Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows

OT: Libby verdict is in

Rodney-dangerfield_tiny by Brian Thomas on

Guilty on 4 of 5 counts. More elaboration to come:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/

And the vast, left-wing liberal conspiracy marches on... *Update:* This is an interesting angle to the story that hasn't got much attention in the mainstream news coverage:.............................. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596642,00.html........................... Apparently, Libby was obsessed with Chris Mathews and "Hardball.".......................... The edit diary function isn't working out too well for me.................

0 recs | Comment 114 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

200 years ago..
He would have been charged with treason and executed.
you jackin' it?

by chief on Mar 6, 2007 11:21 AM CST   0 recs

for what?
the whole trial and investigation is pretty complicated, so correct me if I'm wrong...but these charges were not that he was responsible for leaking the name of any undercover CIA operative.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 6, 2007 11:29 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Okay...
I don't really want to have to have this debate, because I know my position is going to be INCREDIBLY unpopular...
But from what I last remember about this case, Valerie Plame had not been an undercover agent for more than 10 or 15 years at the time of the supposed leak.  And from what I have come to understand, under those circumstance there are no CIA or other Federal regulations restricting the divulgence of a CIA employee's identity.
Even still, if Libby tried to cover up any discussions he might have had with reporters about Plame, that is hardly treasonous and grounds for execution.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 6, 2007 11:42 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

From Mr. Fitzgerald's press conference:
"He also emphasized that despite reports in conservative media and Web site to the contrary, he was "100%" certain that Valerie Plame was in a "classified" position with the CIA when her name was leaked, although this was not an issue in the trial. He repeated that this was even in the original indictment. "That is just a fact," he declared."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554250

I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 6, 2007 2:08 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Treason:
trea·son Pronunciation (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
you jackin' it?

by chief on Mar 6, 2007 11:35 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Ha... treason...
If Libby is guilty of it, then so are a lot of other people this day of age.  The number of top secret memos leaked out and published by the NY Times and Washington Post would NEVER have been permitted even twenty years ago.  It is a travesty.

Right now Washington is full of scum political hacks and journalists who care only about their careers and their well-being and don't care a wit about this country.  The one common thread across this whole scandal, from Rove, Libby, and the other administration people to Plame and her politically-driven husband and to the media is that no one, at any step of the way, had the country's interests in mind.  The liberals wanted to create a scandal that could take out Rove and possibly Cheney and even Bush, and the media wanted to create news, and the Bush people wanted to protect themselves more than telling the truth.  

It is stupid that this story ever got any play by anyone when there are real problems going on, and places where the Bush people actually did do something wrong that actually matter for real.

by JBImaknee on Mar 6, 2007 1:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

It's not stupid
that the intimidation tactics used by this administration have come to light.  It's too bad that Cheney himself won't be held accountable for them...at least not yet.
"With running and conditioning the average major league pitcher works less in a week than a ditch digger does in a hour."

by SteveP on Mar 6, 2007 1:43 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

here's what i don't get
I absolutely believe the administration did something unlawful - but i don't see how it was initimidating?  

Intimidation is threatening to leak a name, not actually leaking it.  I just think the whole thing was a failed attempt at showing bias in the wilson report and people smarter than them would not have made it.  

"I want him focused on figuring out a way to beat that lefty's ass." - RW

by ab03 on Mar 6, 2007 1:51 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

They tried to discredit Wilson...........
by unlawfully leaking his wife's name and implying that she had something to do with him going to Africa. Typical "re"pub dirty trick, SwiftBoating, KarlRove smear, or whatever you want to call it.

Problem is, many more (Cheney, Rove, probably even Bush) were/are guilty of a helluva lot more than Scooter was found guilty of!

by tklawless on Mar 6, 2007 11:45 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I love how liberals
are convinced that Bush is such a retard and has no right running this country...but he is also a mastermind that lied and convinced the country to go to war, and has plotted to ruin the lives of stupid little political opponents, etc.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 7, 2007 10:12 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Bush is the idiot
His henchmen are not idiots.
Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Mar 7, 2007 10:20 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Bush
is an idiot at long-term strategic thinking, but he is a very astute politician.

by t ball on Mar 7, 2007 10:21 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Bush is a retard..........
that doesn't preclude him from being a LIAR, which he is....Rove/Cheney have masterminded many things, but even you'd have to admit a $2Billion/week war has to be right up at the top!

by tklawless on Mar 7, 2007 10:28 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I love how
Bush apologists claim anyone that disapproves of the job he is doing must be a liberal.

Most of us are just a little tired of him and Cheney and the rest of the cabal pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining...

I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 7, 2007 12:06 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I didn't realize
liberal was such a dirty word
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 7, 2007 12:21 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Here's the question:
If you don't like W or disapprove of the manner in which he's handled his office, does that make you a "liberal".

by Athos on Mar 7, 2007 1:16 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Bush
He's not an idiot or a retard.  I think he's above average in the intellect department.  However, among US Presidents, he's WAY down on the list.  He's not smart enough to admit he's wrong.

He's also not smart when it comes to choosing whose advice to listen to.  It leads to monumental lapses in judgment, and when you combine that with the political witchcraft of people like Karl Rove, well...It's looking pretty bad.

Most of the people who voted for the guy have lost faith in him, and it's no surprise to most of us on the other side.  We've been talking about the administration's incompetence for YEARS.  If the election had been held just a little later he would've been trounced, but it wasn't and he squeeked by.  Barely.

Does he have the right to serve?  Yeah.  He won.  I guess his first win was arguable, but not the second.  He's duly elected.  The question becomes, does he have the right to serve the way he's serving?  Hell no.  With all these signing statements and making no attempt to compromise...he's overstepped.  Congress is well within their right to reign him in.  

The guy is a BAD President.  Probably the worst ever, but definitely the worst in modern times.  

by Dustin on Mar 7, 2007 12:48 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Scooter
As my co-worker pointed out, that's going to be an unfortunate name in the big house.
It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Mar 6, 2007 11:23 AM CST   0 recs

I don't care about this too much
the whole story is played out, and if he is guilty of perjury, then so be it.
The whole thing full of lies, and not just Libby, but the reporters involved were undoubtedly covering their asses and their sources, and lying in the process.  So many holes, and in the end... I don't really give a crap about Valerie Plame.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 6, 2007 11:24 AM CST   0 recs

And now
it appears the Bush administration has continued its policy of disinformation and obfuscation with North Korea and Iran as well.  I can't wait until the election.  I wish a true conservative would run, from either party.  Giuliani might be the closest thing, except for his penchant for concentrating power in his own hands.

by t ball on Mar 6, 2007 11:29 AM CST   0 recs

"Can't wait until the elections"
Yeah, that's what people were saying last time. And, well, we know what happend then. The word 'pwned' comes to mind.

by Longhorn on Mar 6, 2007 11:40 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

2008
One way or another, W will be gone. Even Sam freaking Brownback would be an improvement at this point.
It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Mar 6, 2007 11:41 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Haha,
I was at the conservative conference in DC this last weekend, Brownback is a jackass.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 6, 2007 11:43 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

and
like most Republicans, wouldn't know the true meaning of conservative if it bit him in the ass.

by t ball on Mar 6, 2007 1:46 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Was that the conference w/ Coulter's remarks?
I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 7, 2007 12:16 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yep
I wasn't in the room when she made that comment.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 7, 2007 12:19 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Hopefully Jeb will run
Because the candidates the Republicans are putting out there right now, well, blow...

by Longhorn on Mar 6, 2007 11:48 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I'd love it
but he won't
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 6, 2007 11:49 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Jeb running
would be delicious.  He'd get his teeth kicked in hard.
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Mar 6, 2007 12:17 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Only because people around this country
Would have nothing to do with someone named "Bush"

Jeb is insanely popular in Florida if the circumstances were different, he would wipe the floor with pretty much anyone that got in his way.  He's done a lot for this state, and this country would be lucky to have someone like him serve.
If he ever does run (in the future), people will gravitate towards his candidacy, if enough people around this country had the chance to hear him speak, he would easily be the front runner.

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Mar 6, 2007 12:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yep, the reason he would lose
is his last name.  Regardless of his abilities as a politician.
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Mar 6, 2007 12:35 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

The funny things is
Half the votes for him would come from inbred yokels who thought they were voting for W in a rarely-precedented 3rd term...
I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 6, 2007 12:42 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

and
democrats wonder why they can't seem to cater to the mainstream like they used to.

Apparently, belittling is not as effective as Bill Maher thought it would be.

by willamos2 on Mar 6, 2007 12:57 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I hereby apologize to inbred yokels the world over
And their fatheruncles and mothersisters, too.

"Apparently, belittling is not as effective as Bill Maher thought it would be."

What does that mean? Pretty odd...

I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 6, 2007 1:40 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

"fatheruncles and mothersisters"
fucking unbelievable... ahahah
Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Mar 6, 2007 2:26 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

it means
that when guys like Maher, Michael Moore, and Moby started mocking Middle America (calling them "Jesusland"), it only pushed those voters more and more to the Republican agenda.

Now, Iraq being drawn-out has helped make up for those errors, but if they go into the election in 2008 trying to belittle the same voters into not voting with their faith, they will probably fail.

Instead, they should be focusing on how voting with their faith will lead them to the Democrats (i.e. no more deaths in the Middle East).

by willamos2 on Mar 6, 2007 2:57 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

They'd be better off w/ a new paradigm
Forget the Southeast.  

While it used to be quite true that a presidential candidate couldn't win without taking at least a portion of Nascar America, that ship has sailed for Democrats. It's a lost cause.

The West is the new political battleground. While states in the Southeast certainly aren't getting any less red, the Northeast and West Coast are maintaining their democratic tendencies, and the Midwest is fast becoming reliably blue itself.

I agree w/ your assertion that it is foolish for Democratic strategists to clown on religious "Middle America," but what puzzles me is the fact that none of the men you mentioned are even remotely close to working for the party. The fact that you associate them w/ mainstream democrats and their philosophies is a telling insight into that mindset.

And Bill Maher? He's a self-proclaimed Libertarian.

 

I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 6, 2007 3:25 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

While I agree
that the people I listed are not directly working for the Democrats, they are still people speaking out in support of Democrats (or in this case against conservatives).  The fact that they weren't paid or even asked to do so by Democratic candidates doesn't change the fact that Middle America was/is offended by their statements.

Again, I know that Republicans do the same thing...just pointing out that it would probably behoove the Democrats to tone down that rhetoric in hopes of getting some of those votes.

Lastly, I consider myself to be a libertarian, but I don't think Bill Maher and myself could be further from each other in the political spectrum.

by willamos2 on Mar 6, 2007 4:29 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Maher
http://archive.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html

Here's an article I remember reading about Maher a few years ago.  It reminds me of how O'Reilly claims not to be a conservative.

I get that Maher feels that drugs, prostitution, etc. should be legal.  There's a hell of a lot more important things to libertarianism than that, and he doesn't seem to match up in most other categories.

by willamos2 on Mar 6, 2007 4:41 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Funny
I consider myself a libertarian, too.

We must have different conceptions of Libertarianism.

I remember having a political conversation w/ you awhile back and, while there were a few issues I was unfamiliar w/ since they pertained to state matters, I remember disagreeing w/ almost all of your other positions.

And I don't mean that in a combative or derisive way. Unlike Longhorn (nah, noob, etc.) or a few others on this site, you definitely seemed to have given the issues some thought, and you articulated them deftly.

But I also notice you have consistently been one of the first here to come to a staunch defense of Good Ol' W, a president who I feel its safe to say is also pretty damn far away on the political spectrum from the ideology you just espoused.

What am I missing?

 

I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 6, 2007 5:25 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

response
I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social libertarian if that makes sense.

I think people should be able to do whatever they want to do so long as they pay consequences for when their actions adversely affect others in a material way.

Example:
You can smoke pot, but if you drive while influenced and get in a wreck, you go to jail for a very long time.

The obvious gray area here is abortion though, where liberals typically say that it is the woman's body, while I say that it is "adversely affecting" somebody else.  Still, that's a small issue when looking at everything else though.

I don't believe in gun control laws.
I believe that the federal budget could be trimmed incredibly if you cut out all of the unnecessary crap.
I don't believe in foreign aid to other countries.

Again, a gray area is Iraq.  My opinion is that Bush "meant well" by going into Iraq because he thought a long-term democracy would stabilize the region to help protect us within our own borders.  Obviously, his plan isn't going very well at all.  I just don't want to give $10B to a country like Somalia or Uruguay just because we can.  I'd rather help ourselves first.  I certainly don't want to pay North Korea blackmail money not to enrich uranium.

by willamos2 on Mar 6, 2007 5:37 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I agree w/ most of that
Maybe I am remembering a conversation w/ somebody else, although I still find that your vigilant defense of the current administration doesn't really jibe with the Libertarian viewpoint.

You (and me): fiscal conservative, social libertarian

W: definitely not fiscally conservative (not sure what you'd call it), extreme social conservative

I like camo because it makes you blend in. But when you're not in the woods, it does the opposite. Its like, hey, there's an asshole.

by Brian Thomas on Mar 7, 2007 12:13 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

my vigilant defense
while I don't think Bush is the best president ever or even a great president, I don't think he's anywhere near the travesty that others feel that he is.

He was dealt some circumstances that no other president has ever had to endure.  There was no textbook response for him to fall back on, so I believe he did what he thought was best for the country.  Was it?  Probably not, but if the results had been different, people would be lauding him, rather than ridiculing him.

I know that's a big "if"...my point is that I think he had good intentions, just a flawed strategy in the end.

by willamos2 on Mar 7, 2007 12:30 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Travesty
No, it's a travesty.  A huge mess.

You're right that there was no textbook response to 9/11, but damn, Iraq?  That didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and no excuses are going to work.  On top of that, the WAY they fought in Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen.

I watched a two hour Frontline documentary on "transformation" last night.  Anyone else see that?  How much common sense would it have taken to understand that you can topple a regime that way, but you STILL NEED TROOPS TO WIN THE PEACE?  It was evident from the beginning it wasn't going to work, and they never changed strategy.  Years and years have gone by at this point.

by Dustin on Mar 7, 2007 12:56 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

not to mention...
...lives and lives.  3188 and counting...
Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Mar 7, 2007 2:49 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

not to sound callous
but that pales in comparison to the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives lost in Vietnam...an even greater quagmire than Bush could ever get us involved in.

This is something to think about when people start calling Bush the worst president ever and starting and stopping with Iraq as the evidence.  Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but let's TRY to be a bit even-handed with criticism for needless wars, eh?

Not saying you in particular are a culprit here...just from other comments I've seen here at LSB and elsewhere.

by willamos2 on Mar 7, 2007 9:43 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Vietnam
That war started over 40 years ago.  In some ways they're an interesting comparison.

When comparing casualties, I think it's important to realize how many of our soldiers, per man, are coming back with really gruesome injuries (burns, missing limbs, etc) compared to Vietnam.  Today we can save their lives better than we could in the 1960's.  Battlefield medicine has improved a great deal, and in Iraq we have almost total air superiority.  Medevac helicopters are more free to move around, and there's more firepower to protect them.  It's a very different conflict in that regard.  Had this happened in the 1960's, you might have seen double the deaths.  6,200 or so would be very significant when you compare the size of the forces we had in Vietnam (well over 500,000 in 1968 and 1969) and have in Iraq (well under 200,000).  And, of course Vietnam lasted about ten years.

We were also fighting a professional army in the NVA and a guerrilla force in the VC.  Body armor and technology are much better.  The relative number of casualties in Iraq is not an indicator of military success.

There are some similarities.  The dominoe theory, and the reverse dominoe theory.  Hawks from the Vietnam era believed that halting the spread of communism in Vietnam would stop or slow the spread of communism elsewhere in SE Asia and even the world at large.  Today's hawks contended that toppling Saddam Hussein's regime would somehow encourage a populist movement in the broader Middle East.

Neither, of course, happened.  We failed in Vietnam and destabilized Cambodia in the process, setting the stage for the Khmer Rouge and lots of deaths there.  Likewise, there's no sign that our efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq are sparking any democratization in that region, either.  In fact, we've made allies with authoritarian regimes (Uzbekistan, Pakistan) in order to pull these operations off.

The difference between SE Asia and the Middle East is oil.  That's why this Iraq folly may prove to be even worse than Vietnam.  We have a compelling interest in that region, and international terrorism is arguably a greater security threat than international communism (excepting the Soviet Union) ever was.

It was a case of the Bush Administration convincing themselves that this would work.  There was never any real debate about it.  The decision was made very early on from high up.  "Optimism".

by Dustin on Mar 7, 2007 10:09 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

i agree with almost everything you say
although the 1st part seems like you're trying to do more than just explain the fewer casualties in Iraq, compared with Vietnam.

Those seem to be just circumstances largely dealing with the change in eras, but it still doesn't exempt the fact that life was lost at a far greater rate in Vietnam.

by willamos2 on Mar 7, 2007 11:17 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Getting skinny
I'm not sure what you mean.  I was trying to illustrate some of the less obvious (but still valid) reasons we're seeing fewer casualties.  A lot of people would simply say "there's less violence" and leave it at that.  Well, it's probably true that there's less direct action against our soldiers in Iraq than there was in Vietnam, but there are still other reasons we're seeing fewer casualties.  

I thought I did a good job of being objective in the first part.

by Dustin on Mar 8, 2007 12:01 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yes
You were very objective.

And the fact remains that this administration lied to get us into this war.  They ignored the good intelligence that told us that there were no WMDs in Iraq and targeted operatives and their families (Valerie Plame/Wilson) who disputed those claims.

And now, as a result of their idiotic assumption that we would be "greeted as liberators" (Cheney actually believed that and ignored all of the history and intelligence that suggested otherwise), Bush and his henchmen have now created thousands of new muslim zealots who abhor the USA and everything we stand for.  

Kudos, W, you shit-poor excuse for a true, patriotic American--your war on terrorism has created a hotbed for terrorists.

This is what happens when you lie to your own people and to the rest of the world just to advance your own agenda.  It didn't work for Nixon, and it won't work for you.

The Iraq atrocities, combined with all of the other things that this administration is clearly guilty of, are what will make this presidency go down as the worst in the modern era, and perhaps the worst ever.

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Mar 8, 2007 12:46 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

this
is exactly what I'm talking about.

Over-the-top exaggerations all the way around.

There's too much crap to wade through there, so I'll just say this:  

there is no evidence that Bush or his administration ever LIED (if you want to see what a lie is, you should be familiar with the Clinton administration).

You could say that he was grossly negligent, and I'll buy that, even respect your opinion at that point, but if you start talking about how Bush lied or any other fact-less remarks (i.e. war for oil), then you really just cloud your remarks with too much crap to be understood.

by willamos2 on Mar 8, 2007 9:10 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

It is very clear
that they only accepted intelligence that told them what they wanted to hear, and if any intelligence came in that didn't agree with the story they were trying to tell, they aggressively moved to discredit those individuals and their families.

Seems to me thats much worse than lying about a hummer.

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Mar 8, 2007 9:20 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

didn't say Clinton was worse
just that it's been proven that he lied while the most you could say about Bush was that he was grossly negligent in accepting/disputing information.

That's all.

by willamos2 on Mar 8, 2007 9:30 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

no
I agreed with your reasons on why there's fewer casualties, but my point was that most people throw up the casualty count like it's some staggering number.

While it's very sad that so many died (needlessly in some people's minds), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to previous conflicts.  Sure, there are reasons for that, but for those that are focusing solely on casualty counts as a means of speaking against the war, it kind of rings hollow to me.

by willamos2 on Mar 8, 2007 9:14 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Well then
the number of folks who died on 9/11 should be completely inconsequential, since its even less than died in this pointless war.
"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history" -- John McCain

by DJCahill on Mar 8, 2007 9:21 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

difference
is that those people were civilians and Americans were attacked on our home soil.

Comparing attacks on civilians to soldiers lost in conflicts seems a bit strange to me.

by willamos2 on Mar 8, 2007 9:28 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

staggering
I think the casualties ARE staggering.  The killed + wounded are significant when you consider the war has been going on for four years and very little has been accomplished.  Just because Vietnam may have been worse it doesn't make Iraq any better.

When Dan points out that we've lost many more in Iraq than we did in 9/11, that's a valid point considering that Iraq was sold as being a part of the "War on Terror" when it actually had nothing to do with it.  Hell, by the time this is over there's no telling how many men and women we will have sacrificed ONLY TO MAKE TERRORISM WORSE.  

As of right now we've had 3,200 killed.  Another 750 contractors have been killed.  That's about 4,000.  And the wounded?  Among American troops, over 24,000.  Seriously wounded?  More than 7,000.  

I'd say that's a very heavy price, and a VERY good reason to argue against the war.  The money is also a good reason.  Billions and billions and billions upon billions have been (and will be) spent over there.  Then there's 'opportunity' cost.  Our troops are over there fighting this stupid war, and it leaves us vulnerable elsewhere.  When I pay my taxes for "National Defense", THIS is not what I expect.

by Dustin on Mar 8, 2007 9:59 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

we're arguing something different here
I'm not saying that the amount of lives lost is something to disregard.

I'm just saying that when someone uses that number as an indictment of Bush, they should have that much contempt for Kennedy/LBJ because they led us into an unnecessary war that had many, many more deaths and serious injuries.

by willamos2 on Mar 8, 2007 12:00 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

No doubt
I don't think anyone would defend Kennedy or especially LBJ on Vietnam, but it was 40 years ago and you can't really expect people to have the same vitriol about that when there's a war going on right now.

And there was a lot of evidence that's came to light in the last few years that suggests neither one wanted to be in Vietnam to begin with.  There was a lot of pressure coming from Congress and the military to escalate that.  Still, I'm not defending Eisenhower, LBJ, Kennedy, or Nixon.  Any one of them could've stopped it had they made it a priority.

by Dustin on Mar 8, 2007 12:09 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

circumstances
He was dealt some very nice circumstances: a budget surplus, a healthy economy...

As for 9/11, he could have asked the country to do ANYTHING after that and we were united behind him.  He failed, colossally, to ask us to do anything meaningful.  Then, he started a war in Afghanistan, we're still with him.  Then, what the hell, Iraq?  Huh?  And I cannot recall a presidential administration as inept at foreign policy and diplomacy as this one.

Failure, total and complete, compounded by obstinence, lack of planning, unrealistic expectations, hubris, etc.

by t ball on Mar 7, 2007 1:24 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Afghanistan
I agreed with that action and still do, although I think they could've done more for that place and maybe even caught bin Laden in the process.

The whole reason Afghanistan ended up the way that it did is because we and the Soviets used it for our little Cold War playground.  We tore the place to shreds and left it for dead.  No surprise that the place was fertile ground for extremism and bred terrorists.  No surprise at all.

The same thing will likely happen in Iraq only it'll probably be worse.

by Dustin on Mar 7, 2007 4:18 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I also supported the Afghanistan action
I just wished they had finished the job before worrying about a place totally unrelated to the war on terrorism - Iraq.  Now Iraq is going to be way worse than Afghanistan or Somalia in breeding and supporting terrorists.  Congrats neocons, you took a bad problem and made it inifitely worse.

by t ball on Mar 7, 2007 8:56 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Exactly
Afghanistan = just war
Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on