When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
@B-Rob: How funny that you say Bush was a bad President because he didn’t send enough troops to Afghanistan and yet you think it’s ironic that conservatives are now calling on Obama to fulfill HIS OWN STRATEGY by following the recommendation of General McChrystal to send more troops.
Yep, it’s pretty clear where you are coming from and can be summed up in these few words “Bush bad, Obama good.”
And yet you insist on lecturing us on civility.
What a laugh!
Hard Right
13 years ago
Like I said BS-rob, you MIGHT learn something about yourself. Typical (and as expected) of BDS sufferers the info was wasted on you.
You cite the usual left-wing talking points–all disproven long ago except to the ignorati like yourself who still quote them as gospel.
@Wordsmith: I think B-Rob just must of overlooked your comment Word….why else would he respond to everyone else BUT you?
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Red 73 —
It’s OK, son. I know you have no rational response to what I posted. I mean, seriously, what could you say? If you actually OPPOSE the auto bailout, just say so. but before you b*tch about Obama bailing them out (which, incidentally was another Bush administration concept and started in December 2008, before Obama took office), you best be able to shed light on a few simple facts. Like
1. If the auto companies had gone under, was the US prepared for an additional 2 to 4 million unemployed people from the manufacturers, the dealerships, the parts suppliers?
2. Where do those newly unemployed folks and the several million retirees get their health insurance from? The “free market health insurance” faerie?
3. What would be the effect on the states and local governments as the auto companies stop paying property taxes and employment taxes.
4. The additional unemployed people would have put a massive strain on the state unemployment compensation systems, too. They are broke already in many states and that si WITHOUT the additional out of work auto workers that would have been added.
There is one simple truth that you people seem not to acknowledge: it is easier for the economy to digest an additional 2 million newly uemployed people when we are NOT in a recession. Following your Southern con senator theory (Corker, DeMint, Bunning, etc.) and just letting the auto companies go would have been a recipe for disaster. The intervention bought the auto companies and the entire system some time. It was a smart move and deep down inside you KNOW IT . . . which is why you did not even bother to try to meet the substance of what I posted.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
“How funny that you say Bush was a bad President because he didn’t send enough troops to Afghanistan and yet you think it’s ironic that conservatives are now calling on Obama to fulfill HIS OWN STRATEGY by following the recommendation of General McChrystal to send more troops.”
OK, Mike, I will take this slow . . . in 2001, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, we had a well equipped standing army. We were flush with cash and flush with troops. THAT was the time to hit Afghanistan with everyuthing we had. But that did not happen. Why? Because Bush and Co. decided to invade Iraq. That took troops, equipment and translators, out of the Afghanistan arena and put them into Iraq.
The last I heard we had about 150,000 troops in Iraq. I think the Afghanistan number is under 100,000 US troops, but please don’t quote me.
Now here is where the con silliness on Obama “dithering” gets exposed for lunacy. First, what was the con response from 2005 through 2008, when the Taliban resurged in Afghanistan and we did not have enough men in that arena to put it down? Silent. What was Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan? Uh, nothin’. Now McChrystal would love to have 80,000 troops but might settle for 40,000 or so. But the PROBLEM CONS is that we ain’t got the manpower just sitting around. It takes about 4 years to train a soldier so that he reall knows how to fight. To do this regrouping, we would have had to have those soldiers enlisted and trained back in 2005. We didn’t do it. So one of the dirty little secrets that Obama has not mentioned is “where do we get the bodies?” Some may come from Iraq. But to use the language of Bill Gates “The army is tired.” They have fought two
I sincerely hope you read “The Forever War” by Dexter Filkins and “Where men gain glory” by Jon Krakauer. If you read those books, you will understand (a) our soldiers are exceedingly brave, but (b) they are in a near impossible situation, and (c) they are hurting and so are their families. Afghanistan has now gone on for four years longer than WWII. More than 1 million US troops have served in Iraq, too, since the invasion 6 years ago. There is no magic soldier factory turning new soldiers out like widgets. So if it takes six more months of “dithering” to let a few thousand guys get some more training before they are humping through the Hindukush, so be it. I could care less what drug addled Rush Limbaugh thinks Obama should do, nor does John Boener sudden interest in getting Afghanistan right impress me.
“Yep, it’s pretty clear where you are coming from and can be summed up in these few words ‘Bush bad, Obama good.'”
Just silly on your part.
“And yet you insist on lecturing us on civility.”
I said nothing about “civility”; I never used the word at all. What I did say, though, is that conservatives have become totally unhinged. Nothing I’ve read here has changed that opinion.
@B-Rob: Now you are just playing stupid and silly games…. I was right, you are a WASTE OF TIME!
Old Trooper
13 years ago
B-Rob, if You don’t like what You see here just go away.
Pissing on boots here gets you off?
The Mods here have been very tolerant and civil. I am not neither.
FA is not your soap personal box. Run for Office if You want to change things.
Lecturing Me on any subject is a waste of My Time.
Mike is polite. Curt is polite. You are a very angry little guy that does not impress me.
Ever run a business or made a payroll, produced a product?
Most likely NOT.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Wisdom —
“So let me get this straight — the lawsuit filed challenging McCain’s eligibility to run for president would only have mattered if ELECTED Dems had questioned McCain’s citizenship?”
I never heard about this supposed lawsuit, so please enlighten me. Who filed it? When was it filed?
“The fact that it was a ‘respectable’ rag like the New York Times who ran with the story questioning his eligibility apparently makes no difference at all.”
I don’t recall anyone questioning McCain’s eligibility or Obama’s for that matter. I did see one law professor opine that he was eligible and the Obama campaign said it was a non-issue. I challenged you to name one elected Dem who said anything about McCain’s eligibility and you, of course, failed to respond. No surprise, since I am about 99.93% sure no elected Dems (as opposed to the great unwashed) said anything about it. But, oh, the situation is different for the cons and birther nonsense. You even had some leaders like Roy Blunt repeat the same lunacy. But I see you ducked that issue, didn’t you?
“But, someone on an opinion/editorial TV show on FOX News, which ‘isn’t real news’ anyway, says something against the anointed one and it means that everyone right of center is ‘unhinged’?”
I know you wish that was all that it was about. But the GOP is an a minority position for a reason. Here is a hint: go on Youtube and check out some of the tea baggers and Palin rally attendees explain their view of the world. Mix in the present conspiracy theories about Obama hiding the real WH visitor list, or adding names just to confuse cons, etc. Then get back with me about how the right is not unhinged.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Old Trooper —
Stay on the subject here, skippy. The original post was not about whether I have ever run a business or “made a payroll” (yes, I have). Not like that is the end all and the be all of human accomplishment, either, seeing as neither Jesus Christ nor George S. Patton ever “ran a business” or “made a payroll”. At best it is a silly nonsequitar, intended to change the subject away from the present-day derangement of the American right. Nope, my original post was about the inability for conservatives to rationally assess anything that relates to Obama.
They criticized the man for putting mustard on a hamburger for God’s sake! So the congressman who said “If Obama eats a b.l.t., conservatives will boycott bacon” was just about right.
Like I said before — I did not understand the paranoia and the obsession until I remembered “splitting”. It all makes sense now . . . .
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
Again, you don’t meet the substance, whether to acknowledge the problems with the entire “dithering” meme fromt he right, or the history of Afghanistan. I am right now reading “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll. I read “Charlie Wilson’s War” by George Krile (sic?) a couple years back. If you read these tomes, you would grasp how difficult this is. But you don’t even meet the issues . . . I am not surprised, though. The conservative version of “thinking” nowadays is yelling “I want my country back” and “Fascism” at the top of your lungs! Morons . . . if you have the freedom to call the president a fascist, then, by definition YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH A FASCIST!
@B-Rob: Excuse me pal, but I don’t need any lectures from you either on Afghanistan or politics. Consult my bio and you’ll discover I was tutored in National Security topics by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. And in politics, I have worked that field at every level from the court house to the White House.
As I said above it’s clear that time spent in engaging you on the substance of these issues would be a waste of time. You’ve demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously.
Skookum
13 years ago
Trying to decide when the Obama White House is lying is not the question, trying to determine when they tell the truth is the question.
Four years to train a soldier for war? Liberals must require considerably more time to prepare for war; otherwise there are some guys here that might take exception with that assertion. Raging about something you know nothing about only serves to confirm our assumptions that you are a fool, like your numb nutted nitwit in the White House.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Wordsmith and Curt —
There is really nothing to respond to. Wordsmith’s was not a substantive commentary. It was more akin to a lawyer getting up in oral argument and rather than responding to the other side’s argument, spends his 15 minutes talking about how the lawyer’s suit was not flattering and reminds him of a grandpa’s funeral suit.
There is really nothing to respond to. Wordsmith’s was not a substantive commentary. It was more akin to a lawyer getting up in oral argument and rather than responding to the other side’s argument, spends his 15 minutes talking about how the lawyer’s suit was not flattering and reminds him of a grandpa’s funeral suit.
ROFL…..just what I thought.
And I note have I not seen ANYONE deal with, nonetheless dispute the substance of my commentary.
You say as your avoid arguments with the commentary of other commenters. Speaks volumes.
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Skookum —
“Trying to decide when the Obama White House is lying is not the question, trying to determine when they tell the truth is the question.”
“Four years to train a soldier for war? Liberals must require considerably more time to prepare for war; otherwise there are some guys here that might take exception with that assertion.”
Um, Skookum, your shock at me saying it takes four years to train a soldier says more about you than me, dude! How long do you think it takes to train a teacher? Or a lawyer or doctor? Hate to tell you, son, but soldiering is a PROFESSION. You don’t put someone through basic and pronounce them “done” and put them in Khost. They would get themselves and their fellow soldiers killed! There is a reason you see kids who are 21 and up getting killed in Iraq, and no 18 year olds. Because if they join at 17, they are ready to fight at 21 or 23.
And I note have I not seen ANYONE deal with, nonetheless dispute the substance of my commentary. Not the four years, not the stress on the army, . . . nothing. Oh, sure, you cons throw a lot of verbiage around. But substance? None.
“Raging about something you know nothing about only serves to confirm our assumptions that you are a fool, like your numb nutted nitwit in the White House.”
Like I said: lot’s of heat and no light. So, moron, tell me which part of what I posted was WRONG. You think the army is NOT stressed and broken? You think we have 40,000 fighting soldiers sitting around doing nothing right now? Do you know what it takes, manpower-wise, to put 40,000 new soldiers in the field? Do you even know how the deployments in Iraq, the rotations home, shortfalls in recruiting back in 2005 and the Afghan election all enter into Obama’s decision? Do you know ANYTHING about the subject? Because you are not SHOWING you know anything.
Again, I am no expert; I just read a lot about what the logistics, policy and military goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think I am wrong about something, explain it! You resting on name calling is sophmoric . . . but could anyone expect anything more from a Palinite?
B-Rob
13 years ago
@ Mike’s America —
Oh, sorry, dude! You are a big time national security expert, huh? So why is it I see no substantive response to what I posted, only a citation to your resume? If I say “Doctor, why do you think this is beri beri and not just shingles” and she starts spouting off her resume, not answering my friggin question . . . well let’s just say the confidence level deteriorates.
So, Mike, you can call up old Zbig, I am sure, and all your honchoes in the black world and come up with a zillion reasons why I am wrong, huh? Then why didn’t you?
This is what is fascinating: I post my armchair opinion as a non-military person, but pretty up on politics and the state of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I posted about the fact that we don’t have the bodies ready to send people to Afghanistan* You, the “expert” on things military, don’t respond with a single fact, or even an on point opinion! Just a snide remark? W.t.f.? Is that what passes for thinking on the right now?
Something I learned a long time ago, which was reinforced during the Dem primary when the Hillary people were losing their f’ing minds: people who are emotional cannot be convinced by rational argument. They will decide, instead “You are not worth wasting time with, because no matter what the facts show, you are an Obamabot and will not believe [the “whitey tape” exists][he is a secret Muslim][he was born in Kenya][he is the antichrist].”
I explained IN SOME DETAIL why the entire “dithering” charge is laughable. Your response is “I have a great resume.” Uh, huh. Powerful comeback, Mike. Real powerful.
* I won’t even get into ther bind we would be in if Obama had not decided long ago to draw down in Iraq. Suffice it to say, without that decision in January, McChrystal would have heard nothing but laughter if he had asked for 40,000 men, as opposed to the contemplation and game planning we have now. But then again, I forgot you cons opposed that, too.
“The main differences between today’s crisis and the Great Depression is that the deflationary pressure is less than a third of what it was in the 1930s and policymakers today reacted much more swiftly and more appropriately than they did after 1929. Those who think the government should have done nothing risked turning the current downturn into another Great Depression. Thankfully, their advice was ignored.”
I”m thinking we just might have Janeane Garofalo’s brother spouting off here.
Um, Skookum, your shock at me saying it takes four years to train a soldier says more about you than me, dude! How long do you think it takes to train a teacher? Or a lawyer or doctor? Hate to tell you, son, but soldiering is a PROFESSION. You don’t put someone through basic and pronounce them “done” and put them in Khost. They would get themselves and their fellow soldiers killed! There is a reason you see kids who are 21 and up getting killed in Iraq, and no 18 year olds. Because if they join at 17, they are ready to fight at 21 or 23.
Dude, you happen to be posting at a sight with past military members contributing, if they thought you mattered, they would be posting.
My father(Navy) fought in the Phillipines right out of training as did his brother, two other uncles, one Marine, one Army fought in the Korean Conflict right out of training, my ex-husband enlisted in May of 68 became a Green Beret in less than two years and was involved in the Raid on Son Tay, my son pre-enlisted in the Navy at 17, entered three months after he turned 18 and served in Gulf 1 right out of training, my nephew, who is in the Army served 15 months in Iraq, his unit was deployed about 18 months after he enlisted. We just buried a childhood friend who recieved the MOH, he was drafted and only served the two years, short of the four years you consider adequate. Yes, the military is a profession you are selling our warriors short, absolutely shameful!
BTW, being as though you obviously do not know what you are talking about, none go into harm’s way right out of basic, they go through other intense training, my husband was an air traffic controller, in less than a year from enlistment was landing planes in Adak, Alaska and then onto Hawaii, my father was a gunner on a destroyer, my son was a radar technician, my ex was a weapons expert–had to go through basic, AIT, jump school and school to become a GB, get the idea?
Now, in addition to their specialty training, they train for their mission and then spend about a month in Kuwait or other areas training before entering the combat zones. When they are at their home bases there is more training. My nephew is completeing his college degree and will go on to OCS, not only is he doing that, he just got back a month or so ago from Oklahoma where he did lazer training.
I know lawyers and I know teachers, judging from what our military members have shared in here, and my family’s history of contributing to this country, my respect goes to the military.
Hard Right
13 years ago
Missy, BS-rob is just full of hate and is here to bash us for disagreeing with him.
He’s proven himself to be a troll. Attack, attack, attack. That’s all he’s done.
Patvann
13 years ago
@ B-rob
I was deeply involved in Afghanistan, and I can tell you with certainty that while you make a point or two, on the whole you are very wrong in your perceptions.
-You are also very wrong as to what the status our military is. (EG: the only reason 2005 seemed to be short on recruiting, was because Congress had just approved a huge increase in the amount of warriors, every year before and after, they exceeded goals.)
You ignore salient facts, and timelines, not to mention participation and command-structure. You ignore changes on that battlefield, historical facts, and political changes there, and in the surrounding countries, not to mention the changes in Europe/NATO/UN.
You argue by shotgun…You throw out a bunch of pellets, while ducking the ones being deflected back at you. You only get specific when that specificity lets you run away from the main topic.
“Dithering”
He is dithering. His transition team worked very closely with Bushs’ team, and the Pentagon from November through February. Everyone involved agreed McCrystal was the man for the job, and the plan was ready and announced in March. The Bush team had no problem in letting Obama’s team take credit for what is considered a very good plan. It was truly a non-political plan, well researched, and “doable”. McCrystal had made it very clear (per the plan) that he had intended to ask for many more troops. Yes, I’ve been privy to parts of it.
We all heard during the election how important Afghanistan was to Obama. I was in full agreement with him, as were many of us “Cons”…
We’ve all heard his say how important it was right up through the end of August…
THEN all of a sudden he “dithers” with letting Biden have a say in September.
He “dithers” by claiming the election there needed to be good enough for him to trouble himself with implementing the plan, even though the war had been fairly successful with no government there to speak of, and later a government now suddenly deemed “not good enough to support”.
He “dithers” by thinking that Europe “loves” him so much, that they will finally step up and do what they had telegraphed they would do, but haven’t. (Nor will they)
He “dithers” while Pakistan is on the offensive. (A small window of opportunity.)
He “dithers” by having more meetings with Union-bosses, than with the General he picked for the job.
He “dithers” by having photo-ops at Dover.
He “dithers” by not re-assuring those 18-21 year-old men and women that the wait will be to their benefit.
My son is home (from Afghanistan) for a week before he starts training for a PRT group. The men around him, and their commanders are ready and willing to carry out any plan he eventually commits to….He has been in the Corps 1 year today…Do the math.
They were ready when Obama announced his plan back in March. And in April. And in May. And in June, And in July, They got real excited in August. Kinda felt let down in September. Annoyed in October. Now approaching pissed off in November, as to having no political leadership telling them what to plan for in December. 9 freakin months of “dithering”.
It does not matter much to them what that plan might entail, they just want a plan to rally behind, even if the plan is to wrap it all up and go home, or invade every surrounding country simultaneously.
As CiC, you don’t do that to the Dawgs without them calling it what it is: “DITHERING”.
(The Marines, of course have a slightly different word for it, not suitable for this site, not usually said about their CiC, and never said about their last CiC, nor the ones before him….for even Carter had a plan.)
B-Rob. You are loud, full of blather, but in-the-end predictable and wrong…
@Curt: I commend Wordsmith for his effort but the result was predictable.
It was clear what were were dealing with here from the beginning: A TIME WASTER!
A self important blowhard who isn’t worth the trouble responding to.
Perhaps if B-Rob learns some manners and recognizes that the’s not the smartest person in the room it would be worthwhile to interact with him more fully.
But I’d say chances of that happening are slim.
He’s just too infected with the typical liberal arrogance and condescension.
There is really nothing to respond to. Wordsmith’s was not a substantive commentary. It was more akin to a lawyer getting up in oral argument and rather than responding to the other side’s argument, spends his 15 minutes talking about how the lawyer’s suit was not flattering and reminds him of a grandpa’s funeral suit.
ROFL…..just what I thought.
And I note have I not seen ANYONE deal with, nonetheless dispute the substance of my commentary.
You say as your avoid arguments with the commentary of other commenters. Speaks volumes.
Bingo, Curt! You nailed it, solid.
I seem to also recall early on, how he crybabied over me “changing the subject”. And then he’s all over the map wanting to air his own peeves and stand on his little soapbox in a bubble.
Oh, and isn’t this quite simply the pol pot calling the kettle…
There is really nothing to respond to. Wordsmith’s was not a substantive commentary. It was more akin to a lawyer getting up in oral argument and rather than responding to the other side’s argument, spends his 15 minutes talking about how the lawyer’s suit was not flattering and reminds him of a grandpa’s funeral suit.
Projection much?
As Curt said:
And I note have I not seen ANYONE deal with, nonetheless dispute the substance of my commentary.
You say as your avoid arguments with the commentary of other commenters. Speaks volumes.
And while you selectively ignore what you can’t address, funny you should then go on to say
And I note have I not seen ANYONE deal with, nonetheless dispute the substance of my commentary. Not the four years, not the stress on the army, . . . nothing. Oh, sure, you cons throw a lot of verbiage around. But substance? None.
Who’s throwing a lot of verbiage around? You. Substance? Quite lacking.
You’re out here passing a lot of gas while the rest of us are laughing.
Do you still want to stick to your original argument, btw? Because you’re effectively behaving like what you claim to hate and ONLY see coming from “the rightwing”.
(6) last but not least, Bush was asleep at the switch on 9/11.**
wordsmith #37:
with some of his political appointments still not in key positions due to the 2000 election results and partisanship on the part of Senator Levin and others; for nearly 7 months, confirmation hearings for Feith and a couple of other top advisors for Rumsfeld were held up. The incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their jobs.
By your logic, do you give credit to President Bush for keeping America safe for the succeeding years to the end of his term?
“Bush was asleep at the wheel”, yet you’re giving Clinton a pass? AND call yourself “Republican”?
Please offer a substantive explanation at exactly what you mean by “Bush was asleep at the switch on 9/11” so I can rip into that one.
I thought Bush would be a good president, but I was wrong. He ended up being about as bad as Carter.
Why do I say this? Because I measure a president by one question: “Has he been successful in maintaining the military, political, economic, and technological superiority of the United States of America?” On this scale, and looking back 60 years or so, I would rank Roosevelt, Reagan and Clinton on the superior scale.
Clinton downscaled our military by half. The number of divisions of our military went from 18 to 10; the number of wings in the Air Force from 24 to 13; the number of Navy vessels cut by over half, from 600 to below 300. Research and development of new weapons were undercut while other nations pushed ahead with defense-building.
Lt. Col. “Buzz” Patterson’s book, “Dereliction of Duty”, pg 106-7:
When Vice President Al Gore was given the task of “reinventing government”, he and the White House took credit for removing 305,000 people from the government payroll. What they ddin’t tell you was that 286,000 of those cuts- more than 90 percent- came from employees of the Department of Defense.
~~~
The president also gutted morale. He immediately froze military pay at a time when it had already fallen behind the private sector by almost 20 percent. The pay freeze was especially egregious when approximately 80 percent of the force was earning less than $30,000 annually and more than twenty thousand enlisted personnel were eligible for food stamps. [source citation: “Clinton Can Undo the Damages in Military Morale”, by David Hackworth in Newsweek, June 28, 1993, 24-5.]
According to James Risen in his anti-Bush book, Clinton
began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.
~~~
Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s, virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots
~~~
Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.
This perspective is echoed by Robert Baer (not a Bush fan, either) in his book, “See No Evil”, where the former CIA operative and veteran case officer mentions a number of times how the Agency under Clinton was becoming “risk-averse”.
Under the Clinton Administration, the CIA’s standards for recruiting spies was impossible to meet. Spies, by the very nature that they are willing to sell out their own countries, are unsavory characters. Clinton set the bar so high on ethic standards, it made recruitment of high-value spies near impossible.
One reason why we suffered intelligence failure on Iraq’s current state in 2002-2003, was that we did not have a single HUMINT on the ground.
“Technological superiority” you say, as a measuring rod? Yeah….I guess Clinton gets credit for selling out missile and nuclear technology to China. Under Clinton, in 1998,
China had gained access to highly classified secrets on the most advanced thermonuclear warheads from the nation’s national laboratories run by the Department of Energy- pg 11, Dereliction of Duty
Foreign nationals from sensitive countries like China, North Korea, Iran, and the former Soviet Union were given access to national laboratories and DOE headquarters. Energy secretary Hazel O’Leary ended the standard security practice of requiring colored security badges in these sensitive areas, citing that such practice was “discriminatory”.
Should Clinton take blame/credit for this? Happened under his watch. The “wall” between the CIA and FBI occurred in 1995. Who do we blame for that? The PotUS at the time with 5 yrs to fix it, or the one down the road, 9 months into office?
What if he decided to hold off on Iraq and let the inspectors from the IAEA do their job, then trusted in their analysis?
Then we’d find ourselves repeating the same as we did throughout the 90’s, with this cat-and-mouse/hide-and-seek game. Saddam was initially shocked when Bush diverged from the Clinton approach and actually meant what he said when he threatened to bring down Saddam’s regime [60 Minutes interview with George Piro and Ronald Kessler’s The Terrorist Watch].
Inspections weren’t working as far as instilling confidence in the international community that Saddam was disarmed. Sure, there were some successes under UNSCOM; but neither UNSCOM nor it’s watered-down, inspection-lite reincarnation, UNMOVIC, could prove with 100% certainty that Saddam was effectively disarmed. Saddam himself perpetuated the uncertainty, in part, as a defense against Iran. But the burden of proof was indeed upon Saddam- or should have been; not on the UN inspectors who were never intended to be weapons hunters in the first place, searching a country the size of California for wmd material. We also know from post-war documents that have been translated, of Saddam intentionally deceiving inspectors. Luck at finding illegal items, like fishing gyroscopes (the main component of a missile’s guidance system) out of the Tigris, is bound to run out. In 1995, it is only by sheer luck that we discovered some 1.5 million pages of documents thanks to the defection of Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal; not thanks to any IAEA inspections. They had missed much of the hidden nuclear weapons program, as revealed through the help of Kamal.
Why should we gamble the lives of the world and rest our hopes on another Hussein Kamal (murdered by Saddam) defecting, let alone 100% success of UN inspections? Everyone knows Saddam was intentionally deceiving and hiding things he shouldn’t have, yet we continue to play this insane cat-and-mouse charade?
So you tell me what you think would have been accomplished by inspectors “doing their job” and “trusting their analysis” (Recall them missing anything important? Why don’t you do the research on that one
If he had done these things, he would be on Mount Rushmore. Instead, he did not even get a prime time speaking position at the GOP convention this summer, did he?
In the present, President Bush is damaged goods. Historians 50 years from now will put him in a better light.
** The efforts to blame Bill Clinton are ahistoric and laughable.
I play this game with you, because you choose to blame Bush for activities that began before his watch; yet absolve Clinton of all responsibility. And being the partisan you are, don’t acknowledge the succeeding years after 9/11 in which the country was kept safe, due to the pro-active response of the Bush Administration in taking the fight to the Islamic terrorists.
8 years vs. 9 months. You do the math.
Like the birthers, not really worth getting into here once you mention “Osama bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States” and do NOTHING in response.
Lol….and “duh”. So where was the actionable intelligence?
in 2001, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, we had a well equipped standing army. We were flush with cash and flush with troops. THAT was the time to hit Afghanistan with everyuthing we had. But that did not happen. Why? Because Bush and Co. decided to invade Iraq. That took troops, equipment and translators, out of the Afghanistan arena and put them into Iraq.
Only a partisan hack could skew history so….partisanly.
When did the Iraq invasion take place, again……? Troop levels in Afghanistan didn’t drop because of the planning for the invasion of Iraq in mid-2002. The only military unit “diverted” from Afghanistan to Iraq when we invaded was the 5th Special Forces Group; sent to fight al Qaeda in northern Iraq (yes, there was an al Qaeda footprint already in Iraq, prior to 2003).
And really? We diverted translators? I wasn’t aware that majority Iraqis spoke Persian Dari or Pashto.
bin Laden was already said to be out of Afghanistan by December of ‘01. We won there with minimal casualties and a light invasion force. It was brilliant. The difficulties lay in the post-war stage, and would be difficult regardless of Iraq. You know that. Bush knew that, going in. April 2002: “[T]he history of military conflict in Afghanistan….[has] been one of initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.”-President Bush.
Rumsfeld didn’t even believe in “nation-building” and thought “reconstruction” to be an inappropriate term, when our aid was consisting of building things up from scratch.
What else was happening that put a logjam on the wheels of progress (difficult no matter what)? The handover of the reigns to Afghanistan under NATO supervision.
Now here is where the con silliness on Obama “dithering” gets exposed for lunacy. First, what was the con response from 2005 through 2008, when the Taliban resurged in Afghanistan and we did not have enough men in that arena to put it down? Silent. What was Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan? Uh, nothin’.
these troops were requested back in late 2006. The call has gone out repeatedly to our NATO membership to step up to the plate over the ensuing years… and they have repeatedly refused. And those that do show up have wussy rules of engagement.
Obama was on record back then saying he wanted the US to fill in for the NATO do-nothings. McCain was on record with the military officials.. reluctant to put a more American than NATO face on the conflict. It is, after all, under NATO command and has been since summer of 2006.
In 2006, to get all the countries to sign on to the NATO plan to take over from the U.S. in Afghanistan, certain “caveats” were negotiated. Some nations agreed to send troops that would not fight; others would fight, but only in certain areas. Some sent troops in for four months, others for nine months. Troops under NATO command could fire only when fired on—but they could not start offensive operations.
This is supposed to be a multi-national force, not a US force. Increasing the US soldier footprint is more of a risk as we look more like a US occupier/problem than a cure to the Afghans themselves.
Missy
13 years ago
Word, this morning I was reading through some of ChrisG’s Afghanistan posts, this one in particular stood out to me because he was talking about the condition Afghanistan was in immediately after the election.
Since then we find out prisoners are being mirandized, which would put the hurt on actionable intelligence, the general and ROEs have been changed, and Obama and team had been briefed from November on and were handed an indepth report to work with.
And, Obama is still “dithering.”
Patvann
13 years ago
As of October 30th, Obama has had a total of 20 hours with his Afghanistan team.
My son pointed out that he got about 20 hours of “free-time” while in-country for the past 6 months.
I can’t believe you folks are still flogging this discredited story. If you look at the original list, as the nice people at The Corner did, it tells you in a simple code who the person named came to see at the White House. There are several hundred people who work there and, of course, hundreds of visitors every day. Most of them never see Obama (or whoever has the big office). Not even Rush or the seriously deranged Glenn Beck or even the famous closet job Matt Drudge are talking about this because they were NOT THE SAME PEOPLE YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE. The Michael Jordan, for example, is a former GE honcho. Give it up…you were punked.
This dummy shows up three days after that conversation ended and wants to know why we are still discussing it, man, that’s kind of like making a mistake. Poor old Jerry must be getting rather thin on his diet of crow. Any relation to B-Rob, Jerry?
@B-Rob: How funny that you say Bush was a bad President because he didn’t send enough troops to Afghanistan and yet you think it’s ironic that conservatives are now calling on Obama to fulfill HIS OWN STRATEGY by following the recommendation of General McChrystal to send more troops.
Yep, it’s pretty clear where you are coming from and can be summed up in these few words “Bush bad, Obama good.”
And yet you insist on lecturing us on civility.
What a laugh!
Like I said BS-rob, you MIGHT learn something about yourself. Typical (and as expected) of BDS sufferers the info was wasted on you.
You cite the usual left-wing talking points–all disproven long ago except to the ignorati like yourself who still quote them as gospel.
Red 73 was right about you and more succinct.
@Wordsmith: I think B-Rob just must of overlooked your comment Word….why else would he respond to everyone else BUT you?
@ Red 73 —
It’s OK, son. I know you have no rational response to what I posted. I mean, seriously, what could you say? If you actually OPPOSE the auto bailout, just say so. but before you b*tch about Obama bailing them out (which, incidentally was another Bush administration concept and started in December 2008, before Obama took office), you best be able to shed light on a few simple facts. Like
1. If the auto companies had gone under, was the US prepared for an additional 2 to 4 million unemployed people from the manufacturers, the dealerships, the parts suppliers?
2. Where do those newly unemployed folks and the several million retirees get their health insurance from? The “free market health insurance” faerie?
3. What would be the effect on the states and local governments as the auto companies stop paying property taxes and employment taxes.
4. The additional unemployed people would have put a massive strain on the state unemployment compensation systems, too. They are broke already in many states and that si WITHOUT the additional out of work auto workers that would have been added.
There is one simple truth that you people seem not to acknowledge: it is easier for the economy to digest an additional 2 million newly uemployed people when we are NOT in a recession. Following your Southern con senator theory (Corker, DeMint, Bunning, etc.) and just letting the auto companies go would have been a recipe for disaster. The intervention bought the auto companies and the entire system some time. It was a smart move and deep down inside you KNOW IT . . . which is why you did not even bother to try to meet the substance of what I posted.
@ Mike’s America —
“How funny that you say Bush was a bad President because he didn’t send enough troops to Afghanistan and yet you think it’s ironic that conservatives are now calling on Obama to fulfill HIS OWN STRATEGY by following the recommendation of General McChrystal to send more troops.”
OK, Mike, I will take this slow . . . in 2001, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, we had a well equipped standing army. We were flush with cash and flush with troops. THAT was the time to hit Afghanistan with everyuthing we had. But that did not happen. Why? Because Bush and Co. decided to invade Iraq. That took troops, equipment and translators, out of the Afghanistan arena and put them into Iraq.
The last I heard we had about 150,000 troops in Iraq. I think the Afghanistan number is under 100,000 US troops, but please don’t quote me.
Now here is where the con silliness on Obama “dithering” gets exposed for lunacy. First, what was the con response from 2005 through 2008, when the Taliban resurged in Afghanistan and we did not have enough men in that arena to put it down? Silent. What was Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan? Uh, nothin’. Now McChrystal would love to have 80,000 troops but might settle for 40,000 or so. But the PROBLEM CONS is that we ain’t got the manpower just sitting around. It takes about 4 years to train a soldier so that he reall knows how to fight. To do this regrouping, we would have had to have those soldiers enlisted and trained back in 2005. We didn’t do it. So one of the dirty little secrets that Obama has not mentioned is “where do we get the bodies?” Some may come from Iraq. But to use the language of Bill Gates “The army is tired.” They have fought two
I sincerely hope you read “The Forever War” by Dexter Filkins and “Where men gain glory” by Jon Krakauer. If you read those books, you will understand (a) our soldiers are exceedingly brave, but (b) they are in a near impossible situation, and (c) they are hurting and so are their families. Afghanistan has now gone on for four years longer than WWII. More than 1 million US troops have served in Iraq, too, since the invasion 6 years ago. There is no magic soldier factory turning new soldiers out like widgets. So if it takes six more months of “dithering” to let a few thousand guys get some more training before they are humping through the Hindukush, so be it. I could care less what drug addled Rush Limbaugh thinks Obama should do, nor does John Boener sudden interest in getting Afghanistan right impress me.
“Yep, it’s pretty clear where you are coming from and can be summed up in these few words ‘Bush bad, Obama good.'”
Just silly on your part.
“And yet you insist on lecturing us on civility.”
I said nothing about “civility”; I never used the word at all. What I did say, though, is that conservatives have become totally unhinged. Nothing I’ve read here has changed that opinion.
@B-Rob: Now you are just playing stupid and silly games…. I was right, you are a WASTE OF TIME!
B-Rob, if You don’t like what You see here just go away.
Pissing on boots here gets you off?
The Mods here have been very tolerant and civil. I am not neither.
FA is not your soap personal box. Run for Office if You want to change things.
Lecturing Me on any subject is a waste of My Time.
Mike is polite. Curt is polite. You are a very angry little guy that does not impress me.
Ever run a business or made a payroll, produced a product?
Most likely NOT.
@ Wisdom —
“So let me get this straight — the lawsuit filed challenging McCain’s eligibility to run for president would only have mattered if ELECTED Dems had questioned McCain’s citizenship?”
I never heard about this supposed lawsuit, so please enlighten me. Who filed it? When was it filed?
“The fact that it was a ‘respectable’ rag like the New York Times who ran with the story questioning his eligibility apparently makes no difference at all.”
I don’t recall anyone questioning McCain’s eligibility or Obama’s for that matter. I did see one law professor opine that he was eligible and the Obama campaign said it was a non-issue. I challenged you to name one elected Dem who said anything about McCain’s eligibility and you, of course, failed to respond. No surprise, since I am about 99.93% sure no elected Dems (as opposed to the great unwashed) said anything about it. But, oh, the situation is different for the cons and birther nonsense. You even had some leaders like Roy Blunt repeat the same lunacy. But I see you ducked that issue, didn’t you?
“But, someone on an opinion/editorial TV show on FOX News, which ‘isn’t real news’ anyway, says something against the anointed one and it means that everyone right of center is ‘unhinged’?”
I know you wish that was all that it was about. But the GOP is an a minority position for a reason. Here is a hint: go on Youtube and check out some of the tea baggers and Palin rally attendees explain their view of the world. Mix in the present conspiracy theories about Obama hiding the real WH visitor list, or adding names just to confuse cons, etc. Then get back with me about how the right is not unhinged.
@ Old Trooper —
Stay on the subject here, skippy. The original post was not about whether I have ever run a business or “made a payroll” (yes, I have). Not like that is the end all and the be all of human accomplishment, either, seeing as neither Jesus Christ nor George S. Patton ever “ran a business” or “made a payroll”. At best it is a silly nonsequitar, intended to change the subject away from the present-day derangement of the American right. Nope, my original post was about the inability for conservatives to rationally assess anything that relates to Obama.
They criticized the man for putting mustard on a hamburger for God’s sake! So the congressman who said “If Obama eats a b.l.t., conservatives will boycott bacon” was just about right.
Like I said before — I did not understand the paranoia and the obsession until I remembered “splitting”. It all makes sense now . . . .
@ Mike’s America —
Again, you don’t meet the substance, whether to acknowledge the problems with the entire “dithering” meme fromt he right, or the history of Afghanistan. I am right now reading “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll. I read “Charlie Wilson’s War” by George Krile (sic?) a couple years back. If you read these tomes, you would grasp how difficult this is. But you don’t even meet the issues . . . I am not surprised, though. The conservative version of “thinking” nowadays is yelling “I want my country back” and “Fascism” at the top of your lungs! Morons . . . if you have the freedom to call the president a fascist, then, by definition YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH A FASCIST!
No morons here:
Jim Moran Calls GOP the “Taliban Ticket”
And @Wordsmith….guess he didn’t overlook your comment, just avoiding you.
@B-Rob: Excuse me pal, but I don’t need any lectures from you either on Afghanistan or politics. Consult my bio and you’ll discover I was tutored in National Security topics by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. And in politics, I have worked that field at every level from the court house to the White House.
As I said above it’s clear that time spent in engaging you on the substance of these issues would be a waste of time. You’ve demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously.
Trying to decide when the Obama White House is lying is not the question, trying to determine when they tell the truth is the question.
Four years to train a soldier for war? Liberals must require considerably more time to prepare for war; otherwise there are some guys here that might take exception with that assertion. Raging about something you know nothing about only serves to confirm our assumptions that you are a fool, like your numb nutted nitwit in the White House.
@ Wordsmith and Curt —
There is really nothing to respond to. Wordsmith’s was not a substantive commentary. It was more akin to a lawyer getting up in oral argument and rather than responding to the other side’s argument, spends his 15 minutes talking about how the lawyer’s suit was not flattering and reminds him of a grandpa’s funeral suit.
ROFL…..just what I thought.
You say as your avoid arguments with the commentary of other commenters. Speaks volumes.
@ Skookum —
“Trying to decide when the Obama White House is lying is not the question, trying to determine when they tell the truth is the question.”
This falls under the catagory of “devaluation”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)#Splitting_as_a_defense_mechanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealization_and_devaluation
“Four years to train a soldier for war? Liberals must require considerably more time to prepare for war; otherwise there are some guys here that might take exception with that assertion.”
Um, Skookum, your shock at me saying it takes four years to train a soldier says more about you than me, dude! How long do you think it takes to train a teacher? Or a lawyer or doctor? Hate to tell you, son, but soldiering is a PROFESSION. You don’t put someone through basic and pronounce them “done” and put them in Khost. They would get themselves and their fellow soldiers killed! There is a reason you see kids who are 21 and up getting killed in Iraq, and no 18 year olds. Because if they join at 17, they are ready to fight at 21 or 23.
And I note have I not seen ANYONE deal with, nonetheless dispute the substance of my commentary. Not the four years, not the stress on the army, . . . nothing. Oh, sure, you cons throw a lot of verbiage around. But substance? None.
“Raging about something you know nothing about only serves to confirm our assumptions that you are a fool, like your numb nutted nitwit in the White House.”
Like I said: lot’s of heat and no light. So, moron, tell me which part of what I posted was WRONG. You think the army is NOT stressed and broken? You think we have 40,000 fighting soldiers sitting around doing nothing right now? Do you know what it takes, manpower-wise, to put 40,000 new soldiers in the field? Do you even know how the deployments in Iraq, the rotations home, shortfalls in recruiting back in 2005 and the Afghan election all enter into Obama’s decision? Do you know ANYTHING about the subject? Because you are not SHOWING you know anything.
Again, I am no expert; I just read a lot about what the logistics, policy and military goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think I am wrong about something, explain it! You resting on name calling is sophmoric . . . but could anyone expect anything more from a Palinite?
@ Mike’s America —
Oh, sorry, dude! You are a big time national security expert, huh? So why is it I see no substantive response to what I posted, only a citation to your resume? If I say “Doctor, why do you think this is beri beri and not just shingles” and she starts spouting off her resume, not answering my friggin question . . . well let’s just say the confidence level deteriorates.
So, Mike, you can call up old Zbig, I am sure, and all your honchoes in the black world and come up with a zillion reasons why I am wrong, huh? Then why didn’t you?
This is what is fascinating: I post my armchair opinion as a non-military person, but pretty up on politics and the state of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I posted about the fact that we don’t have the bodies ready to send people to Afghanistan* You, the “expert” on things military, don’t respond with a single fact, or even an on point opinion! Just a snide remark? W.t.f.? Is that what passes for thinking on the right now?
Something I learned a long time ago, which was reinforced during the Dem primary when the Hillary people were losing their f’ing minds: people who are emotional cannot be convinced by rational argument. They will decide, instead “You are not worth wasting time with, because no matter what the facts show, you are an Obamabot and will not believe [the “whitey tape” exists][he is a secret Muslim][he was born in Kenya][he is the antichrist].”
I explained IN SOME DETAIL why the entire “dithering” charge is laughable. Your response is “I have a great resume.” Uh, huh. Powerful comeback, Mike. Real powerful.
* I won’t even get into ther bind we would be in if Obama had not decided long ago to draw down in Iraq. Suffice it to say, without that decision in January, McChrystal would have heard nothing but laughter if he had asked for 40,000 men, as opposed to the contemplation and game planning we have now. But then again, I forgot you cons opposed that, too.
@ Red 73 —
Another take on the bailouts:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/29/depression-recession-gdp-imf-milton-friedman-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
The key paragraph:
“The main differences between today’s crisis and the Great Depression is that the deflationary pressure is less than a third of what it was in the 1930s and policymakers today reacted much more swiftly and more appropriately than they did after 1929. Those who think the government should have done nothing risked turning the current downturn into another Great Depression. Thankfully, their advice was ignored.”
@B-Rob:
I”m thinking we just might have Janeane Garofalo’s brother spouting off here.
Dude, you happen to be posting at a sight with past military members contributing, if they thought you mattered, they would be posting.
My father(Navy) fought in the Phillipines right out of training as did his brother, two other uncles, one Marine, one Army fought in the Korean Conflict right out of training, my ex-husband enlisted in May of 68 became a Green Beret in less than two years and was involved in the Raid on Son Tay, my son pre-enlisted in the Navy at 17, entered three months after he turned 18 and served in Gulf 1 right out of training, my nephew, who is in the Army served 15 months in Iraq, his unit was deployed about 18 months after he enlisted. We just buried a childhood friend who recieved the MOH, he was drafted and only served the two years, short of the four years you consider adequate. Yes, the military is a profession you are selling our warriors short, absolutely shameful!
BTW, being as though you obviously do not know what you are talking about, none go into harm’s way right out of basic, they go through other intense training, my husband was an air traffic controller, in less than a year from enlistment was landing planes in Adak, Alaska and then onto Hawaii, my father was a gunner on a destroyer, my son was a radar technician, my ex was a weapons expert–had to go through basic, AIT, jump school and school to become a GB, get the idea?
Now, in addition to their specialty training, they train for their mission and then spend about a month in Kuwait or other areas training before entering the combat zones. When they are at their home bases there is more training. My nephew is completeing his college degree and will go on to OCS, not only is he doing that, he just got back a month or so ago from Oklahoma where he did lazer training.
I know lawyers and I know teachers, judging from what our military members have shared in here, and my family’s history of contributing to this country, my respect goes to the military.
Missy, BS-rob is just full of hate and is here to bash us for disagreeing with him.
He’s proven himself to be a troll. Attack, attack, attack. That’s all he’s done.
@ B-rob
I was deeply involved in Afghanistan, and I can tell you with certainty that while you make a point or two, on the whole you are very wrong in your perceptions.
-You are also very wrong as to what the status our military is. (EG: the only reason 2005 seemed to be short on recruiting, was because Congress had just approved a huge increase in the amount of warriors, every year before and after, they exceeded goals.)
You ignore salient facts, and timelines, not to mention participation and command-structure. You ignore changes on that battlefield, historical facts, and political changes there, and in the surrounding countries, not to mention the changes in Europe/NATO/UN.
You argue by shotgun…You throw out a bunch of pellets, while ducking the ones being deflected back at you. You only get specific when that specificity lets you run away from the main topic.
“Dithering”
He is dithering. His transition team worked very closely with Bushs’ team, and the Pentagon from November through February. Everyone involved agreed McCrystal was the man for the job, and the plan was ready and announced in March. The Bush team had no problem in letting Obama’s team take credit for what is considered a very good plan. It was truly a non-political plan, well researched, and “doable”. McCrystal had made it very clear (per the plan) that he had intended to ask for many more troops. Yes, I’ve been privy to parts of it.
We all heard during the election how important Afghanistan was to Obama. I was in full agreement with him, as were many of us “Cons”…
We’ve all heard his say how important it was right up through the end of August…
THEN all of a sudden he “dithers” with letting Biden have a say in September.
He “dithers” by claiming the election there needed to be good enough for him to trouble himself with implementing the plan, even though the war had been fairly successful with no government there to speak of, and later a government now suddenly deemed “not good enough to support”.
He “dithers” by thinking that Europe “loves” him so much, that they will finally step up and do what they had telegraphed they would do, but haven’t. (Nor will they)
He “dithers” while Pakistan is on the offensive. (A small window of opportunity.)
He “dithers” by having more meetings with Union-bosses, than with the General he picked for the job.
He “dithers” by having photo-ops at Dover.
He “dithers” by not re-assuring those 18-21 year-old men and women that the wait will be to their benefit.
My son is home (from Afghanistan) for a week before he starts training for a PRT group. The men around him, and their commanders are ready and willing to carry out any plan he eventually commits to….He has been in the Corps 1 year today…Do the math.
They were ready when Obama announced his plan back in March. And in April. And in May. And in June, And in July, They got real excited in August. Kinda felt let down in September. Annoyed in October. Now approaching pissed off in November, as to having no political leadership telling them what to plan for in December. 9 freakin months of “dithering”.
It does not matter much to them what that plan might entail, they just want a plan to rally behind, even if the plan is to wrap it all up and go home, or invade every surrounding country simultaneously.
As CiC, you don’t do that to the Dawgs without them calling it what it is: “DITHERING”.
(The Marines, of course have a slightly different word for it, not suitable for this site, not usually said about their CiC, and never said about their last CiC, nor the ones before him….for even Carter had a plan.)
B-Rob. You are loud, full of blather, but in-the-end predictable and wrong…
But mostly boring.
@Curt: I commend Wordsmith for his effort but the result was predictable.
It was clear what were were dealing with here from the beginning: A TIME WASTER!
A self important blowhard who isn’t worth the trouble responding to.
Perhaps if B-Rob learns some manners and recognizes that the’s not the smartest person in the room it would be worthwhile to interact with him more fully.
But I’d say chances of that happening are slim.
He’s just too infected with the typical liberal arrogance and condescension.
Oh my….
@Curt #72:
Bingo, Curt! You nailed it, solid.
I seem to also recall early on, how he crybabied over me “changing the subject”. And then he’s all over the map wanting to air his own peeves and stand on his little soapbox in a bubble.
Oh, and isn’t this quite simply the pol pot calling the kettle…
@B-Rob #61:
@B-Rob #67:
Then in the same comment #67, goes on to chastise:
You’re a real sophomore, you know that?
But go ahead and say it: “Your side engages in it. My side is pure.” Rofl!!!
@B-Rob #66:
Projection much?
As Curt said:
And while you selectively ignore what you can’t address, funny you should then go on to say
@B-Rob #67:
Who’s throwing a lot of verbiage around? You. Substance? Quite lacking.
You’re out here passing a lot of gas while the rest of us are laughing.
Do you still want to stick to your original argument, btw? Because you’re effectively behaving like what you claim to hate and ONLY see coming from “the rightwing”.
Ok, I’ll get off my dithering and indulge you some more, out of boredom….
@B-Rob #46:
wordsmith #37:
Contrast this to:
1993 – WTC Bombing
1995 – Khobar Towers
1998 – Africa Attacks
2000 – Cole Attack
“Bush was asleep at the wheel”, yet you’re giving Clinton a pass? AND call yourself “Republican”?
Please offer a substantive explanation at exactly what you mean by “Bush was asleep at the switch on 9/11” so I can rip into that one.
Clinton downscaled our military by half. The number of divisions of our military went from 18 to 10; the number of wings in the Air Force from 24 to 13; the number of Navy vessels cut by over half, from 600 to below 300. Research and development of new weapons were undercut while other nations pushed ahead with defense-building.
Lt. Col. “Buzz” Patterson’s book, “Dereliction of Duty”, pg 106-7:
According to James Risen in his anti-Bush book, Clinton
This perspective is echoed by Robert Baer (not a Bush fan, either) in his book, “See No Evil”, where the former CIA operative and veteran case officer mentions a number of times how the Agency under Clinton was becoming “risk-averse”.
Under the Clinton Administration, the CIA’s standards for recruiting spies was impossible to meet. Spies, by the very nature that they are willing to sell out their own countries, are unsavory characters. Clinton set the bar so high on ethic standards, it made recruitment of high-value spies near impossible.
One reason why we suffered intelligence failure on Iraq’s current state in 2002-2003, was that we did not have a single HUMINT on the ground.
“Technological superiority” you say, as a measuring rod? Yeah….I guess Clinton gets credit for selling out missile and nuclear technology to China. Under Clinton, in 1998,
Foreign nationals from sensitive countries like China, North Korea, Iran, and the former Soviet Union were given access to national laboratories and DOE headquarters. Energy secretary Hazel O’Leary ended the standard security practice of requiring colored security badges in these sensitive areas, citing that such practice was “discriminatory”.
Should Clinton take blame/credit for this? Happened under his watch. The “wall” between the CIA and FBI occurred in 1995. Who do we blame for that? The PotUS at the time with 5 yrs to fix it, or the one down the road, 9 months into office?
Then we’d find ourselves repeating the same as we did throughout the 90’s, with this cat-and-mouse/hide-and-seek game. Saddam was initially shocked when Bush diverged from the Clinton approach and actually meant what he said when he threatened to bring down Saddam’s regime [60 Minutes interview with George Piro and Ronald Kessler’s The Terrorist Watch].
Inspections weren’t working as far as instilling confidence in the international community that Saddam was disarmed. Sure, there were some successes under UNSCOM; but neither UNSCOM nor it’s watered-down, inspection-lite reincarnation, UNMOVIC, could prove with 100% certainty that Saddam was effectively disarmed. Saddam himself perpetuated the uncertainty, in part, as a defense against Iran. But the burden of proof was indeed upon Saddam- or should have been; not on the UN inspectors who were never intended to be weapons hunters in the first place, searching a country the size of California for wmd material. We also know from post-war documents that have been translated, of Saddam intentionally deceiving inspectors. Luck at finding illegal items, like fishing gyroscopes (the main component of a missile’s guidance system) out of the Tigris, is bound to run out. In 1995, it is only by sheer luck that we discovered some 1.5 million pages of documents thanks to the defection of Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal; not thanks to any IAEA inspections. They had missed much of the hidden nuclear weapons program, as revealed through the help of Kamal.
Why should we gamble the lives of the world and rest our hopes on another Hussein Kamal (murdered by Saddam) defecting, let alone 100% success of UN inspections? Everyone knows Saddam was intentionally deceiving and hiding things he shouldn’t have, yet we continue to play this insane cat-and-mouse charade?
So you tell me what you think would have been accomplished by inspectors “doing their job” and “trusting their analysis” (Recall them missing anything important? Why don’t you do the research on that one
In the present, President Bush is damaged goods. Historians 50 years from now will put him in a better light.
I play this game with you, because you choose to blame Bush for activities that began before his watch; yet absolve Clinton of all responsibility. And being the partisan you are, don’t acknowledge the succeeding years after 9/11 in which the country was kept safe, due to the pro-active response of the Bush Administration in taking the fight to the Islamic terrorists.
8 years vs. 9 months. You do the math.
Lol….and “duh”. So where was the actionable intelligence?
@B-Rob #56:
Only a partisan hack could skew history so….partisanly.
When did the Iraq invasion take place, again……? Troop levels in Afghanistan didn’t drop because of the planning for the invasion of Iraq in mid-2002. The only military unit “diverted” from Afghanistan to Iraq when we invaded was the 5th Special Forces Group; sent to fight al Qaeda in northern Iraq (yes, there was an al Qaeda footprint already in Iraq, prior to 2003).
And really? We diverted translators? I wasn’t aware that majority Iraqis spoke Persian Dari or Pashto.
bin Laden was already said to be out of Afghanistan by December of ‘01. We won there with minimal casualties and a light invasion force. It was brilliant. The difficulties lay in the post-war stage, and would be difficult regardless of Iraq. You know that. Bush knew that, going in. April 2002: “[T]he history of military conflict in Afghanistan….[has] been one of initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.”-President Bush.
Rumsfeld didn’t even believe in “nation-building” and thought “reconstruction” to be an inappropriate term, when our aid was consisting of building things up from scratch.
What else was happening that put a logjam on the wheels of progress (difficult no matter what)? The handover of the reigns to Afghanistan under NATO supervision.
As MataHarley put it:
Word, this morning I was reading through some of ChrisG’s Afghanistan posts, this one in particular stood out to me because he was talking about the condition Afghanistan was in immediately after the election.
Halfway down the post is when he mentions it:
Since then we find out prisoners are being mirandized, which would put the hurt on actionable intelligence, the general and ROEs have been changed, and Obama and team had been briefed from November on and were handed an indepth report to work with.
And, Obama is still “dithering.”
As of October 30th, Obama has had a total of 20 hours with his Afghanistan team.
My son pointed out that he got about 20 hours of “free-time” while in-country for the past 6 months.
@Missy:
Yeah….I was thinking of Chris, too, as I read through B-Rob’s comments, as though he were speaking on behalf of soldiers like Chris.
If our military shared B-Rob’s opinion, you’d think the majority military vote would have been cast for Obama in ’08 and Kerry in ’04.
I can’t believe you folks are still flogging this discredited story. If you look at the original list, as the nice people at The Corner did, it tells you in a simple code who the person named came to see at the White House. There are several hundred people who work there and, of course, hundreds of visitors every day. Most of them never see Obama (or whoever has the big office). Not even Rush or the seriously deranged Glenn Beck or even the famous closet job Matt Drudge are talking about this because they were NOT THE SAME PEOPLE YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE. The Michael Jordan, for example, is a former GE honcho. Give it up…you were punked.
@Jerry Bowles: How many times did George Soros visit?
How many times did Andy Stern, of the radical union SEIU visit?
How many times did NOW’s head visit?
How about the NARAL Chick?
Seems to me YOU are the one who was punked here.
@Jerry Bowles:
This dummy shows up three days after that conversation ended and wants to know why we are still discussing it, man, that’s kind of like making a mistake. Poor old Jerry must be getting rather thin on his diet of crow. Any relation to B-Rob, Jerry?
Click the little red names, Jerry:
@Missy:
In case you missed this one, Obama-fluffer.
@Patvann: