Please...

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!