April 23, 2012

"As a (presumably) grown man, Barack Obama wrote a memoir in order to promote himself."

"He chose to highlight his dog-eating experience. He calculated that the incident would help portray him as worldly, adventurous, open-minded, and multicultural. But how could he have predicted nearly 20 years ago, when he wrote his story of race and inheritance, that Americans would find it would only paint him as submissive, self-satisfied, and out of touch with mainstream American culture?"

A comment from Meade, on a post from a few days ago, responding to one Kwach, who had trouble understanding what I was saying about Obama and the concept of eating what you're told. She said:
Because a young boy was exposed to a foreign culture (including unusual food) and didn't balk at trying it, he grew up to be ... what? Someone who has no will? And then he married a woman who would tell him and all the children in America what to eat... Does this childhood lack of will extend to anyone who spends time in a foreign country and doesn't refuse to try the local cuisine, or is it possible that some people eat things I wouldn't dream of (escargot and goat meat, for instance) not because they are mindless automatons but because they're open-minded or even curious? Is it possible that some children are open-minded and curious? Or even obedient to their parents, as we say they should be?
Read my post again Kwach. I didn't say that Obama had/has no will.  I said that as an author he willfully deprived us of any words on the subject of his will. He says nothing about the degree of compulsion he felt when he "learned" from Lolo "how to eat." Our erstwhile law professor was a student, taking instruction. We don't know how he felt. He keeps that from us. And now, as President, is he a will-less instructor? Does government coerce or does it merely teach... with more or less persuasive incentives... nudges if you will like.

302 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 302 of 302
Anonymous said...

36fsfiend said;

"I do not want any father to be in a position to make a decision that might get his children killed.

However, if our leaders treated our service members as there own children, they may be less eager for war."

Who would disagree with this?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why not just dissolve the military then? No person would willingly send their child into harms way.

Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto said...

"Like Obama? How about when those self-same non-vets actually then go on to start wars (Libya) without Congressional approval? That's pretty amazing too."

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the War Powers Resolution and our treaty obligations as a member of NATO.

Anonymous said...

MayBee said...

“Ok.
So you think Obama should have skin in the game, right?
Or is it just Romney who should be willing to sacrifice a son for you?”

Unlike Obama, Romney doesn’t want to negotiate with the Taliban and remain in Afghanistan until we “win”. Again, if Romney is so eager for a protracted war, then have his sons sign up for some action.

MayBee said...

I agreed with Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan since that was our initial objective in tis war against al-Qaeda.....
I do not want any father to be in a position to make a decision that might get his children killed.


So in other words, it doesn't really matter if a president has served in the military, or whether they have children in the military (and thus, skin in the game) as long as that President is doing what you agree with.

That about sum it up?

Nathan Alexander said...

However, if our leaders treated our service members as there own children, they may be less eager for war.

Name one politician eager for war.

You can't. They don't exist in the US.

I know you have been brainwashed to think the answer is "President George W. Bush," but that just shows the danger of letting the Democrat spin machine do your thinking for you.

President Bush honored and respected the military, and everyone in the military knew it.

You can't find a video of President Bush meeting the troops with anything less than a unanimous, vociferous mutual respect and admiration expressed by both the military and President Bush.

You slander great men and women with your vile insinuations.

Is your nickname "Wormtongue"? Your opinion, and the apparent desired effect, is amazingly similar.

The US goes to war to free people, and keep people free. That's it.

The only times we've failed at that is when we let Democrats take responsibility for keeping the US and our allies safe.

Anonymous said...

MayBee, you are sounding absurd, lack of argument makes for hyperbole.

edutcher said...

36fsfiend said...

edutcher,

I don’t care what religion a politician practices or if he doesn’t practice religion at all. Just keep their religious beliefs to themselves.


You mean like Zero telling us what a good Christian he was while he sat for 20 years listening to Rev Jeremiah preach hate?

I think fiend is only worried because the Romster seems to live his religion.

As far as Afghanistan, we’re not going to “beat” the Taliban.

We're not? And where did fiend study COIN?

Bragg, Benning, or Coronado?

If Romney wants to remain there until we “win” then let him sign up five sons for duty.

Can't recall fiend saying anything like that when Zero was pushing for a surge.

Because he didn't.

PS Lay off the "reading comprehension" thing.

It's letting your some phony folksy/shiloh mask slip.

Anonymous said...

Nathan Alexander,

A war tax is not a false choice. It’s long over due for us to start paying for our military actions.

Regarding green companies, you realize there is fraud in the defense industry as well, correct?

MayBee said...

MayBee, you are sounding absurd, lack of argument makes for hyperbole.

I'm trying to figure out the argument here. Why Romney should have "skin in the game" but not Obama.

If you can clarify, that would be great.

garage mahal said...

Look at picture B moron.

Not all wagons had the 3 way gate. Some had the clamshell. I told you Romney had a mid 70s-ish Chevy Caprice wagon, and you came back with a 1940s Studebaker, and a 1969 Ford LTD.

MayBee said...

NATO doesn't obligate us to fight any war any member of NATO wants us to fight. If it did, France would have broken the treaty when they refused to fight in Iraq.

We were not required by NATO treaty to participate in Libya.

Anonymous said...

MayBee that isn't the argument, you are off on a tangent. It was simply an observation that those who have loved ones serving may see armed conflict in a different light.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy,

NATO believed it’s interests were threaten. The massacres as well as their oil industries.

As far as leaving Afghanistan now, we’ve made a commitment to remain through 2014. And a withdrawal cannot be simply made without ensuring security for our departing forces.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Can you show me where in the NATO charter where our intervention in Libya could be authorized? Cause I looked and can't find it.

edutcher said...

If Zero was worried about the security of his people, he wouldn't have publicly set a date.

MayBee said...

MayBee that isn't the argument, you are off on a tangent. It was simply an observation that those who have loved ones serving may see armed conflict in a different light.

That may be your argument, Allie Oop, but that isn't 36fsfiend's. He has said Romney's sons should sign up.
So no, I'm not off on a tangent.

And yes, those who have loved ones serving may see armed conflict in a different light. Obama does not have loved ones serving, and neither does Romney. So I'm simply making the point they should be held to the same standard there.


Now, I would make the argument that a Commander in Chief should not have a child serving in harm's way. He must see what is best for the nation, not what is best for his family.

Michael said...

Garage. Google 1974 Caprice Estate Wagon. Images. Picture of the rear end of one of those babies. Tail. Gate.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

"Why not just dissolve the military then? No person would willingly send their child into harms way."

The military should be used as a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted to secure our national interests.

The last person who favors war is the soldier.

Nathan Alexander said...

Wormtongue,
A war tax is not a false choice. It’s long over due for us to start paying for our military actions.

Regarding green companies, you realize there is fraud in the defense industry as well, correct?


A war tax is a false choice. There is plenty of revenue to defend the nation.

There is fraud in everything...why do you only care about cutting defense spending and/or a war tax? Why do you want the US to be defenseless while increasing crony payouts to Democrat campaign contributors?

Is it because you are dishonest, or stupid?

It can only be one or the other.

Nathan Alexander said...

Wormtongue,
The last person who favors war is the soldier.

Which just shows the bankruptcy of your accusations against Bush.

And, incidentally, points the finger of blame directly at President Obama.

We look forward to you voting GOP from now on. As a vet, of course.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Seriously? NATO's interests? NATOs oil? I didn't know NATO had oil interests there. I know the French and Italians do. I don't think the Germans do which is why they didn't participate in the bombing.

That's some pretty weak tea to justify a war of choice especially considering your position on the Iraq war.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"Not all wagons had the 3 way gate. Some had the clamshell."

The "3 way gate" has nothing to do with it; it's just the first picture I came across. All that's needed is for the window to roll down into the door. And if you're going to waste your time trying to track down Romney's specific car back in 1970, you're daft.

X said...

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the War Powers Resolution

the law that Obama broke?

Anonymous said...

Nathan Alexander said...

“Name one politician eager for war.”

Romney.

“President Bush honored and respected the military, and everyone in the military knew it.”

If he honored and respected the military, he would not have sent them into a unjust war or authorized the use of torture.

“The US goes to war to free people, and keep people free. That's it.”

How about the war made on the Native Americans?

“ The only times we've failed at that is when we let Democrats take responsibility for keeping the US and our allies safe.”

What party was in power during World War II, the war to save democracy?

Hoosier Daddy said...

36 it seems like your cool with wars of choice if they're launched by your preferred political administration. Iraq bad. Libya ok.

Anonymous said...

edutcher said...

“ I think fiend is only worried because the Romster seems to live his religion.”

I don’t care about his religion. Although the Evangelicals seem to care. I understand some have raised concerns about Romney speaking at /Liberty /university, calling Mormonism a cult.

“We're not? And where did fiend study COIN?”

Air Command and Staff and Air War College.

“Can't recall fiend saying anything like that when Zero was pushing for a surge.”

Obama is trying to solve the problem cause by Bush taking his eye off the ball.

“PS Lay off the "reading comprehension" thing.”

Then don’t mischaracterize my statements.

MayBee said...

Garage- The only reason you know any part of the Seamus story is because the Romneys told it.

Without their telling it, you wouldn't know it happened, that he once got sick doing it, that they did it multiple times, or that he loved getting into the crate on the roof.

So why work so hard to disprove one part of it? Why is that the one detail they would make up? If they were trying to hide something, they could have just as easily not told the story.

Anonymous said...

MayBee said...

"NATO doesn't obligate us to fight any war any member of NATO wants us to fight."

Have you served in NATO?

"If it did, France would have broken the treaty when they refused to fight in Iraq."

All French armed forces were removed from NATO in 1966.

roesch/voltaire said...

Althouse wrote: "What's beautiful is my time here on earth, and I'm tired of being bored sitting in a dark room consuming something that's supposed to be good for me."
The film was over by one giving me time to swim and later mow the lawn so lay off the smug assumptions of either or. A well done film narrative is not boring,at its best, like other arts, it can "thaw the frozen sea inside us" . A beautiful example would be--The Naked Island.
And for the record the Wisconsin Film Festival does not just feature foreign-flims, but includes a wide range of films including the old Hollywood films you like to collect and watch in the dark nest of your home.

bagoh20 said...

You guys are going off on some kinda superfluous bullshit.

I heard that Obama ate a puppy. That is some sick shit, isn't it? Do you really want someone like that running the wrong way with the nuclear football?

Nathan Alexander said...

Wormtongue,

“Name one politician eager for war.”

Romney.

Wrong.
0-1

“President Bush honored and respected the military, and everyone in the military knew it.”

If he honored and respected the military, he would not have sent them into a unjust war or authorized the use of torture.

Wrong. Not a unjust war, and he didn't authorize the use of torture. I did remind you it was stupid to let Democrat spin machine do your thinking for you.

You are 0-2 with your assertions.

“The US goes to war to free people, and keep people free. That's it.”

How about the war made on the Native Americans?

Another assertion. I notice, Wormtongue, how you have to elide a change of terminology to try and slip this in there.

Who started the war? Was it aggression or defense for either side, or both? Did the US fight/kill all "Native" Americans, or only some? If only some, what made the difference in how they were treated? How did the "Native" Americans get the land, since they weren't actually native? Did they ever seize territory with an attack? Which political party was the President who pushed the Indian Removal Act?

0-3.


“ The only times we've failed at that is when we let Democrats take responsibility for keeping the US and our allies safe.”

What party was in power during World War II, the war to save democracy?

Democrats. I Never said the Democrats always made us lose wars or run out on allies.

Just since 1965 or so.

You're 0-4.

garage mahal said...

Garage. Google 1974 Caprice Estate Wagon. Images. Picture of the rear end of one of those babies. Tail. Gate

I didn't see any with open tail gates. Apparently, in 1977 they changed from clamshell to a 3 way gate. That's where I gave up.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

'71-'76 Caprice wagons had the infamous clam shell, where the bottom half went into the floor and the glass into the roof, which would have been easy for the dog to use. After that, GM paid royalties to Ford for their 3-way tailgate for their fullsize wagons (midsize had hatchdoors), which opened like a door with window up or down and also down like a pickup with window down. Perhaps Mitt bent over and let the dog use him as a step.

damikesc said...

Obama supports the war effort and is working to extract us from a difficult situation. We’re not going to beat the Taliban or “win”. If Romney want’s to remain there until we “win” they let his sons join the fight.

So Obama is sending kids out to die in Afghanistan --- for NO reason?

That's sociopathic, is it not?

"I don't want to win. I just, you know, want you to die and stuff"

As far as the YouTube video, yes, I believe Bush would have gotten up if Card told him one of his daughters was seriously injured.

So, as a vet, you routinely freaked out and lost your mind when your buddy was killed?

You would've been wonderful to have in a firefight. Totally reliable.

You're aware Bush was in front of a bunch of young kids and was hoping to not completely freak them out over extremely incomplete info...right?

Maybee, I'm saying that when you don't have "skin in the game" it's less of an issue that troops are still dying over there.

And everybody remembers your impassioned critique of Obama sending more troops over there.

Those were the days. When Allie called Obama a coward and all for sending troops over there with no "skin in the game".

But unlike Romney, their father wants to draw down in Afghanistan and is not jumping at the bit to bomb Iran.

True. That'd be Libya where he did that.

With Iran, he sat back and dithered while demonstrators were slaughtered.

With Syria, he sat back and dithered while demonstrators were slaughtered.

Regarding Libya, you may want to read up about the chemical weapon stockpiles that country had. Also, you may want to familiarize yourself we our treaty obligations with NATO.

So, what NATO member was attacked by Libya? Must've missed that one.

However, if our leaders treated our service members as there own children, they may be less eager for war.

...see Obama and Libya...

Ralph L said...

To clarify, with the clamshell, the back edge of the roof is well over a foot forward of the bumper--the back window is at a low angle and curved so it can go into the roof. It caused a lot of problems and wasted space. My dad almost bought a Buick one in 73 but decided the car was too big and the tailgate too complicated. We got the Century midsize wagon, with lousy build quality and terrible emission controls.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

“Can you show me where in the NATO charter where our intervention in Libya could be authorized? Cause I looked and can't find it.”

NATO was operating U.N. Resolution 1973 which stated allied forces could use "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Allied forces being NATO in this case.

“Seriously? NATO's interests? NATOs oil? I didn't know NATO had oil interests there. I know the French and Italians do. I don't think the Germans do which is why they didn't participate in the bombing.”

You may want to read up on which countries have oil interests in Libya.

“36 it seems like your cool with wars of choice if they're launched by your preferred political administration. Iraq bad. Libya ok.”

No. I’m not in support of any wars of choice. Again, Obama is attempting to extract us from the war in Afghanistan started by Bush which I supported because that is where the terrorists who attacked us were located..

X said...

Chevy Caprice Wagon

Calypso Facto said...

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the War Powers Resolution

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action"

which was not done

"and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

also not done

Seems pretty clear to me. So ... what are they teaching at the Air Command and Staff and Air War College nowadays?

Hoosier Daddy said...

So then I can assume you were opposed to Obama commiting US military forces to bomb Libya. That being a war of choice and all.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So to recap, NATO was bombing Libya to protect civilians based on a UN resolution which conveniently coincided with protecting certain NATO countries oil interests.

I think its cool that NATO is now the military arm of the UN.

Anonymous said...

Nathan Alexander said...

“There is fraud in everything...why do you only care about cutting defense spending and/or a war tax? Why do you want the US to be defenseless while increasing crony payouts to Democrat campaign contributors?”

I didn’t state that I only wanted to cut defense spending. I stated that we should have a war tax to pay for the global war on terror.

I said:

“The last person who favors war is the soldier”

You said:

“Which just shows the bankruptcy of your accusations against Bush.”

If Bush really cared about our troops, we would not have gone into Iraq and he would never have authorized the use of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions which were put into effect to protect our service members during wars. Read up on Cheney’s comments about the Geneva Conventions at the start of the first Gulf War and Rumsfeld’s comments at the beginning of the second Gulf War.

As far as Romney not being for war, you may want to read up on his positions. I know it’s difficult keeping it straight on what his positions are from day to day.

As far as your comment that the US goes to war to free people, and keep people free, and the Native Americans, who was invading who? You may want to guard against making such generalized statements.

Finally, you stated that the only times we've failed at freeing people and keeping people free was when we let Democrats take responsibility for keeping the US and our allies safe. Not true since it was a Democratic Administration that fought and won WW II as well as Operation Allied Force.

edutcher said...

36fsfiend said...

I think fiend is only worried because the Romster seems to live his religion.

I don’t care about his religion. Although the Evangelicals seem to care. I understand some have raised concerns about Romney speaking at /Liberty /university, calling Mormonism a cult.


Thanks for proving my point. The Lefties are really desperate to create a rift among Conservatives and it isn't working.

We're not? And where did fiend study COIN?

Air Command and Staff and Air War College.


This can be proven, of course.

Can't recall fiend saying anything like that when Zero was pushing for a surge.

Obama is trying to solve the problem cause by Bush taking his eye off the ball


No, Zero and the rest of the Demos needed to pick a fight because Dubya's favorables were in the 90% range.

Zero's done everything he could to sabotage A-stan.

PS Lay off the "reading comprehension" thing.

Then don’t mischaracterize my statements.


No, I've got his number. It just shows the mask slipping.

Anonymous said...

Damikesc,

Obama is not sending kids out to die in Afghanistan for no good reason but we are not going to “win” in a conventional sense. An unplanned and disorderly withdrawal can result in many casualties. However, if Romney wants to stay and slug it out, then why not get his sons involved?

As far as routinely freaking out and losing my mind while under attack, my wingmen and I would follow our training to negate the attacks from SAMs and AAA and proceed to the target and accomplish our mission. Bush should have been up and moving to figure out what the hell was going on with the country when he was told the nation was under attack. Freaking out the children would not have occurred if he simply told the teacher that he had an important matter to attend to and excused himself.

As far as the action in Libya, they were responding to the massacres taking place as well as other national interests. Not a valid comparison with the rhetoric towards Iran.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... As far as the action in Libya, they were responding to the massacres taking place as well as other national interests..."

National interests bring oil for Europe? Is NATO now tasked with interfering in other countries civil wars?

Since when is any of that a NATO mission?

Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto said...

“The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action"

Combat operations commenced on March 20. Obama formally notified Congress on March 21. They were also well aware of the activity taking place in the U.N. leading up to the military action.

"and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

Again, we were acting in accordance with U.N. and NATO treaty obligations. Last time I checked, ratified treaties are considered laws of the land in accordance with the Constitution. But hey, let Congress impeach Obama if they think he violated the Constitution.

“So ... what are they teaching at the Air Command and Staff and Air War College nowadays?”

Just answering a question about where I learned about COIN operations. Also, had some experience with the 101st Airborne.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

“So then I can assume you were opposed to Obama commiting US military forces to bomb Libya. That being a war of choice and all.”

No. I supported that operation to stop the massacres just as I supported similar operations in Kosovo. Iraq was a war of choice because our interests were not directly threatened and yet we attacked.

“So to recap, NATO was bombing Libya to protect civilians based on a UN resolution which conveniently coincided with protecting certain NATO countries oil interests.”

If you don’t understand that oil is a national interest for us and NATO, I’m not sure what else to tell you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Again, we were acting in accordance with U.N. and NATO treaty obligations..."

So a UN authorized war of choice is ok with you, right?

Still can't find it in the NATO charter that permits NATO to intervene in another countries civil war.

Anonymous said...

Edutcher,

Not a lefty and again I personally don’t care what religion a candidate follows or no religion for that matter. That whole there shall be no religious test thingy in the Constitution is a good idea in my opinion.

As far as my attendance at PME, I’m not interested in proving anything to you. You can believe whatever you want.

Not sure what your mean is to regards to Dubya's favorable being in the 90% range and how that relates to Obama’s decision to surge in Afghanistan, something the generals and some Republicans wanted. In fact, some on the right were complaining the Obama was acting fast enough in sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Iraq was a war of choice because our interests were not directly threatened and yet we attacked."

Yes and Libya was a war of choice where our interests were not threatened either.

Well you've made it clear that you support wars of choice as long as its under your preferred political administration.

"... If you don’t understand that oil is a national interest for us and NATO, I’m not sure what else to tell you..."

Oh I certainly understand it. You initially claimed NATO felt its oil interests were threatened, hence the intervention. Then it was about protecting civilians. Ironically those Syrian civilians being massacred don't have any oil to warrant a NATO campaign there.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

“So a UN authorized war of choice is ok with you, right?

Still can't find it in the NATO charter that permits NATO to intervene in another countries civil war.”

Libya was not a war of choice just as Kosovo and Afghanistan were not wars of choice.

Regarding NATO’s actions, see my earlier post.

Anonymous said...

All and all, I stand by my original comment that if Romney had gone to Vietnam he may have had the opportunity to try dog. Then he and Obama could have shared their common experience with foreign cuisine.

edutcher said...

Sure.

fiend gets it and he knows why all the lies were told about Iraq. He also knows what Zero talked about and what he's done in A-stan represent a 180.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Libya was not a war of choice just as Kosovo and Afghanistan were not wars of choice..."

That's interesting because unlike Afghanistan, we weren't attacked by Libya or Kosovo.

But yes, they were wars of choice. That's why the majority of NATO members didn't participate.

"... Regarding NATO’s actions, see my earlierpost."

Yes it was non-responsive. NATO is a mutual defense organization. I didn't know its charter had been expanded to intervene in non-member countries civil wars.

Calypso Facto said...

Combat operations commenced on March 20. Obama formally notified Congress on March 21.

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities"

Not done.

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Not done.

"the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement."

Not done.

"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet "

Not done.

But hey, let Congress impeach Obama if they think he violated the Constitution.

Great. More "it's only wrong if you get caught" (or punished??) (or aren't Obama??) mentality.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Google 1974 Caprice Estate Wagon. Images. Picture of the rear end of one of those babies. Tail. Gate

I didn't see any with open tail gates. Apparently, in 1977 they changed from clam shell to a 3 way gate. That's where I gave up.


Mostwagons in this year range and class had a tail gate with a window that "rolled" down into the tail gate.


The Romneys probably had something along THESE lines if the year quoted was correct

Or like THIS A clam shell window would have totally ruined the streamline look.

BTW: wagons are very hot right now in the custom auto world. Especially two door versions.

Calypso Facto said...

I supported [Libya] to stop the massacres but Iraq was a war of choice

Civilian deaths in Libya prior to NATO bombardment: ca. 1,000

Civilian deaths (directly attributed to murder by Saddam's regime) in Iraq prior to US invasion: ca. 300,000

So ... come again?

Dust Bunny Queen said...


Or like THIS A clam shell window would have totally ruined the streamline look.


Plus the streamlined and slanted window explains how the dog shit was able to run down the window.

Physics!!!

Automatic_Wing said...

So, to sum up: War is always wrong, unless there's a Democrat in the White House.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

“That's interesting because unlike Afghanistan, we weren't attacked by Libya or Kosovo.

But yes, they were wars of choice. That's why the majority of NATO members didn't participate.”

Do you understand the concept of national interests?

"... Regarding NATO’s actions, see my earlier post."

Yes it was non-responsive. NATO is a mutual defense organization. I didn't know its charter had been expanded to intervene in non-member countries civil wars.

You can read up on the coordinated efforts of the UN Security Council, NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council regarding the implementation of measures to protect civilians including enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya.

Boston Bunker said...

For what it is worth- most station wagon tailgates were "two-way" style. They opened like a pickup truck (folding down when the window was rolled down) or like a car door (opening to the left or right when the window was up).

Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto said...

“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities”

Congress was verbally advised before combat operations and formally advised on March 21 via letter. We complied with the resolution of the UN as voted on by the Security Council in accordance with our treaty obligations.

You may also want to read about the notification process used for Operation El Dorado Canyon.

Regarding treaties:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto said...

"Civilian deaths in Libya prior to NATO bombardment: ca. 1,000

Civilian deaths (directly attributed to murder by Saddam's regime) in Iraq prior to US invasion: ca. 300,000

So ... come again?"

And Stalin murdered over 20 million.

Each case is unique based on our national interests and capabilities to respond.

Synova said...

"The military should be used as a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted to secure our national interests."

Using the military as a "last resort" is simply a statement that the size of the nail and the size of the hammer have to be determined. But at its heart it is still all problems are nails and all solutions are hammers.

The hammer/nail analogy is actually useful as a refutation of "last resort" use of the military. If the problem is a screw, then you use a screw-driver. You do not *ever* use a hammer. A hammer is always wrong. If the problem is a nail, one could try the screwdriver first, and only use the military as a "last resort" but the nature of the problem was always a nail and the proper solution was *always*, from the first moment, a hammer.

"The last person who favors war is the soldier."

This is true.

But the notion that "skin in the game" logically means one is going to keep on wacking that nail with a screw-driver, as people seem to be arguing, is irrational. Someone with skin in the game isn't going to magically be able to make that screwdriver work because they really badly *want* it to work.

Palin had/has "skin in the game" and I don't recall anyone promoting her as the obvious choice to be anti-war, or McCain who personally saw the horror of it being the obvious anti-war choice. Wow, the two of them would have us home by now! Right?

Of course not.

The whole notion that if only our leaders had children in the military that they'd not use the military as casually, has no basis in anything at all. It sounds good. People nod and say "so true". But there is no empirical nor objective reason to hold to that belief system.

damikesc said...

Obama is not sending kids out to die in Afghanistan for no good reason but we are not going to “win” in a conventional sense

We're not going to win, but we'll sit there and get kids killed...just because.

There is absolutely no good reason to be there if winning isn't the goal.

An unplanned and disorderly withdrawal can result in many casualties. However, if Romney wants to stay and slug it out, then why not get his sons involved?

Obama has no plans to withdraw (heck, Bush drew up the plans to withdraw from Iraq, so it wasn't Obama's call there either). He should send his daughters over there to serve.

Bush should have been up and moving to figure out what the hell was going on with the country when he was told the nation was under attack.

And do...what? Flights were grounded. All precautions possible were made. But because Bush didn't freak out at a school, he was negligent. Truther logic in its glory.

As far as the action in Libya, they were responding to the massacres taking place as well as other national interests

Can you explain what interests exist there and not in Iran and Syria? Or why Congressional approval was not needed if one abides by federal law. Bush ASKED for permission to go to Iraq and got it.

Obama formally notified Congress on March 21

Yes, he did. He never received approval for it, stating it was not covered since it wouldn't last long enough to qualify --- and didn't do so when that changed, either.

ken in tx said...

To Synova and others, dog meat as eaten in both Korea and the Philippines is never disguised. It is prepared as a special virillity enducing food for men. It is considered an honor for it to be offered to a male guest. Women do not normally eat it.

Synova said...

Ken, in other words, it's get-drunk-and-eat-it food. :-) Like balut. Or puffer-fish. Or rocky mountain oysters.

I think that a great many of the stomach turning foreign delicacies come in that category. It's a macho thing that you get drunk and dare each other to do, and then tell the tourists that everyone in this country eats cobra hearts while they're still beating.

Honest, they do.

Anonymous said...

Synova,

Military force should not be used in direct combat until all other options, such as diplomatic and economic measures, have been tried and exhausted. Certainly military forces can be prepositioned to influence the situation and help achieve a resolution prior to actual conflict.

As far as Palin goes, she is not in a position to influence our nation’s actions. McCain, frankly at times seems surprising given his experiences. Although I give him credit for pushing back against the use of torture.

As far as your comment about leaders having children in the military and being more willing to not recklessly engage, I have to disagree with your position in regards to wars of choice. Why are our wars mostly fought by the less well-to-do in this country? If Bush’s two daughters were in the service and actually in a position to see combat and be killed, I think that would have given him pause regarding Iraq.

Anonymous said...

damikesc said...

“We're not going to win, but we'll sit there and get kids killed...just because. There is absolutely no good reason to be there if winning isn't the goal.”

We have commitments are looking to withdrawal. I would argue we probably ended up having more killed by taking the focus off Afghanistan and going into Iraq, prolonging the conflict in Afghanistan.

“Obama has no plans to withdraw (heck, Bush drew up the plans to withdraw from Iraq, so it wasn't Obama's call there either).”

Pass on your thoughts to the Joint Chiefs of Staff then. I’m sure they would love to hear from you.

“And do...what? Flights were grounded. All precautions possible were made. But because Bush didn't freak out at a school, he was negligent. Truther logic in its glory.”

Get to a secure location since he did not know the scope of the attack. Get in touch with the chain of command to get an appraisal of the situation. You know, Commander-in-Chief type of things.

“Can you explain what interests exist there and not in Iran and Syria? Or why Congressional approval was not needed if one abides by federal law. Bush ASKED for permission to go to Iraq and got it.”

Our interested included stopping the massacres, reducing threats to ships delivering aid to Misurata and other humanitarian responses and safeguarding economic interests including oil facilities – lot’s of money invested there.

Unlike the case with Libya, there was no UN resolution to invade Iraq.

“Yes, he did. He never received approval for it, stating it was not covered since it wouldn't last long enough to qualify --- and didn't do so when that changed, either.”

The wording of the resolution states the president will consult with Congress before introducing forces into hostilities. That was done on March 18 with senior lawmakers at the White House and again by letter on March 21. Congress was not blindsided.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Do you understand the concept of national interests?"

Yes. But your argument is that as a NATO member we were bound by treaty correct? Then why US it most of the NATO membership sat out? I fail to see what our interests were. Civilian massacres aren't a national interest or we would be flattening Damascus and Sudan.

"..You can read up on the coordinated efforts of the UN Security Council, NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council regarding the implementation of measures to protect civilians including enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya..."

Again, last time I checked NATO is a mutual defense pact, not an international peacekeeping force. If Libya had attacked Italy or France you would have a better argument.

Sorry but cheering on bombing Serbia and Libya but denouncing Iraq as a war of choice is a bit disengenuous.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... and safeguarding economic interests including oil facilities – lot’s of money invested there..."

Indeed. So no blood for oil unless a Democrat is in charge?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

“Indeed. So no blood for oil unless a Democrat is in charge?”

Hoosier Daddy,

You know, I actually originally supported Bush with the war in Iraq. I believed him when he presented the case that Iraq was a threat to us with WMDs, and that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. I believed as a nation we were doing the right thing at the time and if anyone said that the president, as the Commander-in-Chief, would mislead the nation into war or violate U.S. laws and treaties by authorizing the use of torture, I would have said they were full of it.

Not anymore.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Daddy,

Yes, we are bound by our treaty obligations with both the U.N. and NATO. If you have such a heartburn with NATO’s participation in Libya, then shoot a letter to the Secretary General of NATO and express your displeasure with their participation in the operation. Bottomline, Obama wasn’t acting unilaterally and we had national interests threaten in Libya.

Also, civilian massacres are a national interests of this country. However, as I stated earlier, every situation has its unique circumstances. You simply can’t use a cookie cutter approach to every situation. And gain, as far as Iraq, there was no authorization from the U.N. to invade that country because we could not justify our actions. That was a war of choice.

In my opinion, what would solve these cases of questionable expeditionary military operations is if we actually followed our Constitution. Congress hasn’t declared war since 1941 and yet look at all the military operations we have been engaged in since that time with the tremendous loss of life. Congress should rein in the legislative branch and we should not engage in military operations unless approved by the American people through their reps. in Congress.

Calypso Facto said...

So 36 believes Obama properly consulted with and notified Congress of the war in Libya when Congress does not. He believes colonialist intervention in sovereign state affairs should be based on the unique interpretation and discretion of President Obama on a case by case basis. He believes our participation in the UN and NATO compels the introduction of US troops wherever and whenever those organizations might like, as long as Obama feels like it. He believes Obama should be able to deploy troops in combat for as long as he wants, War Powers Resolution be damned.

But he's worried about Romney being militaristic. Laughable.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto,

Yes, Obama consulted with and notified Congress of the no-fly operation in Libya. They knew what was going on with the U.N. and NATO as well. If Congress really has an issue then let them take him to task.

As far as your comment about colonialist intervention in sovereign state affairs, we were not colonizing Libya. We were attempting to stop a humanitarian crisis. And yes, there were other economic interests involved based on oil industry infrastructure already in the country.

As far as believing that our participation in the UN and NATO compels the introduction of US troops wherever and whenever those organizations might like, I’m just reading what the Constitution states about following treaties. As I responded to Hoosier Daddy, what would solve these cases of questionable expeditionary military operations is if we actually followed our Constitution. Congress should rein in the legislative branch and we should not engage in military operations unless approved by the American people through their reps. in Congress, i.e., declarations of war.

As far as Romney, I’m simply basing my opinion on what he has stated regarding Iran and wanting to continue the war in Afghanistan. I'm also concerned about his support for torture.

Calypso Facto said...

Dead horse, I know, but as to the notion of NATO and UN treaties requiring US involvement in Libya:

The US was under no legal obligation to participate in Libya. Nothing in either charter compelled US involvement. And even when NATO Article 5 is invoked for mutual defense (NOT the case in Libya) US military action is STILL subject to Congress' Constitutional power to declare war.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto said...

“The US was under no legal obligation to participate in Libya. Nothing in either charter compelled US involvement. And even when NATO Article 5 is invoked for mutual defense (NOT the case in Libya) US military action is STILL subject to Congress' Constitutional power to declare war.”

Calypso Facto,

Well, if you review the timeline of the actions taken leading up to the implementation of the no-fly in Libya, you will see that on March 1, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Security Council approved such a measure on the Thursday before action commenced on March 19.

Seems there was a disconnect in Congress.

The War Powers Resolution was also an issue with Clinton engaging in Kosovo and Bush authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Again, in my opinion, issues such as these could be resolved by repealing the War Powers Resolution and following Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution.

Synova said...

"Military force should not be used in direct combat until all other options, such as diplomatic and economic measures, have been tried and exhausted."

Bull sh*t. And do you know why?

Because what happens is we *engage* easily and with little thought in situations because all we're doing is passing sanctions or messing around diplomatically and there is such a low standard for those things, in fact there is such a low standard for those things that we pat ourselves on the back for being wonderful people when we do them, despite the fact that they are effective only to the extent that they cause misery. Without misery there is no pressure on the foreign government.

But we hold the military in reserve? If it wasn't a military matter it will not *become* a military matter. If it wasn't a military matter it WILL NEVER BE a military matter. And just because the diplomats screw up doesn't make it one.

Stating as a matter of obvious truth that the proper way of things is a half-assed SLIDE into war is just... well, it sure sounds good doesn't it.

It's like forcing a woman who obviously needs a caesarian to be in labor for two days in order to "exhaust every other option" before cutting the baby out. And then congratulating yourself on having the proper natural attitude toward birth. The mother is almost dead and the baby has been under two days of stress and increased risk... because those two days of labor were not without cost. The result is ALL the cost of the surgery (war), IN ADDITION TO ALL the physical cost of the labor (human suffering and misery due to sanctions or continuing oppression).

If a situation called for the military, then "exhausting all other options" is a misery multiplier and people should be ashamed rather than self-congratulatory.

Synova said...

"As far as your comment about leaders having children in the military and being more willing to not recklessly engage, I have to disagree with your position in regards to wars of choice."

All our wars, forever and ever, are wars of choice. Every. Last. One.

And while the notion that people with children in the military will be less likely to engage in war sounds very logical, it's nonsense. Logic doesn't dictate to reality and wishful thinking doesn't change the truth.

"Why are our wars mostly fought by the less well-to-do in this country?"

Because the wealthy are comfortable and do not have a culture of valuing that uncomfortable area of public service.

If anyone actually *cared* that the military is firmly middle class (not lower) and increasingly multi-generational within families, they would encourage their privileged children to join the military, but they won't. Doesn't stop the political BS supposedly defending those poor people being treated like canon fodder, but truth is *hard*.

The other reason that so few of our political class or wealthy are in the military is because there are so FEW in the military. It is irrational to figure we should have an enormous military just so everyone gets to be in it.

Anonymous said...

Synova,

I stated:

“Military force should not be used in direct combat until all other options, such as diplomatic and economic measures, have been tried and exhausted.”

You responded:

“Bull sh*t. And do you know why?......”

I suggest you read the Powell Doctrine that was promulgated by General Powell as a result of our experiences in Vietnam. It served us well during the first Gulf War.

I stated:

“As far as your comment about leaders having children in the military and being more willing to not recklessly engage, I have to disagree with your position in regards to wars of choice.”

You stated:

“All our wars, forever and ever, are wars of choice. Every. Last. One. And while the notion that people with children in the military will be less likely to engage in war sounds very logical, it's nonsense. Logic doesn't dictate to reality and wishful thinking doesn't change the truth.”

What I mean by a war of choice is one in which we engage where our national defense or interests are not directly threatened. World War II was not a war of choice.

As far as my point about people with children in the military being less likely to engage in war and your comment that logic doesn’t dictate this reality, why is the reality that so few of the children of the wealthy serve in the armed forces? You answered this question with your own comment that it’s because the wealthy are comfortable and do not have a culture of valuing that uncomfortable area of public service. Hence, my position is not nonsense.

We had Iraq bottled up with sanctions, no-fly zones and reconnaissance for ten years. Nothing regarding that situation changed after 9/11 and yet we had to invade to supposedly protect ourselves. If Bush’s two daughters were in the service at that time and assigned to a combat unit in which they would likely see action and possibly be killed, I’m sure that would have given Bush pause in his eagerness to attack a country that was not immediately or directly threatening us.

Calypso Facto said...

36: A Senate resolution asking for a UN resolution to impose a no-fly zone does not equate a declaration of war, nor does it compel US forces to be involved if the no-fly zone is ultimately UN "authorized".

I'm good (always) with going back to the fundamental Constitutional provisions, too. Too bad they had already been trampled so badly by executive overreach that by 1973 Congress felt it necessary to pass the War Powers Resolution ... which has now ALSO been badly trampled by executive overreach. Ugh.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Calypso Facto,

Yes, a resolution does not equate to a declaration of war. I was simply pointing out that there were varying views in Congress regarding the issue.

I think we have made it too easy to engage in war with the War Powers Resolution. Going to war should involve thorough debate unless, of course, we are immediately reacting to a threat in self defense.

I think the debate and discussion before committing forces to some region of the world, which would occur if we followed Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, is the least we can do for our sons and daughters before asking them to risk their life and limb in the service of their country.

Calypso Facto said...


I think we have made it too easy to engage in war with the War Powers Resolution. Going to war should involve thorough debate unless, of course, we are immediately reacting to a threat in self defense.

I think the debate and discussion before committing forces to some region of the world, which would occur if we followed Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, is the least we can do for our sons and daughters before asking them to risk their life and limb in the service of their country.


Finally, something we can agree on. :)

Nathan Alexander said...

Wormtongue,
Finally, you stated that the only times we've failed at freeing people and keeping people free was when we let Democrats take responsibility for keeping the US and our allies safe. Not true since it was a Democratic Administration that fought and won WW II as well as Operation Allied Force.

Your logic modifiers are faulty.

The times that we've failed to free people, Democrats were in charge. All failures were Democrat-led. That doesn't mean all Democrat-led wars were failures.

B said...

"“We're not? And where did fiend study COIN?”

Air Command and Staff and Air War College."

I do not believe you. Too much of what you've said in this thread betrays too much ignorance.

This one choice of phrasing gives your game away:

'Have you served in NATO?'

Synova said...

"As far as my point about people with children in the military being less likely to engage in war and your comment that logic doesn’t dictate this reality, why is the reality that so few of the children of the wealthy serve in the armed forces? You answered this question with your own comment that it’s because the wealthy are comfortable and do not have a culture of valuing that uncomfortable area of public service. Hence, my position is not nonsense."

The one thing doesn't have to do with the other thing.

Suppose we *had* among our upper-classes, a feeling of obligation for military service... the first son inherits, the second enters the church, the third buys a set of colors.

Okay?

So assume this social expectation of someone in the upper-crust family doing that, because military service is an expectation... like William and Harry, okay?

Just for pretend.

In peacetime this service is not *comfortable*. There are careers to be started and partnerships to be earned and fast cars to be driven and grad schools to be attended. Taking four or six years out of that is expensive. Choosing to make the military a career is going to face a certain amount of social pressure when it's almost certainly an economic step down.

None of that has anything to do with going to war.

But if we had those expectations, as England does, at least for their princes if no one else, there is no magical thing that will happen where we suddenly make a different set of decisions about which conflicts are necessary and which ones are not.

Synova said...

"We had Iraq bottled up with sanctions, no-fly zones and reconnaissance for ten years."

Oh, gawd.

We had sanctions that were corrupted by Food for Oil, with obscene kick backs to UN officials, no "inspections" worth calling them that, Saddam having not a moment of discomfort while he undertook full blown genocide on two fronts and oppressed the Shi'ite majority. Our attempts to enforce any sort of sanction on the materials useful for chemical warfare, which Saddam had used previously against the Kurds, got us condemned across the whole world for being pure evil and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. The death of those children, denied clean water by the United States while Saddam built his palaces, was cited by Bin Laden as justification for 9-11.

I'll allow differing opinions, but this historical memory hole is inexcusable for anyone who was 1) alive at the time, and 2) not retarded.

Anonymous said...

B said...

“I do not believe you. Too much of what you've said in this thread betrays too much ignorance.”

Well B, I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve completed SOS, ACSC and AWC. As far as COIN, I actually had my first intro to that topic in a course in AFROTC which discussed COIN ops during the Vietnam War.

But, like I’ve stated, you can believe whatever you want.

As far as my comment to MayBee about serving in NATO, I was responding to her comment about the French. They were not in NATO while I was assigned to the 22 FS between 1997 and 1999. They have subsequently reentered in 2009.

Regards.

Anonymous said...

Synova,

I think you need to review your history. The gassing of the Kurds occurred in 1988, before the first Gulf War took place and the sanctions following that war were put into effect.

As far as your claim that the sanctions did not work against Iraq, I’ll let the results of the second war in Iraq speak for themselves, i.e., no weapons of mass destruction were found except for some 1980s-era chemical artillery shells that were in deteriorating condition.

Synova said...

Saddam had killed so many Kurds that voting in the North, after he was deposed, was more than 3 to 2, women to men. The Kurds placed an amazing number of women in their local governments... mostly because the men were *dead*. There were prisons there that had the specific purpose of housing children. Yes, our no-fly zone helped them.

It didn't much help the Marsh Arabs, I think. And the Shi'ite population was having a *groovy* time.

And our sanctions and inspections were SOOOOOOOOOOO useful, that we had not a clue if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or not. Not a clue. It was all a big guess. He apparently thought he had more than he had, or was trying to fake out that he had more, in order to stick us in the eye and keep his image of power. But we weren't allowed to do our inspections. Nearly everyone thought he had way more than he had. Clinton stated so as *fact*.

We had to invade just to find out what we were supposed to get to simply inspect. Wow, was that sanction and inspection stuff working great!

I personally doubt that there were 650,000 dead Iraqi children for lack of clean water since we so callously and evilly restricted the super weapon-grade chlorine either. But we were being beaten in world opinion for that, every day. Every. Day. CNN would be there recording Bagdad Bob and we'd get torn another new butt hole.

And it's all a memory hole. Like it Never Happened.

No, really! The sanctions and no-fly zones were working GREAT!!!! Food for Oil kept the pressure on Saddam and food in children's mouths, really, it did! We could have kept that up FOREVER!

Gawd.

Synova said...

If WW2 was not a war of "choice" neither was Iraq. Not just Afghanistan, but Iraq.

And like WW2, we could have decided not to go to war and we'd likely have been *fine*. The geo-political landscape of the world would have changed, but life would have gone on.

I have no patience for the moronic argument that WW2 was a good war, or necessary war, and Iraq was not. Dear lord in heaven... what was the POINT of Iwo Jima? What an obscene waste of life! And if shutting down the Jewish holocaust was right and just and *good*, so was deposing Saddam, who was also a genocidal monster.

Pick a standard and stick to it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Synova,

Yes, I stated World War II was not a war of choice since we were directly attacked unlike the second Iraq war. Iraq was not a direct threat to our country and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, hence it was a war of choice.

As far as your comment about us not participating in WW2 being fine, I think the 2,000 plus servicemen who died at Pearl Harbor would disagree with your definition of “fine.”

Anonymous said...

Synova,

You seemed to have missed the point I was making about the sanctions, no-fly zones and reconnaissance operations that we had in effect for the ten years after the first Gulf War.

I wasn’t referring to what Saddam was doing to the Kurds or Shi'ite population. I was referring to his inability to reconstitute his weapons programs and to become an immediate and direct threat to our country.

The Bush administration was making claims about nuclear, chemical and missile programs in Iraq. That was part of his pitch for justifying the invasion. None of those programs were discovered after we invaded. In fact, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, aka “Curveball”, has admitted that his claims of mobile biological weapons laboratories existing in Iraq were all lies.

Synova said...

eThe men dead at Pearl harbor are still dead. No matter what we decided to do. The men, far more than 2,000, dead at Iwo Jima would be alive.

I'm not at all saying we should not have fought that war but every single last reason given that it was different, somehow, are just Stupid. Must we avenge Pearl Harbor? The families of those dead at Iwo Jima may disagree.

The Bush was just making excuses, btw, is so far from the truth to be a lie. Clinton and all of our allies thought Saddam had, or could quickly have WMD. But it was never ever the only justification. And my point stands inherently and indisputably sound. The inspections you touted as working as part of sanctions were worthless.

Anonymous said...

Synova,

Regarding World War II and your comment that the geo-political landscape of the world would have changed, but life would have gone on. I think you need to consider what the world would have looked like with Europe dominated by the Nazis and the Western Pacific and East Asia dominated by Imperial Japan. Life in this country would most certainly been adversely affected. That is why the 2,000 at Iwo Jima and millions of others died fighting that war.

As far as the second Iraq war and Bush making excuses, my position is the Bush Administration was using uncorroborated intelligence to support the policy for invasion. The cases of al-Janabi who the Germany intelligence agencies doubted, the British intelligence agency's concern about intelligence being fixed around the policy and the report from Wilson concerning Yellowcake in Niger seem to bear this out.

The media and a lot of folks were not seriously questioning some of the assertions being made by the Bush administration because the fear and anger from the 9/11 attacks were still fresh and alive. A lot of people wanted blood.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 302 of 302   Newer› Newest»