You can't make this stuff up.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061221/D8M4TNQ80.html

Herb

Berger was an IDIOT to do that.

3 years ago.

Will be fun to bookmark these Clinton threads for later when we get to see all the Bush dirty laundry!

"You can't make this stuff up."

As if saying that gives it some kind of renewed power or something. He was an idiot, he got caught, he serves time...and what?...the point of the story is to make it sound like " Well, it's not our fault."

" What's not your fault Mr. President? "

" Anything. Nothing. Everything. What the American people need to understand is that Berger took documents. We'll never know what he took. Maybe he took something SO important that we wouldn't be in this mess we are in RIGHT NOW!

...next question."

"Will be fun to bookmark these Clinton threads for later when we get to see all the Bush dirty laundry!"

You know, I used to think that too. But there is plenty that we know NOW to pass judgment on how good of a President he IS.

F.

Nice shift of topic.

Who are the REAL propagandists?

This thread is not about Mr. Bush.

Herb

No it isn't, but the claim of old news is relevant to Clinton. Digging dirt on him is just warm fuzzy stuff for those that need it.

(that's you Herbie!)

While we're talking about current events, I hear there was a break-in over at the Watergate. Probably just a campaign prank - nothing to do with Nixon's re-election campaign I'm sure.

Andrew

Na...the power is out cause those guys are all using flashlights over yonder!

"Forest Gump.....our Hero!" LOL

Defend the impeached, lying Mr. Clinton all you want.

History will continue to further vindicate Mr. Nixon, and continue to unravel the sick, pathetic and defense-secret selling office that was the Clinton administration.

Herb

That is a given on the history for Clinton as well as history will remember W for sending our sons and daughters into this countries second military action that we had no hope of winning from the get go. Remember Vietnam? We may have started out and have succeeded as much as possible in IRAQ in ousting known terrorists and destroying their camps and facilities.....but now we are just in the middle of that countries civil war and should not be. Let them govern their own country. I really think if we were not there things would change from a boil to a simmer in a heartbeat!

The difference between them and us is that they live there....we don't! They just view us now as unwanted intruders in there homeland and even the once tolerant and thankful people are now turning against us. If they don't want us there then why not leave them to their own government and policing?

Actually, we won in Vietnam, our goal was to get the Norths Army out of the South, and let South vietnamese decide their own fate.

Which we got from the paris Peace accords, The North promised and did pull their forces from the south. it wasnt until after nixon left office, and the Liberal demo congress refused to comply with the treaty we signed and assist the s vietnamese govt.

Same with iraq, we had it won, until a couple of American soldiers were killed by terrorists, and the libs started demonstrating, and tying the presidents hands.

His hands obviously have never been tied, as he has been throwing money into this bottomless pit of unplanned mess the war has become.

You call this man a conservative? With the way he spends money?

We never "won" the war in Iraq. We took it over without any problem. But the short run means nothing. In economics, in politics, in history, in war...nothing. The long run shows everything...and the long run has been full of death and little progress..I wish we had some progress, maybe my friends wouldn't be dying for Halliburton.

*sigh*

"This thread is not about Mr. Bush."

OK. You got me on that one. I honestly thought it WAS about Bush and it was in response to critics of how Bush handles things currently. I thought it was something to keep in mind when our current President calims to be ham-strung ( I can use pork analogies too - or are those metaphors? I forget. ) and is looking for a valid reason why things are so messy right NOW.

So Herb, you just brought this up...why again? I obviously read WAAAAAYY too much into your motive for noting a 3 year old story. I mean look, I think having a sense of history is important too. Clinton did bad things. We know that. Dang, he admits it - not fully, but MUCH more than Bush does. So at what point do we get to make a call that we don't like a President or what he is doing? Only when he's done? Or only 3 years after that?

You cite SO many things that are in the past, then blame us for wanting to stay focused on the present by saying " nice spin " to everything we think it connects to. So if there is no connection to the present, with your cited story, then just show me what I am supposed to do with your story and heck, maybe I'll even do it.

Are you saying that we were wrong to like Clinton at all? I just don't see how being aware of your story does anything at all if we can't use it today.

Or maybe you just wanted to slam Clinton for something. Lash out. Swing. Hey, I've been there too. But I don't want to assume things with you because, obviously, when I do, I apply motive incorrectly.

So I'm asking: Why did you post that story?

"I really think if we were not there things would change from a boil to a simmer in a heartbeat!"

Muslim extremists hated us before 9/11.

They hated us on 9/11, too. Now they hate us after 9/11.

Here's a BIG problem with your line of reasoning: We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan before the Iraq war yet they STILL hated us. In fact, muslim extremists hated us so much that they killed 3,000 of our innocents.

Tell us why all those innocent people were murdered.

Or perhaps you want them to go for 30,000 or 300,000 before we do anything?

To think that we brought this on, is ridiculous.
and if it isn't a classic blame the US first mentality, then it's bending over backwards to be more sennnnnnsitive to terrorists.

History shows terrorists respect one thing: force.

Herb

"So I'm asking: Why did you post that story?"

Ever read the Drudge Report?

It was headline news today, at the top of the page.

Herb

Ok...NUKE EM' then HERB....that oughta do it!

Add:
I did not say we brought it on ourselves but now we are just in a civil war...we did what we needed to do now we are just pissing into the wind....get the heck out of there!

force....

There are many ways to apply force.

Social Norms: If a signifcant number of your peers consider an action unwarranted, there is a force being applied in that.

Physical: This is military, barriers fences, walls, etc...

Economic: Money is only useful if it can be used for value transfer. Deny this and a lot of force is applied.

Law: Law can make actions have more serious implications. However, the law must be combined with other forces to properly regulate behavior.

You are right in that terrorists only respect force. I completely agree. Anyone interested in achieving change in this way is only gonna listen to force.

However, focusing on one kind of force in particular, means an unbalanced approach that gives the other party some wiggle room. Diplomacy, combined with collective actions from many nations in the areas above, will apply considerable force.

I second what Missing says! Well Said!

I feel we don't need people in harm's way any more to take care of this. Bring them home to their families!

"Diplomacy, combined with collective actions from many nations in the areas above, will apply considerable force."

I wanna agree with you.

But witness the impotent UN.

And witness the Palestinians, who walked away from a deal that would have given them what they wanted.

Witness the Iranians, who want to kill not only us, but other muslims.

You wanna weigh in with something specific that WILL work?

Herb

"Nice shift of topic.
Who are the REAL propagandists?
This thread is not about Mr. Bush."

Herb The Hypocrite

Well Herb The Hypocrite, it was you that tried to shift the topic of Bush's troop increase in the other thread to Jimmy Carter.

Hah.

Author: Herb
Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 11:03 am

"You wanna weigh in with something specific that WILL work?"

Anything except what is currently NOT WORKING and getting OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS KILLED!

That work for you DUDE!

Sorry.......little testy today....least I ain't swearing yet!

Gonna take a chill pill later on though! Maybe kill my headache!

"Anything except what is currently NOT WORKING and getting OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS KILLED!"

Here's the deal.

We're already getting killed. 3,000 on 9/11 alone.

Let's fix it so that they don't take out 300,000 with nukes next time.

Herb

"We're already getting killed. 3,000 on 9/11 alone."

And not one of those 3,000 can be traced back to Saddam Hussein's involvement.

Where is Osama bin Laden anyway?

OK. So the plan is to " fix it."

I can get behind that.

Fix What?

We are in a civl war over there. Innocent men women and children are getting killed daily. We are not directly at fault but partially by being there stirring up a bad situation. You think by being there getting sniped at in the cities and losing American lives we will stop terrorists that way. WRONG BUDDY! Basically right now the troops are mostly doing RIOT CONTROL not terrorist killing. It has turned from the original military action to remove a despot to what is basically right now a police action!

Our Troops don't need to be in the cities getting shot at. The terrorists are over in IRAN or hiding in caves with Osama! So how is killing civilians that are not terrorists going to save 300,000 US lives?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edit:
Comment deleted

Listen.

Islamic terrorists served us notice on 9/11.

We either fight them THERE, or fight them HERE.

You guys can play with this if you want.

Look at Spain, London and all the other non-American terrorist bombings.

They hate the west. If you think you can stick your head in the sand and that they won't come after us AGAIN here, you're ignoring reality.

Are you going to wait until Iran gets nukes, bringing them through our borders or airports to use them against innocent civilians on US soil?

Ever hear of a 'dirty bomb?'

These are guys who jump at the chance to kill other Muslims.

Do you actually think they would wait for one SECOND to kill more innocent Americans?

Please open up your liberal minds for one moment.

Herb

I don't want any of those things to happen.

I'm just glad we have the plan: " Fix it."

Then we're on the same page.

The big problem is an agreement of what will work.

Look.

We don't have the luxury of a decade or two to work this out.

Iran is on the fast track to go nuclear.

Watching and waiting is not an option.

We either get a verifiable and enforcable agreement of some kind, or we disarm the threat.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

"fight them there"

Unfortunately, that is the problem. We could do a much better job of fighting the actual terrorists than we are currently doing mired down in a civil war in Iraq. The administration has bungled the war on terror and is not winning the peace in Iraq. Even your hero W's rhetoric is toning down with regards to the status of Iraq. We've wasted so many American lives fighting a president's war and it's not the "front in the war on terror" and your own post points out London, Madrid, etc. further underscores just that point. Bush is devoid of a plan. He has no strategy to win anything except the top seat in the hall of presidential shame.

Worried about being attacked in America? Bush was against Homeland Security, and has bungled it's formation and mission. The Republicans have starved it for funding, funneling millions to good ol' boy contractors and the final results are little improvement in monitoring the ports and rails.

Get your head out of the mud. This isn't about liberal-conservative issues. This is about an administration, mostly a president, who has his head up his ass.

But the really, really big problem is that our president took a wrong turn and plunged us over a proverbial cliff without a plan on how to escape the vehicle before it crashes to the ground.

Our descent is picking up speed, by the way.

Got parachute?

" Look.

We don't have the luxury of a decade or two to work this out.

Iran is on the fast track to go nuclear."

OK. NOWWWWWWWW I see what this thread is about: Iran.

By all means fight terrorism......not a darn (almost swore there) civil war! If it was not for the humanitarian problem I would say go in there with 2000 D8 Dozers and flatten the entire fart knocking country (almost swore again) !

I got an exit strategy for you. LEAVE AND NUKE EM! There how is that for getting the job done! We are already crud (close one again) in the world's eye's...may as well be monster's as well.....live one's to boot!

(Headache suddenly worse.)

This discussion reminds me of the old Pete Seger song, "Knee Deep in the Big Muddy" (and the big fool said 'push on')

"By all means fight terrorism..."

On that we agree.

There ARE terrorists in Iraq.
There ARE terrorists in Afghanistan.

You guys wanna give them a pass and free hand to do their evil deeds?

Let's hear the plan to take out the bad guys, where ever they are.

Bump up spending for the NSA, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security.

Herb

OK...there are terrorists everywhere.....so why are we in downtown IRAQ harrassing those who are not? We are done there except for a few holdouts and the people no longer want for us to interfere in their civil war so pull back and let them have at themselves!

Go ahead and let IRAN invade.....will give wubYAH good reason to invade IRAN and look for WMD's and Nuclear material over there. Heck while we are deployed why not roll into Syria and invade them as well.....may as well so long as we got "FORCE" over there!

"so why are we in downtown IRAQ harrassing those who are not?"

I'm not aware of us harassing anyone but trying to keep the place as safe as practical, unless you mean the terrorists in 'downtown Iraq' that are blowing themselves up and killing innocents.

Herb

The problem is that the terrorists have changed. At first, there was an insurgency that was set on battling Americans. Now, it's come down to Sunnis vs. Shiites, fighting over arcane details of Islam.

The Iraqis had a free election, and they voted along sectarian lines. They want an Islamic government, and they can't agree on which brand of Muslim-ity they want. That's what American boys and girls are shedding blood for.

Meanwhile, the REAL terrorists are still out there, while we are completely distracted by what's going on in Iraq. Americans know this, and that's why more than half think that George Bush is not doing a good job in the war on terror.

Ya those guys Herb. Let them blow themselves up over there. They will after all only do it once! Why are we trying to keep IRAQ safe and not AFRICA? No OIL for wubYAH down there hunh!

"There ARE terrorists in Iraq.
There ARE terrorists in Afghanistan.

You guys wanna give them a pass and free hand to do their evil deeds?

Let's hear the plan to take out the bad guys, where ever they are.

Bump up spending for the NSA, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security."

There ARE terrorists in Iraq because of the mess WE created there. There wouldn't be an insurgency and terrorist cell like there is now if it weren't for us making a big $%#)($ mess there.

I personally really think we lost sight of the prize, lost our focus and what it SHOULD have been on this whole damn time - Afghanistan. What I want is for the true threat - the one that brought down the towers - to be handled. The threat that was pre-existing, NOT the one that WE created.

Now we're in a position that we have to do BOTH and it's looking more and more like NEITHER will be accomplished.

Well said, Brianl.

"There ARE terrorists in Iraq because of the mess WE created there."

Ah yes. Blame America first.

We fight terrorists while providing freedom, voting and education to women and kids...and WE'RE the bad guys. Classic.

Herb

Herb, this has nothing to do with being the bad guys. Turns out, we are the incompetent guys. That's why we better smarten up and start fighting terrorism the right way: effectively and strategically.

Unfortunately, while we wish that we were providing things they want, they seem to be using democracy as a method to get sectarian violence. And education? Have you seen the statistics about how little in the way of services they're getting from the Iraqi government? Utilities, public safety, education, etc ... it's like the stone age over there now.

And by the way, while I have the soapbox, does anyone else here get totally p'ed off when people talk about how great a country we are, but don't realize we have to keep working every day to be a great country.

If we want to go on being a great country, we need to work every day to earn it.

Just saying it means nothing.

And dissent is part of what makes this country great.

This turned into another Herb Nixon loving thread!

Herb said>>>
We fight terrorists while providing freedom, voting and education to women and kids...and WE'RE the bad guys. Classic.

And so far we've KILLED 36,000 Iraqi WOMEN and CHILDREN!!!! How's that make ya feel Herbaroni??? Ya proud about that??????

WHERE is the TERRORIST in those women and children????

"We fight terrorists while providing freedom, voting and education to women and kids.."

Problem is Herb, none of that holds up.

Are we fighting terrorists?
No. An overwhelming percentage of who we are "fighting" are the factions involved in civil dispute.

Are we providing freedom?
The situation in Iraq is providing no one with freedom ... freedom to live in peace, walk the streets, operate a business, even go shopping.

Are we providing voting?
Yes. But it hasn't resulted in anything productive. The Iraqi government elected can't function, so what good has come from it?

Are we providing education to women and kids?
Sure, in the areas where secterian violence has yet to spread to provide a photo op for the pro war idiots.

Now they are going to send more troops, troops untrained and not ready for combat, void of the armor and equipment they require, lacking the combat readiness training they need, to stand on street corners and get shot at by gangs fighting each other.

Who is going to stop the President? He's lost the support of just about everyone, ignores the advice of experts in his own party, and is about as out of control as he ever was.

January '09 is a long way off in terms of U.S. military deaths to come, not to mention the huge amount of financial resources being spent to maintain a losing effort.

Great editorial in the bOregonian by a former member of Reagan's administration. Check it out.

Herb??

*Crickets*

Herb????

"An overwhelming percentage of who we are "fighting" are the factions involved in civil dispute."

Civil warriors, huh? They could call themselves elves, it wouldn't matter. By killing innocents, they are terrorists.

You're making a distinction-like your argument- that is irrelevant.

Herbaroni Milhousatoni

So how do we permanently keep the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting each other? They may be killing innocents, but they don't want to stop. And it's their country. Our servicepeople could be fighting a meaningful war against terrorists who want to kill US, not just each others.

A fair question.

It IS their country.

Either we do it.

Involve others.

Or walk away and like Vietnam, the bloodshed will be so much worse as to be unacceptable.

Herbert M.

We need to get out period. Contain the region and let them sort it out.

If we start doing this right now, the remaining Iraqis will figure out fairly quick that their number depends on how well they choose to get along.

It's ugly, but necessary. It's also our fault, but necessary.

This horrible position we are in is what we get for not fully considering the implications of this mess in the first place.

herb: "the bloodshed will be so much worse as to be unacceptable."

sort of like what is also happening around the world today and bush is doing nothing about?

"So how do we permanently keep the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting each other? They may be killing innocents, but they don't want to stop. And it's their country. Our servicepeople could be fighting a meaningful war against terrorists who want to kill US, not just each others."

Chances are, we don't. We CAN'T. These two factions have been committing bloodshed on each other since Biblical times. There isn't a damn thing that WE can do about it ... and the only way that they are going to stop fighting US is if WE leave THEIR country.

But Brianl, Americans are used to fixing things, saving lives and bettering the lot of others.

Just as it's easy for terrorists to kill innocents, we try to give those in need a shot at life. Walking away from Iraq and what will certainly be concommitantly horrendous murder and mayhem works against every fibre in most American's body.

We don't give up easily, nor should we. As Mr. Reagan said, our country is like that house on the hill, shining light to others.

Herb

Mr. Reagan would not have gotten us into Iraq.

He would have used Jim Baker to tighten the diplomatic screws on our allies in the middle east to control terrorists within their borders, while funding meaningful ways to keep our country safer at home.

If you remember, when our troops were attacked in Lebanon on President Reagan's watch, the surviving ones got pulled out of there pretty quickly.

Herb, that's what sucks about Iraq more than anything. The sentiment you expressed is true, for everyone I know.

It's just too bad our leaders didn't do more to make that part of things happen. Set aside the unjust nature of the Iraq war (and it is unjustified), and we still could have had a nice story to tell. Honestly, that would still have been an ends justify the means kind of thing, but it would be a far better discussion than the one we are currently having.

We've all had times in our lives when we finally wake up and quit chasing some dream. This is one of those times. Our efforts there just didn't cut it. That's a loss for us, and it's largely our deal.

The quicker we reach acceptance on this, the better it will be for all involved. That's where I'm at.

Current costs are nearly 400 Billion dollars! At least the last counter I saw was at 370 something. For that amount of money, we could have done a ton to actually combat terror and seriously strengthen our security here at home.

I want us to have the high ground in our fight against terror. Anything less makes us no better than those we fight against. I want this badly because I want America to stand for something more than greed and power. (it does, but not so much these days)

For us to regain that high ground, lost in Iraq, we need to get out, contain the region, then render assistance when the dust settles. It's gonna be ugly, but the alternative is uglier still.

We can say to the world, "we are sorry", suck it up and start acting like the great nation we are. The whole mess will be over before we know it. That does leave W with essentially nothing for a legacy, but that's his deal, not ours or the Iraqi peoples.

My biggest fear is some other nation, seeing our weakened status, deciding now is the time to act for serious change. The reality is they may well get away with it, undoing years of progress in the process! We don't need this and it's becoming an actual possibility every day we weaken ourselves trying to save face over Iraq.

"But Brianl, Americans are used to fixing things, saving lives and bettering the lot of others.

Just as it's easy for terrorists to kill innocents, we try to give those in need a shot at life. Walking away from Iraq and what will certainly be concommitantly horrendous murder and mayhem works against every fibre in most American's body.

We don't give up easily, nor should we. As Mr. Reagan said, our country is like that house on the hill, shining light to others."

America, for at least the last century, has been the one to come help save ________. We came and helped save the bacon of the Allies in two World Wars. We came and helped save South Korea from annihilation in the 50s. We came and helped save Kuwait's bacon in 1990. We helped the Balkan region in the mid-90s. ALL of these instances, we were 1) BEGGED to help and 2) part of a UN/multinational unit supported by the vast majority of the nations in the world. In Afghanistan, we still mostly have that support, at least moral support, today. We have the support of the UN and most of the world there.

In Iraq, however, we have sown new seeds. We started a pre-emptive war, under false pretenses (or at least shoddy intelligence), and when those pretenses were shown to be false, they changed. We had the support of very few allies even and the condemnation of most of the world, because they saw through the rhetoric of the Bush administration, and the lies. We have alienated further relations in the Middle East, and made ourselves hated worldwide than probably at any other time in our history, all because of one man's desire to "fix things, save lives and better the lot of others." In doing so, over 600,000 Iraqis and over 3,000 Americans have died, and the country is in a sectarian civil war and instantly a breeding ground for terrorists, with some 150,000 American targets to hone their craft against.

Herb, I would love to think that we are "winning" in Iraq, and that everything is all daisies and rose petals. We ALREADY have "horrendous murder and mayhem" in Iraq, and we are the SOLE reason why. You and I both believe that it is, or should be, against every moral fibre in our bodies, but our President doesn't see it that way, and thousands of innocent people continue to die directly because of his decision. Honestly, would it be ANY worse in Iraq if we left? Methinks the violence would diminish some, because we are the CAUSE and the REASON of said violence.