Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her grief and her chosen expressions of it, including a 26-day vigil near President Bush’s ranch last month and the civil disobedience that got her arrested in front of the White House Monday. And there was something reassuring about seeing 100,000 citizens of our complacent nation care enough to gather Saturday in the nation’s capital to protest the war. But to their shouts of “Stop the war now!” I wanted to say: You’re kidding, right? None of the good arguments to be made that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq matter a whit now that we’re there. Protesters or not, we have a job to finish.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
122 Comments
Sad to say I agree, we have to win this conflict inspite of the betrail that has caused it.
That is the problem being the bigest kid on the block. Once you throw your weight around. Right or wrong you will have to finish the fight.
We were attacked by a terrorist group that had safe haven in Afganistan. The fire of hell would not be fiting punishment for them.
Iraq had nothing to do with it. Yet President Bush violated everything this country has stood for:We do not throw our weight around without cause.
We do not attack without cause, but may God have mercy on your soul if you attack us.
We give the same respect we wish from you.
Right makes might, not might makes right. Few country could stand a chance against the U.S. But that does not give us the moral right to inflict our might against a weaker country.
Bush and his company should burn in hell along with Bin Laden.But we must win this and then show the world that we hold them accountable. Else this country did not have the right to be the bigest kid on the world block.
Actually, the problem is worse than that.As bad as Saddam was, at least he imposed stability on Iraq. There’s no way we can, just because it’s us there. Some Iraqis will oppose us because of our support of Israel, others just because we’re occupying them and trying to impose a government they don’t trust, and they all have access to all the high explosives they need to cause us, and other Iraqis a whole lot of grief. These are things that should have been considered before going in. We didn’t, and now we’re stuck.Our only hope of ever getting out will be to turn the occupation over to Iraq’s neighbors, and accept that whatever government Iraq eventually adopts will probably be vociferously anti-American.
As much as I’m against this war of agression I can’t see that we can just walk away.
I firmly believe that we can’t win it with the strategy we’ve been using. If it was going to work, we’d see signs of it now.
I see echoes of the FEMA response on Katrina from Iraq. When the generals and planners told Rumsfield what was needed to win the war, they were replaced. If you surround yourself with only people who agree with you, you’ll never get an honest response.
People might fool themselves into thinking this war made them safer. In reality it’s on the job training ground to teach “new” terrorists.
The logic that it’s safer because they are fighting over there and not here is flawed. At best it puts off the inevitable. At some point in history this war will end, then the terrorists will be looking for a new place to attack.
In order to win this war, first we need to admit that the plan isn’t working. Then we need to go back to the table and find an answer that will.
You are dead wrong. There is no job to finish, but beating that old tired old Zionist drum is all that’s left.
We are now killing Iraqis as fast as we can. We’re dropping hugh bombs on civilians in hopes on killing who? Iraqi citizens? That’s all we’re killing because we’ve murdered everybody else.
Now Bush is calling Iraqis who fight-back “terrorists” again instead of “insurgents” becuae it “sounds” better. Period.
We “are” and “have been” the problem and although Irael won’t like it, when we leave the problem goes away.
The Iraqis will sort their differences in their own way without us killing anymore.
The tired and sick arguement that they’re will be a blood-bath is nonsense, there’s a blood-bath right now everyday with us there.
You won’t talk about the real motives as to why so many lies were needed to get us in there, but the world seems to know it was because of Israel.
We’re not fooling anybody.
It can only get better when we leave, as it won’t get better until we do.
How many more soldiers must die before you get it into your thick heads that we’re being “had”
Oh, how much better the world would be had we not invaded Iraq! The mass graves would still remind everyone to toe the line. Hans Blix would still be noodling around in the desert, finding nothing, and making solemn pronouncements. France, Russia, Germany and China would still be making lucratative weapoms and oil deals with Saddam under the table. Saddam and his sons would still be planning a Grand Caliphate while killing and raping, and holding their citizens in midieval misery — over 300,000 documented murders so far. Syria would still be bullying Lebanon and financing Hamas and other terrorists. The PLO would still be strapping bombs on children and sending them to their appointments with 72 virgins. Libya would still be secretly working on atomic weapons. Neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia would have taken their first steps towards elections. And we could self-righteously proclaim that we never inflict our might against weaker countries in ways that undermine the stability of their repressive regimes.
Oh, wouldn’t that be grand! Well yes, especially if you have no problem with letting millions of people suffer in poverty and abuse, while you live in relative security and luxury in the most affluent and free nation on earth.
Let ‘em eat cake. Pull up the ladder. I got mine.
Sheesh!
Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, and it would have been much less bloody if the UN had cooperated instead of being up to its ears in corruption and collusion with Saddam.
Yes, the UN should have made it clear to Saddam that he had to go, given him no choice, and stood unified against him; but with so many European and Middle Eastern “leaders” on Saddam’s payroll, the UN instead gave Saddam all the cover he thought he needed to thumb his nose at the world.
I don’t like the Iraq campaign either, not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because the UN (and actions by France, Germany, Russia, and Turkey)forced the USA and England to bear nearly all of the burden, while the UN and certain countries stood in the way of making it as bloodless as possible.
The ones who will burn in hell are those who turn their backs on the millions of people in the world who suffer under despots like Saddam. “Let ‘em eat cake. Pull up the ladder. I got mine.”
Anyway, It’s good that the debate has moved in the direction of finishing the job. Our shameful record of running out before the enemy is vanquished (Vietnam, first Gulf War) has weakened our credibility more than anything. This time, we must finish the job.
Troop levels never were high enough. Trying to fight this battle on the cheap has been the biggest mistake.
There is no way to win this war. In the last 100 tears there have been several grassroots insurgencies and I believe only 3 have been dealt with successfully. The Briish estimated that there were never more than 250 “dedicated” IRA insurgents, but those 250 were able to occupy 50,000 British troops for 25 years. Do we think there are only 250 terrorists in Iraq? By Irish standards we have only enough troops in Iraq to deal with perhaps 750 terrorists.
While success in Iraq would be the best solution, we need to be pragmatic. There was the same call to grimly carry on in Vietnam in 1966, but the Tet offensive awoke us to the fact that we could not win. Maybe we need to consider alternate strategies..like breaking Iraq into three separate states..a stable Kurdish domain in the north, a stable Shiite domain in the south, and an unstable, but considerably weakened Sunni state in the center. Certainly other possibilities exist.
We aren’t going to come out of this smelling like roses no matter what happens. Our international prestige has already been damaged for at least the next couple of generations. Let’s not compound the problem by driving ourselves deeply into debt, and worse yet, sacrificing the lives of thousands of American military personnel for little or no gain. It took us 25 years after Vietnam to bring the military back to respectability.
We made a huuuuuuge blunder. Let’s not show tthe world that we’re stupid as well as belligerent.
Ed,”We are now killing Iraqis as fast as we can. We’re dropping hugh bombs on civilians in hopes on killing who? Iraqi citizens?”You don’t really believe that do you?In the real world, we are not dropping huge bombs on the civilian world. We are not a nation of Nagasaki bombers, with total disregard to civilian casualties anymore. There are and always will be civilian casualties in any war. No way am I trying to justify this war, it is wrong in my book, but your statement flies in the face of fact: We are not purposly bombing civilians in Iraq. There is NO evidence to support that we are. Unless, of course, you are trying to say that anybody that dies via American bombs in Iraq is considered by you to be a civilian. I doubt too many people would believe that, but I get your point.My problem with the war in Iraq is, that no matter how wrong we are to be there, leaving on a moments notice would leave the country in no better shape than when we invaded. As stupid as it is, we have to stay the course.
“We can’t leave now, we are committed”. Anyone in here remember Viet Nam? I will accept the war if you bring back good dope and free love.
Dooda
Excellent commentary. Thank you.
Walkerberg
That’s the truth you lying Zionist pig. Every filthy word that comes out of your lying Zionist mouth is crap, sheer crap, and the world knows it, that’s why you sweat so much.
Tell everybody who you really are. Too ashamed?
Ever figure-out which whore your mother was?
Right now your “buddies” are firing cannons into Gaza refugee camps murdering the helpless as usual, but you Zionist pigs like that sort of thing.
Your are one sick peice of worthless crap.
Man…for Ed to call someone else sick and worthless is really stretching it. Ed is the poster child for sicko’s. Anti-Semitism is the refuge of the small minded sicko that can’t find anyone else to blame their own failings on.
Cindy Sheehan didn’t have a “permit” for “free-speech” and was taken to jail. That’s not America, that’s Israel.
The lie rules.
Ray
Talking about yourself again? Or talking to yourself?
Count me as another who thinks that regardless of the beginning of this war, running out now would be horrific for the people trying to build a country in Iraq.
My nephew, during his two tours there, told me about how the infra structure is being rebuilt. It is not something that happens overnight, and is something needed for Iraq to be able to stand on its own.
Should we be there in the first place? I don’t know…I don’t have all the information, but I seriously doubt it. Now that we are, tho, leaving at this juncture would betray an entire country and leave them at the mercy of a relatively small handful of murderers.
If you have to play the Anti-Semitism card you out of words that make sense.
It not about the Jewish Religion, it’s about crimes against humanity.
Your Anti-Semitism trick is to divert attention away from crimes to an unrelated subject.
There are plenty of good Jews in Israel, but the sicko secular Zionists are running things and that’s who you’re defending.
Admit it.
What does a “Daisey-Cutter” do? Make friends and help people?
There are 25 million Iraqis, so how many do we have left to kill before we can declare “victory” again?
Ed,what does Zionist mean to you and what do you mean when you use the term?just to be sure.
I move that Dooda and Heckler go back to Vietnam and “finish the job.”
Can I get a second?
I was about 20 when the US pulled all the troops out of Vietnam. I remember it like it was yesterday. You couldn’t find two people in the whole country that thought we should stay and “finish the job.”
We fought that POS war for ten years and lost almost 60 thousand men. The idea that just a few more deaths or a few more years and the NVA was just going to capitulate is insane.
But that’s what we hear from the people who didn’t get it right the first time.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. We didn’t lose Vietnam. The enemy wore us down until the whole damn thing just wasn’t worth it anymore, just like we did to the British starting in 1776.
Iraq is the same damn deal.
Get out now.
Galahad,
I second.
Our Army is breaking in Iraq like it did in Vietnam. It wasn’t designed for counter-insurgency in a country of 26 million. Frankly, given the suicide rates and torture porn making its way around the internet, we’ve put our soldiers in an impossible situation and they’re understandably losing it.
I think the consequences of NOT leaving are far, far worse than the consequences of getting out now while we still HAVE a functioning command and troops. The civil war is coming whether we’re there or not. It’s too late to stop it. Far too late, in fact.
There’s actually quite a bit of evidence that BushCo. doesn’t ever want to pull out.
I don’t believe for a second it has taken almost three years to “train” a few thousand troops in the new Iraqi army.
It’s been a year since we saw the “purple fingers” of the people who voted, and we’ve got more death and violence than ever before.
Somebody who really wants to pull out would be building an international team of peacekeepers to take over for the US.
Somebody who really wants to pull out would be moving recruits to neutral third countries where they could be trained in a few months.
Somebody who really wants to pull out wouldn’t be setting up right-wing US backed death squads to kill and maim whoever they want without regard for right or law.
Somebody who really wants to pull out would get the oil flowing so that the money could fund rebuilding.
Somebody who really wants to pull out would hire IRAQIS and IRAQI FIRMS whenever possible to rebuild Iraq (instead of Halliburton).
Since BushCo. isn’t doing any of those things, we are left with the conclusion that he doesn’t really want to pull out.
Why?
Because with our army there, we call the shots. Pulling out or developing an Iraqi army means losing control. Real democracy means giving up control.
That’s what BushCo. will not do . . .
Captian
Pull-up “Google”
In seach box place “Zionist”
Read to your hearts content.But you’re not asking me something that you don’t already know, right?
Ed
All of that hate is going to eat your soul until all that’s left is an empty dried up shell. And when the Angel of Death comes to visit you he’s going to look at that soul and say “that just not worth my time” and you’ll be left to haunt the blogs and synagogues until the end of all time, screaching and wailing your hate.
It is unfortunate that Bush refused to listen to the warnings before he launched his little adventure. Anyone who knew anything about Iraq could have predicted the mess we are now in.
Bush must have slept through high school history.
I agree with you, Galahad. Too many people making too much money will keep us in there as long a Bush is president. Maybe in 3 yrs. the strategy will change. Let’s hope so.
Heckler
Because of your Zionist hared of humanity, is that what you do now?
Galahad
How right you are. Notice the Zionist here on the blog all want to stay in Iraq. When I say leave, they come after me like the hammers of Hell.
Such nice people. Yuk.
Galahad
Here’s what Zionist walker had to say to me { and they accuse me of hatred }.
Ed Hitler,How such a degenerate, such as yourself, can even think about spewing out the kind of garbage you do is beyond me. Everything you think, write and speak is diarrhea from your non existant brain.
“They will all hang.” Who’s going to hang us, you? You don’t have the intelligence to tie a knot, let alone even figure out what to use. You are a perfect example of post-birth-abortion. Your mama should have flushed you down the toilet with the condom some drunk used that leaked and sprung you from the depths of hate. You dont belong in the human race; you belong sleeping with the dogs, you punk-assed bitch. You think child-porn because your not man enough to think any other way. All hail Ed, the dog-boy with no brain.
Posted by: J M Walker | September 26, 2005 at 06:40 PM
I love their: “Stay the Course”
Sounds like it came straight from the Captain of the Titanic.
Ed
I’ve never been called a Zionist before, what does it mean? The reason I ask is that when people use the words racist, neo-con, Zionist, fascist, I’ve found that they often don’t know what the word means or their use deviates from the proper definition so greatly that you have no idea why they called you by that name.
Heckler
It’s a flavor of ice-cream. Order one, they’re great.
The word Fascist for instance. 95% of the people whom I hear use the word don’t seem to have a clue about the proper definition of the word.
Man we’ve really seeded democracy in the M.East. Look at it grow!The most opressed people there (women) don’t even want our brand of gov’t because of this whole damned thing. Democracy starts with a revolution, NOT AN INVASION.
There’s no Bushido code in Iraq.They’ll never kowtow and honor the conquerers.
There were 10,000 people murdered in the Superdome while demoralized policemen comitted suicide and the people there want to stay there? Give me a break. They need to get out now.
CF’s definition of fascism: the private, totalitarian ownership of public goods.
Rock on, ed, rock on…problem is, the stone age ended long, long ago, and you never left, left. Jocularity at its finest.
CF,What do you consider “public goods”?
JM Walker,
Political institutions, political legitimacy, natural physical resources, the military, real physical space, virtual media space, and the human body/psyche itself as a site of political contestation and rule. Basically, anything ‘we the people’ are said to own is something that fascism is permanently interested in appropriating for itself.
These are the social and political sites that are assimilated into fascism, whether directly and obviously or gradually and obscurely. Fascism is a broader phenomenon that is wider in scope, and subtler, than the rallies at Nuremburg and the concentration camp as a political form.
Cf,Thanks, appreciate your view.
JM Walker,
You are quite welcome.
Oh, this is going to be fun:”Every filthy word that comes out of your lying Zionist mouth is crap, sheer crap, and the world knows it, that’s why you sweat so much.”Ed’s words about me, so let me make some of those lying zionist statements:1. Ed has an IQ higher than two.2. Ed is a fair and rightious person.3. Ed is not a racist.4. Ed’s blogs contain nothing but truths.5. Ed is a true zionist.6. Ed is also a Palistinian terrorist.6. Ed has only one personality.7. Ed graduated from High School.Can I get a chuckle?
CF
I normally think of Fascism in terms of economics models not social models but I guess you would be correct.
10,000 murdered in the Superdome? Wow, that is a new one….considering the current updates suggest that the rumors of rampant violence and rapes was nothing more than rumor. The Red Cross has not found the “stacks of bodies” that were reported. There has been no proof whatsoever. This claim is off the wall, wrong, and just another lie about how bad things are everywhere.
Heckler,
Me too. Hence, ‘private ownership of public goods.’
When the media and the protestors finally won and we cut and ran out of Vietnam how many of our allies were murdered? Was it two million? Four?
CF
That explains a lot about your views.
We need to stop this Israeli driven expansion and stop bringing our soldiers home in coffins or with limbs blown-off. That number of dead and maimed has reached over 22,000 and increases daily.
Bush gave Ariel Sharon an old map of “Greater Israel” which stretches all the way from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq.
Bush is trying to help Sharon with that expansion and that is why we are in Iraq now. The evangelicals are on board because their religious beliefs are being exploited. Other Christian Churches are divesting investments out of Israel because they know what the secular Zionists are up to.
There was no legitimate reason to pull troops out of Afghanistan without first securing that country and diverting them into Iraq. That’s why all those manufactured lies were bandied about. Establishing a permanent presence in Iraq for Israeli expansion is why we are there. None of the other phony reasons given are true. I think that all of you know that.
Establishing a Greater Israel will cost the United States trillion in taxpayer money and monies borrowed against out Treasury. That will bankrupt this nation. Is that something Americans will knowingly want to do? Of course not and that’s why it’s shrouded in secrecy.
Israel has cost the United States 1.7 trillion dollars since 1973.
On Channel 3 in Israel, Bush threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and because Iran supplies 60% of the world oil, the price of crude spiked to over $70 dollars a barrel.
Pakistan threatened to come to Irans’ aid and the price of crude oil dropped somewhat. This is a very dangerous game Bush is playing, by allowing Israel to push him into it.Bush tells the American People one thing and tells the Israelis another.
The time has come to stop this charade and let the truth be known.
This so-called war in Iraq needs to stop now.
It’s hard to find this newswothy item in an American newspaper.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/630966.html
Heckler,
Fair enough. Your turn.
Joe C. –
I don’t know how many of our allies were killed. But I don’t call ten years and 58,000 deaths “cutting and running.”
I call that waiting a helluva lot longer than necessary leading to a helluva lot more deaths than were necessary to see that our taking over of an imperialist war from the French wasn’t too smart.
If you’re lost in the woods, do you just run faster? Apparently you do.
Lastly I don’t really care how many Vietnamese were killed. I don’t live in Vietnam. The Vietnamese gov’t is not my government. They are not my people.
It sounds harsh, but somethings, we just can’t do that much about.
It’s called realism. Bush should try it sometime.
CF
I think the best description of Fascism I’ve heard (in an economic sense)is this. With Fascism the means of production are private, the means of distribution is public. With capitalism the means of production and the means of distribution are both private. With socialism the means of production and distribution are both public.
No, I have an idea what in my mind it means, but it could be completely different from what you think the term means.I can google to my hearts desire, just didn’t know if you wanted to make it explicitly clear to all of us what you mean.don’t read too much into it, just a simple questions.cool?
the above post was for the word:
ZIONIST
thanks
Captian { the “all of us” comment gives you away }
Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon is a Zionist: He said: “I can’t believe they treat me this way, after all I’ve done for those Jews.”
Now, keep in mind that he is the Prime Minster of the Jewish State of Israel and he refers to israelis as “those Jews”
Why don’t we start with your definition of a Zionist. That might prove to be very interesting.
Another comment from Sharon: ” I want nothing to do with the religous party.”
Now, your “take” on that might also be enlightening.
what gives me away?”all of us” refering to all of us on this blog.and, no, lets not start with my definition.I am not the one using the word to attack people.
…and I asked you first.
maybe you mean the people who want to expand the jewish state?
maybe you mean jews in general or people who like jews, or people who talk like jews….etc. etc.
A Freudian Slip by any other explanation is still a Freudian Slip.
The “all of us” comment explanation you’ve cited or claiming now means that everybody on this blog has your mindset.
Judging by their posts, they’re not in your mindset. Far from it.
Your group just got smaller.
You’re sounding anti-Semitic.
You’re also going for the label of anti-Semitism.
Nice try.
I judge by actions only.
huh? you are kinda nutty.right, I am anti-semetic. I always love when people call me something when they only know my nickname. funny.so how are those black helicopters doing ed?
yeah, those are scary.
by your post, I’d assume that you assume all the people “on your side” know your definition of Zionist.I’m not assuming that, that’s why I said all of us. but that’s a pointless argument, just like calling me anti-semetic.
“I judge by actions only”well, thanks for that. thanks for “judging”I thought liberals like you didn’t like judgement? I don’t mind judgement, especially not from a black helicopter type like you.put your tin foil helmet back on, they’re coming.hahahhaahahahahahaahhaahahhahahahaha
and, us, THE EVIL ZIONISTS are coming too.
buts seriously, just answer the question. WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF ZOINIST. please.
Get a grip, you’re flipping out.
You are insane.
I may be insane, but you are dodging the question.coward.
There’s no “maybe” about it.
no, you are right, there is no “maybe” there is a “may be”
answer the question, I’ve answered yours.chicken
LOOK OUT! ZIONISTS!
Captain–
No sense wasting any typing on that idiot…he is beyond moronic and incapable of logical thought. It is a total waste of time to engage him.
ok, thanks for the tip Ray.just thought I’d have some fun with him, they really don’t like that. hehehe
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/630966.html
no thanks ed, don’t want some propaganda cookie on my laptop.thanks, but I don’t want the PLO calling me up for donations
Jeez, what a cat fight! But back to the original subject:Somebody explain to me the difference between pulling out now and pulling out later besides a bunch more dead Americans.
Does anybody REALLY think we’re going to stabilize the Iraqi government? I don’t think so.
Are we going to leave the Iraqis with an army trained and able to handle their own security? Maybe if we stay for another 10-20 years considering the results we’ve gotten so far.
Are we going to defeat the insurgency? Don’t count on it. They’re a lot more motivated than we are. Same as in Vietnam, they’re fighting for their own country against what they see as a foriegn oppressor. And they believe just as firmly as we do that God is on their side.
Do we think that somehow we’re going to repair the loss of world respect and our international prestege by dragging this out indeffinately? Hardly…in fact, just the oposite. The longer we draw this out, the more we’ll be hated.
If we pull out now, Iraq will crumble into civil war. If we pull out in 5 years, they’ll still decend into civil war just as soon as we’re not there to prop up the government we installed and support.
I don’t see anything to be gained by staying, except like I said, a bunch more Dead Americans, and that concerns me a lot more than dead Muslims however cold that may sound.
There is no leaving without breaking the Bush/Sharon connection.
The linch-pin is the Zionists surrounding Bush.
Wow I always get to the fight late.
First off? I am sick to DEATH of the “we are liberatig people and saving them from oppression” dodge p(resident) bush and his diminshing supporters are trying to sell. That wasn’t the mission. If it were I would be all for it even now. The “bringing freedom” bunk is about the third line they have steadily retreated to since the original mission (Saddam is a THREAT) was debunked. There are a whole lot of places other than Iraq where tyranny and oppression and mass murder are going on. Not only are we not going there, but the bushies condemn to this day the Clinton intervention in one such similar place, Bosnia. So spare us all the continued hue and cry that his is a crusade for peace and freedom and justice. Bush and his crowd can’t even get that one right here at home.
What to do? I don’t know. That’s the deal. There probably is no worse place on Earth that we could have gotten into than Iraq. The place was ustable from it’s inception. Only a strongman dictator (that we by the way put in place) held it together.
Truth be told, and others have posted probably better than I will to this, I don’t think there was ever meant to be an exit strategy. Iraq is the perfect ground for the perfect war for those who benefit most from war. We rebuild a pipeline, it gets blown up, Halliburton rebuilds it again, it gets blown up again………and on and on. And of course perpetual war has other benefits, like shameful use of patriotism to divert from the failures of an administration domestically.
But since bush cannot in the long run as he and his might wish continue this war in perpetuity, and since in 3 years it is gonna be someone else’s problem ( I HOPE) here is my best idea.
Announce to Iraq at large that at some time unannouced and of our choosing that we will be leaving. We will at that point only guarantee only their borders from foreign incursion. They will be given to understand that their own fate is their own business. We will provide only that they within their borders decide it. Then we get out of the way and let them sort it out and see what the outcome is.
Little history lesson here. France was integral to the success of the AMERICAN revolution. Yes they had their own reasons for intervening. But when it was done, they LEFT.
But we wil have to wait post bush for that.
“The purpose of war is not to win but to continue the war” Orwell
Point JR. there’s a lot of money to be made off war. That’s a big part of why Vietnam lasted as long as it did. Iraq may be the same.
Even better point about deflecting our attention away from domestic policy.
Ms. Holman, would you sacrifice your own child on the field of battle in Iraq?
XXX,
Speculation about the Iraq war is senseless without including the Jews who control Bush. It’s their war, that’s why we’re there.
Israel is actually more open about their involvement in their Iraq war than the American press.
It’s all part of the “Greater Israel Plan” of expansion, financed by the US Treasury.
Notice how hard they come after me for saying it. They sure get nervous and extremely hostile.
It definitely strikes a nerve, big time, with all the money they’re making off this war.
XXX,Back during Viet Nam, various members of the cabinet and military kept telling us that there was “a light at the end of the tunnel.” Turned out to be the headlight of a freight train headed our way at top speed!How much you wanna bet that that phrase, or one very similar gets resurrected for ths war, and with the same effect.
XXX
Here’s Pat Buchanan’s take:
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. … Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London … one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of … Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
XXX
More with Pat Buchanan:
Beating the War Drums
When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.
The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.
Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.
On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?
The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”
On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”
Quick question: Who got us into Vietnam? Who then escalated our presence there? Therefore, which political party is to blame for the 60,000 dead in Vietnam vs the 2,000 dead in Iraq? Thanks for a quick response.
That’s the oldest trick in the book. To tailor a question so narrowly in order to solicit a predetermined response. You want people to answer democrats, but the question being so narrow, fails draw any conclusions about democrats. Which makes it pointless. Points can be made about either party to solicit any answer which fails to enlighten.
Ed
I think Jimmy was’nt really asking a question. I think he was making a statement that only an idiot would try to create any kind of equivlency between what went on in Vietnam and what we’re doing in Iraq. But I could be wrong.
Jimmy–
Play fair, dammit.
It was Eisenhower, REPUBLICAN, who started the involvement. JFK DEMOCRATIC continued the arrangement, LBJ DEMOCRATIC deployed ground troops in 1965 after the trumped up “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” (more like the Gulf of Tonkin FICTION–just like the WMD’s).
Then Nixon REPUBLICAN extended the war secretly and illegally to Laos and Cambodia.
Both sides are equally culpable in that debacle, and you know it. You know damn well that even though LBJ escalated the war, the REPUBLICANS at the time wanted more escalation and at a faster rate than the Democrats.
Just look at Goldwater’s campaign speeches.
By 1967, DEMOCRATIC candidates like RFK and Eugene McCarthy and in 1972 McGovern were coming out foursquare against the war.
This little game you play of re-writing history (like “Democrats were against Civil Rights”) is really despicable.
Nothing compared to the “chosen ones” rewriting Dir Yassin.
Bisoni, you ask:”Quick question: Who got us into Vietnam?”
Quick answer: Ike
Jed, I think we’ve already seen the “Light at the end o’ the tunnel” variation, as in…”we’ve turned the corner”, and “the insurgency is in it’s last throes”.
I notice I haven’t gotten any response to my questions about what the hell it is we’re supposed to gain by “staying the course”. I’m dissapointed.
So I’ll ask again, this time, a little louder…
YO! REPUBLICANS! DEMOCRATS! WHOEVER! WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE GOING TO GAIN BY STAYING IN IRAQ?
XXX
The goal, as Bush has stated all along, is a stable Democracy(or Representative Govt.) smack in the middle of the middle east. Hopefully to create a force for change and stability in the region. That is the goal and has been from day one
Will it happen? I hope so, we’ve already seen positive results in Libya, Lebanon, and Siria. Time will only tell if it works out. If it fails, Bush will be a goat, If it succeeds, Bush will go on Mount Rushmore.
I can’t figure Pat Buchanan out. He writes all this anti-war stuff and when you hear him on TV (MacLaughlin Group), he sounds like a total hawk.
Two-faced rascal.
Answer: Nothing { with the exception of the “crusade” and what the “chosen people” want Bush to do }.
Bush can’t pull-out of the war. If he tries that, he’ll windup like Arafat. He’s completely surrounded by those thugs and he’s been warned. If the American People apply enough pressure and expose those who truly threaten us, we can do it. Just keep telling the truth.
Oh, Yeah, This war is going to create “stability in the region”
We’re creating more enemies every day and we are giving them good reason to strike back.
We don’t need to kill any more of our soldiers to prove some hair-brained idea.
Buchanan clearly stated why we’re there. And that’s the truth, unlike the “advertised garbage”
Ed
You cooking another batch of meth today. A tip. Open a window.
GTH
“The goal, as Bush has stated all along, is a stable Democracy(or Representative Govt.)”
Well actually, that’s NOT the goal he stated all along. That goal came after Dissarming Saddam of WMD, and then I believe it was programs to produce WMD, and then it was intentions to have programs to produce WMD. There may have been more, but that’s beside the point.
Heckler, I wish there was a chance in Hell that we could accomplish what you’re saying. It’s not going to happen. Although I dissagree with your politics, you come across as a reasonably intelligent individual. Do YOU really believe we’re going to acheive a Democratic/Represenative Government in Iraq? I see several possibilities there, but nothing we’re going to like after the smoke clears. I’m betting on somthing closely akin to what’s in Iran. Considering what I’m reading about their “constitution, it looks to me like Americans are dying to create some sort of Islamic Republic. That can’t be in our interests.
PBS (well known right wing front organization) Vietnam timeline. First president mentioned? JFK.Nice try libs. You lose to me again. Next!
http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index.html
Excuse me Jimmy, but Ike inked the treaty that got us into Vietnam.
XXX,What do we gain by staying in Iraq? That’s an easy one; sweetheart oil deals for Bush’s friends, and the recovery of the Bush family jewels from Saddam!
The Bush family ever had family jewels?
The way things are going, this discussion may become moot:
“BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 30 – A car bomb detonated today near a fruit and vegetable market in Hilla, a Shiite town south of Baghdad, killing at least 8 people and wounding 41. It was the second attack in two days of bloodletting that has left 110 people dead.”
If all Iraqis were dead, wouldn’t that solve the problem?
Just wondering…..
Let’s stop and remember. On Sept 10 2001 bush approval was 50%. This was the result of a contentious (my view stolen) election and the fact that bush basically did nothing but go on vacation for the first 10 months of his p(residency).
911 happens. America unites. Bush make s a few remarks on the rubble pile and his approval goes to 67%! Aw but hell my dog could have united America that day.
Surprise! War unites! Bush the illegitimate has a CAUSE and a MANDATE!
And with that mandate……
He concentrates power to himself (his handlers) (patriot act)
He gets the tax cuts his handlers want and benefit from.
He gets card blanche for his handlers to launch military adventures.
Oh hell those of us who aint predjudiced already in the favor of bush and those of us with half a brain already know what I would post so why bother.
They got their war. And they are making HUGE profits on it. They got also the side benefit of being able to call anyone in opposition to bush policy at home or abroad “the enemy” YOU CAN”T SUPPORT THE TROOPS UNLESS YOU SUPPORT THE MISSION AND THE SUPREME COMMANDER!”
It was the PERFECT PLAN! bush and his handlers, sheltered lives they had lived factoring in, thought they could sell all America this lie. And they were a little bit right (witness Bisoni and dr and others moved by the Rushannity mouthpieces) But the movement (I was gonna say partybut that’s wrong) that gave us the sorry excuse for a man that bush is made a big mistake. They assumed that if America was stupid enough to elect bush, they would unquestionably follow him.
Let’s cut to the chase.It didn’t work. Oh bush at the whim of his handlers has done a great deal of damage, but America is now wise to this.
Osama is still at largeThere was no threat from Iraq.
And finally, people don’t like pledging everything to a cause only to find out it is a phony cause. So the Bush handler plan to dominate Iraq in the long term aint gonna work.
Bush sent others to smack a big nasty beehive. Now most of us have the sense to stay the hell away from a big nasty beehive. But of course there are those who gladly embrace such an idiotic mission. Fine.Some of the troops want to be there. Fine. Let’s do this though. Let’s cut all funding for the war. Let’s sell war bonds for those who still support this hypocritical diversionary adventure. Do that and I think halliburton et all are gonna want out too. And that will end the war.
Gasoline prices are high because Zionist Israel is threatening to nuke Iran.
Iran supplies 60% of the world’s oil. We have to rid ourselves of Zionist Israel or get Bush to shut them down. 3 dollar Jew-gas is wrecking our economy. The rich don’t care but working people { those who are still working } need to have a president who puts Americans and their interests first. Not the greed of Isael.
XXX,The Bush family jewels are tiny, shrivelled up little things, but they’re all they got. Saddam acquired them in Iraq I, when Bush the Elder wimped out at the end. Iraq II has been all about: A. Recovering the family machismo, and B. Getting all that oil to market with a big slice for family and friends, and C. Asserting our presence in the middle east as part of “the new world order” (read neoimperialism). It should be obvious by now that the Iraqi people are at best of no consequence, and at worst a hindrance to be dealt with.
Ed,Oil prices are high because the suppliers can hype their way to more profits, period. Israel’s only function in the oil market is to be used as a smokescreen for the profiteers.
Oil futures are traded openly on all world markets and only supply and demand can move price.
In your Zeal to protect Israel at all costs, thuthful statements destroy your arguement.
When oil supplies are under threat, prices move up. As threats to supplies are removed, prices go down.
If prices were able to be comtroled any other way, the Bush adminstration would bring the price down and take the credit.
They can’t.
You need to reseach facts before running-off at the mouth, but the truth about oil markets won’t help keep the heat off Israel, so you mouth-off crap instead.
We all understand what your doing.
Although the Bush administration backed-down somewhat about an all-out strike against Iran and oil prices started down, the hurricanes pushed prices back up somewhat.
Oil traders are still biding high prices, as they think the Jews might act alone and strike Iran. If such an attack to place, knocking out Iran’s oil, the price of oil would easily climb to make gasoline cost $50 dollars a gallon.
Demand would push oil prices out-of-sight.
It’s almost ironic that wall the Israelis built would protect the Palestinians against the blast of a nuclear strike on Israel, as the world’s atomic powers would be left with little other choice.
Israeli ship kills 7 Japanese fishermen. Can’t they ever stop making trouble?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/631331.html
Ed,”Oil futures are traded openly on all world markets and only supply and demand can move price.”
Where have you been all your life? Supply and demand do not move the price; what investors believe the price will be tomorrow does. Markets are continually being manipulated. What do you think hype was invented for?
Further, I have no interest in “protecting Israel at any cost.” I just don’t blame it for all the world’s problems.
Knock-off the insults you stupid bastard.
I said “oil futures” can’t you read either? You GD idiot.
Bush was on channel 3 in Israel saying the “nuclear option” was “on the table” Oil spiked on that note.
Since then, in an effort to calm-down traders, he said that the nuclear option was “off” the table.
That did start Oil down somewhat.
Where your imaginary “hype” up your “A” with the rest of what you know?
Ed, Don’t you know that “all you need is love….”. Calm down and quit taking things so personal, you’re going to give yourself a heart attack.
My health is fine. It’s the shit-for-brains, and their idiotic conclusions, we should all be concerned about. It’s the most despised people to ever roam this planet, living down to their expectations, along with their few supporters who are causing some serious problems throughout the world.
They’re showing the world why they were slated for extermination. They’re their worst enemy and refuse to get along with their neighbors. Inbreeding has taken its toll. That happens with small groups of people without the introduction of genes outside the group.
The differences between Vietnam and Iraq are:The United States signed a mutual aid compac. Great Britin, France along with other were co-signer. One was Vietnam. We ended up having our turn in the barrel. Kenndy knowing that the American people would say “Viet-who” so the president “Mis-lead” the country into believing a minior incident in a gulf. Was the justification for the U.S. involvement, but in reality we had a moral imperitive.Johnson seeing no end insight with the current involvement. Ramped up but this to proved to be a mistake. Though U.S. Forces never lost a major engagement. Like Iraq, it was the insurgants that we could not overcome. The V.C. were moble, having no fixed bases and would strike and run.
Iraq, though under the thumb of one of many petty dictators. Had taken no active or inactive acts against the U.S.
Being predisposed to invading Irag, President Bush along with others in power followed Kenndy lead and mislead the American people into believing this action was just. But soon found themselves in the same places as Johnson.
The other difference is By pulling out of Vietnam. The communist finally controled all of the country.
By pulling out of Iraq, the country will be left in a void of center control. This void caused by the actions of the President of the United States.
Shall we look at the resons? Sadam was a cruel, heartless dictator. He was not the worst or best of the lot. Eddi Amean was far worst, the tale of him eating roasted human babies was in fact true.The question then being why Sadam?Ed put out that it is because of the jews. I do not know enough on the subject to truly say that is it. I had learned prior his re-election. That those named in the post that Ed posted did wish to invade Iraq prior to 9-11 (Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz) . That they wanted to as a respounce to 9-11. But then logic being what it is. “That dog don’t hunt”, how can you say that Sadam and Iraq were responsible for 9-11 when Bin laden and Afganistan were cheerfully taking credit. The American people maybe asleep but not stupid.
The difference between Presidents Kenndy and G.W. Bush. Kenndy lied because of a moral imperitive. Bush lied because of a agenda.
R.D.
Sounds like you have some sense.
Patrick J. Buchanan nailed it in a column back in 2003. I’ll post a link so you can read for yourself.
R>D> In short, here it is:
The Munich Card
As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:
Israel is the largest slave-trader in the world. The ship loaded with slaves could not stop or be discovered, but left the hit-and-run capsized Jalanese fishing boat it hit and 7 Japanese fisherman to drown.
Is there no end to these people?
Israeli ship kills 7 Japanese fishermen. Can’t they ever stop making trouble?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/631331.html
Iraq.
We need to stop this Israeli-driven expansion and stop bringing our soldiers home in coffins or with limbs blown-off. That number of dead and maimed has reached over 22,000 and increases daily.
Bush gave Ariel Sharon an old map of “Greater Israel” which stretches all the way from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq.
Bush is trying to help Sharon with that expansion and that is why we are in Iraq now. The evangelicals are on board because their religious beliefs are being exploited. Other Christian Churches are divesting investments out of Israel because they know what the secular Zionists are up to.
There was no legitimate reason to pull troops out of Afghanistan without first securing that country and diverting them into Iraq. That’s why all those manufactured lies were bandied about. Establishing a permanent presence in Iraq for Israeli expansion is why we are there. None of the other phony reasons given are true. I think that all of you know that.
Establishing a Greater Israel will cost the United States trillion in taxpayer money and monies borrowed against our Treasury. That will bankrupt this nation. Is that something Americans will knowingly want to do? Of course not and that’s why it’s shrouded in secrecy.
Israel has cost the United States $1.7 trillion since 1973.
On Channel 3 in Israel, Bush threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and because Iran supplies 60% of the world oil, the price of crude spiked to over $70 a barrel.
Pakistan threatened to come to Iran’s aid and the price of crude oil dropped somewhat. This is a very dangerous game Bush is playing, by allowing Israel to push him into it.
Bush tells the American People one thing and tells the Israelis another.
The time has come to stop this charade and let the truth be known.
This so-called war in Iraq needs to stop now.
We have needs right here in America.
Exit Strategy.Bush doesn’t have an Exit Strategy for Iraq because there never was one. The point is that there was never a plan to leave Iraq.
The plan was to invade Iraq, install a puppet government and stay. Iraq was invaded at the behest of Ariel Sharon of Israel and the purpose was to beat the Iraqis into submission, then establish a puppet government, as was done in Afghanistan, all the while building permanent military bases in Iraq.Israel’s “Greater Israel Plan” is to extend Israel all the way from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq. Disarming all Arab Countries is the first step.Leaving Iraq has never a consideration.The American People have been hoodwinked. But, of all things, the price of gasoline has the American public looking passed the White House propaganda and looking for the real reasons why crude-oil prices are spiking. The “word” is getting out about Israel’s shenanigans driving-up the price and the American People, armed with the truth, usually take it out on their politicans.But the White House is beginning to feel the heat about leaving Iraq in such a way that the Neoconservatives are ready to jump ship and are already showing signs of leaving the republican party, sensing they’ll be run out of office in the 2006 elections, and have begun corrupting whatever democratic politicians they consider might win House or Senate seats.
There is no “party loyalty” but rather which candidates will be good for Israel. The litmus test is how they will vote to keep the so-called “war on terrorism” alive { AIPAC is working at a fever pace }. Keeping that so-called “war on terrorism” alive is the key to funding Israeli expansion and that expansion is in real trouble.
The death rate among soldiers seems to have caught them by surprise and is grinding away support for the Iraq war, and that war, plus attacking Iran and Syria are the next key steps to capture the world’s oil supply. That goal is becoming more bloody by the minute.Neoconservative journalists are bashing Bush relentlessly in order to justify a “changing of the guard” in the leadership in congress. The “taking-down of Tom Delay seems a bit convenient.
Poor Bush will be the last to know, but, there’s nothing new there.
People please, we all know what is the sole purpose of war in Iraq. OIL, OIL, and OIL again.What do you think the Americans are doing back there. Sitting on their asses. Think again. They are pumping OIL for US, in other words stealing it from Iraq. And noone has the balls to say that loud because US is the only superpower at the moment. Did you hear that marine who is pissed of by the fact that he’s risking his life to protect OIL trucks on their 2 mile sprint while being driven by people who’s paycheck is 3-4 times higher than his. US is the largest consumer in the world. They are willing to kill anybody who stands in their OIL way. Think about their cars which are the largest oil burners in the world, and just now they (car industry) are looking for more efficient engines.. Americans are like that in every way. They don’t care about enviroment, natural resources, they are like parasites – they eat and eat untill there is nothing left. Fuck the rest… And yes, 9-11 is the result of US government and their actions. They brought it to themselves.. Serves them right. And if you think I’m being ruthless (US civilians, WTC etc..), remember that in my country and a lot of other countries civilians are dying everyday. Why should American life be more valuable than other? We are kind of numb to that, so it stresses us as much as reinstalling Windows does. Sorry but you made us feel like that. I’m not saying all Americans are like that, but hey – I’m not reelecting Bush(es) all the time. If you are voting for him, you support his goals.To sumarise my two cents – US has only one goalin Iraq – OIL. Period.
The war is for Oil now? Did we warp back in 1991 and the first gulf war and I didn’t notice? Because if so I need a different hair cut.
I’m interested in knowing what country you are from Marko and where you are currently living. Because if you are a foreigner, living in the US, you may be the biggest hypocrite on this blog. But I’ll await your answer first.
Welcome to our forum Marko. Not sure how you came on this one. If you look at the time stamps, we were hashing this one out last year. And boy could I write back then! Isn’t it telling that those words from a year ago would be just as applicable today?
One thing that HAS changed since then is the opinion of some of the posters. There is less support now for “staying the course” then back then.