Unconfirmed Source

[yogib37 3]

Whats really sad is that there are ppl wishing he would get it for manslaughter, But if it was someone else,these same ppl would be calling the charges bogus,because it was an accident!

Yep. Has little to do with the accident. Rather, it is about the visceral hatred many have for Cheney and Bush. Get over it, people, Gore lost in 2000.

No, it has to do with the fact the there was an impeachment by a republican congress over a sex act, but this is an thus-far uninvestigaged incident with a weapon by a republican VP.

The impeachment was over perjury before a grand jury. As Carol&Marc pointed out, this would be a non-story had it been anyone else.

And BUSH LIed to the american people and to Congress and all about the WMD. This IRAQ war is 10000% illegal and BUSH,Cheny,Rumsfeild,and all the neo nazi bush lites should be arrested and put on TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES. BUSH should have over 2000 counts of MURDER and countless Attemped murders on our militry men and women.

Also Bush should be IMPEACHED for this NAS. He has no right to do that. Just other tacted to prove he is a DICTATOR.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush ignoring basic precepts of war

Other voices: Laura Neack

In the State of the Union address, President Bush said: "As we make progress on the ground and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels. But those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." This is supposed to be a post-Vietnam War reassurance that military decisions will be made by military commanders, not made by politicians for political purposes.

But it is an example of learning the wrong lesson from Vietnam. If the president wanted to take a lesson from Vietnam and apply it to Iraq, he might give former Secretary of State Colin Powell a call. Remember him? The Vietnam vet, adviser to many presidents, namesake of the Powell Doctrine, which said, among other things, we should never go to war without a clear exit strategy? Powell would have to tell Bush what he learned in officers' training - what all military officers learn.

You see, there is a bible, if you will, at the war colleges, and a prophet, so to speak. The bible is "On War" and the prophet, the author, is Carl von Clausewitz. There isn't a military officer who cannot quote Clausewitz: "War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means." That is, war is politics by other means, but war is still about politics, about policy.

Clausewitz cautioned - and untold numbers of U.S. military officers have taken it to heart - that "War can never be separated from political intercourse." Further, "War belongs to policy, it will naturally take its character from thence." And, "the political is to remain the ruling point of view and the military to be considered subordinate to it."

Powell might tell the president, with all due respect, that he is wrong to insist that decision making should stay in the hands of the generals. Details about troop movements, about what units might be rotated and so on are rightfully left to the commanders. But the grand conduct of the war - why we embark on a war, what we learn as a war drags on, how we modify our policies to fit reality on the ground, and what our exit strategy should involve - involves political decisions rightfully made by civilian leaders.

When the president insists that he or the secretary of defense aren't responsible for overall troop levels in Iraq, I wonder why not? The president was elected to make these grand decisions of strategy. The president decided to engage in war; he had a plan - didn't he have an end point in mind? What leader would send the military into a war and then tell the generals that they are responsible for the outcome? Is this a failure to plan? Is this a failure to accept responsibility for the ultimate political act - that of ordering our soldiers and Marines to kill and to die?

The president might learn something from Powell and those generals. He might learn that he should be the one making the calls. If Bush were able to recognize the weight of such responsibility, there might not have been a war in Iraq in the first place.

Let's end on a note from Clausewitz: "To leave a great military enterprise or the plan for one, to a purely military judgment and decision is a distinction which cannot be allowed, and is even prejudicial; indeed it is an irrational proceeding to consult professional soldiers on the plan of a War, that they may give a purely military opinion upon what the Cabinet ought to do." It is time, Mr. President, for you and your team to accept responsibility for your political decisions.

Source

[yogib37 3]

Ya know, I really gotta say....it irritates me to no end when all the blame for this war is laid at Bush's feet. Anyone can do a little back research & see how most politicians & world leaders felt about Iraq/Wmd.

Ppl can't say Bush is an idiot in one breath & then say he convinced the world of a lie (even before he took office!) The bottom line is Saddaam needed to be dealt with....should have been finished being dealt with with Daddy Bush, then Clinton should have dealt with it. Why go and read some of the letters from Congressman practically begging Clinton to take action. It boggles the mind.

No I don't think Iraq & 9/11 are interchangeable words....that was a big mistake on the part of Bushco. Do I think it's somehow related through backdoor things? Prolly. But that's just my specualtion talking.

Anyways, I'm all over the map...but lets put blame where blame is due...and that's with everyone. Cos lets face it....had Congress not given Bush the authority to go to war, he couldn't have.

That is not true. HE LIED and USED 9-11 to attack Iraq. It was planed in 1997 to attack IRAQ. LOOK at PNAC. Read it and tell me.

I blame BUSH<CHENY and all the bush-lites for IRaq cause it was preplaned.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The UN went into Bosnia because the world's media shamed western nations into action by reporting what was going on there. By that time of course, the ethnic cleansing had been going for some time

War is War, since when does the U.N. have control over U.S. troops, Okay its the media's fault! unbeleivable statement!

Kennedy had better taste for women (Marilyn Monroe ) and he was a great President.

I didn't say it was the media's 'fault', only that media coverage of what was going on inside the former Yugoslavia shamed the governments of the world into going into Kosovo (via the UN). They dallied during the war 'proper' with the result that thousands died over fairly substantial period of time before the European and American governments raised a hand to stop it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There isn't anything similar about WWII and Vietnam? They are plenty of similarities. We went to Germany to stop the spread of German Facism. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism. Both were ultimately successful for US interests.

wahahahahha,, vietnam, a victory???? lolololol that's the joke of the day right

Hey, not so fast. I didn't say Vietnam was a "Victory". I said it was ultimately successful. The reason we went to war in Vietnam was the Domino Theory. In case you aren't familiar with that, it's the theory that if communism could spread throughout SouthEast Asia it would give the communists a strong foothold that would eventually allow them to control all of Asia, including Japan and eventually Austrailia, thus weekening the US global position.

Well, after decades of prolonged war, the only "Dominos" that fell were South Vietnam and Cambodia. Could it be that Russia didn't want to fund another 3 decade civil war either? If you could have told Eisenhower and Kennedy that sacrificing South Vietnam and Cambodia would mean the end of the Spread of Communism thoughout Asia, I think they would have gladly taken that.

Neither Japan nor Australia are in South East Asia, making your definition of success obsolete. The domino theory was an ideological framework that resulted from fear rather than reality; the idea was that communist countries would be under Soviet domination which was not true for Vietnam at all. For more info on this and the war, I recommend watching "The Fog of War," an excellent documentary featuring McNamara himself...

Great documentary - glad someone else had seen it! Has some pretty interesting insights on the use and abuse of power.

"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe that we should ever apply that economic, political, and military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."

Interesting views for an old 'war-hawk'.

Ok, back to all your Clinton, Vietnam, Kennedy, Bosnia rants...

Seems that some folks get mightily worked up when one pokes fun at or dares to criticize the Prophet and Vice Prophet of the United States of America.

The same way people get so mightily worked up, and insult people who don't agree with their views about hating Bush? It goes both ways! I've seen the most preaching on VJ, not about any religion, but from far left wing ppl trying to make everyone believe the same as them, in a very unappealing way too.

Because criticism of Bush can only come from 'far left wing' people? Last I looked there were plenty of people on both sides of the fence who thought he was doing a piss-poor job. Don't make the mistake of polarising this - a lot of criticism of Bush comes from the middle ground. Unfortunately, there does seem to be a tendency to attack the critic rather than deal with the actuality of the criticisms - that's what I have the most problem with. can't criticise Bush because someone will bring up 'sour grapes' from the 2000 election. The fact that Gore and Kerry lost is neither her nor there to me. I don't necessarily think they would have been any 'better' than Bush, yet at this precise moment in time, I honestly feel that a crippled mountain goat would be a better leader than this president.

[Chicky 0]

All I know, is that I find it absolutely terrifying that my 5 year old son can read words that our president cannot. *shudders*

Edited February 16, 2006 by Chicky

[Fandango 1,439]

There's a reason why 'they' say you should never discuss politics amongst friends!

ET, I've really said all I have to say..I fear if I continue, I'll never shut up! My last post here was pretty long, and I think that kinda sums everything up for moi.

I do appreciate all of you who responded to me...both with pos & neg comments. That's what's so great about this world we live in.....there's more than one flavor ice cream

....and wouldn't it be boring if we all liked vanilla????

[Satisfaction 1]

Hummm. Profound. All that said. F... the lawyer, how is the bird? I think Cheney wasn't trying to kill the quail. The quail was carrying the avian flu to the blue states.

[Satisfaction 1]

*trips over Rebecca's left tail-light*

*backs up and accidentally runs over Frances*

Dam. Now I suppose they will want to see my certificate from the Ted Kennedy School of Driving.....

*rummages in glovebox*

Thank you Frances. If we wanted to get our daily dose of El Rushbo quotes, we would have visited his website. He doesn't need you to disseminate his commentary.

The more I've listened to folks on this and other postings, the more I suspect the theory that the lag time and stall was intended to give the Vice President time to sober up after his beer lunch.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because criticism of Bush can only come from 'far left wing' people?

Of course. From that stinkin' liberal extremist Pat Buchanan, for example.[/sarcasm]

ET, I've really said all I have to say..I fear if I continue, I'll never shut up!

So, it's all Clinton's and Kerry's fault and just because Bush is actually President doesn't make him responsible for anything. The latter just keeps walking on water. That about sums it up for ya'?

Edited February 16, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Chicky 0]

'Satisfaction' date='Feb 15 2006, 05:44 PM' post='30753'

'Frances' post='29958' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:59 PM'

*trips over Rebecca's left tail-light*

*backs up and accidentally runs over Frances*

Dam. Now I suppose they will want to see my certificate from the Ted Kennedy School of Driving.....

*rummages in glovebox*

Thank you Frances. If we wanted to get our daily dose of El Rushbo quotes, we would have visited his website. He doesn't need you to disseminate his commentary.

The more I've listened to folks on this and other postings, the more I suspect the theory that the lag time and stall was intended to give the Vice President time to sober up after his beer lunch.

But with quotes like this "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." isn't Rush just the most loveable guy EVER? *sarcasm*

Edited February 16, 2006 by Chicky

[Chicky 0]

Or how about these kind of gems

“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people - I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do - let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work”

Or how he once told a black person calling in to "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

Or his hypocrisy on drugs

* Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.[2] 1995 Oct 5[3]

* Just another dead doper. And a dirt bag. -- On the occasion of Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia's death.

* I am addicted to prescription pain medication. [10/10/03]

Wooo that is somebody I TOTALLY want to worship

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because criticism of Bush can only come from 'far left wing' people?

Of course. From that stinkin' liberal extremist Pat Buchanan, for example.[/sarcasm]

The attitude says a lot about the standard of political thought in the US among members of the public. It seems issues can only be interpreted and understood as part of two polar extremes. 'Liberal' for instance has curiously become a catch-all dirty word for any position that people disagree with. Frequently (and most infuriatingly) its confused with 'leftist', which is totally inaccurate - 'liberal' and 'leftist' are actually different positions, but they are conveniently lumped together as if they were the same.

The only thing that can be said of the word liberal these days, is that its being liberally used, and liberal interpretations are made on a daily basis as to its meaning.

The media is largely to blame IMO. Whatever people feel about the role of the media to 'educate', noone can deny that very many people rely on network news to inform them about current affairs and shape their political views.

The fact that things are so polarised right now really illustrates the failure of the Fourth Estate, IMO.

[Satisfaction 1]

Maybe he was sober on that one Look at Margaret Tatcher.

[Jasman0717 9]

All I know, is that I find it absolutely terrifying that my 5 year old son can read words that our president cannot. *shudders*

Wow, what if Dan Quayle had become president