I'm glad we have positive thinking Americans like bsb64.

Yes you have your opinion and I have mine but when at war we should stay positive in my book.

I support our troops, I have sent flight miles, smokes, and will send what I can to help out, and if I wasn't a single father you would see my @ss over there.......

 

I wrote this myself. And if you say it's too long to read, you really don't care about the troops.........

I am just really saddened that such a large percentage of what seems to be intelligent people in our country continue to support Bush. Bush, Cheney(5 deferments) and Ashcroft(7 deferments) all weaseled their way out of Viet Nam. Yet they managed to make Kerry, who served, look like a coward. It boggles the mind. I was not crazy about Kerry, but Bush sickens me.

Let me state a few feelings of mine, in my own words. If you want to respond, feel free.

After 9/11 my biggest fear was that the US would do nothing of substance against our enemies. The only real respect I have for Bush is that at least he acted forcefully and quickly. God Bless him for that. However, geopolitically speaking, Iraq was the last place we should have invaded. There are 4 or 5 other Muslim nations that have clear ties to Al Queda. Saddam was a Stalinist modeled dictator. He kept the religious nuts under control. Was he a terrible man? Sure he was. The Muslim world has a culture of brutality. Look at Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Their jails are no picnic. They have brutal police just like Saddam had. They don't have elections, Mubarrak is prepping his son to inherit leadership of Egypt. No valid elections will take place. The Saudis are the biggest ditbags on the planet. Read about them, they are like a middle age tyranny. Their citzens don't work, they enslave foreigners, chop off heads for breaking religious law. Does Bush complain about them? No, he invites them to his ranch. Remember we were not supposed to be fighting dictatorships. The enemies that hit us on 9/11 were religious fundamentalists. Bin Laden had called Saddam an infidel repeatedly. The attempts by out govt. to link Saddam to Al Queda are laughable, if you understand the region. In 2 years the best they can come up with are shaky, irrelevent links. WMDs, a big lie. Look how fast Saddam's army folded. 10 years of UN sanctions had broken his military capabilities. His miltary threat to anyone, was a myth.

The only logical reason I can think of for invading Iraq, was to beat up the neighborhood bully, then install a pro US govt., which obviously won't work. And if that was the case, they should have presented it that way. Honestly. The Bush admins'. story on Iraq has changed repeatedly since 2003. If you keep changing your story in a court of law, it inevitably points to you as dishonest. Yet....no one, in the US, holds Bush accountable.The rest of the world can see it, but Americans refuse to see it. I plan on traveling the world when I retire. Lets hope we are not so hated throughout the world that I can't do it.

Iraq is getting worse and worse. Anyone affiliated with the US is targeted. But, the only viable jobs are with the US.....Bremer announcing that Bathists could never participate in the new Iraq was an incredibly stupid mistake. He instantly created 80,000 insurgents with that decree. Even Patton realized he had to employ ***** after WW2. Do we hear about this in our media? No. The Sunnis will never willingly allow free elections. They are a minority that has been oppressing the Shia and Kurds forever.....
Pay backs ain't gonna be nice, and they know it.

The Shia, at the moment, are cooperating with us. One reason, they are the majority. Free elections will give them power. They will install a religious govt. probably similar to that of Iran. God, the irony... to fight a war.....remove a secular govt., only to replace it with a religious theocracy. Remember, religious idiots are the enemy. Iran is pleased with their good fortune. Sistani appears to be a resonable guy. But, he is probably only going to live another 5 yrs. tops. Who then fills the void? Sadr? The 30yr. old bumpkin who wields his power like a 13 yr. old kid?


I have 14 and 13 year old sons. If Bush is as stubborn as he looks. We will be in Iraq another 5 yrs. Our key fighting units have already done 2 tours over there. Inevitably, they will have to institute a draft. I'd go fight myself for a legitimate cause. This Iraq war is not one, IMO. It would kill me to see my boys get drafted, by an administration of arrogant chicken hawks, to fight a stupid war, because "God told Bush"......A guy who stumbled around for the first 40 yrs. of his life, squandering every opportunity his dad set up for him. No Way ...Jose!

Bush should have read "The Art of War" (( http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html )) Pay close attention to part 2, Waging War. He has broken every rule of Sun Tzu's. He has alienated his Generals, repeatedly. Rumsfeld publicly embarrased one of our Generals who claimed we'd need more troops before the war. He underestimated our enemy. He incorrectly identified our enemy. He has engaged in a prolonged war, with no viable positive outcome in sight. I could go on and on.

As you can see, I am not throwing a bunch of Left wing conspiracy theories at you. I am a conservative at heart. I voted for Reagan and Bush's dad. GW Bush is a clown, IMO. He is squandering the world's greatest military. These are real people dieing. He has ruined our credibility in the world, strained alliances, and made our friends look stupid. The NYC police dept. is bigger then his 'coalition of the willing', if you exclude the US and the British. I really wish people would research this stuff for themselves.

Oh yeah, what happened to Bin laden? No longer a priority, I see. Afghanistan is once again the world's largest herion exporter. Warlords (gangsters) are now running the country. Al queda is setting up shop again in the east. Karzai can't even leave Kabul without getting killed.


The US media is polarized, they are either right or left, thus worthless.
Here are a few links I suggest you look at.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/ BBC has a historic tradition of challenging their leaders. That was always a tradition in all media until recently.


http://www.pbs.org/news/ Sure... PBS leans left, but they are still the most legitamate news source in the US. They attack the left and the right. Especially Frontline, you'll see more reality in ten minutes than you'll get in a year of mainstream US news. You can click on the Frontline link and watch all of their shows on the web.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm This guy is a little nutty, but he has been right about Iraq. A Viet Nam Vet who speaks from his heart. You could read his columns all day and see his insight. Go back a year and see where he predicted exactly how this insurgency problem would play out.


http://www.stratfor.com/ This is a subscription intelligence site. Butr you can read some of the stuff for free.They are not always right, but they often give a slant on things that is not heard anywhere else.



http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=940 This is an Isreali site. Some of it free, some of it subscription. It often tells a story we don't hear in America.

 

bsb64,
Very well put...Its nice to see there are others out there who can think for themselves and resist the propaganda and lies of our administration.

 

You guys should run for President......... LMAO !

 

Seconded, from another Reagan/Bush Sr voting conservative who thinks G.W. is a draft dodging fool.

 

bsb64, I will reply to some of your comments....not all though.....some I agree with sort of. Just so that you understand, I retired from the military this past April with 28 years and 7 months of sevice.

I am just really saddened that such a large percentage of what seems to be intelligent people in our country continue to support Bush. Bush, Cheney(5 deferments) and Ashcroft(7 deferments) all weaseled their way out of Viet Nam. Yet they managed to make Kerry, who served, look like a coward. It boggles the mind. I was not crazy about Kerry, but Bush sickens me.

I would never undermine/attack a mans service, however having been there, done that...getting 3 purple hearts in a 3-4 month period is a little over the top for me.....I had friends who died in the service and didn't get one. And his post war comments and actions (some of which are congessional record testimony would make you puke)



The Shia, at the moment, are cooperating with us. One reason, they are the majority. Free elections will give them power. They will install a religious govt. probably similar to that of Iran. God, the irony... to fight a war.....remove a secular govt., only to replace it with a religious theocracy. Remember, religious idiots are the enemy. Iran is pleased with their good fortune. Sistani appears to be a resonable guy. But, he is probably only going to live another 5 yrs. tops. Who then fills the void? Sadr? The 30yr. old bumpkin who wields his power like a 13 yr. old kid?

Every time we have helped/allowed a theocracy to take over we have had to go back and clean it up. Iran and Afganistan come to mind.


I have 14 and 13 year old sons. If Bush is as stubborn as he looks. We will be in Iraq another 5 yrs. Our key fighting units have already done 2 tours over there. Inevitably, they will have to institute a draft. I'd go fight myself for a legitimate cause. This Iraq war is not one, IMO. It would kill me to see my boys get drafted, by an administration of arrogant chicken hawks, to fight a stupid war, because "God told Bush"......A guy who stumbled around for the first 40 yrs. of his life, squandering every opportunity his dad set up for him. No Way ...Jose!

There is no need for a draft, No Political party will support a draft, it would be political suicide...a few democrats mentioned that it might be needed and it was blamed on Bush.

Bush should have read "The Art of War" (( http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html )) Pay close attention to part 2, Waging War. He has broken every rule of Sun Tzu's. He has alienated his Generals, repeatedly. Rumsfeld publicly embarrased one of our Generals who claimed we'd need more troops before the war. He underestimated our enemy. He incorrectly identified our enemy. He has engaged in a prolonged war, with no viable positive outcome in sight. I could go on and on.

I dont' think he incorrectly identified the enemy, possibly an error in priority. I think the reason he took Saddam was to prevent Saddam from taking over the whole mid-east as the anti terrorism war plays out...I think more countries are on the block to be chopped on.


And for Honda Buster....how can you quote anything from that dirtbag Clarke....He made the majority of this mess. He was/is probably the single human being most responsible for the intelligence breakdown that led to this. It amazes me that it took the asshat 3 friggin years to congeal a story of how it was the current administrations fault. Crap...the next thing you will be recommending that Michael Moores historical documentory should be taught in school! (by the way...Mr Moore personally said this was not a documentary because it had his opinion and spin on the facts....I'll find the interview for you if you want.)

 

And for Honda Buster....how can you quote anything from that dirtbag Clarke....He made the majority of this mess. He was/is probably the single human being most responsible for the intelligence breakdown that led to this. It amazes me that it took the asshat 3 friggin years to congeal a story of how it was the current administrations fault. Crap...the next thing you will be recommending that Michael Moores historical documentory should be taught in school! (by the way...Mr Moore personally said this was not a documentary because it had his opinion and spin on the facts....I'll find the interview for you if you want.)





"One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically. Consider a few examples:

* A political candidate is gaining support by proposing a tax change. So her opponent argues that the candidate herself would be one of the chief beneficiaries of that tax change.
* Your doctor tells you to lose some weight. But why should you listen to a doctor who is himself overweight?
* A friend has recommended a new investment opportunity, but your significant other rejects the recommendation with the remark, "How could you possibly value the advice of that idiot?"

In each of these cases, there is an argument (concerning taxes, health, or investments); and in each, the argument is given less importance than something about the person making that argument. And that's what is wrong with ad hominem appeals. After all, if the tax proposal is an improvement, if the medical diagnosis is sound, if the investment opportunity is worthwhile--then what difference does it make who is presenting the argument--or even why?

Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember--it doesn't really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4."

 

I agree with your logic, but only if from an uninvolved source. His "argument" never once addressed his input that started the whole problem with the intelligence services. How can you blame someone in the job for 8 months for something he did for 8 years?

 

Isn't it true that Bush never met with Clarke during those 8 months? I have heard that, though I can't varify it.

 

This is part of the problem with the cia. Too bad i had to go to foriegn newspapers to get the story...its almost like the story is being suppressed in the USA.
cia story
This is the fear they live with, ...having political masters, who dont want the truth, but support for their agendas. The cia shouldnt be held back from making true statements, they should just state the facts and let the spin doctors of the administation either disregard them or put a clasified stamp on them, and then lie about it. But the cia shouldnt be the spin doctors.
If they are being told to lie about this...what else are they lieing about?