Fallujah Killings

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yup. We're stuck in this horrific cesspool now. Where's the next stop on the Nation Building Express?
Vote carefully in November folks. It's only going to get worse.

Only if you vote for Kerry!

“I’m for the war….no, wait…I’m against it….but, only before I was for it…..oh I don’t know what I’m for!!!”

At least Bush has a long term plan for the Middle East that doesn’t include appeasement…even his old man couldn’t do that!

And wasn’t it the liberals who were bitchin’ about Bush Sr. “not finishing the job” by getting Sadaam in ‘91????

Rob

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
Where are our allies? Nowhere to be found...

Don't worry, they'll be back for a cut of the oil

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
At least Bush has a long term plan for the Middle East that doesn’t include appeasement…even his old man couldn’t do that!

W has never stated any plan for the Middle East. For that matter, he has never stated any plan for Iraq other than in a general way.

Thus, my problem with W. I mean he talks a good game but there is nothing underneath it. I mean having no discernable or stated exit plan for Iraq was unsoncionable IMO.

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Don't worry, they'll be back for a cut of the oil

Oh, you mean the oil that the US has planned on getting it's hands on for years? The oil that we went to war for?

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
At least Bush has a long term plan for the Middle East that doesn’t include appeasement…even his old man couldn’t do that!

And wasn’t it the liberals who were bitchin’ about Bush Sr. “not finishing the job” by getting Sadaam in ‘91????

Rob

Bush doesn't even have a plan to wipe his own ass, for cripes sake! He doesn't have a plan for the Middle East and he never did! Please let me know what it is, because I'd love to tear it apart.

And us liberals were only bitching that ChimpCo Sr. should've gotten rid of Saddam because we wouldn't be in this mess if he had.

Now, I'm being serious. I know that you agree with Bush on the "war on terror," but how can you vote for someone with all of his other goals? He wants to strip away abortion rights, he wants to write hate into the constitution, I mean he just isn't a good man. Don't these other issues matter?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh, you mean the oil that the US has planned on getting it's hands on for years? The oil that we went to war for?

Yeah, you know that reserve they're holding on to that's driving the gas prices to an all time high. Dumbya and his friends at OPEC gotta make all the gravy they can before they throw his ass out in January. On the other hand, maybe the Peak Oil contingent is on to something.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in610068.shtml

Stuck In The Cold War?

As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice prepares to testify before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House is hoping to refute charges that President Bush led an "administration in amber," focused on obsolete security concerns in a world that had already changed.

At the end of the Cold War, the paradigm of state-sponsored terror, of symmetric state security threats, had fallen with the Soviet Union. Did the Bush administration recognize that America's chief enemies were no longer states but decentralized terror groups? The question now haunts this White House, which, it's fair to note, was only in office for eight months at the time the United States suffered its first continental attack since the war of 1812.

"The argument is if you would have been more vigilant, you would have been more lucky," said Michael O'Hanlon, a prominent national security analyst at the Brookings Institution. "Clearly there is something to this critique. The mentality was not as focused on al Qaeda as Clinton had been in the later years."

O'Hanlon says there are probably two reasons for this: "The specialty of seniors in the administration harkens back to Cold War and traditional state-on-state issues. And as you know, there was a little of an anything-but-Clinton attitude on issues."

During the Sept. 11 hearings on Capitol Hill, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, said that he briefed Rice in December 2000 that she was going to "spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al Qaeda specifically, than any other issue."

This Thursday, Rice will respond for the record to charges that the administration primarily focused on Cold War security concerns, on state threats, rather than non-state actors like al Qaeda.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that on the very day of the attacks, Sept. 11, 2001, Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech on the major security concerns facing the United States. In remarks prepared for the speech, she never mentions al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden; instead, she focuses on the need for a missile-defense system.

In February 2001, and again in August of that year, President Bush said, respectively, that "We must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses," and that the United States was "committed to defending America and our allies against ballistic missile attacks."

In effort to spell out the administration's main security concerns, Rice wrote in the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs that the "real challenges" to the United States were from "big powers, particularly Russia and China."

Yet by the late 1990s, the Clinton administration had concluded that al Qaeda – or related Islamic extremists – were behind a series of attacks including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa and the USS Cole attack of 2000, as well as the thwarted 1995 plan to blow up 11 U.S. passenger jets over the Far East and an alleged plot to bomb Los Angles International Airport.

"Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney had a realpolitik view of the world that says it is the great powers that matter and balance of power and strengthening our defense forces against this traditional threat," explained Michael McFaul, a Russia expert at Stanford University and a former colleague of Rice. "So that's why the focus on Russia, that's why the focus on China, that's why missile defense."

The recent Washington firestorm began last week after President Bush's former top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, published his book, "Against All Enemies," and testified before the Sept. 11 commission that the Bush administration undercut the war on terror with its preoccupation with Iraq.

More to the point was Clarke's statement to CBS "60 Minutes" that, "It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier."

Indeed, most of the key players who forged the Bush administration's anti-terror policy were veteran Cold Warriors who served in previous Republican administrations:


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was the youngest head of the Defense Department ever when he first served in the post from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford. He later chaired the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission in 1998, and in 2000 led a commission to assess national security concerns in space.


Vice President Dick Cheney served as Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993 in the administration of the first President Bush, overseeing Operation Desert Storm, the first war in Iraq.


Those considered the intellectual masterminds of the current war – hawks like Richard Perle, recently chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense – both found their start in the Reagan administration. Perle is often credited for much of Ronald Reagan's hard-line posture against the Soviet Union.


Condoleezza Rice never served in government prior to the current Bush administration, but she was a Sovietologist by training; her academic expertise is on America's former superpower rival.

Biographies notwithstanding, the Bush White House did make a major policy shift following the Sept. 11 attacks, focusing on asymmetrical warfare and the non-state threat of Islamic extremism.

Nevertheless, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, a CBS News review of speeches and public remarks by President Bush suggests he did not mention al Qaeda once, although he did send a letter to Congress extending Clinton-era sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden.

As O'Hanlon put it, the question is not one of prevention of the Sept. 11 attacks but whether the Bush administration had prioritized the threat posed by al Qaeda above that of states viewed as rogues, like Iran, and major powers, like China – and whether greater vigilance might have meant a greater likelihood of thwarting the attacks.

"It is an argument that is suggestive, not conclusive, but it is still moderately persuasive and I've heard some Clinton people make the argument in off-the-record internal discussions here at Brookings and elsewhere," O'Hanlon said. "We do know now that it was knowable. That there were certain people on the terrorist watch list that were in the country, that there were certain tactics for using airplanes that had been discussed before and not given sufficient attention."

Clarke's book argues that President Bush and Wolfowitz on the day of Sept. 11, and the week following, had a preoccupation with Iraq as the culprit in spite of top terrorism officials reporting that al Qaeda was responsible.

Similar accounts have come from former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil and former General Wesley Clark, a Republican who later transferred parties and mounted a failed run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clark said that when he was in the Pentagon prior to Sept. 11 there was wide discussion of an impending attack on Iraq, that "taking down Saddam became a hobbyhorse" for the group around Rumsfeld.

"These folks never took their eye off Saddam in the '90s and then obviously after 9/11 they had a new argument which to them was partly an opportunity," O’Hanlon said. "So I think it really symbolized not-so-much their Cold War thinking as their Desert Storm thinking. The hawkish part of the Bush 41 crowd that increasingly saw Saddam as a threat onward. That was the great strand of continuity."

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Bush doesn't even have a plan to wipe his own ass, for cripes sake! He doesn't have a plan for the Middle East and he never did! Please let me know what it is, because I'd love to tear it apart.

And us liberals were only bitching that ChimpCo Sr. should've gotten rid of Saddam because we wouldn't be in this mess if he had.

Now, I'm being serious. I know that you agree with Bush on the "war on terror," but how can you vote for someone with all of his other goals? He wants to strip away abortion rights, he wants to write hate into the constitution, I mean he just isn't a good man. Don't these other issues matter?

Abortion is more of a religious issue...I don't have a strong opinion. I do think abortion is used as an easy way out for younger people who don't take enough precaution. I say if you are dumb enough to get pregnant, then that's your fault and you should have to deal....but that issue means nothing to me in regards to whether or not I vote for Bush.

I don't know anything about putting "hate" and the constitution but it sounds like spin. All I see is libs complaining about taking God out of everything...who cares? They are just words...there are more pressing issues in the world. Like people blowing themselves and others up in the name of "Allah".

I am fiscally conservative and I do have issues with Bush's spending but his plan seems to be taking positive effect now. I am completely behind a proactive approach to the war on terror. Even if it means we have to do it alone ( ). Screw France...we have to worry about our own security...not appeasing the UN.

The economy and our national security...that's what is nost important to me and Bush is doing a fine job right now with the cards he was dealt, IMO.

That's why he will get my vote...at least for now.

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
I don't know anything about putting "hate" and the constitution but it sounds like spin. All I see is libs complaining about taking God out of everything...who cares? They are just words...there are more pressing issues in the world. Like people blowing themselves and others up in the name of "Allah".

Rob

A few years ago, a friend of mine had to buy medication for his partner, who was very sick at the time. He paid around $10,000 a month in cash for it fgor 12 months when the ins. would then kick in. Technically, this was a donation under the IRS' rules. So, the purchaser of the meds should have also paid around an extra $60,000 to the IRS and some to the state gov. as well. If they had been married instead of just being partnerd for many years, no gift tax would be applicable. So, I think that is a pressing issue. Moreover, a have another set of friends one of which makes several million dollars a year. She deposits her check (over $500,000 a month) into a joint checking account. Techincally, she should pay gift taxes of around $300,000 or more of each check. Legally married people would not have to pay that. AND - there is no way to draw up a civil conract to escape that majority of that effect.

So, while yes, W's idiotic and unnecessary lying to invade Iraq to further the War on Terror is indeed a pressing issue. It clearly is not the only one to many people. But that is what the R's want America to think. They want you to pick the shell in the game that does not have the peas under it. They want you not to look while they take away civil right and form an intolerant fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Also, the reason people say hate is being written into the Const. is because people hate gay people - sad but true. I mean as I and others have said before, adultery is a far bigger threat to marriage than allowing same sex marriage. Yet, we hear nothing about a Const. Amendment to prohibit that. Why? Because people hate fags - sad but true.

Finally, I, like you, am a complete and total political fiscal conservative, but W has failed there as well. He has spent more like Teddy K. than Teddy K. and he has put us into a huge amount of debt to do it. Granted, he wasn't given a great situation at the beginning of his Pres. and 9/11 certainly did not help, but he has made poor choices. One example is the war on Iraq. I agree the invasion was justified based on the violation of the U.N. resolutions. But, the war was unnecessary or at least not immediately necessary as W depicted it. So, now W has spent well over $100 billion or so when we did not have it. Then, he and the R controlled Congress do not fund domestic programs as a result. Funding of domestic programs will generate growth here in America IMO far faster than paying Halliburton and a few other ancillary companies in Iraq. But, they chose to go to war on trumped up charges and now we are in huge debt for it. If W was my empolyee and did this to my business, I would fire him. Who would not?

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Rob67
I say if you are dumb enough to get pregnant, then that's your fault and you should have to deal....

I get that this isn't really a big deal to you, but I have to say this is one of the dumbest most short-sighted things I've ever heard you say. I hope you were just being glib and that you don't really mean it.

[strandinthewind]

I kind of have always agreed with that statement. Outside of rape or any other situation where it is not consenual, everyone knows to be safe to avoid pregnancy and disease. I think people are not safe (e.g. no condom) because it does not feel as good or they do not want to spoil the mood with a diaphram or they do not want the hassle of taking or cannot afford the pill. But, they are making a conscious choice that has a risk. So, yes, in that scenario - if you get pregnant, you have no one to blame but yourself - you made a choice. Readily available abortion as a method of birth control is not a good idea an a myriad of levels (health, having an abortion gets rid of the baby but not any diseases contracted during unprotected sex, and so on)

But, while I am against the actual abortion and could never have one, I do not think my choice should be put on someone who does not mind aborting a fetus for whatever reason they think. Who am I to tell them what to do? If they can live with it, more power to them.m It is not my business. Yet, this is another example of fundamentalist far right bozos trying condescendingly to force their utopia on everyone - they know what is best for everyone

That is why I am pro-choice

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Sugar
I get that this isn't really a big deal to you, but I have to say this is one of the dumbest most short-sighted things I've ever heard you say. I hope you were just being glib and that you don't really mean it.

Sorry...I feel that way...there were about five girls in my senior HS class that got pregnant during the school year...why? No Birth control and uncontrolled hormones. One of the girls had two abortions before graduation. If you feel you're mature enough to get it on then you should be mature enough to deal with the results....I think it is dumb to put yourself in that situation in the first place. Rape...now that is a different story all together. I don't really have a religious take on it.

Tell me why that's short sighted. Yeah, yeah...I know, "but people make mistakes!" Sorry, sometimes we have to pay for our mistakes. I am talking about people who use it as an easy out of a situation.

But I digress...like I said, it matters not to me in regards to who I vote for. It's a losing debate on either side anyway.

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
. . . Sorry, sometimes we have to pay for our mistakes. I am talking about people who use it as an easy out of a situation.

Americans want to accept no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. I mean people want to sue McDonalds because they made the choice to eat there, never exercise, and now they are fat. I mean come on.

[gldstwmn]

I thought this thread was about what's going on in the Middle East. It appears that it has become yet another venue for someone to spew some of his right wing hate.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A few years ago, a friend of mine had to buy medication for his partner, who was very sick at the time. He paid around $10,000 a month in cash for it fgor 12 months when the ins. would then kick in. Technically, this was a donation under the IRS' rules. So, the purchaser of the meds should have also paid around an extra $60,000 to the IRS and some to the state gov. as well. If they had been married instead of just being partnerd for many years, no gift tax would be applicable. So, I think that is a pressing issue. Moreover, a have another set of friends one of which makes several million dollars a year. She deposits her check (over $500,000 a month) into a joint checking account. Techincally, she should pay gift taxes of around $300,000 or more of each check. Legally married people would not have to pay that. AND - there is no way to draw up a civil conract to escape that majority of that effect.

So, while yes, W's idiotic and unnecessary lying to invade Iraq to further the War on Terror is indeed a pressing issue. It clearly is not the only one to many people. But that is what the R's want America to think. They want you to pick the shell in the game that does not have the peas under it. They want you not to look while they take away civil right and form an intolerant fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Also, the reason people say hate is being written into the Const. is because people hate gay people - sad but true. I mean as I and others have said before, adultery is a far bigger threat to marriage than allowing same sex marriage. Yet, we hear nothing about a Const. Amendment to prohibit that. Why? Because people hate fags - sad but true.

Finally, I, like you, am a complete and total political fiscal conservative, but W has failed there as well. He has spent more like Teddy K. than Teddy K. and he has put us into a huge amount of debt to do it. Granted, he wasn't given a great situation at the beginning of his Pres. and 9/11 certainly did not help, but he has made poor choices. One example is the war on Iraq. I agree the invasion was justified based on the violation of the U.N. resolutions. But, the war was unnecessary or at least not immediately necessary as W depicted it. So, now W has spent well over $100 billion or so when we did not have it. Then, he and the R controlled Congress do not fund domestic programs as a result. Funding of domestic programs will generate growth here in America IMO far faster than paying Halliburton and a few other ancillary companies in Iraq. But, they chose to go to war on trumped up charges and now we are in huge debt for it. If W was my empolyee and did this to my business, I would fire him. Who would not?

Again, it matters not to me. I'm not married, I don't plan on getting married. And I wouldn't look at it as a business if I was planning to. I don't care if you're gay or not. I am all for equality. If two women or two men want to get married, whatever. I could care less. This is not an issue that I am concerned with. I know some people are and that's fine, we all have a right to believe in what we want and our vote is our voice.

I concure that the situation is not perfect but Kerry has no answers that have made me change my mind. I know the Bush administration gets criticized for not having policy plans or whatever. But being in a time of war, I wouldn't want them to tell the world their strategy. I think the results of this war will be judged by history and I believe he thinks he is doing what is in our best national interests.

The "cesspole" in Iraq, or so it's been called on this site, was there before the war. It wasn't caused by it. Yes, I believe that the WMD intelligence was used by the administration as reasoning for the war. The same intelligence was shown to the congress who overwhelmingly supported the operation. If the CIA and other intelligence agencies are wrong on this then I am sure they will have to answer for it. That is where the Pres gets his information. He got it from them and he acted on it. First through UN resolutions and when they wouldn't do anything, he got together a group of allies to deal with it.

Why did most of our Congress reps and Senators vote in favor?? Including Kerry? Becuase they saw the same intelligence that Bush saw and concurred that action was necessary.

Isn't there a panel looking into why we weren't prepared for 9/11??? Isn't the big arguement about why the two administrations and the government didn't do something to stop it ahead of time? Wouldn't the Iraq Conflict be "acting" on intelligence to prevent possible terrorism or support of terrorism?

Why is this so hard to rationalize?

Yes, I know money is always involved...yes, I know they have Oil...but in history, there always was and there always will be economics at play. That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

Sorry for the book!

Rob