Howard Dean secures new endorsement!

[PhillyKev 0]

Yes, being hypocritical is the wrong thing to do. Ousting Saddam Hussein was not the wrong thing to do because we have a strategic advantage in the ME thanks to new bases that we will have in Iraq. Telling the American people that you did it because he has imaginary weapons or that you just want to liberate the people is wrong.

[happythoughts 0]

Kind of like the Cubans denying that they had missiles. They said it, so we should believe them? Sometime you get intelligence from questionable sources. You have to evaluate it from every perspective that you can get.

Ever buy a used car? Based on what the guy told you, and what you can tell, you make a decision.

SH did have a nuke program. He did use bio/chem weapons on the Iranians. He had WMD programs. No disagreement there.

So, he tells you that he doesn't have them, but won't let UN inspectors verify that. You believe him? In Florida, we sell swamp land that way.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

So, he tells you that he doesn't have them, but won't let UN inspectors verify that. You believe him? In Florida, we sell swamp land that way.

AMEN.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Ousting Saddam Hussein was not the wrong thing to do because we have a strategic advantage in the ME thanks to new bases that we will have in Iraq.

We already have bases in Saudi Arabia. I don't think we invaded Iraq to establish some much-needed bases for a strategic advantage. Do you believe that was the reason? I have never heard anyone else, left or right, state that as the reason.

Did you state in the above that you support the ousting of SH?

[catfishhunter 1]

If you feel that our leaders are wrong then step up and run for office. If people think and feel as you then you won't have any trouble getting into public office.

It is real easy to sit back and bitch and moan about the hard decisions our elected leaders have to make, if it really matters to you step up and run for office

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

It is real easy to sit back and bitch and moan about the hard decisions our elected leaders have to make

Have you seen that Mastercard "monday morning quarterback" commercail?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,436]

>That Rumsfeld-Hussein photo has been making the rounds hasn't it?
> Democraticunderground.com, Dean, Kerry, and many other folks
> have pointed it out. The fact that this photo is even used to
> denounce the current administration or America in any way ticks me
> off.

Sorry you're angry. I don't see it as a denounciation of the current administration. I just use it to show that anyone who says "anyone who uses WMD's is evil, and that justifies invasion" is a hypocrite. We used to support Saddam Hussein as he was doing that. We made a mistake, admit it and move on. (Although I notice that's one thing that many right wingers are simply incapable of.)

>Go back to my post and you click on those photos. Look at them.
>Do it right now.

I did, and I saw a sensationalistic picture of an atrocity, perpetrated by some evil men. Now do me a favor. Click on this . And think about what you would tell that child's parents. Will you tell him that he should just suck it up and live without arms? That, yeah, we used to support Hussein, but now we don't, and we accompanied that change of policy with the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis, and the maimings of many more? That the US did a really good job of not killing their son?

Of course, you don't have to worry about what you would say to them - they're both dead.

It's a sensationalistic picture. Seems like both sides have them. It's also the truth, and is the reality of war.

>They use people/names that even the least informed citizen will
> recognize and use said recognition to mislead the ignorant.

And the right just plain lies, which is apparently a little easier to pull off. It's fascinating to see which lies (i.e. "Iraq was behind 9/11") FOX viewers believe as opposed to what NBC viewers believe.

>The left uses this photo to promote the 'we're hypocritical for going
> to war' line - among others.

I use it to show that we're hypocritical when we say that we went to war because of the moral atrocity represented by anyone who uses WMD's. We have in the past SUPPORTED people who use WMD's.

We went to war with Iraq primarily for strategic reasons. It was a stated goal of PNAC, one that's been on the back burner for a while. Many people thought that the containment strategy espoused by Clinton et al wasn't working, and more drastic action had to be taken. Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the long term stability of the region, and we need that region to be stable because it supplies much of our oil, and our economy will founder without it.

Then 9/11 came along, and everything went on hold while we dealt with Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. When we were done there (or, more accurately, we bailed on it for a while) we set our sights on Iraq. It would be a tough sell - another war so soon after Iraq? The "It's all part of the war on terror" angle was pursued for a while with some success, but without credible evidence linking SH to Al Qaeda it was a hard sell. They also used the human-rights violations angle. This also had some middling success. It was not a huge success not because Hussein wasn't a monster (he was) but because some our our allies in the coalition (like Uzbekistan) weren't exactly human rights leaders.

So they concentrated on the WMD angle, because it was an angle everyone could agree on for bureacratic reasons. It required some (minor) fudging of intelligence data, but it would certainly be no stretch to claim that Iraq once had chemical weapons and might still have them. And Hussein was as intractable as ever, so it wasn't hard to claim he wasn't cooperating.

To quell dissent, we painted a pretty nice picture of our role in the war. It would be over in six days or six weeks, we would be welcomed as liberators, all Iraqis would support us. That reassured a lot of people who feared a Vietnam-like quagmire.

And thus we had the war, which has been a stated goal of PNAC for quite some time now. It had its roots in this grand plan for the next century, a plan that we imagine will bring some stability to the middle east, at the cost of american (and arab) lives. 9/11 played a role in hastening it a bit, since we now had a "war on terror" to fight, and it wasn't hard to cast Hussein as a terrorist enabler.

And cast in that light, it's somewhat defensible. I don't agree with how we went about it, but there are good arguments that removing SH from power was a potential benefit both for US foreign policy in that area and continued stability in a region we depend upon for our economy.

But to claim it was because we wanted to liberate the Iraqis? Or because we cannot abide a man who would use WMD's? Don't make me laugh. Might work on the weaned-on-CNN crowd, I suppose, especially if you want to win the next election.

>Random thoughts. In closing, the use of that photo in this manner
>ticks me off. It's a disgrace.

Ah well. Keep using your photo, though. I'm sure that's different somehow.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Don't make me laugh.

I don't know Bill, you seem a little tense. Perhaps you could use a good laugh. Your aura seems a little dark in the seventh house.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

We already have bases in Saudi Arabia. I don't think we invaded Iraq to establish some much-needed bases for a strategic advantage. Do you believe that was the reason? I have never heard anyone else, left or right, state that as the reason.

Really? You need to read more than. Especially stuff from New American Century (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al) about the need for more strategic bases in the middle east.

Quote

Did you state in the above that you support the ousting of SH?

Yes, always have. It's a good thing. But it was done the wrong way, and the support for it was garnered through lies and propaganda, which is wrong.

My point is that if the administration wants to have a certain policy regarding other nations, than they should tell the people why they think it's the right reason. Then, any support for that policy is legitimate and the will of the American people. If support is garnered through lies and propaganda, the the will of the American people is being manipulated and that is my main problem with Bush. He thinks he knows what the right thing to do is. He may be right in some cases. But in all cases he will not tolerate disagreement and uses whatever underhanded tactics are necessary to make sure he gets his way.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But my problem with our policies is the hypocrisy. Yes, some nasty things need to be done in order to secure our safety. Yes, I support some of those nasty things. My problem is with the holier than thou, for the good of humanity, God told me we're in the right attitude from the administration and its supporters.

One running problem we have is the tendency to use others to do our dirty work and then being/acting surprised when they turn on us. Nicaragua, Iran Contra, bin Laden. Our track record in South America sucks. Saudi Arabia is not peaches and cream and everything sweet, but they sell us stuff we need so we put up with it. Making it out any other way is distorting the truth.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But in all cases he will not tolerate disagreement and uses whatever underhanded tactics are necessary to make sure he gets his way.

...just like every president since at least Woody Wilson.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

But in all cases he will not tolerate disagreement and uses whatever underhanded tactics are necessary to make sure he gets his way.

...just like every president since at least Woody Wilson.

Not necessarily true. Article in the WSJ yesterday about things Bush has done to Republican allies who disagreed with him. Including smearing them (not because they needed to be exposed, but in an effort to blackmail them), and even grabbing a couple by the shirt and threatening to kick their ass if they didn't vote his way. He reminds me a lot of the fantastic mayor we have in Philadelphia.

[billvon 2,436]

>It is real easy to sit back and bitch and moan about the hard
> decisions our elected leaders have to make . . .

I don't bitch about the fact that they make hard decisions, I just bitch when they make bad ones. Part of being in a democracy and all.

> if it really matters to you step up and run for office . . .

That's a new one. The usual angle is "it's easy to bitch and moan, why don't you join the military and be a real man about it/be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem?"

[Kennedy 0]

WSJ?

Roosevelt was known to do the same thing. He also basically cut the state dept out of all decisions and called them all incompetents to their collective face.

Clinton was just too busy defending himself from real smears to fake others against anyone else.

Andrew Jackson did kick someone's ass in the white house.

Politicians get underhanded and dirty on a daily basis. I can't believe that would surprise you.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

WSJ?

Wall Street Journal (e.g. typical liberal rag)

Quote

Politicians get underhanded and dirty on a daily basis. I can't believe that would surprise you.

Doesn't suprise me, but doesn't mean I don't like it. Amazes me that so many people buy into their public facades and praise them.

[Kennedy 0]

I just call it the Journal.

Like Clay loves to say, once you realize most people are stupid, the world just makes more sense.

Personally, I'd be surprised if politicians ever have to use a restroom for all the bs they spout off how full of piss and wind they all are.

Rhetoric is a dangerous thing.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[GeorgiaDon 340]

If you're going to point to the Iranian hostage situation to justify the US's support of Saddam, you might also want to consider why the Iranian revolutionaries were so hostile to the US. American policy for at least 25 years was to unconditionally support the Shaw of Iran despite the fact that he ran an incredibly repressive regime, under which political dissent was ruthlessly crushed and rivals invariably "disappeared". Of course there was a strategic reason for our support: the Shaw was also being courted by the Soviet Union, who needed a warm-water port from which to base their navy. All Soviet ports either freeze over in winter, or else (in the case of the Black Sea) surface ships have to get out past the Strait of Gibralter or the Suez Canal, both under the nose of NATO. This situation limited the effectiveness of the Soviet Navy, so access to an Iranian port would have been a strategic disaster for NATO. Nevertheless, it's yet another example of how US support for ruthless dictators comes back to haunt us. I guess it also shows the difficulty of these policy decisions, where there is really no good choice: either support a ruthless tyrant, or (in this case) increase the risk of war with the Soviet Union. In the 1980's there was a real possibility that an Iranian-inspired fundamentalist Islamic revolution would sweep across much of the Middle East, again threatening our (economic and political) interests. So once again we had little choice but to let it happen or throw our support behind yet another ruthless dictator (Saddam). Maybe it just goes with the territory of being the world's largest economy and military. Still it's worth remembering that things happen for a reason (good or bad), and people don't hate us because they hate freedom. They hate us because all too often we're the "friend of their enemy", the dictators that cause them to live in oppression and terror.
Sometimes our surrogates get so far out of line we feel the need to rein them in or get rid of them (as was the case with Noriega). Maybe that's part of the reason for the war on Iraq. What I really don't appreciate is justifying the war based on innuendo, rumor, or deliberate overstatement of suspicions from the "intelligence" services, then trying to change it to a "war of liberation" after the fact. Why not trust people to understand the real reasons? Could it be that this administration doesn't trust the public? If so then it's mutual, I sure don't trust this administration.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Muenkel 0]

Go easy on the lefties. It must not be easy for them to see their cause die a slow death across the nation. And on top of that, to see GWB have one victory after another.

Remember, this is the season to be jolly.
Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[captainpooby 0]

Quote

Go easy on the lefties. It must not be easy for them to see their cause die a slow death across the nation. And on top of that, to see GWB have one victory after another.

Remember, this is the season to be jolly.
Chris

Gonads and Strife. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Hey, its my thread.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/weeee.html

[SkydiverRick 0]

Politicians get underhanded and dirty on a daily basis. I can't believe that would surprise you.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Politicians get underhanded and dirty on a daily basis. I can't believe that would surprise you.

Just watch the democrats in their race for the nomination. They're not even nice to each other.

[Amazon 7]

Thank you Don.. Very well put.

I remember all too well that time since I was in the military all through the 1970's. Many of the TDY's to other places were to bases that were virtual fortresses AGAINST their own people. Most of the varying air force personel on those bases were the elites of their countries and joked openly about some things that would.. in ANYONES eyes be atrocities to any thinking human being. I guess in the eyes of the Reagan administration it was ok for the dictator we were supporting to USE WMD against those evil people in Iran who had the audacity to take our people hostage. They must have deserved to have many thousands of Iranians die at Sadaams hands. Is it ANY wonder the people in Iran hate the west given that nearly EVERY family there suffered the loss of thier loved ones. Is it any wonder MOST of the people of the Middle East hate the US for supporting the regimes that oppress them.. and force them to live in poverty.. while the elites buy more weapons... and live in palatial estates while thousands of thier children die every year. The Oil wealth of the Middle East will in the long run be the downfall of many of the elitists there.. eventually.. but how much suffering will occur before that.. How many Americans will it take dying in that desert for real freedom to come to the region... if it ever will .

But the people in the Administration will not be paying those costs.. They are VERY good at sending off other peoples children rather than sending off their own. Most of them managed to get the appointments to nice easy National Guard or reserve jobs( with their family connections). That was the way it was then and has changed in this day and age. The military is so small now that all of those units ( reserve and NG) HAVE to be used and rotated in. Of course with the all volunteer force their kids need not place themselves in that possibility of going off to war and dying for their country. Its amazing how many of these super patirots around here have never served anything but themselves.

[TheAnvil 0]

Bill, PhillyKev, and GeorgiaDon -

Please pardon my delayed response. I've been playing host, chauffer, and working on moving all simultaneosly today. Thank the Almighty for cell phones.

Philly & Bill - say what you like about Bush's methods. Some things you say are on point. Bottom line: using that Rumsfeld-Hussein photo as a political attack tool reeks of low class. Period. I read the left's websites with some frequency and listen to their speeches as well. I know how its used and it disgusts me. Bill-read that article before. sad state of affairs. Anyone that doesn't feel for that kid can goto hell.

Don, I can't recall reading your posts before, but agree with some of what you said. I tend to trust the administration a lot more than you. Pahlavi's regime fell because of the reasons you gave. I strongly believe that many of the foreign policy turds we are dealing with today have roots that can be traced back to US-Sovietactions during the cold war.

I'd like to talk about cookie-cutter foreign policy approaches, how a strong affinity for Kennan's containment theory hamstrung us as a nation in some respects with regards to foreign policy, and such but am too damned tired to do so right now. Perhaps later.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Philly & Bill - say what you like about Bush's methods. Some things you say are on point. Bottom line: using that Rumsfeld-Hussein photo as a political attack tool reeks of low class.

Using a real photo is low class but creating fake photos to attack Dean is OK?

Same when you guys talk about "hate" when people attack GWB and then reading your comments about people like Dean, Clinton and Clark..

These right wingers crack me up... talking about double standards.....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[b1jercat 0]

Quote

Quote

Philly & Bill - say what you like about Bush's methods. Some things you say are on point. Bottom line: using that Rumsfeld-Hussein photo as a political attack tool reeks of low class.

Using a real photo is low class but creating fake photos to attack Dean is OK?

Same when you guys talk about "hate" when people attack GWB and then reading your comments about people like Dean, Clinton and Clark..

These right wingers crack me up... talking about double standards.....

------------------------------------------------------------

Another example of right wingeees at their best is Strom Thurman, now thats some funny shit, but all too common from the tighty righty.

blues

jerry

edit to add: you want to talk about low class, this thread takes the cake.