Ok, for those of you playing the home game, let’s recap:
President Bush invaded Iraq and ended America’s 13 year war with Saddam with the authorization of Congress, and support of Democrats. Even before the war started, Gov Howard Dean ran for President on an anti-war theme (in addition to governor of Vermont, doctor, maple syrup king, and Presidential Candidate, he’s secretly been a middle eastern intelligence operative and the only man in the world who could accurately assess the threat from Saddam…or…so people were led to believe). As soon as Coalition forces crossed the border, Democrats en masse changed their tune, opposed the war like candidate Dean, and they themselves either tested the Presidential campaign waters, or just jumped right in. And so it was that the debate raged, grew, exaggerated, distorted, and became an animal-a monster-in and of itself. “Dissent is patriotic” we were told-even if that dissent wasn’t really based on fact, but on political aspirations and/or frustrations. The debate was key to the 2002 elections, the 2004 elections, the 2006 elections, and was almost key in 2008, but something happened.
Success in Iraq.
Big drop in casualties
security success
success against the Al Queda in Iraq groups
and growing political success
It was undeniable, so the left denied it, and ignored it, and now…
…now that both the Democrats and Republicans are coming to consensus on how to proceed in Iraq, those who opposed are revealing that their opposition really was just based on partisanship…not patriotic dissent as earlier claimed.
Obama supporters and blissed-out Barry-heads everywhere: Are you ready for some righteous war? Are you prepared to step up and get fucking medieval in Afghanistan, and perhaps in Pakistan as well? You’d better be, for the man whose feet you’re currently kissing has big plans to expand the War On Terror, and now is not the time for faint-hearted second-thoughts. Polish those boots, clean your weapons, and get in formation. The moment of truth is arriving soon.
War Without End, Amen: Into the Afghan Abyss with Obama
“For years now, ‘serious’ liberals have repeated the mantra that Bush ‘took his eye off the ball’ in the War on Terror by fighting in Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan, the ‘good war,’ the ‘right war.’ Now Obama looks set to call their bluff: ‘You wanted a big war in Afghanistan? Here it is. Now what?’
The primary dissent against the war in Iraq was not, and is not against the war, but against President Bush, and when President Obama takes office, most of those who opposed or oppose the war will suddenly support it-not because the cause has changed, but because a face for it has.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
I’ve always supported the idea of removing Hussein. The reason was not fighting terrorism, but for deliberate failure to comply with the ongoing UN inspections. I have also always opposed the way in which the war was fought. I’ll readily admit to playing armchair general but not a monday morning quarterback. The “coalition” was too disproportionate and there was not a clear, intelligent post invasion plan. It was apparent almost immediately. What would have been the most successful military operation in history turned into a clusterfuck. If the Commander in Chief been a Democrat, you guys would have been calling for the giving him the Mussolini treatment.
For over seventeen months now, Obama has almost never mentioned withdrawal from Iraq without putting in the caveat of a carefully planned, flexible withdrawal. I wouldn’t support him if I didn’t believe him on that.
Fitfit, I think you’re mistaken re the Coalition disproportionality. It wasn’t much different percent-wise than in Desert Storm. Moreover, France wasn’t gonna go because they were paid off by Oil For Food program bribes. Germany couldn’t do anything. Russia and China sure weren’t gonna (in fact, Russia worked very hard to help Saddam prepare to fight against the Coalition). Saudi helped. Jordan offered, but the US turned em down (in most ways). Syria DEFINITELY wasn’t gonna cut the throat of its Golden Goose.
Who were you looking to see send more forces?
As to the post-war planning….I dunno. No doubt that once the AQ/Baathist driven insurgency took hold in 2004/05, and as SOON as IEDs started taking their toll, I think there could’ve been a change, but not much of one. As it is, the counter-insurgency war has been fought more efficiently than any I can recall in military history (no?).
I also disagree w the clusterfuck idea. Chaotic, hard to understand/harder to explain no doubt, and in terms of politicizing and propagandizing the war it went completely, utterly unchecked by the Admin. However, again I ask…where’s a better example of a faster, more efficient, and successful counter-insurgency operation?
As to Obama and withdrawal…I agree with you 100%. Question is…since both Obama and McCain have always said that…why’s the left rip on McCain for it and not on Obama unless it’s partisan not patriotism
party not nation?
Really, Fit? That “flexible” word is a new addition.
Obama, Nov 2006
Humm… I’m missing that “flexible” part.
His Obama campaign site plan…
Again, I’m missing that word “flexible” here you claim you hear. “Done in consultation” suggests he might be flexible, but then the all engaged troops “out by the end of next year” belies that flexibility. Typical BHO doublespeak… trying to have it all when the two ends conflict in policy. How can he say he’ll be doing it with Iraq consultation, yet still name a firm end date?
Now… what must be said is that Obama was planning this when the violence and chaos was high, and steadily rising pre-surge. The Iraq Assemble were not at the point they are today because of the lack of security. The Iraq security forces of military and police were not taking the lead on missions. They did not have the capability then that they have today.
So today, speaking of withdrawal is realistic. Speaking of it then? Sheer irresponsibility and campaign talking points. Again, Obama is a broken clock… right once or twice a day when events in a moment in time match his stubborn, ill thought out policies.
Somehow, it seems almost as if our expectations have become unrealistic in regards to fighting wars and quelling insurgencies.
I disagree. I’d support any American leader who prosecuted an aggressive campaign against Islamic terrorism. I might disagree with Joe Lieberman in other areas, but certainly not in his assessment on the threat from Islamic jihadis.
I don’t think you’re missing it so much as editing it out.
“I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly-rigid. We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels. Moreover, it could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.” Chicago Council on Global Affairs 11-20-2006
“we’ve got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in” standard line delivered in nearly every stump speech
If you really think that’s a big change from what he’s saying now, fine. But I think you’re letting partisanship override your intellectual honesty.
Again, I gotta agree w fitfit. Obama’s always ranted and raved and taken this position or that on Iraq, but he’s always included the marketing line: “We have to be as careful or more getting out than we were careless in getting in.” It’s a good example of him talking out of both sides of his mouth, but he has in fact included that caveat.
And now that the party’s base as annointed him savior…they have to eat what he stands for:
-a foreign policy towards Pakistan that he admits is identical to Bush’s
-a foreign policy towards Iran that is identical to Bush’s
-a plan for Iraq that is idential to McCain’s, Petraeus’, and all those non-Democrats
-a committment to “get” UBL with no plan (just like GWB’s)
-an expansion of the war in Afghanistan just like Sen McCain’s, and in complete/direct contradiction to the peace-movement’s demands
Yep, the party’s nominated a great speaker, a true leader, and I believe he’s already done more for the war on terror than GWB or any Republican politician since 911. He’s quelled the faux “patriotic dissent” from the left that was primarily just fear, political alienation expressing itself, and denial of reality. That dissent emboldened the enemy, gave them hope and reason to hold on (I have MANY quotes from UBL and others saying this specific thing), and now, because Obama has a D next to his name…the policies that the so-called-peace-movement used to embolden the enemy are suddenly taboo.
By silencing the propaganda (albeit just for having a D next to his name) Barack Obama has cut off enemy propaganda and support in the US. That’s his greatest accomplishment. If he followed through with his foreign policies as President (GWB policies under a different name) he’d be the man that effectively wins the war on terror. It is a reason to vote for him-or at least not to fear him.
We shall see
When did you ever hear anyone before we went in talk about fighting a counter-insurgency war?
That was not the war the Administration or the Pentagon planned for. It appears the Administration and or the Pentagon were caught flat-footed by the insurgency.
For the record, I was opposed to this war before we went in because I had no confidence we would be able to pick up the pieces afterwards. The Atlantic Monthly had a cover before the war with a picture of Uncle Sam stooped under a map of Iraq. The title of the lead article was “Irag – the 51st State?” I always thought that was a profound,and as it turns out, prescient observation. Further our motivations seemed unclear. If Saddam Hussein was a growing and unacceptable threat after over a decade of sanctions, why wasn’t he a threat to the President’s father and his Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney a decade earlier?
The smear on dissent as partisan is a gross generalization that attempts to deny patriotic Americans like myself the right to legitimately and in good faith oppose my country’s policies.
I have marched twice against this ar and I am proud of what I did. I am proud to live in a country were I have the freedom to openly oppose what I believe to be my government’s mistakes.
Aid and comfort to the enemy? Do you really think an insurgent facing the most well-trained and armed soldiers in history gets his courage from Cindy Sheehan?
I supported the first Gulf War. Partisanship was not the basis of my position then, nor is it now. There are wars that stand a chance of success and wars that do not. There are wars that are well-planned and managed and there are wars that are not. This war fails on both counts.
ALICE’S RESTAURANT REDUX
“I wouldn’t support [Obama] if I didn’t believe him on that.” — FitFit
And there’s the rub. If Obama’s lips are flapping . . .
I mean, that guy makes the Clintons look honest!
Don’t be surprised if someday people use his name as a synonym for “liar,” like… “He tried to Obama his way out of the situation.” or “She’s an habitual Obama!” or “Nothing but Obamas, Obamas, Obamas!”
If his lies were a geological formation, they would make the Grand Canyon look like a thimble.
I don’t know which is more “breathtaking,” the extent of his dishonesty, or the fact that there are so many who are so breathtakingly gullible that they believe him.
And now his supporters glom onto a vague caveat his handlers told him to use to make himself sound sensible. (paraphrasing) “We, uh, need to uh, be, uh, careful of, um, uh, how we, uh, exit Iraq.”
Following his supporters machinations is like watching street people rooting through dumpsters, and rejoicing when they find a week old pizza crust or some fish bones. “See, we told you there was food here.”
To carry that last analogy a bit further, they want to then sell Obama’s garbage as if it were gourmet fare, and for it they want us to pay 5 star restaurant prices!
I can see the AD in their restaurant (“ME CHANG’S) window. It reads, “Today Special – With Fish Bones You Get Dumpster.” I.e., If you buy one of his lies, you’re stuck with them all. Now THAT’S chang that will berieve you.
Do they not have ANY idea of how ridiculous they look?!
Do you have any idea how ridiculous YOU look?
Unfortunately politics is largely opinion. From where I sit, a lot of the posts here are “breathtaking” in their ignorance, as I am sure most of my posts are to you…
U.S. Deaths In Iraq Fall To Lowest Of the War
Bush Suggests Gains May Allow More Troops To Come Home Sooner
“The way the war was fought”? My God Fitfit, you make war sound like it should have been a hollywood scripted two hour special with a perfect ending. We can certainly feel greatful that you weren’t an armchair general during WW2—–American soldiers would have never gotten off Normandy beach.
Though-out history wars were fought and victories and defeats were predicated on how the conditions changed and the ajustments were made. Unfortunately today, we have to fight wars with the daily press prosecuting and dissecting every battle. Propaganda and mis-information ran amuck by an un-checked media with an agenda. From the moment we were “bogged down” in the sandstorm heading to Baghdad, the negativity flowed from the rags of our “American Media” hell bent on defeat and for purely political gain. These shameful tactics played an intricate part in many of the delays in prosecuting this war. Yes, mistakes were made, and you may very well be right on the level of the “coalition” going in. But even as General Petraeus took over command and the rules of engagement changed, we had many politicians in Washington doubting the resolve with their “willing suspension of belief” in our militarys ability to change the direction of the war.
Victory is at hand. And we may very well end up with a peaceful and powerful partner in the middle east to protect our global and national security interest. But there will be no “thankyou’s” coming from our heros and those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The family’s that paid this price will understand the deceit, (and traitorous) acts our anti-war-move-On-democratic-left played at the expense of lives lost—— and they will not forget come November.
Rovin
Spot On!
And, since you bring up the quisling MSM, here’s a great piece on how they help get Leftist politicians elected in California; politicians who’s “values” are so alien to those who voted for them that if the voters knew the truth they never would have been elected.
Why a moderately conservative electorate is represented by a left-wing legislature And, what is true in California is more or less true everywhere else. It’s the same thing they, and the political Left, are trying to do with public opinion on Iraq, fortunately without the success they want.
FitFit says “Unfortunately politics is largely opinion.” That so deliberately dodges the fact that when a politician lies, it is like when anyone else lies, because truth and falsehood are NOT “a matter of opinion,” except perhaps in the alternative universe of the Leftist.
As the Powerline article I referenced above concludes, “It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can’t offhand think of such a miscreant.” The only way that could be an “opinion” is if someone else thought another politician was a bigger liar. But that he is a liar, that’s an established fact.
Incidentally, I don’t think Iraq will end up a reliable friend to America or the West. That isn’t to say we were wrong to take out Saddam. The problem is that we really had no choice but to remove him, and that we have no choice but to get the Iraqis to a point where they aren’t easy prey for Islamists or Iran.
It’s a lose lose proposition, just that the loss of not taking Saddam out would have been a much bigger loss than leaving him in place, while the loss of leaving Iraq to the “mercies” of AlQaeda and Iran may have been even greater than leaving Saddam in charge. The way I look at it is that it’s a kind of “loss remediation.” While the goal isn’t optimal, it’s a big “win” when compared to the alternatives.
Dave, that was CLASSIC!
Yonason- take a stroll over to factcheck.org and see who’s pumping out a higher percentage of lies these days…
FitFit
As usual for Leftists, trying to make other people do their work for them.
Put together a case, and I’ll look at it, but I’m not going to waste my time looking for your needle in your haystack.
No point. You’re are obviously oblivious to truth.
I.e., you’ve got nothing.
…and if you ever do come through with what you think might be something, make sure you fact-check your sources, especially FactChek-org. Just because someone calls themselves “fact checkers” doesn’t make them any more reliable than anyone else, especially when we find they make, I’ll be kind here, “mistakes.”
And, in addition to being a liar, the scumbag is a crook, too! Taking illegal campaign contributions from foreign terrorists.
I in no way impied that I thought the war would be either quick and/or easy. I don’t understand why you think that I did.
Rovin, wagging his finger at Fitfit typed:
“The way the war was fought”? My God Fitfit, you make war sound like it should have been a hollywood scripted two hour special with a perfect ending. We can certainly feel greatful that you weren’t an armchair general during WW2—–American soldiers would have never gotten off Normandy beach”
But it’s easy to see how one COULD imagine the war would be quick and/or easy.
Three things off the top of my head about that.
Donald Rumsfeld advisor Kenneth Adelman assured us the invasion would be a ‘cakewalk’.
Paul Wolfowitz told us the Iraqis would pay the costs of overthrowing Saddam & rebuilding their nation out of their oil revenue.
The President hisself declared Mission Accomplished in may of 2003.
“Donald Rumsfeld advisor Kenneth Adelman assured us the invasion would be a ‘cakewalk’.”
-The invasion was infinitely less costly than expected.
“Paul Wolfowitz told us the Iraqis would pay the costs of overthrowing Saddam & rebuilding their nation out of their oil revenue.”
-Wolfowitz only said that after being pressed in a hearing to give a guess on the cost of the war. He was right about the cost of the invasion, but wrong about the cost of the war…guess that’s why he was a Deputy, and not the real deal.
“The President hisself declared Mission Accomplished in may of 2003.”
-Never happened. Please send the quote where ‘the President hisself declared Mission Accomplished” As I recall, there was a banner congratuating the crew on the longest carrier deployment since WWII, and it said their MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED. However, the President’s speech said there was still a lot to be done. Somehow someone decided that the banner and the speech were the same and decided to mislead people to that end. Gosh, why would people like Arthur do that? Ignorance, or deliberate misleading/lying?
“According to the political fact inspection site Politifact.com 8 of Obama’s 28 quotes listed on Politifact.com are false which means 29% percent of the “facts” the man states are untrue:”
The persentages for the other candidates are listed as well, and Obama is WAY out in front.
I don’t know that site, but the info., seems more reliable (and certainly more readable) than the wordy and proven (occasionally at least) wrong, “FactCheck-org”.
Dave Noble wrote:
Dave, I believe that there was far more extensive planning than people on your side want to acknowledge took place.
Rumsfeld and policy makers did make it a point to put forth and anticipate all the things that could go wrong. This included the possibility of not finding wmds, sectarian violence, and the length of post-war stabilization and reconstruction efforts, putting a strain on military and financial resources.
A number of things that were anticipated and which might have taken place, were averted due to the same war-planning that has been heavily criticized. For instance, what if we hadn’t gone in, when we did, light and quick? It took Saddam by surprise. He hadn’t anticipated the speed with which the invasion would begin. Had we waited longer, in order to build up a larger force, more soldiers could have died during OIF major combat operations, as he had begun rigging bridges and oil fields to be detonated. Even the best of planning against worst-case scenarios cannot anticipate all of the variables that could come about to create conditions, ripe for Murphy Law setbacks. No war is problem-free.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t room for criticism. But much of what I hear comes across to me as hindsight armchair quarterbacking, or echoing the criticism of anti-Administration partisans who really are only offering up speculations about pre-war planning.
How? I don’t quite understand. Other countries we’ve invaded still have their sovereignty. Maybe this explains the confusion of Senator Obama’s “57 States” misspeak?
I believe this is due to some poor communication on the part of the Administration, as well as internal conflict between the State Dept and the Pentagon and Administration. Powell put too much emphasis on the wmd angle in his speech to the UN. It certainly wasn’t the speech Rumsfeld or Feith would have crafted.
It was a different era and a different mission. Regime change wasn’t our objective. Freeing Kuwait from invasion by Saddam was what the UN authorized. Terrorism and the state-support of it wasn’t the big issue in ’91 that it became in 2001.
I think it depends on how you go about it. Do you think Jane Fonda’s behavior is an example of “patriotic dissent”? I’d say, it crosses the line into irresponsibility, criminality, and “unpatriotic dissent”.
At this point in time, would you march against it? If so, WHY?!
Precisely! How have you personally felt “smeared” for expressing dissent? Has the government detained you? Locked you up? Do your fellow citizens not have the right to express their own freedom to disagree with you?
You misunderstand the propaganda value of the Sheehans of the world. It’s not about getting courage from such people, but about….”aid and comfort”. For instance:
What about the study regarding the “emboldening effect” of negative coverage? Our enemies do pay attention to the news. Remember when WaPo published leaked intell info on bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone for communications in the 90’s? What happened immediately after? No more monitoring communications.
I heard Ollie North describe how he asked a recent Iraqi police recruit what took him so long to enlist in the security force. The Iraqi told him it was because he wasn’t sure if America had what it took to stay. Basically, he didn’t know which way the wind would blow, with all the talk back in Washington about withdrawal resolutions and the apparent erosion of public opinion back in the States in support of the efforts in Iraq. Who wants to ally themselves with the losing side, only to be victimized and punished by the winners? Americans get to retreat back to the States. Iraqis are stuck in Iraq, dealing with the aftermath of abandonment.
It shouldn’t take guts to ally yourself with Americans, putting your life and the lives of family members in jeopardy. It should take guts to ally yourself against the American military.
Fortunately, there are brave Iraqis who have chosen what’s best for their country; which is to align themselves with Americans, and face the challenges and risks of doing so.
Scott,
My friend, you are spinning and tap dancing so fast, I’m afraid you may fall down and collapse in a pile of semantics and split hairs.
What does it matter that the invasion that was effectively over by April 9, 2003 cost less than expected, when the “war” now five years on has cost approximately $648 billion to date.
Please don’t ask me to feel sorry for the Deputy Secretary of Defense because he had to answer some tough questions from our elected representatives. That’s another annoying democratic exercise known as congressional oversight. He said what he said. Responsible adults stand by what they say. And the real deal, Donald Rumsfeld – his incompetence got a lot of our troops killed. He makes Robert McNamara look like Clausewitz.
With the Presidential carrier landing photo op choreographed to a gnat’s ass, I guess the President’s handlers didn’t notice that huge “Mission Accomplished” banner flying over the President’s head. Whoever put it there, they left it there for all to see by design.
As Judge Judy would say, “Don’t pee on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining.”
Yonason,
I fact checked your fact checking, and to put it simply, you have a problem with your facts. Take the effort of going past newsvine’s biased report to Politfact’s actual site and you will get the following results:
Obama’s statements by ruling:
33 (33) True
8 (8) Barely True
15 (15) False
0 (0) Pants on Fire
McCain’s statements by ruling
21 (21) True
14 (14) Barely True
18 (18) False
3 (3) Pants on Fire
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Here are my tallies. I left out “half true” for both candidates:
BHO vs. JSM – (True) 33 vs. 21
JSM vs. BHO – (Barely true/False/Pants on Fire) 35 vs. 23
Dave, Sen Obama tells us the war has cost $2trillion. Who is wrong-you, or him, or is there a lie involved there?
Perhaps you want some sort of accountability for President Bush (omniscient as he is) not having a price tag on a war that would start (as if war’s are predictable to a price range…somewhere between the DNC $500bn and Obama’s $2trillion). Nah, splitting hairs isn’t the case here, and neither is “Congressional oversight” for if there was oversight, then the invasion wouldn’t have been authorized by Congress. Fingering Wolfowitz has as much merit as fingering Les Aspin’s deputy sec of defense (got a name on that?). It’s pure partisan politics; nothing more than trying to use the war in Iraq as a crutch for opposing a lame duck President.
Rumsfeld vs McNamara? I’ll take Rummy over the guy who thought the F111 would make a nice carrier plane. Rummy never took the world to the brink of nuclear war like Bubba Bobby.
Oh, and that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED thing….the statement was made that the President declared the mission in Iraq accomplished. He did not. He said the opposite. That’s not splitting hairs-it’s calling out deliberate misleading-again, done not in the name of patriotic dissent, but in the name of a political partisan attack on a lame duck President (ie, a waste of time).
WHAT COULD I HAVE BEEN THINKING?
Well, I guess that source was a lot less reliable than I though. Thanks, Dave Noble for drawing my attention to the need to scrap it. As I said, “I don’t know that site, but the info., seems more reliable (than the stuff over at factcheck-org)”, but now it seems that it wasn’t, and Politico.com is even worse.
I go to Politico.com (can’t believe I missed this?! – could the info have changed that much since first sited?!): and in just one example, I find they say that it is TRUE (and hence makes him look good) that he said…
“I have repeatedly said that many of the predatory loans that were made in the mortgage system did target African-American and Latino communities,” Obama said. He went on to defend his record on other civil rights issues.”
So, he has “spoken out.” Woopdy Doo!
Now lets look at what the SOB has DONE!
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/28/a-three-year-old-boy-dies-in-housing-privatized-by-obamas-rich-benefactors/
When we see what appears to be a positive for a candidate, we have to be careful not to be deceived into thinking he really has a positive record in that area. Obama most definitely does NOT! Just because he pays lip service to a problem, doesn’t mean he isn’t an integral part of that problem, as is virtually ALWAYS the case with him.
Other eg.s. of his lies, …
He’s Not on the Committee, Didn’t Vote on the Bill, Had Nothing to Do With It’s Passage & OPPOSED IT!
THE CRIMINAL AND TERROR CONNECTIONS HE DENIES
LIES ABOUT HIS PAST
VICTIMIZED CONSTITUENTS
A FEW MORE TIDBITS
Thanks, Mr. Noble, for helping me clean up my references, and for helping reveal what a low life crooked and lying jerk Obama REALLY is.
Now that’s chutzpah, you get caught not doing your research and you flip it into an ODS screed.
I didn’t help you do anything, Yon. Anything can trigger an ODS seizure in someone afflicted with the disorder – embarassment, bright light, solar cycles.
You almost never do any research, and when you do, it’s always superficial.
You found a problem with mine, and I admitted it, something you aren’t able to do when you are wrong.
I found a problem with yours (re it’s superficiality) and you get all defensive and start accusing me of ranting. You can’t show me to be wrong, so all you have for a “defense” is to hurl petty accusations.
I wasn’t able to go into the depth I wanted at the time I wrote that other piece, so I made the mistake of relying on a weak reference. I’m only trying to make up for that here. Whenever someone comes up with a weak argument, you can show them wrong, but when they have solid irrefutable facts, all you can do is throw scheiss?
Pretty feeble, Dave. Pretty feeble.
Scott,
I used a low-end estimate that doesn’t factor in the long term effects of the war – replacement of war materiel, etc. There are estimates as high as 3 trillion. But you know I always enjoy that kind of argument. You mean it was ONLY 648 billion? What a bargain! A hundred billion here and hundred billion there – Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Rumsfeld – “Better than McNamara.” Now there’s an endorsement.
Nobody authorized Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. to grossly mismanage the war and get our troops kiled unnecessarily.
And I was making those observations about George Bush and his Administration long before he was a lame-duck.
“Nobody authorized Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. to grossly mismanage the war and get our troops kiled unnecessarily. — Ignoble Dave
(insult removed – as it adds nothing to the discussion that his errors don’t already make clear)
We made plenty of mistakes in WWII, but only the Leftist quislings, who were against ANY war, used that fact to argue there should have been no war at all.
Today, only the Leftists who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING positive to contribute focus solely on the negatives of their opponents in order to distract from the fact that they themselves are utterly unworthy to lead, unlike the real leaders who, in leading, unavoidably do make mistakes.
If one notes that the Left did itself NOT predict ANY of the problems we had in Iraq, nor did they contribute ANY positive ideas how to solve those problems (because they didn’t see them), one will begin to realize what a total waste they are. All they could do was, and is, to interfere with every effort to keep Americans safe, or to improve the quality of life for Americans in particular and the World in general. That is what is wrong with our country, and that is what conservatives will continue to fight against until it is remedied.
Oh Dave…
“I used a low-end estimate that doesn’t factor in the long term effects of the war – replacement of war materiel, etc. There are estimates as high as 3 trillion. But you know I always enjoy that kind of argument. You mean it was ONLY 648 billion? What a bargain! A hundred billion here and hundred billion there – Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
-So true, but the DNC is running ads saying $500bn over the past 5yrs. That’s actually LESS than the cost of the Clinton wars. As it is Wolfowitz was actually closer to the real mark than you are.
“Nobody authorized Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. to grossly mismanage the war and get our troops kiled unnecessarily.”
-the war wasn’t mismanaged, and unless you can show me a military defeat ala Waterloo, Dunkirk, the Fall of Saigon, or the retreat from Somalia…then the fact is that the war-while still filled with problems-has gone far better than others/far better than should be expected of any war.
“And I was making those observations about George Bush and his Administration long before he was a lame-duck.”
THERE’S THE CATCH 🙂 You’re still making the comments now.
ANOTHER DANGER OF RELYING ON “FACT CHECKERS” LIKE POLITIFACT
They say it’s true that Obama co-sponsered a bill that sort of dealt with WMD, and, on the face of it, that is “correct,” BUT….
Obama also asserts that Iraq was a distraction in the war against terror. Well, never mind all the Al Qaeda filth that’s been flushed by our wonderful military there, consider also that by going to war we took VERY REAL steps to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD.
So, let’s review…
Obama co-sponsered a law that would make some feeble attempts, and might have limited success in a few specific instances.
Bush took us to war with, and shut down, a major conduit on the WMD supply chain.
And neither Obama nor his surrogates either understand, or care, about actual accomplishment, only the APPEARANCE of same.
Make no mistake, if Obama had been serious about stopping proliferation of WMD, he would have been, and would stil be, one of the major boosters of the Iraq war. The fact that he is not means he’s a fraud.
This cannot be stated often enough…
OBAMA AND HIS ENABLERS CONSTITUTE ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS, NOT ONLY TO THE USA, BUT TO THE WORLD!
The superficial treatment given at “PolitiFact” (and, as MataHarley points out below, other similar sites) gives no information whatever about the really important aspects of the issues.
INRE the battle between Yonason and Dave Noble… both citing websites that are supposed to fact check statements. And BTW, I wouldn’t trust any site sponsored by the St. Pete Times. I know of what I speak. I was raised there from the age of one, until I was old enough to leave as a military wife. I even worked for the Times for a couple of years. I suggest you change your allegience for their stats, Dave.
But on the whole “truth” issue – Isn’t this a bit hard since BHO rarely defines anything that isn’t laden with vague nuances?
i.e. Iraq? “careful coming out as careless going in”. So does he support a timetable that’s conditions based, or not? Yet he *finally* meets Petraeus, and discounts his recommendations INRE conditions and timetables. Doublespeak.
i.e. off shore drilling? Would consider an energy policy that includes drilling, if wrapped up with alternatives. Uh huh… but he burdens that with drill it or lose it leases on non productive land, nuclear waste caveats nigh on impossible to meet, and sundry other deal killers. What he’s doing it doublespeak yet again… stating he’d “consider” something when he knows very well it is impossible to come to agreement on those issues. He can safety speak what people want to hear to look good, and count on Pelosi and Reid to make sure it never happens. If not outright lies, deceptive truth at best.
Then there’s the doublespeak on his pastor. The double speak on taxes… cutting them when his policys – if implemented – would raise taxes astronomically on all Americans.
The point is… how can anyone determine if BHO is telling “the truth” when he takes a position which is really no position at all, or one that is not fully representative of his stated proposals?
Therefore either site I would consider bogus. The man’s not been honest on anything to date except his hatred for liberating Iraq. Why would he start now?
“Isn’t this a bit hard since BHO rarely defines anything that isn’t laden with vague nuances?”
Absolutely, which is why I said I was wrong to use the so-called “fact check” sites as support for my arguments. In fact, what I’ve been doing since I acknowledged that mistake has been to show WHY relying on them is so misleading, and, in Obama’s case, potentially very dangerous.
His greatest strength-and indeed one of the reasons to vote FOR him-is his ability to “take a stand” and “fight” for multiple, often opposing, positions at the same time thereby inducing the, “finally! A guy who sees things my way” sentiment and subsequent popular support. However, this leaves him absolutely wide open for accountability later on if/when President Obama is forced by the river of history to actually choose a course and pursue one way around turbulent waters instead of another. No BS…I think is one of the three most important reasons to vote FOR Senator Obama. There’s reasons not to do so, and there’s similar reasons to vote for or not to vote for Senator McCain, but let’s be honest…there are reasons people will vote for him, and his ability to appear as if he’s for and against and against and various issues is one of them.
So you’re saying wishy-washy and doublespeak is a great asset for a President, Scott?? I’m ‘fused by what you say here… LOL
You know, Scott, I do believe you are onto something!
Having no assets, the man has no “baggage.” That has to be an enormous plus, since our perception of him is not limited by past accomplishments, his potential, in the eyes of the masses, is unlimited. The inspiration that would provide for improved productivity by all citizens must not be underestimated.
Then, when you combine that with the fact that he’s not been caught doing anything wrong (yet), he has no visible liabilites, and so no negative side, either. What a winning combination.
But wait, that’s not all. This once in a lifetime opportunity includes, as you say, his ability to be everything to everyone. As long as he can avoid making any decisions, he’s going to be very popular. But, won’t he have to make a decision at some point in his career?
Of course, and there has to be a way to make that work. I would now like to offer just a couple of ideas.
(1) For taxes, simply do a poll on who wants taxes raised, and raise them on them, while leaving those who don’t want to be taxed alone. If everyone gets what he/she wants, they have no right to complain.
(2) He could do the same on other issues, as well. Drilling for oil. for example, might be tricky. Perhaps he could just have a population exchange? Move those who want drilling to an area where there’ll be drilling, and those who don’t, out of those areas. Now I know some will take issue with mass population exchanges, but with the right incentives, I’m sure no one will object. And, since they all get what they want, they really have no right to put up a fuss. I mean, being all things to all people is great, but one does have to draw the line SOMEWHERE!
Still, there will be other decisions that will inevitably make everyone unhappy. But, even here there is a solution. Simply appoint advisors who are charged with “doing the will of the president” (which, as we already have established, is identical with “the will of the people”) and have them appear to make the decisions he tells them in secret to implement. That way, when the decision makes everyone unhappy, he can say “that’s not the way the person that I knew would have decided that, and it’s certainly not what I wanted” At that point the advisor is “fired” (given a new cushy job in another sector) and policy changed to reflect more what people seem to want. Again, as in (2) above, relocation of various elements of the population, and/or reassigning them tasks commenserate with their desires should stifle any complaints. If you’re busy relocating and reestablishing yourself, it’s hard to focus on trivial issues, like if the president is living up to your expectations.
But, I’m sure the great mind of BHO has already thought of this and so much more. I just can’t wait to find out what he has in store for us. Still, I honestly would feel more secure about it myself if he were to try it out on lab rats first, starting, say, with Dean, Pelosi and Reid.
Yon and Scott…
Do I read this correctly… you are assuming that a nation that is disgruntled with the beltway finds an unknown with “no baggage” – and a pot full of obviously notable conflictive promises that is nothing but a pile of verbal manure in posturing – is more inviting than a GOP candidate that has problems getting support from his own conservative base? ala… the “unknown” is better than a “known” that is despised by the DNC “enemy”?
In which case, the “dumbing down of America” is even more successful that I already believe. You are saying, in essence, the public can’t comprehend and absorb the content of simple speeches (hidden by “soaring” deliveries). To entrust the highest office, and most powerful position in the world, to chance by betting on the “unknown, sans baggage” is the most irresponsible use of the vote I’ve ever heard of.
Simple fact – no baggage? Then listen to what the man is saying. Beyond the rock concert setting, vague language, and pyrotechnique media coverage is a policy that strikes at the heart of not only capitalism, but the national security of the nation.
I don’t discount the picture you present, mind you. It’s entirely possible humans are that gullible, and unable to translate words into perceived effects of policy. But if I was “down on humanity” before this moment, this new revelation just takes the cake. Obviously, with your perspective, we’ll need to “bottom out” the next term before reversing course. And the “bottom” is yet to come.
sigh…. off planet, please.
MataHarley, do you mean “bottom out” as in like coasting down a hill, or as in like doing a connon ball into an empty swimming pool?
I’d have to say roller coaster, Yon. If I likened it to a cannonball into an empty pool, it would mean I would believe there is no going back up. I doubt one would be in any shape to rebound after hitting the deep end of an inground pool! Came darn close to doing just that (with a near miss of the water portion…) when we used to jump off our roof into our swimming pool in Florida more than a few decades ago.
“Came darn close to doing just that (with a near miss of the water portion…) when we used to jump off our roof into our swimming pool in Florida more than a few decades ago.”
Thank G-d your OK.
Actually, I think and Obama presidency would be like a roller coaster (hadn’t thought of that, thanks!) during an earthquake. Who knows where it would end up! We might come out of it alright, but there would be a really large probability that we would not.