A partisan political statement

[eisely]

This is guaranteed to offend some people, but it is G rated political humor.

_________________________

The Democrats are complaining on how long the war in Iraq is taking but consider this:

 

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

 

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

 

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick.

 

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!!!

 

Is our military is GREAT or what?

 

 

[Big_Dog]

Big E:

 

Whatever are you doing living in Ca.? YOU should be in Texas, big boy! I like someone not afraid to kick that hornet's nest.

 

YiS

bd

[Adrianvs]

Our troops are still all over the world from Clinton's "peacekeeping" missions. Where are the protests to "end the occupation?" Likewise the UN is still running Bosnia. Perhaps when they finally finish their mission and pull out, the US will give them a shot at a "quick rebuild" of Iraq.

[acco40]

"Taking" Iraq spoke well of our military might.

 

Dems (and others) are not complaining about the length of time, but the lack of a plan. That does not speak ill of our military but of our politicians. What are our (USA) goals in Iraq? If it was to remove Saddam, done. If it was to destroy the WMD capability, done. If it was/is to build a democracy why wasn't that stated on the onset and if that was the goal, there are a few other sovereign nations we should be attacking soon for the same aim. The Shi'ites would love a one man, one vote system. The US government is dead set against it. The fear is the Sunnis would be taken advantage of. What to do, what to do. There are no simple answers.

 

Yes, it is easy for Democrats to sit on the sidelines and complain or criticize but that does not justify the administrations plan.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Adrian says:

 

Our troops are still all over the world from Clinton's "peacekeeping" missions.

 

As I check my calendar, it appears that Bill Clinton has been out of office for 3 years, 8 days. If President Bush has left these troops all over the world, at what point do the missions become "his", at least as a co-owner? I would think that 3 years would be more than enough time for the change in ownership to have occurred already.

 

Of course, since I do listen to "conservative talk radio" and sometimes watch Fox News Channel, I am aware that in some peoples' minds, Bill Clinton will remain responsible for everything bad that ever happens in or to this country, until the end of time. I think the slogan of WABC radio in New York is, "But what about Clinton," because that seems to be the slogan of most of the hosts, to be used several times per hour.

 

Where are the protests to "end the occupation?"

 

I'm actually not hearing that many "protests" to end the occupation of Iraq, unless you count what the Democratic candidates are saying as "protests." But to the extent there are "protests" about Iraq and not for other places where are troops are, I think the answer is obvious. It has been awhile since we've heard of any of our military people dying in Bosnia or anywhere else that they are -- except for Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think anybody really questions why we still have people in Afghanistan (and according to today's news, soon to cross the "border" into Pakistan), because we're still trying to get the people who attacked us on 9/11/01 and some of those who harbored them. And our "body count" in Afghanistan seems to be about one every few weeks.

 

On the other hand, we are losing several every week in Iraq, and for what? Even if you favored the war, and I was ambivalent, what are we still hoping to accomplish that would justify losing hundreds or thousands more than the hundreds we have already lost -- more than 500 since the war "ended." Making Iraq a stable democracy? That seems so unlikely that I don't think it's worth keeping our people in the line of fire. As a nation, Iraq is a fiction anyway. It has not been completely under the control of the central government at least since the 1990-01 war, and probably before that. The different regions and ethnic groups in Iraq NEVER wanted to be part of the same country, except for the "minority" group (the Sunnis I believe) who was happy because they were dominating everybody else for so many years. The interim council that we appointed has had terrible difficulty getting anyone to agree on anything.

 

Didn't we learn anything from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan? They spent more than 10 years getting their people killed in a country similar to Iraq (admittedly worse, but not that much worse) before they finally figured out that it was a losing proposition. When will we?

[Fat Old Guy]

"Bill Clinton will remain responsible for everything bad that ever happens in or to this country, until the end of time."

 

Nah, that was Joe Kennedy and his spawn.

[acco40]

But has the Kennedy gene pool become "centralized" now that we have Ah-nold ruling California?

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

"Bill Clinton will remain responsible for everything bad that ever happens in or to this country, until the end of time."

 

Nah, that was Joe Kennedy and his spawn.

 

Maybe for you, FOG, but I was referring to the conservatives who get paid big bucks to roll out the political/historical agenda on radio and tv. The Clintons long since passed the Kennedies as number one on that hate parade. The Kennedies are still firmly in second place, but it is really just Ted. JFK is almost a revered figure to conservatives these days who hold him up as a "good conservative Democrat" and "remember when Democrats cut taxes." Actually they just find him convenient because he is a Democrat who cut tax rates, never mind that he cut the top rate TO more than twice what it is now. RFK you don't even hear about anymore, and the many political careers of his children, cousins and their spouses all seem to have stalled or sputtered out, at one point I think four of them were either in Congress or statewide office, I am not sure how many still are, if any. And as Acco says, Rush and Sean aren't going to pick on Mrs. Arnold too badly. But Teddy, they and their disciples reserve special abuse for. One of the newer ones, Laura Ingraham, who I think is syndicated now, refers to him as the "Senior Balloon from Massachusetts." Very adult and analytical. I'm sure it's good for ratings though. But Ted and the other Kennedies are really on the sidelines at this point, and the talkers can't blame a senator for everything they think is wrong in the world (and beyond, next week there will be something wrong on the Moon and it will be Clinton's fault) the way they can a former president. And even better, they can lump in a current up-and-coming senator and possible future presidential candidate (as opposed to Ted) with the former president because after all she was responsible for everything bad that he did. I am not exaggerating, I hear about Senator Clinton and when and whether she will run for president every single day on the radio on my way home. Ted can't come anywhere close as talk-fodder.

 

I am not even sure who is in third place on this eminent list. It would be a distant third. At this moment it is probably John Kerry but that is just a momentary thing, unless he actually has the temerity to defeat someone named George Bush which is what earned Bill Clinton and his family just the most amazing outpouring of hatred that American politics has ever seen (and that was before he lied under oath.)

[acco40]

Where did FOG's post go? Has there been a universal "squelch?"

[Proud Eagle]

Don't forget that some things can still be blamed on FDR. Big government, entitlement programs, the nanny state, and many of those other things that conservatives (and some libertarians) frequently object to are usually blamed directly or inderictly on FDR.

[eisely]

I did not squelch FOG.

[NJCubScouter]

ProudEagle, you are correct that some people blame FDR for things, but I am not talking about historians or political scientists writing books. I am talking about current "political discourse," if you can call it that. Turn on your local "conservative talk radio" station (probably the one that airs Rush Limbaugh) and I'd bet that if you listen for a few hours, you will hear 10 negative references to a member of the Clinton family before you ever hear any mention of FDR. It would probably be somewhat skewed today because most of what you would hear (as far as elective politics anyway) is about John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc., and the Kerry connection will draw in mentions of Ted Kennedy, but Clinton still will not be absent. And on a "normal" day (one that is not the day after a primary that seemed to mark the beginning of the end of an entire primary race), the Clintons will be back on center stage, being blamed for the price of gasoline, rap lyrics and why the scientists couldn't get a good signal from the first Mars rover.

 

(That was an exaggeration for effect, there.)

[NJCubScouter]

Coincidentally, I just read an AP article online that says our generals are planning for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to last at least through 2006. I realize that that does not preclude a pullout before then, but it also means our government thinks we may have a reason to be there that long. Personally I think that if we believe things are going to continue on in Iraq in such a way as to require foreign troops (that would be us) to be there for 2 more years, then we have every reason to give very serious consideration to getting out as soon as we can -- even if it means that we are not there to guarantee the establishment of a "democracy" that seems extremely unlikely to flourish there, no matter how long we are there. This is just one of those instances where I think the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

[eisely]

NJCubScouter,

 

We all should be concerned about the nature and length of our commitment in Iraq. This is a commitment I think is worth keeping.

[Proud Eagle]

Actually I have frequently heard Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, blaming FDR. While the politics of the day are always going to take up far more time on the air, you will from time to time hear this mentioned when a larger discussion of the reasons for our government being the way it is comes up.

 

Something that is important to note about the troop plans. The military is historically known for planning for the widest range of possibilities. Remember, the military won't make the decision to stay or go. All they are doing is preparing for the possibility that those with political power will tell them to stay. They are probably also working up plans to pull out if the new Iraqi government decides it doesn't want US troops.

 

Another important thing to consider is that the plans call for gradually decreasing the number of troops deployed. I remeber hearing that by the end of this year it may drop below 100,000 if everything goes well.

 

Further, we should remember that it will take much longer to fully establish a new Army, Air Force, border patrol, and other necessary tools for national security than it does to establish a police force. The presence of US troops will keep other outside nations from interfering in Iraq in such a way as to undo what we have done.

 

Finally, keep in mind that if we pull out before the job is done then we will not only have given up on achieving any good, but will quite likely cause the situation to become worse than it was. While the Iraqi people must remake their country in the long term, it will do no one any good to throw the place into caos by pulling out before some other system is in place.