What's new? Nothing.

For a speech that was meant to reassure us that Bush was still calling the shots, last night's address was lacking anything concrete that would convince any skeptics. Of his five point plans, how many actually indicated that he had learned anything from the mistakes already made?

• Hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government; OK, you're still insisting on this June 30th silliness. No surprise. Hey, if you can say you've handed over power to the Iraqis in time for the election, it's got to be good right? I mean, nothing could happen between June and November in Iraq to put that "sovereign" government in jeopardy, could it? Nah, that won't happen.
• Help establish the stability and security in Iraq that democracy requires; And you know how to do that, don'tcha George? It's a very simple equation. Establishing security = eradicating terrorism = overwhelming force. Bingo, hearts and minds are won. It's only a matter of time before our troops are welcomed again with garlands of roses.
• Continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure; Which will be even easier in the next year as contractors are literally inundated with applications from eager young competent citizens who wish to create a better world.
• Encourage more international support; Read: Because we need y'all to come clean up our mess.
• Move toward free, national elections that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people. Because Iraq has all the hallmarks of a nascent democracy. Obviously.

Not very convincing, is it? Apparently not:

Bush's overall job approval rating declined to 47 percent, the lowest the Post-ABC News polls have recorded since he took office, with 50 percent saying they disapprove. Just four in 10 Americans gave the president positive marks for his handling of Iraq, the lowest since he launched the conflict in March 2003.

At least he's doing well in the war on terror, right? Right?

You know, these days I openly defy any Bushite to tell me that Clinton was a worse president than Bush is. Go on. I dare you. I double dare you. I would give my left arm to have Clinton back in office right about now.

Comments

[j.j.]

Hm, we're LESS safe now than before? NO! I couldn't be, Dubya said we would be more safe.

Remember that no-good, ultra-liberal radical Ted Kennedy who warned before the war that "an invasion of Iraq will only serve to swell the ranks of al-Qaeda." I guess in his rush to appease Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs, he forgot to turn his brain off and stop thinking. The Blame America crowd ought to just shut up, while real men like Bush make us more secure.

[Jim]

Yep, it's "Blame America First", by the way, JJ.

Why is Bush better than Clinton? Well I know Billy is a smooth talkin' good ole boy. Ain't he sweet with the ladies and all.

Why is be better? Because when he was handed Usama on a silver platter, he said, no he ain't so bad. After all he's never attacked us on own soil anyway, (yet). But at least Bill's a sweet talkin' nice nice kinda guy.

Speaking of the Clinton years, remember employment and growth numbers like these?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Remember when we actually had a gigantic budget SURPLUS? Sigh...

Interesting. This must be another Liberal hotbed?
The President has barely finished his speech which, by the way, is supposed to be the first of six speeched and already the drive-up window generation of Liberal nausea and their "balanced" news media types are bitchin? Perhaps after the 3rd or 4th speech but the first one?

And then there's the "the good ol' days" boys and their nostalgia; "Remember when we actually had gigantic budget surpluses". Right, nevermind Clinton was busy getting himself taken care of by Lewinsky while UBL was busy attacking the USS Cole, the embassy's in Kenya, and the first attack on the Towers instead of doing his friggin job. Yep, those were the good ol' day alright.

You guys are a real hoot to watch and listen to.
Amazing how you can take small select pieces of the truth and make it appear to be all there is.
Selective thinking at its finest... Hilarious,
absolutely hilarious......

Thanks for the laughs

[Jim]

Not me above, but I agree.

Everyone wants instant gratification and instant success without looking at the big picture. Hey a dozen of our troops abused Iraqi prisoners. (that would be a dozen out of 135,000). Hey, there's still 1,000 people fighting our troops (out of 25 million).
I know the news media has a role to play and it's supposed to be critical. That's fine. But if all you did was get your news from the BBC, Al Jazeera or NPR, you'd think nobody was happy in Iraq and that every single person wanted us out and that they really don't want elections, they would rather have an Ayatolla or Imam ruling them. Give the Iraqi people a little more credit.

had we listened to the BBC or NPR, we´d know that the reasons for war were a bunch of lies

[Jim]

Is it not arrogant to believe that only people from North America, Europe, and Australia want representative governments? Was that a lie? Is it a lie that Saddam used and hid WMD? Was it a lie that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, raped and murdered young girls, cut off people's hands just for doing business in U.S. currency, IGNORED 18 U.N. SANCTIONS, killed his own sons in law, invaded two sovereign nations, and used the oil of his country that was supposed to go for food and medicine to go for palaces and weapons. Are those all lies? Scoff all you want, but I think the unborn generations of Iraqi's would rather live in a democracy than under the tyrant. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the party of the people. Why do you hate the Iraqi people so much? Go home human shields.

Guys, get a grip. If you want to engage in a debate with people on this site, it would be useful to actually address the issues and leave the psychotic ranting for Yahoo message boards.

At the moment these sweeping generalizations and insults just come across as buffoonish and unhinged. I for one, am getting unnerved that guns are available in America when there are people with this degree of anger and irrationality around, know what I mean?

Please get a dog you can kick or something but at least stop making up bizarre and random assumptions about people. For example, find a post on anywhere on this site that says we don't think Iraqis should have a democracy before you make absurd claims. At the moment you're just coming across as a little unbalanced.

[miriamg]

Hey, no dog-kicking!

Still haven't heard "Clinton was a worse president than Bush", backed up by evidence. So far all we get is that Clinton a) is a smooth/sweet talker (is that the same as good communication skills?) b) shagged around and c) let terrorist attacks happen. But:
a) can be a good thing
b) is irrelevant and pro-Bushies must be desperate or they wouldn't keep mentioning it
c) so did Bush. Bigtime.

[Jim]

In reference to item C. Clinton let terrorist attacks happen and did nothing about it. When things got tough in Somalia he cut and ran, which is why Usama felt by attacking on our home ground, we would leave Saudi Arabia and stop supporting Israel. Bush on the other hand, took the fight to the terrorists, (after they started it) and made an example of someone who paid vast rewards to suicide bombers families. I won't argue that Clinton is a good speaker, but sometimes just saying "let's be friends" doesn't work.

[Jeff]

I continue to be amazed by the quality of the arguments in favor of Bush's policies when they have so obviously failed. Was Saddam evil? Sure he was. So who was it that kept him in power? That's right, the good 'ol USA when we wanted him to fight Iran. Come to think of it, who supported the Taliban? They were courageous freedom fighters when they fought Russia, weren't they? Bush says democracy, freedom, and the American way just like past presidents who got us into a mess we couldn't handle, yet so many of you worship him without using your brains. The entire administration is filled with oil men, who got suckered into this by Iraqi exiles and had no problem ordering other people children to die for their causes. There are a lot of bad people in the world and get this, some of them can actually hurt us (anyone remember North Korea, they actually have WMD) and we're messing with Iraq while al-Qaeda is growing every day. You think the ordinary Iraqi is worried about democracy? How about getting through the day alive and eating? We know that the American body count is about 800... how about the estimated 20,000+ Iraqi dead that we're responsible for? How many mass graves have we dug? Tell you what, as bad as Saddam was, the normal Iraqi could walk the streets without fearing for his life. To give that up, you better have a damn good reason and ours was about greed, pure and simple. Even worse, our cover story is so bad that our credibility is shot and everyone, even our friends think we suck. Congrats on creating future 9/11s.

[miriamg]

Back in the real world, Al Qaida is getting stronger, the Taliban are making a resurgence in Afghanistan, and Palestinian terrorists becoming more violent. Seems nailing Saddam hasn't had suicide bombers quaking in their boots after all.

The war and occupation in Iraq have diverted attention away from dealing with terrorism, and made the world less safe - according to reports from raving lefties like the Army War College and Institute of Strategic Studies. But as they're pointing out that Bush's policies are a dismal failure, they must be wrong. Right?

[Jim]

I'm trying to remember exactly when Bush supported Iraq against Iran. I guess Bush has been in office longer than I thought. By the way, it wasn't exactly Russia, but the Soviet Union at the time. Yes we supported Afghanistan in it's defense against a Soviet invasion (not necessarily the Taliban). So that was wrong to support them now?
North Korea has WMD yes (despite Clinton playing nicey nicey with them). On the other hand, I don't know that they have defied 18 UN sanctions or invaded neighboring nations. I also think Al Qaeda would stick out like a sore thumb and have a hard time recruiting or finding refuge there. But if you want to invade N. Korea and cause them to retaliate against Japan and S. Korea go ahead. Great strategy.
You're right, Iraqi's don't want democracy and they felt better with Saddam in power. I'm sure that's what the majority would say - at least according to Al-Jazeera.

[j.j.]

Jim, you must be fluent in arabic, cause the english-text version of Al-Jazeera online doesn't exactly say anything along the lines of: "Iraqi's don't want democracy and they felt better with Saddam in power."

As for the Clinton being the cause of 9/11, let me put that to rest once and for all. In 1983 (or there abouts, don't remember the exact date) a Hizbullah suicide bomber drove a truckbomb into a US Marines building, killing 241 peacekeepers. What did Ronald Reagan do? He promptly recalled all US Marines from Lebanon.

So, here you are today, standing at the crossroads: either Ronald Reagan showed weakness in the face of terrorism and is to blame, or he did the right thing, the smart thing, he pulled
out. Either way, he did the same thing that Clinton did about a decade later. So stop trying to blame everything on Clinton. Everything he did can be said about Reagan, but you don't hear any Democrats or Independents trying to stick the pin on his tail. I think this is a convenient excuse for so many pro-Bushies to keep the blame on anyone and everyone but their beloved hero.
There, hopefully, I won't have to bother with that sad excuse of 'Clinton is to blame' again.

[Jim]

Did I say "Clinton was to blame" for 9/11? No. The terrorists are to blame. I just said Clinton didn't do much when they had attacked. Since when is Ronald Reagan running for office now? Are we going to go through every Republican who has ever held office now? Ok, Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of southerners who had not attacked us. The main reason for that war was to keep the country together - not to free the slaves. So was it wrong?

[Chrish]

Following the teaching's of moral relativism
being taught in schools these days Clinton would
be responsible for 9/11. On the other hand
moral absolutism would say the terrorists are
responsbile for 9/11.

[Jim]

J.J.,

Was Lincoln wrong to engage the south in the American Civil War? Yes? No?

[Jeff]

Jim, why do you keep making irrelevant arguments? Obviously Bush didn't support Iraq against Iran and I don't advocate invading North Korea, so why bother saying this or laying blame on Clinton?

My point is that we never act to fight evil as the politicians tell our public. Instead, we use force in accordance with our own greed and continue to do so now. If we were right to support Afghanistan against a Soviet invasion, why are not suicide bombers and the al-Medhi army right in opposing the American invasion of Iraq? Even if they are wrong, why should we give them any excuse to feel so righteous that they would give up their lives to kill us? Imagine people dying every day, foreign troops rolling down your street, searching your house, and having a gasoline shortage when that's something you're supposed to have a lot of?

Your attempt to justify war just because Saddam was evil is lame. Since when has violating a U.N. sanctions been a cause for war? When did Saddam last invade a neighboring nation? Did we do anything about it? We did when it was Kuwait, but we did nothing when it was Iran and a much deadlier war. I wonder why. At least, the rest of the world agreed with us last time. This time, U.S. greed is plain to see.

Your Iraqis want democracy is just as misinformed. Obviously, lots of Iraqis FEAR democracy and did have life better under Saddam. The Sunnis want the life of privilege that they had before and the Kurds want their own country. We thought the Vietnamese wanted democracy too when what they really wanted was an end to the war and foreign troops out of their country.

Last thing, if Lincoln fought the civil war just to keep the country together, then he was wrong. Go ahead, tell me that you would kill a fellow American or risk your own life just to keep that fellow American a member of your own country. In Canada, they took a vote.

[j.j.]

the only reason I bring Reagan into this debate is to show you how ridiculous it is to try to blame Clinton for showing weakness. As for Lincoln, I am an amateur student of his writings, so don't even bother.

[j.j.]

what I mean is that Lincoln is irrelevant to this debate just like the appeasement comparisons with Hitler were irrelevant to the Iraq war. Can we move on now from these silly point the finger of blame at past presidents?

[Jim]

J.J.,

You use history and association when it's convenient for you, but not when it's not. You bring up Ronald Reagan, who has nothing specifically to do with Iraq. But you say, it's just because I brought up Clinton. Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. all had the Iraq problem. Reagan didn't - at least not in the sense that these three did.
We never go to war to fight evil. Whether it was right or wrong to defend the Vietnamese against communism, I don't think we did it for their oil. They are not, nor were they ever, a very big trading partner with us. And Hitler, who never attacked us, were we after his oil too? And S. Korea., which was one of the poorest counries in the world before the Korean "conflict", did we defend them against communism for the gold in them thar hills? Do you think the people in North Korea wouldn't rather live in the South if they only knew what was there? Most have no idea.
Have a wonderful and safe Memorial Day Weekend.

Hey, it's almost June 6. Vive La France!

Now where did I put all my extra oil?

[Maryann]

There is more to US economic interest than oil. It is widely acknowledged that most of our Cold War foreign policy had to do with fighting the "domino effect", which would have (had it been allowed to happen) seriously damaged our trading prospects in the developing world.

It's a little kooky to think America has spent trillions of dollars and sacrificed countless of our own young men out of a deep sense of altruism, don'tcha think?

[Jim]

Well Maryann, I guess I just can't be that cynical. I guess we've all been duped. I know Korea and Vietnam were clearly our biggest trading partners during the Cold War, so I guess it was necessary to defend them.
Was it wrong to stop the spread of communism during the cold war? Look at what it did to those countries who were forced to adopt it, vs. those that didn't.

[j.j.]

In this case (communism) you are very right, Jim. Unfortunately, and much to my regret, the Bush administration basically decided to spit on those countries in Europe who didn't want to go along with the war; but along with that, he also trampled the hard work of all the presidents from Truman to Reagan who spent so much time and effort helping defend western Europe from communism. Seems so counterproductive now.

by the way, I was reading this article in the Independent about the anniversary of D-Day. I'm not posting it here to be political but just want to give people access to it. It really isn't that political of an article, it's more of a tribute to the soldiers who died in those days, and our efforts (good and bad) to remember them. Cheers.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=526011

[Jeff]

Was it wrong to stop communism? Well, when it comes down to it, what exactly is wrong with communism? It's a pretty cool idea for a government, right? Tell you what, I'm an expat in Singapore and think the government is damn close to communism. There's very little crime, virtually no poverty, the city is clean as can be, and there ain't no homeless either. The government subsidizes low wage earners and built an incredible mass transport system...

Do you really think western countries are true democracies? If I am the CEO of a company that gives a candidate a few million bucks, I probably have a much better chance of getting my way than the average schmoe, don't you think? Are you really naive enough to think that Dick Cheney being the former CEO of Halliburton had nothing to do with them landing a lucrative no bid contract for work in Iraq?

I would say that it was right to defend against communism when the people living in the state didn't want it. Unfortunately, the U.S. has always defended against communism for ourselves, so we backed corrupt "democratic" governments in so many places that I can't name them all. Defending against communism worked out well in the former West Germany, but it was a total disaster in China and Vietnam, where we didn't bother to ask what the people wanted. Likewise, what we're defending in Saudi Arabia, an outrageously wealth flaunting corrupt and oppressive government that happens to pump oil for us is exactly what creates terrorists. We used the same formula when we supported Saddam... hell the U.S. even managed to support apartheid in South Africa when it suited us.

My geographic location gives me a pretty good perspective on this. Having been to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, South Korea, and China, it's obvious that little countries were stomping grounds for the wars of big countries. Why don't you ask the kids who are still stepping on American landmines and getting cancer from Agent Orange whether it was worth trying to stop communism for? Go to Myanmar and figure out who those sanctions are hurting, the people in charge or the little guys?

One last thing... since the whole idea of this site is expats against Bush. When I first came to Asia, everyone thought it was very cool that I was American. I was from the dominant country and culture of the world... hell, even my accent was thought more prestigious to that of locals, British, and Australians. In two short years, the Bush administration has managed to change all of that. I swear everyone hates us now. I don't even dare to stay in a Marriott or eat at McDonald's the next time I'm in Malaysia or Indonesia. Give me a reason why it had to be this way?

One last thing, Jim, you really have to get your history right. Hitler didn't attack us, but his Axis ally, Japan, bombed Pearl Harbor. Is that enough provocation for you? He sure as hell would have attacked us if we were closer, even backstabbing former ally Russia.

[j.j.]

Jeff, you´re right about everyone hating us ever since Bush started flaunting his weirdo policies. Even an idiot would notice the change of behavior and attitudes by people everywhere as soon as they find out you´re american. I have been overseas long enough to know that it didn´t use to be like this. And it was not that long ago!
People back home seem to be oblivious to this; when the subject is brought up, then a lot of pro-Bushies dismiss it by just saying "hey, who cares what everyone else thinks?" I wonder if they realize the impact of this? I mean, according to one poll in Australia not so long ago, people had a slightly more favorable image of China and of Cuba than of us. How sad is that?

[Maryann]

Jim, how can you say Korea isn't a US trading partner--have you ever looked on the manufacturers' tags of most of the items in your home? The biggest problem the west had with traditional Communism was that it cut off access to cheap labour and goods. Why do you think the sugar and coffee lobbies were so worked up about Latin America--a deep heartfelt concern about "evil"? The only element of "our way of life" being threatened was the profit margins that allow Americans to have a high standard of living.

And to say "look what happened to countries who adopted it and countries who didn't" is like saying "look what happened to countries that the US imposed sanctions on and those it didn't". No country was going to thrive if it was cut off from trade with the US & Europe in the 20th century.

The weird thing is I actually empathise with the US government in a lot of its self-serving foreign policy, even if I'm opposed to it philosophically. If I were running that country and had a few hundred million armed people to pacify and win over, I'd probably also try to overwhelm them with cheap goods & services, relatively high wages and loads of entertainment. Maintaining that standard of living has to come at a cost to other countries, and if it were my job to make my constituents happy I would probably play a similar foreign policy chess game the government does.

But it's not, and as a citizen I see a lot of these policies leading to an imbalance not only between nations, but in the health and well-being of American citizens and the environment. Case in point--US agribusiness policies and American obesity & third world starvation.

I was referring to Korea of 50 years ago not today.

Singapore? Enjoy it. Just don't get caught with the wrong paperwork as my friends did and have to spend the night under house arrest and pay for 4 guards rooms, breakfasts and dinner.

Oblivious to what the world thinks? Oblivious means I am unaware. Not the case. But don't care might be more accurate. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't always the popular thing at the time.

[Jim]

Oh this wasy me above, in case you didn't know.

Interesting. This morning on TCM (owned by Ted Turner, hardly a pro-war guy), they showed an old movie called "Verboten". It's about post WWII American occupation of Germany. The similarities to today in Iraq were even greater than I thought. Remember this was made in 1959. Those loyal to Hitler were attempting to rise up against the Americans. Totally unlike those loyal to Saddam in Iraq (ya right). The rioters burned and looted buildings and killed Americans. Completely unlike Iraq today. The more level headed elders took it upon themselves to participate with the Americans to stop the rioters and killers. Not at all like Iraq today. Whatever happened to Germany. Oh ya, peaceful, prosperous and hardly a puppet to the United States. Weird how that works. I know, if the Iraqi's wanted Saddam out, they could have voted him out.

[Jeff]

Jim, you really are a dreamer. Do you just believe all Bush administration rhetoric or do you pause to look at the facts once in a while? The Axis attacked the rest of the world, including us. We invaded Iraq in a war of our own choosing. Just by comparing the two, you lose all credibility.

Bush got the U.N. to send in their inspectors, then short circuited the process two months later claiming the inspectors were incompetent and made a case for war based on WMD and supposed ties to al-Qaeda. Since none of that was true, now the reason has been conveniently changed to Saddam was a really bad guy.

People like you let people like them kill tens of thousands of people, 800 of whom are our own (and many times more injured) under false pretenses and spend hundreds of billion with much more to spend. It's just coincidence to you that they're all oil men and Iraq happened to have the second largest reserve in the world, isn't it?

It's also complete hubris on your part not to care what other people and nations think, especially the people that you've invaded. Wake up! The Iraqi people themselves think we suck! I think you damn well would care if you or any of your family members were getting shot at or at risk of being blown to bits by someone so driven that they'd commit suicide to kill you. But that's all so far away like a video game to you, isn't it?

Answer some questions for me about the people that you're so convinced want our tanks rolling on their streets and don't cheat:

1. What is the difference between the Sunni and Shiite Muslim faith?

2. Who is Imam Hussein?

3. What is the meaning of "al-Mehdi" army?

4. What was the price of gas in Iraq before the war and what is it now?

5. What was the purpose of the no-fly zone in northern Iraq before the war?

These are all off the top of my head. I know the answers and I'm pretty freaking sure you and 99.9+% of all Americans don't. Heck, you don't even know that the Axis attacked Pearl Harbor and I say this without rancor, just disbelief that you somehow feel qualified to judge what the Iraqi people want and believe that the rest of the world is wrong.

As for your little crack on Singapore, that's just typical American we're better than everyone else attitude. Nice, coming from someone who supports an administration that jails U.S. citizens indefinitely, denying all rights without proof of wrongdoing.

[Jim]

Jeff,

I made a crack on Singapore? No I stated some facts on things that actually happened. But you only like facts when they fit what you want to believe.

Am I a dreamer? Yep, thank you. I guess like Bob Kennedy, I would rather see things as they could be and say why not, then see things as they are presently and ask why.

Do you have a lot of Iraqi neighbors in Singapore? I have many in Detroit. I know you won't believe they are cheering Bush, but they are. I've seen it first hand. Oh, but since I don't agree with you, have to call me an idiot.

Cheers

p.s., keep that anger up.

[Jim]

Hey, is it alright if I ask Ali and Eddy, my neighbors for answers to your test?

Hey, what's the difference between a Baptist and an Epicopalian?

Jim, just curious..why do you always resort to cheap jabs when you're put on the spot? That "keep up the anger" line has been levelled at a number of people who post on this site--always as a little suckerpunch at the end of your posts. I doubt anybody else is reading Jeff's words as expressions as anger; it looks more like a legitimate challenge and some fairly straightforward questions.

Actually, while we're on the topic, what's so bad about being angry? It shows some concern for the direction of the country that you claim to love.

[Jim]

Dear Anonymous,

It's funny when I state a fact about Singapore, I'm told I made a cheap shot then. But people can call me names or "a dreamer" (in a deragatory way) and I hear no retort. Interesting.

It's also interesting, Anonymous, that first you say I made a cheap shot about being angry, then you say there is nothing wrong with being angry.

I think many (not all) people on this site crack me up. Many of the same ones that cry about their freedom of speech rights being taken away, also say I shouldn't post my thoughts on this sight, because I don't follow the line of the left.

Imam Hussein, was an Islamic prophet and martyr who lived in the 1st century of Mohammad, 1400 years ago. He lived in Iraq.

Re: Shia vs. Sunni: Essentially Shia are considered more devout Muslims. This may be an oversimplification. If it is I will talk to Ali. This is why Shiites believe Imam's must be pure and appointed by Allah. Whereas Sunnis are ok if they are elected or appointed and don't think Saddam was appointed (by himself) to lead Iraq.

The no fly zone? Um gee, I think it was two area both in the north and the south of Iraq where British and American pilots patrolled to prevent the Iraqi Air force from attacking it's neighbors or citizens (again).

The price of oil in Iraq before and after the war. Let me guess, it's gone way up, along with income and employment. Yes, things are changing in Iraq.
The price of my gas has gone up almost 30% here, which is surprising, conisidering I'm stealing so much oil from Iraq.

I can't believe I went and answered your questions. Do they teach arrogance in Singapore?

[Jeff]

Jim,

Well, it looks like you're good at using Google. Facts that only fit my story? You mean like how Iraq equals the Nazis and Hitler never attacked the U.S.? You mean twisting my words to imply that you are personally stealing oil from Iraq? How many million dollars was that no bid contract that Halliburton landed anyway? We lost 200 people last month. How willing are you to have one of those people be your son or daughter?

As far as Iraqi neighbors, that's just stupidly personal and the same logic (yet again!) that Bush used to follow Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles so that we have enough American dead to dig our own mass graves in Iraq. I have stamps from Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt on my passport within the past year and am in fact middle eastern by race.

As for Singapore, you said that you just stated the facts. Are we to believe that you thought we would be interested in what happened to your friend's predicament in Singapore? I brought up the country because I felt like it was a good example of a country that was almost communist, but doing very well. You've so far brought it up to jab at 1) Singapore's detaining process, 2) Singapore's number of Iraqi residents, and Singapore's arrogance. Well, I answered the first and you had no retort. Go ahead, how would you feel about being detained indefinitely without proof and without contact with the outside world by the U.S. government?

As for the others, Singapore's a hell of a lot more diverse than Detroit. As for teaching arrogance in Singapore, no, I'm an American and that I learned in the U.S. Apparently, people like you and Bush learned that even better than I did and tens of thousands of people have died because of it. Even worse, many more will continue to die because of it.

[Jeff]

Incidentally, the no-fly zone question was a little more deep. Why would Saddam attack his own people? Partly because we encouraged the Kurds to revolt in the first Gulf War and then left them to suffer his revenge when we didn't take him out then. So we patrolled the airways above, but it didn't stop Saddam from slaughtering them yet again. I'm sure the Kurds haven't forgotten.

[Jim]

Jeff (a typically middle eastern name),

So you have travelled many places. Wow, I guess you win.
You've been to Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan. So. Does that make you any more Iraqi than I am Canadian?
Enjoy your self love. And why didn't you answer my question on the difference between an Episcopalian and a Baptist?

[Jim]

Oh and by the way "Jeff" if you care to check metropolitan Detroit actually has more arabs than anywhere outside the middle east. New York city has more than the city of Detroit proper, but the Detroit area has more. But I guess Singapore is better because you're there.

[j.j.]

There is no doubt that many Iraqis in Detroit wanted us to invade Iraq, but does that mean we should? I am sure that there are many Chechnians who'd love to watch us get rid of Putin's thug army, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Or Tibetans who would love to be their own country once again. Ask yourself, is it not just a bit too much of a coincidence that an administration of oilmen justifies 9/11 by invading a country that had nothing to do with any of it, but happened to be so rich in oil, it could upset the balance of OPEC power? Be honest here, it is just too much. I mean, nothing they have said about Osama+Saddam sitting in a tree turned out to be true, neither were WMDs. There must have been other motives, don't you think? At what point do people become start thinking in more critical terms. I can understand that some might have believed Bush before the war, after all, we're supposed to trust the president to protect us. But in the face of all evidence to the contrary, many people still ritualistically regurgitate the obvious lies.
What does it take for people to admit that we have been misled?

ps: oil prices may have risen, but that is not an effective counterargument. I don't think the neo-cons predicted such instability. They were looking forward to a quick war, a quick peace and a strategic hand on the world's most important oil region.

[Jim]

Please show me what Bush said about Saddam causing 9/11.

[miriamg]

Jim, you've confirmed what I've concluded about you a long time ago - that you'd prefer to see things as they could be, rather than as they are. You constantly ignore facts which contradict your fantasy that Bush is a competent leader.

You ignore the fact that it is not just "the left" who oppose Bush, but umpteen professionals in counterterrorism and the military; non-partisan people, often conservative Republicans, with decades of serving this country at the highest levels, who have all blown the whistle on the incompetence of the Bush administration. "Liberals" like Generals Shinseki and Zinni, Richard Clarke, the Army War College report on the failure of Bush's "War on Terror", the Institute of Strategic Studies' latest report, John Dilulio, Joe Wilson, John Dean, Sibel Edmonds, Karen Kwiatkowski..and many, many more who've spoken out. But you ignore them all, Jim. You must know best, and all these insiders and experts know nothing. They must all be lying, all partisan, all disgruntled employees throwing hissy fits.

The 71% of Iraqis who see US troops as occupiers rather than liberators know nothing either. Check out the recent USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll. They must be "the left" too, I suppose. Why do the Iraqi people hate the Iraqi people so much?

Bush has consistently conflated Saddam with the War on Terror in order to get public support for the invasion of Iraq. He didn't need to say the blatant lying words "Saddam was responsible for 9/11" when he was capable of duping the public by linking "Iraq" and "terror" and "9/11" in his speeches and the OSP kept cherry-picking intelligence to find a pretext for invading, to the exclusion of all evidence otherwise. How did all those Fox News viewers get the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11? Why else would we be in Iraq? Beats me.

Keep seeing things as you'd like them to be, Jim, and not as they are. This is no longer about whether removing Saddam was a good idea and or about being liberal or conservative. The fact is that believing that Bush and his administration are competent and have acted in the best interests of our country is no longer a viable viewpoint - it's just downright delusional.

[Jim]

Yes, I'm a delusional dreamer.

Here's another item from the same story:
"Secondhand information

That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.

Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. "

I won't deny that we are losing the battle for "hearts and minds". The terrorists and the left are winning this. And don't deny that many liberals want us to lose. Michael Moore even said he wants America to lose this war.
But I am not nearly as concerned about being loved by Al-Jazeera as I am that the Iraqi people have a representative government of their own. Yes the poll says a majority want us to leave, but a majority are also thankful to be rid of Saddam.
-The Delusional One

[Maryann]

Jim, I think it's pretty safe to say your opinion of the situation there wasn't formed by direct experience either. It was formed by listening to an Administration deliberately scaring the bejeezus out of everybody about an imminent threat, and reassuring us of the great and noble work the US is doing on behalf of the Iraqis. And, possibly your omnicient neighbor Ali had something to say about it.

People are allowed to believe either side of the story coming at them on the news, and apparently footage of US treatment of Iraqis and word-of-mouth information within the country carries more weight there than a speech by George Bush. Go figure.

I can't speak for Michael Moore but I don't know anybody who was against this disaster that hopes the US will lose (although I'm not sure what that would involve if we're just performing some kind of fairy godmother routine of doing them a big giant favor and then disappearing--losing the reconstruction contracts perhaps?). If the whole situation falls apart, it's bad for everybody involved, and to think otherwise is naive. I will admit to being glad to see it hit so many speed bumps; otherwise Rumsfeld would have be on his third Axis of Evil takeover by now, and probably kicked off global war.

[Jeff]

Jim... you are irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. Going to the middle east does not make me more Iraqi than you, though I am in fact Persian. Of course, being of Persian ethnicity (my middle name is Kaveh, but apparently you believe that only white Americans can be called Jeff or Jim) does not make me more of an expert on Iraq than you, although that and the combination of actually going to the middle east a couple times beats your resume of having Iraqi neighbors any day. Just remember, you presented Ali and Eddy first.

The difference between Episcopalian and Baptist is irrelevant. I don't know the answer and I'm not asking my neighbors. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Detroit has lots of arabs. Irrelevant. I wasn't comparing Singapore with Detroit, I was talking about the middle east where I've been a couple of times and have family, which is relevant.

You've done an amazing job of avoiding all of my real questions so far and toying with Singapore, which has nothing to do with anything except it's where I live (and has way less crime, poverty, traffic, and pollution than Detroit, and yeah, that's also an irrelevant return jab).

I also believe that having Saddam out of power and giving the Iraqis a government of their own is a good thing. But at what cost? At the cost of my leaders lying about WMD? At the cost of tens of thousands of lives and tens of thousands injured? Losing the trust of our allies and earning hatred from not only Iraqis but other arab countries?

Fact is, as an American, I also like the idea of a democratic Iraq, eager to please us with sweet corporate oil deals and a location for an American military base in the middle east. I just don't love the idea enough to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and risk my son's life. The Bush administration was so blinded by the glory of these objectives that they shut down their brains and got us into this neverending mess.

You think al-Jazeera is biased, why don't you listen to a Bush speech? He avoids answering tough questions like the plague and says, freedom, liberty, war against terrorism, and "making progress" for every single answer. Lately, the Bush campaign keeps saying that Kerry supports a 50 cent increase in gas taxes, never mind that it was freaking 10 years ago.

Right now, Saddam is last year's story. You don't need al-Jazeera to turn the Iraqis against us. All they need to do is to step outside. People are dying every day of the occupation, not only in Fallujah, but in Baghdad. The leader of the Iraqi Governing Council was just assasinated and we're supposed to hand over in 30 days? If you were afraid to step outside in broad daylight, would you be happy with the foreign tanks rolling down your streets and strange men searching through your house?

There's not even any telling how many more dead and injured there will be, nor how many Iraqis and other Arabs will be so angry at us that they're willing to kill themselves to hurt us. You're relatively safe in Detroit, how about those Americans in Saudi Arabia? Answer the real questions, how many lives was it worth to remove Saddam, who was no threat to us? How many more lives are worth our attempt at bringing democracy (yeah, U.S. appointed is real democracy) that may never happen? How many more lives will we lose blindly following incompetent and wildly biased leaders?

[miriamg]

Jim, I could care less what Michael Moore thinks. However, I do care what counterterrorism experts and top military think. Too bad you don't.

It's absolute garbage that many liberals want us to lose this war. (Lose against who? The Iraqi people? Zarqawi? Bin Laden?) Many liberals didn't want us to get into it in the first place and are sickened by the price being paid by our troops and by tens of thousands of civilians, and they want a leadership that knows what the hell it's doing.

Guess Iraqis should switch from Al-Jazeera to Fox News. Then they'd be as up on the facts as the mass of the American public are.

[j.j.]

Jim, you have GOT to be kidding! Maybe it was Senator Robert Byrd who convinced 70% of the public that Saddam was involved? Seriously now.

Ever wondered why 70% of the British public believed that Saddam was not involved? They thought for themselves. They were being critical, rather than just taking everything at face value.

[Jim]

Well, I am irrelevant and delusional, so I don't know why you people are bothering.

"Al Jazeera is biased but so is George Bush". Good comparison. I would expect any politician to be biased.

I never said there's democracy in Iraq now with an appointed government. I said, I think and hope there will be early next year.

"I also believe that having Saddam out of power and giving the Iraqis a government of their own is a good thing. But at what cost?" -Jeff
How do you measure the cost of freedom? I don't know. The fact is it will take years if not decades to know. Giving up now could almost be worse than not going in at all.

I really don't care how much you insult me, my freinds, Detroit or whatever or say my facts are irrelevant. I don't care if the middle east "loves" America. I do care that there be peace. Not just peace for today, but long lasting peace. The middle east needs a stable elected government that doesn't opress it's people.
Jeff, you brought up Singapore then told me my facts were irrelevant. Weird.
Remember, anyone who doesn't agree with you, must be a Bush puppet.
Hate me, riducule me, put me down. Maybe that makes you feel better.
Stay safe.

[j.j.]

I have a modest proposal, a 3-step plan so to speak:

1. as of tomorrow, people who wanted this mess in Iraq should start paying our share of the $200 billion (so far) it has cost us.

2. As of the day after tomorrow, Bush apologists who still support this mess should start paying even more money, to start offsetting the ridiculous deficit we have to thank Bush for.

3. Finally, the day after that, those who still whoop and cheer and holler when Bush comes to town ought to be shipped to Iraq to go defend freedom.

In the meantime, maybe we can get a president who realizes that the only way to stop terrorism is to undermine the extremist positions, not by endless war but by bolstering the moderates. We need a president, who instead of making Iraq a recruiting ground for UBL can work to make peace between Israel and Palestine. In my opinion, this is what causes all the hatred towards us in the arab world (well, you can include Iraq now.) Jim, why don't you ask how Ali and Eddy feel about a 39 year occupation of Palestine?

[j.j.]

Jim, I don't hate you. I am only confused by how long people can follow Bush without giving a thought (or acknowledgement) that so much of what they said has turned out not to be true. You would think that at some point, people would start to critically analyze things. My question still remains unanswered: how long before people start to question Bush's assertions?

[Jim]

Well J.J., we actually agree on something. Yes, the Palestinian issue is what is at the crux of this whole thing. I won't defend either the actions of Israeli "occupiers" or Palestinian suicide bombers. There needs to be a true Palestinian state. And Bush needs to be more firm with with Israel. But neither side is blameless here.

[j.j.]

I read an article in one of those terribly liberal papers that dares to report negative news from Iraq. One comment from an Iraqi was:

"Everybody in Iraq wants to eat and have a new salary and a new address as soon as possible. They do not want to say thanks to the Americans for getting rid of that bloody tyrant, Saddam Hussein, which will not be repaid for 10 generations," said Hasanein F. Muallah.

And so it would seem by all accounts.

[Maryann]

JJ, I think you're on to something. Everybody who supports this war should be made to personally donate their own money to pay for it, fight in it, or send a child or loved one to fight for them. Then we'll see how high a price the armchair hawks are willing to pay to shove "freedom" down somebody's throat on the other side of the planet.

If the whole world were behind it, and we had Al Qaeda on the run, and Israel/Palestine were all sorted, I might consider it acceptable to take part in a "rescue" mission for these poor, unfortunate Iraqis whom we suddenly have great altruistic pity for.

As it is, I don't think it was worth it to force this idea onto strangers when it means our own kids inherit a gigantic deficit and the hatred of millions of people all over the world. Why do you hate the American people so much, Jim?

[Chrish]

Fortunately there are some things that even the nay sayers, hopefully, can't stop..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3767601.stm

Not everyone shares the Liberal viewpoint of the world.

[Chrish]

"Iraq still needs the presence of U.S.-led forces to help in defeating the enemies of Iraq", Allawi said at a welcoming ceremony for the new government. "We will enter into alliances with our allies to accomplish that."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5084420/

"Iraq still needs the presence of U.S", "We will enter into alliances with out allies"? I wonder to whom, "our allies", they are referring to? Could it be the U.S.- led forces?

Seems not all Iraqi's are in agreement with the Liberal position but, then I have no doubt the nay sayers will press on with their propoganda machine and one sided view of the world.

I, for one, do hope and pray that the handover on June 30th will be a complete success for the Iraqi people's sake. Not for Bush's, not for Conservatives, and not for Our upcoming elections but, for the Iraqi people.

[Jim]

Maryann,

You know I don't hate Americans. I also don't hate Iraqi's.

I even heard a liberal talk show guy (Mitch Albom) today say, "to be fair no government let alone democracy has ever been formed without violence". Unortunately that is true. And he is no fan of Bush.
Believe it or not, I hate war too. The question is, what will bring more peace to the world. Overthrowing Saddam now or pacifying him. Honestly, neither you nor I will know the results of this for 5-10 years.

We shouldn't force freedom down people's throats? Ok, but it's easy to take something you've had your whole life for granted.

Nice link above Chrish. Hmmm...the Iraqi's are taking more and more power. What will we do?

[Jim]

My thoughts exactly, Chrish.

[j.j.]

Jim, every once in a while, we do stumble on something we agree on. I agree that the Palestinians are not blameless. They care every bit as much fault as do the Israelis. Arafat is a.... and don't get me started on Hamas. But people must realize that while Sharon takes the legs off from underneath the PA, it will only strengthen Hamas, which is bad news for us. That is not the way to end terrorism.

I will be blunt honest with you, I am not a big fan of either of them (I'm talking about their governments/leaders.) Except maybe Peres, but he is not in authority. I think he is one of the few people who has his head straight on.

[j.j.]

Maryann,

>>If the whole world were behind it, and we had Al Qaeda on the run, and Israel/Palestine were all sorted, I might consider it acceptable to take part in a "rescue" mission<<

my thoughts exactly. Had I felt that liberation was genuine, I could have been more supportive of the effort.

Where is Jeff? I miss his insight already.

[j.j.]

The Lying Game

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=526965

[Maryann]

Oh Lord, do we now have to endure more random and unfounded comments from Chrish about how "liberals" (or I guess now we're classified as "naysayers") want everything to fail in Iraq? Should we again clarify the incredibly obvious (which has, I might point out, been stated by a number of us already) that NOBODY WANTS TO STOP the handover of power to the Iraqis. NOBODY WANTS IRAQ TO DESCEND INTO CHAOS. Can we move back into rational discussion now? Thanks.

[j.j.]

here we go!

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

[Chrish]

Naysayers? Absolutely. Never said it applied to any of you however, if you fall under that word then deal with it. Consider, Bush had barely completed the first of his six speeches and all you could find were the negative reports. "not enough detail", "no mention of this or that", on and on and on. Nothing positive, nothing hopeful, no real analysis or background regarding his speech just a lot of negativity (nay saying).
including this site. You may all say you're not this way but, your posts imply a different underlying tone.

As regards the Israeli/Palestinian issue I am in complete agreement with Jim and J.J. Both sides have contributed and to the problem and continue to do so. I spent four years in Israel and found the beauty in both sides as well as the ugliness of both sides. It would be far better for both sides if they could rid themselves of the Arafat's and the Sharon's as well as the outsiders. It was a terrorist attack and retaliation when I was there and it's the same today; nothing has changed. The Israeli's were knocking down the homes of family members of a terrorist back then. Both sides need to accept the fact that they both have a right to existence and be respectful of that right then work from there.

I also disagree with this draft thing. It's wrong and should not be allowed to go into effect.

I also disagree with Bush's changing or dropping parts of existing legislation with regards to the environment. A lot of good things were put in place to protect our fragile world. And by the way the legislation put in place in order to protect our environment was accomplished mainly by Liberals and opposed by Conservatives or Right Wingers. Not everything Liberal is bad or negative just as not everyting Conservative is bad or negative. I still hold to the belief that both Liberals and Conservatives can accomplish a whole hell of a lot of good in our world if both sides can drop the our way is better than your way thing. That both can work together that would be of benefit to everyone not just benefit the Special Interest Groups controlling both sides.

Eliminating the requirements for gasoline additives to clean out the pollution in order to drop the price of gasoline is not a solution it is a stupid idea if not altogether idiotic.

[Chrish]

God willing there is light at the end of the tunnel and the Iraqi people can, at long last,
decide their own destiny without the "murderers and criminals".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3768205.stm

[Jeff]

So there are two versions of this story. From the first, which has been advocated and linked by Chrish and Jim, there is so much light at the end of the tunnel that it's blinding. Iraq will be sovereign and democratic. Bought the Bush sunshine story without questioning it. What about these very troubling facts?

1. Iraqi police, Iraqi citizens, and American troops are dying every single freaking day. I can't even tell the headlines apart. The Iraqi police were so poorly trained and equipped by us that they simply disappear into the night. You would too, if you didn't have a place to sleep.

2. The Pentagon suddenly stops paying the Iraqi National Congress, after paying them over $100 million and raids the offices of its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, who also is a member of the U.S. APPOINTED Governing Council. If you were paid that kind of money, would you try to say things that your benefactor wanted to hear, rather than the truth? Now we're asking if Chalabi is an Iranian spy!

3. U.S. APPOINTED Iraqi council leader, Izzadine Saleem was assasinated... only TWO weeks ago! he green zone (supposedly the safest place) is attacked by mortar fire every day.

4. The U.S. APPOINTED governing council choose Yawer for President and the U.S. choose Pachachi. Confusion is resolved only when Pachachi says no.

5. What powers does this new government have? No one knows, but they certainly don't have control of U.S. troops. Did I mention that they were appointed by the U.S. in the first place? Yet somehow, quotes by Allawi are somehow cited by Chrish as representative of the Iraqi people?

6. June 30, 2004... irrelevant. The start of democracy by name only, no effect in reality.

But, no, those American people who demand a little more planning and info from Bush are naysayers! Only the 1st of 6 speeches you say? Since he gave us no info in the 1st, what's to say there will be any in the 2nd?

I would happily wait for him to finish speaking if American soldiers would stop dying and billions of dollars stop being spent. You plan before you invade, not after you invade, find no WMD, are unable to secure the peace, and are forced to beg the U.N. for help when you said you didn't need them or their inspectors in the first place.

One last thing Jim, I brought up Singapore because I thought it was relevant to communism (which you were talking about). You responded by talking about Singapore unfairly detaining your friend, which was irrelevant and told me to enjoy living here, implying that I won't if I get detained. I responded by saying that the U.S. detains unfairly as well. Then you asked me how many Iraqi neighbors I have in Singapore and whether they teach arrogance here. It's all up there in black and white for all to see, both your irrelevance and your personal attack and you still dare to pin it on me?

[Jeff]

A quote from Chris Dickey of MSNBC:

"When George W. Bush makes his D-Day anniversary visit to the Normandy beaches on Sunday, we’re going to hear a lot of well-honed speeches trying to compare the righteous combat forced on us in World War II with the war of choice we’ve entered into in Iraq. But only speechmakers from coddled, comfortable backgrounds who’ve never heard a shot fired in anger, much less seen “dead men by mass production,” would dare use the blood of those who died at Normandy 60 years ago to try to cleanse their conscience of those dying in Iraq today.

The United States entered World War II, as it had entered World War I, to defeat a proven aggressor and bring the war to an end. The Bush administration actually won its righteous war, in Afghanistan after the aggression of September 11, 2001. But that victory came too quickly, it seems, for our leaders to get much satisfaction from it. So they sent our kids to Iraq. And what is the goal there today, now that the reasons we were given at first have proved to be grand delusions? To spread democracy? To extirpate the very idea of terrorism? To work the will of God? Sixty years ago, those who thought they could teach the world how to live the only right way, which was their way, and launched unprovoked wars claiming this was the only thing could do to defend their values—those were the people we called the enemy."

[Jim]

Hey, how did you get a copy of the President's speech already?

[j.j.]

it is with great irony that MSNBC would cast such a report; after all, they staunchly beat the drums of war in the background while W made his false case in front of cheering, hooting soldiers. At least now, they speak some sense.

As for the draft thing, I hope that doesn't happen. I'm not pointing specifically at Bush while excluding Kerry from this. Kerry has yet to make a peep about not wanting it. The sad fact is that whoever is president in 05 may be forced to instigate the draft. How did we get so overstretched? Oh yeah, by fighting needless wars.
I am lucky to be too old to be of fighting age and have no children that would be affected. But there are many who may be pressed into service in Iraq against their will and it won't matter whether they opposed the war or not.
This is what pisses me off so much about the Bush administration - they were all young adults of fighting age in Vietnam but, with the exception of Powell, every last one of them managed to duck out of it. (You would think Powell would have known better than to rush off into Iraq! I would have voted for him 2 years ago, but not now, not ever.)
The cream of the crop must undoubtedly by DICK Cheney who said with a straight face, "I had other priorities during Vietnam." Other priorities?? Are you kidding me? So did Morris James of Houston who died in 68 in Vietnam, in fact so did 58,000 others who died that war. And Cheney had other priorities. Thanks Dick, your first name says it all.

Now these men are busy labelling everyone a coward and unpatriotic, even Max Cleland of Georgia, even John Kerry. And while Dubya's dubious record has yet to be vindicated, we have that draftdodging duo of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz planning a new draft! HELLO! Anyone awake?! (Doonesbury offered $10K to anyone who could show proof that Bush actually served his duty, no one could)

OK, thanks for letting me rant. I would honestly be able to ask both candidates about a draft, but doubt I would get a straight answer from either in an election year. Any posters on this website of drafting age?

[Chrish]

Amazing, the handover is 28 days away the details are still being worked out, the Iraqi governing council has already asserted itself by selecting a man of it's choice rather than Bush's and you
state the handover is irrelevant? Obviously you are one of those who a sees a glass half empty rather than half full.

Please Jeff all of your points are old news
and, as usual, so typically single-minded and narrowly focused. Yes, the Iraqi military and police forces backed off but, that didn't happen yesterday it happened a some time ago if not longer and is being corrected. Likewise the subject of payroll is also old news and has been addressed and being corrected.

As to your item 3, that only shows to what length
the insurgents and terrorist groups in Iraq will go to prevent this handover from being successful. Incidentally those very same insurgents and terrorists do not represent the Iraqi people. So please don't try and play that one. Note also that those very same insurgents and terrorists you say represent and speak for the Iraqi people have begun killing Iraqi's. The car bomb today wasn't targeted against US forces as it was exploded in a busy intersection that Iraqi people travel on.

As to your item 4 you conveniently leave out the fact that the man chosen has been a harsh critic of Bush and our presence there. Gee, maybe you forgot about that point and that the governing council preferred him rather than Bush's selection?

And to your items 5 & 6 those particulars are still being worked out by the Iraqi's, the UN, and the US. Another point you conveniently leave out?

Yes it is going to get worse in the coming days because insurgents and terrorists do not want to see the handover happen nor to succeed. Are you one of those who don't want to see it succeed either? Because man, you sure sound like it.

Like I said earlier there are a lot of naysayers and people focused on all the negativity to such a degree one would think they do not want to see this succeed. They would prefer to see the whole thing fall apart, complete chaos, anarchy, and maybe a civil war break out so they can say "see, as we predicted it would happen." or "See, it's all Bush's fault. Vote for Kerry", on and on and on.

What's next Jeff perhaps you'll take us on a nostalgic visit to the elections of 2000 and how
Gore actually won?

J.J. as to your "rant" regarding this draft we are in complete agreement. It's a stupid assinine idea and one that I hope will be shelved.

As to those who are attempting to label a person a coward or unpatriotic because they refuse to join or refuse the draft obviously need to suck in some air because their brains are suffering from a lack of oxygen. "Thanks Dick, your first name says it all.", I like that one J.J.

I'm a Vietnam Vet and remember those days of protests, riots, draft dodgers, and draft card burnings. I, for one, never had nor believed that they were cowards nor unpatriotic. They, the protestors and draft dodgers, were doing what they believed to be the right thing to do. I disagreed with their position but, applauded and supported their courage and conviction to stand by their belief's even if it meant jail or leaving the U.S. That takes courage!

Seems to me that in the early days of Our country many great men of those days were also jailed or hung for their belief's. Didn't one make a famous quote "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country?" as he was about to be hung for disagreeing with those in power?

There are those who are willing to put their lifes on the line, to go into harm's way for their belief's. And there are those who are willing to forego their life's, to be threatened with imprisonment and harsh treatment for their belief's or opposition to a conflict or war that, in their eyes is unjust or uncalled for. Who is the patriot, who is showing courage and strength of committment? They both, in their own way, are
patriot's and courageous.

Let's face it were it not for those who speak out against wars, who refuse to submit to drafts, or put into a position of killing or being killed because somebody told them they had to there would be no voice of conscience speaking. In a way they, the protestors and draft dodgers, are our conscience speaking to all of us. That includes both sides of a conflict or war.

To call those who resist going into war or being put in harm's way cowards or unpatriotic is irresponsible, stupid, and idiotic.

J.J. I completely agree with you on this.

[Jeff]

Chrish, my glass was mostly full when Bush convinced the U.N. to demand that its inspectors be sent in. My glass fell to half full when Bush told me about Saddam's WMD. At that point, based on what my president was telling me, I believed that he might be a threat to us. My glass was very optimistic when Baghdad fell.

But after all that's happened, you expect me to be an optimist simply because Bush says there's going to be a handover. After all the predictions that turned out to be false, why do you so readily believe that everything is going to be peachy? The governing council was appointed by the U.S. Yes, they chose who they wanted, but you conveniently forget that it was only after Pachachi turned it down! Please remember that these council members have little or no popular support and are prone to working for their own political gain as well.

So what are these details that need to be worked out? Violence that is still so prevalent that it kills the leader of the council? Investigating a council member because he passed classified info to the Iranians? The Iraqi police disappearing from their patrol in Najaf? All of these things happened in the past two weeks, yet somehow they're old news. Just exactly how do you know any of this is being corrected? Because the incompetent people who caused the mess say it's being corrected?

You say that the insurgents and terrorists do not represent the Iraqi people. Says who? Are you suggesting that we or the governing council represent the Iraqi people? The administration has been saying dead enders and foreign fighters for a very long time, when it seems very possible that most Iraqis want us gone. You have to consider the possibility that people don't like foreign armies on their soil very much, particularly when it comes with a big drop in quality of life.

All these details are still being worked out eh? That's very convenient. As long as the President says, "We're making progress." I guess everything is A-ok. Stop calling people who don't agree with you naysayers. We just fought an unjust war. A year later, there's still no security and my fellow Americans, including two of my friends are risking their lives and getting killed. The Bush administration record on all of this sucks, yet you want me to be a yea-sayer, believing it will all work out when all predictions have been wrong so far.

You're way out of line when you suggest that I would prefer anarchy or civil war. If I did, I would suggest pulling our troops now, but we obviously can't. Of course the reason we can't is that Bush got us into this mess for unjust reasons in the first place. Vote for Gore? Could you be more irrelevant? Where are the WMD, Chrish? Or is that something you can brush under the carpet as well?

[For Jeff and Jim]

Worth reading in it's entirety:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

[For Jim, an intro to Karen K]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

[Pete]

Chrish:

There's a big difference between someone who was able to use their powerful political connections to avoid being drafted and someone who has been drafted and has taken a stand as a conscientious objector or has left the country in order not to go to war.

Your long explanation of why you respect "draft dodgers" (including, presumably, many priviledged members of the Bush Administration) does not make any distinction between the two.

[For Chrish and Jim]

This one's for Chrish and Jim:

Excerpt:

"Prophetically, on the eve of Bush's appearance at the Army War College, its strategic studies institute released a report, Vietnam and Iraq: Differences, Similarities and Insights, observing the similarities as failures of strategy, maintaining public support and nation building. It also noted: "Prospects for creating a stable, prosperous, and democratic Iraq are problematic, and observers and decision makers should not be misled by false analogies to American state-building success in Germany and Japan after World War II."

"They haven't known what they've been doing since the statue of Saddam came down," a military strategist at the Army War College told me. "Bush's speech was a vision speech with no connection to facts on the ground. That seems to be the limit of his understanding and ability. Even Vietnam doesn't look so bad in retrospect." But Bush will not make reference to "Vietnam and Iraq" in Europe."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1230306,00.html

[Chrish]

Pete if you chose to nitpick be my guest. My
"long explanation" referred to the common man
not the privileged since my reference was to what I experienced and saw during the Vietnam War; DUH.

Where you pulled this Bush administration thing from is obviously from your own bias and hatred for the man. That road regarding whether or not
Bush served or what Kerry did or did not do has already been traveled and pointless to travel it again.

There are a number of politicians and members of the "privileged" who have also engaged in avoiding the Draft or being put into harm's way.
Reagan, for one, he avoided that war by acting in
"patriotic" movies. There are many other's on both sides who have done the same. That's both Republicans and Democrats.

[j.j.]

Politicians or well to dos avoiding the draft goes on on both sides of the debate (remember Clinton?) The thing is that this administration is filled by war avoiders who were just itching to send other people's kids into harms way. That is what bothers me the most. It also bothers me that Bush campaign had the audacity to put Kerry's record in a bad light - I'm glad Wesley Clark and John McCain stepped in to put the issue to rest.

[Chrish]

On that I do agree with you J.J. I have gotten
rather tired of these politicians on both sides who insist on bringing up things that happened 35+ years ago with the news media salivating all over it.

Yes, I recall how they tried to bring up Clinton's protest days and the argument that erupted over whether or not he smoked a joint
as if that had anything to do with the here and now.

It seems those jackasses can't talk about the issues, where they stand on the issues, and what they're solutions are for those issues they have to get into the dirt, scum, and garbage as if that's supposed to show they are better qualified for the office they are seeking.

That draft thing does bother me, I do have to admit to that, but even more aggravating is this friggin draft thing they are now pushing. How did Kerry refer to it? Oh yeah, "A Backdoor Draft". What's next, bands of military people going around knocking people on the head, dragging them off onto some military base or ship, and then the person wakes only to find him or herself in the military?

While I have supported this war, I am strongly opposed to a draft of any kind. That is not the solution.

I am extremely hopeful and optimistic that the handover will be successful. I can't think in any other mode. The alternative to a successful handover is too horrific in its scope and quite
honestly I'm not ready to really examine that possibility. I have to admit I was one of those
who was in support of discarding the UN but, realize that was a mistake. We really need their
involvement and the European community involved in this for it to succeed. I'm not talking about them providing military assistance but, working with us to make this succeed. Hell, I would even be thankful to see the Arab Nations included in this to further ensure a successful handover.

I want nothing more than to see the Iraqi people standing up on their own two feet, determining their own future regardless of what the U.S. has to say about it, and, above all, Our people coming home. The sooner the better.

[Jeff]

Amen to your last paragraph Chrish. I just wish it were possible. So many people either hate us or are suspicious of us that the job is much harder than it has to be. At minimum, I think our current leaders have to be replaced so we can regain some credibility.

On international help, I was/am a great supporter of getting help, but we can't forget that France, Germany, and Russia all had quite a bit of financial incentives for protecting Saddam in the first place... and that many at the U.N. sabotaged the oil for food plan.

We also need to refocus on terrorism, despite every Bush speech, it ain't in Iraq. Afghanistan is still very fragile and at the mercy of regional warlords. Another 9/11 could happen (it just did in Madrid) at any time. My greatest fear is that we have distracted ourselves so much with Iraq that we've ignored our greatest enemy. Shouldn't sending 130,000 extra troops to secure Afghanistan and hunt down Osama have been the first priority?

It's such a mess that I just want to sleep and hope that it's all gone when I wake. I can't fathom an unsuccessful handover either...

[j.j.]

"The government of Iraq, I sometimes say - I'm sure he doesn't mind my saying it - Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signature. Nothing happens without his agreement in this country."
-Lakdar Brahimi

Those are not encouraging words from Brahimi, the UN Special Rep to Iraq. But he does also mention some positive potential outcomes about the handover. Read more here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/523124.html

One thing to note, that once we started negotiating on paper rather than with bombs, thinks seem to have settled down a bit in places such as Falluja. The fact is that the insurgency will remain as long as our soldiers are in that country.
I know that I will draw the ire of many on this site, but I think the prudent thing to do is to get out of that country asap. (Perhaps we can get some other countries who are deemed to be friendly by Iraqis to come replace us. Probably not, though.) Yes, I realize that probably means civil war, but it is exactly because of this that I warned against an invasion.

[Jeff]

Ouch! Chrish, that Brahimi quote is even harsher than I would have imagined. I know you're the optimist and I'm the pessimist, but given our government's record of bungling so far, I think we have to question everything. I'm really afraid that the transfer of "power" is all for show, even though I hope I'm wrong.

[j.j.]

Jeff, I believe the transfer of power was a bunch of bullshit when they originally announced it, just one big show for the all-too trusting people back home. However, with his numbers crashing down so hard recently, I suspect Bush wants to cut and run asap before the election.

[j.j.]

well what do you know. 500,000 protestors marched against Bush in Rome, one of the members of the coalition of the willing. Surprised anyone? That reminds me of the 100,000 that marched in London when he showed his face there.

The Republican spin machine would translate this by saying that those numbers are lower than the 1 million that marched before the war both in Rome and in London. Obviously, resistance to the war has dropped since then and they now fully support us.

[Chrish]

Jeff, Ouch is right!!But Brahimi brings up very
strong and valid points and one's I had never even considered; not all of them are terrorists nor insurgents. I have to admit I was one of those who was all for smashing the Ba'ath party
and it's members into extinction but, they are Iraqi's and they do have a stake in the future of their country and their people. I don't really believe it should be up to Us or the coalition to engage in rounding up all those who were involved in Hussein's regime nor his atrocities. That task should be left up to the Iraqi government who should also decide what they want to do.

J.J. for a time I also was somewhat reserved about who was being selected and who was doing the selecting. Inspite of that I still held hope that it would work itself out. I was also concerned about the fact that Allawi had close ties to the CIA but, was encouraged by the fact that he has been an outspoken critic of our being there, the orders he gave, or was that the Iraqi council itself, to a representative to "elbow his way in if necessary" on ongoing talks at the UN about Iraq. That shows me they are already beginning to flex their muscles, making their own decisions, and hopefully doing what They think is in the best interests of their people and not of what BushCo or the US wants. I applaud them on that. Adding to that sign of hope and encouragment is the fact that Al-Sistani, the Ayatollah of the Iraqi people, has given his approval of the council now in place. I don't know if that was a reserved approval or outright approval but, his support gives it that much more
credibility to the Iraqi people. He is making demands of that council to ensure the soveriegnty
of his country and his people and I have no doubt they will do exactly that.

J.J. sorry but, I beat you to it on that suggestion; pack up the bags and beat feet out of
Iraq. Sounds good but, I think if you really sit down and study that scenario you'll find it could be disastrous not only for the Iraqi people but, also for us.

Like you I am beginning to believe that perhaps Bush is coming, as I am, to the realization that
We cannot go this alone, We do need the help of the world community, We do need to Work with the Iraqi people not dictate, and We need to ensure that all of the various groups in Iraq are involved and have a stake in the future of their country. If that means including the Baathists, or the Al Sadrs' then so be it. It is better to let the Governing Council in Iraq decide the who, what, the when, and the where when bringing to justice those involved in the atrocities of Hussein's rule, not us.

My hope is that as time passes and more and more of these various groups become involved in their own destiny and the future of their country the killing and being killed will be gone all together or reduce to a minimum. The hard part will be getting them all involved which does appear to be happening.

For my part I continue to hope and pray for all those involved and that Our people are brought home as quickly as possible. Time will tell.

[Jeff]

Chrish, the problem is that Bush's education comes at disastrous prices, the blood our soldiers and Iraqi people, the ruin of American credibility to our allies, and pure hatred of Americans in many Arab and Muslim countries. We can't sit by idly for him to make more mistakes and what's more, his reputation cannot be rehabilitated to other nations.

How would you react to calls of help from someone who gave you the finger just last year? If you're Germany, maybe you do nothing. If you're an ex-Baathist, maybe you respond with guns ablaze. We have to show that he doesn't represent the American people and get rid of him. That's not to say that I really support John Kerry either, but I'm forced to pick the option that is less damaging to our country and safer for our soldiers.

[j.j.]

Crish,
you are right that it will be a disaster for Iraq if everyone packed up and went. On the other hand, if our soldiers are still there, the fighting and dying will continue. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Whether this transfer of power is real or not remains to be seen, but I believe it is the first real step toward sovereignty that we have seen from Bush and it only comes about because of the mess we are in now.
At least now the rest of America sees in Chalabi what I have seen for many years. He is not a trustworthy man.

Jeff,
ditto on all you said. Will Germany help us? That is a key question. They are not stupid, they know that they have a stake in Iraq not going to hell as well. But, if you speak German and read/listen/watch German press as I do and interact with Germans frequently, you'd know that we are hated to the point of near disgust by most people in that country. Hate is a strong word, but it is probably quite appropriate. They may help us, but it is not because they feel they owe us anything. They sure as hell won't do anything that will help Bush's re-election numbers.
(This from a country that had American flags posted almost everywhere right after 9/11. I do declare, there were more US flags in Germany than there were in the States.)

[j.j.]

From AP report I just read. This has to be the supreme of ironies...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - One of the prewar forecasts was that by invading Iraq, the world would profit from stable exports of Iraq's oil. And that would translate into cheap gas for American drivers. Now, with U.S. gasoline averaging $2.05 per gallon — about 50 cents more than the pre-invasion price — that logic has been flipped on its head.

Instead, Iraqis seem to be the only people getting cheap gas as a result of the invasion. They pay just five cents for a gallon — thanks to hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer subsidies.

Since Iraq has little capacity to refine its own gasoline, the U.S. government pays about $1.50 a gallon to purchase fuel in neighboring countries and deliver it to Iraqi filling stations. A three-month supply costs American taxpayers more than $500 million, not including the cost of military escorts.

The arrangement keeps a fleet of 4,200 tank trucks constantly on the move, ferrying fuel to Iraq.

Baghdad taxi driver Osama Hashim says he owes his livelihood to the U.S. taxpayer.

"We thank the Americans. They risked their lives to liberate us and now they are improving our lives," said Hashim, 26, topping up the tank on his beat-up 1983 Volkswagen.

Filling a 22-gallon tank in Baghdad with low-grade fuel costs just $1.10, plus a 50-cent tip for the attendant. A tankful of high-test costs $2.75.

In Britain, by contrast, gasoline prices hit $5.79 per gallon last week — $127 for a tankful.

[j.j.]

sorry to be posting so much, but I can´t resist posting this one.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=123&e=4&u=/ucrr/whosesideisamericaon

[Chrish]

J.J., $5.79 a gal., $127.00 for a tankful????
Good God, and I thought $2.35+ a gal. was highway robbery.

It is assinine, isn't it? I'm sure the oil companies or at least those behind the scenes are quite happy with their new found profits.

You'll also note that it's the same old usual crap and lip service that those politicians on both sides are, once again, trying to shove down our throats about these "outrageous gasoline prices" and how "They" want to investigate these
prices? They being Republicans and or Democratic
politicians. Those same duds, here in California,
pulled that stunt a few weeks ago, had an investigation done, and surprise of surprises
"they found no evidence of price gouging or price fixing". What I don't know is if the investigation was done by a regular investigative "Committee" or a bonafide "Blue Ribbon Panel". As if that would have made any difference whatsoever with their results.

Golly gee, I'm sure we can feel completely reassured that "They" found no evidence of price gouging or price fixing.

Yeah right!!! And if you believe that I have a wondeful bridge in London I would like to sell you.

[Jeff]

Chrish, I'm not so sure that we're being gouged. If I remember correctly, I think the story is that our refining capacity in the U.S. is terrible. Gas prices may be at an all-time high, but adjusted for inflation, the actual price is not very high when compared to the 70's.

Though I don't know much about this topic, I think the biggest problem is that we are basically at peak oil production right now. Even though there are issues in Iraq that must be resolved, only Saudi Arabia can really produce much more. Demand of course only continues to increase, so we'd better get used to high oil prices.

Having just been in France, unleaded gas cost about 1.2 Euros per liter and diesel ran around 90 cents per liter, which is well over $5 per gallon even in the countryside. The bread box Mercedes rental car that I drove seemed to get an incredible 50 gallons per mile. Leaves you imagining how we much we could reduce oil dependence by gas efficiency alone... but as usual, profits for car makers and oil companies come first and politicians are too spineless to look too far in the future.

You only have to consider what Dick Cheney said as Halliburton CEO, about the Middle East being the prize and advocating more power to oil men in D.C.

http://www.peakoil.net//Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

[j.j.]

Gas in Iceland is now ISK 110/liter. At 70 ISK per dollar, that makes roughly $6/gallon (give or take a few cents.)
fyi: ISK means Icelandic Crowns