Looks like Dongringo is becoming the mother of all irritations. First, his gratuitous stimulation for GCL, and now this! When will it stop?

spooky, spooky website. i wonder how god-fearing dongringo really is.

Dongringo; Great web site!!!!! Thanks for posting a link.

Well, the page IS based on a comic book/hollywood/fictional/fantasy view of cowboys and a narrow environment (wild west/american culture as opposed to the world/many cultures), so I think most liberals would just find the comparison amusing.

To quote the page, "He got his man!"

Nice benefit...but the page leaves out the costs...
1. US Credibility (WMD,Pre-emption,Shock&Awe)
2. Perception of US Might (Mission NOT accomplished)
3. Perception of US Morality (Torture photos, more +video to come)* see note below
4. Financial Cost (Much of it hidden until after the election)
5. Human Cost (many soldiers, military familiies believed they were fighting to "protect the US from terrorists with WMD's", not "liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator")
6. Terrorist recruiting material much more effective and convincing than even those opposed to the war could probably have ever imagined. (torture, humiliation, occupation, censorship, private contracts, change in US policy re: Israel, etc...)
...of course the list is longer and more complex and leaves out domestic issues re: civil liberties and our legal system, but in an attempt to keep it closer in simplicity to the cowboy page and on-topic(war and peace), I've summarized.

Got any political pages with the Xmen? I find them to be much more interesting fantasy heros.

* Granted, perhaps not fairly reflective of our military in general, but certainly poor planning, poor training, understaffing, irresponsible contracting, and inadequate cultural understandings were all contributing factors.

As a (somewhat) conservative, I've got to say that website is incredibly cheesy.

I am not a fan of big government, and there is no doubt that that the size and scope of the current administration is more than big. It is HUGE. In an unprecedented way.

Due to this, my views are changing about government. I have never been a big fan of guns, but now I feel like I almost need a gun to protect myself against the government.

But the key is the cost. We are closing in on $300B for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both wars/occupations it can be argued are a result of 9/11 where we lost about 3000 people. So we have spend $300B to prevent another 9/11. That's $100M per person lost in 9/11. $100M!!!!! That number astounds me. Can you imagine the number of lives that could have been saved if $300B had been invested in cancer research? More than 3000.

Bluestraveller, I saw a special on the "drug war" some years back. One figure that astounded me - and it's probably worse today - the US was spending $100M/day on the war on drugs. Talk about pissing away taxpayer money...

DG
The difference is that this cowboy sacrificed the lives of hundreds of young Americans to " get his man " and unfortunately that was not even the goal starting out. How many would have supported the Cowboy had he said -- "Boys we're ridin into Iraq to roust out ole Sadaam . Saddle up !! " Only the mentally feeble and the followers of Carl Rowe would have said hell yeah let's go !
BTW what kind of cowboy when called on to fight goes into the Texas NTNL guard instead of the US air force ?? Like sayin "I can't join the posse but I'll stay back here to protect the womenfolk !! "

KhunM, I wont vote for W again, and I agree with you on the first part of your post. But to criticize someone for joining the National Guard versus the AF is silly and wont win anyone over to your side substantively--only those already against W will jump on that bandwagon. We gotta convince more people to vote for Kerry and believe me even I would probably be voting for W again except he has an office full of BibleThumpers in Washington perusing pornography for the sole purpose of trying to shut down the industry. Sort of hits me in my pocketbook, but it will deminish all of our freedom.

Well, the link to that site brought out the leftists. Good remarks too. Sadly, most of your comments are true.

I have no love for either Bush or Kerry. They both want to command a large, invasive government. This government has EXPLODED since the 1930's, when a liberal by the name of Roosevelt used the government to stimulate the economy out of a terrible economic depression. The only problem was that the government never stopped growing since then.

I have worked directly for the Federal Government of the USA. I've also transacted business for years with this same government. The fraud and abuse I've witnessed first hand astounds me. Libertarians think that the government is a poor administrator of social programs. I welcome all of you lefties to defend:

1. The need for social programs, or

2. The efficiency with which the gov't delivers the benefits to the recipients.

The illfated invasion of Iraq is another example of an overactive government. A defense program that is designed to defend our borders should be the SOLE purpose of my tax subsidy to this government.

Liberal or conservative, I invite you to imagine what the world would be like if our government were the size it was BEFORE Roosevelt and subsequent administrations expanded it?

DonGringo
Don't just argue about "War or Peace"
think outside the box

GCL
On the contrary it is indeed a big deal. I do not know if you were of draft age in the Vietnam era but at that time the National Guard NEVER saw combat duty and everyone knew it. There was a huge waiting list to join the guard for obvious reasons. Once you were in the Guard you had a get out of Nam free card !! GW had a few strings pulled and moved WAY up the waiting list to enter the Guard. He would have never gotten in if he was not the son of Bush Sr. Kinda reminds you of Dan Quayle does it not ?? Why is it the Conservative Republican flag wavers choose alternative paths to serving in combat, but are all too willing to send the sons and daughters of everyone else ??
The reason this is relevant is that this is now the blood and guts asshole so willing to sacrifice American lives for his own personal vendetta against Sadaam. Had we invested all this money and effort into the war on terrorism instead of getting revenge for his daddy perhaps we really would be in a safer world today. As it stands GW's private war in Iraq has made every American at home and abroad a MUCH bigger target. He has generated legions of recruits for Bin Laden and the other zealots who will surely follow him-- if he is ever captured.

DG
I agree ---I am in no way a fan of Kerry. He seems ill prepared and unable to take a stand on anything. I only hope he surrounds himself with far better advisors than GW has. The bottom line is that GW must go at all costs and unfortunately there is no viable alternative.

Again, direct your energy to arguments of substance. The draft dodger label never hurt Clinton. W entered the National Guard. Others got in too, I'm not sure everyone pulled strings, but perhaps your right. WHo cares? Noone except his opponents. On the other hand, the mess in Iraq, his arrogance, attempt to curtail our freedoms...now that is some substance. Consider that he wants a constitutional amendment to forbid gay people from marrying. THink about that...who supports that? Only some religious nut who is already in Ws camp. It further alienated many of the people he needed to win over to win the next election. That was arrogance, or stupid, or both.

But if you think you are going to win hearts saying he pulled strings to get in the National Guard I think your mistaken.

Great! Years earlier the US government was operating a brothel in Nevada. Now the US government is producing porn in Iraq. Though it is male S&M, which I care nothing about, I think they are on the right course.

>>I invite you to imagine what the world would be like if our government were the size it was BEFORE Roosevelt and subsequent administrations expanded it?<<

I don't know about the world, but the U.S. would have a hell of a lot more smog. This is not meant to be a flippant response, rather too many people forget about the good things government does and only the government can do. I think its called taking the good for granted and dwelling on the bad.

Actually the draft dodger label hurt Clinton a fair amount among certain segments of the electorate, and along with other things (including Monica Lewinsky) undercut his ability to get much done given that so many people hated him, including many members of Congress. Yes, he did get elected President despite the allegation, but it was people of Bush's ilk (i.e., hard right wing Republicans) who made the biggest deal out of the draft dodger issue thereby making it fair game to hold Bush to the same level of accountability.

Moreover, there is an important distinction between Bush and Clinton in this regard. Clinton's actions to avoid the draft were motivated by his opposition to the Vietnam War, which until the Iraq fiasco was the stupidest war the U.S. entered into, at least in modern times. In Bush's case, the only principle at work was that he did not think a person of his elite status should be the one to have to fight and possibly die for a cause he believed in; send the less privileged to do the dirty work. The world is made to let him and his elite friends, such as Danny Boy, benefit from the toils of the less fortunate. It is the hypocrisy of Bush's behavior that becomes the issue.

While I agree it is not an issue that will affect the electorate in a major way (e.g., you won't see many people tell pollsters they decided to vote against Bush because he was a draft dodger), at least among some it does contribute to an overall negative profile of Bush.

OTOH, I think it is more significant that Bush is probably intellectually the stupidest President the United States has had, at least through the 20th and the present century. To those who might say "so what, we don't need pointy headed intellectuals running the country, I'll take the cowboy" consider it is not a coincidence that Bush utterly failed to foresee nor plan for the obvious consequences of his Iraq excursion, consequences that will likely have a negative impact on our country for decades to come.

By the way GCL, if you keep diverting me into having to respond to your political posts, the Sao Paulo guide will never get done. Therefore, rather than disagreeing with any of the above, I suggest you simply agree that the above is the most profound analysis imaginable. And for anyone else who is anxiously awaiting the possibly soon to be released LAguy's Sao Paulo Ins and Outs, I suggest you do likewise. Also, if anyone tries to characterize my views as extreme left-wing propaganda, or communist talking points, I will personally track you down and hit you over the head with a hammer and sickle.

(Message edited by LAguy on May 08, 2004)

I really am NOT a political guy. I just want to make porn and not be molested by geeks in Washington. Beyond that...I will resign myself to contemplate my former eloquence.

Quoting from above:

I welcome all of you lefties to defend:

1. The need for social programs, or

2. The efficiency with which the gov't delivers the benefits to the recipients.


My comments:

I'll be a good "leftie" and stand up and defend the need for social programs.

Let me start with a little background and personal experience based on my travels. One thing I have noticed in the places that I have traveled, places like Dominican Republic, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines and Thailand is that there seems to be only two classes of people. It seems there are those that have money and those that don't. There is no middle class of people, or the number of middle class people is quite small.

So I started thinking about why that is and why things are different here in the US. I thought long and hard about it and the thing I came up with is education. How many people in the favelas in Brazil have the opportunity for a good education growing up? How many people in the remote provinces in the Philippines grow up being decently educated? How many of them have the chance to go to college and further their education?

Then I started thinking about how and why things are different in the US. The public school system may have tons of taxpayer waste in it. The Department of Education may be a complete example of the government's waste of taxpayer’s money. But for the most part, a decent education is available to almost anyone that wishes to take advantage of it. I don’t believe this is something that can be said in the countries I mentioned above.

Then what about higher education? What about all the scholarships, grants, and cheap government loans that are available to people for higher education? These people that normally would not stand ANY chance at all of going to college now do because of the federal government. Perhaps these people, after becoming educated then go on to open a small business.

Small businesses employ half of all US workers. Small businesses grow and become big businesses. So that federal pell grant or loan is put back into the economy once that person graduates and does something with their life – something that may have otherwise been impossible for them without government help.

I can't and won't do a run down on the particular merits of each program the federal government administers. I am sure there is waste in many as DG says. I also won't debate, "The efficiency with which the gov't delivers the benefits to the recipients."

However, to use an overused cliché, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water either. You improve the programs. You fix what's wrong. You get rid of the waste and make the programs more effective and efficient.

I am not a big “sink or swim” kind of guy. I believe that some people need more help than others in life. That doesn't mean that they one day can't be a contributing member of society. It also doesn't mean they get left behind because they needed some help and couldn’t keep up.

I am also not a “free handout” guy either. When a homeless person asks me for money, I will never give them cash. I won't support their alcohol, drug, or cigarette habit. But I will take them into the grocery store and buy them a meal. I won’t deny a hungry man food.

The first role of any government is to protect its people. Why should that not be extended to helping its people as well? Again, I am not talking about free handouts, but helping people that wish to help themselves. What is so wrong with that? What can’t the social programs that DG despises so much be fixed, instead of being eliminated completely, which sounds like the alternative he proposes? There has to be a happy medium there.

When people say they want to cut government programs, what they really mean is that they want to cut spending on all programs EXCEPT THE ONES THEY USE. It's hypocracy at it's finest! "Congress needs to stop spending my tax money -right after the interstate through my town is complete." "We shouldn't give money to people for welfare, make them get a job - by the way, have the crop subsidy checks arrived yet?"

It's funny as shit. Everyone thinks they pay too much in taxes. I was talking to a guy once who actually paid, after deductions, credits, etc about $400 in income taxes. He was bitching and moaning worse than some of my friends who paid $25,000 in income tax. Also, everyone thinks they don't get their fair cut of the spending from the taxes. Again, very amusing.

We're kind of getting away from the topic of our off-topic topic, but OK.

I'm very much a cynic, as many of you know. "Government subsidies", etc are a way of taking money out of richer people's pockets to put it into poorer people's pockets in order to pay thm off not to come and grab the same money at the point of a gun (Rio being a good example of what happens without a good social safety net/ government payoff). Of course, when the gov't does the money transfer, there's a ton of middlemen getting their cut, but considering that the alternative is everyone with any money living in an armed fortress (Rio again). I think I'd rather deal with the theiving government. All you he-men NRA-card-carrying types are welcome to call me a wuss, just be careful I don't shoot back! ;-)

BS

Xeneno
Your response was well thought out. Thank you for at least stating:

"I also won't debate, 'The efficiency with which the gov't delivers the benefits to the recipients.'"

But therein lies the heart of the matter. The government is quite possibly the most inefficient organization imaginable. You defend the need for the programs, many of which our country could do without, while admitting that they are poorly administered. As a 'leftie' who wants to 'help those who cannot help themselves', perhaps you could suggest a more efficient way to do so?

You defend public education in America. Permit me to step on some toes. I have attended private schools for most of my life. The quality of education I received at these institutions far exceeds that available at most public schools in America.

The cost for private school tuition in my town today is approximately $3-5k/year. The public school in my county claims it costs the taxpayer $6k+/year. If you can trust that number.

The difference between the two?

Private schools have half the class size.

Private schools don't have a discipline problem to the extent that public schools do.

Private school students graduate with extraordinarily higher SAT scores.

My point? Why not privatize education? The results are clearly better! But our government prefers to monopolize the inefficient and second rate education of our K-12 students.

Our K-12 education ranks very low amongst industrialized nations. Our university education ranks far higher. The reason? Simple. There is no monopoly of higer education in America.

Xeneno, I do have a solution I'd like to put out there:
1. Eliminate half or more of the government
2. Privatize as much of the remaining programs as is possible without sacrificing our national security.

DeeG
only my thinking is liberal, not my wallet

Xenono, your points about lack of education in 3rd world countries being the primary reason for a vast poor class, a small elite and very wealthy class, and little in the middle were well thought out. However, I'd say that education per se is not the real problem. Many of these countries do have an ever growing educated population but poverty often remains widespread.

Here's what "lefties" don't want to hear. Education is great but without a political and social system that recognizes private economic inititives there can be NO material wealth that reaches the majority of the population. This means private property that is easily obtained and transferred upon sale or death. It means letting people gain from their work with more going towards those who do work and less for those who contribute little in effort. It means an honest transparent banking system. It means free trade, something both the monopolistic elite and the ignorant ivory tower theorist both despise. And it means a culture that stresses individuals instead of groups.

It's no coincidence that Latin America, with its deep Catholic roots and a heritage of a very small group owning virtually everything of production, has spent so much time in cycles of violence and poverty. Africa went from colonialism to socialism in a second flat and has suffered terribly from both systems of exploitation of the general masses for the benefit of a few. Asia has been, for the most part, the success story and it is almost 100% from adopting many of the very same capitalistic methods that the American Left condemns. In our own country the most successful emigrants have been those who have stressed savings, personal investment in education and business, and planning for the future. The failures have been those who simply stand around with their hand out waiting for the government dole.

Government at any level is inherently evil because it penalizes those who would progress while rewarding those who produce nothing. And the higher you go in a government, from local to state to federal, the worse it becomes with ever increasing distance from the wishes of the People to the selfish aims of a few self designated Gods.

DG
Private schools are a result of the selection process of the students not necessarily the schools themselves. I agree in general private schools are better run and do a better job of teaching -- in our present system. If those same private schools were forced to take any students who happened to live nearby or chose to attend , I believe their standards would fall off the cliff. If your private class were suddenly one fourth Crip, one fourth Blood and one fourth Latin Kings I wonder how orderly the classroom would be and what the SAT scores would be !!

DG,
I'm afraid Khun_mor is largely correct. There is a ton of research on this question, and what differences are found between public and private school achievement levels are largely due to "selection effects"--the kids who end up in the two systems are different from the outset, as are their families.

What happens when you remove the cost barriers to private school attendance? Voucher advocates have long argued that if you just give all kids educational vouchers to be used at the school of their choice, achievement levels will rise. But this unfortunately does not appear to be the case. The NY City Voucher Experiment, a massive study using state-of-the-art methods and a randomized experimental design, found no benefits for those kids attending private schools once selection bias was controlled for using randomization. To put it somewhat more crassly, good students from families with a committment to education did fine no matter which schools (public v. private) they were in; disinterested students from disinterested families did poorly no matter...

I'm a product of both private and public education. Each had its advantages and disadvantages. I agree with you, DG, on the issue of competition. School systems should be set up so that students can attend any school they wish (essentially, a public school voucher system). That's the system we have in my community, and the public schools are far superior to the privates in terms of standard achievement indicators (grad rates, SAT/ACT scores, National Merit Scholar awards, etc.). Here the private schools don't serve the elite; they serve those who want a specific type of education (conservative religious-based) for their kids. The academically-oriented kids go to the public schools as they offer a wider diversity of more challenging (AP) courses.

Privatization isn't necessarily the answer, but some good, healthy competition would help.

News! The Italian Army is fired upon, and retreats! Can you imagine that?

how many gears have an italian tank?

One. Reverse.

How many gears do tanks have that are driven by women? None, because a woman always kills the engine getting into first.

Anyone notice that the number of Americans being killed on a daily basis in Iraq is decreasing? Anyone noticed a reporter ever mentioning this?

I believe that all the Iraqis have going for them is surprise, and when we take the attack to them, they fold. It is possible that once the Shiites are routed that things will get quiet fast.

Good news does not sell news papers!!! If you want to get more than one side you have to go looking. Here are some links. http://www.news.navy.mil/
http://www.seabee.navy.mil/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html

Somehow I don't remember Bush telling us when we entered the war that we were going in there with the purpose of attacking the Iraqis and routing the Shites (sp?). I thought we were supposed to be going in to liberate them and to be greeted as heroes.

If you guys want to believe things are going in right direction in Iraq, and are on track, welcome to fantasyland.

I do not want to think anyone in the Bush administration would care to brag that the soldier mortality rate is down. Maybe some neo-cons, but even they do not wan't to even mention the Iraq fatality rate. How do you say with any joy or self-respect that "we are only losing five, two or even one soldier a day!. Or our casualty rate has decreased 50 percent. It is an admission that we are LOSING 5, 2 or one soldier a day. Why do you think that the Rummy and the Defense Department prohibited pictures of U.S. caskets, or even ceremonies the military performed for the returning war dead. How about this chestnut:

"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. ... It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." --George Nethercutt (R-WA)

Can anyone on this board tell me how many soldiers we lost today.. or Yesterday.

I can. On May 26th we lost 3 brave soldiers and 9 were wounded. How many will die of their wounds in the coming days or months is anybody's guess. How many soldiers will continue to die is problematic. You can just be sure that every day that goes by another American will die for Dubya's war

Every day we lose a few more, and every day as more Iraqi civilians are killed, the more the Iraqis look at us as an occupation army instead of Lt. Awol's liberation army.

Right now 90% of the iraqis feel that we are an occupying army. The goodwill that was felt after the fall of Saddam has evaporated faster than water in the summer Bagdad sun.

The iraqi turnover will be a farce, if it comes off at all. Who are they going to hand it over to?? No Iraqi has come forth to accept the reigns of governement, It's a sure death wish.

I believe, and have said on this board before, left to a free an unfetered election, the iraqi's will elect mostly islamic candidates and Iraq, within the next year or two will become an Islamic Republic. How radical it will become depends on how long the U.S. occupies iraq. The only moral authority the Iraqi's will obey is a religious one. The U.S. has expended it's goodwill on the floor of the Abu Ghabul Prison. The only question is how soon the U.S. will acknowledge the inevitable.

When that happens I would like to see how the Neo-cons and Republicans spin this. Of course the ideal situations is to have no elections at all, just keep the puppet government in power, all it will take is about 1/4 of the U.S. military.

I just came back from the video store where I bought around a dozen dvd's for my brother whose 3rd Calvary division is guarding strategic points around Bagdad. In a way they are lucky, they can button up in armoured units, and as they are static in nature they do not have to go out and take the RPG's and roadside bombs the others do. He might just live out this war.

He asked me to send him comedies. They do not want romances as most of them will be away from their wives and girlfriends for the next year, They do not wan't war movies and most action flicks, every day there, is an action flick, and the U.S Army has denied them access to porno. So I've got him a pretty good collection of DVD's from Monty Python to Steve Martin.

He told me that the most wanted DVD there (outside of porn) is a pirated version of Farenheit 911. It's being secretly passsed around as according to scuttlebutt it has been banned by Rummy. (although i even doubt this) He said that several soldiers have painted Dubya's or Rummy's name on their hand grenades. (a reference to the fragings, many an unpopular officer got in Vietnam)

At least they still have a sense of humour.


OG

Sooooo should we ignore what happened on 9/11?

Let's not forget we were attacked.

Training sites have been found in Iraq, the other day a 155mm shell was found to have sarin gas in it. That is a WMD!

While I hate to see Americans killed in Iraq. If we are going to fight a war I would rather see it fought in a foreign land.

I do have to agree with you about Islamic radical's and the danger that they pose. That is one reason that this war is important. The most radical Islamic country is Iran, with us having troop's in Afganistan and in Iraq we can isolate Iran just like we did with Russia during the cold war. We won that one and we will win this one!

I think what you are doing for your brother and and his buddies is GREAT!!! Having been forward deployed, and living in a tent city for month's on end I know how BIG little things like movies from home are like.

By All means we won't forget 9/11.

We have forgot, however, who was responsible for it.

hint: IT WAS NOT SADDAM HUSSIEN!

Forgotten is the cluster-fuck that is this war, is the good reason we are there. OH right, there is no good reason!!

Repeat loudly and often---Saddam was not responsible for 9-11, Saddam was not responsible for 9-11!!. Maybe you really believe in Dubya and the neo-cons rhetoric that "the axis of evil" Saddam Hussein was right in there plotting with Osama on the tensile strength of the steel used in the World Trade Center, if that the case I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

The plain fact is that Saddam kept his friends close and his enemies closer. He had better information on Al-Queda not because of any mutual plotting against "the Great Satan" but because Al Queda and all radical islamic movements posed a real threat to his dictatorship.

There were as about as many "proven" Al Queda training sites in sites Iraq as there were factories of biological weapons and nuclear bombs. ie., NONE, NADA, ZILCH.

This was iterated several times in various UN Weapon inspection reports. As well as various U.S. intelligence briefings. These supposedly "training camps" were first labeled as "alleged terrorist training camps" by the media that was, even by their admission, spoon fed this information by the administration. Later the "alleged" was simply dropped with no proof and calmly accepted as truth. Say it loud, say it often and people will believe.

Oh yeah, the circa 1987 155mm artillery shell was a binary weapon all right. But it was NOT made in Iraq. Iraq had no munition factories to turn out binary shells, not then, not ever. In fact there were only 5-6 countries at the time that had the wherewithal to produce binary artillery shells. China, France, Israel, Britain, Russia (Soviet Union) and the U.S.. Guess who was the largest heavy arms supplier to Iraq from 1981 to 1987.

Oh yeah and let's not forget Iran. They are not as "dumb and as radical" as we may think. It now appears that Dubya's secret intelligence bonanza on Iraq's WMD came from a Iranian Spy. Yeah Mr. Chalabi, Dubya's choice for the-Iraqi-President-to-be has turned out to be most likely an Iranian double agent, or an incredibly stooopid guy. Iran gets the "Great Satan" to go to war and overthrown their mortal enemy, Sadam Hussein, and in the process will most likely turn Iran into a Shiite Islamic Republic.

Yes-e-ree. I bet ol' Ayatollah Khomeni is laughing in Shiite heaven, no doubt with a thousand virgins. And thanking the U.S. and it's fearlful leader for it's stupidity.

The war is important only to the massive ego's of the neo-conservatives and the Bush administration, who turned a national tragedy into the most ghastly foreign relations policy mistake in 50 years, if not the last century. Even some of the most consrvative pundits are starting to see the light.

I don't advocate a total cut and run, but unless the U.S. makes drastic changes to it;s woeful current foreign policy, placate the Western European countries to convince them to participate in the peace-keeping occupation, it is going to be a long, costly, bloody and ultimatly futile occupation of Iraq.

What is scary is Dubya unwavering support to "stay the course" not only in keeping ol Rummy after the torture debacle, but it not in his words "backing down to the terrorists".

Gee, if a foreign army invaded my country, and I resisted by whatever means possible, I would be called a patriot. It's ironic that the law that takes away the civil liberties of all Americans is not called a terrorist act, but the Patriot Act.

Now we have Darth Ashcroft virtually telling anyone who will listen that the U.S. will be on the recieving end of a big terrorist attack. Ashcroft has intimated that the possible motive is to influence the U.S. election, a la Spain.

I don't think he took into consideration the massive jobs losses, the monumental national debt, the tax breaks to the wealthy few and a horrendous foreign policy and futile war or hiring his sorry ass has anything to do with influencing the election. No only terrorists can unseat Lt. Awol.

The only regime change that Bush can instigate that will be at all succesful for the Iraqi's will not be on June 30th, It will be on November 4th, when americans will finally can his ass.

OG

>>>The most radical Islamic country is Iran

You may want to think about that one a bit more. If memory serves, something like 19 of the terrorists on the planes 9/11 were Saudis. But one would be foolish to argue that Iran is not a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremists also.

Regarding WMDs, the Army Corps of Engineers is digging up Spring Valley again. Spring Valley is a neighborhood here in Washington DC that was still a farm area (yes, the city used to have farms in it!) in World War I. It was used as a chemical weapons test facility (I guess Utah was too far to hike back then) and in the early 90's, they were doing some building in the neighborhood and they dug up a shitpile of old artillery shells. Some had mustard gas and other goodies inside. Since then, for the past 12 years or so, it seems like once every year or two they're back out there again because someone (I seem to remember one being the residence of the South Korean ambassador) does some excavation work on a property and they did another shell up. They evacuate the neighborhood, break out the moon suites and chemical detectors, bring in the trenching tools and dig holes for a week.

Now, why am I telling you this? Because, we've found a shitpile more WMDs in a residential neighborhood in Washington DC than we will most likely ever find in Iraq. And, just like the one's here are simply leftovers from the past, when you just buried ordnance and generally forgot about it, that's about what we're going to find in Iraq. A shell here, perhaps a drum or tank or pit of something or other lying around, things like that.

Yes, Iraq had chemical weapons until the early 1990s, and most were destroyed. But, as our own military shows right here in the Capital, some are always left behind.

To summerize, yes, of course everyone remembers 9/11. No, Iraq had jack shit to do with 9/11. Yes, there once were WMDs in Iraq. No, there haven't been any there (deployable or otherwise) except for a few strays lying around, since the mid-90's. Yes, the Bushies did believe the lies of some disgruntled Iraqi dissadents, yes they did overstate "intellegence" (cognitive disonance anyone?) and yes, the Bushies have lied to each and every one of us about Iraq.

Guy's it seems that lot's of you have problems with President Bush. I urge you to vote Nader in November.

We are going to be in Iraq for years to come. Get used to the idea, no matter who wins in November.

We will most likley use Iraq as a power base agenst Iran just as we used Germany as a power base agenst Russia during the cold war.

WE will not have a military presence in Iraq after 2006. By 2007 or even before, I expect, as well as most legitimate foreign policy experts, for Iraq to have as it's government, an Islamic Republic. An Islamic Republic probably not friendly to the US and a new fertile playground for Al-Queida to recruit from.

The fact is that the Bush administration has made the world and the U.S. MORE unsafe than it was prior to 2001.

Al-Queida never had it so good. There are more willing "martyrs" being recruited than ever before. To Iraqi teenagers who have grown up in the last 14 years knowing nothin but war with the US, it was Saddam, first telling them about the "evil" US, now it is the clergy. Fourteen years of indocrination against the US will not and cannot be forgotten in a matter of months. The largest bloc of population in Iraq now are young men between the ages of 15-22. Many were recruits to Saddams army, some are just coming of age. They will play a significant part in the direction Iraq will take. And it will not turn towards the U.S., not now not after the prison scandle and the "occupation war"

Originally the older Iraqi's who have endured 30 years of Saddam's rule were the first to publicly supoort the US. This support has largly diminished to the point it cannot be counted upon to counter the younger generations distrust of the US. In fact it may be polarizing in the opposite direction.

The plan was to turn Iraq into some sort of pro-western, even pro-Israel, democratic secular government, with close ties to the U.S. It now appears that the U.S. will be lucky if even any elections will be held within the next year. And when the elections are over, it will most likely be a governement just tolerable to the U.S. and within a short time frame, an Islamic Republic will form. If it hasnb't done it before, It will ask the US to leave, and According to Powell the US will agree to those wishes.It's interest will not include close ties with the U.S.

You cannot use an inherently unfreindly, unstable, culturally foreign and unsafe country as a "power base" or as a hedge against other unfriendly countries. The most vivid description of that failure of thinking is to look at Iran. A CIA overthrow of the democratic governement of Iran that was not friendly to the U.S. to prop up a pro-western king or Shah. This was a hedge against Soviet encroachment to the region, a sort of powerbase for the middle-east. It failed miserably and actually allowed a lot of classified data and U.S. high-tech weaponry to fall into the hands of the Soviets. It also prompted Ronnie Reagan to attempt to counter the fall of the Shah by propping up another supposedly pro-western, democratically elected leader, Saddam Hussien.

These failures did not lead us into this war though. An clumsy attempt to rectify a situation that the Bush administration could barely comprehend, let alone correct, led a conservative think tank to believe that a simple topling of a dictator could restore order in the middle-east. It was all laid out years before. Dubya and the neo-cons just looked at the 911 disaster to lauch their plan. It had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, but had everything to do with trying a pathetic attempt at "nation building"

The supposed WMD's was a plausible smokescreen. Scare people and the will give you what they want.

The fact is that the Bush administration used people's and the country's trust in a time of national emergency, 9/11, to launch an ill-conceived plan and apparently poorly executed war and occupation of Iraq. And they did so unilaterally, giving no chance to diplomacy , no interaction with even our closest allies, and no quarter or even an attempt to believe the Iraqi government, that there were no WMD's .

People want to believe that our government will take steps to do the right thing when a national tragedy like the 911 attack occurs. The Bush administration betrayed that trust by using 911 to activate their own agenda.The Congress, led by the Republicans gave the administration a blank check to take care of the problem of Al Quida and Afghanistan, but not create new ones.

Congress's support of the Bush policies towards 911 may or may not have as it's ultimate aim, support for the war on iraq, but that's just what happened. Dubya bundlesd his war with the 911 attack by lying to Congress and the people. Now the BILL IS DUE, and Dubya will have to pay up.


OG

OG,

That was a very good and accurate summary of what has happened. Thanks.

Well. things in Iraq are going from bad to worse. I am happy that our president has a plan to deal with this, and is willing to tough it out to the last American soldier.

Actually it looks like it was mostly Iraqis killed in this latest round of bombings. That's a good thing - fewer Americans dead, and perhaps the Iraqis will finally start turning against these people. Unfortunately I suspect they'll find it easier and more convenient to direct all their anger at the US as long as our troops are still there.

BTW, if anyone has any doubts that Bush is either an idiot or simply intentionally worked Iraq for his benefit, let me tell you that everyone knews all this crap would happen post-war. Let me post the predictions from one monger here on this board, in Feb 2003:

"Let me give you my two pesos' worth about coming events:

a) Saddam is evil and should go.

b) He probably does have some anthrax lying around.

c) The missile stuff they are talking about today is no big deal, SA-2's have a range of 50 kilometers.

d) The war would be quick, although lots of civilians will be killed off-camera.

Having said that:

a) The war is a real bad idea, unless we can con lots of people from other countries in sending their troops to be killed alongside ours. There is no substitute for a UN resolution.

b) Clearly, Bush/Cheney want the Iraqi oil for Halliburton (Cheney's old company), that's why Bush wants a US commander for occupied Iraq.

c) If we go it alone (or almost alone) bad things will happen post-war. Bush doesn't talk about that. "

If people HERE figured this out, how come Bush didn't?

If anyone is interested in real humor, they should read some of the posts made here before the war last year. Some people were actually afraid that Saddam would nuke them in their beds Real Soon Now.

I think the following article reflects my analysis of what has come as a result of the Iraq War pretty well.

Hyping slim data: A sure way to fail

Excerpt:

...And the vice president continued to imply that Saddam was linked operationally to al-Qaeda, even though this was the one area where the CIA got it right. The agency largely discounted any theories about a close working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Bush and Cheney continue to imply that a deeper relationship existed.

Why does this all matter now?

Because creating a fictional threat discredits the real threats and leaves our country less prepared to face them. Saddam was a long-term danger; had sanctions against him been lifted, he would have restarted his weapons programs. At that point, the Iraqi leader would have threatened the Mideast region and our interests there, but not our shores.

This threat was real. Had the administration laid out an honest case, it could have argued for long-term sanctions, or made a far better case for war if the world community failed to keep Saddam contained.

But starting a war on false premises sacrificed U.S. credibility. It gutted the president's argument for the right to attack preemptively if American interests are threatened. Who would believe our evidence?

And the same willful blindness that led the White House to cherry-pick intelligence on WMD led it to underestimate the difficulties in postwar Iraq. That should be a warning. But has the White House gotten the message?

Fighting breaks out across Iraq again. The Pentagon claims 300 militants killed yesterday.

It seems that the only way the Iraqis can kill US soldiers is by surprise, whenever there is one of these standup fights, the Iraqis are killed in mass numbers, you would think that they would learn. Its like stepping on ants, the ants have no chance.

Its interesting to read this Sadr's quotes: "We will destroy the US! Can we have a truce, please?"

We need to stop playing games with Sadr, send him back to Iran or just kill him.

Remember "It doesn't matter whether you are for the war or against the war, you're an infidel and the terrorists want to kill you too".

I was reading several Iraqi blogs today. Their pretty much unanimous take on things was that Sadr needs to be taken out of the picture now. One of them commented that this time could be different - as it's now Iraqi troops facing Sadr (with US troops and firepower for backup) - and the Iraqi troops won't play tiddly-winks with him just because he decides to go hide in a mosque. At least that's what they hope.

They also noted that Sistani - the top Shia cleric in Iraq - is off in London for medical care. Some of them felt this might be a subtle way of giving his implicit ok to the removal of Sadr. Apparently Sadr's thugs have even been known to threaten Sistani - a move that could've been their ultimate mistake.

Stop the presses, the big trial of Saddam Hussein is on hold while they sort out the criminal charges against the judge.

What a SNAFU.

Here's some details on the previous post
The following news brief was published by The NewStandard an independent, nonprofit news project that is in need of your support.

[HTML version]

Note:

News BriefNews Brief
Iraq issues arrest warrants for Ahmed and Salem Chalabi
by Chris Shumway (bio)

Iraqi government officials say they have issued arrest warrants for former US advisor Ahmed Chalabi and his nephew, the Iraqi judge heading the trial of Saddam Hussein, on unrelated criminal charges.

The elder Chalabi, a former Iraqi exile who had been a Washington favorite until the Bush administration turned its support towards his longtime rival Iyad Allawi in the spring, is wanted on counterfeiting charges. His nephew, Salem Chalabi, is wanted in connection with the June murder of Haithem Fadhil, director of Iraq’s Finance Ministry.

An advisor to Ahmed Chalabi told the New York Times that both men were innocent and would return to Iraq to defend themselves. The younger Chalabi is reportedly in London, while his uncle is traveling in Iran.

The judge who issued the warrants said of the two men, "They should be arrested and then questioned." He also told the Associated Press, "If there is enough evidence, they will be sent to trial." If tried and convicted, Salem Chalabi could face the death penalty, which Iraq’s government just restored yesterday.

Oh, so Saddam's trial may be delayed while they execute his judge.

"Militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Shiite militia has been battling U.S. forces across Iraq, warned Monday that he would fight "until the last drop of my blood has been spilled," in his first appearance since the violence began."

I can't really disagree too much with the idea of this guy spilling his last drop of blood. However, if he runs true to course, once his bodyguards are decimated, he will negotiate another truce with the US.

Senator Presses White House on Leaking Qaeda Suspect's Name
By REUTERS


Filed at 3:55 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. senator asked the White House to explain how and why the name of an al Qaeda informant was leaked to the press, amid concerns it had hurt the war on terror, a letter from the lawmaker showed on Monday.

A Pakistani intelligence source said on Friday that U.S. officials confirmed the name of captured al Qaeda suspect Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan while he was still cooperating with Pakistani authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

It is not clear who originally disclosed Khan's name, which first appeared in The New York Times last Monday and was then confirmed by U.S. officials.

His unmasking triggered criticism across the political spectrum, as well as speculation about the motives behind the leak. Security and terrorism are top issues for both parties in this year's U.S. presidential elections.

``I respectfully request an explanation ... of who leaked this Mr. Khan's name, for what reason it was leaked, and whether ... reports that this leak compromised future intelligence activity are accurate,'' Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, wrote in a letter to White House domestic security adviser Frances Townsend on Aug. 8.

A copy of the letter was obtained by Reuters on Monday.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested at a news briefing on Monday that making the name public was inappropriate, but gave no details on how it happened or the repercussions it might have.

``It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing operations under way. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind,'' he said.

PONDERING MOTIVES

Information from computer expert Khan led the United States to issue a high alert at financial institutions against a possible al Qaeda attack earlier this month, and led Britain to arrest 12 al Qaeda suspects.

Terrorism experts said the reasons for the release of Khan's name could range from a judgment error to a sophisticated ploy designed to put al Qaeda on edge about the extent to which the network has been infiltrated by moles.

Leon Fuerth, Vice President Al Gore's former national security adviser, said: ``I can't imagine that this produces any other consequence than to shoot us in the foot'' in terms of undermining a sting operation, scaring off future informants and hurting future intelligence cooperation with allies.

One former senior U.S. intelligence official said he suspected a political motive.

``I don't think that the U.S. intelligence community has shown enough creativity over the last few years for anyone to think of anything as smart as misdirection, or trying to send signals to al Qaeda,'' he said.

Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia also questioned the release of Khan's name on television on Sunday, saying: ``In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us.'''

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said it was a hard line to draw between giving the public too much or too little information about terrorist threats.

``We did not, of course, publicly disclose his name,'' Rice said on Sunday, adding that it had been given ``on background.''

Khan's capture was part of a Pakistani crackdown, which began a month ago and has dealt al Qaeda a major blow.