This will titillate the southpaws:
Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government’s foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.
In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”
I will leave it to my more imaginative commenters to explain to me how the duly exlected President of the United States (who was Bush, and not Gore or Kerry, despite what Jim Lampley and the majority of the HuffPo writers think) and his chosen running mate and subordinates can ‘hijack’ the policy they were elected to create. It would not be unlike me ‘hijacking’ the podium this morning during the class I have been hired to teach, but I give Wilkerson bonus points for using the word ‘cabal’ without the requisite pejorative ‘neocon.’
If anything, in the context of the Plame case, this should serve to remind everyone that this executive office was at war with not only certain elements within the CIA, but elements at Foggy Bottom.
The entire transcript of Wilkerson’s comments can be found here. Wilkerson’s record of donations, including a 2004 donation to Lisa Marie Cheney (spawn of cabal leader Dick Cheney?), can be found here.
Gee, wouldn’t it have been nice if someone had the balls to resign at the time and tell the American public what was going on with this criminal administration. Loyalty is a virtue up to a point, but I’m a bit old fashioned, I think one should be loyal to the country first.
I guess we might as well start off this thread with a stupid comment from Joe in which he questions the patriotism of his political opponents because he disagrees with their foreign policy outlook.
Don’t forget, Joe- they are chickenhawks, too! And Cheney worked for Halliburton! And they are cozy with Israel, despite being oilmen!
Personally, I blame the bunnies.
Bob In Pacifica
I think “hijack” is reference to undercutting the remainder of those in government who had a higher allegiance to reality than Cheney.
The Executive Branch’s war with the CIA was a war Cheney et al were waging with reality. The cabal, if you will, were generating lies, propaganda for the American public, in an attempt to create support for a war.
I think the bigger question here is WHY they lied to get us to this ghastly misadventure. They knew the WMD stuff was a stack of lies. They made them up, of course they knew they were lies. The whole democracy meme doesn’t stand up because these guys don’t even support here in America. And there are a lot easier ways to make money.
Powell only shined in comparison to the other whack jobs in the Bush Administration. Ultimately, he sold out his credibility and honor by being the lipstick on the pig.
Yes, Bush et al were elected and therefore have the right to try to implement whatever foriegn policy they see fit. However, in a democracy, it is not legitimate to distort and make up intelligence to support that policy. I think you can legitimately describe what they did as “highjacking”.
Boy, I’m glad he gave all his donations to Republicans, because under the “one-cent” rule, any donation any Democrat would have rendered his opinion instantly worthless.
I think hijack, John, means taking the oversight, verification, and accountability functions away from the experts inside the State Dept., Pentagon, and CIA, and running them all through the warped prism of the Vice President’s (oh no, he said ‘cabal’!) posse.
John’s reading abilities are really of such a low caliber its amazing he is actually a professor. Even in West Virginia. So John, you got out of Wilkerson’s speech that this was about policy disputes? lol. My goodness John you are really are incredibly dense.
Wilkinson wasn’t talking about policy, he was talking about process. He was talking about secrecy. He was talking about how the decision making process was short circuited and how those secret decisions have caused great harm to our country.
And as far as patriotism let me say yes it IS unpatriotic, to me, to condone TORTURE.
Yes, John, it IS unpatriotic, to me, to cherry pick intelligence to mislead Americans for the purpose of ginning up support for a war that has killed nearly 2,000 Americans and has weaken us internationally.
Yes, John, it IS unpatriotic, to me, to put incompetent cronies in positions of extreme importance to the safety of American citizens.
None of the above have anything to do with policy. They have to do with good governance. it has to do with respecting other governmental institutions. It has to do with respecting our morals and values as a nation.
Unpatriotic? You bet.
I will leave it to my more imaginative commenters to explain to me how the duly exlected President of the United States and his chosen running mate and subordinates can ‘hijack’ the policy they were elected to create.
Because they’re supposed to be working for the public, and they tried everything in their power to keep the public knowing as little as possible, mislead the public, and get the public to support their actions on false or misleading premises. That’s what they were hijacking with their obsession with secrecy and secret plans — it’s supposed to be America’s foreign policy, as carried out by the White House; instead they hijacked it so it would be their foreign policy, with their reasons and their rules.
It seems to me that we’re getting closer to the term PNAC becoming a household name pretty soon.
How can the president hijack the policy he was elected to create? How about if:
1. the policy to invade Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The majority of those American people who did elect him, didn’t elect him to invade Iraq.
2. the plan to go to war with Iraq existed BEFORE Bush was elected. He merely adopted a plan that was already in place, and which was created by Cheney and Rumsfeld, among others, a plan which was introduced to Clinton while he was in office.
Cheney’s role in the PNAC
To offer a metaphor, John, if you hire a pilot, you are assuming that he’s going to pay attention to the air traffic controllers and ground crews. If he ignores him, and the plane ends up in Baghdad, then you can probably safely say he hijacked the plane, even if he was the pilot.
neil that was excellent. It might be simple enough for even John to understand. Operative word: might.
Neil – impressive analogy. Does John ever reply to comments?
This seems like a right center blog. Why are all comments from the left?
I believe Powell should have resigned after he disgraced himself (and his country) at the U.N. with his WMD routine. There are pretty clear indications, from Wilkerson and others, that he didn’t really believe what he was saying at the time.
Like the U.N. or not, his performance there was disgraceful and he should always be remembered for it, in spite of his otheriwse illustrious career.
Knowing what we know now and what Colin Powell knew then, it would have been the honorable thing to do.
Shit. The honorable thing would have been to not get up there and lie like a rug.
The civil service exists for a reason. ‘Hijack’ refers to the boundary that used to exist between what they did and what the VPOTUS did personally.
First, fuck you.
Second, thanks for the reminder why I hate cops, you arrogant prick.
Third, my response was directed at you, not Wilkerson, and you did merely attack the patriotism of people you disagree with, and then went on to insult me.
Fourth, while what in large part Wilkerson is engaging in is a discussion of process, the issues about process focus on issues of policy and outcome. That is why they are important, no? That is what Wilkerson is upset about, no? The policies, right:
And then Wilkerson veers off into what is pretty comonplace in Washington- turf war:
Fifth, did I tell you to go fuck yourself?
I think we have the corollary to the “not one cent” rule of legitimate criticism: in order to have a legitimate criticism of the Bush Administration, you cannot be one of the people Bush Administration fucked over. However, if you are not one of the people the Bush Administration fucked over, you are probably an elitist think tank ivory tower type person who isn’t privy to the inner workings of the Bush Administration. Ergo, shut up already with the criticism.
John, you ignorant slut.
If you stood up there and lectured for the entire time about, oh say, the Theory of Relativity, then yes, it could be said you hijacked that podium. You were hired to do a specific job, which was pointed out when you were hired. You are granted some leeway in how you do that job, but if you veer too far outside of your job, then you have hijacked your position to fulfill your own agenda. No one hired Bush, Cheney et al to exercise their neo-con Middle East agenda. That’s why they had to make up the WMDs–if they had used the real reason, people would have said that they were hijacking the Executive branch to pursue their own foreign policy. See, people hired Bush and Cheney to do what they said they were going to do in their campaign. I don’t remember “Bringing Freedom to the Middle East By Force” as a plank in the Republican platform. Now, if they had included that plank in their platform and people still voted for them, well, then you would be right. People would have gotten what they asked for. But they didn’t–members of this cabal secretly decided to pursue a hugely unpopular foreign policy under false pretenses. We got ‘jacked.
Sheesh, John, are you really that desperate for page views?
Last I knew, conservatives believed deeply in the rule of law. The executive branch is required to obey and execute the laws that the legislative branch has created. In this case, the president can make the foreign policy, but the congress can — and has — set limits on how that can be done. Those limits exist precisely to prevent efficient creation of an incorrect policy. Kind of like democracy in general, the point of such laws is to exchange efficiency for accuracy.
In this case, a small _cabal_ of people deliberately and consciously ignored those laws and customs, because the rest of the feedback from the “non-believers” outside their coven was that the policies they were proposing were (a) wrong and (b) wrong. That, John, is hijacking the government as a whole.
But you knew that — you just needed as impressions, right?
John you really really can’t read very well. Where to begin? First off you get all upset when people “insult” you. Funny, but the first “insult” hurled in this thread was you calling my comment (which had nothing to do with you) stupid and then you complain when I fight back. What a fuckin little wuss.
Ok, first off I wasn’t attacking the patriotism of people I disagree with. I actually was attacking Wilkinson and Powell with that comment. It is now clear that they were having great problems with the way things were done in the administration while they were there. If they felt so strongly about it, they should have resigned rather than lend their name and prestige to something they NOW attack. That was my point which you totally missed Professor.
Wrong. And you known what, I’m not going to even explain it to you again as it is clear you are incapable of comprehending what he was saying. I’ll leave it for others to read his speech and your interpretation of it and let them decide.
This is rather revealing:
I don’t have anything to add John. I couldn’t insult you any more than your own comments.
Have a good day professor.
And this would be different from your friend, Richard Bennett, saying that we either take Bush’s side or we are Saddam lovers how?
Bush/Cheney were re-elected with larger margins (both electoral and popular vote) than their 1st election AFTER it became well known that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Being a lefty, I realize life is often confusing and difficult for you. I hope this helps
Not true Darrell. I was arguing with Bush apologists everyday during the 2004 election, and those true believers were still sure that not only did WMD’s exist, but that Bush found them.
So you demanded the resignation of the Clintons after it became established that the Clinton WH illegally obtained and kept FBI files on their political enemies? you did put country before party back then, right?
Darrell you are qutie the liar aren’t you?
Bush obtained CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL to invade Iraq. Hardly an example of “ignoring” the rule of law. God the left is stupid
Let the queering begin…
So, for argument’s sake if someone did in fact demand the resignation of Clinton for what you allege (which I presume is Filegate, where it was determined that there was no credible evidence to support your claim), then it is perfectly acceptable for them to demand members of the Bush administration to resign for their ‘treatment’ of political enemies, right?
So if the above person I described is you Darrell, are you going to be demanding resignations when the indictments come?
Country before party, right?
Albanese, Darrell cherishes that talking point. Would you yank away Linus’s security blanket? Eh?
Darrell gets caught lying to make his point, and has to immediately turn to his bag of tricks:
I guess that’s your way of conceding that you have nothing substanative to say.
Yes, the FBI files of hundred of Republicans appeared in the Clinton WH ‘by accident’. Then afterwards, instead of being returned to the FBI, they were put in a safe.. by accident of course. From your link, Hillary also denies hiring Craig Livingstone, a longtime thug ‘aide’ ex-bouncer brought from Arkansas. He just happened to follow them from Arkansas to Washington. Party before country if you’re Dem it seems
The “lie” on this thread is that Bush “illegally” invaded Iraq. Carry on kooks
That he did…based on the now-debunked “fact” that there were WMD’s in Iraq, and that a mushroom cloud was imminent. He did go get his approval, but it was based on what we now know to be lies, so even if the rule of law wasn’t exactly broken, the spirit of it was smashed to bits.
No, Darrell. The lie generally is whatever issues forth from your lips. Specifically in this case, your claim of:
Which flies in the face of:
Queer away, Darrell.
Hey Darrell, where are those WMDs again? ‘Cause that’s why we went to war. That’s why Congress approved military action. That’s why Bush was re-elected. That’s what was never there, what they knew damn well was never there, and that’s why we’re saying that the foreign policy was hijacked.
Must. Keep. Eye. On. Ball.
Question: Is Darrell one of DougJ’s characters that he uses to make the right look incredibly stupid and mendacious? I mean, Darrell can’t be for real can he?
Bush obtained Congressional approval for a number of reasons spelled out in the Congressional resolution. If you were more honest, you would acknowledge this. Congress had the same intel as Bush regarding Iraq
Nah… has to be DougJ, nobody can be THIS stupid.
John S, let’s get your position straight. You’re willing to believe that FBI files of hundreds of Clinton’s political enemies ended up in the WH by mistake, then when discovered, were not returned to the FBI but put in a safe to be combed for “derogatory information”. That is what you’re defending, let’s be clear. Party before country if you’re Dem, not much honest doubt about that
If that comment was so “stupid”, then name for us what intel the WH had on Iraq that was not shared with Congress. Let me guess kooks, the WH “knew” ahead of time that Iraq had no WMDs but decided to invade anyway to control the oil.. What do I win?
Hello demimondian, where are you? Tell us more about Bush’s “illegal” war which was approved by Congress
Yes, Darrell let’s be perfectly clear.
When you make a statement that it is established that the Clintons illegally obtained and kept FBI files despite the fact that the office of Independent Counsel established that there weas no credible evidence (after spending millions of dollars), you are a liar.
If you’re willing to believe your gut, Rush Limbaugh, Powerline or whatever other unofficial source thinks about the situation rather than the accepted findings, then you are also a conspiracy nut and/or rube.
Intuition before reason if you’re Darrell, not much doubt about that.
Don’t think so, myself. I’m not a great judge, obviously, but they have very different writing styles. If nothing else, the last time Darrell let a post go without a gratuitious blanket insult for everyone on The Left (TM), let alone two or three posts in a row, was a discussion about managing dams. DougJ, on the other hand, tends to be polite. And DougJ parrots the reactionary party line constantly when he’s in parody mode, but I think Darrell has here and there been critical of the current Republican leadership, even if only from the “not conservative enough” perspective.
Sad to say, he’s probably for real.
This is what I was talking about the other day, Darrell, about you being deliberately antagonistic. My comment was a bit of a generalization, but because I didn’t go and do all of the research about the Congressional resolution prior to writing my comment, you accuse me of not being honest. And then you wonder why other people attack you as soon as you open your mouth…
So then, just out of curiousity, where do you think things went wrong in this? We were all told that there were WMDs in Iraq. There were not. What went wrong? Was our intel misled? Did something get lost in translation? Who screwed this up, and do you think it was accidental or deliberate? Honest question…
How ironic that you’re taking offense over a response to a comment YOU made accusing the Bush admin of dishonesty. There were numerous still-valid justifications spelled out in that Congressional resolution. You can’t have your righteous indignation when you’re doing the same thing yourself. Well, if you’re a lefty, maybe you still can
I’ve been asked by a couple of people why I ignore Darrell. Perhaps it’s that I’m the parent of children, and recognize a pattern which I’ve seen before. Most parents call it “acting out out of loneliness” — all children need attention. Those who can’t get it for being good may evolve into people who get attention by being sufficiently malicous to be reprimanded, but not so malicious to be punished. The most common form of this in boys of a certain age is the “high self-image bully” — which is exactly the role Darrell plays.
Notice that I don’t pity him as a sicko or a masochist. Bullies are usually quite full of themselves — after all, they control the situation in which they operate, and they know it. Darrell fits that pattern exactly.
But, you know what? He can’t hurt me, so I’m safe to deny him what he most wants, which is control and attention through reprimand. He can’t queer threads if we don’t play along — and he just isn’t worth the effort.
When you say something extraordinarily stupid and then get called on it, this is all you have left
That’s right, Darrell..I’m the lying, self-righteous liberal lefty, and you and Bush are as honest as the day is long. Wow…you must go through truckloads of Maalox, being so angry all the time.
Krista, you deliberately mischaracterized Bush’s justifications to invade Iraq and then get in a huff when I point out that, well, that you mischaracterized Bush’s justifications to invade Iraq. carry on
John S, let’s get your position straight. You’re willing to believe that FBI files of hundreds of Clinton’s political enemies ended up in the WH by mistake, then when discovered, were not returned to the FBI but put in a safe to be combed for “derogatory information”. That is what you’re defending, let’s be clear. Party before country if you’re Dem, not much honest doubt about that
Darrell, let’s get somethng else straight. Bill Clinton is no longer president. Hasn’t been for over five years now. Landslide George is now president. All the “scandals” the Republican noise machine was able to generate during Clinton’s term don’t matter anymore.
You have to play defense now, Darrell. You have to try and justify things like revealing the name of a CIA operative, and huge budget deficits and invasions of Middle Eastern dictatorships.
Hell, instead of Clinton you could go back to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution when another Democrat did something very similar to what Bush and Cheney did in 2003. In fact, the more I think about it the more Bush seems like LBJ without the civil rights record.
Shorter Perfessor Cole
Sad day indeed for the Perfessor. No new Sheehan press conferences and that jerk in the dirty uniform is heading to the World Series
But luckily Iraq is going just swimmingly so he doesn’t have to second guess himself on that front.
I call this Darrell’s Axiom.
He knows it all too well, being a practicioner of it himself.
So how about your false claim about Filegate, Darrell? All forgotten? Time to change subjects and move on to avoid admitting you were wrong and/or looking foolish?
Who/where was that justified? show us the quote
I have been sharply critical of the Bush admin on their spending binges
How dare we topple the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan or remove Saddam
Is it a coincidence that so many leftists are dumb as dirt?
This is a man who knows what he’s talking about!
Hey Davebo, I know you don’t agree with much I say, but how ’bout those Astros?
Darrell, sweetie, I wasn’t talking to you. Now go back to your room and play quietly until dinner, OK? I have important things to do, and trying to make you behave isn’t one of them.
Craig Biggio wears dirty uniforms. What more needs to be said?
demimondian – you ARE a parent…that just sounded so much like so many parents I know.
And the uniforms never fit him right either!
Let’s breakdown what Wilkerson actually said.
Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.
The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don’t have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you’ve condoned it.”
The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam….and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.
These are all things Perfessor Cole allegedly agrees with. But cognitive dissonence has his panties in a real wad so bitch he will.
Why did we topple Saddam? I know (and agree) with why we toppled the Taliban, but why Saddam? No WMDs (and the Downing Street memo states that the WH knew it); no terrorist connections. The Congressional resolution talks a lot about WMDs, a little about terrorists (both of which are known to be false); what other reasons did it state? That Saddam was a brutal dictator, and that America would like him to be out of power. Sure, he’s a brutal dictator, but there are scores of brutal dictators out there–why Iraq? Oh, and because Saddam tried to kill his pa. I don’t think it was (directly) because of the oil, but I think it was in a misguided attempt to force freedom into the Middle East in a domino-style strategy. Too bad he didn’t let the rest of us in on it from the beginning.
And if you think Congress had all of the intel the WH did, you don’t know how that stuff works. Congress does not get to see the intel–too much of a security risk. The Intelligence Committee gets to see what they are shown, but remember, the intel gets culled first by the Executive branch. So, in the end, Congress does NOT get to see everything the WH does. Which brings us back to the beginning–Cheney et al hijacked the country.
There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about who should be driving policy. It is not, as many of you think, the bureaucrats, but rather those officials who are elected to do so.
This is just more turf war.
Obviously turf war going on here. However, he clearly feels that the “cabal” didn’t do all its homework and that it didn’t bother to ensure everyone was in line with whatever plan they were going to produce for the war.
Two problems with this.
(1) Driving policy is different from driving information gathering. If the information which _should_ be shaping policy is being summarily ignored — or, worse, if the gatherers of that information are being punished for providing it, then the policy makers are not following the intent of the law.
(2) Who created the positions for those bureaucrats? The elected officials.
Did anyone here actually RTFA?
The “cabal” doesn’t include the President (the pilot).
The “cabal” is Cheney (the co-pilot) and Rumsfeld (the captain).
It may not be possible for a pilot to hijack his own jet. But surely it’s possible for the co-pilot and captain to do so? I’m not saying they did, but the story here isn’t that Bush hijacked his own foreign policy, it’s that Cheney and Rumsfeld hijacked Bush’s foreign policy.
(By the way, “exlected”… is that some sort of Freudian slip?)
John, did you even read the speech? The speech is mostly historical in nature. At various times Wilkerson talks about Truman, FDR, Eisenhower, George H. Bush, Carter, Clinton as well as the framers of our constitution. He talks about transparency, national security decision making processes, inter-agency processes, the 1947 National Security Act, etc. etc. A rather scholarly historical dissertation on the processes of decision making in government. And what did our resident Professor get out of it?
John, you are embarassing yourself today.
John says: …for using the word ‘cabal’ without the requisite pejorative ‘neocon.’
Ah, John I think you have it backwards. Isn’t “neo-conservative” a moniker that is actively used by those so described, i.e., a self-characterization?
Nope, cabal is the pejorative word, implying as it does both conspiratorial aspects as well as unsavory motives!
Funny, John. If you look at the names of the people driving the PNAC, many of them are the same people who were chosen by Bush/Cheney to be involved in this administration.
The policy (war with Iraq) was chosen before the people were put into position in the White House. The policy was a given once Bush/Cheney were placed in the White House. The reason why we have Plamegate now is because Iraq was going to be invaded since the day the Florida Supreme okayed Bush’s election results, whether they had a reason to or not.
Cheney himself was selected to find an appropriate VP for Bush and couldn’t find anyone better to do the job than himself (Miers apparently did the same thing, right?). Is that not audacity? And why was Cheney’s placement so important? So he could drive the PNAC agenda in the White House.
By supposedly electing Bush (which I still am unsure he was ever elected either time)we got those same bureaucrats you’re talking about.
Of course, as I just stated, there’s also that question of whether Bush was ever really elected. Where does the Constitution state that a judiciary places presidents? Is not the legislature supposed to do that in a case of a contested election? As I remember, he was appointed by the Florida Supreme Court in a highly contested election, and then supposedly selected by 51% of the electorate in a second highly contested vote that left no paper trail and no clear indication of that election, but instead lots of questions of fraud. Perhaps if we had paper trails, you could clearly claim Bush was elected; until then I don’t believe it.
Perhaps it is possible that Bush and his administration never actually won either election, and yet they are still creating policy. Hmmmmm, I wonder how you would react if that were proven true.
Questionable elections -> Questionable policy -> Highly probable indictments = let them do the job they were elected to do?
Darrell, Davebo — anyone who beats the Cards is all right with me…
Exactly, and as PNAC states in their “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that their plan for
invading Iraqrebuilding America’s Defenses grew out of the playbook of Cheney’s defense stategy.
Policy Decision = Invade Iraq
When Made = as Rome has pointed out there were many current Bush officials that called for invading Iraq prior to the Supreme Court appointment of Bush in 2000
Presidential Campaign 2000 = no mention of intention of invading Iraq. As a matter of fact, Bush said he was against nation building. Bush said we should be more “humble” in our foreign policy. Not a whiff of “remaking the Middle East”
First Cabinet meeting: Paul O’Neil says that invading Iraq came up. This is before 911.
After 911: Rummy wants to bomb Iraq not Afghanistan (so many juicy targets)
Bush collars Richard Clarke and demands he find a connection between Iraq and 911
Yeah……. we VOTED for the policies of George Bush
I don’t see it that way at all, Powell wasn’t very convincing, but he stood up there and lied his ass off. The problem was that the facts didn’t line up with the rhetoric.
I don’t think Powell lied. I think he was lied to. He was just window dressing in this administration. They used him. And, although he will never say it being the good loyal soldier that he is, I think he knows he was used. They ruined his reputation and destroyed any future political aspirations he may have had. The Dems will never forgive him for his UN speech and the Repubs don’t think he is a true conservative. I kinda feel sorry for him as I think he is basically a decent and honest man.
Perhaps, but if he allowed himself to be used like that, he not only was lied to, he was stupid too!
What a load of nonsense. Wilkerson is just annoyed he got passed over for Secretary of State when Powell left. Notice how he reserves special venom for Condoleeza Rice.
The press gives much too much credence to the discarded malcontents of this administration — Clarke, Wilkerson, O’Neill, Shineski, the whole lot of them. Yet they are so quick to dismiss the complaints of Louis Freeh about Clinton. I guess that’s what bias does for you.
And you want to talk about cabals. Try Syd Blumenthall, Hilary, and Sandy Berger’s actions concerning Travelgate. Now, *that’s* a cabal.
Honest enough to have been a good soldier for it and Iran-Contra. Standing by and watching the Powell Doctrine be thrown on the asheap of history. He deserves much, much worse.
Oh, no bias there, right Elinor? You do realize that you are proving yourself to be just as guilty of bias as others? At least if you’re going to be biased, admit it.
Travelgate is going to look like a picnic when the Plame investigation is through. Oh, and yes, I am biased, but at least I don’t try to hide behind attacks of bias of others while appearing to be Sweet Polly Purebread at the same time.
I can’t wait to hear what you have to say after the indictments come down.
Well of course, Elinor. That makes so much sense. So we really shouldn’t be listening to people who were in the administration, because they’re discarded malcontents. And we obviously can’t listen to criticsm from people outside of the administration, because they weren’t in the loop, and don’t know what they’re talking about. I guess we’re all best off, and safest, by listening to those who are currently IN the administration — after all, they’ve never steered us wrong yet.
Although most of us realize Elinor is really DougJ, for those that don’t, a recap on some Clinton scandals:
John Cole Says:
“There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about who should be driving policy. It is not, as many of you think, the bureaucrats, but rather those officials who are elected to do so.”
John, when the elected officials lie about the facts and pressure the bureaucrats to come up with ‘acceptable analyses, then they’ve exceeded their moral and legal mandate to drive policy.
“This is just more turf war.”
By now it’s clear that such statements are lies.
The State Department is well rid of him. He works for the elected President of the US. If he wants to set policy, then he can run for office. Disgrunted ex-employees are a dime a dozen.
Just on CNN – new Gallup poll has 45% saying country better off if Congress controlled by Dems, and 32% Republicans. Probably just digrunted ex-employees
Let me start by saying IF before every fact I state, because no one knows for sure, but I don’t want to write IF a hundred times.
There is a ‘turf war’ between the VP and the CIA. Cheney believes the CIAs purpose is to provide him the information he wants. The CIA believes their job is to analyze evidence and provide their best guess of what the world is up to. During the run-up to the war, Cheney pressures the CIA, who resents it. But, Tenet is on board with Cheney. Cheney then sets up a small group of non-CIA to analyze intelligence (someone help me here, I can’t remember the name of this group). To over use a phrase, they cherry pick intelligence. in actuality, they just weren’t analysts, so they didn’t fully understand how to use intelligence.
Cheney also sets up the WHIG, which is nothing more than a propoganda unit (even if they only tell the truth). It was made up of political operatives and PR folk. Their mission was to sell the war domestically. They basically wrote articles that ended up on the front page of the NYTimes.
At a critical moment, when the country was scared enough to go to war, but not quite sure about it yet…….BOOM….they go nuclear, and occasionally nukular. They told everyone that they were convinced Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. There is no way they thought this was a fact. Analyst in the CIA disagreed. IAEA disagreed. Weapons inspectors disagreed. It is entirely plausible that the admin felt in their ‘gut’ that the nukes existed. But, the american people got one side of the arguement from this admin.
Setting an agenda, and pursuing your foreign policy is not hijacking. But, if you intimidate the CIA to get the answers you want, set up a propoganda unit to sell your war using half the intelligence, while personally destroying individuals that dissent, and use fear against your own citizens to acheive your policies…….hijack works for me.
“Insufficient evidence” = not guilty? You go with that, but it’s about as strong as your “Bush lied about WMD’s”. If I have to prove it, so do you! Show mw proof that Bush knowingly lied. I bet a dollar you can’t.
The polls are all nonsense. How many people did they ask? Eight hundred, a thousand? Is that supposed to convince me? All the polls had Kerry *way ahead* in 2004, but guess who won?
Bush lies? “I’m a Compassionate Conservative that doesn’t believe in Nation Building.”
As far as if he lied about WMD, links between terrorists and Iraq, Uranium, “Anyone in my administration that leaked classified information will be dealt with”, and all the other loony left conspiracy theories……we will all know in about a year.
If he is completely innocent, and his entire administration is innocent of pushing bad intel to start a war and all the other supposed lies……let me be the first to apologize. I am sorry for hating you for years. But, that hate sure did keep me warm at night.
We will see. It will take time, no champagne yet.
Office of Special Plans
If the poll said something that you liked, I suspect that would be convincing enough for you.
On another note, if you ever took a statistics course you would find that a thousand people is generally a large enough sample to yield effective results.
Travelgate? The “scandal” that was basically a set of the previous administration’s political appointees — government employees without civil service protection — getting fired? You think that’s anything close to what’s going on here? Just because Limbaugh yelled about it doesn’t make it a crime.
Bush lies? “I’m a Compassionate Conservative that doesn’t believe in Nation Building.”
Gee, wasn’t there something that might have changed his mind about that? 9-something or other. It was in all the papers.
The bureaucrats are upset because the elected officials and their appointees are deciding policy.
As for the analogy about air-traffic controllers. No. A better analogy would be the flight attendants on a Southwest flight getting angry when the pilot refuses to fly to Europe. They don’t get to decide where the plane goes, they are just there to do their jobs.
This is just hysterical, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were busy implementing their president’s policies,(i.e. doing their jobs) and they’re being attacked for it.
Sorry, Veeshir, but no. The people run this country, not the President. He manages it on our behalf. We elected him based on lies, and we re-elected him based on lies (see Downing Street Memos for evidence, as well as testimony of several former WH staffers and cabinet members). The analogy is more like, the passengers bought tickets for San Diego, but the pilots decided they wanted to go to Cuba. That’s a hijacking.
*9/11 changed everything.* Don’t you liberals get that? People attacked us. People attacked us. You wanted us to draw up indictments and use sanctions. But there’s a time for action, a bolder approach. An approach not limited to Al Qaeda but to *all* Islamofascists.
“Hijacked” is the right word, and laughing at it only demonstrates ignorance of the subject.
Foreign policy and diplomacy are continuums. They do not begin and end with presidential terms. They are grounded in long-playing stories and tableaus, history both long and short term, and relationships.
The whole point of pointing out the Potatoheads’ ruination of our foreign policy is to be mindful of those things, and to show that the Spuds came into town without any regard for those things, and decided, foolishly, that they’d impose a whole new set of stories and standards for foreign policy and if them furriners didn’t like it, fuck ’em. That was the perceived result of Bush’s election, from overseas. Because these assholes are entirely Ends Justify Means thinkers, it never occurred to them that just kicking over the furniture and talking tough was not going to get them the world’s respect … because they don’t care about the world’s respect, they only care about getting their desired results. When Ends Justify Means, the fact that a few wine-tasters in Europe don’t like you means absolutely nothing … they sent these signals loud and clear starting in 2002 when those cheese-sniffers wouldn’t bow down to their Iraq policy.
These crackheads have done terrible damage to this country, and foreign policy is only one example. Colin Powell was, and is, exactly right. That’s why he’s a statesman, and George Bush is a guy you wouldn’t let sleep in your barn for fear of what he might do to the livestock.
Don’t the righties just hate that idea? The stupid people, who (per TallDave) “vote for socialism”, running the country? Whose idea was that? The Founders never wanted “the people” running the country. They wanted people like them running the country. A good, “compassionate” theocracy is what we really need.
“Elinor Dickey Says:
Another: “Gee, wasn’t there something that might have changed his mind about that? 9-something or other. It was in all the papers.”
Elinor (or whomever he/she is): “9/11 changed everything. Don’t you liberals get that? People attacked us. People attacked us. You wanted us to draw up indictments and use sanctions. But there’s a time for action, a bolder approach. An approach not limited to Al Qaeda but to all Islamofascists.”
And non-Islamofascists, like Saddam, if it’s necessary for the administration. Even if it pulls resources away from going after actual Islamofascists, since they’re not important, other than for political purposes.
For five dollars, we can tell you …..
The stupid people, who (per TallDave) “vote for socialism”, running the country?
Yeah, they’ve done so well in the last few elections.
Bush is the president. He gets to decide foreign policy, not some lifer bureaucrat who likes the Middle East just the way it is: A place for retired State Dept. workers to get nice, cushy sinecures after they retire from ‘public service’.
Actually, he gets to decide *everything*. Elections have consequences. The victor gets to run the country. The loser gets to whine about Jeff Gannon.
I’m glad Bush is cleaning house. Too bad for traitors like Wilkerson that America-haters are getting the boot. Maybe he can get a job with CBS news.
You know John, sometimes I wonder why you’ve let your comments section become hijacked by the loons on the left. At first, I thought it was because you wanted some honest debate, read what the other side has to say. But more and more I think you do it to console yourself…because no matter how much the current sorry ass Republicans keep on screwing up, if your comments section is indicative of the prevailing views of the left or liberals, then, present troubles nothwithstanding, the choice between bad (GOP) and horrendously worse (Dems) won’t even be a contest. The decision to go to war was taken a couple of years ago, and all these “facts” that are being regurgitated here by the “reality-based” community were all well know before the last election. Guess what, Bush won and he’s not running again. “Moveon” lefties. The numbers now may be encouraging for y’all, but if there’s one thing you can count on from the left is their ability to repeatedly and consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…over and over again. After all, your main fuel seems to be based on short term hysterically overemotional outbursts. If y’all are the best the left has got to offer, I wouldn’t worry if I were a Republican and THAT is indeed very sad.
He also allows his threads to get hijacked by loons on the right. He is an equal opportunity enabler.
Blanket generalizations are fun!
I think it’s safe to say that “badness” is in the eye of the beholder.
What do you mean if you were a Republican?
Your Darrellesque rant about the “left” is devoid of anything more than a pile of sweeping generalizations and flawed characterizations. If that is the best that whomever you represent has to offer, then I wouldn’t be too concerned about the political analysis they have to offer.
Funny, the “We won … get over it” recitation isn’t heard as often as it used to be.
The GOP thinks it won something, but what it didn’t take into account is that it won primarily by appearing to declare war on half of its own country. Those chickens will come home to roost. You got the war you wanted, the war on the half of America you don’t like. Good for you.
Bring it on, motherhumpers. You will soon find out what trying to puff yourself up at the expense of half of America is going to cost you.
Great post, Theseus. The bottom line is the liberals have no plan other than to attack Bush. They may not like the way the war is going, but we had to deal with Saddam. Sooner or later, he was going to get nukes or small pox and hold the whole world hostage. Where was the Democrats’ plan to deal with Saddam?
Bush inherited a recession, one of the worst since the great depression. His plan — cutting taxes — may have increased the budget deficit but at least it was a plan. Where was the Democrats’ plan?
We kept it in a grant proposal to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that one of us submitted under a fake name.
He was going to be a guest on O’Reilly’s show, get into a fracas with Bill, and then Bill’s remote producer would behead him and put the video on the Internet.
The whole thing would have cost $12k and taken about 3 days from inception to completion.
Then we have the Republican plan, which was to turn the thing into Phase One of a War of Perpetuity which would eat the Bush tax cuts in their entirety about once every three months. This plan fell apart when Scooter Libby decided that Judy Miller was his soul-tree connected at the roots, and blew his cover.
I’ll tell you what the gist of the Dem plan really is: Get these stumbling, bumbling lying rednecks out of the White House and put some intelligent people in charge.
And yet Kim Jong Il had nuclear weapons (and God knows what else) right now! And yet we attacked Iraq, that had nothing and was being squeezed so tight that they couldn’t get anything even if they wanted to, and ignored North Korea. Why do Republicans love Kim Jong Il and hate America?
Who smiles for their mug shot???
“We won … get over it.” Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.
I ain’t a Republican or “Rethuglican” bub…more of a libertarian who has generally gravitated towards and sympathized with the Dems. I actually liked President Clinton. But I supported and continue to support most of the president’s foreign policy including the Iraq War. That makes me persona non grata on the left, naturally.
This is hysterical! I could say the same thing for most of the pile of dungshit that passes for “debate” that you guys continue to lob at John or God forbid any other right leaning poster here who has commited the egregious sin of disagreeing with or challenging either your own worldview, your perception of “facts” or your opinions in an attempt to “show” him/them how dumb he/they is/are and how “smart” y’all are. Though John’s worldview generally differs from yours, he’s as honest as is possible and willing to critizice his own party when “he” feels it’s necessary, something a lot of the zombie members of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy™ seem to be capable of doing a lot of, to their credit. It would be nice to see that kind of intellectual honesty a bit from the left…oh wait! You guys are always right! The rethuglicans always wrong and Bush is >insert prefered ad-hominem attack/insult
Ooohhhhhh, shaking in my boots I am. Whatever. Been there done that. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard about the imminent rise of the left, I would have retired by now…We’ll see what we’ll see in ’06 and after that, the Dems will ask themselves for the upteenth time how come they were not able to convince the obviously intellectually challenged voters of America of how evil and stupid the Rethuglicans truly, really are. If only they had even half of the intellectual sophistication of their mentally superior liberal compatriots, they would “see”. If only…sigh
Get over yoruself, man. John does not ask for debate. He doesn’t encourage debate. Near as I can tell, he doesn’t represent the site as being a debate-friendly zone. “Discuss” is not “debate”. “Comment” is not “debate.” No debate format is followed.
I can’t imagine that any regular viewer here thinks that there is debate going on at this location.
WTF are you talking about?
Sorry, bub, but most “libertarians” vote Republican. And I suspect you are one of them.
It’s going smashingly well.
Actually, I think that makes you an optimist with permament rose-colored contact lenses. I do applaud you for your unwavering support in the face of adversity…
Actually, you did say much the same thing. Consider yourself one of many dung beetles feasting on the stuff.
You sound like a bumper sticker regurgitating talking points. Try some specifics rather than these empty invectives that you delight in throwing around.
Yes, something that a majority of Republicans do not feel compelled to do despite your insinuation otherwise.
I don’t recall anyone here claiming they were always right. However, you are definitely doing a lot of ad-hominem attack/insult/vapid comments around here yourself.
If you want to address a specific comment someone made, then by all means do so. If you have a differing opinion than one voiced here, then by all means lay it out for us.
Thus far all you have are these grandiose observations about “everyone” on the “left”. You are short on specifics and long on rhetoric, which I guess makes you an ideal poster on this website as an avid purveyor of…
Not here to get into the name calling flame war, just to explain why one person, me, on the left beleives this conversation about the war needs to take place.
I don’t believe the ‘facts’ were known by most before the war, or before the election. I don’t know the facts now, nor do you. There are some things I want to know about:
Who forged the Niger documents? They were forged to start a war.
Why was there an Office of Special Plans to analyze intelligence? That’s what the CIA does, and if they don’t give you the answers you want, you don’t get to set up your own office for amateurs to analyze intelligence. Especially since most of the information they used ended up being wrong.
Why was the WHIG established? In my honest opinion, it scares me to think of the white house setting up a group to sell the war domestically, and then to defend the war after it began. Especially since most of the information they used ended up being wrong.
Did the administration really believe that SH was close to having nuclear weapons? I realize they had many reasons to invade, but they knew the one that would sell was WMD and NUCLEAR. The IAEA didn’t believe it, weapons inspectors didn’t believe it, I didn’t believe it. Did they? Especially since they were wrong.
Why was a NYTimes reporter working with the WHIG? Articles straight from WHIG to the NYTimes? I don’t like that.
Did the administration really believe that SH was going to work with Al Quaeda? Most middle east experts didn’t believe it. AQs stated goals included overthrowing secular governments, SH being first on the list. Dictators care about one thing, staying in power. Giving weapons to those bent on destroying you is not the way to do that.
The entire history of the country in the 20th century is basically a thread strung together of liberal ideas and programs. Whether you like it or not, most of that is here to stay, ain’t going away.
The “left” is a construct of your imagination. The United States is not going to become a low-tax, pro-Christian, libertarian society. It’s a liberal society, whether you approve or not, and it’s going to stay that way.
The temporary carjacking of policy by a bunch of crazy people who think they can turn back 75 years of progress is not a turning point in history, it’s just a diversion.
It doesn’t matter what labels people hide behind …. “conservative”, for example. What matters is what they do. Social Security and the income tax are not on their way out. Just ask the idiots in the White House how their “we won, now let’s take on Social Security” scam went earlier this year! Fuck, they had Bush’s numbers tanking long before the war became a thorn in their side and Katrina exposed their pathetic crony-matic style of governing.
Rise of the left? Hahahahaha. The inertia of the middle, that’s what ultimately governs in this country. We’ve had Drownie, and Save Terri, and DeLayed justice, and Ashcroft’s statue-shrouds, and the comical Homeland Security Department …. and now a majority in EVERY STATE thinks that the country is on the wrong track, two of three people in total. The Rethuglican party is over, pal.
Get over it, to coin a phrase.
The “left” is a construct of your imagination. The United States is not going to become a low-tax, pro-Christian, libertarian society. It’s a liberal society, whether you approve or not, and it’s going to stay that way
Damn! That blockquote went backwards!
And, ppgaz, that is why “the left has no ideas execpt hating bush.” They are partially correct. Our ‘ideas’ are basically to protect and improve the society that we created.
No one wants to talk about improving the social safety net, healthcare for everyone, decreasing the wealth gap, etc. There is a war going on. It isn’t that the left doesn’t have any ideas, they just aren’t very sexy. And they include raising taxes.
And “THE LEFT” is a funny concept. We can’t agree on anything!
In what ways have we moved to the right?
And i live in KY, the only blue I see is during basketball season.
Not unlike your thinking.
Take all the time and paper you need, and list for us all the great conservative programs of the 20th century and show how they will improve the lives of citizens into the future.
“The middle of the country?” Isn’t that where John Aschcroft lost reelection to the Senate, to a dead man?
All right, that’s granted. So why did the average red-stater vote for Bush? A lot of the talk, post-election, was that people thought he had good values. Do you think that’s genuinely the case? And if so, values in what aspect? Personally, I think the man has terrible values. He’s a warmonger, he squandered the unprecedented goodwill of most other nations and divided his own country into idealogical territories, his policies and demeanor have indicated that he has no concern for or empathy with the poor; he has massively cut funding to AIDS programs in Africa because they won’t adhere to his abstinence-only agenda; he refuses to revise or review any of his policies because he’s built his reputation on being decisive and “staying the course”. Those are just the few examples that I can think of right now. Of course, that’s just my opinion — so I’d like to know your opinion — why did the red-staters vote for Bush, and if it was values-based, what values do you think he embodies?
actully the Democratic candidate for President has gotten more votes than the Republican candidate for President three out of the last four elections. This is also interesting:
Wow a 13 point spread.
Who loves pork?
The Republicans under Bush according to this chart:
Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills
2005 – 13,997
2004 – 10,656
2003 – 9,362
2002 – 8,341
2001 – 6,333
2000 – 4,326
1999 – 2,838
1998 – 2100
1997 – 1,596
1996 – 958
1995 – 1439
Boy, pork projects sure do seem to have exploded under the apt tutelage of the ‘fiscal conservative’ Bush. Of course, everything has changed because of 9/11, so one can understand the trend. Islamofascists® hate pork – as the consumption of it is against their religion – so really, it’s just another way to make sure we don’t have to fight them here.
Gee John S, we weren’t aware of that. Maybe somebody should come up with something to go after that pork.
Since we on the right aren’t interested, maybe a lefty site could come up with something? You could name it, I don’t know, Porkbusters?
“what was the democrats plan to deal with Sadaam?”
Surely something short of spending $400b to replace him with a Shiite theocracy. Surely something short lying to the American people about their vital interests. Surely something short of ruining our standing with the civilized nations of the world.
The Republicans’ argument for Bush’s war is like mercury on a table. Malleable and poisonous at the same time.
As things get worse we now see them advancing the usual desperate terminal arguments:
1) Opposing whatever the President does is unpatriotic.
2) We must stay the course, however stupid, because people who have already died along the way would be dishonored by anything less.
Then, after the war is lost (as lost it will be), they will say it was OUR fault. The proverbial stab in the back, straight out of Mein Kampf.
In saner quarters, Dick Cheney will be remembered at a colonial fillibusterer in the tradition of Walker of Nicaragua. What make him so sinister is that he knows what he is.
Jail is too good for him.
From Kevin Drum , just a little something to liven up this moribund thread, perhaps.
It’s quite likely that you are watching the slow implosion of this self-absorbed, ridiculous administration.
Surely something short of spending $400b to replace him with a Shiite theocracy.
The only plan I’ve seen is to continue to spend $60 billion a year to keep him in his box. Which was also killing millions (billions?) of Iraqi babies a year so that was just cruelty.
Ah yes, I see you have mastered the Sixth Sense’s version of selective vision. To quote the lad: “they see what they want to see”. That or reading comprehension is not your strong suit. You forgot to mention the little inconvenient “who has generally gravitated towards and sympathized with the Dems. I actually liked President Clinton.” part. Oh well, simple oversight I suppose. Here’s something else you can attempt to spin, guess who I supported in 2000…I’ll give you a hint, his name rhymes with BORE. Boy! was THAT a particularly shameful youthful indiscretion…in retrospect.
Never claimed it was. I’m under no illusions now or from the beginning of the war to how difficult the task is, regardless of the administration’s attempts at more positive rhetoric and spin. It was worth the effort then and it’s worth the effort now, even with all that we know now. I think that both the Iraqis and the US soldiers serving there will surprise us all. That said, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. It would be nice for all the doomsayers, once and a while, to admit maybe that they just might be wrong too. I ain’t holding my breath.
As I said, I’m under no illusions to how difficult this task is. I fail to see how I have “permanent rose-colored contact lenses”. I suppose in order to be more “realistic” I would have to adopt your Iraq/quagmire/doom/death/Vietnam talking points.
That’s actually pretty funny!
Right backatcha there! I was curious though, what with some of your reading problems, does “moveon.org”, dailykos et all email their talking points in podcast form cause you might want to consider it…unless of course your “sixth sense” works the same way for all your senses. Fortunately, the Vast RightWing Conspiracy™ central command now uses neural implants, so there isn’t much lost in translation when it comes to our particular talking points du jour. Perhaps you can bring that up at your next meeting.
Please, that’s almost funny. Almost. But at least you have a small taste of how most of you guys appear like in almost every “discussion”, “debate”, “comment section”, “garbage dump” whatever…
Naturally I disagree with the sentiment, but I confess, that’s pretty darn clever AND funny! Kudos!
Ok, who did you vote for in the last four elections?
Cite where I mentioned such a “talking point”, or is this just more useless drivel that you have pulled from thin air?
Cite any mention I made of a Vast RightWing Conspiracy™, or is this just more BS?
Based on what? The non-specific ramblings of you? Appearances are usually based on what is there, unless you are hallucinating.
I’m glad you spent all that time replying to a post with more of the same. Cheers!
Maybe the Republicans should just stop making the pork to begin with.
Sending more Republicans in to clean up their own mess seems hardly effective to me, or did you miss this week’s machinations in Congress?
Partially agree with the first part, completely disagree with the second. As the old saying goes, there are two things that are certain: death and taxes. Societies rise and fall all the time. It has happened repeatedly in the past and it will most likely continue to happen in the future as well. Sorry to break it to you, but America, great as she is now or even much of the West for that matter are not immune to that. Our values, our beliefs, our mores may have changed over the ages, but human nature remains pretty much the same. You, I or anyone else really cannot predict what will happen in the future. And to pretend that is so reveals a breathtaking arrogance and contempt for nature, and an ignorance of man’s own limitations. There is nothing inevitable about “liberal ideas and programs.” In mankind’s history, they have proven to be the exception, NOT the rule.
First, it depends on what you mean by “liberal”. If you mean in in the liberal-conservative sense, then you’re wrong. Self-described “liberals” are outnumbered by “conservatives” by a 3-2 margin, more or less.
If you mean it in the larger political sense, then you’re right. But, if you compare it with the rest of the West for instance, the United States is pretty much a low-tax and pro-Christian society. It is also pro-market, but I confess, perhaps not AS socially liberal as other countries, for instance. Again, amongst most Western countries, even under the aegis of the “dreadful” George W. Bush, the US is doing extremely well and is in much better financial, demographic, social, economic, military, political and even cultural health than its transatlantic allies or most other countries in the world. Or perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to Europe’s recent (as in the past ten years), present and continued future problems. Europe, which has often been looked on as an ideal model to follow. But Europe is a cautionary tale into what happens when a society loses its balance, even one as rich as Europe and begins, as a whole, to tilt too much to one side, in this case, the left. Rising and stagnant unemployment, demographic collapse, economic paralysis and statism, unaffordable cradle to death welfare systems, growing, unassimilated and increasingly alianated immigrants, etc, etc. Incidentally if you want a good glimpse into self-delusion and wishful thinking, you ought to pick up Ron Rifkin’s “European Dream” although European Nightmare would seem more appropriate to me.
You know, what strikes me is that you seem to automatically assign nefarious and/or bad motives to whoever seems to have a differing worldview and/or perspective. Let me be clear, on most social issues I usually disagree with many of the conservative positions. The difference is that I sympathize with their ultimate intentions, many of their arguments and most of their concerns. I think that for most people (be they conservative, liberal or somewhere in between), their concerns are genuine and arise not out of malice or bad faith but out of a desire to promote what they feel is right for their country, their society as a whole, their children and themselves. And if you’re going to play the label game, I don’t see any reason to trust Dems or their intentions any more than the GOP. If you’re assigning bad faith to one group of politicians, why not all of them as well? Or is there something intrinsically better about an individual if they identify themselves as a Dem or “liberal”?
As I said been there done that and we’ll see in about a year. If there is one thing worse than the GOP’s recent performance, it’s the Dems own political incompetence. Believe it or not, I would actually prefer the Dems to actually take control of either the House or Senate. Too much power concentrated in the hands of one party, any party, is a recipe for disaster, as the current GOP continues to demonstrate. I’m a big fan of divided government regardless of who is governing or whose policies I’m most in tune with at a particular time. I just don’t think they’ll pull it off.
Ironically, here is a conservative that is also very gloomy about conservatism’s future, although for different reasons.
I don’t think the incompetence is worse, but I do agree on the incompetence.
Damn, I agree with you. What is this world coming to? Personally, I think we need more choices. What we have now is the illusion of choice, and I would prefer some viable alternatives post haste.
huh? 60 billion a year? Do you just make stuff up? The cost of maintainting the no-fly zone is estimated at 1 billion a year between the US and the UK. So, you were only 59 Billion dollars off. I guess for a wingnut, thats as close to the truth as we can expect.
forces continue to target their radar and fire missiles at
Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air. The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the “no-fly zones” and to fighting Iraq. In addition, reports indicate that the death rate for small children has doubled in Iraq over the past decade. These child deaths are attributed to the continuing war and economic sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s unwillingness to live up to the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
sorry for screwing up the blockquote.
I wrote too quickly, it wasn’t $60 billion/year, I don’t know where I got that number.
But your $1 billion number is very low.
This link says The Pentagon estimates that it carries out an average of 12 “missions” a month in Iraq (other figures put the number higher) at a cost of $750,000 per mission. In 2000, the official annual US bill for the southern “zone” alone was estimated at $1.4 billion. backed up here and this Democratic budget says that it’s $15.3 billion/year savings a year to not have to enforce the no-fly zone. That probably includes paying for bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and wherever else we based our planes.
Regardless, the only other plan I’ve seen is that we should not have gone to war. In other words, try to keep him in his box all while he was merrily bribing everybody he could to get out of the box.
Get out of his box and do what exactly? Throw peanuts at everyone? The man had squat left to do warfare with. I’d be just as terrified by a convicted felon who served time for murder threatening me up with a nerf gun.
The man had squat left to do warfare with.
Oh I don’t know about that.
Just because we haven’t found large stockpiles doesn’t mean he didn’t have programs in place to reconstitute them when the sanctions were ended. Also, he sent stuff toSyria
He already used chemical weapons more than once (Kurds, Iranians) and attacked two neighbors (Iran, Kuwait), had ties to terrorists (read the PBS link on Salman Pak above), had one of the largest militaries in the world (Not up to US standards, but strong enough for his neighbors) and was reneging on the deal he made to end the Gulf War.
A responsible leader couldn’t allow that to stand after 9/11.
Veeshir continued to dig:
Weren’t very good in math either I see Veeshir. Let compute shall we.
12 missions a month @ $ 750,000 = $9 million per month
12 months per year @ $9M per = $108 million per year.
This was supposed to support YOUR argument? Lets not guess, here is the Defense Department’s REAL numbers for what it cost:
1998 = 1.6 billion
1999 = 1.2 billion
2000 = 1.1 billion
2001 = 1.0 billion
Hey Slide, argue with the Democrat’s budget writers.
As for the math, I also quoted the part about the cost on southern watch. Argue with them about their math. There are more to the costs than merely flying the jets. They have to have a place to land and people and parts to fix them.
I see you’re not very good at logistics along with your problem with logic.
Regardless, the cost was not the point. The threat was the point.
But keep on arguing the periphery and cede the point of my post.
More inaccuracies by Veeshir:
Veeshir may believe that, but the Iraq Survey Group, with over a thousand investigators and led by a Bush appointed CIA expert concluded otherwise:
Even a broken clock has a better record than Veeshir on accuracy, as it managed to be right at least twice a day.
More Veeshir nonsense:
Then why did you mention the cost of 60 billion dollars? You were off by roughly 59,000 percent. Close heh? lol
and about the “threat” of Saddam Hussein – there was none. No WMD, no connection to Bin Laden, no connection to 911, no ability to threaten its neigbors. Stop drinking the Kool-aid and open your eyes.
You’re exactly right. Saddam was no threat to anyone. He actually was a man of peace.
I can’t believe I actually allowed myself to get into this debate.
There is no need to look for ornate explanations. Cheney’s intent was to win the war so quickly and cost-free that post-war rationales would have looked like nit-picking. Wilson’s expose would have mattered to few had the war been going as Adelman predicted.
Presented with the Fait Accompli, the American people would have shrugged their shoulders and returned their attention to the Shaivos and Holloways of the world.
The only question is whether the Adelmans, Feiths and Libbys really believed their rosy prognostications. Or were they , like Chalabi, content to be “heroes in error.” After all, as BOTH Bush and Kerry said in the course of their debate, “Israel is safer.”