« Happy New Year | Main | Continued Discussion »

January 04, 2005

Comments

Chrish

Jim,

It was reported, I believe, on Fox News that the CIA was considering the use of so-called "death" squads as a means to go after the terrorists. The question being posed was rather or not that would include the leaders.

Now, considering what Miriamg just posted on the subject and one that I consider to be one of our worst moments in history done by Our government in Our name, needs to be
brought up.

We all know how things go:
1) We startup so-called death squads.
2) We're "somewhat" successful and decide
to hand it over to the Iraqi government.
3) The Iraqi government hands the task over
to some internal group, with an innocent enough sounding name like "Iraqi Internal Security Force" or IISF.
4) A period of time passes with some success and then reports start coming out that the "IISF" has been involved in countless number of murders under some BS guidance for Iraqi Security. Which also happens to be very similar to Husseins guidelines for his Republican Guard which equates to murder, raping, and slaughter of innocent people...

Surely, you know that or have an inkling that something like that would happen? Worst of all it would have been created and started by us. We don't need to create a monster like that. We don't need to repeat history. It didn't work in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicarqua, Cuba, or other South American countries it won't work in Iraq. If anything it would only make things far, far worse than it is now. It would truly make us no better than the terrorists or insurgents.

Jim

Chrish,

I'm not disagreeing with you or Miriamg. But it seems we're now criticizing the government for things it has not done yet (using death squads in Iraq). Let's see what really happens. I have not problems with people sending up red flags,, but let's not assume this is already being done.

miriamg

Chrish - you've put it better than I ever could, thank you.

Good luck and all the best, guys.

this is why people hate America

http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1211

Jim

Things people love to hate:

Bill Gates
America
Walmart
The Yankees

Jeff

That's exactly what I'm talking about Chrish. See you analyze and do your best to present facts... therefore you belong to a realm where you can either convince others or be convinced by others.

Jim on the other hand... the conclusions are based on... nothing. It's blame everyone else because I'm the only one who's sane and turn my nose at all criticism because I couldn't possibly be wrong.

Funny thing is that I am American, shop often at Walmart when I'm in the U.S., and my son is employed by Microsoft! But since I don't like Bush, I must hate them all... and all of our troops too, despite having two friends among them in Iraq.

Just a few wayward soldiers claimed the Bushies... yet you think you can trust this government to do what's right with regard to death squads... or anything else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6803421/site/newsweek/

"Many of the FBI accounts came from conscience-stricken agents troubled by what they had witnessed. One agent reported seeing a detainee sitting on the floor of an interrogation cell with an Israeli flag draped around him while he was bombarded by loud music and a strobe light—almost exactly what Al Qosi had alleged. Another reported seeing detainees chained hand and foot in fetal positions, in barren cells with no chair, food or water.

In one account that seemed to parallel the sickening scenes from Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, an FBI agent reported the way in which a female U.S. Army sergeant sexually humiliated a shackled male prisoner during Ramadan and even "grabbed his genitals."

Chrish

Jim,

I hear what you're saying and am, by no means, criticizing the government, even if that is my right to, but, from what history has shown it is better to raise red flag(s) now rather than wait and see if the talk comes to pass. Who's to say, after all, that while we're waiting to see what happens they've already gone and done it?

You only have to look back in history, and not too many years ago, to see where members of Our government were involved in some rather underhanded shenannigans. Consider ContraGate and, the one that started it all, Watergate, and the many "death squads" that ran rampant in the South American countries come to mind. I'm sure those went through a genesis from idea, to plan, to action.

What you're seeing or reading regarding the "hit squads" or "death squads" is the idea. Question now is will the idea go to the plan, then to action? Worse yet,
is if this goes "underground" similar to how Contragate, Watergate and others were done.

Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in office it is always imperative that We, the people, be watchful of what Our elected officials are doing. Doesn't matter if it's a Bush, a Kerry, Clinton, Gore or whomever.

Democracy is not putting people in office and then sitting back and believing they will do what is right. That's a fool's attitude and God knows We've been there and done that. Democracy is maintaining that watchfulness over what Our leaders are doing or not doing and calling them on the carpet when they get out of line; yanking their chains or raising red flag(s). If, for no other reason, than to let them know they are being watched.

With such far reaching issues as what's going on in Iraq and elsewhere We cannot afford to let those politicians believe they can do as they please. This is especially true when the talk is about such ideas as "hit squads" or "death squads".

Jim is an idiot. He should be shot

maybe we can tell the death squads that Jim has some WMD and since they are so desperate to come up with anything, they'll storm his house and take care of him. After all, he's the big fan of them.

rodi

Although the death squads may not actually pan out as they have in the past, history has clearly shown that even if it does happen, Bush will have carte blanche.

Reagan was caught red-handed in the Contra mess and never answered to anyone. In fact, now that he’s dead, nobody ever so much as mentions all the evil acts perpetrated in his administration in the name of "freedom"

Bush was handed a blank check. Case in point from today's headlines:
====================================
White House says Iraq weapons search is over

Wednesday, January 12, 2005
(01-12) 11:16 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said.
===========================================

So let's recap:
Once the election is over, they come out and say "thanks for electing me even though I've been full of shit for four years."

While I agree with the points about watching over our elected officials, let's be brutally honest. I've heard nothing but Democratic Senators arguing and complaining that Bush needs to explain this and justify that, yada , yadda, yadda.

56 million Americans overruled our right to question the government's actions by reelecting the most dangerous president in the history of the USA. Like my bumper sticker says, "Don’t blame me; I didn't vote for the idiot."

Chrish
Again, you speak elequently and are my favorite eternal optimist but I just don;t see Bush answering to anyone (except his version of God)
No matter how pointless an election may be considering the circumstances, he believes that God sent him to the White House to spread his version of "freedom and democracy at all costs".

I'm not Bush bashing; I'm being realistic. At this point we might as well let them have their election since they've already admitted that troops will be there even after Bush is an ex-president.

Ignorance amongst most of the general population will never cesae to amaze me so why start making any sense now?

Chrish

First to the {no name} who apparently is
no better than the right wing moron's that
ranted and raved on this site in its early
days. Name calling and idle threats?? Is
that really the best argument or presentation of your ideas, opinions, or
thoughts? Wow, its like reading a right wingers post. You've sunk to the level of those whom you condemn or are you really a
closet red state, ultra-right winger?

Rodi,

"56 million Americans overruled our right to question the government's actions? Sorry
guy, I disagree with that assessment. It sounds as if you're saying the concept of majority rule is not valid unless it goes "our", whoever "our's" is, way. Is that what you're saying?

Incidentally, while Bush did win by majority rule it still was not a landslide!
Meaning to say that he won by a slight margin. That, to me, does not mean "a mandate".

Now, while those so-called political clowns in the DNC are busy with their navel gazing and the scratching of their political heads or arses maybe they could also take a look around and listen to what the People really want and are saying. Instead of trying to figure out how to re-market themselves and busying themselves with telling Us what We want and need they started doing what We want for what We need.

While they're at it they could also get off their sorry asses, quit feeling sorry for themselves, and start doing their jobs. If that means telling the President "No" rather than what he wants to hear, "Yes", and present probable or highly possible alternatives and why to Us, perhaps something might turn around?

Haven't you noticed how whenever and I mean whenever a Republican presents a bill that sounds good the Democrats automatically say no, no, no we have our own bill. Conversely whenver the Democrats present a bill that also sounds good the Republicans also say no, no, no we have our own bill. Then all the usual political BS and fear tactics come to play instead of those intellectual giants" sitting down and working out their differences? It doesn't take a rocket science to see what makes common sense or how to lose the bad while keeping the good and you have to know that neither side is completely right just as neither side is completely wrong.

Yes Rodi, I do believe they have to be constantly watched and kept in line. To not do so only sets up a repeat of previous administrations and or Senators, Representatives to do what they do more often than not; lie, cheat, steal, and
play politics when they should be doing the People's will.

Our troops staying in Iraq should come as no surprise even Kerry admitted during his campaigns that he would send in more troops
and they would be there for a while. That's nothing new. Honestly now, assuming Kerry had won and he turned around sent in more troops to Iraq and announced that they would be there for some time how would you feel then? The same as you do towards Bush or it's OK, he's My President, my President and my party; right or wrong?

It's sad and I don't like it but, Bush never said it would be easy nor that it would be a few months. Let's keep that in mind; agree or disagree.

Yes Rodi, I am the eternal optimist but, I'm not falling all over myself while "Singing in the Rain". I don't, so much, have faith in Our government or those who run Our government but, I do have faith in Our people. Sooner or later they do, however damnable slow they are, finally wake up to things and begin pushing for changes. All the more reason that folks like yourself, Luke, and the Expats are, in your own way, the voices of reason. While everyone's jumping on their horses to go after the bad guys you're saying "wait a minute, what're ya doin?". It's also called
"Food for Thought".

Jim and Del also, in their own way, present their own "Food for Thought". Agree or disagree with us but, we also raise questions, pose thoughts for you, take it or leave it, and yes, we disagree on many issues. Isn't that what discussion, dialog, debates, and Democracy are all about?

"Bush never said it would be easy." Chrish, no politician has ever come out and said that something would be easy. That's a no-win statement and I can't believe that you're giving him any credit for it. At least if you say that it's hard and it turns out easy, you can be everyone's hero.

Read between the lines, will you? The Bushies said that the war would cost $50 billion, it's costing $300 billion and climbing. They said that we needed less troops... well now we need more. They said that oil would pay for reconstruction, but it's the oil companies that are showing record profits while the deficit is at record highs. Translation... it's going to be easy.

Please, name something important that Bush has been right about. Anything? You think that all this is about hating Bush, but seriously what has predicted correctly? Abu Ghraib was suppose to be the work of a few renegade soldiers, but now every day, we're learning that abuse was widespread and rampant. Wasn't the insurgency supposed to be the last vestige of desperate Baathists? How come we don't hear the term dead ender anymore? Could it be that dead enders shouldn't be able to blow up soldiers in heavily guarded areas and fully armored tanks and kill governors?

So you say that Kerry couldn't have done better... maybe, it's a freaking impossible situation. Yet you trust the idiot who got us into this fiasco to lead us out? Unbelievable.

Remember how you were cheering the "handover" of Iraqi sovereignty? Let the freedom bells ring you all said. Some realists wrote that it was a sham because an American stooge was prime minister and there was no security. But we were branded pessimists and unpatriotic. So who was right and who was wrong?

Forget about political ideology, you've hitched your wagon to a bunch of people who are incompetent and who have been wrong so many times that it would be embarrassing if the mistakes didn't kill and weren't still killing so many people. Instead, it's a tragedy. I pity the ignorance.

Jeff

"Bush never said it would be easy." Chrish, no politician has ever come out and said that something would be easy. That's a no-win statement and I can't believe that you're giving him any credit for it. At least if you say that it's hard and it turns out easy, you can be everyone's hero.

Read between the lines, will you? The Bushies said that the war would cost $50 billion, it's costing $300 billion and climbing. They said that we needed less troops... well now we need more. They said that oil would pay for reconstruction, but it's the oil companies that are showing record profits while the deficit is at record highs. Translation... it's going to be easy.

Please, name something important that Bush has been right about. Anything? You think that all this is about hating Bush, but seriously what has predicted correctly? Abu Ghraib was suppose to be the work of a few renegade soldiers, but now every day, we're learning that abuse was widespread and rampant. Wasn't the insurgency supposed to be the last vestige of desperate Baathists? How come we don't hear the term dead ender anymore? Could it be that dead enders shouldn't be able to blow up soldiers in heavily guarded areas and fully armored tanks and kill governors?

So you say that Kerry couldn't have done better... maybe, it's a freaking impossible situation. Yet you trust the idiot who got us into this fiasco to lead us out? Unbelievable.

Remember how you were cheering the "handover" of Iraqi sovereignty? Let the freedom bells ring you all said. Some realists wrote that it was a sham because an American stooge was prime minister and there was no security. But we were branded pessimists and unpatriotic. So who was right and who was wrong?

Forget about political ideology, you've hitched your wagon to a bunch of people who are incompetent and who have been wrong so many times that it would be embarrassing if the mistakes didn't kill and weren't still killing so many people. Instead, it's a tragedy. I pity the ignorance.

it is all to steel oil

Prof uf Bush idiocy

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/526/526_01_Elections.shtml

Chrish

Other than "The scheme is to use Kurdish and Shia paramilitaries in conjunction with U.S. Special Forces in order to liquidate the Sunni resistance--and drive a wedge between insurgents and their sympathizers. So it’s no coincidence that John Negroponte--who served as U.S. ambassador to Honduras during Ronald Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America--has taken over as ambassador in Iraq.", which, I pointed out
earlier am I supposed to take this article
seriously?

I was blasted once for posting an article that was from a site that was to the right
what's the difference here?

The elections are only recently over and already, just like here in the US, the spectre of "conspiracy" and "fraud" are being raised? Give me a break.

So Jeff, assuming you are correct what would you want done? Immediate withdrawal,
leave the Iraqi's to themselves, let them be assimilated by the Iranian's, or, perhaps, let Hussein go and rebuild his Republican Guard?

Again, Kerry stated during his campaign that he would put more troops into Iraq.
And yes, I still believe that it will be accomplished.

As far as Bush being an idiot no more so than Clinton being an ass. Clinton had his chance to have prevented this whole thing *from ever* happening where was he and what was he doing? For that matter where was the rest of the Democratic Party and what were they doing? They were in control.

You may say "don't bring that crap up as Bush has been in office for four years.". True enough but, it was not Bush who set the stage for a 9/11 to happen. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Of course, one could also say that it's also Bush Sr.'s fault since he had the chance to take out Saddam with, in all probability, full support of the majority of Iraqi's but, mucked that one up as well.

What's interesting about all of this finger pointing is that none of them are pointed towards those who have and are committing the attacks, the beheadings, the murder-suicide attacks, the Al Qaida's, nor those countries or governments that are and have been supporting and backing them.

Oh, I'm sorry, that would be beneath you and not worthy of any words nor protest from you. Isn't that what you say?

Jeff

Chrish,

After all this time and debate, I can hardly believe what I'm hearing in your response. I don't want to offend you, but I really think it's way off point. I'll try my best to explain:

"As far as Bush being an idiot no more so than Clinton being an ass."

This may be true, but it doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. You're acting like a kid who's been caught in the wrong and saying that it's not wrong because your brother did the same thing. Clinton is gone... when people stop dying maybe we can spend time looking at the sins of past presidents. Assuming what you say is true, that Clinton was an ass, how does that justify replacing him with a moron?

"Clinton had his chance to have prevented this whole thing *from ever* happening where was he and what was he doing?"

Whoa, that's quite a stretch there. When Bush screws up, you tell me that he can't be responsible since he's the one giving orders and not carrying them out. But suddenly when it's Clinton, it's like he trained the 9/11 hijackers himself. Again, irrelevant... how the hell does blaming Clinton, Bush Sr., Nixon, etc. help us now? At worst, if Clinton as you say was responsible for the deaths of 3,000+ people on 9/11, at the very least, I'm sure you could say it was involuntary. Bush voluntarily initiated a conflict that has cost several times that in death, money, and reputation... and the worst could be yet to come.

"What's interesting about all of this finger pointing is that none of them are pointed towards [terrorists and supporters]."

You're crazy if you think that fingers aren't pointed at terrorists... if I'm not mistaken, all of our guns are supposed to be pointed at the terrorists, which I fully support. I think that's quite a bit more forceful than using my finger.

But here's the problem... are you sure that we're pointing the guns at the right people? Why didn't we use maximum force to kill al-Qaida, the Taliban, Mullah Omar, and Osama Bin Laden, the people we knew were behind 9/11? Have we killed more Iraqi civilians than terrorists, creating lots of angry bitter people who become new terrorists? If not, how do you explain that things seem to be getting worse and worse? And hey, while we took out one oppressive regime, all the oil sheiks who are nearly as oppressive as Saddam are still our best friends!

If it was so easy to blame the terrorists, we would have launched a few nuclear weapons and been done with it. Unfortunately, it takes some thought to invade and occupy an entire country and it's obvious that this thought was missing because the Bushies were dead wrong about virtually everything.

Go back to my original post Chrish... I note that you have not been able to counter any of the charges that I made to Bush's integrity and competence. Instead, the blame is always on someone else. Man, I would love to be your employee, all I would have to do to avoid judgment on my job performance is to blame my predecessor or blame the weather. Or maybe I could always win your support by telling you that things are getting better despite the reality that they're getting worse.

It's not even that I'm against the principles behind invading Iraq. If there were WMD or if Saddam were in bed with Osama, or if the war was winnable within $50 billion (and the corresponding number of deaths) or any of the things that we were told, then maybe all would be well.

But that's not how it turned out and the President should have known better. This is not debatable. I have been on you for nearly a year to read Iraq On The Record and you haven't bothered. You certainly have the time to write pages and pages of eloquent argument on this site. What are you scared of? The truth?

You ask me what I would do... I have some ideas, but I really can't tell you. I'm an expert on certain areas of law. I'm not an expert on terrorism, I'm not an expert on Iraq, I'm not an expert on WMD, and I'm not an expert on warfare. But an incredible number of people who are the foremost experts in these critical fields have told the President that he's wrong and he refused to listen.

Therefore, I have no confidence in him, the same no confidence that John McCain has for Donald Rumsfeld, but was too chicken to say so before the election. Oh, but I guess since McCain is pointing the finger at Rummy, I guess he's not pointing the finger at terrorists...

Mark

Whoa, newsflash. Bush admits mistake and regrets his "cowboy" language and wishes he had been more diplomatic. In fact, he reveals that Laura actually chewed him out for it. Obviously, we have to conclude that because the First Lady criticized the President that she loves Saddam and hates Iraqi people.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824011/

In related news, the CIA says the Iraq war created a breeding ground for terrorists who weren't there before us. Of course, they warned Bush of the high likelihood before... now it's a reality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6823913/

rodi

Mark:

Thanks for pointing out the latest intelligent realization from The Illustrious One. I find it very aggravating that Bush keeps feeling pressured into admitting his lack of leadership, character flaws, and disguised agendas almost on a daily basis. Look how much has come out before he's even re-inaugurated.

I'm powerless to understand how anyone can continue to support an agenda that keeps getting worse by the minute.

Chrish:
I agree with Jeff on his latest post about some of your comments. On blaming Clinton, I reiterate the facts presented in "Against All Enemies". The blame for 9/11 and the increase in terrorism lies with 4 presidents beginning with Reagan. Please re-examine the facts that led us to where we are now.

>I don't, so much, have faith in Our government or those who run Our government but, I do have faith in Our people.

American history has shown that it takes at least several years engaged in active combat until Americans really tire of conflict. According to the Pentagon, troops will need to be there 5 more years. Anyone who thinks this entire fiasco won't be judged as another huge mistake by then is nuts.

Obviously, we learned absolutely nothing from Vietnam, even though it's universally accepted that the Johnson/Nixon administration lied and committed a huge error in judgment. At least Communist support didn't increase during Vietnam unlike terrorism in Iraq. Bush is laying the groundwork for an unstoppable network of terrorism to thrive in a war-torn environment where the half the people are scared to go to work, never mind voting.

What annoys me even more than Americans turning a blind eye to Bush policies is how powerless the nation remains for the next four years. Our "people" decided that moral values and "homeland security" were more important than Americans dying needlessly in Iraq. Neither issue has anything to do with an Iraqi election. No matter what Kerry might have done, I venture to say that keeping troops there til 2009 would not have been one of the options, particularly in the face of never ending reports from the CIA and other government agencies pointing to an INCREASE in terrorist activity in Iraq.

This is the reality:
America is becoming so conservative in the current generation that we're leaning towards a one party system. NBC did another story last night from Minnesota, making specific references to show how a traditionally Democratic state is almost certain to change red by 2008. To pound the point home, they show families buying subdivsions in what used to be farmland, making sure to profile a family with 2 kids that claims to be "staunch Bush supporters that favor tax cuts, homeland security and are intensely against gay marriage.

How do you expect the DNC, or anyone else, to initiate real change when the media constantly points out their unbridled support for the moron they re-elected? An uniformed and ignorant public that instills patriotism at all costs and preaches intolerance to its children is bound to remain with the status quo.

There's not even anything left to debate. Article after article keep pointing out that Bush refused to acknowledge the facts then and will continue to live in his little patriotic freedom-loving wonderland until 2008. God, wake the f*** up, America. Even if you choose to call yourself conservative, anti-gay, and patriotic, for God's sake, at least stop supporting a notorious liar.

How much longer are we going to be in Korea? I am so tired of that conflict too.

Jim

You're right. We are just about a one party system right now. Everytime those Damned Republicans get 51% of the vote it just proves we're becoming one party. woo hoo!

Jim

It's just like Vietnam. There was a hell of a lot of fighting all the way up to the Vietnam elections.

Steve

Vietnam elections?

rodi

Jim

It doesn't matter if Bush won by 1 percent or one vote. What matters is the attitudes of the people and they continue to turn a blind eye to the lies as well as swinging right of center.

Are you also so blind to the facts ?????
Why do you continue to support Bush, but not any of the thousands of other members of the US government that keep exposing the reality of the mess?

Instaed of debating why you think my Vietnam references are incorrect, you just mock me, typical of most Bush supporters.

Do you even know anything about Vietnam or US political hostory or are you just speaking out of ignorance like most Americans?

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003