The John Murtha, Iraq Debate

Yes, it is sad, that he has turned into the focus of a very important debate. John Murtha, D-Pa., has called for withdrawal of the troops in Iraq, and now it seems that no one can criticize him for his position because he is a veteran and a decorated hero. I have to tell you, my fellow veterans, that I am starting to change my opinion about the importance of military service. Years of dealing with John McCain and John Kerry was bad enough, but now I have yet another career politician using his PAST military service as a shield. Hmm, what is it about the name John? These people are career politicians who just happened to have served in the Armed Forces. I have the greatest respect and thanks for anyone who has served my country in the Armed Forces, but that is where it has to end. I can no longer make this an issue when voting for, or listening to politicians. Bad policy is bad policy, and regardless of his service, 40 years ago, his proposal is cowardly and idiotic. Does something happen to a persons brain when you put a D after their name? Or is it just years of being in Washington, and compromising your principals, until you have no principals left? When Ohio Republican Jean Schmidt said on the floor that “cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” I applauded her statement, because it is absolutely true. I also loved that the Dems booed her violently, but I did not like that she backed down. Oh well, so much for heroes.

Years of wussy foreign policy has done nothing but encourage our enemies not to fear America. After all, we never finish anything we start, and a bunch of third world nothings have sent us running more than once. Yes, the pull out in Vietnam was a colossal mistake that cost millions of people their lives. We also encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and we left them hanging causing thousands of Kurds to be slaughtered. Come to think of it, that is nothing new, because we did the same thing to the Cubans! Hmm, that was John F. Kennedy… Then there was some petty warlord in Mogadishu that brought down a couple of helicopters and we ran away. By the way, John Murtha encouraged that decision as well, but the blame lies squarely on Bill Clinton’s shoulders for that one. Add to that all the terror attacks, under Bill Clinton’s watch, in which we did nothing in response, including a previous bombing of the World Trade Center, and you can see why Usama called us a paper tiger! Why? Because he was right! All those Left wing nuts that blamed the World Trade Center attack on our foreign policy were absolutely correct, just for the wrong reasons. It was our history of not having a backbone, of not sticking it out until the end, of accepting losing. Would you respect a person, who you knew, that quit everything they ever attempted their whole life? Someone who never gave one hundred percent to anything or anybody? Well pulling out our troops from Iraq before the job is finished, is quitting, pure and simple. If you’re starting to think that it isn’t that simple, smack yourself! Life is much simpler than most people make it, and if you live in the world of grey, you live in a fog; wake up! Quitters always have an excuse for quitting, and it becomes habit forming.

So, I ask you, what kind of country do you want to live in? A winner or a loser? One with character or one that has none? I for one am tired of being embarrassed, and ashamed, of being American.

Linked At:
Bloggin’ Outloud|Stray Dog|10ft2ft|Right Wing Nation|Stuck on Stupid|TMH’s Bacon Bits|Stop the ACLU|Real Teen|Political Teen|Where are My Socks|NIF|

Advertisements

Author: Brian Bonner

Constitutional Conservative - The Constitution is The solution

40 thoughts on “The John Murtha, Iraq Debate”

  1. tom,
    you say so little with so many words. your brain must be atrophied. but hey listen believe what you want about Iraq but believe this more than all else..if muslims continue to pursue an end to western civilization we will destroy them,they are painting themselves into a heavy situation and people like you who support them by not supporting US policy are throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

    Like

  2. While I wait on your Sudan thoughts … a few of your comments spark interest.

    For example, The Environmental Protection Agency’s internal watchdog says White House officials pressured the agency to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe a week after the World Trade Center collapse.

    Is that the new socialist euphemism for “Terrorist attack on the World Trade Center”?

    I think I have said this before, you guys seems to have it in your heads that when people go into public office they become saints.

    Yes you have … ad nauseum. Saying so repeatedly doesn’t make it so … either as it pertains to what us “guys” believe … or your broad brush “tar and feathers” of those in public office. However on the flip side YOU guys seem to think that when people go into public office, they become devils. Perhaps that is a reflection of people’s experience with socialist governments …

    MANY Americans have fallen for extreme propaganda and are so resistant to facts that they just shut down when confronted with things that contradict their assumptions.

    Finally! An assertion with which I can agree in concept though not in context … but I would have phrased it a little differently and am SURE you wouldn’t like my rationale.

    Now on Sudan … ????

    Like

  3. Given that the U.S. is not party to the Rome Statute

    Which really should make you think. U.S. policymakers are and serve powerful interests, justice is not high on their list. Pirates are not eager to adhere to laws. You asked what the U.S. could do, how about signing the Rome Statute for the ICC. U.S. policymakers are real A-holes. For example, The Environmental Protection Agency’s internal watchdog says White House officials pressured the agency to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe a week after the World Trade Center collapse. If this is what they are willing to do to us, what do you think they are willing to do to foreigners? There are AMericans that have committed all sorts of ugly crimes against fellow Americans, you know this. You don’t see that the system makes it all too easy for these types to use or government for their ends? You seem to have an idea that if they represent the U.S. they must be decent. I think I have said this before, you guys seems to have it in your heads that when people go into public office they become saints. That isn’t the case.

    “Change the channel”- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt’s advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

    The media plays along with the interests of the powerful. This whole idea of “liberal media” has got it into people’s heads that the media “would” report these things and “would” care about justice. The people in the media are not that kind of liberal. They are the liberal that serves power. Dan Rather said “George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.” THAT is a “liberal”?!?!

    Look at this Iraq War madness. The media is silent about how the Ba’ath party got into power in the first place. The media refused to report that the war was illegal.

    Also we should sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was
    ratified by 192 countries only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia

    have you read Imperial Ambitions? It really is a shame that Brian reads it yet refuses to even think about it. MANY Americans have fallen for extreme propaganda and are so resistant to facts that they just shut down when confronted with things that contradict their assumptions.

    Like

  4. Your challenge is technically correct but the point remains the same … the US did NOT exercise its veto power and allowed the issue to go to the ICC.

    Adopting resolution 1593 (2005) by a vote of 11 in favour, none against with 4 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, United States), the Council decided also that the Government of the Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur would cooperate fully with the Court and Prosecutor, providing them with any necessary assistance.

    Given that the U.S. is not party to the Rome Statute, the abstention was a major concession by the U.S and is partly explained below:

    Following the vote, ANNE WOODS PATTERSON (United States) said her country strongly supported bringing to justice those responsible for the crimes and atrocities that had occurred in Darfur and ending the climate of impunity there. Violators of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be held accountable. Justice must be served in Darfur. By adopting today’s resolution, the international community had established an accountability mechanism for the perpetrators of crimes and atrocities in Darfur. The resolution would refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation and prosecution.

    While the United States believed that a better mechanism would have been a hybrid tribunal in Africa, it was important that the international community spoke with one voice in order to help promote effective accountability. The United States continued to fundamentally object to the view that the Court should be able to exercise jurisdiction over the nationals, including government officials, of States not party to the Rome Statute. Because it did not agree to a Council referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, her country had abstained on the vote. She decided not to oppose the resolution because of the need for the international community to work together in order to end the climate of impunity in the Sudan, and because the resolution provided protection from investigation or prosecution for United States nationals and members of the armed forces of non-State parties.

    The United States was and would be an important contributor to the peacekeeping and related humanitarian efforts in the Sudan, she said. The language providing protection for the United States and other contributing States was precedent-setting, as it clearly acknowledged the concerns of States not party to the Rome Statute and recognized that persons from those States should not be vulnerable to investigation or prosecution by the Court, absent consent by those States or a referral by the Council. In the future, she believed that, absent consent of the State involved, any investigations or prosecutions of nationals of non-party States should come only pursuant to a decision by the Council.

    Although her delegation had abstained on the Council referral to the Court, it had not dropped, and indeed continued to maintain, its long-standing and firm objections and concerns regarding the Court, she continued. The Rome Statute was flawed and did not have sufficient protection from the possibility of politicized prosecutions. Non-parties had no obligations in connection with that treaty, unless otherwise decided by the Council, upon which members of the Organization had conferred primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

    She was pleased that the resolution recognized that none of the expenses incurred in connection with the referral would be borne by the United Nations, and that instead such costs would be borne by the parties to the Rome Statute and those that contributed voluntarily. That principle was extremely important. Any effort to retrench on that principle by the United Nations or other organizations to which the United States contributed could result in its withholding funding or taking other action in response.

    The Council included, at her country’s request, a provision that exempted persons of non-party States in the Sudan from the ICC prosecution. Persons from countries not party who were supporting the United Nations’ or African Union’s efforts should not be placed in jeopardy. The resolution provided clear protection for United States persons. No United States person supporting operations in the Sudan would be subject to investigation or prosecution because of this resolution. That did not mean that there would be immunity for American citizens that acted in violation of the law. The United States would continue to discipline its own people when appropriate.

    Link Here

    Like

  5. BTW … the US voted (in a unanimous Security Council resolution) to refer the “situation in Darfur” to the ICC back in March 2005.

    Are you sure about that. I see that the vote passed because the U.S. abstained instead of using the veto which it often does.

    This is the country you think is so eager for justice? They couldn’t even bring themselves to vote for it.

    SECURITY COUNCIL REFERS SITUATION IN DARFUR TO PROSECUTOR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

    Like

  6. ” … I would need to do some research.”

    I’ll wait.

    BTW … the US voted (in a unanimous Security Council resolution) to refer the “situation in Darfur” to the ICC back in March 2005.

    Like

  7. What do YOU think the US position and/or involvement should be with the Sudan where major human rights violations are occurring on a daily basis?

    You sound like a bleeding heart liberal, so concerned about human rights and so willing to have the government so something about it. The Military Industrial Complex has quite a marketing department for you to so readily concern yourself with this, and apparently so willing to use taxpayers money to right wrongs.

    I would take a careful look before being so willing to go for “Humanitarian Military Intervention.” I know you didn’t suggest it but this is something that gets pushed and I would suggest you don’t assume noble intentions on the part of U.S. policymakers. If they wanted to be decent thing then after the mistaken bombing (which they had no right to do) they should have paid reparations to Sudan. Also the U.S. should not have been undermining attempts to refer the Sudan situation to the ICC. Amnesty International reiterated its concern that the USA is refusing to adopt the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation that the situation in Darfur should be referred to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. The U.S. Signed the UN Charter, look at our Constitution, Treaties become law of OUR LAND. You need to take seriously the obligations that have been made. We need to stop undermining the UN. Bolton needs to shut his obnoxious mouth and stop openly declaring a policy of lawlessness.

    Your whole premise of “constructive comments” is absurd. If someone were to say that street thugs should be held accountable and be brought to justice, I am sure you would agree. Yet you are brainwashed with this idea that people in powerful positions in our government become “America” itself so that we can no longer hold them to account without being cast as “anti-American”. It really is one of the most serious propaganda problems we have. All I am saying is that people that violate the law and commit crimes are wrong and should be held accountable so why do you bitch about “criticisms?” If I was saying it about a small time hood you would be jumping up and down saying yes, yes, yes! You would not be saying that it is “worthless criticism” Yet this insane propaganda of conflating U.S. officials with “America” itself has got you brainwashed.

    As for specific details of what we should talk about at the UN, I would need to do some research. I, unlike some other people, like to be informed about the issues I discuss.

    This topic was about the Iraq Debate, why are you so concerned about Sudan?

    Like

  8. Murphy:

    Having revisited Vietnam, Haiti, Iran, etc, etc … let’s try for a current events opinion.

    What do YOU think the US position and/or involvement should be with the Sudan where major human rights violations are occurring on a daily basis?

    Some Background Here

    I’m more interested in what YOU think the US SHOULD do than I am in what you (really Chomsky since that is who you always echo) think we SHOULDN’T have done. In all your references to Chomsky … and all your comments … I have yet to see ONE constructive comment. Criticism is worthless without offering alternatives.

    Like

  9. From Comment 24, in the sentence reproduced below, the link “(Read Blum Here)” did not take.

    Here’s what Bill Blum had to say in support of that theory: (Read Blum Here)

    So Read It Here

    Like

  10. I talked about specific facts that you are too cowardly to address. I said that MSNBC neglected to say why the hostages were taken. I said most of the media acts this way. What we did to the Iranians was a crime. You should look into it. In fact it isn’t even denied at this point, the US officially admits they perpetrated the coup. What they haven’t done is apologize. In 1979 there was a real concern by the Iranians that the US would once again re-install the Shah. The very building the students seized was the building the CIA used to perpetrate the 1953 coup.

    At the very least a people have the right to hold their own leaders responsible for the crimes the commit agisnt them The Shah was guilty of enormous human rights violations, many were killed too. What doe the US do? it gives him sanctuary. It wasn’t “whimpiness” it was jerkyness on the part of US policymakers. what right do we have to shelter a criminal from his own peoples desire to bring him to justice? For the life of me I don’t understand why you think it is OK for the US to meddle in the internal politics of these foreign countries and violate their rights. We are a country that fought to free ourselves from a king and US policymakers go and undermine a democratic government and instal a king!?! And you don’t think that US policymakers violate the very principles we supposedly stand for? The example of slavery is to show that policies can be extremely wrong and still there will be people like you that refuse to see that fact. Look how the policy of slavery violated the very principle of freedom, which is what America supposedly stood for. There were many AMericans who said the abolitionists were just noise generators too.

    Like

  11. The minute you bring a fact, Tom, we’ll be able to deal with it. When faced with a fact you change the subject.

    All you seem able to do is drag a post off topic. What in the world does slavery have to do with the subject of the post? No, don’t answer that, I don’t feel like wading through more of your manure.

    Don’t bother link-whoring any more either, nobody is following them now as they all seem to go to your site. Even the ones you label as something else are just links to your site.

    As far as I’m concerned you’re a random noise generator.

    Like

  12. You have pointed out a lot of crap, and none of it is even interesting

    So you can’t deal with the facts, you are “bored”. You can’t counter anything, all you can do is label things, never deal with the points raised. Actually when you do you see that I am telling the truth. You probably were surprised to learn that AMerica was not the first to free the slaves. I guess you don’t want to risk learning that other things you assume are incorrect too.

    I can’t make you act like an adult and actually discuss the pressing issues of the day. You want to avoid it all label people to avoid thinking about the issues.

    Frankly I do not know why my readers bother debating you. It is like trying to tell a Christian that Jesus wasn’t God.

    Actually it is you that take these things as articles of faith that simply cannot be discussed. What you are doing is called projection. I am more than willing to have my assumptions challenged with facts. You go on an on with this “communist” stuff. what does it have to do with the points raised. It is an embarrassing copout on your part. Throw those labels around yet what does it have to do with points of fact about the issues we are discussing?

    Your non-review of the Chomsky book was so odd, I should have known you would post such an evasive reply. What are you so afraid of? I know that there were many people in 1831 who were afraid to question if slavery was right.

    “If you consider economic opportunity for other countries creating an empire, you are foolish. History has always showed America to be a Great Country that never dominates another.”

    It would be a good idea to examine the facts. It would be a nice thing but being in denial and refusing to even discuss it doesn’t make it true. Do you realize how much the media suppresses? Fo example, did it ever occur to you to look into how the Ba’ath party got into power in the first place? Notice the MSM didn’t think to look at that either.

    If someone tells you that people are suffering and dying as a result of certain policies, it really is depraved to dismiss it without looking into it. In America, we are supposed to be self ruled. You are not doing your duty as a citizen to make sure that crimes an injustices are not perpetrated.

    Like

  13. Tom,
    You have pointed out a lot of crap, and none of it is even interesting. If it was, I would be paying more attention in here. Chomsky is a Communist, he can label it anyway he likes, and you have decided to become his follower. That is never going to get any traction here.

    Ya know, there is a whole lot of really good philosophy books out there to study, I wouldn’t bother with an old Commie who lives like a capitalist.

    Frankly I do not know why my readers bother debating you. It is like trying to tell a Christian that Jesus wasn’t God. That is a complete waste of time, and not a worthy endevour. I imagine they believe they can save you from yourself, and I don’t believe that is possible.

    I don’t know why people buy into all this crud. It is like talking to an anti-gunner that thinks the country would be safer if we banned guns, even though every country that has banneed them has gotten worse.

    Communism cannot work, it always leads to a totalitarian government. History teaches us this fact.

    Utopia on earth will not happen unless there is a second coming of christ. It is just not reality.

    If you consider economic opportunity for other countries creating an empire, you are foolish. History has always showed America to be a Great Country that never dominates another.

    Iraq will make of Iraq what it will. We are giving them an opportunity and what they do with it is their responsibilty.

    Although I think Chomsky is brilliant, he is also a dope for buying into all that commie crap. Either that or he is intellectually dishonest, and a phoney; you decide.

    So, there is really nothing to discuss.

    You all did a great job, but I would just let him talk to himself.

    Like

  14. And I went to the trouble of finding the Washington Post article and that still wasn’t enough for stinker?

    … he sure did … after first misquoting (his 1% BS), then linking to a Chomsky article when challenged (more BS), then linking (finally) to the WP … where we got truth, at least according to the WP, that supported NOTHING of what he previously said/alledged. In all of that, he has YET to admit to any fault. What a laugh!

    Like

  15. Now, last … since Brian doesn’t seem to be throwing his oar in the water … Tom said this to Brian:

    You are not following the premise of the discussion if you think they “handled” the comments.

    I don’t know what Tom thinks is the “premise of the discussion” but … it was Brian that started it … and his premise was:

    Years of wussy foreign policy has done nothing but encourage our enemies not to fear America. After all, we never finish anything we start, and a bunch of third world nothings have sent us running more than once.

    Tom has added zip, nada, gezilch to discussion of this premise … as usual.

    Like

  16. Now let’s take this statement by Chomsky’s acolyte:

    You don’t think there are people in government like Wheelock who think it is a big joke to undermine democracy for foreign people? The same way Wheelock thinks the coup against Chavez was fine, you don’t think U.S. policy makes are just as willing to disregard the rights of people in foreign countries?

    Now, what I said in response to a discussion under a different post on reining in the CIA was that I wished the overthrow of Chavez had been successful. That isn’t a big joke … that is fact and not a joke at all. What is a big joke is Tom’s repeated insinuations that the CIA were in back of the overthrow attempt …

    First, Chavez is no stranger to overthrows: (Ref Here)

    It had been a fairly stable, established democracy since 1958, but in the 1990s, growing poverty and plummeting confidence in the traditional political parties led to the election of Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez as president in 1998. He led an attempted coup six years before against the elected president at that time, failed, was jailed, and later pardoned.

    Now Tom would have you believe that it is “bad” that a coup was attempted on Chavez … but it appears he forgives Chavez’s own coup attempt on a democratic government in the early 1990s.

    Tom would have you believe the CIA was responsible for the attempted overthrow of Chavez.

    Hugo Chaves is probably the most democratically elected leader in the world yet you think it is a big joke for the US to support a coup to overthrow him

    Here’s what Bill Blum had to say in support of that theory: (Read Blum Here)

    How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chavez?

    Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That’s what it’s always done and there’s no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different.

    Compare and contrast with: (This) that contains the following:

    However, Kornbluh said that while the documents show U.S. officials knew a coup was coming, perhaps implying tacit approval, they do not constitute proof the United States was involved in ousting Chávez, Venezuela’s elected leader. That is partly because the briefs are from the intelligence side of the CIA, not the operational side.

    The article goes on to say:

    Asked to comment on the CIA documents, a U.S. State Department spokesman would say only, “As we’ve stated before, there is no basis to claims the United States was involved in the events of April 12-14 in Venezuela.”

    One of the CIA documents filed just five days before the coup would appear to support that statement. It notes that “repeated warnings that the U.S. will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chávez probably have given pause to the plotters.”

    I don’t doubt that we knew that a coup attempt was planned … and did nothing. So what? On the one hand, Chomsky and his acolyte would have us believe we meddle too much but when it comes to Chavez, we should have warned him?

    Venezuela is not better off economically than it was when Chavez attempted his coup in the early 90s. Though the Carter Center has endorsed the administrative validity of Chavez’s recall election, I can’t help wondering how many votes were cast out of fear of reprisal.

    Now Tom says I think this is a “big joke” … not by a country mile … I think it is deadly serious and that the “joke” is Tom’s efforts to make Chavez and his government out to be a “democratic ideal”.

    Like

  17. Since “intellectually honest Tom” is into selective quoting … here’s the context. A quote of Chomsky’s (assumed to be accurate since it was copies from Tom’s web site), a question for him (that he never answered), a radical assertion by me (attack away … tilting at a windmill), and another assertion by me that expresses what I perceive US history to show, specifically “fortunately the US in war after war has won, then given back the prize, and in most cases, helped rebuild.” Note the word “fortunately” and draw your own conclusions on where my beliefs really lie. The full segment is below, including Chomsky’s quote followed by my question/comment.

    ——————————————

    “We can’t find out for sure what Iraqis want — or what Americans want. But there are some general principles that ought to be observed. One is that invaders have no rights, only responsibilities, and among those responsibilities is to follow the will of the victims (and to provide reparations, trials for the criminals who ordered the invasion, and others). A subsidiary principle is that unless there is strong evidence that the victims want the invaders to remain, they should withdraw. US-UK policy is the opposite, with bipartisan and media support: We decide, and we will “stay the course” as long as we — not they — decide to do so.” – Chomsky Nov 18, 2005

    Where does Chomsky come up with the “general principles” itemized above? Actually, I prefer the general principle “to the victor goes the spoils” … but fortunately the US in war after war has won, then given back the prize, and in most cases, helped rebuild. In fact, I can’t think of one instance where we’ve kept what we’ve taken. I don’t know why anyone would expect Iraq to be different.

    ——————————————–

    Now, Tom is the the same guy that chided me for using a partial quote from Chomsky to illustrate a point … and to whom I apologized when he (rightly) pointed out what I had done. It seems that the “partial quote” tactic is only wrong when used against one, not when used when one is on the attack. This is typical of Chomsky … and Tom. I am reminded of Judge Roberts discussing the weight that foreign law should have on Constitutional decisions. In essence, he said if you look hard enough and long enough, you can find something somewhere to support virtually anything.

    Like

  18. Brian,

    What in the world do you think was “handled?” You are not following the premise of the discussion if you think they “handled” the comments. Seriously, tell me what it is you need to see. What is it you are not seeing? I laid out the facts so why would anyone continue to believe that U.S officials intend on true democracy? Look at the history, look at their current actions. You think U.S, polciymakers actually want the Iraqi people to make their own policies? What do you think these policies are? U.S. officials talk about a pipe line to ship oil to Israel. do you really think this is what the Iraqis want? Can’t you see that policy makers don’t care what they want?

    I pointed out that there is no reason to believe U.S. policymakers when they claim they want democracy for IRaq. I gave the example of VIetnam where there was to be an election in 1956 yet the US backed Diem who refused elections. No one can dispute this fact and yet you want to think the problem in Vietnam was we were to “wussy?” And look how the media behaves, they don’t make this clear to the public. ANd since you read Chomsky’s book, Imperial Ambitions you know that he pointed out on page 125 that a huge number of Americans have no idea how many Vietnamese were killed in the war. A public-opinion study was done. “the mean answer was a hundred thousand, about 5 percent of the official figure.” The media hasn’t even made the public aware of the accurate number of war deaths!

    I then pointed out, not quoted but just wrote off the top of my head that only 1% of Iraqis actually believe the U.S. intends to allow real democracy in Iraq. 74 minutes later I provided the source I got the info from and correctly quoted what it was I thought I was referring to. “1% of Iraqis thought the goal was to bring democracy.” (by the way, turns out 5% or less thought the goal was WMD, the U.S.’s stated goal) And I went to the trouble of finding the Washington Post article and that still wasn’t enough for stinker?

    But the central premise that the U.S. doesn’t intend to allow real democracy is the main point. In fact as I posted, “51 percent” of Iraqis “said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence.”

    But the history shows there is no reason to believe U.S. officials’ claims. There is no reason to believe the MSM is serious about pursuing these things. Look how they don’t deal with the extremely important fact about the Iraqi election that “people voted with the hope that it would end the occupation.”

    Do you not notice that U.S. officials are not saying that the U.S. will get out when the Iraqis want us out? Do you not notice the media doesn’t frame the debate around what the Iraqis want but instead talk about what the U.S. intends to do regardless of what the Iraqis want. Do you not see that? Democracy means that the Iraqi government would represent the will of the Iraqi people, we can see that powerful interests the U.S. are not concerned about that. Is it really hard to believe that these U.S. officials share the mentality of LTC (RET) John G. Wheelock and think “to the victor goes the spoils?” We certainly have bad people in America, you guys can’t get it into your heads that bad people can get into our government. You don’t think there are people in government like Wheelock who think it is a big joke to undermine democracy for foreign people? The same way Wheelock thinks the coup against Chavez was fine, you don’t think U.S. policy makes are just as willing to disregard the rights of people in foreign countries?

    I pointed out the VERY important fact that U.S. officials and the media almost never if ever talk about what the Iraqis want when it comes to the troops.

    The media constantly plays the game of going alone with the agenda of the powerful. I just saw the Iran hostage crisis mentioned on MSNBC, no mention of the reason why the hostages were taken. This is very common for the media to do.

    What does it take Brian? You don’t notice that I was debating with someone that doesn’t even share American values? “to the victor goes the spoils” is what this guy prefers. That is the mentality of our enemies for God sakes. Americans are supposed to stand for values. Why don’t you take this seriously Brian?

    Like

  19. Ah, so, it is his blog. Just as I suspected.

    Let’s see…you state an opinion, support it with a link to your opinion on your blog and when pressed for some references you claim to have researched the subject and tell me to do my own research. In other words the dog ate your research and you don’t have it any more and have forgotten how to find it again.

    I won’t even ask about sources for your paranoid delusions on the U.S. being forced to hold elections. I sorta have to wonder if it was at gunpoint, though, and who was holding the gun.

    No, don’t bother answering, I’d just ask for dreary old references again and we all know how you hate providing such things. Life is tough enough spinning reality onto its ear. Substantiating it would just be a horrible inconvenience.

    Like

  20. Actually, Tom … I am not trying to fool anyone. I really don’t give a tinkers damn what you think about me or whether you read my posts. I just enjoy watching you twist facts, mis-link, use far left blogs as references, and avoid answering direct questions. You and Chomsky practice the same “linguistic” charlatanism … he’s just better at it than you. The only real question I have … and I’m not looking for an answer since I believe I already know it … is why you (and Chomsky, for that matter) stay in a country with a government for which (over decades) you evidence no respect … regardless of the party in power.

    Candidly, you are a little tiresome. You drag Vietnam and Chavez into every gratuitous post and make frequent assertions that are a best weakly supported by questionable sources and at worst unfounded. At least when I make a mistake (as I did partial quoting Chomsky a while back) I have the grace and honesty to admit it … and mea culpa. You don’t even have that.

    Merry Christmas!

    Like

  21. I believe everything I said, Tom.

    and how the hell can you believe that US policymakers intend on allowing true democracy? Were you born yesterday? Did you think about the Vietnam example? DId you notice that the US refused to support the elections that were to have taken pace in 1956? Did you notice how the US resisted elections in Iraq?
    Do you think it was all just “mistakes” all the years the US has been installing and propping up undemocratic regimes?

    I think you are full of crap frankly. Hugo Chaves is probably the most democratically elected leader in the world yet you think it is a big joke for the US to support a coup to overthrow him. So who the hell do you think you are fooling?

    Like

  22. I’d dearly love to see more about that poll

    The do some research. I hunted down the source: the WP article and I posted it to my blog. I gave you the name of the newspaper, the name of the article, the text of the article, the date and the writer’s name.

    This is the way the poll that I am referring to was reported. Go do some independent research if you really need more. email the reporter or look up what you can, but you are out of your mind claiming that I have not given enough info. Are you putting me on?

    Like

  23. You can support our efforts by pre-ordering the book 9/11 Motives and the LIES Bush tells you or buy book merchandise NOW

    This and the Chomsky site appear to be your only references, Tom. Neither seems to link to any factual references. When there is a link it’s to another opinion piece.

    I thought that I really had a live one when I clicked on a Washington Post link but it didn’t lead to the story cited.

    Spread out a bit more and get your information from multiple sources. Form your own opinion based on facts rather than someone else’s opinion.

    I’d dearly love to see more about that poll that you keep touting. You know; when, where, who, what was asked — you know — the facts. I’d need that before I am going to accept someone’s opinion of someone else’s opinion of what the poll meant.

    (The thought occurs that it’s his own blog and linking here is an attempt to get traffic.) :lol_wp:

    Like

  24. That we ARE establishing a Democracy

    Do you actually believe this? Or is this something you just say?

    I prefer the general principle “to the victor goes the spoils” … but fortunately the US in war after war has won, then given back the prize

    You prefer that huh? and you think U.S. policy makers are some how different? If you look, economic domination is usually the result.

    How can you possible think that U.S. policymakers intend on allowing true democracy? Did you not know that U.S. policy makers resisted the elections? (and for God Sakes I already pointed out what they did to Vietnam)

    In many respects, the elections were successful. The main success, however, is being mentioned only marginally, by a few reporters: the US was compelled to allow them to take place.

    That is a real triumph of non-violent resistance, for which Sistani has been the symbol. The US sought in every possible way to avoid elections, but has been compelled to back down, step-by-step. First, it tried to ram through a US-written constitution. That was barred by a Sistani fatwa. Then it tried to impose one or another device (caucuses, etc.) that could be controlled completely. Also blocked by non-violent resistance. It continued until finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election—and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided. The US also sought to undermine it as much as possible, e.g., by driving independent media out of the country (notably al-Jazeera, the most important), by ensuring that its own candidates, particularly Allawi, would be the only ones to have access to state resources to reach the public (most candidates had to remain unidentified), etc. But the US-UK couldn’t block the elections, greatly to the distress of Washington and London. The question now is whether they can be compelled to accept the outcome. There’s little doubt, even from the more serious mainstream press as well as from polls and from properly hawkish experts (like Anthony Cordesman) that people voted with the hope that it would end the occupation. Blair announced at once, loud and clear, that the prospect is not even being contemplated, clearly articulating his usual contempt for democracy.

    Washington also announced that the US military forces would stay at least into 2007, whatever Iraqis want. The more serious press, like the Wall St Journal, is reporting that the US is attempting to secure some kind of agreement on a “vague promise” to withdraw eventually

    Like

  25. only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.

    A far cry from your original quote that was wrong and misleading. To this one, I say “so what”. We DIDN’T go into Iraq to establish Democracy. We went to overthrow Hussein and eliminate WMD. That we ARE establishing a Democracy and that we ARE assisting the Iraq people is icing on the cake.

    Like

  26. I have the details of the poll, it still isn’t good.

    Skepticism About U.S. Deep, Iraq Poll Shows

    More than half of Baghdad’s residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll.

    Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily “to rob Iraq’s oil.” While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so “to assist the Iraq people,” and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.
    Four percent believed the purpose was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given by the Bush administration.

    Although 52 percent of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, 51 percent said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence.
    Skepticism About U.S. Deep, Iraq Poll Shows

    Like

  27. Tom: You said:

    When the troops leave is the decision for the Iraqis to make, it is their right.

    Who says? Or is that just your opinion? Justify yourself if you can. Having said that, I haven’t seen the duly elected interim government of Iraq asking us to leave so the issue is moot until they do.

    Like

  28. I feel sort of sorry for Chomsky … 77 years old and getting senile … and he’s had such a conflicted life. Must be hard to live for 77 years in a country you think is evil while concurrently sucking on the tit of milk and honey. The sacrifices men of principle make … he’d of been so much happier in, say, Cambodia or Venezuela but instead he gutted it out and stayed here to illuminate us. FMTT

    Like

  29. As I’ve said before, when someone tells you that the Iraqis want the U.S. to get out of Iraq they’re only telling half of the truth. The other half is “but not yet”.

    Tom,
    Blogs, by their very nature, are also not suitable references for facts. If they link to facts then give the links. If you want to link to opinion and commentary then link to blogs.

    You make a claim for the Washington post but link to Trotsky Chomsky’s blog.

    Like

  30. “We can’t find out for sure what Iraqis want — or what Americans want. But there are some general principles that ought to be observed. One is that invaders have no rights, only responsibilities, and among those responsibilities is to follow the will of the victims (and to provide reparations, trials for the criminals who ordered the invasion, and others). A subsidiary principle is that unless there is strong evidence that the victims want the invaders to remain, they should withdraw. US-UK policy is the opposite, with bipartisan and media support: We decide, and we will “stay the course” as long as we — not they — decide to do so.” – Chomsky Nov 18, 2005

    Where does Chomsky come up with the “general principles” itemized above? Actually, I prefer the general principle “to the victor goes the spoils” … but fortunately the US in war after war has won, then given back the prize, and in most cases, helped rebuild. In fact, I can’t think of one instance where we’ve kept what we’ve taken. I don’t know why anyone would expect Iraq to be different.

    This, taken from your linked news.telegraph article, would seem to indicate that the interim government in Iraq wants the Brits to stay … that seems to be “strong evidence” to me.

    But Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. “There would be chaos and perhaps civil war,” he said. “We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity.

    Like

  31. There is a big difference between “1% of Iraquis thought the goal was to bring democracy” and “only 1% of Iraqis actually believe the U.S. intends to allow real democracy in Iraq”.

    The large turnouts for the elections held to date would seem to indicate a fairly strong belief that their vote counts, particularly given the risk from terrorist attacks associated with each election. Even I am not stupid enough to risk casting a vote that I don’t think matters. I doubt that Iraq citizens are either.

    Like

  32. Well pulling out our troops from Iraq before the job is finished, is quitting, pure and simple.

    Are you aware of the dynamics at work ? How can you possibly buy into the idea that U.S. officials intend on real democracy and actual self determination for the Iraqis? Do you not see the assumption being made that it is the U.S. that decides when the troops leave? Do you not see how the media, politicians and pundits (and you) all assume it is the U.S.’s decision to make? When the troops leave is the decision for the Iraqis to make, it is their right.

    Did you know 82% of Iraqis are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops. Less than 1% of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security and 72% do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

    Did you know about the surprising degree of consensus reached by the main Iraqi factions at the Arab League-orchestrated Reconciliation Conference in Cairo last weekend sharply undercuts the unilateral, guns-and-puppets approach of the Bush administration to the deteriorating situation in Iraq:

    We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces … that will allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and to get control of the security situation ..

    Like

  33. Brian, why don’t you slow down and examine some issues instead of plowing ahead with these posts?

    You mention Vietnam. U.S. policy makers attacked VIetnam and killed millions of people because they didn’t like their politics. Isn’t it time you start dealing with the truth?

    I agree with you that “Bad policy is bad policy” so we can dispense with the asinine concept that it is “anti-American” to oppose policies. What U.S. policy makers did to the Vietnamese was a crime. The 1954 Geneva agreements did not “partition” Vietnam but separated two military zones by a temporary demarcation line that “should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary,” pending the unification elections of 1956 that were the heart of the accords. Elections were supposed to be held, unifying the country. The Geneva agreement divided into two zones, not two countries; our government lied about this. The US backed Diem who refused to go through with the 1954 provision calling for nationwide elections in 1956. THIS is going against democracy! Why did Diem refuse? Because he knew as did others that he would lose the election, President Eisenhower said that Ho Chi Minh would win 80% of the vote in a free election. The CIA supported the repressive Vietnamese ruling the South–who were not only repressive but were also greedy. WE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS! (The Vietnamese have a right to govern themselves and vote for the system they want!) We blocked elections in Vietnam because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh was going to win there. The Kennedy administration escalated the attack against South Vietnam from massive state terror to outright aggression in 1961-1962. We were not ‘defending’ South Vietnam.

    This is just one example of U.S. policy makers undermining democracy. Why in the world do you think U.S. politicians actually intend on allowing true democracy in Iraq? You should know that only 1% of Iraqis actually believe the U.S. intends to allow real democracy in Iraq.

    If you took the time to think about Chomsky’s book instead of running from the issues he raised perhaps you could start to hold informed opinions.

    Like

  34. Very well said, Brian. I’ll throw in Jimmy Carter’s mishandling of Iran and Reagan’s pulling out of Lebanon when the barracks and embassy were bombed.

    I’m still looking for a link I had to an Arab News column that stated the opinion that Carter emboldened the folks we’re dealing with now.

    I don’t think that any recent President has done anything to change the perception that we’ll cut and run when the casualty count is high enough. I think that Dubya has the testicular fortitude to do it but that quality seems to be missing in our Congress.

    Looking over the senior Senators, I see that some of the cut and run from VietNam crowd are still on the rolls.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.