| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/10/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44851 Activity:kinda low |
10/17 There are times I wish Democrats can just take a stance and stand
firm, like John Murtha:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRwashpostoped.html
\_ Who coined the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativism"? 'Cos that's
what goes through my head whenever I hear GOP name-calling.
Also, a thought-provoking piece. Thank you.
\_ Spiro Agnew. Whose name anagrams to "grow a penis." -tom
\_ Is the anagram important for some reason? Is this anything
like spinning a record backwards to hear Satan speak?
\_ To win the game you must kill john romero
\_ I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was FDR. -John
\_ hasn't Hillary held a pretty firm stance over the last 2 years?
\_ She has always had a firmly nuanced stand on all issues, which
may or may not depend on her current audience, the polls and
public mood, or other possible factors or non-factors as
politically appropriate. Until such time as the stance may or
may not need to change according to the blowing winds. Yes,
she has been absolutely firm in her stance for at least a week.
Unless she hasn't.
\_ Yes, we should all be like fucking George W Bush,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, "We
did the right thing, Sir!".
\_ One thing being bad doesn't make the other thing good.
The current admin is over January 2009. I'd prefer the
next admin be one that has a world view that goes beyond
the current news/polling cycle *and* does it right. What
is so wrong with that? Clinton is not that person.
\_ observating from outside of USA, I have to inform you
that current administration's world view is pretty
fucked up and what happen today is merely a reflection
of that. There is a reason why US stance in the world
is at the all-time-low and majority of people, even
Europeans, think that USA is a greater threat to the
security of the world than Islamic Extremelism.
\_ Here's the thing: I really don't care what the rest
of the world thinks beyond how it directly has a
negative impact on this country. The rest of the
world doesn't have to like us. They can hate us
as much as they want so long as they keep doing
business with us the rest of their feelings don't
amount to much in my book. So you might ask (and if
not I'm telling you anyway) what does matter to me?
Dead Americans matter. The problem with Iraq is not
the initial invasion, it is the poor post-invasion
planning, the namby pamby Vietnam style execution of
the war on the ground, and general lack of balls.
Wars are not about winning hearts and minds. They
are about killing the enemy until they break. No
war has ever been won by winning over the general
populace of the target nation. None. Ever. If they
didn't have the balls to go in, kill everyone who
needed killing, set up a puppet government and get
the hell out they never should have gone in in the
first place. Back to the EU opinion thing for a
moment: the EU is demographically doomed. Their
opinion regarding the ever growing Islamic extremist
threat all around them vs. their ridiculous "we hate
daddy/USA because we want to be super powers again,
too!" is useless. If they don't get their act
together their culture will be subsumed and cease to
exist as such by the end of this century. This is a
unique time in the world's history. Never before
have so many people had such freedom and power on an
individual level. It is the rest of the world
beyond the West that is normal for human history and
if our culture is not vigorously defended this time
will be remembered as nothing more than that few
extra years it took to crush the non-believers. You
are at war whether you like it or not. Your enemies
are not short term politicians you don't like. I
find the "USA is the greatest threat to world peace!"
slogan childish and historically poorly informed.
I'm glad I'm young enough that I think I'll get to
see exciting sweeping changes across the world but
old enough that I should be dead before it gets
really bad.
\_ I hereby dub thee "wordcount".
\- if you are say a poor person in say malawi and
madonna isnt about to adopt you, frankly your
life, both in terms of possible upside or
downside is going to be more affected by
the united states than it is by nkorea, cuba,
bolivia, libya etc. when the US pushes its own
agenda in something like the doha trade round,
or spews out pollution at a per capita rate
far above everybody else, it has real con-
sequences for people, just as US research into
medicine and agriculture in the past had real
benefits. yes, this is not "i am going to
steal your land and rape your women" type of
"old style" adverse consequences but
nonetheless self-serving free trades regimes,
self-serving ip regimes etc have real
consequnces. for some people it has to do with
who what share of the profits but for the
very poor, they can be pushed into what
jeffrey sachs calls "the poverty that kills".
jeffrey saches calls "the poverty that kills".
we think of scorpions and black widows as
nasty, dangerous animals, more so than
elephants, but i bet elephants are responsible
for more destruction and death.
\_ Hillary has said that her excuse that she is the one
lone freshman senator who's every single legislative move
is micro analyzed by lasers because of her status
\_ status? what status? if it wasn't for her 'status'
she wouldn't had been elected. being special cuts both
ways.
\_ Like her firm and deeply researched demands that Rockstar Games
be held liable for a third-party patch? If this is an omen of
the "Gvt Will Be Your Mommy" she wants to replace Bush's "Gvt
Will Be Your Daddy", I'm not looking forward to it.
\_ fine, her internet law congressional staffer must be
a fucking moron. she probably was involved because
rock star games is in NY. i doubt any Senator out there
has publicly said they are pro GTA. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRwashpostoped.html Congressman John Murtha Representing the 12th District of Pennsylvania For Immediate Release Oct. I received calls from all over the country this morning from people saying that my editorial should be a must read for all Democrats. It is on their behalf that I am sending yesterdays editorial to you. Sincerely, JOHN P MURTHA MEMBER OF CONGRESS Washington Post October 15, 2006 Pg. B1 Confessions Of A 'Defeatocrat' By John P Murtha The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats." Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run." Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis. The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases is nothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. We Democrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength, refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards at home and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world. It is a call to formulate and execute a winning game plan for the War on Terror. Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Since entering Congress in 1974, I have always supported the president on issues of war. But in this case, I made a mistake -- and unlike certain members of the administration, I'm willing to say so. If I had known in October 2002 what I know now, I would never have voted for the resolution. Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered. In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. When US forces first entered Baghdad, the Iraqi people cheered as the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn from its pedestal. Forty-two months and $400 billion later, we are caught in a civil war in which 61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified and the Iraqi people butcher one another at an alarming rate. The longer we stay, the harder it becomes for the Iraqis to find their own destiny. The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010. We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired US generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Eric K Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq? Jay M Garner, our first administrator in Iraq, who recommended that the Iraqi army be kept intact and used to stabilize the country? The Iraqi army was disbanded and the former military took their munitions and went off to form the core of the insurgency. Was former secretary of state Colin L Powell defeatist when he warned: "If you break it, you own it"? Was Republican Dwight D Eisenhower a defeatist when he ran for president in 1952 to change the course of Democrat Harry S Truman's administration in Korea? Will the White House toss the same tired insults at Sen. Or at former secretary of state James A Baker III when the commission he is co-chairing delivers its report on reassessing our options in Iraq? This administration's insistence on a "go-it-alone, stay-the-course" policy in the face of objections from a majority of Americans and Iraqis and most world public opinion, and in the face of a deteriorating situation, defies logic. The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than US participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits. Despite the presence of more than 140,000 US troops in Iraq, 23,000 Americans injured or killed, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the expenditure of nearly a half a trillion dollars, here are the dismal results: *In September, 776 US troops were wounded in Iraq, the highest monthly toll in more than two years. Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis and 82 percent of Shiites said that the US military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." And Iraqi support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply over the past few months, from 47 percent to 61 percent. Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability. Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq. |