Rosa Parks Rocks

81 replies [Last post]
rightway's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

She was 42 when she sat on the bus.  A U.S. Serviceman who was
black was killed a few days Rosa Parks made her stand...he was killed
by the police for the same thing rosa Parks did.  The courage
exhibited here is scary...and commands all of the respect in the world.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

rightway wrote:She was 42 when she sat on the bus.  A U.S. Serviceman who was black was killed a few days Rosa Parks made her stand...he was killed by the police for the same thing rosa Parks did.  The courage exhibited here is scary...and commands all of the respect in the world.  
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

I also respect that she stood up, or rather sat down, for herself and did it with quit dignity that commanded we pay attention to her  and her cause..  She never turned herself into a dog an pony show, unlike Cindy Sheehan.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote: She never turned herself into a dog an pony show, unlike Cindy Sheehan.
 
Not to hijack the tread, Rise of the Vulcans, by James Mann gives lots of insight into why things are as they are. And does so without throwing political fire bombs. Anyone who wants to understand why we're in Iraq needs to read this book.
Back to Rosa Parks, where would we be without her? That's a scary thought.

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

TJC give me the brief.. Was the book about America the deliver of peace or America the evil empire. Either answer explains what political side of the stick the author is on..
 
Moveon.org (terrorists) or 51% Americans who voted a certain party into office.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

executivejock wrote:
TJC give me the brief.. Was the book about America the deliver of peace or America the evil empire. Either answer explains what political side of the stick the author is on..

neither, at least how I read it. It's a chronology of the political lives of the president's closest advisors. Shows what their beliefs are and how they came to power. Mann works or worked for the NY times, so expected a big time bend to the left. Not there. None the less, the book is disturbing in that it shows how this group, with the exception of Powell, believes now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy(read democracy). Sound familiar? If that's what you mean by evil empire then that's in there.
 
 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy
And so.......?
What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.
But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.
Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     
Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

What's wrong with a women freaking out after her son dies?
Absolutely nothing wrong. Any mother or father would be destroyed by the death of a child.  Grief is a natural and neccesary process.  So is sex, but I don't want to see a full frontal sex show in public, just as I don't want to see Cindy Sheehan gnashing her teeth, wailing, pouring ashes on her head (and oh by the way smirking at the camera at the same time).  http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/antiwar-protest-ends-with-m ass-arrest/2005/09/27/1127804477879.html    She is having the time of her life in this photo op evidently.  Too bad the time of her life is predicated on the death of her son.
Grief like sex and other moist displays of affection should be done privately.   I have more respect for the likewise grieving parents, children and spouses of the other fallen soldiers who have sucked up the pain and have gone on with their lives.  And yes some of them are also protesting the war as is their perogitve, but with dignity and grace. 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Just another random post on this topic.  I am probably old enough to be the parent of many of you (I am guessing) and have had the experience of living in the segregated South for a while as a child. 
My earliest memory of being aware of segregation was when we moved from Los Angeles to some place in Mississipi. My brother and I were about  5 and 6yrs old and having just arrived from a long trip in the backseat of the car, (with ...gasp!!.... no seat belts and we survived to tell the tale), we were thirsty.  My parents pulled up to a public park, very nice with shady trees and lawns.  So we got out and ran up to a drinking fountain.  Just as we were ready to drink some strange lady came up and was upset and said "Don't drink from that water it is the colored fountain!!"   So needless to say we were scared and confused and drank out of the "other" fountain.    Later we snuck back and turned on the water and were very dissappointed that it wasn't colored at all but was clear water just like the other fountain.  We were hoping for blue or green or something.    My parents had to clue us in on the "rules".   It made no sense to us at all.  Fortunately we moved away and went back to California within a year.

rightway's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Orchestrated or not...she could have died for doing what she did.  None of us would do that for such a cause.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Come on, Sonny, Rightway said nothing incorrect in his post. Parks WAS a member of the NAACP and she had been active prior to her arrest in 1955. In fact, she had refused to give up her seat several times in the years prior to that day, but afaik, she wasn't arrested. That hardly makes her a “radical” or trained activist. She wasn’t the complete babe in the woods as the legend suggest, either.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
There's nothing to suggest that her arrest was staged or managed (as are today’s made-for-TV-press-sheets-in-advance-come-watch-us-get-aresst ed-at-2pm (and bailed out by 2:15) activist events) that the resulting boycott (which started as a single day and grew from there) was anything other than spontaneous. Now, the successful Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins were another matter.
As far as Cindy Sheehan goes, I share your concern that some people hate her, poor addle-minded and dishonest, but ultimately grieving mother that she is. OTOH, I share a deep distaste that many have with her idiotic statements (“end the military occupation of New Orleans”) her dishonesty (her son volunteered to serve and disagreed completely with her about US foreign policy) and her general stupidity (leaving Iraq now, no matter what you think of how we got there, or how we’re conducting the war, would create a bloodbath, embolden terrorists around the world, weaken those who risked everything, their lives included, to support us and grant Al Qaeda a safe haven they otherwise would never have).

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Mike Butler are you familiar with the Republican Senator from Illinois Everett Dirksen and the courageous work he did in favor of civil rights? If your not you should check him out.
Of course. He was the Senate Minority Leader and led a higher percentage of GOP Senators to support civil rights legislation than Democrat Senators did.
 
He's also the source of one of my favorite Washington DC quotes; "A few billion here, a few billion there, next thing you know you're talking about real money.".

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

babbling looney wrote:
now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy
And so.......?
What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.
But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.
Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     
Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

 
   I wonder what you would do if your child was to die. You act like Sheehnan is doing all this for attention. I am sure there were people like you back in Rosa Parks day, that were appauled at the fact someone was actually thinking for themselves. However it is important to have people in our society that dont just blindly follow, but make conclusions on their own and speak out if they are not comfortable. I think you have probably been wathcing too much fox news.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Nice  You assume that I am a racist because I am disgusted by the over the top public chest beating and wailing by Cindy Sheehan who I do believe is more concerned about publicity than actually honoring and PRIVATELY grieving for her son.   I'm sure she does grieve for the death of her soldier son, however using him and allowing politically motivated people to hoist him on a stick and wave him around for their own purposes is just sick.  You do notice that they pretty much have dropped her like a hot rock when she no longer suited their purposes.
What would I do if my child volunteered for a dangerous occupation and was killed? I don't know,but I'm sure I wouldn't hire a publicity consultant and try to make myself the center of attention.  Yes, I do think she is doing this for attention.  She has been a frustrated protest warrior for many years and this was a perfect opportunity for her to grab the brass ring.
If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but here is the official statement of the people who know Cindy Sheehan best... the father of Casey (remember him?) and his family.
“The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.”
You make some broad assumptions on my television veiwing habits as well.
I am going to assume that you are an idiot.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote:
now is the time, while we are the dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American foreign policy
And so.......?
What is wrong with that? What other country's foreign policy should we forward? France, Germany, South Africa, Iran?  I vote for people who I feel are going to advance my policy preferences.  If they don't do their job then I don't vote for them again.   The NY Times is so left leaning it could bend over backwards and kiss it's own ass, and it does so quite often.  I wouldn't line the bottom of a birdcage with the NYTimes.
But to hijack the thread back to what it was in the beginning. (Amazing how anyone on the left seems to be unable to view anything without it being through the prism of their hatred of Bush.)  My remark about the difference between Rosa Parks and Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with their causes: one being to remove the repression and discrimination of an entire class of society and the other to protest against political actions ie: the war in Iraq.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with either of them. It has to do with the personal conduct of each which speaks loudly to character.
Mrs. Park was dignified in the face of life a threatening situation and maintained that dignity throughout her life.  I don't know all of her circumstances, but it never seemed to me that she was out to become a "media marvel" and thrust herself into the middle of every demonstration that came around.  On the other hand, Mrs Sheehan has turned herself and her cause into a media circus and is an obvious publicity hound who I feel has totally trashed the memory of her grown son who made a decision to become a soldier.  As a grown man, not a child, he made a choice.  She may not agree with it (there are many choices that I my daughter has made that I may not agree with either), but she has no right to twist his choice and use his memory as a stepping stone to the fame she so desparately craves.    She reminds me of some one with Munchousen by Proxy syndrom. (SP?) Create a catastrophe, poison or harm your child so you can then appear to be a hero and become the center of attention.     
Rosa Parks is someone I would be proud to have as a friend.  I would want to watch my back if Cindy Sheehan was even an aquaintance.

BL, the Army and Marines are falling way short of their recruiting goals, what's stopping you from fighting for what you believe in? Too old, not in good health, how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?
My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".
And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.
PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote:
how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?
My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".
And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.
PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

Maybe we need some menopausal troops to get the job done.
Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

SonnyClips wrote:I think that you have not lost anyone to an untimely death. I believe that TJC45 and Cruiser are reacting to something that is inconsistent in your values. It is very ignoble the way the right have characterized what they deem apropriate grieving and themselves have become parasites on the Sheehan Bandwagon.
You don't know that.  I lost my fiance in the Vietnam War. (Told you I was old.) I also lost many close friends and have those that are permanently disabled both physically and mentally.  The shabby way that they were treated when they returned from war I attribute directly to the media and the protesters that they encouraged in undermining the War. Unlike 100% of the people in the military today, my fiance and friends were NOT volunteers. Whether I thought the Vietnam War was right or wrong at that time is immaterial.
And it IS ignoble the way that the media both right and left have become parasites on what should have been a dignified private grief.  My beef with Cindy Sheehan is that she has encouraged the parasitic vampire embrace of the media and seemed to relish it. They have done this as a means of coloring the whole anti-iraq, I call it anti-iraq because most of the protestors I have picketed with have made the distinction, as being frivolous peaceniks. When I was in Graduate school a year or so ago I was active with the interfaith network in Dekalb, Il. One of the women that was instrumental in organizing Rosemarie Slavenas had a son who was a reservist and a helicopter pilot. You can read her and her son Brian's story at the The New Yorker The story was written by Calvin Trillin and it is very moving.
A good story and if the people who want to protest the war had use her as a figurehead, her dignity would have created a different outcome.
It's about a women who protested the war and a son who while against the Iraq war went and was killed when he was called up. I drink beers with the guy and shared mutual friends who ran the gamut of political views. I wonder why the Right Wing Media never latched on to her story. Why they focused so much on Sheehan who is so obviously unprepared for her role. Slavenas a retired professor holds a PhD and is very gifted in the area of protest organizing. I submit that the right wing media has a commercial interest in watching this Sheenhan who is so obviously a pathetic bundle of nerves implode. We have a long history of this type of voyeurism look at, Judy Garland, Betty Ford, Kitty Dukakis and Cortney Love we are glued to their self destruction we watch it as entertainment whether we acknowledge our shadenfreude or we merely continue to follow the story while all the time claiming to be appalled.
I love it that you know schadenfreude!  I agree it is a sick voyeurism  that is encouraged by the media to create revenue.  And this is exactly what I found disgusting about this entire Cindy Sheehan episode, which thankfully seems to have expired a timely death.
Slavenas would have been the war protest movements Rosa Parks but no outlets other than the New Yorker seems to be interested in viewing contrary acts as anything more than a Tijuana Donkey Show. All titilation and no substance. Make sure you read the New Yorker story before you throw around any of the cliche's about being a liberal dumbass. I ask this because even if you do not agree with me I would hope you would take my perspective seriously and contemplate the opposing views. Whether or not I am opposed to or support this "current" war (and you don't know because I haven't said ) is also immaterial.    It seems to me that you understand my point better in your references to the Tijuana Donkey Show.    The media "wants" to create a circus for their own purposes and Cindy Sheehan is/was helping them.  Some people want to re-create their youth and enjoy the adrenaline rush of protest, some media have a political agenda to support the war, some to protest the war, some don't care about the war or the young men and women in harms way and are more interested in just harming an administration that they hate.  Some people have honest motives like Ms Salvenas seems to have, however, it seems to me that most involved in this entire unsavory episode are self serving. 
Having seen the harm that well intentioned people can cause to the indiviual solders in the past, I fear that we are going down that same road again. 
I am reminded of two phrases or sayings.  First from the musical hair.
Oh, how can people have no feelingsHow can they ignore their friendsEasy to be proud; Easy to say noAnd especially people who care about strangersWho care about evil and social injusticeDo you only care about the bleeding crowd?
And..   When you are up to your ass in alligators it is too late to remember that the original solution was to drain the swamp.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Last post on this topic, I have wasted too much time here
Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.
You have no effing idea what my views are on our foreign policy.  I haven't said. I said I vote for people who I think/hope are going to express my preferences and don't vote for them again if they turn out to be false. Take to read I vote across party lines and hold opinions from libertarian to conservative on many different issues.  I didn't say I support the war in Iraq or that I support the policies of  "this" administration.  I also, as an American, support American foreign policy that supports American interests and not the interests of other countries.  Why that should be unusual, I don't know.   If we don't like what they are advancing, we can vote the bums out of office or even impeach the bums. 
You want to project what you think my views are.  Get a clue, buy a vowel and learn to read without putting your own preconceptions on some one else.
Must go take a chill pill now.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

babbling looney wrote:
how about offering up a son or daugther for the cause?
My daughter, just like Casey Sheehan, can make her own decisions and I will have to abide by those decisions.   As a grown up, adult woman, she is not mine to "offer up".
And this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with political issues such as the war in Iraq.  I have never mentioned Iraq or anything to do with the military. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem along with cruiser.  (I hope you listen to your clients better than you are able to read commentary)  What I object to is the dragging into public and politicising what should be a private process of grief.  Cindy Sheehan, dancing on the corpse of her dead son for her own self agrandizement is what I find disgusting.   There are constructive ways to protest and get your views out there. This is how we got Megans Law, this is how MADD was formed. Parents turning their grief into positive results.  I just find her way unseemly and sickening and especially find the parasites that cling to her for their own purposes to be disgusting human beings.
PS.  How about two nephews (who both were in Afganistan and Iraq as Army Rangers and thankfully home safe now), two of my uncles(career Air Force)?  I don't think the military is taking middle aged women. Although maybe they should since there is nothing more dangerous than a menopausal stock broker.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

 
  I am not an Idiot, I just do not think it is my place to make judgement on how other people live their lives. You are a gutless coward. Sitting at your computer,taking pot-shots at someone who has given alot more than you could ever dream of to the war in Iraq. I know you will try and spin it some way to make you or your Values look better, but face it, YOUR WRONG.

exEJIR's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-12

Having spent time in two different war zones...
The current military is an all volunteer military.  When you sign up you acknowledge that you will "defend against ALL enemies, foriegn and domestic". 
War IS hell.  I felt sorry for my wife who was left behind (in the normal world) without any idea of where I was, or how I was doing.  But everyone who is over there knew what they were getting into. 
Having said that...  It is VERY important to support the troops, no matter what your feeling on the mission may be.  But, it is even MORE important to support the families of the troops, because like I said most of them don't even know where they are and how they are doing. 
And NOT KNOWING, my friends, is the hardest part.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

babbling looney wrote:
Last post on this topic, I have wasted too much time here
Actually , I was speaking to your view on our foriegn policy.
You have no effing idea what my views are on our foreign policy. 
You want to project what you think my views are.  Get a clue, buy a vowel and learn to read without putting your own preconceptions on some one else.
Must go take a chill pill now.

BL, BL, BL, In my post to answer  EJ in describing the book Rise of the Vulcans, you took one phrase of that answer and responded to it. That phrase was, Now is the time, while we are dominate military force on the planet, to use that force to forward American Foreign policy. Your response was: And so...?  BL, exactly how was I suppose to read that, other than you support the war?
 
Our foreign policy is democracy at the point of a gun. We are no longer the guys in the white hats who ride to the rescue. As biggest bad ass on the planet, our new roll is to convert the world's population to our way of doing things, democracy. It's our way or the highway, even if we have to use some F18s and smart bombs to persuade thinking in our favor. Iraq, unfortunately, is just the first stop. And if you don't know this or believe this, then it is you who needs a clue. I'll give you that you may not be aware of this, or that you didn't intend your response to show support for this policy or the war. However, preconception? Not at all.  By clipping  the one hawkish phrase from my post and responding as you did, you sure sound like you support the war. I responded to that.  
T
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

SonnyClips wrote:TJC45, Did they mention the whole "perpetual war" scenario in "The Vulcans" that was adopted by the City College intellectuals who made the shift from Communist Trotskyites to Neo-Conservatives? I think this comes as an almost unfathomable shock to most conservatives in that the foriegn policy that has developed seems to mimic that of the Soviets. Creating enclaves of US style democracy and wait for the dominos to fall. The irony of course is the huge cost of providing fertile ground for this perspective is very expensive. So expensive that it caused the end to the Soviets and Communism as a force seemingly overnight. I would not assert that the US economy is this fragile but I would submit that all of the spending being done for this policy is frivolous and utopian. If you still believe that Iraq is about terrorism from the Whitehouse's perspective read the work on the plan from the early nineties on this site. It shows clearly that this war was not driven by national concerns of security but misguided idiology. Either way I look forward to reading the book. It seems to be mentioned more and more these days. Best, Sonny
Sonny, I don't recall all of the references in the book. As I said it doesn't trash neo-conservatives. As you mention in your post, misguided ideology, is closer to the mark. And how that ideology has been made policy and acted upon by the Bush administration. In today's paper there is a short AP story about Scooter Libby. It brings up a paper co-authored by himself and Paul Wolfowicz in the early nineties that said, recognizing that we are the World's only remaining super power we should use pre-emptive force to stop other nations from developing weapons of mass destruction as well as stop other nations from becoming rival super powers. Sound familiar? The book shows how their careers, and experiences acted on our national policy makers and their beliefs.
Another interesting book is "Against All Enemies" By Richard Clark. The White House spin machine has done it's best to discredit Clark as a disgruntled ex employee. But there's just too much fact backing Clark's version of Bush's early anti terror policy to blow it off.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Cruiser wrote:
 
   I wonder what you would do if your child was to die. You act like Sheehnan is doing all this for attention.
Sheehan simply proves that being a grieving mother doesn't mean you can't also be a fool and a publicity hound. "End the military occupation of New Orleans", indeed.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:I believe that TJC45 and Cruiser are reacting to something that is inconsistent in your values. .
Funny, I thought they were simply responding to some mental shortcomings of their own.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:
Another interesting book is "Against All Enemies" By Richard Clark. The White House spin machine has done it's best to discredit Clark as a disgruntled ex employee.

 As well he is.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote: I wonder why the Right Wing Media never latched on to her story. Why they focused so much on Sheehan who is so obviously unprepared for her role.
 
Yeah, that's what happened, it was the "Right Wing Media" that made Sheenhan such a public figure. Geezee, what a steamy load....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

[quote=tjc45
Our foreign policy is democracy at the point of a gun. We are no longer the guys in the white hats who ride to the rescue. As biggest bad ass on the planet, our new roll is to convert the world's population to our way of doing things, democracy.
What a wonderfully convoluted argument in favor of dictatorships and against democracy, READ:FREEDOM. Now, tell me again how it’s so evil that we should help people out from under a dictator’s boot and into the light of freedom….<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Did they mention the whole "perpetual war" scenario in "The Vulcans" that was adopted by the City College intellectuals who made the shift from Communist Trotskyites to Neo-Conservatives? I think this comes as an almost unfathomable shock to most conservatives in that the foriegn policy that has developed seems to mimic that of the Soviets.
 
ROFLMAO, back to Sonny's ludicrous attempts demonize William Kristol and interject Trotskyite traits  into today’s US foreign policy all because Irvin, William’s father, as a college student had a brief infatuation with Trotskyism…. He even buys into the lunatic fringe’s conspiracy theory that Project for the New American Century directs US foreign policy (how many PNAC members work at the White House?). I guess the fact that regime change in Iraq became US policy back in 1998, long before Bush and the eviilllll neocons came to power just confuses the daylights out of them….
SonnyClips wrote:
The irony of course is the huge cost of providing fertile ground for this perspective is very expensive. So expensive that it caused the end to the Soviets and Communism as a force seemingly overnight.

What a mind-numbingly stupid attempt at a parallel. One, the Soviets weren't exporting freedom, they were exporting Marxist slavery at the point of an AK-47. Second, the USSR economy collapsed because Marxism simply doesn't work, not because of their foreign policy.
<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:
Our foreign policy is democracy at the point of a gun. We are no longer the guys in the white hats who ride to the rescue. As biggest bad ass on the planet, our new roll is to convert the world's population to our way of doing things, democracy.
What a wonderfully convoluted argument in favor of dictatorships and against democracy, READ:FREEDOM. Now, tell me again how it’s so evil that we should help people out from under a dictator’s boot and into the light of freedom.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Let's not devolve in to ranting and raving. So far I think its been "evil" because it has been horribly ineffective. If you don't believe me consult Brent Scowcroft's piece in the Times.

Oh, golly, there's a critic. That PROVES it must be a bad policy. BTW, did Brent bother to talk to any Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in free elections? And just how many years into a free Iraq will it be before the critics change their tune?
SonnyClips wrote:As far as the PNAC stuff, Rumsfeld was a member who tried to urge Clinton to invade Iraq.

Rumsfeld's not a member of PNAC, and Clinton made regime change HIS policy and the policy of the US government without any evvvviiillll neo-cons in his administration.
SonnyClips wrote:
I myself don't believe in the whole intricate theory route and you become tiresome continuing to label me with this.

You don't believe it, but you can't help but bring up the theory every so often...
SonnyClips wrote:
The Trotsky thing is documented on the very Republican and upstanding journal the National Review.

"The Trotsky thing" being the fact that Bill's father had a brief membership in a Trotskite organization like so many other Leftists of his day. BFD.
SonnyClips wrote:I would honestly like you to give your perspective on why you believe this war in Iraq is such an unmitigated success.

War is never an unmitigated success. This war is no different. OTOH, over the whines of the critics  (the ones that were screaming "quagmire" on day three of the invasion, the ones that warned of the "harsh Afghan winter" in the prior conflict) there's been a handover of power to an interium Iraqi government, and election, a constitutional proposal written and accepted by the voter and in December, there will be full-fledged goverment elected. The Iraqis are taking up the cause of their defense and are doing most of the bleeding an dying these days.
SonnyClips wrote:
Because I personally would like it to be one.

ROFLMAO, you'd lose your chance to be a knee-jerk Bush critic, you'd hate it. Gee, even that windbag Joe Wilson admitted he was disappointed that the Iraqis voted for the constitution, at least try to be honest.
SonnyClips wrote:I think though that the mere fact that there is an insurgency means that failure is a foregone conclusion.\

Please tell me you're joking. Failure is a foregon conclusion just because there's an element that wants to defeat democracy? Are you kidding? The "insurgency" can't hold territory, was rejected by the Sunnis as they decided to join the democratic process for the last vote and they've changed their objective from killing US troops to killing innocent civilians. Hardly the voice of the people at work there.
SonnyClips wrote:As far as Bill Kristol is concerned I admire his intellect .....He is not a Communist, this I know. But believe it or not Marxist criticism and the study of other Communist thinkers like Trotsky is still considered a legitimate pusuit amongst people who are intersted in exploring ideas.

That kid of gibberish would make Joe McCarthy blush. You keep ranting Trotsky, Trotsky as if it means something significant that his FATHER, IN HIS COLLEGE DAYS was a Trotskite for a couple of years. Give it a rest. For crying out loud, REAGAN was the head of a UNION, does that mean he was a unionist president decades later?
SonnyClips wrote:
As far as the CCCP falling because of their foriegn policy just look up the numbers on what they payed out to Cuba and Angola. They would have failed eventually but all that spending sure sped up the process.
[/quotes]
There's the phrase I was looking for "they would have failed anyway". Correct, foreign policy or not, their Marxist economy was doomed to failure. They could have stayed home and baked cookies and it would have failed.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Oh and did you here Fitzgerald on the I. Lewis Libby indictment... Compelling.
Did I hear it? Yes, I did. If Libby lied to a grand jury, he should pay the price. Clinton should have as well.
Notice no one was charged with exposing a CIA operative, and that Rove's free. Sorry Fitzmas was such a washout for you.... 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong).<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Tell me why you believe this. You even recoiled from describing the reason why Reagan and Teller devised SDI as a means of out spending the CCCP.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You mean why do I believe the Soviet economy was doomed to failure? Do I really need to explain that? Here's your problem, YES, Reagan knew he could speed the process of Soviet collapse, HOWEVER, you made it sound as if the USSR would have survived had it not pursued its foreign policy. Note the difference, they were going down the drain EITHER WAY, and not because of their foreign policy. Therefore some comparison to "cost" and an attempt to liken the Soviet collapse to a US-like foreign policy is simply bogus.
SonnyClips wrote:
 I want you to tell me why Scowcroft is wrong.

Because Saddam was not going to be "contained" (as if you could even do such a thing when WMDs can be moved without detection). Saddam was not only not going to be contained, he was on the very edge (via buying German and French support by way of his food-for-oil bribes) of completely escaping international scrutiny. Sanctions were going to end, the inspections were going to end, Saddam was going to be free to pursue whatever it is he wanted to.
Now, you tell me why it's so shocking to you, why it's so amazing that a decision as momentus as going to war wouldn’t have critics. You make it sound like the very existence of critics proves something important.
SonnyClips wrote:
I want you to describe another insurgency that has been defeated in a similar scenario.

The mistake you make is twofold. First, you want to surrender immediately because there’s some resistance to democracy. Do you really believe that freedom is so weak a human goal that it always collapses in the face of resistance? Secondly you make the assumption that the insurgency represents some legitimate nationalism and represents the people. They don’t. In fact they’ve targeted the civilian population, a population that proved they by risking their lives to vote that they reject the terrorists.
SonnyClips wrote:I really really want to be positive about Iraq, I am sincere, and talking about battlefield success in Afganistan does not count towards success in Iraq. I admit the nattering naybobs of negativity were wrong about us being in a quagmire about the Afgani conflict.

I want to believe you’re sincere, but I can’t. Giving Bush a defeat is more important to most Democrats than US success and Iraqi freedom. As you said yourself, the same voices crying quagmire today were crying the same thing before we entered Afghanistan. They were making the same noises after three days of the invasion of Iraq. They’ve ignored every single success in the timeline established to creating a free Iraq. They have far too much invested in defeat to enjoy a success.
SonnyClips wrote:You still haven't proved that my perspective on Trotskyite.

Your “persepective” is laughable. So what that Kristol’s father was a Trotskyite as a college freshman? I was a liberal Democrat in college. BFD.
SonnyClips wrote:
 As far as Rummy being a PNACer check the website. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy without a single eeevvvillll neo-con on his staff. Spin that anyway you’d like.
SonnyClips wrote:So please make an argument that could at least be farther reaching than "you are a liberal and you suck, Sonny." I would be interested to read it.

Again, you’re the knight without arms and legs screaming it’s only a flesh wound. My side of the conversation has been anything BUT what you described.
SonnyClips wrote:How many indictments is that now for your team and not one was protecting the wife and kids from a story about them being a chubby chaser.
ROFLMAO, like Hilary needed to be “protected” from news that Bill was didling the staff. If Libby lied to the GJ, he should face the music, the same applied to Clinton attempting to hide evidence in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Jeb being more competent than W might have made the whole Iraq sceme work, funny thing about fate.
Right, that's how war works. The guy in the oval office personally sets the tactics, leads the fight, wears the uniform, etc.. Man you're really off your game, Sonny.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BTW, Sonny, since you're hysterical about the PNAC and their set of principles, how about pointing out what you object to, specifically.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

WTF does any of this have to do with Rosa Parks?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

joedabrkr wrote:WTF does any of this have to do with Rosa Parks?
Nothing, it's just a typical liberal thread hijack  

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

mikebutler222 wrote:
All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong).<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

Mike, the problem with all this is that you actually believe it. Still clinging to the WMD were moved before we got there spin? Or are you on the we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here band wagon? Mike, I don't know how to break this to you , but there is no Santa Claus. I'm sorry that I had to be the one to tell you.
Remember, all of this started with getting Osama Bin Laden. Don't hear too much about him these days. But not to worry, even though he is no longer our number one worry, despite his being our number one threat, he hasn't forgotten us. We're still in the bullseye, his number one target. Maybe if we invade another country, it will help. How about France, we don't like them and Lance isn't in the tour next year anyway.
Say what you will about Clinton. Those towers were still standing when he left office. Clinton's a stand up guy about the fact that his administration should shoulder some of the blame for the 9/11 attacks. Wouldn't it be refreshing if Bush did the same?
I'd be careful with the dissing of Clark. The guy was our number one expert on terrorism and Bush wouldn't give him face time because of protocall. The president just doesn't meet with underlings. Your cynically calling the foremost terrorism expert in the country a second string player is exactly the arrogant thinking the Bush administration employed in not letting him meet with the president. Clark did his best to convey his alarm at the coming attacks. He knew something was coming, not what, when or where. Obviously, Condi didn't take him seriously or didn't grasp what he was saying. At least those messeges weren't conveyed. We paid the price of this arrogance.  Even after the attacks Rice had to be led by the hand as high level terrorism experts gave her the who and why of what had happened.
Clark was shocked that the war planning taking place on September 12TH wasn't Afganistan, but Iraq. He was told to find an Iraq connection. His role in the administration was further marginalized when he reported back that there was no Iraq link to the attacks.
You're right we did have OBL in our sights a few times and we didn't get him. You also know that we didn't have a clear shot at him. If we did he'd be dead. At least, at that time, Clinton recognized him as the threat that he is and tried to get him. What's Bush doing? Think if we took some of this Iraq effort and applied it to finding bin laden, that he'd still be out there?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong).
Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

Mike, the problem with all this is that you actually believe it. Still clinging to the WMD were moved before we got there spin?

Where did I say anything even remotely like “all the WMDs were moved”, and what does WMDs (and the failure of intelligence agencies to get that right) have to do with Clarke?
tjc45 wrote:
Remember, all of this started with getting Osama Bin Laden.

An interesting change of topic on your part, and since you mentioned him, why didn’t Clarke ever get him with all the opportunities he had? BTW, are you really of the mind that getting bin Laden now would slove our problem with Al Qeada? If so, you’re all alone on that one.
tjc45 wrote:[
Say what you will about Clinton. Those towers were still standing when he left office.

Purely by luck. They didn’t come down in  1993 when he said “don’t worry about it” and we were attacked around the world for the entire eight years he was in office and he did precious little about it, even to the point of refusing to take OBL into custody and/or kill him when he had chances. Having said that, how did Clinton’s failures become the topic, aside from the fact that Clarke was in charge of the operation when Clinton was in office?
I personally wouldn’t bother to spend time on Clinton’s performance on the subject were it not the fact that his #1 man on the subject failed miserably and then wrote a book attacking Bush who had all of eight months to do what Clarke couldn’t do in eight years.
tjc45 wrote:[
I'd be careful with the dissing of Clark. The guy was our number one expert on terrorism and Bush wouldn't give him face time because of protocall.

See above why it’s accurate to go after Clarke, and Bush didn’t brush him aside on protocol, he brushed him aside because unlike Clinton, Bush wanted to hear from the HEAD of the agency, not a worker bee who had a miserable track record to begin with.
tjc45 wrote:[
The president just doesn't meet with underlings. Your cynically calling the foremost terrorism expert in the country a second string player is exactly the arrogant thinking the Bush administration employed in not letting him meet with the president.

What a load on nonsense. Clarke had zero record of success and Bush ELEVATED the sense of urgency by hearing directly from the HEAD of the agency. You hold Clarke out to be some superhero dispite his abject failures. Clinton wouldn't even meet regularly with his own head of the CIA or FBI.
tjc45 wrote:[
 Clark did his best to convey his alarm at the coming attacks. He knew something was coming, not what, when or where.

“Something’s going to happen, I can’t tell you what, where, how or when, but ain’t I useful?” ROFLMAO….
Gee, let me do my Clarke impression; “Some number’s going to win the super lotto….”.
tjc45 wrote:
Even after the attacks Rice had to be led by the hand as high level terrorism experts gave her the who and why of what had happened.

More nonsense from Clarke. The guy’s already been caught in a lie about Condi not even knowing what AQ was until HE, super hero Clarke briefed her, why bother to listen to any more of his lies?
 
tjc45 wrote:[
Clark was shocked that the war planning taking place on September 12TH wasn't Afganistan, but Iraq.

Says Clarke about meetings he didn’t attend, and contradicted by everyone who did. BTW, who was it who said of OBL, “If we don’t kill him here, he’ll boogy off to Iraq”?
tjc45 wrote:[
You're right we did have OBL in our sights a few times and we didn't get him. You also know that we didn't have a clear shot at him. If we did he'd be dead.

Wrong, yet again. We had him under survaillence in a AQ training camp, as clear a shot as there will ever be, (we've all seen the video by now) and we let him go. We were offered him on three occasions, and while the spin is “It wasn’t a real offer” you can hear Clinton himself on tape say we didn’t take him because we didn’t have a crime to charge him with.
tjc45 wrote:[
 At least, at that time, Clinton recognized him as the threat that he is and tried to get him.

Pure, unmitigated spin. Clinton/Clarke had numerous chances and they didn’t pull thr trigger. NOW, after the fact, they talk big. Need I remind you again of eight years of inaction and Clinton's refusal to even meet with his own CIA and FBI heads?
tjc45 wrote:
Think if we took some of this Iraq effort and applied it to finding bin laden, that he'd still be out there?
 
You’re absolutely clueless if you think it requires the same force structure to assist Iraq in freeing itself from a dictator as it does to comb through caves in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. You’re even more clueless if you think a dead OBL would end the fight with Islamofacists.  
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote: Kristol and Podoretz were teaching at City College and were not kiddies flitting around to make there parents mad. It really makes you uncomfortable that this is true.
I couldn't care less that Kristol had a brief fling with Marxism as a college student, even if you make it part of your signature line and/or repeat it in your every post. It just doesn't matter. Now, what really makes me uncomfortable is that I was once on the ranks of people as misguided as you are.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Brief fling? He said in the seventies that he was proud of his early Trotsky related perspective and he was a Prof not a student. Your whigging out dude.
The link you provided, and everything else I've ever read on the subject said Irving, BILL'S FATHER,  was a Trotskite briefly in college. How you've managed to make that an issue at all, much less try to pretend that says anything about his SON, BILL, is a mystery for the ages.
Again, I was a liberal Democrat at a young age, Reagan was a union boss, BFD.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

SonnyClips wrote:Now are you going to address me as if I claimed they worked for ZOG or the Trilateral commision. It's as if you respond without even reading the previous post. Just cherry picking from them in order to support your dilluded perspective. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

?
SonnyClips wrote:I am still interested in any historical perspectives you might have to support our tactics in Iraq.

What part of overthrow the dictator, allow the dictator-free country to produce a security force to defend itself and then allow them to elect a government isn't clear enough for you? You're the one with the burden f proof here, declaring we're doomed to failure because there's an insurgency, bestowing some sort of populist legitimacy on them that their tactics, and the voter turn-out with the risk of life present, don't entitle them to.
SonnyClips wrote:
You claim I'm insincere...

I say your claims are hard to believe. One reason why is your incessant conspiracy mongering about the "real reason" went  to war, when the "real reason" is exactly what's been said all along. Every intelligence agency on the planet said he was still hiding WMDs. I hope you are sincere, but you’ll forgive me if I’m not wholly convinced.
 SonnyClips wrote:
which frankly has a tinge of the old hackneyed "love it or leave it" line.

Oh spare me. Are you about to whine that your patriotism has been questioned? Straight down the talking points list, eh?
SonnyClips wrote:
Are you saying that I wouldn't rather have Americans succeed in Iraq? Or is this just a dodge because you have no answers, no unique perspective if you will.
Obviously it isn’t because I lack answers. I've answered every question you've posed.
It's because Bush-rage has engulfed your party to the point that members will, as Wilson did, admit they would rather have had the election on the constitution go against progress, even though it would have harmed the US cause and the Iraqi cause, because it would have "taught Bush a lesson". Too many Democrats would welcome a setback if it harms Bush by extension. Don’t believe me? Read any Democrat website like Democrat Underground or Daily Kos.
 
 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

mikebutler222 wrote:
tjc45 wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
All you need to know about Clarke is how ineffective against Al Qaeda the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US government was when he was in charge of the section watching him. They didn't bother to take him into custody 3 times when offered, they let him out of a training camp in Afghanistan when they had him in their sites. Clarke lied when he said that HIS input stopped the millennium bomber in Seattle (the border guard thought she had a drug trafficker, no warning on bombers ever made it to her post), he lied when he said Condalezza hadn't ever heard of AQ until HE briefed her on them (a tape of an earlier interview proved him wrong)
Bottom line, he was pissed he lost his daily briefing of the pres gig when Bush decided to hear from the head of the CIA and the FBI rather than their 2nd string, as Clinton did. In fact, the flight out of the country of a number of bin Laden's family right after 9/11, the flights that drove Michael Moore to rant any number of conspiracies, guess who approved of it? Richard Clarke.....

Mike, the problem with all this is that you actually believe it. Still clinging to the WMD were moved before we got there spin?

Where did I say anything even remotely like “all the WMDs were moved”, and what does WMDs (and the failure of intelligence agencies to get that right) have to do with Clarke?
tjc45 wrote:
Remember, all of this started with getting Osama Bin Laden.

An interesting change of topic on your part, and since you mentioned him, why didn’t Clarke ever get him with all the opportunities he had? BTW, are you really of the mind that getting bin Laden now would slove our problem with Al Qeada? If so, you’re all alone on that one.
tjc45 wrote:[
Say what you will about Clinton. Those towers were still standing when he left office.

Purely by luck. They didn’t come down in  1993 when he said “don’t worry about it” and we were attacked around the world for the entire eight years he was in office and he did precious little about it, even to the point of refusing to take OBL into custody and/or kill him when he had chances. Having said that, how did Clinton’s failures become the topic, aside from the fact that Clarke was in charge of the operation when Clinton was in office?
I personally wouldn’t bother to spend time on Clinton’s performance on the subject were it not the fact that his #1 man on the subject failed miserably and then wrote a book attacking Bush who had all of eight months to do what Clarke couldn’t do in eight years.
tjc45 wrote:[
I'd be careful with the dissing of Clark. The guy was our number one expert on terrorism and Bush wouldn't give him face time because of protocall.

See above why it’s accurate to go after Clarke, and Bush didn’t brush him aside on protocol, he brushed him aside because unlike Clinton, Bush wanted to hear from the HEAD of the agency, not a worker bee who had a miserable track record to begin with.
tjc45 wrote:[
The president just doesn't meet with underlings. Your cynically calling the foremost terrorism expert in the country a second string player is exactly the arrogant thinking the Bush administration employed in not letting him meet with the president.

What a load on nonsense. Clarke had zero record of success and Bush ELEVATED the sense of urgency by hearing directly from the HEAD of the agency. You hold Clarke out to be some superhero dispite his abject failures. Clinton wouldn't even meet regularly with his own head of the CIA or FBI.
tjc45 wrote:[
 Clark did his best to convey his alarm at the coming attacks. He knew something was coming, not what, when or where.

“Something’s going to happen, I can’t tell you what, where, how or when, but ain’t I useful?” ROFLMAO….
Gee, let me do my Clarke impression; “Some number’s going to win the super lotto….”.
tjc45 wrote:
Even after the attacks Rice had to be led by the hand as high level terrorism experts gave her the who and why of what had happened.

More nonsense from Clarke. The guy’s already been caught in a lie about Condi not even knowing what AQ was until HE, super hero Clarke briefed her, why bother to listen to any more of his lies?

tjc45 wrote:[
Clark was shocked that the war planning taking place on September 12TH wasn't Afganistan, but Iraq.

Says Clarke about meetings he didn’t attend, and contradicted by everyone who did. BTW, who was it who said of OBL, “If we don’t kill him here, he’ll boogy off to Iraq”?
tjc45 wrote:[
You're right we did have OBL in our sights a few times and we didn't get him. You also know that we didn't have a clear shot at him. If we did he'd be dead.

Wrong, yet again. We had him under survaillence in a AQ training camp, as clear a shot as there will ever be, (we've all seen the video by now) and we let him go. We were offered him on three occasions, and while the spin is “It wasn’t a real offer” you can hear Clinton himself on tape say we didn’t take him because we didn’t have a crime to charge him with.
tjc45 wrote:[
 At least, at that time, Clinton recognized him as the threat that he is and tried to get him.

Pure, unmitigated spin. Clinton/Clarke had numerous chances and they didn’t pull thr trigger. NOW, after the fact, they talk big. Need I remind you again of eight years of inaction and Clinton's refusal to even meet with his own CIA and FBI heads?
tjc45 wrote:
Think if we took some of this Iraq effort and applied it to finding bin laden, that he'd still be out there?
 
You’re absolutely clueless if you think it requires the same force structure to assist Iraq in freeing itself from a dictator as it does to comb through caves in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. You’re even more clueless if you think a dead OBL would end the fight with Islamofacists.  

Mike where do you get all your misinformation? Do you believe everything the Bush administration puts out there?
Interesting that you believe bringing OBL into the conversation is a change of subject. Wasn't getting OBL and fighting terrorism job one on our national priorites list? What happened to that anyway?
Even the clueless realize that we've stopped looking for OBL, and that Iraq isn't about fighting terrorism. The clueless realize that because of that we're going to get our asses kicked again.
Much if not most of what Clarke wrote was corroborated by aides, cabinet heads, or deputy secretaries who were still employed by the admin at the time. Fox news didn't report that, which is why you missed it.
Under Clinton, Clarke attended weekly meetings with the CIA chief and the FBI chief. Then they would all meet with Clinton together. They did it this way to make sure nothing got lost in the transmission. If Clinton had questions, he could ask Clarke directly. Clinton always had questions. They worked as a team to identify and quantify this brand new threat. They did a good job. They had it figured out. Bush and Condi, didn't want to hear it. They had bigger fish to fry, and put Wolfowicz in charge developing an Iraq invasion strategy. That Iraq had to go was a matter of national security. Saddam had become too much of a destabilizing influence to the region. He was scaring the sh*t out of Bush's good friends the Saudi Royal Family. This was pre 9/11.  Where did you hear that Clinton didn't meet with these guys?
As for failure, if only it was that Clarke had failed. How great would that be? Blame one incompetent and move on. It would be great and Bush wants you to believe it's true because it takes a lot of heat off him. Unfortunately, it's not true. Give Clarke some credit, he was able to find OBL several times. That we weren't able to bring OBL down can't be laid at Clarke's feet. Nor Clinton's. Of the three confirmed OBL sightings at least one wasn't reliable enough to act on. We later found it was him, but while we had him the information flow wasn't fast enough. Another, the training camp you mention, there were two other occupants of that camp who were members of the royal family of another Gulf State. We couldn't kill OBL without killing them. Killing innocent royals is a no no. Well it was for Clinton anyway. So Clarke was able to find the needle in the haystack time after time. Under Bush we aren't looking for the needle anymore.
This only gets worse from here. If you believe things are going well in Iraq, you stand alone. The country is tetering on the brink of civil war. Operation Iraqi Freedom was poorly planned and is being poorly procecuted. Our troop readiness is winding down to it's lowest point since the post Vietnam era. Moral is at it's lowest point since Vietnam. Deployed troop percentages are the highest in our countries history. We are on the verge of having a disfunctional Army and Marines. By last count, last week there were two trained Iraqi regiments ready for duty. That's down, not up from the prior count and far from the hundred plus the administration wants you to believe are ready to go. By the way, the real number comes from our own military command, not some back office spin machine connected to the fax machine at FOx.
So freedom's on the march for Iraqis. Unfortunately, the North Koreans will have to wait for freedom until we can figure out how to invade them without them nuking the west coast. Turns out spreading democracy around the world is a bitch.
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

QUOTE=SonnyClips]No you haven't answered the basic question of why do you believe that Iraq will be successful. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Sorry, that burden's on you as to why we're "doomed". Thus far we've seen a progressive movement, from power hand-off, to election of an interim gov't, to a constitution passed, all with massive turn-out levels. Iraqis are wearing uniforms and doing most of the fighting and dying. Yep, the burden's on you to prove why that's not working.
SonnyClips wrote:WMD's was one of a number of reasons that have been given for the war which between the Sy Hirsch column back in '02 and treasongate we know that the whole yellow cake thing was the result of a disinformation campaign by the Brits in the late nineties it was never supposed to be used by our intelligence services. I believe the term is blowback.

I believe the term is gibberish. WMDs and Saddam's refusal to comply with inspections is why Clinton made regime change US policy. The Brits STILL stand by their claim that Saddam had people poking around Niger, AND Wilson's onw report said the same. BTW, since no one was charged with anything even remotely resembling “treason”, do you have a rational explanation for your use of the term? While you’re at it, could you explain why “treason” doesn’t fit Joe Wilson and the others hoping for a setback in Iraq to “teach Bush a lesson”?
SonnyClips wrote:As far as Demo rage so what?

I clouds the judgment and causes otherwise rational people to pray for setbacks no matter what the cost so long as Bush is harmed. I've given you more than enough proof on the subject.
SonnyClips wrote:
 I like the Kristols and I think that the whole basis for going to Iraq was sound except that Iraq was the wrong place ...

Iraq was the only place where a dictator that had already used WMD was refusing to comply with the inspections he had agreed to. Had we not stood firm on this you know France and Germany was going to get Saddam completely off the hook in terms of oversight. Then all bet would have been off.
SonnyClips wrote:
...obviously because nither you nor I can think of a historical precedence for how a modern govn't can deal with this kind of insurgency ...
What a steamy load. This insurgency doesn't have the support of the populace, in fact they're targeting the populace. They're not the problem you pretend that they are ala the VC or some other genuine nationalistic movement. The IRA, ETA, the Red Brigade, how many more terrorist groups that failed because they didn’t get the support of the people do I need to list for you?
 
SonnyClips wrote:
....when I get stupidly angry about all the deaths that will be in vain when we fail, I think we should do because the whole f**king world is looking at our country as if this is our intention anyway. So how's that for wide eyed liberal idealism...

That's the sort of bedwetting "when we fail" hysteria that ensures your party will be waiting a long time before it's trusted with national security again. The bit about "our intention anyway" is pure drama queen nonsense. 
SonnyClips wrote:
To be rational though this isn't going to happen UNLESS you have a perspective that I don't fully understand. But no, the whole "people of Iraq want freedom and want a part in the process" thing just doesn't hold water for me because frankly it isn't a strategy its a wish.

It isn't a wish, it's a fact. The population turned out to vote with the insurgency threatening them will death if they did so. Insurgencies can only succeed if they represent the people, and this one doesn't. It's even led by an outsider. Have you read AQ's head's letters? Even he says he's failing to get the people behind him.
SonnyClips wrote:I do think you question the lefts patriotism....

That "you're questioing my patriotism gambit is just too old and tired. Find a new line. If I question anything it's your willingness to face up to the fact that the Islamofacists don't care much about your navel gazing and bedwetting.
SonnyClips wrote:
You know as well as I the North Vietnamese copied the US Constitution word for word and they were still a totalitarian communist state so don't tell me about the Iraqi constitution. It's just rhetoric and I know Rhetoric I have a Masters in it. [/qtuote]
I'd be getting my money back if I were you.
SonnyClips wrote:
Butler give me an idea of what this plan for Victory in Iraq is or point me in the direction of a source for it so I don't have to feel so horrible about this goddam war anymore.
Look, drama queen, you feel how you wish to feel. None of the progress made means anything to you. None of the sacrifices made by the Iraqis prove anything to you. You see a crowd of murderous thugs and you're looking hard for a way to surrender to them even though in your heart of hearts you know they don't represent the population at large. Why don't you stand aside, spend the next year or two in tears and let your betters, the people who took out that Taliban that you and yours said couldn't be defeated, take care of business.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Mike where do you get all your misinformation? Do you believe everything the Bush administration puts out there?

Wow, what a deeply penetrating bit of debate there. I suppose you won’t bother to detail what I said that’s “misinformation”. As far as I can tell there’s someone here swallowing spin hook, line and sinker and it’s you buying Clarke’s fantasies.
tjc45 wrote:
Interesting that you believe bringing OBL into the conversation is a change of subject. Wasn't getting OBL and fighting terrorism job one on our national priorites list? What happened to that anyway?

Buy a newspaper. Al Qeada’s in Iraq and THEY call it the center of the global war. Remember, it was none other than your hero, Clarke, who said OBL would “boogie off to Iraq”, obviously HE thought there was a connection. The other American killing terrorists living safely in Saddam’s gulag seemed pretty safe and secure.
tjc45 wrote:
Even the clueless realize that we've stopped looking for OBL,..

The troops on the Spec Ops guys and the straight leg troopers in Afghanistan would be amazed to hear that…. and so would the Pakistanis that have been conducting operations inside their borders... and of course the numerous AQ staffers we've tracked down, captured and killed would be surprised. In fact, your revelation would catch quite a few people flat-footed...
tjc45 wrote:
 …..and that Iraq isn't about fighting terrorism.

Cue Twilight Zone music as tjc45 breaks out the conspiracy theory du joir…
tjc45 wrote:
 The clueless realize that because of that we're going to get our asses kicked again.

Yet another bedwetter….. "Surrender Now!!!" should be your slogan for the next election cycle.
tjc45 wrote:
Much if not most of what Clarke wrote was corroborated by aides, cabinet heads, or deputy secretaries who were still employed by the admin at the time. Fox news didn't report that, which is why you missed it.

When you got nothing else, you can always try to make Fox the issue…. Clarke's a staffer who never got results under Clinton and lost his job under Bush. He's pissed, period. He's got nothing on his resume, after eight years, to point to.
tjc45 wrote:Under Clinton, Clarke attended weekly meetings with the CIA chief and the FBI chief. Then they would all meet with Clinton together.

Bzzzzz, wrong. Clinton didn’t met with his CIA head regularly and he went almost two years before he met with the head of the FBI.
tjc45 wrote:
Clinton always had questions. They worked as a team to identify and quantify this brand new threat. They did a good job. They had it figured out.

You must be joking. Just what did they “figure out”? That AQ was in the country planning 9/11 for two years? That they had attacked and killed US citizens around the globe for eight years with impunity?  That they had bombed the WTC in 1993, the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole and two US embassies in Africa without the US doing anything of consequence?
Name a single success. Go ahead, we’ll wait right here.
tjc45 wrote:[
That Iraq had to go was a matter of national security. Saddam had become too much of a destabilizing influence to the region.

Right, as of 1998 when Clinton made regime change US policy and a Democrat controlled US Senate voted in favor of it. Perhaps you missed the 12 years of cat and mouse games with inspectors. Some how those facts never get factored into the conspiracy theories...
tjc45 wrote:[
As for failure, if only it was that Clarke had failed. How great would that be? Blame one incompetent and move on.

It wasn’t Clarke alone, but he surely did fail. Clinton failed (I have to tell you I don't like whipping up on Clinton like this, I'd much rather focus on post 9/11, but if you're going to claim there had been some "success" that Bush had pushed aside...) The FBI and CIA failed. The  AG failed by building that foolish wall between agencies so they couldn't share info.
tjc45 wrote:
Give Clarke some credit, he was able to find OBL several times. That we weren't able to bring OBL down can't be laid at Clarke's feet. Nor Clinton's.

Are you really so misinformed that you haven’t seen the video of OBL walking around an AQ training camp? And why didn’t Clinton kill him? There was a Saudi there and Clinton didn’t want to take a chance on hitting him with the target. Any Saudi walking around a terrorist training camp with an enemy of the US should have been killed with OBL. Clinton turned down three offers of OBL. Just spare me the spin…
tjc45 wrote:
This only gets worse from here. If you believe things are going well in Iraq, you stand alone. The country is tetering on the brink of civil war.

The defeatists have been saying that since the day after Saddam’s statue came down. Will you ever tire of it? Now that Sunnis have joined in the election process, just what’s the trigger for this civil war? AQ’s #1 man in Iraq says he’s not winning hearts and minds and OBL’s #2 tells him to find a new strategy. And what does the left in this country do? They claim we’re doomed. Say, that’s just what they said about Afghanistan….
tjc45 wrote:
 Moral is at it's lowest point since Vietnam.

I assume you mean MORALE. Not only can you not spell it, you don’t know what it is. Reenlistment rates are astronomical. Morale is high I’m told from friends in country now. You’re simply talking out of your Bush-hating ass on that one.
tjc45 wrote:
 Deployed troop percentages are the highest in our countries history.

WTF does that even mean? Do you mean the percentage of US that are deployed are the highest ever? That's nonsense. In WWII we had better than 90% of the force overseas. We've had far, far more than 150k deployed before many, many times.
tjc45 wrote:
By last count, last week there were two trained Iraqi regiments ready for duty. That's down, not up from the prior count and far from the hundred plus the administration wants you to believe are ready to go.

Pure, unmitigated lies. There are over 80 Iraqi regiments fighting. Two are capable of completely independent operations. Most operate with small teams of US advisors for coordination and the balance are only combat ready when deployed along side US troops. You obviously haven’t the slightest idea what you’re babbling about.
tjc45 wrote:
So freedom's on the march for Iraqis. Unfortunately, the North Koreans will have to wait for freedom until we can figure out how to invade them without them nuking the west coast.

Is this the latest conspiracy theory from the moonbat fringe?
 
 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

tjc45 wrote:
 Moral is at it's lowest point since Vietnam.

I assume you mean MORALE. Not only can you not spell it, you don’t know what it is. 
 
The one fact in your diatribe that is correct. Way to go Mr. Spelling Bee!
 
 
 I’m told from friends in country now.
 
You have friends? 
 
A few years ago I witnessed a horrible car crash. After dealing with helping the victims I was in the process of giving a statement to the police when this guy came over, we'll call him MR. A.  A stands for A personality or asshole, take your pick. Mr. A interupts to tell the police that he overheard what I was saying and that I had it all wrong. He then launches into his version of events, which didn't gibe with any of the other witness versions. Nor did it relate to the scene.  Mr. A insisted he was right and everyone else was wrong. The police rightfully took Mr. A's statement, realizing that people have different perspectives.  Mr. A then berated the other witnesses for lying to the police.
Mike, you remind me of MR. A. So I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I don't need you to tell me what I know or don't know. I don't need you to tell me what I've seen.
I know truth when I see it. I'm not seeing truth here.
I'm truely sorry you are unhappy about  whatever circumstance landed you here taking pot shots on the internet rather than taking real shots in Iraq. The good news is that even the Marines have lowered their standards and you can now get in. They really like people who can spell. And they absolutely love recruits who believe fighting over there is keeping us safe over here. You'll fit right in.
OK, I've had my fun. See how easy this is?  Mike , we will never agree. That's what makes a democracy.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:tjc45 wrote:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 Moral is at it's lowest point since <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam.

I assume you mean MORALE. Not only can you not spell it, you don’t know what it is. 
 
tjc45 wrote:
The one fact in your diatribe that is correct. Way to go Mr. Spelling Bee!

Oh, so that's the only thing I got right? Why is it I suspect you won't/can't point out specifically what you claim I got wrong. I suppose the fact that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about has nothing to do with it….
tjc45 wrote:
Mike, you remind me of MR. A. So I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I don't need you to tell me what I know or don't know.

Understood, you don’t wish to be confused by facts, you have your Clarke hero. And you’ve “seen” absolutely nothing, but you’ve swallowed any number of goofy conspiracy theories. You’re the debating equivalent of the child with his fingers in his ears yelling “nah-nah-nah” in order to ensure you hear nothing that disturbs your little fantasy world. That’s fine, that makes you the typical Democrat screaming “BUSH LIED!!!” in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
 
BTW, how’s that list of Clarke successes coming? Will you have it for us any time soon? I mean, if he had it “all figured out” as you claim, there must be a long list of success to detail for us. We’ll be waiting…
tjc45 wrote:
I'm truely sorry you are unhappy about  whatever circumstance landed you here taking pot shots on the internet rather than taking real shots in Iraq.

Golly, I’m cut to the quick. Having tossed out your super-witty “Oh yeah, um, well, FOX NEWS!!!!!!” piercing attack in a prior post, you’re left to asking me why I’m here and not in Iraq. Believe me, you’ve cut me so deeply that I’m in tears. Why, even the fact that I already served in the military, and am a little older and grayer than what they’re looking for won’t console me now that you’ve mounted your cutting attack. Golly.
 
 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

Oh, so that's the only thing I got right? Why is it I suspect you won't/can't point out specifically what you claim I got wrong.
 
Mike who has time? You're wrong on everything. You come off as a lunatic hegemony loving right wing war zealot. The justifications for war have been exposed as lies, yet you call me a bedwetting Bush hater for saying so. That Bush and company lied and bent the facts to make a case for war and then sell it to us, is lost on you. And it goes down hill from there. What's next with you, sky isn't blue, gravity doesn't exist? So why should I bother?
I read something disturbing today. There was a young soldier who was killed in Iraq while guarding an Iraqi survey group. The survey group was looking for WMDs, this after it had been established that there were no WMDs. They were told to go and look anyway, make a good show of it. And this young soldier died protecting these actors. How deceived should his parents feel? Mike, how many more of our sons and daughters have to die for the lies?
Deployment percentage= number of times troops have been redeployed. All time high with Iraq. It's wearing our troop down.
Mike, looking for an argument, look elsewhere.
 
 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×