SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2006 I think it was just an odd post in this thread. That's why Jerk said that, I mean. It's a thread about Iraq. Well, yeah, that and the fact that the leadership of both parties have pursued free trade policies pretty vigorously for the last 15 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/14/...main/index.html You know shit has to be terrible to close down colleges. Can you imagine people surrounding a cabinet-level office in Washington and kidnapping a hundred people inside? This is the kind of activity that makes the "California comparison" and other spin completely ludicrous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2006 Seriously I was about to post a story about this. How can you possibly create a University system and run a city when the cops are kidnapping the professors? Come on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2006 Didnt LBJ's 'credibility gap' teach people anything? How do polititians get so far without understanding basic politics/consequences in their own country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2006 "Mission Accomplished" Sorry, someone was going to say it. Seriously, let's get the hell out of there while the gettings good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 6, 2006 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 Boy, I'm sure glad we had that Iraq Study Group. It took a whole lot of reeeal hard thinkin' and research to say that Iraq is fucking mess & a disaster. Because most of us didn't already know that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 What it looks like is that all the former Bush aides/chiefs/consultants etc.....knew this was a doomed war from the get-go, and while they still have a chance to leave their legacy for our grandchildren to read about in history books, they are making the choice to come off as LIARS instead of IDIOTS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 Boy, I'm sure glad we had that Iraq Study Group. It took a whole lot of reeeal hard thinkin' and research to say that Iraq is fucking mess & a disaster. Because most of us didn't already know that. You don't see the benefit of having a bipartisan panel of experts explaining our mistakes and giving recommendations on what to do next? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 It makes sense I guess, but I could've told you our mistakes and made similar recommendations a couple of years ago. Also, I'm not exactly sure how Sandra Day O'Connor & Vernon Jordan (for example) are Iraq experts. And some of their recommendations were just silly. I can give examples if you want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gary Floyd 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 The thing is, even after the report from the study groups, you know that he's still not going to pull out of Iraq, no matter what. If you aks me NoCalMike, this whole thing really proves that the administration is made up of people who are both liars and idiots, which is a dangerous combination. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 I'm not sure how Jordan got on the panel except for his close ties to the Clinton Administration, but if you can mount an argument that O'Connor (who used to be on the Supreme Court) is incapable of studying a complex issue and coming to a conclusion based on available evidence, go ahead. The entire panel consisted of: James Baker, former Secretary of State Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State Edwin Meese III, former US Attorney General Alan K. Simpson, former Senate Republican Whip Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and member of the 9/11 Commision Vernon Jordan, Jr., former Clinton Administration advisor Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense Charles S. Robb, former Senator The country is probably more interested in what they think than what you think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 From the ISG report: Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. No shit? Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation... Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq. ...The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. Also, everyone in Iraq should get a shiny new pony. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 I'm not sure how Jordan got on the panel except for his close ties to the Clinton Administration, but if you can mount an argument that O'Connor (who used to be on the Supreme Court) is incapable of studying a complex issue and coming to a conclusion based on available evidence, go ahead. The entire panel consisted of: James Baker, former Secretary of State Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State Edwin Meese III, former US Attorney General Alan K. Simpson, former Senate Republican Whip Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and member of the 9/11 Commision Vernon Jordan, Jr., former Clinton Administration advisor Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense Charles S. Robb, former Senator The country is probably more interested in what they think than what you think. Okay, you got a good quip in on O'Connor...but I think there would probably be a great number of people out there with significantly more foreign policy expertise that O'Connor. You make a good argument though, and maybe it would be good to have someone not from the foreign policy mandarin class who would not be hemmed in by conventional wisdom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 A married couple with two children and an income of $40,000 had their taxes cut by 96%. That's middle-class. Do some research. This can't be quoted enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 I always thought it was 'Higgins'. I guess I was wrong about one thing with him. And, no, I still haven't spent all of my 96% tax cut yet. Up next- Another trip to Colombia. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 From what I understand, James Baker (who's probably in the pocket of the Saudis) in particular recommends that Iraq basically be turned over to a panel consisting of its neighbors, the EU, and UN. Of course Israel would have no part in it, while other regional countries like Egypt and the Gulf states would... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord of The Curry 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 Bush and Blair's voices had the "We are fucked" tone in them during the PC. I came home and laughed for a few minutes so I guess I'll thank them for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 Saint John McCain, exactly one year ago: I think the situation on the ground is going to improve. I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent. The Hill, 12/8/05 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 I'm not sure how Jordan got on the panel except for his close ties to the Clinton Administration, but if you can mount an argument that O'Connor (who used to be on the Supreme Court) is incapable of studying a complex issue and coming to a conclusion based on available evidence, go ahead. The entire panel consisted of: James Baker, former Secretary of State Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State Edwin Meese III, former US Attorney General Alan K. Simpson, former Senate Republican Whip Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and member of the 9/11 Commision Vernon Jordan, Jr., former Clinton Administration advisor Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense Charles S. Robb, former Senator The country is probably more interested in what they think than what you think. Well, the country should care more about what I (or people who opposed the war in general) think. Because every single person on this list was wrong on the Iraq war in 2003. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 Feingold said it better than I can: The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 Because every single person on this list was wrong on the Iraq war in 2003. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 I could be wrong. Which ones opposed the war, Jerk? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 I heard Warren Harding supported the Iraq War. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted December 8, 2006 looks like Colbert was right, reality does have a liberal bias. I frankly think its pretty despicable the way reality is politicizing the Iraq War and our brave soldier sacrifices to suit its anti-Bush rhetoric. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted December 9, 2006 I could be wrong. Which ones opposed the war, Jerk? That's not what you said, and I'm not playing the negative-proof game. We don't know what they thought one way or the other. None of those Democrats were even in office in 2003. And except for O'Conner, neither were any of the Republicans. O'Conner COULDN'T take a position because she was on the Supreme Court. In other words, we don't know WHERE most of those people stood, but for either you or Feingold to assume that they supported it because they didn't say is the same kind of "if you're not with us you're against us" bullshit tactic the Bush Administration has used for the last 5 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2006 Um, our lord & savior Jim Baker wrote an op-ed ENDORSING the war back in 2003. And we are supposed to be led to salvation by this guy who exercised tremendously bad judgment then? Please. Would it have killed them to include one person who vocally opposed the war? Because they sure as fuck made someone who vocally supported the debacle the chair of the study group. The membership of the study group was not respresentative of the public consensus that has emerged on the war, and the report reflects that, tacitly supporting a continued US presence in Iraq. Why? Because only "serious" folks like Baker, John McCain, or Joe Lieberman are taken seriously in the media & in conventional wisdom with respect to foreign policy despite the fact that their policies have proved undeniably distastrous failures. Howard Dean was right. Nancy Pelosi was right. Hell. Dennis fucking Kucinich and fat Mikey Moore were right. France was right. Yet for some reason the neoconservative Kool-Aid gang are still treated like the Grand Wise Men of Washington. When in any sane world they would be laughed the fuck off my teevee, the op-ed pages of any major newspaper outside of the New York Post, & relegated to diatribes in the American Spectator & on freerepublic.com. Or the Pit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2006 William Perry supported military action, too. And the Baker op-ed was 2002, not 2003. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted December 11, 2006 What about O'Connor, Eagleburger, Meese, Simpson, Hamilton, Jordan, Panetta, and Robb? Can you show in any way that "every single one of them" supported it? How credible could this commision had been if it'd included people who'd publicly taken sides? This group was set up to figure out what to do about Iraq, not rake the Bush Administration over the coals for screwing up in the first place. Yes, some people WHO ONLY HAD WHAT INFORMATION THE BUSH ADMINISRATION WAS TELLING THEM TO GO BY mistakenly believed that Iraq had WMDs. Oh, no. We can never listen to their ideas ever again. Because Howard Dean is always right, I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted December 11, 2006 Feingold said it better than I can: The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq. Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal? I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
