Petraeus report late, White House having trouble spinning it

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 24 2007, 02:50 PM) [snapback]501688[/snapback]</div>

Because the right screams we're just Liberals, Bush Bashers or Pinko Commie Traitors.

 

I know a group of repubicans that would scream bloody murder if *their* children were drafted to Iraq. My impression is that most of the PriusChat republicans are made of the same chickenHawk material.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ 2007 Aug 24 12:50 PM) [snapback]501688[/snapback]</div>

I get the vague sense the rest of the world is ready for the post-American era...

 

In the Los Angeles Times:

[Excerpts]

 

It's a big mess and a tough one to walk away from.
How do you turn your back on a nation that is killing it's own children, it's own people? And it's much tougher when your involvement has increased this activity. I don't think the solution is sending more young people to die, I don't know the solution.

 

Don't know much about history.

" The US cut and ran in Vietnam with little consideration of the impact on former erstwhile allies left behind. There was no systematic policy in place to relocate American loyalists in South Vietnam during the phase out period of 1973 to 1975. There was not a sufficient policy in place to deal with the two million pro-American refugees who predictably fled the country when it was overrun by the communist north.

And whose hands were on the tiller when this horrific debacle ensued –- the very same debacle President Bush now uses to justify continuing the debacle in Iraq? That would be current war architects Dick Cheney and Donny “Youngest Secretary of Defense in History and, Boy, Did It Show†Rumsfeld. Having botched the end of the Vietnam War, Cheney now seeks redemption in “winning†the war in Iraq. Except, having botched this war, too, winning (establishing a viable, stable, pro-American multi ethnic and sectarian democracy with a minimal continued cost to America in terms of money and men) seems less and less of an option.

Geez. How many times do you have to lose before everyone understands you are a Loser. Dick “0 & 2†Cheney?

Meanwhile his Loserness seems committed to repeating every mistake made in Vietnam, right down to having no contingency plan on how to avoid a sectarian blood bath should the US pull out of Iraq.

This has been this Administration’s fatal weakness since George W. decided to run for the Presidency: a systematic, deliberate distortion of history to support current political objectives, no matter what objective history says. The truly tragic (though perhaps the term “criminal†might be more apropos) irony in all of this is that, in their deliberate misrepresentation of past history, the Bush gang has held true to the old adage that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Unfortunately they are dragging the rest of us along for the ride."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 25 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]502171[/snapback]</div>

The truly frightening prospect is that all indications are Dr. Evil is feverishly going for 0 & 3 with an absolutely insane attack on Iran before Bush leaves office.

 

Fortunately, the bushies have proven consistent with their incompetence. It would help if the nation got as worked up as it did with tricky dicky got caught with the Watergate scandal but since we've got cable and the internet and a lot of voters grew up in the 60s and 70s, well, it's a foregone conclusion that we're too pacified to worry about much about anything let alone the dismantling of democracy by a bunch of idiots waiting for the rapture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 24 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]501688[/snapback]</div>

I've been screaming. But nobody listens to me. They only listen to what they want to hear.

 

Sadder still than where we are heading with Iraq, is where we COULD have headed ... if Bush had accepted Rumsfeld's resignation the first time he tendered it after the Abu Ghraib incident.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 24 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]501688[/snapback]</div>

There are a lot of people screaming, and I would not be so quick to the brand of "a nation of suckers." Bush, as you might recall, barely won both times. Certainly those who did not vote for Bush/Cheney could not be so easily branded "suckers." Have a look a http://home.ourfuture.org/ for an example of people who scream in an organized fashion.

As in any nation where there are people screaming (you and I know well that there are many), those screaming do not have much power to take action. If the democrats were in control in the congress, i.e., 60 or better for the senate, (which I am sure you know there is not) Bush, Cheney, and probably a few others in this administration would be impeached if not outright put in jail. However, since the sides are evenly divided, there is little either side can do at this point. Democrats won last year, but did not win enough.

IMHO, politics in the US is in the doldrums. It is a choice between something not so good and something not so good. No party has a leader who has vision - IMHO. Perhaps it would be better if leaders were chosen by processes that are similar to what Native Americans used to use. We just might end up with someone worthy of being called "Commander in Chief".

And remember John Kerry saying that Bush should own up to his mistakes? Suppose that were a suggestion to him by a somewhat reluctant supporter...

Personally, I doubt Bush's surge in Iraq will do much other than get more US citizens killed - though, of course, I wish things were different. As I see it, we should just get out and let them fight it out among themselves - and accept the consequences. If need be, the US could easily trounce all over them again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 25 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]502128[/snapback]</div>

Nice to see the hate America crowd enjoying itself so much - must be a nice way to start the weekend - do you think that if Hillary or Obama get elected, the United States will all of a sudden diminish in power or influence?

You mention the "post-American era" ... When did the American era start in your opinion and what do you envision the "post-American era" to look like?

 

Criticism is not hatred. It's not like I coined the term 'post-American era'; the last time I read it was in your own New Yorker a few weeks ago. Sadly, I don't think changing figureheads will make any real difference at all. Many governments, US and Canadian included, were taken over by corporate interests long ago. Your vaunted patriotism is just another sales gimmick, and the world's greatest army can't defeat a bunch of nomads on bicycles armed with home-made pipe bombs. The party's over. If you don't like the message, fine, but don't shoot me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 7 2007, 05:17 PM) [snapback]508748[/snapback]</div>

Not to worry, it wont be me shooting you.

BTW, the worlds greatest armed forces ever has not even taken off its gloves yet when it comes to iraq/afghanistan- partly hampered by politics being played by 1960's era people who vacationed in your home country during Nam - partly because there is no need for them to come off yet either. unfortunately, there is a decent chance we [United States] gets hit again, and harder, than the gloves come off - especially if the number of dead and injured is significant.

q? without the US, who defends Canada from Noko nuclear missiles, Iran nuclear threats, cut-off of oil shipments by whomever, etc, etc.??

And dont believe the New Yorker provides the definitive word on anything - just a little read rag to take to the water closet once you have finished sports illustrated, business week, mens health,...... usually you need a real bad stomach week to get to the new yorker - at least for people who live here. i think redbook or cosmopolitan are better beacons for you in that arena.

 

Ohhh...so that's what Iraq's all about. You're just taunting them. When they do something "significant", then you can really hammer 'em. :wacko:

From a North Korean perspective, the only reason to aim any missiles at Canadians is because they're consorting with the American military. And what's this about oil shipments? Has the US conserved so much that you don't need any more from Canada?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 7 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]508807[/snapback]</div>

Oil is obsolete, and it's almost all gone anyway. It's your water we're going to be after pretty soon. 20th and 21st century wars over oil are nothing compared to the coming wars over water.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 7 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]508876[/snapback]</div>

Sacramento has cut off water to So. Cal. We must now reduce again, now by another 20%.

They blame it on the Delta Smelt. You don't suppose it's because we vote Democratic, do you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ 2007 09 07 20:20) [snapback]508876[/snapback]</div>

Rather than start yet another war, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to build solar distillation plants? Or adopt composting toilets? Invoke sprinkling regulations?

What comes after the oil wars and the water wars? Surely we can come up with something better than 'brute strength and ignorance triumphs again.'

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 7 2007, 08:39 PM) [snapback]508884[/snapback]</div>

Help us fight the "Auburn Dam" proposals or else you'll get even less water. LOL

I love it when I hear someone use the "hate america" label. You people really have no idea do you? Are one of those "you are either with us or against us" type of people who are intrinsically against pluralism? I'm sure you are familiar with The Federalist Papers #10 and the ideas behind pluralism and factionalism or maybe some could use a refresher. Our country is much too large and diverse to assume that one idealogy will work and maintain a happy state for everyone. When you have extreme views running the show you are bound to have malcontent.

Here are some things to think about: See my sig

Cato #3
"Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself."

Charles de Secondat and Baron de Montesquieu
"It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."


Thomas Jefferson
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness."