News-Record.com

Welcome to the world of bleeding heart liberalism Gayle where our military are murderers and the commander in chief is "the world's worst terrorist".

Here's an editorial that captures my long held belief in the best way to fight the war ... "Between cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war junkies":

... sometimes have to fight to defend your way of life, but that you should fight clever, keeping a cool head, a strong grasp on reality and a sense of proportion .. don't overreact and make unnecessary sacrifices of liberty in the name of security - for freedom is its own best defence."

Gayle,

It is my understanding the soldiers being held for murder were NOT doing what they were sent to Iraq to do, that is kill terrorists. They are being held for cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians and filing false reports to cover it up. This is a whole world apart from defending anyone.

I suppose you will defend the soldiers who have recently been arrested for the rape and murder of an Iraqi woman and her family. All in the line of duty, my a**.

While this will play out in our court system, I find one's own fellow soldiers to be credible witnesses. And when reports say homes are bombed and civilians are killed, but the victims (men, women and children) are found to have bullet holes in the head, someone is lying.

I thought Bin Laden was the worst.

I don't condone the "job they were sent to do". I don't blame the soldiers but the men who sent them. There are soldiers who are good and those who are bad, just like every profession. A bad soldier with a gun in a strange country can be a dangerous combination. Imagine the fear our soldiers live with. Imagine the anger of many. Bring them home.

The complaints to congress and the president should be the way the soldiers are treated when they do get home. Many are unemployable and homeless.

"The complaints to congress and the president should be the way the soldiers are treated when they do get home. Many are unemployable and homeless."

Carol,

Please state your source. I haven't heard that their rate is any different from the average.

Read it on the net, Yahoo news. The treatment, or lack, of veterans seems appalling to me. The stats were for Vietnam, Iraq I, and Iraq II. Many said they and their families were well cared for while in service, but returning to civilian life was difficult. Some said they re-enlisted because of financial needs instead of a desire to serve.

Although I do not disagree with the Vietnam Veterans, I have heard nothing about the Iraq Veterans. I read a lot of sources for Military news but Yahoo.com isn't one of them.

Carol,

I apologize. Your statement is correct.

WAJ:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20060703-013802-4842r.htm

"Data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment among veterans age 20 to 24 is three times higher than the national average."

"Twenty-nine percent of the vets surveyed listed lack of available jobs in their area as the primary challenge in finding employment."

"Another 16 percent said they didn't know how to translate the skills learned in the military to a civilian job while 12 percent cited the main problem as lack of a college degree."

"Troops in Iraq are doing job they were sent to do."

Everytime I hear someone say this, I scream.

PLEASE tell me what the mission is .. as a repeat, these suggestions are offered to define a "completed mission":

Saddam is captured and solidly behind bars.
Saddam's kids are taken too - Dead or Alive.
A new Iraqi government is freely elected.
A new Iraqi constitution is drafted and ratified.
A new Iraqi government is in place.
The Iraqi military is well on it's way to self sufficiency.

here's the upbeat situation - prob' close to accurate:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/docs/2006-02-Report.pdf

The

JDR,
FOXNews says the solidiers are "Fighting for our freedom in Iraq". What exactly does that mean? How was ours/my/your freedom in danger in IRAQ?

George Orwell's 1984 is alive and well in 2006.

Your tax dollars at work:

"Equipping of the MOD (Iraqi Ministry of Defense)forces has continued this quarter with the procurement and delivery of nearly 9,000 AK-47 rifles, almost 1,800 pistols, more than 4,700 light and medium machine guns, and over 750 light and medium vehicles. Individual soldiers were issued nearly 15,000 sets of body armor and over 9,000 Kevlar helmets."

"Equipping of the MOD (Iraqi Ministry of Interior, a.k.a., police)forces has continued this quarter with the procurement and delivery of
nearly 9,000 AK-47 rifles, almost 1,800 pistols, more than 4,700 light and medium machine guns, and over 750 light and medium vehicles. Individual soldiers were issued nearly 15,000 sets of body armor and over 9,000 Kevlar helmets."

IMO, the Marines are being misused in Iraq. They are trained to take territory and eliminate the enemy. Instead in Iraq they are being used as police restricted by numberous political considerations which endanger their lives.

Hugh,
You are so right. We should have the blue helmets in there now, and our troops, reserves and National Guard Units should be resting up for Bush's next foray into a sovereign nation. I just wish FOX would quit telling people our troops are "Fighting for our Freedom".

TEN Billion a month being spent in Iraq and the people behind this call themselves "Conservatives"??????

JDR,
Thanks for the update on how our tax dollars are going to arm our enemy of the future.

DD

"reserves and National Guard Units should be resting up for Bush's next foray into a sovereign nation"

Like Roosevelt did to Germany in WWII (Japan attacked us, not Germany) Truman in North Korea, Kennedy in Vietnam, Clinton in Bosnia...

Hugh,

Guess it beats serving drinks at a White House Social like Clinton had Marines doing...

WAJ:

The White House Military Office includes the Presidential Food Service - "gourmet meals and support catered functions and Social Aide Dinners for visiting Heads-of-State."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/whmo/pfs.html

Was there some special lowering of Marine duties under Clinton?

WAJ,
So using your examples of past Presidents, how are you justifying the war with Iraq today? Big disconnect between WWII and Iraq. More like Vietnam and Gulf of Tonkin, but no relation to North Korea attacking South Korea.

I'm interested in why you might confuse what Marines did under Clinton with what Marines do today, under another Chicken Hawk President. Please, expound by all means.

.... and not sure of your other references.

North Korea - heavily assisted by the USSR, attacked South Korea, and even deep in these Cold War days, Truman held off on unlateral strikes until a) he had a true coalition of the willing and b) the North had taken almost it the whole country. MacArthur then rapidly kicked their butt back to the 38th parallel, and when he crossed that, the Chinese got involved.

Yea, Japan not Germany attacked America, but the day after - December 8 - the United States declared war on Japan, and Germany declared war on the US on December 11 - and only THEN did America declared War on Germany.

"You are so right. We should have the blue helmets in there now"

The US is the UN's military arm and just as many Americans would be killed in Iraq via the UN as are being killed now.

Sorry, I don't see the disconnect. Japan attacked us, Germany didn't (although I beleive we were late in attacking Germany). I was just pointing out that this is not the first time we have "invaded" a country that did not attack us first. North Korea's attack of South Korea also had nothing to do with our security.

I don't know when (or if) you served in the Military but I compare the atmosphere between Presidents' Clinton and Bush, with the difference between Presidents' Carter and Reagan. Marines have always served whoever was president, it's just easier stepping in front of that bullet for some leaders than it is others. If you didn't notice a difference in the morale of the "Troops" when President Bush took over than I am wasting my blog time.

WAJ,
Guess you'd better consider your blog time wasted.
Our well trained troops fight no matter who the President is. Much like the GOP, you seem to pretend that they are the party of GOD and GUNS. Back to Porgy and Bess---"it ain't necessarily so".

DD,

LOL, I think that's what I said. I'm just an old retired Jarhead, a simple "I disagree" would have made more sense; and I've never seen Porgy or Bess, who are they?

WAJ, comparing wars if fruitless. However, GERMANY is a country which was waging war all over Europe. Iraq is a country which did not attack anyone. To say they might have is like saying we should ban guns because they might be used to kill.

Porgy and Bess...wonderful play.

When I hear hurrahs for the Iraqi's right to vote, I wonder how many would choose voting over water, electricity, absence of foreign troops, and continuous bombing.

WAJ, We didn't invade Germany. Germany invaded Europe and the US went in to drive them out of England, France and Russia. No comparison between WWII and Iraq. We also didn't invade Korea or Vietnam. We were there helping our allies fight an invading army.

Carol,

The argument can be made that if we had entered WWII earlier than we did, a few million lives may had been saved. Postponing the inevitable cost a lot of lives. I hope we don't get caught doing it again...

Mark,

I'm well aware of that, I believe we should have gone when he attacked England...

Just what are we fighting "FOR" in Iraq?
That seems to be the $64,000 question....or I should say, "The $300+ Billion Dollar Question".

We need to focus on immigration, balancing the budget, homeland security, and not calling an exit plan "cut and run" as some love to do. Hopefully, someone can emerge to create a concensus among us to withdraw to the periphery and preserve the all volunteer army for another day.

Seems like many Americans believe that "those people" "over there" are less deserving to live than an American. Human loss is human loss, no matter how you cut it and if some of our soldiers "over there" murdered some of "those people", then those murderers should be tried by jury and face the consequesces of their actions. That folks, is the American way!

WAJ,
Porgy and Bess is considered the only pure American opera. Written by Dubose Heyward, a good old Charleston, South Carolina native. The music was done by Gershwin and included the great "Summertime". "
...and the living is easy. The fish are jumping and the cotton is high. Your daddy's rich, and your mother's good looking. So hus little baby, don't you cry." Also, "Bess, you is my woman" and of course "Ain't necessarily so".

Hope you get a chance to see it put on live somewhere, but if not, rent the DVD.

WAJ, sorry, but your wasting your time trying to carry on a conversation with liberals. Everything done under a Republican(conservative) is wrong and we're making the world more dangerous. Everything done under a Dem,(liberal) was good and made the world safer.

You see, when Clinton or Carter or Johnson was in power, we had peace and prosperity. There was no world problems and every one in the whole world loved us and wish us no harm. Birds were singing and the sky were not cloudy all day. There was no bad weather, hurricanes or tornado's, this was done only when Rep. or in charge. Also the homeless are only under Rep. because we don't have them under Dem.

You can never get them to agree with you so don't waste your time trying, they will always look at things under that format. It doesn't matter what Bush or any conservative President does, it will aways be done wrong, and we're always taking away from the poor. If the liberals were still in power welfare would be alive an kicking.

An don't give me Clinton reformed welfare, the Rep. control congress did. Clinton vetoed it three time before signing it and only then because the public was in favor of it. Not because he believe in it.

Bobby,
Excuse me, but what about Vernon? Since you seem to be quite the partisan, I guess that means you are 100% behind the campaign of one VERNON ROBINSON! You might want to endorse him, as he has no endorsements after he ran such a slimeball campaign last time. Check it out, you might want to lend your name to the Cause!

http://vernonrobinson.com/robinson_contents/endorsements/

WAJ:

You'll find in this blog two general groups of folk.

There're several hard core fire-eating war junkies that still believe it's fight 'em there instead of here, and there are a couple cheese-eating surrender monkeys that say no war is a good war.

Many of us are in between, and most recognize a significant difference between the War on Terror (which I think everyone accepts) and the War in Iraq.

I am now and always will be of the semi-learned opinion that going to Iraq was poorly planned - an opportunity long sought by the Neocon movement; 9-11 gave them an excuse to advance the fantasy.

It was conceived and executed relatively quickly, with incoming data contorted to fit the concept which was exclusively "Chalabi in Charge". That failed rapidly, aan it's been three years recovering. Most of that time has been in a stall-mode as the Neocon's tried to figure out what to do about this unplanned situation, with Bush sent out to spout reason and rationale de jour.

Follow this with an election pitting an incompetant against the win at all cost Rovian's, back by a congress with a spinless and unorganized minority and highly organized but faux-morality majority.

That said, I do believe we're FINALLY on a good path now, but the Politics still divides us with very hard lines.

I don't think anyone will disagree "we were late in attacking Germany", but you will find strong argument that we were - shall we say - "premature", going into Iraq.

I will agree the Military Tone of the country is "stronger" now than under Clinton - but 9-11 had a lot to do with it, and most of the cheese eaters think Bush had ... and then squandered one of the great moments in world history.

Bobby,
Rather than shoot all the liberals, why don't you explain what it is about being in Iraq that excites you so. What do you really like in the current administration? We understand your attachment to the GOP, but what is it that you love about Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney and their war in Iraq?

Bobby:

show me that Clinton was against welfare reform, but first, look up his per-1990 campain promises where he promised to "end welfare as we know it".

show also that Clinton was Bad for America - 'cause Bruce Bartlett will sure disagree.

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/facts/spending_charts.html

.... I'm not denying he eventually signed the same bill he'd vetoed - I'm looking for the reasons he didn't like the bill.

DD
I don't see what good it does to get into these endless debates. I don't agree with what you think and you don't agree with what I think.

You have utter contempt for conservatism and anyone involved in it. I have utter contempt for liberalism. I think it has done everything to undermine this country for what it was founded under. Your side, no matter how much you say you "support the troop" is a crock. Your side has never supported the troop are any of their causes, you just don't have the honesty to admit it.

Your side would love to strip the military and bring the welfare state back and make the poor your slaves to the groverment programs again. You want to see slavery, let the goverment be in charge of your needs and you're there.

You keep the world you want, I have no wish to live in it. As you have no wish to live in mine. And that suits me fine.

JDR
You seem like a person who leans left but will some time lean right, tho not much. One can get websites on every topic with different views. Everyone has ones they believe and those they don't. So anyone can come up with an opposing site so I don't put much stock in websites for the real "truth".

As far as Clinton, this was a man that governed by public opinion, not by leadership. He was a weak man who left a mess for Bush to undo. He ignored terrorism an look what happened. He sold out this country to the China for campaign money. Remember missile techology that was allowed. Pardons for money. And his morale,to name a few, and I do mean a few. An to the libs, he was a great president. To me, he was trash.

Bobby, think hard about your comments. Do you not see how division has conquered you? Only morons see the world in left/right black/white terms. I believe there are many good arguments against Clinton. I also understand that George Bush is an incompetent liar. Just because each side can "one up" each other does not mean that substantive debate is taking place. Reasonable people are critical of the powers that be when they screw up, despite what party they are affiliated with.

Bobby, I don't recall any so called liberal bloggers defending without question anything done by any administration. When you get over hating all liberals, you may be able to look at both sides. The plan of this administration is to divide us..and they have done it well.

I value human life above all else, not just American lives. Our freedom was not threatened by Iraq. The terrorists haven't threatened our freedom, they have taken the lives of Americans, at home and abroad. Nothing we have done has caused them to hate us less. They can strike whenever they choose, here if they are willing to die, and they have our soldiers as sitting ducks. Killling Iraqis is not helping our cause unless you think we should just kill them all. How do you know who is the enemy? They don't wear uniforms.

Also please define what you see as a conservative. Rampant spending, unbelievable debt, unwarranted spying, secretive leaders, loss of privacy...is this conservative to you?

CD and Stevie D.

I rest mine case. Thank you

CD I hate liberalism. Not all liberals. So let me hear your criticism of Clinton. I know yours on Bush. I'm real looking foward to you telling me what you think Clinton done wrong and what lies he told the country. Lay it on us.

Don't hold your breath, Bobby. All you'll get is "please tell me why we are in Iraq?" And of course "Iraq never attacked us". And who can forget the old standby," There were no WMDs in Iraq, Bush lied... what is the reason this week for going to Iraq"?

Never heard any moaning from the liberals when slick willie blew up an aspirin factory (how many innocent people died there?) in an effort to divert attention from his....his... "mentoring to a young person".

Bobby,
Allow me if you will:
If Clinton had not gotten hummed by Monica and if Congress hadn't been controlled by such vehement "Moralists" then we probably would have killed or captured Bin Ladin before the towers were taken down. Why: Because of the huge distraction caused by the extra marital affair and its congressional detractors, Clinton was hamstrung---if he mounted an effort to go after Bin Ladin, the right would have said, "Wag the Dog". Just as the right wingers, that notorious left wing media, and the country was consumed by a "hummer gone bad". That is why I have NEVER said to impeach Bush. Bush definitely has committed more impeachable offenses than Clinton, but we should have learned how terrible that game worked against the interests of the United States. Now you can spin it anyway you want to, and since you seem to have a closed mind, I do not expect you to cut anyone left of Vernon Robinson any slack. Just remember how the Republicans OVERREACTED to lying over an extramarital affair. Have you learned anything? Probably not. But most of the country never wants to go through that AGAIN!

Now you know, Bobby. Slick willie turned down bin Laden because republicans caught him getting a blow job on the side.

Amazing what you can pick up in here.

Your right Neocon, they have to make excuses for Clinton, it was the Rep. fault for making him hid in a hole, instead of doing his job. Clinton put his self in that hole, no one else. They will never find fault when their side is at fault. So DD stay in never never land and keep blaming us rotten conservatives everytime one of our liberals screw up. That seem to be the only way you can handle it.

CD I'm still waiting. That right, Clinton didn't do anything wrong, it was them rotten Rep. that made him screw up.

Bobby,
One more thing. Bill Clinton is no longer President. Our President is George W. Bush.
No problem, just wanted you to know.

DD the question was what did Clinton do wrong in your opinion when he as President that harmed this country. We just want to see if you was honest with what you said or not.Or if you just had a double standard. We'll see.

Bobby,
Your association with another blogger, who will remain nameless, and your terrible grammar tell me I should not waste any more time trying to have cerebral discussions with you. I wish you well.

DD,

you can call me by name I know your veiled reference.

Hey I missed out in the beginning but I must question whether Bush is the worst terroist in the world, he doesn't even have a cave to hide out. Or does that make Osama the best terrorist?

That what I love about liberals, you paint your self as open minded and fair, but when someone confront you, you bail and make excuses. You have shown what you are. And your right, we don't have anything else to say to each other, I wouldn't lower myself to your standards

SP,
I was referring to the "village idiot" whose nom de plume begins with "N" and ends with "N". Sorry you mistook my "veiled reference" to be you!
As for who is the best terrorist, it would go to Bin Laden hands down. Heck, Bush couldn't find his way in a cave or out of a cave! He did have an exit strategy for Vietnam though.
Again, sorry for the confusion! Tomorrow is supposed to be 80, sunny with low humidity--hope you have a great Friday.

Bobby,

DD is right. You do need help with your grammar. How can anyone take you seriously when you write like that? Good bloggers let typos and occasional errors slide, but you are clearly a bad writer. Your poor writing skills bring your credibility and intelligence into question.

I recently read a funny bumper sticker that said, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative". That sounds about right to me.

Bobby: I'll tackle your question "What did Clinton do Bad".

He was arguably governed by public opinion, not by leadership. Most modern politicians do that, the age of the Statesman is unfortunately gone. If you want to be in public office today you MUST choose between the Dem's or the Rep's, 'cauyse they hold all the power, and that lack of meaningful choice is a BIG Problem for America.

I disagree that he was a weak man who left a mess for Bush to undo. We can have that discussion later. The economy, after years or roar, was certainly on the way down.

I don't buy that he ignored terrorism, he could have done more; but in hindsight everyone could have done more (meaning all presidents)

He sold out this country to the China for campaign money - that sucked big time.

Pardons for money. True, and maybe he did more than many, but they all do that to some degree.

He let his penis get in the way. Again that was common in the older days, up to say Carter - it's frowned upon these days.

More Bad Things: He let the American Medical Association and health insurance industry stop the Medical PLan - which was Very Similar to the one just signed by Bush - except Clintons had some genuine common financial sense that the Pharms' and other agencies didn't like. If we'd passed Clintions, the debacle signed by Bush would have cancered.

I onjected fiercly to NAFTA, cause it was, after all just sending jobs south. Unfortuanately the Mexican Government screwed it up, so all the money then went to China. Mexico would have been the lesser of two evils.

Waggin his finger while saying , "I have never had sexual relations with Monica .. " was REALLY Stupid. I told my wife - he better'd not have now, after that drama. But he did.

He half-assed the renegeotiations of the Arab-Israeli conflict - ending up doing more harm than good.

I have a problem with the reduction of restrictions for ownership of radio and television stations, done on his shift.

He apparently gutted the CIA, even worse than GHWBush.

He kept giving money to Chalabi - the future Iraqi Disaster man.

He started the "Extraordinary Rendition" programs - but I don't know much more than that.

He ignored Social Security.

===

So that's my late note list of the BAD.

I'll lst one good - he handled the money much better than GWB - and before you respond to that one, I suggest you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277/sr=8-1/qid=1152245473/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7893810-2233461?ie=UTF8

... then get back to me.

JDR,
Great book. Don't think the ones who "NEED" to read it, "Will" read it. Actually, don't know if they "CAN" read it. (LOL)

Bobby,
You have gotten the standard response from the liberals when they cannot/will not/don't want to/ answer your question: they question your intelligence.

W---d t------r, cannot you come up with ANYTHING on your own? The "village idiot" moniker was assigined to you by one Mr. "yard dog" who correctly pointed out that that was in fact what you sound like:

Posted by 'yard dog', July 1 2006:

"A question for you Dan, neocon, et al...
Why do you continue to respond to this village idiot who calls himself 'DemonDeacon'?"....

Neocon, I laugh everytime I see liberals trying to squirm out of a debate by alway trying to demean the party or parties they are debating. I just think they have no credibility. If the most they can come up with is my grammar, well they are very shallow minded.

DD and CD still refuses to answer my question, so I question their ability to truely be honest with themselfs .

JDR tried to answer for them, but once again that fell short. He didn't tell me what Clinton did to harm this country. Only, "everyone else does it" excuse. A leader is one who does what he thinks is right regardless of public opinion. That is what a leader does, just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact. As I said earlier, anyone can find sites to suit their beliefs, that is why I don't put much stock in them. I could go back throught his arguement piece by piece but it wouldn't do any good. I stand by what I said, if you don't agree or like it, tough, that is for you to deal with, not me.

JDR, I just reread your piece and I want to apologize. You did answer my question more then I first thought. I quick read it and thought you said something else. After reading it again I see where I miscalculate your meaning. For that I apologize. I disagree that pol. have to govern by public opinion, real leaders do not. You my not like Bush, but he does what he thinks is right, not what is popular. I would rather have someone who is a leader running this country, that a follower who has no will of his on.

Bobby - no prob', thanks for looking twice.

A couple points of clarity: I did not mean politicians HAVE to govern by popularity - in fact that's what I strongly dislike (Gimme a Real Statesman anyday). What I meant was the Majority do so - by popularity a.k.a. say what will get them votes, 'cause that's all tha matters.

Now GWB in an interesting case. I agree he leads by what he thinks is the Right thing to do ... but he has either totally ignored what his political advisors do - the untrue slime they release to polarize people and get votes (several examples, including "the Dem's will outlaw bible" type stuff) - OR - he lets it happen, which makes him slimy too.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume, based on his insistance of tight control closed circles, and his refusal to read a newspaper (although he may have flip-flopped on that) - that he just stays out of the weeds.

... which takes us to point #2:

Since GWB (or Cheney) does insistance on tightly controlled closed circles - he / they don't always consider all the possiblities, they don't have advisors that ask tough question (Condi) and the tend to dis' or fire advisors that Do ask tough questions (Powell - and literally hundreds of lifetime Republican Party members that have been cast-out as RINO's, just for disagreeing with the policy, or the direction, or whatever) "For us or Against us" seems to be hard policy.

So is demanding loyalty like that REALLY Leadership? If so is it GOOD Leadership? Certaily it's effective, but to me it doesn't sound like Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Compared the the Bush administration, I have to say that I think Clinton made few mistakes. Lying about Monica was stupid. He should have taken the Bush road and refused to answer.

As you look at the USA and the world, can anyone truly say we are better off since Bush took office? North Korea is saying "in your face"; we refused to talk with Iran a few years ago..dismissed them..and see where we are.."in your face" again. Are you ready to take on North Korea, China, and Iran? I also wonder why Bush thinks that controlling Iran is the job of the USA. Oh, that's right, PNAC wants to rule the world.

I would truly like to know what you see as Bush's accomplishments. Since leaders represent the people, shouldn't the peoples' opinions have some merit? I see blogs supporting banning gay marriages as what the people want so we should do it. How do you decide when the views count?

If you study the men who surround Bush, you will find that the decisions are theirs and Bush just follows their advice.

JDR,
Just as you warned me about n____n, I will refer you to Bobby's words a little further up this thread. You had my back then, and I just want to give you a heads up on this one! Hard to carry on decent discussion with one who can't see strengths and weaknesses of their own argument.

Carol,
I guess it's all relative. This administration makes worst day in Clinton's look fairly successful. I still look back at the days after Septemeber 11th, and see that this President has squandered a "gift". He had the entire world in the palm of his hand, and arrogance took it away from him. I think that is the way the historians will view it.

What do you call liberals who use dnc bumper stickers as talking points... Rhode scholars?

Can anyone tell me why it was so important to invade Iraq, but yet diplomacy and the UN is the best way to solve problems with Iran and North Korea?

Great question, Mark.

My personal opinion is that we knew we could kick Iraq's leadership to the ground in somewhat short-fashion. Taking on the million man army of North Korea is another thing altogether. Our country doesn't have the stomach for a war like Iraq. How in the heck could we bear the losses that would come from N Korea.

I honestly believe the only way we could win against N Korea without sacrificing tens or hundreds of thousands of US troops would be to utilize the nuclear option, which would be ironic given the circumstances.

According to some concensus - here's why, Mark:

Iraq was seen for years as a one man show. The clear solution was to take out Saddam, skim his top crony layer, replace them all with Chalabi and his cronys.

Since the early '90's the US Government (first the State dept, then (when they were tired of him), the DoD (I may have the order backwards), paid Chalabi $300,000 per month to build and maintain a replacement regime for when we eventually did it. 9-11 provided the opportunity, the opportunity almost foiled by ongoing UN inspections and lack of immediate world consensus, with advance planning incredibly both flawed and uncomplete due to really immature internal squabbling between the State Dept, the DoD, and the Adminstration, as well as simple naïveté.

This is pretty well documented. There may be a similar plan for Iran - but I've not run across it yet.

afaik, there're never were clear solutions for N. Korea - there was also little incentive, i.e., oil, and as you say the risks are much higher.

Mark,
I'll give you my two cents worth on your question. I think Bush/Cheney was hell bent on going into Iraq to set up a beach head in the Middle East for the United States---remember how well that worked in Southeast Aisia? They cherry picked the intelligence, kind of like my dad at the doctor's office--they heard what they wanted to hear. Unlike his dad, W thought he could bypass the UN or pay lip service and go it alone. Costing over $10 billion per month now, it is a fiasco our children's children will be paying for---and this war was brought to you by folks who call themselves "conservative". Pretty bad when conservatives send our country on the road to bankruptcy---now they have no strawmen to build on fiscal irresponsibility on the part of Democrats. Take a look at the coalition of the willing today and look at how we have (not) paid for the war with oil revenues. Carry on.

JDR, If what you read is true, then going into Iraq was brainwork of Clinton. 9-11 porvided the opportunity, allowing George W. Bush to carry out Clinton's idea. So all the Iraq supporters are actually csupporting a Clinton idea. I guess once they realize that they'll start blaming Clinton for the problems in Iraq.

Mark: I'm not really that up on this element, but keep in mind that when the Chalabi plan was started, it was right after Desert Storm and Saddam was truely a nasty power. Of course, Iraq was steadily deteriorating during the 90's.

Apparently Chalabi was (is) a real charmer, albeit controversial one.

But at the end of the dau Bill did sign the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which "declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support 'regime change.' It should be highlighted that "The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998

See Also:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&specific_cases_and_issues=chalabi

Getting back to the letter, for the soldier in the field, it's survival, it's being a trained killer, it's working in an environment of terror, slaughter, maiming, uncertainty of so, so many things and more. There are times and situations where you don't have the time or the "capacity to think rationally"; you don't know who the enemy is and the enemy infiltrates everything and every group. A powerful movie, "Rules of Engagement" addresses many issues that our soldiers are being challenged to address in life and death situations. How does one manage his/her psychophysiological fatigue in the midst of irrationality, uncertainty, and timeless waiting--then fighting---then waiting---having a unit member killed by a car bomb, a woman, a child or terrorist---then more waiting---smelling death, burnt flesh and carnage---then more waiting---hearing the wailing of people who lost loved ones and personal property.

This is a question of what humanity demands of its soldiers who are also human and never lose it regardless of how much training they receive.
I hope that I'm not misinterpreted here but when I hear about some of these "bad things", I rather expect that these irregularities will occur. Remember!! They are constantly in harms way---this is not an intellectual exercise for them, there are no Right, Left arguments, liberal or conservative positions---it's killing and survival----everyone, anyone can just take so much--I guess you and I just have to be there-- And the strange this is---we can't have our soldiers starting to look over their shoulders about the hows, whats, wheres, whens, they might get killed---AND I AM NOT GIVING ANYONE A FREE LICENSE. A last point: regarding media, videos, pictures etc. THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM TO BE. We need to be careful about how fast we judge when we sent our soldiers into a cauldron of slaughter which has a way of taking them out of our reality and into one which is beyond anything that anyone of us can express !!
What was the job we sent them to do?? I am not sure I know why--but our soldiers are over there in a world of "Apocalypse Now".

Thought provoking comments, Joe. I agree that being in Iraq or any war takes you into a world for which you cannot be trained. I grieve for what they are going through. Why any would choose this profession, I do not understand.

I also grieve for the Iraqi people.

Water, electricity, gas for my car and lawn mower, food, a cool bed in which to sleep, lack of fear of bombs, good books to read, flowers to weed and water, for these and many more things I am thankful. Would that we lived in a world where all could have these blessings.

Carol,
Another thing that bothers me, is that since there is no draft, most people drive around with no thought that we are involved in a war that leaves many maimed for life. Sure, they read about 2,000 dead, but they don't necessarily see the great cost of this fiasco in human terms. W won't let the flag draped coffins be photographed as they arrive at Andrews, but the networks COULD go to Walter Reed and show the many who have sacrificed their lives for......what again are they sacrificing for?

Enough said.

DD, some say the mainstream liberal media wants to only show the bad things in Iraq. I find they don't show anything close to how bad it is. Was just listening to yesterday's Diane show. It seems that the only place the new ruler of Iraq rules is in the green zone. Another interesting show.

Have a great rest of the weekend. Isn't this weather awesome after the big heat wave???

If only we could bottle up this weather and release it on one of those 98 degree days!

Carol,
The MSM has bent over backwards to show how unbiased it is, and by doing so, has abdicated its responsibility as a free press. Of course, most reporters can't leave the safety of the green zone to get the real story----and that is the REAL truth of Iraq. But of course FOXNEws, and the Bush Administration do not mention that about the situation.