With Latest Budget, Iraq Costs Top Vietnam War
This morning, the White House sent its $2.9 trillion budget proposal to Congress, requesting “an additional $100 billion for Iraq and the global war on terrorism this year, on top of $70 billion already sought. For 2008, that spending would drop to $145 billion and fall to $50 billion in 2009, although administration officials conceded that the 2008 and 2009 requests could go higher depending on the progress of the war effort.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, total spending on the Iraq war for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 was $318.5 billion. The Bush budget would bring total proposed spending in Iraq to $683 billion through 2009. Last month, the Los Angeles Times warned the cost of the Iraq war would soon eclipse the total amount spent on the Vietnam war:
By the time the Vietnam war ended in 1975, it had become America’s longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese, and cost the U.S. more than $660 billion in today’s dollars.
This budget would break that mark, and the spending blueprint does not take into account other costs of the Iraq war, such as future health care costs for injured soldiers.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
It’s official, this is the worst foreign polcy disaster in the nation’s history.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pmDiscussion regarding the Iraq war resolution is starting on the Senate floor. C-Span 2.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmHey how do we allow this president to just make up a new lie, about when he will balance the budget. Please don’t forget that he said, last year or before, it was going to be 2009. Why does the media not bring this up to him or to everyone to see? He is a lier. pathalodgic
February 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pmBill
Payson,
I love the bait and switch. The $683B figure is for Iraq and the global war on terror combined, not just Iraq. You switch from Iraq + WOT to just Iraq. Shouldn’t you compare that to the Vietnam War + the wider war on communism?
Oh wait, that would be factual, honest, and would leave you with no headline. Never mind.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pmHey, in terms of dollars/death, Iraq is way more efficient than Vietnam. Good work George!
February 5th, 2007 at 4:07 pmFinancially. Just financially. The real cost in terms of loss of credibility on any issue where we have always been world leaders - Priceless.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pmSo at what point are Americans going to say enough?
Were not the November elections enough?
The politicians come up with a relatively meaningless measure and the Republicans ban together to block it.
Bush comes up with a budget that is perhaps 1/4 for the military? I am taking a real guess at the number. Wasn’t it about 480 billion for the military with an extra 245 billion dollars for the wars? That much out of a 2.9 trillion dollar budget.
Does Bush simply have to keep talking tax cuts to make the masses think that Bush can continue to spend the country into oblivion?
What is it going to take to stop this insanity?
February 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pm(Ab @ #7)
There was some disagreement with a substantial portion of the world on some issues a few years back. Do, lets say, Berlin Wall, means of production, little red book, ring a bell?
February 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pmWhat is it going to take to stop this insanity?
Comment by Dogjudge
Protests in the streets — nationwide.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pmSeixon,
Last time I was in Norway, I couldn’t find ANY U.S. news on TV, but High Chaparral, featuring Leif Erickson, was a huge hit.
Do most people in Norway think we all still live in the wild west? This might explain your out of date views of Americans.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pmSpudge, are you Persian?
February 5th, 2007 at 4:31 pm#10 stevesh — February 5, 2007 @ 4:26 pm.
You mean the time the cock crowed at daybreak? Contrary to popular belief, that was not the cause of the sunrise. Fairytales often serve a purpose but should never be taken literally.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pmSpudge_Boy,
Read Think Progress’ post, and then read their source, the LA Times. Let me make it more clear for you:
And:
Come on now, reading is fun. Don’t let Think Progress spoil your mind.
wake-n-bake,
I think you just demonstrated your ignorance of Norway pretty well, thanks. I just watched the Norwegian state channel report from Washington DC on the upcoming Senate debate on Iraq, and about Bush’s new budget. Hell, they even threw in “Bush wants to keep his tax breaks for the rich”. I don’t know how much more alike US news you could get.
So, in other words, take your ignorance elsewhere.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:37 pman additional $100 billion for Iraq and the global war on terrorism this year, on top of $70 billion already sought. For 2008, that spending would drop to $145 billion and fall to $50 billion in 2009
But, but, isn’t Iraq and the Global War on Terra one and the same? Say it ain’t so? You mean we’ve been living a lie? /sarcasm off
February 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pmCUT OFF FUNDS, NOW. DON’T GIVE MONKEY-BOY ANY MORE MONEY. HE’S GROUNDED!
February 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pmWhy does Lib in NM get to say “cut off the funds, now” and my comment saying the same thing doesn’t make the cut? I didn’t even call Chimpy “monkey-boy.”
Waaaah!
February 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pmHey, Zooey -Did you like my joke:
February 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pmQ. What the difference between Bush and a chimpanzee?
A. George is pink… and the monkey is smarter.
-heh-
Talk about a S-T-R-E-T-C-H! As the Vietnamese were not much of a threat to the US, I would say keeping extremists Muslim terrorists busy over there is money well spent. Nice of you to compare two COMPLETELY different circumstances……is that why progressive critical thinking is sometimes inaccurate?
February 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pmAb,
Cuban Missile Crisis = fairy tale? Maybe at Howard Zinn Community College.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pmIt seems to me that most Americans nowadays just plain don’t care how their taxpayer dollars are spent. They don’t even care if they are spent foolishly. They don’t care if their taxdollars go into the pockets of people who do nothing for it and don’t need the money.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pmTerry,
Iraq is part of the war on terror, not the entire thing. Just as Iraq is part of the $683B cost cited by Think Progress, but not all of it.
Spudge_Boy,
See my response about the part.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“As the Vietnamese were not much of a threat to the US”
And Iraq was a threat to the US? WAKE UP! NO WMD’S! NO HIJACKER FROM IRAQ! For the love of humanity, WAKE UP!
February 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pmVery accurate summary of Bush’s wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq. Must read!
http://www.alternet.org/story/47489/
February 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pmTalk about a S-T-R-E-T-C-H! As the Vietnamese were not much of a threat to the US,
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Neither Vietnam nor Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pmQ. What the difference between Bush and a chimpanzee?
A. George is pink… and the monkey is smarter.
-heh-
Comment by Liberal in New Mexico
Goog one. :)
February 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pmSpudge,
As usual, all you have is hate and invective. It must be tough having to deal with constantly being taken to the woodshed by Think Progress and then having to deal with it afterwards. You’re the poster boy of the Tolerant Liberal who argues that Americans living outside of the US cannot debate American politics. Yeah. Golf clap.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pmNeither Vietnam nor Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
So true, yet Senator Rockefeller called Iraq an imminent threat. How time flies.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:10 pmi’m being attacked by trolls under the “No welcome home for iraqi soldiers” thread, check it out, sorry, this is so off topic, just wanted to find zooey, maybe you could check it out and back me up as not being a troll. thanks
that valiant venus comment is a real winner #20, she insists on being here despite lacking the ability to reason, provides entertainment i suppose
February 5th, 2007 at 5:14 pmHave we forgotten so soon?
Seixon must always be right. He will say anything, do anything to prove himself right.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pmDear Nat - Go read UN Resolution 687 and come back. Then you share more DNC talking points. Thank you for playing….your two cases of Rice-a-Roni should be arriving in 4-6 weeks.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pmSo true, yet Senator Rockefeller called Iraq an imminent threat. How time flies.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Yeah, I know. The phony intelligence by the Bush administration was so convincing.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm#32 - CarlX
Done.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pmCuban Missile Crisis = fairy tale? Maybe at Howard Zinn Community College.
Comment by stevesh — February 5, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
We had photos during the Cuban Missile Crisis which is in complete contrast to the Iraq situation where Colin Powell went before the world and showed drawings that represented Saddam’s supposed weapons.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:23 pmZooey,
Yes, I do take great pride in being correct and standing on the side of facts. Unlike Think Progress and those who live their lives gulping it all down, the idea of processing critical thoughts through their mind being too overwhelming too bear. I come here seeking debate, providing facts and information, and I get “Go f*ck yourself.”
I wish you guys didn’t make it so easy to show how devoid of real thought you are.
Nat,
Yeah, the CIA, an agency that has been around far longer than the Bush administration, whose agency is filled with people who have worked there far longer than Bush has been president, they just sat on their hands and had absolutely nothing to do with all the wrong information presented to Congress in the October 2002 NIE.
Why, the Bush administration wrote the whole thing themselves, and every single intelligence agency in the country signed off on it because Bush threatened to take their donuts away if they didn’t!
Also, Bush went back into time and convinced the Clinton administration with all his scribblings, even convincing Clinton that he had to bomb a factory in Sudan because Saddam Hussein was helping al Qaeda with chemical weapons there.
Yeah, you’re on the right track, keep waving your arms like Chris Farley.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pmDear Nat - Go read UN Resolution 687 and come back. Then you share more DNC talking points. Thank you for playing….your two cases of Rice-a-Roni should be arriving in 4-6 weeks.
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Why are you declaring “Mission Accomplished?”
February 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pmSpudge,
What makes you think I am or want to be tolerant of traitors to my country? Traitors like you. Anti-American a$$wipe.
Name one reason why I’m a traitor, and then tell me why I couldn’t toss the same thing back at you for precisely the inverse reason if I were as immature and ignorant as you.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pm…is that why progressive critical thinking is sometimes inaccurate?
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
The above therefore implies that progressive critical thinking is usually accurate. Thank you for your continued support.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pmDear Nat - Go read UN Resolution 687 and come back. Then you share more DNC talking points. Thank you for playing….your two cases of Rice-a-Roni should be arriving in 4-6 weeks.
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
It’s a resolution from 1991.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pmYeah, the CIA, an agency that has been around far longer than the Bush administration, whose agency is filled with people who have worked there far longer than Bush has been president, they just sat on their hands and had absolutely nothing to do with all the wrong information presented to Congress in the October 2002 NIE.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Most of the phony intelligence came from the DIA which is part of the Department of Defense which Rumsfeld ran, up until recently.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pmhttp://www.seixon.com/blog/
February 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pmThe views of a Norwegian-American living in Norway on world and US politics, specifically focused on setting the record straight in the media, on blogs, and on political issues.
Yes, I do take great pride in being correct and standing on the side of facts.
Comment by TheSeixon
Don’t assume. I don’t think you are correct or that you stand on the side of facts, Seixon.
I simply said that you must always be correct — your perception of correct.
You would tear apart this world — the universe if necessary or possible — to be right. That makes you weak.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pmSo true, yet Senator Rockefeller called Iraq an imminent threat. How time flies.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
And what Sen Rockefeller said is relevant because…?
Regardless of what he might have said, fact remains that Iraq was not a threat. End of story.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pmSpudge,
Prove to us that you aren’t a traitor. For one thing, if you loved this country so much YOU WOULD LIVE HERE. Dumb fu*k.
Doesn’t the burden of proof lie with the claimant? Or did you go to the Mary Mapes College of Illogical Theory where you can make any claim you want and everyone has to prove a negative? Prove to me that you aren’t Santa’s Little Helper. What, you can’t? Well ain’t that a damn shame.
I have an American father and a Norwegian mother. I realize that this sort of thing might perplex your seemingly completely ignorant mind, but to those who understand, it means that I have two homes. Of course, I don’t understand why this has again become a debate about me as a person and not the topic at hand. I wonder if it’s because you cannot stand your ground in the debate?
Why are we discussing my personal life?
Nat,
Most of the phony intelligence came from the DIA which is part of the Department of Defense which Rumsfeld ran, up until recently.
This is completely false and you know it is. Wasn’t it the DIA that blew the whistle on Curveball, but the CIA failed to listen? You’ve got to get those talking points straight my friend. Meanwhile, I will kick back and read the October 2002 NIE that every intelligence agency signed off on.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pmFor the sake of comparison, I’ve been looking around at Seixon’s site for the last while and have come to the following conclusions:
1. Both sites have a partisan leaning, Think Progress to the left, Seixon to the right.
2. Seixon himself represents a significant number of the postings in each thread, whereas the post-authors at Think Progress rarely if ever post any further comments as the thread plays out.
3. Based on the number of responses, Think Progress appears to be a lot more popular with both lefties and righties than Seixon is.
As an independant-minded person, I would like to ask Seixon what site he would recommend to me that would be a fair representation of the right wing point of view, preferably one that matches Think Progress in volume and differing opinions.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm#35 - “So true, yet Senator Rockefeller called Iraq an imminent threat. How time flies. Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Yeah, I know. The phony intelligence by the Bush administration was so convincing. Comment by Nat”
You must have also missed the Clinton(s), Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, Levin etc. comments between 1998 and 2002 re: Saddam’s WMD. It is difficult for some people to retain a great deal of info.
#42 - “The above therefore implies that progressive critical thinking is usually accurate. Thank you for your continued support.”
You’re welcome. As most progressives are legends in their own minds, naturally, they ALWAYS think they ARE right…I mean left.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pmThis is completely false and you know it is. Wasn’t it the DIA that blew the whistle on Curveball, but the CIA failed to listen? You’ve got to get those talking points straight my friend. Meanwhile, I will kick back and read the October 2002 NIE that every intelligence agency signed off on.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
It was the DIA who used Chalabi, Curveball and al-Libi as sources. The CIA never had direct contact with Curveball. A lot of Curveball’s information was used in the October NIE before the DIA chose to discredit him.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:04 pmNat @ #37 @ 5:23
I was thinking more along the lines of America often being at odds with the world, or “the world street” if you will. Abby came up with the fairytale thing, from whence I can’t say. Maybe she confused “little red book” with The Little Red Hen.
Exh. A: Some disagreements, historical tiffs like the Cold War. A substantial portion of populous and powerful foreign precincts (including the East Village, Georgetown, Louisburg Square) hopefully and cheerfully considered us toast.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pmFrom TheSeixon:
Of course, I don’t understand why this has again become a debate about me as a person and not the topic at hand. I wonder if it’s because you cannot stand your ground in the debate?
I see the bantering being tossed by TheSeixon, but he seems to think that spending 170 billion dollars in Iraq for this year aloneis small or well-spent change. Even if you buy his “it’s not all for Iraq” reasoning, do the math: Bushes 2.9 trillion budget (every trillion is 1,000 billion; therefore the budget is 2,900 billion dollars) It comes out to almost 6% of the total budget. Money well spent? I think not, when Shrub is talking about slashing 70 plus bilion from health care this year.
Furthermore, we don’t HAVE the 170 billion to waste on Iraq. We have to borrow it. Our national credit card is already maxed out, and we pass this burden on to OUR KIDS and succeeding generations.
Finally, TheSeixon gives his guestimate on how much less Iraq will cost us every year we are in there. That “logic” or “reasoning” hasn’t panned out yet when Shrub and Dickster want more each year…….
So there is my ground I stand on in the debate- if you can call your bantering debate- TheSeixon.
Do some real math.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:06 pmYou must have also missed the Clinton(s), Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, Levin etc. comments between 1998 and 2002 re: Saddam’s WMD. It is difficult for some people to retain a great deal of info.
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Post the comments they made before Bush’s presidency.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pmYou’re welcome. As most progressives are legends in their own minds, naturally, they ALWAYS think they ARE right…I mean left.
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
That’s not a very well thought out response to a rather unwitting gaff on your part. A you really content with your comment or could you try for something a little better? Take your time if you need to.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:11 pmI was thinking more along the lines of America often being at odds with the world, or “the world street†if you will.
Comment by stevesh — February 5, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
-So far you named the cold war. What else?
-What was the disagreement during the Cold War (don’t know much about it was eight years old when it ended)?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pmYeah, I know. The phony intelligence by the Bush administration was so convincing. Comment by Natâ€
You must have also missed the Clinton(s), Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, Levin etc. comments between 1998 and 2002 re: Saddam’s WMD. It is difficult for some people to retain a great deal of info
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
So by the above response to Nat’s comment, you agree with him about the Bush administration’s phony intelligence, and you kindly include phony intelligence from the Clinton administration as proof that both were/are wont to play false with the American public. I agree, they are both dishonest and unworthy of our trust.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pmSpudge,
The guys in Gitmo are there because they have been caught fighting American troops. Some of them ended up there by mistake, just as many people have ended up in American prisons by mistake. It’s funny you admit that the logic you’re using is absurd.
My passport says otherwise. Are you xenophobic? You seem to have a problem with people of dual nationality. I wonder what your liberal brethren think about that.
Looking right,
1. I do not lean to the right because I debunk Think Progress. You say I lean right, but can you identify my position on the myriad of political issues that compose a person’s political identity? Or are you of the opinion that supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein is strictly a conservative or Republican thing?
2. This is because Think Progress writers are too cowardly to answer when flaws in their posts are pointed out, and are too elitist to engage with their visitors.
3. Think Progress, supported by Center of American Progress with a budget of $10+ million per year, is obviously much more of a magnet than a random American’s blog. Duh.
Well, I do not frequent right-wing sites since they are usually too religious, anti-gay, pro-life, and all the other things I am not. If you’re looking for a Republican or conservative site, I would recommend Power Line, for example. I stopped reading Power Line some months ago because I feel they are too pro-Bush.
Nat,
It was the DIA who used Chalabi, Curveball and al-Libi as sources. The CIA never had direct contact with Curveball. A lot of Curveball’s information was used in the October NIE before the DIA chose to discredit him.
We got the intelligence from Curveball through the Germans. I suggest you take a read through the SSCI report for some background.
Post the comments they made before Bush’s presidency.
Wow, why doesn’t it surprise me that you’re not even aware of all their statements on WMDs. Why don’t you Google it yourself and try to enlighten your mind on the history of our policy on Iraq? Don’t be scared, there’s a world outside of Think Progress.
math counts,
I see the bantering being tossed by TheSeixon, but he seems to think that spending 170 billion dollars in Iraq for this year aloneis small or well-spent change.
But we’re not spending $170B on Iraq alone. That’s exactly my point, which Think Progress obfuscates with a bait and switch, which is exactly what Spudge fell for. Just read the damn post itself:
Yet you say “Iraq alone”. Why? It says differently right in TP’s post!
Finally, TheSeixon gives his guestimate on how much less Iraq will cost us every year we are in there. That “logic†or “reasoning†hasn’t panned out yet when Shrub and Dickster want more each year…….
Huh? Where did I do that? I simply quoted TP’s post….
The only thing I pointed out was that TP was fudging the numbers to make Iraq rival Vietnam, when they lumped together the costs for the war on terror together with the ones for Iraq to come to that figure.
I did not enter into any debate about whether or not spending this money is wise, what it could be better spent on, or whether or not the nation can afford it.
All I did was state a simple fact: that TP’s post is incorrect in stating that the Iraq war tops the Vietnam war in expense.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pmSo it appears that since both parties had thought wrong prior to the major cluster f#ck in Iraq that anyone disagreeing with it should just be quiet. TheSaxaphone is gleeful in pointing out old information. I wonder what his thoughts are on the current situation.
Maybe we could discuss today’s problems.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pmWouldn’t you agree Seixon that this administration has obscured actual figures on the cost of the battle in Iraq. It has yet to be put to an official budget and dollars that are going to other portions of the military are being diverted to, in part, aide the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So to say that TP is incorrect is missing a larger issue. They are one of the few sites discussing this great injustice.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pmhellinabucket,
Well, since your friends here believe the Bush administration magically concocted all the evidence on Iraq by themselves and went back into time and brainwashed the Clintons, it needs pointing out that both parties were wrong about the intelligence, because our intelligence agencies were wrong. So were the intelligence agencies of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Israel. The reason for this is quite simple - Saddam fooled his generals into believing they had WMDs, and Saddam wanted his closest enemies to believe he still had them to keep up appearances.
I have not said that anyone disagreeing with anything should be quiet, I am saying that certain people need to stop lying about the past so that we can all have a genuine honest debate about the present.
The current situation in Iraq is dire, and has the potential to get much worse. The worst option at this point, as every single military general and the intelligence agencies have pointed out is to do what this site advocates: withdrawal.
I would love to discuss today’s problems, but it seems TP is much more obsessed with comparing Iraq to Vietnam of 30 years ago. The only reason for these fake comparisons is to evoke the negative feeling many Americans have (justly) about the Vietnam war, and to displace these feelings onto the Iraq war. It’s a sickening, mindless, ahistorical propaganda gig that does not help us at all with our current problems.
TP would much rather evoke fear, hopelessness, and defeat than debate the fact that their plan for Iraq is the worst option of all.
When’s the last time you saw Think Progress discuss the NIE stating that withdrawal is the worst option? Ah, never, because that’s exactly what they’re advocating.
Disingenuous and carefully calculated omission of facts to shield their fan base from the truth.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pmWe got the intelligence from Curveball through the Germans. I suggest you take a read through the SSCI report for some background.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
The Germans described him as a drunken liar (kind of like Bush) but the DIA still passed on the info he provided to the CIA.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:45 pmhellinabucket,
Last post for me tonight, but TP is not writing this post for the reasons you say. They are trying to evoke the massive failures of the Vietnam war and trying to incorrect and unjustly associate them with our current struggle. It is true that there is a lot of money flying around and not all of it is being properly accounted for. Congress should seek to make sure that we are able to account for as much of it as possible, although in times of war, this isn’t always easy to do.
In any case, withdrawing the funds and withdrawing the troops is our worst option at this point, no matter what your stance on the war has been.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:45 pmPost the comments they made before Bush’s presidency.
Wow, why doesn’t it surprise me that you’re not even aware of all their statements on WMDs. Why don’t you Google it yourself and try to enlighten your mind on the history of our policy on Iraq? Don’t be scared, there’s a world outside of Think Progress.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
When some right-winger compiled the list, the echo chamber on the right was out in full force posting it everywhere. I think there were only two or three comments pre-Bush.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:49 pmNat,
And I quote Democratic Senator Feinstein in the additional comments of the SSCI report:
As you wouldn’t believe me, will you believe Senator Feinstein?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pmAll I did was state a simple fact: that TP’s post is incorrect in stating that the Iraq war tops the Vietnam war in expense.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Will you stop whining if we say Iraqnam has not topped Vietnam yet?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:53 pmNat,
I think there were only two or three comments pre-Bush.
Sorry to say, but you think wrong:
That’s just a limited sampling. Dig through the archives at whitehouse.gov and I’m sure you’ll find plenty more where that came from.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:54 pmit needs pointing out that both parties were wrong about the intelligence, because our intelligence agencies were wrong. So were the intelligence agencies of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Israel.
But the difference is (even if your blanket statement about the other intelligence agencies is correct) what the United States did that the other states did not - which is shut down the inspections, force the UN out and start a war.
Funny how withdrawing from Vietnam is actually credited with strengthening the US strategic position….. still if this war bears no resemblance to Vietnam then which is it? Russian invasion of Afghanistan comes to mind - that ended well eh? German invasion of France too - some similarities there too.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:55 pm#60 = What is it with progressives? You seem to be always trying to put something in someone else’s mouth - in your case, words.
I think Clinton et al and Bush et al, ran with the best intelligence they had. (And God knows that was meager thanks the new BFF of Hamas, JimmyC.) It won’t surprise me if and when it comes out that Saddam rushed truck loads of money, evidence or weapons to Syria.
Nat - now go back and study Resolution 687 - there will be a test tomorrow.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:57 pmNat @ #59 @ 6:16
At the risk that you are being purposely disingenuous re: Cold War disagreements: free markets, free speech, freedom to move about the country/world, etc. versus non-free, ad nauseum (literally), of the Soviet bloc, China, emerging post-colonial dictatorships in Africa and South America (A tricky one: Whose to blame? You can go with Chomsky or you can go with Hayek. Your choice.).
America at odds historically? Happens all the time, and always will (Sorry, no Kumbayas for us).
Versus Europe: Revolution and 1812
Versus Spanish Empire: Monroe Doctrine, TR - Cuba/Phillipines
Versus Europe (with the Ottomans tossed in) again: Late entry to WW1.
Versus Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia (prior to Barbarossa): U.S. only Brit Commonwealth ally left standing.
Add up the folks we lined up against or didn’t join in with and that’s an enormous number in their respective eras.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:01 pmSecretary Powell, in his speech before the United Nations on February 5, 2003, used four sources to make the case about BW mobile labs: “Curveball,†an Iraqi civil engineer, a third source, and an Iraqi National Congress (INC) fabricator. Secretary Powell laid out a graphic, detailed, and powerful case for Iraq’s possession of a number of mobile biological production labs before the Untied Nations and the world based on four sources-all of which have proven to be false.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Congressmen are reluctant to say the Bush administration lied but I’m not. They used the info from an embezzler (Chalabi); they used info from someone described as a drunken liar (Curveball) and someone who backed up the drunken liar’s claim; and they used info from a guy who was tortured (al-Libi). They used info from these guys because it fit their pre-conceived notion.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:02 pm#
http://www.seixon.com/blog/
The views of a Norwegian-American living in Norway on world and US politics, specifically focused on setting the record straight in the media, on blogs, and on political issues.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Seixon, why are you living in Norway instead of the U.S.? If you are such a supporter of Bush’s policies in Iraq, why don’t you come back, join the military and go over there and fight? Why do you sit in your safe little country, and try to tell Americans how to feel and what they should do? If you feel so strongly about the Bush plan in Iraq, why don’t you lobby your OWN government to do far more than they have done…which is to have had about 150 engineers over there, the last of whom they withdrew in mid-2006?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:03 pmSeixon
from your response:
1. I do not lean to the right because I debunk Think Progress. You say I lean right, but can you identify my position on the myriad of political issues that compose a person’s political identity? Or are you of the opinion that supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein is strictly a conservative or Republican thing?
The lack of criticism at your site for conservative issues, people and sites suggests a definite sympathy for all things right. If you wish to dispel this impression, you could try to sound more neutral; A posting critical of a right-wing site would nicely balance your posting about Think Progress.
2. This is because Think Progress writers are too cowardly to answer when flaws in their posts are pointed out, and are too elitist to engage with their visitors.
An alternate view would be that the authors of Think Progress are content to post the thread and leave others to debate the topic; by interjecting your own opinions with such frequency in each thread at your site, you tend to draw the subject in question to yourself, never a good thing unless you are more interested in talking than listening, and it thus gives the reader the impression that you feel the need to defend yourself.
3. Think Progress, supported by Center of American Progress with a budget of $10+ million per year, is obviously much more of a magnet than a random American’s blog. Duh.
Money really doesn’t enter into the equation, in my opinion, and quite frankly it sounds like the typical left-wing complaint offered up to explain why they keep losing elections. I would suggest that it is the content and diversity of opinion that is bringing the people to Think Progress.
“Well, I do not frequent right-wing sites since they are usually too religious, anti-gay, pro-life, and all the other things I am not.”
And yet, as I mention above, you don’t criticize them at your site, thus giving the impression that you are by and large in agreement with their policies and comments. Again, a few postings by you could well leave visitors to your site with the impression that you are more even-handed, particularly if, as you say, they are all the things you are not.
I thank you for your recommendation of Power Line.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pmWhere is it in the NIE stating that withdrawal is the worst option. For that matter where’s the latest NIE. Comparisons put into context the extent of the carnage and waste and Vietnam is an accurate comparison. Is there another comparison in our history? If so then bring it forth and let’s discuss. If not, then we’ll use Vietnam.
Thanks for answering
February 5th, 2007 at 7:05 pm“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.â€
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
I agree with this statement.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
I agree with this statement up until the force part.
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.â€
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
I agree with this statement.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.â€
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
I need more information to make an assessment.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
Clinton bombed sites in December of 1998 that Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors have access to.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
Clinton bombed sites in December of 1998 that Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors have access to.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
What’s the …
February 5th, 2007 at 7:19 pm#60 = What is it with progressives? You seem to be always trying to put something in someone else’s mouth - in your case, words.
Comment by valiant venus — February 5, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Not at all. I’m merely pointing out a tendency of yours toward a lack of clear communication of thought in your postings. If you were in disagreement with Nat’s contention of phony Bush admin intelligence, you should have stated it in no uncertain terms, then moved on to point out some of the many phony intelligence items on the left that stretch back as far as any of us care to go (by the way, would a real progressive cop to that? I think not). By neglecting to object to his accusation, it is implied that you are in agreement with his basic premise.
In future, I would recommend that you consider your responses more carefully before posting them. I look forward to your subsequent comments.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:21 pmHey Hellina…
Google NIE and guess what? You’ll get the new NIE! It’s been out for almost a week. A summary, albeit.
You can’t be serious.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:21 pmin #79 Spudge-Boy said
…explain why they kept losing elections.
Duly noted, and thank you for your fix, Spudge_Boy; past tense would indeed be correct for my comment.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pmAt the risk that you are being purposely disingenuous re: Cold War disagreements: free markets, free speech, freedom to move about the country/world, etc. versus non-free, ad nauseum (literally), of the Soviet bloc, China, emerging post-colonial dictatorships in Africa and South America (A tricky one: Whose to blame? You can go with Chomsky or you can go with Hayek. Your choice.).
Comment by stevesh — February 5, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
I disagree with the concept of a free market. What are you referring to when you say “free speech, freedom to move about the country/world, etc. versus non-free, ad nauseum (literally), of the Soviet bloc, China, emerging post-colonial dictatorships in Africa and South America (A tricky one: Whose to blame? You can go with Chomsky or you can go with Hayek. Your choice)?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pmSaddam expelled US members of the UN inspection teams on Nov. 14, 1998 and FOUR years later, on Nov. 8, 2002, were allowed to return.
“The UN’s formal report on Iraqi inspections is highly critical, though not damning, with chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.” Blix then notices some improvement in Saddams co-operation. “Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1,” which they start to do. And to think, ol’ Saddam would not have been dancing on the end of a rope if he had just left with the boatload of money he had already spirited out.
I guess that why they say hindsight is 20/20….except for those with no vision.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pmSpudge_let,
Read the comment, boy! The source is Whitehouse.gov. There actually were presidents and archives before Bush.
Looking Right,
Try RealClearPolitics (Google “rcp”) - good mix, they even link TP, when TP is
February 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm(rare, but occasionally) sane.
Terry,
The Vietnam war was a moronic enterprise from one end to the other. We never accomplished anything there. We’ve accomplished far more in Iraq than we ever did there. The only danger now is that it slips away from us. Withdrawing from Vietnam only strengthened the US in the sense that we weren’t wasting away in a completely pointless war. We have much to gain, and much to lose, in Iraq. We have to assure we gain.
Russia, France, and Germany were against the war for many reasons, many of which were the fact that they didn’t want to send soldiers to die to oust a dictator they were making good money from and getting great oil deals with. These nations had nothing to gain from going into Iraq, so why would they when they only stood to lose?
Nat,
The CIA used Curveball and gave it to Powell, yes. Yet for some reason you continue to fault Bush for that, and not the CIA. Why?
Looking right,
The lack of criticism at your site for conservative issues, people and sites suggests a definite sympathy for all things right. If you wish to dispel this impression, you could try to sound more neutral; A posting critical of a right-wing site would nicely balance your posting about Think Progress.
I just did a post a few days ago making fun of NewsBusters for being upset about the Blasphemy Challenge…. Also, you are using a logical fallacy here. Lack of criticism of something does not imply sympathy. You are viewing this incorrectly due to the fact that I blog about things in the news - most of which are not on the right-wing/conservative agenda.
An alternate view would be that the authors of Think Progress are content to post the thread and leave others to debate the topic; by interjecting your own opinions with such frequency in each thread at your site, you tend to draw the subject in question to yourself, never a good thing unless you are more interested in talking than listening, and it thus gives the reader the impression that you feel the need to defend yourself.
So in other words, you think it would be better for me to just write a post claiming a bunch of things, and then negate to answer any comments pointing out any concerns they have with my post? Yes, that’s what many liberal sites such as DailyKos and others do. All criticism is ignored, and incorrect posts stay up until the end of time. That’s not how I work it, if someone feels I have said something wrong, I will defend what I have said and tell them why I think they are wrong.
After all, that is what debate is.
Money really doesn’t enter into the equation, in my opinion, and quite frankly it sounds like the typical left-wing complaint offered up to explain why they keep losing elections. I would suggest that it is the content and diversity of opinion that is bringing the people to Think Progress.
Yes, obviously a site run by people closely associated with former Clinton administration officials, bank-rolled by millions of dollars with sources such as George Soros, and having wide coverage by many other liberal organizations certainly have nothing to do with it… *cough*
And yet, as I mention above, you don’t criticize them at your site, thus giving the impression that you are by and large in agreement with their policies and comments. Again, a few postings by you could well leave visitors to your site with the impression that you are more even-handed, particularly if, as you say, they are all the things you are not.
Since I’m not reading their blogs, how would I go about criticizing them? I don’t care what they say. They can blather on about god, abortions, hell, and whatever the hell else they are concerned with all they want. I don’t care. They are not setting the agenda in the media. They are not making the news. They are irrelevant. I don’t read their blogs. I don’t read their limited magazines or publications.
I have no reason to “appear” evenhanded when there’s nothing inherently conservative or right-wing about my blog’s contents.
I’ve never seen Think Progress do a post about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, does that mean they silently agree with them? Of course not. So why is it that I silently agree with everything right-wing whackos are doing just because I don’t talk about it?
Also, as I already said, I just did a post a few days ago lamenting NewsBusters for ludicrous outrage over something to do with atheists. Being an atheist, that struck home with me, and I felt like covering it.
It’s not my blog there is something wrong with, it is the people who read it that would rather pigeon-hole me than meet me in an honest debate that there’s something wrong with.
hellinabucket,
Think Progress posted a link to the NIE a little while ago……. Come on now, don’t be lazy. Search for NIE in their search box and you’ll find it.
Spudge,
You know the quotes are accurate, I know they’re accurate, everyone else knows they are accurate. You are feigning concern.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pmstevesh
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pmThanks for the directions stevesh. Went thru the released NIE again and it doesn’t describe that withdrawal would cause problems only that rapid withdrawal would. Doesn’t go too far into that either. Does go into “Civil War” doesn’t accurately describe the mess and
Yeah, I’m serious. What other conflict in our nations history comes close to what is going on in Iraq?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pmAnyone else find it funny that ‘venus’ was born out of the castoffs of ‘uranus’? Great description!
February 5th, 2007 at 7:46 pm“The CIA used Curveball and gave it to Powell, yes. Yet for some reason you continue to fault Bush for that, and not the CIA. Why? Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm”
The DIA used Curveball, and prevented the CIA access. But like all CONs, Seixon is ‘factually-challenged’.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmThe CIA used Curveball and gave it to Powell, yes. Yet for some reason you continue to fault Bush for that, and not the CIA. Why?
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
I fault the DIA and the Bush administration who both used questionable people to support their pre-conceived agenda.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pm“Think Progress posted a link to the NIE a little while ago……. Come on now, don’t be lazy. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm”
Notice how I ‘whine’ about the personal attacks of others, then call others lazy? I’m a stupid hypocrite, but y’all knew that didn’t ya!
February 5th, 2007 at 7:50 pmhellinabucket,
Quoting from the NIE:
Think Progress actually quoted that, but I’ll be damned if they discussed the implications of it vis-a-vis their Strategic Redeployment plan.
So that makes Senator Feinstein also “factually-challenged” by extension since I merely quoted her. Interesting. Does that make Senator Feinstein a CON?
I will sleep now, ripe with anticipation of Feinstein’s possible status as a CON.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:54 pmSeixon
Let me ask you this:
Do you spend a comparable amount of time on right-wing blogs as you do here at Think Progress? After all, you have something of a negative reputation here. A true neutral critic would also have raised the hackles of those at a right-wing site.
So, I just did a post a few days ago making fun of NewsBusters for being upset about the Blasphemy Challenge…
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Let’s compare the two, shall we?
First:
The Blasphemy Challenge
While I usually like the things NewsBusters write about…
versus:
Think Progress = Partisan Hacks
For anyone who didn’t know this, let’s just view a crystal clear example that Think Progress is not an honest enterprise, but is simply a propaganda outlet for anything sympathetic to the Clintons…
Your example of netrality doesn’t seem very even-handed, I would suggest. Response?
February 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pm“The Vietnam war was a moronic enterprise from one end to the other. We never accomplished anything there. We’ve accomplished far more in Iraq than we ever did there. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm”
Care to prove what we’ve accomplished there, that’s somehow different from Vietnam? Remember, South Vietnam had ‘touted’ elections and political reform as well!
I would agree that it was a moronic exercise, what you’ve failed to establish is how Iraq is NOT a moronic exercise.
And please don’t use the lame Al Qaeda excuse, that dog won’t hunt. It’s undeniable that Saddam hated them, and before we invaded they were powerless there.
Come on, you have a creative mind for fabricating lies, give me a good one!
February 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWow, now I’ve got some lamer acting as my conscience. I see we’ve got a lot of mature souls here at TP. My conscience must be pretty dumb, comparing being called a traitor to pointing out to someone that they are lazy for not typing three letters into the search box at the top of the page. But of course to a deranged lefty, those would be equal.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm” The DIA used Curveball, and prevented the CIA access. But like all CONs, Seixon is ‘factually-challenged’.
So that makes Senator Feinstein also “factually-challenged†by extension since I merely quoted her. Interesting. Does that make Senator Feinstein a CON? Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:54 pm”
So you answer the charge with an unrelated argument? You know, unkind people might call that action sociopathic, I just assume you can’t read english.
Once again, your comment didn’t disprove that the CIA had no direct access to Curveball, and this quote says nothing to the point.
You lose.
“I will sleep now, ripe with anticipation of Feinstein’s possible status as a CON. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:54 pm”
You sleep with proving you can’t read a simple sentence, or form a critical thought.
The question was whether the CIA was given direct access to Curveball - the quote mentions nothing of that point.
That makes your attempted diversion and lie, just that, a lie.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:00 pm“Wow, now I’ve got some lamer acting as my conscience. I see we’ve got a lot of mature souls here at TP. My conscience must be pretty dumb, Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:57 pm”
Yet, not nearly as dumb as the waking mind, that keeps saying Curveball was a CIA asset. A fully debunked lie.
“comparing being called a traitor to pointing out to someone that they are lazy for not typing three letters into the search box at the top of the page. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:57 pm”
Whining about personal attacks, then calling others lazy. No hypocrisy there - in the bizarro world Seixon’s mind lives in.
“But of course to a deranged lefty, those would be equal. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:57 pm”
Whining about personal attacks, then calling others ‘deranged’, as a personal attack. A priceless example of the ‘Foley Factory’ conservative professional victim in action.
Yeah, Seixon, everyone’s cruel to you, you have no effect on how you’re treated. It’s just the liberals that call names, and make accusations, you never do it!
Isn’t being a conservative fun? It’s everyone else’s fault for my unsociable behavior! I wasn’t banned because I was a jerk, it was because you all made me be a jerk!
Anyone else smell Hendler’s out of control Aspergers brewing a Norwegian edition?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pmLooking right,
Last response.
I don’t spend time commenting at conservative blogs mostly because the issues with which I agree with them, like the Iraq war, are ones that won’t generate much debate with my participation.
I do have a negative reputation here, but that is mostly because I go against the liberal dogma that exists here. People have actually dug up personal information on me and posted it all over TP earlier. That is how low people at this blog would go to intimidate me, which says more about them than it does about me.
NewsBusters combats media bias, of which there exists a great deal due to the fact that over 70% of journalists are Democrats. Combine that with a Republican administration, and you get a whole lot of bias. Think Progress, on the other hand, acts mostly as a propaganda outlet to further things that the media is biased about. Think Progress attacks anyone who goes after prominent Democrats, the Clintons, or Al Gore. Being funded and run by Clinton-administration folks, it’s not all that hard to understand why. NewsBusters, however, is not run by former politicians’ aides.
The sites serve two distinctly different purposes, and thus I treat them differently for what they are.
In that case with NewsBusters, they disavowed their usual posts of debunking media myths and media spin, and went after atheists and ABC News for no reason.
I can find something wrong with very few of NewsBusters’ posts, but most of TP’s posts are either inaccurate, spin, propaganda, projection, or blatant lies.
Just yesterday, they did two posts on one McCain interview! The second one was completely faux, as even many TP readers commented. NewsBusters is not tightly connected with a political party like TP is, and they are not funded by a network of politicians like TP is, and the result is therefore completely different.
Hope that explains it.
Good night.
My Conscience,
Care to prove what we’ve accomplished there, that’s somehow different from Vietnam? Remember, South Vietnam had ‘touted’ elections and political reform as well!
Keyword: South.
I would agree that it was a moronic exercise, what you’ve failed to establish is how Iraq is NOT a moronic exercise.
Are there millions of Iraqi insurgents controlling half of Iraq with the support of a major global power who is actually fighting us with thousands of their own soldiers? No? Ah, well then.
Night.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:08 pmCoalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
The NIE is recommending we stay forever?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:10 pmEnlist please…………………………
February 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pmI don’t spend time commenting at conservative blogs mostly because the issues with which I agree with them…
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Thank you for acknowledging my point, which was that you and you site are inherently right-wing.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pmOh Please.
1. The CIA passed Curveball’s info to Powell. They did not reevaluate his intel even though the DOD had concerns. That’s what Feinstein said, that’s what I reported, and that debunks the notion that the CIA was innocent in the issue of Curveball.
2. Someone who cannot type three letters into a search box is, by any reasonable definition of the word, lazy. That is a fact. Feel free to disagree.
3. Now you’re pretending that I started with the personal attacks, I did not, as this comment thread easily proves. Someone who stalks me as my “conscience” and thinks calling someone lazy is anywhere near calling someone a traitor is, again, by any reasonable definition, deranged.
4. I was called a traitor, retarded, told to f*ck myself, and many other things before I exchanged a single barb.
5. I’m not a conservative, although you love saying that because you love pigeon-holing people while masquerading in sociopathic fashion as their “conscience”.
6. I was never banned from TP.
7. Definitely good night.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm“Looking right, Last response. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm”
And how many times has this lie already been posted tonight?….
February 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pmThe NIE is recommending we stay forever?
Strawman.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pmNewsBusters combats media bias, of which there exists a great deal due to the fact that over 70% of journalists are Democrats.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
-NewsBusters offers their opinion or opinions of people on the far right to dispute fact.
-70% may be democrats but 100% fail in their oversight of this rouge regime.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pmThe NIE is recommending we stay forever?
Strawman.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
I’m asking you a question.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:16 pm“Care to prove what we’ve accomplished there, that’s somehow different from Vietnam? Remember, South Vietnam had ‘touted’ elections and political reform as well!
Keyword: South. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm”
Yeah, the part we controlled. The claim was that it was a fools mission, and we accomplished nothing in Vietnam.
Please name what has been accomplished in Iraq that wasn’t accomplished in the Vietnam we were protecting?
“Are there millions of Iraqi insurgents controlling half of Iraq with the support of a major global power who is actually fighting us with thousands of their own soldiers? No? Ah, well then. Night. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm”
Vietnam existed as a UN partition, our role was to protect the South Vietnamese, not reunite the country. That’s what the North was trying to do.
As for the major global power fighting us with their soldiers, isn’t that what Cheney claims is going on with Iranian fighters?
Sorry, but Seixon fails - yet again. But with a history of nothing but failures, why would tonight be any different?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm1. The CIA passed Curveball’s info to Powell. They did not reevaluate his intel even though the DOD had concerns. That’s what Feinstein said, that’s what I reported, and that debunks the notion that the CIA was innocent in the issue of Curveball.
They did not have acess to him; the DIA did.
5. I’m not a conservative, although you love saying that because you love pigeon-holing people while masquerading in sociopathic fashion as their “conscienceâ€.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
No, you’re a Neocon.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm“NewsBusters combats media bias, of which there exists a great deal due to the fact that over 70% of journalists are Democrats. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm”
Prove that statistic.
Seixon can’t, but it doesn’t stop him from ‘lying’ to prove himself right! That’s what it takes to be a conservative, utter, and complete dishonesty in the face of reality.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmSeixon
If, as you admit, you agree with most conservative positions, are you not therefore best described as a conservative? Does that not seem reasonable? Or, if you prefer, what about referring to yourself as a conservative with liberal positions on some issues?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pmSo that makes Senator Feinstein also “factually-challenged†by extension since I merely quoted her. Interesting. Does that make Senator Feinstein a CON?
I will sleep now, ripe with anticipation of Feinstein’s possible status as a CON.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Feinstein said the info was false. She doesn’t say whether or not the Bush administration lied.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pmSeixon, here’s an actual survey. We all know you don’t understand surveys, distort their numbers, and generally make a complete jerk of yourself when they refute your idiocy. But what doesn’t make you act like a jerk - nothing we’ve seen.
http://www.journalism.org/node/2304
Another Seixon myth bites the dust. But that won’t stop him folks. No amount of facts, reason, or rationality will stop a lunatic fringe crazed rightwinger!
February 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pmI do have a negative reputation here, but that is mostly because I go against the liberal dogma that exists here.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
No, Seixon, you don’t have a bad reputation because you go against a “dogma”. I, for one, don’t “do” dogmas.
Your reputation is awful because you are arrogant: I will never forget your little diatribe about how your personal opinion on what constitutes torture carries more weight than that of the trained professionals in international humanitarian organisations, human rights organisations, who have many, many, years of first-hand experience with people who have bee nsubjected to torture. Not to stoop to low, you also lobbed ad hominem attacks at those organisations and the people working for them (”anti-Americans” if I recall correctly).
Seixon, the man with no expertise in the field thinks his personal opinion is more authoritative. And you do that regardless of the topic at hand, whether torture, human rights, global warming…
The Vietnam war was a moronic enterprise from one end to the other. We never accomplished anything there.
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
You can say that now, but at the time it touted as a war to stop the spread of communism in SouthEast Asia -it was the “forefront in the global war against communism”, if you will. Of have you forgotten the “Domino Theory”.
The reasons you list to remain in Iraq are actually a rehash of the reasons the Nixon adminsitration trotted out to remain in Vietnam. It was also “essential” the US “win” in Vietnam, lest the whole continent falls in the hands of the communists. At the time, the Nixon administration also argued the stakes were high for the US in Vietnam.
There are more parallels between the two wars than you care to acknowledge.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:35 pm#118 SeixonsConscience
From your link @ journalism.org.:
Fact Check Your A**/Conscience Internet 101: Read the whole article.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pm“Fact Check Your A**/Conscience Internet 101: Read the whole article. Comment by stevesh — February 5, 2007 @ 8:38 pm”
Thanks for further proving that Seixon lied.
Seixon claimed that 70% of Journalists were ‘democrats’, I’m not seeing anything in your a** response that proves him right, therefore thanks for proving him wrong.
Not even the highest social issue you quoted reached that level (65% on gun issues). Unless you’re willing to conced that 51% of america is Liberal (the general population on that gun issue), your post just reinforces what I said.
So who’s the a**, it would be stevesh.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:47 pmstevesh,
Seixon claims was not about specific issues. He said “over 70% of journalists are Democrats” -a blanket statement.
Nothing in your quote buttresses that statement. Quite the contraty. Not to mention a break down on “wedge issues” is not the point in contention at all.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:53 pmSo Gregor… did you see my post of realpolitik? Where’d it go?
February 5th, 2007 at 8:58 pmTerry,
Several of my posts have disappeared somewhere in “the tubes” today.
I didn’t see yours on realpolitik -I was busy trying to get mine to go through. I am selfish that way ;-)
February 5th, 2007 at 9:00 pmHere it goes again…
February 5th, 2007 at 9:09 pmThe Vietnam war was a moronic enterprise from one end to the other. We never accomplished anything there. We’ve accomplished far more in Iraq than we ever did there. The only danger now is that it slips away from us. Withdrawing from Vietnam only strengthened the US in the sense that we weren’t wasting away in a completely pointless war. We have much to gain, and much to lose, in Iraq. We have to assure we gain.
Russia, France, and Germany were against the war for many reasons, many of which were the fact that they didn’t want to send soldiers to die to oust a dictator they were making good money from and getting great oil deals with. These nations had nothing to gain from going into Iraq, so why would they when they only stood to lose?
Hmm interesting. So the lack of support for the war stems directly from realpolitik on the parts of Russia, France and Germany. Then it is also logical to conclude that US enthusiasm for the war might also be related to realpolitik and not to plant a shining democratic beacon in the heart of the Middle East. Let’s examine Seixon’s postulate that the Iraq war is all about realpolitik:
Let’s see: a new Iraqi oil law - only US/UK firms to benefit from a neo-liberal bonanza? Russian, French and Chinese concessions their fate ‘uncertain’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 01/ 23/ AR2007012301534.html
Hmm Saddam changed form selling oil in dollars to Euros - economic warfare can’t have that, dollar would drop like a brick. Must stop that, eh?http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html
And who could forget the first ministry secured in 2003. The WMD sites? The nuclear labs? No, the oil ministry. http://www.smh.com.au/ articles/ 2003/ 04/ 16/ 1050172643895.html
And what kinds of plans are there for Iraq’s oil? http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ hi/ programmes/ newsnight/ 4354269.stm
Finally the Chimp in Chief fesses up: http://www.boston.com/ news/ nation/ articles/ 2005/ 08/ 31/ bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/
Well there you have it. Thanks to Seixon, we have finally found the major difference between Vietnam and Iraq - the reason that US blood and treasure needs to spent to keep on killing the people who have the misfortune to live in Iraq - the large lake of black doom underneath the sands of Iraq.
Seixon, we couldn’t have done it without you.
We have much to gain, and much to lose, in Iraq. We have to assure we gain. - Seixon, Feb 3rd 2007
February 5th, 2007 at 9:09 pmAnd are you going to delete that too, TP goits? This post should be after it.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pmGood stuff
February 5th, 2007 at 9:14 pmWoo hoo between #125 and #126 I had a post - I thought it was a good one. I’m going to try again without the links….TP, be good, I’m not attacking Hilary.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:20 pmThe Vietnam war was a moronic enterprise from one end to the other. We never accomplished anything there. We’ve accomplished far more in Iraq than we ever did there. The only danger now is that it slips away from us. Withdrawing from Vietnam only strengthened the US in the sense that we weren’t wa