Subject: KISS



By Dennis Miller

All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I have detected a hint of confusion from some of you.

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method ("Keep it Simple, Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts.

Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein...Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?" (Try this, it is interesting.)

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the
education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

I hope this helps.




 
 




____________________________________________________

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein...Hussein is the bad guy.

--If you think every conflict is reducible to good guy vs. bad guy, your brain has obviously failed to develop past the cowboy shows on kids' TV--in which case maybe you can be president.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

--If you have faith in the Bush Administration to champion freedom, keep this in mind; they have John Ashcroft heading the Justice Department. As for disarmament, don't forget the NRA is working out of the Oval Office now.

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"

--If the most intelligent being you can get to support your prejudice is a search-engine robot, keep quiet about it.  And if military success is your criterion of who's worth listening to, you should know that Mohammed outscores Jesus by a mile on that one.

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

--Agreed; any properly educated person can think of dozens of good reasons to oppose this war.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

--These are your role models?

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.

--Ditto for Dubya--except he's not as good at it.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.

--Bin Laden wants Saddam dead, too, as an "Infidel," and he will be most grateful for our assistance in that and in his latest recruiting drive.  (1, 2, 3, who are we fightin' for?)

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

--see #10 below

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

--Again, agreed--Bush is lying about that.

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out.

--If you believe that is the issue in this war, YOU need to quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?" (Try this, it is interesting.)

I tried and it didn't work as described.

Keep It Simple Stupid is a principle invented by the military, to keep guys from thinking.  Not a surprise that this would be used as the basis for a justification of war.

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

Dear Sedona,

So sorry to hear that racist bastard Dennis Miller is your guiding light.  

For this one:

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

Are you and your imaginary lover Dennis Miller, thinking that Bin Laden and Saddam are coming here, to replace our constitution, and deprive us of the freedom of speech?

And the connection between bin Laden and Saddam is what, exactly?  If you know, Sedona, I suggest you tell the proper authorities because they sure as hell can't work it out.

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

11.  Be glad that Dennis Miller is now doing stupid routines like this instead of screwing up Monday Night Football.  He's much easier to ignore now.

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

Each to his own.  The latest poll I saw showed more than 70% of Americans supported Bush.  If this war ends quickly with minimal casualties, the stock market and the economy will very likely improve and enhance Bush's chances for re-election.  Now, this presents an interesting quandry for anti-war activists - do they want the war to end quickly with minimal casualties and help Bush's re-election, or do they want it to go on for a long time with many deaths to hinder Bush's re-election campaign in 2004?  Think about it.

On the contrary, the military wants individuals who can think, not just take orders. I did a 4 year stretch back in the mid 80s and even then, they were looking for a total quality force.

As for Miller, the guy makes me laugh, not that I necessarily agree or diagree with him. One thing is for certain, Bush is waging this war for a number of various reasons, one being the security of the US.

That said, I doubt very much that beating the crap out of a third world tin horn like Hussein and his gang of thieves is going to do much to improve our national security, but the military loves it, it's a great proving ground for new weapons technology. MfSD.

type in "french military victories" and use the "i'm feeling lucky" button instead of the standard search.

it's a joke, a parody web page created by a canadian student.

I tried it a few says ago (hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It did work, but when I tried to show it to someone later in the week, it wasnt working anymore. In fact, I couldnt find that parody page anywhere. Looks like google delisted it.

If we cant agree that Saddam Hussein is the bad guy in this fight, we have problems brothers and sisters.

Sadly, there are some people whose absolute hatred of Bush, would have them become defacto supporters of Saddam and his continuation in power. Whether you are liberal or conservative you should be able to agree that Saddam is a cancer on mankind.

The Iraqi women who are being violated in the "rape chambers" or men being tossed feet first into plastic shredding machines, couldnt care less about hanging chads from last election. They just want to live and be free. There will be another election in 2004, we can worry about George Bush then. For now, lets worry about America.

Relax...what ever made you think he's my Guiding Light?
Just passing on an email, that' all..


Sedona

it does work. i just came from there. google doesn't "delist" anything. type "french miltary victories" exactly into the search field and hit the 'i'm feeling lucky' button. or follow the link below to find the parody page.

Would any of these liberal crybabies be protesting this rightgeous crusade were Al Gore sitting in the White House? Not likely. Is war justified? What do you think the shredder jockies would say? A resounding shreiking YES as they're consumed. The human rights issue itself justifies removing Saddam. Let's not forget about the $25,000.00 payment to the families of homicide bombers in Israel. Is the war about a link to terrorism? Ask the families of the Australian journalists (non combatants) who became one with the vehicle they were driving yesterday. For Christ's sake, the SOB's can't even treat POW's with dignity. Last I checked, Iraq is signatory to the Geneva convention of 1949. F**k them, f**k them all.
Is this about oil? Absolutely!! Although not mentioned publically, protecting American interests in the Middle East is definitely a driving factor. Personally, I'm all for protecting our interests abroad. Don't get me wrong, I hate war passionately and was praying for a diplomatic solution. This is necessary though and Saddam brought this on himself and his country.He had every chance to avoid war and made the wrong decision. I feel for every coalition soldier who falls. I also feel for Iraqi soldiers and civilians alike who pays the ultimate price for their convictions, however misguided. I also feel for those who fight out of fear of reprisal.
May this end quickly.

-- Modified on 3/23/2003 7:59:32 PM

Nothing prevents a murderous conflict from having more than one bad guy, whether it is in Verona or in Iraq.  There is great mischief and misleading in your "the."  

I do not care about hanging chads either, though I care a great deal about deliberate and cynical disenfranchisement of black Floridians, a "small state" election strategy designed to exploit to the max the most flagrantly undemocratic features of our system, and G.W.B.'s all too convenient recourse to a court stacked with Daddy's appointees.

The image of rape chambers is nicely calculated to boil the blood, just as was the image of Kuwaiti babies evicted from their NICU incubators.  We shall see.  Perhaps Air Force Academy grads, of both sexes, can be delegated to investigate this matter.

"Whether you are liberal or conservative you should be able to agree that Saddam is a cancer on mankind."

Of course he is...as are dozens of others in control of minor third world countries.  Are we next supposed to invade those countries too, and dispose of them?

We should also be able to agree, whether liberal or conservative, that Bush has done far more damage to our international standing (when was the last time our only major ally was England?) and to our own legal system (when was the last time a citizen could be disappeared indefinitely without trial or representation on nothing more than the whim of the AG?), than Hussein could -ever- do.

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

I tend to follow the Limbaugh logic...... Dems have put all their eggs in the failure basket. Including war and the economy. Pretty damn decent of the liberals eh, hoping for disaster for their own gain.

Those ex-allies will be eating crow when the facts are uncovered in Iraq..... for now they can eat shit.

BTW.... deporting or incarcerating someone for visa violations is good enough for me.

If you're getting your political insight from a circus act like Limbaugh, you may want to broaden your horizons a bit. I suggest Willam Kristol of the Weekly Standard, for informed, pragmatic "conservative" commentary.

I hope that the "war" is decided quickly in our favor, and as mercifully as possible, but the Iraqis are a brutal regime, and lets be honest here, there are going to be proud Iraqi soldiers who are going to defend their country, just like our troops would if our country was invaded. It may be a third world cesspool with oil, but it is their homeland.

I wish I had the same crystal ball that Cynic seems to be peering in to in the post above. I'd clean up in the stock market. MfSD.

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 6:06:35 AM

If Gore were President, we may have found that "diplomatic solution" you desired, and we might not be at war. Bush's coalition building and foreign relations skills are sub par(He couldn't get Turkey, a NATO ally on board to ground stage our most sophisticated tanks for God's sake). When you say "liberal crybabies", don't you really mean American's excercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech?

You've listed a number of reasons here why we are justified in invading a sovereign nation, a number of which I happen to agree with. The problem with this scenario is, the minute we finish off Iraq, we need to invade Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia(they still send money to PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad suicide bomber's families) and a few other countries, if we're going to use the logic laid out here.

You hit the nail squarely on the head when you mentioned oil, it's the lifeblood of this country and Bush wouldn't be in Iraq right now if it wasn't for the fact that the Iraqis are sitting on the second largest known oil reserves on the planet. I'm curious how many of the "alleged" staunch right wingers who posted here actually served in the military like I did...... MfSD.

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 5:37:35 AM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 5:39:02 AM

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wogoog133170831mar13,0,2821577.story


Hugs*
Nicole

Yep.... I`m sure Gore studied the Clinton approach closely in his eight years.

If you get caught doing something and you need to divert attention from it simply fire off a few cruise missles at Iraq and pretend you are punishing them. Then, ignore them and go visit Babs in L.A.

In responding to Maximus' post, he claimed that he wanted a "diplomatic solution" to Iraq, and I said we "may" have gotten one with Gore as President.

You sound as if "war", regime change, and the installation of a government "friendly" to our country was the only option available. Maybe it was, maybe not, but we'll certainly never know now. Particulalry considering that the Bush team had this Iraq plan locked and loaded long before 9-11 took place.

You want to delude yourself, that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, didn't want to finish the job that Bush's father started, go right ahead. But every one of those guys was either an integral part of the first gulf war, or in Rumsfeld's case, had actually met Hussein and done business with him.

We sold the Iraqis the pre cursor elements that they used to manufacture the poison gas that they used to kill 5,000 Kurds, and we sold them helicopters too, that may or may not have been used in those gas attacks. Our story is the Iraqis had expressed a desire to manufacture agricultural pesticides and fertilizer with the chemicals. You'll recall Tim McVeigh used readily available commercial fertilizer(ammonium nitrate)and diesel fuel to manufacture the OK City bomb.

Men of good moral conscience like Cheney and Rumsfeld are going back, atempting to rectify a lingering problem, partly of their making, and doing what they think is right in ousting Hussein and his brutal regime. Half assed comments about a President, two plus years removed from office have no material bearing on this discussion. MfSD.    

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 8:20:28 AM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 8:20:54 AM

You can ignore Clintons inaction if you chose to but I feel it is totally relevent to the situation we find ourselves in these days.

If you want to repeat standard right wing dogma, and blame Clinton for everything under the sun, (the lousy economy, a 6 % national unemployment rate, a ballooning budget deficit, tepid stock market, North Korea, the poor state of our foriegn relations, Bush's fiscally irresponsible tax cuts during a time of war after Clinton left him a 157 billion dollar surplus, etc.) go right ahead. But I can tell you that Bush won't be running for reelection on a platform of blaming the guy who sat in his chair four years before, not if he wants to win another term. He'll run on his strong stance against terrorism, his leadership in Afghan. and Iraq, his tax cuts and his moral fiber.

Now if you're also blaming Clinton solely for us being at war with Iraq today, then I suggest you look to the end of the first gulf war for the real culprit. Bush 1 had twice the number of troops in theater, and a much larger coalition that also picked up most of the cost of Gulf War 1(as opposed to the American tax payer on this one) and needed only give the order to march to Baghdad, and Hussein and his regime would have been finished. Bush 1 chose not to do that, and that in and of itself emboldened Hussein as did Clinton's 1998 response that I mention below.

Clinton mentioned regime change in 1998, and his military response to Hussein's having forced the weapons inspectors out, was a tepid volley of bombs and cruise missiles. But from 1991 to 1998(and up until about a week ago for that matter) Hussein had invaded excatly zero of his neighbors, launched exactly zero weapons of mass desctruction, been responsible for not a single proven terrorist attack by direct or indirect means against Americans, or facilitated or financed terrorist attacks or training, other than paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers(a practice the Saudis still engage in). Hardly a scenario under which one invades a sovereign nation and changes a government, all at American tax payer's expense. MfSD.

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 1:55:16 PM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 1:56:32 PM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 1:58:30 PM

1st Marine Reconnaissance Company - 1st Marine Division  - United States Marines - Viet Nam 1966 - 1970.

I've been to hell and I'm a conservative!  

It seems to me that the diplomacy that you hold so dead and the success of it is tied in directly to how much money the president offers these supposed allies.  So what you are saying, in my opinion, is that Gore would have paid them more of our money in exchange for votes.  I think not, we saw what Clinton did in 1998, bombing of Iraq with no clear objective, Gore would have continued in the same theme.  The last democrat president that had the balls to prosecute a war was Truman.  Since then they have all had their eyes on the polls or the intern under their desk.  We had eight years of Clinton/Gore and NOTHING was done to abate terrorism against Americans.  

I am glad that Bush is going to send Saddam to Allah, is hunting down Bin Laden like the pig sucking dog he is.  I'm sorry for people who think this will bring more terror to the US, but putting your head in the sand is for ostriches not a super power!  These people want to kill you and either way we will have to face them and kill or be killed.  I'll shed no tears for my decision.

BTW, since when does lack military service undermine opinions in this country?  Your question assures me that you were not a Marine.



-- Modified on 3/25/2003 10:12:29 AM

If you recall the U.N. authorized the coalition to oust Hussein from Kuwait, not to march to Baghdad. I wish they had. I wish Bush 1 did it anyway. Can you imagine the hell he would have caught from the anti-war protesters if he had. He would have been accused of all sorts of war crimes. He did what the world authorized him to do. Now, Iraq has violated the cease fire agreement and they`re paying the price.

I will stop short of posting my feelings concerning your first paragraph and let this rest. This thread has already branched out to far for my likeing.

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 3:01:58 PM

Can you imagine the hell that Clinton would have received from Congress had he decided to invade Iraq?  Do you really think that Newt and the boys would have okayed it?

I like Bill Kristol. I prefer Safire. I enjoy Rush. Knock his style if you want. I understand he`s not for everybody but you have to admit, regarding the topic of my previous post he is right on.

anything. Limbaugh is a buffoon, a circus act, and foremost, an entertainer, not an analyst, no military background, no political experience, but a very big mouth.

Limbaugh isn't anywhere near Safire's league, and Kristol(who I have met)is orders of magnitude more intelligent and articulate then both of them. MfSD.

...so is that to say one's opinion is somehow more or less credible or well-reasoned determined by that?  

I've pretty well tried to stay out of the majority of these little "discussions" because ultimately I see no one's mind ever being changed by them if they have preconceived opinions to begin with.  I'm not a "staunch right-winger" (love the way some guys that toss around these labels) but from what I've read of your many posts, I'm someone who disagrees with you.  But I served in the USMC, so where does that fit into the question?  Never mind...I don't really want to know, it was just rhetorical.

I am always fascinated by those that are so eager to rush in to war, wrap themselves in our flag, and put our young people at risk, when they themselves never served their country, never wore the uniform. It has nothing to do with credibilty or the validity of one's point of view, in any qualitative sense, merely an observation.

I am tremendously proud of these American kids, out there on the front lines and flying combat aircraft. It's good to know we still produce fine citizens willing to heed the call to duty when called upon.

You poo poo this discussion as "little" when in fact it is fundmental in my opinion, to both our political and constitutional essence, and our obligation as US citizens to participate. Sure you can sit back, removed from it all, or cop a haughty, I'm above it all point of view, but any ignoramus can do that, much less someone with a modicum of intelligence.

Throwing political labels around, that's existed since the dawn of the Republic.

I would submit that you may disagree with me on some issues and agree with me on others, and the point of the discussion isn't necesarily to change minds, but to at least get others thinking about these issues from a different point of view. As for me, I believe I've spent enough intellectual capital on this particular thread. MfSD.  

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 6:40:28 PM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 6:41:45 PM

If other countries get the point, maybe we wont need to fight anyone else. Maybe a show of resolve might do the work for us elsewhere.

I havent heard too much noise coming out of North Korea since all this started. Maybe he is just taking a breather, but maybe he's seen what we are willing to do and decided he doesnt want any.

Dittos for other (hopefully formerly) terrorist sponsoring states.

Personallly I couldnt care less what France or Germany thinks of the US. If we are right, and have the right to defend ourselves, then what they think is not relevant.

Lots of countries in 1939 decided that it was better to ty to appease Hitler than fight him. Were they right? Churchill stood alone in warning against Hitler. Did that make him wrong? Quite the contrary.

As to the supposed loss of civil liberties, in contrast to previous wars, there has been almost no change in th civil liberties that Americans continue to enjoy. Look back to World War II, there was price controls, rationing, internment camps, censorship boards, etc.

During the Civil War, Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus.

To try to make the case that the US has turned into some sort of dictatorship is not only ridiculous when compared to reality, it is even more ridiculous when compared to actions taken in previous wars.

I guess I was wrong. There are some in America who are more interested in defeating George Bush today, than Saddam Hussein. I hope you get a dose of reality.

How many citizens who HAVENT trained in terrorist training camps are being held? I have no sympathy for one who has.

I could be wrong, but I think Clinton did have approval from congress to do whatever he needed.

How much of the 75 billion dollar supplemental war appropriation request that Bush is sending up to Congress this week, is for "aid" to our middle eastern allies(Jordan, Israel, Egypt, etc.)? Probably a few billion.

So I wouldn't be making too many assumptions about what Gore may or may not have spent. Or what Gore may or may not have done for that matter.

Paying money for votes: the last time I checked, we offered the Turks 26 billion to let us stage ground forces in their country to use against Iraq. The Turkish parliament voted no, another of Bush's diplomatic failures. As a result we don't have our most sophisticated armor(the Abrams Ma2a tank)in theater as a result. And how much "bribe money" did we offer to Cameroon and other countries on the security council for their votes, the nine votes that Bush said he wanted, but never got. And don't lay that jive on me about the French threatening a veto, we're the United States for God's sake, the world's only super power.

I'm not saying that diplomatic efforts would have necessarily worked with Iraq, and perhaps war was necessary. I'm saying that Bush failed to build a "valid" coalition of nations to not only lend military support(not that we need it), but financial support as well. As a result, the American tax payer will be stuck with the bulk of this war bill, as opposed to the nearly 90 % of the first gulf war picked up by our "allies" in that conflict.

I already addressed the military service portion of your query in an earlier post. MfSD.

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 7:52:28 PM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 7:58:41 PM

-- Modified on 3/24/2003 7:59:55 PM

Let the drums roll out...
Let the Trumpets call...
While the people shout...
STrike up the Band!!

Hear the cymbals ring...
callin one and all...
to the martial swing
STRIKE UP THE BAND

There is work to be done, to be done..
There's a war to be won, to be won,
Come on you son of a son of a gun,
Take your stand....

Fall in line, yea bow..
come along let's go...
HEY LEADER, STRIKE UP, THE BAND!!!!

Why do you consider Miller to be racist?

You should check out the penalties for contempt of court.  And they didn't start with Bush.

Last night I head Lanny Davis (no conservative he) lay the blame of diplomatic failure on France and Chirac.  "He not only opposed our stand but actively tried to undermine it."  Lanny Davis, Fox News March 24, 2003.

Bush put together a 30 nation coalition, in 1991 we had a 33 nation coalition.  Other nations will help with the costs, however, I agree that we will carry the majority of the cost.  Not unlike 1991,  where your information that 90% was picked up by supporting nations in incorrect.  Pledges were made but only Japan paid their part.

I totally agree that the main element in diplomacy is American Dollars and that is why I believe our membership in the UN is useless.  

As for Turkey, their loss, their economy has been halved and the citizens of Turkey will most likely correct this action by parliament in their next election.  It would have been very helpful to have Turkeys help, but we can do the job very well without them.

Cameroon and the other countries I am sure we offered increased foreign aid to are the losers.  Ultimately it really wouldn't have mattered, we would still be going it with the help of the nations in the coalition anyway, with or without France's veto.

As I have posted several times in this forum, America is ALWAYS benevolent in victory and will help rebuild Iraq after the war.  Sadly, almost all of the nations we have helped have short memories and I have no doubt that Iraq will be the same.  There are some exceptions, those nations who clearly remember the tyranny of communism of the recent past, Bulgaria and Poland for example.

Our involvement in Iraq will in the near future stabilize global energy prices and that alone makes it a viable venture.  But add to that the inhumanity of the Hussein regime and in my opinion we have, as usual, the moral high ground.

Our military would have already crushed Iraq if it wasn't for our concern for the innocent Iraqi people.  Our troops are sacrificing men daily for the safety of the Iraqi people.  Carpet bombing those southern cities would have solved us a lot of problems, but those are never America's tactics.

I and it seems approximately 70+% of the American people support Bush in doing the right thing even without UN support.  Fortunately for us, he didn't pledge allegiance to the UN, he took his oath seriously to protect the US and its interests.

FYI, I honor opposing opinions and discussion.  I do have problems with some current celebrity anti-war leaders when I feel their comments and actions appear to undermine our country and our soldiers on the field of war, for example Michael Moore's traitorous comments at the Academy Awards.  It appears we have too many RICH people in this country who loathe America.  Their comments are shown on Iraqi TV nightly and that is aiding and abetting the enemy!

BTW, I gave you my veteran status, what's yours?  I'm just interested in that I hold all my "Band of Brothers" in the highest of regards, present company notwithstanding.

HooWaa

We do apparently agree on something.  I am also proud of the dedication & sacrifices shown by those in all branches of our armed forces, both past & present. I do not believe that one must support the war, or the diplomatic efforts that did or didn't take place in advance of it, to support our troops.

And while you say you agree that military service isn't a litmus test for the validity of one's views, in the same sentence you've implied that those "eager to rush into war, wrap themselves in our flag" likely have never served themselves.   By extension of that, together with the inference I drew from your original question on the subject of military service, a person could easily wonder if you don't feel someone who's "been there & done that" would, or should, be against the war.  If I'm wrong about that, it won't be for the first time in my life..it's merely an observation.

The throwing around of political labels is another observation.  But how long that practice has existed has nothing to do with it being either right, constructive, or conducive to a respectful discussion of opinions.

It wasn't "little" that I drew emphasis to..it was "discussion."  This war is tremendously important, with obviously staggering implications, & certainly worthy of views being exchanged.  But regardless of dictionary definitions, there is IMO a distinction between discussion, debate, & argument.  What has most often transpired on these boards has been debate & argument..those are devisive rather than constructive.

Personally I believe that diplomatic mistakes were made by the US, there were also mistakes made by other nations.  I also think that ultimately this war was unavoidable.  So while it can be said I support the war, I certainly haven't been eager to see us rush into it.

If I've chosen not to participate these exchanges more frequently is because of the turns that typically take place & has nothing to do with my "sitting back removed from it all with a haughty I'm above it all point of view."  Nor is it because I'm an "ignoramus"--thank you very much, but I'll refrain from further response to that.

A final point of agreement...I've also now spent enough time on this thread.

I respectfully disagree. To each his own. I happen to think he is absolutley brilliant. But if you and others don`t think so that`s fine too.

You still didn`t respond to the statement I made in the post though. Any thoughts?

-- Modified on 3/25/2003 4:01:16 PM

The fact that the last 6 months has been used by the Democrats to position themselves for the next election cycle, rather than to contribute in a constructive manner to our policy direction is disgraceful.

In many cases, they have let their personal hatred for George Bush (the man) blind them as to their greater responsibilties as elected officials.  As a result, many Democrats have invested heavily in the President's failure as their only chance of regaining power.  This puts them in the awkward postion of quietly betting against the home team, but it does reveal their true priorities, as well as the selfishness of their motivations.  I find that to be perhaps the most disappointing and distasteful aspect of the entire matter.

-- Modified on 3/25/2003 5:30:22 PM

If the two of you would have just posted at the begining of this thread we all could have saved a lot of time and space.

Very well said by both of you.

Mr. HootOwl,

For the record, I am white, english/danish, and episcopal.  Read the last three monologues of this ass-h, Miller, replace his references to muslims, or latins, with black or jewish.  You will see more transparently how racist this bastard is ...  somehow he has been muzzled a bit, but I remeber this monkey when he had that HBO program.

that those on the politically right radio talk shows continue to spew out at Clinton more than two years after the fact(let it go already), and those in this administration who continue to blame Clinton for the economic malaise we're in, and every foreign policy quandry that Bush finds himself entangled in.

You said that the Democratic party has contributed nothing to the direction of our nation's policy. Well how about the Democratics who voted to give the President authorization to use force against Iraq last fall? Sweeping statements like the one you made, that have no basis in fact, are going to get challenged.

And stop crying moral outrage when Democratic politicians play politics with everything under the sun, because the Republicans do it too. Both parties want to be in power, so of course the Democrats are setting up the next election, that's politics 101. And both are equally guilty of playing dirty pool, a time of war not withstanding. MfSD.

Dude, wish I had the same crystal ball you seem to be peering in to. You've made so many assumptions here regarding the final outcome of this Iraq scenario, I'm not even going to begin to address them.

Saw the Lanny Davis piece too, ho hum. And you're right, it wasn't 90 % reimbursement on the first gulf war by our allies, it was 95 %. MfSD.

Come on now Nicole, the political blame game is as old as the Republic itself. Poitical name calling, selective bending of the truth, gamesmenship and other dirty pool aren't going away anytime soon.

Go back and take a look at some of the campaign literature that was printed up by Roosevelt's opponenets for President, during WW 2. One would think that Roosevelt had started WW 2 himself(some conspiracy theorists allege he knew about Pearl Harbor before hand). His political opponents then weren't too worried about appearing to be unsupportive of the troops. And I dare say that conflict had a bit broader implications then this current "war".

Republicans don't like to be reminded that Republican Congressman Tom Delay of Texas(the current House majority leader) stood on the floor of the US House(I watched it personally on C Span) and questioned Clinton's policy in the Balkans, our "liberation" of the muslim populations in Kosovo, who were being selectived murdered by the Milosevic regime. And this was while our pilots were in the air over Kosovo conducting combat operations. Yep there's equal blame to go around. MfSD.

Brilliant refute!

Your reponse to a Liberal Democratic spokesman's contention that the diplomacy you hold so dear was undermined by a French asshole is, "ho hum".  Again, brilliant!

Easy to claim verteran status, little harder to come up with service stats and facts.

As far as those who opposed Roosevelt in WWII, history has shown them wrong.  As it will this time.  Roosevelt was right and we needed to get into WWII, but let's remember that it was a democrat majority in Congress who balked, until Pearl Harbor!

As far as Tom Delay, you might also remember that the Congress, held by the Republican party did not follow or agree with his argument.  Congress with a Republican majority backed President Clinton and not another word was heard from Delay on the subject.

It is also worth mentioning that the hundreds and thousands of claimed murdered Muslims of the Milsoevic regime have not been uncovered.  We saw plenty of aerial images of supposed mass graves, but once the UN got into the area, that talk stopped as they found very little to no evidence to back up the claim.

I don't mean to support Milsoevic or his tyranny, but where's the proof?  If it was confirmed, we would all have seen it on CNN.

My guess is you are not referring to the last 3 points of the post of Dennis Miller but some monologues that are not posted in this thread? True?  Do you have a link to these monologues?

Oh please.

The "small state" election strategy was devised to compensate for the fact that they knew they weren't going to win big states like California and New York, so they had to pick up electoral votes in twos and threes.  

The "disenfranchisement of black voters" is a myth that even the Clinton Justice Department rejected.  It's been kept alive by Democrats as ammunition for the next election, nothing more.

As for "daddy's" appointees to the Supreme Court, he put exactly two justices on the nine-member court.  And one of those, David Souter, turned out to be a closet liberal and votes with the left wing of the court consistently.  That's hardly enough to carry out a vast Bush Family conspiracy to steal the presidency.  

My, but facts are inconvenient things, aren't they?

I think the silliest argument I've heard against this war is that because the world is full of brutal dictators we shouldn't act against any of them.  

reasonable people can agree to disagree. But if you think that you're entitled to know what my service record, branch etc. was, you are wrong. Frankly it's irrelevant as far as I can see, as is any further continuation of this discussion. MfSD.

So what is the difference between what Delay did, and what Daschle has been vilified for in this current situation, other that the fact that Daschle is the minority leader in the Senate? He did vote for Presidential authority to use force against Iraq back in the fall.

Politics 101, call it what you wish, but that's what it is, and it's practiced on both sides of the political aisle.

If you want to make the claim that there was no genocide of any kind in Kosovo, you're entitled to that point of view. I respectfully disagree based on news reports, and first hand discussions with colleagues of mine who were there. MfSD.

Reennis Miller on keeping it simple....

--If you think every conflict is reducible to good guy vs. bad guy, your brain has obviously failed to develop past the cowboy shows on kids' TV--in which case maybe you can be president.

   Well, I guess we know who you believe the bad guy is.  I find the people who are that harsh about the president are the type that would oppose him no matter what he did.  Notice they weren't out protesting when Bill Clinton threatened the same war for the same reasons in 1998.

--If you have faith in the Bush Administration to champion freedom, keep this in mind; they have John Ashcroft heading the Justice Department. As for disarmament, don't forget the NRA is working out of the Oval Office now.

  I'd like to thank the Democratic National Committee for faxing over this week's talking points.  Regardless of whether the people you like politically are in charge, you can't escape the fact that the United States stands for freedom in a way the UN simply can't, not with most of its member namtions run by dictators or unelected monarchs.  And honestly, I was a little tired of being lectured on pacifism by China (still mopping up the blood in Tiannanmen Square) and Russia (standing on a pile of smoking bones in Chechnya).  

 The point is that the UN was given seventeen opportunities to enforce its own resolutions and it failed every time. The League of Nations brought about its own demise that way and, sadly, the UN may have done the same.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.  --Ditto for Dubya--except he's not as good at it.

  Roughly 70% of your fellow citizens would disagree with you.  Again, I say the venom people spit at the president personally should give you a clue as to their ulterior motives for opposing this war.

  In any case, Sheen's character has recently sent the US to war because he believes American power gives us a responsibility to act against tyrants.  As Josh recently said to Toby (both characters are Jewish) "If the US had been the world's policeman in the 1930's, you and I would have a lot more relatives."

9) We are not trying to liberate them.  --Again, agreed--Bush is lying about that.

  Sigh.  Okay, I'll leave you alone on the Bush-hating stuff now.  I think you're flying those colors high enough for everyone to see on their own.  

   But for the sake of argument, let's say the talk of liberating Iraqis is just pretext.  Let's say the administration dosn't really care that establishing the first Arab democracy on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia and Iran will start to bring down the tyrants all over the Middle East.  So what?  Who cares?  As long as their actions have that effect, and they will, then I don't give a damn.  As long as the job gets done.

Yes, Mr. HootOwl,  not from the points presented here.

When Miller started at Saturday Night Live, he was clearly talented, and a decent humnan being. Somehow, on the way to HBO, he changed colors.  The last thing we need here these days, is racism to separate us further.  

Some of us who have been raised in purely white and upper middle class environment, become blind in what constitutes racist remarks.

The difference is that Delay was denounced by the leadership of his party.   I have yet to hear Daschle denounced by anyone in his party.

BTW, you are the one who brought up military service!  I have noticed over my 50+ years that many claim vet status and when they are asked where, when, branch, company of service they go way.

Anonymous service history on a anonymous discussion board can hardly be considered an invasion of one's privacy.  But whatever.

I don't remeber anything other than a few comments that his trashing of Clinton's Balkans policy was innappropriate during war time. Apparently this type of behavior displayed by Delay in 1998 must not matter much to the Republican party, he is now the House Majority leader, IOW the 2nd ranking position behind Speaker Hastert.

On the other hand, maybe it's just this kind of attack dog behavior that got Delay where he is today.

No, I'm not going to tell you when and where I served, there are things called security clearances that follow one throughout one's life, and frankly you don't want to know, just be glad that I served, as you did. MfSD.  

-- Modified on 3/27/2003 2:10:29 PM

Reelay was Denounced?

Delay was denounced, and rightfully so, by every ranking Republican member of the Senate, Hastert and  quite a few ranking Republican Congressmen.  Not to mention most leading conservative talk show hosts.

I guess the Republicans forgave his mistake, not unlike the Democrats have forgotten Robert Byrd's leadership and membership in the Ku Klux Klan!

Furthermore, I personally thought it was low budget and unpatriotic in lieu of pilots involvement.  Although I would stop short of calling the Balkan's a war.  It was a bomb raid.  More Chinese were at risk from the high altitude bombing than GI's.

I still haven't heard any leading Democrats publicly mention  that Daschle's remarks were inappropriate.  But they sure seem to be putting a distance between themselves and Daschle.

LOL if you consider Delay an attack dog, what do you think of James Carville?

Touché about the service stuff, I know I was in some places we never were.  But as someone who has had more than one comrade die in his arms, I do not take war lightly.  I don't take 9/11 lightly either and I believe its time we hunted those dogs down and killed them!  And Hussein is a good start.

I haven't heard these monologues (barely watched him on HBO), so I can't really comment.

From  the chickenhawk database ( http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html ):

Tom Delay: "DeLay's excuse for having a yellow streak as wide as the Rio Grande down his back is truly imaginative, if you take a delight in the bizarre. The man who believes Dioxin is good for you (again, we are not making this up), claims that he volunteered for Vietnam, but all the spots were taken up by minorities, so he was not allowed to serve. Clearly all those years of exposure to toxic chemicals had some serious side effects on 'Ol Tom." - Esther and/or Jeff Clark

and with the CIA, your information about the following:

> I don't take 9/11 lightly either and I believe its time we hunted > those dogs down and killed them!  And Hussein is a good start.

If you are the guy with the proof of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, you owe it to the world to produce it - Aaudi Arabia, home of most of the perpetrators, will probably give you an oil field.

Since al-Qaeda and Bin Laden  have taken credit for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  And since al-Qaeda is now fighting with the Iraqi forces loyal to Hussein.  It doesn't take much of a leap to make the connection.  Check in that oil well for me!

BTW, your link was dead.  I tried to join the Navy in 1966 and was told by recruiters they were full.  I know that the Army had plenty of openings for Delay.  Since I can't open your link I don't know the whole story so can't really comment.  However, I have never heard that he went to a foreign country like England and led protesters against our country, I've not heard that he made a statement like "I loathe the military." Like Slick Willy did.  

Delay has never done anything so abhorrent as be a Member of the Ku Klux Klan like Byrd.  What are your thoughts on this piece of work?

Article below to back up my al-Qaeda comment.

British Link Iraq to al-Qaeda; Iraqis Slaughter Their Own; Bombs Rock Baghdad

NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, March 28, 2003
British intelligence officials said they now had evidence of a direct link between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

British intelligence officers have learned that up to a dozen al-Qaeda volunteers were fighting alongside the pro-Baghdad guerrilla forces in As Zubaya, a town outside Basra.

After a British raid on the Baath Party headquarters in As Zubaya Wednesday to capture paramilitary leaders, Arabic-speaking intelligence officers interrogated the captured defenders. They were told that volunteers from al-Qaeda were taking part in the town's defense and helping to organize the pro-Baghdad resistance.

Transcripts of the interrogations have been shared with U.S. military intelligence.

By your logic the US Govt. is also allied with Hussein. We 'volunteered' as allies and supplied weapons, money and - yes - chemical and biological weapons to support his war with Iran. So I guess we need to shoot ourselves.

BTW, the classic Republican response of 'but look at what Clinton did' is recognized by all as translating to "I have no defensible argument for your point, therefore I will change the focus to something completely unrelated.

Let me spell it out for the feeble minds: Delay is a hawk, he was a coward who avoided military service as are Bush, Cheney, Barr, Gingrich, Gramm, Hutchinson, Hastert, Lott, Shelby, Souder ( a small list of Republican chickenhawks) and Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Reagan, Clancy, Medved, Savage (short list of chickenhawk media mouths). They were cowards who now cheerfully push others into harms way for their own agendas as opposed to Clinton who was a coward who used some modicum of restraint in risking the lives of others.

One can support the troops and still be against this war and those who fomented it. Saying otherwise is like saying that in order to support firemen we must be in favor of arson.

Iraq isn't supporting Al Qaeda, you knucklehead - Al Qaeda is supporting Iraq.

-- Modified on 3/29/2003 3:19:21 PM

What outright bullshit.  We supplied Iraq with chemical and biological weapons.  Your hatred of Bush has giving you a meltdown.  You just make this bullshit up and the mental midgets on the left just gobble it up.  I really don't know how to debate with an outright liar.

The Congress and the Senate are filled with those who saw no military service, on both sides.  With your rational, we should not have involved ourselves in WWII because Roosevelt was crippled.  How stupid.

The military is all volunteer, nobody is "pushed" into it!  I do agree that Clinton was a coward, who did absolutely nothing to defend this country from terrorist.  And you brought him up!  Here's a short list of things he did nothing about:

1993 WTC bombing
Two Embassies in Africa bombings
Troop Barracks in Saudi Arabia bombings
USS Cole bombing

He was a useless, do nothing president whose main mission was to appease.  Your defense of him is the thin bubble of the Tech boom of the 90's.  I guess you think that if Gore was president, Yahoo would still be at $350.00 per share, what tripe.

Thank God we now have a President who has taken his oath seriously and has the balls to blow off the self serving French and fringe radicals in this country!

al Qaeda had training camps within a hours drive of Badhdad.  We found video of them testing chemical weapons on dogs that were acquired from Hussein. If you can't see the connection, you're a fool.  If you fought with those assumptions in any war, you would be what we called a memory and highlighted on the The Darwin Awards.  I don't think you are stupid, I think you are just dishonest with your opinions and very reckless and inventive with your facts.

One last thing, with all the weapons we supposedly supplied Saddam, how come he uses Russian tanks and artillery, Russian AK-47's, Chinese scuds, etc?  Where are all those weapons you claim?  The answer is obvious, you are full of shit.  You know the help was minimal and we helped Iran most likely in the same manner.  Resulting in a standoff and a little stability in the Middle East.

Reelay's lack of service record

Very informative and totally unbiased.  And so very important and pertinent.  And I guess we can all assume that  all democrats served with distinction?

Very few people joined during the Viet Nam War.  I did because my father did, and grandfather did.  But to those who didn't, as a War Veteran with three tours of Viet Nam in my history, I do not consider them lesser for it.

I do however consider those who ran to Canada as cowards and  traitors.  Those men who felt compelled to take a stand and who went to prison for their resistance, I also call Patriots.  

It was an unpopular war, mainly because of the stalemate caused by Political intervention of the Johnson and Nixon administrations.  Viet Nam could have been won if those appeasers would have given control to General Westmoreland.  Bush is not making the same mistake!

> What outright bullshit.  We supplied Iraq with chemical and
> biological weapons.

Yes, we did. I commend to you the following article (before you howl about the political leanings of the author or the web site, know that the main source quoted is the New York Times):

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

I await your aplology for being a fool.

> The Congress and the Senate are filled with those who saw no
> military service, on both sides.

No, it is predominately on the Republican side. Do some homework, don't just foam at the mouth.

> With your rational, we should not have involved ourselves in WWII
> because Roosevelt was crippled.

I have no idea where that came from. Neither, I suspect, do you.

> I do agree that Clinton was a coward, who did absolutely
> nothing to defend this country from terrorist.  And you brought
> him up!

No, you brought him up in your previous post. Please try to keep up.

>  Thank God we now have a President who has taken his oath
> seriously and has the balls to blow off the self serving French
> and fringe radicals in this country!

Our president sold his oath to the oil industry and Enron - Halliburton getting the first Iraq contract is just a down payment. You're proud of his alienation of many of our historical allies, the French included - I'm appalled that he lacks the most basic diplomatic skills that would enable any competent President to build a coalition.

Let's look at some of your 'facts'. Here's an interesting link from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.chemical/index.html
It shows that the tapes you refer to show the following:
" Coalition intelligence sources who have examined this tape said it appears to be an al Qaeda experiment with lethal chemicals at the terrorist group's former Darunta camp in remote Afghanistan."

You're either misinformed or prone to repeating third-hand accounts, filling in the appropriate nation to suit your purpose.

As for Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, a CNN article states the following:
" The camp is in the northern Kurdish area of the country, outside the control of the Iraqi regime, but Iraq has kept track of events there by infiltrating Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic group that controls the area, Powell said.

Intelligence services disagree whether the camp is actually linked to Saddam's regime."

Did you get that? Outside the control of the Iraqi regime?

Link to full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/

Get your facts straight, or at the very least get some facts.

How cute you are, with a link to the darwin awards. Was that a dig aimed at me?

Now let's see how you do with facts. I'm betting you either fade away or begin to foam at the mouth.

I'll type very slowly.

Tom Delay is the subject because Tom Delay is rabidly in favor of this war and has been from day one. He is one of the leaders who pushed for the opportunity for many people to die. He personally is a coward who didn't have the integrity to simply stand and say that he didn't care to fight, offering up lame excuses like so many of his Republican brethren who are also behind this war, right up to the pretender in chief who is in fact a deserter from his national guard post. That's a fact, no matter how you spin it.

I volunteered for service during the Vietnam war. It makes me neither more or less noble than those who didn't.

Chickenhawks are the worst sort of cowards. They counted themselves too important to serve, yet think nothing of sending others into combat. Before you begin to howl about Clinton yet again, nobody in their right mind could call him a hawk.

-- Modified on 3/29/2003 10:47:39 PM

After reading your first link, I found no evidence that the US sold Saddam any chemical weapons!  The fact that the US did not take action as Saddam used them against Iran certainly doesn't give evidence about our complicity.  Not only does the author take wide berth with the facts, but I certainly do not consider the New York Times to be a fair and balanced news source.

Again, I ask you with all the military arm sales to Iraq that you claim, why aren't they using any of our stuff against us?  Everyone agrees we have the best military hardware, why isn't Saddam using it against us?  The answer is obvious, he doesn't have it and all the liberal editorializing in the world won't change that FACT!

Do you think we were the only ones doing covert operations during the cold war?  I still consider your original allegation of US supplied chemical and biological weapons as bullshit.

As far as lack of military service in Congress and Senate being equal, where would one find that information?  Certainly you in all honesty won't refer me back to that asinine Chickenhawk website.   And I'm not taking your word for it.  And I don't see the relevance.

The Roosevelt comment was clear, but I will explain:  Since you seem to think that only military service should give a leader authority to make decisions about military issues, Roosevelt had no right to take the US into WWII, a viable extension of your logic..

Clinton was a coward, who did absolutely nothing to combat terrorism during his 8 year presidency.

As far as Haliburton is concerned, there are currently two companies in the US who have the ability and technology to repair/rebuild the Iraqi oil fields.  Although neither of us know why they received the contract (other than your cynicism), I will agree that the decision should have been opened to more public scrutiny.  I would hope that contracts would be given to American companies and whoever received it, if they be American, you would find some conspiracy.

Did you even read the CNN link about al qaeda?  The difference between us is that I tend to believe Powell and the US, and you seem to be taking Saddam at his word?  To say that areas in Kurdistan are out of Saddam's control is ludicrous.  Maybe since March 17th.  Saddam has tanks, artillery, helicopters and a supposed 500,000 man army.  what do the Kurds have?  Get real.  Saddam is knee deep in assisting terrorism, to not acknowledge it is ridiculous.

You ultimately dislike Bush to the point that in my opinion you are open to every Conspiracy Theory that emerges and willing to take Saddam Hussein and his spokesman at their word.  I think that attitude is not only pitiful, but most likely deadly.  

Finally, I think the Iran-Contra issue went pretty well.  We had Iran pay for the ouster of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.  All the while keeping Iran and Iraq at a stalemate.  I think it was pretty good policy.  I know you disagree, but the people of Nicaragua don't!  After three free elections, first one audited by Jimmy Carter, they have not returned Ortega to power.  They have lived under communist tyranny and don't want it back.  BTW Reagan is considered a Saint in Nicaragua, even if not in liberal US circles.

P.S.  The reference to the Darwin Awards was pointed at those, (whom I assume you agree) who feel that we should appease Saddam and those members of the UN council who will and to some extent have already been found to be complicit in arming Saddam.  ie. France, Germany, Russia and China!

I too served in Viet Nam at the tip of the spear and from the very beginning of this thread have questioned military service relevance in leadership.

You say  "It makes me neither more or less noble than those who didn't." but then continue on with this useless diatribe.  What's up with that?

Your opinion inregards to chickenhawks is just that, your opinion and it is baseless.

Your comments in regards to President Bush being a deserter are baseless and stupid propaganda which of course your subscribe.  No doubt you also subscribe to the conspiracy theroy that President Bush and the CIA planned and paid for the 9/11 attacks.  

Your insistance that a war waged and fucked up by a democratic president and democrat controlled congress and senate some 30 to 40 years ago has so little relevance other than shock value that it really deserves no further debate.

You rewrite history and pick and choose your 'facts' and souces while accusing me of the same. You are blinded by the hypocrisy of your position and your heroes. Bush deserted - or what would you call his failure to report for over a year and his former commanding officer's statement that he never reported?

Be comforted behind your blinders and secure in the knowledge that anyone who thinks Bush is a criminal must therefore be a supporter of Saddam. Thank god you're in no position to influence policy - there are enough armchair generals second-guessing the professionals as it is.

Look, if Bush had deserted as you claim, the military would have found him and subjected him to a court martial.  He was pretty easy to find throughout all those years leading up to his Presidency.  I would hardly call being the Governor of Texas being on the run!  Not to mention that if he did desert and his commanding officer didn't report him as such (which he didn't)  he is guilty of dereliction of his duty.

Now I suppose you think that Bush had the Judge Advocate General in his back pocket.  That kind of a charge wouldn't have gone away until months before the 2000 election and then re-emerged.   Just how far does this conspiracy go in your world?

In your referenced CNN article, Colin Powell gives evidence to Saddam's complicity with al qaeda, the only credible rebuttal to his information is the Saddam regime's denying those reports.  I choose to accept the US side of the argument and you don't.  I find that suspect.

Most of the armchair generals second guessing Bush are journalist, and long ago most of those have replaced reporting with editorializing.  With the exceptions of those journalist who are embedded with the troops in Iraq.

http://www.awolbush.com/

Now there is a credible source!  

Why wasn't he Court Martialed?  Why did his "Commanding Officer" wait thirty years to report it?

Why is it that all credible news sources have dropped this story?

Why is it that you believe this horseshit?

Here's a simple google search - all the links you need to learn, though I doubt you're interested in reading anything that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world. You'll ignore all of it just as you ignore the truth about Bush.

If you were remotely interested in truth you'd be able to find things on your own, but I suppose you get all the information you need fron Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Fox news.

Are you an idiot? He wasn't court marshalled because his father is George Herbert Walker Fucking Bush.

That's a rhetorical question. You've already proven the answer. Facts are wasted on you.

Of all those websites listed on the first 2 pages of your google search only one was from a legitimate news source, CBS.  Even CBS is suspect to me, their reporting is almost always slanted with a liberal undertone.

However, in their journalist honesty they give credit to their information to a "newspaper".   Why not list the documents in question?   (excerpt below)

"The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague. "

In lieu of the situation with the iran/Iraq war, even now in 20/20 hindsight experts are split as to the rational of the policy.  (excerpt below)

"Foreign affairs experts are split on whether the policy made sense given the different dynamics of an earlier era when the Soviet Union was still a player in the Middle East, when Iranian fundamentalism was unchecked by the current efforts toward reform, and when Saddam was already a valued friend of European U.S. allies like the French.

Vital American interests were also at stake. The U.S. assistance to Iraq came only after Iran gained the upper hand in their eight-year war, and looked poised to threaten the Persian Gulf states, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia — key suppliers of oil to the United States. "

Many times in our history we have supported dictators and still do when they are friendly to our Country.  For example in the Mid-East we now have friendly diplomatic relations with Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.  These countries are all dictatorships, although they are arguably do not present their citizens with the Freedoms and Liberties we enjoy in America, they do not have the history of severe human rights violations that Saddam's Iraq have.

Furthermore, in 20/20 hindsight assisting Saddam in any way appears to have been bad policy.  Although without our support, Iran may have defeated Iraq and the whole region may very well have been under the control of Iran's militant fundamental Muslim control.  Could the rest of the region be stable long?

In my opinion decisions were made with the information available at the time to protect US interests in the region.  If you feel that our policy was self serving, then yes, by all means I would agree with you.

If you think that now that we recognize huge miscalculations were made in regards to Saddam's benevolence that we should turn our backs and let him run roughshod over the region, I beg to disagree.

That you subscribe to some diabolical conspiracy in past actions I can only point out that 18% of the people in the United States still believe that Elvis is alive.

And I suppose you believe the press protected the son of  a then politically conservative  Ambassador to the United Nations against this alleged injustice.

Yea Right!

If you care to remember the Nixon White House did not enjoy a friendly press or media and they would have ripped this apart in every newspaper and media news outlet in this country.  They went after every other hint of inpropiety with the zeal of vultures.  The lack of reporting this issue from every legitimate news source is quite remarkable.  

Your desire to believe the worst about Bush is disgusting.  Ask your doctor if Paxil is for you!

-- Modified on 4/1/2003 11:30:29 AM

Your desire to believe anything the Bush administration says is equally if not more disgusting. You and the rest of the Republican sheep will cheerfully stand by while national policy is sold to the highest bidder.
GWB is a criminal, a deserter (go ahead - produce some shred of evidence like reports of an honorable discharge - proof that he was ever in the same state as his last post) and has used his family name and connections (which go back much further than his father so tell me, just what kind of government connections do you need to get an ambassador's post?) to lie cheat and steal his way to wealth and power.
Your hero, no doubt.

I'm done with you. I finally remembered some words of wisdom, far too late. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

-- Modified on 4/1/2003 9:02:45 PM

Since this is still America, with a Free Press, and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, its not my job to produce proof, it the Conspiracy Theorist like yourself.

This would not have been overlooked by the American Media.

And it seems that other than fringe lunatics like yourself, over 75% of the American people are in full agreement with the Bush Doctrine.  Last time I checked, Republicans didn't nearly have that kind of membership.  You are a sore ass loser who can't stand the fact that his leftist wing is floundering and will crash and burn soon.

I did however get a kick out of the pig thing!