"Iraqi"

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 24, 2005 11:38:09 AM

I think the "transparency" remark was referring to the vast, open space between Mr. Bush's ears.

Posted by: Todd | Jun 24, 2005 1:25:37 PM

that pot shot took nearly 2 hours! AND the barista practically pointed an arrow and circled it for you!

You guys are WAY off your mark!

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 24, 2005 1:46:22 PM

anyone else think the democrats have "been had"?

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 24, 2005 3:36:33 PM

ROC - I responded within 2 minutes after I read the article. Unlike you apparently, most of us just lead busier lives and don't watch Barista minute by minute ( sorry, Barista ).

I'm a democrat. Another words, I work for a living;~}

Posted by: Todd | Jun 24, 2005 3:58:38 PM

Here's a thought most hard working democrats have amnesia over. In 1998 Congress passed in the Senate a final bill 90 to 0 authorizing regime change in Iraq. The bill was pushed by then President Clinton and VP Gore. Removing Hussein was then established by resolution as the current US policy vis a vis Iraq. Now in 2005 dems are claiming that the Bush admin somehow misled the US people because he was not explicit about regime change. If by now that you think that somehow this policy was formulated in back rooms by scary neo-cons you obviously have not been paying attention, or as often happens people believe without conditions the op-ed board of the NYT. Get over it. We;re in Iraq, we;re not leaving until it;s fixed and although it is not an ideal situation I am afraid our ADD media and pundits are going to have to wait this one out. In five years if it still a mess you have a point and we have made a huge policy mistake going back to Clinton. But until then, I would suggest you you take a breath and relax.

Posted by: jmo | Jun 24, 2005 4:17:31 PM

Not perhaps as "transparent" as Jean Francois Kerry would have been, given his famously lower average than President Bush's whilst at Yale.

Posted by: cathar | Jun 24, 2005 4:36:07 PM

That is, of course, if you can still take a breath...

6 Americans killed in Iraq car bombing
At least three were women, worst single-day toll for servicewomen

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide car bomber slammed into a 7-ton U.S. military vehicle in Fallujah, killing five Marines and a Navy sailor, Marine Corps sources told NBC News, adding that at least three of the dead were female Marines and that 13 others were wounded.

A review of casualty records indicates the attack is the single deadliest toll for female servicemembers in Iraq. Since the war started, 44 servicewomen have died in attacks or in accidents while in Iraq.

Posted by: lc | Jun 24, 2005 4:49:19 PM

I salute these women, mourn their deaths. And I admire their willingness to serve. What on earth else would you have me do?

I also damn the suicide bombers (as I despise all such terrorists), only rue that we couldn't catch them first and then draw and quarter them. What on earth else would you have me do?

And any one of those young women was worth 100 such "insurgents."

Posted by: cathar | Jun 24, 2005 4:56:27 PM

Jmo-
the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 authorized the US to spend $97 million supporting opposition groups in Saddam's Iraq. Opposition and pro-democratic groups were supposed to be identified and supported with broadcasting assistance, military training, humanitarian assistance (to those fleeing Iraq). The idea was to support regime change from within. It had nothing to do with invading the country and occupying it for 5-10 years. Blaming this on Clinton is a pretty pathetic act of desperation on your part.

Posted by: Cheaplazymom | Jun 24, 2005 6:52:48 PM

this might be good advice:

"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

The men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less."

--Senator Dick Durbin, December 1998, defending then-President Bill Clinton, when he attacked Iraq.

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 24, 2005 7:10:54 PM

BTW,

http://web.archive.org/web/20000419015753/http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/PressReleases/981217b.htm

from within eh?

We won't survive long as a culture if we can't remember even our own recent history.

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 24, 2005 7:14:05 PM

Right back at ya, ROC.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

Here's the bill.

Posted by: Cheaplazymom | Jun 24, 2005 8:37:06 PM

JMo, I don't know what bubble you're living in, but the American people are unlikely to put up with 5 more years of this, and frankly 5 years might be too optimistic. Getting the US into an obligation that it can't keep--to rebuild a country at our own expense--had a component of recklessness. I hope it all turns out well and you Republicans get the opportunity to gloat. Right now, though, the odds are looking long. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: walleroo | Jun 24, 2005 9:54:52 PM

Dear Lazy Mom, or is that Cheap Mom, Rule # 1 of debate is to know your facts. And secondly to have a grasp of reading comprehension. And finally to be able to see how policy is interpreted from said words. Don't take my word for it here is what John Kerry said, who voted in favor of the Senate bill:

"This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not."
John Kerry, 1998

Posted by: jmo | Jun 25, 2005 2:11:45 AM

Dear Lazy Mom, or is that Cheap Mom, Rule # 1 of debate is to know your facts. And secondly to have a grasp of reading comprehension. And finally to be able to see how policy is interpreted from said words. Don't take my word for it here is what John Kerry said, who voted in favor of the Senate bill:

"This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not."
John Kerry, 1998

Posted by: jmo | Jun 25, 2005 2:12:11 AM

One more thing. THe law also authorized giving arms to the INC....just a small point but I guess taken together it's not a big intellectual jump to see how this could be interpreted as "regime change."

Posted by: jmo | Jun 25, 2005 2:26:05 AM

A little OT, but I thought this fit:

“I mean you’re comfortable with war.”

“Not at all. I find it highly uncomfortable, and wish it would not have come to this. Good Lord, who wants war? But sometimes war is what you have, and often times you’ve had it long before you realized it was upon you. In which case you can either retreat to the illusions that bore you through the phony peace, or seek to conclude the strife that was brought to your door. Just because you’re deaf doesn’t mean the sirens don’t blare, my friend. Don’t mistake resolve for pleasure.”

At this point the handshake between Rumsfeld and Saddam would be brought up, and you’d be off on that. Again. "

http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/index.html

See 6/24/05 article, "YOUR STUPID GENES! STUPID! STUPID!"

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 25, 2005 8:59:12 AM

This war didn't just happen. It was plotted and planned for a very long time, it was based on lies which were fed to a gullible public, it is all about achieving hegemony in the Middle East, and it is a criminal act which has needlessly destroyed the lives of countless thousands.

Posted by: latebloomer | Jun 25, 2005 9:37:15 AM

Thats Mrs. Cheaplazymom to you jmo.

Who's having difficulty reading. Nothing in your Kerry quote refers to war, invasion, or a protracted occupation of the country. Yes, the intention was to support regime change, but from within. I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you.

The thing that is "scary" about the neocons in the back room is not that they pined for a regime change in Iraq. It is that they wanted it so bad, that they cooked the books on intelligence, sold the war as a response to a massive and imminent threat, made specious connections to 9/11, AND said it would be a cakewalk. Remember the streets strewn with flowers and the refusal to discuss post-invasion plans with the State Department?

I understand that having to defend this policy is unpleasant for you. It can't be easy coming up with a justification for this awful mess. But, there is no reason to get snide. I can see how digging up ancient press releases from Kerry and Durbin might make you feel better. But the facts remain. There was ample warning before we invaded that this was going to be a huge mistake. George Senior was sensible enough to just say "No" to invading Iraq.

Hey, we all make mistakes, no biggie. But, don't pretend that we all made this one together.

Posted by: Cheaplazymom | Jun 25, 2005 10:23:33 AM

Mistake or no, the action is not taken 'together'. That much is clear.

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 25, 2005 11:22:04 AM

What is so puzzling about the cognitive dissonance that CheapLazy Mom is suffering underis that in the face of facts she and her ilk still resort to fitting selected historical events to a view that the Bush administration, as she says so eloquently, "cooked the books..." This simply patently untrue. I will admit that from a PR standpoint using the WMD argument as the prime justification was a mistake. But is was an honest mistake. The laundry list of governments and yes even political parties in this country who felt the former Iraqi regime had or was close to having weapons of mass destruction was based on the fact, not conjecture, that Hussein had, used and was developing them. The issue is not if he had them or not, the issue that the Bush bashers won't contemplate is what happened to them. They just did not get up and walk away. That being said, regime change as written in the 98 resolution authorized us to arm various groups inside the country to overthow Hussein. It was obviously a first step. That it did not work, five years later the policy expanded to subsequent security council resolutions calling for his acquiesence to UN demands or to face the military consequences.

I also suggest actually reading some of Wolfowitz's speeches delivered at Georgetown a in 2000. I will be glad to post the reference, but suffice it to say the policy of regime change was put in context that the primary motivation was Hussein's destablizing impact on the region and his abominable human rights record.

Now you can argue that you are against this war on several legitimate grounds, but it is facetious argument to keep on insisting that we were lied to.

On the other hand the current news that is repeated on a daily basis showing only the bad news coming out of Iraq distorts the whole story. As someone that spends more of his time in the Middle East than in the safety and comfort of Montclair, I can clearly say that though the news is not good it is far from the disaster mongering that is aired on the major networks. I am not being Pollyanna here but there are hopeful signs from the number of infrastructure construction, the establishment of government institutions, to the vast majority of Iraqis though not in love with the occupation d not want us to leave at this point.

And that is after all the reality on the ground. We are not leaving Iraq, in spite of calls by those who think giving the Jihadist and their allies a date when we will cut and run.

The other issue in this debate that is troubling is that it is not about simply opposing US policy rather it is the intense hatred and animus held by those on the left for Bush that has clouded a fair and open discussion on what is in our national interest and where do reasonable people agree to disagree.

Posted by: jmo | Jun 25, 2005 11:47:09 AM

If anyone really wants to know who was behind the Iraq war, read the 1998 letter to President Clinton posted by the right-of-center Project for a New American Century. The group's leaders included then Halliburtonite Dick Cheney,plus Jeb Bush, Gary Bauer, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Steve Forbes to name a few. The group is headed by Weekly Standard's William Kristol whose paper is a sister company to Fox News (the company presided over by Republican political strategist Roger Ailes). The complete list of their membership is at their very own website: www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

The letter to Clinton states: "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." The complete letter is at: www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

Posted by: Verve | Jun 25, 2005 12:43:10 PM

I have a simple question for CLM. Does she want to see the US win the war in Iraq?

Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jun 25, 2005 12:55:20 PM

There were plenty of weapons experts who, were they betting men, would have put money on Saddam having WMD. They also admitted at the time that they had no evidence whatsoever--they were merely extrapolating from what they knew of Saddam when the inspectors left. That includes Hans Blix, who was as surprised as anyone no WMDs were found when the US invaded. Nobody had evidence that Saddam had WMDs, but neither did they have evidence that he didn't have them. So if we want to be generous to George W., we could say that perhaps he didn't so much lie as, well, act rashly.

I happen to believe that Bush's real reason for going to war with Saddam wasn't because of WMDs or because of a need to avenge his father, but because he and his radical friends have a certain notion of empire and America's role in cleaning up the Middle East. This vision was never sold to the public, unless you count people like Richrd Perle muttering in the shadows. But this is speculation, so we won't go and make any accusations.

What Bush can safely be accused of, in my opinion, is having committed this country to something it most likely cannot sustain in terms of dollars, manpower and politics. What are the odds that the elections in 08 are a referendum on a $200 billion a year quagmire, and a new president and congress get elected on a cut-and-run platform? At present it's probably the most likely outcome of Bush's foolish and impetuous rush to war Texas-style. It would be a thoroughly predictable result of Bush's failure to spend any of his so-called political capital prepraring the American public for sacrifice of any kind, including a protracted occupation in Iraq. On the other hand, perhaps Bush is Mr. Magoo; perhaps he (and we all) will be incredibly lucky and progress in Iraq will proceed at a brisk enough pace to keep public opinion from turning Vietnam-like against the war, and we'll stick it out and everything will be all right in the end, the Middle East transformed. Oh what a hero he'll be then.

Damn! I forgot to mention Al Qaeda and the war on terror. Remember that?

Posted by: wallerooo | Jun 25, 2005 1:11:00 PM