everyone interviewed in the capital said he or she often avoided even going outside because of violence.

Beyond Baghdad, the security situation is better, albeit only relatively so. Across the country, Iraqis say the basics of day-to-day living have deteriorated. On each of 13 aspects of life-- from security to the availability of cooking fuel and medical care -- a majority rated conditions as bad.

In the poll, most Iraqis say they have altered their daily routines to accommodate the realities of violence:

More than two-thirds are careful about what they say about themselves to other people;

Fifty-five percent try to avoid passing public buildings, often the target of suicide bombers; and fifty-four percent stay away from markets and crowded areas.

The poll, taken from Feb. 25 to March 5, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

ITSABOUTTIME

03-19-2007, 06:09 PM

Bill they are speaking of the Zogby poll just taken. It is supposedly the first scientific poll completed in Iraq

jackpine savage

03-19-2007, 06:17 PM

Zogby is pretty reputable. Still to stay because a poll of Iraqis says they want us too iis as silly of a reason as to leave because a poll of Americans say they want us to leave. We should stay if there is a reasonable chance of victory, if we leave it should be because it is more in our long term interest than if we stayed.

Bill McIntyre

03-19-2007, 06:48 PM

While riding the stationary bike just now, I couldn't find a channel that seemed more interesting than CNN. I know its just one guy, but they interviewed the guy who pulled down Saddam's statue. He had been a builder of motorcycles and Saddams sons took a few without paying. When he complained, he was put in prison for 9 years.

Now he regrets pulling down the statue, and he regrets the fall of Saddam. He said "better the devil we know than the devil we don't know."

And a rather unrelated piece, they interviewed the Mayor of that bastion of hippiedom, Salt Lake City. He said that if ever a President deserved to be impeached, it was Bush, but that the Democratic leadership didn't have the balls.

ITSABOUTTIME

03-19-2007, 07:26 PM

I guess your right Bill you can find somebody to say what you want to hear

freedivingfool

03-19-2007, 07:51 PM

jackpine savage

03-19-2007, 08:36 PM

Its a long article but well written and very insightful
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer?currentPage=1

Bill McIntyre

03-19-2007, 10:54 PM

Some of us that went to Iraq or Afganistan, we really don't care about people's freedom. Because some people in the US can't even locate Iraq on a map, plus if you walk down main street USA,people live their lives like they always do, the world doesn't stop. They go to starbucks, fancy restaurants, get drunk, and what ever they always did. Some people don't know give a shit, for some of us that go do war. We go just because we LIKE war, it's chaos, your shit scared, you don't know if your gonna live or die. It's the greatest feeling.

I think its good that you confessed that. It helps explain why the reenlistment rate isn't lower than it is. There are people like you, and in some ways its a good thing. They don't question the morality of a cause as long as they get to do their thing.

But please don't expect the nation to keep starting wars just so you can get your rocks off. A lot of other people die, and they might not be as enthusiastic about it as you are.

It would be a lot cheaper for us to send you to a whore house in Nevada to help you grow up and find yourself.

Christof

03-20-2007, 06:11 AM

Yeah Bill, and a LOT of the country didnt like it one bit when we went to war with germany either.... I cant wait for Bush to go, but I am so friggin tired of the pansy-asses in this country anymore.. We surely deserve to fall, just as Rome did.... And we will... And it will happen because of people that are so spoiled, fat, lazy, that have forgotten how we came to where we are... The people that think BMW's and Electricity are simply plucked from the sky...
Who would have ever thought that because of the likes of the ACLU hugging crowd (you?), we would have highschool dumbshits wasting the supreme courts time over "Bonghits for jesus" banners and the argument over free speech... Little bastards..
Of course, nothing has changed since the 60's, has it....

I think I'll just wait for the shit to hit the fan, then when all my food is gone, my dog and I will dine on the choicest cuts of sissy ass-meat, as I am sure it will be more tender than the finest cut of beef....

Bill's America.... "Superpower through understanding".......

"Cindy Sheehan for President"

Steel Shootin'

03-20-2007, 06:41 AM

As for the "Bonghits for Jesus" case, no one is forcing the Supreme Court to hear that argument. They elected to hear it. And just as a quick aside, burried in the story is language that 99% of the public never really ponders. Keep in mind, this is a story about the First Amendment and whether or not the sign promoted drugs, and a school's right to restrict that kind of speech. The Bush Administration has NEVER missed an opportunity to try to take it to the next level:

Starr, joined by the Bush administration, also asked the court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which they disagree. That argument did not appear to have widespread support among the justices.

I don't want to derail the thread by talking about the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, but I thought that was interesting, and very telling. Classic Bush Administration. They have never seen a freedom that they did not want to crush. Oh well, maybe when this case is over, Bush can focus more on pot smoking breast cancer patients. :rolleyes:

I also have to disagree that this country "deserves to fall." Debate is healthy, and is in many ways the cornerstone of a democracy. It is amazing how many people in this country look at debate as "um-American." In other words, "If you don't see things politically exactly as I do, you are not a good American." One thing you are right about, things have not changed all that much. There have been those type of jaded, misguided fools around since the 1960s and well before.

Christof

03-20-2007, 06:49 AM

Threads wander here and there, nature of the beast...
I am not anti-pot by any means, but I am anti "kids can do anything and say anything they want".... Free speech is important, but more important to me is the "old fashioned" idea that kids have respect and restraint.... I will never forget the day a couple years ago when a light tap on the horn to prevent hitting a 8 of 9 yr old innocent looking kid garnered me a middle finger and a "***** you"..... Free speech I guess... When I was young, the adult would have gotten a wave and a "sorry" reply from me, but then, I had respect for adults...

freedivingfool

03-20-2007, 09:00 AM

well Bill, i was just admit some facts. Most Americans are too SPOILED. They don't want to give up their big SUV's, big house, and pamper lifestyle. So yeah they do need people like us, I rather go to war with someone who gets a hard on for it, then those fags they call objectors. Don't join the military thinking that your not going to war, and if your doing it for college, don't. Because those are the types that get people kill. But if your calling me immature i'm all for that, and if your fronting for me to go to nevada, hell yeah i'll go. But it sure is fun shooting Terrorist Ragheads! Yes people are dying, good young Americans. Guys that care for their country, when I'm old , I can tell my Kids I did something for my country. While most Spoiled and pamper little turds are doing keg stands, and sucking on their momma titties, there Are Americans going through hell right now. Not questioning the morality of why they are there. They are there for the guys to their left and right of them, we'll never win this war because, people get all butt hurt in America about Marines shooting Innocent civilians, and bombing of Innocent people. There is no such thing as Innocent civilians, you should look at the ROE's, if you shoot from that house. We take it out! Winning hearts and minds, 2 bullets to the heart, 1 to the mind.

ITSABOUTTIME

03-20-2007, 10:07 AM

Freedivinfool you have a ride here in Florida anytime your here. But be careful with the bravado or Bill will emphasize select parts to change you from a gungho bad ass marine to a cold blooded killer of civilians. I don't think this to be the case and your welcome at my house and on my boat anytime.

Bill McIntyre

03-20-2007, 11:30 AM

Scott has already done a great job addressing the free speech issue, so I'll confine myself to the babbling by Christoff and freedivingfool about Americans being too soft and loving their nice houses and BMWs.

Its hard for me to get the relevance. What is wrong with liking nice things? I fought in wars, but I like boats and trucks to tow them. I wouldn't feel at all bad if I could have a boat that was in the water because it was far too big to tow. Should I and everyone else not in the service being sleeping outdoors in the sand to support the troops? Would that make them feel better or keep them safe?

And if you don't think Americans are sacrificing enough, ask the Commander in Chief why he hasn't asked them to. This is the only war we've ever fought while cutting taxes. God forbid that the wealthy have to sacrifice anything to buy body armor or vehicle armor.

And maybe people are soft because of a lack of an example set by their leaders. Here are some excerpts from an OpEd in yesterday's paper. I almost posted it yesterday, but now I have an excuse. I'm not using quotation marks because I've done some deletions and editiing, but all of the sentiments are mine, even all of the words are not. The bold emphasis is mine.

The White House announced earlier this month that Jenna Bush, one of the president's twin daughters, is writing a book on her all-expenses-paid trip to Panama, where she worked for a few weeks as an intern for UNICEF. Jenna Bush is quoted as saying she will donate her earnings from her book to UNICEF, a commendable gesture, considering her father's net worth of $20 million. But while the 25-year-old makes the rounds of TV talk shows this fall in a White House limousine, dozens of her contemporaries will be arriving home from Iraq in wooden boxes. In Britain, Prince Harry is insisting on going off to Iraq — even as his country is reducing its troop commitment.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed how the power of good example could also be powerfully good politics. When he led the country to sacrifice in World War II, his children enlisted and his wife traveled to military bases to counsel and comfort the families of soldiers. Newsreels showed the president's four sons fighting with the Marines in the Pacific, flying with the Army Air Forces in North Africa and landing with the Navy at Normandy. Soon other public figures followed suit — movie stars (James Stewart and Clark Gable) enlisted and sports heroes (Joe DiMaggio and Hank Greenberg) went off to war.

The contrast between FDR's good example during wartime and that of George W. Bush is stark and sad. The Bush family rallies to the political campaigns of its scions and spends months on the road raising money and shaking hands to put their men into public office. In fact, the public image of their cohesive family — the pearl-choked matriarch surrounded by progeny and springer spaniels — helped cinch more than one presidency for the Bushes. Yet now, when its legacy is most in peril, the family seems to be squandering its good will on a mess of celebridreck.

The president tells us Iraq is a "noble" war, but his wife, his children and his nieces and nephews are not listening. None has enlisted in the armed services, and none seems to be paying attention to the sacrifices of military families. Until Jenna's trip to Panama, the presidential daughters performed community service only when mandated by a court after they were cited for underage drinking. Since then they have surfaced in public during lavish presidential trips with their parents, bar-hopping outings in Georgetown and champagne-popping art openings in New York.

The first lady, so often lauded for her love of literacy, has not been seen in the reading rooms of veterans' hospitals. The president's sister, Doro, publicly picketed Al Gore's last days in the vice president's mansion as he awaited the Supreme Court's decision on the Florida recount of 2000. Yet she has been strangely absent from publicly supporting her brother's war.

"Uncle Bucky," as William H.T. Bush is known within the family, is one presidential relative who has profited from the Iraq war. He recently sold all of his shares in Engineered Support Systems Inc. (ESSI), a St. Louis-based company that has flourished under the president's no-bid policy for military contractors. Uncle Bucky told the Los Angeles Times that he would have preferred that ESSI, on whose board he sits, was not involved in Iraq, "but, unfortunately, we live in a troubled world."

The only member of the Bush family to show the strains of our "troubled world" is former President George H.W. Bush, who shed tears recently while addressing the Florida Legislature. The elder Bush was talking about son Jeb's gubernatorial loss in 1994. Jeb, who was later elected, tried to console him. But the sobs of Bush 41 seemed to be more about his older son's "noble" war.

Perhaps the father's sadness sprang from his own experience fighting in what his parents called "Mr. Roosevelt's war" — the good war — the war that saved the world from tyranny. He enlisted at 18 to fly torpedo bombers. He flew 58 missions in two years and returned home a war hero. Since then, no one in his large family has seen fit to follow his sterling example of service and patriotism.

In contrast to all the above, Dubya stayed home and defended Texas while I was in Vietnam. Cheney used multiple student deferments until finally the only way out was to be a father, and he got his wife pregnant.

So if you are bitching about what has become of America and how soft we have become, I agree. But we are only following the example set by our leadership.

jackpine savage

03-20-2007, 11:35 AM

Still don't know how the war in Iraq is making our country safer. Christof, for all his insanity, is on to something. The biggest threat to the US is ourselves and the way we finance our extravagances. Terrorism isn't an existential threat to this nations, anyone who thinks it is has been doing bong hits for jesus. The biggest threat to this nation is financial and we are headed down one rocky road.

Marcus

03-20-2007, 11:48 AM

The biggest threat to this nation is financial and we are headed down one rocky road.

Eyep...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/ts_nm/usa_subprime_detroit_dc_1

Christof

03-20-2007, 01:25 PM

Scott has already done a great job addressing the free speech issue, so I'll confine myself to the babbling by Christoff and freedivingfool about Americans being too soft and loving their nice houses and BMWs. Babbling? Nice Bill..... Maybe I am more concerned with my grandkids future than you are.. We are a people of "Live for myself today, screw the future"...

Its hard for me to get the relevance. What is wrong with liking nice things? I fought in wars, but I like boats and trucks to tow them. I wouldn't feel at all bad if I could have a boat that was in the water because it was far too big to tow. No you shouldnt feel bad for wanting nice things... What you should feel bad about is forgetting why we are a superpower and how we came to be one... It was with the military and the fear of that military, and, our resources and hard work.... Half the country thinks the military should be for nothing but airshows and parades, and nearly all the country forgets how much better we have it than any other country...

And if you don't think Americans are sacrificing enough, ask the Commander in Chief why he hasn't asked them to. This is the only war we've ever fought while cutting taxes. God forbid that the wealthy have to sacrifice anything to buy body armor or vehicle armor. Oh, I see, so this is Bushs fault too? Why should the president HAVE to ask the people of this country to pitch in? They should do it whether asked to or not, it is clear it is needed.. You seek out only the rich. I have my problems with Corporate tax leniency, but the rich individuals pay a lot of taxes.. And what about the poorer people Bill? Welfare people abuse the system (free healthcare means going to the ER like a clinic for any little thing, hell, it's free right?) yet seem to be able to afford cell phones, cable tv, cigarettes, tattoos, etc... Maybe they could give a little back by simply cutting back on ER visits?? Oh, how draconian of me...

And maybe people are soft because of a lack of an example set by their leaders. If you are looking to politicians for example Bill, you are pretty lost.... I suppose you aspire to be just like Hillary? Let's see, she could live very well off say $250k/year, so why not give all the rest to charity, or maybe buy some armor for the troops?? Yeah, like Gores lifestyle is an example for me to aspire to... Talk green and tell folks to cut back, but live in a HUGE mansion and jet all over the country... I would like that..

The president tells us Iraq is a "noble" war, but his wife, his children and his nieces and nephews are not listening. None has enlisted in the armed services, and none seems to be paying attention to the sacrifices of military families.If you think for a second that Prince Harry wont have protection that other Brit troops dont recieve, you need to put down the pipe... And I'm sure that Chelsea would be encouraged to sign up by her parents too?? If you were in a position of great power, would you encourage or approve of your kid going over? How about Vietnam Bill... You were there. Would you have kept your kids from going if you had the ability?

We will never see eye to eye on many things, that is fine and I dont think you are a bad person because of it.. I simply think that we have become too soft with our easy lifestyle for the last 50 yrs, and it is really easy to armchair coach while sipping a glass of wine and watching CNN on a 60" plasma tv.....

Bill McIntyre

03-20-2007, 01:40 PM

Why should the president HAVE to ask the people of this country to pitch in? They should do it whether asked to or not, it is clear it is needed..

So much of what you write makes me think we live in different worlds, and I'm at a loss to even respond. It seems that you think every kid was respectful and every citizen was noble back in some "good old days" and that everything has gone to shit now. Jesus H. Christ! I'm the one who is 68 years old. That is supposed to be my line, but I just don't buy it.

But anyway, I am curious to find out just what you meant by that quoted statement. How exactly do you want people to pitch in? Do you want them all to go to Iraq except for those working in the defense industry to send them armament? If so, why aren't you over there? And the size of the military is limited by the defense budget, so where do you propose getting the money to pay for all the extra troops even if everyone volunteers?

Do you want them to pitch in by paying more taxes? The President proposed big tax cuts and wants to make them permanent. Congress approved the cuts. Do you propose impeaching the President and voting every congressman who voted for the cuts out of office?

If both of those guesses seem silly, I agree. But I'm at a loss as to what you mean by pitching in, so I'm grasping at straws.

Mutt

03-20-2007, 04:52 PM

It could've worked, if the dumbass would have been better prepared, a better negotiator, and a better purveyor of intel, and info..and if the dumbass would have just waited for the right time! He got hoodwinked- for sure by Cheney & Rumsfield, Cheney is sittn' high on the Hog...movn forward for sure! All this at his Old Man's Dismay....His old man is pissed I am sure! Jr friggn' stuck us now!

Going to take a Damn Nobel Genius to Engineer us outta this one!

jackpine savage

03-20-2007, 05:19 PM

Christof-Our military didn't make us a suprpower our economy and our brainpower did. Unfortunately while our military is still the best in the world the same can't be said for the other two.

Christof

03-23-2007, 11:46 AM

So much of what you write makes me think we live in different worlds, and I'm at a loss to even respond. It seems that you think every kid was respectful and every citizen was noble back in some "good old days" and that everything has gone to shit now. Jesus H. Christ! I'm the one who is 68 years old. That is supposed to be my line, but I just don't buy it.

But anyway, I am curious to find out just what you meant by that quoted statement. How exactly do you want people to pitch in? Do you want them all to go to Iraq except for those working in the defense industry to send them armament? If so, why aren't you over there? And the size of the military is limited by the defense budget, so where do you propose getting the money to pay for all the extra troops even if everyone volunteers?

Do you want them to pitch in by paying more taxes? The President proposed big tax cuts and wants to make them permanent. Congress approved the cuts. Do you propose impeaching the President and voting every congressman who voted for the cuts out of office?

If both of those guesses seem silly, I agree. But I'm at a loss as to what you mean by pitching in, so I'm grasping at straws.
Where to start Bill...... Hell, human nature will always assure that some things never change, but where have you been? If you for a second dont think that kids went from being mostly respectful little guys that discretely fudged the rules to openly defiant and disrespectful at very young ages I cant believe you....
Also, people have gone from a very community-oriented peoples to what we have now, "what I need is numero uno, ***** the rest of you".... We are still very social, i.e., spearboard etc., but nothing like we were 40, 50 yrs ago...
My point on people pitching in without being asked by the prez is very broad. When gas hit $3/gal, you couldnt get anyone to even simply slow down, let alone trade in their hummer or caddy... Although I have a full-size truck (must pull my boat with something), I did slow my speed down from 70--75 on the hwy to now cruising at 55... It's a start... Passed all the time with dirty looks, horn honks, and middle fingers by rednecks in their jacked up POS F250's that look like they dont have a pot to piss in... Glad they can afford that gas bill....
I am younger than you, but have experienced the "big change" in our society which I believe started with the movement during vietnam... "Free Love" and "If it feels good, do it" were great at the time, but the mentality I feel sent us on a path that has led away from "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" to what we have now... "Whats in it for me"..

Christof

03-23-2007, 11:50 AM

Christof-Our military didn't make us a suprpower our economy and our brainpower did. Unfortunately while our military is still the best in the world the same can't be said for the other two.The military is the only thing that protected our assets both here and abroad that assured the safety of our economy imho.... Russia lost the superpower war by trying to keep up with us militarily... Had they sufficed that they had enough nukes to wipe the world out and kept it at that, they most likely wouldnt have suffered economic collapse....
Sure, you can have all the money in the world and prosper, but you cannot hang onto it long without one big, tough ass, armed force....

jackpine savage

03-23-2007, 11:56 AM

Maybe but we spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined.That is taking money out of the economy and putting it into a sector that doesn't benefit the economy financially. A military is a nececessity but ours is mismanaged and open to large amounts of fraud and inefficiency

Bill McIntyre

03-23-2007, 12:11 PM

Russia lost the superpower war by trying to keep up with us militarily...

They lost the cold war because their economy was too weak to keep up with us militarily, in spite of devoting a far greater percentage of GDP to it. So jackpine was right- our military didn't make us the superpower- it was the strength of our economy.

It doesn't matter how much you want to have a strong military if you don't have the resources to support it.

Same thing goes for WWII- we won because of our industrial capacity. We entered the war late and took miniscule casualities compared to the French, British and Russians, but we could turn out tanks and airplanes like no one else. Historians often say that the war was won by Russian men and American machines.

jadairiii

03-23-2007, 03:19 PM

Ask the hundreds of thousands who have fled to other countries if its better....

Ask the Kurds. Or don't they count?

John

Bill McIntyre

03-23-2007, 04:40 PM

Ask the Kurds. Or don't they count?

John

Yeah, they count. They were doing well being protected by us before the invasion, and they don't want to be part of Iraq after we leave.

My son was part of the force flying over Iraq protecting the Kurds, and we never lost a single man or got so much as a scratch on an aircraft. Saddam was totally tied down and no threat to anyone. Do you think the present state of affairs is an improvement?

jadairiii

03-24-2007, 09:52 AM

Yeah, they count. They were doing well being protected by us before the invasion, and they don't want to be part of Iraq after we leave.

My son was part of the force flying over Iraq protecting the Kurds, and we never lost a single man or got so much as a scratch on an aircraft. Saddam was totally tied down and no threat to anyone. Do you think the present state of affairs is an improvement?

You need to review your history books, the Kurds were still being killed (cleansed) even with the fly-overs. All the fly-overs did was keep them from using aircraft to kill the Kurds. The Kurds had no rights and were still being repressed. This is the first time in about 200 years that the Kurds are relatively safe. I guess its time we hosed the Kurds again.

If we pull out, Turkey invades from the north and starts cleansing the Kurds, Iran comes in from the East and starts wiping out the Sunnis, and then the Arab Shi'a. It will make Bosnia look like a picnic.

Bill, you may be able to BS some on this list, but I know my history.

John

jackpine savage

03-24-2007, 10:04 AM

Seth

03-24-2007, 11:23 AM

The Kurds had no rights and were still being repressed. This is the first time in about 200 years that the Kurds are relatively safe.

oh so they are safe now?? wow.. im not sure what world u are living in, because i dont think any somewhat sane person could use the words relatively safe to describe their conditions... relatively safe is what you have, not them, or anyone else in iraq for that matter...

jadairiii

03-24-2007, 11:52 AM

Turkey won't invade northern Iraq unless the Kurds declare an independent state. They may do that if we pull out but its not guaranteed. Iran coming from the east is hypothetical, of the three nations they have been the least aggressive towards the Kurds and are more interested in protecting teh Shia community in the south than punishing the Kurds in the north. We use the Kurds for our own agenda, they are completely aware of this, do you really believe they are putting their faith in the US after what we have done to them in the past. P.s I know my history also.

You are right, we have used the Kurds, but also remember that Turkey hates the Kurds and wants the northern oil fields. The troops we put up there at the start of Gulf 2 was to keep Turkey out. Kurds do have an agenda, to take back the land that Turkey took from them. It has only been the recent past that Turkey has not been "aggressive" toward the Kurds. I dont see a happy ending regardless of what we do there, we (the western world) screwed that area up after WWI and it will never be right in our life time. IMHO. And no, the Kurds are not putting their "faith" in us, just trying to build up a large enough force on their own to split from Iraq and keep Turkey out.

John

PS; its fun to debate someone that actually does know history! Go Gators.

spaghetti

03-24-2007, 12:31 PM

Turkey is a NATO member and, most important, applied for the European Union membership. So it's mandatory for Turkey to keep nice, fair and quiet in the international relations. At least by now. I can't see them bold enough to invade the Iraqi Kurdistan in the short/mid term, as that would be a crucial turning point of their foreign policy. They won't do that without our permission (our=EU, USA, NATO).

Bill McIntyre

03-24-2007, 12:37 PM

John,

I'm sorry I don't seem to have passed your history test, but I am aware of the Turkish fear of the Kurd's desire to establish a Greater Kurdistan. What I am not clear on is what you think we should do about it, or how it should influence our decision to stay or leave Iraq. I'm going back through your earlier posts for something other than an attempt to prove that you know more history, and I find this

This is the first time in about 200 years that the Kurds are relatively safe. I guess its time we hosed the Kurds again.

If we pull out, Turkey invades from the north and starts cleansing the Kurds, Iran comes in from the East and starts wiping out the Sunnis, and then the Arab Shi'a. It will make Bosnia look like a picnic.

So that sounds like we are obligated to stay. If so, how long should we stay and see our young men and women killed? Forever, 10 years, or what. Your next statement seems inconsistent with staying.

I dont see a happy ending regardless of what we do there, we (the western world) screwed that area up after WWI and it will never be right in our life time.

I certainly agree with that. If we can't fix it and if its going to be a horrible mess whenever we leave, maybe we should leave sooner rather than later.

I'm duly impressed with your knowledge of history. Now what is it that you recommend?

jadairiii

03-24-2007, 02:50 PM

John,

...Now what is it that you recommend?

For the last 50 years at least we have promised the Kurds security and then yanked the “rug” out from under them, allowing their “boys and girls” to be slaughtered, when it did not fit our short term goals. Most recent was after Gulf 1, how many thousands were killed while we “secured the air”? Fact is, IMHO, we have a moral obligation to defend them while they secure their own region.

So, what do I propose? First, we start with a long term vision, 50 year, plus or minus. We suck it up and apologize to Iran, they quietly supported us during our invasion of Afghanistan then Bush shoves it to them with the “evil empire” BS (also include supporting BP and the UK in the 50’s and bringing the Shah to power), forget the rhetoric. Then we bring Iran and Syria to the table, with the rest of the regional powers, for a REAL plan for the region, including an independent state for the Kurds (and possibly multiple “states” within Iraq for each group). Forget democracy, that is not going to work in the short term, great goal 50 years from now, but not today. We need to broker a regional security force to keep the peace in Iraq and pull our troops to the North to support the Kurds. We created this mess at Versie and it has come home to roost, it will cost us money and lives (possibly my children), but our lack of vision for the last 100 years has cost hundreds of thousands of lives in that region, and this is how we start to fix it. Poverty breeds insurgents. World is way too small to pull back to our borders and pretend. But this 50 year vision also includes having to fix Africa, we (the west) screwed up that region also, raped it of its natural resources for a good 200 years and then ran leaving them to govern themselves without any thought to making sure they could.

Doing what is the easy fix, like just pulling out of Iraq in 2008, will create even more problems for our children and their children, time to “man up”, we have made a big f**king mess and it is our duty to clean it up. But that goes for every hot spot, we have had our chances to implement real change over the last 75 years in Africa, Afghanistan, the Gulf and SE Asia, and each time we picked the easy way out, and look were its gotten us. Time to Pay the Piper.

John

But first, make sure the Gators win the b'ball National title!

spaghetti

03-24-2007, 03:16 PM

That's what some European governments suggested from the beginning: if anything, after discharging Saddam, put Iraq under the transitorial authority of an international organism (Un, Arab League...) as it has been done in Cambodia. We'll never know if it could work before, and now it's even harder.
But I can't see the US forces deploying in the north to defend the Kurds from...Turkey!? It seems I don't get the point: Turkey is a Nato country.

aaron proffitt

03-25-2007, 08:18 AM

That's what some European governments suggested from the beginning: if anything, after discharging Saddam, put Iraq under the transitorial authority of an international organism (Un, Arab League...) But I can't see the US forces deploying in the north to defend the Kurds from...Turkey!? It seems I don't get the point: Turkey is a Nato country.

Good point 'ghetti....how easy it is to to forget Turkey is a NATO member.
My brother was recently in the Kurd controlled north,in his words it was like he wasn't even in Iraq anymore.He couldn't believe what a difference a 2 hour drive made on his prospective of the country.I'd call that a micro-success.
I like the idea of bringing in an interanational org. but I can't see any of these groups becoming involved.Why would they want to commit their people and money to a problem we created ?Seems like a alot to ask....

spaghetti

03-25-2007, 11:52 AM

I like the idea of bringing in an interanational org. but I can't see any of these groups becoming involved.Why would they want to commit their people and money to a problem we created ?Seems like a alot to ask....
Well even smaller countries have a foreign policy and their own vision of it. For example, talking 'bout Europe, France didn't send any troops to Irak, and Italy sent a little contingent (the equivalent of a mech regiment) with zero enthusiasm.
But recently, and with more enthusiasm, Italy and France deployed troops on the hot borderline between Israel and Lebanon's Hizbullah, because this mission under the flag of the United Nations is coherent with the political view of these countries. Which is, in one word: multilateralism. As they showed in the 2 Iraqi wars, Europeans are more likely to committ under the baby-blue flag of the UN rather than following the Old Glory. (and yes, I see the contradiction, as I know that UN couldn't ever make any move without America's agreement. But politics is contradiction all the way)

Bill McIntyre

03-25-2007, 12:24 PM

Here is a depressing article saying that Iraq's well educated, largely secular middle class is increasingly giving up and getting out, leaving it to the thugs and religious nuts.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-middle25mar25,1,3189682.story

aaron proffitt

03-25-2007, 12:37 PM

Your right that was depressing....

Bill McIntyre

03-25-2007, 12:45 PM

Returning to the proposal under discussion-

I think it would be great to have UN involvement and bring Syrian, Iran, and others in the region to the table, but I also think its too late.

Before the invasion, we basically told the UN to stuff it- we didn't need their approval.

And then I read recently that right after the apparently successful invasion, the Iranians were scared shitless that they might be next and made secret overtures for talks. We might have gotten everyone together then, but Rumsfeld and Cheney told Bush that we didn't need to talk to those assholes.

Now the tables are turned. Syria and Iran are playing from a position of relative strength and see that we are overextended and impotent, so they see no need to make any concessions to us.

spaghetti

03-25-2007, 12:51 PM

aaron proffitt

03-25-2007, 01:15 PM

Now the tables are turned. Syria and Iran are playing from a position of relative strength and see that we are overextended and impotent.

I don't believe we are over-exteneded by a long shot and certainly not impotent.You know and I know that we have the military capacity to utterly destroy both Syria and Iran from asshole to appetite.I believe both countries still fear that.
Our problem in this debacle isn't the conquering,it's the restoration.We don't need them for anything other than that.And the 'that' is a big problem.

Bill McIntyre

03-25-2007, 01:24 PM

I don't believe we are over-exteneded by a long shot and certainly not impotent.You know and I know that we have the military capacity to utterly destroy both Syria and Iran from asshole to appetite.I believe both countries still fear that.

We can destroy anyone, or the entire world for that matter, if we go nuclear, but I don't think the world would look kindly on us nuking Iran and Syria, and I don't think that even the current administration is dumb enough to consider that as a viable option.

And short of that, we don't have the conventional forces to do much more than we are currently doing. If we reinstated the draft and mobilized on a WWII scale we would have the power, but I don't think that is going to happen.

aaron proffitt

03-25-2007, 01:43 PM

We can destroy anyone, or the entire world for that matter, if we go nuclear, but I don't think the world would look kindly on us nuking Iran and Syria, and I don't think that even the current administration is dumb enough to consider that as a viable option.

And short of that, we don't have the conventional forces to do much more than we are currently doing. If we reinstated the draft and mobilized on a WWII scale we would have the power, but I don't think that is going to happen.

I don't believe we would have to go nuke,I believe we could level the area conventionally.Result would be the same,though, all the world would hate us for flattening an area that most of them hated anyway. Kind of a strange position to be in. No one really likes Syria or Iran('cept Russia and China),and yet no one would like us(or anyone else) to go at them in a matter that would spell out anihilation.
Where did this war making doctrine come from ? The only way you can wage war is if you restore what you destroyed ?

jackpine savage

03-25-2007, 01:58 PM

I don't believe we would have to go nuke,I believe we could level the area conventionally.Result would be the same,though, all the world would hate us for flattening an area that most of them hated anyway. Kind of a strange position to be in. No one really likes Syria or Iran('cept Russia and China),and yet no one would like us(or anyone else) to go at them in a matter that would spell out anihilation.
Where did this war making doctrine come from ? The only way you can wage war is if you restore what you destroyed ?

Aaron-We would be very foolish to try that with Iran. They have the capability to hit us and hit us hard here in the US in a way that would make Osama jealous. They have a whole network of agents throughout S. America, thanks largely to their association with Hezbollah. They were able to take out the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires as well as well as a jewish mutual aid society killing 86. Also Iran has the capabilities to shut down the Gulf as an oil export region. The result would be massive economic problems not just for us but also Europe and Japan. Considering what the costs would be there wouldn't be much to gain by taking them on.