More and more retired generals are calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to go. But because it seems like President Bush doesn’t want to fire Rumsfeld and Congress doesn’t want to censure Bush, a Los Angeles Times commentary suggests a third way: Congress could censure Rumsfeld. The commentary makes this suggestion and others to frustrated Democrats, noting that the U.S. House censured President Lincoln’s secretary of war, Simon Cameron, in 1862 on corruption grounds.
It’s more likely that Bush will give Rummy a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
233 Comments
The Bush Family and Rumsfield have been great friends and business partners for years. Do you really think W. is going to stab him in the back? W and Rummy are part of the close knit crony group that makes up our administration. That is why you see Bush backing him every step of the way.
It is fairly obvious. No matter what Bush does he will be wrong.
If Bush supports Rumsfield you will continue to attack him for sticking by what you claim to be a bad Secretary of Defenense.
If Bush actually does turn on Rumsfield then it is basically acknowledgeing his critics claims which they will all hail as proof that the war was mishandled.
No matter what Bush does he will be attacked.
So go about your business of finding the next mud of the week to throw at the wall and watch it slide right off like the rest of it.
Don’t you mean blood instead of mud?
Wonder if the rumours are true and H.R. McMaster. is writing a new book about incompetent leadership? He’s the author of “Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam”.
Good point Nathan. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield have so totally “Cheneyed” the situation in Iraq that there really is no way for them to extricate themselves. If Bush fires Rumsfield he would be admitting the truth; he cannot do that. So, he will keep Rumsfield and will continue to adhere to the Big Lie.
Besides, Bush CANNOT fire Rumsfield. Only Bush’s boss Cheney can do that.
The three are linked tighter than a mobius strip. This is not a one man operation. Ben is correct that if you take one down, the rest will be left holding empty air and the blood of the men and women who died over there for nothing. Sad.
Nathan,
Yeah, the Major Generals in command of the 82nd Airbone and the First Infantry Division–now that they’ve attacked Rumsfeld, they’re just a couple of Bush-hating hacks.
C F – you left out “Pro-Terrorist America-haters”
Ben Huie, check.
“The pro-terrorist America hating former commanders of the 82nd Airborne Division. and the First Infantry Divison.”
My bad.
Yep the same guys who know nothing about going to war and what it takes because they have served in the armed forces, instead of Rumsfield who was a draft dodging sissy just like Bush/Cheney!!!!
No, there is no redemption for President Bush, nor should there be. That’s because, under President Bush’s “leadership,” certain basic, fundamental issues dealing with American excellence, especially accountability and personal responsibility, are broken.
They were broken by President Bush and so far he refuses to fix them.
The redemption of President Bush can only begin when accountability is restored to the White House.
Until then, the president deserves anything coming his way. Only the office and the country are above this “anything goes” criticism, frankly. This is hardly exceptional; rather, it’s the American way as defined by President Bush himself.
For example, if you found yourself supporting President Bush’s attacks on John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, and John Murtha – if you found them justified and valid – then it seems to me that you must logically agree that President Bush is unredeemable sans a restoration of accountability to the Executive or be judged a hypocrite.
President Bush has made his own bed, and he’ll lay in it until he accepts responsibility for his mistakes.
$0.02
Does it count that the fact Bush is wrong no matter what is true.
Bush is worthless, and nothing can be done to improve that.
It took awhile for Bush to show us his true colors. He is still in the process of unravelling, as lie after lie is exposed.
Interesting comment flike:
“For example, if you found yourself supporting President Bush’s attacks on John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, and John Murtha…”
Refresh my memory, what attacks? The premise for your comments is false.
Hank
Note: The word “terrorist” has a phony definition and does not apply to the Middle East conflict.
“John McCain fathered an illegitimate child” – Rumor spread during the SC primary 2000. Came from Bush aide Karl Rove.
Hank, of course you’re right. Bush never attacked John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, and John Murtha. The attacks were carried out by people who worked for or support Bush on Bush’s behalf. That absolves Bush of any wrong-doing.
Willful ignorance. Alice in Wonderland. Head in the sand. Fingers stuck in ears singing LA, LA, LA….
The CEO president – delegate such activities to subordinates. Then, like Ken Lay, deny any involvement.
Hank, the attacks are well documented.
It’s interesting that in an argument about accountability you would prefer to hold President Bush not.
Thanks for your help in making my point.
“Bush and his administration have managed to combine profound incompetence with profound certainty.”
Ben,Are you trying to say, in a round about way, the Bush administration is certainly incompetent?
Back to Rumsfeld…
It’s interesting that Rummy has been involved with the White House since Nixon and through GW Bush. He was absent during GHW Bush’s tenure, or at least I couldn’t find anything.
A few more things:Rumsfeld was a founder and active member of the Project for the New American Century, whose goal is to “promote American global leadership” and which in September 2000 proposed to invade Iraq. He signed the 1998 PNAC Letter sent to President Bill Clinton advocating the use of force in Iraq to “protect our vital interests in the gulf”;served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Company (the oral contraceptive pill Enovid). Under Rumsfeld, Searle got FDA approval for the controversial artificial sweetener, aspartame, which it marketed as NutraSweet. (Aspertame is still questionable. Everyone in my family is “allergic” to it. Even “sugar free” gum containing aspertame causes us headaches. We check labels);During his period as Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East (11/83-5/84), Rumsfeld was the main conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein, then fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
And check out the statements of the 7 Generals who have recently spoken out.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
PNAC is Rumsfeld’s brass ring and he’s not going to let go. Rumsfeld and Israel are running this show and they’re willing to spend every dime and every life the United States can produce in order to keep the brass shinny.
If they need to blow-up the world, well if that’s what it takes, then that’s their price.
There’s your one trick.
Don’t forget Rummy’s involvement with his good humanitarian friend Saddam and the US-backed war against Iran. That history goes a long way toward explaining Iran’s “paranoia” about US intentions. (It is not paranoia when they are really out to get you)
Yup, Nathan, you’re exactly right.
BushCo is damned if they keep Rumsfilled and damned if they don’t.
That’s what happens when you’re the
Worst. President. Ever.
I’m sorry,I don’t remember anyone from Bush’s staff or administration attacking Murtha or anyone else.
Let’s keep it real simple, document one attack by the Bush administration on Murtha, just one.
They have pretty much ignored the pathetic, dodling old man.
Hank
I thought you would be used to the illogical leaps and bounds people here make to connect the dots to draw whatever picture they want to…
Gee, Hank, you have a point. In Murtha’s case, it was Scottie McClellan, not Bush:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html
And of course, we all KNOW that he was just speaking his own opinion off the top of his head. After all, WH spokespersons are positively INFAMOUS for speaking their own minds, with no input from the president or his staff, and in brave defiance of the chief executive who can fire them at will!
Boy, you sure told them, Hank!
Rage,
Nice one. Except that Hank Price will play semantics and deny that McClellan’s words count as an ‘attack.’
Hank Price,
So, Frank Murtha is ‘the pathetic, dodling (sic) old man’? Right back at ya.
I do wonder whether all dinner table conversations in the Price family employ the disingenuous tactic of denying what is widely understood in order to make one’s case?
In this case, Hank Price will claim to be technically correct, though Rage has already disproven this. Another example was when Secretary Rumsfeld directly implied that Murtha’s criticisms help America’s enemies.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/20/rumsfeld-murtha/
And, for that matter, John McCain filled out his new Bush family consigliere suit by taking up the attack on Murtha as ’sentimental’ and having ‘never been a big thinker.’
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/06/mccain-murtha/
But really, that’s all beside the point if one refuses to admit what everbody knows: the Bush family and Karl Rove use proxies to attack their political enemies. Their history of political dirty tricks goes back decades. Hank and Nathan, the tag-team plausible deniers, get to stick to their “aw shucks, I don’t see nothin’” script and pooh-pooh whatever doesn’t match up with the most obvious and literal standard of culpability.
And even when something of this sort DOES come along, as demonstrated on the above thead concerning Iran, they apply the ‘plausible deniability’ standard to what CANNOT be plausibly denied.
The disastrousness of this insistence, by the Administration and its defenders, that “I’m right no matter what I say” ought to be obvious to everyone–except for those who think they’re right, no matter what they say.
“John McCain filled out his new Bush family consigliere suit”
CF, you crack me up!
ksfarmgrrl,
That’s a bit of uncredited spin I picked up somewhere or other. Can’t have you thinking I’m even one jot or tittle cleverer than I actually am.
Dear Rage,
Your link supports my contention, not yours. The administration has been very respectful and professional in ther response to Murtha.
Murtha is wrong. When Rumsfield and others say that Murtha’s comments aid the enemy it is the truth.
Murtha’s remarks are basically without substance and full of childish invective and personnal attacks on the character of the president and his staff.
Telling the truth about a democrat’s position is not an ‘attack’.
Hank
CF said:
“… Hank Price will play semantics and deny that McClellan’s words count as an ‘attack.”
Then hank said:
“Telling the truth about a democrat’s position is not an ‘attack’.”
CF also said:
“Hank and Nathan, the tag-team plausible deniers, get to stick to their “aw shucks, I don’t see nothin’” script and pooh-pooh whatever doesn’t match up with the most obvious and literal standard of culpability”
hank said:
“Your link supports my contention, not yours. The administration has been very respectful and professional in ther response to Murtha.”
Right on cue hank. Good predictions CF. Are you reading the talking points too? Or just experience?
Great tactic of the BushBots – anyone who questions their actions are guilty of “aiding the enemy”. Never mind that it is the piss-poor actions of BushCo who are hurting America and helping our enemies every day.
Dear Ben,
Nothing intelligent in your post. I ask flike for an example and I get nothing but crap.
And you call me a BushBot?
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
Thanks for the summary. Your point?
Hank – when you and others label those who question Bush’s decisions as “aiding the enemy” you are implying that any criticism is tantamount to treason. Such a tactic is designed to squash dissent. And yes, I will call those who aprticipate in that BushBots.
Hank, for clarification’s sake, you think you’ve indentified an error in my example, not in my premise.
Speaking of my example, let’s use Rage’s link, where Bush’s spokesman said of Murtha:
“The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists.”
Does characterizing Murtha’s position as “surrender” meet your definition of attack?
ksfarmgrrl,
Figuring where the Wingnut argument is going to go next isn’t rocket science. Hell, it isn’t even ‘intelligent design.’ At best, it’s Fascism 101: deny, dissemble, divert.
And when confronted with dead-to-rights evidence, Hank and Nathan’s arguments always devolve into some Wingnut variation on ‘this is not a pipe.’ That is, show them a pipe, and they’ll tell you it isn’t a pipe.
Here’s a nice picture from Rene Magritte that encapsulates their claims.
http://www.topo.ucl.ac.be/images/magritte.trahison.gif
What’s funny is that by allying themselves with Rene Magritte, their relativistic and superficial postmodern nihilistic sensibility contradicts the other values they claim to espouse: traditional values of home, hearth, and literal truth.
There are those who support the Zionist-Jews and those who support America.
One is the enemy, take your pick.
I support America, America’s longs held values, and America’s sense of fair-play.
The rest of you can go take a FF.
Waking-up to the fact you’re all washed-up might help you and your those with whom you agree stop supporting all these nonsense killings. No matter how many grandiose impossible plans are stretched out across the table, or insatiable greed is applied, only grief will result.In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Alec Guinness cried-out: ” My God, what have I done.”
extra word: “your”
Dear Ben,
If in one specific instance I characterize someone’s comments against Bush and the war on terror as aiding the enemy that in no way means that I generally believe or imply that any criticism of the president is aiding the enemy.
Now you are smart enough to realize that arguing from the specific to the general is not a logical argument. Why do you use it with me? Also, you put aiding the enemy in parenthesis when responding to me. The implication is that they are my words. It is a disengenous way of arguing a point; constructing a straw man.
I don’t have a pet name similar to “BushBot” to call you, I’m just a little disappointed that you bring so little of substance to the discussion.
Hank
Dear flike,
Murtha’s position on Iraq has changed several times in the last few months. In almost every one of his stated positions, he mischarcterizes the president’s position and goals in Iraq. He is not a credible critic.
Murtha is, however, a politician. As such he needs to be able to take as well as give criticism. In almost every official response from the president or his staff they have been respectful and nonpersonal in their response. Unlike the personal vitriol and lies from Murtha.
If you understand the latest position of Murtha, how exactly does it differ from surender?
Hank
We should attack Iran next. Shouldn’t we Hank and Nathan?
Go ahead. Get on record now.
PNCA is a foolhardy plan so what the hell would you be surrendering to?
Is leaving a burning building a sign of cowardliness?
Rumsfeld and Cheney were the co-founders of PNAC, the world conquering nit-wit plan that couldn’t possibly work.
Leaving is saving throw-away money and lives. Just how is that surrendering?
Are you that desperate to save something worthless? As in a very stupid idea to start with?
your words Hank: “When Rumsfield and others say that Murtha’s comments aid the enemy it is the truth.” So, we find ourselves in a situation where legitimate criticism is “aid the enemy”
Where has Murtha “mischarcterizes the president’s position and goals in Iraq”? Bush’s failures in Iraq are mammoth; it is time to quit denying that.
Hank, I’ll take that as a “no, that is not an attack on Murtha.”
I note that you characterize Murtha’s comments as “vitriol and lies.”
Do you consider it unfair that “No matter what Bush does he will be attacked?”
Hank is America’s enemy as the soldiers, generals and the American public all want to get the hell out of Iraq. It was a lost cause ton start with. Only the Zionist-Jews like it as a precursor to inflaming the entire Middle East. The crazy bastards are crazy, period.
We jail people for their lunatic murdering behaviour. Now they’ve gotten us involved.
Ben to Hank
“Bush failures in Iraq are mammoth it is time to quit denying that.”
I wouldn’t hold my breath Ben. Remember, to Hank this war was absolutely necessary.
Which is why I ask again.We should attack Iran next shouldn’t we Hank?
Dear Ben,
We have a difference of opinion. I’ve listened to Murtha’s criticism and it is nitwitery. It is not in my opinion legitimate or credible. He lies. He aids the enemy. Now there is a lot of criticism of Bush’s policies that I find credible and legitimate. I don’t think all criticism aids the enemy.
Murtha has been against the war since before the war. His position has changed in recent months from immediate withdrawal to immediate redeployment to redeployment in six months. He does not have the support of his own party. He is not credible. His rantings aid the terrorists.
As for the case for the war in Iraq, compared to past wars, it can be called one of the most sucessful. We are making progress. Murtha has never said anything that would indicate that he has an understanding of our sucesses and goals in the Mideast. He is either stupid or a lier. I would guess both.
Hank
Dear JR,
Of course we should attack Iran next! Why not? Should we wait until they attack us?
Hank
It took Iran over 20 years to develop the 300 centrifuges they allegedly have to enrich uranium to the 3% level. It will take another 1500 centrifuges PLUS a lot of supporting equipment and technology that they have not yet even started to develop. In addition, the non-nuclear proliferation treaty allows the debvelopment of nuclear power for energy use in the first 2 paragraphs of the document.
So, now, Hank you are left with 2 chices. You’re a mind reader, because you KNOW that their intent is to develop a bomb. OR, you believe that because some has the shift knob for a car they’re on the verge of completing the whole car.
Iran MAY be a contender to the US, but it is clear that they are nowhere near developing anything that approaches weapons grade uranium, nor are they in possession of the missile and guidance technology to deliver it.
I’d say we have another twenty or more years to ponder a peaceful settlement to the situation. We can always bomb them back to the stone age then..I guess that might be a problem if you’re a hawk and think you’ll be dead by then and miss the show.
Hank – we attacked Iran before in conjunction with Iraq and our good buddy Saddam. Perhaps that is why they are so “paranoid.”
correction, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
If we shut-down Israel, Iran has no reason to attack anymore than Canada.
Zionist hide behind religious Jews, that’s called Zionism. The same way Bush uses so-called evangelical Christians to keep himself in power, or better yet, his handlers in power { PNAC’s Rumsfeld and Cheney }.
Hank
Setting aside Iran for a moment. (They have NO CAPACITY to attack us)
How about North Korea. Should we also attack them?
In facts ,save me some posting time here. Let’s have your wish list for countries we should attack.
Zionist keep peace away by constantly causing trouble, enough trouble to get the Palestinians to retaliate, then the cycle continues and the Zionist’s PR takes over claiming they are the victims.
Victim status is what the Zionist run Israel on, that’s why their coveted Holocaust is not to be questioned, investigated, inspected by historians, verified in any way, because if it was exposed as a myth, there goes the very “victim status” Israel was built-on which the Zionists need to exploit.
The world’s worst brutality ever known, claming they are the victims.
They rewrote history to suit that status.
Ed – the holocaust has been “questioned, investigated, inspected by historians, verified” and has been shown to be true.
I sure it has.
The HOLOHOAX for Dummies
1. In 1939, there were nearly 15,700,000 Jews in the world.* After the Second World War that number had risen to over 18,000,000 Jews.**
What this means is that of the 15,000,000 original Jews on the planet, 6,000,000 were gassed, leaving only some 9,000,000-plus. Then, the world Jewish population rebounded and doubled to over 18,000,000 in less than nine years—an astonomical feat, which astounded biologists and baby doctors everywhere!
2. From the Beginning, there was the SIX MILLION, of which 4,000,000 were gassed at Auschwitz. Then, in 1990 it was discovered that only 1.5 million were gassed at Auschwitz, a difference of 2.5 million less.
But somehow the magical SIX MILLION remained, even though no instant replacement was ever found. YHWH moves in mysterious ways!
3. At the same time, the director of the Auschwitz State Museum Dr. Franciszek Piper, announced that the so-called gas chamber there had been fabricated by the Soviets AFTER the war!
4. But there’s more. The International Red Cross reported that less than 300,000 internees of all nationalities in the German camps died of all causes, including old age. And of these, barely more than half were Jews. Most of these died in several typhoid epidemics caused by wartime conditions, which claimed many lives—including those of doctors, nurses and camp administrative personnel!
5. But even these deaths were too much for the German authorities. On December 8, 1942, Heinrich Himmler, chief commandant of all detention facilities, issued an order stating categorically: “The death rate in the camps must be reduced at all costs.”
6. In all of German-occupied Europe there were 2.4 million Jews. After the war, 3.8 million Jews claimed “survivor” benefits from the German government. Tragically, the remaining 6 million were lost.
7. It was a miracle. According to The New York Times of Sunday, January 4, 1987, celebrated survivor Elie Wiesel recalled “the day the Soviets arrived at Auschwitz.” Then, in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington D.C., reported by the Jewish Telegraph Agency on April 11, 1983, he had a different recollection. He noted that he was “one of the survivors liberated at Dachau by the U.S. Army” on April 15, 1945—and thus became the only prisoner of war to hold the distinction of being liberated from two different camps in World War II!
8. Not to be outdone by The Weasel, famous “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal died serenely at age 96, knowing that, according to BBC News, he had survived 12—count ‘em!—TWELVE Nazi “death camps.”
9. In 1948 a story appeared about a hapless Jewish girl who was done in by the Nazis. It was written with a ballpoint pen, something that did not appear on the market until after the war. It was called—”The Diary of Anne Frank”!
10. So where did this SIX MILLION business start? For that we must go back to one Ilya Ehrenburg,* chief Soviet propagandist during the Second World War and later on to die in Israel, who coined the mythic number on Dec. 22, 1944—BEFORE tens of thousands of Jewish internees, given the choice of staying to be “liberated” by the Communists or going with their German captors, did not hesitate to choose the latter option!
* The American Jewish Committee cites a figure of 15,688,259.
** The Jewish-owned New York Times for Feb. 22, 1948, uses a figure of 18,700,000.
*** When the Red Cross interviewed thousands of freed camp inmates at the end of the war, asking whether they had witnessed alleged “gassings,” the response was universally negative. According to IRC document #9925, June, 1946: “The detainees themselves have not spoken of them.”
***** In his book Legend of Our Time, New York, 1982, The Weasel explained: “Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are—although they never occurred.”
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Behind the Military Revolt: The Target Goes Beyond Rumsfeld
Richard Holbrooke, The Washington Post”The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct — MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman’s authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: Civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.
First, it is clear that the retired generals — six so far, with more likely to come — surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing “with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership.” He went on to “challenge those still in uniform … to give voice to those who can’t — or don’t have the opportunity to — speak.” These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, “when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons.”
Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Johnson, they did the same thing.
Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)
This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals’ revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as “two or three retired generals out of thousands.” But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations — perhaps soon — from generals who heed Newbold’s stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm’s way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.
Facing this dilemma, Bush’s first reaction was exactly what anyone who knows him would have expected: He issued strong affirmations of “full support” for Rumsfeld, even going out of his way to refer to the secretary of defense as “Don” several times in his statements. (This was in marked contrast to his tepid comments on the future of his other embattled Cabinet officer, Treasury Secretary John Snow. Washington got the point.)
In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. I do not reach this conclusion simply because of past mistakes, simply because “someone must be held accountable.” Many people besides Rumsfeld were deeply involved in the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan; many of them remain in power, and some are in uniform.
The major reason the nation needs a new defense secretary is far more urgent. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Rumsfeld’s famous “long screwdriver,” with which he sometimes micromanages policy, now thwarts the top-to-bottom re-examination of strategy that is absolutely essential in both war zones. Lyndon Johnson understood this in 1968 when he eased another micromanaging secretary of defense, McNamara, out of the Pentagon and replaced him with Clark M. Clifford. Within weeks, Clifford had revisited every aspect of policy and begun the long, painful process of unwinding the commitment. Today, those decisions are still the subject of intense dispute, and there are many differences between the two situations. But one thing was clear then and is clear today: Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change.
That first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge — and they will — if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
— Richard Holbrooke is a former US ambassador to the United Nations.—–
Long and relevant posts since my last.
I am not going to let Hank hide behind them.
So I ask again Hank for your list of countries that need invading for thier own or our own national interest. You have already named Iran.
Continue.
I second JR’s motion.
Ed, I think it’s up to 7 Generals now.
1. MAJ. GEN. Paul D. EatonArmy, commanded training of Iraqi security forces until 2004.
2. GEN. Anthony C. ZinniMarines, former head of United States Central Command.
3. LT. GEN. Gregory NewboldMarines, director of operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000 to 2002.
4. MAJ. GEN. John BatisteArmy, former commander, First Infantry Division in Iraq.
5. AJ. GEN. John M. RiggsArmy, former director, Objective Force Task Force.
6. MAJ. GEN. Charles H. Swannack Jr.Army, former commander, 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq.
7. LT. GEN. Paul van RiperMarines, Director of the Command and Staff College, Quantico VA.
See their comments:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
Diplomats for Changehttp://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/06/16_diplomats-military-commanders.htm
RD – can I nominate the Bahamas for invasion?
Dear JR,
I don’t think I said “invade Iran”, I said attack.
Iran has made a deal with China and Russia to provide them with oil. China and Russia needs Iran’s oil. We should let Russia and China know that unless they help us keep this rabid dog under control we will be forced to take action.
We should bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran’s president has said that Israel’s complete annihilation will be soon. So here we have a man elected president that says his purpose is to foment a war between the cultures. A man that has promised to attack Israel. A country that is developing nuclear weapons. A country that we have evidence that is supplying men and munitions to the insurgents in Iraq. Iran is a country that is basically at war with us.
I would bomb them into the stone age.
Next would be Syria. They too are supplying insurgents in Iraq. They are the next worse country as far as supporting terrorists.
Korea is a dog that is on China’s porch. Our presence in South Korea keeps them on the porch but China also has them under control. Our problem is with China, not North Korea.
Then, France would be next on the list. Just for general principals.
Hank
The evidence of either Iran or Syria being behind the Iraqi resistence is dubious at best. It gives me an eerie sense of “deja vu all over again” with the WMD claims etc.
Thank you your candor hank. Do feel free to share more.
Earlier, you posted that we should attack Iran before they attack us. Yet today you are talking about attacking Iran before they attack Israel. Since when is the United States Israel?
Also “We should let Russia and China know that unless they help us keep this rabid dog under control we will be forced to take action”
Hank? What if Russia and China take the attitude (as you do) that they have a right to defend THEIR national interests? (Iranian oil) If we “take action” might they not take action as well? And that takes it out of the sandbox.
China and Russia have nukes AND ICBMS. Are you prepared to engage that to keep Iran from getting a nuke?Global war to prevent regional dischord? Is that what you are advocating?
“Korea is on China’s porch” Well, Iran sure as heck ain’t on OUR porch!
JR
Iran is the largest fomenter and supporter of terrorism in the world. They have been at war with us since Carter. Diplomacy isn’t working, they consider it a sign of weakness. Radical Islamic Facists have a long term goal of world domination and any negotiations lead to more violence.
Nuke ‘em.
Hank
Dear JR,
You ask,
“China and Russia have nukes AND ICBMS. Are you prepared to engage that to keep Iran from getting a nuke?”
Yes.
Hank
Dear Ben,
You’re right. Iran is a rogue nation that is the number one problem in the Mideast. Have you paid any attention to the threats that their current president is making against us and our allies?
Hank
Hank,
I credit you your honesty. Beyond that I can’t see you as anything but terribly dangerous. I do hope there are not many beyond your own son that are like you.
Would that you could do it alone or suffer the consequences alone and not destroy the whole world.
I think you hank have as goal either American hegemony or Armageddon. And I don’t think you have a preference either way. I am forced to wonder as I do with bush just where your faith begins and the world ends.
Here’s what Bush said when he concluded his first debate in October of 2000–
“I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman, I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped. I want anti-ballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail our allies and friends.”
He made two points–one, he wasn’t going to get us bogged down in overseas “peacekeeping” like Clinton did in Bosnia and two, his big security concern was “missile defense.”
We’re now bogged down in not one but TWO hot wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and covert action has already been undertaken against IRAQ.
So point number one was a damned lie.
Point number two, while not a lie, shows the huge error of identifying the true threat to our country. Missile defense means big bucks to cronies and backers. Chasing down terrorists like Clinton had done doesn’t lend itself to greasing palms.
Bush = TWIT Happens.
Yes Hank. I HAVE been paying attention. After their idiocy with the emabassy we then went through the bribary (Iran/Contra) fiasco and then things got worse. We backed saddam in his unprovoked attack on Iran, providing saddam with weapons including chemicals. Then we ordered a blockade of Iran in support of Saddam and sent the USS Vincennes INSIDE Iranian waters to enforce that blockade. That led to the “accidental” blowing up of a civilian airliner.
No wonder Iran thinks we are hostile to them and feel a need to have a defense capability.
The ONLY threat they have made against the US would be retaliation if we attack them.
RD, The rabid dog is Israel. One stroke from us and peace comes to the Middle East.
We created Israel based upon lies about their victim status, and the proof of that can be found in how they treat others and their continuing lying about be “terrorized” instead of a truthful description of being retaliated against for their massive inhumane cruelty.
Israel has nothing to offer. There is no interest which they serve except their own greed.
They have not earned a right to exist an therefore should be completely annihilated. That single step would demonstrate to the Arabs that the United States is committed to peace and a good relationship with the Arabs world. Also the United states should rejoin the World Court and drag the Zionist war-criminals before it to receive their justice and punishments. War-criminals from both the United States and Israel should be made to stand trail, here for treason, there for murder.
Ridding ourselves of Israel has a long list of benefits.
As a people, they have been despised for thousands of years and those reasons which have made them that way become more apparent each day.
Israel has brought America to its lowest moral standing ever and our association with them is not in the national interest of the United States.
Hank give us good insight into the dedication by Israel to massacre anyone who stands in the way of their PNAC Plan toward world dominance and if Israel were in charge of this world, it would be the hell-hole which the mother of all greed has to offer.
Zionist Israel welcomes to opportunity to starve the Palestinians rather than make peace with them and other Arab nations around them.
Zionist Jews have no worth as Hank’s proposed bloodthirsty rampage clearly demonstrates.
And . . . how’s the morale and equipping of the military going these days, hehehe . . . what a moron.
For that matter LeftHook, how is the search for WMDs going? And how is Ahmed Chalabi doinf as our chosen leader for Iraq?
I love the way the reich-wing loves to ridicule the French for opposing our invasion of Iraq.
Hank thinks we should invade them just for “general principles.” Apparently, that’s funny among the dittoheads.
What’s really strange is that Germany also opposed our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
You want to attack the Germans too, Hank? You know, the sissy, cowardly Krauts? Those wimps who conquered all of Europe and similtaneously brought the Soviet Union to its knees?
Nope, you won’t hear them kidding about THAT.
RD, The People of England have come to their senses ans will not allow Blair to support any more of crazy Zionist Israel’s world conquest garbage, which means our homegrown lunatic Bush is running out of friends as fast as Hank is running out of nut-cases.
I’m surprised it has taken the world so long to recognize Israel for what it really is, but with their propaganda machine in full swing, it’s been difficult wading through all of their shit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0418/dailyUpdate.html?s=mesdu
“I want to be the world’s peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped.”
Peacemaker? Hardly. War monger is more the truth than the nonsense he spouts. Invade Afghanistan? WRONG! Invade Iraq? WRONG! Invade Iran? STUPID!
The UN is supposed to be the worlds’ peacemaker, not the US. Bush’s attempt to unify the UN in his quest to destroy everything he disagrees with has so far fallen on deaf ears. But the UN has failed in its attempts to form a coalition, and that is not a good thing. The UN is going to have to dig real deep on Iran to come up with a plan to stop Iran from nuking Israel. And it’s going to have to come from the UN, not the US.
Ho boy, This will get Ed’s goat: Yesterday on Rush Limburger, Rumsfeld claimed that all anti war activists were being controlled by the media, who in turn is being controlled by Zargawi, Bin-Laden, and their media commitees. If that ain’t paranoia, I’m a sheep farmer.
But the main point is, where are the Israeli controlled media moguls on this? Surely they arn’t controlled by the Al-Quida network! ROFLMAO.
We should help Iran get the job on Israel done. Poof and we’re all back to dollar a gallon gasoline and a balanced budget. The “wall” would actually shield the Palestinians from the Blasts{ This four hundred mile long “wall” could have fixed the levee in New Orleans.
http://www.vtjp.org/background/Separation_Wall_Report.htm
It is so typical for those lying-ass Zionist-Jews to call a wall a fence rather than tell the truth. So you tell me: Which is it?
http://www.vtjp.org/background/Separation_Wall_Report.htm
Naw, JM, the media is controlled by an entity called “$$.” That’s why Rupert Murdoch sees fits to give money to conservative causes, and gives us Faux News–and “Family Guy.” :-)
Having said that, American media does tend to stick the “official script” far too often, and that invariably means “no criticism of Israel allowed.”
So Hank wants to nuke Iran. I don’t know whether to laugh or cower in terror. I’m stocking up on water NOW. I WON’T let them have my precious bodily fluids! NOT ME!
I’ve never seen anything like this it politics. The other-side is insane. We don’t have the usual disagreements as to where we should be spending money or taxes, it’s now all crazy stuff.
Lets strap Rush Limburger to the H-Bomb, give him a cowboy hat to fan the bomb with and ride it all the way down to Tel Aviv for starters. Then, one by one each member of PNAC: YEEEEEHAAAAAAA
This is fun. Even my goat is smiling. Hank, have you given much thought about therapy.
Hank’s way of thinking scares the beejezus out of me. Nuke em! Nuke ‘em! My GOD, Hank, do you not value anything? Is complete annihilation your answer to everything? Did not Hiroshima teach a lesson?
Even scarier is the fact that this is Bush’s way of thinking, too. What will be left after we’ve nuked every part of the world that doesn’t agree with us or follow our way of thinking? (”Our” being the term Bush uses for OUR country.) Is global warming not fast enough? Fry ‘em with nukes is much, much quicker? And what is left? Very possibly very little, considering how far nuclear fallout can travel.
And have you checked out how “safe” our own nuclear facilities are? Who feels safer, now that we’ve heated up the Middle East to the boiling point?
If the Armageddon people truly believe that pushing the second coming of Christ is going to get them into the Kingdom of Heaven, they may get a big surprise. Do you think tampering with the Bible to facilitate your wishes is what God had in mind?
You call your Christian, Hank?
Jesus wept. And he’s crying buckets right now, I’m sure.
Rage, I’m going to start critiquing Zionist Israel if they don’t straighten-up. It’s about time somebody did.
RD,
If you knew my father you wouldn’t question his faith at all.
It seems that the only way to argue around here is by introducing some type of personal comment about someone instead of just debating the issue.
You all asked Hank what he thought and instead of discussing it with him you turn to insulting him instead:
“You call your Christian, Hank?”
“The other-side is insane.”
“So Hank wants to nuke Iran. I don’t know whether to laugh or cower in terror. I’m stocking up on water NOW. I WON’T let them have my precious bodily fluids! NOT ME!”
“reich-wing”
“…I can’t see you as anything but terribly dangerous. I do hope there are not many beyond your own son that are like you.”
“I think you hank have as goal either American hegemony or Armageddon. And I don’t think you have a preference either way.”
:)
I think RD’s concern might be that some who are very doctrinaire in their religious faith then use that to justify mass killings. We saw that on 9/11 with IslamISTS and in Bosnia with ChristISTS. Anyone who can blithly suggest a nuclear attack on a country that has not attacked us can be frightening.
We speak a lot about Iran as a threat to the US. How about the US as a threat to Iran? Consider: in the 1980s we backed Saddam and gave him chemicals to use against Iran. In support of that attack we blockaded Iran. We sent the USS Vincennes INSIDE Iranian territorial waters. While illegally present inside Iranian waters the Vincennes blew up a civilian Iranian airliner.
Is it paranoia for Iran to fear a country that does that? Is it any surprise that Iran would want the means to defend itself?
So Nathan wants a “serious discussion” on whether we should nuke another nation. Geez.
I never thought I’d be nostalgic for the cold war.
Do you have a point to make on this thread Nathan or are you just here to judge what others have posted?
By the way this is an OPINION forum. The last 2 posts you recapitulate are mine. I asked a poster a question and he answered it. Unless and until he posts otherwise or cites some legitimate qualification, I stand by my OPINION of his answers.
And if I were a foreign national and knew that there were actually such thinking in Ameirca, I would be doing everything in my power to be armed and ready to fight.
You know, sort of like what is happening.
We now know that the UN was bought and paid for by Saddam’s ‘oil for food’ plan. The corruption in the UN has made it one of the biggests threats to world peace.
The corrupt officials that undermined our efforts is Iraq for a peaceful solution need to be prosecuted. The blame for the need to invade Iraq can be place directly on the UN.
As far as Germany and France goes, I don’t really think we should invade or attack them. We should just pull our troops out of their countries, pull out of NATO and let them carry on their little failed experimnent with socialism without the benefit of our defensive umbrella.
The culture of France has been permently altered for the worse by the Muslim invasion. They are a third world country that with our our support and alliance will soon become just another Muslim sink hole.
Germany cannot survive wihtout our protection. It’s time for us to end out occupation there also.
Hank
So it is the fault of the UN that saddam did NOT have WMDs? Is it also the fault of the UN that we shot down a civilian Iranian airliner?
Actually I’m amused by everyone’s concern over nuclear weapons. I have a neighbor that as a little girl survived the fire bombings of Tokyo. She told me of the horrors one day and as I cried she comforted me! Talk to anyone that lived in Japan during the second world war and ask them which was worse, fire bombing or nuclear bombs.
A tactical nuclear strike on Iran’s weapon facilities would be a very effective and humane way of dealing with the problem. Which would you rather be close to, a Daisy cutter or a nuclear artillary round when it went off?
Hank
China and North Korea both have nukes and the means to deliver them so why not go after those countries first rather than Iran? The answer is simple; the Asians are not a direct threat to the israeli criminals and there are no oil reserves in China/Korea for shrub’s oil buddies, haliburton and the carpetbaggers to exploit!
If we really wanted to make America safe then we would nuke both israel and mexico, tomorrow!
The Free Congress CommentaryThe Next Conservatism #38: The Next Conservatism Grand StrategyBy William S. Lind
April 18, 2006
One of the goals of the next conservatism should be to restore the American republic rather than continue our march toward empire, with the loss of liberties that inevitably entails. Restoring the republic, in turn, means restoring the grand strategy America followed through most of its history. That grand strategy was defensive, not offensive.
The Washington Establishment seems to think that wars can be won only by taking the offensive. Over and over, we hear that in the misnamed “war on terror,” America is on the offensive (which guarantees more war). We are all supposed to accept this as something good.
Clausewitz, the great Prussian military theorist, would disagree. Early in his book ¬On War, Clausewitz wrote,
. . . defense is simply the stronger form of war, the one that makes the enemy’s defeat more certain . . . We maintain unequivocally that the form of warfare we call defense not only offers greater probability of victory than attack, but that its victories can attain the same proportions and results.
What would an American defensive grand strategy look like in a 21st Century that is likely to be dominated by Fourth Generation war, war waged by non-state entities such as al Qaeda? Before we can answer that question we first must address two others. The first is, what do we mean by grand strategy?
The greatest American military theorist, Colonel John Boyd USAF (whom I knew well), defined grand strategy as the art of connecting yourself to as many other independent power centers as possible, while isolating the enemy from as many independent power centers as possible. Connection and isolation is the essence of the art of strategy.
The second question is, in what environment must we seek connection and isolation? Looking outward from the United States and the West, in a century whose most important feature will be the decline of the state, we will find a world divided into centers of order and centers or sources of disorder. As I wrote in an earlier column on the Next Conservatism, those centers of order may reflect our traditional culture or they may derive their order from the “soft totalitarianism” of Brave New World. The latter is a deadly enemy to conservatives and all we stand for, but as an internal threat it is not our focus here.
Putting these two answers together, we can see what a defensive grand strategy would look like. It means we should seek to connect our country with as many other centers of order as possible, while isolating ourselves from as many centers and sources of disorder a possible. In simple terms, this means we would leave centers and sources of disorder alone, militarily and in other ways, unless they attacked us. But if they did attack us, our response would be Roman, which is to say annihilating.
The Washington Establishment will immediately howl in protest at any “isolation,” even when we are talking about isolating ourselves from dangerous disorder. That Establishment lives richly off playing the Great Power game and it has no desire to lose its meal ticket.
The next conservatism should not allow itself to be scared away from sound strategic thinking by bogeymen. When a plague is raging somewhere else, as the plague of violent disorder will rage throughout most of the world as the state fades away, prudence calls for a quarantine. American intervention in centers of disorder will not return them to order; it is more likely to import their disorder here, in the form of refugees and immigrants. Nor does a defensive grand strategy call for “isolationism.” We would not only maintain but strengthen our ties to other parts of the world that remained centers of order, of which China may emerge as the most important.
A defensive grand strategy is what America followed through most of its history and it served us well. It helped keep the federal government small and it allowed our capital to go into industry rather than armaments. As conservatives we know that what worked once can work again. In the Fourth Generation world of a disordered 21st Century, we will do well to maintain both order and liberty here at home. Crusades to “make the world safe for democracy” will render neither the world nor our own country safer for anything.
William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.http://www.fcfnewsondemand.org
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Ben, son,
You need to get off the WMD crap. It’s been proven they existed. The new documents discovered prove that Saddam had them and that he was developing new programs to get more. You’re like a broken record.
Hank
I have trained in martial arts a bit here and there.
Some in the Marines and some by friends and Police Officers.
One thing that I learned which has changed my thinking was by a Lt. in the Sherrif’s Dept.
He was talking about the common misconception about not hitting or defending yourself untill you are actually attacked.
He taught us that you should control your space.
That the instant someone entered into your space and were hostile you should take defensive measures such as manipulation manuevers and what not.
This attitude by many of you that we should just sit here and do nothing untill Iran actually nukes us is more silly than our stopping them from doing it before they can.
Sorry, but sitting around hoping for peace while someone is actively trying to seek the means to harm you is dumb.
Hank – no such proof exists. Saddam once had chem weapons – provided by the US and used against US enemies. Even the Bush administration admits he no longer had any. If, as you claim, Saddam had them at the time of the invasion where are they? And don’t trot out your broken (and false) record “He moved them” – even if he had there would be evidence. Decontamination is extremely difficult.
Nathan – if I understand you correctly it would be extremely dumb for Iran to seek peace with the US. After all, we have the means to harm them and have shown ourselves all too willing to use them, either directly or by proxy.
“Someone shouted, ‘A parachute is coming down.’ I responded by turning in the direction she pointed. Just at that moment the sky I was facing flashed. I do not know how to describe that light. I wondered if a fire had been set in my eyes. I don’t remember which came first – the flash of light or the sound of an explosion that roared down to my belly. Anyhow, the next moment I was knocked down flat on the ground. Immediately things started falling down around my head and shoulders. I couldn’t see anything; it seemed pitch dark. I managed to crawl out of the debris.
Soon I noticed that the air smelled terrible. Then I was shocked by the feeling that the skin of my face had come off. Then, the hands and arms too. Starting from the elbow to my fingertips, all the skin of my right hand came off and hung down grotesquely. The skin of my left hand, all my five fingers, also came off. What happened to the sky that had been such a clear blue one only a moment ago ? It was now dark, like dusk. I ran like mad toward to bridge, jumping over the piles of debris.
What I saw under the bridge was shocking. Hundreds of people were squirming in the stream. I could not tell if they were men or women. They looked all alike. Their faces were swollen and grey, their hair was standing up. Holding their hands high, groaning people were rushing to the river. I felt the same urge because the pain was all over my body which had been exposed to a heat ray strong enough to burn my pants to pieces. I was about to jump into the river only to remember that I could not swim.
I went back up to the bridge. There, school girls, like sleep walkers, were wandering around in confusion. Upon crossing it, I looked back and found the Takeyacho-Hatchobori area suddenly had burst into flame. I had thought that the bomb had hit only the area where I was. When crossing the bridge, which I did not recognise, I found all its parapets of solid ferro-concrete had gone. The bridge looked terribly unsafe. Under the bridge were floating, like dead cats and dogs, many corpses barely covered by tattered clothes. In the shallow water near the bank, a women was lying face upward, her breasts torn away and blood spurting. A horrifying scene. How in the world could such a cruel thing happen ? I wondered if the Hell my grandmother had told me so much about in my childhood had fallen upon the Earth.
I found myself squatting on the centre of a parade ground. I must not have taken my more than two hours to get to the parade ground. The darkness of the sky lessened somewhat. Still the sun, as it was covered with a heavy cloud, was dim and gloomy. My burns starting paining me. It was a kind of pain different form an ordinary burn which might be unbearable. Mine was a dull pain that was coming somewhere far apart from my body. A yellow secretion came form my hands. I imagined that my face also must be in a dreadful shape. By my side many high school students were squirming in agony.
They were crying insanely ‘mother, mother’. They were so severely burned and blood-stained that one could scarcely dare to look at them. I could do nothing for them but watch them die one by one, seeking their mothers in vain.
As far as I could see with my declining eyesight was all in flames. Steadily, my face became stiffer. I put my hands carefully on my cheeks and felt my face. It seemed to have swollen to twice its size. Now I could see less and less. Soon I would not be able to see at all. I kept walking. I saw on the street many victims being carried away by stretcher. Carts and trucks heavily loaded with corpses and wounded who looked like beasts, came and passed me. On both sides of the street, many people were wandering about like sleepwalkers.”
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hiroshima.htm
Well, I guess I stand corrected, Hank. “Very effective and humane,” indeed.
+Ariel Sharon said: ” I can always make peace with Syria. that’s simple enough.”
The Zionist Jews could make peace with all their Arabs neighbors, that’s not a problem, but as continuing their psychopathic murdering ways, peace will never just find them anymore than they want it to.
Zionists have been consumed by greed and will continue to try to murder their way to dominance.
So for the Zionists to sit around waiting for peace to just happen is like waiting around for their greedy murdering ways to just go away. That’s not going to happen either.
The world is on to them and powers such as China, Russia, even Great Britain and the US will make them disappear as they are too dangerous to be allowed to remain as anything more than a hole in the ground.
They’ve brought this on all by themselves, and there’s no changing them.
Iran has no aspirations for anything other than peace.
You can talk until you’re blue-in-the-face, but that won’t change.
History will probably record that the internet brought the Zionists down as the evil ways were easily displayed for all to see.
In defense of Hank a sub-terranean bunker-buster would be far less devastating than an airburst as over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I stronly suspect that another unprovokes attack by the US against Iran would have far-reaching consequences. In the 80s we had a surrogate do it for us and we could claim accident for the Vincennes. I don’t think that will work this time. Also, Iran is much better prepared to defend itself; both against planes and against ships we might send to attack.
Ed – I find your diatribes against Israel just as frightening as those against Iran.
Ed,
You are correct, the zionist will be wiped out and deservedly so!http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/sunburn.html
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
“In defense of Hank a sub-terranean bunker-buster would be far less devastating than an airburst as over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Except, of course, the blast would not remain subterranian. Don’t have the time to google it, but studies have show that “bunker-busters” invariably produce quite the surface blast, with all the usual nasty effects.
No, it wouldn’t be Hiroshima (depending on how many were used), but since Hank had the nerve to downplay Hiroshima, I thought my response was a defensible gambit.
Ed, I think Ian just made Ben’s point. Choose your words carefully, if you don’t mind.
Good point rage. You could add that a nuke attack on any sort of nuclear facility would likely make Chernobyl look like nothing. Of course, who cares about the lives of a bunch of sub-human towelheads? They certainly are not among the “Chosen People”
P.S. Happy Birthday, Mr. Coconut! Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do. No seriously–don’t! You won’t like prison! ;-)
Ben, If they were diatribes you wouldn’t be afraid. There’s truth to what I’m saying because both Bush and the Zionists are being driven by religion.
I lived through the cold war with 100 megaton missiles targeted right at us, patterned all over this country.
I missed a link to Haaartz where an Orthodox Jews beat his baby against a wall killing him for crying. Other Orthodox Jews were setting fires all over Jerusalem protesting that the Israel government had charged him with “manslaughter” which they thought, as the chosen People, he should not be changed with any crime because he was a chosen-one.
That’s a part of the mindset we’re dealing with. You’re right it is scary.
But it’s also reality.
Dear Ben,
Only the extreme left-wing looneys are still on the WMD crap. You are behind the times. They existed. The Sad man was developing programs to produce more.
WMD’s weren’t the only reason we invaded Iraq. And now only the most desperate and uninformed still hold on to that club to try and beat the president with.
Hank
Haartz ran a poll to see who wanted to launch missiels at Iran. Those results were unnerving.
Hank,How correct you are: Saddam had WMD’s coming out his camel. Trouble is, all the camels left the country prior to the invasion. And again, you are correct, there was another reason we invaded: OIL!
Oh, ya, maybe a few corporations had something to do with it, like Halliburton ($8 billion), Bechtel ($680 million), Dyncorp ($50 million), just for starters.
Quite a vision of Empire ya got there Hank.
Too bad for you but good for the rest of us no one will embrace it let alone fight for it.
Hank,
The “extreme left-wing looneys” you refer to appear to be the majority of Americans polled that think Iraq wasn’t a threat , nor worth going to war over. Be sure and stay away from Cobra II, you won’t like it either; it doesn’t spout Bush-Speak and the resultant vertigo.
Dear JM,
I own Haliburton stock. The Iraq contracts are basically a wash. Haliburton is not making money from its military contracts. At least not enough to effect their bottom line.
Its no secret that the reason we care about anything in the Mideast is because of oil. Why do we allow genocide in Africa? No oil. The freeflow of oil is the foundation of our economy, our life style and our national security.
The liberals and their environmental nazis can take on much of the responsibility for our military dying face down in the sand in Iraq. We have enough safe, clean energy sources in the US to supply our needs for over a 100 years. We have enough bomb grade uranium stockpiled to generate our electricity for over 200 years.
Liberal politicians are the reason we are not energy independent. They are the reason we have to kiss a raghead’s butt for oil. And now, because they wont allow us to build refineries, we’ll soon be importing more and more gasolene. Soon, $3 a gallon gas will be remembered as the ‘good ol’ days!’ thanks to the liberal idiots in congress.
Hank
Thing is Hank, if Bush had another LEGITIMATE reason he should spell it out. He hasn’t.
Dear JR,
If you aren’t willing to fight for freedom, your boy will not grow up to be free.
Thankfully, there are enough men and women that are volunteering to protect your butt. You are in the minority.
Hank
Nathan, I will question whomever I choose. Do you believe Jesus approves your wish to murder innocent people? I cannot see how someone can call themselves a Christian in one breath, and in the next call for actions that are the complete opposite of what I was taught where Christ’s beliefs.
Hank – as you know this “environmental nazi” advocates the use of that Uranium (actually more Plutonium) for power. And, I have been argueing that with my Sierra Club friends.
Interesting comments from Ron Paul. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm
TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic’s atomic ambitions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc
Dear RD,
Are you so naive that you have absolutely no understanding of the purpose of our nuclear weapons?
The purpose is deterrence. Our nuclear weapons programs have kept us out of major conflicts since the last world war. No president, republican or democrat, libera or conservative has ever taken nuclear weapons ‘off the table’.
Let me repeat, their purpose is deterrence. If you promise not to use them they are worthless. We have had hundreds of nuclear weapons systems that have been built, deployed, satisfied their purpose and disasembled. Only is modern times has so much money been spent on weapon systems with the purpose of never being used.
Only an idiot would ‘take them off the table’ or expect the president to.
Hank
Our stupid Born-Again-Bastard-Bush just made crude oil jump across 71 dollars a barrel because he can’t stop threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
To further inflame the situation the Zionist just confiscated more land belonging to the Palestinians in well-established Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
This is very close to cutting-off access to al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Islam’s third holiest site which will, in all likelihood, be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Zionists are compelled to make trouble. It must be a genetic trait.
Hank – perhaps some other countries might also like to have the ability to deter an attack on their soil. Why should a sovereign state be denied that right? And, if you are to deny them the right of self-defense how about establishing some other mechanism for their protection?
Remember, Iran was attacked in the 1980s by our proxy. They were also attacked by US.
Hank, Are you so naive as not to understand that Iranians can read. Israeli newspapers are debating when, not maybe whether it’s better for “their” United states to “do the attack” on Iran, though most Israel feel they should preempt and strike first.
Crude oil did not cross 71 dollars without a real reason, so who are you trying to kid.
Maybe you need glasses as well.
Oh Ben,
Are you really defending Iran’s right to nuclear weapons? Do you think that the same country that sponsored and allowed an attck on our embassy can be trusted? When Iran took our embassy personnel hostage they commited an act of war against our country. Now, one of the student leaders in that attack is the president of their country.
You embarrass me with this talk of our attacking them!
Carter made such a mess of our relations with Iran the only solution may be to nuke them.
Hank
Hank – there is some dispute as to the identity of their leader in regard to the takeover. And yes, that was a particularly stupid thing to do. However, it was far less than invading their territorial waters as we did in support of Saddam’s US-sponsored attack. Or than shooting down their airliner “by mistake”
Why would they trust US in view of that history?
We have created a bad situation in which we support the nuclearization of the Middle East but then oppose the logical extension of that.
The “only” solution for someone who wants to do something is found in the fact that he wants to do it.
Glasses won’t fix the upstairs part.
Don’t waste your breath, Ben, he’s one of them.
This is double talk, but read the side comments:
Haaretz:
“If President Bush decides to order an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, does the possible benefit of foiling atomic bomb development outweigh the potential risks of retaliation against Israel? What position should Israel take on potential American military action against Tehran?”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ArticleNews.jhtml?itemNo=704100%20&contrassID=13&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=671858&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0
Dearest Ed,
I have the greatest respect for your passion and your consistancy in the debate.
That being said, let me give you an example of why I very seldom respond to any of your posts. I have a dog, a hellofa sheep dog. In many of the herding venues you can trial on cattle, sheep and ducks. Many trials offer all three on the same day.
Now Samson will herd cattle, but Momma wont let me trial him on cattle. He was the number one Bearded Collie last year on sheep. He doesn’t see ducks. I have tried to get him to herd ducks and he refuses. He actually ignores them. I tried to get a started title on him two years ago and the first and only time I have ever trialed him on ducks I sent him on an outrun and he jumped the fence and fetched the sheep in an ajoining field. Forty dollars down the drain as he cleared the fence. dots
I have put a lead on him and walked him through a flock of ducks and it’s like they are in separate universes. They don’t pay any attention to him and he doesn’t pay any attention to them.
I relate this story to you because I think that like Samson and ducks, we are in separate universes. I very seldom read your posts. I can’t remember the last time I responded to one of your posts. I have no idea how to communicate with you. Before today, I can’t remember the last time you ever addressed me in one of your posts. We have existed in separate universes.
I am not saying that my universe is better than yours, I’m just saying we have different views and belief systems.
Love ya,
Hank
Hank, I call it simple hypocricy. It’s the schoolyard bully telling everyone else that it’s okay for HIM to have whatever he wants, but no one else. So we’re the Big Dogs. Yippy Skippy. In the end, it will be our downfall. Look at Rome.
Hank, Bush is not threatening to use nuclear arms against Iran for defensive purposes. We’re on the offensive.
Saddam wanted nukes because other countries in the area had them. He wanted them for defense. But, oh, we couldn’t allow that! Sound familiar?
RD,
Thankfully I think even if we don’t have the balls to take out Irans nuclear threat Israel will do it.
I have an interesting side point.
For all you who seem to be in full support of Iran obtaining nukes…
Do you agree or disagree with our creation of the missle shield?
Dear RD,
There are many lessons to be learned from the downfall of the roman Empire. It was mostly due the liberal romans.
There is a very good book, “How the Irish Saved Civiliztion”, I forget the author. But it gives one a new perspective on the Roman Empire and why it fell.
Contrary to the liberal belief, we are the good guys. Our record has shown us to be the good guys for the last 200 years.
Hank
Hank – tell that to those gassed with our chemicals when our proxy Saddam attacked Iran. Or the families of the victime on the civilian airliner we shot down INSIDE Iranian airspace from a ship we sent INSIDE Iranian territorial waters.
I like to hope that my country is on the right side; unfortunately it isn’t always there.
Hank
I am fighting for freedom for myself and my son.
Right now the biggest threat to that freedom is your president bush and folks like you.
I’m in the minority? Check the polls lately?
On the way in, I noticed that picture up at the top. bush walking down a road…..alone. Illustrative I think. Maybe you and a few hangers on are with him on that road Hank, but nobody else.Give up your dreams of Empire hank. You’ll sleep better.
RD,
It is not about being “fair”
Our military strength and our benevolence with it is what provides much stability throughout the world.
Of course we are on the offensive.
If you see a gathering threat you don’t wait for it to be at full strength and then try to defend against it.
What was it that Chamberlin and his “peace in our time” crap got us?
Hitler.
He is not a problem. Who cares if he is rebuilding his military…
Dear Ben,
Do you deny the airliner was shot down by mistake? If you think we did it on purpose, have the balls to admit it, and defend it. Your isinuations are beneath you.
Now you can cherry pick one little incident like the accidental shooting down of an airliner to make your twisted point, but you must ignore the reason that our warship was there in the first place.
If Iran was the peaceful victim of American aggression as you imply then we are definiately a very bad, bad country. But to come to that conclusion you have to completely ignore the last hundred years of Mideast history.
As far as us supplying the Sad Man with poison gas that is another liberal myth with absolutely no evidencs to support it.
Hank
Ben,
Is your argument that because we accidently shot down a civilian plane that now Iran can obtain nukes while professing their hate towards us?
Interesting…
I don’t know if it was a mistake or not – there has never been an independent investigation. What IS known is that the USS Vincennes had invaded Iranian territorial waters when it happened. THAT was an act of war against Iran. The reason for the warship invading Iranian waters was in support of the Iraqi attack which we “tilted” toward (Reagan’s terminology). Remember, it was Iraq that attcked Iran; not the other way around.
The US support of Saddam is and was well known. The WMDs that he once had is what he used against Iran. That picture of Rumsfield with Saddam says it all.
There is a lot more evidence of US provisions to Iraq than of Iraqi post-2000 WMDs.
Ben,
Is your argument that because we accidently shot down a civilian plane that now Iran can obtain nukes while professing their hate towards us?
Interesting…
Nathan – are you saying that Iran should be without defense capability when they have hostile neighbors?
I’m still waiting to see the “proof” of WMD. Surely Hank isn’t refering to The recient fraud where people of questionable motive produced documents of unknown origin to try to prove the existince of WMD. Hank, lots of talk, but I don’t see any WMD. The only proof is to produce actual weapons. I want to see them. First, we had to attack Iraq because they “have” WMD. Then it was, we had to attack because they “wanted” WMD.
Show me some weapons.
Well both war hawks at once.
The hypothetical nuke Iran might get is absolutely no threat to the United States….except as a deterrent. Hmmm someone made the deterrent arguement upthread.Iran has no delivery capability to use a nuke against the United States.
Next you will say it is a threat to Israel. To which I say, GOOD!Balance of terror and mutually assured destructiondid a pretty fair job of keeping two malevolent nuclear powers in check of each other for 50 years. The mideast could do with a little of that. Might make ‘em learn to live together.The mideast is none of our buisiness. The Iraq disaster demonstrates that. We made a mess where there was none. And after 3 years, support for THAT endeavor is down to the bush base, and chewing into that.
Sorry boys. There will be no American empire. No support for it. That’s a good thing. Empires do not have happy endings.
When Israel goes away, all these very serious problems go away. And the United States and the world becomes an immeasurably better place to live.
Peace will rein.
{ Bush just came on the news and said in a little foot-stomping Winny immature voice, “I can read the newspapers…bla bla bla and Rumsfeld must stay. Bush is an insane little brat.
Hank, Nathan:
Very simple question: If Iraq had WMDs when we attacked, where were they, and why didn’t Saddam use them? Can you imagine a more compelling reason for a dictator to use them then saving one’s backside from imminent military defeat, humiliation, loss of power, imprisonment and/or execution?
And to claim our choices are “nuke Iran,” or to cheerfully hand them the Bomb, is far too idiotic an argument to dignify with a response.
Rage, Hank and Nathan are making that argument to the “not-so-bright of us Americans, the “yellow-sticker bunch” who can be coerced out of what little reason they have and center a “red herring” for them to pledge their loyalty, thinking they are supporting a war instead of just hoping the troop make it home in something beside a flag-draped coffin.
And in my judgement that’s tantamount to treason.
JR,
Check your record player, I think it is skipping.
American empire…American empire…American empire…
LOL
Nathan??
You still here? I’d have thought you and Hank would be on your way to Iran by now to protect my freedom from a non-existent threat. What’s the hold up?
JR,
Have you not read my posts? I don’t want to go to Iran. I’m an old boomer sailor. I want to send them a package.
When you care enough to send your very best!
Hank
Ben,
inspected by historians, verified” and has been shown to be true.”
Posted by: Ben Huie | April 17, 2006 at 05:29 PM
This is so typical. You tell me everything about the Holocaust has been investigated but:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/707155.html
Now it begins or is revised to suit.
My My My! Dat ole Hank and Nathan sho do talk purdy. Don say much worthwhile, but dey talk good. Kinda reminds me o dat ole boy back home, sold all dem shares fo dat bridge up in New York. Time folks found out they was hornswaggled, dat ole boy done gone to ground. Hank an Nathan seem like dey tryin to sell a lot o blue sky, too. You boys plannin on bein around after November? I spect there’s gonna be folks round here got things to say to you.
How you boys like yer crow, hot or cold? Salt or no?Don really matter, I guess. Crow tastes like crap no matter how ya serve it.
Hank, we WERE the good guys. Past tense.
Nathan, I never said anything about “fair.” I know better. I’ve been telling my kids for years when they whine about ‘it’s not fair’ that life isn’t. Get used to it. This isn’t about things being fair. It’s about balance. We may have the balance of nuclear power in our hands here in the U.S.–now. Could be that we use it as a deterrent, could be something else. I’m not in the circle to know, but it sure doesn’t look to me the way it used to. Maybe that’s because the balance is shifting to that ‘fair’ you were talking about.
Interesting Vanity Fair article by Carl Bernstein:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041806Z.shtml
Brer Rabbit,”Crow tastes like crap no matter how ya serve it.”
Well now, I been tinkin’ bout dat, an I comes up wit da suggestin’ dat it do depen on what the crow done et. Iffen da crow done et rode kill, he for sure taste like crap, but iffen he done et sweet corn, he be tastin mighty good.
Now, the problem comes to this: which crow you be wantin’ to feed to Hank n’ Nathan? Da crap crow, or da sweet crow?
Ya gottsta be careful of what ya givem, Brer, cause somtime it come back aroun’ en peck right back.
Okay, now it’s getting real serious. This president is going to do it, no matter what. It will be the third country invaded by our “peace loving nation” since this guy was elected. And I doubt congress has the backbone to stop him.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-18-war-games_x.htm
Tar Baby, I spect Brer Crow might have a who nother pinion bout dat.
Brer Rabbit, I spect if Brer Crow be on da plate, he ain’t gonna be carin much bout anythin, now do he.
Yasir Tar Baby, but I spect yall gonna have one heck of a row gittin ole Brer Crow on that plate in da beginwith. Yo sho nuff don get to be a “Old Crow” ifen you lets people eat ya. Ole Brer Bear is alla time tryin to get hisself a bite o Brer Crow, but he aint don it yet.
sose, iffen ya caint get no crow on da plate, hows ya spect ole Hank n Nathan to eat it. Seems ta me iffen youse gonna promise to feed sombody sumpin, youse gotsta keep dat promise.
Now I member atime where dis yund whippersnapper crow done flew down ta the rode ta eat on some rode kill. I says ta him, “scuse me Brer Crow, but dat rode kill done be there fer mighty long time, an stink might bad, it do.” Dat young crow he eye me wit a look dat try to make me scare, but I gots my pride, I do. Dat crow, he say, “You know sumpin better Tar Baby?” I say, “Sho nuff do, Crow. You jus foller me, an I take ya to somepun real sweet like.”
Dat crow, he foller me over ta a row o sweet corn, and after he take one bite, he say, “Tar Baby, dis might good. I jus stay roun an eat me some more.”
Now, Brer Crow, he don know bout me an Brer Bear. Brer bear, done like ta eat crow, but never kin catch one. I tole Brer Bear one time I catch him a crow if he promise not ta eat me. Brer Bear, he say ok, but it gotta be a sweet crow.
So I done let Brer Crow eat n eat. Then, when he bout full, I jump into a hole and dig till I sees Brer Crows foot. I done slipped a lasso roun his foot, pull it tite, an tie it to a root unergoun. Brer Crow, he say, “Why you do this, Tar Baby?”
I tell Brer Crow, “A crow tied to a root is worth two in a street.” An ole Brer Bear come along an enjoy him some sweet crow.
So, Brer Rabbit, how you spect ta catch you a crow ta feed Hank n Nathan?
Well, lemesee, I’m gonna hafta cyfer on that-un fer a minute. See, if truf be known, I tends to side more wif dat ole Brer Crow dan you an Brer Bear. Cause ole Brer Bear, well, he kinda like dat Bush boy. He ruff and gruff around an tear stuff up, but don really get hisself nowhere. An you is what I made yall, kinda sticky an greasy if yall gets mah drif. How you be sit in that ole road watchin ole Brer Crow, well, I be thinkin you be a big sticky spot come time. Gets might hot on dese roads, ya know.Mebbe I jes change dat ole menu a bit an serve ole Hank an Nathan a whoppin pile o Brer Bear’s leavins after he done hit that mullberry bush. I’m thinkin that’s more their fare. Comes ta think on it, them boys is a lot like Brer Bear’s leavins. Dey smells bad an draws flies.
Hey Brer rabbit
Ya got any chickenhawks in that there briar patch?
XXX, KFG,DD
The purple chicken stopped here for a laugh.
Ima havin ta agrred wit ya, Brer Rabbit, on ole Brer Bears leavins bein smelly. He say the crow taste sweet, but he done left alla da smelly parts behind. Sose Ima thinkin agin dat mayhaps be a good size fixin fer ole Hank n Nathan. Iffan ya caint give em no crow one ways, ya mights as well give it ta em anuther.
Wellsir JR, We’s a little picky bout who we lets into dat ole briar patch. Chickenhawks jes aint welcome. Day has a tendency ta eat mor’n dey’s offered. Like mebbe da folks settin nex to um. An dey’s alus talkin tough, but ya caint depend on em fer nuttin! Now I member one time whin ole Brer Chickenhawk was a talkin tough bout ole Brer Bear, bout how all us folk in da briar patch aught ta stand up ta Brer Bear. Lak I said, ole Brer Bear, he jes plain dumb, but he’s one eatin machine. He come down out da forest lookin fer some vittles an we jes marched right out ta set him strait. But ole Brer Chickenhawk wernt nowhere ta be found. He was bak in da briar patch sayin “hit him in da mouf”, an kik him in his leg”. Now I don kno bout you mr JR, but I leaves dem bears alone. Dey bites sompin awful! I recon dat if somebody wants ta mess wit ole Brer Bear, why he aught to jes step right up!Us rabbits aint dat stupid. Dats why deys so many of us.Well Tar Baby, you is talkin some sense now. Dere fer a minute, I was a startin ta worry bout you.”Iffan ya caint give em no crow one ways, ya mights as well give it ta em anuther.”I’m of a like mind Brer Tar Baby. Mebbeso we uns shud invite them ole boys ta bend over nex November. I’m a thinkin that’s the best way ta giv em ther crow.
Sumtime, Brer Rabbit, da rode dat go strate ahaid ain’t the one dat shoud be taken. Iffen Brer Chicknhawk or Brer bear be snoopin roun, is best to cut cross country. But by n by, we both be endin up at da same place. An as long as there be sum tater sald a waitin, we both be happy.
I be habin sum o dat tater salid, please!Ya kno Brer Tar Baby, dat ole Brer Bear, he don worry me none. He jes dummer n da bottom of a rock. “Right” dumb, ya might say. I ever tell you bout de time he frowed me into da briar patch? I thout I was gonna get et sure nuff! But ole Brer Chickenhawk, now he be a who nother story. He git folks all riled up an go do his fightin fer him. Now who dat soun like round here?
Wow. “Black face” humor coming from the left? And not one protetst. Who would have thought it?
Now Mr Outlander, mah face aint black at all! I guess dem folks dat say you publicans aint got no sense o humor mebbe right. Now you jes dry yo eyes! Here, leme git you a klennex. An you might wanna get yo panties unbunched. You get real bad chapped that way. Now mebbe yo bin in dat briar patch where ya don belong, cause you sure acts lik ya got a sticker up yer @ss.
Mr. Brer Rabbitt: I think you’re as funny as a low branch on a wagon trail. It’s just that I’m surprised none of your cartoon character friends on the left thought that you were being racist.
Wells . . . let me think on dat a bit . . . who done soun lak Brer Chickenhawk roun here . . .dat cude be dat walker boy. Him do lik ta trow rocks now en den. Den again, it cude be dat joe blow, Him lik ta say nasty tings, den leeve. Shoot, Brer Rabbit, ther be so many that cude be Brer Chichenhawk, they mayhap be a whole flock o chickenhawks leavin lil white specks ona pages o dis blog.
Now dis here outlander guy, him be mity cornfused. Iffen he done spen a day r two inna briar patch, him be right strate right quik. Cude be him never et no real tater salad neither. Dat fix him up gud.
Outlander is from Mars Tar.Get many Martians in the Briar patch?
Outlander,
Fair enough. I can see why one could say that. But when Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby start talking, I don’t hear Amos and Andy: I hear Mark Twain.
Well thankya Mr CF. It pleasures me greatly ta say mornin to y’all. Funny you should mention thet Mark Twain fella. Brer Catfish was a talkin bout him jes tother day. Claims he knew dat fella. Now Brer Catfish is bout the oldest round the holler, but I spect mebbe his memory is gettin sparce. I ast him onetime jes how old was he an he said he quit countin long time ago at 150.Now I spect Mr Outlander is tryin ta goad me. He kinda act lik one o dem Wingnuts MR CF talk about. I spect he don laugh bout nuttin! He axe lik sombody be pinchin him on his be-hind or sumpin.Now Mr Outlander, I knows what yer gittin at an I think yo Mama would probably be shamed.Down here in da briar patch, we-uns is all differnt colors, so it jes don make no never mind ta us. We don care if you be fish nor fowl long as you be homefolk.Mr Outlander, everbody be welcome here, but y’all might wanna pick dat ole bug out yer @ss for you be settin down at de table wit us.
Tar Baby and Brer Rabbit – welcome. Thank you for using humor to get y’alls point across. Some people won’t get it, some people will. Remember, what goes around, comes around so make sure whatever “brer crow” you serve tastes nice and sweet ’cause you might be eatin’ it later.I might not agree w/ everything you say but I’d love to sit down and have some greens and fried chicken with y’all. Y’all talk like some of my relatives (which happen to be “white” Outlander, but I admit they’re as redneck as you can get).
I’m with you CF. I might add a bit of O’Henry.
Funny stuff y’all. Outlander must have a big brier irritating him.
I probably shouldnt say this but…
I make better fried chicken than ‘tater salad. And I do love me some greens, but I like curly mustard.
Gosh, I kinda like the multicultural sound of this. German potato salad, southern fried chicken, maybe some fortune cookies, some jewish rye bread, english peas and a tres leches cake to go along.
And of course, french wine to wash it all down.
or maybe mojitos? :)
Food, the original uniter not divider. I wonder if the preznit can cook?
Naw, he’s the decider…
KFG,You cook, I’ll bake (cookies, brownies, pies and cakes) and we’ll make the world a better place together. Anybody else wanna come join the fun in the kitchen?:)
kfg – I agree. However, I only like the greens with hot-pepper-viniger on it. Also black-eyed peas. But my southern relatives can keep the damn okra!
Food food wonderful food. Give me some good Mexican on Cinco de Mayo; Oriental on Chinese New Years; lox/bagels etc for Passover …
No wonder I have a gut!
Julie – I don’t cook all that well but I can be official taster!
Love to have ya Ben!!
J-Date?
No “Z” dating allowed.
Just for you Ben
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058812/
Walker is Col. Wilhelm Klink
MMMMM! MMMM! MMMM!!!!Ladies, my mouf done watered clean off! Sister KFG, I jes loves me some fried chicken! Da southern kind, o course! An Miss Julie, you sho don talked me rite inta sweet-tooth heaben! Lawdy, Lawdy, dis ole rabbit don got hungry!Hot greens wif pepper sauce, black-eyed peas….Lawd take me now cause I is already in heaben!!
Does anyone but me like mayonase on their blackeyed peas?
Collard greans (with viniger pepper sauce), fried okra, blackeyed peas (with mayonase, not salad dressing), fried chicken, a little cole slaw. Then, a little bowl of blue crab gumbo.
Oh, to be back in Pascagoula for a day or so….
Hank
Well gosh, I thought the hot pepper vinegar went without saying.
Hank, in Lake Charles, the question most frequently asked of strangers? “Is yo’ mamma catholic? And can she make a roux?”
My roux is as dark as midnight and twice as rich as the kochs.
Hank, you must be eating your bep’s cold? I like mine hot, with bacon in them, unless my sweetie is here. Then it is vegetarian. And I like FRESH peas, cow peas, purple hull peas, cream peas, and black eyed peas.
I actually grow them out here, but I am not sharing. Even LIBERALS dont share their peas.
heheh.
My my my, dem ladies sho nuff makin me have da hungrys. Minds me o da time me an Brer Rabbit were over at a frens place, dat fren be Brer Fox. Now mos folk tink Brer Rabbit an Brer Fox be enemies an such, cause ole Brer Fox, he like him some Brer Rabbit once an ta while. But da truth be tol, Brer Fox has sure been fool so ment time, dat now day jus decide to be bes frends. Ole Brer Fox, he say ta me one time, “Brer Tar Baby, Iffen ya cant et em, befren em.”
Might gud words ta live by.
Sose, Brer Fox says to Brer Rabbit, “Brer Rabbit, I dun dig dis hole right unner a garden jes sos you can et them carrots dat grow. Now I fooled Brer Chickhawk an caut him ded, sose Brer Tar Baby an me gunna hab usan some cuntry fried chickhawk. How dat soun ta ya?”
An ole Brer Rabbit, he say back ta Brer Fox, ” Brer Fox, dat sure do soun a hole lot better den cuntry fried rabbit, it surely do.”
Dat Brer Rabbit, him one smart Rabbit.
Iffen dem fried chicken be better den them tater salad, an dem greens be flotin in all dem gud stuff, I’m thinkin me an Brer Rabbit dun be in heaben, Mite eben bring ole Brer Fox ta taste sumpin gud, cause, n dont be tellin Brer Fox, but him dont cook to gud.
Oh, heavens yes child, fresh peas! I like them with bacon too. Then just before serving a few green onions chopped up on them. Mayonase, cold or hot.
Got aquainted with mayonase on my corn-on-the-cob while in Mexico. Better than butter! Love to make my own mayonase fresh just before dinner. Keeps my boyish figure out there where I can see it!
Julie, I hate to bake. Too many rules and precise measurements:) I bet we make a good team.
Why do I love to cook? John Irving said it best in “The World According to Garp”.
“Helen could never tell what sort of day Garp had by what he cooked for them; something special might mean that the food was the ONLY thing that had gone well, that the cooking was the only labor keeping Garp from despair.
‘If you are careful” Garp wrote, ‘if you use good ingredients,and you dont take any shortcuts, then you can usually cook something very good. (snip)
With writing, I find, you can have all the right ingredients, give plenty of time and care, and still get nothing. Also true of love. Cooking, therefor, can keep a person who tries hard sane’.”
I may not be too sane, but I do try hard. Sometimes. :)
Sorry to bring this back on topic, but you gotta read this.
Tim Russert was on “Imus” yesterday and shared a few really interesting points about Rumsfeld and Murtha.
RUSSERT: Well, I knew something was happening when I had John Murtha on several months ago and he talked about his plan for a timetable. And I got several calls from people at the Pentagon and others and they said, “You know Murtha’s right.” And I was stunned because you don’t usually get those kinds of calls. They were obviously people who would not allow me to broadcast their names.
Russert: And then, someone very close to the President said to me, you know, he won’t fire Rumsfeld because it would be the equivalent of firing himself. He can’t acknowledge that it was such a big mistake, in so many ways. And so Rumsfeld will stay. And that’s the decision that the President has made and I think Rumsfeld will stay and try to see this through.
When I met with Murtha, he said the same things. The military was talking to him and giving their honest opinion about the war and what should be done. Why do you think he spoke out? When the smears were going to begin, he was informed by several of them that they had declined to speak out against him.
Think Progress has the transcript.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/russert-rumsfeld/
More lies from bushco?
Chris Matthews caught Dan Bartlett in a lie about the Iraq war and gas prices today on Hardball.
MATTHEWS: [W]e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas —BARTLETT: I don’t think…
MATTHEWS: None of these promises come through.
BARTLETT: That’s not correct, Chris. The president or no one else ever said that this war was going to result in cheaper gas prices…
MATTHEWS: Ok, so just to make it official, Dan, no one in the administration has ever said that we would have cheaper gas because of war in Iraq, just to make it official?
BARTLETT: I don’t recall anybody ever saying that, Chris.
As Matthews noted later in the broadcast, Laurence Lindsey-President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time-argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices.
You can read on at think progress.
How much support did Mutha get from the jew bootlicking demorat leadership? Thae lack of support for Murtha and the treatment of Paul Hackett prove that the dems are not a viable alternative. Heck, hillary is on her broomstick trying to be even tougher on iran than shrub has been. What a joke!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
Ian, just for the record, when I lived in Texas, I did vote for Ralph Nader. Not that it mattered of course….
NO INCUMBENTS!!!!!!!
Col. Hogan,Any chance you might make the drive from Dallas for either event? Just wondered.
Of course, if you do, “bullet-boy” might follow. .
Whoa . . . blogfart1 might make an enterance if Rage pops in? Tickets in advance, $15. At the O K Corral, $20.
Hey Ed, I gather that I am Major Hochstetter, right? rotflmosrfao
V.L.R.B!!
Wait . . . isn’t that CF? Damn I still get em cornfused. Meds time again ;- 0
Rage, Thanks, I’d like to see you all, but that’s not possible at this time, as the untimely death of my oldest daughter keeps me close to home.
Which leaves Ed as Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz.
Ed,I am really sorry to hear about the death of you daughter. My thoughts and prayers are with you. May she rest in peace.
Nah, Ian, your Helga in drag.
Ed,My condolences on the loss of your daughter. I hope that the fond memories sustain you and yours thru your time of grief.
Very sorry to hear that, Ed. Take care.
Ed – we have our disagreements but please believe that my heart goes out to you and your family for your loss.
Me too Ed. I am sorry for your loss. Also sorry you wont be at the meetup.
Thank you all so very much and God bless. At the funeral I told my family that Heaven was short an Angel.
Ed,
My prayers are with you and your family. My kinder are everything to me and I can’t even imagine how you must feel.
Ed,Voya con Dios.
Thanks Ian and God bless you.
gster, Thank you so much for your kindness, and God bless you.
Thank all of you so very much.
I wasn’t going to mention her passing here, as this is a political blog and Please don’t keep my problem from treating me with all the disdain you can muster if you dislike what I’m saying. No “Kid glove treatment” please, as I will not be wearing them as usual.
Bare knuckles only, so let’s go { only Walker go slow on the Pony thing as I’m getting low on supplies }.
Ed, I promise to send a new pony. On guarantee, though, as to its rideability.
My deepest sympathies Ed.
Thank You JR, and may God bless you.
Ed – you know I’ll keep my bare knuckles handy …
Ed, sorry to hear about your daughter. No parent should have to bear the grief of surviving a child. I’ll say a prayer for you and your family.
I would have sent potato salad if I had only known. :)
XXX, Your thoughtful kind words help. God bless you.
ksfarmgrrl, I had no idea I would mention it here until someone brought-up a meet. Thank you for that thought, and God bless.
I am sorry to hear about your daughter Ed.
I will keep you in my prayers. If you are a bible reading man here is a good verse:
Romans 8:28
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
God Bless
Thank you Nathan, You help to lift our spirits as we struggle with our grief. May God bless you.
My attempt……
And my daughter Sunnie Jo ascended
And a stirring came across Heaven. As the rumbling of a quiet rolling thunder brings a tender welcome
And there was a soft gathering of Angels asking for an arrival and it had been granted.
A more of themselves was to be
Tears of loving excitement filled and freshened all around with a gentle mist of loving anticipation
Sheltered by gentle wings, ever so blessed and shown as sparkling white feathers opening Heaven’s heart
Bringing Sunnie Jo to their midst
And all was made right again, as Angels did primp and preen about her
She was all their love having never the need to ask
And God’s embrace about them abounds