Home > Uncategorized > Father Really Does Know Best!

Father Really Does Know Best!

Only one in four Americans believe President Bush is a better president than his father, George H. W. Bush, a new CNN poll has found.

Six in 10 said the elder Bush, who served one term from 1989-1993, did a better job in office, according to a poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Twelve percent said both were equally good or bad, and 2 percent offered no opinion.

The poll also found that 59 percent disapprove of President Bush’s handling of his job; 38 percent approve of it. (Read the complete poll results — PDF)

The poll’s release comes two weeks after President Bush and the GOP lost control of both houses in the midterm elections. In addition, two men associated with the elder Bush — Robert Gates and James Baker — have emerged with new roles.

The current president has tapped Gates, who served as CIA director under George H. W. Bush, to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. Gates is also a member of the Iraq Study Group, which Baker — a longtime Bush family confidante — is leading to recommend changes in the U.S. strategy there.

The poll, which interviewed 1,025 adult Americans by telephone from Friday through Sunday, also found that most Americans expressed more confidence in congressional Democrats than in President Bush in handling the nation’s major issues.

More than a majority of the people polled said congressional Democrats were better able than Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, foreign affairs and also taxes, the economy, and the federal deficit — three signature GOP issues.

Sixty-one percent said Democrats were better able than Bush to handle the deficit — the same vote of confidence Democrats received on traditional Democratic issues, such as Social Security and health care.

On Iraq, 53 percent of those polled said they were more confident in Democrats than in Bush; 38 percent felt Bush had a better grasp. An even larger margin — 57 percent — expressed confidence in Democrats’ ability to handle the economy; 36 percent had more confidence in Bush.

Bush and the Democrats are virtually tied on the issue of terrorism, however.

The poll has a margin of sampling error of three percentage points.

The findings are in great contrast to January 2002, when a poll found Bush had the confidence of a majority of Americans on taxes and the economy, with overwhelming support on terrorism and foreign affairs. Democrats dominated on only one issue, according to that poll: health care.

Advertisements
  1. Alfred E Newman
    November 22, 2006 at 2:14 am

    This country needs a 60 year old multi-millionare, lib grandmother from San Francisco to lead congress. If that ever happens the muslim terrorist will probably just shit themselves and quit.

  2. Anonymous
    November 22, 2006 at 3:53 am

    dave in the early years of your show youdidnt give your tell but in the last few years your such a lib,

    so it looks or sounds like your ready to go to air am,O thats right there broke

  3. everett in los osos
    November 22, 2006 at 4:31 am

    Santa Maria Bill, why don’t you give up your day job and become a full time character assassin? Dave, did you know you’re in charge of a radio show? You can exercise some control on your guests. Try it sometime.
    Implying the president and his father, a former president, are capable of murder is so stupid it’s not even wrong, it means it’s time to notify sponsors and the F.C.C.

  4. Anonymous
    November 22, 2006 at 6:44 am

    How does SM Bill stand being outside his aluminum foil room with all of the Bush family radio waves stealing his thoughts long enough to do your show, Dave? Do you have to hose him down to get all of the mayonase off of him before you let him in the studio or do you just put some drop cloths down? I pity SM Bill, having to lead a life totally consumed with paranoia; it’s sad.

  5. molly in los osos
    November 22, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    I pity Santa Maria Bill as anyone should. His paranoid ideas are very troubling.The next time we hear from him he may be known as Atascadero State Hospital Bill

  6. JerryDinAZ
    November 22, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    REPUBLICANS NETWORK FOR SOLUTIONS WHILE THE LIBS EAT THEIR WOUNDED…

    THIS NEXT 2 YEARS OF LIBOCANTS SPLITTING THE PARTY AND EMPLODING IS SO FUN TO WATCH…NO PLAN…NO SOUL…JUST A BUNCH OF LIMOSINE LIBERALS FIGHTING FOR THE BRASS RING AND NOT CARING WHO THEY KILL TO GET THERE…DON’T BELIEVE ME? ASK ANY OF THE 52 MYSTERIOUS DEATHS DURING SLICK WILLY’S BLIUE DRESS ESCAPADES!

  7. Santa Maria William
    November 27, 2006 at 5:20 am

    DAVE,

    WE WANT A BLOG ABOUT THE KRAMER CHARACTER! WE WANT A BLOG ABOUT HARRY REID’S SHADY LAND DEALS? WE WANT A BLOG ABOUT THE CORRUPTION THAT JACK MURTHA HAS AND HIS WILLINGNESS TO THINK ABOUT ACCEPTING A BRIBE IN 1980, AND HE IS STILL IN OFFICE!

    WHY OH WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ONLY ONE THAT GETS THE TOPICS HERE. HOW ABOUT EXPOSING SOME OF THE CORRUPTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISLE.

    BY THE WAY, THIS IS NOT JERRY.

  8. JerryDinAZ
    November 27, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    HEZZBULLAH ATTEMPTS AN RELIGIOUS COUPE IN LEBANON…KNOWING FULL WELL THE SOULESS, GUTLESS, MILTIARY HATING DEMS WILL DO NOTHING…

    THIS IS THE 5TH DEM IMPLODE AND THEIR AREN’T EVEN IN OFFICE…

    SO LET ME ASK YOU LIBS…HOW DOES IT FEEL WHEN THE MOST MILITANT AND HATEFULL GROUPS IN THE WORLD TODAY ARE GLAD YOU TOOK CONTROL?
    OH! WAIT! YOU NEED A SOUL TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION…SORRY MY BAD!

  9. marianne
    November 27, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Jerry

    You have got to be the most vile obnoxious human being that I’ve ever heard or experienced.

  10. JerryDinAZ
    November 27, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    TRUTH USUALLY REVOLTS THOSE IN DENIAL…

  11. Rich from Paso
    November 27, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    I’ll tell you what I see with this whole “get out of Iraq” talk: I see the liberal left in this country trying extremely hard to reconstitute the military of 1977 instead of enjoying the benefits of having the military of 2007. The liberal left is trying to emmasculate the military just as it was at the end of the Vietnam War. The morale was shattered, drug use was rampant, the military was in transition away from a draft, conscript military to an all-volunteer force and we had suffered the lone defeat in our nation’s history. A defeat I might add was brought on not by the superiority of the enemy we faced but by the lack of resolve and willingness to let the military do what it had to to win. All this nonsensical talk of bringing back the draft, that we have lost in Iraq, the MSM’s spin on what Dr. Kissinger said that victory is impossible in Iraq, John Kerry’s “joke” about how stupid people in the military are (newsflash: I scored higher in college than John F’n Kerry did) which was not a joke at all but Kerry trying to warn kids about being pidgeon-holed into military service (as if it was a bad thing), the continuing efforts to discredit recruiters and to not allow recruiters or ROTC on campuses around the country are all symptomatic of the Left’s new strategy on how to face problems around the world: if we don’t have a military capable of fighting around the world then we have to negotiate our way out of the “situation” we find our selves. Utter insanity. The spaghitti spined, weak kneed, pants wetting pacifism of the left is exactly the prescription for a repeat of 9/11, only this time it will be tens of thousands and probably will be with the nukes that the left will let Iran develop. What you all fail to grasp on the left is that our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are what have given al Qaida pause to try and pull off another 9/11 style attack, but it is the cowardly behavior of the Democrats that has enboldened the terrorists around the world to become more aggressive again knowing that Democrats are weak and lack any will to wage war. We are at war right now. Yeah, we don’t have the luxury of fighting a country called AlQaidia (respects to Dennis Miller) the enemy is more nebulous and willing to hide among the civilians, but they are just as determined and insane as Adolf Hitler ever was. Furthermore, while pansies want to “negotiate” with the terrorists, they are sharpening their knives to CUT YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF for not being a Muslim. It is not America’s fault nor is it George W. Bush’s fault that people like that exist. Don’t ask us: what did we do to make them mad? The better question is to ask what we can do to stop them. Do you ask child molesters what we did to make them want to molest children or do you just take it on faith that they are a sick bunch of bastards that just need to be dealt with? How do we deal with terrorists? You send out the military to grant their wish of 72 virgins after we have blown them away.

  12. Patty in Nipomo
    November 27, 2006 at 8:12 pm

    This Jerry fellow has some major mental issues.Please ignore his deviant behavior,he just might take his loathe somewhere else.

  13. mikey ray
    November 27, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    Rich

    You ask ‘why people do things’ not because you want to negotiate with them, you ask that because you want to eliminate the root cause of their behavior. Your solution of killing all of them presupposes their existence in the first place. If you want to eliminate bad behavior, you can either:
    1) react to that behavior (your solution, which leads you to having to react over and over..) or
    2)seek out the root cause and eliminate that.
    Your solution is a band aid or stop gap at best. I know, you’re going to react with ‘liberals are pussy’s, weak-kneed, blah blah…don’t understand the enemy…we need to kill them all…” But don’t you see the futility of reacting to something that already exists?

  14. Alicia in Goldtree
    November 27, 2006 at 9:13 pm

    We as a country need to find out why they hate the United States.Let’s have a summit and exchange ideas with the the freedom fighters in Iraq.

  15. Rich from Paso
    November 27, 2006 at 11:34 pm

    I’m sorry but cutting off people’s heads because they are not Muslim or because they are American is not “bad behavior”, it is cold, calculating evil. Holding a summit on why they hate us presupposes that they are willing to change their behaviors or that we are willing to change our behaviors. Are you willing to convert to Islam in the “spirit of compromise”? To negotiate with them means you are willing to give up something. You know, “I give a little, you give a little”. So what are you willing to sacrifice for peace with the Islamofacists? Don’t tell me that talking alone will cause them to put down their suicide vests or if we just explain something to them better they will understand us and not want to kill us. If that was the case, we would have done that a long time ago. Are you willing to live under Sharia law, the Islamic law based on the Koran? Because that is what bin Laden and his followers have said would stop them. I for one like not haivng my wife go around with a scarf over her head and I know for fact that she would not sit for a second in another room with all of the women-folk while me and the other men had a good ol’time in the living room. That is what Muslims do. Also keep in mind that they are unwilling to let any of their followers convert to any other religion. They have gone so far as to kill Christian missionaries for the reason that they are causing “good Muslims” to stray from Allah. You presuppose that radicals that strictly interpret religious doctrine that has remained unchanged for 1600 years is somehow going to wake up the morning after you announce your summitt or “peace and understanding” confab and go “oh, yeah, well I guess that stoning women to death for looking at another man too long was a bad thing” or “those Americans are right; cutting off of people’s heads is wrong” You obviously don’t know who you are dealing with. It is the weak-kneed pussy liberals that think their college conflict resolution class can “reach a dialog” with people who are determined to convert the world to Islam… or they must die. Remember that we are aonly talking about 1/100th of a percent of the entire worldwide Muslim population, but that 1/100th of a percent would have no problem killing you, me, our families and everyone in our country for holding the beliefs we hold dear.

    Yeah, I know, “you can’t kill all of them” argument. That is the same argument that people on the left have used for why illegal aliens must stay in America “well, you can’t deport 10 million people”. What I say whenever illegal aliens are protesting the very country that is allowing them to stay and trying to disrupt my economy is no different than what I say when a terrorist kills 162 people with a car bomb: You make me want to try.

  16. Adele in Cambria
    November 28, 2006 at 12:46 am

    Rich

    Were you born in Paso Robles or do you just live there?

  17. mikey ray
    November 28, 2006 at 12:53 am

    wow rich – you are so angry and scared!

    I simply posed a question – now I’m willing to convert to islam?
    why do you have to fly off the handle so easily when someone poses a little question? I never said I wanted to negotiate with anyone – where did you get that? What I said was find out what the root cause is. We know what bin laden’s root cause was – he didn’t want our bases in Saudi Arabia.
    So, rich, If I understand you:

    the left – pussies, weak on defense, willing to convert to islam, shopping for burkas instead of teddies; always wrong

    the right – strong, ready to kill everyone that looks at them wrong, always in the right.

    left – BAAAAAAD
    right – GOOOOOOD

    I gotta tell you man, there’s other colors in the world than black and white – look into it

  18. Anonymous
    November 28, 2006 at 1:21 am

    mikey ray is the way!!!!!!!

  19. William W. Fisher III
    November 28, 2006 at 1:49 am

    Thank you people of central California.This blog is a excellent public forum for myself to analyze for my upcoming book on California life.Keep posting.

    WWF III

  20. Ron Arm
    November 28, 2006 at 2:16 am

    smuglibs.com

  21. Anonymous
    November 28, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    Why is California like a bowl of granola?

    well, after you throw out all the fruits and nuts, all you have left are the flakes!

  22. mikey ray
    November 28, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    so which one are you?

  23. JerryDinAZ
    November 28, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    NAMBLA NANCY JOINS RANGLE IN THE NEW PILE DEMOCRAP!

    The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options.

    WHEN, OH WHEN WILL THESE IDIOTS LEARN?? THIS IS IMPLOSION #7 AND THEIR AREN’T EVEN IN OFFICE…

    BUT THEY ARE ALRWADY PAYING FOR THEIR OWN STUPIDITY!

    READ THIS…AND REMEBER, I TOLD YOU SO!

    ‘The New Republicans’ Are Leading a Revolution – But The drive by Media Won’t Tell You About It

    “The New Republicans” – blacks, Hispanics and other groups that are joining the Republican Party as never before and leading a political revolution.

  24. Patty in Nipomo
    November 29, 2006 at 1:16 am

    Jerry is bitter, ugly, and the most abhorrent person I’ve ever come across. This odious person is over the top disgusting and should be deleted. This shell of a human makes no sense and is hopeless.

  25. mikey ray
    November 29, 2006 at 2:54 am

    to everyone (except mr. caps-lock)

    just ignore that certain person who always YELLS. As Bob said a while ago, he illustrates classic blog-troll behaviour. The only way to rid yourself of a blog-troll is to ignore it. We give him power by responding to his postsor writing about him. Lets all just ignore him.

  26. JerryDinAZ
    November 29, 2006 at 5:06 am

    FACTS YOU MAY NOT KNOW

    MANY WILL RECALL THAT ON JULY 8, 1947, WITNESSES CLAIM AN “UNIDENTIFIED
    FLYING OBJECT” WITH FIVE ALIENS ABOARD — SEX UNKNOWN — CRASHED ON A SHEEP AND CATTLE RANCH JUST OUTSIDE ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO

    THIS IS A WELL KNOWN INCIDENT THAT MANY SAY HAS LONG BEEN COVERED UP BY THE US AIR FORCE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
    HOWEVER, YOU MAY WELL NOT KNOW THAT IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 1948, EXACTLY NINE
    MONTHS AFTER THAT HISTORIC DAY,

    ALBERT ARNOLD GORE, JR.; HILLARY RODHAM; JOHN F. KERRY; WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON; HOWARD DEAN; HARRY REID; NANCY PELOSI; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; AND BARBARA BOXER WERE BORN.

    THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION HAS CERTAINLY CLEARED UP A LOT OF THINGS FOR ME.

  27. JerryDinAZ
    November 29, 2006 at 5:07 am

    I LOVE IT WHEN THE SIMPLE MINDED TAKE THE BAIT…AFTER ALL…THEY CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES! LOL

  28. Bob from San Luis
    November 29, 2006 at 8:57 am

    Rich: America will never be defeated by an outside enemy. If our troops left Iraq tomorrow and every single terrorist in the world decided that coming to America to blow themselves up or perhaps gaining access to a nuclear weapon that they would want to detonate in a major US city would not defeat America. I cannot come up with any way that “the terrorists” would be able to defeat America. How in the world do you think any group or individual would be able to dictate that every one convert to Islam? How would they be able to dictate that all women wear burkas?

    I am not saying bring the troops home tomorrow, I am not saying that I would like to see any terrorist attacks in the US, and I most certainly do not want to see a nuclear device exploded anywhere in the US by anyone; I am just saying that even if all of those horrible things were to happen, I cannot begin to believe that Americans would roll over on their backs and cry out to bin Laden or any other terrorist that they were ready to convert to Islam and have their female relatives and friends start wearing burkas.
    Your last comments reeks of desperation that if America doesn’t somehow “win” in Iraq then America is doomed to be attacked repeatedly. A comparison I heard the other day is that if you compare the daily number of Iraqis dying right now to their population numbers, it is the equivalent of a Sept. 11 type attack happening every week. Can you believe that Americans would accept that level of violence here in America for a second?
    I understand that the brave members of the military who have served feel compelled to keep going back, to do the best job they can, but our army is designed to win wars. You know this better most of us who have never served, but when a war is fought there are clear objectives, measures of success at obtaining those objectives, and plans for what happens after the war is over. Iraq is in full blown civil war and our military is right there in the middle of it, and we haven’t even chose a side to back, so we are the enemy to potentially everyone. There are no clear objectives that our military can obtain; we are supposed to be supporting the Iraqi Army and helping to train them, but when the armies split up into militias of the three main religious factions, who are we supposed to back? Iraq needs to help itself, and we need to stop spending our most precious capital, our young soldiers, sailors, marines, air force and guard members.
    Phased redeployments, drawdowns that force the Iraqis to step up and put their own house in order, the sooner the better. How many more Americans are you willing to see die in Iraq, Rich? Unfortunately we will be at the 3000 number of killed in action very soon, and we have already been in Iraq longer than we were at war during WWII. This has to end soon, somehow, someway.

  29. Rich from Paso
    November 29, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    I am tired of the “how many more americans” question I always get from all of you non-uniform people in this audience. What a loaded, bullshit question! I’ll say it again: we lost more American soldiers in the fist ten minutes of both D-Day and Antietam than we have lost in Iraq. The only reason why you pose the loaded, bullshit question is because YOU and YOU ALONE (applies to all asking the loaded, bullshit question, not just you, Bob), do not believe in the validity of the mission in Iraq. Ask yourself this: why is it so hard for Dave to find a National Guard soldier from SLO that was in Iraq to come on the show and speak out AGAINST the war in Iraq? I heard the guy on Monday night with the Code Pinkos. He served on an aircraft carrier during the Gulf War for Christ’s sake! He was not in the Gulf War anymore than those punks in Kuwait have served in Iraq (but they still get the combat pay and the patch). I challenge Dave to find ONE Iraq War veteran to speak out against the operation, just ONE. The point is the rank and file military, those people you refer to when you ask how many more, believes in what they doing even if you don’t. I’m not willing to see another America die if you and people like you are willing to make their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their loved one a sacrifice made in vain because you want to throw Iraq in the shit can because you have no stomach for war, but I am willing to go back to Iraq to make sure that their sacrifice is not in vain, even at the expense of my own life. Is their anything in your life (outside of family) that you are willing to give your life for, Bob?

    As for the civil war: there is no side we can choose and not make ourselves a target for the other groups. And for your information, it is the Sunnis and Shia doing the fighting, not the Kurds. But the military as a whole is not broken down into the militias. the militias exist outside the military, but they may have members in the military. Your comments are distorted by your lack of personal experience with this subject, I’m sorry to say.

  30. Bob from San Luis
    November 29, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    Rich: Okay, so the opinion of all Americans who haven’t served in the military isn’t good enough for you, and if anyone has served in the military, they have to have served in Iraq in order for their opinion to have any credence with you as well. From all that I have read here and everywhere else, I think I do understand that those who have served in Iraq have a special mindset about what is going on there, what the mission is, and how effective they have been. You say that none of us who haven’t been there can know what it is that you know, and I believe you. Is it remotely possible that the military who have served in Iraq are operating with some sort of group think that doesn’t quite line up with the reality of what is happening? Or do all of you who have been there have “operational knowledge” that gives you an awareness or information that none of the embedded reporters can ever share? I understand that embedded or non-embedded reporters are not military so they don’t have the actual experience that you have, but why is there such a disparity between what you believe is happening and what is being reported? You will probably mention the “liberal media” and how their intention is to report on only the worst events that are happening, but I will remind you that most media is corporate media, meaning that what is shown is decided upon by those in charge of those news outlets, not by those who are in the field doing the reporting.
    I don’t think you addressed my question of how would terror attacks in the US cause us to all convert to Islam and force our womenfolk to start wearing burkas; do you really believe that that could ever happen?

  31. Rich from Paso
    November 29, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    So, I am just spouting the opinion of the military hive mind? Preposterous. As a point of fact: NO, you can not possibly speak as intelligently as I can on the subject of what is going on in Iraq if you have not been in Iraq. That goes for the Code Pinko guy on the Independance and those that only served in Kuwait. I debated Jose from Santa Maria and, frankly, he looked foolish countering my first-hand accounts with his opinions formed here in California.

    I am not interested in your hypotheticals, so no it is not possible for 500,000 servicemembers to be self-deluded into believing something that is not going on over there. Also, again your facts are distorted: the vast numbe of reporters in Iraq are NOT imbed reporters. Roughly 95% stay right in the Green Zone. Most are too scared of getting blown up like the ABC reporter, who was acting stupidly, by the way. Reporters rarely report outside of Baghdad and when they do they garner only the negative viewpoints on a particular topic. How is it that our soldiers can build personal relationships with Iraqis that have nothing but positives to say about America in Iraq and the removal of Saddam from power? Let me turn your question back on you: isn’t it possible that the liberal media bias against the Iraq War has created a MSM groupthink against the war that runs counter to the reality on the ground?

    As for your birka statement: I never said A+B=C or if we lose in Iraq the terrorists will bomb America and we will all surrender. What I said was that the desire by Mikey Ray to find the “root cause” of the terrorism was fruitless because 1) even if we did find the “root cause”, we are not going to change our way of life to appease them, as you said and 2) talking and negotiating with the terrorists is pointless because when their starting point is convert to Islam or we will kill you all, what are you willing to give up in the spirit of compromise? The only option left with a group of people bound and determined to cut your head off is to kill the fuckers until they stop fighting us. That was my point. Sorry you missed it.

  32. marianne
    November 30, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Jerry

    You have got to be the most depraved human being that I’ve ever heard or experienced.

  33. JerryDinAZ
    November 30, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    MARIANNE…MICHAEL’S ATRS & CRAFT STORE, 3880 BROAD STREET. GO THERE AND GET A HOBBY!

  34. greg in slo
    November 30, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    jerry’s jeremiad is getting more and more caustic.

  35. marianne'slifepartner
    December 1, 2006 at 2:07 am

    greg,
    You have got to be the most depraved human being that I’ve ever heard or experienced.

  36. Rich from Paso
    December 1, 2006 at 4:10 am

    Bob, I know why you don’t understand why those of us who have been to Iraq don’t want the United States to pull out: you don’t understand the Warrior Ethos.

    The Warrior Ethos is the tenets of what those of us who have served hold true:

    I will always place the mission first
    I will never quit
    I will never accept defeat
    I will never leave a fallen commrade

    I talked to a friend of mine who was a Ranger in Iraq, kicking in doors and busting the bad guys. He agrees with me: he believes in the nobility of what we as a military have done and he would go back, too, to keep his friends who died there from dying in vain.

    Bob, do I tell you how to run your business? I think you should liquidate your business because your business is a failure. Well, maybe not a complete failure, but there is no way you will ever turn a serious profit, regardless of what your books may be lying to you about. You need to quit your business and sell out to your closest competator. You also need to move away from San Luis Obispo; there just isn’t any place for you in this community. Ridiculous? Well, that’s what all of you lilly-livers sound like when you try to tell us that have been there, after we win every single engagement, utterly destroy every enemy before us, have the respect and admiration of every Iraqi we come across, that we have lost. Your belief system and yoru perceptions do not mess at all with our reality. The lock-step, groupthink mainstream media has indoctrinated you to the mistaken notion that Iraq is lost and we need to leave. You all treat Iraq as if it were a chess game; you lay your king down, resign the game and all you need to do is just put the game pieces away. Well, Bob, I submit that it is YOU and every one that thinks like you that is endulging the simplistic approach of leaving to make the Iraqis stand up. How many Iraqi divisions of tanks do the Iraqis have? How many air wings? How many anti-tank companies? How many anti-aircraft batteries? How many artillery batteries? The answer to all these questions is: NONE. Leaving Iraq is tantamount to giving Iraq to either al Qaida or Iran or both.

    You just odn’t know what you are talking about when you talk about leaving Iraq. I know you feel you are entitled to your opinions and you are, but you just cannot fathom the depths of chaos you will loose on the world if we quit Iraq before they are self-sustaining and self-protecting.

    The one group you are not thinking about is the Iraq veterans, like myself. We served there, separated from our families for a year or more. Some have given the final full measure (i.e. died) for what we all have sworn we would do if necessary. and for what? To be relagated to the ranks of Vietnam veterans as an example of a mistake? When every one of those brave souls did their jobs to the best of their ability, won every battle, killed thousands of bad guys, to lose because the PR campaign went against them and the politicians did not allow the military to win. That shame rests with the American people not with those veterans. Why do you want to add 2,800+ Iraq war names to the 58,000 who died in vain during Vietnam? Why do you want the 500,000+ Iraq war veterans to have no honor in their service just like the 500,000+ that served in vain in Vietnam? Why do you want Iraq to go down the sewers like Somalia when we left before the mission was complete? I just will never understand mentality of you and those that believe as you do. This is the main difference between you and I: you say “how many more need to die?”, I say, “why don’t you want us to have the honor of victory when this is our lives we risk and the duty we have chosen?”

  37. alicia in goldtree
    December 1, 2006 at 4:51 am

    The US should ask Iran if they can stop the freedom fighters in Iraq from shooting our soldiers

  38. Bob from San Luis
    December 1, 2006 at 8:38 am

    Rich: You’re partly right about my understanding the Warrior Ethos; I can understand the ethos, I just do not have the experience of living the ethos as those who have served, especially in combat. I do understand that those who have volunteered to join the military do bond in a way that those who have never served can never quite grasp. I respect that Rich, I really do. I don’t fault those who serve who are in Iraq; it is the military and civilian leadership that has screwed up Iraq, not the enlisted and lower ranking officers. I would agree that the military has done noble work in Iraq, except for one small detail: We invaded a sovereign nation that posed no danger to us or anybody in the region. You asked how many divisions of tanks the Iraqis have, how many air wings they have, how many anti-tank companies, anti-aircraft batteries and artillery batteries they have now, and you answered, none. Okay, how many did they have before we invaded Iraq? The decision to disband the Iraqi Army was made by the civilian leader, Paul Bremmer, without any thought as to the severe implications of disenfranchising 500,000 men with weapons and how their potential anger could come back to bite our troops in the butt. The mission in Iraq has failed not because of anything the military troops have done or not done, but because of the incompetent leadership and a lack of any coherent plans or even a well defined statement of what the mission was supposed to be. How many Iraqi troops have been trained that can actually perform without any US oversight? How many policemen are using the uniforms and badges to intimidate those around them, kidnap others and engage in death squads?
    I am sure that you tell the truth when you say that many Iraqis thank the troops for making their lives better than it was under Saddam. Saddam was a tyrant, and tyrants are brutal to those who they don’t value. Some on the right will bring up the fact that Saddam killed the Kurds with poison gas as a way to point out how brutal he was and that is why we needed to remove him from power; you do remember that the Kurdish slaughter happened some 18 years ago, right? Why did we wait so long to liberate the Iraqis? Didn’t we have a strong President at that time?
    You compared the Iraqi Veterans to Vietnam Veterans, or you mentioned that there should not be compared because you say that a PR campaign went against them and then the politicians did not allow the military to “win” in Vietnam; the comparison needs to made for a couple of reasons. First, Vietnam was a civil war that we chose a side to support, and since we were supporting an existing regime, we did not invade Vietnam. Second, the troops that were sent there were mostly draftees who had no choice about going, or least didn’t want to make the choice of going to prison for refusing to serve. Third, the press had full access and was able to show exactly how bad a war really is to the American public. Iraq was invaded by us, we did not provide for the safety of the Iraqi people, we did not restore necessary services soon enough (electricity, clean water, sewer treatment, garbage disposal, medical services and medicine), and the situation has devolved into a full blown civil war. If our troops are to remain there to finish the “mission”, will they need to choose which side in the civil war to support? Or is it possible that by remaining there our troops mostly provide a target for those who are angry? You want the honor of a victory in Iraq so that those who have died in service there didn’t die in vain; tell us how long this victory will take, how many more US troops will die, how many more Iraqis will die, and what will that victory look like? Isn’t it possible that no matter how long our troops are there that a “victory” may not be able to be obtained? The single worst part of your obsession with a military victory in Iraq is the unyielding need for more troops, more US deaths, more wounded troops before that elusive victory can be declared. You’re right Rich, I don’t have the resolve to see this “mission” completed; I didn’t think we should have invaded in the first place and we know for sure that the reasons we were given for invading have all been proven as false. Rich, all of the military service personnel who have died in Iraq have died in vain. I mean no disrespect for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country; it is the fault of our political leaders that all these deaths are in vain, we should have never gone there, period.

  39. JerryDinAZ
    December 1, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    BOB,
    YOU ARE RIGHT! WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO IRAQ!

    INSTEAD WE SHOULD WAITED PATIENTLY HERE WHILE THE DEFEATOCRATS RUBBED COCO BUTTER ALL OVER THE BUNS OF THE ISLAMO FASCISTS UNTIL THEY COULD DELIVER THE FINAL BLOW ON US SOIL!

    YOU HYPOCRITE! YOU COWARD! YOU WAKE EACH DAY NDER THE FREEDOM THEY PROVIDE AND THEN YOU QUESTION THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY PROVIDE IT.

    OUR US MILITARY WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED…NOT EVEN BY THE GUTLESS, SOULLESS DEMOCANTS.
    WHAT WILL DEFEAT US HOWEVER IS ANOTHER ATTACK ON OUR SOIL THAT WILL CRUMBLE OUR ECONOMY.

    WAKE UP BOB! THE WORLD IS A LOT BIGGER THAN GROUND UP LIPS & A’HOLES IN A BUN!

  40. Rich from Paso
    December 1, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    I’m saddened that you feel that way about the Iraq War. You truely have assumed the title of “Armchair Quarterback”. Here’s how:

    First, you have no military experience yet you feel compelled to try and convince me and everyone else that the military has failed in Iraq.

    Second, you have huge gaps in your knowledge of military history. You are right about one thing; we did chose sides, the French side. If we had supported Ho Chi Minh, the popularly elected pro-western, fighter of the Japanese during WWII, instead of giving back Indochina to the French who lost it and didn’t deserve it back in the first place, we wouldn’t have needed to fight a divided Vietnam. Same goes with Carter not supporting Ortega in Nicaragua, which drove his to the Soviets. Same goes with Castro in Cuba. Point is that the United States has historically chosen poorly when picking sides of other countries civil wars, and I’m not saying that Iraq is in a full-blown civil war. By not chosing sides, we at least have the appearance of someone without a vested interest in the outcome therefore we can step in between the two sides. You can’t tell me that attacking Al Sadhr’s Shiite militia has not earned us some measure of goodwill with the Sunnis.

    Third, to all who say that Saddam was contained and we shouldn’t have invaded: Stop bitching about the conditions in the Darfur region of Sudan. You were the ones that sat on your hands over Rwanda. You are the ones that cut and ran from Somalia, leaving that country in worse straits than before we got there, ultimately giving that country to al Qaida. You are the ones that said that Saddam was “contained” while he was butchering his own people on a daily basis. God sure as hell didn’t put the bodies of men, women and children with bullet holes in them in those mass graves; Saddam did. So I don’t want to hear anymore about the genocide in Darfur from any of you anti-Iraq war punks out there. If you will continance genocide in Iraq, then you have lost the moral authority to tell me about how bad any genocide is anywhere else in the world. Yes, I absolutely mean that. I will not entertain anymore hypocracy from the anti-war left. Yes, I thought that we could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda; yes, I am glad we stopped the genocide in Iraq; with better Rules of Engagment in Somalia, we could have stopped what happened there; and yes, I would be perfectly fine with deploying, if called, to stop the genocide in Sudan. I don’t pick and choose where my moral outrages are. Just put your heads back in the sand and go back to your selfish little lives. By the way, Bob, how long have you been a supporter of genocide?

    Fourth, this is not about you and what you want Bob. This is about what is right. Even if I were to agree with you that we were wrong to go in there in the first place, which I don’t, then it would only be the right thing to do to set that country up as good if not better than we found it, wouldn’t it? Are you one of those guys that gets drunk over at a friend’s house, pukes all over his floor, passes out, and when you wake up, you don’t try to help clean up? Sounds like it. You sound like a guy that has no problem making a mess and then leaving it for someone else to clean up. Just like the Baker Commission wanting Iran and Syria, two (really one) countries that are doing more to destabilize Iraq than we are, wanting them to “take part” in securing Iraq. Leave it to someone else to fix. By the way, your “go it alone” mantra is bullshit. There ten less countreies (24) this time around than there was when we liberated Kuwait (34). Yes, the numbers were obviously smaller, but the fact is that there were thousands of troops from Italy, S. Korea, and LST from Singapore, Japan, Bulgaria, Poland, and Spain (until some al Qaida copycats robbed them of their spines). Not just Britain and the US. We didn’t “go it alone”. Furthermore, you tout the coalition of Bush 41. We had 500,000 troops in Saudi Arabia of a total force of 760,00, or 74%. The force levels this time around were the US with 100,000 troops of 263,000 or less than half. Can’t tell me we didn’t have a coalition this time in Iraq. Well, wait, yes you will because you always counter the facts with your opinion that corporate greed is the root cause of everything; it’s what you put forth everytime without exception. My mistake.

  41. Lloyd
    December 1, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Bob,
    You should get together with Alicia in Goldtree.

  42. bob from San Luis
    December 2, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Rich: War is what happens when diplomacy fails. War is the most serious undertaking a country can make; to commit its forces to make war on another country is a solemn act that should be made when all efforts to avert war have failed. Our country had its start by proclaiming our independence which our forefathers knew would result in a war that would determine wether or not we would have a country. Just cause for a war, independence. War was made upon us by the British in 1812 and we basically had a draw; we were attacked, justifiable cause for war. The Mexico-American war; a land grab- justified? The Civil War; sad that our country was so divided that we had a war with our self. The Spanish-American war; was it really Spain that sank the Maine? Was that war justified? An unanswered question at best, but it is our history. WW One, WWII, no question we did the right thing, even though it was an utter failure of diplomacy. The Korean War; wasn’t that a civil war that resulted in a stalemate? Once again, failed diplomacy resulting in a waste of human life. Vietnam; total, utter mistake- we should have never gone there, period. Desert Storm; once again, failed diplomacy. Saddam was given an unspoken tacit approval by our government by our not telling him not to invade Kuwait. The whole episode could have been avoided. Operation Enduring Freedom; a proper response, but the political leadership took their eye off the ball by focusing on Iraq, causing Enduring Freedom to not achieve the ultimate goal of apprehending bin-Laden allowing him to escape to Pakistan. Operation Iraqi Freedom; a war that we chose to start, we invaded a country that had never harmed us, had no capacity to harm us, but the drums of war were beat loudly by a President who wanted to be known as a “War President”. Justification, none.
    President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address while in office warned against the menace of the “Industrial/Military Complex” and the possibility of unending wars to support the companies whose sole purpose is to supply the weapons of war. Yes, you are right, I am going to blame the evil corporations. Let me clarify something first: corporations are not inherently “evil” just because the only reason they exists is to make money; making money isn’t bad if it is done without doing harm. Companies that make weapons of war are making their profit off of the suffering of those who the weapons are used against. Our military budget in this country is totally out of control when you consider that we spend more than all other countries in the world combined. We could reduce our military budget and eliminate global hunger, disease and still have enough firepower to kill every person on earth. You got me Rich; it is the fault of the corporations, and choosing to make war when other options are still viable is as wrong as can be; it dishonors those who serve with noble purpose.

  43. Rich from Paso
    December 2, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    Bob, you have a totally warped understanding of why our nation goes to war. There isn’t really anything more to say on the subject.

    Also, you proved a previous point of mine that you can’t help but be “anti-corporate” in everything you say. You are very predictable, as I’m sure you think I am, too.

  44. Rich from Paso
    December 2, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Well, I guess that there is a lot more to say, now that I think about it:

    Revolutionary War: No diplomacy possible when you are a subject of a tyrannt. If you could talk to him, he wouldn’t be a tyrannt.

    War of 1812: Forced conscription of our sailors into the British Navy combined with a land-grab attempt by war hawk Democrats. Are you going to talk yourself out of going to war?

    Mexican-American War: A war that was staged in order to provide justification for the annexation of the California and all of its god. (watch the PBS special on the Mexican War; it’s very good). The best example of an illegal war. Where is there room for diplomacy here? Could we have talked Mexico out of their territory? Bribed them? Bought them off? Another missed opportunity for diplomacy. Diplomacy also lead to the return of Mexico, a country we conquered in battle. If Mexico was already a territory of the United States, there wouldn’t be illegal immigrants from Mexico would there? And the Mexican people would enjoy the same standard of living as the United States, a country the Mexicans are desparate to enter to take part in that standard of living. Might have prevented the United States from entering WWI.

    The Civil War: The abolitionists couldn’t negotiate the South out of their need for human slaves when the southen states had that need enshrined in the Constitution, which was a product of diplomacy. Three cheers for the diplomatic solution of the Great Compromise that allowed certain humans to be counted only as thre-fifths human. Way to go, diplomacy!

    Spanish-American War: I believe it was a another staged war to bring the United States forward as a global world power. Can’t negotiate an end of a war when a war is what you want.

    WWI: Brought about by the very diplomacy your tout. The entangling alliances that George Washington warned us about created the slide to war after Ferdinand was assassinated. If you read John Keegan’s “The First World War”, you will see that Austria-Hungaria really didn’t care much for Ferdinand in the first place, and actually could have stopped short of war. But Austria’s traty with Germany and a desire for vengence, coupled with Russia’s treaty with Serbia, France and England, led to that war. The US only joined the war after 1) the Lusitania is sunk by Germany coupled with the Zimmerman Document which linked Germany with a diplomatic plan for Mexico to invade American and 2) the alliances Germany had, and 3) the United States didn’t want Germany to win the war because France and England were failing, led the United States to enter the war on the side of the British. So, diplomacy was one of the main reasons for WWI… and WWII. The diplomacy of the post WWI Europe led directly to the bogus partitioning of Africa and the Middle East that created artificial bounderies in areas that were purely tribal befroe European colonialism. Another success story for diplomacy.

    WWII: Diplomacy at the Treaty of Versailes negotiation led to very hefty war reparation being levied on Germany. These reparations were impossible for Germany to repay. France, seeking revenge more than anythng else, annexed as opposed to occupying the Rhineland, which, in part, plunged the world into Depression (of course, among other causes). Hitler used the resulting depression as a means of stoking fires against France and Jews. You are right about this, thous: Neville Chamberalin’s failed “Peace in our time” diplomacy did lead to war. Not because he didn’t do it right, but because Hitler was going to war anyway and diplomacy that is not backed up with the “or else” of the potential for war is doomed to failure. Diplomacy works best when diplomacy is the lesser of two evils. Diplomacy also gave France back it’s colonial possessions, like Algeria and Vietnam, that it neither earned nor deserved to keep. This act lead to more wars.

    Korean War: Not a civil war, but a simple act of military aggression from the Stalinist North Korea against the democratic South Koreans.

    Vietnam: Another failure of diplomacy that led to war. The US sides with France over the popularly elected Ho Chi Mihn and imposes a bogus 17th parallel separation between North and South Vietnam. We stepped in after the French got their asses kicked at Dien Bin Phu to help out the worthless French, again (yes, it’s true; I despise de Gaulle and the French leadership). Vietnam is also a case of wreckless diplomacy or diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake. By the N. Vietnamese’s own admission, the 1972 bombing campaign almost forced the north to the bargaining table to sue for peace and probably would have led to a free South Vietnam, but wrongheaded, cut and run, peace at all cost diplomats negotiated too soon, which did complete the “Vietnamization” of the war and the sealed the doom of the South.

    Gulf War: I thought that the Gulf War was a triumph of diplomacy, Bob with the way Bush 41 assembled his mandate and coalition. By the way, the absence of a US policy is not permission to invade another soveriegn country. So the United States has to have a policy position on every country in the world as a means of preventing war? Poppycock. Saddam had been posturing and antagonizing for war with everyone for years. Remember the USS Stark? Hit with an Exocet missle fired from an Iraqi plane provided by our friends, the French. Diplomacy also lead to a limited mandate that prevented the removal of Saddam permanently as a threat to the region and world.

    Iraq War: Diplomacy with terrorism appears to be the new position of the American left. Why? As I stated in previous posts, diplomacy and as a by-product or result, compromise, with people who have the desire to kill every Jew and non-Muslim in the world is a losing proposition from the start. Diplomacy now will cause the fall of Iraq as a soverign nation (yeah okay Bob… fall again), only this time2 to the Islamofacsists. If you want to know the root cause of their hatred of the United States, it is their perception of our blind loyalty to Israel. So unless we stop supporting Israel and allow them to be destoyed ( the end result), the terrorists will continue to fight us.

    War, as von Clauswitz stated so many years ago, is diplomacy by other means. War itself is not the absence of diplomcay. Quite the contrary. War is what happens when national interests cannot be met by talk alone. Successful diplomacy has led to as many wars as failures of diplomacy. Too many unrealized second and third order effects of diplomacy have gone unrecognized almost guaranteeing future war. the diplomacy seeking people like yourself will inevitably guarantee that we will fight another war over the very issue of Iraq some time in the near future. As I said, unless the enemy stops of their own free will or we defeat them (yes, kill enough to where they no longer can or are willing to wage war), the al Qaida, Islamofacsist types will continue to wage war. Diplomacy will not prevent or stop that, only delay the inevitable to a later date of the enemies choosing.

  45. Rich from Paso
    December 2, 2006 at 9:52 pm

    One more thing you said, Bob (I know my pontificating is going to be one the requested “clean up the blog” chores):

    “Our military budget in this country is totally out of control when you consider that we spend more than all other countries in the world combined. We could reduce our military budget and eliminate global hunger, disease and still have enough firepower to kill every person on earth.”

    Several things here: We could end world poverty if the United States would give away all of our surplus grain that we produce every year. That of course would destroy the livelihood of every producer in the world and foster more starvation as thsoe hungry peope stopped producing on their own and just sat around, having sex and making more starving people, while waiting for the next meal to arrive. So there area multitude of micro and macroeconomic reasons why world hunger is still around. Your point that we have a defense budget larger than any other country on earth and then go into world hunger and disease is a false causality. World hunger and disease exists because people live in regions of the world that are not supposed to sustain human life, like Saharan Africa, have despotic governments that horde their nation’s wealth at the expense of the masses (like Somalia), engage in the societally sanctioned practice homosexuality without any regard to protection (many african and asian nations, including Thailand, believe that premartial sex between men is not the same thing as sex between a man and a woman, so therefore their virginity is intact; infected men then have sex with their virgin wives spreading HIV and AIDS to women and children) None of these reasons has anything to do with the size or our military. If Democrats want to end world hunger and disease, then budget for it’s end. Deficit spending, which the emocrats have no problem doing for other social welfare plans, for such a noble cause would be universally accepted. But alas, there are more geo-political and economic reasons why we can’t do that. Furthermore, the United States military is the world’s greatest humanitarian relief organization. The first people on the ground in Ache province after the Tsunami was the US Navy. We diverted thousands of resources from Afghanistan and Iraq (taking our eye off the ball?) to provide relief to Indonesia, only to get spat at by the Muslims we were there to help. Lastly, to presuppose that the end of the US military would bring world peace is the very isolationistic thinking that led to our fighting in WWI and supports the Right’s belief that the Left is the “blame America first” crowd. Showing weakness to an adversary, known or unknown, is the surest way to get attacked. Only through strength of arms and the willingness to oppose those evil-doers, do we secure peace. Evil men exist independant of the United States miltiary. It is time the American Left learned that lesson. Finally, your anti-capitalist (strange for a business owner) and anti-corporate zeal has blinded you to any notion of what a noble effect really is.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: