http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1230/p01s03-woiq.html

The masterminds of 9/11 are indeed tied to Iraq.

Herb

Wow - breaking news from 2004, eh Herb? Too bad nobody but you and Dick Cheney believes it anymore. I'm reading George Tenet's new book and he has a whole chapter explaining why there was no evidence of any operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the Iraq War. According to Tenet, the best they did was "enemy of my enemy may be my friend" and that the two sides simply tried to figure out how to best take advantage of each other.

But keep digging - maybe you can find some breaking news from the 20th century to help prove your fantasy!

Andrew

So is the premise here that Bush knew it all along and was very clear about it when he told us why we were doing what we are doing?

Or was this just a lucky guess?

Al-Qaeda is still an afterthought compared to the whole big Sunni-Shiite civil war. Al-Qaeda is rabidly Sunni and would do anything to kill Shiite infidels.

Fighting a war to defend a nation as a means of killing off an insurgency is insane, un-strategic nonsense. Always has been, always will be.

"Fighting a war to defend a nation as a means of killing off an insurgency is insane, un-strategic nonsense. Always has been, always will be."

Tell that to the people of Free China and South Korea.

Herb

Herb, they are also tied to Saudi Arabia, best pals of the Bush family. So shouldn't we be attacking that country that treats women like dirt and raises terrorists.

How could Taiwan and South Korea possibly be compared to Iraq? They would probably even be insulted by the comparison.

When we try and kill insurgencies, we should just go covertly try to kill the insurgencies. Groups like Al-Qaeda hope that we'll destabilize more countries like Iraq, leading to new opportunites for those groups like Al-Qaeda.

Insurgencies are empowered by the unsatisfactory state of the people living there. All an insurgency needs to do is not lose and cause trouble. Easy to recruit, costs less than the military having to deal.

They win on mindshare, cost, and time.

Covert is a much better value proposition. The playing field is leveled on cost, more difficult to cultivate bad perceptions. This leaves time and a relative lack of recruits as strong disadvantages to the insurgency.

That's totally winnable. What we are currently doing just isn't.

Wave the white flag all you want.
If we prevail in Iraq, the Democrats are toast.
Hence their desire to spin everything as bad.
Good luck because you're going to need it.
2008 is gonna be great.

Herb

Guess what Herb? We prevailed back in the summer of 2003. Don't you remember President Bush giving his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the US Abraham Lincoln? We won the war, but Bush lost the peace.

President Bush didn't read his history books or listen to his daddy. Because what is happening now has been predicted since the Gulf War in '91. Bush is a horse's ass and you can quote me on that.

"Wave the white flag all you want.
If we prevail in Iraq, the Democrats are toast.
Hence their desire to spin everything as bad.
Good luck because you're going to need it.
2008 is gonna be great."

Limerick of the year. Heck, I'd buy an SUV just to fit that on my bumper.

You know Herb we all heard this same rhetoric from you about 6-8 months prior to the mid-terms. I am not going to say the Dems are going to occupy the White House. However if the Dems do end up in the White House it will be interesting to see how you serve up your spin as you have done with the last election.

I want a President, GOP or Dem, man or woman, to actually do what's right. The congress should be ashamed of themselves and this President needs to be spanked by his daddy.

Winston S. Churchill was thrown out of office after WWII. He was a hero and the British people only hurt themselves. In the same manner, if Republicans don't prevail in the next election, then the voters deserve what they get.

In 2008, either we get a good conservative in there, or let liberals trash the country. If that happens, in 2012 we'll own the House, Senate, White House and Judiciary.

Look at the bills that are being pushed with a semblance of democrat control: open borders to really hurt working men and women, normalization of same-sex unions, and the raising of taxes. If that doesn't energize the conservative base, nothing will.

Herbert Milhous

Herb writes:

Look at the bills that are being pushed with a semblance of democrat control: open borders to really hurt working men and women, normalization of same-sex unions, and the raising of taxes. If that doesn't energize the conservative base, nothing will.

I'm sorry you are losing sleep worried about a big tax hike for Paris Hilton, but I'm not. Tax hikes on Paris and other millionaires are only necessary now because your President and your Republican Congress squandered the huge budget surplusses handed to them by Bill Clinton and turned them into the biggest budget defecits in US history. George Bush apparently hasn't met a spending program he doesn't like - this from a supposed CONSERVATIVE. It's even more irresponsible to CUT taxes at a time you are RAISING spending, unless you love the idea of sticking your grandkids with huge interest payments forever.

As for same-sex unions, consider that the man you voted for, Dick Cheney, has lately been parading his new grandchild which will be raised by his lesbian daughter and her partner. No one has been a better promoter of same-sex unions than this man you voted for.

And the "open borders" initiative came from that other man you voted for, George W. Bush.

But for some reason, you blame Democrats. Just like a Republican: blame someone else for what your own leaders do.

Andrew

"If that doesn't energize the conservative base, nothing will."

The conservative base has shrunk to 25% of the electorate, one of which is you Herb. Many Dems and Republicans are creating a new middle. The conservative base has retreated into irrelevancy, and you can thank the misdeeds of W. for that. Once this presidency had reached its not-soon-enough end, the citizens of this country will know to steer clear of putting another faith-based, "compassionate", borrow and spend conservative in the White House for a long time.

p.s. - Bush wants more open borders.

p.p.s. - Would you honestly manage your household budget the same way Republicans have (mis)managed the finances of this country? I would appreciate the honesty of a president that spends the way W. does asking the citizens for the money to pay for it (sooner or later, taxes will have to pay down his astronomical debt). You like that we have put this half trillion dollar war on a credit card? Are you willing to put some of your own treasure on the line for this war that must not end? Or are you one of those "I support the troops" magnetic sticker kind of people?

p.p.p.s - Bonus Herb Fun Fact! Ham radio operators got the term "ham" coined from the expression "ham-fisted operators", a term used to describe early radio users who sent Morse code (i.e. pounded their fists).

Andrew, I like you post better than mine. But mine has more Fun Facts, so I'm leaving it up.

I learned a new word today: concern troll. (Keep posting Herb - I love you, man.)

What???!!! Dick Cheney's daughter had a baby OUT OF WEDLOCK???!!! And she was living with a GIRL for 15 years??!!!!

Where's Jerry Falwell when you need him?



(Now I know who paid for that new wing at Liberty University.)

Hehe...

They blame others because any real attempt to look at themselves would reveal a stark difference between their actual behavior (choices) and the beliefs they advocate. This isn't pretty and few have the strength of character to engage themselves in this way.

It's really scary to find one's self making choices that are not defensible. Even more scary to learn it's for personal gratification and to learn that need drives things, not ones supposedly solid belief system. It's essentially a self lie that gets believed and reinforced by ones peers.

They all have a self image that is good and wholesome. The reality is far less than that. Even a glimpse really hurts the ego, thus cannot be allowed. You see the whole gamut of coping tools in play here: projection, compartmentalization, etc...

This is corrupt and likely not addressable without serious intervention, forcing acceptance and from there healing. It's just not gonna happen, so it's better to just encourage such people not to continue public service. Left to their own ends, either they will die liars to their own selves, or will seek acceptance and be healed, then die. maybe it's not so bad to just deal. Having gone the distance, it might be too ugly to recover.

Yep, it's a Dr Phil moment. Helps to have been through this cycle, and I personally have. It's not pretty to discover who you are is somebody you have been hating for a good long time.

It's terminal for some. For me personally, I was young, so it was no biggie. Can't imagine having to do that in mid-life.

Poor bastards.

I have trouble figuring out what this has to do with Dick Cheney. His daughter is an adult who charts her own course in life. It has nothing to do with Cheney's views.

It doesn't. It was my fault for breaking the Seventh Seal earlier in this post. But "His daughter is an adult who charts her own course in life." is VERY true.

GREAT! Can we just all say that everytime gay marriage is brought up by someone who is opposed to it and expect it to stick?

He supports and leverages those who would legislate his daughters life away.

It's pretty cold.

Healthy people do not do this.

Never said it had anything to do with Dick Cheney himself. It's about Cheney's hypocritical supporters like Herb who voted for Cheney, someone who openly embraces his gay daughter's choice to raise a baby in a lesbian family - and then these supporters turn around and attack Democrats for doing the same thing. It's just like Herb praising the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani and then attacking Democrats for being pro-choice: blatant hypocrisy.

Herb is free to attack Democrats for support of gay rights but should be condemning Cheney in the same paragraph (and admit that he voted for Cheney), otherwise he's a hypocrite.

Andrew

I never said I would vote for Mr. Giuliani, but recognized his bravery during 9/11.

Even the most flawed person often has admirable traits.

Herb

"Even the most flawed person often has admirable traits. "

Thanks Herb I'll take that as a compliment. (wink wink)

Herb writes:
I never said I would vote for Mr. Giuliani, but recognized his bravery during 9/11.

But you did vote for the apparently pro-gay Dick Cheney, didn't you? Are you happy that he has embraced his gay daughter's choice to raise a boy in a lesbian househould, instead of condemning her and asking her to try to be "cured" of lesbianism? Isn't the vice president of the United States embracing his gay daughter's lifestyle choice on par with public school teachers teaching tolerance of gays and lesbians, something so many on the right always complain about?

Andrew

Andrew, please explain what a conservative voter's alternatives were.

Vote for the pro-gay AND pro-death abortion candidate instead? I chose the lesser of two evils.

And like I've said, if I had my way, the current president would be Alan Keyes.

Herb

Herb writes:
Andrew, please explain what a conservative voter's alternatives were.

Several, Herb:

1. Don't be a hypocrite. Vote for Dick Cheney explaining you disagree with his stance on gay rights and DON'T turn around and attack the Democrats as moral degenerates for their same position on gay rights as the guy you just voted for. Feel free to attack the Dems for things that both Bush and Cheney differ with them on, not the same position on.

2. Vote for one of the numerous 3rd-party candidates whose views you agree with 100% on gay rights and abortion. Then you can vote your conscience and feel free to attack the Democrats for being moral degenerates without fear of hypocrisy. :-)

Andrew

First, your spin is a red herring, because I voted for Mr. Bush, whose positions are not the same as Mr. Cheney.

Second, Mr. Cheney is the second banana and not the leader of the free world.

Nice try.

Herb

Dodge left....dodge right. It's the Herb two step.

OK - you voted for Bush - who chose Cheney. YOu didn't like to have to vote for Cheney - but your hand was forced.

That's fair. Shit. At least you are seeing that there is some grey area: Sometimes you DON'T have a good choice. You made the best call you could. And that, to me, shows that you have the ability to compromise.

Me too.

I'm still not gay though.

Herb, next time you vote, check your ballot. You vote for both the president AND the vice president. You can't vote for one and not the other. So, like it or not, you voted for Dick "Gay Rights" Cheney. Why not just admit it?

Perhaps you should have written in Bush's name with Alan Keyes as VP? Then you could have voted for another conservative Republican with a lesbian daughter (which makes him a bad parent, I guess).

And you are really deluding yourself if you don't understand the immense power Dick Cheney holds in our government. I am not one of those "Cheney is really the president" people but the guy is the most power VP in history and not best characterized as "second fiddle."

Andrew

I haven't followed it much, what "gay rights" things has Chaney promoted?

Well, he does see it as a state issue, meaning he would have no problem with the direction Oregon has taken.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29862-2004Aug24.html

This whole thing is somewhat uncomfortable. GOP leaders, in general tend to be, or strongly identify with christian right leaders. Dissent on fundemental issues is not tolerated well. Essentially, they have declared they have truth in religious matters (though there is zero fact based support for this --it is because they say it is and that's all they've got), therefore they have truth in political matters --including their strong advocacy for a constitutional ban on gay marriage --or relationships of any kind, if they can get it. (which they won't)

So, Cheney essentially is a stand out where his party is concerned. His considerable power and stature within the party undermines this core message with the obvious:

Well, if it's absolutely true, how come Cheney does not want to play ball?

The answers to that discussion are not pretty where garnering support for legislating gay issues is concerned!

Here is a short write up of Mary Cheney's book.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-05-07-cheney_x.htm

She speaks for her father against an outright ban at the federal level. However, their party is not well aligned with them, so some tap dancing had to be done during the 2004 elections... Gotta hate it when the party you support, thinks that way about you.

Not pretty at all.

The recent birth has opened this can of worms again. Gotta give Cheney credit for supporting his family, despite plenty of party pressure not to.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2581236.ece

Dick Cheney, during the 2004 campaign, said that he personally disagrees with the Bush administration's stance on gay marriage and gay rights, but as a "subordinate" in the administration he has to toe the company line, or something to that effect. He kept real quiet about it after that.

I'm glad that he is showing his daughter love and support. All too often, gay offspring are ostracized by their parents and siblings ... but he REALLY could use his position as Vice President to preach against this last bastion of bigotry and hatred his boss is trying to legislate and, for Gods sakes, put into the Constitution of the United States of America!