I believe that when our government decides that we need to go to war, we should fight all out to win with no other consideration to anything else until we have won. That means we should have sent 500,000 troops to iraq, defeat saddam’s army quickly and then disarmed the entire country. We should have never returned the country to the Iraqi’s until it was totally secure. I believe that if we don’t have the stomach to fight a war to win, we should stick to diplomacy.

The enemy isn’t stupid, no matter what those guys in the Pentagon think. Obviously they realized that they could not beat the Americans in a traditional nation-state war, so they chose their current guerilla style methods. The idea that Iraq would be an easy war was pushed by those who believe that the strength of the American army should be used to fight limited wars to achieve political aims (i.e., the neocons). The problem with that strategy is that we are so overwhelmingly superior militarily that no enemy will stand and fight in the traditional sense, but instead will rely on stealth and guerilla tactics to neutralize our technological advantages. From Vietnam the neocons know that Americans will not support protracted wars of ideology or choice, and therefore amassing a huge army of the type that you mention would have been much more politically difficult, perhaps impossible. The other major problem is that we have no clear definition of what victory means. The bar that the government set, of a democratic Iraq, is quite high indeed.

The real problem is that American polticians have come to see the American army and violence as a useful tool in acheiving political objectives. They have forgotten the lessons of warfare.

:-)

It’s teh same disgust I had when, before the war, in response to the millions of protestors world-wide, he said “I don’t make policy in response to focus groups.”

here comes the nausea again…

Anyway, unable to talk about it without difficulty, I made this cartoon:

http://www.clarkschpiell.com/home/gwbcartoon081605.shtml

–David

What Clinton did – cheating on his wife and lying about it – was wrong, morally and legally. There is no defending it. But let’s get some perspective here. His mistakes did not kill anyone and the only people it hurt were his immediate family. That makes him a bad husband, not necessarily a bad president.

But the debate here is not really about Clinton. He is just a point of reference. It is about Bush. It is about the well documented accounts of how he refuses to acknowledge viewpoints other than his own. It is about his own admission of ignoring news that he does not want to hear. It is about his disregard for roughly 50% of Americans. On some issues the figure is much higher. He does not listen and he does not care.

If you can put down the party pompoms for a minute, remember that supporting a political party is not like supporting a football team. When your “team” is wrong you have to be honest and call them on it. You should be disgusted that the President thinks there are free speech “Zones”. You should be disturbed the President only hears what he wants to hear. You should be outraged at the grotesque waste in dollars and human life associated with the war in Iraq.

I am an American before I am anything else. I don’t care who is in the White House – republican, democrat or other – as long as they are doing a good job. The fact is Bush is doing a very bad job.

If Bush had eradicated the Taliban, captured Bin Laden, marshaled the kind of support we had for going into Iraq the first time, turned on the water and power in Iraq and kept the economy booming, I would not have such a problem with him. But he didn’t do any of that. He did the exact opposite.

If he showed a little flexibility or respect for Democrats or compromised once in a while, I would not have such a problem. But he doesn’t do any of that. He does the exact opposite.

The fact that he won’t talk to the mother of a dead soldier because she disagrees with is policy underscores his contempt for his opposition. This whole ridiculous side show could have been avoided if he had just given the woman ten minutes.

BUSH IS LORD!

I WILL SPIN QUOTES AND CHALK UP JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY AS ‘LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS’ THOUGH TWO MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS ARE OWNED BY COMPANIES UNDER THE THUMB OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.

I WILL IGNORE THE FOLLOWING QUOTES, WHICH WILL BE PLACED IN LOWER CAPS BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN MINE:

“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

(TAKEN FROM A LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS BLOG THAT DON’T KNOW NUTHIN)

AND LASTLY I WILL IGNORE YOUR BLOG FROM NOW ON BECAUSE Y’ALL ARE FROM SAN FRANCISCO, AND WE ALL KNOW NOTHING BUT QUEERS AND RICE A RONI COME FROM SAN FRANSISCO.

MAY GOD BLESS ‘MERICA. FUCK YEAH.

Outstanding job!