The toadies in the White House are crappin’ in their pants on account of they might actually have to be held accountable for something
The result, say administration officials and friends and allies on the outside who speak regularly with them, is a mood of intense uncertainty in the White House that veers in some cases into fear of the personal and political consequences and anger at having been caught in the snare of a special prosecutor. And given how badly things have been going for Mr. Bush and his team on other fronts – a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center put his approval rating at 38 percent, a new low – they hardly have deep reserves of internal enthusiasm or external good will to draw on.
“Everyone is going about the work at hand while bracing for the worst case,” said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to get around the official White House position that it will not comment on the investigation.
The poor dears.
Light the candles, and hand out the sheet music to Kumbaya — that big 2000 mark is coming.
C’mon, now, all together: Cin – DEE! Cin – DEE! Cin – DEE!
If that is a reference to the macabre countdown to 2000 dead in Iraq, your low-brow humor just reached a new milestone in the staggering disregard for life in general, despite your seeming concern for the rights of the unborn .
But Frank, that mission was already accomplished.
Perhaps your concern for the unborn lay more in the need for cannon fodder for future wars of conservative fancy. You and yours seem unable to populate the ranks from the nation’s chicken coops.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051031/the_young_chickenhawks
Their mission being what? Ridding Iraq of WMDs? That was apparently accomplished during Clinton’s term, or before that. Ridding Iraq of torture chambers? Stopping the spread of islamic ‘republics’? The troops are doing a valiant job, but the mission is the mistake here.
Macabre humor, indeed… Yet the number will be set in huge fonts here, CNN, the NY Times, etc., etc.
I won’t be laughing then… just remembering. I’ve done my share, and mourned my dead friends and relatives.
What will you be doing?
Of course, your lack of concern for the unborn will continue, as will your inabilty to support the troops, in their mission.
Question for Frank: if an American citizen believes that our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of a disastrously mistaken policy, is it not his or her duty to support the troops by speaking out?
I won t be laughing then& just remembering.
But you’re laughing now, so how is that any better?
What will you be doing?
Continuing to hold accountable, the man that sent them – needlessly – to their deaths, George W. Bush.
Frank, the link works just fine for me, but browser issues aren’t worth arguing about.
Considering the role that Islam is definitely going to play in the new Iraq, as well as our kid gloves with Saudi Arabia, I find it hard to believe the argument that we’re stopping the spread of Islamic republics.
Speaking of cliches:
We support our troops, but we don t think they should be there, and we hope they lose, so the Democrats will win in 06.
This is projection on your part. The anti-war left doesn’t want the troops to lose.
And, oh yes, read Oliver’s title for the post again, before you start on me.
Wilbur: It is a citizen’s duty, before speaking out, to make every attempt to discover as much as one can about the policy and strategy behind the military action. A small — very small — amount of faith should be placed in our leadership, and, of course, our military leadership, before this search is undertaken.
I did such research before I went to Viet Nam, to investigate, with an open mind, the possibilty of refusing to going off to fight in an unjust war.
After my investigation, I came to several conclusions: 1) The Vietnamese were a fiercely proud, freedom – loving people. They deserved to live and free.
2) Fighting the encroachment of communism anywhere was worth the fight — with or without “dominoes.”
3) It was not unreasonable for me to approach the Army with a simple proposition: I will participate in a war, but I will not personally, willfully kill someone. I enlisted as “non – combat”, not exacly a conscientious objector.
Curmudgeon: right now, I’m laughing at the anti – war left, and particularly those who speak out of both sides of their mouths, by saying, “We support our troops, but we don’t think they should be there, and we hope they lose, so the Democrats will win in ‘06.”
As for holding someone accountable, you’ll have to start with the Suez incident during the Eisenhower administration. Remember what I said about research? Try some before you continue to drool over the idea of “Bush in chains,” which will never happen, anyway.
Leo: The “chickenhawk” meme is nonsense. The “cannon fodder” theory was extinct by the beginning of the war in Viet Nam (hence, the idea of 12 month rotation, which, you may not know, was reduced from 13 months in the mid to late ’60’s).
BD: Your link doesn’t work, and neither does your facetious (and extremely tired) idea. The mission of wresting control of the government away from Hussein was accomplished, and defeating the Republican Army was accomplished. If, indeed, the WMD’s were gone during Clinton’s (blessed be his name) Presidency, why didn’t he say they were?
For all you know, we are stopping the spread of Islamic republics. We really can’t tell that. Things have changed for the better in Lebanon and Egypt.
So, please, spare me the clichés. I doubt any of you were truly offended by my original remark, as I am sure you will be posting up a storm of “Off with Bush’s head” posts on “2000 day.”
“I will participate in a war, but I will not personally, willfully kill someone.”
Frank, based on your earlier comment, you apparently oppose abortion because of killing the unborn, with which I agree. However, you support an unjustified war based on lies, in which thousands of innocent women and children were killed by bombs and missles that were bought and paid for by the American taxpayers. Even though they were not the targets, they were killed as part the actions of Americans under the leadership of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and others.
Those who support this war are also responsible.
2) Fighting the encroachment of communism anywhere was worth the fight with or without dominoes.
Does this justify the Iran/contra scandal, and financing the ‘fight against communism’ by illegally selling arms and drugs, and propping up right-wing dictators?
Seriously, not to be a troll, but how did the Vietnam war help in fighting communism?
We support our troops, but we don t think they should be there, and we hope they lose, so the Democrats will win in 06.
Nobody on my side is hoping they lose. That’s just slanderous bullshit.
There is, however, a significant difference between what you’ve said, and the reality that we; support our troops, don’t think their lives should be squandered in Iraq, generally believe Iraq was never “winnable” in the first place*, understand that it was NEVER part of the “war on terror” until the Bush Clan mucked it up, and that hopefully, the Democrats will win in ‘06 and be able to clean up the mess.
…and you can quote me on that.
*Pre-emptive, unjustified and illegal wars never are.
“It is a citizen s duty, before speaking out, to make every attempt to discover as much as one can about the policy and strategy behind the military action.”
Your research skills have obviously gotten a little rusty over the years. Which is why you free to spout whatever bullshit that comes into your head whenever the facts fail you and you need to back up your arguments without right lies. Which is, naturally, what makes you such a perfect shill for this administration. What on earth, might I ask, was the policy and strategy behind invading Iraq? Everything we were told about why we went in has been proven false except for the argument that the Iraqis deserve to live in freedom. But that’s a sentiment that isn’t exactly specific to Iraq, is it? It holds true for the entire planet, so how exactly does it serve to justify this specific invasion? How exactly did invading Iraq stop the encroachment of radical Islam? Were they encroaching on Hussein? Am I missing something here? The sad fact is that rather than inserting ourselves lamely into a civil war, as we did in Vietnam, we are now creating the conditions for a civil war. Or are you holding out hope that we haven’t simply given the Sunnis and Shiites a golden opportunity for the bloody sectarian warfare they’ve been itching for for decades? And pray tell me how does your and the president’s hope translate into a policy or a strategy? Have your read this article yet? Your hope isn’t going to keep these guys from getting their revenge when the time is right. The guys we armed and trained are talking about killing Americans. What a fanfuckingtastic way to support the troops, asshole.
ps Don’t go lecturing people about research and history when you still haven’t answered a single one of my challenges to your revisionist attempt to erase the history of the Hollywood Blacklist. Talk about intellectual cowardice, you don’t even have the guts to defend your lies.
BD: Try this one: http://worstweatherever.blogspot.com/2005/09/george-bush-must-read-my-blog.html
Perhaps I should have said Fundamentalist Islamic Republics. For more on this, from the standpoint of al Qaeda’s objectives, read Why Bali? It really is an important article.
Maybe I’m projecting, but there is no doubt that statements like Gore’s most recent statements overseas can be demoralizing.
Frank D thinks our soldiers should be ground up in Iraq so Bush won’t look so bad for fucking up the invasion in the first place. I think he’s just plain wrong.
you ll have to prove that one.
Unfortunately it’s one of those “time will tell” deals that are going to cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I’m no general, but this is my logic; if a war is pre-emptive, you better have a damn good, rock-solid reason for going in. If not, then it is unjustified. If you go in anyhow, then it is illegal. If you can’t justify the war thoroughly, then you can’t win support at home and abroad (exactly as it’s happened). If you can’t win support at home and abroad, then you can’t win the war – ESPECIALLY if your are trying to win a “war of ideals.”
Viet Nam It was always right!
So you’re ignorant AND proud! There’s no point in even debating you, but I’ll bite…how, exactly, was Vietnam “right”?
Bushwacked: I disagree.
Sorry, curmudgeon, you’ll have to prove that one. If I may introduce you to one of the geopolitical facts of life: Even if the war in Iraq was “Pre-emptive, unjustified and illegal,” that wouldn’t necessarily make it “unwinnable.”
It was true during Viet nam {that many anti -war protestors wanted us to lose}, and as far as I’m concerned, there is no way to pull out of Iraq, anytime soon, without throwing away a possible victory.
The same thing happened in 1975,and I, for one, will never forget it, nor will I forgive Congress for it.
I have a T-shirt that says how I feel: Viet Nam — It was always right!
Frank D is right the legal status of the war does not make it unwinnable, Bush & Co. lack of vision and a plan do.
Frank_D: “I have a T-shirt that says how I feel: Viet Nam It was always right!”
Wow. I’m stunned. I’ve not heard such a hollow-earth, pseudological, perverted view of history since I read an essay by a holocaust revisionist.
I’m gonna see mr.curmudgeon’s “bite” and raise you another question that begs asking:
Were you there, Frank? In Viet Nam, in combat?
Wysdom -
You missed the post, above, where Frank said he enlisted as non-combat. Viet Nam was always right, you see, just not right enough for him to kill for it. It was plenty all right for others to kill and die, mind.
“Always,” Frank?
Do you have boxers that say “My Lai – That Was Right Too!”
BD, you’re such a tool. I was in Viet Nam, when that happened. We were read a memo that informed us that we were under no obligation to obey orders that we viewed as immoral or illegal. Very soon after I got home the story hit all the papers. I was one of a very few veterans who said that Calley should be given the death penalty, and any soldier that shot an unarmed civilian should be prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ.
There was at least one soldier who refused to kill anyone at My Lai 4 that day. Another soldier shot himself in the foot, rather than kill a civilian (that could be a myth, but that’s what I heard)
Read Hersh’s book.
So, BD, you can go f*ck yourself and the horse that rode in on you. Was your uncle one of the people spitting on returning veterans in the SF airport? Or was it your Mom?
By the way, wysdom, did you ever wear a miltary uniform?
I doubt it.
I think, in view of the fact that I know nothing at all about you, and I don’t want to, I’m way ahead of you. So I’ll save the rest of the autobiographical details for someone who gives a sh*t.
I just caught up with the earlier post wherein Frank_D gave the brief allusion “before I went to Viet Nam” as a non-combatant.
So that’s an answer to part of my question, and I apologise to all present for my redundancy.
But the rest remains–Were you ever anywhere NEAR the combat, Frank? How long were you there? At what point? Stationed where and doing what?
Oh, Jesus, the “chickenhawk” meme. What shall I do? Shall I lie, and say I was a LRRP, and see if Wysdom swallows his chewing gum?
Yes, I was there, and where I was, we were all in combat. Here’s how it worked: Charlie set up a mortar, or a small artillery piece, and fired off a few rounds. Within minutes, helicopters took off looking for them. A few minutes later, if the choppers hadn’t taken them out, jets took of, Things went “Boom!”, Charlie either ran off or went to the Happy Hunting Ground. I think that was enough combat for me. Would I sound more authoritative if I told you I went on patrols?
I pulled guard duty on the perimeter several times a month,hunkered in a bunker over an M-60. Wanna hear about the time I confronted a real live King Cobra? Oooooh, scary — but true.
Now, am I qualified to have an opinion? Or can I only be in favor of the war, if I was a Green Beret?
Now, if you want my opinion, you’ll have to wait until the subject comes up on the threads. And, remember, I was there, so my opinion counts, but you weren’t, so yours doesn’t. And you know what really pisses me off? I was there longer than Kerry, and I was wounded, and I wasn’t even nominated for President! No fair!
But I will point you to the answer, since on my screen, it’s about 8 or 10 inches up:
And you’re right, Curmudgeon, there is no point in debating me. I’ve debated the Viet Nam over a hundred times, with all kinds of people, from Professors to GI’s, veterans to bartenders. Based on your previous posts, you wouldn’t have a chance. And I did it all without an Internet.
Incidentally, I will personally mail a check for $50.00 to anyone who can tell me what the real meaning of the slogan on the T – Shirt is. If you get it wrong, I don’t expect anything but some good laughs.
Anyone want to try?
The cannon fodder theory was extinct by the beginning of the war in Viet Nam
I don’t know what the flock that means. Do you mean the military changed official policy of ‘cannon fodder’ to rotation in the ’60’s? Anyway, as you know I am not limited by the constipated 20th century definitions from the era of Goldwater. I was referring to the ‘right to life’ crowd who suddenly loses interest in the well-being of the child until he/she is of miltary age. Then they get REAL interested again. I find it fascinating that a so-called ‘culture of life’
is also overwhelmingly in favor the the DEATH penalty, and is always ready to sacrifice the under/middle class offsrpring in wars of choice.
Jesus, Frank. I expected the angry rebuttal, but I didn’t expect unprovoked (and for the record, completely false) attacks on my family.
Go take a time out and come back when you want to talk like an adult again.
And you re right, Curmudgeon, there is no point in debating me. …you wouldn t have a chance…
Wow, Frank is an arrogant, grade-A asshole. Who’da thunk it?
Fighting the encroachment of communism anywhere was worth the fight with or without dominoes.
So did we “win” in Vietnam? Or did we throw a ton of bodies into the gaping maw of a phantom?
“Charlie set up a mortar, or a small artillery piece, and fired off a few rounds. Within minutes, helicopters took off looking for them. A few minutes later, if the choppers hadn t taken them out, jets took of, Things went Boom! , Charlie either ran off or went to the Happy Hunting Ground … Now, am I qualified to have an opinion?”
You were always “qualified” to have an opinion of the Iraq war. That isn’t what the chicken hawk argument is about. It isn’t about whether someone has the right to have an opinion about the war. “Why don’t you enlist?” is just a little question that really seems to piss off the most vocal war supporters who also happen to fall between the ages of 18 and 35. Why is that? What do they find so objectionable about the suggestion that maybe they shoudl think about acting on their opinions? If I told you that I supported democracy but then never voted you would find that kind of odd, wouldn’t you? But we’ve covered this ground before, so moving on …
What strikes me about your above description is why, after seeing Vietnam up close and personal, your opinion of the war in Iraq is still what it is. Your description of Vietnam pretty much fits what we seem to be doing in Iraq, a seemingly endless cycle of retaliation instead of a real plan for bringing the country under control. We get hit with a mortar or a roadside bomb, we move in an clean a place out and leave. A week or a month later the whole thing repeates. How long do we have to keep running through this vicious cycle?
You and other supporters of this war keep talking about some ultimate “victory.” What does that mean? A free and democratic Iraq? Well, Iraq is free now, isn’t it? It’s also a democracy now, isn’t it? They’ve held elections and will hold another one tomorrow. So what’s the hold up on that victory party? Oh right, it’s the lack of security. Which brings us back to the cycle of retaliation and this administration’s total lack of a plan from the get go to secure the country. Everyone keeps talking about training the Iraqi army. Well, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi army are Shiites. The majority of the terrorists, so-called, in Iraq are Sunnis. So we are training Shiites to arrest or kill Sunnis. That kind of sounds like a great plan for a civil war. Victory here we come.
Historical footnote: The anti – war meme for Viet Nam was “But, it’s a civil war.” Of course, we know better now.
By the way, anybody want to try for the $50?
Frank –
None of the “developments” you cite can be directly linked to our invasion of Iraq whatsoever. Not one. I’d love to here your reasons for thinking so anyway. Care to trot a few out?
BD: I didn’t expect to be accused of acquiescing to murder. By the way, how many people have you killed for your country? Have you ever killed anyone? Could you? Do you want to?
As to attacks on your family, now you know how I feel. This is the poison seed planted by JadeGold the Putz and Loopy Velez.
I apologize. My Lai is a touchy subject with me, for personal reasons.
Now you know. Maybe, next time you’ll “be an adult” and tell them to knock it off, instead of sitting quietly by.
Incidentally, to the rest of you: I’m not debating two wars with four or five different people.
Iraq is not Viet Nam. The world today is not the world of the ’60’s. My true feeling about Iraq is simple: It would be nice if we didn’t have to go to war anywhere. But, Iraq was a “target of opportunity” – a place where we could go and do something, and expect a positive outcome. My view of it is that we have put a speed bump in the Arab street. We have stopped a tyrant who had visons of a restoration of the Persian Empire.
Having sunk its teeth into the “there were no WMD’s” meme, the left has forgotten that, and the significance of the rewards paid by Hussein to the families of suicide bombers. Libya has abandoned its nuclear weapons program, Egypt has had a real election, Syrian troops are out of Lebanon. It’s a beginning, and it represents more real action in the Middle East than there has been since the Independence of Israel, by all the US Presidents, Dem and Rep, combined.
If I found out that every single President since Reagan had lied about WMD’s in Iraq, I would still view Bush’s actions in Iraq as both necessary and valuable. There are nearly 2000 dead GI’s in Iraq. In Viet Nam, we lost 58000 guys in approximately 14 years — or about 4000 per year.
War kills people, folks — always has, always will.
Let me tell you something about my hometown: Where I live there are about 60,000 people. By some weird quirk of fate, I knew personally each and every guy that died in Viet Nam in my hometown. In a town that large, what are the odds of that happening?
It’s a message not lost on me.
Frank – I’m not here to chaperone you or discipline other posters in this comments section. You know full well when you step onto this very liberal blog that the majority of posters are going to disagree with you. You know full well that some of them may make personal attacks and you’re welcome to respond to those posters with your own–which you do, often, and with gusto.
I, however, have never done any such thing to you. I’ve never called you names, I’ve never called you stupid, I have avoided, to my knowledge, using curse words against you, and I sure as hell never made baseless slander about what your family did or did not do at any point in history.
I disagree with you vehemently and often find your logic full of holes. That much is clear. And again, you know you will find that attitude in the majority of the posters on this very liberal blog. I disagree with you on my own terms and without any consultation with JadeGold or TomY or Semanticleo or whoever. When you argue with me, you are arguing with me and me alone.
So no, Frank, I’m not going to come riding to your defense the next time a poster decides to attack you. What an absurd suggestion to make. You do not have to be here. You made a conscious choice to walk into this forum and subject yourself to attack.
Who I may or may not have killed or wish to kill is no business of yours. I don’t come on here to tell long, boastful stories about myself as a means of ascribing authority and self-importance. You know diddly about who I am, and I’m just fine with that.
I’m sorry if My Lai is personal to you. But you were the one who opened that can of worms. “Always right,” you proudly proclaimed. Tossing around absolutes like that is reckless and deserved rebuttal.
This is the longest response I have written to you and I’m making it my last response to you. You cannot be trusted, Frank, to maintain a civil discourse and so I won’t be part of it. You can’t even be trusted to stay away from this VERY LIBERAL BLOG FULL OF PEOPLE WHO ATTACK YOU after you proclaimed you were shut of it months ago.
Get help, sir. Find something that makes you happy, because clearly this ain’t it.
BD – I guess I was wrong to apologize to someone who isn’t even gracious enough to accept it. I said what I thought I should say.
Say or do whatever you want on this very liberal blog, where to the best of my knowledge, Oliver has never even suggested I leave. It is his very liberal blog after all, not your very liberal blog.
Saying that the Viet Nam war was always right, is not the same thing as inviting a horse’s ass to accuse me of condoning murder. You’re not a horse’s ass, are you?
You said: “Who I may or may not have killed or wish to kill is no business of yours”, but it seems who I may or not have killed was your business: You missed the post, above, where Frank said he enlisted as non-combat. Viet Nam was always right, you see, just not right enough for him to kill for it.
And, if this is your last response to me, all I can say is, “Good riddance to bad rubbish.”