4,000 dead Americans

[Atticus Chaos 0]

It's not fair to rank someone's presidency before it is over.

 

Unless Bush suddenly finds the cure for cancer in the time he has left , he'll be remember as one of, if not the, worst president in history.

[At Home 0]

where exactly does this impulse to name best and worst presidents in ranking order come from? this works for things like music, where you use the list as a function of your own taste and expertise, as your list is saying something about you as a person, and part of the fun is the total absence of standards...but somehow this listing of presidents is supposed to prove something? despite the vast differences in circumstances, goals, and overall picture, which are by nature unquantifiable? that's a parlor game, that's not real history.

 

This has been going on for decades. I don't think it's right to call it an impulse.

[snuffbox 0]

I don't think the lists are compliled by historians as much for listing's sake as it is to lay the presidents out on a spectrum to determine what makes an admistration a failure, a success, or in-between.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I think it's probably unfair to compare presidents from different centuries.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think it's probably unfair to compare presidents from different centuries.

 

How would Lincoln conduct the war on terror?

 

[snuffbox 0]

I think it's probably unfair to compare presidents from different centuries.

 

Personally, I think we can learn stuff from history. But I'm kind of a nerd.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I wish more of the Democrats would start outright calling Bush "the worst president in US history" or "one of the worst in our nation's history" to really drive home the point and get more Americans thinking about it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I wish more of the Democrats would start outright calling Bush "the worst president in US history" or "one of the worst in our nation's history" to really drive home the point and get more Americans thinking about it.

 

I think that would offend a lot of people's delicate sensibilities.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I wish more of the Democrats would start outright calling Bush "the worst president in US history" or "one of the worst in our nation's history" to really drive home the point and get more Americans thinking about it.

 

I think that would offend a lot of people's delicate sensibilities.

 

Who cares? No one has a right to not be offended. The only people who would actually get offended (or say they were offended) would be the die hard Repbulicans, or the remaining 30% or so of Americans who actually think Bush is doing a good job. The other 70% would either agree, or at least question the statements, and it would create a national dialogue.

[Vyce 0]

I wish more of the Democrats would start outright calling Bush "the worst president in US history" or "one of the worst in our nation's history" to really drive home the point and get more Americans thinking about it.

 

I wish they would do that too, if only for the fact that having his party come out as so blatantly divisive would completely undercut Obama's "I'm a uniter not a divider" rhetoric.

 

Which is all based on bullshit lies anyway, but still.

 

And Bush will probably wind up about mid-level in terms of how he's ultimately perceived. Since all of a sudden TSM is interested in historical context, just look at former Presidents like Truman, who's opinion polls absolutely tanked in his last two years of office (and gee, Truman was involved in a "quagmire" military conflict too), yet after decades of reflection, he's earned a lot of respect for his time in office.

[At Home 0]

Then again, the Democratic party is the party of little bitches. George Bush sent troops to die in the desert on the lie, turned American credibility on its head, ran the economy into the shitter single-handedly, ran up a multi-trillion dollar national debt, illegally wire taps American citizens' phones, used John Yoo to get a judicial all-access pass, disenfranchised voters, stole two elections, lies to the American public, opened the door for corporations and businesses to take stock in as much as the government as they want, ignored environmental issues for 7 years, put a couple of conservative judges into the Supreme Court.... so much more than that even.

 

George Bush is the worst fucking president ever. John McCain's ever-amounting parallels to Bush need to be brought to the public spectrum, and it's time for the Dems to start playing hardball. I don't doubt that we're going to win in November, but we also need to gain congressional and senatorial seats. I have NO idea why the Dems aren't using their A game. Bush's approval ratings are going to dip lower into the 20s. Strike while the iron is hot.

[EricMM 0]

Then again, the Democratic party is the party of little bitches. George Bush sent troops to die in the desert on the lie, turned American credibility on its head, ran the economy into the shitter single-handedly, ran up a multi-trillion dollar national debt, illegally wire taps American citizens' phones, used John Yoo to get a judicial all-access pass, disenfranchised voters, stole two elections, lies to the American public, opened the door for corporations and businesses to take stock in as much as the government as they want, ignored environmental issues for 7 years, put a couple of conservative judges into the Supreme Court.... so much more than that even.

Yes.

 

This is the Republicans fault.

[At Home 0]

Then again, the Democratic party is the party of little bitches. George Bush sent troops to die in the desert on the lie, turned American credibility on its head, ran the economy into the shitter single-handedly, ran up a multi-trillion dollar national debt, illegally wire taps American citizens' phones, used John Yoo to get a judicial all-access pass, disenfranchised voters, stole two elections, lies to the American public, opened the door for corporations and businesses to take stock in as much as the government as they want, ignored environmental issues for 7 years, put a couple of conservative judges into the Supreme Court.... so much more than that even.

Yes.

 

This is the Republicans fault.

 

That's not what I'm saying, Eric. I'm saying that the Democratic party is not fulfilling its duties to its members. Democrats assail the party for this all the time.

 

[EricMM 0]

They're afraid of being called weak on terror and / or unpatriotic.

[Vyce 0]

They're afraid of being called weak on terror and / or unpatriotic.

 

That's mostly because they are weak on terror.

 

As far as unpatriotic.....that's usually a case by case basis. And it's mostly a sliding scale. The hard-left usually is, more moderate Democrats are not.

[At Home 0]

They're afraid of being called weak on terror and / or unpatriotic.

 

I know that. What are you trying to say, dude?

 

Even still, what's more unpatriotic than the Iraq war? The Dems have been crippled by this thought that the republicans have them beat on national security. That's not true though. If the Dems take the Republicans head on in national security, it's a winning debate for the Democrats. The fact that they're not doing enough is what's really crippling them.

[EricMM 0]

They've got too much of an old school post-9/11 mindset.

 

They need to grow up and get a post-post-9/11 mindset.

[SuperJerk 0]

Ahmad Chalabi: Iraq's master manipulator

Excerpts of Aram Roston's book, ‘The Man Who Pushed America to War’

FIRST OF FIVE PARTS

By Aram Roston

Investigative producer

NBC News

updated 5:01 a.m. CT, Tues., April. 8, 2008

 

His inner circle called him The Doctor, because of his Ph.D in mathematics. Some of his operatives called him Our Big Brother. The Central Intelligence Agency called him by a code name — which intelligence sources reveal as Pulsar One. Whatever you call him, Ahmad Abdul Hadi Chalabi, a shrewd Iraqi Arab from a family of Shiite bankers, literally changed the world. The United States, which he referred to so respectfully as a “strategic ally,” had sponsored him, flown him and his people to Iraq, even toppled Saddam Hussein for him, as he would boast. The Iraq War has many critics and some fierce defenders, but many insiders on both sides of the debate agree on this: without Chalabi there would have been no war.

 

He is a man of large appetites, with a flair for theatrics, and a brilliant and untiring mind. He had a single-minded hatred of the sadistic Saddam Hussein, a loyalty to his own Shiite heritage, and an inexplicable certitude in his own entitlement. Chalabi’s medium is people, and as an Iraqi exile his grazing area was America; his genius was his ability to make loyal friends among adventurous spirits. He epitomized “charismatic leadership.” Over dinners, lunches, and coffee, he spoke in grand and colorful language about the human right to freedom, about the delightful world to come in the Middle East, about the great things that could be done. As he talked, Chalabi was physically transformed. What strangers saw as a smug smirk curled on his fleshy lips disappeared, and was replaced by a wise yet merry smile. Whereas once he had a stiff back and clumsy walk, now he appeared to have a regal and noble bearing. Some of his closest advisers were Democrats. Some were liberals. Some were pro-Israel; others were anti-Zionists. It didn’t really matter once they met him. But in the end it was notoriously the recruitment of the American neoconservatives and the hawkish wing of the Republican Party that got him what he needed. They satisfied his needs, and he theirs.

 

He touched America in three ways. His first success could be called ideological: he was able to affirm for a generation of thinkers the urgent need to overthrow Saddam. Toppling Saddam, and ending his aggression and his feared weapons of mass destruction, became the keystone of transforming the Middle East. Chalabi was not the sole source of this vision, but he was the chief intellectual facilitator for a now well-known cadre of hard-liners whose influence was extraordinary in the early part of the new millennium. They included Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, John Hannah, Michael Ledeen and Danielle Pletka. They dined with him and met him and conversed, and through well-placed op-eds and clever talking points and sound bites, their ideas bled into the mainstream.

 

Second, Chalabi fed intelligence and sources to journalists and the U.S. intelligence services. This was, for him, the easiest task. Much of the world already believed Saddam had WMDs. And Saddam was indeed a sadistic tyrant. Chalabi’s contribution was to give the allegations flesh and muscle and specificity. The tidbits he provided were often quickly discredited by intelligence officers, but they had tremendous impact on public opinion. His use of the press helped prepare the political battleground for war. The New York Times, CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” PBS’ “Frontline” and Vanity Fair became his chosen outlets. The splash from his stories was immense. Saddam, the intelligence services knew, had no ties to the attacks of 9/11, but as Chalabi’s friend Fouad Ajami wrote once to explain the war, “These distinctions did not matter; the connection had been made in American opinion.”

 

Third, Chalabi had political impact that was virtually unheard of for a foreigner. He used his personal magnetism, lobbying skills and tactical abilities to merge U.S. policy with his own ambitions. The U.S. Congress passed a law written largely to achieve his vision and to boost the fortunes of his political vehicle, the Iraqi National Congress. He had a battery of supporters on Capitol Hill. U.S. senators like Trent Lott, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Kerrey became his champions. But even more important, he knew how to manipulate the key aides who work anonymously in the back rooms to make Capitol Hill run. He courted key Republicans like Trent Lott’s Randy Scheunemann and House international affairs staffer Steve Rademaker, as well as Senate Democratic aides like Chris Straub and Peter Galbraith.

 

 

As a younger man, Chalabi had presided over the wholesale collapse of his family’s business empire, a worldwide venture riddled with fraud insider dealing and disastrous investments. But he was able to bounce back after locating a rich vein of financing from the U.S. government. American taxpayers generously funded him and his Iraqi National Congress during his fifteen-year campaign against Saddam. Although he was not an American, and in fact distrusted the United States, he moved from one federal agency to another with the easy grace of a hummingbird drifting from flower to flower. First he was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency, then by the State Department, and finally by the Defense Department. When he called the United States a “strategic ally,” maybe it was a taunt as much as it was reality.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23906686/

 

 

[Guest Teal-y Dan]

I don't doubt that we're going to win in November, but we also need to gain congressional and senatorial seats.

Who are we? You're not a registered member of the Democratic Party, are you? You can't even vote yet. We're not talking about football. If anyone ever catches me in an act of pronoun abuse from here on out, slap me in the face.

[At Home 0]

I don't doubt that we're going to win in November, but we also need to gain congressional and senatorial seats.

Who are we? You're not a registered member of the Democratic Party, are you? You can't even vote yet. We're not talking about football. If anyone ever catches me in an act of pronoun abuse from here on out, slap me in the face.

 

Why can't I associate myself with my party?

[snuffbox 0]

Are you a member of the party?

[At Home 0]

I'm not officially a member, no, but I think I've firmly rooted myself with the democrats. My dad's a fuckin' professional Bill Clinton look alike. We're in. Not to mention that my family has business ties with Al Gore and the Kennedys. Oh, and all the other shit we do, like vote democratic and go to conventions and make phone calls and go to rallies and protests. It's my party, and I'm going to refer to myself as a member of it.

[snuffbox 0]

I don't really know what you just said there but it's probably free to just join the party.

[snuffbox 0]

Does professional Bill Clinton Look-Alike pay well?

[At Home 0]

Does professional Bill Clinton Look-Alike pay well?

 

 

[godthedog 0]

if you're not of voting age, it still feels more like a fan than a member. do you personally make phone calls and such? (not being rhetorical about that--you've worded it pretty ambiguously.) i'd suggest donating something to one of their campaign funds (even something as small as 20 bucks).

[NoCalMike 0]

IMO, the Democrats are just not doing enough to un-blur the reality check that Bush spent a year blurring, which is that Iraq = Al Qaeda. I think the Dems are too afraid that too many people still associate the two together.

 

Of course, the american public's tolerance for "intelligent discussion" is pretty low and they would probably tune out after five minutes, but it is still worth a shot.

 

The best part is, John Kerry in 2004(and Howard Dean as well) as lame as a candidate that he was, pretty much had it right about what he was saying about the War in Iraq, but like usual he said it a little bit too early. If the Presidential election is held a year or so later he probably wins easily.

 

There is something about the temperment of the american public that wants to "act now and think later" and we sure don't seem to like to listen to rationale and reasoning until the damage is done. Then we sit around, wallow, and wonder why things have gotten to be the way they are.

[At Home 0]

if you're not of voting age, it still feels more like a fan than a member. do you personally make phone calls and such? (not being rhetorical about that--you've worded it pretty ambiguously.) i'd suggest donating something to one of their campaign funds (even something as small as 20 bucks).

 

Yeah, I made phone calls for Obama when hawaii was having their vote.

[NoCalMike 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_...signs_of_strain

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

Thu Apr 10, 2:15 AM ET

 

WASHINGTON - U.S. soldiers are committing suicide at record levels, young officers are abandoning their military careers, and the heavy use of forces in Iraq has made it harder for the military to fight conflicts that could arise elsewhere.

 

Unprecedented strains on the nation's all-volunteer military are threatening the health and readiness of the troops.

 

While the spotlight Wednesday was on congressional hearings with the U.S. ambassador and commanding general for Iraq, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody was in another hearing room explaining how troops and their families are being taxed by long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prospect of future years of conflict in the global war on terror.

 

"That marathon has become an enduring relay and our soldiers continue to run — and at the double time," Cody said. "Does this exhaust the body and mind of those in the race, and those who are ever present on the sidelines, cheering their every step? Yes. Has it broken the will of the soldier? No."

 

And it's not just the people that are facing strains.

 

Military depots have been working in high gear to repair or rebuild hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment — from radios to vehicles to weapons — that are being overused and worn out in harsh battlefield conditions. The Defense Department has asked for $46.5 billion in this year's war budget to repair and replace equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Both the Army and Marine Corps have been forced to take equipment from non-deployed units and from pre-positioned stocks to meet needs of those in combat — meaning troops at home can't train on the equipment.

 

National Guard units have only an average of 61 percent of the equipment needed to be ready for disasters or attacks on the U.S., Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton lamented at Wednesday's hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

 

Cody and his Marine counterpart, Gen. Robert Magnus, told the committee they're not sure their forces could handle a new conflict if one came along.

 

The Pentagon and Congress have worked in recent years to increase funding, bolster support programs for families, improve care for soldiers and Marines and increase the size of both forces to reduce the strain. Cody said the U.S. must continue the investment, continue to support its armed forces and have an "open and honest discussion" about the size of military that is needed for today's demands.

 

An annual Pentagon report this year found there was a significant risk that the U.S. military could not quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world. The classified risk assessment concluded that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, are to blame.

 

The review grades the armed services' ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy — which would include fighting the current wars as well any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China.

 

Similarly, a 400-page January report by the independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves found the force isn't ready for a catastrophic chemical, biological or nuclear attack on this country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job.

 

Strain on individuals has been repeatedly documented.

 

It contributes to the difficulty in getting other Americans to join the volunteer military. The Army struggles to find enough recruits each year and to keep career soldiers.

 

Thousands more troops each year struggle with mental health problems because of the combat they've seen. The lengthening of duty tours to 15 months from 12 a year ago also has been blamed for problems as has the fact that soldiers are being sent back for two, three or more times.

 

President Bush will announce on Thursday that the length of tours will go back to 12 months for Army units heading to war after Aug. 1, defense officials said Wednesday.

 

Some 27 percent of soldiers on their third or fourth combat tours suffered anxiety, depression, post-combat stress and other problems, according to an Army survey released last month. That compared with 12 percent among those on their first tour.

 

In Afghanistan a range of mental health problems increased, and 11.4 percent of those surveyed reported suffering from depression.

 

Medical professionals themselves are burning out and said in the survey that they need more help to treat the troops. The report also recommended longer home time between deployments and more focused suicide-prevention training. It said civilian psychologists and other behavioral health professionals should be sent to the warfront to augment the uniformed corps.

 

Though separate data reported on divorce rates appeared to be holding steady last year, soldiers say they are having more problem with their marriages due to the long and repeated separations.

 

As many as 121 troops committed suicide in 2007, an increase of some 20 percent over 2006, according to preliminary figures released in January.

 

If all are confirmed that would be more than double the 52 reported in 2001, before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted the Bush administration to launch the war in Afghanistan.

 

--------------------------------------

 

But hey, what's 100 more years, right..............?

 

[EricMM 0]

Bush is going to announce that's going to "reduce" the length of deployment from 15 months to 12 months.

 

You know, go from the extended deployment to the normal one. Hooray!