Unless your name is General David Petraeus, your opinion on the war is irrelevant

July 10, 2007 at 1:51 pm (POLITICS)

Unless your name is General David Petraeus, your opinion on the war is irrelevant. 

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/07/unless-your-name-is-general-david-petraeus-your-opinion-on-the-war-is-irrelevant/

38 Comments

  1. dp said,

    Eric,

    You are a very misguided person. Why shouldn’t the American people speak up about a failed policy? After all, they have a Constitutional right to do so and THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT.

  2. Carole said,

    “If I need advice on how to hold peace rallies while simultaneously practicing hate speech, I will consult Moveon.org and the Daily Kos.”

    Well said, Eric. Good column.

  3. Sue said,

    dp…short for dip?

    Just kidding…..

    Shouldn’t people wait for the policy to fail BEFORE they speak out? Didn’t you read the column? Duh!

    Say you are backing a new designer at his show. You are at the show, the lights come up on the runway, the music starts, the announcer says ‘Monique is wearing…’ and you’re all ‘That’s it, this is a failure, I’m outta here!’

    Make any sense to you?

  4. BB-Idaho said,

    Unless you are Gen Petraeus, your opinion is irrelevant: absolutely true..When I wrote my congressman to vote against something as ill-conceived as a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, he blew me off with a form letter, back in ’03. He’ll come around one of these days….

  5. Lord Nazh© said,

    Nice column, but you’ll only get 2 responses… 1) agreement (preaching to the choir) and 2) outrage!@$!2$! and non-factual ’emotive’ responses from the koslings

  6. armilnov said,

    to dp:

    “You are a very misguided person. Why shouldn’t the American people speak up about a failed policy?”

    So, let me understand:
    –when you disagree with policy, you *speak up*
    –when I agree with a policy, I am *misguided*
    (please, do not misunderstand – I am fine with disagreement, just wanted to double check 🙂 )

    to Lord Nazh :
    “Nice column, but you’ll only get 2 responses…”
    YES, I have the same problem — I am searching to people whom I can debate, but it is hard. Most of them either agree , or disagree in a manner that makes it not worthwhile. It is sad, really….I guess, a good debate is hard to come by.

  7. Amy Proctor said,

    That’s not totally true, but I will say that from our experience with Petraeus here at Fort Leavenworth (my husband is active duty and worked under him until he went to Iraq in January to take command of MNF-I), he’s a genius on counterinsurgency. He’s definintely THE man to go to on the war. He’s also very up front and non-poliitcal. That’s just who he is.

    Anyone who understand the conflict in it’s historical and overall context is worth listening to on this issue. Unforunately, that totally excludes the Democrats. Bush is right about this war. We had friends over a couple days ago (he was Special Forces in 2003) and among our conversation was how necessary it was to do this. People outside the military simply don’t have access to the same information (like behind the scenes boards where soldiers in theater from commanders on down post about the intricacies of the war in their sector and discuss lessons learned, experiences, etc.).

  8. micky2 said,

    If we bail on Iraq prematurely like the left wants us to, we also be wrong for letting the inevitable blood bath take place. Human rights activist and the like will freak.

    Letting anyone but the Iraqis control that oil is global suicide.
    Iran is the perfect example of how these kind of funds will be used.

    dp, you said; ” why shouldn’t the American people speak up about a failed policy/”
    The point is that people are speaking up “before” the policy has completed its course.
    One other thing I think most people dont pay attention to is the failure of the Iraqi Govt to start taking care of things. These guys are more worried about revenge than progress, thats the mentality in the Middle east.
    If they get it together or not is the least of my concerns. We have to protect ourselves by not letting Iraq become a hornets nest.
    That would be a policy that will go on for a long , long time ,and you are willing to critisize it after 5 years, and the surge as soon as it started. It took 30 + years to get to this point and will probably take that long before we defeat the enemy. But with your attitude the enemy will have us by the balls in a year.

  9. LewWaters said,

    Although I am not a fan of McCain, he lit himself on fire today as he spoke out in support of Bush and Petraeus.

    http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?ID=1101

    He at least can see that “the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?”

    From the antics of the defeatist Democrats, I have say that they aren’t.

  10. dp said,

    By ‘policy’ I can only assume you mean the surge. I ask you this…what kind of policy is it that has our fine military, the best in the world, patroling the streets of Iraq like policemen, not being able to define the enemy until they’re attacked? Our military are not Iraqi police. We’re providing target practice for muslim extremists.

    We can debate it all day long and I’m sure both sides can come up with it’s own points, meanwhile, our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, uncles, cousins and neighbors are dying in pools of blood in the streets of Iraq, fighting for something that the Iraqi’s WONT fight for themselves.

    And Sue…yeah, it’s exactly like a designer at his show. Sure. Only with a lot more blood.

    You all can believe I came here from kos if you want, but the truth is, I’m more conservative than any of you. Conservative means much more than opposing abortion and having a willingness to kick ass if you have to. It also means having the restraint not kick ass when you don’t have to. And all the while we speak, our brothers are still dying in the streets, thousands of miles from home, for something the Iraqi’s don’t understand or want.

    They’re dying in the streets so we can protect our oil interests, when we get the vast majority of OUR oil from THIS hemisphere. Yeah, I’m sure it makes sense to somebody, somewhere. It makes the most sense to those of us here, who aren’t bleeding.

  11. Carole said,

    “They’re dying in the streets so we can protect our oil interests”

    And with that statement sir….I can no longer respect you. Enough.

    The bottom line is simple, sir. We are at war on two fronts; First, we are at war against islmac terrorists that have been plagueing the world for decades. These people never hesitate to let their intentions be known concerning anyone IN THE WORLD that does not believe as they do.

    The second front is political, and is the most dangerous to America. Tragically, the opposition to Bush doesn’t care about anything but their hatred of the man, and so for all of the years he’s been in office we have had one idiotic claim after another, all with no basis in reality. It is so blatantly apparent to those of us clear eyed realists, our jaws drop with incredulity at how you and others like you can honestly call yourselves thinking individuals and still say things like the above with a straight face.

    Ironically, the left has loudly decried Bush any chance they’ve gotten for politicizing ANYTHING, yet they blithely and egregiously treat this tragic war in which MANY WORLDWIDE have been dying for decades, as a political ping-pong ball to be aimed in whatever direction they think politically expeditious.

    How SHALLOW. How egregious. How SHAMEFUL! But this is not the worst of it. You cry about them ‘dying in the streets’, yet your own political opposition in congress planned a ‘slow bleed’ on none other than our OWN TROOPS! It’s true. And for what reason? To win? So the dying would cease? NO! So the troops would be disabled, vulnerable and destroyed! A slow….torturous….betrayal and abandonment by the very country that sent them. For what purpose? All so Bush could not have a victory on his record. That, sir, is not only treasonous, it is cruel and unusual! Diabolical! Heinous!!

  12. MoiOz said,

    Keep up the good work!

    Your Ozzie ally

  13. Honza P said,

    Thanks for the link. John’s post which you responded to was in large part a response to my monster post http://prosandcons.us/?p=5268.

    I’d also point out that the left (and some of the anti-war right, but less, to be sure) argued long anbd hard ofor a change in policy and crityicised the President for sending too few troops and then largely pretended that Petraeus’ appointment and the surge do not constitue a change instrategy. It is arguably (but probably wrongly) a bad strategy, but it is dishnonest to claim it is not a change in strategy. More accurate, if still likely wrong criticism, would be that the surge might be doubling down on a bad bet, or that our presence there prevented the Saudis and jordanians from turning local Sunni revanchistes against AQI and the hard-line Mahdists who are Tehran’s catspawns.
    One suspects that they are not interested in the facts on the ground there, only here. Reminds me of Manzinkert.

  14. David M said,

    Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 07/11/2007
    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  15. dp said,

    Carole,

    What do you mean “your own political opposition in congress planned a ’slow bleed’?

    Are you thinking that I’m on the side of the Democrats? I have very few allies in Congress.

    Any of you who are still fighting the R vs D fight, you are dupes. You are doing EXACTLY what they want you to do. Ever heard the saying ‘divide and conquer’? These folks have Americans divided like America was some kind of football game and Hannity and Limbaugh are cheerleaders. Turn off those that are thinking for you and begin to think on your own.

    There is no difference between the R’s and the D’s, and it does not matter which ‘letter’ gets elected in 08, we’re still going to attack Iran too, and Iran has done nothing to us and they are not a threat to our national security, EVEN WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

    I apologize that my statement offended you Carole, but to think that this war has nothing to do with middle east oil interests, is simply naive.

    OK, let me lay this out for you…we were attacked on 9/11. Foreign terrorists, mostly Saudi’s in our country illegally, killed 3000 people on American soil.

    Why?…because they hate our freedoms? Because they hate our way of life? Despite what we’ve been told, no, that’s not why. They attacked us because we’ve been meddling in middle eastern affairs for more than 50 years. When all this started, Bush actually let it slip, on the air, that our mission was to ‘change the face of the middle east’. He said it ONCE and never said it again. I SAW HIM SAY IT.

    That’s been our mission in the middle east for over 50 years. What would we think, here in America, if a more powerful country had been here, killing and bombing us and forcing their way of life on us for over 50 years? Despite how you feel about the middle east and their people, that land IS theirs, just like America is ours and they will fight and die to protect it and their ways of life just like we would do here.

    So, we undertake this massive ‘War on Terror’, AGAIN in the Middle East. We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. Yeah…right. They are already here, 9/11 proved that. So, what do we do here? Do we secure our borders and ports like LOGIC would dictate that a country at war and that has already been attacked from within would do? Do we detain and deport those who are here illegally? No, we take away the 4th Amendment constitutional rights of American citizens. We take away the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus. But we don’t secure our own country against anyone who wants to come in and kill more Americans?

    Folks, we are not fighting a war on terror, our ruling elite, Democrats AND Republicans, are fighting a war on American civil liberties and they get you to go along and willingly give up your distinct American freedoms out of fear.

    Meanwhile, the push to erase the very sovereignty of America goes full steam ahead, behind the scenes and very few even see it. Ever read about the SPP? The Security and Prosperity Partnership that our president signed with Canada and Mexico? Are you ready to join a North American Union just like the EU? Think that’s just a conspiracy theory? You won’t after August of this year.

    You do know that Congress unconstitutionally tranfered it sovereign constitutional power to enter into treaties with other countries to the president right? In the ‘Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority in the Trade Act of 2002’? It took the combined votes of Republicans AND Democrats to do that. Nevermind that it’s not authorized by the Constitution.

    Reports are that the plan is going to be presented to Congress for a North American security perimeter and a North American ‘economic block, that includes the US, Canada and Mexico, just like the EU, and they are going to do it ‘to make you safer and more prosperous’. They are no longer going to patrol the borders of your country. In fact, your borders will be little more than speed bumps. This is the exact same way the EU was formed.

    Folks, the people you are following, your Republican president and MANY of the Republicans in Congress, ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. They are neo-cons or ‘new conservatives’ and their movement started on the far left. They are Trotskyites. How many Republicans in your government would you consider conservative? Not very many I would wager IF you’re old enough to know or remember what true conservativism is.

    Now, how many Democrats would you say are conservative? None! Your beloved Republican Party has been infiltrated by the left folks. You claim to be, and actually believe you are conservatives, but you’re following leftist policies.

    Look back over the last 60 or 70 years. What party got us into wars? It was the left.

    What party was elected to end those wars? The Republicans. That’s back when Republican meant conservative. Republican no longer means conservative. It means neo-con.

  16. dp said,

    There is no ‘liberal or conservative’ in your government anymore. There is the left, who are socialists, and there is the right, who are neocons, and they are also socialists.

    Your ‘conservative’ president has spent your country almost into bankruptcy. He has introduced the largest entitlement program this country has ever seen. He campaigned on a humble foreign policy, with no nation building like the left likes to do.

    Yet here we are, nation building in Iraq and calling for regime change in Iran. They have changed the meaning of the word conservative, and those who don’t know better follow right along, even though the policies are leftist. Those who understand conservativism stay conservative.

  17. mRed said,

    “You all can believe I came here from kos if you want, but the truth is, I’m more conservative than any of you.”

    A sure sign of a loser trying to make a point when his only point is that we’re in Iraq just for the oil, which as an untruth is no point at all.

    “Those who understand conservativism stay conservative.”

    Geez, RonPaulBoys should get another script, because this one is getting as old as “No blood for oil”.

    I really don’t know how much more conservative I am over the next conservative, but I’ve been a conservative since I was young, right through an all expense paid trip to SE Asia and working for Reagan and now.

    dp, what is your conservatism based on other than what you have heard? Oh, and your obvious need to be arrogantly right all the time. And that ain’t a conservative value. It is an all knowing, all seeing liberal value.

  18. dp said,

    Sir, my conservatism is based on the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. The founding ideals of this country that seem to have become a mere nuisance to our ‘leaders’ today. THOSE are conservative ideals.

    Instead of calling me a loser, you would be much more credible if you would address the facts that I’ve stated and prove them wrong, if you can.

    Did you know that the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to declare war” and yet that sovereign power also was unconstitutionally transfered to the President? Did you know that when this country was founded, it was set up with 3 branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial and the purpose of that was to maintain a ‘separation of powers’ so that the power to declare war and the power to wage war were always separate?

    How can you dispute the FACTS that I am stating? You certainly can’t do it by calling me a loser.

    It’s also a fact that roughly 60-70% of this country want us out of this war. That means I’m arguing the majority position and you’re arguing the minority position. Does that tell you anything? It’s not which one of us that ‘wins’ the argument that matters, it’s the TRUTH that matters regardless of where it comes from.

  19. dp said,

    “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” — Thomas Jefferson

    Have you read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence? You might also want to read the Monroe Doctrine. I’d trust the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe much more than I would those of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

    Remember NAFTA, started in G. H. W. Bush’s presidency and was signed into law by Bill Clinton?

    Remember George H. W. Bush’s speech in 1991 when he talked about that ‘New World Order’? What do you think he meant by that and why has America’s sovereignty been slowly dissolving since then, until today when our borders mean almost nothing, are not secured and are in fact, wide open for anyone to cross?

  20. mRed said,

    Son,

    I have read them all, many times. I have fought for them all. I have listened to pukes speak as if they are the mountain.

    You think every President can be a Washington, Jefferson or a Monroe? No wonder you are so naive to throw up straw dog arguments and change the discussion. Does someone teach this technique somewhere?

    RP Talking Points
    Blood for oil – check
    Quote Jefferson’s “entangling alliances” – check
    Switch discussion to NAFTA – check
    No difference between the R’s and the D’s – check
    Everyone is a socialist – check
    The US caused 9/11 – check
    The ruling elite variation on the trilaterist argument – check
    North American Union – check
    If you don’t agree, you’re a Neo Con (OMG, You’re a Jew????) – check
    Imply opponents don’t know squat about the Founder’s writing – check
    Troll websites with accusations – check

    What would Washington, Jefferson and Monroe do in our present situation? Do you think they’d bury their head in the sand and recite polls? Go read about Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. He kind of changed his mind about some things.

    Enjoy your majority opinion position. I’m sure Washington, Jefferson and Monroe would have stopped the revolution if the polls had said otherwise. Oops, wait a minute, they knew less than a third of the colonial population supported the revolution. Oh my God, they were arguing the minority opinion.

    Go lecture someone who might believe your Patrick Henry reborn. I wouldn’t. Henry believed in liberty or death and risked everything for it.

  21. dp said,

    Why are you so angry? Has something I’ve said challenged your beliefs? I hope so.

    Why do you attack me instead of attempting to prove me wrong? Can’t discredit the message so attack the messenger? Prove what I’ve stated is wrong if you can, but save your blowhard bravado for someone whom you might intimidate. That might work on the women and children, but it means nothing to me.

    I’m not attacking you and I’m not lecturing anyone, I’m simply stating facts which obviously you can’t refute. Remember, blogs and comments are all about facts and debate.

    Liberty or death? Tell me who is attacking your liberty? Is it terrorists or is it your own government? Who is attacking your country’s Constitution? Is it terrorists or your own government? Can terrorists take away your 4th Amendment rights? Can they strip you of habeus corpus? Did they fly a plane into the Constitution?

    Can you prove anything that I have stated is wrong or will you continue to attack me personally? If you can’t prove me wrong, what’s your point? Gonna beat me into submission?

  22. mRed said,

    Attack you? Angry with you? Beat you into submission? Hardly worth the effort. I have answered things that you have said in your comments. I answered them directly. I have not started throwing up other subjects except to answer you .

    I have rebutted things you have stated as fact when indeed, they are not fact, but if you want to play that game, refute anything any of us have said here.

    Are you saying that Washington Jefferson and Monroe were Isolationists and would not fight terrorism before it comes to our soil again? We’re not going to agree on who is to blame for the 9/11 attacks so answer the present, not the past.

    Please remember, just because you think you are a patriot, it does not give you the right to question our patriotism nor our ability to read and understand the Founder’s writings. It also does not give you a right of righteous indignation to try to lecture us on the basics of freedom. You ain’t qualified.

    Be a peer instead of trying to be a lecturer and you just might find we have some common ground. And some common respect.

    All men are created equally, but each person must earn respect throughout the rest of their God given life.

  23. dp said,

    “We’re not going to agree on who is to blame for the 9/11 attacks so answer the present, not the past.”

    I think we do agree on that…don’t we? Terrorists, mostly Saudi’s?

  24. mRed said,

    Yes, generally. Terrorists funded by many Islamic counties including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others. Specifically, al Qaeda. The Saudi participants were members of al Qaeda.

  25. dp said,

    So, do you believe we need to go to war with all those countries?

    Do you honestly believe that all the people of those countries are just crazy with hate for us because we’re free? Or does it make more sense that they hate us because we’re meddling in their territory and have been for 50 years?

    It is a fact that we have been doing so, right or wrong, and both the 9/11 Commission Report and the CIA both speak of blowback from this policy of intervention.

  26. micky2 said,

    dp,
    You said; ” and both the 911 Commision Report and the CIA both speak of blowback from this policy of intervention ”
    The CIA and Homeland security did mention that. But if you put in context { remember that stuff ? } they were speaking of the intervention as a result of going into Afghanistan and Iraq. And it was mentioned at the hearings as way of describing the reasons for radical Islams hate for us. It was not an implication that we stop functioning around the world as we do. And it did not imply any wrong doing on Americas part.
    Most of the countries you are refering to have welcomed us for reasons of commerce. You make it sound like we just plopped our ass down and put up a Starbucks on every corner.
    These terroristic spineles punks that make the claim that the west is evil are the same devout Muslims that go to Syria and buy sex from Iraqi refugee girls and drink Corvousier. And then drive away in a Toyota pickup with a Mac laptop on their Levis, smoking Marlboro reds and taliking on a Motorola cell phone.
    No matter how you would like to paint yourself or the situation the facts are and will remain the same. And those facts would be all the sneek attacks on us by these punks in the last 30 years , you can find a list just about anywhere. If you contest , I will show you all the attacks on “INNOCENT” people that these punks have performed in the last 30 years.
    By the way if you are not R or D how come you only picked Hannity and Limbaugh in post # 15 ?
    And as far as the ” The policy question you had in # 10 goes , READ the last paragraph in the post that you assumed was about the “recent” surge “policy” . It is predictably small minded and short sighted to think thats all I was speaking about so I clarifiyed in the last paragraph that you are unaware of. { Did you see the 30 year part ?}
    The policy I am refering to and one that would { might} help most liberals understand this .war , is a policy that went into place right after 911. “If you’re not with us your against us” Remember that ? That is the policy. And this has been the enemys policy for decades.
    As far as agreeing on who caused 911 goes , sure, you can concieve it any way you want , but Al Queda pulled the trigger.
    And any body with a shred of common sense would be able to figure out that if we were in this for the oil it would not make any sense since the cost of the war would bring the cost of gas from Iraqi crude a totally rfidiculous price. Besides that, it would of been a HELL OF A LOT CHEAPER TO JUST BUY IT ! So PLEEEEASE stop with the oil crap already, alright !?

  27. dp said,

    “The CIA and Homeland security did mention that. But if you put in context { remember that stuff ? } they were speaking of the intervention as a result of going into Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    That’s not true. The CIA has been warning us for years. Years before 9/11.

    “It was not an implication that we stop functioning around the world as we do.”

    It absolutely WAS. I suggest you read up on the CIA warnings. They definitely suggested changes in policy. And I don’t think “functioning” is exactly what we’ve been doing in the middle east. Unless you want to call regime change in Iran when we gave them the Shah, functioning.

    “And those facts would be all the sneek attacks on us by these punks in the last 30 years , you can find a list just about anywhere.”

    But why? Why have they been attacking us for 30 years? And WHERE have most or many of those attacks taken place? In the middle east?

    “By the way if you are not R or D how come you only picked Hannity and Limbaugh in post # 15 ?”

    Because they are the top 2 cheerleaders for war.

    “And as far as the ” The policy question you had in # 10 goes , READ the last paragraph in the post that you assumed was about the “recent” surge “policy”.”

    So, you would be willing to let this go on for another 30 years? That absolutely amazes me. I don’t want it to go on for another 30 minutes so it’s pretty certain we’re not going to change each others minds. I suggest we don’t try.

    “So PLEEEEASE stop with the oil crap already, alright !?”

    There are now 27 posts to this article and I have mentioned oil twice. Once in my original statement and once in another comment. Other folks have brought up oil more than I have and I never said we went in to TAKE oil.

    I don’t now and never have opposed the war in Afghanistan. It was absolutely necessary, though I do wish Congress had actually followed the Constitution and declared war. I do oppose the nation building after the war though. We should have completely destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda and left.

    I was opposed to the war in Iraq because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even if they did have WMD’s at the time, they were not a threat to us or our national security. Another reason I opposed it was because we basically went in to enforce UN resolutions and I don’t think the US should EVER do that. We are not the UN’s personal army or police.

    I want an end to the war in Iraq now because our military are not Iraqi police and they have been placed into the position of policing the streets of Iraq. We have the finest military in the world and they have been reduced to the role of policemen in a foreign country. That also should never happen.

    Folks, we’re miles apart on this, and although I do appreciate the discussion, I believe it could go on forever without a lot new being said. Shall we discuss the domestic issues I posted above now?

  28. Barb said,

    Eric – Nice post, and especially to the point on Gen. Petraeus. I recently read “In the Company of Soldiers”, in which journalist Rick Atkinson spent time embedded with Petraeus during the initial advance into Iraq. It was very interesting, both on the details of the action that he observed, and as a window into David Petraeus … for me it was a useful intro. I certainly expect his evaluation at the proper time to be in the vein you mention. And until it becomes time for him to make that presentation, the naysayers should Shut Up – because their opinion is less than worthless, it is detremental to the troops and to morale.

    DP – word of advice. Your last para sounds a lot like a demand. If you want to expound, get your own blog. Doesn’t cost anything, and you can blather all you want on your choice of topics. This is Eric’s blog – and he gets to pick ’em here.

    Just sayin’.

  29. micky2 said,

    dp said;
    ” I was opposed to the war in Iraq because Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Even if they did have WMDs at the time, they were not a threat to us or our national security. ”

    PLEEESE stop with the ” Iraq had nothing to do with 911″
    I dont know why you {whatever you are } people keep banging on that drum. The statement is thin and worn out and not at all why we are still there.
    #1, Gassed thousands of Kurds
    #2, Was un- cooperative with weapons inspectors that were there as a result of peace treaty agreements stemming from Gulf war. This lead us to believe he had WMDs. By the way we shouldnt of told Saddam we were coming. I think he got a head start.
    #3, SHOT ! at our planes 7 times in no fly zones put in place as a result of Gulf war peace agreements to protect Kurds etc… ” That is an act of war.”
    #4, Broke oil for food agreement and used United Nations as a filter to sell food for cash.
    #5, Was paying Iraqi families 2500.00 to send one of their family members to Afghanistan as suicide bombers. ” That is an act of war .”
    I would call acts of war a threat to National security.

    Regime change was not a hidden agenda. Bush said on National TV that Saddam had 3 or 4 days to get out of the country.
    The pre-emptive attack was based on a percieved threat that we could not tolerate due to the fact that 911 was not percieved as a threat soon enough.
    The only reason we are miles apart on this is beacause you have done some traveling on this issue with no guide. Without that guide you fail to understand why the country ovewhelmingly decided to go to Iraq. Unfortunatly you and a lot of people forgot after 911 just how vulnerable we were. We played kumbaya with the world after the gulf war as a result of Clintons lack of balls , and we got soft nd look what happened.
    You want to change subjects just because \you dont get it, but I get you.
    If your domestic issue is about people having the right to speak up, you’re doing it now. And then the last time I checked you had the right to vote no matter how much Erics blog or anyone elses bothers you.
    I dont like some of the things you said, but I’m not stopping you just because I believe you shouldnt say it.
    I believe Eric is trying to point out that it would be nice if someone could finish what they are doing before anyone shreds it to pieces. Its called class and common decency. Thats why things are the way they are right now. The left is getting so frustrated and impatient that they are resorting to being as nit picky about everything as they can be. And its to bad they dont treat the enemy with half as much zeal as they do every move the president makes.

  30. dp said,

    “PLEEESE stop with the ” Iraq had nothing to do with 911″
    I dont know why you {whatever you are } people keep banging on that drum. The statement is thin and worn out and not at all why we are still there.”

    Why stop with that statement????? IT’S THE TRUTH! You want me to stop SAYING IT because you’re tired of hearing the truth? I don’t give a damn what you’re tired of hearing, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S THE TRUTH! That’s exactly why you don’t want to hear it, because there is no logical argument against it! I’m not banging any drum, I’m speaking the TRUTH!

    1. They gassed the Kurds with TECHNOLOGY THAT WE GAVE THEM! Was THAT intervention? Were we meddling in the middle east when we gave them those weapons and that technology?

    2. Were un- cooperative with weapons inspectors that were looking for weapons THAT WE GAVE THEM to fight Iran!

    3. SHOT at our planes 7 times over THEIR COUNRTY! Would we shoot at foreign war planes flying over America, regardless of any ‘sanctions’ any other nation placed against us?

    4. Broke oil for food agreement and used United Nations as a filter to sell food for cash WITH THE CONSENT OF THE UN WHO KNEW AND DID NOTHING. THEY WERE COMPLICIT! YET WE FOUGHT THAT GULF WAR TO ENFORCE UN RESOLUTIONS?

    5. Was paying Iraqi families 2500.00 to send one of their family members to Afghanistan as suicide bombers. ” That is an act of war .” So…it’s OK for us to commit acts of war against them FOR YEARS, but if they fight back, that’s ‘an act of war’? We had already bombed the hell out of Iraq since 1980!

    You can list all the regurgitated neocon reasoning all you want, it just doesn’t cut it with me. Iraq was NOT a threat to our national security! Fact. Period! They are more of a threat NOW than they have ever been! And I don’t give a damn if you’re tired of hearing that!

    You’re defending a government who has adopted pre-emptive war and nation building as a policy. THAT’S A LEFTIST POLICY!

    Your defending a government that has stripped you of many of your constitutional rights in the process!

    You’re defending a government that is fighting a ‘war on terror’ 7000 miles away, at a cost approaching 2 TRILLION DOLLARS, when our national debt is now 8 TRILLION DOLLARS, yet they absolutely and catagorically REFUSE to spend any money to secure your own borders.

    You’re defending a government who will be JUST AS COMPLICIT in the next terror attack on American soil as the terrorists are, because they are not securing the ‘homeland’! I hate that fucking word, it reeks of socialism.

    If you can look at the above facts and call any of it CONSERVATIVE, then you sir, are NOT CONSERVATIVE! You may think you are, but YOU’RE NOT!

    And you can call me anything you want, but that DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACTS DOES IT?

  31. dp said,

    mRed said:
    “What would Washington, Jefferson and Monroe do in our present situation? Do you think they’d bury their head in the sand and recite polls? Go read about Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. He kind of changed his mind about some things.”

    They would not have INTERVENED in the middle east for the last 50 years, in the first place. They would not have backed and supplied Afghanistan against the Soviets. They would not have backed and suppiled Iraq against Iran. They would not be building bases and embassies all over the middle east.

    I know all about the Barbary pirates. They were north African Muslims who were attacking and plundering OUR trade ships and taking our people and forcing them into slavery. We went over and kicked the shit out of them and they stopped attacking us. What we didn’t do is then to turn and attack a neighboring area who had nothing to do with attacking our ships.

  32. Donald Douglas said,

    That’s an awesome post. Very well said!

  33. micky2 said,

    dp

    Truth is in your head.

    When someone says the war on terror is 7000 miles away, he is in need of Physcotropic drugs, a good nights sleep, or rehab.
    Should we wait to get our ass’s fed to us again ?

  34. dp said,

    See ya.

  35. micky2 said,

    K

  36. Hippo said,

    Love to stay and fight in IRAQ – simple truth is we cannot afford ($$$) to stay for any period of time and keep fighting.

    I’m for a draft we need more soldiers for a long struggle to come – and start putting pressure on other countries to pony up some funds or people.

    Later

    — Hippo

  37. dp said,

    At the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the senior ground commander in Iraq, said that while he would be able to provide an assessment of the progress of the new military strategy in mid-September, it would take at least 45 days beyond that to know with more certainty whether the strategy was working.

    “In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November,” he said during a video briefing with Pentagon reporters.

    http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6741965

  38. General Petraeus, Please tell the entire truth « THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS said,

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: