From the AOL newsfeed:
(Sept. 28) – Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.
The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of the 1,662 ready reservists ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., by Sept. 22, only 1,038 had done so, the Army said Monday.
“The numbers did not look good,” said Lt. Col. Burton Masters, a spokesman for the Army’s Human Resources Command.
As an example of the challenges they faced, Masters held up a note from one Private Avon which simply read, “I’m not stupid, I’m not expendable, and I’m not going.”
PAD
• 
Reading comprehension is such a lost art!
Then perhaps you should brush up on your skills a bit, because Bush fought this war on the basis that Saddam had WMD and was an immediate threat to use them.
Neither was true, but everybody is apparently too stupid to notice.
Wrong Mehares,
Those are those people’s jobs. Worldwide Police is NOT Amerika’s job.
And I find myself agreeing with Craig again, ’tis strange days we live in…
R.Maheras:
A pox on you for making me agree with Bladestar:
And, of course, using your rationale, you would not at all think badly of the Coast Guard if they refused to send out a helicopter or boat to try and rescue those aboard a sinking boat in a storm because the owner decided to ignore weather advisories and go sailing anyway.
So you’re saying that the Coast Guard issues a warning for ships to come in, and the warning is ignored. The ship is in danger of sinking. The Coast Guard should go out regardless of the risk to the Coast Guard ship to rescue them? Or that a police officer should attempt to drive in driving rain and 155 mile per hour winds, to try and rescue people who ignored a warning to evacuate.
Having a risky job is one thing, but when death is a sure thing, the risk is simply overwhelming. If people ignore a warning, it’s okay to risk their own lives. They shouldn’t be allowed to force others to risk theirs.
Bladestar wrote:
“Wrong Mehares, Those are those people’s jobs. Worldwide Police is NOT Amerika’s job. And I find myself agreeing with Craig again, ’tis strange days we live in…”
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the Constitution. Such decisions are made by civilian leadership, not unilaterally by people in the military (that includes privates or generals). Civilian leadership decides what the U.S. military’s mission is and where it goes. If you want to give such decision-making authority to the military, I suppose you can always lobby your congressmen for a Constitutional amendment. Personally, however, I like things just the way they are.
A pox on you for making me agree with Bladestar:
It happens to the best of us. 🙂
On a lesser scale here in Michigan Clark, there are similar examples every spring.
The state warns these moron fisherman that the ice on the lakes is not safe to go out on and fish, but these f’ing morons go out anyway and then waste the taxpayers money and rescuers lives trying to pull them off the ice/out of the water they got themselves stuck in. They ought be handed a bill everytime that happens.
“Then perhaps you should brush up on your skills a bit, because Bush fought this war on the basis that Saddam had WMD and was an immediate threat to use them.
“Neither was true, but everybody is apparently too stupid to notice.”
Let’s go back and check the record.
Bush never said Saddam was an “immediate” or “imminent” threat, he said he was a real and mounting threat. The difference is small but real. Go find me one quote of Bush or Cheney or Powell where they say differently.
By the way, John Edwards said in 2003 that Iraq was an imminent threat. So whatever else you might believe about Bush, Edwards, who had access to much of the intelligence Bush was seeing, believed Iraq was an imminet threat and a real danger to us.
Regarding WMD’s, I have posted this multiple times now. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam had WMD’s. There are a few options. Everyone might have been wrong. Or there may have been WMD’s, but Saddam got them out of the country before the war began (and there is some hard evidence in sattelite pictures that suggest this could be true). Either way, NO ONE has been able to demonstrate Saddam did NOT have WMD’s.
But, for the moment, let’s say Saddam no longer had WMD’s. What have we found since we invaded? We have found clear evidence that he had all of the components in place to begin production of WMD’s in a very short amount of time. Go read the FULL reports by David Kay and his replacement (when that one becomes available).
The record is very clear for anyone who wants to see it. Saddam was one of the most brutal dictators in the last 50 years. He repeatedly attacked others. He used WMD’s to wipe out an ethnic group in his country. He was actively pursuing WMD’s (whether he still had some or not). He welcomed and gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked America. He was behind an attempt to assasinate a former US president.
Bush did not lie or mislead us about Saddam Hussein. He may (perhaps) have had incorrect info on stockpiles of WMD’s, but everything else has been shown to be true.
As I have said before, it is healthy for us to debate whether going to war with Iraq was the best option. (I think it was.) But such a debate is only healthy when there is a willingness to look at the facts.
Here are some stories that give the evidence I am talking about:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/World/Mass-Graves.Testify.To.Saddams.Evil-621193.shtml
Any questions?
Jim in Iowa
Considering there seems to be no plan for how to handle postwar Iraq other than using US soldiers as cannon fodder to “keep the terrorists from attacking on US soil” ( which is a load of bullsh*t), I can’t really muster any venom towards a guy who doesn’t want to go back.
As for the draft, while a conventional draft may not be in the offing, a “Special Skills Draft is already in the early stages of development:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL
All of us computer geeks better start making plans to hightail it to Canada.
Either way, NO ONE has been able to demonstrate Saddam did NOT have WMD’s.
Ahh, guilty until proven innocent.
Let’s forget about the fact that there are other threats, including one that *gaps* actually attacked us – Al Qaeda and bin Laden.
A threat we are still not taking seriously, apparently.
But then, either way, no one has been able to demonstrate that Bush isn’t a complete and utter idiot.
He used WMD’s to wipe out an ethnic group in his country.
Amazing how little the Republicans cared about this when Saddam was actually doing it. When Saddam used WMD’s to attack the Kurds, what Ðìçk Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do? Sell him more weapons.
Den W. wrote:
“Amazing how little the Republicans cared about this when Saddam was actually doing it. When Saddam used WMD’s to attack the Kurds, what Ðìçk Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do? Sell him more weapons.”
What’s amazing is how you single out the United States, when the countries that provided the majority of weapons and WMD technology to the Iraqis during the 1980s reads like a Who’s Who of the United Nations: France, China, Germany, The Soviet Union, Brazil, Chile, Austria, South Africa — just to name a few. If you do some digging, you’ll find out we were a minor player, at best. That we were a player at all is, of course, shameful in retrospect — but at the time, who knew Saddam was going to going to grow into such a brutal “lesser of two evils”?
Amazing how little the Republicans cared about this when Saddam was actually doing it. When Saddam used WMD’s to attack the Kurds, what Ðìçk Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do? Sell him more weapons.
So they “flip-flopped”? But the way I hear it from you Democrats, that’s a sign of learning from your mistakes.
“Ahh, guilty until proven innocent.”
It is statements like this that amaze me. Saddam actually used WMD’s. There is an enormous amount of evidence he had WMD programs. There were multiple UN resolutions where a number of countries stated their belief that Saddam either had or was developing WMD’s.
I would think it is obvious, but let me give a simple analogy. Imagine there is a man named “Sam.” Sam has used a gun to rob two individuals, and kill 20 others. You are a cop and you try to chase him down. You finally catch up to him. You tell Sam to throw down his gun. He refuses to do so. He refuses to tell you that he threw down the gun somewhere so that you can verify he does not have a gun. What would you do?
If you had any intelligence, you would treat Sam like he still had a gun.
The point is simply this: Saddam had and used WMDs. A large number of people beyond America’s influence and control agreed.
So yes, I will assume he is guilty until proven otherwise. Why? Because he was proven to be guilty in the past. It is as simple as that.
Jim in Iowa
It is statements like this that amaze me.
It’s ignorance on the part of Republicans that amazes me.
Of course, it’s convenient for you to ignore comments about bin Laden, because, just like Bush, he apparently isn’t that important to you.
And how long do you actually think diplomacy will last with Iran? About as long as it did with Bush & Iraq? Shorter? Just long enough to formulate another half-ášš plan that will create yet another quagmire?
Saddam was contained. That’s all there was to it. But that wasn’t good enough for Bush. Make any ol’ excuse to make sure he gets his god-awful revenge in the name of the “war on terror”.
It’s smegging sick.
So, you think you know?
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html
Jim in Iowa:
You left a part out of your scenario – When you finally catch up to Sam he is in the process of being patted down by a couple of other officers, who can’t find the gun you said Sam had on him, yet you decide to shoot Sam anyway.
The fact of the matter is that Saddam was contained and even if he were trying to reconstitute his weapons programs the inspections would have found him out if they were given a chance. We didn’t have to start a war because there were other less extreme options.
“I, [name here], do solemnly swear … to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me…”
The order to report, per the terms of IRR, and to deploy to Iraq, while possibly (probably, IMHO) stupid, is not unlawful. Reporting as ordered does not threaten the United States, nor its Constitution. And military decisions on our part (unusually enough) are made ony by civilians. The General Staff, in any conflict, is limited to determining the best way to accomplish the goals set by the civilian leaership, and is not permitted to choose the goals itself – and, I think, for good reason.
The young men who have refused to report, while they may be morally correct, are legally (to use the technical term) in deep doodoo.
“Of course, it’s convenient for you to ignore comments about bin Laden, because, just like Bush, he apparently isn’t that important to you.”
I have not forgotten Bin Laden. Nor has Bush. I am sure history will show we missed some chances to capture him early on in Afganistan (sp?). That is true in any war. Once he did escape, short of invading Pakistan, sending more troops would not make a difference.
I believe Iraq was a real threat to us. You disagree. Fine. Taking action against an additional threat does not mean we have given up on the first. Keep in mind, too, that by its very nature, a search for Bin Laden will by its very nature be somewhat quiet. Otherwise we would be giving too much away. A lack of information does not necessarily show incompetence or a lack of effort. It just means we have not yet found him.
Jim in Iowa
“You left a part out of your scenario – When you finally catch up to Sam he is in the process of being patted down by a couple of other officers, who can’t find the gun you said Sam had on him, yet you decide to shoot Sam anyway.”
Obviously the analogy breaks down at this point. It is easy to pat down a person’s body. It is harder to search his mansion. Especially when you are limited to which rooms you can search them and when you can search them. You also leave out the fact that while we did not find a stockpile of WMD’s (a gun in the analogy), we did find him in material breach of the UN resolutions (perhaps like finding him with a knife and brass knuckles?). The officers, in real life, did not find what happened to the gun and could not be certain he actually did not have a gun. So my original point still stands.
Finally, I would suggest that while we did “shoot” Sam, we did not shoot to kill, but to simply wound.
“The fact of the matter is that Saddam was contained and even if he were trying to reconstitute his weapons programs the inspections would have found him out if they were given a chance. We didn’t have to start a war because there were other less extreme options.”
Again a crucial point is ignored. We tried to do inspections for years. Saddam repeatedly hindered these inspections. It is a gross mischaracterization to portray us as the reason inspections were not given a chance.
The fact that we did find him reconstituting WMDs in spite of inspections proves your point wrong.
What other “less extreme” options were left? Inspections did not work. While Saddam was contained for the moment, there were so many under the table deals going on that Saddam was making gains during this time. And as 911 showed, it did not take a manufactured WMD to cause mass destruction. There is no question that Saddam supported and aided terrorism. I don’t think we were left with much choice with the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese (to name a few) helping Saddam. (Funny how they are also the main ones who opposed us going to war in the first place.)
Jim in Iowa
/i
Yes, the US funded and armed the Taliban because it was for the best at that point in time.
Excuse me? For the best of who? Do you think arming people has ever been for the best?
I’m glad to see soldiers deserting but I’d prefer it happening when they are told to kill, not when they are asked to die.
emd /i
I stated it was the best at that point in time but failed to note that it was in the minds of those who did the implementation. Anything to stop the scourge of international COMMUNISM (Monty Python intonation intentional).
I don’t agree with soldiers deserting at all. If there’s ever a war that gets over to this side of the pond you’re gonna want every soldier you can get protecting you and conversely engaging the enemy on their own turf too.
So…how do italics work anyway?
So…how do italics work anyway?
On another thread somone suggested: http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/reference/html_cheatsheet/
Helped me greatly!
“I don’t agree with soldiers deserting at all. “
Well, I don’t agree with solidiers at all.
Somebody said something about Israel. I’m against terrorism. But don’t believe they are the good guys. They invaded Palestina in 1967 in an ILLEGAL war. UN has said so many times and USA used his veto. Would you like somebody invading your house? Anyway, America freed Kuwait in the 90’s when invaded by Irak, why not freed Palestina?
Now we get to the nitty gritty. When the State Of Israel was created in 1948, it’s neighbors immediately undertook the effort to obliterate it. They lost. They tried again in 1956. They lost. They tried again in 1967, and this time not only did they lose, but the Israelis finally got pìššëd øff enough to really go at it and take over some extra territory. 1973 was no different.
For you see, the objective of the Arafat-sanctioned factions in the Middle East is not necessarily to obtain a homeland for the Palestinians. No, because this could have easily been obtained from Arab countries bordering Israel. The objective is to obliterate Israel. The secondary object is to obliterate as many Jews as possible in the process of achieving the first objective.
Everything else in the Middle East has followed from this more than 100-year conflict. To get more facts, please obtain the book
MYTHS AND FACTS, A Guide To The Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Mitchell G. Bard. It is available in print from the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2810 Blaine Drive, Chevy Chase, MD, 20815, or you can see the web site at http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org
Once you read this book which is incredible in its scope and the depth of the research and references used, you might understand more about what the truth is.
“Slightly OT: But going from the way so many people here seem to be against war and that fighting back to protect yourself only makes the person you’re fighting against even madder, what would be your advice to Israel? Should they just pack it up, leave and let the Palestians have the land? After all these people have pretty much said that as long as Israel exists there will be no peace.”
I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to say it: That’s a staggeringly stupid question. Seriously. It’s a monumental attempt to draw a linkage that’s so misplaced, so unworkable, so utterly preposterous, that I can readily believe you would support Bush’s doctrine of preemptive attacks because it makes about as much sense. I mean, it’s not only off topic, it’s off the planet.
Bush, armed with cherry-picked information that was staggeringly wrong, invaded against a people who had not attacked this country, against the advice of most of the rest of the world. The Israelis, a country that is recognized by the rest of the world, is attempting to defend itself from a group of people who are effectively cast-offs from other countries, have actually (through their representatives) refused the creation of their own country, and spent three generations trying to kill all the Israelis to take back land that absolutely no one wanted until the Israelis suddenly started growing oranges on it.
A usual logic train says, “If A, then B.” You’ve created a logic train that says, “If A, then gym socks.”
PAD
“Either way, NO ONE has been able to demonstrate Saddam did NOT have WMD’s.
Ahh, guilty until proven innocent.”
Worse: It appears that George W. Bush’s supporters are so desperate to believe Bush has a plan, they’re unaware it’s Plan 9 from Outer Space. It’s like Criswell is overseeing the WMD intelligence: “You say prove that it happened? We say…prove that it didn’t!”
PAD
I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to say it: That’s a staggeringly stupid question. Seriously. It’s a monumental attempt to draw a linkage that’s so misplaced, so unworkable, so utterly preposterous, that I can readily believe you would support Bush’s doctrine of preemptive attacks because it makes about as much sense. I mean, it’s not only off topic, it’s off the planet.
All right, PAD, you win. It’s rather obvious that I just rub you the wrong way. Since you can’t just ask me to stop posting here without violating your free speech doctrine, I’ll go quietly. Likewise, I hope you’ll understand then if I no longer honor my promise to buy Fallen Angel and give it a fair reading until Issue #20. And don’t worry. No one you work for will ever get a letter from me asking them to fire you.
“All right, PAD, you win. It’s rather obvious that I just rub you the wrong way. Since you can’t just ask me to stop posting here without violating your free speech doctrine, I’ll go quietly.”
Whether you stay or go is entirely up to you, but it has nothing to do with rubbing me any which way. You simply put forward an association I considered to be preposterous (based upon what I perceive as a deliberate misreading of people’s viewpoints vis a vis Iraq) in order to imply that anyone who is against Operation Re-Elect Bush would also have to be against Israeli defense against Palestinian terrorists. No one that I know of, including me, has said anything to the effect of, “But going from the way so many people here seem to be against war and that fighting back to protect yourself only makes the person you’re fighting against even madder” with the implication that, therefore, if you’re ever attacked, you should just roll over. It’s the old liberal=cowardice saw that conservatives routinely trot out, and it’s tiresome, and it’s insulting.
The point that most anti-Iraq war advocates have been making is that we are NOT fighting back to protect ourselves, but instead merely trying to survive in a situation that we ran into with no clue what we were getting into and no clue how to get out of it. That America was not under any direct threat and that we thrust ourselves into a war under pretext manufactured by a handful of neo-Cons and a willing president who would do absolutely anything to avoid being a one-term POTUS like this dad. There is just absolutely no way that squares with comparison to Israel’s sixty-year long battle to avoid extinction at the hands of enemies who have wanted to annihilate them from day one. None.
Now if you want to use my saying that as an excuse to slink away into the night and moan that you were ill-used, go right ahead. After all, your interpretation of what I mean is, as always, far more important than what I actually say. But that’s your decision to make.
PAD
Don’t go Clarkles, you’re too entertaining. And if you leave, the evil “unnamed” may return to take your place 🙂
I’m still wondering how this argument about Saddam having WMD can possibly hold water.
Giving it some thought, one piece of BS that’s been thrown about is that Saddam sent the WMD to Syria.
Now, we know Saddam tried this before – he sent his jets to Iran. Guess who didn’t get his jets back.
So why would he possibly send his WMD to Syria? And if he did, why aren’t we on a preemptive ášš-kicking of Syria? I mean hey, that kind of stupidity worked with Iraq, right?
Bush wants to use that stupidity with anybody else he wants.
I guess the WMD aren’t that important after all.
So they “flip-flopped”? But the way I hear it from you Democrats, that’s a sign of learning from your mistakes.
Since this was directly in response to my comment, I’ll just say for the record: I’m a registered independent, not a democrat and couldn’t care less what democrats call it. Second, if ignoring attempted genocide and pretending to care about it is just “flip-flop” in your mind, what do you consider to be rank hypocrisy.
Just please, spare the tremendous outpouring of love for the Kurds on behalf of your party. We ignored attempted genocide against them in the 80s and left them to twist in the wind in the 90s after encouraging them rebel against Saddam.
Suddenly, when the complete of absense of proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003 became apparent, suddenly the mantra from the GOP became, “Hey, remember how he had them 20 years ago?”
What’s amazing is how you single out the United States, when the countries that provided the majority of weapons and WMD technology to the Iraqis during the 1980s reads like a Who’s Who of the United Nations: France, China, Germany, The Soviet Union, Brazil, Chile, Austria, South Africa — just to name a few.
No, what’s amazing is how you take one comment and try to make it sound like I condone the actions of all the other countries.
Let me try make this simple for you to understand:
1) US selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
2) Other countries selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
3) Republicans selling Saddam the weapons he used against the Kurds, then citing the usage of those weapons 20 year after the fact as justification for the Iraqi war = hypocrisy.
4) The fact that he also bought weapons from other countries = Bad, but not an excuse for the GOP to do the same.
Jim posts –
“http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html”
Try posting links to real news sources, not web sites that have links to the Drudge Report on the front page.
Its no wonder you think the way you do.
Try reading or listening to the BBC, NBC, CNN and other non partisan news agencies that will actually tell you both sides instead of just one.
Den W. wrote:
“1) US selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
2) Other countries selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
3) Republicans selling Saddam the weapons he used against the Kurds, then citing the usage of those weapons 20 year after the fact as justification for the Iraqi war = hypocrisy.
4) The fact that he also bought weapons from other countries = Bad, but not an excuse for the GOP to do the same.”
As I alluded to in my post, we agree on points 1 and 2. However, by singling out the GOP in your crititicism, you inferred that it was primarily the U.S. that sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s — hence my clarification. In reality, the U.S. was a minor player in Saddam’s conventional weapons buildup compared to our “peace-loving” U.N. partners. And as far as your WMD charges against the GOP go, give some specifics. As I recall, the U.S. also had little to do with those programs. Again, wasn’t it primarily the “peace-loving” Europeans who gave Saddam the bulk of his deadly WMD arsenal?
Such hypocrisy is why the U.S. should take criticism from abroad with a grain of salt. Many of our staunchest critic overseas are supremely guilty of the old adage, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Personally, I think both the GOP and the Democrats have plenty of policies in the past that they should be ashamed of, and as an independent voter, I take exception to anyone who tries and label one party as inherently more righteous or compassionate than the other.
So why would he possibly send his WMD to Syria? And if he did, why aren’t we on a preemptive ášš-kicking of Syria?
Have a look at this:
Officials warned that unless Syria changes its policy within the next few weeks, the administration would consider economic and military measures against Damascus that would intensify in 2005. They said the Defense Department has drafted a range of military options meant to put Damascus on the defensive and encourage insurrection within Syria.
and this Newsweek Report.
It’s quite possible the Syrian Baathists are next.
“…BBC, NBC, CNN and other non partisan news agencies…”
LOL
Well, that same lol would apply equally to Fox News.
However, by singling out the GOP in your crititicism, you inferred that it was primarily the U.S. that sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s — hence my clarification.
It was Reagan who supported Saddam against Iran, yes?
It was also some of these same European countries who didn’t see Iraq as enough of a threat to justify invading them, either.
Well, that same lol would apply equally to Fox News.
Uh, that is sort of my point. Fox News is so eagerly pointed at as being biasd, but the same people who are doing the pointing turn around and watch CBS, BBC, CNN, etc.
Uh, that is sort of my point. Fox News is so eagerly pointed at as being biasd, but the same people who are doing the pointing turn around and watch CBS, BBC, CNN, etc.
Well, you know, I’m not convinced that any of the media outlets are any more biased than the others.
Save for Fox (conservative) and probably CBS and the NYT (liberal).
People just want to bìŧçh and moan about a liberal media because they talk about Bush alot. Well, he’s president, and this “liberal” media sure as hëll wasn’t soft on Clinton.
I don’t know about you, but I only watch biased news… it’s called the Daily Show… and at least it’s entertaining.
Travis
“but the same people who are doing the pointing turn around and watch CBS, BBC, CNN”
Are you actually trying to infer that the BBC and CNN which have a long history of being unbiased and trust-worthy news agencies are somehow in the same league as FOX and other known to be mouthpieces for the Right?
Why don’t you just say “I only believe spin doctors!” or “Any news that doesn’t agree with my political beliefs must be biased.”
Hey, continue to get your news from Fox, the Drudge Report, and Rush. Just don’t be surprised when people laugh at you or look at you funny for the uninformed things you say.
Did you know 70% of Fox’s viewers believe that WMD were found in Iraq?
I mean, How stupid can you get?
As I alluded to in my post, we agree on points 1 and 2. However, by singling out the GOP in your crititicism, you inferred that it was primarily the U.S. that sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s — hence my clarification.
Well let me check who was running the executive branch of the US government in the 80s. . .
. . . Yep, it was the GOP.
And as far as your WMD charges against the GOP go, give some specifics. As I recall, the U.S. also had little to do with those programs. Again, wasn’t it primarily the “peace-loving” Europeans who gave Saddam the bulk of his deadly WMD arsenal?
If by “bit player”, you mean sending (then secretary of defense) Ðìçk Cheney over to sell Saddam nerve gas and pose for smiling pictures with him, then yes.
Personally, I think both the GOP and the Democrats have plenty of policies in the past that they should be ashamed of,
Agreed.
and as an independent voter, I take exception to anyone who tries and label one party as inherently more righteous or compassionate than the other.
I am also an independent. I cited the GOP only because they were the party in charge of the executive branch in the 80s when Saddam was our best buddy in all of the middle east and are the ones who today constantly cite his actions in the 80s (actions which Ðìçk, Rummy, et. al. tacitly condoned at the time) as justification for the current Iraqi war. It was never my intent to imply that the Democrats are more “righteous or compassionate.” Had they been doing the same things, I would be condemning them as well.
Den W. wrote:
“If by “bit player”, you mean sending (then secretary of defense) Ðìçk Cheney over to sell Saddam nerve gas and pose for smiling pictures with him, then yes.”
You’re either misinformed or not playing fair by accusing Cheney.
Here are the real Iraqi WMD culprits, according to an early 2003 article by Kenneth Timmerman in Insight: “In all, the Iraqis named 14 German, three Dutch, three Swiss and two French companies as their top CW (chemical weapon) suppliers, although dozens more played supporting roles. According to U.N. databases Insight was able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license applications worth billions of dollars. The United States put 93 of those contracts, worth $217 million, on hold. Among them was the sale as “medical equipment” of a series of lithotripsy machines for treating kidney stones without surgery manufactured by the company Karl Storz Endoscopie France SA. Perfectly normal? Think again. The lithotripter employs a high-speed krytron switch similar to those used to trigger nuclear warheads. Along with the six medical machines, Iraq sought 120 spare krytrons, the U.N. Website reveals. After France, countries with the most applications were Jordan (184), Russia (154), the United Arab Emirates (112), Italy (97) and China (66). While German companies had made only 36 applications, the dollar value was believed to be in the billions, just behind France.”
And if you notice, Cheney is not even mentioned, and the U.S. actually LOST hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to sell materiels to Iraq that were suspect.
“Hey, continue to get your news from Fox, the Drudge Report, and Rush.”
Well, I don’t know about Mexican Pres. Vincente Fox or some report on drudgery, but I agree with a lot of the commentary from Rush. “Beneath, Between, & Behind”, for instance, is even more trenchant than when they first released it, almost 30 years ago…
Oh, you meant Limbaugh! My bad!
“Beneath the noble bird,
Between the proudest words,
Behind the beauty, cracks appear
Once, with heads held high,
They sang out to the sky –
Why do their shadows bow in fear?”
According to U.N. databases Insight was able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license…
Weren’t we talking about the 80’s?
Are you actually trying to infer that the BBC and CNN which have a long history of being unbiased and trust-worthy news agencies are somehow in the same league as FOX and other known to be mouthpieces for the Right?
The BBC unbiased? I guess you missed the Hutton inquiry where several directors were forced to resign over the coverage of the Iraq war. Their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very pro-Palestinian.
Every news organization has bias – that of ratings. Rathergate at CBS, Tailwind at CNN, the gavel-to-gavel of OJ and the obsession with Monica Lewinsky all boil down to ratings. I watch primarily Fox and MSNBC and I find them both biased. As far as straight news goes, Fox does better, IMO (I’m not talking about the talking head shows). MSNBC is more about fluff pieces than straight news. The one thing I can’t stand to watch on Fox under almost all circumstances in Hannity/Colmes. Hannity spends more time interrupting than questioning and I find him annoying. Tim Russert is the best interviewer in town – I wish he did more than Meet the Press.
Tim Russert is the best interviewer in town – I wish he did more than Meet the Press.
He has a show on CNBC called, interestingly enough, Tim Russert.
Yes, but that’s his “soft” show 🙂
You’re either misinformed or not playing fair by accusing Cheney.
No, citing events of 1998 to refute something that happened in the 80s shows how misinformed you are.
Now, how about we look at the information from the time in question instead?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
But you’ll probably dismiss these since they’re not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
(He has no answers, save to throw more bodies in the way.)
He’s pres Zap Brannigan. We will throw wave after wave of our own men at the terrorists until they run out of bullits and bombs. Then they will have to give up!