Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq

[heyholetsgogrant]

Wait a minute, didn't you already say that.

My computer sucks...it was going so slow I believe I may have hit the button a few times..

-Grant

[dreamingwolf]

I have no problem with dissent, but I do have a problem with officials of our country using enemy propaganda.

[Winslowalrob]

I have no problem with dissent, but I do have a problem with officials of our country using enemy propaganda.

Not that I am anti-war, but please give an example of acceptable dissent. I want to win this sucker AND Afghanistan (which is always ignored...), and I want to be able to criticize as well as have officials criticize bad nation-building policies. What would you have preferred for Dean to say?

[Joe Sick]

Don't worry, you Kool-Aid drinking, crybaby conservatives, Dean will probably retract his statement that "the war can't be won," just like your flip-flopping idol Bush did...

Remember this?

August 30, 2004

Bush: War on Terror Can't be Won

This morning on NBC's Today Show, President Bush was asked if we can win the war on terror. He replied, ""Can we win? I don’t think you can win it."

(Gratuitous insults included)

[chomerics]

You don't know any soldiers do you? Go tell a Marine that he can't win this war and he is stupid for trying. Then run away as fast as you can.

Yes I do, and I have quite a few friends who are ex marines. I also have family members in Afghanistan right now, and they know my position. . . but being 6-2 240, there isn't much I will run away from

[chomerics]

Don't worry, you Kool-Aid drinking, crybaby conservatives, Dean will probably retract his statement that "the war can't be won," just like your flip-flopping idol Bush did...

Remember this?

August 30, 2004

Bush: War on Terror Can't be Won

This morning on NBC's Today Show, President Bush was asked if we can win the war on terror. He replied, ""Can we win? I don’t think you can win it."

(Gratuitous insults included)

Nice call Joe, I forgot all about that :laugh:

[NoCalMike]

I didn't want us to go to Iraq in the first place, they had nothing to do with 9-11 and Al Qaeda. :doh:

As for war being tough? War is tough when you have a bunch of chickenhawks in charge who ignore reality, remove dissent, and promote people who agree with them. The problem is that when you eliminate the dissenters, and the dissenters were the ones who were right, you surround yourself with an entire group of incompetent boobs. Harriet Miers was the perfect example of how this country is run right now, and the war is no different. This is how Iraq got effed up, why it is effed up, and why we should leave :doh:

Pretty much 100% agree there Chom... :applause:

[NoCalMike]

Weren't all these conservative "stop undermining the president" shouters, the same ones who coined the term "No War for Monica" ?

[luckydevil]

Weren't all these conservative "stop undermining the president" shouters, the same ones who coined the term "No War for Monica" ?

Yep, amazing how things changed when their party runs the show

Amazing stuff from this link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/161016/461

[Winslowalrob]

Yep, amazing how things changed when their party runs the show

Amazing stuff from this link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/161016/461

Great stuff, I am posting all the quotes I can

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

Ahh the Hitler and Clinton comparisons... gold Jerry, gold!

[SkinsHokieFan]

Winslow, without quoting your whole post I'll say this

Its all poltics baby, nobody in Washington has a spine anymore

We could pull up all the quotes from 1998 that we want on both sides, and what conclusion do we get?

Everyone in Washington DC is pandering for votes and money

[herrmag]

Ah, the ever changing goal. I thought the goal was to make America safer by eliminating world wide all terrorist threats, monies, personnell, and training and that Iraq was just one component of the larger war on terrorism? A war which by the way President Bush once said he didn't think could be won. I thought the goal was to rid Iraq of WMD's and sever their links with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I thought the goal was to use the Iraqi oil to pay for the restructuring while we secure the borders and were welcomed with open arms? I thought the goal was getting rid of Sadam?

Isn't that what we're fighting in Iraq? Seems to me, we're fighting terrorists on foreign soil. Sorry if that seems unsympahtetic, because honestly, I'm not. They had their own satan standing as the power of their government. He was a terrorist in every sense of the word. Ask Iraqi citizens, or Kuwati citizens for that matter. I understand the Left's point of view, but to say that this was a total mistake is upsurd. We can fight terrorism on foreign soil. How is this a bad thing? It's about time we found a Middle Eastern country with enough support to fight it. Thwarting Al-Qaeda is no longer the goal of just Democratic nations, but will soon be the fight of ME countries that wish to be rid of the terrorism that not only corrupts, but kills daily. Now, if only we could change our foreign policy with Saudi Arabia :doh:

[Winslowalrob]

Winslow, without quoting your whole post I'll say this

Its all poltics baby, nobody in Washington has a spine anymore

We could pull up all the quotes from 1998 that we want on both sides, and what conclusion do we get?

Everyone in Washington DC is pandering for votes and money

Ok then, how about we denounce both our parties equally? It seems that a lot of anti-liberal posters here would have used the same statementsfor Kosovo. I have no problems breaking with the Democrats, can you try and get your brethren to admit their party's hypocrisy as well? It seems a lot of the conservatives view their position as having a higher moral ground, rather than pandering for votes and money. Any thoughts?

[dreamingwolf]

Not that I am anti-war, but please give an example of acceptable dissent. I want to win this sucker AND Afghanistan (which is always ignored...), and I want to be able to criticize as well as have officials criticize bad nation-building policies. What would you have preferred for Dean to say?

First I think he could have eliminated his vietnam referrence. If theres one thing terrorists who wage an insurrgant fight to wrestle control of a country that is under our protection want to hear is they have instilled the spector of vietnam. Even if it is 100% true(which I believe its not) it should not be said, there are a million different ways to say what he was saying without using enemy propaganda. He said that cause he wanted to instill the spector for his own gains and those gains have nothing to do with Iraq other than Iraq is the bones hes using to raise the spector, he said it for political gains and to use enemy propaganda for political gains is just foul.

"

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

"

I think this is fine dissent from Dean. While I am in total disagreement with him, it is not enemy propaganda and is an alternitive.

"

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."

"

Here again I think hes dipping back into the enemy propaganda well. Remember propaganda is not patently false, its rhetoric to direct focus and effect popular opinion. This is what the terrorists want the iraqi people to belive, and it only hurts us that he as one of our leaders says it too. Regardless of how defendable it is.

"

"It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."

"

Here is another case of using enemy propaganda. Its a little watered down compared to what some on here have posted, but none the less its perspectives like this that our enemy want people to have. That our president is a liar fighting an illegal war.

I want to say that I dont think what he is doing is sedition, cause then I would be accusing every political person from the begining of our country as being seditious. The thing that boggles my mind is why hes saying this? Bush is attackable on so many levels domesticaly. I could understand if he was a hugely popular and this was the only way to undermind him I could halfway understand it.

In the thread about war between the US and china, it mentioned the japanese envoy guy who said we could never win a war against china cause we are a civic nation. What was the root of his perception was exactly what kerry and dean are doing now. We can not fight a ground war that will take any amount of time to complete, cause our politicians will eat each other in the process. I know I know Im a jingoist or something cause I stand by the prez anytime we engage in warfare(even kosovo, an action I felt was bad), so throw your rocks at me for that.

So what Im saying is dont validate our enemies propaganda. Dont say our troops are terrorists, dont say our president is a liar, and other things that marry with the enemies propaganda. Im not saying you cant say those things, just that if you do match up with enemy propaganda be ready for some flack.

[herrmag]

Ok then, how about we denounce both our parties equally? It seems that a lot of anti-liberal posters here would have used the same statementsfor Kosovo. I have no problems breaking with the Democrats, can you try and get your brethren to admit their party's hypocrisy as well? It seems a lot of the conservatives view their position as having a higher moral ground, rather than pandering for votes and money. Any thoughts?

I agree with you 100%. The s river flows both ways.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ok then, how about we denounce both our parties equally? It seems that a lot of anti-liberal posters here would have used the same statementsfor Kosovo. I have no problems breaking with the Democrats, can you try and get your brethren to admit their party's hypocrisy as well? It seems a lot of the conservatives view their position as having a higher moral ground, rather than pandering for votes and money. Any thoughts?

I agree with that. You will from time to time see me argue with those on the right on this board also. I think one of the most objective posters is Luckydevil, and used to be a Republican but now is very libertarian

I tend to do it behind closed doors, I think its Regan's 11th comandment "Thou shalt not attack Republicans in public"

I feel you though, if you find a thread called "What has Bush done wrong" you'll see plenty of right leaning people on this board calling him out for some things

Its just that we differ on what he and Republicans have done wrong :laugh:

[dreamingwolf]

Ok then, how about we denounce both our parties equally? It seems that a lot of anti-liberal posters here would have used the same statementsfor Kosovo. I have no problems breaking with the Democrats, can you try and get your brethren to admit their party's hypocrisy as well? It seems a lot of the conservatives view their position as having a higher moral ground, rather than pandering for votes and money. Any thoughts?

actually we have. We gave Perot nearly 20% of the vote after Bush I, I dont think I have ever seen the democrats push a left 3rd party past 4%. As a result we have got nothing but sad sack far left dem prez runners since JFK was in office till Clinton came out of nowhere and jacked them. I maybe wrong about Clinton, but Im pretty sure he wasnt the party choice till he just got to popular for them to deny. I would like to see Lieberman run independant and get near 20% of the vote and the democrats come back to center.

[Winslowalrob]

First I think he could have eliminated his vietnam referrence. If theres one thing terrorists who wage an insurrgant fight to wrestle control of a country that is under our protection want to hear is they have instilled the spector of vietnam. Even if it is 100% true(which I believe its not) it should not be said, there are a million different ways to say what he was saying without using enemy propaganda. He said that cause he wanted to instill the spector for his own gains and those gains have nothing to do with Iraq other than Iraq is the bones hes using to raise the spector, he said it for political gains and to use enemy propaganda for political gains is just foul.

"

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

"

I think this is fine dissent from Dean. While I am in total disagreement with him, it is not enemy propaganda and is an alternitive.

"

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."

"

Here again I think hes dipping back into the enemy propaganda well. Remember propaganda is not patently false, its rhetoric to direct focus and effect popular opinion. This is what the terrorists want the iraqi people to belive, and it only hurts us that he as one of our leaders says it too. Regardless of how defendable it is.

"

"It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."

"

Here is another case of using enemy propaganda. Its a little watered down compared to what some on here have posted, but none the less its perspectives like this that our enemy want people to have. That our president is a liar fighting an illegal war.

I want to say that I dont think what he is doing is sedition, cause then I would be accusing every political person from the begining of our country as being seditious. The thing that boggles my mind is why hes saying this? Bush is attackable on so many levels domesticaly. I could understand if he was a hugely popular and this was the only way to undermind him I could halfway understand it.

In the thread about war between the US and china, it mentioned the japanese envoy guy who said we could never win a war against china cause we are a civic nation. What was the root of his perception was exactly what kerry and dean are doing now. We can not fight a ground war that will take any amount of time to complete, cause our politicians will eat each other in the process. I know I know Im a jingoist or something cause I stand by the prez anytime we engage in warfare(even kosovo, an action I felt was bad), so throw your rocks at me for that.

So what Im saying is dont validate our enemies propaganda. Dont say our troops are terrorists, dont say our president is a liar, and other things that marry with the enemies propaganda. Im not saying you cant say those things, just that if you do match up with enemy propaganda be ready for some flack.

While I disagree with your post, you gave some good arguments. I believe that in a free society any person or official can say what he wants as long as he is willing to pay the consequences. Although I hate to do it, I am going to bring up the spectre of McCarthy here, who basically said ANYONE that disagreed with him was a Communist and a traitor. You do not claim that, but the line between propaganda and dissent is such a blurry one in my mind's eye that I will err on the side of civil liberties. Remember, the Japanese envoy also made those statements because of our handling of Iraq, not just dissent. And a ton of other reasons too. Very few things are monocausal when it comes to relationships.

[Winslowalrob]

actually we have. We gave Perot nearly 20% of the vote after Bush I, I dont think I have ever seen the democrats push a left 3rd party past 4%. As a result we have got nothing but sad sack far left dem prez runners since JFK was in office till Clinton came out of nowhere and jacked them. I maybe wrong about Clinton, but Im pretty sure he wasnt the party choice till he just got to popular for them to deny. I would like to see Lieberman run independant and get near 20% of the vote and the democrats come back to center.

Oh I dream of another Clinton. Hell, I dream that Clinton puts on a mustache and an eyepatch and runs as "Sebastian Clinton" and gets elected. You are quite right, that while I thought Perot was a dbag, he did force the economic issue to the public stage, and Clinton would have been worse for wear without public concerns of the defeicit. Clinton was mos def not the party choice. But do you think that Bush is a better prez at this stage than maybe McCain, who the Republican establishment does not like that much?

[herrmag]

Oh I dream of another Clinton. Hell, I dream that Clinton puts on a mustache and an eyepatch and runs as "Sebastian Clinton" and gets elected. You are quite right, that while I thought Perot was a dbag, he did force the economic issue to the public stage, and Clinton would have been worse for wear without public concerns of the defeicit. Clinton was mos def not the party choice. But do you think that Bush is a better prez at this stage than maybe McCain, who the Republican establishment does not like that much?

Hmm, interesting. I was serving during the Clinton "escapade". The term where we launched a missile, advanced and pulled back , allowed the UN to become some sort of actual leadership to the world, and ignored EVERYTHING going against us. The same admin that had me training with blanks and we became a "friendlier" ARMY. I'm sorry, he may have known how to speak, but he sure as hell didn't know how to handle a wartime situation. Bring Clinton back, and let's prolong the problems. I'm sorry, but no. I'll pass. At least I know who the enemies are. This admin isn't necessarily handling the problem properly, but the enemy has got bullseyes on their chests. I'd rather know who I'm fighting, rather than shooing them under the rug.

[dreamingwolf]

While I disagree with your post, you gave some good arguments. I believe that in a free society any person or official can say what he wants as long as he is willing to pay the consequences. Although I hate to do it, I am going to bring up the spectre of McCarthy here, who basically said ANYONE that disagreed with him was a Communist and a traitor. You do not claim that, but the line between propaganda and dissent is such a blurry one in my mind's eye that I will err on the side of civil liberties. Remember, the Japanese envoy also made those statements because of our handling of Iraq, not just dissent. And a ton of other reasons too. Very few things are monocausal when it comes to relationships.

Right you are to bring up McCarthy in the light of my post, he is a perfect example of a good idea gone wrong. His goal was to squash the communist infiltration, but his approach was completely wrong. So wrong infact that it forced the communist movement underground fomenting it into the neo-humanist movement.

McCarthy/Vietnam are the same ghost on different sides. So you were perfectly right to bring that up.

The Japanese envoys comments were not on the handling it was on our concern of human life. He accurately points out that death numbers sway public opinion, and once the toll got ugly we are finished as a fighting force. This again IMO is an after effect of McCarthy. I could be wrong, but my opinion is that previous to McCarthy the vast majority of the media that we presented was to promote the president in war time, after McCarthy the vast majority of the media was anti-prez or at best unflattering when it came to war. His point was we couldnt beat china fast enough to escape the polls, china would be no grenada or kosovo. I do agree with the people who say that if china hit us state side, there probably would be a resurgant nationalism and we could stomach it but if they just attacked a neighbor we would be hearing the same crap we hear today about iraq.

[dreamingwolf]

do you think that Bush is a better prez at this stage than maybe McCain, who the Republican establishment does not like that much?

First there is no way to know, but if I was to guess I think McCain would be doing much of the same.

[Thiebear]

You obviously missed the analogy that sending a person to feed an aligator with raw meat strapped to his/her ass is a bad idea, it's an idea only a jackass would have. . . as well as trying to force a democracy on a population with so much religous and racial antimosity towards one another they's just as soon kill them selves then see the other in power.

Said the same thing in Japan/Germany...

See History for the results.

[Mad Mike]

Hmm, interesting. I was serving during the Clinton "escapade". The term where we launched a missile, advanced and pulled back , allowed the UN to become some sort of actual leadership to the world, and ignored EVERYTHING going against us. The same admin that had me training with blanks and we became a "friendlier" ARMY. I'm sorry, he may have known how to speak, but he sure as hell didn't know how to handle a wartime situation. Bring Clinton back, and let's prolong the problems. I'm sorry, but no. I'll pass. At least I know who the enemies are. This admin isn't necessarily handling the problem properly, but the enemy has got bullseyes on their chests. I'd rather know who I'm fighting, rather than shooing them under the rug.

Yeah, You gotta love Clinton. The man who brought you Black Hawk Down.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.

Which reminds me, the other day I saw CNN had William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Defense on as their expert analist on Iraq. That's like using MTV's Bam as an etiquette coach. Let's review his record...

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all.

And BTW, it was Cohen who cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. :doh:

Of course CNN never mentioned any of this. Why am I not surprised?

[Winslowalrob]

Right you are to bring up McCarthy in the light of my post, he is a perfect example of a good idea gone wrong. His goal was to squash the communist infiltration, but his approach was completely wrong. So wrong infact that it forced the communist movement underground fomenting it into the neo-humanist movement.

McCarthy/Vietnam are the same ghost on different sides. So you were perfectly right to bring that up.

The Japanese envoys comments were not on the handling it was on our concern of human life. He accurately points out that death numbers sway public opinion, and once the toll got ugly we are finished as a fighting force. This again IMO is an after effect of McCarthy. I could be wrong, but my opinion is that previous to McCarthy the vast majority of the media that we presented was to promote the president in war time, after McCarthy the vast majority of the media was anti-prez or at best unflattering when it came to war. His point was we couldnt beat china fast enough to escape the polls, china would be no grenada or kosovo. I do agree with the people who say that if china hit us state side, there probably would be a resurgant nationalism and we could stomach it but if they just attacked a neighbor we would be hearing the same crap we hear today about iraq.

I have a ton of work to do, so I cannot devote as much to this as I should, but basically I have a much more sympathetic view of communists in the US. We probably have different definitions of what a communist was, however. I do not support soviet spies mind you, but I suport the communists that worked with unions, or teaching organizations, or hollywood, or civil rights organizations, all of which owe varying degrees of debt to communist support. McCarthy did not have a good idea, because anyone who pushed for greater equality, social or economic, would automatically be labelled a communist (the ultimate prejorative). McCarthy did not do that much in terms of presidential support during war time. FDR took a lot of flak for sending our boys to die in Europe instead of only fighting the Japanese (Hitler was not that bad a guy according to a lot of editorials). Even the Spanish-American war of '98 was seen as a colonial enterprise, and people let the adminstration know it. And what about Panama, which resulted in a lot of civilian deaths (which a lot of people pin on the US), but Bush sr. escaped a lot of criticism for? Keep in mind, Clinton was hounded for Somalia and Kosovo. Losing tens of Americans did not force Clinton out of Somalia, it was the footage and the public hysteria that forced the US military out (And the flames were fanned by Republicans). I want the right to question my president, even if it allows for Hitler supporters in '43 or for people wanting to pull out of humanitarian causes. It is a double edged sword, but one that we need.