It's not uncommon for an interviewer to tell a guest offering orotund pronouncements that he's sounding "like a candidate." But Meredith Vieira took that one giant step further this morning, informing renegade Republican Chuck Hagel that he was sounding downright "presidential." Of course, nothing sounds more presidential to an MSMer's ears than defeatist criticism of the war in Iraq and by extension of the current occupant of the White House. But when it came to the key question, Hagel, far from flashing presidential timber, equivocated like a garden-variety pol.
Vieira: "Senator, at this point, do you believe we are fighting and dying for nothing?"
Hagel immediately went into bob-and-weave mode: "Well, I think the Congress needs to take a look at it and each member of Congress needs to go on the record and need [sic] to address the issue in a very clear way so that they can go back to their constituents and say yes I either support an escalation to put 22,000 more troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war, or I don't."
View video here.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Senator, your resolution doesn't "take a look at it." It would deny the president the means to fight this war. Hagel pontificated at length until Meredith, clearly dissatisfied with his evasiveness, tried again:"But again, senator, do you believe that we are fighting and dying for nothing, at this point?"
Hagel: "Well, we're asking that question. When you say dying and fighting for nothing, what are the parameters, what's the definition?"
No, Sen. Hagel, you're not "asking that question." By condemning the president's policy and opposing the surge, you're answering it. You obviously do believe our people are fighting and dying in vain. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say so?
Later, Vieira hit Hagel with a quote from Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT] accusing Hagel of "playing around with resolutions," adding "most Republicans want us to win over there."
Hagel seems given to big-league bloviating, but within his windy response to the Hatch quote was this: "Again, I go back to the question of what do you mean, 'win'? . . . Are we going to just blindly to continue to feed more troops into this situation, a sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win?"
In closing, Vieira turned to Hagel's ambitions: "I can't let you go without asking you, Senator Hagel. Are you planning to run for president? You're sounding presidential."
Hagel, albeit clumsily so, offered up a stock answer: "You'll be one of the first I, I let know and soon as I let, ah, let you know, we'll go from there. Thank you."
So let's see. Defeatism, leavened with a "define your terms" dodge reminiscent of Bill Clinton soliloquizing on the meaning of "is." Guess that would sound "presidential" to a member of the liberal media.
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Hagel?
January 26, 2007 - 08:47 ET by allanfCan someone remind me. Is Chuck Hagel a Republican?
Define "Republican&quo
January 26, 2007 - 08:50 ET by Mark FinkelsteinDefine "Republican" ;-)
It's interesting that Hagel c
January 26, 2007 - 09:03 ET by EvilRoyIt's interesting that Hagel claims he became a Republican while serving in Viet Nam when the Democratics in Congress cut funding to troops in during that war. He now seems bent on alienating our troops in Iraq. Maybe this is just an attempt by a loyal Republican to increase the number of Republicans in the military by doing today what caused him to become one back in the 1960's. ;)
Republican: A person who is a
January 26, 2007 - 09:45 ET by Dave RRepublican: A person who is a member of an American political party that was once dominated by the principles of conservatism but has, over the last ten years or so, moved sharply leftward to occupy the area of the "murkey middle" the Democrat Party vacated when it lurched to the extreme far left.
How's that?
"Republican" = a me
January 26, 2007 - 13:37 ET by mattm"Republican" = a member of the Republican Party.
Technically, Hagel is a Republican, but then, my old rustbucket of a 1979 Impala was technically a car.... : )
"a sectarian civil war
January 26, 2007 - 16:13 ET by motherbelt"a sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win"
Hagel can't define "win", but he apparently knows that whatever it is, American troops can't do it.
allanf,In name only. Only lib
January 26, 2007 - 08:53 ET by msh1973allanf,
In name only. Only liberal Republicans get face time on these stupid shows. Who are these people who keep voting for this fake Republican?
Maybe he's a NACILBUPER.T
January 26, 2007 - 09:54 ET by Jack BauerMaybe he's a NACILBUPER.
That's a Republican who seems to have gotten his thinking backwards.
If that's the case Jack, is
January 26, 2007 - 10:06 ET by MightyMouthIf that's the case Jack, is Lieberman a:
TARCOMED
or
CITARCOMED ?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Tar-comed is great.Certai
January 26, 2007 - 10:13 ET by Jack BauerTar-comed is great.
Certainly we could benefit with a few more getting a TAR-COMED OVER.
That's interesting, the dif
January 26, 2007 - 10:39 ET by JDWThat's interesting, the difference between the rino facetime and the liberal mockery. Hagel is willing to dance with the devil and shuns his own. Lieberman simply stands up for America.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
and here's my dumb a$$ tryi
January 26, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Troika37and here's my dumb a$$ trying to figure out what base NACIL was... Um... BUPERS what? lol
Don't be so hard on yoursel
January 26, 2007 - 14:09 ET by MightyMouthDon't be so hard on yourself there Troika. You're relativily new here. It took me a while to pick up on some of the backward and twisted humor too :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Let's start a trade-Hagel-for
January 26, 2007 - 10:28 ET by FishFace222Let's start a trade-Hagel-for-Lieberman campaign.
We're going to be pretty &q
January 26, 2007 - 12:16 ET by MightyMouthWe're going to be pretty "upside down" on that transaction. Same things happens to me everytime I use a trade in on a new car. We for sure owe more on Hagel then he is worth :-p
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
what do you mean, 'win'? .
January 26, 2007 - 08:52 ET by motherbeltDeleted....edited post below
So what is the definition of Win?
January 26, 2007 - 08:56 ET by cjkinseyI assume you have the same criticism of the administration, since they have not defined winning, what the "surge" will do, and how it improves the chances of this "winning".
http://iamnotsosure....
They have defined it. The m
January 26, 2007 - 10:33 ET by FishFace222They have defined it. The media fails to report it.
Winning is getting the Iraqi people to be able to handle their own security. The surge will help hold areas that have been cleared of terrorists by our military. That's a change from the past where the military did not have enough people to hold these areas--a mistake that has been acknowledged by GWB and is being corrected.
Try listening or watching something other than the Clintoon News Network or freaks like Olberman.
Fishface
January 26, 2007 - 11:01 ET by cjkinseyAh if it were just so simple.
If that is the definition of victory, "the Iraqi people to be able to handle their own security".
Then they had this before we ever went there. Was that really the reason we went there? Care to try again?
http://iamnotsosure....
Wrong again. I did not say
January 26, 2007 - 11:19 ET by FishFace222Wrong again. I did not say that was the reason we went there and they have had sectarian violence there for decades. Ask the Kurds. The reason we went was to protect the world from Hussein and his WMD program. We have taken care of that problem. We now have to help a new government get up and running instead of leaving a void like we have so many times in the past.
fishface
January 26, 2007 - 12:07 ET by cjkinseyFishface, nor did I say that you said this was reason we went. But it did draw out that you think we went to protect the world from Saddam and WMD. Which we know now, he didn't have, and that our administration knew he didn't have. So while yes you can claim you have taken care of the problem, and I support you fulling in doing so, if you then claim that we have completed our military mission and want to bring the military folks home. However if the you support putting more in, we have to go back to for what purpose and what is the goal. How do our guns and military build their government. I suggest that they don't, won't, and aren't intended to.
Laws, money, power, and jobs are what will build the government back up. Remove our military and the violence will subside.
The problem with this, is there isn't a way to allow them to do this on their own while filling the pockets of Haliburton, whose stock has risen from 10.33/share on 7mar03 to 29.40/share today.
Do ask the kurds, they want to be left alone and the ability to build their own future. This is why the communications must start and not more troops and violence.
CJ - you sound foolish
January 26, 2007 - 12:13 ET by JimboProve that the President knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Give specific, undeniable proof. I’m waiting. Otherwise, drop that tired line. It makes you look foolish.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 12:19 ET by cjkinseyWhat would you consider proof? Let me take a quick stab at it though. The simplest is that we invaded Iraq. If we actually thought they had a nuclear weapon, we would not have invaded. Becuase we would have simply walked/flown into our own destruction if he had a nuclear bomb, or WMD. If it was truly thought that he had a nuclear weapon to use on us, we would not have marched into his country.
WOW
January 26, 2007 - 12:26 ET by JimboWow.
The term “proof” is truly straightforward and unambiguous. True to your liberal heritage, you prefer to twist that to make your point. Your prior post is light years from the definition of proof.
If what you said is true, you wouldn’t defend yourself against an aggressor you knew possessed weapons of mass destruction. That’s OK. Everyone has their opinion. This is a free country. Fortunately for the rest of us, the President and people like him don’t agree with you, which keeps this country free for people like you to continue to make ridiculous statements such as this one.
Back to my previous point, if you can’t prove that the President knew there were no WMD,s then drop it. It makes you look foolish.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 12:43 ET by cjkinseyHow am I trying to imprison this country, or whatever term you think is the opposite of your freedom?
How am I trying to take away your freedom, I have never said you don't have the right to your opinion, I have just tried to make sense of it.
If you value your freedom so much, why are you willing to give it up? What keeps this country free is the constitution and its laws.
Back to my point, if you would attack someone with a knife if he had a machine gun, you would be insane. Are you calling the president insane?
If you don't like my argument, what if you expanded your vision and included North Korea in this discussion. Why have they been treated differently?
It is not the constitution th
January 26, 2007 - 12:46 ET by BDIt is not the constitution that ensures your freedom, it is armed citizens willing to INSIST on those freedoms and will ing to put their lives on the line.
Why has North Korea been treated fdifferntly? They are armed and capable of mayhem already. Stopping them is Moot.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 13:03 ET by cjkinseyYou see the problem? We had to attack Iraq, because he had these weapons and was an eminent threat against us, but yet, they didn't have them yet and therefore we had to attack them before he gets them.
BD to some extent we agree entirely, and so you should be ready to take up arms against the bush administration for trying to take those freedoms away. We can only do that to ourselves, except for the clear case of being killed.
Secret Service!
January 26, 2007 - 13:08 ET by JimboYour fist paragraph is unintelligible, your second paragraph calls for an armed insurrection to overthrow the government of the United States. Does anyone have the phone number for the Secret Service??
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
I don't know why you guys was
January 26, 2007 - 13:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI don't know why you guys waste your time "debating" this Sheehanista. It's a waste of time and energy.
Great picture Shrub. Don't
January 26, 2007 - 13:50 ET by JimboGreat picture Shrub. Don't recall seeing it on the news.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Rog...What we have here is an
January 26, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
What we have here is another 'New World Order' alarmist. These folks call for the overthrow of our government as a blow to the NWO. Next on their list is an all out war to capture Big Foot.
Oddly enough, I believe the s
January 26, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberOddly enough, I believe the same nutjob called both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's shows today. I listen to Beck every day, and Limbaugh only occasionally. I happened to have Limbaugh and the same douche called, talking about the NWO, but didn't get to mention the "Bohemian Garden" before Rush cut him off.
Today must be Libotard Day.
Rog...Some of this is coming
January 26, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
Some of this is coming from the 'Resistance Manifesto' site. They have been talking about a co-ordinated effort to get themselves heard on talk radio for about a week now.
That was it!I couldn't rememb
January 26, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberThat was it!
I couldn't remember. Thx, CT!
I just went to the "Resi
January 26, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberI just went to the "Resistance Manifesto" website.
The retard running the show is John Connor, no, not the little shit from the Terminator movies, but you will remember from the Danny Bonaduce video that came out last month.
We're talking FatesWebb territory here.
Rog...Pretty worthless stuff
January 26, 2007 - 16:12 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
Pretty worthless stuff there, huh?
Roger the Shrubber
January 26, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Clear thinkerRoger... M. Savage is next. I just copied this from their own website...
this Friday (Jan 26th) lets all call Michael Savage. He probably won't use the 7 second delay to prevent statements from making it to air..he'll probably just start yelling. his number is
CALLING MICHAEL SAVAGE 1(800) 449-8255
And his show airs live from 5:00pm Central to 8pm central. thats 3:00 to 6:00 Pacific, 6:00 to 9:00 Eastern. you can stream the show live from www.760kfmb.com
How its done....usually you should call RIGHT WHEN THE SHOW STARTS. he'll mention a few topics and take calls on that. these hosts don't want to have the listeners ask random questions....they want very much to stay on topic....sometimes savage will say he's sick of a topic and switch, and then the board op drops all calls and opens it up for new ones on the topic. I've been on hold with savage numerous times when the guy gets on and says "we're chaning topics...sorry" and hangs up on me. Lets jam him on 9/11 and Bohemian Grove.....and again....if you plug a website you'll get cut off...so bring up issues and questions.
I don't know if i'll be able to record the show, so if someone can record it, please email me the show, or mp3z of the calls.
Last edited by John_Conner on Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:58 am; edited 1 time in total
As a new member here, you'r
January 26, 2007 - 13:27 ET by Mark FinkelsteinAs a new member here, you're welcome to read our threads and express your opinions. But I'd strongly suggest laying off the armed insurrection calls.
PS: imminent, not eminent.
If yer gonna have an insurr
January 26, 2007 - 13:42 ET by balboaIf yer gonna have an insurrection, the first thing you're gonna want to do is set up a perimeter for your compound.
And round up all the vacuous
January 26, 2007 - 15:08 ET by BDAnd round up all the vacuous young women with spineless young men ala Waco and Jonestown....
We had to attack Iraq, becaus
January 26, 2007 - 13:36 ET by Jack BauerWe had to attack Iraq, because he had these weapons and was an eminent (sic) threat against us.
The word in imminent.
Eminent means a person is respected, or famous. Look it up.
And Bush never said what you just said he said.
What he actually said was that he would never wait until a threat to the United States became "imminent."
Don't worry though, no one will ever accuse you of being eminent.
cjkinsey... Mark,
January 26, 2007 - 14:00 ET by ww thumpercjkinsey... Mark, Noel, Greg; are you reading this?? Time for at least a "warning" or....B...... v Being "Politcaly Correct" with ISLAM will distroy America......V
CJKinsey:As I have stated sev
January 26, 2007 - 15:06 ET by BDCJKinsey:
As I have stated several times in coutner to your earlier postings. WMD was only one of Sixteen seperate reasons to go to war against Iraq. Therefore your assessment from your first paragraph is not valid.
Regarding your second paragraph, I have not lost, nor am I in any danger of losing any of my freedoms to any actions that the Bush Administration has performed. Please cite for me a freedom I have lost.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 16:05 ET by cjkinseyI have lost this thread I don't know which first paragraph you are referencing.
As to the list of freedoms, one is your freedom to peace of mind, according to the president.
The second is your right to privacy, NSA wiretapping.
Third is the right for oversight to the actions of the executive branch. In the "patriot act" there is a section allowing for any prosecutor to be removed from their job and replaced without congressional oversight.
Just the other day, gonzalez was trying to aruge that you are not guaranteed Habeas Corpus.
It continues in light of efforts and potential.
I have not lost any freedoms.
January 26, 2007 - 16:24 ET by BDI have not lost any freedoms.
1.) I have great peace of mind knowing that my compadres spend long days and nights hunting bad people throughout the world and bringing them to justice. In the past month we have announced that both Khaddaffy Janjalani and Abu Soliaman have assumed room temperature. Their deaths comforts my mind and should comfort your immensely if you were to know them.
2.) I have not called, nor have I received calls from an overseas entity known to plan death and destruction in the US. Nor did my grandparents receive and reply to coded transmissions from Germany during WWII on an shortwave radio. They did not have their rights interfered with nor have I. No harm no foul.
3.) Regarding congressional oversight. Seems to me that they are having longwinded meetings right now rialing about what each politico FEELS shoudl have happened. What more oversight do you want?
4.) Regarding Habeus Corpus, enemy combatants do not receive just such a judgement and that is what is referenced. How many Illegal combatants during WWII were brought before a judge just to assure that we could hold them in our prisons? ZERO.
I have not lost any freedoms. Nor have you.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 17:03 ET by cjkinsey1. This was sarcasm, sorry.
2. This was an interesting argument when this issue first came to light 2 years ago, but since then they have said, well ok, it doesn't just have to be international. Then it raises the question of who is a threat and what speech is a threat. This is where the loss comes. Who gets to make this defintion?
3. What is going on is not oversight. And with a president and vice president saying they can make what statements they want, but I have decided and we are going down this path. This is unconstitutional and should be blatantly offensive to you.
4. Same problem who gets to make the decision about an enemy combatant? This is not the right of an individual, we have said noone gets to make this decision, and because you have been fooled by this you have lost a tremendous amount.
2.) Please list all admissi
January 26, 2007 - 17:23 ET by BD2.) Please list all admissions of transcripts of such monitored transmissions into a court of law for prosecution of a US person. Has not happened, nor likely tooo happen.
But, has such information been used to identify threats against US persons? I am quite certain it has.
3.) Specifically what oversight has yet to occur. Can Congress use its power of the purse to cut off any offending program- YEP! Can the appropriate Congressional Oversights groups such as the select committees review? YEP! What oversight has not occurred?
Or is the oversight you wish to see a congressmen reading classified documents intot he microphone of All THings Considred so our enemies get a better idea of how to counter our efforts? As such, I am not offended by the administration, but am mightiliy offended by Congressional staffers leaking material which can harm me and the boys.
4.) A person carrying magazines of 7.62 x 39 ammunition and who tests positive for gunshot residue who is picked up in the mountains of Afghanistan by SFC Bagadonoughnuts SF A-Team following an ambush not wearing a uniform is AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT. There is no requirement for a civilian judge in San Francisco to review this after the Three member military panal has made this determination.
Detaining said individual does not harm my freedoms, it actually protects my freedoms.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 17:53 ET by cjkinseyBD what makes that person an IC and not a POW?
No I am not saying announce secrets over a global broadcast or even a national one. I am saying that we elect representatives so it is there job, to know this information in detail. Honest detailed discussions, I don't believe have happened.
Well there is some truth to your statement, and this the lack of response from a complicit republican congress. Had they been doing their job, we might have seen earlier that this president plans to do what he wants regardless earlier. We have been let down by our leaders and we need to hold the to account.
How has the detention of Maher Arar, protected your freedom?
BD what makes that person an
January 26, 2007 - 20:56 ET by JimboBD what makes that person an IC and not a POW?
Ever hear of the Geneva Convention?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
On illegal combatants
January 26, 2007 - 21:09 ET by UnsaneAs I have seen BD point out before (hat tip to BD), there IS a reason that every single soldier, sailor, Airman and Marine have "name tapes" on their BDUs that have the person's last name and then the letters "U.S." followed by the branch of service. This is because that is what the Geneva Convention demands of its signatories for proper identification of legal combatants.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Thanks for pointing that out
January 27, 2007 - 13:26 ET by BDThanks for pointing that out Unsane.
The current and past conventions demand that legal combatants must wear a visible sign regarding essentially which side they are on. (We wear uniforms and as Unsane points out I proudly wear a tape saying "US Army" over my pocket flap of my ACU uniform.)
If a soldier/combatant were to wear civilian clothing, or an enemy uniform as a manner of ruse to foil the other side he becomes an illegal combatant, or if not armed and perfroming a mission like reconnaissance he is classified as a spy.
Thus, if we were to push it, we could justifiably execute any of the captured illegal combatants picked up and currently stored at Gitmo and Geneva legally could not say boooo.
CJ - you're killing me.
January 26, 2007 - 12:54 ET by JimboHow am I trying to imprison this country, or whatever term you think is the opposite of your freedom?
No idea what you are talking about.
How am I trying to take away your freedom, I have never said you don't have the right to your opinion, I have just tried to make sense of it.
Still don’t know what you are talking about.
If you value your freedom so much, why are you willing to give it up? What keeps this country free is the constitution and its laws.
And the military has nothing to do with that. Is that what you are saying?
Back to my point, if you would attack someone with a knife if he had a machine gun, you would be insane. Are you calling the president insane?
If someone were attacking my family with a machine gun, I would fight back with my bare hands if I needed to. If you wouldn’t do the same, I’d call you insane.
If you don't like my argument, what if you expanded your vision and included North Korea in this discussion. Why have they been treated differently?
So are you saying that we should abandon UN talks and invade North Korea and Iraq? Both will be dealt with appropriately and when the time is right.
Nice misdirection on the whole lack of proof on “Bush lied about WMDs” discussion though.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo, there is one word to s
January 26, 2007 - 13:01 ET by bassndudeJimbo, there is one word to sum up all of cj's nonsence. That word is "Crap~!"
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 13:03 ET by misterbill"Back to my point, if you would attack someone with a knife if he had a machine gun, you would be insane. Are you calling the president insane?"
"If someone were attacking my family with a machine gun, I would fight back with my bare hands if I needed to. If you wouldn’t do the same, I’d call you insane."
Jimbo, when I saw that question I was impressed in two ways.
One--without understanding the circumstances it would be difficult to say, but it does indicate a wide streak of cowardice.
Two-- What ?? the hell is he asking? what kind of argument/question is that?
If you do not try to fight against oppression you have already lost your life. It's just a matter of time until you are buried. I, too,would use bare hands , if necessary.
CJ- put down that pipe, it's affecting your reasoning!
"If it was truly thoug
January 26, 2007 - 13:48 ET by ckc1227"If it was truly thought that he had a nuclear weapon to use on us, we would not have marched into his country."
And if he knew there were no WMDs there, he would have secretly planted some there to cover his lie. Duh. And I don't think he ever said they had a nuclear weapon.
Sigh, the dumb just get dumberer
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
1.) Sixteen seperate reason
January 26, 2007 - 12:17 ET by BD1.) Sixteen seperate reasons were presented reference the need to invade Iraq, only one of which was referencing WMD. THese reasons extended from the fact that Saddam Gassed his people to the fact that he was paying bounties for captured US personnel who might be shot down patrolling the UN mandated no-fly zone. SHACK!
2.) Remove our military and violence will subside? The same argument was presented by the Anti-war movement regarding South East asia. We pulled out and "SURPRISE" the violence rose to incredibly high levels. Camboadians sloughtered by the millions. 700K+ of our former allies in South Vietnam "Liquidated." SHACK!
3.) The Kurds I have met with hardly wish to be left alone. The seek our continued support, military, political , and economic. SHACK!
Please try again.
BD Response
January 26, 2007 - 12:36 ET by cjkinseyBD I appreciate your comments.
I hope you don't take my responses the wrong way, but I would really like to continue this discussion.
1. UN No fly zones, why were these imposed? What if someone came to the US and said, because of what you have done in Haiti, you can't fly your own planes over this section of your country. How would you respond?
2. And now, the violence has subsided. I am not saying that it will immediately become paradise. But we must seriously look at what are the options. If we send in more military, do you suggest there will be less violence?
3. The Kurdish government wants us to remain in their country and to remain? I don't think it is that simple, there is more in what you say of the political and economic. They want us to help them with Turkey, supporting them in keeping some of the money from the oil derived from the Shiite southern Iraq, and what do they provide to us in return?
Not sure what Shack means?
cj...without a doubt you have
January 26, 2007 - 12:54 ET by bassndudecj...without a doubt you have demonstrated your ignorance, or your disreguard for the lives of those in Iraq. When refering to SE Asia, and your commit that, "And now, the violence has subsided." Seems you dont care how many die in the process or how long it takes for the violence to subside. Pull out of Iraq, in within the first year, the Kurds will be facing eradication, again. From the Turks, some in Iraq and Iran. The Christians in the area will be killed. And within the next two years, you will see another attack that pales 9/11.
You people never cease to amaze me, with your lack of understanding. Appeasement never works. Never has, never will. Your obvious lack of knowledge of history is glowinly apparent. You have demonstrated a total ignorance of the military and how it works. You have never served in the military, and the thought of military service, more than likely, brightens that yellow strip down you back. The one where most people have a spine.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass
January 26, 2007 - 13:10 ET by misterbillbass ditto. Right on>
bassn
January 26, 2007 - 14:30 ET by cjkinseyHow many Iraqi people, we will make it simple, enemies and innocent people have died? It is not that I don't care about life, that is why I was opposed to going into Iraq initially. Now we are talking about the way forward that causes the least problems. So it is not a disregard of life, but a best method forward.
We will have another attack, we might, do you not see how that is connected with our actions in the middle east.
Appeasement, what does that mean? What composes appeasement? I have never heard of anyone being convinced of a truth at the end of a gun or by force.
This is where I might actually agree that we are at war, a war of ideas. I am trying to help delineate those ideas and how I think they work, but they don't fit into short, simple, quippy remarks. So they will require some work. I am up for that kind of work and "fight".
cj.....How many Iraqi have di
January 26, 2007 - 14:46 ET by bassndudecj.....How many Iraqi have died? Not near as many as will die if we pull out now. Some 2 million or more died after we left Vietnam. But to read what you wrote, that was ok, because it did stop. However, it hasent stoped yet. Thats right. They are still purging those minorities over there.
The way forward is to pound, kill and punish those who will not lay down their arms. Kill the Iranians that cross the border OR supply the terrorists with weapons. If nessary, we replace the Syrian goverment with one that will crack down on those crossing the border there. Sidenote: None of the Arab countries want an Iran with atomic weapons either.
Appeasement is to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles, think Hitler here.
So far as anyone being convinced at the end of a gun, lets look at Japan and Germany in recent times. And for more folks, visit a prision sometime. Most all of those in those walls were convinced at the end of a gun. Some after they were shot, but they did become convinced.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
1.) Why were the no-fly zon
January 26, 2007 - 12:58 ET by BD1.) Why were the no-fly zones imposed? They were imposed following the first gulf war to reduce Saddams capabilities to primarily take revenge of Kuwait and also to protect Shia in the south, Kurds in the North in accordance wtih the Cease Fire. The ceasefire was essentially a contract signed between the victors and the vanquished.
2.) Violence always subsides following victory by a despot because HE KILLS EVERYONE who is a potential threat. Very much unlike our western philosophy. There will be less violence when we send more troops. The violence spikes in vaccuums..
3.) Correct. The Kurds desire our assistance and have goals similar to our own, politically, militarily, socially, and economically.
Shack is the radio call that a trained targeteer makes when his target has been totally destroyed by ordinance. Often you will hear USAF pilots use it when reviewing strike footage. By the way, it just feels GOOD to call it. SOrta like saying Touchdown following a long bomb in the 4th quarter.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 14:42 ET by cjkinsey1. Yes you have identified the first level of why, but you failed to address the second level of how would you feel if this were done to you? Why should he agree to this? Why did he invade Kuwait in the first place? Why were we helping him with money and weapons at the time? It is never just so simple.
2. Vaccuums of what, of military force, really. Is that why you don't break laws here? Or do you, if so which ones? Why? What makes them little laws that are ok to break?
Thanks for Shack, I can understand that. While I am asking what is MSM mean?
"While I am asking wha
January 26, 2007 - 14:56 ET by MightyMouth"While I am asking what is MSM mean?"
Well, based upon the blog you like so much, I must guess that "MSM" means:
Hi Hater!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
1.) How I FEEL is immateria
January 26, 2007 - 15:16 ET by BD1.) How I FEEL is immaterial as I am an analyst, and therefore a conservative. What I THINK about it is more important.
2.) All Laws are enforced by force and adverse action. Don't pay your taxes? Armed men come to your door to arrest you. if you resist they fill your hide with led. Es ist nicht?
MSM is mainstream media. NBC, CBS, ABC, New yOrk Times, Wash Post, CNN, etc
BD
January 26, 2007 - 16:13 ET by cjkinseyOk, change the word, what would you think, if you were asked not to fly over a part of the US. What would you think if the US were invaded by france, because they said Bush was guilty of war crimes?
CJ - you are very good at put
January 26, 2007 - 16:18 ET by florida_chadCJ - you are very good at putting yourself in the position of an Iraqi and thinking about things. Try putting yourself in the position of an American and then reexamine your positions. The UN agreed that the no fly zones were necessary. Do you know why?
Nevermind. Its America's fault. I know where you are coming from.
If I had lost a war in which
January 26, 2007 - 16:29 ET by BDIf I had lost a war in which I had massacred large numbers of people from a neighboring country in order to assure that they would not have a leadership infrastructure to compete with my new order... I would think that the civilized nations were showing restraint in only preventing my flights.
If the US were invaded by France I would assume we had a liberal in charge to allow such a thing.
"What do you expect from a cluture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting Big mac's and Disneyworld than the Nazi's." -Dennis Miller.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 17:18 ET by cjkinseyI don't think the invasion of Kuwait is that simple, given that we were supporting him at the time. It is not likely that he attacked without some discussion with us.
what does that even mean a liberal must have been in charge? So we have never been attacked when a republican "hawk" was in charge?
You are suggesting that Sadaa
January 26, 2007 - 21:00 ET by JimboYou are suggesting that Sadaam consulted with the first President Bush before he invaded? If you even remotely believe that, then you are truly lost my friend.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Supporting Iraq?
January 26, 2007 - 21:04 ET by UnsaneWe were supporting Iraq? Since when has the United States been manufacturing T-72s, Mirages, and planes designed by Mikoyan/Gurevich and other Soviet design bureaus? When has the United States ever designed or produced the Exocet?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Let's not forget those &quo
January 26, 2007 - 21:07 ET by JerryLet's not forget those "Scuds" with their pin-point accuracy.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
He attacked following a brief
January 27, 2007 - 13:35 ET by BDHe attacked following a brief discussion with a denizen of Foggy Bottom who did not say one way or the other. Typical Diplo. We need to resume hiring diplomats from West Point and Analpolis again instead of the Ivy diploma mills.
We supported Saddam in his fight with Iran, a nation we have been in conflict with since Jimmy Carter waffled in response to our embassy being seized. Which leads us to our second point....
Conservatives are less apt to be attacked since we have the guts to strike back. Note that Carter sent feeble diplo efforts to get our hostages back. Reagan made it know that when he was in office, things would be a bit "Harsher" for our enemies in Tehran. Guess which had a more efficaciousl effect?
THe US was attacked at least six times during the Clinton administration and the US responded by rippling off a few cruise missiles.
THe US was hit during the Bush administration and the response was to seize two countries within the affected region and begin democratizing those locations. We have also hunted the bad guys in the Horn of Africa and the Southern Philippines.
What would the Liberal response have been to 9/11? Probably twice as many cruise missiles as before and a lot of self loathing.....
BD - I think CJ is another h
January 26, 2007 - 12:38 ET by RunningBeerBD - I think CJ is another history revisionist. Those types like to forget that Saddam was blocking the UN required weapons inspections and refused to abide by the UN resolutions. By conveniently leaving out this huge piece of the puzzle they are able to fool themselves into believing this was all about oil. CJ's problem is he didn't figure there were enough of us left that remember the facts.
Running Beer
January 26, 2007 - 12:54 ET by cjkinseySeriously, you quote an arms control site? What about a news organization that reports the UN members, with pictures of them leaving Iraq, after the president told them we were about to bomb Iraq.
I have never mentioned oil. I have simply asked questions. It is funny that you think you know the arguments, this helps you only address the issues you know and not deal with the actual facts.
Let's remember that there were no weapons of mass destruction, showing that the inspections were working.
CJ - How can inspections work
January 26, 2007 - 13:56 ET by RunningBeerCJ - How can inspections work if they aren't being allowed? I'm standing on my head and telling myself black is white, white is black. I've tried yoga, deep meditation, even called L Ron... and I still can't figure out what your smoking.
RB...You are using logic with
January 26, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Clear thinkerRB...
You are using logic with this guy, probably a mistake.
Clear - Stupid of me, I shoul
January 26, 2007 - 14:06 ET by RunningBeerClear - Stupid of me, I should know better. His link was interesting to read though. A nice piece from the oh so honest CBS about inspectors leaving Iraq. Even a quote from Saddam himself saying he DID have WMD's but had gotten rid of them so no need to attack.
Pretty funny-that "news
January 26, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Del DolemontePretty funny-that "news organization" you link to is CBS News. The same CBS News whose lead TV "news" anchor/managing editor recklessly ran with a bogus story. To be fair, the link is actually C-BS running an Associated Press story. This is the same AP that has also been caught running false stories as "news".
In addition, when one actually reads the CBS/AP story, there is absolutely *no* mention of the Presi