My column is back and better than ever

[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