Comments on: The Consequences Of Failure In Iraq

National Review: Giving Up On Iraq Would Be Devestating, Even For The War's Critics

[dogsoul]

I'm all for alternate energy sources for a variety of reasons, including environmental as well as oil supply limits & less reliance on MiddleEastern sources... but I think you're getting at the oversimplified "war for oil" mantra & its cousin conspiracy theory suggesting this is all just a ruse to keep the weapons manufacturers in the black. We're at war because Islamic Radicals not only want to kill us, but they have - and will continue to do so unless we can do something to stop them. Their aims are clear, and appeasement will not work in the long term. Who stands to benefit least from infusing the MiddleEast with Democracy? Islamic Radicalism.

[dogsoul]

Bin Laden DID strike the U.S. a number of times, INCLUDING the twin towers under Clinton! And what did he do??? Lobbed a couple cruise missiles in his general direction - missing obviously - and emboldening him to further action... In fact, Ollie North was chastised by Al Gore for suggesting the U.S. assassinate Bin Laden because he represented a major threat to the American people. You wanna forgive 8 years of Clinton slashing military budgets & taking hit after hit from Bin Laden & doing nothing about it to 8 months of a new president? Please... THAT is ridiculous. Where's Bin Laden? I dunno - are you suggesting that under a Democratic leadership we'd have found him easier? We can't find the b@stard.... WE can't find him liberal - that includes YOU assuming you still consider yourself Bin Laden's enemy - at least in principle...

[dogsoul]

idiot... "lied, they lied, they lied..." you really do just regurgitate don't you. Read up buddy - those "lies" were the same ones that Clinton & his cabinet believed during his own presidency... the same.... look down at the links I posted & you will read for yourself.

[clemenhagen1]

Right, Clinton "slashed" the intelligence budget and that's why George and Condi couldn't make sense of a presidential briefing entitled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States." That is why Clinton formed a specific group to monitor terrorism, headed by Richard Clarke. That is why Condi and Bush refused to meet with or listen to Clark during the first nine months of Bush's presidency. Read Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies." Or do you neocons prefer fictional "docudramas" to actual history written by people like Clarke. Waiting for the Limbaughesque sliming of Clarke...

[dallison7]

dogsoul

What about those people who would 'not at all mind' the president lying to congress and the american people for the purpose of taking our young people into an illegal war to die for his own personal gain? Why can't you neocons just take a little time to read and listen? Iraq was not a threat! Iraq did not attack us! There were no WMD! Those balsa-wood planes that Cheney swore would drop bombs on the United States could'nt fly! Those 'mobile labratories' were just trucks! Those aluminum tubes were not of sufficient gauge for nuclear centrifuge use! No 'yellow-cake! The list of lies goes on and on!! No executive branch, not even these clowns, could be wrong about every piece of information they put forth. They lied and they lied and they lied. Now it is coming back to haunt them. They did not expect to ever have any oversight. THESE FACTS, SIR. NEOCON ARE THE REASON THAT THERE IS A MASS EXODUS FROM YOUR PARTY!!

WHERE IS BIN LADEN???????

[dogsoul]

In a post 9/11 environment Clemenhagen - yes, Republicans would have supported Clinton were he to have done what he said he would do & invaded Iraq based on the same intelligence data that had convinced him & other Democrats about Saddam's alleged weaponry capacities during his presidency. Republicans aren't nearly as "party over country" as liberal Democrats. And let's face it, Clinton would have had the support of his liberal mass media machine as well... So instead of emboldening radical Islamists, disheartening America against the mission, and desperately trying to achieve surrender - under Clinton, the media might well have supported the opposite approach.

[clemenhagen1]

Compare Clinton's job numbers to Bush's. Look at the actual growth of middle income wage earners in this new economy. Bottom line under Bush: the wealthiest at the top have prospered, the income gap has dramatically increased, real wages for the middle class have dropped, deficits have soared, and any economist worth his salt would take Clinton's record on both the budget and the economy over Bush's.

[clemenhagen1]

DogSoul: You and I probably do not agree on a variety of things. I see Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and Novak as traitors who deliberately revealed the identity of a CIA operative and exposed the CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings, in the process. Traitorous acts indeed! However, what say I propose a set of ideas and see if we cannot find some common ground. Would you support a non-partisan approach (notice I didn't say bipartisan) to initiating a "NASA" type program on alternative energy. We could spark all sorts of economic benefits as we sought and developed for mass distribution fuels that could make us virtually independent from the rest of the world when it came to the issue of oil. With that we could extricate ourselves from this mess in the Middle East because we wouldn't be reliant on their one vital asset. In the meantime, we truly invest in homeland security, which would mean genuinely secure borders, including more thorough and reliable inspection of goods coming into this country. Do you think an old red-blooded commie-lover like myself and you can agree upon that proposal?

[dogsoul]

Perhaps you ought to enroll in an economics course clemenhagen to see the actual effect of deficits on the macroeconomy of the United States. The recession was already under way when Bush took office - the dot.com bubble had burst & a lot of those corporate scandals that reached meltdown under Bush had achieved their bubbly height under Clinton. Of course, Clinton slashing the military & intelligence budgets offered plenty of cost savings - wonder if they were worth it? What's more, the cost of the Iraq War, Home Security & Katrina didn't exactly come clean as we keep hearing from you folks - yet despite this, we've rebounded from the recession, the economy has been humming for a while now, & unemployee has achieved historical lows... gee - wonder how THAT can happen? Bottom line, study up buddy... you obviously lack economic education - something liberal politicians count on from their constituency when it comes to talking dollars & cents(or sense as the case may be)

[dogsoul]

I recall when the gov't had semi-recently thwarted a major terror attack planned on the US, you recall - the one dealing w/ liquids on planes etc... I could plainly SEE the dissappointment on liberals' faces - I could see how it geniunely upset them that America earned a victory over terrorism on Bush's watch - heck, some claimed it was just a trumped up conspiracy before the mid-term elections. That's who we're talking about folks - people who would not at all mind a successful terror attack on the U.S., so long as THEY didn't personally get hurt & provided they could use it against Bush....

traitors