My column is back and better than ever

[shmokes]

This Monday's column is up!  Check it out   In this one you'll get to see me take Democrats to task instead of Republicans -- specifically those pansy asses who are complaining about being misled into war by George Bush.

...tell me that ain't getting you interested. How often do you hear something like that from a flaming liberal like me?

www.campkatrinablog.com (Jake Moses Mondays)

[ChadTower]

You may also recall that my mother, Commissioner Joni Eastley, is an elected official in Nye County and chairman of the county's Brothel Board.

[shmokes]

Nope...that's the mother of the guy who runs the website.  Many people may not be aware of the fact that in Nevada (except Clark County, where Las Vegas is) prostitution is legal and there are many legal Brothels (aka whorehouses) in the state.

To see my column you'll have to scroll down, or click the archive link under my picture "Jake Moses Mondays" on the left side of the page.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, I read about half of it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, if I had to take a more extremist view than I already do, I'd agree with the sentiment that all those who voted for the war should be out on their asses.

However, I don't think it's as simple as that.

Not that I want to be in a position to defend them, but the fact remains that members of Congress DID NOT see the same intelligence as the Bush admin, and in fact, dissenting intel was actually KEPT from them.

So as much as I want a shiny, happy, idealistic Congress - the argument as it's being hashed out really amounts to, "F*ck the Dems, they trusted the President!"...and unfortunately, I don't see how our Democracy would function if that trust wasn't implicit in the decision making process. It's unfortunate that the Bush admin violated that trust, since, in the future, a president may honestly be making the case for war (a necessary war) and we'll find a Congress unwilling to act due to "Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome.

Let me be clear: I've never supported the war in Iraq and knew it to be a sham since the first murmurs (days after 9/11) that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi official in Prague. It stunk, and it was obvious.

Ultimately, when I have a choice at the ballot box between someone who openly supported the war and someone who openly objected to it, it would certainly weigh on my vote (there'd be other considerations, I'm not a single-issue voter)...however, to simply call for the removal of everyone who voted for the "authorization to use force in diplomatic efforts fail" (NOT a vote for War, mind you)...is impractical and inoperative. It just won't happen.

This issue is one of the few things I try to be pragmatic about. Otherwise, I'd go insane and snipe people from the tops of buildings and we don't want that. (ed: Dear Secret Service - that is a joke!)

Lastly, you state members of Congress "never were misled; their constituents were." Well, they are elected by those constituents in order to represent those constituents. Howard Dean found it easier to dissent on the war because his constituents, by-and-large, objected to it. How would our system function if Congresspeople simply voted their conscience, time and again...without consulting the people who hired them? Maybe this isn't the best argument, when War in the issue, but I think it'd be interesting to look how that factored in.

Saving one's ass, often amounts to serving the will of the people.



mrC

[ChadTower]

Many people may not be aware of the fact that in Nevada (except Clark County, where Las Vegas is) prostitution is legal and there are many legal Brothels (aka whorehouses) in the

It should be like this in most places, really.  Seems to work out well there.

[patrickl]

Nice take on the issue, but personally I would say that the senators were misled also. Weren't they fed the same falsified CIA intel as the public was?

*weird typing errors fixed

[ChadTower]

Erm, no, the Senate has access to confidential intel that would never reach the public.

[fredster]

I like the Article Smokes.

MrC, exactly what intel were the Dems Missing actually?

[ChadTower]

See, it's a good thought.  But Kerry sits right on the Intelligence Committee, that supposedly sees everything.

He voted to go to war, not because he thought it was right, but because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

It is now the politically expedient thing to say stuff like "If I knew then what I know now I would not have voted to go to war."  Uh, yeah, you and everyone else, there, Kerry.

Of course, Kerry would not have known then even what he should have known then since he has the worst attendance ON the Intelligence Committee.

[shmokes]

Mr C, that's my point.  You knew it was a sham.  It was "obvious".  There ain't nothing you know about it that every single one of those Senators did not know.  Your Senators are, or certainly should be, as capable of smelling ---smurf-poop---, as you or me.  In fact, with all the extra information they have, and the fact that it is the job they are paid to do all day, every day, their noses should actually be considerably more sensitive and capable than yours or mine. 

And yes, it's reasonable for a Senator to take the views of the majority of his/her constituents into account as one factor that influences his/her vote.  But when the Senator knows, as well as you or I, that his constituent's views on the issue are based solely on a campaign of misinformation, as every one of those Senators knew, then the fact that they still go along with it, especially something as grave as sending a bunch of children with M-16's into another country to be killed, is reprehensible.. 

Sorry for the appeal to emotion, there, but it's just so effective that it's hard to resist sometimes.

Would I vote them out of office to have them replaced by a Republican?  No.  But I don't think anyone who votes like that deserves the spot.


By the way, check it out.  I'm kinda proud of this.   Real Clear Politics, a huge political website, chooses ten articles per day from around the internet that they will link to.  Oftentimes the list is filled with famous columnists.  My article got linked today.  Congratulations to me !   

[fredster]

Congratulations Smokes.

As far as the article, I did like it as I said. Nice opinion piece without too much crap being thrown.

I guess you look at it like that, if you assume that it was as you think, a sham from the upfront.

Or, just perhaps, they all agreed because the intel was just as reliable as any of our intel.  And everybody from top down thought what we had it nailed, and Saddam was sitting on weapons. That's a possiblity isn't it?  That it was in fact, an honest mistake?

I mean, the UN thought there were weapons so they sent people in to find them.  The UK thought there were weapons.  On and on and on.

Maybe they didn't think it was a "sham".  There is the great possiblity that what we saw was what happened.  Maybe all this "Bush Lied People Died" is a smoke screen or perhaps a way to politically capitalize on Bush's fall from grace?

Is that a possibility?

[ChadTower]

As well as the possibility that the weapons did and still do exist.  Not finding something is not proof of its nonexistance.

[shmokes]

Sure it's a possibility.  But it's a possibility that I'll win the lottery tomorrow.  The chances of it are just so low, however, that for all intents and purposes I can reasonably refer to it as a fact that I will be as poor tomorrow as I am today. 

For the record I was as suprised as the next guy when it turned out that Saddam had apparently destroyed all his WMDs just like he said.  I think just about everybody assumed that he had them, regardless of whether they supported the war.

[shmokes]

Oh...and thanks for the compliment Fredster.  But don't think this makes us friends.   

[ChadTower]

For the record I was as suprised as the next guy when it turned out that Saddam had apparently destroyed all his WMDs just like he said.

[shmokes]

There isn't any.  But there's lots of evidence.  We know for a fact that a lot of weapons were destroyed; it's documented. 

As to the rest, well, you're pretty much the last person holding out on weapons turning up.  Even President Bush has admitted that there aren't any.

Hiding weapons is one thing, but it would be quite a feat to hide all traces of the development and manufacturing of these weapons.  Especially considering that we now run the country and have scores of Iraqi scientists and high-ranking officials working for us now who worked under Saddam before.

Running with the, "Iraq may still have WMDs," at this point is just foolish.  Not to mention beside the point.  As I said, I always thought he had them anyway.

[ChadTower]

There isn't any.

[fredster]

We know for a fact that a lot of weapons were destroyed; it's documented.

[shmokes]

We know for a fact that a lot of weapons were destroyed; it's documented. 

It was also "documented" that he had them too, but about everybody at the time.

As I said, I always thought he had them anyway.

Yep, and so did everybody else.

It was a "sham" but everybody thought he had them. Huh. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

It kinda makes me wonder about your reading comprehension skills.  In homage to one of my favorite characters I can answer your question quite well by saying: That depends on what your definition of "it" is.

[ChadTower]

It's all a philoshophical question, anyway... I mean, who on Earth possess more WMD than we do?

[fredster]

Well, it just seems to me that everybody on the intel committee came out and told us the intel was solid, at the time.

So "it" would be the issue of who believed what. From what I read, you admonished all the people who voted for the war and are now against it because they must have known the intel was false.

Maybe, just maybe, nobody lied. Maybe everybody really believed it and backed the idea, and the whole intel thing wasn't a "sham".

From what I read of it, you are assuming these people now decrying the war were liars then.  So that makes all these democrats liars? Am I missing something?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC, exactly what intel were the Dems Missing actually?  What didn't they see that they saw later, exactly?

Good thing you read the link I provided.

But for starters, the Niger uranium fraud. The al-Libi fabrications. White House pressure on the CIA. All the Intel discrediting the Source (Curveball), who stovepiped the Aluminum Tubes story, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq story, etc. The, all the dissenting intel from CIA about Saddam's Nuclear capabilities.

ALL OF IT. None of the pre-war intelligence that Bush used to justify the war turned out to be true and there were PLENTY of people inside the intelligence agency telling him that. Problem is, they did not have the authority, themselves, to tell the rest of Congress. So basically, Congress was only allowed to see the evidence that supported the administration's claims. Convenient, huh?

If they have proven that, do they have enough evidence to impeach Bush for lying?  Do they have a strong enough case or are they just going to keep on saying that they do?

Yeah, like we're going to see impeachment trials in a Republican controlled House/Senate?! Get real. There is already enough evidence available to impeach this president, and I imagine it will become more evident to more and more of the country as time goes on.

Where's the evidence Bush did it on purpose ?

What, you mean because we don't have an audio tape of him saying, "I'm doing it on purpose!" we can't critically look at the evidence gathering process, and the marketing of this war and surmise that on our own?  Every day more and more Americans are beginning to feel that Bush mislead them, and I bet - without a doubt - that if the Dems win back Congress in '06, you will see Impeachment trials.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, it just seems to me that everybody on the intel committee came out and told us the intel was solid, at the time.

Patently FALSE.

ONE WORD: PLAMEGATE

mrC

EDIT: I misread "committee" as "community"...I can't speak to who said what on the committee, but it really doesn't matter if dissenting opinion within the CIA was being stifled before it got to them, does it?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here's more evidence that Intel was falsely mischaracterized, and unsubstantiated claims were blatanly trumpeted by this Administration:

"The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines (registration req'd)




mrC

[ChadTower]

Oh noes!  The Germans disagreed with our Intel!

Because as we all know, the United States must get approval from the Germans before we do something.

How do you falsely mischaracterize something?  Wouldn't that be to make it more accurate?

Seriously, dude, you're so anxious to throw around your hyperbole that you are chomping your own message.

[fredster]

Jah!

Chad, MrC is da man. He is so convincing.

You know, with all this OVERWHELMING linkage you have, why don't we just go ahead and press charges against the President?

After all, this intel looks good MrC, everybody thinks so!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And you'll ignore the fact that it wasn't only the Germans, but an entire contigent of people within our own intel community. What the hell do you think the Plame case is about?

The Germans disagreed with our Intel

Disagreed? This isn't a matter of disagreeing. They had experience with one of the sole sources of intel used by this administration. They told the administration that his info wasn't reliable, and they used it anyway.

I mean, you can split hairs all you want, but it's obvious they knew the intel was bogus, but it was exactly what they needed.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

...OPERATION IGNORE IN FULL EFFECT...

What's your point exactly? That you're too apathetic to care?

We can't believe the government at all can we?

Yeah, no blood on your hands, eh?

EDIT: I wonder how long it'll be before you won't even admit to voting for Bush?


mrC

[ChadTower]

No, it is obvious they SAID the intel was bogus.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Anyhow, the point is, the statement that Congress shared the same intel as the President is false.  Simple as that. Bloviate and ignore all you want...


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It is all opinion now since the truth simply isn't possible to prove with the information that currently exists.

This is what the administration counted on. But I think we'll find that it won't matter in the court of public opinion.


mrC

[ChadTower]

The court of public opinion is moot during a second term.

[shmokes]

So that makes all these democrats liars? Am I missing something?

Um, yeah....that's basically the point I'm making in my article.  You might recall the last line of the article says something to the effect of, "Not a one of them deserves to be in office."  That might even be an exact quote.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The court of public opinion is moot during a second term.

So the GOP is being dissolved? They didn't tie their wagon to Bush? Two Republican candidates up for re-election haven't come out and directly stated that they'd rather not have Bush campaign for them?

You really think that the GOP will get away from Bush's fiery wreck of a presidency unscathed? I don't.



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So that makes all these democrats liars? Am I missing something?

Um, yeah....that's basically the point I'm making in my article.  You might recall the last line of the article says something to the effect of, "Not a one of them deserves to be in office."  That might even be an exact quote.

So you lend no credence to the idea that the WH stymied intelligence counter to their goals, and that Congress may not have seen this evidence at all?

I mean, if you're going to hold all of Congress accountable, don't you want to resolve that issue first?


mrC

[shmokes]

I just hold them to a higher standard than you.  What intelligence were you privy to that gave you the ability to peg the WH line as ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---?  You referred to it as being "obvious" as a matter of fact.  The reason I don't have to resolve the fact that George Bush manipulated the evidence is that two wrongs don't make a right, and this particular wrong wasn't fooling anybody in Congress. 

Polling data to these guys it's like the word of god.  It's no coincidence that the "We never would have supported the war if we had only known..." comes at exactly the same time that polling shows that opposing the war is, for the first time, a popular position.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Democrats are there right now, because the Republicans are so bad and the Democrats are the only ones powerful enough to get them out.  But these guys are slimy.  You seem to be forgiving pretty easily considering these were the only people in the world with the power to stop this war from happening, and instead the enabled it just the same as every rotten Republican senator/representative.

I cannot emphasize enough, if you or I had the power to see through Bush's ridiculous rationale for war, our Senators should have been able to do it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I just hold them to a higher standard than you.

I guess, if you consider it a lower standard to have lobbied (with a group of Vermont businessmen) for Dean as Chairman precisely because of his consistent anti-war stance. But don't sweat it, I've got my Dem shitlist...I just don't see any positive outcome in attacking them at the stage of the game. However, I plan to make my displeasure known in '06.

Right now, I see a bunch congressional Dems as the only thing standing between Iraq and Iran...or some sort of movement into Syria. They're being labeled traitors for speaking out now as it is, by the administration and it's supporters...and I don't see the benefit of piling on.

At some point, the only way to beat a group as unified and organized as the Republicans, is to become more unified and organized. There'll be a day of reckoning for a good majority of the hawkish Dems, of that, I am sure. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the politicians you have, not the ones you may wish you have."

What intelligence were you privy to that gave you the ability to peg the WH line as ---smurf-poop---?  You referred to it as being "obvious" as a matter of fact.  The reason I don't have to resolve the fact that George Bush manipulated the evidence is that two wrongs don't make a right, and this particular wrong wasn't fooling anybody in Congress. 

I see a disproportionate amount of responsibility between those who'd cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and those who'd choose to run, so I distribute my rage accordingly. The wrongs here aren't the same. But I don't expect you'll buy that.

Polling data to these guys it's like the word of god.  It's no coincidence that the "We never would have supported the war if we had only known..." comes at exactly the same time that polling shows that opposing the war is, for the first time, a popular position.

Not all. Dean has been on the correct side of this debacle since the beginning, and the grassroots made their voice known when the DNC was looking for a new chairman and through their influence, he got the job.

You seem to be forgiving pretty easily considering these were the only people in the world with the power to stop this war from happening, and instead the enabled it just the same as every rotten Republican senator/representative.

I'm not forgiving anything. I'm looking at the cards on the table and taking a nice bite of hot, steaming reality. The Dems certainly should have forced debate, pre-war. But in reality, the Republicans (at the time) held so much sway in public opinion, Dems would have been labeled traitors and effectively locked out of Congress. There dissent would probably not have stopped the war...Bush had already ramped up the war machine and sent it on it's way to Iraq, before the vote was ever taken to the floor. He wasn't calling them back.

I cannot emphasize enough, if you or I had the power to see through Bush's ridiculous rationale for war, our Senators should have been able to do it.

Maybe. But then again, our job - as citizens - is to be more skeptical than our representatives, thus the vote. They work for us. Sure they're expected to operate in that environment, but without oversight, you get the representation you deserve, so an America blinded by fear and hatred got a war based on such.

I'm really, mostly, disappointed in my fellow Americans. They're really the one's who let it happen.


mrC

[fredster]

Thanks for Clarifying that for me shmokes.  I just wanted to hear it again.

MrC, as far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed from Last November to this november. Nothing. I'd vote for Bush over Kerry and Bush over Gore AGAIN.

I still think the war was a good idea. The basic concept was good, the timing was excellent, and the execution was shock and awe. I'm not real happy about what's happend afterward. I think we could have been a little more efficient at wasting these terrorists and closing the borders. 

But otherwise, we are making progress.  We got Saddam out, we are setting up a democratic government in the middle of the middle east, and we have frightened Lybia and Egypt into being submissive to our demands.  The infrastructure is rebuilding, there is going to be a great country there when we are done.

You really think that the GOP will get away from Bush's fiery wreck of a presidency unscathed? I don't.

And you continue to underestimate the GOP. Keep on doing that MrC and you are not going to have a forehead left where you keep pounding it.

Bush has 3 years to get this right. That's a long time between now and then.  If he completes his Iraq mission well, we'll be figuring out how to carve his face on Rushmore.

[shmokes]

Thanks for Clarifying that for me shmokes.  I just wanted to hear it again.

Fredster, the extent of your thought process here is simply cute.  Don't you understand that in order for you to accept all this bad stuff I have to say about these congressional Democrats, you implicitly accept that Bush was deliberately misleading the American public and lying to Congress?

And while I think that Mr. C is sometimes inconsistent in the standards he holds politicians to based on their party affiliation, I think you're batshit crazy.  Do you have any idea what kind of trouble Bush is in?  His Job approval has hit 34%, just five points higher than Nixon's at the hight of Watergate.  He has republicans refusing offers that he campaign for them.  I don't know if you've noticed but Iraq is currently overrun by terrorists, where there were none before.  So much for the war on terror.  American soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are dying in large numbers on a daily basis.  We have no plan for Iraq.  Our plan is to just keep killing as many as we can, but they just keep coming.  To complicate matters Iraq is on the verge of civil war. 

Bush is currently overseas trying to bolster economic relations in China and the Iraq war is following him everywhere he goes.  At every stop he lashes out at the irresponsible, unpatriotic, war critics who are all but providing direct aid to the terrorists by letting them know that we are not united.

Top white house aides are under investigation/indictment for what could be defined as treason.  There's actually a debate going on in the country about whether we should be using torture.  Scott McClellan is on the virge of being fired retiring.  Just 40 percent of Americans call Bush honest and trustworthy now (ABC Poll).  55 percent say Bush intentionally misled the American public.

Far from carving his face on Mt. Rushmore, the next election will revolve around getting out of Iraq, and trust me...no republican will want to touch George W. Bush with a ten-foot pole.

Out of curiosity, considering you're not a man of faith, by what criteria do you come to the conclusion that Bush can turn Iraq around in three years?

And don't say shock and awe.  It's nothing more than a marketing buzzword (a really bad one).  Don't be a tool.

[fredster]

I reserve the right to enjoy whatever want, thank you Jake.

Fredster, the extent of your thought process here is simply cute.

Hey! I feel exactly the same way about yours! What do you know, great minds think alike don't we? I always told you we agree on more points than we disagree 

Top white house aides are under investigation/indictment for what could be defined as treason.

Treason? Really? Wow. And if they get cleared, then what ? As a law student can you claify does Indictment = Guilty? What's the indictment ratio of this administration compared to the other administations? Like Clinton's for example?

don't know if you've noticed but Iraq is currently overrun by terrorists, where there were none before.

Well, Saddam killed them didn't he?  And when he ran the country, there wasn't much of a chance for it.  Look at what happened in Bosnia after the fall.  That's a really weak argument. They couldn't operate in the open in Iraq.  They only had a few playerfields there. 

At every stop he lashes out at the irresponsible, unpatriotic, war critics who are all but providing direct aid to the terrorists by letting them know that we are not united.

Well said, I agree completely. What asses.

His Job approval has hit 34%, just five points higher than Nixon's at the hight of Watergate.

Or 2 points higher than Clinton in the last months of his First term.
Things can change given the right amount of time and PR.  It's that counting of eggs and chicken thing.

<red herring, red herring red herring>

Out of curiosity, considering you're not a man of faith, by what criteria do you come to the conclusion that Bush can turn Iraq around in three years?

Religion has nothing to do with it.  The operation takes time.  We are doing all the right things to make this happen.  We are maintaining security, training forces, and rebuilding the infrastructure.  Remember the "long slog" memo from Rumsfeld?  After a while this will pay off.

And don't say shock and awe.  It's nothing more than a marketing buzzword (a really bad one).  Don't be a tool.

That's your opinion, and you are more than welcome to your own opinion. I use it all the time to describe myself on job performance reviews.  It works great. 

There's actually a debate going on in the country about whether we should be using torture.

I'm missing that.  Who's winning? 

[ChadTower]

What do you know, great minds think alike don't we?

I hate that euphemism.  Not only is it not true, its popular usage is to comfort subpar intellects that they are not alone in being mediocre.

Great minds present new points of view and unique ideas.

Don't mean to imply that's the case here but that phrase always makes me cringe.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bush has 3 years to get this right. That's a long time between now and then.  If he completes his Iraq mission well, we'll be figuring out how to carve his face on Rushmore.

Yeah, because he's done so well the past FIVE years. Face it, Iraq is a failure...it was never going to be anything but. It's a flawed policy wrapped in a flawed ideology.

To add to Shmokes question (out of curiosity) at what point would you, yourself, consider Iraq a failure?

My guess is that you'd NEVER admit to it and you'd certainly never lay the blame at the feet of Bush's ill-advised doctrine. Most likely you'll gnash your teeth and blame it on Jane Fonda...

...not Bush who misled the public on WMD.
...not Rumsfeld who cut the number of troops initially sent into Iraq.
...not Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi Army. (a mistake admited to by the administration)

It's Liberals, and the media....and Jane Fonda....and Clinton's penis...and...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you really believe in the myth of unsurpassed American military might and, damn it, right or wrong we can WIN this thing...if only we can hold out loooooong enough, if just enough of our young men and women are slaughtered, we'll win this thing. Just like we *would have* won in Vietnam if it wasn't for the "cut and run" Dems!

American public be damned! You've got PRIDE invested in this thing...so send another 18yr boy over there to die or have his face blown off, because it'll be a cold day in HELL before you're ready to give up on SHOCK n' AWE, baby! SHOCK N' FREAKIN' AWE!

Right?



mrC

[fredster]

MrC, I tried to re-enlist in September, but I'm too old, and I've had too many surgeries over the years.

At what point did you decide the Iraq war was a failure? Exactly what would have been a success? How about that question? What would have to happen for you to think it was a "success"?

...not Bush who misled the public on WMD.
...not Rumsfeld who cut the number of troops initially sent into Iraq.
...not Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi Army. (a mistake admited to by the administration)

...Put up or Shut up on that one.  If somebody has evidence they can bring proceedings, I'll listen.
...I guess you graduated from West Point and you can determine troop levels ?
...Bremer was doing what he thought was I right at the time. It's not the mistakes we make but how we fix 'em now isn't it?

And it's not pride.  I just don't think it's BROKEN. I think the peanut gallery has had too much press time.  I don't think that what we are seeing is shocking.  I think what we did there was right and correct.  I remember the initial objectives, get rid of Saddam, get rid of the WMD, establish a regieme change.

Well, Saddam's out.  There are no WMD  , and we are changing the type of government.

Looks like success to me.

Yeah, because he's done so well the past FIVE years. Face it, Iraq is a failure...it was never going to be anything but. It's a flawed policy wrapped in a flawed ideology.

Flawed?  I thought he had a great first term.  The 9/11 attack was bad, but he's gained ground on that.  Taxes are down, Revenues are up.  The supreme court is still mostly conservative. Poverty has dropped, everybody is working. I wouldn't consider that "flawed".

It's all in the eye of the beholder now isn't it? "Flawed" and "failure" I mean.

What Bush hasn't done that really tees me is the border security issues (I want to see vans picking up illegals).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you really believe in the myth of unsurpassed American military might

Myth?  Who is stronger than the US Mr.C?
What qualifies it to be "myth"?

[ChadTower]

Myth?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Treason? Really? Wow. And if they get cleared, then what ?

And if they don't, then what?

fredster, we know someone committed what can best be described as treason; the public outing of an undercover agent as political retribution. The prosecutor stated, definitively, that a crime had been committed, but that Administration officials have been stonewalling the case, so he has not (as yet) been able to obtain enough evidence to prosecute on that charge, so he went with obstruction (for now). But you go on defending these traitors.

As a law student can you clarify does Indictment = Guilty? What's the indictment ratio of this administration compared to the other administrations? Like Clinton's for example?

You know, that doesn't make it right and it's sad to see you play the "but Clinton" card so soon, but since you asked:

Well, let's see: House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay has three indictments (so far), Scooter (the first White House aide indicted in 130 years) has one indictment for obstruction/perjury in a case involving the President's and Vice President's top aides, Michael Scanlon has just pleaded guilty to conspiracy...so the fireworks on that case have just started, and it's sure to reach deep inside Congress. Jack Abramoff, GOP uber-lobbyist has one indicted for fraud (so far). Ohio Republican Tom Noe has one indictment for money laundering (also currently under investigation for 'Coingate')

White House Top Adviser and Chief Architect of Bush's presidency, Karl Rove is still under investigation (possibly with sealed indictments) for the treasonous outing of a CIA agent, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is under investigation by the SEC for insider trading, Tom DeLay is under investigation by two separate prosecutors reporting to two separate Grand Juries.

That pretty much covers the entire spectrum of GOP leadership at the Federal level, and in some cases, the state level...and these aren't Democratic witch hunts, since, as the minority party, they did NOT have the power to initiate any of these investigations, unlike the GOP under Clinton. All in all, the GOP brought this all upon themselves, and they have no one else to blame for their fetid culture of corruption.


Boo-freakin'-Hoo!


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Myth?  Who is stronger than the US Mr.C?

How long until we start considering saying the Chinese?

Short of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction)...I'd say our Military forces are so strapped and spread so thin, that the Chinese could whip our asses in a flat second. 


mrC

[fredster]

MrC,

I could care less about indictments of OHIO officials. There's that everwhere. They indicted 4 TN Dems and 1 GOP senators here.

Scotter isn't under indictment for the "outing", only a "cover up" and lying to the speical procecutor.  That's not exactly "treason". Tom Delay has made a lot of enemies over the years.  He isn't the first in his seat to see this kind of action is he?  Jack Abramoff, he's a money man. We should sacrfice some of them anyway.

"Under Investigation" is meaningless to me also.  I'm probably "under investigation" somewhere by somebody.

If they are guilty, good.  Bind them, gag them, throw them in a cell and eat the key.

There were 3 people arrested in my company for drunk driving, one for stealing, and one for beating his wife.  Does that mean my company is somehow immoral? 

All in all, the GOP brought this all upon themselves, and they have no one else to blame for their fetid culture of corruption.

Short of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction)...I'd say our Military forces are so strapped and spread so thin, that the Chinese could whip our asses in a flat second. 

Really? And you base that learned opinion on what blog?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

At what point did you decide the Iraq war was a failure? Exactly what would have been a success? How about that question? What would have to happen for you to think it was a "success"?

As far as I'm concerned, Iraq was a success before we invaded. No WMD (which you seem to find funny), no ties to Al Qaeda, and no imminent threat to the United States of America.

It is only NOW a failure through lack of continued diplomacy. Insurgency is on the rise, Al Qaeda is ONLY NOW operation in Iraq, and now this:

"Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance."

So even the people you believe we are trying to "save" now think it's ok to kill you.

EDIT: So to clarify, success, to me, meant STAYING OUT.

It's not the mistakes we make but how we fix 'em now isn't it?

Yeah, it's time to get out.

Looks like success to me.

• The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year.
• In Iraq, our soldiers are facing 400 or more attacks, per week.
• Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to the NIC. (CIA director's think tank)

Like I said, I'd like to see your definition of failure.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Scotter isn't under indictment for the "outing", only a "cover up" and lying to the speical procecutor.

Why the cover up? (covering up is lying, btw)

We know Clinton lied BECAUSE he had actually had sexual relations with that women. Why do you suppose Scooter lied?



mrC

[ChadTower]

All in all, the GOP brought this all upon themselves, and they have no one else to blame for their fetid culture of corruption.

As a Massachusetts resident, living in a state ruled by the highest of the high of the Democratic party, this statement really harms your credibility.  The Democratic government of our state may well be second to none in terms of corruption and disregarding the will of the voters.  If you think Louisiana was bad, wait until something happens here. 

Wait, the Big Dig happened here and it was an international disgrace to our state.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

As a Massachusetts resident, living in a state ruled by the highest of the high of the Democratic party, this statement really harms your credibility.  The Democratic government of our state may well be second to none in terms of corruption and disregarding the will of the voters.  If you think Louisiana was bad, wait until something happens here. 

I'm not standing in the way of prosecuting anyone involved in corruption here in Mass. So I don't see how that effects my credibility. My statement applies to Dems as well. Please understand that a culture of corruption can exist at a local, state and/or federal level.

Currently, the corruption rampant in this administration seems to permeate mostly from the Federal level.

wait until something happens here.

Well...ok.



mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm not standing in the way of prosecuting anyone involved in corruption here in Mass. So I don't see how that effects my credibility.

You just spent how much energy trying to put one of those super corrupt MA high level officials into the White House?

More than anything else, that is why I would never have voted for Kerry.  He is nothing more than a disinterested power grabber living in the giant political shadow cast by Ted Kennedy.

[fredster]

Scotter? I dunno. CYA likely, if he did what they said.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I could care less about indictments of OHIO officials...

Tom Noe presided over George W. Bush's reelection campaign in Ohio. Noe funneled money, illegally, into a swing state during a election. (a state the subsequently put Bush over the top by a nominal margin)

So, some people choose to look at the bigger picture.


mrC

[shmokes]

What if they aren't convicted?  You think no damage has been done to Bush?  You think Whitewater didn't have a negative impact on Clinton?

Oh yeah...that's another one I liked.  59% of people believe Karl Rove should resign.  Can you imagine Bush without Rove, LMAO.

[ChadTower]

What if they aren't convicted?

[fredster]

I'm not familiar with that case, but politics and money are a volitile mixture.

[ChadTower]

How many republicans changed to democrats when the balance of power was in favor of the dems? And vice versa?

[shmokes]

Well, Fredster, you can see it (the puppet without the strings, that is), but the problem is, you don't bother to actually know anything before forming your opinions.  Your posts are filled with bold claims like we are doing everything right in Iraq that makes anybody who knows ANYTHING about what we are doing in Iraq just stand there and blink in disbelief. 

I liken Republicans to McDonalds and Democrats to Wendy's.  Sure, Wendy's is quite a bit better than McDonalds, but in the end it still tastes like ---Cleveland steamer--- and it's poisoning you the same as the Big Macs are.  Imagine a world with only two restaurants -- McDonalds and Wendy's and you get an idea of the depressing reality of our political system.

[ChadTower]

Want the irony here?  The answer isn't a new party or new candidates or anything like that.

The answer is Seph.  Seph and the 20 million people just like him.  The people who think that unless you vote for the winner your vote was thrown away, and since they don't like the two candidates, they don't vote.

If someone could convince the 20 million Sephs to vote a third party that third party would win easily.

But the Sephs always stay home because "I don't want to throw my vote away", ironically letting it go unused completely.

[shmokes]

It will simply never happen.  Never before the 2004 election has so much attention been paid to young'uns.  All that talk of record voter registration, blah blah.  Statistics were the same as ever.  17% or something.  Exactly the same as the previous election.

Hell, even after a bitter fight to pass an Amendment giving 18-year-olds the right to vote -- all that about if they're old enough to die for their country they're old enough to vote, the next election saw practically no 18-21 year olds (or 22-30  year olds for that matter).

Lame-asses.   

[ChadTower]

So who labels them "victims" of "disenfranchisement" , causing them to stay home and not vote?

[fredster]

Well, Fredster, you can see it (the puppet without the strings, that is), but the problem is, you don't bother to actually know anything before forming your opinions.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Some people like MrC were against the entire concept, and nothing would have been a success (unless we found like 5 nukes) in Iraq.  Because they weren't there, it's a failure and a sham to people.  They say DAMN dude, we just blew it up.  We can't fix that OMG!

Nice paraphrase.   

Btw, how do you justify your "stay the course" rhetoric, with the "you should be getting out soon, because we think you've overstayed your welcome and people have a 'legitimate right' to kill you now" rhetoric being put forth by the new Iraqi government?

If you respect their shiny new democratic Iraqi sovereignty, then don't we have to give them a time-table, and then leave accordingly?

Or do Iraqis just hate freedom now too? Should we re-liberate them?


mrC
Edit: Personally, I see this as a gift to Bush. It's clearly an "exit" with dignity. (ie: The Iraqis are ready.) If he cottons to this idea, no matter what happens after we leave, Bush and his supporters will crow about "victory."

[shmokes]

God I hate people who hate freedom.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I think that Bush would be fine without Rove. I'd even like to see it. That way the left would have to come up with some other excuse as to why Bush keeps beating them over and over. If they realize that Bush wasn't the "idiot" they thought it would fry them where they sit.

*giggle*  just......*giggle*....can't type.....




mrC

[Grasshopper]

I say that we should have done this in '90.  We really screwed up there.  Then we spend a decade screwing around with the UN.  (which reminds me of the senate in Star Wars).

Interesting analogy. I also seem to recall from the movie that Senator Palpatine undermined the (flawed but still democratic) senate by stirring up a phony conflict to strengthen his own power base.

Now who could Palpatine be in real life? Hmm...

[fredster]

Go ahead and laugh Mr. Chuckles.

Give the terrorists an artifically designed timetable. Why does that make any sense? Why? Give me 3 reasons that makes sense?

Here's 3 reasons it doesn't:

1) If we miss any item on the timetable, we "fail" and we lose
2) If we establish a set timetable and follow it, we give the enemy advanced notice to build forces and attack.  (President Kennedy will be advancing near the book werehouse at...)
3) A real timetable is impossible to create because of the changing conditions and billions and billions of variables.  It wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on if it were to exist. 

It's a bogus concept. B o G u S -   

Now who could Palpatine be in real life? Hmm

Ted Kennedy of course. I bet he even has the hood.

[ChadTower]

He certainly has the deformed head and vacant eyes.

I think that is the official death knell of this thread.  It wasn't Hitler, but Palpatine should do it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

fredster/shmokes,

More evidence Congress didn't see: Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel (Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005)

Look, this administration held all the cards in the run-up to war. They control all branches of government, had exclusive access to highly classified information, and controlled when and how that information was disseminated.

fredster,
Whether or not you want to admit it, Bush and his administration consistently implied, using extremely misleading and carefully contrived rhetoric, that there was - in fact - a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda (9/11).  His own words betray you:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,"

smokes,
I know you want to powerwash Congress and remove everyone that followed the pied-piper, and ultimately, I don't have a major issue with that. (although, as I mentioned, I don't see the benefit of piling on)  However, the sad fact remains...Bush's refusal to cooperate with the legislative branch, no, his administration's outright manipulation of intelligence, put Democratic officials in a position where they had to view the cards the administration choose to lay before them. It's becoming more and more apparent that this administration chose to bolster their case with evidence they were strongly being warned was faulty - and they did it any way. Congress was not being shown evidence to the contrary. So, these politicians were put into a position where they had to either believe the evidence they were being shown or admit that they thought the president was lying, which was an assertion that had little evidence backing it up, at the time. I would love to be able to hold politicians to such a high standard as you, but ultimately learned that altruism is often trumped by cynicism and greed (ie: 2000/2004 elections).

Finally, even if you don't accept that as an excuse, there remains the fact that this administration's refusal to share dissenting intelligence (as the article above intones) certainly gives the Dems an "out" and there's no way to prove that they were not - in fact - voting based on the intelligence they were so carefully presented with.

Either way, again, I don't see any proposed solution in your rant and even though you'd accuse me of being inconsistent in how I choose to hold Dems to account, I've proposed, and have actively supported, reform from within by contributing time and money bolstering genuine anti-war politicians, which make up nearly HALF of Democratic Senators.

I'm harsher on the GOP, because they hold the keys to the kingdom, and If trying to force accountability on a powerful majority party like the Republican party is pissing in the wind, I feel beating on a powerless minority party for not stopping a war they didn't choose to start, is more like pissing into a hurricane.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Oh, and the PDB discrediting the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link was leaked to press yesterday. So far, "Not surprisingly, the White House is refusing to provide copies of the document to the Senate intel committee which is, allegedly, trying to investigate whether the White House hyped, manipulated or misrepresented pre-war intelligence about Iraq." (via TPM)


mrC

[ChadTower]

Seph will leak in your mouth.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Seph will leak in your mouth.

Damn...just gross.

mrC

[ChadTower]

That's what I said but he keeps trying.

Gotta give him credit for that much.

[shmokes]

Go ahead and laugh Mr. Chuckles.

Chuckles.....you cry yourself to sleep over that one last night Mr. C?  Actually, I thought I was Chuckles...

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Go ahead and laugh Mr. Chuckles.

Chuckles.....you cry yourself to sleep over that one last night Mr. C?  Actually, I thought I was Chuckles...

The Chuckles thing frustrates me to no end because it COMPLETELY debunks all the evidence I've presented to counter fredster sad apologisms....oh wait, no it doesn't...nevermind.


mrC

[fredster]

Mr. C,

And he was wrong exactly where?

How about -
"The initial report from the 9/11 commission, which held a public hearing Wednesday and Thursday, said Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It also said:"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

Further The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

We had a commission look at the pre-war intelligence and a report was issued in April.

It said "The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

So all this hyperbole can be DISPUTED.

[ChadTower]

Are those committee members the same ones currently investigating the oil industry?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We had a commission look at the pre-war intelligence and a report was issued in April.

fredster,

Ah....GOP talking point #1, the Silberman-Robb Report.

Shot down, once again, by the facts:

1) The SR Report was not tasked, nor authorized to investigate the administration's alleged manipulation of pre-war intelligence. It is merely PHASE I, of a two phase investigation. As you might have heard, PHASE II is being stonewalled by GOP leadership, so much so that minority leader Harry Reid brought Congress to a halt by invoking Rule 22, forcing the GOP to move forward with PHASE II, which is, again, the investigation of how pre-war intelligence was or was not manipulated.

2) The conclusion reached in the first phase of the Senate Intelligence report has been disputed by several senior intelligence officials. Specifically the clause regarding the pressure being brought to bear on the intelligence gathering community. [link]

Now, I suppose you'll be completely genuine and responsible, further strengthening you're earlier claim of complete objectivity and skepticism towards politicians by continuing to support ongoing calls for the implementation of PHASE II of the investigation. Since, as you imply, we have so much more to learn.

So we'll see how this works out.  Scream all you want Mr.C.  They only way you can change the current administration between now and 2008 is to find some way to PROVE any of it.

Yes, we'll see how this works out. And I'm sure as the evidence continues to mount, and as it becomes all the more apparent that this nation was blatantly misled into a wrongheaded and ill-planned war, you'll continue to deny that evidence.

Tell me this. Do you really care, fredster? I'm willing to bet that, even if Bush came out and admitted he misused the intelligence, that he knew there was no WMD, but went to war anyway  - let's say - only because he, himself, personally thought Saddam needed to be deposed...you'd still defend the war. Wouldn't you?

I'd lay money down that the reason none of this is sinking in, is because you totally feel comfortable with the idea that "the ends justify the means."  Prove me wrong, please!



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Are those committee members the same ones currently investigating the oil industry?

Are you talking about the oil industry, whose leaders - through the cooperation of a Republican-led Senate - were allowed to waive having to testify under oath? Those very same CEO's, etc. who then lied about their secret meetings with Cheney's Energy Task Force? [link]

No, I'm not sure if it's the same committee. I hope not, because their hands would certainly be full.


mrC

[fredster]

Phase II, if it doesn't find anything, phase III, ...X.

Un-named officals ... off the record comments...

nor authorized to investigate the administration's alleged manipulation of pre-war intelligence.

It was lead in the commission's report. 

I'm willing to bet that, even if Bush came out and admitted he misused the intelligence, that he knew there was no WMD, but went to war anyway  - let's say - only because he, himself, personally thought Saddam needed to be deposed...you'd still defend the war. Wouldn't you?

There is a chance in hell of that happening isn't there?  Maybe in one of your dreams, but not in real life.

How do you explain Blair's adminstation's role in this?  What ties to the oil industry/bush backyard barbques/ or even the Rangers does he have? 

How did I explain this before? I have explained this and explained this.

I was looking, but I'm out of time.  Research me. I said it in 2003 I think. Early pages.

Mr.C, you and yours have a great T day and we'll pick this up next week. 

[shmokes]

I think it's funny that you think England's support is some kind of smoking gun, though you completely ignore the fact that MANY more countries opposed the war than supported it.  And it's not like you have nothing to gain scratching the back of the economic behemoth, only superpower in the world United States.


Anyway, another Monday, another column (I can't justify creating a new thread for eacy one, but I don't want to stop advertising for free to y'all):  Click here if you want to read it.  And thanks for reading.  Comments are appreciated (here or there). 

[ChadTower]

I think it's funny that you think England's support is some kind of smoking gun, though you completely ignore the fact that MANY more countries opposed the war than supported it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Phase II, if it doesn't find anything, phase III, ...X.

I never get tired of your "slippery slope" canards. Even though this latest one totally ignores the fact that the investigation was pre-arranged to take place in TWO phases and the Republican majority initially agreed to that. Nothing is being tacked on here in the push to complete Phase II, so your bogey-man doesn't work.

I'm willing to bet that, even if Bush came out and admitted he misused the intelligence, that he knew there was no WMD, but went to war anyway  - let's say - only because he, himself, personally thought Saddam needed to be deposed...you'd still defend the war. Wouldn't you?

There is[n't] a chance in hell of that happening isn't there?  Maybe in one of your dreams, but not in real life.

I didn't ask you if there was a chance in hell or not. I already assume, just like you do, that Bush would never admit the truth. What I asked was, if you entertained my hypothetical, would you really care or not? And you didn't answer.

I ask because it's getting to the point where I sense that you feel action against Iraq is totally justified, no matter the consequences. That you feel so confident, so filled with national pride and arrogance, that the ends (whatever they are) totally justify the means (whatever they may be). That there in no scenario imaginable where this action would cause more harm than good...where victory is inevitable, as long as national will is strong. (ie: Jane Fonda/The Media/Moore/Liberals don't lose us this war like they lost us Vietnam!)

Would you even care, if it was *proven* that the Bush Admin lied us into this war?

I'm trying to help define your argument, fredster, because at this point, with so much overwhelming evidence negating your position/opinion...actually saying, "I don't care either way...it was the right thing to do" is a much more tenable position for you at this point. It makes sense...much more sense than trying to convince people that Iraq was a threat, and that the Bush administration didn't knowingly prop up faulty evidence in order to rush our country into a war of choice.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Shmokes,

Jesus...there are some real whackjobs on the site that site [Camp Katrina]. The two comments under your current column are priceless.

"Under Equalization there is no Liberation!"

"...the path of Equalization ultimately leads down The Road to Serfdom."

I mean, I want to respond to her, but where do you start? Why bother. It'd just take up her valuable cross-burning time.


mrC

[ChadTower]

I once bought an equalizer.  When I integrated it into my home theater system, my receiver did in fact start complaining of a perception of serfdom.

So it is not completely untrue.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ha! Stop buying A/V equipment endorsed by Karl Marx. Go with Sony.


mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm too cheap for Sony.  I go with JVC.

[Grasshopper]

Shmokes,

Jesus...there are some real whackjobs on the site that site [Camp Katrina]. The two comments under your current column are priceless.

"Under Equalization there is no Liberation!"

"...the path of Equalization ultimately leads down The Road to Serfdom."

I mean, I want to respond to her, but where do you start?Why bother. It'd just take up her valuable cross-burning time.


mrC

You couldn't resist it could you.

[shmokes]

Yeah....thanks for the comments.  My first two columns only got a couple.  I liked the little debate after this one.  I know, though.  A bunch of wackos, including my friend who runs the site.  He's cool, though.