Old Dogs, Old Tricks

Democrats’ Plans Help Al-Qaida, Cheney Says

Barf.

What a fucking deranged, bitter old fuck Cheney is. They have proven, beyond all doubt, that what they think is right does not work. Yet he still comes out with this same old tired bullshit.

They know that the only tool Congress has at this point to affect this fucked up situation is their power with the purse strings. That is what Cheney is fighting. They want an endless supply of our children’s children’s children’s money to fight this dumb war with their old boy’s club partners.

Fuck them.

Old Dogs, Old Tricks

13 thoughts on “Old Dogs, Old Tricks

  1. bsherwood says:

    all true reasons…the UN was being lame…but there were ‘lone voices’ (for lack of a better term) saying “really there are no WMD…stop, don’t do it” and we blew past them as the majority of information said there were wmd….but not “everyone” agreed.
    France didn’t agree….and we smeered them in the media (and rightly so, I don’t have any love for France)
    There is a really good documentary on HDTV right now on the Hussein rise and fall…it speaks of what was going on at that time …if you can catch it do so..I learned a lot about what was happening in Iraq at the exact time we are discussing.

    His violations were reason, shooting at our planes did bring a few retaliatory strikes. He did have terrorist training camps. (as did, as do many other countries)
    He did kill lots of his own people…Kurds etc…but he was killing his own people from day one on his rise to power and we knew it then also and chose to ignore it….the chemicals he dropped on his own people were given to him by the US…

    true not our fault he dumped them on the kurds but that is how much “in bed” with him we were.

    The documentary shows that he was actually very much in danger of an overthrow several times in his reign and that many of his actions were desperate attempts to stay in power.

    of course hind site is 20-20 and the bottom line is that we are where we are.

    I think the documentary I watched last weekend was called something like “Sadams reign of terror”..and it was fairly new. We have all seen lots of early stuff, but this had a bit more historical perspective…

    Like

  2. micadelic says:

    Because he violated something like 16 UN resolutions and the UN did not have the balls to enforce any of them, including the consequences which were laid out in the resolutions (Unless you count double-secret probation). He was denying access to suspected WMD sites that the UN inspectors were trying to inspect. All the intelligence in the world (and not just the US) believed he had WMDs and that it was likely he would/could give or sell them to terrorists (there were terrorist training camps in Iraq), he was shooting at our planes as they patrolled the no-fly zones which were only imposed to keep Hussein from KILLING HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE and invading his neighbors. Just to name a few pretty damn good reasons in my book.

    Like

  3. bsherwood says:

    sorry,, WMD first then liberate second….got it..
    same guy that talked about being able to “finish it in six months” also spoke of cutting off support…

    “that is mostly media propaganda, unless they start pulling out soldiers….we have plenty of bullets and rations”

    His greatest frustration was with the, at that time, republican majority not letting “cut loose and take care of business”

    you may recall that recently the white house said that they had killed a “confirmed Iranian militant”…he stated that they had been killing “iranian hajji’s from day one” and everyone knew it….

    we get a considerable amount of propaganda fed to us from the right and from the left. “you want the truth?….the day to day truth of what GI Joe is doing in Iraq, go to Liveleak.com”

    his words not mine….(obviously no operational information but lots of GI’s uploading day to day video. (he stated that recently that has become filtered before it gets out of Iraq)

    Like

  4. bsherwood says:

    Iraq “was” a puppet gov. we used to love sadam hussein…because he was at war with Iran…..

    not every culture wants or can handle or would thrive as a democracy.

    when I say “we should not have gone in in the first place” I mean that in comparrison to other atrocities in the planet…we went in to “liberate”??….wait, why did we initially go in??

    at any rate, far more shit and genocide has happened in Africa than in Iraq…I’m not naive enough to say we went in for oil, because we certainly did not get any….but why did we initially go?….I am not being a prick, I actually do not rmember right now?

    Like

  5. micadelic says:

    Cool. I disagree but I respect your opinion. As I said, I have no problem if people are honest and say they want to pull out. But if you’re gonna pull out, pull out now. Do not starve the troops of resources and leave them in an unwinnable situation. Either do it all out, or don’t do it at all. But at least have the courage stand up for your beliefs.

    Like

  6. Problem is, Bush hasn’t looked up what the word “democracy” means. Look at how they embraced democracy in the Palestinian territories? Whoops, democracy ain’t so great, apparently, when it elects Hamas.

    When Bush says democracy he means a government set up by the US, friendly to the US and able to defend itself against the enemies of the US. That’s not democracy.

    I agree with your goals: I want Iraq to be peaceful, self-governing, etc. I want people there to be safe and free. But the people in many Muslims countries choose to be anti-US of their own free will. I’ve heard it said that Osama bin Laden would be easily elected in Saudi Arabia were they to have free elections. You guys don’t want democracy, you want a puppet US regime. That’s the goal Bush is working towards and the goal the people there are fighting against.

    I really do hope that Iraq takes its country back from the terrorists and war mongers. People almost always want peace. I still have seen no proof that we are helping.

    Like

  7. micadelic says:

    BTW…

    I don’t agree that it’s a disgusting mess that should have been avoided. I think we were right to go in, and it’s not a disgusting mess, it’s a freakin’ war and war sucks, war is hard, and war is unpredictable. Bsherwood’s buddy is right, we have handcuffed ourselves unnecessarily against an enemy that is evil, unscrupulous, and depraved.

    Sorry, that’s how I see it. They are bad, we are good. We are not perfect, but if they would behave, act civilized, we would grant them every freedom to live how they want, practice the religion they want to practice, and live unmolested by us. They, however, would not grant us the same freedom and dignity if they were in charge. That is a fact.

    Like

  8. bsherwood says:

    I will wager multiples of any beverage you would like that that quote will not happen. We can stay there for a week or for ten more years. It would be great if it could happen as that, I believe was the true aim, hope, prayer, belief of the admin. and i believe that is partially why Collin Powell quit. Because he knew exactly how impossible that would be.
    It has nothing to do with ‘might’, or even ‘right’. I believe shortly after this speech the admin began to distance itself from the word Democracy??
    If they get everything else in your statement, I would say Democracy will be the biggest challenge to sustain.

    Like

  9. micadelic says:

    First of all, wow, I actually mostly agree with mr. bsherwood.

    But, I’m so tired of this canard that the administration doesn’t have a definition of victory, or we don’t know what victory will look like in Iraq is tiring. To me, it’s further evidence that the left hates the President so much that they don’t even listen to what he says. He has been defining victory for a long time and every time he says it, he says the exact same thing. Here it is from a speech in April, 2006:

    We’ve got a strategy for victory in Iraq. It’s important for you to know that victory will be achieved with a democracy that can sustain itself, a country that will be able to defend itself from those who will try to defeat democracy at home, a country that will be an ally in the war on terror, and a country that will deny al Qaeda and the enemies that face America the safe haven they want. Those are the four categories for victory. And they’re clear, and our command structure and our diplomats in Iraq understand the definition of victory.
    –G.W. Bush 4/2006

    This seems reasonable and do-able to me. I believe we have the military that can do this and military leaders who are smart enough to get it figures out. We cannot give up, we cannot grant our enemies a victory because we are war-weary, or lazy, or flat out ignorant of the enemy. We must prevail or the consequences will be much. much worse3 than what we face now.

    Like

  10. bsherwood says:

    I agree with you as well. a serious mess that we created and are now in the middle of. Thus the question of what are we going to call ‘Victory’.

    a friend who is a major in the guard and has served three tours says it could all be “done” in 6 months if we let the military “do what needs to be done”.

    He was also skeptical as to whether additional troups were actually needed. “we are asking people to be policemen, when they have been trained to kill people and break things”

    I completely it is a disgusting mess that should have been avoided. Colin Powell words “if you break it you own it” are ringing very true. But we are where we are.

    There are easily identifed fuck ups and problems.
    What is the new “victory”
    what is the solution?
    and are they the same answer?

    Like

  11. What war?

    Seriously…what war?

    The war with Iraq ended a long time ago. Iraq was not the hotbed of terror and insurgency that it is now until we landed there. Right now there is a strange mix of what we would legitimately call terrorists interspersed with people who are are fighting a civil war and people who are motivated, after years of bloodshed, to fight the occupiers. The notion that we have an enemy there to defeat is daft.

    Right now we have a chip on our shoulder where we want to prove to the world that we can do what we say we can do. As I’ve said before, we did that in Iraq already. We creamed Saddam and his army. We neutralized them as a serious threat to the homeland.

    What we are doing now is trying to secure a country that was made insecure by our own unilateral actions and poor planning. WE are making it a flash point for terrorists.

    Iraq is not going to be pretty no matter what we do. The bull rampaged through the china shop too long. The notion that there is even something we can define as victory is wrong. The victory is behind us but Bush was too stupid to recognize it. What is ahead of us is a long, long time of instability, compromise and “nation building”, a business that W. himself said we should not be in.

    There is no war there. It’s just the fucked up results of failed foreign policy and the solution is definitely not more of the same.

    Like

  12. bsherwood says:

    telegraphing you plans to the enemy is no way to fight a war, whether you believe in it or not.

    I only saw the soundbite on the national news, but I have to agree…putting a timeline on a war is not smart.

    As far as victory being possible? and who it’s good for….?

    The US is without a doubt the strongest power on the planet. No one could beat us in war, but what is the definition of victory? I think if anything the two parties would argue about what victory actually is.

    I would be very dissapointed in the Dems if they restrict any dollars even though I do not agree with the war or the current status. If they can poke the republicans in the eye for early war support indiscretions they disserve the same should they yank financial support.

    So, what is victory?

    Like

  13. micadelic says:

    I know you’ll hate me for it but Cheney is right and I agree with him 100%.

    Telegraphing you plans to the enemy is no way to fight a war, whether you believe in it or not.

    I know you guys don’t believe a victory in Iraq is possible but I do. I also think it’s undeniable that victory in Iraq and victory for the USA is a bad, bad thing for the majority of the Democratic party. No wonder they are so anxious to see us lose.

    But, I don’t believe that being against the war is necessarily unpatriotic. I do believe you can be a true patriot and be against the war. I would have respect for the left’s position if they would have the courage to enforce it. If they believe that we need to get out now, they should vote to do it now, they should vote to de-fund it, they should have the political courage to do so. But they don’t, they’re trying to play both sides of the fence and I don’t believe that is a respectable position.

    So, Dems, you want out, you control the purse-strings, put it up for a real, binding vote, none of this namby-pamby non-binding BS. let’s see you show some true political courage.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s