the perpetual excuse

[Guest Guest]

Visit KOTW as a guest and learn to write like Paul LaClair.

78550[/snapback]

So at long last Bryan admits he has nothing to say.

Bryan, someone has a foot up your . . . Does it really matter who owns it?

[Guest Guest]

Was that the topic before you just brought it up?

The Bush Administration wants global free trade under the assumption that under good leadership that arrangement will remain good for America and the rest of the world.  It also takes/took (hard to tell with the State Department going wishy-washy) the view that Islamic radicalism is one of the chief threats to society globally.  What other "obvious biases and motivations" did you have in mind?

Perhaps it is appropriate to ignore the ones you have in mind.  They may be the product of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

How?

Halliburton provided valuable services at fairly standard profit margins.  If Halliburton received its billions unjustly then so did our soldiers who were paid to carry out the mission in Iraq, if I'm following your argument correctly.

That's not "the" difference, it's "a" difference.  The biggest differences between Iraq and other countries ruled by murderous tyrants were 1) the contemporary existence of a condition of war moderated by a ceasefire agreement trampled by that nation 2)  strategic location in the Islamic world where a model of democracy might produce sweeping changes in global Islamic culture so that it swings solidly toward moderation instead of radicalism (and educated enough to give that aim a realistic chance of success).

Those two biggest differences are the ones customarily ignored by left-wing wackos while they're in the midst of making their stupid arguments against the Iraq War.  Even if Iraq itself had absolutely no oil, it would have remained a nation of acute strategic value because of its proximity to Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

The threat of terrorism was never monolithic.  Hussein supported terrorism in Palestine as well as his own (rather inept) terrorist network.  It was always reasonable to calculate a fairly high probability of cooperation between Hussein and non-aligned terrorism groups (such as al Qaida) that had overlapping aims.

Perhaps the uninformed segment of the right wing corresponds to your segment of the left wing.

The goal in Iraq had to be long-term or else there wouldn't be any point.  Conquering the country on behalf of Iran would be stupid.  For that reason, the war strategy was one thing and the occupation strategy another (not that one can't be done with the other in mind).  Mistakes were made, but that is perfectly normal in war.

The right has been able to learn the correct lessons from Vietnam.  It's the left that remains predominantly in a haze over that one (perhaps a haze left over from drug use in many cases).

The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the United States, right? 

78554[/snapback]

One of the main lessons of Vietnam is not to use war to make changes in a country when those changes would go against deeply embedded, longstanding cultural traditions. In a word, don't use war to bring democracy to countries that aren't used to it. Countries that truly want democracy must earn it for themselves. We can help them a little, but we can't hand it to them on a platter, especially when we'll be seen as imposing our will. The right learned nothing from Vietnam, as evidenced by the fact that they (including Bryan) are still arguing that we could have "won" by staying longer.

To understand anything, including the motives of the Bush administration, look for the most consistent pattern. It's not democracy, which they don't even care about at home. It's giving power and wealth to corporate elites, exactly as Bush has done here in the USA. From the profiteering of contractors in Iraq to so-called "global free trade" to Bush's tax cuts, redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich is the single most consistent element in everything this administration has done. When he is among them, he makes no secret of the fact that he considers them, not the religious right or anyone else, his political base. Bush is no different from every other right wing economic predator since the industrial revolution, the self-proclaimed master of the universe, destined in his own eyes to conquer and rule not just the world but the universe. And just enough Americans are dumb enough to say "yes, master!" to let it happen. If you want to understand the Bush administration, just follow the biggest concentrations of money.

[Guest Guest]

Why should he not have the right to speak authoritatively? Or are the only "authoritative" sources the Govt and Fox news?

The people are the base of our government and our nation - by the people, for the people, of the people. They have more right to speak than these  so-called "official" spokespeople.

78542[/snapback]

I think the point was, you should have some knowledge of the subject about

which you speak, which the poster clearly did not. "Rectum talk" was

appropriate.

[Bryan]

One of the main lessons of Vietnam is not to use war to make changes in a country when those changes would go against deeply embedded, longstanding cultural traditions. In a word, don't use war to bring democracy to countries that aren't used to it.

Well that's brilliant, considering we left a corrupt and relatively authoritarian government in charge of South Vietnam. I suppose one of your lessons from WW2 was to beware of permitting free elections in Germany before they were ready for it.

Countries that truly want democracy must earn it for themselves.

(Like Germany and Japan)

We can help them a little, but we can't hand it to them on a platter, especially when we'll be seen as imposing our will. The right learned nothing from Vietnam, as evidenced by the fact that they (including Bryan) are still arguing that we could have "won" by staying longer.

It's simple fact that N. Vietnam would not have broken the peace agreement if the they believed in real consequences as a result. They tested our resolve, found it lacking, and proceeded accordingly.

To understand anything, including the motives of the Bush administration, look for the most consistent pattern. It's not democracy, which they don't even care about at home. It's giving power and wealth to corporate elites, exactly as Bush has done here in the USA. From the profiteering of contractors in Iraq to so-called "global free trade" to Bush's tax cuts, redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich  is the single most consistent element in everything this administration has done.

If you're right then Bush is a screw-up, because real wages have gone up during his administration. He can't even shift power to the corporate elites properly.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...%3D7Bg%26sa%3DN

When he is among them, he makes no secret of the fact that he considers them, not the religious right or anyone else, his political base. Bush is no different from every other right wing economic predator since the industrial revolution, the self-proclaimed master of the universe, destined in his own eyes to conquer and rule not just the world but the universe. And just enough Americans are dumb enough to say "yes, master!" to let it happen. If you want to understand the Bush administration, just follow the biggest concentrations of money.

78620[/snapback]

If you want to see BDS in action, read posts like that of "Guest."

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yet

One of the main lessons of Vietnam is not to use war to make changes in a country when those changes would go against deeply embedded, longstanding cultural traditions. In a word, don't use war to bring democracy to countries that aren't used to it. Countries that truly want democracy must earn it for themselves. We can help them a little, but we can't hand it to them on a platter, especially when we'll be seen as imposing our will. The right learned nothing from Vietnam, as evidenced by the fact that they (including Bryan) are still arguing that we could have "won" by staying longer.

To understand anything, including the motives of the Bush administration, look for the most consistent pattern. It's not democracy, which they don't even care about at home. It's giving power and wealth to corporate elites, exactly as Bush has done here in the USA. From the profiteering of contractors in Iraq to so-called "global free trade" to Bush's tax cuts, redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich  is the single most consistent element in everything this administration has done. When he is among them, he makes no secret of the fact that he considers them, not the religious right or anyone else, his political base. Bush is no different from every other right wing economic predator since the industrial revolution, the self-proclaimed master of the universe, destined in his own eyes to conquer and rule not just the world but the universe. And just enough Americans are dumb enough to say "yes, master!" to let it happen. If you want to understand the Bush administration, just follow the biggest concentrations of money.

78620[/snapback]

Yet ANOTHER Loony Left poster that has no expertise in the subject that he

bloviates about. But hey, who ever said the Loony Lefties need to know what

they're talking about. If they knew anything, they'd be Republicans.

[Bryan]

Here's the actual quote

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Letter  to the Governor of Pennsylvania (11 November 1755)

The above phrasing, may have been different, but the meaning is the same. Most sources attribute the quote to Franklin.

Most sources are wrong in this case.

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Wikiquotes, like other Wiki articles is maintained by amateurs. Many articles have inaccuracies. That is why the academic departments told my son that he cannot use Wiki for research. I understand many colleges have that rule.

78547[/snapback]

Wiki sites sometimes provide good and accurate summaries. I don't use them for research. I use them to provide good and accurate summaries for people like you who can't do the research.

[Guest Radagast]

The threat of terrorism was never monolithic.  Hussein supported terrorism in Palestine as well as his own (rather inept) terrorist network.  It was always reasonable to calculate a fairly high probability of cooperation between Hussein and non-aligned terrorism groups (such as al Qaida) that had overlapping aims.

78554[/snapback]

Bryna, this is why I always find myself taking issue with you ... the statement above is just plain false. Do you define a 'terrorist' as anyone who finds themselves fighting against the US military? Don't we just have any 'enemies' anymore? Are they all 'terrorists'? It was NEVER reasonable to assume that Saddam and Osama bin Laden had any probability to cooperate. Now please don't start quoting some right wing think tank to prove they did. They have long since lost any credibility. The fact is that Saddam was a money grubbing, suit wearing secular who's plotting was meant to enrich and keep himself in power. He waved his religion around when it suited his purpose but he was far from a 'radical Islamist'. Osama bin Laden could have remained a spoiled rich Saudi kid but decided instead to become a 'radical Islamist'... or 'Crazy Person', as I prefer to call them.

On the face of it, they had nothing but contempt for each other. They were actually a threat to each other. Why you continue to try to float this idea that somehow they were cooperating with each other makes no sense at all. Is it impossible? Nothing is impossible. Maybe Bush is planning another 9/11 type attack so he can remain President. It's not impossible, it's just that he's not and everyone knows it.

You pass it off like what you're saying is just a given fact and it's not.

[Guest Guest]

One of the main lessons of Vietnam is not to use war to make changes in a country when those changes would go against deeply embedded, longstanding cultural traditions. In a word, don't use war to bring democracy to countries that aren't used to it. Countries that truly want democracy must earn it for themselves. We can help them a little, but we can't hand it to them on a platter, especially when we'll be seen as imposing our will. The right learned nothing from Vietnam, as evidenced by the fact that they (including Bryan) are still arguing that we could have "won" by staying longer.

To understand anything, including the motives of the Bush administration, look for the most consistent pattern. It's not democracy, which they don't even care about at home. It's giving power and wealth to corporate elites, exactly as Bush has done here in the USA. From the profiteering of contractors in Iraq to so-called "global free trade" to Bush's tax cuts, redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich  is the single most consistent element in everything this administration has done. When he is among them, he makes no secret of the fact that he considers them, not the religious right or anyone else, his political base. Bush is no different from every other right wing economic predator since the industrial revolution, the self-proclaimed master of the universe, destined in his own eyes to conquer and rule not just the world but the universe. And just enough Americans are dumb enough to say "yes, master!" to let it happen. If you want to understand the Bush administration, just follow the biggest concentrations of money.

78620[/snapback]

We could have won by actually fighting the war.

[Bern]

The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the United States, right?

78554[/snapback]

Genius, purge genius. As my bother who was a major during the offensive in Vietnam described it.

He knew, like most all other serving officers that the government was exaggerating the progress we made. He knew that the story they could not mount an offensive was a lie. What he didn’t know was the degree of the offensive they could mount. The Tet offensive was much greater than we thought they could have fielded.

We knew and they knew, their ass would be kicked in direct standard combat. We had technical, munition and personnel superiority. Their genius was in doing this even though they knew they would suffer serious losses. To show us after we dropped more munitions on them than dropped during all of WW II, after serious personnel losses, and after more years than WW II, that they were capable of this. It also showed us that the South Vietnam peasant overwhelmingly supported the North. No one dropped a dime when they moved massive amounts of men and equipment south. That our work so far was really nothing. It showed my brother and his fellow officers this may just take an additional 20 years.

And in the end it really didn’t matter to our government that they won. A few years ago Bush visited Vietnam and sat there smiling with the Vietnamese overlords. The ones who were skillfully waging death upon our troops and torturing them in their prison camps. Our colleagues, who are on the wall, died fighting a government that would later be embraced by our government.

[Guest Guest]

I suppose one of your lessons from WW2 was to beware of permitting free elections in Germany before they were ready for it.

78699[/snapback]

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesy we come to expect from Bryan. There is no valid comparison between Iraq today and post WWI Germany.

[Guest Guest]

We could have won by actually fighting the war.

78732[/snapback]

No we couldn't. It was a land war against guerrilla forces in a jungle. You can't win that kind of a war, certainly not then. We did enough damage to the country we were supposedly trying to save as it was.

[Guest a proud american]

The only complaint you can have about what I wrote is that Clinton didn't bring a stop to it after all.

The rest (in bold) was quoted directly from the BBC ... and (surprise, surprise) the proud american provides no account of the checking he did on his own.

That's not at all what the BBC reported.  So, did you check with Madame Claudia via one of her clairvoyant phone associates or what?

Bryan's Broadcasting Company:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

They just publish whatever I tell them to publish.

78459[/snapback]

In case you missed it I did give you a site to go to. All of the surveillence used by the Clinton Administration was done with the approval of a judge by court order. The FBI has been using serveillence for years with regards to the Mafia and drug cartels. This president has confused legal and illegal surveillence in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism.

The Government spent in excess of 60 million dollars to investigate the Clinton's. Do you honestly believe that if he was illegally spying on american citizens Starr wouldn't have found out. With regards to the BBC, I don't need to read anything from them. I simply googled ask.com, put in the information and got all the answers I needed. You should do the same.

And once again I'll ask. If the 9/11 tragedy was planned on Clinton's watch, then who's watch was the first WTC bombing planned on. Why won't you answer that question?

And with regards to the FBI and CIA, one (FBI) is responsible for investigating domestic terrorism and crime within the United States and the other (CIA) is responsible for handling counter terrorism in other countries. They were not at the time of 9/11 allowed by law to operate in the USA.

[Bern]

Most sources are wrong in this case.

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Wiki sites sometimes provide good and accurate summaries.  I don't use them for research.  I use them to provide good and accurate summaries for people like you who can't do the research. 

78705[/snapback]

The article really does not refute that he made the quote. The phrasing may just have been a little different, but the intent is there.

[Guest Guest]

We could have won by actually fighting the war.

78732[/snapback]

Won what?

[Guest Guest]

Yet

    Yet ANOTHER Loony Left poster that has no expertise in the subject that he

  bloviates about. But hey, who ever said the Loony Lefties need to know what

  they're talking about.  If they knew anything, they'd be Republicans.

78701[/snapback]

What does a Republican know?

How to be such a low-life you're forced to resign the Presidency in disgrace?

How to sell missiles to an enemy?

How to start a war of choice that mires down the forces that should be being used to pursue your real enemy?

If that's considered being knowledgeable, No Thanks.

[Guest Guest]

Yet

    Yet ANOTHER Loony Left poster that has no expertise in the subject that he

  bloviates about. But hey, who ever said the Loony Lefties need to know what

  they're talking about.  If they knew anything, they'd be Republicans.

78701[/snapback]

LMFAO !!!!

[Guest 2smart4u]

One of the main lessons of Vietnam is not to use war to make changes in a country when those changes would go against deeply embedded, longstanding cultural traditions. In a word, don't use war to bring democracy to countries that aren't used to it. Countries that truly want democracy must earn it for themselves. We can help them a little, but we can't hand it to them on a platter, especially when we'll be seen as imposing our will. The right learned nothing from Vietnam, as evidenced by the fact that they (including Bryan) are still arguing that we could have "won" by staying longer.

To understand anything, including the motives of the Bush administration, look for the most consistent pattern. It's not democracy, which they don't even care about at home. It's giving power and wealth to corporate elites, exactly as Bush has done here in the USA. From the profiteering of contractors in Iraq to so-called "global free trade" to Bush's tax cuts, redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich  is the single most consistent element in everything this administration has done. When he is among them, he makes no secret of the fact that he considers them, not the religious right or anyone else, his political base. Bush is no different from every other right wing economic predator since the industrial revolution, the self-proclaimed master of the universe, destined in his own eyes to conquer and rule not just the world but the universe. And just enough Americans are dumb enough to say "yes, master!" to let it happen. If you want to understand the Bush administration, just follow the biggest concentrations of money.

78620[/snapback]

Another Loony Lefty bloviating on a subject of which he has no knowledge.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Well that's brilliant, considering we left a corrupt and relatively authoritarian government in charge of South Vietnam.  I suppose one of your lessons from WW2 was to beware of permitting free elections in Germany before they were ready for it.

(Like Germany and Japan)

It's simple fact that N. Vietnam would not have broken the peace agreement if the they believed in real consequences as a result.  They tested our resolve, found it lacking, and proceeded accordingly.

If you're right then Bush is a screw-up, because real wages have gone up during his administration.  He can't even shift power to the corporate elites properly. 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...%3D7Bg%26sa%3DN

If you want to see BDS in action, read posts like that of "Guest."

78699[/snapback]

Wasn't the nazi party actually "voted" in to power?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Another Loony Lefty bloviating on a subject of which he has no knowledge.

78795[/snapback]

Please bless us all with your "Resume"

[Guest Guest]

Another Loony Lefty bloviating on a subject of which he has no knowledge.

78795[/snapback]

Can we expect YOU to actually post about something you have knowledge about soon?Or, actually, IS there anything you actually have knowledge about other than asinine commentary?

[Bryan]

The article really does not refute that he made the quote. The phrasing may just have been a little different, but the intent is there.

78784[/snapback]

Read it again, and bear in mind that there's no way to absolutely prove that he didn't say any version of it. Of course, I could start attributing all sort of statements to you that can't be shown inaccurate either ...

[WilliamK]

The above phrasing, may have been different, but the meaning is the same. Most sources attribute the quote to Franklin.

Most sources are wrong in this case.

78705[/snapback]

How do you figure? Neither of the web links that you've cited have argued that the statement itself was not from Franklin, but only that it is often paraphrased badly, and that the book that is sometimes cited as a source was not written by Franklin. But it appears from your second link that the book itself cites the quote in an excerpt of the previously mentioned letter. So, regardless of who the author of the book is, the book was citing (or at least, claimed to be citing) Ben Franklin. That the historian cited in your second link can not find a copy of this letter or other documentation to check the validity of that, does leave some room for uncertainty. The author of that book could have been lying or in error. But considering that, though not the author, Ben Franklin was the publisher of that book, it seems unlikely that such a thing would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected.

The most severe criticisms you can honestly make against those who've used the quote here is that the citation was a paraphrase, and that the attribution to Franklin, though very likely correct, is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Despite all your protestations, Bryan, the finger still points to Ben Franklin as the most likely source. Your own citations do nothing to contradict that. Perhaps you should have read them more carefully.

[WilliamK]

If you're right then Bush is a screw-up, because real wages have gone up during his administration.  He can't even shift power to the corporate elites properly. 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...%3D7Bg%26sa%3DN

78699[/snapback]

You seem to have developed a habit of citing references that don't actually support your claims. The charts you linked to show only the real minimum wage, not real wages in general. And they actually show a decline in the real minimum wage through all of Bush's time prior to the minimum wage increase that was passed just this year.

[Guest Guest]

What does a Republican know?

How to be such a low-life you're forced to resign the Presidency in disgrace?

How to sell missiles to an enemy?

How to start a war of choice that mires down the forces that should be being used to pursue your real enemy?

If that's considered being knowledgeable, No Thanks.

78788[/snapback]

"resign the presidency in disgrace"??? You're confused. Even though Bubba

Clinton disgraced the presidency by committing adultry in the white house

and lying under oath before congress and the american public, he wasn't

forced to resign although he should have been.

You're correct about the missles, Bubba did sell missle technology to the

Chinese. But what does that have to do with republicans ???

[Guest Patriot]

In case you missed it I did give you a site to go to. All of the surveillence used by the Clinton Administration was done with the approval of a judge by court order. The FBI has been using serveillence for years with regards to the Mafia and drug cartels. This president has confused legal and illegal surveillence in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism.

The Government spent in excess of 60 million dollars to investigate the Clinton's. Do you honestly believe that if he was illegally spying on american citizens Starr wouldn't have found out. With regards to the BBC, I don't need to read anything from them. I simply googled ask.com, put in the information and got all the answers I needed. You should do the same.

And once again I'll ask. If the 9/11 tragedy was planned on Clinton's watch, then who's watch was the first WTC bombing planned on. Why won't you answer that question?

And with regards to the FBI and CIA, one (FBI) is responsible for investigating domestic terrorism and crime within the United States and the other (CIA) is responsible for handling counter terrorism in other countries. They were not at the time of 9/11 allowed by law to operate in the USA.

78779[/snapback]

The first attack on the WTC was much less sophisticated with far less planning

involved. Bubba Clinton wouldn't allow the FBI to communicate with the CIA.