President Bush's Speech

[moses]

I imagine it was the same speech.

Funny how two people can have such radically different impressions, based on the opinions, and perceptions that they carry in with them. I find it really fascinating. I tend more leftist, and my GF tends pretty conservative. It's amazing how differently we can hear the same comment.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but Saddam and company clearly were part of net we had to cast to deal with our safety in the wake of that tragedy. Forget the media spin and read the Duelfer report: Saddam was poised to restart his WMD programs as the corrupt Oil-for-Food came to and end, as it was about to. Next on the list have to be Iran and Syria. So far we are "playing by the rules" and using our friends the UN - working real well, isn't it?

Scotto, open your eyes! Iraq was a financially motivated diversion from fighting terrorism.

Did you hear the CNN news report yesterday that Al Qeada is now in control of Anwar Province, to the west of Baghdad and all the way to the Syrian and Jordanian borders. Does that sound like we stopped terrorism, or have we now given them a home with free access to borders.

Unfortunately, we may have a real serious problem with Iran now. Please remember that Hussein was the one major force between Iran and regional domination. He also feared religious extremists and, therefore, Al Qeada. We did Iran ahugh favor by eliminating him. Now, they'll have free reign- a subsidiary in Iraq, and a crescent of influence extending all the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon. So which way would you turn east to I ran, or West to Al Qeada? Or would you stay in position between two parties about to engage in a civil war?

 

[Scotto]

Joe, keep it in you pants there, buddy. My eyes are open just fine.

No one's views are going to be changed by this thread, but let's at least be honest with each other. Both dems and reps are using all this for political purposes, so spare me the indignation about Bush' speech. Take a listen to any speech lately and you'll hear plenty of shameless pandering and use of the war for personal gain and political ambitition. That is the disgrace when our brave men are over there.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I don't think there are any "irrefutable FACTS" right now. We just don't know. Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. That wasn't the reason for going in there, anyway. I (like lots who have been there) have seen medium range launch vehicles with huge storages of CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) protective gear stored right next to them. I sortof wondered why the news cameras never came to film all that stuff. Personally, I thought it was kindof like a guy asking your sister (or daughter) out on a date, and having the box from an economy pack of condoms fall out of his jacket pocket. Maybe there is nothing to it, but it didn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I defer to Scotto's information, as to me, it makes sense.
As for oil, call me a blasphemer, but oil in our present world, or at least the control of it, is ALWAYS a good reason to go to war. Yes, I know Iraq is the world's second largest producer of oil, and I also know none of it goes to the United States (although I think it should). Iraq, had it entered in a large scale war, with Israel or any of their other enemies, would have had a choke hold on the economy of the planet. Had there been an exchange of WMD's, many, not just Iraq and whoever she was fighting, could have suffered greatly. Americans, and perhaps others in the world, scream no blood for oil....yet when the price at the pump goes up, or the price of plastic products or their airfares or even their electric bill.....then they scream bloody murder and riots ensue.
Now, imagine if that amount of control of one's country (or allies...) is had by its enemies....its a sobering thought.
John P.

Even Bush and Cheney admit it before they say something to mix it back up.

Your view of the situation is a little short sighted. With Saddam around Iran was well under control. Now, they are likely to be in a position to do whatever he would have done, thanks to us. And it's quite astounding to hear you say that we didn't go into Iraq because of WMD. That's really rewriting history. For months before the invasion we heard nothing but those lies about the imminent danger and the mushroom cloud, and we even presented them to the UN. So, now Iran is flying high and we're sitting on a powder keg with Al Qeada in control of a huge province between Baghdad and the Iraq border.

 

[jmhUT]

Take a listen to any speech lately and you'll hear plenty of shameless pandering and use of the war for personal gain and political ambitition. That is the disgrace when our brave men are over there.

If nothing else we should all be able to agree on that. Both sides are full of it.
Cheers,
Jeff

 

[Joe Lerch]

Joe, keep it in you pants there, buddy. My eyes are open just fine.

No one's views are going to be changed by this thread, but let's at least be honest with each other. Both dems and reps are using all this for political purposes, so spare me the indignation about Bush' speech. Take a listen to any speech lately and you'll hear plenty of shameless pandering and use of the war for personal gain and political ambitition. That is the disgrace when our brave men are over there.

I'm not interested in changing any views. I used to be a real conservative (not a neocon) and current events have done nothing but radicalize me.

I'm worried about our troops. The Sunnis now have supply lines through Anwar province to Syria, and the Shiites have them to the east with Iran. They could have a beautiful civil war now, and we're sitting in the middle of it. When the shooting starts do we shoot back at both and get it from both sides? It would not be such a bad idea to relocate to the friendly Kurdish territory, where we're not in the middle of the melee and can at least defend our selves in one direction.

This 9/11 controversy is a diversion from the real problems going on, and it's only getting worse.

 

[rikrdo]

Ok Joe..

Same question.
What would you do NOW ?

And Please, no rhetoric or party-line pamphlet material.



What is your plan??

 

[JohnP]

Even Bush and Cheney admit it before they say something to mix it back up.

Your view of the situation is a little short sighted. With Saddam around Iran was well under control. Now, they are likely to be in a position to do whatever he would have done, thanks to us. And it's quite astounding to hear you say that we didn't go into Iraq because of WMD. That's really rewriting history. For months before the invasion we heard nothing but those lies about the imminent danger and the mushroom cloud, and we even presented them to the UN. So, now Iran is flying high and we're sitting on a powder keg with Al Qeada in control of a huge province between Baghdad and the Iraq border.

Joe, calm down and please re-read my post....I didnt' say anything about us not going into Iraq because of WMD's. My biggest concern was, with all the critics claiming Iraq never had them, etc. Why weren't the things I saw being put on camera. It is as if the administration WANTS people to think they lied about the WMD's, even though I am convinced they were there. Just the stuff I saw alone is enough to make one pause, if not exactly a smoking gun...and for people saying there was no way WMD's could have been smuggled somewhere else, COME ON! we can't even stop millions of people from crossing our own border, and that's with people TRAINED to do that. Our military is good at what it does; however, we have never been intended for use as border patrol. Like Iraq's MiG's in the first gulf war which landed in Iran, I'm pretty convinced Saddam's other stuff had some, shall we say, "Arrangements" as well. Saying he never had them because we couldn't find them, or as I more suspect, we won't admit to finding them (which I don't understand, but there's lots I don't understand about this suicidal administion) Is like burying our heads in the sand.
John P.

 

[JohnP]

Joe, keep it in you pants there, buddy. My eyes are open just fine.

No one's views are going to be changed by this thread, but let's at least be honest with each other. Both dems and reps are using all this for political purposes, so spare me the indignation about Bush' speech. Take a listen to any speech lately and you'll hear plenty of shameless pandering and use of the war for personal gain and political ambitition. That is the disgrace when our brave men are over there.

Scotto, you have a knack for this it would seem....
I agree with you completely.
John P.

 

[Mama Bear]

WWE wrestling was on! Let's see.. George or Triple H.... hmmmm
sorry George, if I am going to listen to a soap opera I want it from a man with the body of a god......

I spent quite of bit of time on Monday remembering that day... I still remember the numb feeling. I am still shocked.

Sue (Mama Bear)

 

[Joe Lerch]

Ok Joe..

Same question.
What would you do NOW ?

And Please, no rhetoric or party-line pamphlet material.



What is your plan??

Unfortunately, there are no longer too many options. I'm not in favor of removing our troops entirely.

What would seem to make the most sense is to reposition our troops in the friendly Kurdish region. This gets us out of the middle of the civil war where we really can't do anything, and it keeps us close enough to act quickly if, say, Iran tries to get involved.

This assumes we could either continue to support our cental operation at the airport area or move it and prevent the airport being taken over for military purposes.

If you think we've been doing a good job against Al Qeada (AQ), think about the fact that a marine general in charge now says that AQ is in charge of and governing Anbar province, kind of like what Hezbollah did, with no prospect of dislodging them. That permits them to set up training and recruitment operations with impunity. Since it's among the civilian population, there's little prospect of handling them with air strikes. THis is a much more convenient location for them than Afghanistan ever was.

BTW, I'm not party line anything. I have little use for most incumbents. If I had my way, I'd start from scratch. The only reason I'm supporting democrats is to get some oversight in Congress.

 

[Joe Lerch]

there's lots I don't understand about this suicidal administion.

You and me both. And after some of the past performance I'm not willing to cut them any slack.

The image burned in my mind is Cheney's interview on Sunday. When faced with points of fact and statements from expert authorities (e.g. the Supreme Court) that contradicted him, his typical response was he disagreed! So, I guess there's no higher authority than Cheney. I would have liked to hear some reality based explanations, not just his opinion.

When a human being does the same thing over and over and expects a different result it's called insanity. It seems to be different in governement.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Scotto, you have a knack for this it would seem....
I agree with you completely.
John P.

Yeah, both of you you do. There's nothing like delivering a warmed over speech while Al Qaeda is setting up shop in Anbar Province. I would praise that highly.

What was the name of the book Bush was reading while the WTC was being destroyed?

 

[Joe Lerch]

Anyway, my best guess is that we have to play hardball with our "allies" more. If Russia wants to stymie our efforts in Iran, then we should be threatening them with reduced subsidies, wheat shipments, etc. We'll look like bullies, sure, but at some point right is right. If that doesn't work, I think the only alternative is precision removal of their nuclear capabilities. However, that requires on-site intelligence that I fear we don't have enough of.

I wouldn't consider Russia an ally.

We have ignored and slapped our traditional allies in the face. All that is left of them on our side is the UK, which may not be with us much longer. I always believed that when friends criticized or questioned what you were doing it was time for pause and introspection. Do you think we ever did that? Honestly, I have a lot of international dealings and colleagues. Our prestige and standing with our friends is at an all time low. I doubt if we can influence them much, other than arm twisting, and they're getting very impatient with that.

We're not exactly in a position to apply economic pressure with our economy going into hock. China (a friend?) is owning more and more of us and is a rapidly growing economic power. Clearly, we're making ourselves too vulnerable to them.

 

[JohnP]

BTW, I'm not party line anything. I have little use for most incumbents. If I had my way, I'd start from scratch. The only reason I'm supporting democrats is to get some oversight in Congress.

Amen, albeit from a different direction. I don't think there are that many TRUE Republicans there right now anyway, nor do I think the talking heads for the Democrat party are good representatives of Democrats. It seems as if both parties have gone insane....where are the NORMAL people?
I think if the democrats want to win the next election all they have to do is get rid of some of the screaming radicals and put forwards some people that make sense to folks from either party, and to the Republicans who voted for one thing, but got another. Same thing with the Republicans.
I would love for ANYBODY to run that wasn't about sound bites or rhetoric (and both sides seem to have plenty) but about the truth. I would rather vote for someone of the other party that I know will do what he says he will, and is a dyed in the wool patriot, than for the flashiest prancing prince of my own party who says all the right things and then after he is elected betrays the folks who voted for him to pander to those who did not..
not mentioning any names. I feel our President actually has potential, if he would get off of this suicide roller coaster, and fire his advisors and speech writers, and start making the decisions we hired him to make, instead of waiting for a committee or a poll to make it for him.
As for the Anbar province, that's what we get for trying to play both sides of the war and worrying about the enemies' sensibilities when we should be playing to win. Had we continued to fight to win, instead of pulling back every time a setback occurred, I feel this war would have been over 2 years ago. Of course, if that had happened, what would people be able to complain about now? and not only that, who would be the boogie man?
Ok,
Rant over.
It is a strange day when I can agree with Joe on politics, but for once, I do.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I don't think there are that many TRUE Republicans there right now.

I often wonder what happened to them.

I'm also certain that TRUE conservatives wouldn't consider them conservatives. By just the meaning of the word conservatives are for preserving something. The neocons are for takiing us back to a time past (a reactionary?) that benefitted a small in group among us at our expense. And traditional conservative values such as fiscal responsibility and states' rights are ignored along with basic constitutional tennets.

That last part burns me the most. The Constitution and our way of government based upon it is one of our greatest contributions to humanity. When we speak of freedom, we're talking about the Constitution. Justice Hugo Black was one of the greatest conservatives ever and, basically, epitomized what strict construction meant. One thing I always admired about him was his devotion to the word and intent of the document. That has always been the sign of a true conservative.

 

[rjv71]

Like it or not, Saddam was the one force that held Iraq together. Not in a way that I agree with, but he did. And probably by holding Iraq together, he held the region together. We have shown him that if he steps his boundaries, as in 1990, when invading Kuwait, we would not hesitate to step in.

Then the decision was made to oust Sadam. It doesn't really matter anymore why, fact is that it happened. So now we are at today with with Kurds in Northern Iraq, Sunni's in the center and Shiites in the south, all gearing towards a civil war with the US right in the middle. Add in Shiite support from Iran, Sunni support from Saudi Arabia, factor in Al Quada and other religious fanatic groups.... add in that they hate eachother but they ALL hate us. Add in 'borderline allies' who would turn on us if they have a change like Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Jemen, Egypt... So then is the world really safer now than it was prior to Sadam? I don't think so. Is it a coincidence that Iran, N. Korea all of a sudden have nuclear ambitions or is it because they know the US has streched itself so much with Iraq? Then how many billions of dollars are pouring in this war?? How would our social security, educational system, healtcare system have looked like when we would have had no war and those funds would have been used elsewhere??

 

[Scotto]

Well, after reading all this, I think I have come to one important conclusion that can get us out of this mess....




JOE LERCH FOR SECRETARY OF STATE!!!

 

[moses]

Justice Hugo Black was one of the greatest conservatives ever and, basically, epitomized what strict construction meant. One thing I always admired about him was his devotion to the word and intent of the document. That has always been the sign of a true conservative.

Justice Black was one of the greatest Justices ever to sit on that court. He had some dark things in his past, but to his credit, he did everything he could on the court to rectify them (except ever really admit that he had been wrong). He became one of the true champions of freedom and of the constitution. I wish we had a few like him on the court now.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Like it or not, Saddam was the one force that held Iraq together. Not in a way that I agree with, but he did. And probably by holding Iraq together, he held the region together. We have shown him that if he steps his boundaries, as in 1990, when invading Kuwait, we would not hesitate to step in.

Then the decision was made to oust Sadam. It doesn't really matter anymore why, fact is that it happened. So now we are at today with with Kurds in Northern Iraq, Sunni's in the center and Shiites in the south, all gearing towards a civil war with the US right in the middle. Add in Shiite support from Iran, Sunni support from Saudi Arabia, factor in Al Quada and other religious fanatic groups.... add in that they hate eachother but they ALL hate us. Add in 'borderline allies' who would turn on us if they have a change like Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Jemen, Egypt... So then is the world really safer now than it was prior to Sadam? I don't think so. Is it a coincidence that Iran, N. Korea all of a sudden have nuclear ambitions or is it because they know the US has streched itself so much with Iraq? Then how many billions of dollars are pouring in this war?? How would our social security, educational system, healtcare system have looked like when we would have had no war and those funds would have been used elsewhere??

Since I have been nominated for Secretary of State (thanks a lot!), I propose that the next time saddam stands up at his trial and complains it's illegal and he is the legitimate president, we say "You know, I think you're right, here's your country back." We could even give him some WMDs (to get the Shiites in line), as an indication of how sorry we are for the mistake.

Did you hear how sympathetic his judge was? Maybe they have the same idea.

In any case we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place (Iran?).