Posted 4 months, 20 days ago in 
Loading ...
Why do I continue to subscribe to The Daily Sentinel? It’s the little “humorous” characters that intrigue me. One trumpets a Harvard study that empirically tested his favorite notion that public criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq encourages insurgents there and emboldens terrorists worldwide. That study found a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets, but here’s the rest of the story.
Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs said, “Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost” to “anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war.” But he added that the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings.
“There’s a body of research … that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively,” he said.
For example, it might be a factor in forcing the Iraqi government to more quickly accept responsibility for internal security. In fact, from the data it was not possible to determine whether insurgent groups actually increased the overall number of attacks or simply changed the timing by changing the days on which they attacked in response to media reports.
The researchers stated that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars, and are concerned their research may be seized upon by supporters of the Iraq war to try and silence its critics. Who could that be?
The Daily Sentinel’s little “humorous” character summed his article up by stating, “Terrorists are no doubt interested in how the war is faring in this semi-representative little burg. The more interest there is here in whining than winning, the happier, and more violent, terrorists there will be.”
Should we trust characters who write only about the parts of the research that back their fancies and then label citizens exercising their constitutional rights to protest “The Grand Valley Ghouls”?
For real humor and fantasy, I’ve decided to stick to the Comics section!
LANCE OSWALD
Grand Junction
77 Responses to “Public debate helps military strategy”
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
whether you want to admit it or not, the terrorists aren’t stupid….they have their own web sites, blogs, forums, etc and i’m sure they catch american news with great interest…this war has so divided the country that almost unanimously decided to wage war on the terrorists and their supporting countries…it’s mainly because of this division that they’ve increased the attacks, mainly against their own people, and will probably continue the trend as we grow even more heated about the subject.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, in other words, when harry reid declared the war lost on the floor of the senate, the terrorists just shrugged their shoulders and walked away?
How about they threw a party that would have put both harvard and yale fraternities to shame?
When pelosi and reid declared the ’surge’ a failure before the first boot hit the soil, they just rolled over and took a nap?
Perhaps Mr. Oswald should stick to the comics as he suggests.
The ‘comics’ section of the papers are more reliable than the sources he uses.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hiteredneck and WLJ both imply that we should not debate the war in Iraq because it gives comfort to the terrorists. All the evidence we have currently supports the notions that we initially attacked Iraq on the basis of false premises and lies from the administration and that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe the war is wrong. So I guess the two previous commentators want the rest of us to just shut up and let the minority war mongers run the country. It ain’t going to happen!
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You’re right Class of 52. Hell no, we won’t just shut up.
hitekredneck:”it’s mainly because of this division that they’ve increased the attacks, mainly against their own people,”
So what’s new? They have been killing their own people since we helped them take Afghanistan back from the Russians. We (Neo-Cons Wolfowitz, Pearl,etc.) convinced Regan to give them the weapons and training to defeat the Russians which only made them more confident. Why did we do that? Because in those days Russia was considered the “evil empire” and by equipping and training the Taliban we thought they could bring down the Soviet Union. Instead the Soviet Union crumbled from within like a stack of cards. Had we had stayed out of that mess we could have had two of our enimies (the Soviets and radical Islam)destroyed or severly weakened without lifting a finger. The Neo-cons actually thought that with the defeat of the Soviets in Afganistan democracy would take hold in that country. That’s not what happened is it? Pull our troops and all of our weapons out of Iraq and allow them to annihilate each other. Then we return and take all of that oil which we have already paid for.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No JEF, we never said that we shouldn’t ‘debate’ the war.
What was said was that people like reid and pelosi should not declare that we have lost on the floor of the house and senate.
WMD’s, found, but not reported in the US media because it does not fit the agenda they have for the American People.
The Iraqi civilians actually do like us being there to prevent the chaos that would ensue,
But that’s not something you care about, from the statement -let them annihilate each other- which would also include millions of civilians, you would just as soon kill everybody that disagrees with your positions anyway.
By arming the Taliban, we turned Afghanistan into a quagmire for the russian government and that went a long way towards causing the collapse from within.
Had bill clintoon been a President, he would not have spent 8 years allowing uncontrolled expansion of radical Islam.
A real President would not have turned the other cheek repeatedly when American Embassies, Military facilities were attacked by those same radical murderous thugs who hide behind the Muslim religion.
Had bill clintoon been a real President, we would have never had the Twin Towers incident.
Nor would we have the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Had bill clintoon been a real President, he would not have destroyed the military to a minimal force, barely able to fight one war, much less two at the same time.
But he wasn’t, and we have to deal with the problem he created by refusing to be a real President.
Any more questions children?
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 6:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BS Willis.
WMD’s, found, but not reported in the US media because it does not fit the agenda they have for the American People. BS I suppose the weapons just vanished?
Yes, I care a great deal more for a U.S. civilian than I do an Iraqi civilian!
By arming the Taliban, we turned Afghanistan into a quagmire for the russian government and that went a long way towards causing the collapse from within. Not true, and even if it were it wasn’t worth it.
Regan did not want to arm the Taliban he wanted to talk to the Soviets.
Blaming it all on Clinton. Just more BS Condi Rice was asleep when she was told to watch out for airplanes being used as weapons. I think GW must have been chopping brush down in Crawford because he didn’t hear it either.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “WMD’s, found, but not reported in the US media because it does not fit the agenda they have for the American People.”
You cannot make a controversial and inflammatory statement like that without expecting to be challenged. So it’s time to put up or shut up, WLJ. Let’s see the evidence for that statement from credible sources.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 7:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Do your own homework jef.
When you pay attention to the real world, instead of the garbage you get forcefed by the party and TASS USA, you can actually learn things.
For me to do the research, and spoon feed it to you, you will learn far more than ignoring what I find and post here for you to refuse to read or accept.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 7:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “Do your own homework jef.
In other words you don’t have any proof. Well, since you could not put up, you know the alternative.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 11:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
yup, the alternative is to tell you to do your own homework.
Unless you are willing to admit that you just can’t seem to find any information on the subject.
But that would entail admitting that your ’superior intellect’ is somewhat short on the superior part.
Here’s a couple of hints, check the Scandinavian Countries for their news reporting. Australia and New Zealand would be good bets.
Most Asian countries did fairly well on their reporting.
In fact, about the only major country with a news shortage seems to be the US, who relies almost entirely on the major media outlets based in New York and Atlanta.
So, now you are equipped to do your own homework and either “put up, or shut up”.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 6:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm PM This User Report this comment
Hiteredneck and WLJ both imply that we should not debate the war in Iraq because it gives comfort to the terrorists. All the evidence we have currently supports the notions that we initially attacked Iraq on the basis of false premises and lies from the administration and that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe the war is wrong. So I guess the two previous commentators want the rest of us to just shut up and let the minority war mongers run the country. It ain’t going to happen!
when did i imply such a thing???…as for the “lies”, i’ve yet to see evidence that bush made em….yeah, the intelligence was faulty, and everybody, including your beloved democratic party rattled the war sabers…my ONLY point, is that the terrorist love to see the division on this issue….if you despise the war on any grounds, then by all means, protest to your little heart’s content….btw, why do you consider any who put the security of our country in high esteem “war mongers”?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The idea that we went to Iraq based on lies by our administration regarding weapons of mass destruction is itself a lie being perpetrated by Bush haters. It is a fact that weapons of mass desturction existed in Iraq because they were used both in the war against Iran and against the Kurds. It is also a fact that intelligence agencies from the US to England to Israel to Egypt all believed that WMDs still existed in Iraq. If the WMDs disappeared or were destroyed prior to the war, then those intelligence agencies were wrong. To say that Bush intentionally lied because he trusted in the information he was getting from multiple intelligence agencies is a deliberate lie by those who propagate it.
It is amazing to me that anyone would suggest that it was wrong for the US to help the Afghan freedom fighters (and they weren’t all Taliban) in their struggle against the Russian occupiers. It is Monday morning quarterbacking to say that if we had not the Russian empire would have collapsed on its own. I believe that it was the defeat in Afghanistan that accelerated the Soviet Union’s collpase.
And finally, to suggest that the Taliban and their more moderate muslim opponents would have destroyed each other if we had not intervened is ridiculous. I assume that anyone who suggests that it’s OK to let the muslims kill each other and then we can just walk in and get their oil would also approve of the genocide going on in the Sudan and in other parts of the muslim world.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you Lance! You are right on! Debate is good. The ability for dissent is the cornerstone of democracy. Tyranny is too great a price to pay for imagined security.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: So, now you are equipped to do your own homework and either “put up, or shut up”.
Any any debate the burden of proof traditionally rests with the one who makes a positive unsupported statement. It is not up to his audience to disprove what he has said. The party making the claim must submit evidence for the claim or else the statement will be considered just so much B.S. If I said to you: “we are all controlled by invisible flying aliens-prove me wrong” You could not do it (since it is impossible to prove a negative). The burden of proof would be on me, the one who claims a particular point. Most of us learned these elementary rules of logic and debate in high school.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hiteredneck wrote: “everybody, including your beloved democratic party rattled the war sabers”
As I have pointed out before I am registered as an unaffiliated voter. I vote for both Republicans and Democrats at nearly every election, basing my choice on who is more likely to act as a statesperson rather than a politician.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, you really are too lazy to look up the information for yourself?
” “we are all controlled by invisible flying aliens-prove me wrong” ”
No jef, in your case I think it may be true.
I gave you the sources.
For you to refuse to do your own research indicates a strong willingness on your part to remain ignorant of the facts.
So, you don’t really have to ‘put up or shut up’, just know that everybody on these boards will know that you are spouting from an uninformed, ignorant position.
Fair enough?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Classof52
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am PM This User Report this comment
Hiteredneck wrote: “everybody, including your beloved democratic party rattled the war sabers”
As I have pointed out before I am registered as an unaffiliated voter. I vote for both Republicans and Democrats at nearly every election, basing my choice on who is more likely to act as a statesperson rather than a politician. ”
bill clintoon was a ’statesman”?
What would that make Monica?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 7:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, I guess that would make Monica a blowfish.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Are you guys high school students on your lunch break? How else to account for this sophomoric attempt at humor. And this is your idea of a rational discussion of the issues?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “I gave you the sources”
You gave me nothing at all besides some vague mystical discussion. A source includes a reference to an actual publication or public statement with the details of page number, volume and/or date. This is generally something that one learns in high school or in English 101. Are you in fact a high school graduate?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little feller…
” You gave me nothing at all besides some vague mystical discussion. A source includes a reference to an actual publication or public statement with the details of page number, volume and/or date. This is generally something that one learns in high school or in English 101. Are you in fact a high school graduate? ”
I gave you the reference area of the library.
Do I need to go get the book for you to read, open it to the correct pages, and hold your reading glasses as well as turn the pages?
You really are not into doing your own research for this particular term paper are you?
Are you capable of doing your own research on any subject?
So far all we have seen from you is the typical “Hate America” and “Hate Conservatives even more” that is spouted by the ultra liberal whacko far left reaches of the democrat party.
But you hang in there, you will get an education.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think that it is pretty obvious that someone who who makes a bunch of wild claims but never is able to back them up with any evidence is not engaging in a reasoned discussion of the issues but is simply spouting B. S.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You mean like “bush lied”?
Or “there were no weapons of mass destruction”?
You just don’t want to go look because the facts presented elsewhere would put the lie to your claims referenced above.
As one of Adolph Hitlers cronies stated once;
“If you tell a lie long enough, and enough times, eventually it becomes the truth.”
So, now we know who your preacher was.
Have a nice day.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Todd,
Thanks for the forum
Willis,
Try not to be too hard on “Class of 52″. He obviously has a problem with civility and playing well with others. And it is no use to answer his complaints with humor. He doesn’t allow humor in his world.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A sure sign of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. Expecting Willis to provide sources for his wild claims is such a case. It will never happen and one would have to be insane to expect otherwise. He probably has a sign hanging around his neck that reads: OUT OF ORDER. Standby for the insult to follow this post.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good point, Einstein couldn’t have stated it any better: the definition of INSANITY (as it relates to the Bush administration) is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Just in case you have a serious case of amnesia, or perhaps were locked in grandpappy’s cellar for the past 8 years, do yourself a favor and take a little refresher course on Lies & Deceit by watching the Frontline piece titled “Bush’s War.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
It’s a hefty 4-hour commitment, but well worth it. And, it’ll make any rational American sick to their stomach knowing that they were part of this charade.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are right Kemosabe. As far as I can tell, judging by his many posts, WLJ is not interested in debating the issues in any rational way. He apparently gets off by making personal attacks, trying to irritate people by making little word plays with their names and in general engaging in what he thinks is humor but which is pitched at about the 10th grade level. I hope we get some intelligent right wingers on here who can present well reasoned arguments with evidence for their point of view. I enjoy hearing a point of view which I had not previously considered and perhaps learning something new.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 10:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kool-aid, Kool-aid tastes great, You’ll love Kool-aid, don’t wait.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s video of the moron-in-chief stating there were no WMD in Iraq. If we had found them, as willis believes, don’t you think those people who would most benefit from that info might have said something? Don’t you think george the boy-king might have said something about it, just so he wouldn’t appear to be a liar?
I guess we should have sent willis, over there, he would have found them, by golly!
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oops, here’s the link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
See, I thought you were posting a link that didn’t exist…
like the WMD’s that didn’t exist.
That would have been ironic, you know? But of course, the clip exists.
Maybe the WMD’s were just invisible. Y’know…stealth technology.
Bush is no moron. He’s allowed his cronies to plunder the Treasury, and gets to call anyone who argues with him on it “unpatriotic”…He’s fooled the masses into thinking the Patriot Act is anything less than an Orwellian nightmare. He’s sent thousands of our soldiers to their deaths, but if you point out the WMDs didn’t exist, you’re just helping the terrorists. He’ll walk out of the White House having made a lot of his friends even richer. Does that sound like a moron?
Mission Accomplished, indeed.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I saw that youtube clip. It does, indeed, provide a clear explanation of why it is necessary to change the Middle East and the fact WMDs were not found in Iraq does not mean that going to war there was not justified.
Al Queda is not an Afghan organization. Terrorists are not born terrorists. It is not a genetic trait. Terrorists are grown. Children are taught to hate. Governments in the Middle East allow this to go on. Until it is stopped, the free world will be under attack. How do you stop it? There are two ways. One is to try and change the regimes in Middle Eastern countries where these terrorists are bred so that it stops. If that doesn’t work, the alternative is not pretty.
Or you can take the position Clinton took. Which is to watch Al Quaeda attack over and over and over again and do nothing. He had Bin Laden in US gunsights and did not pull the trigger. That is also an option. Unfortunately that is what led to 911.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
See, toaaronuu? Even when presented with evidence from his own mouth “okay, okay, there weren’t WMDs, but we weren’t wrong….”, it’s all just Clinton’s fault. You know, you can blame Clinton for 9/11 if you like. I hate him, anyway. The 4000+ dead soldiers? I blame GWB and the interests he really serves.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain….or he’ll shoot you in the face.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No WMD’s? Ask the Kurdish people about that one (and yes I know he got them through the USA. Ask the Iranian people about poison gas. He had WMD’s and used then on his people as well as his enemies. He needed to go. The people of Iraq are glad he is gone.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you see the clip, you’ll see; he ADMITS it, and then explains it’s not important.
You are dead-solid right about one thing, in my opinion: Sadaam was indeed, an evil man, and needed to go. It’s just sad and tragic that it’s not the reason we went over there.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As to claims that Clinton did nothing,:
—
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2001; Page A01
Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden’s network that carried through his final days in office.
• In addition to a secret “finding” to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda’s senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.
• The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.
• Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden’s organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.
• The CIA’s directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden’s forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.
• Operatives of the CIA’s Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda’s tactical radios.
—
Combating terrorism is a job best done by policing agencies, like the CIA and Scotland Yard. Sending an army somewhere to fight terrorists is like trying to swat flies with a howitzer. Unfortunately, Bush the boy-king redirected anti-terrorism efforts to the great Clinton witch hunt, 8 months of frantic searching to find some dirt on the Clinton admin., which resulted in nothing. Not even a single indictment. Of course ignoring warnings and ‘chatter’ didn’t help either.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Using the same argument, Bush is declared by many in the world to be an evil man; therefore, shouldn’t he quickly clean out his desk and be escorted out the door by the American people? Maybe given a speedy & fair trial as a war criminal?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Operatives of the CIA’s Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda’s tactical radios.”——————–This is correct. And when they had him in their gunsights, the Clinton administration chose not to shoot.
Chancho, many in the world believe that infidels should not live. Should we allow them to carry out the sentence?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Guess that depends on whose hand currently holds the syringe/gallows/breaker box handle. We’ll (that is, the current government/administration) decide who does the killing around here, and who deserves to live (by our rules & religion, of course).
Also depends on who is in control of the “definitions” department. What defines an infidel - one who has no “faith” in the current White House occupants? One who believes that ALL of the world’s major religions have a hand in the continuing horrors & atrocities perpetrated against humanity?
Is John McCain’s chosen sky-god-mouthpiece Rev. Hagee an “infidel, ”since he’s stated that Islam is the “wrong religion?” Is the USA justified in advancing their now so-called “Freedom Agenda” in Iraq? Are we not terrorists just the same – by advancing our version of “freedom” at gunpoint?
I’m so confused. Who’s right & who is wrong? Can’t it all just be plain black & white, so I can get back to the putting green and tracking my defense industry & Halliburton/KBR stock portfolios?
Get back to me once you’ve digested the Frontline show that I mentioned above.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
CHancho, I am watching the show you suggested and I will get back to you when I’m done.
The term infidel to which I refer is the one used by muslim extremists. It would be the one used by Al Qaueda. You are confused about who is right or wrong? So, am I to assume that you are not sure yet whether 911 was wrong? Do you believe the US deserved what it got? I sat at a CU commencement ceremony where the main speaker said just that. And the crowd applauded him. Are you in that camp?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, “Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden’s organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.”
–
There was a time when we cared about collateral damage, killing innocents, stuff like that. They chose not to shoot because they weren’t positive who was in the gunsight.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s a link to to polling data suggesting that the Iraqi people want us out of their country as soon as possible: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As for the “Clinton destroyed the military” gambit, here’s Dick Cheney as G.H.W. Bush’s Sec. of Defense: “Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush’s father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:
Overall, since I’ve been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That’s the peace dividend. … And now we’re adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.
Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You’ve directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.
I’m not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Who’s army would win in a head to head match-up? Clinton’s army in 2000, or Bush’s army in 2008?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes willis, one more question. What, exactly is a “real president?” One who has spent over 40% of his presidency vacationing? One who sent his army into a war of choice? One who has overseen the accumulation of vast amounts of national debt?
–
Here Dr. David Brin comments, “After inheriting surpluses from Clinton, Bush has run up over $3 TRILLION dollars in debt. Bush’s FY2002 budget forecast understated the five-year deficit by $2.8 TRILLION dollars. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.4% when Clinton took office and 18.5% when he left, but is now back up to 20.8%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 325% during the Clinton years but only 27% during the Bush years. The S&P 500 increased of 309% under Clinton and 9% under Bush. Economic growth was considerably higher under Clinton than under Bush and small businesses grew even faster than giant ones. Isn’t that what we want?”
–
And who needs economic growth, anyways?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, Bin Laden was living openly in a compound in Afghanistan with his family. They could have taken him out then. The Clinton administration decided not to do it.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 3:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, re: post#45, I’ve looked and can not find a source for any such information. With all due respect, could you point me in the right direction?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 4:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh, are we talking about that black-sheep son of the bin Laden family? You know, the angry Saudi Arabian son of the Saudi Arabian dad (with 4 wives & 52 kids, to boot!) who made an immense fortune in construction services for the Saudi Arabian ruling elite, who ammassed these great fortunes by selling crude oil to America?
Is this the fella we’ve been searching for all these years? Maybe he’s home in Riyadh, operating a backhoe at the palace.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I did find an interesting report in the 9/11 commission report, regarding a plan to capture bin laden, and the reasons for not doing so were wide and varied. It’s section 4.1 if you want to check it out.
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog - I meant to get back to you on this - on the part about “infidels” and so-called “Muslim extremists.” Seems the label infidel can be used in a variety of ways. Maybe even in some Cuba jokes.
But, yes, I agree, that’s a scary lot. 72 dark-eyed virgins lounging in the land of milk & honey await those who sacrifice for the cause…like, educated fairly well-off Saudi Arabians flying airplanes into buildings? Man, that’s some far-out belief system, no? Such certainty and extreme faith in the power of historical text and wacky ideas! How could humans be so crazy gullible?
And now, in the other corner, wearing the white robes - our own “Christian extremists,” with their own home-grown version of Truth & Certainty.
Can we overcome this with tanks & big guns & lies & “we’re right/you’re wrong” puffed-chest attitudes? Not likely. Look where that has placed us so far in the “war on terror” or advancing the “freedom agenda” or whatever today’s catchy Bush & Co. phrase might be. Maybe some attempt at diplomacy? Possibly worth a try??
What if no one is right or wrong? Maybe things just are what they are. In the case of 9/11 & the quick hop to aggressively invade/occupy Iraq for 5 years on…..a place with no connection to the incidents of 9/11, and the resting place for 4000+ US dead and 100,000+ Iraqi dead……you must now ask yourself, are WE right? Mission accomplished?
Or, is it much more complex than simply right & wrong?
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Chancho, are you Cuban?
toaaronu, the book Ghost War by Steven Coll has an excellent description of the CIA involvement in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion. In there he goes over a number of plans to capture or kill bin laden. The latter lived openly, with his family, in a compound in Afghanistan. The Clinton administration allowed the CIA to put together a detailed plan to get him there. But administration officials were torn as to whether or not they should kill him and the legality of doing so. They were also concerned about the collateral damage to his wife and children. So at the last minute, they decided to stop the action. You can read selected passages from this book here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59775-2004Feb21
Posted May 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now this is over-the-top, real sacrifice, from our shopper-in-chief:
WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush said in an interview out Tuesday that he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of US soldiers killed in the conflict in Iraq, now in its sixth year.
“I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” he said in an interview for Yahoo! News and Politico magazine.
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.”
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok, what did you give up to show support and solidarity with the troops?
I gave up being nice to people that keep voting to get our military members killed because they vote for democrats that support pelosi and reid for declaring the war lost on the floor of the house and senate.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, yes, the same thing is discussed in the 9/11 commission report. It seems They were concerned more about having a solid case against him than if they could kill him. Remember, This was before he became enemy #1. This was also before breaking the law became daily operating procedure.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Isn’t it amazing that it is against the law to kill someone intent of destroying the United States through violent means?
I betcha that law was passed by democrats.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 9:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
OOPS!!!
MY BAD!
from one of those website not approved for use by the liberal whackos…
” No standing Federal law criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. In the absence of such a statute, only Executive Order 12333 prohibits the act of state-sponsored killing.2 This Order, which was drafted in the mid-1970s in the wake of revelations of government involvement in plots to kill several foreign leaders, has been maintained by every administration since President Ford. In recent years, however, there have been several attempts by Congress to override Executive Order 12333. The most recent of these initiatives is H.R. 19, the “Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001,” proposed in January of this year by Representative Barr of Georgia.3 The findings section of this bill states:
Past Presidents have issued Executive orders which severely limit the use of the military when dealing with potential threats against the United States of America; . . . these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security; present strategy allows the military to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but prevents our country from designing a limited action which would specifically accomplish that purpose . . . . ”
But the website neglects to mention which Presidents have issued such orders as to prevent a “swift, sure and precise action”…
But, since the purpose of these ‘executive orders are to prevent the military from using those tactics ” to protect our national security”
And given the personalities of the Presidents from the “mid 1970’s” to the present…
Jimmy carter, too busy gutting the military.
Ronald Reagan, too busy rebuilding the military so America could defend herself if necessary.
GHW Bush, too busy building the military to throw despots out of countries that had a treaty with the United States.
Bill clinton, too busy patting Monica on the head and saying thank you dear, now go wash that stain off your dress. As well as cutting the military forces by over a third.
GW Bush, busy fighting the terrorists that clinton and friends allowed to attack the United States repeatedly without reprisal proving that America was not willing to protect herself from terrorists, or anybody else.
I’m betting on clinton.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Whether or not the website is anything but opinion is impossible to assess since you did not even give us a link or a reference-merely an unattributed quote. At least learn how to play the game if you are going to participate.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sure gene, my game, my rules.
Go do a search for US policy on assassinating foreign leaders and get back to us after you do your own research.
Thank You, and have a nice day.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So…Willis is advocating the unlawful killing of foreign citizens living in their own countries?
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
But, it’s not illegal.
” ” No standing Federal law criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. ‘
It only runs afoul of an ‘executive order’, which get walked on pretty regular by both controlling parties.
As long as the person in question poses a threat to the United States, any of her citizens, or their way of life, nope, pretty much consider them a prairie dog.
I’m not in favor of carpet bombing in the hopes of killing one single person.
But, if Iran was to have a nuclear accident at one of their enrichment sites, I may not feel a whole lot of sympathy either.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “Sure gene, my game, my rules.”
But it’s not your game. This is a public forum with certain standards. You choose not to abide by the accepted rules of documentation, so your comments carry no weight, with me at least.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “It only runs afoul of an ‘executive order’, which get walked on pretty regular by both controlling parties.”
Evidence??? or just another WLJ unsupported opinion?
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You don’t get out much anymore do you?
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just returned from a trout fishing trip to Argentina and Chile.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That helps explain why you don’t know much about current events as reported in the mainstream media.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Can I ask a question? I mean another one?
WLJ & Co52 specifically, this question is for the two of you.
What do you each personally gain from your eternal presence on this board? Do you both just enjoy the belittling comments back and forth? Just wondering, every time I check in here–which due to this is less and less–its just the same tit for tat between Willis and Mr. Fox. I admit I agree with one more than the other, should there be a trinket of substance somewhere in the berating and name-calling, but after a while its all pretty much the same. Have you all thought of starting a community access show together? The Eugene & Willis Show!
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sure Oliver.
I just naturally take offense to anybody that refuses to respect another for their opinions or beliefs.
So, everytime he claims ’superior’ anything and belittles the other person, I’m going to belittle and disrespect him in return.
As long as he stays on topic and shows respect for other posters, I’m pretty much nice to him.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: So, everytime he claims ’superior’ anything”
Please quote the specific comment (or any comment) where I “claimed superior anything”
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok, the topic of this thread is
“Public debate helps military strategy”
It’s not about you.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s not that you actually used the specific phrase ” superior intellect “, it’s your whole attitude towards those posters with whom you disagree.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, I ask those with whom I disagree to document their position with facts or evidence. When they cannot, or do not choose to do so, perhaps my attitude toward them is not as kindly as it could be. I will work on that.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok gene, I’ll play.
Your statement from the forum on evolution;
” Reading through this discussion of evolution, I am once again impressed by the vast amount of ignorance displayed here. ”
Document that people who do not subscribe to the religion of evolution are “ignorant”.
Or apologize right here publicly.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you don’t know anything about the theory of evolution, and have displayed your ignorance on the subject almost daily.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” toaaronuu
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis, you don’t know anything about the theory of evolution, and have displayed your ignorance on the subject almost daily. ‘
You have documentation to prove that, or is your mind in overload status again?
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Does anyone else sense that a certain individual in this group exhibits symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder? I certainly do. I sure hope he doesn’t harm himself, or worse someone else.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 5:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The documentation is easily accessible over on the evolution forum that Curmudgeon started. Willis can not seem to process any new information, and continues to argue (all the way to page 6!) the same fallacy riddled arguments he had on page 1!
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
An interesting thing here, neither of the two off topic detractors offer anything of value to the thread topic, nor has either been courageous enough to actually post in the aforementioned forum.
So I’ll bring it here this one time.
Answer on your own in a whole new topic in the forums sections.
” Life ‘begins’in Sitka, Alaska on Monday and starts an evolutionary thread.
Life ‘begins’ In Johannseburg on Tuesday, and a new evolutionary thread begins.
Life ‘begins’ in Dallas, Sao Paulo, and Moscow on Wednesday, so three new evolutionary threads begin.
And it happens all over the world when the right conditions exist on a regular basis.
Unless you want to take the position that life only began once, and everything came from that.
In which case…. Big leap of faith.
So, where all those ‘missing links’? ”
The answers that I have gotten are back to ‘well, it can’t happen anymore cause things ain’t right no mo.’
Leap of faith.
It’s a religion.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.