tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post109517125239844394..comments2024-03-08T05:28:34.766-05:00Comments on Through the Looking Glass: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095721023189610302004-09-20T18:57:00.000-04:002004-09-20T18:57:00.000-04:00"Even if Iraq were the wrong place to hit, (I thin..."Even if Iraq were the wrong place to hit, (I think it was exactly the RIGHT place to attack, I've listed my reasons here) that's OK with me, at least we are fighting." <br /><br />That's insane. <br /><br />In fact, Iraq <I>was</I> the wrong place to hit. The only reasonable justification was that it was close to making WMD or had already done so, thereby putting it in breach of UN resolutions. I thought -- mistakenly -- that there would be some WMD at the end of the rainbow; I thought -- mistakenly -- that I had a decent handle on the likelihood of that. I was wrong. If I were president, you'd be right to fire me, even if I made the mistake in good faith. Instead Bush is, and you ought to fire him.<br /><br />Not only weren't there any WMD there, your favorite bunch of idiots allowed Saddam's uranium to get _looted_; true, much has been recovered (also true, <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iraq.net%2Fdisplayarticle4663.html">90lbs worth hasn't</A>), but the whole thing gives me the idea that they, oh, I don't know, never gave much of a damn about that in the first place. Given that they don't appear to give a damn about Iraqi's lives, their human rights, or democracy either, I'm hard pressed to figure out what the Bush people <I>do</I> give a damn about. Maybe it's oil after all.Thomas Nephewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01019400893103077252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095455800938425052004-09-17T17:16:00.000-04:002004-09-17T17:16:00.000-04:00Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan did...Iraq had <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA46254-2004Jun16.html">nothing to do with 9/11</A>. Afghanistan did. Dubya started to fight there, pulled out with the job unfinished, and the place is once again becoming a terrorist haven. <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philly.com%2Fmld%2Finquirer%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F9591690.htm%3F1c">Saudi Arabia did</A>, but Bush has done nothing about their open support for terrorist groups and jihaddi ideology, and actually worked to cover up the links. If that's your idea of a well fought "war on terror", you're welcome to it.<br /><br />But don't expect people who disagree to stand silent. Criticizing the government is a founding American tradition. Republicans certainly have criticized the wars of Democratic Presidents, whatever you believe. When Clinton went after bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan, they <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2FALLPOLITICS%2F1998%2F08%2F21%2Fwag.the.dog%2F">called it</A> "Wag the Dog". And during World War II, they took some very nasty shots at FDR for the way he was running things. FDR didn't whine, he just <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.suite101.com%2Fprint_article.cfm%2F6851%2F51763">shot right back</A>. If Dubya can't take the heat, he should get out of the White House.charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359125688523895375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095448104551266852004-09-17T15:08:00.000-04:002004-09-17T15:08:00.000-04:00Well, if I weren't already voting for Bush, you ju...Well, if I weren't already voting for Bush, you just gave me good reasons. Your subtext, like all Democrat messages, is, "We don't want to fight, and we will undercut our own country's soldiers during a campaign we VOTED for."<br /><br />When I think about Beslan or Ma'alot, and how Islamic scum could be massacring MY children next, I think that there has never been a better time to send our forces into battle, no matter how bloody. (And I have teenage sons who have mentioned joining the military, so I'm not just being careless with other people's lives.)<br /><br />Even if Iraq were the wrong place to hit, (I think it was exactly the RIGHT place to attack, I've listed my reasons <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.randomjottings.net%2Farchives%2F001032.html">here</A>) that's OK with me, at least we are fighting. We'll just have to try hitting a few other vile terror-supporting scumbag tyrannies, and see how that works. I value Bush for the same reason Lincoln valued Grant; he's willing to keep fighting until the enemy is destroyed. <br /><br />And I despise you so-called Democrats because you always have a thousand twisty arguments that ALWAYS add up to "it's wrong for the United States of America to fight for its freedom and safety, and to crush our enemies into the dust. <br /><br />If Al Gore had been in the White House, he would have been forced to attack Afghanistan, but that would have been all. Then the WOT would have fizzled out in negotiations and police-work and hot air. Until the NEXT 9-11. Until the NEXT Beslan. That's your message: Afghanistan OK, anything else you're against. You guys pretend to oppose Iraq because it was the wrong place, or not "well prepared," but you would have opposed ANY major attack. Iran, NK, Saudi, wherever. Voted FOR it out of cynical political calculation, then started undercutting our troops with a thousand whines and sneers. "We were stampeded, we only had a year to think about it." <br /><br />EVERY war America has fought has started with muddle and mistakes and shortages. That's NOT a reason to turn against our troops during battle. Dems like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson each got us into wars that started with horrible mistakes and defeats and lack of preparation. Debacles costing thousands of casualties in a DAY. But Republicans NEVER sat on the sidelines to sneer and cast doubt and encourage our enemies. NEVER acted as if America's fights were none of their affair. NEVER picked and chose to support some battles and campaigns, and undercut others. And especially NEVER gave our enemies reason to think that America would fold if enough Americans were killed to get Republicans elected. Which is just what you guys are doing right now.<br /><br />And because of it you will be crushed in November, and you will be the minority party for at least a generation.<br /><br />I don't know why I'm bothering to write this, we have nothing in common. Anyone who thinks that support for our country in wartime is OPTIONAL, for only those battles that please them, for only the battles that are easily won and don't have any missteps--there's no possibility of debate here.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943402221380643610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095399615491741232004-09-17T01:40:00.000-04:002004-09-17T01:40:00.000-04:00I don't believe, nor did I suggest, that this stuf...I don't believe, nor did I suggest, that this stuff is the best reason not to vote for Bush. But since we seem to be discussing it anyway: Bush lit out to Alabama in May 1972, while American draftees were still fighting and dying in Vietnam; combat there continued until early 1973. The F-102 was not retired from Ellington Air Force Base <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fencecheck.com%2Farticles%2Fbase_visits%2Farticle_01_07_2004_lance_pawlik.php">until 1974</A>. And I think most of my readers can figure out that there's a reason why even an armed force that's demobilizing has headquarters decide who gets to walk away and when, particularly when it comes to highly trained specialists like fighter pilots, rather than just letting people wander off whenever and wherever it pleases them.<br /><br />As to why it's relevant at all -- it speaks to character. Which wouldn't be my reason for voting for the guy, but I'm not voting for him anyway.<br /><br />For what it's worth, the best reason not to vote for Bush is his record in office. A brief and incomplete recap: ignoring real WMD threats from Iran and North Korea, he used a trumped up threat -- based on forgeries far cruder than anything shown by CBS, and similarly thin and bogus evidence (as was <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Ftraprockpeace.org%2Ffirstresponse.html">obvious to careful observers at the time</A>) -- to stampede the country into a war on Iraq. He also justified the Iraq attack as part of the "war on terror", though the initial preparations for it diverted both <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ffile%3D%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2004%2F04%2F20%2FMNGMT67QS11.DTL">money</A> and <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2F2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm">specialist troops</A> from Afghanistan, and the hunt for the people actually responsible from the 9/11 attack, to Iraq, which had <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA46254-2004Jun16.html">nothing to do with 9/11 at all</A>. Dubya himself has admitted that planning for the Iraq adventure was poor -- poor enough that the Army now finds itself putting <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA36979-2003Dec28%3Flanguage%3Dprinter">"stop loss" orders</A> on Guard units which were never meant for long overseas deployment to keep itself in troops, arranging <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fthelookingglass.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F07%2Fremember-stories-about-soldiers-who.html">emergency imports from Britain and Israel</A> to keep itself in bullets, and unable to field a significant ground force for crises elsewhere. Iraq itself is <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.back-to-iraq.com%2Farchives%2F000818.php">sliding into chaos</A>, and may well become the haven for terrorists that it never was before. Meanwhile, the flood of radical, fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine from Saudi Arabia, which is fueling Islamist terrorism the world over, continues unabated; in fact, by withdrawing American troops from that country, Bush has reduced our leverage there, while bowing to one of the demands in bin Laden's fatwas. Domestically, his homeland security efforts are regarded by qualified specialists as a <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schneier.com%2Fessays.html">bad</A> <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fvillagevoice.com%2Fissues%2F0436%2Fmondo3.php">joke</A>. Both his first two anti-terror leads -- Clarke and Beers, each with a long record of service in administrations of both parties -- quit in disgust and became bitter critics. As, by the way, did his first Treasury Secretary. And so on, and so on, and so on. See the <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fshrillblog.blogspot.com">Shrill Blog</A> for more caustic commentary, much of it from folks far more qualified than I am to give it.charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359125688523895375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095365346479679912004-09-16T16:09:00.000-04:002004-09-16T16:09:00.000-04:00What's DAMNING is that you guys seem to consider t...What's DAMNING is that you guys seem to consider this your best shot. So let's suppose it's true (I don't think it is) that Bush blew off the last couple of years of his service. WHEN is this happening?<br /><br />1. AFTER he completed 2 years of active duty, with high marks.<br />2. AFTER the war was over.<br />3. At a time when the AF was glutted with pilots, and was encouraging people to leave early.<br />4. At a time when the F-102 was being taken out of service.<br />5. In a country where citizen-soldiers normally lose interest in military service when wars end, and clamor to get back to civilian life. And reservists often miss miss chunks of duty, and make up their points later. <br />THEN Bush misses a flight-physical? 30 YEARS ago?<br /><br />This is IT? This is what Dems have been harping on since Ann Richards? This is what Dan Rather has been working on for 5 YEARS? (And only NOW discovers Killian's secretary?) This is a BIG DEAL? <br /><br />You people have just prepared a glowing testimonial to George W Bush. If this is what is "damning," he's going to heaven. If this is worth your time, he's obviously one of the best men in American public life. <br /><br />If, after 3 years as CinC during a war, you guys are getting excited about Bush's flight-physicals in 1973, you are just advertising what a bunch of losers you are. Not only do you seem to have NOTHING positive or exciting to offer us, you only have long-ago chicken feed to support your hatred of Bush. The voters will be SO impressed...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943402221380643610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095349175657978612004-09-16T11:39:00.000-04:002004-09-16T11:39:00.000-04:00My attempts at humor often fall flat; I really mea...My attempts at humor often fall flat; I really meant it when I said I was kidding about you calling Yglesias a right wing shill. It won't happen again!Thomas Nephewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01019400893103077252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095226790963531882004-09-15T01:39:00.000-04:002004-09-15T01:39:00.000-04:00Hang loose, Blood. Wasn't dissin' your contributi...Hang loose, Blood. Wasn't dissin' your contribution. Just asking a rhetorical question. Or questions.<br /><br />parsecAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095221119562986662004-09-15T00:05:00.000-04:002004-09-15T00:05:00.000-04:00In response to the comments: first off, I obvious...In response to the comments: first off, I obviously didn't mean to refer to Yglesias as a right wing shill, any more than Josh Marshall; that was meant to refer to the sources of the WaPo story. <br /><br />As to why Dubya missed his flight physical -- the Alabama thing is his spokeman's story, not mine...charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359125688523895375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095208490942432372004-09-14T20:34:00.000-04:002004-09-14T20:34:00.000-04:00So Dubya was grounded because he was going to a un...So Dubya was grounded because he was going to a unit in Alabama that didn't have his jet? Why was James R. Bath grounded at the same time -- in the same memo? Were they both headed to Alabama?<br /><br />parsecAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3239599.post-1095201352690787422004-09-14T18:35:00.000-04:002004-09-14T18:35:00.000-04:00Oh so now Yglesias is a right wing shill? ...I'M K...Oh so now Yglesias is a right wing shill? ...I'M KIDDING.<br /><br />Yes, everyone keeps throwing in the towel on this, maybe half because everyone keeps thinking "I can't believe I'm discussing superscript-tee-aytches" and "either way, Bush is a weasel." <br /><br />Bottom line for me is no one knows a thing for sure without the original documents, but nothing I've seen proves to me what I'm seeing is a copy of a forgery, and plenty (font details, misaligned letters) suggests CBS has real items.Thomas Nephewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01019400893103077252noreply@blogger.com