Part of message I received from contact in Baghdad

[Elderdude]

Finance Dude,
If you aren't angry about the our current president's actions, decisions, and appointments, you just aren't paying attention. But I seem to notice a lot of that in our youth. Probably gay, flag burning, abortionists at the root cause.

 

[Brat]

By 'stand up' I intended to convey that this is their country, not ours, and they need to figure out how to create a safe place for their citizens. Personally I think the Bush administration was inept and bit off more that it was prepared to chew. I heard today a US commander say that he expected that the US military to be in Iraq indefinitely, like we have been in Germany or Japan - I don't think that is what most Americans want to happen. Within the next 5-10 years budget choices must be made. Where does the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq stand on your spending list?

One of the factors our leaders failed to consider is how communities function in the middle east. They are based on extended family (tribal in the larger sense) relationships to a great extent. It is difficult for them to put nation ahead of their group self interest, their borders were created by foreigners. After all "nationhood" is a relatively recent concept in Europe and it is evolving even now with the EU.

We and they must now deal with the fiasco.

 

[JohnEyles]

As pointed out, this is very much not true, not even close. The fact that "urban legends" like this are circulating among people who otherwise seem capable of knowing what's going on in the world troubles me. A week or two ago, in another thread, a poster stated that the current debacle in Iraq has now taken the lives of more American soldiers than Nam. How can people have such gross misunderstandings about something, Nam, that is so clear and close to me?

Good points. Here's an interesting article talking about Vietnam vs Iraq casualties:

http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/

 

[youbet]

Good points. Here's an interesting article talking about Vietnam vs Iraq casualties:

http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/

An interesting read Rusty, thanks. I agree with the authors that for an individual combatant, Iraq may be as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than Nam. It's a little tougher to go along with their scaling of the absolute numbers to be equivalent. I think the absolute numbers are important.

edited to add: It's my hope that the absolute numbers of US troop casualties in Iraq never comes close to the absolute numbers that died in Nam.

 

[bssc]

I heard today a US commander say that he expected that the US military to be in Iraq indefinitely, like we have been in Germany or Japan - I don't think that is what most Americans want to happen. Within the next 5-10 years budget choices must be made. Where does the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq stand on your spending list?

Kind of odd statement given that in Germany and Japan, the locals were not trying to blow up US occupation forces in their country. My uncle and Dad were in Japan in the late 40s and talked about how nice everyone was to them, even though we had just recently bombed the heck out of their country.

 

[bssc]

Finance Dude,
If you aren't angry about the our current president's actions, decisions, and appointments, you just aren't paying attention. But I seem to notice a lot of that in our youth. Probably gay, flag burning, abortionists at the root cause.

I understand that they hug unborn baby whales too.

 

[bssc]

A recent poll revealed something like 47% of Americans think Saddam funded and planned the 9/11 attacks.

The Zogby poll calculated that 85% of the troops felt that they were attacking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. However, 72% of them wanted to have all troops out by the end of 2006.

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

 

[FinanceDude]

Finance Dude,
If you aren't angry about the our current president's actions, decisions, and appointments, you just aren't paying attention. But I seem to notice a lot of that in our youth. Probably gay, flag burning, abortionists at the root cause.

I'm older than you think........... I guess I'm the only guy on here that holds Congress accountable. While I don't agree with MOST of Bush's decisions (I am a Conservative), Congress sits on their hands and does nothing. Funny how Clinton fired all 93 federal attorneys, and noone cared. Gonzales fires 8, and he's dragged before Congress.............nice double standard.............

 

[samclem]

The Zogby poll calculated that 85% of the troops felt that they were attacking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. However, 72% of them wanted to have all troops out by the end of 2006.

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

That's an interesting poll, thanks for the link. Fairly big differences between Guard/reservists and AD personnel, and between Marines and Army personnel. I'd be interested in learning more about the personnel they talked to. Also, since the stuidy is a year old, I wonder how the opinions of military personnel now in Iraq compare to those who were serving there a year or two ago.

 

[Brat]

Funny how Clinton fired all 93 federal attorneys, and noone cared. Gonzales fires 8, and he's dragged before Congress.............nice double standard.............

Check your facts: it is customary for a president to fire ALL when he takes office. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have done that. It is unheard of for a sitting president to fire attorneys for political reasons. If this was AOK then why did Gonzales' assistant plead the 5th?

The absolutely WORST situation for the confidence of the citizens is the feeling that the actions of the Justice Department are the result of partisan politics... be the Republican or Democrat.

Yes Congress is accountable for NOT asking hard questions before authorizating the Iraq venture. Remember it was controled by the Republicans at that time.

 

[lets-retire]

Kind of odd statement given that in Germany and Japan, the locals were not trying to blow up US occupation forces in their country. My uncle and Dad were in Japan in the late 40s and talked about how nice everyone was to them, even though we had just recently bombed the heck out of their country.

After WWII, it took several years before all of the unrest settled down in Germany. The locals were trying to blow us up, and their new government.

 

[samclem]

Check your facts: it is customary for a president to fire ALL when he takes office. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have done that. It is unheard of for a sitting president to fire attorneys for political reasons. If this was AOK then why did Gonzales' assistant plead the 5th?

I recommend you check YOUR facts: Clinton had Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys. That had NEVER been done before--in the past, they were generaly replaced when their terms were up and the administartion decided that they wanted somebody else. Some have speculated that Clinton did this to stop the investigation of his shady dealings in Arkansas being conducted by the US Attorney in Arkansas. After the US Attorney conducting that investigation was fired, the investigation was never resumed. Curious. He was replaced by a Friend of Bill who shelved the investigation.

Nooo--politics has NEVER entered into this stuff in the past. : It is shocking, just shocking!

 

[laurence]

After WWII, it took several years before all of the unrest settled down in Germany. The locals were trying to blow us up, and their new government.

Could you point to some data on this? How many U.S. soldiers were killed from 1946 to 1950 in Germany? I read a lot on WWII and until Rumsfield made this assertion I'd never heard of a German insurgency.

I think comparing this war to any previous war isn't a great idea. It's not WWII and it's not Vietnam. It probably won't be fully understood for decades, by then we'll have a new war that people will try to compare to it. Analogies can help simplify an argument, but often give it flaws as well.

As far as U.S. A. G. "Gonzo", Scooter Libby, Clinton, etc. etc. it's never the act that people get in trouble for, it's lying about it afterwards. Had he not denied it in front of Congress in the first place, this wouldn't have legs. He made no friends on the left calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and doing a lot of Bush's dirty work. But everybody's got their foot soldiers - look at James Carville (sp?). Difference is his job was to....spin the truth.

EDIT: ah, here we go: "In fact, to say that there were no organized resistance movements in post-World War II Germany and Japan is an understatement. Former Ambassador James Dobbins, along with the RAND Corporation, authored a study entitled America’s Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, which determined that there was not a single post-war American combat casualty in Germany or Japan."

So it's not even a tenuous connection, it's just not true. There is no way to spin zero combat casualties into anything equivalent to thousands of dead and wounded after "mission accomplished".

 

[bssc]

determined that there was not a single post-war American combat casualty in Germany or Japan.

What, you don't think that Patton was murdered by SS Werewolves and made to look like an accident?

 

[eridanus]

I recommend you check YOUR facts: Clinton had Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys. That had NEVER been done before--in the past, they were generaly replaced when their terms were up and the administartion decided that they wanted somebody else.

Reagan did, indeed, fire all 93 US attorneys when he started his first term.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2516&wit_id=6062

"The Reagan administration, for example, acted in its own interests much the same as the Clinton administration had in its when it sought the prompt removal of all U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration, notwithstanding the fact that most of the persons whose nominations were to be submitted had not been selected and many interim persons would be required."

 

[igsoy]

Not only did Reagan and Clinton do it, it seems W himself did it when his administration started. What is unprecedented is that W fired 8 attorneys halfway through their term whom he had nominated in the first place. Congress tries to investigate the reasons for the unusual firings and they are met with changing stories, obstruction, and taking the fifth so as not to incriminate oneself...

---An L.A. Times article, citing a Senate study noted: "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years," and citing a Department of Justice list, noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys."[102]---

 

[Brat]

Again: If this was AOK then why did Gonzales' assistant plead the 5th?

Top executives of the Justice Department afraid to tell the truth? Imagine that!!

 

[samclem]

Again: If this was AOK then why did Gonzales' assistant plead the 5th?

Top executives of the Justice Department afraid to tell the truth? Imagine that!!

Right. The innocent have nothing to fear from a little harmless interrogation.

We all know what is going on--a urinating match between the legislative and executive branches. The constitution has a perfectly good answer--the courts can compel testimony if Congress can make the case. What would Congress say if Bush said he was unhappy with some aspect of the way legislation was being crafted, suspected wrongdoing, and demanded that Congressional staffers come to the White House to brief him on their activities? They'd tell him to go to hell, and they'd be right.

Ref the other observations on US attorney tenures: Saying that after two years XX% of US attorneys are new does not mean that they were fired, and is also entirely consistent with their replacement/voluntary departure at the end of their appointed terms.

The real crux of this issue is not that Bush fired 8 US attorneys--everyone agrees he was perfectly within his rights to dismiss these political appointees either singly or as a group. What needs to be examined is the individual allegations that a particular firing was intended to achieve a political end (e.g. to halt an ongiong case, etc). We have a problem only if laws are being selectively enforced to achieve political results or for the personal nenefit of the President/his associates. By commenting on the present situation, Hillary Clinton has set a new standard for chutzpah. Cut now to the WSJ editorial page of 14 March, which says it well and reads in part:

"The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons. "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

 

[lets-retire]

Could you point to some data on this? How many U.S. soldiers were killed from 1946 to 1950 in Germany? I read a lot on WWII and until Rumsfield made this assertion I'd never heard of a German insurgency.

I think comparing this war to any previous war isn't a great idea. It's not WWII and it's not Vietnam. It probably won't be fully understood for decades, by then we'll have a new war that people will try to compare to it. Analogies can help simplify an argument, but often give it flaws as well.

As far as U.S. A. G. "Gonzo", Scooter Libby, Clinton, etc. etc. it's never the act that people get in trouble for, it's lying about it afterwards. Had he not denied it in front of Congress in the first place, this wouldn't have legs. He made no friends on the left calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and doing a lot of Bush's dirty work. But everybody's got their foot soldiers - look at James Carville (sp?). Difference is his job was to....spin the truth.

EDIT: ah, here we go: "In fact, to say that there were no organized resistance movements in post-World War II Germany and Japan is an understatement. Former Ambassador James Dobbins, along with the RAND Corporation, authored a study entitled America’s Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, which determined that there was not a single post-war American combat casualty in Germany or Japan."

So it's not even a tenuous connection, it's just not true. There is no way to spin zero combat casualties into anything equivalent to thousands of dead and wounded after "mission accomplished".

I can't find it now. I was surprised at the amount and length of instability in Germany. It comes as no surprise that Japan was quiet. Look at their history and the behavior of the few Japanese soldiers captured. Your quote says nothing about any instability, only that no Americans were injured. The country was split into four parts. Were there any injuries to the English, French, Russians? Were there attacks that injured Germans or damaged/destroyed areas that had been rebuilt? The report I read said there was unrest and bombings did happen. Just because there were no American injuries does not mean the attacks did not happen.

 

[FinanceDude]

Check your facts: it is customary for a president to fire ALL when he takes office. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have done that. It is unheard of for a sitting president to fire attorneys for political reasons. If this was AOK then why did Gonzales' assistant plead the 5th?

I believe it is political, like 99% of what goes on in Washington.

The absolutely WORST situation for the confidence of the citizens is the feeling that the actions of the Justice Department are the result of partisan politics... be the Republican or Democrat.

I submit that has been the case for a LONG time, but recently has be coming to light more often.

Yes Congress is accountable for NOT asking hard questions before authorizating the Iraq venture. Remember it was controled by the Republicans at that time.

Well, count THIS REPUBLICAN as someone who thinks we ALWAYS should have had an exit strategy............ I fervently WISH that bills for wars be seperated from "pork projects", not lumped in........talk about "inherent conflist of interest"...........

 

[eridanus]

He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

Disinformation from an op-ed in the WSJ?!? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.

http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf

In the table of US attorneys that have left before their 4 year term is over, I don't see a mass exodus in 1993. In fact, only TWO were dismissed before their term was over. They were both dismissed by Reagan.

Further, only 80 of 93 US attorneys resigned and were replaced in Clinton's first year. I'm not sure where that "10 days" comes from, except possibly from a freerepublic.com Clinton-forum-hatefest.


It is a pissing match between Congress and the White House. Bush can do what he wants with his attorneys. Unfortunately, Gonzales has now been shown to be a liar.

 

[2soon2tell]

How do you say "unwinable war" in Arabic?

Its about the oil first and foremost and everything else is secondary.

2soon2tell

 

[Brat]

Its about the oil first and foremost and everything else is secondary.

I think it is more complex than that. Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush I, so there may have been a little 'get even' there, maybe also that left Bush open to the uncritical acceptance of the propositions of others.

I also think the administration was so full of themselves and their ability to change the world with the greatest military that they didn't think critically.

 

[brewer12345]

I also think the administration was so full of themselves and their ability to change the world with the greatest military that they didn't think critically.

You really think they are capable of thinking critically? Pull the other one: its got bells on.

 

[bssc]

I also think the administration was so full of themselves and their ability to change the world with the greatest military that they didn't think critically.

What. I clearly saw Bush say that the mission was accomplished. Are you saying that he wasn't correct?