Newsweek:
By on Jan 28th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Newsweek:
“The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history — 30 percent — and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over. … Congress is criticized by nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans for not being assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration’s conduct of the war.” (HT: Atrios)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
My prediction has always been that when his rating reaches 28%, impeachment will be imminent! It’s coming, folks….it’s coming!
January 28th, 2007 at 9:34 amI stand as a last remaining vestige to my party of old.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:34 amHeres to the old conservative cause. I dont like this new one much.
vis-a-vis Congressional Abdication: This newly-elected Congress had better listen up – and start pressing for impeachment of both Cheney and Bush before the evidence gets out in the Libby trial that they both “cooked the books” to push for a war based on lies and deceit! This will embarrass America in the world view more than anything heretofore!
If we are to put our money where our mouth is, then the time is right now for this Congress to sink it’s teeth into this administration and not pussyfoot around any longer. Extending an olive branch to Adolph Hitler only got you close enough to get killed yourself.
One would think that these folks in Washington are educated and savvy enough to recognize that you don’t extend an olive branch to someone who doesn’t deserve the dignity and respect implied by the gesture.
Get on with the wishes of the people, Congress! Or you, too, will face the wrath of the voters next time ’round and your seats will be upset as well!
January 28th, 2007 at 9:37 am#2 Would that be the Orwllian version of “conservative” in which case it would mean the most liberal…..?? Liberal in terms of amassing the largest, most extravagant and cavalier national debt ever in the history of this country?? Now how can one call that conservative by anyone’s definition except Orwell?
January 28th, 2007 at 9:39 amSay Goodbye : Chimpie and Darth Cheney!
January 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am… his presidency IS over. Considering he accomplished basically NOTHING positive in his first six years and has brought us into a giant quagmire in Iraq, he is done. We’ll get to watch him veto bills for the next two years. The man is an incompetent boob.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:59 amIt still boggels the mind that 30% still support him.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:02 amThat’s right. And this week’s FOX “Democrat” is none other than:
Joe LIEberman
January 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am#8 Absolutely correctomundo! It’s BIG PHARMA, BIG OIL, BIG INSURANCE – those CEO’s with their “golden parachutes” who are still hanging in there hoping against hope that their bubble is not burst! It’s over for them, too – they’re just in such a state of denial (and desperation) that they are too afraid to even jump ship….they’re the sorry ones! They’re the fools and buffoons in all of this….they’re the ones ruled by “fear of loss” because they wouldn’t know how to live if they didn’t have all of their fluff. They’re empty souls without a clue about what to next unless their assistant/servant tells them what’s next. Hapless fools!
January 28th, 2007 at 10:11 amBush is actually a lefty sent in to destroy the Repug party. It worked. Good job shrub.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:11 amI agree, that Congress must be direct on this issue and not tap dance around it. The people were firm and direct when they voted, they expected a firm response. Bush also must define to the American people and the world on what he really means when he says he wants ‘total victory’ in Iraq..until now ,this description is still vague most Americans and that includes the Congress.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:12 amI personally think that we need to give Congress a chance to do what we all want to have done. It’s only been a short few weeks and these things do take time; to introduce, debate and resolve. I’ve heard a lot of people assume that money can be witheld immediately (Bush already had the 109th approve monies for this surge) and impeachment should already be underway (well, it is -but, actual evidence needs to be uncovered, first). Congress is hot on the trail to do these things, and we just need to let them connect the dots and follow thier progress. I think that it’s VERY encouraging, to have so many previous Bush supporters coming over to the side of good reason. All good things will come to pass.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am#s 8+9- Yeah! The goons are too paralyzed with fear to do much of anything except keep up with the same, tired rhetorical whining and flying of partisan accusations. We all know lead balls sink, even in a tub of shit.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:19 amLieberman’s always been a “wolf in sheep’s attire” – a Rethug in disguise regardless of how he strenuously objects to the otherwise. This is something which bears watching in Hillary Clinton as well. She WAS the quintessential Rethug in her earlier days who now is trying to wrangle her way out of the noose she imposed around her own neck by her level of “congressional abdication” in the presidential usurpation of power…..she doesn’t realize that all of the “post/error in judgment rhetoric” will not change the way she voted…..as it will call into accountability and rejection the following candidates: John (Flipper) McCain, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and Joe Biden…..none of these folks qualify to run this country because the american public and the rest of the world was “more informed, smarter, and more spiritually evolved than they were when the so easily abdicated the power of the people to a known tyrant (and they knew him all too well!). In simple speak, these guys ‘BETRAYED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S TRUST’ and need to be punished for their “yes” vote.
Those who deserve recognition and support due to their calibre of intelligence, spirituality, and backbone to stand up to a tyrannical administration are: Wesley Clark, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich and Barak Obama. These are THE ONLY REPRESENTATIVES WHO DESERVE OUR VOTE IN 08!
Be not deceived by those “shapeshifters” who claim ‘HINDSIGHT 20/20 VISION” now….these are not true “visionaries” becuase it is only after enabling the largest mistake in the history of this country that these people have finally “seen the light”. Be not deceived by their concilliatory rehetoric now – they blew it and they know it! What’s more it could be said that when the people begin to hold this administration totally accountable not only for the 3,000+ deaths of our american troops in this criminal war along with the 36,000 innocent Iraqis who have been called “collateral damage”, those enablers who are sitting in Congress today will also be called to account for their abdication of power and “collusional enablement” of this debacle called Iraq.
Anyone associated with it either overtly or by association (congressional abdication) should not be supported with respect as a candidate for the highest office in this country.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:19 amI support the job the Preidsent is doing. But, it is understandable, that his polling numbers are terrible. Pre-emption was and is very contentious. Very, very highly publicized war dead (3,000 in three years vs. 3,000 in one day on 9/11) and implementation missteps (Abu Grahib was terrible, but we didn’t cut anybodies head off). A very effective job by the left at communicating Bush as ’stealing the election (both times), painting Bush as a war criminal (although almost all, (R) and (D), agreed to the war in ‘03), falsifying intelligence (although I find it hard to believe that he was also able to falsify the intelligence of other countries that believe the same thing), promoting the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy prepetuated by the Bush Administration (the idea that can’t stand the scrutiny to be address by any serious media). Bush’s efforts to protect the country from domestic terror (5+ years without an attack, thank you Mr. President) to include; wiring tapping of incoming calls of suspected terrorist, ‘torture bill’, pre-emption, patriot act, others, as simply an attempt to subvert the Constitution, for what purpose; for grins, to spy on liberals? Pretending that there is no consequence for inaction, as if 9/11 never happened? (Oh, I forgot, Bush planned 9/11). I know Iraq never attacked us, but did Afganistan? The Taliban?
The good news for progressives: Regardless of whether you can get Bush and Cheney impeached; you have at most 2 years of them left. I hope that if you can get a Democrat elected President, you can turn you attention from conservatives, to the real threat to your liberty.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:20 amLiberal in New Mexico:
All it takes to move forward on impeachment is a vote (no investigation, hearings, comittee recommendation, etc., are needed). The Rep. who brings this to the floor first will reap numerous benefits. Let’s hope someone has the spine to do it soon.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:29 amI hope that if you can get a Democrat elected President, you can turn you attention from conservatives, to the real threat to your liberty.
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Paul, that is your mistake-they are not Conservatives. They are rethugs. George Will is a Conservative.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:30 ampaul:
Are you crazy or simply egotistical beyond any sense of shame or reality? (Egotistical in the sense that having chosen something, your choice has to be correct, simply because it was your choice).
You support the job the “President” is doing? Name one thing – any one thing – that the BA has done competently. These guys are criminals, and in areas where criminality isn’t profitable, they are buffoons.
Here’s a list:
Katrina (billions of dollars missing and unaccounted for)
Iraq (billions upon billions of dollars missing and unaccounted for)
Attack on gays (yeah – that’s really important)
Record defecits financed by borrowing from Communist China
refusal to allow stem cell research (we’ll be paying the rest of the world a premium for using this medical technology in the future)
Damn. i could go on, but it’s sunday, and I want a little R&R.
I defy you to name one success.
Sheesh.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:40 amPaul,
Oh yeah, and by the way…
“Abu Grahib was terrible, but we didn’t cut anybodies head off”
Are you stupid?
Why does the method of murder matter so much to you? We (Yes, WE) have killed thousands of innocent people for the capital crime of being Iraqi. prior to his illegitimate control of our government, GWB cemented himself as the king of the lethal injection, going as far as mocking a woman about to be executed.
Again, I could go on and on, but if you can’t be honest with yourself, nothing i say, no matter how true, will make it to your seemingly addled brain.
Please stop devaluing my country.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:50 amsmafdy,
Record low unemployment=4.5%
Durable good increase=3.1%
Stock market at all time (record) highs.
Capture and kill of several al Qaeda leaders
Removal of one tyrant from power
Modernized and strengthened a military that had not been significantly improved or equipped since View Nam.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:59 amComment by smafdy
Are you implying that US forces deliberately killed Iraqi civilians?
January 28th, 2007 at 11:01 amOnce again, it is the same 30% of cave-dwellers in America who support Bush.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:23 am#12 Lib
January 28th, 2007 at 11:27 amAll good things will come to pass.
I sure hope so, but the saying is “all good things come to an end.” I hope the good start by the new congress doesn’t come to a premature end.
Hacker:
1: Unemployment numbers are based on those actually receiving unemployment compensation – hardly an accurate metric. Meanwhile, in terms of buying power, the employed are making less than at any time since the depression. This is in keeping with our place within the “New World Order” (read: Globalization), which cannot support a middle class.
2: Increase in what we build, or what we buy? We don’t build jack. What we buy increases our trade imbalance. Sounds like incompetent, neocon-spun, happyspeak to me.
3. Yeah, dude: The Stock Market was also at record highs just before the Great Depression. I’m glad to hear that those with the money to invest are doing very well – all 1% of them. (don’t get me wrong – I’m in the 1%, but that’s not where I came from, and I still love my people).
4: Capture and kill several al Qaeda? Bwaaaaahaaaahahahaha! At how many billions of dollars per head, and where did that money actually go? We also killed quite a few innocent people outright in the process. BTW – what about the return of the Taliban? Where’s Osama? You call this crap competence? If your list was an employee self-eval, I’d S-can your underperforming ass.
5. Sure – after having lifted and/or maintained the self-same tyrant in power in the first place. Neocon ruse: Take credit for cleaning up a mess, but never mention that you made the mess in the first place. We also brought a tyrant to power – GWB.
6. Wow! Before GWB was inserted as our “leader” we were seriously underprepared for war, and were on the verge of being invaded by the 4th largest army on the planet – Iraq (according to the propaganda foisted on the American public prior to the first war against the ME). Your comment is laughable at best. We’ve vastly outspent the rest of the world (combined) on military equipment and technology for the past 60 years. You’d be wise to heed the advice of an honest Republican: D. D. Eisenhower.
You have the audacity to look at the damage done to my country by these criminals and offer these ostensible success stories as proof of credibility? You sir, apparently hate America.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:30 amI stand as a last remaining vestige to my party of old.
Heres to the old conservative cause. I dont like this new one much.
Comment by JTitor —
Whatever the hell that means? Fu@king idiots posting in my name.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:32 amHacker:
Implying? Certainly not. I’m accusing.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:32 amsmafdy. I respect your response to the Abu Grahib. Many Iraqis have died and there have been other atrocities by Americans other than Abu Grahib. But on the part of the President, I think we need to make a distinction between mistakes (or poor judgement) and criminal acts. The press uncovered Watergate and the Lewinsky scandal. I am certain, if Bush is guilty of the criminal acts that many here claim; those would be uncovered also. That hasn’t happened yet, making it not credible to me.
You’re not going to believe this, but, Bush may be a victim of his own success. The monday, morning quarterbacks of today won’t admit it, but after 9/11, Americans were scared. There was little doubt in anyone’s mind that more attacks would follow (hence the overwhelming support for Bush and the war in ‘03). Now, after 5 and a half years without incident here (yes, it is arguably, in large part due to Bush’s efforts with the war on terror), people have become complacent and in retrospect feel that Bush’s initiatives were an overreaction.
I am not a christian, but I understand that Bush didn’t cause the resentment between christians and muslims that has existed for over a thousand years. Those resentments won’t be gone after the election in ‘08. The difference now, is that with the interconnectivity of today’s world, extremists have the ability to act on resentments, here, that they have not had in the past. An attack on this country will happen again. There is nothing coming from the sentiment in the middle east (pre-Bush and today) that would indicate anything else. When that happens, American’s won’t be asking why we went to far in preventing attack. They will be asking why we didn’t go far enough. I hope I’m wrong.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am#16- New Mexico is one of seven states who HAS voted to move ahead with impeachment proceedings. Evidence is being compiled, even as we speak here on TP.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:35 amPaul and his arguments are so naive and incongrous I almost don’t want to answer him –
January 28th, 2007 at 11:36 amKilling people held in Abu Ghraib by torture was not as bad as cutting their heads off? Your reasoning is ridiculous.
3000 killed on 9/11 vs. 3000 killed in Iraq — apples and oranges
(is that simple enough for you to understand?)
Bush&Co stovepiped selected intel to make their false case for war; other nations believed our words, but much of their own intel was inconclusive — hence, George was the only one who led the charge.
No domestic attacks in 5 years, thanks to GWB? No attacks in 8 years under Clinton – AND, the perpetrators of the first WTC attack in 1992 were prosecuted and imprisoned. (Also, he didn’t blame Poppy Bush for the attack in the WTC that occurred in Clinton’s first thirty days.)
Marie. When Democrats passively let terrorists into this country after withdrawing from Iraq, I want you to know that you are welcome into my cave to survive the dirty bombs and chemical attacks.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am#23- I was thinking more of some of George Harrison’s songs, than of any proverbial saying. I do believe that everything will amaze us with the way it transforms our world, as we know it. Health, energy and beauty is a natural evolution. Death and ugliness only kills itself, in the end.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am#30- No, Marie can come over to my place. I have satellite radio and health food. Caves are for… cavemen.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:44 amPaul:
If you don’t see the criminality of Bush and his Admin., then you must be blind.
One example: They have admitted to breaking the FISA laws on a continuing basis. They have admitted it. The laws were broken. Crimes have been committed. End of story.
Don’t forget who carried out the bombing in Oklahoma City.
Your understanding/explaination of the conflict between ME and Western cultures is disingenuous and ignores our culpability in the conflict. Do you know anything about this?
The Lewinsky scandal? Please. Do you know how much money was spent on that “important” piece of maintaining our Republic? Are you insane?
January 28th, 2007 at 11:47 amI was against impeachment before I was for it. And once I was for impeachment, I was never against it again.
However, one cannot impeach the President without also impeaching the Vice President. Both are dangerous men and both need to go.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:47 am1: Unemployment numbers are based on those actually receiving unemployment compensation – hardly an accurate metric. Meanwhile, in terms of buying power, the employed are making less than at any time since the depression. This is in keeping with our place within the “New World Order†(read: Globalization), which cannot support a middle class.
Yet when Bill Clinton was President and Unemployment was low, he was heralded as the greates president ever.
4: Capture and kill several al Qaeda? Bwaaaaahaaaahahahaha! At how many billions of dollars per head, and where did that money actually go? We also killed quite a few innocent people outright in the process. BTW – what about the return of the Taliban? Where’s Osama? You call this crap competence? If your list was an employee self-eval, I’d S-can your underperforming ass.
Do you even know the difference between the Taliban and al Quada? Didn’t think so.
6. Wow! Before GWB was inserted as our “leader†we were seriously underprepared for war, and were on the verge of being invaded by the 4th largest army on the planet – Iraq (according to the propaganda foisted on the American public prior to the first war against the ME). Your comment is laughable at best. We’ve vastly outspent the rest of the world (combined) on military equipment and technology for the past 60 years. You’d be wise to heed the advice of an honest Republican: D. D. Eisenhower.
Ok, We can both agree that we were under equiped and under no real threat from Iraq. This is where we part ways. I have been in the MArine Corps for 14 years. Under the Clinton admin, we had NO significant improvements to our military. I am, by MOS, a truck driver. I was driving truck manufactured during Viet Nam. I was wearing “body armor” developed during Viet Nam. I was carrying a rifle designed during Viet Nam. I was carrying a “med-pack” designed during Viet Nam. We are not looking a big ticket items. We are talking about the day to day things troops need to survive.
Also remember that military spending covers salaries, housing, medical care and retirement pay.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:48 amHacker:
Implying? Certainly not. I’m accusing.
Comment by smafdy
Can you please show me where US forces were told to deliberately target innocents? I would really like to see this as I have not yet seen it.
I am not talking about the one that have commited war crimes. Where is the POLICY that says we are to do that.
By your statement you hate the troops. I say this because you do not even allow the basic right of “innocent until proven guilty”. If this is how you would treat your employees, you would suffer HUGE wrongful terminaton suites.
But, since you are in the business of launching unfounded acusations; I have been over there twice. How many innocent civilians do I get credit for?
January 28th, 2007 at 11:53 amGuess Who:
First off, it wasn’t me who came up with the “low unemployment makes GWB competent” idea.
Secondly, yes, I know the difference between Taliban and al Quada. the Taliban gave al Queda a base from which to operate. The Taliban is a ruthless, misogynist, misanthropic, quasi theocracy in Afganistan. al Queda was created by a son of GWB’s good friends the Bin Laden’s and their Wahabist Saudi crime syndicate. Point is. Taliban and al Queda are birds of a feather.
If we were really threatened, we’d need much less than the things you list as being essential to the survival of a military force under attack by an actual, determined enemy. Need I cite the North Vietnamese and their lack of resources?
As for your comment that, “military spending covers salaries, housing, medical care and retirement pay.” All of these things are currently underfunded or being phased out by the BA. That’s a fact, Jack. It’s not a good thing to bite the hand that feeds you. However, it is okay to bite the hand that doesn’t. Your loyalty is not being returned in kind. It’s sad that you don’t recognize the duplicity of your relationship with the BA.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pm#30–Same discredited meme. Republicans are the ones who haven’t implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations for securing ports, urban areas, sensitive sites, etc. Who wanted to turn over Port Authority to Dubai? Take this weak bullslhit out of here.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pmHacker:
I saw a picture once of a young kid whose family had been killed by an errant bomb our forces had dropped, and who had gotten both of his hands blown off in the process. The kid lost his entire family AND both his hands. Did you drop the bomb that did the damage? Someone did, and they did it on the authority of our CIC.
I’m sorry you were sent to do the dirty work of our country. If the reasons you were sent were legit, I’d have no problem with it (hell, I’m not at all queasy about killing someone who is threatening me or mine). However, I’m not about to excuse my actions as being legitimate if they were not.
I do firmly believe in innocent until proven guilty for ALL men (not that that matters anymore with the BA policies). To an honestly ethical/moral person, responsibility for one’s own actions cannot be explained away as “just following orders.” That’s how atrocities happen. Interestingly, that’s what those who were caught “committing war crimes” tried to do. Their chain of command was complicit in their initial defense of those crimes.
This war is just as bad for our soldiers (in every way, including morally and ethically) as it is for our opponent (I’m loath to use the word enemy). That’s why we need to get the perpetrators out of power.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pmHacker:
BTW, I don’t hate the troops – I feel deeply for them personally and regret the position they’ve been put in. I can’t understand why they continue to support Bush. The troops are getting played. Also, thank you, sincerely, for your service to our country. Now that you’re out (I hope you’re out), you can work to see that they are not abused by being kept in such a questionable and pointless situation. No snark intended.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm#40 smafdy
January 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pm“I can’t understand why they continue to support Bush. ”
Not having a degree in psychology, my layman’s explanation of the troops’ support is that they are in a constant and untenable life-or-death situation. They “volunteered” to be soldiers and this is far more, far worse, nothing like they thought they bargained for. But it becomes a matter of supporting your comrades in arms; justifying in your own mind that you are doing the right thing, because if you start believing you have been made a fool, if you start questioning what you are doing, if your undefined mission becomes indefensible, you won’t survive.
Does that make sense?
Hacker:
BTW, I don’t hate the troops – I feel deeply for them personally and regret the position they’ve been put in. I can’t understand why they continue to support Bush. The troops are getting played. Also, thank you, sincerely, for your service to our country. Now that you’re out (I hope you’re out), you can work to see that they are not abused by being kept in such a questionable and pointless situation. No snark intended.
Comment by smafdy
No, I am not out. I am still Active Duty USMC.
You question why the troops support Bush. It is not about them supporting Bush (because most don’t), it is about them believing in what they are doing. The ones on the ground are the experts, not the morons in D.C. or the main stream media. The troops are the ones that truely want to see good things for Iraq and the Iraqis. To them it is not politics or rhetoric. It is life and death.
in #39 you say:
“I saw a picture once of a young kid whose family had been killed by an errant bomb our forces had dropped, and who had gotten both of his hands blown off in the process.”
The key word there is errant. You still have failed to show where it is a ploicy of the US military to target innocent civilians. War crimes happen, and when they do, those individuals need to be punished. Accidents and mistakes happen as well. Do you hold them to the same standard. Blameing the CinC is one thing, blaming, or accusing, the troops is another.
Go ahead, hate the war in Iraq. I do. So does just about every Marine I know. But don’t confuse blameing the the ones running the war with the ones actually fighting it.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pmKilling people held in Abu Ghraib by torture was not as bad as cutting their heads off? Your reasoning is ridiculous.
Who died at Abu Ghraib?
January 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYou question why the troops support Bush. It is not about them supporting Bush (because most don’t), it is about them believing in what they are doing. The ones on the ground are the experts, not the morons in D.C. or the main stream media. The troops are the ones that truely want to see good things for Iraq and the Iraqis. To them it is not politics or rhetoric. It is life and death.
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
My sister was their last year and she said it’s more of a “I don’t want to see my military brothers or sister killed” and that’s why they fight.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThe key word there is errant. You still have failed to show where it is a ploicy of the US military to target innocent civilians. War crimes happen, and when they do, those individuals need to be punished. Accidents and mistakes happen as well. Do you hold them to the same standard. Blameing the CinC is one thing, blaming, or accusing, the troops is another.
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
If we weren’t there this wouldn’t have happened. The Bush administration should be held accountable for every death that occurring in Iraq.
January 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pmYour understanding/explaination of the conflict between ME and Western cultures is disingenuous and ignores our culpability in the conflict. Do you know anything about this?
Here’s my take on the conflict between Middle East and Western culture. It could be wrong, correct me if it is. 800 years ago, the power in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) was Christian. That power (eastern pope?) felt threatened by Islam that was invading and occupying lands threatenly close to Constantinople. To repel this threat (that was the threat that challenged the western christian culture at the time) the Crusades were commenced. The church used religion and the idea of reclaiming the holy land as a means to protect itself from the invasion of Islam. After a couple hundred years, Christian leaders and Islamic leaders (Saladin?) who had tired of fighting agreed to a truce to end the violence. (The differences remained and simmered until the 20th century, when increased Western involvement in Middle Eastern affairs coupled with a greater rift in the differences between Christianity and Islam (largely due to lack of progress of Islamic culture (women’s rights, freedom of religion, democracy, etc.) caused the differences to reach a boiling point.
I am not a christian and I believe that religions have done much more harm than good for the world (to include Christianity and Islam and others). But I would submit the point, if the West (Christians) had not attempted to repel the invasion of Islam (that eventually ended in a truce) and simply passively submitted to the spread of Islam, it is probable that you (if you are female) or the women you love, would be living under Islamic law. Burkas, honor killings, limited rights to free speech, no voting rights. And it may not be politically correct, but the areas that were ruled by Islam faired poorly economically and politically , compared to the West. Although the Crusades and western influence in the middle east can be criticized, without them, we would be suffering consequences that many here won’t consider.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pmWho died at Abu Ghraib?
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Have you been living in a cave?
This guy died from mistreatment -aka torture. That is the one case there were pictures for.
And let’s not forget that about 100 prisoners died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan between August 2002 and February 2006, according to Human Rights First.
All these were widely reported. I am beginning to think you are not here for honest debate but to confuse and mislead.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pmI am not a christian and I believe that religions have done much more harm than good for the world (to include Christianity and Islam and others). But I would submit the point, if the West (Christians) had not attempted to repel the invasion of Islam (that eventually ended in a truce) and simply passively submitted to the spread of Islam, it is probable that you (if you are female) or the women you love, would be living under Islamic law. Burkas, honor killings, limited rights to free speech, no voting rights. And it may not be politically correct, but the areas that were ruled by Islam faired poorly economically and politically , compared to the West. Although the Crusades and western influence in the middle east can be criticized, without them, we would be suffering consequences that many here won’t consider.
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
You’re being paranoid. Muslims by and large respect other people’s religion; they just don’t like westerners meddling in Muslim World. The Muslim World at one point use to be ahead of westerners but through European imperialism it has flipped.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pmBurkas, honor killings, limited rights to free speech, no voting rights.
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
This is utter rubbish.
Political and social development in Arab countries -albeit curtailed by religion and economic under-development- has done away with “honor killings”. Also, burkas are a distinctive Middle Eastern garb and it is not used in all Muslim countries. You are conflating religion, culture, and ethnicity -it is akin to saying that all Christian countries engage in snake-handling during religious services.
What you are doing is taking the most backward Arab customs thriving in some countries, and attributing them to all Muslim societies. How about I bring up the most backward Christian customs and say all Christian nations practice them? You would beright if you called it nonsense.
For example, Turkish women have never used burqas. Same goes for women in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, and Iran -to name a few. Both men and women in those countries vote. Turkish citizens enjoy freedom of speech as do Algerians, Indonesians, Malays, etc.
As for honor killings, they are basically an Arab custom, and Islam prohibits it (I would argue that Arabs are not the only ones who engage in it, but that’s a whole other discussion). Honor killings are not practiced in the countries I listed above.
You may want to read more about the different Muslim societies in the world.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pmGregor Samsa. I am here for honest debate. I was not as informed about these prison deaths as I should have been. I am more informed now, thanks to you. Sincerely.
P.S. It took me a while, but I responded to the WSJ article you posted about the minimum wage on the Kennedy thread. If it seems like I’m blowing off comments you make, it is usually a time issue. I don’t believe that I am right on all issues or even most issues. But, I do have the beliefs that I do. If you can change my mind with rational arguments, so much the better. Thank you.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pmOne more thing: Burqas were practically unknown in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over.
The Taliban were country bumpkins even by Afghan standards.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pmHacker: Show me where I ever said that it is the policy of the U. S Military to kill innocent civilians. (I’ve reread my posts, and unless I’m missing something – and that could easily be the case – I can’t find where I made any such assertion). So, please show me, and I’ll explain my remarks, or stop putting words in my mouth.
Wars kill the innocent all the time. When a war is illegal and/or unjustified (not to mention moral or ethical), as I believe our current escapade in Iraq is, that illegallity follows into the results of the war. I believe that crimes against humanity have been committed by The United States of America in it’s unjust prosecution of a war against the people of Iraq. While I am not personally responsible for these crimes (and there are those personally responsible), as an American citizen I am responsible for the actions of my government. Mine is a government by the people. I take responsibility.
Get this straight: In comment #19, I said that WE have killed thousands of innocent people for the capital crime of being Iraqi. Notice that the word “we” is in bold. I’ll stand by that. “WE” being Americans. Me, you, and everybody else. There is blood on all of our hands.
We can’t, at this point, continue to insist that what we are doing is not criminal. To do so is intectually dishonest and requires participation in a charade. This is why it’s so important that we put an end to this behavior, straight away. The policies of this Administration need to be ended immediately.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThis is why the Clintonistas did NOT want a Dem congress resulting from the 2006 election, because they KNEW that NO congress would EVER act against their commander in chief, and would LOSE their excuse for not stopping Bush’s actions.
I give Hill’reh credit for admitting that she, and other members of congress, DID give Bush autherization to invade Iraq, however they may feel about that decision now, but it is a whole other thing to oppose Bush’s movements now.
So much for any Dem winning the presidency in 2008, much less Hill’reh.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pmsmafdy
#21
Are you implying that US forces deliberately killed Iraqi civilians?
Comment by hacker bob
#26
Hacker:
Implying? Certainly not. I’m accusing.
Comment by smafdy
And yet, you provide no proof of deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. You provide an errant bomb. There is a difference.
If we weren’t there this wouldn’t have happened. The Bush administration should be held accountable for every death that occurring in Iraq.
Comment by Nat
But still no proof of deliberate actions by the troops. that is the issue we are discussing. I have already said hold the administration accountable. But where has the administration told troops to target innocent civilians?
January 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pmBut still no proof of deliberate actions by the troops. that is the issue we are discussing. I have already said hold the administration accountable. But where has the administration told troops to target innocent civilians?
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
No one suggested that. But the administration did sanction the torture of prisoners.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pmNat,
If you read post #56, you will see where smafdywith his own words, accused US troops of deliberately targeting innocent Iraqi civilians.
I do not dispute that the administration sanctioned torture of prisoners. I do disagree on what some call torture. Panties on the head is not torture. Cuttin off a head is torture. Are you willing to hold the groups that do that accountable? If so, how?
January 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pmhacker bob.
Are you willing to hold the groups that do that accountable? If so, how?
You raise an interesting point. I feel comfortable conceding to many mistakes made by the west in the middle east. I also feel comfortable highlighting Christian intolerance (as we both did a few nights ago, with Daryll and the gay marriage ban issue).
I feel that progressives don’t pass up many opportunities to point out these western and christian failings, but are silent about Islamic intolerance, human rights violations in the middle east, and the restrictions on many freedoms westerners take for granted. Would you find progressives more credible if they did on occassion lament Islamic failings? If so, what is it that causes the selective outrage?
January 28th, 2007 at 4:47 pmIt is possible that the Bush Administration planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11. It is also possible that God created heaven and earth, everything there is, in 6 days. And it is possible that Noah built an ark, gather a pair of every species of animal on earth, and managed to keep them from eating each other for 40 days. Possible.
Let’s say for a moment, though, that 9/11 was carried out by Islamic terrorists. If that is the case, it would indicate that there are jihadist groups that hate the U.S. (regardless of the cause) that have gained significant capabilities to pose a threat to the U.S.
If a significant threat exists, what (besides opposing Bush intiatives) have democrats offered to address the threat. If Bush could be impeached and his initiatives reversed, what plans would democrats have?
January 28th, 2007 at 5:10 pmIf you read post #56, you will see where smafdywith his own words, accused US troops of deliberately targeting innocent Iraqi civilians.
I do not dispute that the administration sanctioned torture of prisoners. I do disagree on what some call torture. Panties on the head is not torture. Cuttin off a head is torture. Are you willing to hold the groups that do that accountable? If so, how?
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
-smafdy said nothing of the sort.
-The administration defines torture as a point of organ failure. So you can torture someone up until the point just before organ failure. The administration is rendering people and sending them off to countries to be tortured. They are locking people up for months and years in camps at Guantanamo Bay.
-I support holding those people accountable and I also support holding the Bush administration accountable for blowing up Iraqis.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pmLet’s say for a moment, though, that 9/11 was carried out by Islamic terrorists. If that is the case, it would indicate that there are jihadist groups that hate the U.S. (regardless of the cause) that have gained significant capabilities to pose a threat to the U.S.
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
They used box cutters.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pmIf a significant threat exists, what (besides opposing Bush intiatives) have democrats offered to address the threat. If Bush could be impeached and his initiatives reversed, what plans would democrats have?
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
They have. One of their major policy initiatives is not to blow up countries that pose no threat us which could inflame the Muslim world.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pmPaul is a paid propaganst, here to distract you from the salient comments about the article you might have made, and instead to focus your attention on Paul.
Can’t you recognize the detractors by now? They use the same tired pattern.
GETACLUE
January 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pmPaul is a paid propaganst, here to distract you from the salient comments about the article you might have made, and instead to focus your attention on Paul.
Can’t you recognize the detractors by now? They use the same tired pattern.
GETACLUE
Comment by getaclue — January 28, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Paul is just very paranoid (those terrorists scare the Shiite out of him), so he accepts his assumptions and speculation as reality and jumps to a nightmarish conclusions. He is not a detractor; he’s just scared.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:20 pmNat, let me help you here.
-smafdy said nothing of the sort.
Try again.
My question in post #21:
His answer in Post 26#
smafdy accused US forces of deliberately killing Iraqi civilians. You can not deny it. It is right there if you bother to look.
-I support holding those people accountable and I also support holding the Bush administration accountable for blowing up Iraqis.
How do you plan to locate this people that are cutting off heads? Do you plan on sending a police force after them and treating it as a criminal action? How long do you think it would take a police force to find them, then to have them extrodited to the US for trial?
-The administration defines torture as a point of organ failure.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pmI agree this is torture. But is pissing on the Quran torture? Is a naked pyramid torture? Is load music torture? My answer is no.
Nat. I don’t feel that scared, but I have a respect for the threat. Have you seen the Vonage commercial with the cute, but slow blonde on the beach, that runs towards the circling sharks in the water, yelling “Look, honey. Let’s swim with the dolphins!” I will admit to abundance of caution, but your alternative betrays your willingness to “swim with the dolphins”.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pmHow do you plan to locate this people that are cutting off heads? Do you plan on sending a police force after them and treating it as a criminal action? How long do you think it would take a police force to find them, then to have them extrodited to the US for trial?
I cannot locate them but I can sure locate the Bush administration.
-The administration defines torture as a point of organ failure.
I agree this is torture. But is pissing on the Quran torture? Is a naked pyramid torture? Is load music torture? My answer is no.
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Yes, it is torture.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pmNat. I don’t feel that scared, but I have a respect for the threat. Have you seen the Vonage commercial with the cute, but slow blonde on the beach, that runs towards the circling sharks in the water, yelling “Look, honey. Let’s swim with the dolphins!†I will admit to abundance of caution, but your alternative betrays your willingness to “swim with the dolphinsâ€.
Comment by paul — January 28, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
No, you are scared. How do you explain your willingness to allow innocent Iraqi men, women and children die so you can be safe and sound behind your keyboard.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:46 pmI cannot locate them but I can sure locate the Bush administration.
1) Bush is not hiding
2) Then you do not have the desire to hold them accountable. If you did, you would be willing to do what was necessary to locate them.
My point, it is easy to bitch, but it is better to come up with a plan even if it is a bad one.
Yes, it is torture.
Worse things happen in High School locker rooms. If you were to do all that to me, and that was the best you had, I would feel lucky. If you are captured by US forces, you may be embarrassed, but you will live. If you are captured by AQII, you will be dead. Period. If you are captured by al Sadr’s guys, you will be dead. Period.
Humiliation or death, which is worse?
January 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pmHis answer in Post 26#
Hacker:
Implying? Certainly not. I’m accusing.
Comment by smafdy — January 28, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Read smafdy response @ #54.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:02 pmNo, you are scared. How do you explain your willingness to allow innocent Iraqi men, women and children die so you can be safe and sound behind your keyboard.
Comment by Nat
No one is advocating for the deaths of INNOCENT Iraqi citizens. That is where you miss the point. I will give you something to think about.
If I tell you everyday for 2 weeks that I am going to burn down your house on Feb 1 and there is nothing on earth you can do to stop it. The police can not help you. Your family can not help you. You have no means of your own to stop me. Your only options are to either leave or stay. And I would also help you leave. I would give you food an dmedical attention as well as safe passage. What are you going to do?
The sane person would leave and excape with your life. If you stay and Feb 1 rolls around and I burn down your house, with you in it, and you die, then I am responsable for burning down your house. I am technically responsable for killing you, but not directly. You had an option that you chose not to take.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pm2) Then you do not have the desire to hold them accountable. If you did, you would be willing to do what was necessary to locate them.
My point, it is easy to bitch, but it is better to come up with a plan even if it is a bad one.
Then I don’t want to hold accountable. I would rather hold the Bush administration responsible for their idiotic decision to invade which has lead to all this death and destruction.
Worse things happen in High School locker rooms. If you were to do all that to me, and that was the best you had, I would feel lucky. If you are captured by US forces, you may be embarrassed, but you will live. If you are captured by AQII, you will be dead. Period. If you are captured by al Sadr’s guys, you will be dead. Period.
Humiliation or death, which is worse?
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Are you into S&M?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pmRead smafdy response @ #54.
Comment by Nat
as #54 comes after both #21 and #26, I think the term is called “back peddal”.
I asked for proof that it was deliberate. He provided none.
I asked for proof of policy. He provided none.
Can you sit there and honestly tell me that he did not accuse US forces of deliberately killing Iraqi civilians? He later modified his statement, I do admit. After I modified mine.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:11 pmNo one is advocating for the deaths of INNOCENT Iraqi citizens. That is where you miss the point. I will give you something to think about.
Of course you are. This is what is entailed in attacking a country that was no threat to us.
If I tell you everyday for 2 weeks that I am going to burn down your house on Feb 1 and there is nothing on earth you can do to stop it. The police can not help you. Your family can not help you. You have no means of your own to stop me. Your only options are to either leave or stay. And I would also help you leave. I would give you food an dmedical attention as well as safe passage. What are you going to do?
Why are you burning someone’s house down? Why should they leave so you can burn their house down? Why are you burning their house down with them in there?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:15 pmHacker Bob, RE: #56:
Again: I’m accusing The United States of America of intentionally targeting innocent civilians in Iraq. That goes for our political leaders, our military, and everyone who supports the mayhem we have created and maintain there.
We drop a bomb or launch a shell into a crowded civilian population center and then act surprised that civilians were killed? You claim that civilians were not specifically targeted, yet we have managed to kill a mess of them. I would also submit that we are fighting the civilian population of Iraq of their own soil. Exactly who are we fighting in Iraq at this point? How do you separate civilian from non-civilian? By their uniforms? Collateral damage is a cover for culpable negligence, and to say we don’t know better is dishonest. I’m not saying that under the same conditions, I wouldn’t do the same thing (I wouldn’t try to excuse it away either – I’d just plain kill out of fright and frustration). I’m saying that you get what you pay for, and we should stop paying for it, bring our soldiers home, and leave these people alone.
As I said earlier, if you participate in or support this so called “pre-emptive war”, knowing what we now know (for instance, that a large number of civilian casualties have been directly and indirectly caused by the our irresponsible actions), you make criminals out of all of us.
Don’t forget, the soldiers you previously called “war criminals” claimed to be acting on orders and by the book, and their superiors did try to offer them plausable deniability. Not that they knew anything about what had happened.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThen I don’t want to hold accountable. I would rather hold the Bush administration responsible for their idiotic decision to invade which has lead to all this death and destruction.
So, then the death of Iraqis is wrong and the death of innocent journalists or innocent female aid workers is fine? You have a warped view.
Are you into S&M?
Comment by Nat
That is between me and my dominatrix (why, are you offering ;-P)
Answer the question: Humiliation or death, which is worse?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pmOf course you are. This is what is entailed in attacking a country that was no threat to us
We all know the intel was false/fixed/whatever. But now we are stuck there. We broke it, we need to fix it. If we leave now, it will stay broke for a long time.
Why are you burning someone’s house down? Why should they leave so you can burn their house down? Why are you burning their house down with them in there?
Comment by Nat
Because someone in your house has been shooting at me as I drive down the road. Someone in your house tried to blow up my car with me in it.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pmI asked for proof that it was deliberate. He provided none.
I asked for proof of policy. He provided none.
Can you sit there and honestly tell me that he did not accuse US forces of deliberately killing Iraqi civilians? He later modified his statement, I do admit. After I modified mine.
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
He said you are responsible if the intended target is missed and innocent civilians die.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pmWe all know the intel was false/fixed/whatever. But now we are stuck there. We broke it, we need to fix it. If we leave now, it will stay broke for a long time.
I disagree.
Because someone in your house has been shooting at me as I drive down the road. Someone in your house tried to blow up my car with me in it.
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
All of this is occurring because you’re occupying their territory. Get out of their territory.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:26 pmsmafdy,
How many Iraqis have died DIRECTLY by US munitions?
How do you separate civilian from non-civilian? By their uniforms?
Nope, by the bullets they fire at us.
Don’t forget, the soldiers you previously called “war criminals†claimed to be acting on orders and by the book, and their superiors did try to offer them plausable deniability. Not that they knew anything about what had happened.
But these same soldiers have also been trained in the Laws of Land Warfare which trumps all. I fmy CO tells me to shoot an unarmed civilian that poses no threat, and I do it, we are both guilty of a war crime. But if I am involved in a firefight, and a stray round kills an innocent, I am guilty of nothing.
As I said earlier, if you participate in or support this so called “pre-emptive warâ€, knowing what we now know (for instance, that a large number of civilian casualties have been directly and indirectly caused by the our irresponsible actions), you make criminals out of all of us.
Then you need to stop paying taxes because you are supporting this war financially.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pmhacker:
#58:
Nat,
If you read post #56, you will see where smafdywith his own words, accused US troops of deliberately targeting innocent Iraqi civilians.
#56:
Are you implying that US forces deliberately killed Iraqi civilians?
My words? Now see here, bitch: I told you once, and I’m only going to tell you one more time: Stop putting words in my mouth.
I was digging this debate, but now that I see you’re a slick little instigating punk, I’ll move on. See you on another thread.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pman anyone show me a single war in the history of mankind that did not result in innocent civilian casualties?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pmSo, then the death of Iraqis is wrong and the death of innocent journalists or innocent female aid workers is fine? You have a warped view.
All the death is occuring because of the idiotic decision to invade a country that posed no threat to us. The Bush administration is responsible.
That is between me and my dominatrix (why, are you offering ;-P)
Answer the question: Humiliation or death, which is worse?
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
What about humilitation and death?
January 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pman anyone show me a single war in the history of mankind that did not result in innocent civilian casualties?
Comment by hacker bob — January 28, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
No one tolerates civilian deaths in an unjust war.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pmHey Nat:
This a hoot:
“…They used box cutters…”
Ha! Good one!
also, thanks for keeping my comments in context, previously.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pmComment by smafdy
troops and forces are interchangable. Guess what US troops ARE US forces.
Now, bitch, look at my question in post #21
Comment by smafdy
Are you implying that US forces deliberately killed Iraqi civilians?
Comment by hacker bob
and your response in post #26
Hacker:
Implying? Certainly not. I’m accusing.
Comment by smafdy
Now, let me give you an education. There are no US Forces without the US Troops. The Troops make up the Forces. Planes need people to fly them. Tanks and trucks need people that drive them. Rifles need people to fire them. These are know as the troops, or the US forces.
If you are talking about the US GOVERNMENT as a whole, then say so. I do not see all that many Diplomats and adminitration types on the Battlefield.
So, who is putting words in your mouth? I am using your words and throwing them back at you.
And since you claim to be one of the top 1%, you should have no problem coming out to North Carolina and calling me bitch to my face. The invitation is there.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pmNo one tolerates civilian deaths in an unjust war.
Comment by Nat
No one should tolerate it in ANY war. But it is an unfortunate bi-product of war.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:53 pmBob, Re:#87
US Forces include the Air Force. Army, Marines, and Navy, which in turn include the Commander in Chief, the Generals, the soldiers (also known as troops), the pentagon civil/military interface and in this case, the contractors. The Commander in Chief is not a troop, the Generals are not troops, and the contractors are not troops, the policy makers at the Pentagon are not troops. I never said “troops” – you did, and then you attributed the comment to me. You are the first one to bring up the vague term “forces”, too. I never said that either. Now, you’re telling me that they are one and the same when they clearly are not.
Don’t forget, it was you who made the exception of the troops involved in the Haditha killings (who by the way, are getting a raw deal). These troops are scapegoats. I think that the chain of command was clear in their instructions regarding engagement of the “enemy”, and that they are currently covering their asses and making the troops pay the price (just as the did in Abu Graib).
As I said before, and very clearly – so you can make no mistake or cast false aspersions (please educate yourself and look this word up): We – you, me, and everybody else are guilty. That we now know beyond a doubt that our ostensible (and very questionable) reasons for invading and occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq (and the resulting destruction of the fabric of their society and the deaths of a good many innocent civilians) were based on fabricated evidence, our continued presence there is criminal. To support our continued presence and activities there is to condone an ongoing criminal enterprise.
I visit NC frequently on business. As for calling you a bitch to your face, keep on putting words in my mouth (you’ve done it more than once, and they’re very dangerous words, at that), and I just might take you up on your offer. Get this straight once and for all: do not put words in my mouth. Do not try to twist what I say to fit your disingenuous argument.
I say that I didn’t say something, and I can prove it, yet you insist that I did say it, and must twist my words as proof. Now, who ya’ gonna’ believe? Me? or your own lyin’, instigatin’, insinuatin’, libelous self?
January 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI’m still wondering who the 30% are that support this train wreck called President Bush. I mean, that’s almost a third of the country that is not paying attention or is too stubborn to admit they’re wrong.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pmUS Forces include the Air Force. Army, Marines, and Navy, which in turn include the Commander in Chief, the Generals, the soldiers (also known as troops), the pentagon civil/military interface and in this case, the contractors. The Commander in Chief is not a troop, the Generals are not troops, and the contractors are not troops, the policy makers at the Pentagon are not troops. I never said “troops†– you did, and then you attributed the comment to me. You are the first one to bring up the vague term “forcesâ€, too. I never said that either. Now, you’re telling me that they are one and the same when they clearly are not.
Here is where the confusion lies. Most people are throwing around the term forces thinking ONLY about the troops (military). You are 100% right when you say the CinC, Generals, contractors, and policy makers are not troops. If you really want to split the hair, in the Marine Corps, we refer to “troops” as those ranks E-3 and below. People tend to think ONLY about the boots on the ground, the grunts. But you did say that you were accusing US FORCES of deliberately killing Iraqi civilians. Any attempt by you to argue that would be dishonest. Look back at post #21 when I asked the question and post #26 when you answered it.
Don’t forget, it was you who made the exception of the troops involved in the Haditha killings (who by the way, are getting a raw deal). These troops are scapegoats. I think that the chain of command was clear in their instructions regarding engagement of the “enemyâ€, and that they are currently covering their asses and making the troops pay the price (just as the did in Abu Graib).
I never mentioned a particular incident, did I? As I am sure you are aware, there has been more than one incident. (Who is putting words in whose mouth now?) And from the EVIDENCE I have seen, (NOT the main stream media crap), I am not sure “scapegoat” would be the proper word. I will say that I do not think justice is being distributed evenly. These men are trained and re-trained time and again on what is appropriate use of force. I also hold the Chain of Command responsible for not re-enforcing the standing ROE (rules of engagement) and their improper actions afterwards.
As I said before, and very clearly – so you can make no mistake or cast false aspersions (please educate yourself and look this word up): We – you, me, and everybody else are guilty. That we now know beyond a doubt that our ostensible (and very questionable) reasons for invading and occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq (and the resulting destruction of the fabric of their society and the deaths of a good many innocent civilians) were based on fabricated evidence, our continued presence there is criminal. To support our continued presence and activities there is to condone an ongoing criminal enterprise.
I do not disagree that the reason we went in to Iraq was false. And I commend you that you, as a citizen, say that “We – you, me, and everybody else are guilty” for still being there. Let’s face facts. We-you, me, and everyone else have been royally f*cked by our government. Not just one man in the government. All of them. Every single sitting member of the House and Senate that is not actively seeking a tangible solution to getting us out of there is responsible. They can pass all the non-binding feel good crap they want. That means nothing. They need to do something real. Something with teeth. Otherwise it is just the same ol’ same ol’.
I visit NC frequently on business. As for calling you a bitch to your face, keep on putting words in my mouth (you’ve done it more than once, and they’re very dangerous words, at that), and I just might take you up on your offer. Get this straight once and for all: do not put words in my mouth. Do not try to twist what I say to fit your disingenuous argument.
My argument is not disingenuous. The members of the US Military are not under any orders to target innocent Iraqi civilians. There have been reports of war crimes committed, but it is not the policy of the US Military to target or kill innocent Iraqi citizens. And I take it VERY personal as a member of the US Military when ANYONE makes an accusation against our men and women over there. Those are my friends over there. They are men and women that are doing a shiitty job. They are trying to do the right things in a very f*cked up situation. And I will defend them to the end. I could care less about the politicians, bureaucrats and greedy contractors.
I say that I didn’t say something, and I can prove it, yet you insist that I did say it, and must twist my words as proof. Now, who ya’ gonna’ believe? Me? or your own lyin’, instigatin’, insinuatin’, libelous self?
Copy and past, babe. Anytime I quoted you, I quoted your exact words. There goes the libelous and lyin’ part of your argument. Ain’t no instigatin’ either. We’s having a conversation. I’ll give you the insinuatin’ for two reasons. First, I was unaware you were able to distinguish between forces and troops. And second, because I gotta’ give you somethin’. You have still failed to show me where US Forces are deliberately killing Iraqi civilians, as I originally asked. An errant bomb is not a deliberate act. Key word: DELIBERATE.
As for telling me to get anything straight, you can kiss 100% of my ass. Straight enough?
As for my invitation, it is always open. I am sure you know where Camp Lejeune is. Ask and I will e-mail my address and phone number.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:25 am