Cheney:
09/2006 "If we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."

 

 


posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I have to say I agree random..the next resident of the Oval office will have to deal with the mess in Iraq. Bush has no intention of doing anything but perpetuating the madness. That means..it won't be a republican I bet..:P
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Funny how that turned out antiex...seems Samarra is a hotbed of insurgents again.
posted by mattloch on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:58 AM
This is what some people are saying is part of the Republican's broader plan. Leave it for the Dems, then blame them for the country's collapse and failure of the "larger" experiment of "nation-building" and "spreading democracy". Then they'll have another one-term Dem pres and can attack them as weak on "defense" for another decade or two. So Bush's plan is no longer "winning", just to keep us in there for another two years so that they can blame the Dems for it. I'm not saying this is their plan (for those who can't help but point out we're always "hatin" on Bush), but just drawing a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam, and passing on other's take on the situation. If a "conservative" wants to counter this idea, have at it. Please. I want to see something that isn't cynically political or positively Machiavellian, and it's getting harder to find things like that these days.....
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:01 PM
No, I have read some of the pundits stating the case for that POV as well Mattloch. It gives the republican's running for office time to regroup, and yes, to make it look as if the democrats in office screwed up Iraq..wotta deal!
posted by TomW on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:06 PM
The problem is that no one is going to buy it.  Had the war started 2 years ago, maybe they could pull it off.  But at that point the war will be 6 years old.  My gut feeling is that Congress is going to cut the funding before that.  Senators are already proposing it.  It'll be 6 months before it becomes the right thing to do.
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Hey Tom, many folks fault Nixon for Vietnam when it was Kennedy and Johnson who escalated it first. I really think the general population has a short memory and add to that, the fact that the smear campaigns will be in full swing if the Dem's don't get us out of Iraq.
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Maybe because of Nixon's calculated deceit which widened and prolonged the war for political gain?  He certainly made it his own.  Remember, by the time of Kennedy's assassination we had fewer troops in Vietnam than are in the latest "surge" into Iraq.
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Johnson escalated the troops from 16,000 to over half a million during his presidency.
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Right.  I think had Kennedy lived, we'd have seen a very different outcome.  Vietnam would still have fallen, but the Vietnam Memorial would have been a LOT smaller. 

.

I would fault Kennedy for listening to the wrong people in the beginning, but Johnson for making a bad situation into a disaster, and Nixon for using that disaster for political gain.

.

At least Johnson had the good grace not to run again.

posted by TomW on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM
People fault Nixon because he was President when they began to oppose it.  The war had about 80 percent support to start, now down to about 30.  Those 50% will remember that Bush was on the opposite side from them and the 20% who opposed it from the outset will also fault him.
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Well, I for one, did not ever support the war in Vietnam, and I protested when Johnson was in office and started his escalation. Nixon did many stupid and illegal things during his tenure, continuing the war for his own agenda was just one of them.
posted by TomW on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Which would validate the point in that you also blame Johnson.  Most people who opposed Vietnam didn't do so until Nixon was President.  The people who changed their minds during the war blame the person or people whose logic and observations didn't follow their own.
posted by msjenny on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:16 PM

the day mr bush was elected the 1st time i told everyone in my office we will be going to war of course they laughed

as they are all repub   we need to pull out if the iraq can not control the killing i say let them kill themselves sorry but i

have no compassion for iraq

posted by mattloch on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Johnson admitted that he got us into something bad, and he didn't have a plan for success. Whether that's "getting out while the gettin's good" is debatable. At least he didn't claim to have a "secret plan" for success, which was continuing it for political reasons, all the while broadening it's reach into other countries (illegally) and tossing more of America's boys into the meat grinder. Nixon and that war criminal Kissinger turned a losing proposition into a bloodbath. The war turned from an exercise in futility into a criminal enterprise.
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:21 PM
I have compassion for the Iraqi's..but their history shows they have none for each other. I want a united Iraq, one who can take care of their citizens, raise the standard of living up, and defend themselves from outsiders. I just do not see how staying there for years&years, spending trillions and burying more of our own will accomplish that.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:41 PM
msjenny, that's funny because I did the exact same thing after the 2000 elections. I guess we're psychic or something. It's a no brainer, really.
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Mattloch, Johnson was honest enough to admit that he wasn't going to be able to win. Nixon, on the other hand, found honesty a tough road to hoe and ignored that path altogether.
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Just a little bit of self-effacing humor, dusty.  It looks like I failed at that too :)
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55 PM
BLT, with everyone getting all uptight lately, I just wanted to clarify..thanks m'dear, I figured as much but wasn't sure.
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 01:59 PM

I'm not uptight, dusty.  I'm not alert enough to be uptight.  I thought I'd just throw out a little humor to lighten up a very grave subject matter (no pun intended).  That's about all the humor I can muster up this early in the week.  I know I'm not dumb.  Maybe a bit developmentally delayed, but certainly not dumb :)

posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:01 PM
aw BLT, you are the peacemaker in many respects. A little humor goes a long way usually. Thanks :)
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:09 PM
I'm glad "a little humor goes a long way" because all I've got to give is "a little." And I may be a peacemaker, dusty, but it's out of necessity.  If I become too confrontational with a peacenik, this "peacemaker,"  may be in need of a pacemaker :)
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:13 PM
LOL..come now..I would never hurt ya, it was an attempt to lighten the discussion. :P
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:14 PM
I think he was talking about me dusty.   ; )
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:16 PM
Actually I was talking to myself.  I must have forgotten to take my meds :)
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:22 PM
Pete, I did tell him I was going to hit him "upside the head" last week. :P
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:25 PM
And I learned the hard way that I can always count on dusty to tell the truth. LOL
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Or posture and appear a bada** BLT..I do both well :) :P
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:38 PM

"Or posture and appear a bada**"

I've noticed :&)  Hey, I think you may have just stumbled onto a new policy concerning Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:40 PM

I guess we've picked a side in the civil war:

http://www.alternet.org/blo...

(That's OK, the Saudis said they'd come in on the other side...)

posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:43 PM
I posted that Channel 4 video on my personal blog last week random..its pathetic.

BLT..a new plan? I thought we already tried that one :P
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Sorry I missed it, Dusty.  Thought it was new.
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:47 PM

Yes, we may have tried it once or twice, but you know what they say about the third time being the charm :U

posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 02:47 PM
I didn't think you read my personal blog random..just the stuff I print here. It IS new for b.com
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 03:06 PM
Ah.  You're right.  Went there once to check it out but generally hang here (and Dkos and Atrios, et al.)
1 2 3

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement

About dusty1215


Gender:
female
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
March 09, 2009
Profile Views:
21319
Blog Views:
75600
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Bond's record-setting baseball will go into the HOF with an asterisk.
"distract, delude, amuse and insulate us."
People trust the Democrats more than they trust Republicans.
Are you smarter than the average American? Test your knowledge of the news..
Neo-Nazi's go after the Jena 6
Feds investigating Blackwater USA for weapons smuggling
The death of the History of Civilization…
The good General couldn't accomplish his first job in Iraq, why should we expect anything better out of his second stint there?
Support Debra Bowen's decision regarding Diebold voting machines
Coast Guard's Deepwater project price skyrockets
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
Places on the Web for your Progressive enjoyment.
Its My Right to be Left of the Center
Bring it On!
Sirens Chronicles
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


dusty1215 - > Dusty's View of Life -> The new face of the anti-war crowd: Protesting ain't just for hippies anymore.
The new face of the anti-war crowd: Protesting ain't just for hippies anymore.
Salon.com has a good writeup about the "March on DC" here. It points out many of the groups that engaged in the march Saturday were not the usual left "wingnuts" and hippies:


"Regardless of size, the protest felt different. The demographics of the crowd had changed. As opposition to the war in Iraq mounts, sparked by the president's decision to send 21,500 more troops, protesting against it has become mainstream. There were plenty of professional protesters in evidence Saturday, the kind for whom protests are a lifestyle choice, but there were also more yuppies, more families with small children, more older people and even a fair number of stylishly dressed young girls in North Face jackets and Ralph Lauren sunglasses. Just as important, the confused, off-topic rhetoric of so many past protests was noticeably muted."

Salon then goes on to point out the diversity of the speakers but puts it in a negative light, as if its a bad thing. They also poke fun at the extremists or "wingnuts" in attendance.

I disagree because peace groups and activists are not about narrow vision. We, in the anti-war movement, welcome everyone that agrees on one thing: GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW! If they bring their own causes to the march, so be it. Some people don't like that the left welcomes people of dubious mindset, and some think this detracts from our message. I do not think it does. I think it shows that we welcome diversity and even if some folks don't agree that freeing "Mumia" is the right thing to do, or that 9/11 was an inside job..we agree on a bigger issue that affects every man, woman and child..the War in Iraq is wrong, its expensive, its killing our citizens and innocent Iraqi’s, and it needs to end as soon as humanly possible.

Nonetheless, it is a good article to read, it has interviews with first time protesters, and it makes one point very clear..The President is helping our numbers grow. His escalation of the war in Iraq is bringing out more people who have never protested before and from all walks of life. The young people are becoming more active. We see people in their 70’s marching when most likely that isn’t an easy thing for them physically. Republicans that are tired of this war-mongering, budget-busting administration are showing up as well. People in expensive clothes are standing alongside veteran protestors and people in costumes. Bear in mind, there were NO incidents that needed police intervention. In spite of the fact that the government suddenly no longer supplies crowd estimates..there were enough people to surround the Capitol. Read that again..protesters surrounded the Capitol. If that doesn’t warm the cockles of your anti-war heart, I don’t know what will my dear reader. There were hundreds of thousands according to many media sources. UFPJ puts the number at half a million. If you have ever seen the Mall in DC, it’s a huge place and will hold half a million people, I know..I have been there for protests during the Vietnam era.

 

Add to the DC march the 100 others that took place at the same time around our nation and you have a huge turnout of people with one common goal: End the War Now!

So, like Bush did in Iraq, he does here at home..he has created a situation that sparks involvement and people are not afraid to speak out, they feel they must speak out and I agree with that assessment completely. Bush is his own worst enemy. Thanks George. We, the majority of American citizens, would really appreciate it if you listened to us, we put you in office. Try talking to your enemies instead of blowing them to kingdom come. Attempt dialog instead of bullets. Show the world that we are above using the same tactics as the terrorists..just try it..you will like the results far better than the ones you are currently seeing in Iraq, not to mention that talking to people costs far less than killing them.

 

For an independent POV and additional pictures of the March on DC that does not have that MSM spin, DCIndymedia has a good writeup as well.

Tags: Politics, Bush, Iraq, MarchonDC

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: Politics, bush, Iraq, March on DC
posted by dusty1215 on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 1042 times
128 comments from 11 users

1 2 3

posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Dusty's right.  And Where have all the hippies gone?  The hippies have all gone pro-war, are chanting my John Lennon satire that begins with "All we are saying is give war a chance," and have adopted this as their theme song:

What Part of Right-wing Don't You Understand?
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT (c)2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/...

Just kidding.  I'm not pro-war at all, just pro-reality, and the reality is, if we pull out too soon and without an adequate alternative plan, it will cause an escalation in the civil war.   

Blog n roll!

posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Good morning BLT :) Many of the polls I have seen don't give people an option of a timeline. If they specifically ask people what amount of time should be given for Iraq to turnaround many people say 6 months to a year. The bottom line is however, most people polled want reduction, not escalation in troops numbers. People seem to think that a political effort is needed more than a military one.
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM

And if we stay there, BLT, adding surge after surge of troops, it will cause an escalation in the civil war.

.

The question is whether you want to pay for that civil war with 3080 dead soldiers, or 6080.  Or 12080.

posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:06 AM

I understand both sides.  It's an ugly scenario either way, but I tend to think that the diplomatic plan needs to be further established before troops can pull out, otherwise chaos will ensue.   BTW, good morning and happy Monday to both of you.  May this be the Monday that the right and the left unite and begin to build on what they share in common.

posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:09 AM
BLT, we have had years to develop a diplomatic plan to end the war in Iraq. How long is needed? How do you put a time limit on a President that has said he doesn't care what people think, he will do what he wants. Most articles I have read say the civil war will spike no matter when we leave..now or years from now. its the history of the region.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:10 AM
That's what the smart ones are saying dusty. I recently read an interview about General Westley Clark (4 star general, rhodes scholar) when he was on Hannity  where he said basically that. This is a political problem that won't be solved with guns. He believed the same to be true of Iran. The threat of our military power needs to be there, but most of the problems can be solved politically. And we'd be safer in the long run if we solved our problems diplomatically as well. Pretty amazing to hear a General say that.

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

Seriously, this guy needs to run for president.
posted by mattloch on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Does anybody know what the plan will be when this "surge" is over, if it's unsuccessful? Has anyone in the Administration even been asked about it? I know that's "future planning", and something they don't want to engage in, but isn't that part of what got us into this situation in the first place?
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM
General Clarke sent me an email today Pete! Seriously, he is part of the VoteVets.org group and he is very vocal on the subject of Iraq and Iran.
posted by blognroll on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:25 AM
"That's what the smart ones are saying dusty."  I guess that makes me one of the dumb ones.  As I've said before, I've never been one of the sharpest tools in the shed. 
posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Now, BLT..why do you take that personally? It wasn't aimed at you..it was in direct response to my post about various talking  heads who have been in government or military positions that directly contradict what the President is trying to sell us.

If your joking..fine..if your not..I have to question why you would relate to Pete's comment in that way.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Not everybody can be a 4 star general and a rhodes scholar Doc. I was very impressed with Gen. Clark during the last election cycle, but unfortunately for this country, he hadn't learned how to run for president...yet. I understand a lot of republicans like him as well.

BLT, you never told me how big that animated gif of the band playing is. File size I mean. What is it 40MB?

Dusty, I took it as a joke, whether it was or not.
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:37 AM

I'm supporting Clark for either the #1 or #2 position on the Democratic ticket.

.

Mattloch, planning for the surge's failure would interrupt the clapping and Tinkerbelle might die...

posted by dusty1215 on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Since we had no plan for post war Iraq when we busted in there..I highly doubt they have a plan "B" if this newest one doesn't work Mattloch. Planning isn't one of their 'strong suits' in the West Wing.
posted by randomfactor on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:43 AM

I suspect the "plan" is:  "Wait four Friedmans and hand it over to the new President, God help him."

posted by antiextremism on Jan 29, 2007 at 11:48 AM

What Civil war?

From Faux news, circa 2004......

NEW YORK —  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday he does not expect civil war in Iraq and pointed to the recent retaking of the former insurgent stronghold of Samarra as evidence of progress in stabilizing the country before elections in January.

"I don't think it's going to happen," Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations when asked about the threat of civil war. "But what has to be done in that country is what basically was done in Samarra over the last 48 hours."

Cheney, 3/2003.

"I think it'll go relatively quickly, …Weeks rather than months."

Cheney, 5/2005.

"They're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Cheney, 03/2006.

"Q: Do you still believe the insurgency is in its final throes?  Cheney: Yes."

Cheney, 6/2004.

"Two days ahead of schedule, the world witnessed the arrival of a free and sovereign Iraq."

Rumsfeld, 7/2003.

"I don't do quagmires."

Wolfowitz, 3/2003.

Iraq: "can really finance its own reconstruction."

Aug. 6, 2006 Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State

But it would be really erroneous to say that the Iraqis are somehow making a choice for civil war, or I think even sliding into civil war.

Bush, 5/2005.

"Good news to the men and women who fought ... their mission is complete."