Originally Posted By vbdad55 And some of us get the fact that it needs to be refocused. I get the war on terror also, and yes I voted for Bush and would still vote for him over Kerry. What I don't get is the blind following of everything done and never questioning a single thing. 1/ The war on terror needs a re focus on what we are trying to accomplish... 2/ I had no trouble with the attack in Afghanistan - ousting the Taliban ( for the most part) and attempting to chase down Bin Laden 3. I even understand ( I am not buying the flat out lying conmspiracy theories about the info on WMD). I believe the best intelligence we had at the time, and the British had and the Russians had, led to this belief. HOWEVER, the war was miscalculated by Rumsfeld from day one. No one was waiting with us with flowers in their hands ( this is not Scott McKenzie or 1967 San Francisco) , and the timetable and number of troops needed was also miscalculated - badly. Our military is over stretched trying to now 'manage' a country in turmoil.You can spin it any way you want but this is the way it is, and it worries me because there are other fronts in the war on terror far more dangerous than Iraq, and we would be ill prepared to deal with them AND Iraq, AND Afghanistan. 4. Iran is a major concern, and yes we have pissed off the majority of our allies and with Blair leaving, you can stick to the party line of how many countries we have backing us, but in reality we have one ally fighting with us that has any number of troops there worth anything, and they are out in < 12 months. That also worries me. Then what ? Venezuela is a major concern with a dictator there who also hates us and controls part of our oil supply. Oh, and he has been talking to Iran also. Hezbollah may be a relatively small band - but they also are a major terror concern. Too many fronts and too few allies. ( And we haven't even addressed Korea) I don't have all the answers on how to address other than someone needs to stand up and say we need to evaluate how to continue this. It could get really worse , in a short period of time, and we seem ill prepared. All I can think of when I hear Rumsfeld talk any more is McNamara telling us all is going according to plan in Vietnam also. Then when people like Colin Powell ( who some conservatives seem to forget was a poster boy to be on the GOP ballot for a White House spot, suddenly gets dismissed as a moonbat because he disagrees with the White House. Unlike anyone in the White House this man has actual experience in war. However suddenly he is part of the enemy, that is scary to me. I am not for cut and run today ( as I don't think most are) - but our role there needs to be looked at..we have got to free up some of that troop strength because we may need it, and soon. If that means questioning some of the moves, then so be it. That is not waffling, and the all or nothing approach is not the only one. Now that this has started it is going to be a LONG time before there is any significant breakthough. We have to be in it for the longhaul, but we also need to be smart.
Originally Posted By DAR <<What I don't get is the blind following of everything done and never questioning a single thing.>> And the same thing happened ten years ago and then time before that and so on and so on. Both sides do it, getting them to admit they do it is the tricky part.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<What I don't get is the blind following of everything done and never questioning a single thing.>> And the same thing happened ten years ago and then time before that and so on and so on. Both sides do it, getting them to admit they do it is the tricky part.< agreed
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Then when people like Colin Powell ( who some conservatives seem to forget was a poster boy to be on the GOP ballot for a White House spot, suddenly gets dismissed as a moonbat because he disagrees with the White House. Unlike anyone in the White House this man has actual experience in war. However suddenly he is part of the enemy, that is scary to me.<< Indeed. But then again, it's all part of the 'you're with us or you're against us' approach that many in this administration use time and again. It's wearing thin, except among the talk radio fans.... maybe. Evidence: The president's approval numbers, according to Rasmussen Reports today, have dropped back to where they were before the marking of the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
Originally Posted By ecdc Thanks for a well-reasoned post, vbdad. I think it's time to get out of Iraq NOW, but I genuinely appreciate a thoughtful post like yours that isn't just based on "Bush said it, I believe it."
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<< So just curious, whose fault is it that we lost most of the world's support? The Democrats? The terrorists? Are you suggesting France and Russia support bin Laden? Are you suggesting Democrats do? >>> No. Only republican secret agent wanna be's knew who he was. Americans were busy on their computers searching for $200 receipes for cookies sold only at tiffany's.
Originally Posted By jonvn "First, I will assume that Mr. O delivered this piece with the World Trade Center site as a backdrop. How... tasteful." So, you assume something you don't know about, then complain about it? Not exactly solid grounding for your argument. I always thought Keith Olberman was a sports caster.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Thanks for a well-reasoned post, vbdad. I think it's time to get out of Iraq NOW, but I genuinely appreciate a thoughtful post like yours that isn't just based on "Bush said it, I believe it." < thanks, it was just how I was feeling at the time as I sense an escalation in the Middle East coming. You know us moderates, we just see everything in gray, but I really worry about the upcoming weeks, starting with today. The rhetoric is being turned up from Iran and neither the White House nor Iran are going to back off of this one it appears. I just feel like we've been here before.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, you assume something you don't know about, then complain about it?> It's not like that hasn't been done before, and in this case, the assumption was correct.
Originally Posted By jonvn It doesn't matter if it was done before, it's not exactly a good tactic...
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Of course the people don't want war..." Herman Georing.<< Yes. It proves my point...the current crop of Republicans are following Goering's formula EXACTLY, point for point. They are so dense they don't realize it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz FWIW, we don't exactly live in a Nazi police state. I don't know of anyone who has been dragged away by the secret police in the middle of the night. But what I do see is that our government is pursiung a bizarre policy of "invade the world / invite the world", which makes us both hated and vulnerable to attack.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So, you assume something you don't know about, then complain about it? Not exactly solid grounding for your argument.<< Oh brother. I used the word "assume" because I had just finished stating that I had not seen Keith Oldermann's broadcast. But based on context (the statements of the poster, as well as the text of the commentary), I made a correct assumption. As I have said in the past, I know that talking about me, my personality and my writing style is such a pleasure. But I would really prefer that we stick to a discussion of the topic at hand. That would be Keith Olbermann's dopey commentary.
Originally Posted By ecdc "As I have said in the past, I know that talking about me, my personality and my writing style is such a pleasure." The narcissism flows like molasses. "But I would really prefer that we stick to a discussion of the topic at hand. That would be Keith Olbermann's dopey commentary." Oh, and apparently the original poster's comment that it spoke to him personally. That's up for grabs too.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Well at least Dug attempted to answer Olbermann...<< Yes I did, with the sincere hope that the effort would be appreciated. >>We still get to hear about how Olbermann isn't well known, as if that in and of itself is a sin: "(Like most TV viewers, I haven't the slightest idea where, or when, he broadcasts.)"<< It's not a sin, nor a personal attack. It's a simple statement of fact. >>The nerve of a reporter broadcasting from the WTC on the fifth anniversary of 9/11!<< No, the nerve of Olbermann for delivering such a lopsided and poorly constructed diatribe. >>To go there or even reference it and then turn around and talk about Iraq is an insult.<< My sentiments exactly. Olbermann had no business doing it, but he did anyway. >>...the temporary memorials change and they were largely done by local city officials and the families.<< Glad to see the acknowledgement that there are memorials, in direct contradiction of Olbermann's assertion. (Incidently, have you seen the memorial in Battery Park, a few blocks away? It will be joined by others on the actual site when all parties are in agreement.) >>...apparently we're supposed to absolve Bush of responsibility from *anything* - be it this, Iraq, or Katrina. It just ain't his fault, apparently.<< Iraq, sure. Bush is fully responsible. Katrina? Well, he certainly didn't send the hurricane, but the mishandled aftermath is his responsibility. "This?" No, "this" is not his fault. And "this" is the topic at hand. >>>>...Lincoln's words were dismissed by the media elite of the time...<<<< >>Pure misdirection that has zero to do with Olbermann's comments.<< Well, this is curious. Olbermann references Lincoln's Gettysburg address, I offer cogent comments based on history, with citation from an academic site, and am informed it is simply misdirection. That must be code for, "There is no way to refute this assertion." >>But then, Lincoln also went on to win the war be a great President.<< Actually, Lincoln went on to win the war and be shot to death by a bitter partisan who could never get over it. (Again , not a personal attack or misdirection-- just simple historical facts.) >>We'll see how Bush turns out in the history books.<< Yes, we will. Just between you and me, I don't think it will be a particularly stellar chapter. >>...if Bush has done some great good, just point us to the evidence; I'm all ears. Of course, there isn't much of anything at all.<< Considering how dismissive most here are of anything that reflects favorably on George W. Bush, "all ears" seems disingenuous. Of course, the very next sentence merely reinforces this assumption. >>Instead, we're treated to how nothing is Bush's fault.<< Sticking to the topic at hand, I will again assert that Bush is in no way responsible for the lack of construction at the WTC site. No more, no less. >>I can agree that Olbermann overstates his case by citing the lack of construction at the WTC then tying it to Bush.<< Hold that thought. >>That said, I think Olbermann's overall point, that is spot on, is that we've were diverted by the President to Iraq and it is where our resources and our focus has gone.<< Ah, didn't hold that thought. So, our military adventure in Iraq has left us without the resources needed to rebuild the WTC? If that is the assertion, it is both wrong and absurd. Or do I misunderstand? >>It's amazing that we even discuss Iraq in the same breath, but people seem to think it was appropriate.<< I, too, find it amazing that Olbermann discusses Iraq and the lack of WTC construction in the same breath. >>Bush had over 90% approval from Americans following 9/11 and during the invasion of Afghanistan.<< Yes, and his father was at 91% after WINNING the Gulf War. And we all know how that popularity carried him through the 1992 elections. >>But facts are pesky little things, aren't they?<< They are to some people, apparently. >>So just curious, whose fault is it that we lost most of the world's support? The Democrats? The terrorists?<< Neither. As long as America remains the world's sole superpower, we will be the object of envy and hatred from many corners. (Oh, wait. I already said that: "As long as we are a powerful nation, we will be a lightning rod for criticism and hatred.") Bush wasn't President in 1993 when the WTC was first attacked, and long after he is gone there will still be those with evil designs working against us. >>Are you suggesting France and Russia support bin Laden? Are you suggesting Democrats do?<< No, and I certainly would be unhappy if someone were to imply that I ever did. >>If only we would just all go along for the ride and let him do whatever he wanted, then we'd all support him! Ya, that's it. That's the ticket!<< No, that's not it. The ticket du jour is "BLAME BUSH." The WTC site is empty? Blame Bush. See how easy it is? >>>>I suppose if one were truly partisan, they would have to urge the impeachment of Senators Clinton, Rockefeller and Kerry, since they drew the same conclusions as Bush.<<<< >>Like we haven't heard this argument before.<< And yet no one has ever advanced a cogent argument that refutes it. Guess it's just another of those "pesky facts" >>>>I can only imagine the hue and cry if the President attempted to take over the reconstruction of the WTC.<<<< >>I don't think anybody has suggested he take it over.<< Still not holding that thought! ("I can agree that Olbermann overstates his case by citing the lack of construction at the WTC then tying it to Bush.") >>The teeny fact that Saddam was contained and not a threat according to many in the U.N. and around the world just doesn't count.<< I believe the term is "pesky" fact. The pesky fact is that both conventional wisdom and expert opinion held that Saddam was a continuing threat to his own people, the region, and the world. >>Attacking Iraq makes about as much sense as if my house was robbed, so I go testify against the guy who did it. But I'm still kinda pissed after he gets off so I go gun down another buglar - at least, I think he is. And people who say I shouldn't have done it obviously just want that other buglar walking the streets, right? Makes perfect sense to me.<< I'm sorry, but this analogy makes no sense whatsoever to me. It just doesn't. >>>>When it comes to pontificating in today's political arena, scorched earth is the order of the day.<<<< >>You mean like the Swiftboat Liars? Or the Karl Rove "Bring up Gay Marriage Only in Election Years" program? Or the attack John McCain at all costs in 2000 movement?<< That's exactly what I'm talking about. and now we can add Keith Olbermann to the list. (Along with Dan Rather's memos and Fitzgerald's deal with Armitage.) >>>>The truths surrounding 9/11 and the war on terror have been so twisted and spun for partisan ends that even when confronted with direct quotes and unassailable documents, some still prefer newly drawn conclusions based on nothing more than the interpretor's own animus.<<<< >>Hey, finally something I can agree on. The truths of 9/11 and who perpetuated it and who didn't sure have been twisted. Bush tells us we've forgotten the lessons of 9/11 in relation to blowing up Baghdad? How anyone can defend that with a straight face I'll never know.<< Me neither. It's about as goofy as trying to blame Bush for the empty WTC site. Just dopey. >>But of course, Olbermann is referring to the documentary produced by a right-wing Christian group... The very people involved in the events documented said it was nonsense.<< What was nonsense? The tortured script of the "docu-drama" (whatever that is), or their own sworn testimony from which it was derived? >>I don't think Bush got this on the air - that is pushing it.<< Thank goodness. Hold that thought. >>But try looking up who produced and wrote the documentary.<< Already did, thank you. >>Why didn't Bush stand up and denounce these people?<< Because he had nothing to do with them, ABC or the content of the program. Because he didn't bother to comment on Michael Moore, either. >>>>And here, my friends, Mr. O's commentary has definitively jumped the shark.<<<< >>Er, so fiction can't be worthwhile. Or just because it's the Twilight Zone<< It wasn't the fiction that was being dismissed-- it was Keith Olbermann's fatuous commentary. >>Yep, it is easy to blithely dismiss it without looking at the point it makes and how it fits into Olbermann's comments... Too bad you didn't actually bother to address the episode in question and what it's point might be.<< I guess you must have missed my last paragraph, so I will simply quote it again, without further comment: "Rod Serling was, indeed, a very fine writer. Mr. O. would better spend his time studying this master, rather than quoting him. Take these words: '...prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...' The 'thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat?' I would say that pretty well sums up Mr. O's screed."
