“Appalling Gap”

Your daily piece of evidence that Bush is the worst President ever and has completely decimated the military with his adventurism:

The U.S. military is not prepared to meet catastrophic threats at home, and it is suffering from an “appalling gap” in forces able to respond to chemical, biological and nuclear strikes on U.S. soil, according to a congressional commission report released yesterday.

The situation is rooted in severe readiness problems in National Guard and reserve forces, which would otherwise be well-suited to respond to domestic crises but lack sufficient personnel and training, as well as $48 billion in equipment because of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.

Stupid Dhimmocrats! That is why we are fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here!

102 replies
  1. 1
    GSD says:

    Ah yes. The GOP is eager to slip back into Black Hawk Down 2.0 mode. They’ll scream and point at every new death of an American anywhere in the world.

    They’ll demand to see caskets coming in from overseas on TV. They’ll want to see the grisly video of dead US troops played over and over on a continuous loop in order to humiliate the Democratic president.

    It’ll be all Desert One all the time on the media.

    Besides Ryan Crocker said that the ‘tipping point’ in Iraq will come in 2009.

    Conveniently allowing Bush to slip the noose of responsibility.

    -GSD

  2. 2
    Dug Jay says:

    An interesting, but typically overwrought post. It’s somewhat of a piece with the kind of writing that prompted this Wall St. Journal article to declare the imminent demise of hysterical bloggers such as Kos and the folks at Balloon Juice. As the author himself notes, he has a “history” with Kos.

  3. 3
    NonyNony says:

    Hmm. I thought that Bill Clinton had destroyed the military and that W promised to “fix” it – more evidence that he’s fixed it good.

    A bit off topic John – Steve Benen posted a link to a story about Lincoln Chafee’s new memoir that will be coming out in a few months. I was wondering if you had seen it and if you had any thoughts about Chafee’s observations.

  4. 4
    The Other Steve says:

    But but! We elected George in 2000 because he was going to fix the military which had been broken under Clinton.

    In other news… Sarkozy, President of France has in the past year:

    Been elected President of France
    Gotten divorced to his 2nd wife
    Married Italian model Carla Bruni

    The divorce was in October, the marriage was just today.

    Wow, I’ll bet he doesn’t even attend church.

  5. 5

    I was reading a quote by a lobbiest the other day, as to how persons of his class who live and work in DC adjust their idealogies and statements based upon their perceptions of the power structure there and the money they can make by modifying their alliances.

    Which explains much, including Ms.(I use the term loosely, of course…) Coulter’s recent statements about voting for Hillary.

    The distillation is that they will all drop trou and bend over a garbage can for whomever is paying them. They have no ideology but a paycheck.

    Thus, Ms. Pletzka and her ilk.

  6. 6
    ThymeZone says:

    Lincoln Chafee’s new memoir

    Haven’t seen the thing yet, but unless Chaffee puts the blame where it really belongs, which I doubt that he does, then his memoir will be just another brick in the wall of bullshit surrounding this topic. I therefore with all due modesty bring forward my own post from an earlier thread to illuminate the topic:

    The dirty little secret here is that AUMF is a dodge, an organized wink at the Constitution. The whole rationale for the maneuver is that the world now is too dangerous and too unpredictable to expect the president to have time to come to Congress to get a declaration of war, so we have to go through this grotesque charade in order to provide cover for all the participants and give the president “authority” to do, you know, what he needs to do.

    The whole thing is a lie, a kabuki which is aimed at bamboozling the citizens and basically nullifying the Constitution.

    That said, let’s look again at what Clinton was doing. She was, technically, doing what she said she was doing, which is “authorizing” the use of force, but without actually asking for it. The magic part of this is that the authorization presumes …. supposedly, requires …. that the president will only use this authorization as a last resort, and of course, use it correctly.

    The bottom line for me here, and I have said this before, is that we are faulting congress for putting us in this position …. just as we now, today, fault congress—right here on these pages for example—for not getting us out of it. Well, ha ha ha ha, the joke is on you, folks. This country has become a bellicose country willing to go outside of its own most basic law in order to wage war, and it has done so because the citizens demanded it.

    The reason why people in Washington go through these charades is because we insist that they do. We created the government of shoot first and ask questions later. We wanted the “AUMF” concept, to give US cover for being too scared to stand up for our own Constitution.

    Thus, if you really want “change,” you have to change at the voter level. You have to vote for a government that goes back to the Constitution. That hasn’t happened. 2006 was not that vote, it was not a mandate for that level of change, no matter what bullshit you read on blogs and in editorials.

    When the people send an unambiguous, clear mandate to Washington to reverse the erosion of Constitutional constraints and require formal declaration of war, and require a full and open debate and understanding of the facts and the risks, and hold the government immediately accountable, then you might see change. Until then, you won’t.

    Discuss.

  7. 7
    UnkyT says:

    Hahahahaha, Democrats really just want to be Liebercrats, I had no idea!
    From Dug’s link

    With a discredited Republican candidate in the race, the choice came down to two Democrats who actually agreed on most issues outside of Iraq, but differed on the kind of change we need in Washington. Mr. Lieberman called for a new politics of unity and purpose; Mr. Lamont mostly called for Messrs. Bush’s and Lieberman’s heads.

    The hope candidate soundly beat the Kos candidate — Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont — by 10 points. More importantly, Mr. Lieberman won independents (the biggest voting bloc in the state) by 19 points, which is all the more remarkable because they opposed the war by a margin of 65%-29%.

  8. 8
    Tim F. says:

    Dug Jay Says:

    Nothing at all. If your best response adds up to an ad hominem and a comically irrelevant jackalope that mostly proves that you can’t tell the difference between an article and an opinion piece then I don’t see why you bothered taking a break from downloading porn.

  9. 9
    The Other Steve says:

    When the people send an unambiguous, clear mandate to Washington to reverse the erosion of Constitutional constraints and require formal declaration of war, and require a full and open debate and understanding of the facts and the risks, and hold the government immediately accountable, then you might see change. Until then, you won’t.

    Agreed, although it should be noted we did the same like dance in the 1840s when we went to war with Mexico.

    And in 1898 in the war with Spain.

  10. 10
    Sasha says:

    Hmm. I thought that Bill Clinton had destroyed the military and that W promised to “fix” it – more evidence that he’s fixed it good.

    W. did fix the military, the same way the vet fixed my dog.

  11. 11
    ThymeZone says:

    we did the same like dance in the 1840s when we went to war with Mexico.

    And in 1898 in the war with Spain.

    By “we” you mean, the country, and the people who lived in it then. Not us.

    And I make this point for a reason. My thinking on this subjet took a 45 degree turn when I heard a constitutional scholar talking to Bill Moyers last year. I will attempt to paraphrase here:

    What we did before, in the examples you give, or in Korea, or in Vietnam, and now in Iraq …. is not precedent. The idea of precedent for ignoring the Constitution is not a valid principle. There is no precedent allowable. The Constitution is clear, and our responsibility is to follow it. That doesn’t mean that we wait for the people in Washington to follow it … it means that WE THE PEOPLE have to follow it and demand that our officials do the same.

    We haven’t done that. We have done the opposite, and now we reap the results. So, let’s not waste our time blaming the politicians for doing what we told them to do.

  12. 12
    The Other Steve says:

    What is fascinating about Lieberman, is that his main desire in this world is to be considered relevant, and yet his political maneuverings have resulted in his irrelevance.

    The Republicans won’t have him, and the Democrats don’t want him.

    He has until 2012, at which point he’ll be soundly defeated from his Senate seat, and he knows this.

  13. 13
    The Other Steve says:

    We haven’t done that. We have done the opposite, and now we reap the results. So, let’s not waste our time blaming the politicians for doing what we told them to do.

    Ok, so how do we start?

  14. 14
    ThymeZone says:

    Ok, so how do we start?

    Well, my opinion is that we start by taking responsibility.

    Until that happens, everything surrounding this issue is just a charade. As long as the voters sit around and blame politicians for the fuckups, when in fact it was the voters who didn’t just permit, but demanded, the extraconstitutional adventures, the thing cannot be fixed.

    We’re talking about replacing phony advocacy with genuine citizenship. We’re talking about the country looking at the debris, and saying, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

    (Apologies to Pogo).

  15. 15
    louisms says:

    TZ, you have it exactly right. Blame for all that’s happened, all of Bush’s foreign misadventures and the sabotage of the federal government, the erosion of our rights and raping of our economy ought to be placed on the American people, who’ve been complicit from the beginning. We have the government we chose and want. Jingoistic fear and an over-identification with the ultra-rich, a paradoxical hatred for government and worship of paternal authority figures got us here, and, much as we might wish to blame Bush, our current predicament is a direct result of our militant stupidity and refusal to question the authority of the crypto-fascists we’ve elected as our leaders in the aftermath of 9/11.

    Er, of course when I say we I exclude those of us who’ve been raging against all this for the last few years. Problem is, there have been just too few of us to counteract the combination of indifference and willful ignorance displayed by the ovine American people. Hell, even now, here in Cincinnati, Ohio, I frequently see W bumper stickers still displayed on cars. Despite everything, lots of people continue to buy into the (apparently) attractive crock of shit the Bush administration and Repub presidential hopefuls are feeding them.

  16. 16
    Wilfred says:

    Ok, so how do we start?

    First, by not believing anything that comes out of the Bush Administration unless it is backed up by proof satisfactory to anyone with an IQ higher than a bowl of Jello. Assume everything is a lie until proven otherwise.
    Next, demand the same thing from elected representatives and accept personal responsibility if they don’t act in accordance with constitutional government; vote them out the next time.
    I could go on, but the the bottom line is that we did get the government we deserved – thanks to the stupid motherfuckers who actually believe the ‘terrorists will follow us home’ nonsense spewed out by Bush and passed on by a willing press.

  17. 17
    cleek says:

    This country has become a bellicose country willing to go outside of its own most basic law in order to wage war, and it has done so because the citizens demanded it.

    Bush was elected, in part, on a platform of isolationism (a.k.a. “no nation building”, no meddlesome interventions, etc.). there was no mass movement to invade anywhere, in 1999. but Bush changed his mind once in office – even before 9/11, as we now know. and with 9/11, Bush was able to fulfill his pre-existing desire to invade Iraq, by beating the war drum and lying to us about the danger. this war came from the top-down. on the other hand, hundreds of thousands did march in the street protesting Bush’s decision to take us to war, and they were openly mocked by the media and the politicians.

    the country is easily-led.

  18. 18
    Face says:

    Nothing at all. If your best response adds up to an ad hominem and a comically irrelevant jackalope that mostly proves that you can’t tell the difference between an article and an opinion piece then I don’t see why you bothered taking a break from downloading porn.

    Note to self: dont ever piss off Tim Eff.

    /continues downloading prOn

  19. 19
    ThymeZone says:

    Cleek, no disrespect, but you are assuming facts not in evidence.

    First of all, Gore won the election. The Electoral College scheme and SCOTUS gave the election to Bush.

    Second, Bush was not elected for any particular reason, he was elected by a coarse and ugly coalition of interests. I seriously doubt that any significant number of votes were cast in favor of his faux isolationist statements.

    However, as long as we bring those statements up, I suggest that the country’s failure to hold him accountable for them four years later is all the proof you need that it is the people, and not the Bushes, who have us where we are today. The people had a chance to reject the AUMF farce and the WMD lies and the Iraq trainwreck and the inappropriate attack on the country that had nothing to do with our problems …. and they did the opposite.

    2004 wasn’t stolen. It was an unabiguous approval of the very stuff that the country now seems ready to reject.

    The people have no power until they take responsibility. As long as they can blame others for the problems, then others will have the power.

  20. 20
    ThymeZone says:

    Just to be clear, let me say, I firmly believe that the people have the right to be wrong. They have the right to make a mistake, and then correct it.

    What I see, though, is a maudlin tendency to fall in love with the mistakes and cling to them for too long, to personalize them and give them faces, like Bush, or Cheney, and fool ourselves into thinking that THEY are the problem.

    They aren’t. We elected them, and we sent them the signals to do whatever they are doing.

    The act of taking responsibility requires the willingness to admit a mistake and start over. Taking eight years to do this is pretty risky business. And doing it without honoring the Constitution in its most basic aspects is also risky.

    The Constitution means nothing until the people really stand up for it.

  21. 21
    cbear says:

    TZ-

    2004 wasn’t stolen. It was an unabiguous approval of the very stuff that the country now seems ready to reject.

    I beg to differ. See Ohio.

  22. 22
    UnkyT says:

    I don’t see why you bothered taking a break from downloading porn.

    Balloon Juice, it’s what to read while waiting for porn to download, and also what to read 2 minutes after it’s done.

  23. 23
    ThymeZone says:

    I beg to differ. See Ohio.

    Yeah, I’m sure that if you spend the day looking for ways to explain away the responsibility of the people in general, you can do that, and put up a good screen.

    It’s easy to do, and the country is well in thrall of the ruse already. I’m suggesting that people step back from the bullshit and take a look from a different perspective.

    When the people are ready to take responsibility and actually bring about change, and demand accountability for it, and take responsibility for the outcomes, they will get change. Not until.

    As long as we give the politicians the power, they’ll do what they need to do, which is use their devices and sell their self-justifying wares to the people who are eager to buy them.

    It’s like the McDonalds thing. Is McDonalds responsible for obesity? Or is it the customers who order the two double cheeseburgers and the giant orders of fries?

  24. 24
    cbear says:

    Tucker Carlson, Joe Klein, and E.J. Dionne are on Tiny Tim’s wkend show right now.

    It’s like watching a 3 monkeys fuck a football.

    I wonder if Tuck, Joey, and Pumpkin will lay back with a Marlboro and a cold Bud after the rape.

  25. 25
    cbear says:

    Yeah, I’m sure that if you spend the day looking for ways to explain away the responsibility of the people in general, you can do that, and put up a good screen.

    Bullshit. I know its a novel concept around here, but it is possible to agree with someone’s overall thesis while pointing out a flaw in the methodology.

  26. 26
    ThymeZone says:

    It’s hard to decide whether Carlson or Klein is the biggest ass on this panel.

    For sheer annoyance, I would have to go with Carlson. He makes me think of Limbaugh but without the slapstick.

  27. 27
    cleek says:

    Cleek, no disrespect, but you are assuming facts not in evidence.
    First of all, Gore won the election. The Electoral College scheme and SCOTUS gave the election to Bush.

    but that’s irrelevant. neither Bush nor Gore ran on war platforms. nobody voted for Bush thinking he’ll invade Iraq.

    I seriously doubt that any significant number of votes were cast in favor of his faux isolationist statements.

    i’d like to see some data to back that up (facts in evidence, etc).

    Bush’s anti-interventionalism was explicit, and repeated many times. he was running against Clinton/Gore’s wars, which many leading Republicans vocally opposed.

    I suggest that the country’s failure to hold him accountable for them four years later is all the proof you need that it is the people, and not the Bushes, who have us where we are today

    like i said, the country is easily-led.

    in 2004, yes, Bush was the more belligerent candidate, but that doesn’t mean people elected Bush in 2000 because they wanted the AUMF. in 2000, Bush was not a war candidate. the 2004 Bush was, certainly. but if you’re saying things like “We wanted the “AUMF” concept, to give US cover for being too scared to stand up for our own Constitution,” then you can’t be talking about 2004 – in 2004 we already had the AUMF.

    The people had a chance to reject the AUMF farce and the WMD lies and the Iraq trainwreck and the inappropriate attack on the country that had nothing to do with our problems …. and they did the opposite.

    in 2004, yes. Bush was riding the natural, but ever-decreasing, war-president bump. but in 2006 the people gave the Dems a total sweep – a definite repudiation of Bush’s policies. the fact that the Dems have failed to do a fucking thing about Bush is a different topic.

    bottom line: i just don’t see the that general public demanded the Iraq war. i see it as a combination of understandable post-9/11 fear and confusion and the cynical hysteria generated by BushCo in their push for war.

  28. 28
    Asti says:

    Thus, if you really want “change,” you have to change at the voter level. You have to vote for a government that goes back to the Constitution. That hasn’t happened. 2006 was not that vote, it was not a mandate for that level of change, no matter what bullshit you read on blogs and in editorials.

    Unfortunately, it will never happen, because you have to wait three whole congressional cycles before you can change EVERYONE out. By the time that happens, the ones you put in during the first cycle are already bought and sold by lobbyists.

  29. 29
    ThymeZone says:

    I know its a novel concept around here, but it is possible to agree with someone’s overall thesis while pointing out a flaw in the methodology.

    Methodology?

    Get serious, man. “Bush was elected, in part, on a platform of isolationism.”

    Don’t lecture me on methodology if you are going to spit up something like that and then try to defend it.

    If Bush was elected for a 100 reasons, and he was, I’d say your example would be somewhere around 96.

    Bush was annointed, not elected, because he squeaked out a close election that was driven by phony “values” issues and Clinton-Gore fatigue, got a close call in Florida, and leveraged that into a SCOTUS decision. His “isolationism” wasn’t on the radar. Besides, it was never anything but a code word for “Clinton sucks,” it was never any coherent argument in favor of a coherent policy.

    If the people want coherent policy in candidates, they have to ask for it, and then vote for it. If they want Constitutional constraint, they have to ask for that, and vote for it. Not 50.5 to 49.5 but clearly and over and over again.

    I have only heard a couple of candidates this cycle talk about a clear constitutional authority for war, and the main one is Ron Paul, who is unfortunately a lunatic, a total fringe candidate. His advocacy of the position actually does it harm because he is too far out of the mainstream.

    We’re the mainstream. If we want Paul’s approach to war, then we have to stand up for it en masse and over a period of time, not just when a particular war is going south.

  30. 30
    ThymeZone says:

    i’d like to see some data to back that up

    You asserted that isolationism was a key. It’s up to you to present evidence that it was. I haven’t ever seen any, have you?

  31. 31
    cbear says:

    It’s hard to decide whether Carlson or Klein is the biggest ass on this panel.

    That’s like trying to decide between herpes or the clap.

  32. 32
    ThymeZone says:

    but that doesn’t mean people elected Bush in 2000 because they wanted the AUMF

    Christ, you are dense, man. I am talking about a 50-75 year long coma in terms of war powers in this country, starting with the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin.

    I am asserting that this country has deliberately chosen to be a bellicose nation that ignores its own lawful restraint on war power because it was too scared or too something to stand up for its own constitution, too lazy to take responsibility for that, blame politicians for it, and pretend as though the “precendent” of unlawful action somehow justifes AUMF now when in fact it does not.

    That, all of that, and only that, is my argument. What you are arguing, I have no idea, and Im not sure you do either.

    If you think Bush is the reason why we are in the mess, then good for you. Keep thinking it, and believe whatever you want.

  33. 33
    Asti says:

    but that’s irrelevant. neither Bush nor Gore ran on war platforms. nobody voted for Bush thinking he’ll invade Iraq.

    I think a certain part of the electorate did, with the hidden biblical message meanings Bush used in his speeches as their source.

  34. 34
    myiq2xu says:

    That’s like trying to decide between herpes or the clap.

    That’s easy – The clap can be cured.

  35. 35
    Asti says:

    I am asserting that this country has deliberately chosen to be a bellicose nation that ignores its own lawful restraint on war power because it was too scared or too something to stand up for its own constitution

    Too important, and we’re losing that as a result. We thought we were taking care of ourselves, but the writing is on the wall and we’re becoming more expendable each time we do this.

  36. 36
    rawshark says:

    TZ, you have it exactly right. Blame for all that’s happened, all of Bush’s foreign misadventures and the sabotage of the federal government, the erosion of our rights and raping of our economy ought to be placed on the American people, who’ve been complicit from the beginning. We have the government we chose and want.

    I disagree slightly. ‘We’ asked for this government in response to what we were told is going on in the world. The people who wanted this government fed us the info that would make us demand the government we have. I think we’re being tricked into voting against our best interests via various means.

  37. 37
    ThymeZone says:

    Too important, and we’re losing that as a result.

    I agree, but can I change that wording just slightly?

    I’d say “too precious.”

    Americans, since WWII, have acted as if we are just precious here, just too good to be a part of the real world. I think this reached its peak in the early Sixties, with our foray into Vietnam and the grotesque decade that followed. The idea that our insecurities justified setting fire to another country still to this day just makes me extremely angry.

    And look at the late Sixties, the “peace” movement which roared against, for example, Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was no more the problem then than Bush is now. Johnson believed that the people wanted agressive anti-communism, wanted “victory.” He believed this because it was true, that is what the country wanted. He feared the anger of the people if he didn’t give it to them. Nixon took that ball and ran with it. “Peace with Honor,” without doubt the most sociopathic idea I have ever seen on the national stage.

  38. 38
    rawshark says:

    but that’s irrelevant. neither Bush nor Gore ran on war platforms. nobody voted for Bush thinking he’ll invade Iraq.

    I did. I’m probably the only republican who will admit that we all knew as soon as a republican stepped into the White House, Saddam was toast. Unfriendly dictator sitting on a lake of oil? Oh no he wasn’t in danger. PNAC anyone?

  39. 39
    Asti says:

    I agree, but can I change that wording just slightly?

    I’d say “too precious.”

    Change away, it fits what I’m saying exactly.

    Why are thoughts of LOTR going through my head. Argh, we’ve become Smeagol’s obsession!

  40. 40
    Jake says:

    Don’t worry TZ, 11.20.09 will change everything.

    As GSD mentioned, the minute a Democrat finishes taking the oath of office the Repubs will start screaming about the horrible terrible no good rotten state of the nation. You’ll see them dry humping the Constitution in their fervor to get this country Back on the Right Course.

    Some of the lesser dweebs are already mumbling that Bush43 is a closet librul. It won’t be hard to throw all the Republicans who were in office 2000 – 20008 into the same pile and the quest for a True Conservative Fit to Polish Ron’s Shoes will continue.

  41. 41
    ThymeZone says:

    I did. I’m probably the only republican who will admit that we all knew as soon as a republican stepped into the White House, Saddam was toast.

    I have to assume that you mean “we all” to be “Republicans.”

    If so …. really? Seriously, I’m asking, you all knew that? I never heard it, and I hang around (more then, than now) with some serious Republicans. Never heard that.

    And what would be the rationale? Saddam wasn’t any worse than the Shah of Iran, and we had the Shag to the White House for dinners in the East Room. He had beautiful clothes, and a bevy or gorgeous women around him, it was fun. And he had that lake of oil. Wouldn’t it have been smarter to invite Saddam to the East Room? Hell, we had the Saudi royals in there, so why not Saddam? Saddam had nice clothes, too.

  42. 42
    cbear says:

    …nobody voted for Bush thinking he’ll invade Iraq.

    Look, anybody who voted for Bush, whether in 2000 or any other election, is an asshole–no matter how well-meaning you might have been.

    Sorry, but there are millions of us who were able to correctly judge the content of his intellect and character well before 2000, and we tried to warn you.

    All of this post-moron analysis is just meaningless blathering.

  43. 43
    Asti says:

    I did. I’m probably the only republican who will admit that we all knew as soon as a republican stepped into the White House, Saddam was toast. Unfriendly dictator sitting on a lake of oil? Oh no he wasn’t in danger. PNAC anyone?

    And whoever thought Bush wouldn’t go after the man of whom he said “he tried to kill my daddy”?

    To not have see it was idiocy, sorry. I knew when Bush’s name went in the hat we were looking at Iraq.

  44. 44
    Jake says:

    Oops. 01.20.09.

  45. 45
    ThymeZone says:

    Fuck uneditable posts. Shag = Shah

  46. 46
    PaulW says:

    1) The solution to all this? More tax cuts and more money shipped to GOP-run corporations feeding off the public teat whilst proclaiming themselves guardians of the free marketplace.

    2) Send more young Democrats out to the battlefield, so that all the young Republicans can stay home, get fat, and run for office themselves.

    3) Profit. Above all, even when the Excel spreadsheet don’t balance, profit.

  47. 47
    Asti says:

    Fuck uneditable posts. Shag = Shah

    Well, yes, in certain parts of the world Shag and Fuck mean the same thing. ;)

    Just playing with you TZ.

  48. 48
    ThymeZone says:

    Welp, I have to get some lunch, and then after, work for the man for a couple hours.

    Duke it out, save me a seat, I’ll be back later.

  49. 49
    Asti says:

    If so …. really? Seriously, I’m asking, you all knew that? I never heard it, and I hang around (more then, than now) with some serious Republicans. Never heard that.

    Yes, but, when you hear “reap the whirlwind” you don’t think in biblical proportions.

  50. 50
    cbear says:

    BTW, we do welcome all you ex-assholes to the forces of goodness and light.

  51. 51
    cbear says:

    TZ-

    Tote that bale, and sing that song brother.

  52. 52
    myiq2xu says:

    Nixon took that ball and ran with it. “Peace with Honor,” without doubt the most sociopathic idea I have ever seen on the national stage.

    In 1968 Nixon had a “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam. Tricky dick was the “peace” candidate and Humphrey was the pro-war candidate.

    Nixon’s plan was to shift to an air war which lowered US casualties. Just before the 1972 election he announced that the US and North Vietnam had made a deal to end the war – so Nixon was again the “peace” candidate.

    As soon as US support was removed, the South Vietnamese army folded like a cheap suit and we got pictures of the evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon.

    Now it’s revisionist history to act like nobody here supported the war, at least after 1968. That’s not true.

    There were lot’s of people pissed that we lost it, and they blamed the media and liberals.

    They saw the Gulf War as proof that we should not of lost Vietnam, and that had a lot to due with the eagerness of the neocons to invade Iraq.

    The invasion of Iraq had majority public support when it started, although a lot of former supporters now pretend they were opposed.

  53. 53
    Asti says:

    BTW, we do welcome all you ex-assholes to the forces of goodness and light.

    Do we now? I think we should, but others here don’t seem to agree.

  54. 54
    ThymeZone says:

    in certain parts of the world Shag and Fuck mean the same thing

    Point taken!

    Fuck = Dagnabbit!

  55. 55
    cbear says:

    …serious Republicans.

    Best oxymoron of the day.

  56. 56
    rawshark says:

    I have to assume that you mean “we all” to be “Republicans.”

    If so …. really? Seriously, I’m asking, you all knew that? I never heard it, and I hang around (more then, than now) with some serious Republicans. Never heard that.

    And what would be the rationale?

    Yes I meant republicans. Funny you never heard that when it was always a popular subject when Clinton shot missiles at Saddam for various infractions such as firing at our jets patrolling the No Fly Zone.
    Most likely you never heard it because as I’ve noticed since 7/03 when I broke with Bush, republicans don’t bring up subjects when they know someone in the group is going to point out all the stupidity in their understanding of whatever situation they want to discuss. Since you would jump all over them for saying ‘Clinton’s a pussy, Reagan would command a tank division and take Saddam out’, they don’t say it when you’re around.

    ‘Rationale’? What’s that? Sounds french. Must be something democrats and adults worry about.

  57. 57
    Asti says:

    The invasion of Iraq had majority public support when it started, although a lot of former supporters now pretend they were opposed.

    Well, I’ll tell you what, (first of all, I assume you’re talking about our second invasion of Iraq, not the first, correct?) – I had an employer who slapped a magnetic flag to the door of my car and I drove around with it until someone stole it because I liked to be able to eat and pay my rent. I always opposed this war, but, it would appear someone might consider me a supporter simply because I drove around with a magnetic flag on my car.

  58. 58
    rawshark says:

    As soon as US support was removed, the South Vietnamese army folded like a cheap suit

    The north and south were working together to get rid of all foreigners, french, then us. There was no south vietnamese army. It was an illusion.

  59. 59
    myiq2xu says:

    There was no south vietnamese army. It was an illusion.

    My cousin is a retired lifer who served 2 tours in Vietnam. He used to say ARVN by day, VC by night.

  60. 60
    cbear says:

    Rawshark-

    You uber ex-repug. Good for you.

    I have my own mea culpa. I probably would have voted for McCain if he had been on the ticket. AAAARGH!

    Sadly, we all have our own assholiness to transcend.

    And that is what distinguishes the humans from the rethugs. At some point a human will admit an error and try and make amends.

  61. 61
    Asti says:

    At some point a human will admit an error and try and make amends.

    Errors? There are no errors in the “infallable” book (I kid of course, that book is mostly erroneous). All of this is unfolding just exactly as it was supposed to if you ask any evangelical. They vote based on whether the issue brings them closer to Armageddon. They don’t want peace, they want war, always have.

  62. 62
    myiq2xu says:

    I always opposed this war, but, it would appear someone might consider me a supporter simply because I drove around with a magnetic flag on my car.

    That was part of the plan from the start – to suppress any peace movement with patriotic ferver and demonize the peaceniks.

    But there were a lot of people enthusiastically waving those flags for the first year or two of the war.

    Those formerly ubiquitous yellow ribbon stickers are as hard to find now as “Bush-Cheney” bumper stickers.

  63. 63
    cbear says:

    My cousin is a retired lifer who served 2 tours in Vietnam. He used to say ARVN by day, VC by night.

    My whole family were lifers…1 Colonel and 2 Generals…and they each served in WW11, Korea, and Vietnam. Every one of them knew the war was bullshit by 1968.

    The average citizen would be suprised to know how well-informed, well-educated, and comptemplative their career military officers actually are…despite the warmongering Perfumed Princes (h/t Col. David Hackworh) that the corporate/defense contrator media trots out for our edification.

  64. 64
    cbear says:

    I should also add that they all knew the invasion of Iraq was a colossal military blunder before it started.

    My father would have, given the opportunity, willingly throttled the Chimp and Cheney.

  65. 65
    Asti says:

    Those formerly ubiquitous yellow ribbon stickers are as hard to find now as “Bush-Cheney” bumper stickers.

    I must not travel to the same places, because I never found where those ribbons were being sold to begin with. I thought they got them at church.

  66. 66
    cbear says:

    …I thought they got them at church.

    God save us from the church-goers.

  67. 67
    Asti says:

    By the way, that employer who slapped the magnetic flag on my car was also a member of an evangelical church.

  68. 68
    Asti says:

    God save us from the church-goers.

    That is one of my mantras, yes!

  69. 69
    myiq2xu says:

    The average citizen would be suprised to know how well-informed, well-educated, and comptemplative their career military officers actually are

    The average citizen would be surprised to learn how well-educated and well-informed the North Vietnamese leadership was.

    They were not all illiterate rice farmers. You get a hint of it in “We Were Soldiers” which is probably the most accurate Vietnam movie ever made.

    I made a list of top GOP and Democratic leaders and looked up their respective military records.

    There are far more combat veterans in the Democratic party leadership.

    McCain and Bob Dole are two veterans in a sea of chickenhawks.

  70. 70
    cbear says:

    The average citizen would be surprised to learn how well-educated and well-informed the North Vietnamese leadership was.

    Hence my comment regarding the fact that many field-grade and general officers knew the war was bullshit.

    McCain and Bob Dole are two veterans in a sea of chickenhawks.

    Don’t forget Chuck Hagel (Bronze Star), the only sane one of the bunch. Funny how the media never seems to solicit his views ever since he started pointing out the insanity of McCain’s posturing(s).

  71. 71
    Asti says:

    But there were a lot of people enthusiastically waving those flags for the first year or two of the war.

    There were lots of people enthusiastically waving those flags with patriotic fervor because stupid people ALWAYS join bandwagons. They allow conventional thought to make decisions for them and think it MUST be good because so many other people are doing it. Most of our serious mistakes are made that way. Additionally, our presidents have a knack for relying on stupid people to follow those bandwagons and make their agendas easier to obtain.

  72. 72
    louisms says:

    I disagree slightly. ‘We’ asked for this government in response to what we were told is going on in the world. The people who wanted this government fed us the info that would make us demand the government we have. I think we’re being tricked into voting against our best interests via various means.

    There was abundant evidence from many sources that what Bush was telling us was bull. The American people ignored those of us who were sceptical, ignored Hans Blix, denigrated us as unamerican when we questioned the then-upcoming war. We scoffed at the aluminium tubes, the yellow cake uranium nonsense, yet most Americans ignored our voices, because they wanted to go to war. We weren’t tricked into it, we got what we wanted, our pound of flesh for 9/11. And domestically, our opposition to the tax breaks and spend philosophy were dismissed as “class warfare”. Opposition to the patriot act was strong and vocal, yet the American people marched in lock step behind BushChaney. I’ve never seen revisionist history take hold so quickly, mass amnesia hit more rapidly than in the last few years.

    If we were “tricked” it’s because we wanted to be. The evidence of Bush’s agenda was right in front of us. Noone who bought into his crap can honestly claim ignorance, or hold themselves innocent.

  73. 73
    Asti says:

    We weren’t tricked into it, we got what we wanted, our pound of flesh for 9/11.

    If Bob steals your garden hose, how does beating up Joe (who lives on the other side) exact that debt?

  74. 74
    cbear says:

    The evidence of Bush’s agenda was right in front of us. Noone who bought into his crap can honestly claim ignorance, or hold themselves innocent.

    My point exactly.

    It’s really quite simple.
    If, after doing the most cursory of research, you discover that a candidate is a meglomaniacal, cretinous, lying, pusillanimous moron/asshole–chances are he will be NOT GOOD for your country after election.

    I call this Cbear’s Razor. Feel free to apply the principle in the future.

  75. 75
    cbear says:

    er..meg-A-lomaniacal.

    Sorry, it’s easy to miss the correct spelling when you’re pulling the big words out of your ass.

  76. 76
    rawshark says:

    If we were “tricked” it’s because we wanted to be.

    Sure. Telling people what they want to hear is trickery. Telling us that we are ok to ignore the uncomfortable things you’re saying because you’re just people we don’t like anyway, is trickery.

  77. 77
    louisms says:

    If Bob steals your garden hose, how does beating up Joe (who lives on the other side) exact that debt?

    Because both Bob and Joe are “Islamofascists” We saw any distinction between the two as academic. We just wanted to kick some generic Arab ass.

  78. 78
    cbear says:

    Interesting concept I saw posted somewhere else…substitute “Jew” for “Arab” everytime you read something about the ME, and then try and defend your racism.

  79. 79
    cbear says:

    defend your racism

    Fuck. I meant THE racism.

  80. 80
    myiq2xu says:

    Sorry, it’s easy to miss the correct spelling when you’re pulling the big words out of your ass.

    You misspelled “pussy” too.

  81. 81
    Asti says:

    We saw any distinction between the two as academic

    Thus signifying my concept is correct, stupid people got us into this war.

  82. 82
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    The AUMF, and other dodges to go to war without actually declaring war will remain the norm because they allow Congresscritters to adjust their stories depending on the outcome.

    If the war is a success then they can say that they fully supported the glorious war.

    If it’s a bloody, endless quagmire then they can say that they were misled, or that they believed that they believed that the AUMF would give the weapons inspectors time to finish their job.

    By failing to actually declare war they sidestep the most solemn and fateful decision that may be called upon to make. They demean themselves and their voters by attempting to have it both ways. Moreover, in failing to solemnly commit themselves they also fail to commit the nation and thereby lower the threshold for military adventurism. Michael Ledeen’s notion that “every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious,” becomes not an aberration but policy.

  83. 83
    cbear says:

    You misspelled “pussy” too

    I NEVER misspell “pussy”. It’s one of my favorite things words.

  84. 84
    cbear says:

    The AUMF, and other dodges to go to war without actually declaring war will remain the norm because they allow Congresscritters to adjust their stories depending on the outcome.

    Otherwise known as the “Hillary Doctrine”.

  85. 85
    Asti says:

    Michael Ledeen’s notion that “every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious,” becomes not an aberration but policy.

    The more we do this, the more the rest of the world thinks we need anger management classes.

  86. 86
    cbear says:

    The more we do this, the more the rest of the world thinks we need anger management classes.

    No, they just think we’re assholes. And they’re right. Consequently, we lose on virtually every level.

    My motto is: Kill all the assholes. Let God sort them out.

  87. 87
    Peter VE says:

    GREAT!

  88. 88
    Peter VE says:

    Now the Mexican army will be swarming over the undefended southern border to complete the Reconquista

  89. 89
    myiq2xu says:

    Otherwise known as the “Hillary Doctrine”.

    Why does Hillary catch all the flak for voting yes on the AUMF? She wasn’t the only one.

    Biden, Cleland, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards and Kerry are just some of the Democrats that voted with her. Only 21 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it.

    I was opposed to it, but I remember how it was stressed back then that it was NOT a declaration of war, it was only an authorization to use force IF Saddam didn’t cooperate with UN resolutions.

    In hindsight it is clear that Bush & Cheney were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did, but they didn’t care what Congress did either.

    Despite what happened in Iraq, they were planning on going to war in Iran too, until the NIE derailed their plans. They’re still trying to trump up an excuse.

    Public opinion was on their side, even if it was due to propaganda. Max Cleland was defeated for reelection despite voting for the AUMF and his war hero record because he was supposedly “soft” on terror.

  90. 90
    cbear says:

    Why does Hillary catch all the flak for voting yes on the AUMF? She wasn’t the only one.

    Uh, because she is one of two people who will be our next Dem nominee, and, perhaps, President of the United States???

    In hindsight it is clear that Bush & Cheney were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did..

    No, it was clear to everybody with half-a-brain that they would go to war with Saddam. See PNAC.

    Pls understand, I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee (I would rather tear my nutsack off with my bare hands than vote for a gooper) but I will do it with a clear understanding of both the issues involved AND the history of her positions–Good and Bad.

  91. 91
    cleek says:

    You asserted that isolationism was a key. It’s up to you to present evidence that it was. I haven’t ever seen any, have you?

    so. my assertion, that people voted for the things Bush explicitly campaigned on (“no nation building”), which itself was a reflection of things that the Republican leadership had been railing against for years (“Clinton’s wars” in Bosnia and Kosovo), requires proof.

    but you assert that people ignored all those things and voted for Bush because they knew, all his statements to the contrary, that he secretly wanted to invade Iraq. and they knew this in 1999 ? that seems counter-intuitive.

    but, true: i have the same amount of hard data that you do, to back up my assertion. still, while i may have been drunk at the time, i really don’t remember a widespread feeling that the US needs to go out and kick somebody’s ass, back in 99/00. as i remember it, things were going well. hell, even Cheney was lobbying to get the sanctions lifted on Iraq, pre-9/11. nobody ran on a war platform.

  92. 92
    Tony J says:

    I was opposed to it, but I remember how it was stressed back then that it was NOT a declaration of war, it was only an authorization to use force IF Saddam didn’t cooperate with UN resolutions.

    And UN Resolution 1441 was passed only after the US and UK agreed that 1441 superceeded all previous UN resolutions on Iraq, with the solid proviso that the decision over whether or not Iraq was in violation would be made by the UNSC after Hans Blix had completed his inspections and presented the evidence that would enable them to make that decision.

    But then, once it was clear that the inspections were only weakening the case for immediate war, the US and UK invaded anyway, staking their reputations on proving that Iraq was hiding its WMD stockpiles from the inspectors, and claiming:

    a) they were enforcing UN resolutions preceeding 1441,

    b) the French had sworn to veto any resolution that authorised the use of force.

    Both of which were untrue, and none of which stirred anyone in the US Congress to do jack shit all about the fact that the President had thrown the USA into an illegal war in violation of the AUMF.

    For which there’s really no excuse.

    But what do I know? My country was equally badly led, and the shitbag who made it happen is now making millions and being promoted for ‘President of Europe’ by the French.

    God damn you, Scott Beauchamp! Somehow , this is all your fault.

  93. 93
    ThymeZone says:

    you assert that people ignored all those things and voted for Bush

    Actually, among all the other parts of this idiotic harangue you are doing, you got that wrong too: I asserted that more people voted for Gore (12:16).

    But please, keep it up. You are making real headway here.

    My point, since you apparently can’t find it, is that the people are responsible for the mess we’re in WRT war, AUMF and failure to require a declaration of war. Not Bush, not Clinton, not Reid, not anybody on Capitol Hill. The people acceded to it, and need to recognize that, and stop doing so. Otherwise the politicans are, rightly, going to keep doing what they have been elected to do, which is to operate the American War Machine and ignore the Constitution.

  94. 94
    ThymeZone says:

    nobody ran on a war platform.

    That’s right, cleek. You win, it’s all the politicians.

    They have all the power, they run the country, we are just the stooges, we have no capacity to change anything.

    You win. Seriously, your argument is just too well constructed, I can’t counter it.

    I take back everything I said. You are da man.

    I hope John makes you a front pager, you have a lot to offer here. Really, I mean it. I can learn from you.

  95. 95
    GSD says:

    Cbear,

    I think I proposed that concept a few weeks ago, but I can’t remember where.

    Anyhow, anytime I hear these bellicose rants from the likes of Savage my stomach churns at the irony.

    -GSD

  96. 96
    cleek says:

    Actually, among all the other parts of this idiotic harangue you are doing, you got that wrong too: I asserted that more people voted for Gore

    huh ? i’m pretty sure i didn’t argue anything to the contrary. what’s up with making shit up? and the silly insults? get over yourself.

    The people acceded to it,

    and that right there is the primary flaw in your argument: the people didn’t have a choice in the matter. people marched, petitioned their representatives, wrote letters in newspapers, bitched on blogs, etc.. but we don’t get to decide Congressional votes as they happen. sure, the system is not what the Constitution says it should be, but we haven’t the tools to fix it from the outside. at best, we get to choose the general make-up of Congress every two years, and the Presidency every four. we don’t get to vote on things that happens in between. by the time the election comes around we are reacting to what’s already happened.

    elect candidates who won’t buckle when the next crisis comes along? punish those who did? nice theory – pretty much a cornerstone of the democratic republic, in fact. but in reality, elections are never one-issue affairs, and candidates who were wrong on this issue might be right on all the rest – do you throw out candidates who are 99% good? look, i’m all for punishing Hillary for her AUMF vote, Edwards too. but i’m not exactly convinced Obama would’ve voted against it, if he was there. but those are my choices. should i sit it out and let McCain take it without giving all the fight i can (= my one vote) because the Dems couldn’t come up with a candidate who’s perfect in every way ?

    and, yes, i understand what you’re saying – Congress has shamefully abdicated its responsibility regarding war. no argument there. but that’s one of hundreds of things that have to be weighed when choosing a candidate. and the odds of getting enough people who agree on that particular issue into Congress, given all the other things they have to get right too, are just too small. i vote for the best people i can, but i still have to take what i can get.

  97. 97
    cleek says:

    That’s right, cleek. You win, it’s all the politicians

    They have all the power, they run the country, we are just the stooges, we have no capacity to change anything.

    now you’re getting it!

    i mean, unless you’re being sarcastic. and in that case, i’d invite you to prove me wrong.

    IIRC, more than 60% of the country is currently opposed to this war. it should be easy to put an end to it, with that kind of majority. so, get ‘er done!

  98. 98
    ThymeZone says:

    the people didn’t have a choice in the matter. people marched, petitioned their representatives, wrote letters in newspapers

    Um, no. There have never been enough people, and never at the time when it counts.

    The numbers and the timing have always been in favor of the war machine. The people have never stood up and said no to a bellicose move, in the Cold War, and now in the War on Terra. While there has been “bitching” as ou put it, you can rest assured that the politicians know exactly what their voters want, and pander to it as necessary.

    When the people make it clear that they don’t want a war machine for a government, they will send a clear message. That message hasn’t been sent. That’s my point, my whole point and nothing but the point. 2008 is a chance to do that, we’ll see if they do it or not.

    The reason why you have a war quagmire today is because the people wanted the war. That’s not a fluke.

    When anti-war politics dominates a few election cycles, you’ll see things change. Until then, it does no good to sit around and “bitch” and write letters to the newspaper.
    it does absolutely no good to sit on blogs and bitch that somebody else, usually a person in congress, should do something. They aren’t going to do something until they think that failure to do so might cost them their jobs.

  99. 99
    myiq2xu says:

    and that right there is the primary flaw in your argument: the people didn’t have a choice in the matter. people marched, petitioned their representatives, wrote letters in newspapers, bitched on blogs, etc.. but we don’t get to decide Congressional votes as they happen. sure, the system is not what the Constitution says it should be, but we haven’t the tools to fix it from the outside. at best, we get to choose the general make-up of Congress every two years, and the Presidency every four. we don’t get to vote on things that happens in between. by the time the election comes around we are reacting to what’s already happened.

    We had a chance to vote in November 2002 (after the AUMF was passed) to elect an anti-war congress. Instead we elected more chickenhawks like Saxby Chambliss. We also had a chance to dump the Chimperor in 2004 along with the rest of the chickenhawks, but we reelected him and his henchmen.

    Now before you get upset, when I say “we” I don’t mean those of us who voted against Chimpy and the rubberstamps, I mean “we the people of the United States.”

    I’m gonna invoke Godwin’s law and point out that in 1946 it was really hard to find anyone in Germany who admitted to supporting the Nazis. The 1946 Germans all claimed that they just went along with Hitler to avoid being persecuted. I guess all the “real” Nazis died in the war.

  100. 100
    ThymeZone says:

    in 1946 it was really hard to find anyone in Germany who admitted to supporting the Nazis

    That’s a little more Godwin than I am ready for. I am just making a more subtle assertion: That in order for the people to get what they say they want, they have to start by taking responsibility for what they already have.

    With that step, the way to change becomes clear.

  101. 101
    cleek says:

    The people have never stood up and said no to a bellicose move, in the Cold War, and now in the War on Terra. While there has been “bitching” as ou put it, you can rest assured that the politicians know exactly what their voters want, and pander to it as necessary.

    true enough.

    but politicians can also get people to want things they didn’t want before. if the people aren’t in favor of war to start with, they can certainly be lied and scared into wanting one by the politicians and their ideological allies who do want it. off the top of my head, i can’t think of a single instance where the citizens demanded, and got, a war that the politicians didn’t already want. i can certainly think of plenty where the reverse happened.

    wars start at the top.

    :cheers:, it’s been fun. off to get some beer.

  102. 102
    crayz says:

    We fight natural disasters over there, so we don’t …. ah shit

Comments are closed.