ThinkFast: January 9, 2007
ThinkFast: January 9, 2007
After a meeting between President Bush and more than 30 Republican senators yesterday, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said, “‘It was clear to me that a decision has been made for a surge‘ of at least 20,000 additional troops.” Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) noted that most senators didn’t embrace Bush’s plan: “I think I was the only senator who acted like he would be supportive.”
The CIA has submitted portions of a book manuscript by former Director George Tenet to the White House for review amid speculation the memoirs will be critical of President Bush. A CIA spokesman denied allegations that the book had been submitted for review of negative comments about Bush.
The new congressional leadership’s “100 hour agenda” begins today as the House votes on a bill to enact several 9/11 Commission recommendations. Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton said yesterday, “if this bill is enacted, then almost all of the recommendations of the commission will have been put into law” and the “American people will be safer.”
$2 trillion. The amount the U.S. spent on health care, “fueled by the cost of hospital care, doctor fees and prescription drugs.” “Health-care spending grew 6.9 percent to about $1.99 trillion from about $1.86 trillion in 2004.”
“Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a ’surge.’” The Prime Minister will “insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army.”
One in eight. Number of Iraqis who have now left their homes, “with up to 50,000 people leaving each month,” according to the U.N. Refugee Agency. It noted that the “exodus was the largest long-term movement since the displacement of the Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948.”
A federal investigation of former CIA Executive Director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo “has stalled because of CIA reluctance to turn over classified documents requested by prosecutors, people close to the investigation say.” Foggo is under scrutiny for his role in the Duke Cunningham scandal.
President Bush “pushed for renewal of the No Child Left Behind education law Monday in a meeting with congressional leaders but was noncommittal on their request for more money to help schools meet the law’s requirements.”
A Pentagon Inspector General review of offices under former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is “expected to be completed within the next few weeks.”
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Monday proposed a system of universal health insurance for Californians that would make the nation’s most populous state the third to guarantee medical coverage for all its residents.” Some 6.5 million people, one-fifth of the state’s population, do not have health insurance.
And finally: Beach babe Obama. A two-page spread titled “BEACH BABES” in the latest issue of People magazine features a photo of shirtless Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “in the Hawaiian surf.” Presented with the image yesterday, Obama said, “You know, it’s uh — … It’s embarrassing.” Later, “Obama noticed that Jay Newton-Small of Bloomberg News was studying the image. ‘Stop looking at it!‘ he mock-scolded, and hustled away.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I wonder if Walter E. Evans is going to post his complaints here as well. He’s been quite adamant about limits on free speech, but he’s only cheery-picked his instances.
He doesn’t talk about how Pres. Bush decided to restrict “free speech” to zones that are out of his sight.
He doesn’t talk about how anyone who questioned the previous-Republican majority must “hate our troops”. Even if they’re veterans or serving themselves.
Why does Walter E. Evans cherry pick his instances of “limits on free speech”? Could it be that his partisanship has sailed and he’s not the captain of his ship?
January 9th, 2007 at 9:12 am““Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Monday proposed a system of universal health insurance for Californians that would make the nation’s most populous state the third to guarantee medical coverage for all its residents.†Some 6.5 million people, one-fifth of the state’s population, do not have health insurance. ”
Gov. Schwarzenegger is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Well, since he’s quite the liar (I did drugs and had orgies years ago! Well, now that I’m running for Governor, I’ll just say I lied about them to be ‘cool’.) and ladies man (If I grap your breasts, it’s a compliment! But you gays better not grab my butt, cuz that’s harassment!) I guess he just might be a Republican.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:15 am“Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a ’surge.’†The Prime Minister will “insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army.†…and the President wants to escalate the war with 20,000 more US troops. If only we had some support from other nations, a COALITION, if you will, of countries WILLING to fight in Iraq, so the US doesn’t have to bear the brunt of the violence we created there. If only there weren’t more nations that were WITH US instead of WITH THE TERR-ISTS. If only we had actually TURNED THE CORNER in 2004, FREEDOM would be ON THE MARCH by now. If only we had STAYed THE COURSE, so as the Iraqis STAND UP, WE could STAND DOWN, the MISSION would be ACCOMPLISHED….If only this lie of a war wasn’t conducted with empty slogans by incompetent, greedy fools…
January 9th, 2007 at 9:17 am2 trillions spent on health…..does that include what states spent…what paid by people for insurance policieis ,what copmanies paid for employees coverage..and what people paid from their pockets for medicine by checks?…And after spending all this money ,we still have 40 million people without health coverage?
January 9th, 2007 at 9:18 amBlair (Britain’s) reticence to back Bush’s latest folly…
…should be proof positive…
…that the right wing/Bushite hyperbole about this “war” being a “struggle for civilization and our way of life”…
…is all bullsh*t…
…this “occupation” is about profiteering, hegemony, and oil security…
…PERIOD!
…dumb a*s Americans can bleat about “supporting the troops” all they want…
…these ignoramuses are intellectual slaves for the corporate slave masters, and THINKINg PEOPLE MUST…
… shun them…
…though they (the CONNED’self-servative slaves) be your family members, neighbors, friends, business associates, or casual acquaintences…
INVESTIGATE
January 9th, 2007 at 9:29 amIMPEACH
INCARCERATE
IMPOUND
So Tony grew a pair of poodle balls. Who’d a thunkit?
January 9th, 2007 at 9:32 amhahahahaha…… poodle balls… hahaha!
Thanks, RU.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:36 amOne in eight. Number of Iraqis who have now left their homes, “with up to 50,000 people leaving each month,†according to the U.N. Refugee Agency. It noted that the “exodus was the largest long-term movement since the displacement of the Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948.â€
And some still wonder why there is hatred for the US and Israel in the ME.
So Tony grew a pair of poodle balls. Who’d a thunkit?
Comment by RUCerious
I think his fear of a total collapse of his party has finally outweighed his fear of rejection by Bush. He still has no balls. He is just afraid of something else.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:42 amSo Tony grew a pair of poodle balls. Who’d a thunkit?
Comment by RUCerious
To speak on behalf of a very good British friend who died last year, please don’t insult poodles!
January 9th, 2007 at 9:47 ammy apologies, Lora. Perhaps they were terrier balls instead?
January 9th, 2007 at 9:49 amDon’t be silly. Probably a Corgi.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:58 amBush finally came with solution to the problem..He told Condi: ” If we are fighting ‘INSURGENTS’…then we must be ‘SURGE NTS’ to win…I want you to look for a ‘SURGE’…and I will make a speech about it,with Lieberman on your right side,and McCain on your left side..no telling where this will take us, Condi: always remember who is the ‘Decider”
January 9th, 2007 at 9:58 amSomeone is making lots of money on health care, the question is who?
January 9th, 2007 at 10:03 amDon’t be silly. Probably a Corgi.
Comment by TheToonGuy — January 9, 2007 @ 9:58 am
I think Corgis are only for the Royal Family. For PMs, the standard should be “Thatchers”. (Thank you, Stephen Colbert!)
January 9th, 2007 at 10:06 amAfter a meeting between President Bush and more than 30 Republican senators yesterday, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said, “‘It was clear to me that a decision has been made for a surge‘ of at least 20,000 additional troops.â€
But according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there are only 9,000 troops available.
I wonder if Karl Rove is applying “the math” to make up the difference…
January 9th, 2007 at 10:07 am#13 – Oooohhh, I know, I know!!!
January 9th, 2007 at 10:07 amInsurance Companies!
Pig, er Big Pharma!
We need a surge in Congress … a surge of leaders who will impeach Bush. Where is their backbone?
January 9th, 2007 at 10:08 amBush to Condi…I prefer ‘Surge’..better than ‘ASS calation’.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:09 amBush finally came with solution to the problem..He told Condi: †If we are fighting ‘INSURGENTS’…then we must be ‘SURGE NTS’ to win…I want you to look for a ‘SURGE’…and I will make a speech about it,with Lieberman on your right side,and McCain on your left side..no telling where this will take us, Condi: always remember who is the ‘Deciderâ€
Comment by tarazan
Or, some guy named “Surge” replaced Jeff Gannon, and they want to appease “Surge”.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:09 amBush and Surge Funding
Does anyone know if Bush could manipulate funding in such a way that he could fund his “surge” idea in conflict with Congress?
Here’s my scenario.
Congress passes supplemental money for the Iraq war as all of these have gone. Let’s assume that the funding was for three months. What’s to prevent Bush from using the money in 45 days and simply use all of the extra money to fund his “surge”?
The other thing, based on his history, that I could see him doing is using a signing statement to somehow change the intent of some bill 180 degrees to get his funding for his surge.
So even if they cut funding for his “surge” he could do it anyhow.
So how does Congress PREVENT him from going ahead with his idea, despite what America and Congress are TELLING him to do?
January 9th, 2007 at 10:11 am…dumb a*s Americans can bleat about “supporting the troops†all they want…
Comment by big papa
Great post, big papa.
About supporting the troops (Ive posted this before but…):
January 9th, 2007 at 10:12 amMobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or, to bring it up to date, “Support our troops.”
Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that?… The point of public relations
slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy?
But you don’t want people to think about the issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You
want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for, because
nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts
your attention….
From the Telegraph report on this atrocity: “So this was the very opposite of a surgical strike. Anyone in the path of the gunship, which departed from the US military base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, would have been killed.” And since then there have been more attacks, with US special forces apparently active on the ground. Obviously this is the kind of “fighting” the US armed forces are designed for: crushing defenceless villagers with hi tech weaponry, like merciless pagan gods levelling thunderbolts at mere mortals. How courageous. Americans should realise that to millions of people, their country means the looming of deadly air power over their heads, and a raining down of indiscriminate death. (Doubtless this will trigger self pitying whines about ingratitude and declarations that the US shouuld stick to its own business. If only. America sees dominating the world as its business.) As for the rest of the first world, what it means is a series of mealy mouthed justifications for doing nothing to protect them from such ruthless exercises of lethal force.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:13 am“exodus was the largest long-term movement since the displacement of the Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948.â€
Ugh, that was really hard to write, right?
January 9th, 2007 at 10:15 amObviously this is the kind of “fighting†the US armed forces are designed for: crushing defenceless villagers with hi tech weaponry, like merciless pagan gods levelling thunderbolts at mere mortals. How courageous.
Comment by Briar #23
…ABSOLUTELY…
…but what goes around…
…inevitably…
…comes around….
January 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amJuan C sez:
I wouldn’t say they don’t mean anything…quite the contrary. Repubs have perverted the honest, laudable notion of ’supporting our troops’ to mean supporting the criminal acts of our administration that have put those young men and women in harm’s way in in the first place. If you oppose King Chimpy’s reckless, suicidal agenda in any capacity, you are painted with the ‘you’re against our troops’ brush.
Rather than dismiss the ’support our troops’ slogan as meaningless, it’s time for us to take it back from the Repukes and restore it’s true meaning:
January 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Number of Iraqis who have now left their homes, “with up to 50,000 people leaving each month,â€
January 9th, 2007 at 10:25 amJust putting this in perspective ~
that’s twelve percent, 12% 0.12 of the population.
If that were happening in the US, it would be thirty six million Americans fleeing to Mexico and Canada.
Comment by Briar
Briar, thats pretty much the opinion about US outside US.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:26 am#22
A comment that I heard last night, that I hadn’t thought of in these terms (how dumb am I?).
The essence of it was the disparity between people in the service versus Bush and all the affluent in this country. “Support the Troops” ribbons, etc. At the same time that all of these folks are making absolutely NO sacrifices for this war who is going to take the brunt of this surge? These same troops who are going to have their tours extended, the same troops who are going to have to serve another tour, etc.
Anyone wonder why the troops are now questioning Bush’s “plans”?
Any wonder why people are talking about the troops being near the point of breaking?
January 9th, 2007 at 10:27 amBriar,
#23 mad me think of a quote I read a while back.
Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
A pirate, from St. Augustine’s “City of God”
I don’t believe terrorism or imperial use of force answers the questions that need to be addressed, it is interesting and sad that they both have the same outcome. Death.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:28 am[...] African American Political Pundit says: This is how the Bush Administration is Promoting Peace and Democracy – and Acts of Mercy in Iraq. One in Eight is the number of Iraqis who have now left their homes, “with up to 50,000 people leaving each month,†according to the U.N. Refugee Agency. It noted that the “exodus was the largest long-term movement since the displacement of the Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948.†[...]
January 9th, 2007 at 10:30 amJuan C sez:
The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops†is that they don’t mean anything.
I wish, Trip. Thats from Chomsky. Sorry for not posting the author. As for your true meaning of the motto: What does supporting the troops mean to you? Cuz from this side of the world, and sorry everybody, the only thing your troops seem to do is bring havoc to III world countries for american corporation interests, destabilize countries and leave a great number of dead civilians in its wake. If you support people who do that, as in troops, then you are as guilty as your government.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:31 amI don’t think Tony Blair is in control of his government anymore.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:31 amWhoah did I see TP post somthing that may have kind of shown Israel up in a bad light – sort of ethnic cleansing bad light? Well I would never have thought…
January 9th, 2007 at 10:35 am[...] African American Political Pundit says: This is how the Bush Administration is Promoting Peace and Democracy – and Acts of Mercy in Iraq. One in Eight is the number of Iraqis who have now left their homes, “with up to 50,000 people leaving each month,†according to the U.N. Refugee Agency. It noted that the “exodus was the largest long-term movement since the displacement of the Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948.†[...]
January 9th, 2007 at 10:36 amJuan C ,
I apologize for the havoc we (US Troops)wrecked in WWII. I also apologize for the havoc wrecking I personally took part in when we were assisting orphanages in S Korea and Thailand. And the havoc we wrecked providing aid to those Tsunami victims in Indonesia.
I am so sorry for all these deeds of havoc wrecking./scarcasm>
January 9th, 2007 at 10:43 amJuan C sez:
I had thought I had made my views painfully clear in my last post, but apparently I was mistaken…
The phrase ’support our troops’, as used by the neocon chickenhawks, actually means ’support the neocon agenda that has resulted in the illegal and immoral deployment of said troops’. It’s time we took back this phrase, and quit letting neocons use it as one of their talking points by which they seek to browbeat us into submission.
Agreed. You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
One can support the young men and women who were courageous enough to sign up to defend this country without supporting the illegal and immoral acts of our current administration. Please don’t conflate the two.
The paramount reason I want our troops home is to stop the needless deaths on both sides. Coming in a close second, however, is because I don’t want these troops to be accessories to the crimes that our Chimp-in-Chief and his gang of thugs are committing any longer than they have to. In many of my earlier posts, I’ve advocated conscientious objection and desertion as means by which our troops can work to thwart the twisted will of this tin-pot dictator that has hijacked our country. This, to me, seems a long way from implicitly supporting our government’s policies by explicitly supporting our troops, as you insinuate in post #32.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:52 amTony Blair is no longer master of his own domain….
January 9th, 2007 at 10:53 amRobert Ww2 was over 60 years ago – the myth of American Exceptionalism died in Vietnam.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:00 amOne can support the young men and women who were courageous enough to sign up to defend this country without supporting the illegal and immoral acts of our current administration.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I have to ask: to defend this country against who? Who is invading US? Why are 700+ american military bases across the world, but there are no foreign bases in US soil? Why is there a Gitmo but there is no a cuban base in US? (Robert has never answered those questions, I guess he just answers what he sees fit)
Now, about the troops. I understand they are poor kids, almost without a future, the vast majority blacks, latinos and poor white kids who couldnt get to college. But Bush didnt pilot the plane that throw cluster bombs over civilians, Trip. Bush didnt throw himself WP in Iraq or depleted uranium. There were US troops. We condemn those who raped and killed a girl. Thats good. What about those unnamed, unrecognized soldiers that press a button and hundreds of civilians are wiped out like nothing? So, they are adults, Trip, they can think for themselves, and I think if they have a conscience, they should revolt. I know I wouldnt kill anyone even if I had a 6´10″ general asking me to do that.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am[...] Other Bloggers Weighing In On “The Surge”: The Moderate Voice (Joe Gandelman)Outside The Beltway; Think Progress; The Political Pitbull; Bob Geiger; Ace Of Spades HQ; Poliblog ™; [...]
January 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am#15, Maybe they will run the 9,000 troops through a Diebold voting machine to get the 20,000 they need?
January 9th, 2007 at 11:49 amAfter a meeting between President Bush and more than 30 Republican senators yesterday, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said, “‘It was clear to me that a decision has been made for a surge‘ of at least 20,000 additional troops.â€
I look forward to Senator Gordon Smith’s loss in the 08 election.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pmMark #41
That was hilarious!
January 9th, 2007 at 12:12 pmRobert: “I also apologize for the havoc wrecking I personally took part in when we were assisting orphanages in S Korea and Thailand.”
So, Robert, since we’ve done some good things, are people supposed to give us a free ride for bad things? Kind of reminds me of how people used to say, “yes, but he made the trains run on time.”
January 9th, 2007 at 12:22 pmSo, Robert, since we’ve done some good things, are people supposed to give us a free ride for bad things? Kind of reminds me of how people used to say, “yes, but he made the trains run on time.â€
Comment by Bluedog49
So, the bad that has happened take away from all the good? No one wants to talk about all the good things US forces have done throuout the world. But when there is a disaster anywhere in the world, everyone wants to see the US Military help clean it up.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pmMy posts wont show.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSorry…they just popped now.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:48 pm#45 No Robert, It does not take away all the good. But over the last few years our military has been misused and the goodwill erodes, it does not last forever. We built tremendous good will during and after WWIII for the way we conducted the war, for the way we aided our allies and for the way we treated our vanquished foes. That good will does not last forever. Quite a lot of it was eroded away during Vietnam and what remaining goodwill we had may just have very well been depleted during our current diplomacy by gunfire period we are going through. Face it too, we have not had much good will in the mid east ever.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pmMark,
Exactally. The military has been misused. So the arguement should not be with the military as a whole, it should be with the administration that is misusing the military. But to blame the military members themselves in MOST cases is wrong.
There are turds in the military that commit war crimes. There are those that abuse their power. I do not dispute that at all. And people like that do not deserve to serve in in our military.
Blameing the military (as a whole) for being misused by the administration is as stupid as blaming the victim for being raped.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAnd the havoc we wrecked providing aid to those Tsunami victims in Indonesia.
I am so sorry for all these deeds of havoc wrecking./scarcasm>
Comment by robert #35
robert,
you sound like a psychotic rapist who tells his victim…
…”yeah, but I gave you a beautiful baby didn’t I?”…
…and is there some underlying theme to the misspelling of words and terrible grammar these Bushite inbreds are so prone to?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pmThe new congressional leadership’s “100 hour agenda†begins today as the House votes on a bill to enact several 9/11 Commission recommendations. Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton said yesterday, “if this bill is enacted, then almost all of the recommendations of the commission will have been put into law†and the “American people will be safer.â€
*Claps* Thank you Democrats. Thank you for making us safer. For doing something that needed to be done that the republicans refused to do.
Thank you.
Oh, and did you read the moronic Fox News article that slammed Pelosi because the 100 hours somehow was up already? Read it, laugh at it. Punch a fox news reporter. Make the world a better place.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm#50 – Yeah, the spelling seems to be an issue.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:42 pmShouldn’t it read more like
And the havoc we reeked…
I have to ask: to defend this country against who? Who is invading US? Why are 700+ american military bases across the world, but there are no foreign bases in US soil? Why is there a Gitmo but there is no a cuban base in US? (Robert has never answered those questions, I guess he just answers what he sees fit)
January 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pmWhy would I attempt to answer a question I could not give an intelligent answer to?
Now, about the troops. I understand they are poor kids, almost without a future,the vast majority blacks, latinos and poor white kids who couldnt get to college
Wrong, most are middle class white kids.
But Bush didnt pilot the plane that throw cluster bombs over civilians, Trip.
On targets designated by Intelligence sources
Bush didnt throw himself WP in Iraq or depleted uranium. There were US troops.We condemn those who raped and killed a girl. Thats good. What about those unnamed, unrecognized soldiers that press a button and hundreds of civilians are wiped out like nothing? So, they are adults, Trip, they can think for themselves, and I think if they have a conscience, they should revolt. I know I wouldnt kill anyone even if I had a 6´10″ general asking me to do that.
Those that commit war crimes, and are convicted of war crimes should pay the price. Now, Juan, IF someone fired on you, in an attempt to take your life, and you had the ability to fire back, would you?
I apologize for the misspellings.
big papa
…and is there some underlying theme to the misspelling of words and terrible grammar these Bushite inbreds are so prone to?
I am not defending Bush, I am defending the vast majority of the troops.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pmYou make it sound like “aggressive marketingâ€. Never mind the people he killed and the slave labor.
Comment by robert
Oh, yeah, Im defending Hitler…
robert, thats what ALL wars are about: profit.
Now, Juan, IF someone fired on you, in an attempt to take your life, and you had the ability to fire back, would you?
Comment by robert
So I guess kids throwing stones at flying jets that dropped cluster bombs on them, fired first, right? And to your question, I would fire back, but using your logic there are 600,000+ people who fired first, right?
Why would I attempt to answer a question I could not give an intelligent answer to?
January 9th, 2007 at 2:05 pmDo not underestimate you. You know the answer, you just dont like it.
Blameing the military (as a whole) for being misused by the administration is as stupid as blaming the victim for being raped.
Comment by robert
So you wont blame the german soldiers that pushed jewish people into the ovens because they were MISUSED?
January 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pmJuan,
You are right. Wars are about 3 things: Gold, God, and Glory. I do not dispute that. I also disagree with innocent civilians being cluster bombed. One thing you do not understand is that, unless it is a predetermined target on the ground, a pilot must request permission before engaging a ground target. Tragic mistakes do happen.
You say you use my logic and there are 600,000+ that are dead because they fired first. What you fait to appreciate is that 600,000+ in Iraq did not die by US hands/weapons. Many have died as a result of our involvement, but not all at the point of US guns. Also, US forces under the Rules of Engagement are not to fire at ANY PERSON that they do not perceive to be a legitimate threat. If a person points a weapon at you, that is a threat. If a person points a weapon at you and pulls the trigger, it is an even bigger threat.
BTW, I offer you this exclusive: After getting further clarification of Art. 88 of the UCMJ and how it does not apply to enlisted personnel: GOD D#NM I WISH BUSH WOULD STOP HIS BULLS_IT. This plan of escalation he has is moronic to say the least.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pmRobert: “Blameing the military (as a whole) for being misused by the administration is as stupid as blaming the victim for being raped.”
Remember what your guy said, Robert: “You go to war with the army you’ve got, not the army you want.”
To many of us, it sounded like Rumsfeld was blaming the army for his mistakes. You evidently have a different opinion on that.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pmSo you wont blame the german soldiers that pushed jewish people into the ovens because they were MISUSED?
I would blame the soldiers that did it and charge them with war crimes, but not the German Army as a whole.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pmTo many of us, it sounded like Rumsfeld was blaming the army for his mistakes. You evidently have a different opinion on that.
Actually he was referring to how the military was equipped, not mistakes that were made. I believe that was in response to a question about “body armor” and armoring of our vehicles. Did you know that when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq we were still using Viet Nam era equipment? No one since VN had bothered to upgrade our Personnel Protective Equipment much. The only really significant change was the Kevlar helmets in place of the metal “piss pot” helmet.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pmYou are right. Wars are about 3 things: Gold, God, and Glory.
Comment by robert
Glory? Last night I was watching S.W.A.T. with Samuel L. Jackson and let me tell you, when the movie finished I feel like getting myself a gun and start popping shots at the bad guys. All those movies and series about guns, wars and police departments are propaganda. There is nothing there but good guys vs bad guys. Where is the glory in wars, robert? Would you describe the birth of your child using that word instead? Glory was a movie about a group of black soldiers that fought in the civil war, right? After the civil war the rights of black people got better? Again, propaganda…its a good movie, however. You watch your baseball game and in the 7th inning you sing the national anthem…ok. But what the game has to do with the jets flying by and then the people cheer them and everybody gets excited for what? Propaganda. Your country´s power is based on wars so your government has to convince the US citizenry that US troops are heroes that defend you from who knows what but it is really evil and wants to kill your kids, that wars are being made for the sake of your freedom, that your police officers are god-like people (you can hardly find police officers in Japan, for example and the crime rates are the lowest worldwide), that flying F-14 and destroying Migs is a cool thing, etc. Its all crap. And I have nothing against the people, its against the propaganda.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:57 pmJuan,
I gave you the three reason that wars are fought. Did I say it was for MY glory? Did I say that it was for MY god? Did I say that I got a share of the gold?
Can you show me one war in the history of man that was not fought for one of these 3 reasons?
You love to tell me what “our” military is all about, yet you have no idea. You have your bias against the US and the US Military that I am a part of.
Try to focus on some of the problems in your country, then focus on ours.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:06 pmYou have your bias against the US and the US Military that I am a part of.
Comment by robert
I have facts, buddy. I didnt invent all those wars, interventions and occupations. I dont care if you are part of the US military or if I hurt you or your job buddies. Im talking about justice here, You are eager to condemn Castro, Stalin and Hitler but you wont say a word about what US and thats called hypocresy to say the least.
Try to focus on some of the problems in your country, then focus on ours.
Comment by robert
If that makes you feel better about your country´s doings…
The thing is, you know, I live in this world. And your country seem to be engaged in a war against anybody in the planet that does not agree with US. If you want to keep lying to yourself, dont ever ask yourself tough questions. And I would be more than glad to talk about my country´s problems…
January 9th, 2007 at 3:18 pmYou still have not answered my question. Can you name one waar in history that was not fought for Gold, God, or Glory?
And you say you have facts, but some of your facts are “distorted” as I posted earlier.(#54)
You didn’t hurt my feeling in the least, becausse I do know what our military is for and about.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:25 pmYou still have not answered my question. Can you name one waar in history that was not fought for Gold, God, or Glory?
Comment by robert
The War on Drugs? By the way someone should have locked up that sob drug user Rehnquist. Decades he gets away with it, the FBI knows and not even probation……oh yeah its becasue he was white and they were prescription drugs. Then its okeey dokey.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:07 pm#59 Robert In WWII in Russia the German army was given orders on how to treat prisoners, how to treat civilians, how to treat Jews, communists etc… For the most part the army carried out these orders with much gusto. I blame the German army for their atrocities because when those few bad seeds number in the hundreds of thousands then it is the army and not the bad seeds.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:15 pmCan you name one war in history that was not fought for Gold, God, or Glory?
Put away God and Glory and you stay with the real reason for ANY war: Profits in the form of money and power.
God and Glory are the fancy names that profiteers of ANY war use to convince all those who are gonna die in the war, so they can fight better. God + Glory = Patriotism.
Your opinion on this, robert, please:
“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
— Thomas Friedman, “A Manifesto for the Fast World”, New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
– Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
January 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pmYour country´s power is based on wars …
Comment by Juan C — January 9, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
butting in here, i know…
juan, that comment reminded me of this… surely you’ve read it, robert…
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
we were warned… and now see the results of ignoring the warnings…
January 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pmshame…
26.
If that were happening in the US, it would be thirty six million Americans fleeing to Mexico and Canada.
Better hope the Mexicans building the fence now don’t start building it from the other side, and the Canucks have recently decided to arm our border guards……..kidding …..just kidding.
35 . Juan C ,
I apologize for the havoc we (US Troops)wrecked in WWII. I also apologize for the havoc wrecking I personally took part in when we were assisting orphanages in S Korea and Thailand. And the havoc we wrecked providing aid to those Tsunami victims in Indonesia.
I am so sorry for all these deeds of havoc wrecking./scarcasm>
Comment by robert — January 9, 2007
So this makes it OK to go to a war based on a lie and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands in other places?
45. But when there is a disaster anywhere in the world, everyone wants to see the US Military help clean it up.
Comment by robert —
And your point is?
57. What you fait to appreciate is that 600,000+ in Iraq did not die by US hands/weapons. Many have died as a result of our involvement, but not all at the point of US guns.
Many have also died as a result of your involvement in Chile, Guatamala, Columbia,Honduras, Panama and on and on and on. They are still dead through your involvement. Because the mob hitman pulls the trigger, is the godfather that ordered the hit not guilty?
This plan of escalation he has is moronic to say the least.
A moron makes what kind of decisions? What country put this moron in power……twice?
62. Can you show me one war in the history of man that was not fought for one of these 3 reasons?
I remember one in particular that was fought over weapons of mass destruction ……or a lie.
Basically the thinking, moral people in this world are so angry and so frustrated by the bush Administration that they sound angry about Americans and the USA in general. Nobody likes a loudmouth lout whether he is Canadian, British, German, American or whatever, but there are 300 million of you so obviously there are a percentage of you that qualify, as do the same percentage of the others…..but there are so many of you….get it? It’s still the bullying way of your government that have everyone else pissed.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:58 am#66, dlet, we are talking about real wars involving combat. Not just some PR statement.
#69,Katy, thanks for the link.
#70, el kanuckistani
So this makes it OK to go to a war based on a lie and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands in other places? I never said it did.
45. But when there is a disaster anywhere in the world, everyone wants to see the US Military help clean it up.
Comment by robert —
And your point is?
My point is that people want to make the TROOPS look likethe “Big Evil” in the world until they need something. Then we are the great saviors
Many have also died as a result of your involvement in Chile, Guatamala, Columbia,Honduras, Panama and on and on and on. They are still dead through your involvement. Because the mob hitman pulls the trigger, is the godfather that ordered the hit not guilty?
But is the guy that manufactured the gun guilty?
I remember one in particular that was fought over weapons of mass destruction ……or a lie.
Sorry, according to most it was for Oil, which falls into the Gold category.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:24 amThen we are the great saviors
Comment by robert
Who told you that? Sorry, robert, no one Ive ever known, which cant be taken as a fact, regards ANY military forces as heroes… except, well, Hollywood.
Im going to back off a little. I think I have been pushing the issue too far. You have your ideas, which I respect and I think you probably think that your army has done a lot of noble deeds, it shows from the way you write that you are a descent guy who wants the best for everybody. Its just that I think that you are completely wrong in some matters…and while I cant be regarded as a holder of the truth, of course, Im telling you a different story from the world outside your country. Hope we can both look at things slightly different in comparison to when we first began discussing.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:14 amSo this makes it OK to go to a war based on a lie and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands in other places? I never said it did.
o, the bad that has happened take away from all the good? No one wants to talk about all the good things US forces have done throuout the world. But when there is a disaster anywhere in the world, everyone wants to see the US Military help clean it up.
Why, yes it does.
The rest is what humans do. It’s not extra special because a human from one specific geographical area of the planet do it. People in need normally don’t care where help comes from. Bombs, now that’s a different story.
People help. Animals don’t. The bush administration doesn’t know. New Orleans comes to mind.
I remember one in particular that was fought over weapons of mass destruction ……or a lie.
Sorry, according to most it was for Oil, which falls into the Gold category.
Comment by robert
“Most” don’t set policy or start wars. That is painfully obvious since the midterms.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:18 amAccording to the one that decided (the decider) to go (guess I mean send) to war, the reason was WMD. Surely you can’t forget the lies that quickly. If as you say it was the oil, I don’t remember bush (the decider) saying that.