Home > Uncategorized > Greenspan Drops the Bomb

Greenspan Drops the Bomb

Less than four days after President Bush’s speech announcing future plans for Iraq, Alan Greenspan comes out swinging in a new book with a series of damning charges against the current president. The most explosive to me is Greenspan’s claim that Bush invaded Iraq simply for oil. It was never about WMDs or terrorism; Bush and Blair wanted to make sure we have continued access to oil.

Other aspects of the controversial new book are summarized in this segment from today’s Washington Post:

“Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan’s 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.

Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage.”

But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. “My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan writes. “Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush’s collaborate-don’t-confront approach was a major mistake.”

Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party’s majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year’s elections. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan writes. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”

He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.”


  1. Anonymous
    September 16, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Why should anyone be surprised by Greenspan’s comments? He’s scheduled to be on “60 Minutes” tonight so check that out for more details.

    George Bush 41 went to wat to protect oil and defend Kuwait, so why should we expect any differently from the son? 9-11 gave him the cover to invade. Now Cheney is rattling his sabre to go after Iran and keep them from inviading Iraq and taking over the oil.

    Dave, I’ve been trying to tell you this for years. It’s all about the oil, and only about the oil. Why do you think we’ve never gotten involved in Africa? That’s right, no oil.

    I intend to buy the Greenspan book tomorrow and I’ll post more after I’ve read it.

  2. Suspicious for Now
    September 16, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    Before we all rush off and drink the mainstream media kool-aid, how about a simple question: how does Greenspan know why we went into Iraq? He was in charge of the Fed, so he wasn’t part of the Bush White House.

    Sounds to me like he’s just piling on, but if he feels so strongly about this, where was he in 2002?

  3. Rich from Paso
    September 16, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    You all are surprised? This is everything I and others have been saying for years about Bush. Not the “invaded Iraq for oil” nonsense. We all have known that Bush not a confronatational guy with the veto pen, much to conservative’s chagrin. I have been saying that the Republicans lost control of the Congress because they stopped upholding the principles that got them elected, which allowed Democrats to be more conservative than them, much to conservative’s chagrin.

    There is no “WOW” here in this story. Even if Greenspan is right about invading Iraq for oil, it is what SM Bill and rest of you all have been saying. So what is the big deal here? The big deal is that yet again conservative has the freedom to speak openly. This is totally unlike the Democrat party where free speach and free thought is thoroughly discouraged, especially in their presidental candidates.

  4. tired of liberal bs
    September 16, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    I don’t know how to say this any more simply…Bush is out in less than 2 years and we are in Iraq.
    Does it really make any sense to keep up with all this Bush hating? We all know the moveon’ers and the “daily kooks” are fit to be toed and so angry they are ready to explode. But let me remind you of this; no matter how you “think” or “feel” IT DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY.
    Your do noting congress has wasted valuable time screwing around with mean nothing do nothing BS…Vote to end the funding and deal with the results, or, with all due respect…Shut the hell up and let us get on with winning this war.
    You radical left soorosites keep yapping about a political solution. Do you not get is that hundreds of terrorist attacks have been taking place all over the world for years? They don’t want to negotiate or compromise anymore than a Christian would compromise on the killing of unborn babies! There is no wiggle room! None! Zilch! Nada!
    So what do we do? We fight em wherever they are and forever how long it takes! I think Tancredo’s solution is the best. “If there is one more islamo fascist terror attack anywhere in the world we will make Mecca into a glass ashtray with a half dozen ICBM’s!”
    You attack us and will destroy anything and everything valuable to you including covering your family members in pork fat before they are executed. Harsh realties require harsh measures in return.
    If you get nothing from this…get this: There is no political solution with a religion that kills there own members because they think their idea of islam is more accurate than the other guys. If they are willing to kill muslims over theological differences then what makes you think they will sit at a table and negotiate a settlement with what they consider to be Satan himself.
    One of them even threatened to cut off the heads of Britney Spears and Madonna…and you think they can be reasoned with? Wake up before it’s too late.
    And just for the record try this on for size as you are swinging your “hate Bush flags”. How would life be with gas at $12 per gallon?
    Fighting for freedom for women and children and democracy in a land that in the year 2007 doesn’t even have basic human services even with with billions in oil revenues coming in, is a most worthy cause.
    Fighting for oil and energy is a nice side effect of the lives we are saving there now, and the freedom we have provided their women and the safety and ability to laugh and play again we have provided their children.
    We are in Iraq and it will take many (3-4) years to extract troops, contractors and equipment. Bush is a lame duck and we get that you hate him. So that given, what now?
    Well, the republicans have a plan like it or not. You’d better come up with something better than blaming Bush if you want to make a real difference.

    PS: nice copy-n-paste. I have 12,567 articles that refute that. When can I start to copy n paste?
    Geeeze! Isn’t enough enough already!

  5. Marilyn
    September 16, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    The Petraeus-Croker report is also being debated in the Middle East. The followng is an editorial by Bouthaina Shaaban, the Syrian Minister of Expatriates. She shares her view that “the reports of Petraeus-Crocker came to embody a simple and certain fact which is the United States is in Iraq to stay so long as the oil reserves in Iraq are expected to last – 100 years – and that the United States will use Iraq to try and reshape the entire region in a way that serves an expansionist Israel and the interests of oil and arms companies in the United States.” One important fact she thinks is missing from the above report is the mention of the over one million Iraqi casualties and the destruction of the culture of the oldest civilization. Iraqis, it seems, are a non-issue in this occupation.

    For the full article:
    The real American agenda in Iraq

  6. finally we agree
    September 17, 2007 at 12:18 am

    marilyn quoted:
    “A certain fact which is the United States is in Iraq to stay so long as the oil reserves in Iraq are expected to last – 100 years – and that the United States will use Iraq to try and reshape the entire region in a way that serves an expansionist Israel and the interests of oil and arms companies in the United States.”

    Wow! At last we agree on something! That is one smart woman! (the one she quoted). Seems like the middle east may “get it” after all. Silly me! I though hope was dead!

  7. my eyes have been opened
    September 17, 2007 at 12:41 am

    I highly recommend that every that BLOGS here click the link in marilyn’s post and read the entirety of the article she quoted. Pay special attention to the author and her job. Also pay attention to her opinion of “your” congress.
    Before you go there be sure to go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of “hegemony”.
    Regardless of what side you are on with regards to the war. You will see in this article the importance of squashing terrorism in the world.
    Thank you marilyn.

  8. Marilyn
    September 17, 2007 at 4:35 am

    I guess women from the Middle East are only good and worth listening to if they are dressed in a Burqa, but dare they have a political opinion on justice and war, all of a sudden people’s eyes become wide open.

    So, what is it, are we in the Middle East to liberate those helpless women and eradicate Islamofascists or are we there to make more money for corporations?

    Isn’t it ironic how war supporter inside and outside the government continue to change the rules and rationales as their lies and agendas are exposed.

    Firstly, we started the war to punish the Taliban because they harbored bin Laden and our chicken hawks vowed to catch him;

    Then we decided Saddam was more important and Bin Laden became a “non-issue” and our president started a posse and a lynching mob (isn’t it ironic how Saddam was lynched in front of the whole world?) to get Saddam and his sons so we could “liberate” the Iraqis and help them “democratize.” Heck, even the anti-war people were touting that drivel.

    Then, after Saddam was caught and lynched and after his two sons and their 14 year old was killed, we forgot all about the Iraqis. Now it was terrorism and Al-Qa’ida in Iraq. But we seem to forget that the first thing we took control of when our troops entered Baghdad was the Ministry of Oil and let Baghdad literally tear itself apart because “it is not our responsibility” to protect the lands we occupy (whatever happened to the articles of the Geneva Convention? But maybe they don’t count because the Iraqis were never that important in the larger scheme of things, but Exxon-Mobil, BP, Blackwater, and CACI were);

    Then we supported Israel’s butchery in Lebanon because of those two Israeli soldiers that Hezbollah kidnapped. Half a country was destroyed because the Israelis were insisting they wanted those soldiers back and they wanted to “destroy” Hezbollah. Does anyone know where those two soldiers are now and is Hezbollah destroyed? Condoleezza Rice also claimed that the butchery in Lebanon had to continue since the “birth pangs” (aka, the killing of innocent people and destroying whole neighborhoods indiscrimately) were a signal of the emergence of a “new Middle East,” a more democratic one (one where all governments have to do our bidding versus what is good for their people). Well, what happened to all the democracy that supposedly first started with invading Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Lebanon and, now, possibly Iran?

    Don’t you think people have been democratized to death?

    For people who are concerned about the welfare of those who are oppressed in the Middle East, maybe you should listen to what they have to say.

    But the issue as I see it is one based in intolerance and racism towards a religion. All the arguments stem from that fact and all arguments are made and twisted to support that framework of thinking.

    Fact: the Muslims are never going away. There are one and a half billion of them and it is the fastest growing religion, so live with it.

    Fact: most Muslims do not really care what some American or British or whatever nationality does in their own country. They just want to be left alone to govern themselves. They are no different from any average person. You don’t like them, they probably don’t like you either.

    Fact: it seems we and Israel are constantly threatening and hopping across the globe and Middle East taking the law into our hands against international custom and law without regard or respect for other nations. But, if we believe we should do that, why do we fault others for doing the same when they try to claim what it rightfully theirs in the absence of nuclear weapons, airplanes, and tanks?

    We can annihilate neighborhoods and cities with one bomb. How is the little guy supposed to resist the tyranny of such an awesome force?

    Maybe practicing the ideals we so much admire and talk about for a change would help both us and everyone else. It takes two or more to negotiate and it builds bridges. Why do we always have to kill to get what we want? All governments could work together to eradicate real threats. But the reality is, they have no desire to do so because it is all about money and control of resources. Should the people of the Middle East not live in peace based on a government of their choosing? How would we feel if the Chinese all of a sudden invaded and forced us to choose a different form of government? How many would take to the streets with guns and IEDs?

    Maybe a better solution is: get out and vote and work toward mutual understanding and justice versus corporate greed and power that can destroy more than people; they can destroy cultures and the environment.

  9. Downtown Bob
    September 17, 2007 at 7:52 am

    “It’s all about the oil, and only about the oil.” Oil prices in 2000 (pre-President Bush), $35.00 a barrel, which had gasoline prices at $1.35 a gallon. Last week, oil hit $80.00 a barrel briefly before closing at $79 something or other, and I don’t need to tell you what we are paying for a gallon of gasoline today. Energy company profits? Highest ever. Our invasion of Iraq was about control of the oil, which controls the pricing, which dictates the profits.
    Rich, you are correct when you say that Bush and the Republicans who lost control of Congress strayed from fiscal conservative ideals, but that will not stop conservatives from claiming that only they know how to control spending. As for your claim that “The big deal is that yet again conservative has the freedom to speak openly.”, followed by “This is totally unlike the Democrat party where free speech and free thought is thoroughly discouraged, especially in their presidential candidates.” Rich, you really can get quite disconnected from reality sometimes. The “hallmark” of the Republican Party all through the nineties and after Bush became President was that there was no public dissension allowed by any Republican, ever. Former House Majority leader Tom Delay enforced that tenet with an iron fist and if any Republican even thought about going against the party, Delay was there to whip that politician into shape. By contrast, an analogy that has been used to describe Democrats for a long time because there is no “iron clad” voice of unity is that trying to control Democrats in Congress is like trying to herd cats. If you are talking about the Presidential candidates and their views on Iraq, there is dissension between Hilary, Obama and John Edwards (the three front runners).
    tired of liberal bs: dude (or dudette), whoa. lighten up there. To question or disagree with the President is not “hating”. And yes, there has to be a political solution in Iraq because the military cannot get a government up and running, that is not their job. Oh, and a news-flash for you; there are Christian women who do have abortions. As for Muslims wanting to kill “all non-believers”; hogwash. Extreme Muslim radicals (or Islamofacists, if you prefer) would like to see a complete takeover of the world by Islam, but that is not a concept based in reality now, is it? Just look at the raw numbers of those of all other religions (or those who don’t have a religion) against those Muslims who are the radical few; it will not happen. As for your “Republican plan“; which “plan” do you speak of? The non-planning that happened after the invasion of Iraq? All of the other “let’s give it six more months before we can see if it’s working plan”, or the new and improved “surge” being lead by a general who wrote the book on fighting insurgencies but isn’t following his own ratios of troops to civilians as a means of defeating the insurgency? And as far as Tancredo and his wanting to “nuke Mecca”; yeah, great idea if you are wanting to start World War III with an enemy that has no nation-state. Idiot.
    your eyes have been opened: Um, okay, the author of the linked article is minister of Syria (with a PhD), so? She mentioned that Congress uses the situation in Iraq for political purposes; are you insinuating that Republicans have never done that? (I got five rugs for five dollars! It was just like being in Iowa.) As for hegemony, isn’t that what we are trying to accomplish?
    I am surprised that none of you righties mentioned how Greenspan had Bill Clinton listed as a political hero because of his tough anti-deficit policies or especially his admiration for Clinton’s 1993 economic plan as “an act of political courage”; you know, the one where Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and that stimulated the economy and reduced deficits dramatically. Discount the effects of the Clinton doctrine by throwing out the line about the “tech bubble” all you want, but the “tech bubble” was only a component of the economic good times back in the ninties. Oh well, maybe President Bush can retaliate against Greenspan by cutting taxes for the wealthy, again.

  10. Rich from Paso
    September 17, 2007 at 8:14 am

    No Marilyn, you have it all wrong. First, your fellow Muslims started the war in 1993 by bombing the World Trade Center for reasons we still don’t understand. The blind sheikh was found guilty of it, but we never got at the source. Then there were more bombings around the world that killed several dozen Americans and we didn’t strike back. Then, I guess feeling invincable, your fellow Mulsims destroyed the WTC, severly damaged the pentagon and killed over 3,000+ of our American citizens. Then, finally, after all that, we struck back. Yes, we destroyed the Taliban’s bases of operation in Afghanistan and we hunted bin Laden and killed nearly all of his supporters there. We thoguht, wrongly, that they had been neutralized. that is when Bush and Co. took their eyes off al Qaida and decided that the next front on the Global War on Terrorism could be opened. So, who should be next? North Korea, that bunker of a country? Too hard. Iran, with our 30 year animosity towars them? Too big. Iraq, with their proven track record of supporting terrorism and WMDs and the use of those WMDs on their people and their genocidal campaigns against their own people? That’s just right. So we invaded Iraq in February/March of 2003 and whipped that country’s ass in three weeks. That’s how we came to be in Iraq.

    As for listening to you if you were in a burqa, I would prefer that no Muslim women were in burquas period. But that is a choice your sisters in Islam have chosen to make. i would prefer that Muslim men didn’t treat women like cattle. I would prefer that Muslim men didn’t live a life of hypocracy by slamming the West for being “infidels”, while many Mulsim men marry prostitutes so they can engage in pre-marital sex and then say ‘divorce’ three times and they are single again. True story.

    So don’t try to preach to any of us here that America is the “Great Satan”. That dog won’t hunt for all of us that know anything about Islam and the extremely small minority of the 1.5 billion that have taken that religion to the illogical conclusion that what islam needs to do is wage war on the rest of the world.

    We were the wronged party in this war, not the Muslims. Most Muslims don’t give a shit that Isreal exists, they really don’t. I broke protocol and engaged iraqis on the subject and to a person, they said that they have come to realize that isreal will always exist. What they object to is the way that the US always takes Isreal’s side in things.

  11. respectfully submitted
    September 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Radical islamo fascists and the muslims and countries that support their terror gave up their right to govern themselves when they attack innocent women and children in all countries to further their insane cause.
    Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and is killing anyone and anything to get their way. They must and will be stopped. period!.
    Syria is in the business of supporting terrorists anywhere in the world as well as assassinating the democratically elected officials in their own country and they are involved in supporting Iran’s insanity. They must and will be stopped.
    Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. We will also see to it that they stop sending money, weapons and suicide bombers to Iraq to kill American soldiers. They must and will be stopped.
    The muslim world is incapable of governing itself. After 2000+ years they have only accomplished tyranny and chaos and the unconscionable repression of women and lack of care of their own children, period.
    The muslim world must stop treating women like cattle and stop the raping of women for their personal and self justified enjoyment. They must be stopped for killing gays because allah says gay is wrong. They must be stopped from cutting off the heads of infidels!
    Radical Islam must and will be stopped.
    It doesn’t matter that “islam has no nation state”. Get this…if your country harbors and supports terrorists you will be stopped. period!
    Islam is a sick and twisted theology based on some “prophet” that married, raped and molested a 9 year old girl for his own sick enjoyment. He also made it all but impossible to prove rape in the muslim world.
    If you want further evidence that Islam is a religion that has ZERO integrity go watch Dateline NBC’s show “To Catch a Predator” and see the high percentage of child predators on line that are muslims.
    This sick, twisted and abhorrent theology must and will be stopped.

    Once Irael pushes the button and nukes the crap out of Iran all the “fit will hit the shan” and the world will unite against these islamo-nazis and chase them to every corner of planet until they are all dead. At least the women and children will be liberated which in itself is a noble and worthy cause.

    I would to ask something of all who blog here. I respectfully request an answer of each and every one of you.
    Here is the question:
    Yes or no…Do you renounce any and all terrorist or “jihad” attacks in the world for theological gain based on an Islamic goal of “convert or die”?

    A clear refusal to answer this question should give us all concern as to one’s motivation in the matter of the “War on Terror”

  12. the ghost of christmas past
    September 17, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    Proof positive that Dave 1) does not listen to his own radio station, and 2) does not do his own thinking. My evidence? Here is an interview in Washington Post by Bob Woodward. The article says. “Greenspan, who was the country’s top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that “the Iraq War is largely about oil.” In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

    “I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.” [emphasis added] Woodward is not a Republican hack by anyone’s measure.

    This was on Rush Limbaugh today and Dave chose to follow the lead of the drive-by media and drink the Kool-aid. Now, all of Greenspan’s other criticisms, like runaway spending and not vetoing expensive bill, is perfectly valid.

    Also, Greenspan believed that Hussein was “acting guiltily trying to protect something” and with Saddam’s history of WMDs that taking out Saddam was necessary to minimize disruptions in the global markets. Greenspan was for the war for purely economic reasons.

    Way to prove the liberal bias of the media for us by parroting the liberal media’s criticism of Bush. Good work.

  13. Marilyn
    September 18, 2007 at 12:19 am

    To Respectfully who said:

    “Once Irael pushes the button and nukes the crap out of Iran all the “fit will hit the shan” and the world will unite against these islamo-nazis and chase them to every corner of planet until they are all dead. At least the women and children will be liberated which in itself is a noble and worthy cause.”

    How are we supposed to “liberate” the women and children of a country that is just nuked?

    And, why is it that Israel should “push the button?” Don’t we have men in this country who can do that job? Is this the United States of America or the United States of Israel? It is disturbing that there are people who idolize the Israelis to the point that they place their interests above American interests and above the welfare of our men and women dying in the Middle East.

    Finally, some people still think Islam is over 3000 years old. The number went down to 2500 and now it is 2000. I am beginning to suspect a high schooler on this blog who really has little knowledge of history.

    Let me explain:

    Jesus came first, a little bit over 2000 years ago.

    Muhammad came next about 1500 years ago.

    As far as “Jihad” is concerned all forms killing defenseless people are are abhorrent, whether it is done in the name of religion or nationalism. But is seems that some followers of each religion think that their religion justifies their oppression of others. All are guilty. The reason being that many do not know how to live and let live and many are vested in acting as judge and executioner on behalf of their religion.

    It is nothing more than delusion.

    A culture that believes that God “promised” a certain group a certain plot of land to the point of murdering to lay claim to it should not feel indignant when people blow themselves and others up in the belief that they are doing the right thing for the people who are oppressed.

    We cannot have it both ways. Killing is either wrong for everyone or it is ok for everyone.

  14. Dave Congalton
    September 18, 2007 at 4:29 am

    Hey Ghost,

    So I’m wrong and you’re right just because that unbiased source of journalism Rush Limbaugh says so? Whatever he says represents Truth to you? How do I get around that mindset????

    First, you cherrypick your arguments. You’ll focus on the Iraq/oil issue, but you don’t/can’t deny the other Greenspan quotes referring to the weakness of Bush and the positive aspects of Clinton as president — or are you going to try and spin those, as well?

    So here we have a major Republican, trashing his own party, trashing his President and embracing the anti-Christ in Bill Clinton. I think that’s pretty compelling. Everyone is deserting the U.S.S. Bush. McCain won’t even mention him by name now.

    In terms of his “clarification,” I have a pretty good sense of what happened. Being the published author of two different books, I have some knowledge of the editing process. Your manuscript usually sits with a publisher for almost a full year. They go over line by line and literally ask you about every claim you make, i.e. “Did you really mean to say this?” or “What did you mean here?” They vet and vet some more.

    And then the author gets the manuscript back and he goes through it again.

    My point is that both the publisher and Greenspan knew EXACTLY what he meant by the original quote and there was no effort to change it, nor explain it in the detailed context he gave Bob Woodward later in the Post.

    But if you were monitoring the Internet, the book — and that quote — hit like a firestorm on Friday. Those early press reports, especially on Drudge, talked aobut how devastating it was.

    Then, all of a sudden, Greenspan emerges on Sunday and provides “context”? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Our former Fed friend caught some heat over the weekend from fellow Republicans and decided to backpedal a bit.

    Finally, either version you buy doesn’t matter — it’s just one more source discrediting the Weapons of Mass Destruction rationale.

    So that leaves us with the local Army recruiter and various Anonymous bloggers as the last defenders of the ever-shifting Bush Doctrine.

  15. Dave Congalton
    September 18, 2007 at 4:37 am
  16. responding to a post
    September 19, 2007 at 1:46 am

    marilyn said:
    “How are we supposed to “liberate” the women and children of a country that is just nuked? “

    My reply:
    A world wide warning would be issued that the result of any muclim terror attack anywhere in the world would result in a nuclear detination in Mecca. Residents would be given 72 hours to vacate and international relief forces would aid in the orderly transportation to a safe zone. Then Mecca would become a glass ashtray.

    marlilyn said:
    “As far as “Jihad” is concerned all forms killing defenseless people are are abhorrent, whether it is done in the name of religion or nationalism.”

    My response:
    I am taking this answer as proof positive that you do not support any muslim attacks anywhere in the world to further their sects agenda. Right?

    marilyn said:
    “A culture that believes that God “promised” a certain group a certain plot of land to the point of murdering to lay claim to it should not feel indignant when people blow themselves and others up in the belief that they are doing the right thing for the people who are oppressed.”

    My response:
    If in fact you are talking about Israel Then you need know this. God never promised them anyland. The land, their country was granted in 1943 by a vote at the United Nations. All they are doing is protecting that country against islamic attacks. I hope that clears this up.

    marilyn said:
    “We cannot have it both ways. Killing is either wrong for everyone or it is ok for everyone.”

    my response:
    Interesting point and one that deserves much discussion. I will say that killing in the name of a “god” for the sake of fulfilling a prophesy is always wrong. Killing to defend one’s country or to prptect that many from the few is a reasonable debate.
    As long as we agree that islamic terror attacks are wrong.

    I await your rersponse

  17. sorry i am off topic
    September 19, 2007 at 3:53 am

    What are your feelings about the recent video that was smuggled out of Iran showing the public stoning to death of a young women for “suspected” infidelity?
    The video was filmed by, and snuck out by a muslim women’s group apposed to sharia law.
    This young woman was brutally stoned to death in public by the men in her village. She had no trial, no hearing, no lawyer, no ability to question her accuser and no way of presenting any evidence of her innocence. nothing.
    Is this islamic practice barbaric enough for the entire world to stand up and say no more? Or do we sit by and say it’s none of our business?

    What does each of you think?
    As for me, all life is sacred, and sometimes a death penalty is necessary by a society to bring about order. This poor girl died because her husband said so.
    I wipe the tears as I type in horror and disbelief.

  18. Marilyn
    September 19, 2007 at 4:50 am

    Liberating oppressed women is not accomplished by killing the men and nuking their countries. Liberating them is accomplished by the world community being consistent in enforcing human rights laws in all countries.

    The Taliban abused their women for a decade without international intervention. In fact, we supported the Taliban when they and their predecessors, the Mujahideen, were fighting the Soviets. We emboldened them and made it easier for them to abuse their women. The same goes for Saudi Arabia where women are now campaigning to have the right to drive. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women cannot drive under the law. Women are killed in Saudi Arabia for even looking at a man. Why are we not intervening to rescue those women?

    But, I guess the point of the obsession with the topic is hatred of Islam as a religion but, if they are our friends, Islam is no longer the issue there.

    Some countries control their women through Shar’ia and other religious laws. Others control them and abuse them using secular laws.

    If you remember, segregation was still legal in this country until the 1960s. There are people in the United States who believe that homosexuals are an aberration and should be killed. There are men and women running around wearing bed sheets and pointy pillow covers calling for the eradication of all people of color, including Jews and Arabs.

    Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is really not the cause of the war in Iraq. The different causes were discussed in the original post and some of the ones that followed.

    The War on Terror is bogus and it only serves to put the world in a constant state of turmoil and it makes you, I and everyone else on this blog and elsewhere potential targets of that war.

    Terror does not exist in one individual or group. States can commit terrorist acts too when they kill civilians for political motives. Terror is a concept that is used and abused by the people who want to wage war. Sure, there are terrorists in every country, but fighting terrorism is as successful as fighting the War on Drugs or the War on Guns. In reality, wars do not affect drugs, guns, or terror; they affect people and, usually, in detrimental ways – unless you are the person profiting from those wars.

    There will always be terrorists in the world. The question to ask is: is there a more logical and less costly way to minimize their impact without killing innocent people?

    The answer is yes. We can do it by being fair and consistent with everyone and treating all countries the same, by upholding the principles of justice, especially for people who cannot defend themselves including the poor, and by constantly being vigilant to the transgression of those in power and in government. That alone will reduce the number of state and non-state terrorist activities. We also have to strengthen the authority of the International courts and we have to utilize due process and the principles of fairness and justice in police work in those areas where physical intervention is a must.

    We do not apprehend terrorists by destroying the cities and villages where they live or by nuking 2000 targets inside their country. That is blatant murder and borders on genocide.

    Power corrupts. In a semi-democracy like ours, citizens have to always question authority, not because we have nothing better to do and not because we are traitors and unpatriotic, but because it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that such a democracy survives for the welfare of all citizens, not only the privileged.

    War is one of the worst conditions that can contribute to the oppression of women across the globe. There is much to say about it, but not in this post. Peace promotes stability in societies and families and lead to less terrorism. War and violent political conflict have the opposite effect.

  19. Anonymous
    September 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    marilyn said:
    “Liberating them is accomplished by the world community being consistent in enforcing human rights laws in all countries. “

    My question:
    How does the world community, so of which is considered by the muslims as Satan, actually go about enforcing human rights? Especially in countries that stone a young woman to death on the word of her husband with no trial of any kind? If you can anwer that we may have something to build and act on.

    marilyn said:
    “The Taliban abused their women for a decade without international intervention.

    my response:
    Well marilyn, back then we did as you suggested. We left them alone to govern themselves and as you can see, it didn’t work out very well.

    marilyn said:
    “I guess the point of the obsession with the topic is hatred of Islam as a religion”

    my response:
    In my opinion it is hatred of radical islam and it’s terro appraoch to the world that most of hate. And since moderate muslims will not condemn terrorism in force we can only assume that it really is the core belief of the entire religion. It may not seem so to a muslim, but put yourself in the shoes of Americans that watched your religion fly planes into building killing 3000+ innocent people.

    marilyn said:
    “There will always be terrorists in the world. The question to ask is: is there a more logical and less costly way to minimize their impact without killing innocent people?”

    My response:
    I am aghast! Do you really belive there is no hope for the human race? That terrorism will always be with us? Wow! Maybe Bush is right then. Maybe we should stay in Iraq and fight terrorism over there rather than over here. I never quite saw it that way, Thanks for your insights!

    marilyn said:
    “by constantly being vigilant to the transgression of those in power and in government.

    my response:
    That being said, do you then think it’s right for the nations of the world to hold Iran accountable for killing women and threthening all Israelis?

  20. latest poll numbers
    September 20, 2007 at 4:19 am

    in a recent Zogby poll George Bush had a favorable rating of 29%.
    Yet this democratically controlled congress gota paltry 11 percent rating.

    It does beg the question what are you liberals going to do about your congress?

    As for us conservatives, we like no being attacked by muslim terrorists. And our guy has a rating almost 3 times that of your congress.

    I’d better see some comments on this before any or you copy-n-paste your way out of this huge embarassment!

    Comments please…

  21. stop hezbollah now
    September 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Pro Syria Hezbollah has been assassinating many anti-Syrian leaders in Lebanon that they can! Lebanon is under siege by Hezbollah! All this is being done as Lebanon’s legally elected government [repares to vote for a new president. The candidate expected to win is from the Phalange party, the fair and common sense party in Lebanon.

    Please pray for the Phalange party of former president Amin Gemayal, whose own son, industry minister Pierre, was assassinated last November.

    Syria and Hezbollah have been devastating to Lebanon for years. Now in an attempt to over throw the democratically elected government now in place. Almost all of the members in that government are in hiding given the high numbers of Hezbollah assassinations of the elected leaders.

    One blogger says that the solution to terrorism is to let the countries of the Middle East govern themselves.

    Lebanon is proof positive that that will never happen. When governments are assassinated because the terrorists don’t like them there will never be peace and safety for the innocent women and children of those countries.

    When we are done with Iraq, and Iran, we need to send our troops to Lebanon next to help protect the innocent. Children are being killed by Hezbollah there every day! This insanity must stop!

  22. Downtown Bob
    September 22, 2007 at 8:17 am

    latest poll numbers: I really love how those on the right want to point out ineffective and how low the public perception is of Congress, and how because there is a slight Democratic majority, Congress is somehow not “theirs”. Since you brought up the subject of Congress, how about the three different attempts by the Democrats in the Senate to have a “straight up or down vote” concerning the Iraq war situtation. The Webb Amendment would have required that troops receive a “rest” period between deployments. The Republicans in the Senate filibustered the attempt to bring the bill to the floor for a vote; who supports the troops?
    The flagging poll numbers for Congress have been a direct response to the belief that Congress is “doing nothing to end the Iraq war”, but, there have been attempts, stopped, of course, by the Republicans.
    The other attempt by Democrats was to make sure that detainees in the “War on Terror”© have legal rights (you know, what the Constitution calls for, what our country was founded on), but oh no, the Republicans would have no part of that either.
    So, to all of the righties reading here, how come when Democrats are in the minority and move to exercise their ability to influence how legislation is moved through Congress, they are labeled as “obstructionists”, but no where in any of the media reports do you see the same language used to describe Republicans tactics? The not-so-old screed of wanting an “up or down vote” spewed by the Republicans a year or two ago doesn’t seem to get pointed out very much now.
    One last point here about Congress; the recent vote on a “sense of the Senate” concerning advertising that calls military leaders names (or the troops themselves, even though they weren’t mentioned in the Patreaus ad by MoveOn) was certainly a valuable use of time in the Senate. NOT. Just remember next year when the negative campaigning hits full stride how many Republicans voted not to call those serving “names”. How many attack ads will attempt to paint Democrats as unpatriotic or worse? Why is it more acceptable to call members of Congress bad names than it is to call military leaders bad names?

  23. Rich from Paso
    September 22, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Bob, let’s be honest here: the Democrats do not care about giving soldiers “rest” from going back to Iraq. They do care about the theatrics of creating a dilemma for Bush if the bill had passed. I think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should schedule an up or down vote on the following: “All funding for miilitary operations, other than funds necessary to have an orderly withdraw from Iraq, should be cut off immediately.”

    If Nancy and Harry don’t have the courage to put a bill forward that says exactly that, then they should no longer be quoted, referenced or even rumored about until Bush is ready to declare the war over. The truth is that there are very few, if any, Democrats that will volunteer to be seen by the voters as pro-losing this war and anti-American. If the Democrats don’t have the guts to put a straight forward bill, with no riders and no special interests bribes or pork barrel spending, then the Democrats do not deserve to lead.

    The Democrats claimed a mandate after the 2006 election to get the US out of Iraq. There have been several lame, half-hearted attempts to put Bush in a box; all attempts have failed. There is a very easy explanation why Congress is at 11% approval rating (which, for you math challenged liberals out there, is less than george Bush’s 29%). That explanation is that that the kook fringe liberals that voted for Democrats to retreat from Iraq and they, Nancy and Harry, desided to play politics and not do what their constituency demanded they do. On the other side, Republicans that allowed all of these freshmen Democrats to win don’t want to see America lose in Iraq (the Iraqis lose too) just to prove a political point and while hope remains alive. And finally, of course, die hard Republicans, like myself, just can’t stand all of the double-talk, false piety, and hypocracy that spews forth from this Democrat controlled congress. So, to blame the Republican minority, no matter how small, is a cop-out. You say that Republicans are “obstructionists”. Well, turnabout is fair play in Washington these days. Were the Democrats obstructionists when they blocked 90% of Bush’s appellate judges and pronounced most of them unacceptable candidates before they ever testified? Of course they were. Were Democrats being good statesmen and women when they declared every bush budget “dead on arrival”? Of course not. So quit your whining about “obstructionist” Republicans. They are just as “conscientious” as the Democrats were from denying George Bush his choice of John Bolton to be UN ambassador based on flimsy grounds. So, Harry and Nancy could have put forth a straight forward, clean bill and put Republicans in a box, but they didn’t. Instead they choose to call General Petraeus a liar and try to discredit his testimony. After all of that, Petraeus and Crocker came out of Washington looking like the respectable soldier and diplomat that they are and the Democrat Congress looked cheap, petty and juvenile.

    Speaking of the good general; I agree that a symbolic vote to condemn the moveon.org ad slandering the general was an unnecessary waste of time. But it was no more a waste of time than the other bullshit measures this congress has passed. The number one accomplishment of this Congress is the renaming dozens of post offices. They don’t even get credit for the minimum wage hike because they had to attach it to the last iraq funding bill with $25 billion in pork spending (bribes) to keep their party in line, to keep Bush from vetoing the bill with the 18 reporting requirments on it. You asked why it is okay to talk bad about congressmen but not okay to talk about a military man. The answer is simple: soldiers serve others; politicians only serve themselves.

  24. willing to try
    September 22, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Bob said:
    “how about the three different attempts by the Democrats in the Senate to have a “straight up or down vote” concerning the Iraq war situtation.”

    Bob, there have been way more than 3 up or down votes on the war. Your side just lost all three because you want defeat & retreat and the rest of the nation doesn’t. mTrust me, if I was wrong the votes would have gone far differant. You just have to deal with the fact that we vare in Iraq and we are staying until we win.

    Review the trends bob.
    1) Partial birth abortion is now in the history books. You lost a huge one there!
    2) All you retreat & defeat bills either fail or never make it to the floor. It may be time to wise up. No matter how much Iraq mud you throw at the wall nuttins gonna stick.
    3) Your “Samnesty” bill was squashed like a bug on a rug! Americans want current laws enforced and they want the wall built. Nothing short of that will work.
    4) Major attemps this past few weeks to alter the course of the Iraq war never made it to the floor

    I could go on but I am sure you get my point even though you don’t like it.

    So Bob? What should be next for “your” congress? Suggest a good path here on the blog and let’s tease out some conversation.
    Let’s be realistic, non partisan, and open to new ideas and concensus.

    I’m game…are you?

  25. Downtown Bob
    September 23, 2007 at 7:53 am

    Rich: Good to see your views haven’t changed, no matter what the facts are. Your statement about Democrats not being interested in giving the troops a rest is your opinion, which is what we exchange here, interspersed with some facts, occasionally. Your views of the Democrats in Congress are consistent; they can do no good, period, in your opinion. I don’t agree with you of course, but I do realize that they are human, with all of the flaws that we all have. I noticed that you did not respond to the other links I included in my last comment, as you choose to focus on the Webb Amendment that was held up by the Republicans in the Senate from getting to the floor for a “up or down vote”. To say that the House and Senate Democrats should offer up a bill that states the following (your words here) “All funding for military operations, other than funds necessary to have an orderly withdraw from Iraq, should be cut off immediately” is, on it’s face, ludicrous. All funding? How about keeping all of the bases all over the world operating? How about keeping the Pentagon open for business? Did you mean to say “All funding for the Iraq war (occupation) except for what is needed for an orderly withdrawal is cut off immediately”? That makes a little more sense, which is what I believe you meant to write, but I just wanted to be sure.
    I do agree that the election of ’06 was about the Iraq war, and people who voted for Democrats expected them to move towards getting us out of Iraq, but alas, they have been frozen with fear of looking like they will be blamed for the failure that is Iraq. As for Pelosi and Reid “playing politics” as you charged, are you going to say with a straight face that Hastert and Frist didn’t “play politics”? And finally, of course, die hard Republicans, like myself, just can’t stand all of the double-talk, false piety, and hypocrisy that spews forth from this Democrat controlled congress Once again, your opinion, not a “fact”. How many politicians don’t “double-talk”? What “false piety” are you referring to? As for hypocrisy, the Republicans have got that one down cold. Larry Craig ring a bell? That’s Republican Senator Larry Craig.
    Republicans are operating as “obstructionists” when they “filibuster” (by proxy now days, no long winded diatribes needed like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington); the Senate can pass any bill by a simple one vote majority (unless it is to over-ride a Presidential veto), but to get a bill onto the floor of the Senate for the infamous “up or down vote”, unless there are sixty votes lined up to approve a bill from going to the floor, it is effectively “filibustered” and held back from having a straight vote. That is obstructionism, but the Republicans are not called on it, like Democrats were when they were in the minority. As for John Bolton not being confirmed, crap! what a bad choice he was for that position. You mentioned the judges that were held up by the Democrats; how about how many were held up by the Republicans during Bill Clinton’s terms in office? Do you remember that four times as many appeals court nominees were blocked by the Republicans back then? Many of Clinton’s appointees were simply held back in committee so that they could not get a “up or down vote”. But it is the Democrats who are labeled as “obstructionists”; Rich, face reality here, this is another example of Republican hypocrisy, period.
    As for the general and ambassador “looking like the good soldier and statesman”; once again, opinion, and this time with absolutely no basis in fact. General Patreaus, the good soldier that he is, is nothing more than “Bush’s yes man” in the military. As I stated earlier in this thread, nothing in the MoveON ad is factually wrong, so the right is left to cry out about how a general is being called names and being disrespected. I linked to the ad earlier; show me what is “wrong” with the ad, other than the not-so-clever-but-trying-to-be-clever “Patreaus/Betray us” line.
    As for your line about “soldiers serve others, politicians serve only themselves”; are you doing a little projecting here? What I mean by that is are you remembering all of the problems with Republican members of Congress like Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert, to name just a few who did serve themselves? (p.s.- yes, there have been Democrats who broke the law or were in violation of ethics rules before, but for sheer volume of hypocrisy during a session or two of Congress, the Republicans have the lead on that account, period.)

  26. Anonymous
    September 24, 2007 at 3:52 am

    Bob says

    “I do agree that the election of ’06 was about the Iraq war, and people who voted for Democrats expected them to move towards getting us out of Iraq, but alas, they have been frozen with fear of looking like they will be blamed for the failure that is Iraq.”

    1 A spot on analogy if you don’t stand for anything

    Bob again

    “I do agree that the election of ’06 was about the Iraq war, and people who voted for Democrats expected them to move towards getting us out of Iraq, but alas, they have been frozen with fear of looking like they will be blamed for the failure that is Iraq. As for Pelosi and Reid “playing politics” as you charged, are you going to say with a straight face that Hastert and Frist didn’t “play politics”?

    2 Pointing to people from the past to justify Pelosi and Reid being useless and damaging to national security is disgraceful.

    Bob and his ideology are fine, wear your codepink Bob, it suits you well.

  27. true blue & 100% volunteer
    September 24, 2007 at 4:13 am

    Bob, no matter how much you and your do noting congress don’t like it this nation has only one commander and chief. For now Bush decides.

    If the soldiers needed rest they would get it…but you forget that this isn’t Viet Nam. This kick ass armed forces are 100% true blue volunteers. They want to win, American wants to win, and Bush is seeing to it.

    In 08 you may get a crack at this war. I only caution you and your ilk to be very very careful of islam. They don’t negotiate.

    ps: great post Rich. Thanks

  28. Rich from Paso
    September 24, 2007 at 11:56 am

    Bob: You must be the densest man in SLO county. Of course I was talking about an up or down vote only on Iraq funding because that was the subject in that part of my post. I was specifically questioned the desire of Democrats in Congress to “get us out of Iraq” when all they try is symbolic votes, worthless censure measures, and back-door attempts, like 1 day rest for every day deployed to Iraq. How could you have misread that? You needlessly make yourself appear overly obtuse when you make ridiculous statements about something that, to me anyway, was very clear.

    As to the substance of your comment is from your myopic view of things. You bold typfaced Larry Craig as if he had done something that neither Barney Frank or Gerry Studds had done. Where is the hypocracy? Oh that’s right, because republicans hold themselves to higher standards of conduct, they are worse than Democrats that do exactly the same thing because the Republicans have farther to fall. The fact is that Republicans get rid of their bad apples; Democrats defend them, and in the case of Bill Clinton, they deify them. Now that you have your panties all in a bunch over that last statement: It is a fact that Bill Clinton was (and probably still is) a philanderer. Before he was president he was busted for an affair with Gennifer Flowers and then denied that he had done anything with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. The former he settled with in 1999 and the latter he lost his law license in Arkansas and was impeached over. William Jefferson was caught red handed with $90,000 in FBI sting money in his possession and he is still in Congress. Larry Craig is now trying to get the admission overturned in the courts because, for some reason, he feels that he is more innocent now than when he first admitted to his origin misdemeanor. I thoguht that everyone, even Republicans, were innocent until proven guilty and if Craig now feels that he can get his admission overturned, what will you say then? That he was an admitted whatever he was? Yes, Mark Foley sent e-mails to male interns; he’s gone. Yes, Duke Cunningham took bribes; he’s in prison. Bob Ney took bribes; he’s in prison. Tom DeLay is still being tried for the allegations against him (again, isn’t everyone, even DeLay, innocent until proven guilty?). The shear volume you talk about is nothign more than Republicans cleaning house. Democrats idolizes Bill Clinton, William Fulbright and Gerry Studds, and keep reelecting Teddy Kennedy (killed a woman), Barney Frank (male lover ran a prostitution ring from his DC home), Alcee Hastings (impeached for bribery), John Murtha (wasn’t ready to accept Abscam bribes yet[his words]), Pat Leahy (leaked goverment secrets; kicked off intel committee), Patrick Kennedy (driving while a Kennedy [i.e. drunk]; used “get out of crime free card” [dropped kennedy name] and went to rehab), Jim Mcgeavy (lied to his wife that he would forsake all other- must have been referring only to other women [her fault for not being mroe specific]), Robert K. Byrd (grand wizard of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan, which, for you who can’t seem to remember this fact, was (and is) a well-known racist organization that proudly specialized in the terrorism and murder of black and jews in America from 1865 to circa 1985), James Trafficant (convicted of bribery) and others. These people get guest shots on Larry King. They are allowed to continue to bloviate on the floor of the House and Senate representing constituency concerns across America. Republicans, on the other hand, either resign, like Bob Livingston, Foley and Newt Gingrich, sent to jail, like Cunningham and Ney, or just defeated. Trust me, Ted Stevens will be gone soon, too.

    A little history lesson on the “obstructionism” of the cloture vote you claim, by extension, is keeping the troops in Iraq: the 3/5th majority cloture vote was approved in 1975 when the Democrats held a 56 to 44 advantage over the Republicans of the day. You hate the cloture vote needed to get anything done? Blame Kennedy, Byrd and the others who are still in office since 1975 for why they can’t get anything done. This is a problem of their making.

    As for the Moveon ad, so now Bob is the arbiter for who is or is not a “Bush yes-man”. This is obviously based on the dozens and dozens of trips to Iraq that he has made and of the operational assessments that the Colonels and Generals under your command have given you. You know the truth. Bullshit. You know what you want to believe you know, because otherwise you would only know what the anti-war left told you to believe. Yes, bob, you don’t know what you are talking about is what I am saying. General Petreaus was compelled by the Democrat passed law to testify before congress. I’m quite sure that the general would loved to have been back in Iraq doing his job rather than be called a liar by a bunch of pandering nincompoops not fit to lace up his boots, from both parties. To say that he is a Bush yes man because he doesn’t agree with you and the rest of the anti-war intelligencia in this country is insulting to him in and of itself. You may feel that the ad is 100% correct from your point of view, that still doesn’t make it right.

    But here again, I totally feel that I am wasting my time on this topic because there is nothing anyone who is not for immediate withdraw from Iraq can say to convince those of you that believe that the war was unjust and now unwinable therefore we need to leave now that maybe you are wrong on the whole unwinnable part. This whole debate has degenerated into both sides saying the same shit over and over and over again. We have all become insane with this war because we still feel compelled to repeat ourselves hoping against hope that the other side will finally hear and understand what we are trying to say. As I said in previous post, Bush has won the “pull out of Iraq” debate; its not going to happen before January 2009 at the earliest. He even trumped your ace by saying that he is looking at forming a “lasting alliance” with Iraq ala Germany and Korea, meaning we will be there a generation or two if he gets his way. You probably won’t believe the next thing I will write, but here it goes anyway: I truly would like for us to be done in Iraq, I really would. I would love nothing more for the United States to be able to pull our troops out of there. I still have friends that have been over there and friends that will be going over there and iraqi friends still there. But I look at places like Somalia and I have to say that while I wish we were done in Iraq, I don’t want us to declare a short-term victory only to have to “redeploy back” to Iraq because the shit hit the fan again. I would hate to have to try and exercise Murtha’s un-redeploy plan and go fix some mess in Iraq that only we can fix, like stop a genocide or something to that affect. Again, look at Somalia. We had to get the Ethopians to invade Somalia to overthrow the al Qaida franchise that had taken over there. Who will we talk into going into Iraq for us after we have left with the place still all jacked up? Iran? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Syria? There are no good or even remotely acceptable answers to that question. And what if we really do tell the iraqis that they have to figure out for themselves how they are going to co-exist? Are we going to stand on the sidelines like we did with Rwanda and let the Sunnis get exterminated to finally homogenize most of Mesopotamia? That will bring peace… at the price of 20% of the total Iraqi population. As I have said before, I just cannot see how we can destroy that country, ruin all of its infrastructure (be that as it may) and then quit and leave because it is too hard to fix that country, or even kinda sorta put it back together. So here I am, caught between an honest desire for our country to be out of Iraq against my moral compulsion to see Iraq left better than we found it in 2003 after we destroyed it’s bloodthirsty government. You may all think that I am just saying this as some new tactic in this debate, but I’m not. The Iraq debate really is complicated and not black and white. I just wish that we all could focus our efforts to make Iraq better and not waste all of this energy on partisan, provincial thinking and get beyond politics this one time.

    As a PS: you finally got your wish Bob. Secretary Gates is looking into how all of the contractors in Iraq are conducting business and on what authority they were there in the first place. Blackwater, just so the record is clear, is a contractor for the State Department.

  29. Downtown Bob
    September 25, 2007 at 8:34 am

    Rich: Okay, maybe I am dense; I wanted clarification, you gave it.
    Thanks for the history lesson with your tit-for-tat on corruption and less than honorable behavior by Democrats, even if you had to go back thirty or forty years to gather your list; I was talking about Republicans who were either in the current Congress or the last one or two (that’s six years).
    As for cloture in the Senate; I never said that Democrats did not engage in any tactics that could be viewed as an obstructionist approach, I was wondering aloud (or in print) how it is that when Republicans engage in exactly the same behavior that absolutely no one in the media reports it as “obstructionism” by the Republicans.
    As for General Patreaus; yes, I believe that he is there to tell President Bush that yes he can get the job done, yes he can report that there is progress being made. Do you doubt that is why he is there? IF he was put in the job to get the results that he wrote about in his manual for fighting insurgencies and he is attempting to do so without following his own writing, do you (the only self-professed military expert commenting here) honestly believe that he can do better than his manual states with only one quarter of what he stated was needed? And exactly how many generals did President Bush fire or force into early retirement because they wouldn’t give him the “yes” that he wanted? Generals Shinseki, Batiste, Abizaid, Casey, Byrnes, Pace and how many others were fired? Generals Zinni, Eaton, Riggs, Swannac, Dempsey, Newbold and how many others retired early because they did not respect the job that President Bush was doing or not doing? And how many of the Generals I just named have been disrespected by those on the right because they dared to speak out against President Bush?
    The Iraq debate really is complicated and not black and white. A truer statement has not been made on this blog, ever. That covers many aspects of the Iraqi situation, like how a military solution is not the only answer, like how a political solution has to be part of the equation, and yes, how the contractors actions in Iraq are an important component of the discussion on how best to have the Iraqis get their country moving forward. I do remember one time having a “discussion” here on Dave’s blog with you about how “black and white” can be too limiting in how a situation is viewed vs. how seeing too much gray can cause one to lose the focus of what the big picture is.
    As for your admittance that you would like to see our troops out of Iraq; I don’t necessarily think you are taking on a new tactic- I think that your leaning towards the goal of getting our troops home sooner or later is progress.

  30. Rich from Paso
    September 25, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    I, if you recall, was on Dave’s show when Batiste and Swannack both came out against Rumsfeld specifically and President Bush in general. I did not speak ill of either men for saying what they said. I met both men on separate occasions. I did want to know on the show whether General Batiste was telling us in Iraq what he thought we wanted to hear or if he was honest about the great and important work we were doing there. I will say that his chief complaint was that Rumsfeld didn’t attend Shinseki’s retirement ceremony. Notice how Batiste and Swannack don’t have talking head jobs? Probably don’t have any other criticisms to give the press.

    Just so you know, Byrd, the Kennedy’s and Jefferson are still there after they committed their crimes 30 and 40 years ago, which proves my point.

    If General Petraeus is just another yes-man for Bush, why did 100% of voting Democrats and Republicans confirm him? Every Democrat in the Senate placed their faith in him. Were they lying when they said that GEN Petraeus was finally the right man in the right job? Were they setting him for failure by not having a single Democrat vote against him? At some point, Democrats are going to be held accountable for the vote they made then or for their statements they made now.

  31. really wants to hear from libs
    September 27, 2007 at 2:15 am

    in the next few days the poll ratings for the democratically controlled congress will hit single digits! It’s at 11% now.

    One blogger here blamed it on the republicans. But if the 2006 election was such a mandate don’t you think at least 50% of the nation would agree with you?

    Really, this issue must be addressed by the liberals without blaming it on Bush or the republicans.

    I beg a response from the left that is real, genuine, on topic and fair & balanced.

    This conservative wants to hear what you think and say when nobody is watching. You can’t be please with another election coming up.

    My take is that allegiance to MoveOn.org is destroying the democratic party. I really do want to hear your take.

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: