Good times, where have you gone?
I know, I know...it was posted here the other day that this page should focus on local issues only, and I agree with that...that is until I came across the cover of today's New York Post. 
Rich, I swear, this is my last national post -- Abe
10 comments:
Monica says that is a mouthful !! D.W.
I'll take a sex scandal over a war based on lies, record high gas prices, exploding deficits and a Medicare plan that doesn't work any day.
anon 2:25
Imagine if Clinton had paid more attention to the problems he identified to the Joint Chiefs in Feb 1998,
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.
If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
Clinton failed. I failed by voting for him (twice) and then Gore. Votes I can place beside my Ryan vote over the social conservative Glenn Poshard.
I'm not failing again.
Bill,
How did voting for Clinton fail you? Dole would have been much more isolationist than Clinton and Bush Sr. betrayed the Iraqis by not giving them air support when they had an uprising against Saddam, leading to his crushing the revolt and murdering thousands.
Are you suggesting that you should have voted for Nader in 1992 and 1996?
Also, in light of the horrible incompetence that was already evident in Bush's handling of the war in 2004, the pro-War Kerry was clearly the vote to make in 2004 if you cared about freedom for Iraqis. Clearly. I only wish that he had said these words during the campaign instead of waiting until last week:
"The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.
The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration's boastful claim of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America's power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.
And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford"
I meant Perot rather than Nader in above post
Bill,
How would Clinton acting have improved Iraq? They were better off in 1998 than they are now, that's for sure.
They were better off in 1998 than they are now, that's for sure.
Prez, the question is are the Iraqi people and the rest of the world better off TODAY without Saddam, then they would be today with Saddam.
Not even the Jihadists in Iraq will answer they want Saddam back.
Everyone on both sides feels better off TODAY without him.
The great shame of the left today though is it's failure to support Iraqi Trade Unionists, leftists, secularists, and feminists in Iraq.
History will see this as a great betrayel on par with the Stalin-Hitler pact of 1939 and the leftists who joined in.
The Iraqi trade union delgation visiting Parliment in the UK said a few months ago something too the effect, they had no say on when the coalition would invade, but they sure want a say today on when we'll leave.
If your a leftist or progressive, you can do nothing other than side with these brave people. You can argue an isolatioinist, hard-realist case; but then your with Pat Buchanen and the Brent Scrowcroft crowd. You're no progressive or liberal.
As for Clinton, yes, I bought the internationalism he and Gore both talked when compared to H. W. Bush and Dole, and G. Bush...
But Clinton's great failure was a total inability to understand how to use the force the way Bush and Rumsfeld have, first in Afganistan then in Iraq; and throughout the rest of the world today....
Clinton sat helpless while Bin Laden's threat grew... lobbing a few cruise missles at Afganistan, or the Sudan.
He knew the threat, spoke of it --I remember his speech well here-- and could do nothing either because of his own personal flaws or simply didn't understand how to be Commander in Chief.
TigerHawk has a great post on it today sepculating on why the CIA turned on Bush. It's a cover up for the failures of the Nat Security Establishment... Tiger Hawk speculates about what the CIA might fear coming from Saddam... don't know about that but who knows. He sure has it right here though.
I mean, let's face it. The CIA owns the 9/11 failure. Nobody has really rubbed their noses in it, but they should. You could argue that the administration, the press and other government bureaucracies might have been well served to drag the CIA through the mud on it. They didn't, and as a consequence the owners of this failure lived to wage a bureaucratic jihad against the administration, aided and abetted by (of all things) the liberal press. Think about it, every one of these so-called experts -- Scheuer, Clarke, Wilson, Plame, McCarthy -- these are the clowns on the watch as Osama grew in power, grew his network, and ultimately wreaked havoc on the US. They are losers, failures, jokers -- each one. But further -- did they have an allegiance, a stake in preserving the status quo in Iraq, in the Middle East more broadly, in keeping alive the Islamic jihad? If so, why? Can Porter Goss clean this mess up, or will the bureaucratic losers try to consume him in the same way the military bureaucrats are going after Rumsfeld? And with the MSM's help to boot.
This crew is part of Clinton's legacy. Another reason I'm ashamed I voted for the guy.
Bill,
You cannot defend Rumsfeld. That is the litmus test between people who actually believe in the War Effort and those who are brainless Bush lackeys: Those who truly support the war want Rumsfeld gone ASAP while the Bush morons are totally blind to his murderous incompetence.
Andrew Sullivan said it best about Rumsfeld yesterday:
"The evidence is simply overwhelming that this (in my view) noble, important and necessary war was ruined almost single-handedly by one arrogant, overweening de facto saboteur. That man is Donald Rumsfeld. It's actually hard to fathom how one single man could have done so much irreparable damage to his country's cause and standing; and how no one was able to stop him. He makes McNamara look inspired. This is not to exonerate Bush and Cheney, who enabled and enable him. And it's not to argue that the military shouldn't always ultimately defer to civilian leadership. But when that leadership has been this incompetent, this bull-headed, this reckless and malevolent and petty, the generals have a patriotic duty to speak out. Until this man is removed, we can have no confidence in the conduct of the war; and no confidence in the president as commander-in-chief. It's really as simple as that."
Don't be braindead, Bill, join the call for Rumsfeld to resign so that the War effort can be saved.
I apologize in advance for the following lengthy rant. I'm glad that Rich is cutting off the national topics because if I have to keep reading the same old tired crap about why Clinton didn't stop bin Laden, or how the "liberal media" is to blame for everything, I'm going to puke. Here's some crap for you in response. Consider it payback for the headaches you've inflicted.
"What Republicans Believe:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him. A good guy when Cheney and Rumsfeld did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush couldn't find Bin Laden.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle and antagonize our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's and Dick Cheney's driving records are none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant."
Author unknown (or at least uncited in the chain e-mail this is stolen from).
I think it started with Carter and Brezinski when they used proxies to wage war in Afganistan.
Let proxies do our work for us.
I lot of bad things started under Carter in Afganistan and Iran and we're still cleaning it up... paying the price of doing not much then.
Post a Comment