The View From 1776

Liar, Liar!  Your Attire’s On fire!

The Obama administration has about the same degree of credibility as global-warming “scientists,” that is, near zero.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/18 at 12:31 AM
  1. This post seems to be defending one of the most criminally stupid acts any president has perpetrated in the history of this country: The invasion of Iraq based on lies about WMD.

    The invasion was NOT sold on the basis that we would be creating a western style "democracy" in the Mideast - this argument was an excuse dreamed up after the truth became impossible to hide.

    We spent three trillion dollars and thousands of lives in this disaster -- let us be thankful if the Obama administration can extract our forces any time soom.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/18  at  01:05 AM
  2. hello,
    where i think so obama is doing nothing, brain dumps and it seems that he does not have power.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/18  at  03:52 AM
  3. Mr. Jay:

    You are obviously highly intelligent. Why do you repeatedly misrepresent what a post states?

    The entire point is that VP Biden, many times during preceding years, opposed Bush administration plans to create a democratic government in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Yet, here is Biden claiming success of the Bush policy, implemented before Obama's inauguration, as an Obama administration success. That is a flat out lie.

    Biden is on record opposing that and, in fact stating that it was impossible. His proposal was to partition Iraq into three separate countries. Obama opposed the "surge" which led to Bush's success, proposing instead to withdraw immediately from Iraq, before there could have been a chance to create a democratic regime.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/18  at  02:03 PM
  4. Mr. Brewton,

    Many wise people opposed that senseless war all during the incredibly long slog, and for very good reasons. Bush had no plan and was just drifting, hoping for a someone else to get him out of his mess.

    Biden was indeed an advocate of splitting Iraq into separate regions (as it was historically) to reduce the inter-sect warfare and bring the fighting to a rapid end. (That division may still happen if the Kurds have their way).

    Just because Biden proposed an alternate strategy to end the war - which was not adopted by Bush - does not imply that that scheme would not have worked better than Bush's do-nothing strategy. In spite of Bush's dithering - which cost many more thousands of lives and huge amounts of national treasure, the fighting did eventually decline. As events on the ground changed, and The Awakening Movement in Anbar Province occurred simultaneously with the Bush "Surge," the violence was reduced.

    You have no way of knowing whether dividing the country (per Biden) would have been a far quicker and more successful way to end the war, with fewer lost American and Iraqi lives. The resulting regions may have been more stable and democratic than the Bush solution.

    To the extent that Bush was completely unable to end his war (and refused even to think about ending it!) bringing the "other guy's" senseless war to a conclusion is, in fact, truly a magnificent achievement, whether you admit it or not.

    Consider the obverse: If Obama had let the war drag on interminably (in the aimless Bush mode) you would have been castigating him for his failure to do anything.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/19  at  12:10 PM
  5. Mr. B.

    Remember when Bush appointed a "War Czar" (Douglas Lute)? Bush and Cheney had utterly no clue about how to end the needless war that they started, and wanted to shift the onus onto somebody else. It was during these long years of endless Iraq occupation when people began to wake up and realize that Bush was a cipher.

    When the War Czar did not work out and disappeared into oblivion, he found another surrogate to take the heat off. David Petraeus, became his new knight in shining armor. He galluped out of the dust of Baghdad on his white steed to stand up to all those nay-sayers in Congress. After years of seeing nothing but our soldiers dying aimlessly on the battlefield for no benefit, Congress was fed up and wanted to get the heck out of the quagmire of Iraq.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/19  at  12:46 PM
  6. Mr. Jay:

    You are still either clueless or purposely obtuse. Erect all the straw men you want, but the fact is that you have not addressed at all the point of this post.

    Bush never took credit for anything that Clinton did.

    Comrade Obama routinely blames his own misdeeds on Bush and claims credit for Bush's successes in which he had absolutely no role whatever.

    By any definition, Obama and Biden are gross liars
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/20  at  02:38 PM
  7. There was only one main goal in the Iraq war. Return the sale of oil to dollars to help it keep from devaluing even more.

    That goal was countered by Iran when it began its own sales in Euros and later in Yen that has also weakened the dollar. So, the goal that the Iraq war was really fought over, was not obtained due to an enemy to the dollar that the U.S. hasn't been able to get enough support to go to war against, YET.

    Since you couldn't get public support for resumption of an ongoing war, only under a cease fire, because the dollar was being weakened, the President and the global banking elite that control our government and most of its foreign policy used WMD.

    That was a real issue but, one we had put up with for ten years. Iraq was required not to destroy even one pound of the WMD the U.N. inspectors found at beginning of the cease fire. Since they didn't witness the destruction, it was easy to convince the nations that supported the war, that WMD was still there and in quantities as large as had been recorded, less any records of witnessed destruction.

    We did find 550 tons of yellow cake in Iraq after the U.S. tossed out Saddam and that was sold to Canada. The rest of the WMD was either decayed, destroyed, well hidden or more likely, moved out of the nation over the ten years they were violating the cease fire.

    Again, like most wars the U.S. has been involved, economics and power, not an actual threat to the U.S. was the real reason for the war. However, again, to get public support, you have to "market" the war in ways that do get public support. Even our civil war was over economic and power struggle issues, not slavery or secession. But, slavery was a good way to get a lot of support from a lot of the public in the north.

    War is a business that employs either directly or indirectly 100's of thousands in the U.S. and other nations that supply us. That is why this President has raised defense spending even more and advanced the war effort in Afghanistan even more. It puts people to work and keeps those that had jobs in the defense industry from losing them.

    Cut the "war machine" and you risk putting the nation into a depression because of all the jobs and tax revenues generated by it.

    That doesn't justify it but, it does explain a lot about why both parties have done little to really end the U.S. use of war to keep the economy stronger.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  02/20  at  03:30 PM
  8. Mr. Brewton,

    The point of the post was to claim (wildly and without basis) that Iraq was soon to be a huge democratic success for Mr. Bush, and that the Democrats had some nerve in taking any credit whatsoever for it.

    I was attempting to point out that Iraq is one of the signal disasters of American foreign policy in the last century, and that if Obama can get us out of there without too many more lives needlessly lost it will indeed be an achievement for him.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/20  at  07:14 PM
  9. Mr. Jay:

    You seem to lack the ability to understand what you read. Or perhaps you don't bother to read the full article.

    Comrade Biden stated in a public forum that the democratic government in Iraq is a success of the socialist Obama regime. The facts are that both Biden and Obama opposed the troop surge, which produced today's results. There was a democratically elected legislative body in existence long before Comrade Obama took the oath of office.

    Comrade Biden's claim is a blatant lie.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/21  at  02:27 AM
  10. Tom,

    Comrade Biden is a politician who has been put in charge by Obama of cleaning up Bush's fiasco in Iraq. The party in power takes credit for the events that occur while that party is in power, even if a little hyperbole is involved.

    There has been endless debate about whether "The Surge" was fully, partly, or marginally responsible for the winding down of violence in Iraq, and I do not think you want to re-argue that here.

    The so-called "democratically elective legislative body in Iraq" is a tender shoot of an organization that is barely functional. If it actually succeeds will, to a great extent, depend on luck and what kind of nurturing the present administration provides. I do not hold out great hope for it. I believe the fatal debathefication of the Bush administration was a fatal blow to any long term success of this government. The Biden divided area scheme would have had a much better chance of long term success.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/23  at  11:41 AM
  11. "Mr, Jay, You are obviously very intelligent."

    Mr. B, I respectfully suggest that your use of the term "intelligent" is fraught with much of the confusion nowadays about what makes a person a rational and wise decision maker.

    Recent neuroscience findings indicate that the type of brain wiring that makes for high IQ scores is frequently flawed by deficiencies in other more important cognitive capabilities. Indeed, what we have always thought was "smartness" may be simply a facilty for memorization, abstract musing, and verbal verbosity. After all, JFK's collegiate group of the best and brightest got us into Vietnam, restricted the military's ability to win, escalated the war, and eventually decided, in the words of Rosanna Danna, "never mind." And don't forget that Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter were always hailed as the "smartest" presidents!

    There is a big difference between the algorithmic intelligence needed in the hard sciences and the practical common sense smarts needed in the real and political world. And clearly, Mr Jay's type of thinking is curiously confused. As you indicate, he may be "either clueless or purposelly obtuse." Possibly his brain has been simply spoiled by his school experiences?

    After all, in another of your posts, he only batted .333 on my "test," and one of the issues he would not concede was that common sense trumps high IQ--which is really a no brainer!
    Posted by bill greene  on  02/25  at  02:41 PM
  12. Bill,

    Just to keep the record straight, although Kennedy was complicit in the Viet Nam mistakes, the first US troops were sent there by Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles (his Sec. of State)in 1956 to prop up the Diem regime.

    While your proposition that folks of "high IQ" make poorer decisions than less gifted people is interesting, it lacks rigor. It may be interesting as a cocktail discussion, but cannot be considered as anything that would rise above "red skies at night, sailor's delight."

    Your terms are vaguely defined and your data is non existent. Your argument consists solely in pointing out what you believe to be errors made by a group of historical public figures who were purported to have been declared "smart."

    Even your examples are fraught with uncertainty. Presidents are faced with momentous problems and must make decisions that affect history. While you fault decisions that resulted in bad outcomes, there is no way to test what the outcomes would have been had a different course of action been taken. In the universe of choices, it is possible that the decision you fault was the best of several bad choices.

    Finally, I would debate your implied premise that gifted people have less "common sense" than ordinary people. Where is the evidence for that?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/27  at  12:59 PM
  13. "I would debate your implied premise that gifted people have less
    Posted by bill greene  on  02/28  at  09:12 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.