The Folks Who Brought You Iraq
MORE
Joe Conason
“Well, that’s history. That’s the past. That’s talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we’re going to do now.”
The man who spoke those words was Senator John McCain, and the subject was the Iraq war and its origins in official falsehood, strategic error and wishful thinking. Expect to hear him repeat those same dismissive phrases again and again as the presidential campaign unfolds.
Understandably, the presumptive Republican nominee prefers to avoid examining how our finest young people and vast amounts of our national treasure came to be squandered in that desert, since he was among the war’s most excited advocates.
There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq (as some of us were not surprised to learn), and in particular no nuclear weapons under construction, as advertised. There were no significant connections between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein (as the Pentagon reaffirmed in a recent intelligence analysis). There was no legal basis for an invasion. There was no population inviting us to occupy their country as liberators.
Yes, it’s all “history,” or at least it will be someday, and the historians will properly record Mr. McCain’s role in the fiasco with all due asperity. But on the fifth anniversary of the war, it is a little too easy to dismiss everything that led us to this point as “what happened before.”
With the Arizona senator fresh from a Congressional trip to Baghdad, where he preened for the photo ops along with two of his campaign co-chairs, Senator Joseph Lieberman and Senator Lindsey Graham, this is certainly an appropriate moment to evaluate the judgment of the politicians who have promoted the whole enterprise, and the consequences of their decision.
How mistaken were the war’s optimistic promoters in 2003? The official line on the expected cost of rebuilding Iraq after ousting Saddam was just under $2 billion, according to testimony provided by Bush administration officials. That estimate did not include the likelihood, according to Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense, that Iraq’s oil reserves would cover the entire cost of invasion, occupation and reconstruction. Five years later, the estimated cost of the war to American taxpayers is well over $2 trillion, including the care we must provide for wounded Americans over the next few decades. Much of the Iraqi oil, whose production remains sporadic, is being stolen and smuggled away.
The difference between an estimate of $2 billion and a cost of $2 trillion could be considered a significant miscalculation, even in a Republican government.
Yet those figures don’t quite reckon with the real costs, which should include the rise in the price of oil from around $36 a barrel in March 2003 to well over $100 a barrel this month. Some economists go further, blaming the subprime mortgage collapse—and the ensuing deluge of bad paper that may capsize the world economy—on the effects of the war.
What did we get for all our money and blood? What diplomatic and strategic achievements can we attribute to the war? The conflict over Israel and Palestine has grown more intractable, with the rising influence of Hamas and Hezbollah. The influence of Iran, an avowed enemy of the United States, has risen across the region and penetrated deep into Iraq, where our occupation props up Tehran’s allies. The United States military has been badly depleted and demoralized, while our global prestige has dropped.
Still, Mr. McCain tells us—and reportedly assured the Iraqi prime minister—of his intentions if he is elected president. “What we’re going to do now is continue this strategy,” he said, “which is succeeding in Iraq, and we are carrying out the goals of the surge.”
Actually, the aim of last year’s troop escalation was to create sufficient stability in Iraq to permit the Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other political leaders to consolidate their government, provide decent public services and begin reconciliation. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces there, has acknowledged that the progress toward those objectives is far from satisfactory. Based on the originally stated purpose of the “surge,” it isn’t succeeding. Predictably, the level of violence in Iraq is again rising, with the daily death toll in March so far doubled from the low point in January.
It is telling when a presidential candidate speaks so dismissively of history and urges us to ignore “what happened before.” In this instance, it is a sign of bad faith and worse judgment.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Here are a few other things that have happened before
which you and the like-minded choose to ignore.
World War I
Woodrow Wilson, DEMOCRAT
U.S. deaths-115,000
World War II
Franklin Roosevelt, DEMOCRAT
U.S. deaths-400,000.
Korean War
Harry Truman, DEMOCRAT
U.S. deaths-36,000
Vietnam War
John Kennedy, DEMOCRAT
Lyndon Johnson, DEMOCRAT
U.S. deaths-58,000.
The War in Iraq
George Bush, REPUBLICAN
U.S. deaths-4,000.
In other words, any Democrat carrying out any war, resulting in any number of casualties is given a pass, or even celebrated. But a Republican using the same military force, with the fewest casualties of any major war, ever, is roundly condemned before the thing is even over with.
Am I the only one who detects a partisan pattern here?
To Ross Odom:
Joe Conason is certainly partisan (as are you based on all of your postings). My question is so what? What does Joe Conason being partisan have to do with facts Ross? If he’s so partisan then why keep reading? Just curious sport!
In the article titled “McCains Political Quarmire” I responded to your false assertions regarding Barrack Obama and instability in the Middle East (go to the end of the comments section)…..and I basically said the same thing Joe said about the destabilizing effect the Iraq war has had on the rest of the region. I also pointed out the hypocricy of our government (cue the “your un-American comments from the wingnuts) when it comes to WMDs.
We provided Saddam WMDS to use on the Iranians (that’s okay) and then we demonize him for having them and using them on the Kurds.
Pot…kettle….kettle….pot!
Her’s some FACTS regarding the Iraq war. Try not to choke.
The Cost to Our Forces in Iraq
3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]
29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]
60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]
5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]
2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]
1
1.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]
27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]
The Cost to Our Military Readiness
88: Percent of current and former U.S. military officers surveyed in a recent independent study who believe that the demands of the war in Iraq have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin" [Foreign Policy/Center for New American Security, 2/19/08]
94: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2003 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]
79: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2007 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]
4,644: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2003. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]
12,057: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2007. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]
67: Percent of captains the Army managed to retain this year, short of its goal of 80 percent, and in spite of cash bonus incentives of up to $35,000 [Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/26/08]
The Cost to Our National Security
1,188: Number of global terrorist incidents from January - September 11th, 2001. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]
5,188: Number of global terrorist incidents in from January- September 11th, 2006. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]
30: Percent increase in violence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. [Reuters, 10/15/07]
21: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2001. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]
139: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2006, with an additional increase of 69 percent as of November 2007. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]
30: Percent of Afghanistan controlled by the Afghan Government according to DNI Mike McConnell. [Associated Press, 2/27/08]
2,380: Days since September 11th, 2001 that Osama Bin Laden has been at-large.
The Cost of Funding the War in Iraq
$50-60 Billion: Bush Administration's pre-war estimates of the cost of the war. [New York Times, 12/31/02]
$12 Billion: Direct cost per month of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]
$526 Billion: Amount of money already appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. [CRS, 2/22/08]
$3 Trillion: Total estimated cost of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]
$5 Trillion - $7 Trillion: Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounting for continued military operations, growing debt and interest payments and continuing health care and counseling costs for veterans. [McClatchy, 2/27/08]
160: Percent that the cost of the Iraq War has increased from 2004 to 2008. [CRS Report, 2/22/08]
The Cost to Iraqis and Journalists
8,000: Number of Iraqi military and police killed since June 2003. [Brookings Institute, Iraq Index, March 13, 2008]
82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War. [Iraq Body Count]
4.5 Million: Number of Iraqi refugees both inside and outside the country. [Washington Post, 3/17/08]
61: Percent of Iraqis that believe the U.S. military presence makes the security situation in Iraq worse. [Agence France-Presse, 3/17/08]
127: Number of journalists killed in Iraq since March 2003. [Committee to Protect Journalists]
Economic Costs of War in Iraq
$33.51: Cost of a barrel of oil in March 2003. [Energy Information Administration]
$105.68: Cost of a barrel of oil on March 17, 2008. [NYMEX]
U.S. Troops and Contractors in Iraq
132,000: Number of U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2007, before President Bush's escalation. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]
155,000: Number of U.S. troops currently in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]
140,000: Number of U.S. troops projected to be in Iraq in July 2008. [Associated Press, 2/26/08]
35,000: Number of private security contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]
180,000: Number of private contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]
Progress Towards Political Reconciliation Made By Iraqis
3: Number out of 18 Bush Administration Benchmarks Met by Iraqi Government As of January 24, 2008. [Center for American Progress, 1/24/08]
18: Number of provinces President Bush said would be secured by Iraqis as of November 2007. [President Bush Speech, 1/10/07]
8: Number of provinces actually secured by Iraqis as of January 2008. [NPR, 1/7/08]
It’s kind of frightening when you really break down what this war has actually caused.
Now to address your recent post, I am fully aware of cost and causalities of previous wars. And yes Kennedy was the first US president to send troops to Vietnam. I think that decision was extremely misguided.
As far as World War I and II were concerned, we had a definable enemy with a standing army who had actually attacked us:
World War I: German U-boats sank the US cruise ship the Lusitania. 1,153 passengers (128 of them Americans) died. We entered the war.
World War II: Pearl Harbor-no further explanation needed.
Korea and Vietnam, in my opinion were both optional but we were concerned about the spread of communism so it was a forgone conclusion.
Iraq war: Didn’t attack us, wasn’t a threat, no connection to 9/11 or AL Queda (THE ONES WHO ACTULLY ATTAKED US)and Saddam allowed weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
So how does this war compare to the others Ross?
Answer: it doesn’t compare because this was a war of choice. We did not have to invade, Bush & co wanted to, plain and simple.
I could go on and on and on but I understand that no matter how many times someone points out your false assertions, misstatements and flawed logic, you simply move on to another topic. When faced with the truth, you flip the page; still someone needs to provide some sensibility amidst all of this insanity.
Till next time Ross!
Van Gogh
I love it when crap like this bobs up! Lets review the facts, as it is still a "reality-based" world. Let's take down two howling wing-nut talking points for starters...
World War I: US entry speeded by German torpedos at US shipping. I guess that wouldn't bother Mr Odom any.
World War II: Pearl Harbor? And on Dec 10 Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us as well. Oh, I'm sorry!
Korean War: Truman may have committed us, but John Foster Dulles and the cave-man wing of the GOP were jacking off furiously at the idea of nuclear war with the Soviets. Truman's greatest sin for these clowns was sacking MacArthur, who had been gamed thoroughly by the North Koreans at Inchon. Of course MacArthur thought crossing the Yalu was a splendid idea, which brought the Chinese into the war. And that is where it all truly went to hell.
Vietnam: In 1954 Eisenhower took over the financing and arming of the South Vietnamese from the French after Dien Bien Phu. For the French-haters out there, it is useful to remember that the French lost over 50,000 men in Indo-China between 1945 and 1954. Never mind the Vietnamese, who were mainly trying to get their country back. By French law, draftees could not serve in Indo China. It was left to the professional soldiers and the French Foreign Legion [a manpower funnel that had every fugitive from across Europe of whom no questions were asked] along with the colonial conscripts.
We'll fast-forward past the blunders of JFK and LBJ, who deserve no mercy, to the august Richard Nixon. Any opportunity to end the war was ignored or blundered, which continued the hang-over until April 1975, under the Ford Administration.
Jimmy Carter seems to have gotten off lightly in the preceding analysis, which surprises me. I expected some Ludendorffian "stabbed-in-the-back" rhetoric there.
Now we have the unspoken interlude of Reagan I & II.
Reagan's most poisonous gifts to the American legacy was that an empire could fight on the cheap. He got away with it, and I suppose that's why the GOP likes to name everything that isn't nailed down after him. After 280+ Marines died in Beirut [cf Marcinko, 1991] he pulled out [or is that 'cut and run'?]. Got me!
Bush I. Let's see—Desert Storm, coalition, planning, teamwork, and a clear exit strategy. All things his prodigal son doesn't have and never had.
Clinton I & II. The body count is down on Bubba, I suppose convulsing a government over a knobber is the way to go on that.
Bush I & II. Distinguished by a claque that got everything wrong every time, but managed to make sure its paychecks kept coming.
1] No WMD
2] No Nukes
3] No connection of Iraq to Al-Qaeda
and this is the kicker:
4] Iraq didn't invade us, sink our ships, nothing.
However:
5] Now the entire Arab world has reason to hate us, forever.
Lets also remember that before the invasion, Iraq provided 15% of our oil. Gas used to be $1.46 a gallon, remember?
CONCLUSION:
Numbers alone do not tell the story. Think about it when you gas up next time.
McCain does not want to talk about the past, because his memory is shot.
Everyone else has so trenchantly answered Ross' utterly mornonic comment that all that might be further said is, if the GOP continues, the war ON Iraq will not be "over with" until the number of American casualties far surpasses that of any previous war.
V.P. Cheney summed up the Republicans attitude toward any and all issues with one word..SO?
Perhaps McCain should do us all a favor and adopt it (So?) as his campagin slogan. It's easy to remember and Lieberman wouldn't have to follow him around to correct him when he gets the facts mixed up!
To mr trail safety:
Bravo! Good response. I liked yours better than mine! It’s nice to see that someone else knows their history. You make a good point about Bush 1. He was a much better President than his son could ever be. He has a brain. And thank you for reminding me what Cheney said when asked by Martha Raddatz how he felt about polls showing two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq and his answer was "SO?".
Now for a brief rant:
There you have it folks. Cheney and Bush DO NOT CARE what we think or how we feel about a war they started (Congress authorized it I know so they are to blame as well) but we (the people) are paying for...oh wait I forgot we're borrowing the money instead of paying for it…so they are creating trillions of dollars of debt for we the people to owe foreign Governments for years to come.
Our young men and women (as young as 18) are fighting and dying in Iraq five years later, despite the fact that the “threat” of Saddam is gone. He’s dead and so are his sons, there are no WMDs so why are we still there? Oh that’s right because as Colin Powell said “you break it, you own it”, and we sure do own it now.
You know who else had an interesting comment about our predicament in Iraq?
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Read carefully:
Zawahiri had explained al-Qaeda's strategy in response to what he was already decrying as a repressive U.S.-led occupation.
"We thank God," he declared in September 2003, "for appeasing us with the dilemmas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw, they will lose everything, and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."
I’d say Bush’s “War on Terror” isn’t very effective. How do you wage war on a methodology? Terrorism is a method by which individuals try to achieve political or other goals (such as bringing down the US economy) through violence against civilians or government officials, when direct military victory isn’t possible.
That seems pretty clear so then tell me how attacking countries in the Muslim world will prevent the creation of Terrorists? In fact if you look at the incidents of Terrorism world wide you’ll see that Terrorism has increased!
I’m not suggesting that we do nothing, I just think out current strategy isn’t working. It’s time to try a different approach. We can’t stay at war forever! It isn’t financially feasible and short of instituting the draft, our military would collapse due to exhaustion. We’ve got soldiers that are on their FIFTH tour. That’s ridiculous. Our soldiers are human beings not machines.
How can a person say they support the troops when they are asking them to fight a never ending war?
VanGogh
To those addressing me in this thread:
I nowhere said or meant that the U.S. should not have entered WW I or WW II, or even Vietnam for that matter. Fact is just the opposite.
And Van Gogh or anyone else can list the negative aspects of the War in Iraq, or any other war. Costly blunders and unintended consequences are products of all wars. We know this.
My only question is why this particular war? Why is this war singled out for ITS blunders and consequences with such paroxysmal opprobrium? At the time we entered it, the country and congress were behind it, for the most part, behind the president. And the cause is, and remains, as noble as that for which all the other wars of the last century were fought--to stop tyranny.
My theory is that the majority of people who oppose this war, those on the left, are simply engaged in what they're always engaged in--their quest for power. They need to feel powerful because they're innately power-less. It's not war they're against, it's this war. And it's this war because it's not their war.
And, to my point, it's ideologically-based. When their guys are in power, the use of force is justified; but let a Republican or other conservative wield that same power, and they want to burn them at the stake. And don't think these peace-lovers wouldn't.
"Am I the only one who detects a partisan pattern here?"
I think so. You forgot about the Republican, Lincoln, who started the Civil War by attempting to resupply Fort Sumpter. U.S. deaths-700,000
There is another number that has received little publicity. According to an article in JAMA, the mortality rate for wounded in Iraq is 11%. That's a really good rate and a tribute to our military combat medicine. It's also another 3,300 dead soldiers, give or take a few.
To Elitnaurista:
Take a trip to Springfield, IL and visit the Lincoln Library and Museum. In his day, Lincoln was very unpopular.......just think about it, the South did not want the slaves to be free and the slaves had no where to go when they were free. He did not win the popular vote the second time around (electoral vote is what counts). Alas, he was killed shortly thereafter (no brainer there as to why). Lincoln stuck to his guns with the believe that "no house divided against itself, can stand. Tell me why he is such a beloved President......took a long time to get him there and only, I repeat only, after he was dead. Iraq is worth winning and will cost us more if we loose or just throw in the towel and leave.
Democrats=Death
As I see it, Democrats got us into Korea and Vietnam; 90,000 deaths.
GWB has Iraq, so Republicans are still allowed one more bad war, and a whole lot more deaths.
You idiots.
I wear a dress at home.
To Ross Odom:
Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff? Every time you post you get it wrong or make something up.
Let’s review this round of false assertions:
You state:
“My theory is that the majority of people who oppose this war, those on the left, are simply engaged in what they're always engaged in--their quest for power. They need to feel powerful because they're innately power-less. It's not war they're against, it's this war. And it's this war because it's not their war”.
First of all Ross, I WAS FOR THE IRAQ WAR. My opinion has changed since the invasion because of lack of WMDs, lack of ties to Al Qaeda, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, torture, the murder of thousands maybe millions of Iraqi civilians, millions of displaced Iraqis, etc. I know a lot of other people who have since said the war was a mistake. Two-thirds of this country (I cited that above but I’m sure you ignored it like you do most facts and statistics) feel that the war wasn’t worth it.
I guess two thirds of America just don’t feel powerful enough huh Ross?
Unlike you I change my views when I think I am wrong. This is not about feeling powerful Ross; it’s about morality……something you seem to lack. The very idea of you suggesting I or anybody else is opposed to this war because we need to feel powerful is not only disgusting but so far off the mark that you actually sound delusional. I’m glad you made those statements though because you illustrate the cancer that is growing in our country. It’s people like you who have created a blind subservient society of government sycophants.
Wake up Ross. Governments lie.
Instead of addressing the real issues regarding the Iraq war, you create a fantasy world where you can feel superior by inventing rationalizations for people opposing the Iraq.
You are truly sad Ross.
And might I add that “this war” doesn’t exclusively belong to Bush, Republicans or you! We are all Americans and this war is being fought in all of our names. I pay taxes that go to pay for the military too Ross. For you to say “it’s not their war” is not only ignorant but disrespectful. YOU don’t get to decide whose war this is Ross. You don’t speak for me or anyone else. You only speak for small-minded you.
Got that Ross!
Also you said:
“And, to my point, it's ideologically-based. When their guys are in power, the use of force is justified; but let a Republican or other conservative wield that same power, and they want to burn them at the stake.”
Really? I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (and still do) as most people did because THAT WAS JUSTIFIED. In fact I can’t find many people who disagree with invading Afghanistan. Al Queda was operating out of that country ….and still are.
I supported the first Bush when he kicked Saddam out of Iraq. Oh wait a minute….that blows a massive hole in your tired, misguided, immature and unoriginal argument.
Seriously Ross, stop before you hurt yourself. Leave the analysis to people who actually use critical thinking rather that spouting talking points.
VanGogh
To all:
That other post that says:
VanGogh (not verified) says:
Democrats=Death
As I see it, Democrats got us into Korea and Vietnam; 90,000 deaths.
GWB has Iraq, so Republicans are still allowed one more bad war, and a whole lot more deaths.
You idiots.
That's obviosly not me becasue I don't make small minded idiotic posts like that. I actually apply logic and use facts and such.
Someone apparently is too cowardly to address me directly.
Come on you coward I know your scared but I promise I won't bite.
VanGogh
It is amusing to me that Rasmussen reports today that "the politics of Iraq have become more complicated." For Democrats, that is.
Because McCain had the courage to put his political future on the line and back the surge which Clinton and Obama opposed, victory is now possible. Of course, all the Democrats predictably want to do is dwell on the mistakes of the past - the future looks too good for the perpetual "half-empty" Party.
To Ross Odom:
You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
When McCain said: "Well, that's history. That's the past," he is making the most egregious blunder. It has been said that those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat the mistakes of history. John McCain is willfully ignoring the lesson of an ill-conceived, poorly executed, painfully destructive, foreign policy blunder. Vietnam was the same way. The powers that be could not admit that they had made an enormous mistake, which is why it took us so long to get out of there, resulting in so many more unnecessary deaths (perhaps you are not old enough to remember the mess of Viet Nam, but I am).
It is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of stubbornly "staying the course" because Bush, Cheney and now, McCain, do not have the courage to admit that, perhaps, the course chosen was wrong. The anti-war people (who, incidentally are not all liberals -- some are even military people), are remembering the past and trying to prevent another wasteful war that results in useless deaths and provides no positive gain.
Please tell me what the positive gains of this war are (and please do not respond with "taking points"). I'd like to know what you, just you, with your own research and thoughtful consideration of this issue, thinks the positive gains are?
Yes, you're right elitnaurista, Lincoln was a Republican. You also must know that there were riots in the Northern cities over that war, as well. And don't forget that the South--Democrats again--clambered for and essentially started the war.
But let's not get silly. My point is that in light of all the major conflicts over the past century or so, the naive might think that there's something especially egregious about this particular war, and that our current leaders are election-stealing, war-loving evildoers who want to torture innocent people, rape the lesser countries of their wealth and live high.
This is crap. The left's crocodile tears and pretentious protests over the Iraq war are party-based.
Live, observe, and beware their inconsistencies. These folks are not anti-violence, anti-hate, nor are they, for the most part, anti-war; no, they're anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-George Bush. And they're power-starved. They're well represented in this and other Conason threads, and I'm almost sure they'll continue to prove my point.
"Because all wars are bad" is not a reason to continue waging bad wars, Mr. Odom.
"Because all wars are bad" is not a reason to continue waging bad wars, Mr. Odom.
To Ross (I'm consistently wrong) Odom:
You said:
"Live, observe, and beware their inconsistencies. These folks are not anti-violence, anti-hate, nor are they, for the most part, anti-war; no, they're anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-George Bush. And they're power-starved. They're well represented in this and other Conason threads, and I'm almost sure they'll continue to prove my point".
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Once again you distort and lie. This is about MORALITY Ross. Again something you lack. Ignoring me won’t make your entire ridiculous and factually inaccurate posts seem logical.
Once again you are way off base but that’s what we’ve come to expect from you. You continuously post falsehoods and talking points.
You typify the right by your misstatements and false assertions. It’s no wonder there are people in this country who still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. They much like you are (example-Bill Kristol) ill-informed and completely ignorant of the world around them
You are a sad little man.
VanGogh
To Ross Odom:
To quote a line, "the more you ignore me, the closer I get"
VanGogh
I'm perusing the various posts here and I must say that the poster named Ross Odom is dumb as a brick. He keeps going back to ant-war protesters as being partisan as if Al Gore had taken us to war people wouldn't be protesting. What baloney.
Ross why don't you take your little citique of people who are against the war and shove it!
John M.
Hey Ross Odom:
You don't speak for me. People aren't against the war because they feel powerless, they're against it because it was wrong.
Unlike you, most people understand that war should only happen as a last resort and not because we're trying prevent some future attack that may or may not happen.
Save you right wing talking points for your fellow Repugnuts who believe all of that crap you are peddling.
You're an arrogant ass!
Why aren't you over there serving Ross? You talk tough but you're probably a hugh pussy when it comes right down to it.
You're nothing but an armchair warrior like the rest the wingnuts.
Greg
The Joe Conason I remember fondly was the one who sat across the table from me tormented by the dilemma he detected because he had just purchased a home in Park Slope and had one or more apartments he would be renting. Being a landlord now placed him in the position of landlord, to him the oppressor class! I reassured him that this should not be a worry. Stupid me. I did not undestand the depths of the depraved leftism which inflicted his sole.
What is the difference in the political opinions of Jeremiah Wright, Sean Penn, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, John Conyers, William Sloane Coffin, Jerald Nadler, that idiot professor from Colorado or thousands of other America hating leftists?
John McCain is an authentic patriot who fought and bled for his country and tells us all humbly that it was a privilege to serve. We do not have to wonder what is in his heart, we can look at his grandfather and father and see that John Sidney McCain III lives in a legacy of American heroes. And we can look at his kids, one a Marine returning from Iraq and John S. McCain IV at Annapolis and see that they love their country. The contrast with what Bobby Kennedy called racial jive artists and race hucksters is clear.
Interesting, Ross. You seem to actually believe liberals would never protest an unjust war that was being waged by a Democratic administration. Too bad LBJ is long dead. I'm sure he'd laugh.
I see, Mike. John McCain "fought and bled for his country." And yet, John Kerry, who also fought and bled for his country is an "America hating leftist."
However, nice job of name dropping. You actually sat at a table with Conason! That sure gives your rant some cred!
TRUST IN NEO-CON BUSH BROUGHT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RUIN TO AMERICA
Scientific research, biological and physical, funding is drastically inadequate.
Military defense against China's fast grown military arsenal is drastically inadequate.
Jobs and technology are going to China.
Solar and other alternative sources of energy research are drastically underfunded.
Mexicans continue to hold millions jobs in America.
Medical care un-affordability continues.
Social Security crisis continues.
Constitutionally illegal Iraq War sacrificed lives of 4,000 young men and cost over 1 trillion dollars, to the sole benefit of Israel.
Paulson subprime mortgage lending and stock trading scam cost home owners, banks, and investors billions of dollars.
Recession and inflation are inevitable consequences of the Bush, Pelosi and Reid un-constitutional Iraq War for Israel, and the government supported subprime leading and stock trading scam.
Education continues to be is inadequate.
Drug abuse is more pervasive.
Child sacrifice by government supported abortion continues.
To Mike Maroney:
Sadly, there is much difference between the opinions of Jeremiah Wright, Sean Penn, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, etc. etc. Anyone who has actually paid attention knows this.
If you cared to research this, you would know that. It really does not serve any purpose to make broad generalizations about a "group" in an effort to demonize them. It doesn't further the dialogue, or discourse and certainly does not increase knowledge. It's just angry, hateful talk that has no purpose except to perhaps make you feel better.
If you feel John McCain is a true patriot, that's fine. But argue on the merits of the issue, not on the emotional "all leftists are bad" talking points of people who do not want a resolution to the divisive rhetoric that has been so prevalent in recent years.
All the people that post on here have their own opinion, and no one is going to change their mind, left or right. One thing I do know, if Clinton or Obama are elected president, Joe Conason will be out of a job, as he won't have anyone to pick on. He certainly would not criticize either one of them