Go to BLOGS AND THEIR IMPACT
- Add a comment
- Go to HOW CAN CONS SUPPORT COWARDLY BUSH???!!!
Oldbill
See my previous comment below. Nothing you have said has changed that. Attacking me personally will not change the reality of the mess Bush has plunged us into. We see the world differently -- (and attacking me personally again won't change that either, BUT conservatives are not more patriotic, stronger or smarter than liberals. Each group approaches the world's problems from a different point of view. In a country without political parties, like George Washington hoped for, the two points of view might actually work together to create astonishing results. As it is they are pitted against each other by those who have ambitions to power. (It's quite a shame, really.).
posted by
sarwood
on September 5, 2004 at 2:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Observations
Kerry's military record has come under justifiable scrutiny because he has shamelessly stumped as a war hero. His military record is fair game, and he should have expected the scrutiny. That he now appears aghast is hurting his campaign.
Bottom line, this is how the situation appears to me: Kerry asserts that he is a war hero. That assertion is met with skepticism. The skeptics then are criticized for not fighting in a war themselves, and the criticism comes from a party who not long ago was DEFENDING their candidate for not fighting in a war.
I'm not saying the current administration has not botched foreign policy. But what about Kerry's botched campaign suggests he would put a stop to botching?
posted by
heel
on September 5, 2004 at 7:30 AM
| link to this | reply
us did too
historically -- even while Saddam was gassing Kurds -- back in the 80's -- he was not the evil person then.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 3, 2004 at 5:57 AM
| link to this | reply
wine, beer, and vodka...
France and Germany were starting to do extensive business with Iraq and sold several types of military equipment to them. Well documented in the OIF Lessones Learned.
Russia not had some huge contracts with Iraq. They sold them GPS jammers which in the end turned out to be mostly ineffective. Russian military advisors left Iraq only days before OIF kick off.
Yes, these countries opposed action against Iraq and Saddam. Can you say conflict of interest!
posted by
oldbill
on September 2, 2004 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
oldbill...
...buying weapons from France, Germany and Russia.
Is that the same France, Germany and Russia that opposed the war, by any chance?
I presume you can show evidence? Or are you just having a dig at those countries who saw how foolish and unjust the "pre-emptive strike" (ie invasion) was before it started?
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on September 1, 2004 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
katray...
...thanks for the mention!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on September 1, 2004 at 7:25 AM
| link to this | reply
oldbill...
...no matter who said what, and when, they were all WRONG about WMDs! Jeez, even your own Senate committee looked into this and came to that conclusion. Where have you been?? (And, while they were at it, they also threw out the spurious, deliberately misleasding notion that al-Qaeda had links with Iraq. If you know anything about either party, you'd know they are diametrically opposed, ideologically and politically.
And it's not good enough to say "they might still be there somewhere" or "we acted in good faith" (the standard answer of Bliar). Why? Because Scott Ritter, head of the weapons inspectors after the Gulf War, insisted there were no weapons left, and certianly no weapons programs. And hans Blix, more recent weapons inspector, said the same, and just wanted more time to prove it conclusively. These guys had been on the ground in Iraq for years, destroying any weapons and facilities and parts they found. And Bush thought he knew better than they did, and has thrown nearly 1,000 American lives away as a result of that blinkered arrogance.
There never were any weapons this time round. There were never any connections with al-Qaeda. I believe Bush knew all that, but sent people to die there anyway in order to pursue his own agenda of getting Iraqi oil under US control, and handing out millions of taxpayers dollars to Cheney's pals at Halliburton.
One day, every Bush supporter in the US is going to kick themselves for being so easily fooled.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on September 1, 2004 at 7:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Yes, it bothers me too. Especially since information is trickling out about Daddy Bush's determination aka bribery to keep his boy far away from the killing fields of Vietnam. DamonLeigh has posted evidence of this in his Stop the Wars blog: (Beneath current post) Of course media in the U.S. won't touch this.
STOP THE WARS!! - 1 day ago
Absentee Ballots Go Absent as Florida is Fixed Again - On Friday, Theresa...
Speaking of Saddam, how convenient of many conservatives/Republicans to forget who was the BIGGEST supplier and sympathizer of Saddam...IRAQ-GATE - the secretive, LUCRATIVE operation of illegally selling all kinds of murderous goodies to Saddam involving the usual suspects; Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., Cheney, etc. during the revered Reagan's reign is swept under the smelly pile of b.s. And who turned a blind eye when chemicals were used against the Kurds, their punishment for believing the lies of Bush Sr. I could go on and on, but I don't want to be wear out my welcome. Great post, Westwend, Thank You!
posted by
Katray2
on August 31, 2004 at 5:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Kurd bashing for fun and profit
That question is simple. The inspectors had eleven years. Saddam toyed with the UN the whole time. Make promises – break them. Kurd bash. Make new promises – break them. Kurd bash. Make some more promises and break them. The arguments that I hear are all about why we didn’t let the UN fix it using diplomacy. Although, I think that the concept of the UN is great, currently, it has proved unable to accomplish anything of any merit. Don’t you think that a decade is more then enough? How many people had to die. How long were we going to allow Saddam to rearm and assist terrorists. He was buying arms and technology from France, Germany, and Russia. I mean when is enough, enough?
posted by
oldbill
on August 31, 2004 at 5:02 PM
| link to this | reply
ok oldbill
i don't blame one or the other -- we have an ongoing situation that has been inherited through several decades.
the immediate discussion of WMD's -- from your statement, everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's.
but when a certain side dominates the discussion and it is considered politically unexpedient to voice opposition, then we have the situation we have now -- talk the talk or be perceived as disloyal.
still, whether or not persons of both parties felt Iraq had WMD's, my question is: were the inspectors efficent enough in determining such -- in the early 90's -- and in 2003 --
the biggest question of course is why didn't we wait for the UN inspectors to finish before we decided whether or not to take the action we did?
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 31, 2004 at 6:19 AM
| link to this | reply
sarwood
Clintons many shortcomings have nothing to do with Kerry. Just many of the things that liberals want to blame on Bush are actually direct results of Clintons actions or inactions.
Liberals must believe that the world is simple. The fact that we didn’t find a chemical factory has you up in arms about the Iraqi War. Who cares? In the words of Democrats in the last 8 years:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
There was no doubt that your people believed that they were there. I believe they are still there. Iraqi is huge. We found a Mig jet fighter buried in the sand. If they can bury a jet fighter how easy is it to bury a 55 gal barrel or just ship it to Syria.
Secure a country, a pipeline, a people? LOL. You have no idea what you are talking about, we can not even secure the Mexican border. It is not that simple. Our leadership, our troops, have done an outstanding job in a difficult situation. Has everything gone perfect of course not….as every warrior knows – the plan is shot once the first bullet is fired.
posted by
oldbill
on August 30, 2004 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Sarwood & Westwend...
...well said, people!
Nothing further to add, your honour.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on August 30, 2004 at 8:06 AM
| link to this | reply
there's a thing in the gospels
Yeshua said (paraphrased), "A good leader going to war with another, he assesses the situation, whether or not he will succeed."
"Count the cost."
The moral of this is, be prepared, plan ahead of time. Check and see if you can in fact go ahead with the undertaking successfully.
The Iraq action looked grossly underassessed and badly planned -- hit with all the h eavy stuff: tanks, planes, missiles, etc. -- all the latest and greatest technology (never really been tested before) -- blow them away (but that's what it's about anyway -- the player with the most and best toys wins) -- Bush et al thought they were just fighting Saddam. Somehow an assessment of loyalties, etc., never entered into their minds.
instead of a victory, it's a quagmire that might involve about one third of the world.
we must make peace while we are making war.
I guess the major issue here is for whom to vote. I've already shown what I feel are our president's shortcomings: return to economic policies of the 19th Century, encouraging (I feel) lower pay, or lower raises, for workers and outsourcing of jobs so that more Americans lose theirs -- scores of factories in the midwest -- and the South, the sunbelt states -- are closed as jobs go to Mexico and East Asia.
And stretching our military capabililties too thin.
As far as morality goes?: I get the impression that has been cover up in the past on the part of Republicans -- it seems Democrats get exposed and attacked for sexual discrepancies when nary a word eoms out about REpublicans -- surely there is one there somewhere who has committed indiscrepancies. I think it's more of a matter of public knowledge than anything -- not actual actions. But I personally have no way of proving so -- so it's just conjecture, nothing more.
Which is better? The devil that you do see or the devil that you don't see?
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 30, 2004 at 7:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Oldbill
I think I see a pattern now.... you appear to be voting for Bush because you don't like what Clinton did when he was in office. I can't see the logic there. Clinton is not running.
So it looks like our major differences may be towards the Iraqi War..... we went to War for reasons given to the American public that were false. That means they were either intentionally false or the leadership was incompetent. Whichever, the people did not choose a war based on the reality of what the situation in Iraq is. They were misinformed. Our own Democracy has suffered.
The execution of the War was and is a disaster..... we should have secured the country, kept more Iraqis in the Armed forces and supervised our own forces better to avoid such things as the looting of treasure in Bagdhad and the prison scandal. We should have been at least as positioned to secure hospitals and utilities as we were to secure oil pipelines -- but we were not.
We have not been aided in our war on terrorism by the Iraqi War..... it is caused us to have more terrorists to contend with. Saddam could have been "contained" until he died by either natural or unnatural causes.... while we completed our work in Afghanistan -- which is falling apart because of lack of attention. Three years! That country should have been secured by now. Doctors without Borders won't even stay there.
Poor leadership and poor execution and no accountability. That is what Bush has given us. And you are letting your hatred of Clinton blind you to that fact.
posted by
sarwood
on August 30, 2004 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply
keep your head down....
Our military is not large enough. When 80% of your forces are deployed someplace we have a problem. You should never have more then 50% deployed at any given time, simple economy of force. Having more allows you to adhere to proper rotations (i.e. you and others not getting extended). Extensions suck (I know) and I know what it does to those there and the families at home. It is a direct result of lack of forces.
Clinton reduced vs. restructured. He should have restructured the armed forces to meet the threats of the “new world”. Low-intensity conflict, peace keeping, and peace making all require more troops then waging war.
Using an old paradigm, I could understand the argument that Iraq is a bad immoral war. Using the “New World” paradigm that the US has been forced into – we are totally doing the right thing.
I do not know where you are stationed, but I get emails weekly from Army and Marine buddies that tell stories that Iraqis are glad we are there and have made their lives better.
Watch out for the lime green scorpions and the camel spiders!
posted by
oldbill
on August 29, 2004 at 8:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Oldbill you are right that the NG (and active military) will see the
backlash of this war for some time. Thats unfortunate because for travel and college money the military is still the best deal around. But poor planning will catch up to the military leaders...people told they were obligated X months in a shitty location will not put up with constant extentsions. Trust me, I've been extended. I think only the Marines are surpassing recruiting goals right now. But Bill Clinton cut down a military that was built for a major cold war adversary. It was imbedded in an infrastructure that was too big and too hard to move. It had outposts at places that became less significant in the scheme of things. Look at my home station now - Keflavik Iceland isn't exactly the strategic location it once was. Clinton wiped that out because he inherited a new world.
Our military is large enough as long as we identify the real threat as in Afghanistan and see it thru to the end. When we pick on other countries for the hell of it then we get spread too thin. Of course the conservative bloggers won't agree with me about Iraq being a bad, immoral act by the U.S. But ask an Iraqi and see what they have to say.
posted by
FreeManWalking
on August 29, 2004 at 7:54 AM
| link to this | reply
True about the National Guard. Johnson did not send NG Units but, Guardsman were sent as individual replacements to Vietnam. There is a Guard unit in Lamar, IA that to this day is only at 60% strength while the rest of the state's units enjoy 110% fill. Why. During Vietnam that unit was used as individual replacements and I think about 8 did not come home. The town didn't like it and doesn't support the unit. Most of the people in that unit have been there forever or are there for the college money.
I predict a huge backlash in the NG from all that has gone on. I said this elsewhere but, the NG arguement we have to thank Mr. Clinton for. The US and particularly the military will be paying for his short sided vision and budget balancing at the expense of the military for years to come.
My support for Bush is somewhat the lesser of two evils arguement. I know you swing the other way on that arguement but that is the spice of life.
posted by
oldbill
on August 29, 2004 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Oddbill
Your point about the National Guard during the Viet Nam era needs some additional facts. President Johnson intentionally made a decision not to send the Guard to Viet Nam because he was afraid of the political backlash. People tend to think of the Guard as "their" boys -- more involved with states and localities and connected to local organization. It was a well known fact that your chances of going to Viet Nam if you were in the Guard were reduced to very close to zero. Bush has made a different decision than Johnson. He has that right. But I am suspicious that it is somewhat tied up with his need to make his own record "look better" to those who don't remember the history here. And somewhat tied up with not wanting to have a draft, for sure!
I'm sure you have your reasons for supporting Bush, and I imagine they have very little to do with military service records of either of the men. But speaking as one who has someone "at risk" and has more than once in the past..... I do not trust Bush to lead nor do I trust him to listen to the advice of good men who have had more experience than he has. So whatever your reasons for Bush support -- really -- maybe you should be more clear about what they are. Or not. But it's not on the comparison of a military service record.
posted by
sarwood
on August 28, 2004 at 8:10 PM
| link to this | reply
How Can I Support Bush?
Easy answer. How did you support Clinton vs. WWII veteran Bush Sr.? What you are missing is the fact that Kerry based the entire National Democrat Convention on one thing: Vietnam. Do not say that is not true because it was saturated every night with his service. His speeches reflect it every day. "John Kerry, reporting for duty". Remember that? So for Kerry to shove that down everyones' throats and to bring up bad feelings from both sides from so long ago just to use it politically was inexcusable. The reason he did it was because he has no record in the senate to run on. It is beyond poor. Bush did not bring up Vietnam. This is 2004. Vietnam does not matter. You learn from your mistakes and go on. Obviously Kerry does not practice this. His entire life is a flip-flop. To say that Dubbya has accomplished anything on his own in his life is completely false. That is like saying Kerry did nothing on his own to become as wealthy as he is. Kerry did a lot on his own to become wealthy, he married two wealthy women.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on August 27, 2004 at 9:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Here, here...
Some things we can agree on….
Actually, made Major.
I have the same problem with those who lambaste Bush and are silent about Kerry or offer no real alternative. As I was trained in the military, if you are going to go to the boss with a problem - you better have at least a suggestion for how to solve it.
The defense of freedom… still goes on and still has its costs. Bless those with the guts to defend it.
posted by
oldbill
on August 27, 2004 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
no offense intended
the point was we cannot consider ourselves a free country if we discourage dissent and criticism.
If an action is wrong, or if we perceive it to be wrong, it is our duty to express our reservations.
It is then the duty of whoever took the action either to defend the action or to discontinue it depending upon the conclusions reached.
but it is a dereliction of duty to discourage criticism.
Looking at your about me page -- you graduated from college and either had ROTC or OTS, went in as a 2nd Lt, served 2 tours, might have made captain.
actually i welcome differing points of view like yours -- I learn.
but my problem is with those who lambast Kerry and are silent about Bush.
this is not a one-sided world.
freedom is to be defended, and it is obligatory on every one of us to allow freedom of expression -- that is what many people have died for. It is a betrayal of their sacrifice and trust not to do so.
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 27, 2004 at 6:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Leftend...
I find your comparison of WW2 German and Vietnam US offensive. There is NO comparison of the German of the Holocaust and the US that was involved in Vietnam. As someone who has served, there is no such thing as a “good” war. I believe a person should speak out for what they believe in…I served in our military in part to protect that right.
I am not defending President Bush’s Vietnam record. I do believe that several of the things you say below are based mostly on political rhetoric and basic lack of understanding of the military. I have read the “proof” that Bush didn’t show up for duty and was released early. All of it is offered by those that obviously have never served in the military. For example, a Bush evaluation report states that he was not observed during this rating period. This is a very common occurrence, based on the military evaluation cycle. Some situations occur where you are due an evaluation, but because you just changed jobs or post locations, you do not meet the minimum requirements for a rater to evaluate you. The military still requires the report to be submitted, but it will state that the officer wasn’t observed or something similar. The masses don’t understand this so it is easy for a non-veteran to believe he was absent. Some of the same stuff is happening against Kerry.
As for the privileged part, you are penalizing him for coming from a powerful, wealthy family. Do you truly believe that he got everything in his life because of his father? Complete rhetoric. And were you making the same argument when Clinton’s powerful friends kept him from getting drafted? I doubt it.
I don’t think Bush’s service was exceptional, if I was serving during that time, I would have been the first to call him a wussy. It the same time I would have called Kerry a coward for abandoning his sailors after four months. I can not image leaving my troops at a time like that and using a weak excuse to do it. I would have been able to look myself in the mirror.
I am not a huge fan of Bush or Kerry but I will vote on my belief of who has the better character and is the better leader of the two. In the end, none of these ramblings will change your view but it’s my opinion for what it is worth.
posted by
oldbill
on August 27, 2004 at 5:14 PM
| link to this | reply
again oldbill
how does it make you feel that Bush has never gotten anything on his own in his life?
it was his family's influence.
again since you are a military man, how it make you feel that Bush, like a lot of the priveleged, found a way to stay out of the action? Just like others who refused to go to Vietnam, there's a possibility that a pilot died or was captured when it should have been Geo. W. I have a link to an article that demonstrates Mr. Bush's dereliction of duty. It is either in this blog or the CONSERVATIVE STAGNANCY BLOG. It does help to clarify.
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 27, 2004 at 3:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Mr. Bill
so germans would have been cowards in WWii IF THEY HAD ESCAPED gERMANY TO OTHER COUNTRIES?
I take it you think Vietnam was a "good" war.
And if someone doesn't think Vietnam or Iraq are good wars, then what do they do? be silent.
refer to the first question -- lots of silent Germans.
Your father and Herr Bush are two different men. It's a matter of common record what Bushie did -- actually didn't do -- he didn't come anywhere near living up to his military committment.
Kerry was there in a boat in the action; Bush was flying senators and businessmen to meetings.
posted by
Xeno-x
on August 27, 2004 at 3:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Thin Ice....
Tell a National Guardsmen that they are avoiding military service in Iraq. Better yet call them a coward. You are likely to witness military training up close. Guardsmen are activated based on military need. Simply joining the Guard is not and never was a good avoidance strategy. Whether Lt. Bush went to Vietnam or not was based on which unit he was assigned to and whether it got activated for service.
My father was in the Army National Guard during Vietnam. His unit was activated and he served a year tour on active duty at Fort Hood, TX. He or his unit could have been shipped to Vietnam at any time but they were not needed. Coward? Hardly, he just didn’t get the call.
Coward? Those were the people that went to Canada or Oxford.
posted by
oldbill
on August 27, 2004 at 2:17 PM
| link to this | reply
I've Noticed...
...this massive gap in the logic, too.
How can these people argue so heartily about the ins and outs of Kerry's service record when their "man" doesn't even have one!! AND Bush is calling himself the War President.
Well, there would have been no war had he not been the first Western leader since Hitler to try and convince the world that a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation is an OK thing to do.
And he wouldn't have been president had he not had his brother knock all those non-felons off the electoral role in Florida and elsewhere.
So, all round, that whole "war president" thing is built on very, very shaky foundations.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on August 27, 2004 at 6:47 AM
| link to this | reply