I love this article...

Post #148,485 by danreck 3/25/04 9:53:27 AM Reply	I love this article... [link\|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Bothwell20040222.shtml\|http://www.townhall....ell20040222.shtml] It sums up the way I feel quite well... Talk amongst yourselves. Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #148,487 by deSitter 3/25/04 10:00:34 AM Reply	No way Question Mark and the Neocons are one-hit blunders. This 9/11 stuff isn't going away. Kerry has been tired lately - you can see it in his face. He can speak very clearly and forcefully when it's needed and he's rested. -drl
Post #148,496 by boxley 3/25/04 10:40:17 AM Reply	personally I think Kerry is a fsckwit but unless the patriot act goes, I vote agin bush, can kerry screw foreign policy up any worse? I dont think so. There is way too much political direction of the pentagon for my taste, Rove, Wolfowitz Rummy are not Napoleon clones, when it comes to war you give the generals a target and get out of the way. thanx, bill In Bush\ufffds America, fighting terrorism abroad is used as a pretext for vanquishing civil liberties at home. David Podvin questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #148,532 by danreck 3/25/04 1:31:24 PM Reply	Serious question... What foreign policy issues do you think Bush et al. in and outed up? Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #148,536 by jb4 3/25/04 1:49:03 PM Reply	Short answer: All of them. Next question? A shorter list would be: What foreign policy issues do you thing Bush et al didn't fsck-up? Within 6 months, Duh turned a heartfelt "We are all Americans" into "Fuck you, Americans!" And that from our allies! You gotta work serious overtime to screw up somthing that thoroughly in that short of time. And were there any foreign policy issues before 9-11? Up till then, he had focused (apparently exclusively) on gutting the economy by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%, encouraging corporations to offshore, and destroying the environment in the name of Corporate Profits\ufffd. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #148,571 by danreck 3/25/04 4:54:16 PM Reply	Blah blah blah blah... How does it feel to be a parrot? The DNC must be proud... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #148,592 by jb4 3/25/04 6:17:22 PM Reply	Ooooh.....ad hominem! Yummy! jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #148,540 by boxley 3/25/04 2:17:25 PM Reply	On running the war The occupation was not well planned. Paying Chalabi 300k a month makes us all look like fools, shades of Batista. Putting soldiers in the field without good equipment is criminal. In WW2 you had jeeps fitted with 50cals for transport support, modern equivelent of cavalry outriders for a wagon train. They didnt deploy anything so transpotation troops got hit hard and unescesarily. On the eve of the push into Afghanistan plane load after planeload of Hercules aircraft filled with senior Taliban and El Quida were allowed to fly into Pakistan, we should have agreed to it then shot them down. Bush and Co let them go. His ties to the House of Saud are way to cozy and in my opinion have cost us in the fight against terror. The taking over of the republican party by neocons is a joke, a dangerous joke. Time for a change, preferably a heavy republican legislature and a democratic presidency to prevent excess of either side. thanx, bill In Bush\ufffds America, fighting terrorism abroad is used as a pretext for vanquishing civil liberties at home. David Podvin questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #148,572 by danreck 3/25/04 5:08:59 PM Reply	So you really believe that? That they conducted the operations innefficiently? I was amazed at how well it all went. Really. Having been in the Army, it amazes me that the ass clowns who run the place can even get water to the troups. The President is in charge of ground logistics? I always imagined that the Pres told the pentagon what the objectives were and they handled the details... As per the Saudis (et al), which president has not bent over to any OPEC nation, forgetting human rights et al... We the fucking people are starting to complain about the price of gas right now. I suppose the president who takes the moral high ground will get high marks for his courage and fortitude when gasoline costs $5 per gallon, right? Bullshit. We the fucking people will vote his sorry ass out quicker than shit through a goose. Change? I would vote for a change if I was given a choice. Who, other than Nader, stands for real change? Will you vote for him or will you buy into the steaming pile of bile and bullshit from the other white meat? Change for change sake is not necessarily a good thing. We had 8 years of flipflopping assclownery prior to Shrub. Package a snake oil salesman however you wish. JFK. Sorry, Box, but I'm not buying it and I don't believe that most independents will. Oh well. Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #148,593 by boxley 3/25/04 6:18:04 PM Reply	Again Unless the Patriot act is recinded Im voting for the other assclown. Just dont like neoconns. As far as preparedness they went in without adequate supplies and equipment because the hmic ordered them in. Frank wanted to wait, he was told to get his ass in there. thanx, In Bush\ufffds America, fighting terrorism abroad is used as a pretext for vanquishing civil liberties at home. David Podvin questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #148,537 by JayMehaffey 3/25/04 1:59:35 PM Reply	Article is junk The article is littered with ad hominum attacks and misdirection, but few real issues are raised. The author simply claims that what Bush has done militarily has been succesful, which is highly questionable in both Afganistan and Iraq. At the same time he trots out the standard complaints against Kerry, calling him wooden and saying he is morally questionable. This is the Rove script method, by getting enough people to repeat these lines enough to the press they can convince people that they are true no matter how bogus. It's the same as the Gore lies story that dogged Gore during the last election, despite being debunked numerous times it still appeared over and over again. As for Bush possesing clarity, what clarity he has is only because he doesn't understand the issues well enough to see the subtle points. Jay
Post #148,554 by mmoffitt 3/25/04 3:26:10 PM Reply	Heh. That's a good one. Kerry "morally questionable". From a guy who skipped out on his National Guard duty, coked and boozed his way through his formative years, helped a girl he knocked up seek an illegal abortion, lied to the Senate, the House and the American people in order to get us into an illegal war, etc. ad nauseum. Yeah, Kerry's morally questionable. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #148,577 by danreck 3/25/04 5:22:48 PM Reply	Thank you, Mikey... For illustrating this author's point to a tee. Reading your posts makes me want to vote for Bush... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #148,594 by jb4 3/25/04 6:19:08 PM Reply	Re: your .sig Just a few thoughts, Still looking for a thought of any type from you in this thread, "Danno"; much less an original one. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #148,576 by danreck 3/25/04 5:21:21 PM Reply	Please... You write: The author simply claims that what Bush has done militarily has been succesful, which is highly questionable in both Afganistan and Iraq. Millitarily, what is "highly questionable"? You also write: This is the Rove script method, by getting enough lewdies to repeat these lines enough to the press they can convince lewdies that they are true no matter how bogus. Substitute the word Carville (or pick your poison) for Rove and the point sticks just as well. It is what American politics has become for all. Mindspeak, doublespeak, repetition. Good and Plenty Good and Plenty...For the Rich for big business...Good and Plenty Good and Plenty...For big government for welfare handouts...Good and Plenty Good and Plenty... woooooooo, wooooooooo... The article is only biased because it challenges your particular biases. You are brainwashed by the other side my friend. Your post also includes the statement that "Bush doesn't understand the issues well enough to be anything but clear". Again, the author's point. You dismiss his MBA as daddy's doing... all well and good, but just because he isn't a good bullshitter (10 second sound bite), doesn't make him stupid. Most Americans don't buy into that line of BS either. You've successfully proved the author's point... And ultimately, you will help the author's prediction... Every election year I feel like an atheist at a church revival. The Chataqua tent is raised and everyone's touching with hands... And I'm just sitting there taking it all in, amazed that the others have "faith"... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #148,584 by deSitter 3/25/04 6:01:17 PM Reply	The straight dope If you vote for Bush you're really voting for Rummy, Rove, Wolfy, and Condy (who are these guys the Teletubbies?) - Bush one might barely tolerate if he had a worthwhile Cabinet and staff - but this crowd is a total disaster. The entire worldview has to stomped into nothingness. -drl
Post #148,597 by boxley 3/25/04 6:21:11 PM Reply	I agree, he might be tolerable with another set of advisors, preferable not from the house of trotsky and stealski thanx, bill In Bush\ufffds America, fighting terrorism abroad is used as a pretext for vanquishing civil liberties at home. David Podvin questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #148,600 by jb4 3/25/04 6:31:36 PM Reply	Highly questionable Millitarily, what is "highly questionable"? Well, when you go to war, you have objectives (at least, "sane" men do -- although one could entertain the argument that going to war is the definition of insanity, but we'll not address that theory here). What were the objectives? 1) Capture/kill Osama bin Dildo 2) Cripple, disable, or otherwise render impotent the Taliban in Afghanistan,a nd elsewhere 3) Install "civilian democracy" gov't in Afghanistan 4) Capture/kill Saddam Hussein 5) Install "civialin democracy" gov't in Iraq 6) Cripple, disable, or otherwise render impotent al-Qaeda 7) Secure the oilfields for American exploitation Of these, only 1 has been accomplished (that would be #4, for those who have been keeping score). Hmmmm... 14% of objectives acomplished, after almost 2 years, and what? roughly $125B spent (and counting...quite rapidly, I might add). I'd call that "highly questionable", indeed! You'd call it "a record to be proud of". And that's where we differ, "Danno"! jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #148,608 by JayMehaffey 3/25/04 6:56:05 PM Reply	Questionable military Both Afganistan and Iraq are obviously and highly questionable. It's hard to call Afganistan a success since there still isn't a viable government in the country, nor has the Taliban really been destroyed. If the US and the UN where to pull out, the Taliban would be back in power within a year. And the goal of the Iraq war was to destroy Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs, an impossible goal because the stockpiles didn't exist in the first place. In saying that Bush has been militarily succesfull you have bought into the after the fact revision of the goals to match whatever actually happened. Substitute the word Carville (or pick your poison) for Rove and the point sticks just as well. It is what American politics has become for all. Mindspeak, doublespeak, repetition. Good and Plenty Good and Plenty...For the Rich for big business...Good and Plenty Good and Plenty...For big government for welfare handouts...Good and Plenty Good and Plenty... woooooooo, wooooooooo... The article is only biased because it challenges your particular biases. You are brainwashed by the other side my friend. Now there is a non-argument. Your trying to claim that Bush is OK because he really isn't any more evil then the other side. This argument fails because it isn't valid even when it's right, and is clearly wrong when applied to the Bush White House. And in any case, your brainwashed by the other side argument is really silly when applied to a Republican. I've been biting at the bit for years for a chance to vote for McCain, but I'd vote to put Clinton back in office before I would vote for Bush. Jay
Post #148,674 by Another Scott 3/25/04 10:03:16 PM Reply	CENTCOM's stated goals in invading Iraq [link\|http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20030344.txt\|Gen. Franks briefing on 3/22/2003]: You know, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, my boss, yesterday outlined the military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let me review them with you. First, end the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country. Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. And last, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government. #1 done. #2 not done (due to faulty assumptions, bad intelligence, twisted intelligence, Saddam being lied to, whatever). #3 in progress, but may have been made worse by the invasion. #4 dunno. Apparently there's little evidence that Iraq was directly involved in terrorist networks (outside of well-known support of actions against Israel). #5 possibly in progress. Libya's giving up its WMD programs and breaking up Khan's nuclear network may (or may not) have turned out the way it did without the invasion. #6 pretty much done. #7 done. #8 in progress, but under a great deal of strain for various reasons. It looks like the military did an OK job in meeting its stated goals - they weren't completely successful nor unsuccessful. If you consider how many were predicting it would go (tens of thousands of US casualties due to urban siege warfare, etc.), they were amazingly successful in toppling the regime with as few casualties as they've suffered. Note, I'm not arguing against those who say the invasion was a mistake in this post, just trying to remind us of what the stated military goals were. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #148,583 by deSitter 3/25/04 5:56:54 PM Reply	Source is a rightist rag (another one) -drl
Post #148,652 by Ashton 3/25/04 9:20:42 PM Reply	Well, Danno If that's the sort of rhetoric as rings your chimes -already- and erases all the crap as has come down since the sElection process, there's nothing much that can penetrate a personal Need for oversimplification and that ez comfort. Since it makes Nooo Difference: pick the nastiest group with the really simple 2-syllable slogans. (And who talk to God - and say so - and She's on Their Side.) There: all done! Back to the sad songs on the guitars, as you gloat at the continuing dismantling of anything much worth 'conserving' anyway, Gospodin tentatively-Cleared-Citizen # 23Skidoo-666 ;-) Nope, no difference twixt actual-veteran Kerry.. and this band of chicken-hawk poseurs. None at all. And if these interchangeable candidates run into the next batch of trouble, with the world all prepped for that WithUS-or-AginUS colorful Crusade rhetoric which got us where we are today -?- why: we've got some brand new nukes to show the suckers Who's Boss of Bosses. As for the rest of the planet's folk (and their not-Murican reps - WTF Could They Know?) why, they take just Tooo Long to get around to invading and stuff - the wimps. (And it's just Too Fucking Hard to actually track down the Baddy groups and exterminate same: a country is so much Easier to hit. I understand.) Vote Hitler?/Gandhi?/Nukes .. what's the dif; They're ALL scummy bastards, right? Hold that thought for 7.5 more months . . . War is good business. Perpetual war has just got to be even Better. Invest your son, daughter, then start on the neighbors'
Post #148,656 by deSitter 3/25/04 9:29:37 PM Reply	You don't grok the Dano He's disgusted with all of them, and like me wants a return to Wilson and Jefferson. -drl
Post #148,681 by Ashton 3/25/04 10:39:52 PM Reply	OK.. so I 'want' an adult populace. But THIS == what IS.
Post #148,694 by inthane-chan 3/25/04 11:12:26 PM Reply	Better analogy. I want a million dollars to fall in my lap, but I'm not quitting my day job and waiting for it to happen. "I'll stop calling the current administration 'Orwellian' when they stop using "1984" as a playbook." J. Bradford DeLong

Welcome to IWETHEY!