Town Square

Post a New Topic

P. Bush

Original post made by Jag Singh, Los Altos, on Jan 21, 2008

Bush wants Congress to grant retroactive immunity to his administration for human rights/war crimes dating back to September 11, '01. Unbelievable!!!!!!


Web Link


Comments (74)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 21, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Bush is easily the worst American President in history. It's a sign of how far America has fallen that someone of that little man's poor spirit has been permitted to grace the Oval Office.

Bush is an emotional cripple, leaning on godtalk and appeals to fear. An evangelist in the White House who listens to the dying muse of Leo Strauss.

It's not all bad, however. America, a great country, actually requires a dolt like Bush from time too time. Things will not be easy for America for the next few decades; we have squandered much - but our diversity, unleashed, will help to reincarnate this nation into a more humane and democratic place than it has recently become.

Hang in there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Bush will probably be known by history as the liberator of Iraq. He will also be known for his willingness to fight tough battles with tough means. The particular element that the CNN hack got off on involves waterboarding, and incarceration. Perhaps Congress and the Senate, both controlled by Democrats is willing to pass this bill, becasue they are afraid to criminalize any future Democratic president that is required to take tough measures.

Bush had been a good president. He is not a great one, like Reagan and Lincoln, but still good. The hatriots can't stand him, but just consider the source.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HonestPatriot
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Since Billy Jeff Clinton already holds the spot for the worst president in history, Bush dosen't have to worry. BTW, when will Clinton be prosecuted for the war crime of bombing innocent civilians from the air in Kosovo?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 21, 2008 at 1:44 pm

"Bush had been a good president. He is not a great one, like Reagan and Lincoln, but still good"

Looks like you've softened your position on Shrub, Gary. He keeps plummeting, as the largest embarrassment America has even known as President.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 21, 2008 at 1:48 pm

What we have here is a difference of opinion...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dana K.
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 21, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Bill Clinton the worst president in history? Hah, that's a laugh. Thanks for the Monday morning comedy. P.S. - "Hatriot" is not a word, and certainly a nasty way to describe any American.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Gunn High School
on Jan 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

When are you who hate Bush/Republicans gonna remember history from BEFORE Bush when every Democrat leader, including Clinton ( the male AND female ones), wanted to go in and overturn Saddam and simply didn't have the guts to do it,.... just talk about it? C'mon, already, get some historical perspective!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nice try, Jag, to stir it up again
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Good grief..not only is this by CNN, which automatically makes it suspect, it is over a year old! If you read the "news" flashing below, it mentions the new retirement of Jeffords..who retired Jan 7, 2007......

A year old.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm

"Looks like you've softened your position on Shrub, Gary"

Patriot, I don't think I ever said that he was as great as Reagan or Linclon. If I did, please correct me. I think history will treat him well, however.

Patriot, you hatriots just have a hard time with the guy. That would be your problem... along with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone.

Cheers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 21, 2008 at 2:41 pm

" I think history will treat him well, however."

You "think"? Not so sure anymore, eh?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 21, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Patriot,

I never predict how wars will go. If I did, and I lived in 1942, I would have predicted that the U.S. should sue for peace with Japan and Germany. Of course, FDR, like GWB (not to mention Lincoln) were of better stuff than that. The simple fact is that wars need to be fought, not discussed. The victors set the terms. Reagan, in an interesting twist, set the terms, then won the war, based on his terms, with few shots fired (what a guy...even Obama agrees!).

If the liberation of Iraq is successful, then Bush will be seen, correctly, as its liberator, as well a revolutionary figure for the Muslim world. The entire coalition of the unwilling will be seen as the Neville Chamberlains of their time...real failures. Perhpas this makes you feel a little nervous, Patriot, but that is how history makes judgements.

I think the Iraq war will be successful, unless the hatriots decide to spite Bush and send it down the sewer. That would be on them (you and yours). IF Iraq is successful, as I THINK it will be, then Bush will be good with history.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by historical
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2008 at 3:48 pm

I expect history to remember Bush as the president who held the country together after 9/11. Whether this will be a plus or a minus will depend on which history books you read, by whichever author has the political views you agree with.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Gary has one thing right. Shrub will be remembered for regime change in Iraq. Remembered for overthowing a very nasty dictator of a second or third rate country which was at most a limited threat to others in the region.

Shrub will be remembered for reducing the stature and credibiility of this country with the rest of the world, and sapping its financial vigor in order to take out a pipsqueak who ran a secular operation that had little or no influence on matters Islamic, and similarly was a disnterested party in the Islamic terror movement with which we supposedly are at war.

Oh yes, Shrub will be remembered for doing that. This ranks as among the greatest of his questionable accomplishments, and so pales in comparison to Reagan facing down the Soviets, Truman rebuilding defeated enemies in Europe and Asia, Nixon kicking open the door with China, inter alia. So weak a man that the best he could do is sink his country into unconscionable debt to take out a third rate thug and in so doing sink the reputation of the country for his short sighted aggrandizement.

Glad we finally see eye to eye on something Gary!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 21, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Boomer,

Try to take a slow breath. Hypervenilation is an unhealthy thing.

Reagan was severely critized by the left, in the 80s. His victory in the cold war pretty much put them at bay. Many of the criticisms against him were of the same variety as you now spew against Bush.

Saddam was not a third rate thug. He was the real deal. The appeasers in the 30s called Hitler a third rate tin pot dictator, not worth opposing. They got that one wrong, big time. Bush is smart enough to realize that Saddam needed to go. One thing you lefties like to ignore is the reality of Saddam still in power. Walk us through that one, Boomer...step by step.

In terms of national debt, this is deja vu all over again (acknowledgement to Yogi). Reagan was accused of the same thing. Of course, as we have all learned, major tax rate cuts stimulated the economy and we grew our way out of the funk we were in. We need to do the same thing again, at this point. Don't you agree?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 21, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Boomer, Gary has been around for a while - on this and other websites, trotting out his personal mythology about Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a side-figure in the Soviet fall, all the big Soviet insiders have admitted as much. Ask any highly-placed Soviet bureaucrat what Russia was like in 1978 - they'll all say that Soviet Russia was already done for - virtual dog meat. If Carter had won in 1980, the Soviet would have fallen anyway. That's a fact.

What's really sad is that Reagan - who was great at giving speeches written by gung-ho and talented speechwriters (he shuold have won an Academy for some of those) - he wasn't very good on executing post-defeat scenarios, just like Bush.

Look what happened to Soviet infrastructure after the Wall came down. We basically let it get into the hands of greedballs who were Reagan insiders, with the help of the old Commie bosses. Thanks, Ronnie - for the Russian Mafia, and Vladmir Putin - the end result of a post-defeat strategy that didn't even exist.

Heck, the old man had Alzeimers, for crying out loud - but all the Repo insiders wanted to keep cleaning up, so they kept him around. Ronnie was a good actor, with a kind face (too many people forgot that he was "out of character" as Prez - what a shame). His Presidency would have made a good film.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by TruePatriot
a resident of another community
on Jan 21, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Reagan knew that communist Russia would soon crumble from its own internal rot. That's why he never gave in to the disarmament race, in spite of all the liberal caterwauling, hate speech and fear mongering.
Carter would have done everything neatly backwards by catering to all of Russia's pretentious demands.
I guess Mr. "so called" Patriot would have had president Reagan forcibly institute an American style government in Russia after its fall. We could have used a man perhaps, like MacArthur to work out the details. Can you imagine what the liberals would have said then?
For the record, Reagan personally wrote most of his own speeches. He was a true leader. One who motivated others with his ideas and great vision for our future.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 22, 2008 at 1:57 am

Jimmy Carter retired the title of Worst President.
The rage against Bush is the dying quiver of an increasingly irrelevant MSM. The MSM Two Minutes Hate finds fewer relevant practitioners every day. Those who hate unconditionally lack the wisdom to keep their foolishness private.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 9:44 am

Patriot,

You DO enjoy fairy tales! That little riff on the Soviet Union being ready to topple in 1978 is a leftist myth. A good review of the era is Peter Schweizer's book "Reagan's War". It is available through Amazon. At least try to become semi-educated on the subject. Reagan won the cold war. The Soviet Union lost. The official spin from the old Soviet bosses is that we both lost (another in a long string of lies).

BTW, I have never posted on other websites.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2008 at 10:24 am

I love scenario based planning, let's do some, based on Gary's suggestion of Saddam not getting taken out by Shrub.

War on Terror--US focus would have been on those truly involved in it in places where they existed, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

Weapons of Mass Destruction--focus would have been on North Korea, Iran, and rogue elements trying to get their hands on them, instead of concocting evidence of such in Iraq as a pretense for taking a guy out because Shrub could

Spreading Democracy in the Islamic World--focus would have had more credibility, since the US would not be viewed as a bully trying to impose its own values and regime change on a part of the world that is unaccustomed to self-governance principals. Shrub Administration hypocracy around the Palestinian's "elections" and the Pakistani election debacle would be a big problem still, but the Iraq matter would not add to the complications. BTW, there are many other dictators who have not been singled out for the favorable treatment Saddam received who are just as awful in their own ways. Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Burmese/Myanmar generals, the east African Sahara regimes in Somalia and Sudan, to name a few. Things have gotten worse around the question of democracy in those places the last few years.

The Iran matter--no opportunity to create mischief across the border in Iraq with its Shiite factions. US opportunity to leverage Iran's initial overtures of coopetation after 9/11 into a more normalized relationship than has not been the case since the 1970's. Chance to head its nuclear ambitions off at the pass through engagement instead of saber rattling.

Our armed forces--fresh and ready troops, prepared to defend the country and global commerce. Equipment in good supply and good repair, monies available for next generation of tanks, planes and ships. Veteran's hospitals not overloaded with people who are actuarily going to be a moral obligation our society owes them for 40 or more years.

Oil prices--probably not much difference. Iraq oil supply is still unpredictable as it was before Saddam was toppled, and demand by China India and other rising eoconomies are creating structural demand growth that will be with the world indefinitely.

And Saddam himself in Saddam's Iraq--infrastructure in country would continue to deteriorate due to sanctions and trade embargos. Continued domestic brutality by his Pratorean guards in the throes of toppling as power slips gradually out of his hands. Sectarian factions gain gradual control of regions, with US air forces protecting the Kurdish areas, the Sunnis enjoying the umbrella of Saddam's corrupt benificence, and the Shiites continuing to get screwed and agitating for regime change. More of the same, in other words. No abiity to conduct military excursions outside of the country due to depletion and exhuastion from the Kuwait and Iran debacles in the prior dozen years. Continued ostracization by his neighbors, which distrust him, don't like his secularism, and are themselves scared to death of being toppled by internal insurrection.

My only observation on Shrub fiscal policy such as tax cuts and the like: When times are good, Shrub wants to cut taxes. When times are bad, Shrub wants to cut taxes. HIs policy on taxes is pretty clear and easy to understand, and has nothing to do with his foreign policy, as best as I can tell.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 11:10 am

Boomer, here are a few you forgot to mention:

1. Continued "no fly" zone enforcement, with planes based in Saudi Arabia. That seemed to really piss off a few people, especially
OBL.

2. Continued decline in enforcement of sanctions. Major corruption of the UN goes along for the ride.

3. Continued growth of Saddam's power, following his loss (to the U.S.) in the Kuwait war. He was getting a good cut on his kickbacks, and Europe was more than happy to take his oil dollars to provide much of what he wanted.

4. Continued development of WMD. He had them and used them and the only way to establish that stockpiles were not there was to invade. Hans Blix was completely unbelievable. Saddam had every intention of getting his stockpiles back. By this time, he would probably have them back, becasue the sanctions were actually working in Saddam's favor by allowing him to corrupt so much of the world. He was good at that.

5. Continued impotency of the U.S. when its interests and the world's interests are challenged. Not good for perceptions, not to mention ethics. Much better to be the tough guy that takes on the bully than to be the weak coward who always allows the bully to get his way. It's no wonder that Europe hates Bush...they are cowards, with the shame that goes with it. Same for the American left, btw.

6. No chance of democracy in the mideast in our lifetimes. No purple fingers.

7. Continued proliferation of mass graves in Iraq, according to the need, as Saddam enforced his will.

8. Saddam would not have been hanged. That would be a real shame.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Atherton
on Jan 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm

So THOSE are the reasons to unilaterally invade a country and be stuck with all the unintended consequences?

That's your scenario if Saddam were still in power, and by implication why we should have invaded?

Hey, let's do that in some more countries while we are at it. I can come up with several that fit that grid.

Flimsy is how I view your arguments, but they are probably along the lines of how Shrub approached the matter, so I guess you have a kindred spirit in the White House.

Take an extension course at Stanford on political science and international law. Read The Prince.

As someone who voted for Reagan, and have always considered Saddam to be a despicable ruler, I hardly think I can be labeled a lefty or an appeaser. My point of view for several years is that we have a mediocre leader in the Oval Office with poorly thought out ideas of what this country's conduct should be in its foreign policy. And, like his grades at Yale, he gets at best "C's" when he is put to the test.

There were no clean ways to deal with this creep in Baghdad, Shrub merely embarked on the worst way, did it ineptly, and is leaving untold consequences in his wake that the country and world will be dealing with for years. The ice cool reception he was given during most of his stops on his recent Middle East boondoggle, and the local press reports by media that is controlled by governments that are supposedly our allies, spoke volumes.

Shrub is a weak man, has been a poor President, and has left this country worse off as a result of his stewardship. Fortunately, the rest of the world is able to look past the particular man and the office he holds, and hold the country in decent regard, and kindle some hope that the electorate here has the presence of mind to vote in someone who is competent.

But, Shrub does like keeping taxes low, I will give him that. It's affecting some decisions I am making this year about some things we own which are subject to capital gains. I'm not waiting until the next election on that one, no siree.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 3:22 pm

"I can come up with several that fit that grid."

Let's see it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Atherton
on Jan 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Gee Gary, I'm crushed, I thought you read my postings before you responded to them. Scroll up a bit, no need for me to repeat myself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Gary,

Reagan won the Cold War? You have to be kidding. I think you need to be reading something other than apologist histories.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

A more balanced view, showing the Gorbachov influence
Web Link

Also, don't forget the Vatican factor, good old 'Rock and Roll" (western memes were seeping in), etc. etc.

Reagan had a *part* of defeating the Soviets, but he gets way too much credit that is due others - including Carter.

Read some history...



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Boomer,

I thought you would come up with a credible metic. You know, things like strategic national interest, realistic military scenarios, congressional and UN approvals, threats to allies, levels of brutality, WMD, etc. Instead, if I read you correctly, you offer: Zimbabwe, Burma, Somalia and Sudan. The only one of those places with strategic interest to the U.S. is Somolia (Horn of Africa). If you recall, Clinton did a cut and run there, so our toast is cooked on that one (we helped Ethiopia get itself involved there, but it will be a mess for quite some time).

What am I missing, Boomer?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Just using your grid, Gary, to come up with other examples. Perhaps you should judge Iraq by the company it keeps with others in that grid.

On the things you subsequently invoke, I already commented on those when I participated in your scenario based planning exercise. You overplay the notion of US strategic interests calling for the type of intervention that Shrub brought about in Iraq. I have never said that Saddam was a boy scout, nor have I suggested that the Middle East is not of strategic interest to this country.

Our interests in that region have been severely harmed, not enhanced, by this tilt at windmills. The treatment Shrub got on his recent visit by his hosts and the press was polite on the surface, shameful in reality. He was excoriated in a non-free press controlled by our so called allies, and accomplished none of his stated objectives while he was there. No agreement by his hosts about dealing with Iran as Shrub would like to, no genuine movement between Israel and Palestine, no change in oil policy by the Saudis or others. I place no trust or confidence in Shrub to understand what our true strategic interests are in that region, let alone be able to carry out policies that meet them.

For example, Iraq....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by TruePatriot
a resident of another community
on Jan 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Nice try, "Patriot".
As I said earlier, Reagan knew that communist Russia would soon crumble from its own internal rot. Your web links above confirm this. It is not surprising that Russians - and liberals would wish to deny or downplay what Reagan accomplished.
The idea that Carter deserves any credit here however, is really laughable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Patriot,

From one of your own links:

Web Link

It is a short read, and does not provide all the detail that Schweizer's book "Reagan's War" does, however it gives the basic elements.

Gorbachov, a good man, was fatally flawed in his belief that socialism could be be reformed. He also has his own pride. He ends up being his own apologist. The Soviet Union lost, and the U.S. won...we did NOT both lose, as Gorby claims. Clearly, you took the bait, Patriot. You will have to live with it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 6:04 pm

"I have never said that Saddam was a boy scout, nor have I suggested that the Middle East is not of strategic interest to this country. "

That is always the problem with the Bush haters. It typically takes the form of, " Saddam was a bad guy, but ____________ "(fill in the blank).

My question for you, Boomer, is: But what? From your previous posts, I take it that you would have just gone along to get along. Continue the sanctions that were breaking down? Wait until Hans Blix pronounced that Saddam did not have WMD (as if that meant anything)? Make strong statements at the UN (once again)? Drop leaflets to the Iraqi people that freedom is only 30 years down the road...be patient? Tell our pilots that getting shot at, on a regular basis, is just part of sensitive negotiations, that will continue for the next ten years? Exactly what, Boomer, do you have in mind?

You claim to have voted for Reagan. If you are that intelligent, you MUST have an intelligent answer. Or did you lie about that Reagan vote?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 6:20 pm

"From one of your own links:"

It's YOUR llink, not mine... :)

Out of context, Gary...the National Review is a mouthpiece for the Neocons and You'll have to do better than that.


and then you said:
"Wait until Hans Blix pronounced that Saddam did not have WMD (as if that meant anything)?"

Turns out that Blix was right, and Bush was wrong. Bush, wanting a war anyway, to pad his oil buddy's pockets,


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Patriot,

You should read your links more thoroughly. The link I posted WAS in your link. You need to work a little harder, Patriot.

Hans Blix completely failed in his assessment of Saddam's nuclear program. If you had done your homework, you would realize that Blix was upstaged by Saddam's son-in-law. I am not going to explain it to you, because I want you to make an effort. Hint: Start with Google....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm

uh, Gary, there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq - dah!

and, I did your Googling for you - look up...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 8:07 pm

"uh, Gary, there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq - dah!"

Patriot, just to help you out, I will posit the possibilities:

1. Saddam clearly had them, because he used them. Remember all those gassed Kurds and Iranians? Therefore, either:

a. He still had them (the belief of several intelligence agencies around the world)...or

b. He hid them or trucked them out of country...or

c. He destroyed them, but pretended that he still had them... or

d. He destroyed them but actually thought that he still had them.

Take your pick. However, nothing that Hans Blix would have reported would have been believable, becasue of his (Blix) complete failure on the nuclear program issue after the Gulf War (a complete and utter failure).

Do your homework, now, Patriot. It will build character.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm

"Saddam clearly had them, because he used them" and blah, blah, blah

BUT he didn't have them just before the invasion - AND they still haven't found any serious WMD stock

ALL of your theories are just that - "theories" - pure air - just like the Bush rationale for the war. Seriously, this is the biggest putz ever to grace the Oval Office. A pure embarrassment. No matter where one travels, we're a laughing stock because of Bush. Sad.

Bush went to war because he could, not because he had to. We and the rest of the world are paying a huge price for that

About homework: you need to keep looking for those weapons, because nobody else has found them. Guess your argument is hash, until you find those weapons, Gary.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 22, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Patriot,

Is is difficult to try to use logic with illogical thinkers, but let me simplify things for you:

If a major stockpile of WMD were to be found in Iraq desert tomorrow, would then say that Bush was justified to attack Saddam? If not, why not?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 9:59 pm

"If a major stockpile of WMD were to be found"

So that's what your argument boils down to? "If"? Is that why so many lives have been lost, and treasure squandered? Sad.

Your comment implies that we went to war for nothing. There are no WMD.

But, there is oil, and there are contractors to be paid, and there are political favors to make.

Bush is a smart man who went south, who has betrayed the very Christian morals of the very base that supports him. He and his administration are the most cynical in memory. There's never been anything like Bush, and he will be remembered as an example of how NOT to be President. That's his gift to America.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of another community
on Jan 23, 2008 at 12:04 am

"Patriot", your arguments are all foam and no latte. You just can't figure that GWB out.
One minute he's a dolt and the next minute he's smart and cynical, running a huge government scam for oil and political favors. You don't know if you're comming or going, or what to accuse him of next. Like you care about christian morals. All you know is hatred for the man and it's eating you up.
And here GWB isn't even going to be runnig again.
Gary is right, history will judge GWB without the histrionics. Foam eventually dissipates.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 23, 2008 at 8:20 am

When every intelligence agency in the world says there are WMDs and Bush believes, Bush lies. When just one itty bitty agency says there are no WMDs, the haters proclaim pure gold. This is your brain - this is your brain on hate. [sizzling sound]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2008 at 11:25 am

A CEO for whom I once worked liked to use the comment, "Don't swat flies with sledge hammers."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Boomer,

I have worked for three CEOs. I liked one of them. He said, "Stop the small stuff before it gets big".

Now, having traded little anecdotes with you, Saddam was hadrdly a fly or small stuff. What are you talking about?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm

And there's Wally and Gary, still unable to show - like Shrub - any of the world Iraq's WMD.

Lame.

In the meantime, wile eyes have been diverted to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to develop ever-strong terrorism bases.

This is Bush's legacy - a $2T war - and countless deaths - because he took his eye off the prize.

Wally, Observer, and Gary can crow all they want - there are no WMDs in Iraq, and we are no better off for having been there. A tragedy, indeed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Patriot,

Preemptive wars, based on intelligence reports, are probably going to be the model for the future. Even Putin's top general said as much last week.

Why? Becasue the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action, in these times. Leaving Saddam in power would have only bought a few years, before he broke out again, with newly minted WMDs. Be prepared for a possible joint operation against Pakistan, if the fundmentalists take over (fully supported by Presdient Obama or President Clinton, btw). It will possibly involve Russia, U.S. and India. It should also include the EU, except that they are infected with self-induced impotence and self indulgence.

If Iran does not back off the nuclear weapons threat, it will, preemptively, be attacked by Israel. What other choice does Israel have, if it wants to survive?

If France and England had listened to Churchill, and preemptively attacked Germany in the mid-30s, millions of lives would have been saved. History always repeats itself, no matter what, so here we are again.

Just in case you do not realize it yet, Clinton or Obama or McCain...or whoever, will start up the military draft, again. Why? Becasue this jihad is not going to end anytime soon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Some gutsy neo-con predictions there, Gary, about the end of the world and western civilization.
Brought to you by the same people who said that we'd find WMDs in Iraq (better yet -- that they knew where they were).
The same people who said that the whole action would take days or weeks, not months or years.
The same people who said that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators.
The same people who said that there would be no sectarian violence.
The same people who said that the American taxpayers wouldn't have to worry about the cost of the war because it would be completely paid for through oil revenues.

Those are quite a number of big issues on which these people were not just off the mark but completely and totally wrong. So why should they be believed now or ever again?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 23, 2008 at 5:25 pm

D.,

Thanks for the back handed compiment.

As to your laundry list of questions/assertions, perhaps you will want to ask them again in a few years, when a Democratic president launches the inevitalbe preemptive war(s). Obama has already suggested it for Pakistan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

"Preemptive wars, based on intelligence reports, are probably going to be the model for the future."

Maybe, byt certainly not premtive *botched* wars, like Iraq. You keep trying to defend a loser, Gary. It doesn't instill confidence in your opinion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 23, 2008 at 5:49 pm

"Maybe, byt certainly not premtive *botched* wars, like Iraq"

Patriot, that is an interesting comment. WWII was botched all over the place. Would that all wars go perfectly, like the Gulf War...but that, sadly, was an abberation. What will you say when President Obama sends the Marines into Wisteristan to get OBL, and it doesn't go perfectly?

In the meatime, Bush has done exactly what was required at this moment in history.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 24, 2008 at 4:06 am

Preeemptive war? Was the Normandy invasion pre-emptive or a continuation of a war in progress as the Invasion of Iraq was?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 24, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Boomer and Patriot,

Perhaps you might want to watch "60 Minutes" this coming Sunday. Seems like Saddam liked to get cozy with his FBI interrogator.

Web Link

"He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDto reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says."

We are lucky to have Bush. He stopped this guy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Jan 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm

You all might want to read this report.Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm

"On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda"

Now Peter, I am not about to read 532 reports, but it is fair to say that Saddam "... had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them" Why? Becasue he used WMD against the Kurds and Iranians, and becasue he had every intention of getting back on track with them. You hatiots hate to admit these facts, but...facts are facts. Ain't that a bummer?

The issue of Al Qaeda is misconstued by the hatriots. The issue was whether Saddam could, possibly, pass along WMD to Al Qaeda. What responsible adult would conclude that he would not? It would be perfect Saddam theatre: Hurt the the U.S. or Europe or allies, with no fingerprints. Saddam was completely calm about using enemies of enemies as friends...as long as it was useful. That is what made Saddam Saddam, and Stalin Stalin. Nothing mysterious about all of this.

Although I despise (and pity) hatriots, it would at least be more interesing to hear from intelligent members of that camp. For example, Kim Philby was a hatriot, but he was intelligent(although not intelligent enough to ralize that Stalin would consider him a triple agent). I am still waiting for some intelligent answers as to why the attack on Saddam was wrong. All I hear is pablum.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2008 at 4:43 pm

My remarks were neither back-handed nor complimentary. The neo-cons and their sympathizers (of which your comments on this forum make you one) were wrong at *every* *single* opportunity about Iraq. Not a few times, not most times. They were wrong about each of the crucial issues in my post.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm

D.,

OK, let's take your points one at a time:

1. "end of the world and western civilization". Not the world, D., but possibly western civiliztion, if we cut and run. Jihad is serious business. If Saddam gave WMD to Al Qaeda, that would up the ante, ya think?

2. "Brought to you by the same people who said that we'd find WMDs in Iraq ". Are you talking about Tony Blair? Or French intelligence agencies or the CIA? Even Saddam said he had them!

3. "The same people who said that the whole action would take days or weeks, not months or years." OK, D., I suppose you can find a quote like that, but I can't remember it. Please provide the evidence. Remember now, you are talking about the "whole action", not just the initial bombing and invasion.

4. " The same people who said that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators." The U.S. invasaion WAS greeted by the Kurds and Shias as a liberation. Not too surprising that the Sunnis thought otherwise. In fact, the Shias took it on the chin for a long time, before they struck back at the Sunnis.

5. " The same people who said that there would be no sectarian violence." Please provide the reference. My recollection is that Iraq, having been liberated from Saddam, would embrace their new freedoms and work out their differences. I think that is happening. Too bad the Sunnis took the wrong track for a few years, but it looks like they are starting to see the light. The Kurds are doing pretty well. The Shias held their powder dry for quite a while, then lit it up, in response to Sunni arrogance. Al Qaeda overplayed its hand, and the Sunnis are now alligning against it.

6. " The same people who said that the American taxpayers wouldn't have to worry about the cost of the war because it would be completely paid for through oil revenues." As Iraqi oil output continues to increase (as it has), the reduction in cost of oil to the American consumer will mroe than pay for the finacial costs of the war. Iraq is now pumping more oil than it did before the invasion, and it is on track to pump record levels in the next few years. In fact, Iraq is sitting on a lake of oil. It is about to become an extremely rich country. This fact is good for them and good for us (and the world).

I will add one more thing: This war is a relativley low cost affair, compared to other U.S. conflicts. The stakes are very high, so some sacrifice is expected. You don't agree?







4.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2008 at 9:34 pm


* Feb. 7, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, 2003, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s."

* March 11, 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney, on Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."



In case you'd forgotten that the WWII analogy doesn't apply here, after D-Day, France did not devolve into Catholic vs. Protestant violence, and they did not set off IEDs against British and American forces.

As to your comment about WMDs: Rumsfeld said that he knew where they were. Guess what-- they weren't there. Your fear-mongering about "what if he gave WMDs to al-Qaeda" holds absolutely no water. Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and no links to al-Qaeda. I'm frankly surprised that you'd cite Saddam Hussein to back up your case. Wow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 25, 2008 at 11:49 am

D.,

As I recall such comments, they were about the main battle, not the occupation. I don't think anybody thought that the U.S. would be out of Iraq in less than 6 months. We have been in Germany and Japan, for example, for over 60 years. Korea for over 50 years.

Bush was pretty consistent on "However long it takes". The U.S. made mistakes, in hindsight, as it did in WWII (e.g. Dieppe, Tarawa, Holland, Ardennes). Of course, that is 20/20 hindsight vision. Wars are messy things, and this one is no exception.

According to the preview for the 60 Minutes piece, Saddam judged the U.S. as too weak-willied to invade, based on how Clinton acted. Should be an interesting show to watch.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Jan 25, 2008 at 4:55 pm

The Iraq war has been over since May 2003. President Bush said so, on the deck of that aircraft carrier he flew his plane to in the middle of the ocean, right below a big mission accomplished sign. Don't any of you people watch TV?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 25, 2008 at 6:47 pm

- Saddam judged the U.S. as too weak-willied to invade, based on how Clinton acted.

Now we know what it's all about: showing off Bush's will.

Bush's willpower got Saddam killed at last, and it got 3930 (so far) American sons and daughters killed doing it.

Let's all admire our president's steely resolve.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 25, 2008 at 7:24 pm

"Bush's willpower got Saddam killed at last"

YES!

Clinton had no willpower. Saddam recognized that fact.

BTW, it was FDR's (and Stalin's) willpower that got Hitler killed. Cost us about a couple hundred thousand American lives, give or take. We could have just decided to appease...but FDR would have none of that. Stubborn SOB.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 26, 2008 at 9:25 am

Jesse: Again, the "Mission Accomplished" bull...People like you fail to understand military talk on "Mission". The mission WAS accomplished..Saddam was toppled. What makes you think that it also meant "and now there is an overnight peaceful democracy which has sprung up with no work"?

That is the problem with this whole "discussion". One side understands facts and context, the other side doesn't.

GARY: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN REPEATING WHAT WE HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER ALREADY.

Sometimes I think the left in our country wins simply because they have the patience to wear us out with their repetitions..I am starting to think we have to do the same thing...ad nauseum...and I thank you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 26, 2008 at 9:29 am

"Patriot", your arguments are all foam and no latte. You just can't figure that GWB out. Gary is right, history will judge GWB without the histrionics. Foam eventually dissipates." by Observer

When every intelligence agency in the world says there are WMDs and Bush believes, Bush lies. When just one itty bitty agency says there are no WMDs, the haters proclaim pure gold. This is your brain - this is your brain on hate. [sizzling sound" By Walter

Observer and Walter: Your humorous and pithy statements have made my day. May I quote you?

Thanks!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 26, 2008 at 12:52 pm

"Sometimes I think the left in our country wins simply because they have the patience to wear us out with their repetitions"

Perspective, as a former leftist myself, I fully understand the tactics. Thus my own repitition against the lefist hatriots.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Jan 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm

perspective: Right thinking Americans take our president and his vice president at their word. You closet lefties can split hairs and parse everything and listen to the liberal media all you want. The fact is our president plainly said this mission was accomplished. That means the war is over. Period. The bull is all this wishy washy hooey from you and your left coast friends. The war was over in 2003 and we won it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Saddams a liar
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jan 28, 2008 at 1:02 am

2. "Brought to you by the same people who said that we'd find WMDs in Iraq ". Are you talking about Tony Blair? Or French intelligence agencies or the CIA? Even Saddam said he had them!

But Saddam admitted to the CIA that he was lying! Sorry to break it to you, but this makes all your other points moot.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Welcome, Gary. Nice to have a hood-mate on this thread. Too bad we don't agree on much else.

You say: "it was FDR's (and Stalin's) willpower that got Hitler killed... We could have just decided to appease [Hitler]"

Uh-huh. That old myth of appeasement preceding the noble war, warmed all over again. How about a more recent example, the refusal of Kennedy and Johnson to "appease" Ho Chi Minh before Nixon spent 6 years doing just that and losing the war and more than 50,000 GI lives anyhow? Appeasement may be a hushupword for many, but not for this writer.

Iraq was about removing Saddam and his phantom WMDs and (later) about installing a phantom democracy, if you believe Bush and his neocons. Apparently some people did and some still do. But I think spending 3930 lives to get one man is a ludicrous ratio. Too many "victories" like this will sink us. You may disagree.

WWII was not fought in Europe to "get" Hitler. Its objective was to eradicate the fascist system which, before it turned on us, was regarded by many Americans as a major ally against Communism (another hushupword). That goal had to be personalized as "hang Hitler" to incite the less strategically-minded, emotional American public, but the war was at its base a conflict of ideas and systems. That was a much larger goal, and it's why Germany was thoroughly de-Nazified at the war's end.

Meantime, in Iraq Bush and his minions are preparing to do the equivalent of re-Nazification, installing the old Baathists in charge of the Iraqi government and paving the way for the next Saddam. It's like putting Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, and their crowd back in power in Germany.

American leadership has fallen a long, long way since FDR and Truman.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm

"WWII was not fought in Europe to "get" Hitler. Its objective was to eradicate the fascist system"

Paul, how does this differ with our MUCH lower cost war to erase fascism in Iraq?

FDR could have focused his war on Japan, since, afterall, Japan attacked us, not Germany. He, wisely IMO, focused on Germany first, because ti was, essentially, a moral cause. Hitler was quite willing to cut a deal with the U.S. (and England), early on, but neither FDR nor Churcill wanted any part of it.

It doesn't sound like we really disagree on the essential elements, Paul. Bush is the FDR of our time. FDR was critcized by many, as Bush has been. However, there is one big difference. Those who hated FDR kept their mouths zipped while we were at war. The hatriots refuse to do as much this time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 2:22 pm

"Paul, how does this differ with our MUCH lower cost war to erase fascism in Iraq?"

Maybe you got this one nailed, Gary. Maybe the reason Bush & Co. are about to put the Baathist fascists back in charge in Iraq is the USA didn't spend enough to eradicate fascism there yet. Maybe we can clear the cost bar on round 2, right?

Maybe you can also help me on this conundrum: why did Bush give Castro's lefto-fascist Cuba a nice free pass?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 2:39 pm

"Maybe the reason Bush & Co. are about to put the Baathist fascists back in charge in Iraq "

Actually, Paul, the mid-level functionaries should have been put back sooner than this. The top level guys are out for good, unless of course, they are as valuable to us as top level nazis were after WWII. Truman, Ike and JFK were more than happy to use those guys. Who do you think put us on the moon first? Not to mention significant intelligence about the Soviet threat.

If the next couple of presidents do not mess it up, the mideast fascists, along with al qaeda will be toast.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm

"Actually, Paul, the mid-level functionaries should have been put back sooner than this."

You say the Bushies made an error by removing them, Gary? Good for you. You've gotten beyond denial, and you're on the road to correction. Good luck.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm

" "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDto reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.""

But the WMDs weren't there, were they? That's what Piro claims Saddam said. They still aren't there. the Iraqis have still not a clue about self-governance. Bin-Laden is till at-large. Pakistan and Afganisatan have gotten worse, as we've taken our eye off the prize.

Bush and his cronies are incompetent; it's a double tragedy that 9/11 happened on his watch. It's almost as if Bin-Laden helped put him in office, because he needed help with his terrorist campaign.

Bush: easily the most incompetent president in 80 years, and overall, the worst President in American history.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 28, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Patriot and all others who think like Patriot: pretend for a moment that you don't hate Bush and Republicans..just for a moment...and take an exercise in intellectual integrity.

Now pretend that a guy who lives in your city, but across town, was recently paroled after having served his time for having illegal arms in his home. Pretend that now he has told the city, repeatedly, that he is developing an arsenal in his backyard whereby he plans to blow up his neighbors if the city doesn't do what he wants...and in the meantime he is reponsible for multiple counts of domestic violence and more..

Ok, now pretend that his friends are telling the city that "no, he has nothing, he is bluffing". Pretend that all the rest of the city says he does. Pretend YOU live in the area he says he wants to blow up..who do you believe? What do you want done?

Me, I would choose taking him out, even at risk to myself, in order to stop much worse from happening.

But, I don't put my head in the sand...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Paul, sure the Bushies made errors. So did the FDR war planners. They all make errors in wars. It is hard to tell at the time, because hindsight is 20/20, but yes, errors are made. The erros that Bush has made hardly compare to those FDR made, buy hey, why make such judgements in the middle of a war?

I think you and I can both agree that Bush is fighting to erase fascism, not to mention alqaeda, in Iraq.

Bush is lookin' better all the time. Don't you agree?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 28, 2008 at 5:16 pm

"Me, I would choose taking him out, even at risk to myself, in order to stop much worse from happening."

Instead, Bush killed a few hundred thousand, and saved his own skin.

Gary, you're being waterboarded by Shrub's sinking numbers. Keep gurgling...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 6:26 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Yes, Gary, as they like to (and too often have to) say in Bushland, mistakes were made.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Lat week, quoting General Petreas in Iraq: "There is no light at the end of the tunnel"

also, I wonder why no GOP candidate is grabbing the Bush mantle. Seems they're all quoting Reagan. Could it be that Shrub has failed, again? That would be consistent with his earlier experiences in life.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,471 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,701 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,629 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,382 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 885 views