Limbaugh revived concept of Clinton's "testicle lockbox"
On the August 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh played audio clips from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and labeled her position on Iraq "the 'no onions' strategy from the woman with the testicle lockbox." As Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh has used the expression "testicle lockbox" on numerous occasions while discussing Clinton.
Additionally, Limbaugh repeatedly claimed that Clinton had "admit[ted]" during the VFW speech that the Iraq "surge is working." In fact, as his audio clip of the speech shows and Media Matters for America noted, Clinton attributed the improvements in Al Anbar Province to new "tactics" -- not Bush's troop increase.
From the August 21 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is last night in Kansas City at the VFW convention, the presumptive Democrat [sic] presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaking about the Iraq war and the surge.
CLINTON [audio clip]: We've begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.
LIMBAUGH: Pure inanity. Literal incompetence on display. It's working, but it's too late? It's working, we're just too late in changing our tactics? This is the woman who wants to be the commander in chief? It's never too late for victory. It is never -- see, this is the politicization of this. Like I was just talking to Lane about. All of this stuff is irrelevant now. If you're an American and you love your country and you understand the threat that we face, whether you dislike Bush for irrational reasons or what have you -- whether you think they made mistakes the first three or four years -- irrelevant.
They fixed it. We're doing it the right way now. It's never too late for victory, Mrs. Clinton. We can't be fighting the last war, we have to be preparing to fight -- well, I don't even know what she's talking about. Here is -- here's the next bite where she just -- after getting it on the record -- surge is working, especially in Anbar Province -- then the caveat.
CLINTON [audio clip]: As we move forward in these next months awaiting a report from General [David] Petraeus, we'll have some very hard decisions to make.
LIMBAUGH: No, we won't.
CLINTON [audio clip]: One decision I know we will make is to continue to honor the service of our own American troops --
LIMBAUGH: Not your party.
CLINTON [audio clip]: -- and make sure that they are given the respect that they so richly have earned. Some of us will disagree. I think the best way of honoring their service is by beginning to bring them home.
LIMBAUGH: Again, the woman who wants to be commander in chief admits the surge is working, but now let's bring them home. The best way to honor their service to bring them home. These are warriors. These are people who joined the U.S. military in order to engage in operations just like this. So, the woman -- the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, wants to be the next commander in chief. Let me translate what you just heard: "We're winning, so let's quit."
We'll be back. That's what she said. "We're winning. Let's quit." The "no onions" strategy from the woman with the testicle lockbox.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
We'll be back. That's what she said. "We're winning. Let's quit." The "no onions" strategy from the woman with the testicle lockbox.
Disgusting
Classy, yeah? This from the guy who argues that major media and rival candidates are going easy on Clinton because "you can't hit the girl."
Limpballs is probably envious of anyone with testicles, since his must have shrivelled up into teeny-tiny marbles after he used all that OxyContin.....
Nice. Good for you, rise above Limbaugh-type language and take the high road.
Tommy, lighten up a bit.
At least we know Limbaugh will never lighten up.
In any way.
More comments showing the true colors of "THE FAMILY VALUES PARTY!"
More comments showing the true colors of "THE FAMILY VALUES PARTY!"
Yellow?
:-)
His number of active brain cells lightened up considerable after ingesting all that OxyContin.
:-)
Maybe this is a classic Limpballs setup. Day 1: Can't pick on Hillary cause she's a girl. Day 2: pick on Hillary. Day 3: say "Media Matters picked on me because I picked on Hillary for being a girl".
The sad part is that Rush's lies are so easily detected, yet his idiot fans believe them.
Here, for example, this:
CLINTON [audio clip]: We've begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics.
It is not a complex statement. She believes that in some areas, the new tactics are working, but that these new tactics should have been employed a long time ago, and because they were not, so much has gone wrong that it is currently not possible to win this "war". I have no idea if she's right - but that is a simple statement.
That somehow turns into
That's what she said. "We're winning. Let's quit."
Now, anyone with half a brain can clearly see and hear that that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what she is saying. Yet the troglodyteseither choose not to believe what they hear, or they are too dumb to understand it. It's probably a mix of both... sadly.
Oh and did HE just complain about her politicizing this issue? I know that's the marching orders from the White House (everyone on the right, especially Hannity, complain that the Democrats politicize political issues), but please, I didn't think they had to be so blatantly stupid about it.
I'm willing to concede that Limbaugh has equal expertise on the topics of war and wearing a uniform, and "testicles".
Oh, Rush has experience with testicles, all right - just not his own. Remember it was a MALE prostitute he was with when he was arrested in Pittsburgh back in the '70s under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".
I sense a high level of "testicle anxiety" emanating from the peanut gallery.
Or has the problem been misidentified altogether? Perhaps the problem is actually "testicle absence"? :-D
Yeah but what about a luffa lockbox for O'Reilly?
The problem is that O'reilly would keep calling it a "falafel lockbox"
:-)
"We can't be fighting the last war..."
WTF is this WE bullsh_t?
The Rush's of the world act like our real live soldiers are some video game characters that they can manipulate while the play war from the safety of the old arm chair in the den. This is a real live war and Limbaugh ain't participating just like he didn't during the Viet Nam era.
Right, and there's no "restart" button when one of them gets killed.
..and the nerve of guys like Rush to call anyone a cut and runner since they all ran before they ever made a cut since they are a bunch a draft dodging phonies.
I agree Lynn.
And I have no problem with what anyone did back then to either go or to avoid it.
I know a lot of people who did everything they could to avoid the draft. I respect them all.
But people like Rush, O'Reilly, Bush & Cheney all found ways to avoid a war they say they supported at the time. Now they're either waging this war or selling it.
It's easy to support a war that you'll never have to fight.
speaking of cut and run, I have a detachable penis!
I woke up this morningwith a bad hangoverand my penis was missing again.This happens all the time:it's detachable.This comes in handy a lot of the time:I can leave it homewhen I think it's going to get me in trouble,or I can rent it outwhen I don't need it.But now and then I go to a party,get drunk,and the next morning I can't for the life of meremember what I did with it.First I looked around my apartmentand I couldn't find itso I called up the place where the party was.They hadn't seen it either.I asked them to check the medicine cabinet(because for some reason I leave it there sometimes)but not this time.So I told them if it pops up to let me know.I called some other people from the partybut they were no help either.I was starting to get desperate.I really don't like being without my penis for too long.It makes me feel like less of a man,and I really hate having to sit down every time I take a leak.After a few hours of searching the houseand calling everyone I could think of,I was starting to get very depressed.So I went to the Kiev and ate breakfast.Then as I walked down Second Avenuetowards St. Mark's place where all thosepeople sell used books and other junk on the street,I saw my penis lying on a blanketnext to a broken toaster oven.Some guy was selling it.I had to buy it off him,He wanted 22 bucks,but I talked him down to 17.I took it home, washed it off, and put it back on.I was happy again.Complete.People sometimes tell me I should get it permanently attached, but,I don't know. Even though it's sometimes a pain in the ass,I like having a detachable penis.You'd lose it less often if you kept it in a lock box.
Rush-"They fixed it. We're doing it the right way now. It's never too late for victory"
We are doing it the right way? Rush go to Hell, i am sick of these people spewing these types of lies it makes my blood boil. We lost allready and countless Americans and Iraqis die because of Bush and his warmongering policy.
I don't care what politicians say, don't you dare say "we already lost." We haven't lost and we're not losing. I have family in Iraq, and whether or not you agree with the war or not, don't ever tell my family that we have lost the war. Soldiers fight every day, directly or indirectly, for you to be free. Don't disrespect them and tell them they have lost. If you want out, that's fine. I can at least respect that. Support those politicians who want to withdraw and we'll be out of war. But don't tell my blood relatives, and the family members of so many other Americans, we have lost. That's bullsh_t!!
You dont get to tell me what to say. No one in Iraq is fighting for my freedom that rhetoric is dumb. Iraq was no threat to my freedom, what, were they just about to build papyrus rafts float across the Pacific Ocean, avoiding our Navy, invade and conquer the US? Rent a clue.
I don't think that is the best way to look at this. The entire situation in the Middle East was and still is a threat to our freedom. If radical, revolutionary jihadists were ever able to control the energy supplies of the West, they'd be able to bring us to our knees, and we'd most likely be in a MUCH bigger war. No one wants that. The soldiers are over there trying to stop that situation from happening and I, for one, applaud their efforts.
Speculation, I dont believe it. And NO economic problems do NOT equal a threat to my freedom. Not to mention we are the worlds largest consumer of oil we use about 25% of it, so what are they GOING to do? Selling it is all they have they cant drink it. I certainly applaud soldiers my father was a 20 year Marine and a DI at Parris Island. I see it this way. When a soldier signs up he gives up any right to question the mission. That means the ONLY EXISTING mechanism to stop an unprincipled politician from using soldiers as fodder for THEIR military misadventures is public opinion. That makes it our OBLIGATION to question each mission and decide if it is worht spending the precious capital of American lives. They sign up to protect US and its our obligation to protect THEM if we disagree with how they are being used. This certainly fits the bill for me. Again I see no possible reasonable argument that anyone fighting in Iraq is fighting for my freedom. Another point on THAT is if you really think our fight is with Fundamentalist Islamic Extremists how in the WORLD was invading the most secular Islamic nation in the region not an act of sheer insanity?
I think that Islamic Jihadists having control over the world's oil would amount to a little more that just "economic problems". As for your reasoning behind why it is imperative for you to try to bring the troops home, I have no problem with it and I find it pretty damn well thought out. But, I'm worried about this statement from you: "When a soldier signs up he gives up any right to question the mission." Does that mean the 8 brave soldiers who penned the NYT editorial criticizing the surge are in some way violating their military honor? I hope not.
They dont give up their right to free speech but they cannot question their mission when they are fighting and they cannot use contemptuous words against the President this is vague. Many here have equated criticising the mission with criticizing the President since HE sent them. Now an argument can be made either way I think they were fine but it was a brave act and they MIGHT find themselves in some hot water. Also there is the peer pressure and official pressure from officers they have to watch out for. In short they SEEM to have the RIGHT, I overstated that, however it isnt near as simple nor as safe for THEM to as it is for US to. Officially they have ZERO leverage and public opinion REMAINS the only mechanism avialable to achieve the ends I stated in my post
Wagner,
I think that Islamic Jihadists having control over the world's oil would amount to a little more that just "economic problems".
You don't seriously believe Al Qaeda could start a war with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and win? We can't even win in Iraq so it seems to me you are either
a. fearmongering
b.a fox viewer
because what you are suggesting isn't even possible. I for one am sick of listening to people like you who are so scared of terrorists. Get over it and live your life, otherwise they win.
Stop being so irrational and afraid.
I don't think it's irrational for one. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. could easily be toppled by revolutionary movements. If that happened, do you think their new governments (ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda) would hesitate to hold the Western world hostage by cutting off the sale of oil?
hold the Western world hostage by cutting off the sale of oil?
Not cutting off the sale. They would never do that.
I am disturbed that no political party wants to discuss one of the main reasons we are in the middle east. It isn't because we need their oil. We (the USA) can do just fine with the oil in the Atlantic basin. We would be there if we needed no oil!
We don't want someone else (even the owners) dictating how the worlds second largest strategic resource will be utilized. They might use it to blackmail our trading partners to sign treaties unfavorable to us and our corporations.
We are told that that Iraq can't come up with an oil revenue sharing agreement. We aren't told that we will accept no less than 60% control of their oil by outside corporations. If they don't agree, we might pull out. They will eventually relent.
I fear we will have wars there until our people and government are willing to consider this question. Do we really want to take on this mission of controlling everything? Do we really think we can succeed if we take that course?
Our leaders think we MUST do it and will spend unlimited resources and lives to attempt it.
Pardon my rant.
--ML
Who's to say that a revolutionary movement that topples those governments would necessarily be religious fundamentalists or terrorists? That's fearmongering speculation of the sort that embraces perpetual war for perpetual profit.
There is no need to accept the status quo that says petroleum is the only source of energy in the world. Our entire infrastructure could be shifted in a decade or less to a renewable, livable energy base. Energy consumers could easily become energy producers through wind, solar and some other sources. We don't need oil companies, we don't need atomic energy or coal. We need enlightened government to follow the lead of responsible people in regard to energy independence.
Do you know of any other revolutionary movements in the Mid-East? Is there some kind-hearted, benevolent revolutionary movement that is secular in nature that only you know about?
Anything can happen, I'm just challenging lame assumptions. Feel free to be a cynic, after all cynicism has created so much good, for so many, for so long.
I have a problem with you saying that the oil reserves in Iraq are "energy supplies of the West".
They are the oil reserves of Iraq, and if we want to purchase THEIR oil, we'll pay the market price for it.
For more than thirty years Americans have turned a blind eye to the dwindling and erratic Middle East oil supply.
If we had heeded the warnings of President Carter about conservation and alternative energy, we might not have to worry so much about oil today.
We're repeating the mistakes of the seventies, but today the mistakes are costing us our sons and daughters.
I didn't mean that as if we OWN them. I meant that we purchase our oil from Mid-East states and that it might kinda suck if that oil was not controlled by businessmen, but instead controlled by Koran thumping extremists. I mean, I don't think they'd care about making money as much as they would making any oil using country that wasnt in line with their views suffer.
Smitty,
Doris is a very thoughtful poster, but I completely agree with you. We have not lost anything. We are in a mismanaged mess headed by Bush, hyperbole beyond that is hardly helpful.
Tommy
I never once and never have said anything bad or disgusting about our troops. Being critical of this war and saying we have lost which I feel we have does not equal me being anti troops. Smitty in my eyes is a disgusting poster for attempting to make me into that type of person.
I'm with you, Doris. Wanting to bring this madness to an end and bring the troops home is the best way to support the troops.
Our military will never be able to impose a political solution on the Iraqi people.
Honor our troops but not this war.
Worrier, I don't disagree with you, but I noticed you never used the explicit word "lost".
This is a purposeful tactic that should never be bought into. By trying to blur the distinction between the soldiers and the mission it is trying to set up a scenario where once troops are committed there can be NO QUESTIONING of whether it is a good idea to have them there. A prescription for endless warfare.
Bingo! The right will endlessly tell of the left's undermining of the Iraq war and our troops. In the meantime, they will use this to bash Democrats and once in a while mention how the left are unpatriotic.
We know this will happen, because they've done it many times already. Which makes me ask the rhetorical question: "Who really is using the lives of our troops for the purpose of poitical gain?"
Doris, I respect you and your opinions, however I don't believe saying we "lost" is productive in anyway, politically or militarily. It emboldens the enemy we are fighting and demoralizes the troops that are there. It is a powerful word and should not be used to score any political points when we are in the midst of battle, even in an increasingly unpopular war.
Tommy
Fair enough, maybe in the future I will refrain from using the word "Lost" if others find this so offensive. My use of that word is how I feel at heart, I never have intended once to show disrespect for our troops, I strongly feel this war has been mismanaged especially since the day Saddams statue was knocked down.
Doris, I never see you show disrespect for anyone. And I understand the emotion that people feel over Iraq and the war....your passion is admirable.
Dorris, there was no disrespect--and everyone reading this knows it.
The truth is--WE ARE LOSING. WE ARE LOSING. WE ARE LOSING. And all the cheerleading and arguments in the world from rightwing lunatics won't change this.
The reason we are losing is not because our soldiers did anything wrong, I'm certain that nearly all of them gave 100% effort. We're losing because of a poor plan from Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and those in the Pentigon who allowed these fools to try to realize their twisted vision. We lost by allowing them to box us into a corner and allowing them to frame us as unpatriotic if we stood in the way of this obscenity.
And now it's time to end this. We can honor the ones who have died by bringing the rest home alive.
What demoralizes the troops is Bush lying us into a war, the mess at Walter Reed, Bush trying to cut their hazard pay benfits, and not having the proper equipment while having their tours extended.
You may have a valid point about the word "lost". However, the war supporters are equally doing our troops a disservice by characterizing any kind of withdrawal as a "defeat". This is a rhetorical version of the tactics used by the Soviets in WWII...any soldiers who retreated were shot by their own officers, even in the face of certain defeat. The concept of living to fight another day seems to have escaped them.
Telling the truth doesn't embolden the enemy, Tommy - it's simply facing facts. Something Republicans fail to do time and time again....
Doris, how is it not disrespecting them to say that we have lost? Especially since recent events have indicated that we are very much in control of the situation over there? Pardon me if my last post was hostile, but when anyone says that we have lost, that is in no way supporting the troops. Whether you think so or not, when those words are used, that is a direct slam on our troops. If you "we have already lost" comment was meant to mean that the Bush administration has mismanaged the effort, that is one thing, but saying we "lost" is most certainly a slam on the soldiers, because whether you meant to say it or not, you said they didn't do a good enough job to "win".
The most you can say about the current surge is that it may work. Not that "it is working". We won't know for months. A sharp spike in good news from Iraq is no indication of long-term success (Remember, the Iraq elections were a good sign of progress).
If you still believe that victory is possible, then you must count a "pyrrhic victory" as a win.
But we've been hearing this crap about Iraq "turning the corner" off and on for the past four years. So there is little reason to hope that this may "work".
Fair enough Onionhead. I will refrain from saying "it is working" until the official report is given. However, from word of mouth, assuming what I've heard it true, I think there is some room for optimism.
Losses are losses, and I admit that. 3,000+ soldiers is nothing to sneeze at. However, I wouldn't call this number staggering.
Are you a troop? Let me tell you smething. Those guys over there are trying their best to keep their head dwon and stay alive. They could care less right now aobut DORIS using the word "lost". That is a pitiful expose' on your ignorance of how a troop really feels in the field.
No, I'm not a soldier, but because I have 4 members of my family there, you bet your a$$ they care if the country they defend and its countrymen tell them they have "lost." Is it a prerequisite that I be a soldier to care about what is going on there? Or to care how people characterize their efforts? If so, I'll shut up, along with everyone else on this forum who has an opinion but hasn't served.
You missed my point completely. I could care less if you have served. It certaintly does not forfeit your right to an opinion. My point is that you are putting too much emphasis on words my friend. My point is that as one who has served I can tell you with a great degree of certaintly that the most important thing to those guys is keeping their head down and staying alive. Your indication that, one who expresses an opinion that we have lost somehow endangers those fellows, is as I said an expose' on your ignorance of how a soldier feels while in the field. I hope your family members make it back safe my friend. I truly respect their service. The demoralization comes not from people expressing that we may have already lost this war but from them putting their lives on the line daily for a people who could care less if we help them or not. Seems to me that your anger should be pointed to the commander in chief for that not Doris.
My anger is that Doris and many others claim we have lost is not because I think it is putting our soldiers in greater danger, rather, it's discouraging for them to hear such things coming from their fellow Americans. I know soldiers are trying to stay alive there and come home to their loved ones. I realize that, but I'm not going to sit here on my comfy couch here in America and say, "nice try boys, better luck next time." thinking we have lost and wanting them to come back home are two totally different points. As I said earlier, I can respect someone wanting to bring them home. That's fine. But saying they lost is unfair to them.
O.K. that is a valid opinion. It certaintly could be discouraging to some. My point all along is that is is more discouraging to be in the field and know that the war you are fighting is not working. It is more discouraging to see the folks you are trying to protect try to shoot you in the back after you give them a toothbrush. That is happening right now SMITTY. I don't think you give the soldiers over there enough intellectual credit. They know how and why people arrive at their opinions such as DORIS'. I would dare say some even agree with her. The reality is, in my opinion, people her on their "comfy couches" saying things like we have lost does not have nearly the discouraging effect as the soldiers knowing that the work they are doing is not appreciated by the Iraqi people. They know that for every one insurgent we kill two more pop up. That is discouraging. They are not thinking about someone in the states saying we lost. They are thinking about the rationale of their mission. Just an opinion from an old soldier who has lived through this.
Good thoughts, and I obviously respect them. I would agree with you that not knowing what your mission is or what you're fighting for is undoubtedly discouraging. Thank you for your service sir. Have a good one.
The soldiers didn't lose it. Bush and crew lost it by choosing to invade, and to do so on the cheap. They unleashed a clearly foreseen civil war on the populace of Iraq, and destabilized the entire region. And made the world a more dangerous place by doing so.
I'm sorry your family is caught up in it, but pretending that we're winning something that can't be won doesn't help anyone.
Now Marv, don't misinform. It does help a few people...
...such as the CEO's of Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater, CACI and Titan/L3, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in increased personal wealth.
Would you feel better if the sub-contractors were Janecurtian/KGB/Whitewater/Macaca/ Littleton/Q7?
I'd feel better if the contractors submitted bids and the best one was awarded the contract.
That's a completely foreign experience in the W misadministration.
Precisely. I'd feel better not only with an actual bidding process, but real financial vigilance on the part of the Pentagon. But people like Tweak, it seems, just want to turn a blind eye to the problem and make snide political jokes instead of being outraged by it like every taxpayer should.
I dont see how it could be worse than the Dewey Cheatum and Howe we have now.
Hackey Joke & Dunnit
Our MILITARY cannot "lose" in Iraq. They have performed and succeeded at every legitimate mission given them.
Bush: "Rid Iraq of WMDs."
Military: "Mission Accomplished."
Bush: "Depose Saddam Hussein."
Military: "Mission Accomplished."
Bush: "Enable elections, a new government, and a new constitution."
Military: "Mission Accomplished."
The PROBLEM is, Bush keeps changing the mission.
Bush: "Make the Sunnis get along with the Shiites."
Military: "That's not a military mission. Sir."
Smitty
Do not do what this administration does and do not make me the "anti Troops" that you are trying to make me. We have lost, we lost in 2003 when we followed the Rumsfeld way. We lost Vietnam also, that does not mean the troops who served did a great job. Shame on you and damm you for making this partisan. You can join Rush. Get off your soapbox.
Doris,
Have you not seen the documents that showed we were winning the war in S. Vietnam but the commies hung in there because the popular sentiment in U.S. was shifting?
Respectfully, you and some of the others here are simply defeatists.
There is no way we've lost the war. I don't understand why there isn't any historical perspective by the anti-war proponents. There is no bell. The time on the clock hasn't expired. Historically we've suffered 100 times more casualties in WWII. Did we lose that war? The only certain way we lose is if we do as many of suggest and leave now.
I have seen that rightwingers completely divorced from reality are STILL trying to convince us the Vietnamese were just about to give up in 1971 and then saw the peace movement. Only the truly brainwashed could possibly believe it. People like YOU are brainwashed warmongers.
I wouldn't be so harsh. South Vietnam was our ally and they ASKED for our help. That is a MUCH different situation than the preemptive war launched in Iraq. It's unproductive to compare the two conflicts as they really are completely different.
Tell that to Bush.
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Yeah, right, first I would ask if you accepted that explanation from the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan at THEIR request? Second I would remind you that 80% of the people we killed were SOUTH VIETNAMESE and 80% of the bombs we dropped were dropped in South Vietnam. Also since we continually STOPPED the reunification elections called for explicitly in the Geneva accord of 54 and Eisenhower said he did so because Ho Chi Minh would have WON by 80% of the vote I dont see how that can be taken seriously.
But once the demarcation line was set by the 1954 Geneva Convention, was it not Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese that closed the border after a million refugees had fled from the Communist regime that was imposed in North Vietnam? Did they not make this a country themselves, and did they not create or start the aggression with regard to South Vietnam in violation of that treaty?
No the Geneva accord called only for a MILITARY not political division and a reunification election which WE STOPPED. As for the aggression by the North the Accord also designated that there be NO outside military aid or interference which we violated immediatly and you keep pretending that this was a war by the North Vietnamese against the South when in fact it was mostly a civil war BY the south against the Saigon gov. Which had no legitimacy. What is left out is that it was the Communists and Ho who had fought against the French, then the Japanese, then the French then us while those in the Saigon Gov were mostly those who collaborated with all those invaders, so Ho had the respect and support of the people. According to Chomsky's Political Economy of Human Rights we debriefed several Cong defectors and they basically only considered the North an ally not the leaders of their war.
But Ho Chi Minh CREATED a political division and essentially set up 2 distinct countries when he CLOSED THE BORDER after refugees started fleeing from N. Vietnam en masse.
Chomsky's full of sh#t. As I have said over and over...after the Tet Offensive the Vietcong were effectively a non-existent force. We fought en masse the NVA day to day. Those Vietcong you refer to as thinking of the North as an ally defies reality. The Viet Minh were a force summarily supported and formed by Ho and the north. They were put there to certainly disrupt the South's government for the benefit of the North. Plain and simple.
SOLON:
What you see here is the addictive personality of the pathological gambler. Vegas has made many fortunes off the losses of gamblers who figured if they just stayed in the game, eventually they would WIN. The more losses, the more the gambling pathology convinces the gambler that he is "due" and that his "luck will change."
Gambling addicts have destroyed their own lives, and destroyed their families by betting the rent money, gambling away the future. It's an illness, a compulsion, an irrational self-destructive drive.
Yet, there is a shred of honor in betting "your own" money. These Iraq warmongers are gambling with YOUR children's lives, and MINE.
Would WAR proponents like Another American gamble their OWN lives on a single roll of the dice? Let's ask. If not, WHY not? They're certainly willing to gamble with the lives of OTHERS. They just don't feel "safe" unless someone ELSE is bleeding. It's a sickness.
AA, where do you get your information?
I'd like to see your "documents".
How were we winning when we didn't have the support of the Vietnamese people?
Hey, Worrierking, you beat me to it. I'm picturing Deputy Fife in complete Marcel Marceau mime drag, presenting his "documents".
Until they're blown from his hands by that powerful "wind" that he has to strain to walk against, finally pulling himself along on a "rope".Then he's trapped in a shrinking invisible "box" of defeatism.
You can almost see those documents. ;0)
Gomer,
Again, you've illustrated you have nothing to add to the conversation except attempts at childish putdowns.
And YOU have nothing to add but long ago debunked rightwing propaganda
That's Sheriff Taylor to you, Barney. And just because my depiction of your imaginary "documents" was a little embarrassing to you, you don't need to resort to insults.
I've been pretty nice lately, trying not to send you into another breakdown, but if you're going to continue to throw out your BS, I'll occasionally point it out.
You have the power, Barney, Cut the BS, and you won't get hurt. Keep providing material , and even if I'm bored of deflating your nonsense, there are plenty of others here who are going to do it.
Now get to work ! ;0)
Gomer,
It must be fun living in your TV world. No wonder you spend all your time projecting you childish name-calling and never adding to the conversation. You think you are a TV character. Besides being a gomer you remind me of those cartoons I saw as a kid where that little dog always barking around the big dogs, saying "Attaboy Butch! We showed 'em. We showed 'em, didn't we Butch. Didn't we?" You seem incapable of arguing anything by yourself. Instead you have to keep yapping away like that little cartoon dog while hiding behind others.
Yeah, you got a chuckle one time with the Andy Griffith reference, but again, like that little dog, you keep going back to it time and again, not knowing it stales further each time your run the tired episode.
If you want to discuss I'm happy to discuss. If you want to live in Maybury your boring and I"m long gone.
Mon dieu!
I had no idea AA was French.
Pincez-le dans le bourgeon.
Worrier,
Sorry I can't stay and discuss. If you are interested you can find references to it all over the internet.
Here's one link I found. It is an interview with a N.Vietnamese official. Don't get hung up on my use of the word "documents". Let me clarify it by saying, links, references, interviews, etc. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Feel free to disagree.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1123293/posts
So for your backup you cite the Freeper sewer?
It's that interview with Biu Tin (sp), the North Vietnamese officer who explains how they all went to see Jane Fonda and cheered her on.
Yes, that was Barney's "document", an old interview with a disgruntled communist propagandist, via The Free Republic.
I'm not sure what his(Bui Tin) angle was, either he had a falling out with the commies, or he, like some of the people we're currently fighting, wanted nothing more than for America to send it's young people into a quagmire.
Either way, even this "unbiased source" doesn't try to say that anti-war movements caused the U.S. to lose, only to leave.
Which, apparently, is too difficult a distinction to make for those who use the term "cut & run" several times in their posts , before cutting and running.
I only referenced that one because I know how much you enjoy being proven wrong by them.
I'm not really interested in what an NVA Colonel has to say. We were fighting for the south. We did not have enough support from the people of the Republic of Vietnam to defeat the NVA and VC.
It again goes to hearts and minds, hearts and minds.
I'm curious then why so many MILLIONS of S. Vietnamese fled risking their lives on little boats after the U.S. left? Why was that? You're saying that they were supporting the rebel forces of the VC? Why didn't they stay after Saigon fell then? Why would all those people leave?
The Viet Cong could not have survived without the support of the people of The Republic of Vietnam.
Not all of the people were supportive of the VC, but enough were to continue the war indefinitely.
You, George W. Bush and the others can try to rewrite history, but some of us were there. Some of us lived the history that you and others are now rewriting.
And you assume I was not there? How did you figure that out?
I'm not assuming anything. I didn't say you weren't there. I said you were trying to rewrite history.
AA,
If you are going to make controversial comments or inflammatory ones (like you did on the Rush thread yesterday) please try to link your sources, or at the very least, stay and defend your comments.
The last two days you have posted messages that have drawn the ire of many here, but offered no defenses to your reasoning or your points. I hope you have more to offer than general, blanket statements designed to generate response. Please back up your reasoning or respond to those who thoughtfully respond to you.
fried,
Do as I say not as I do. Is that your motto?
It would help if you would give some references otherwise you seem to me to be projecting.
AA:
The other day you claimed that Bill Clinton was a rapist and an abuser of women and never responded to those questioning your serious assertions.
On this thread, you claimed there were "documents" saying that the U.S. was winning in Vietnam when we left and then did not attempt (beyond a quick Freeper link) to back those assertions up. You also claimed that this war was like WWII with respect to casualties, but provided no other insight.
You also did not say what victory would be in Iraq when you said the "clock had not expired." Please explain these things.
When you call someone a rapist and abuser of women and say that the wife of that person was an enabler and then disappear, how is one to take your statements as more than mere provocation?
Worrier,
You can't explain this simple fact to the ignorant. I have tried but to no avail. We had no support from anyone in the end. We had it in the beginning. In 66' there was a huge difference in the populace's support and disregard for the communists. In 68' it was totally different. I don't know when you were there but I would hazard a guess that if it was later on you seen the "malaise" that I am referring to.
I know exactly what you're talking about Chris. I was there from '69 to '70.
Everywhere we went, we were scorned by the locals. Even the ARVN took shots at us, by "mistake" of course..
AA, if we stay there 10 more years and lose 60,000 troops, yet accomplish nothing, what will you call that?
I disagree with the way you worded your question.
Frankly I don't think we'll lose 60,000 if we stay 10 more years. Therefore "accomplished nothing" will not occur.
However giving up now and leaving is "cutting and running".
Says who?
AnotherAmerican: I disagree with the way you worded your question.
I'm sure, then, that you can relate to opponents of the Bush administration and its policies who respond precisely the same way when confronted with the question, "Why don't you want victory in Iraq?
I don't know if I have seen that quote. Next time point it out to me and we can discuss.
Fair enough. Here are a few quotes that are pretty close, and strike me as carrying the same sentiment:
Friday, 27 Oct 2006:
23 October 2006:
14 June 2006:
Sorry about the formatting in my post. Here is a plain text version:
Friday, 27 Oct 2006: BILL O'REILLY, HOST, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW": First of all, I don't... O'REILLY: It's an easy question. If you don't want the United States to win in Iraq... LETTERMAN: It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.23 October 2006: O'REILLY: What do you think, Michelle? I mean, can it be used on another level to anger the American people so much that they finally wise up about the danger over there. MALKIN: Again, it's about context, Bill. And I think if FOX News got a hold of this video before CNN, that I would trust FOX News to put it in the proper context. CNN wants us to lose this war.14 June 2006: NOVAK: See, the problem is bigger than that for your party, Bob. It's the problem that to be popular in the Democratic Party, you have to -- they want defeat in Iraq, they want tax increases, they want bigger government, they want more spending.
OK, when it comes to formatting my comments, I give up.
AA,
I hope you will answer these questions as you left all of my questions unanswered yesterday.
1) Even if we were winning in Vietnam, why were our troops dying to support a corrupt government that had almost no support? What are these documents you speak of?
2) Please define what victory is in Iraq. How many more years/lives/dollars is the War in Iraq worth to you?
3) Would you support raising taxes to pay for this war so our children (I don't have any yet) and grandchildren will not have to pay for it? Will you support Congresspeople who do not vote for health care benefits that the veterans of this struggle need?
4) What are you willing to personally sacrifice for this war effort and our troops?
5) Your comparison to WWII is misplaced, I believew when speaking of Iraq. However, if it is valid, do you support a draft to bolster our fighting force so we have enough troops to completely win. Shenseki (sp?) advocated for 300,000 plus troops at the beginning and was laughed out of his testimony. If we need that many, do you support a draft?
I'll answer the first one in his stead.
1. A referendum was taken in 1954 in which Diem received 90% of the vote. He was subsequently endorsed in two other elections, a few years apart, in which the people elected both the General Assembly for his government that was preponderantly pro-Diem and re-elected Diem himself. That's hardly a gov't that had no support.
Except that most historians believe the 1954 election was rigged:
From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam
1955–1963
Ngo Dinh Diem's South Vietnamese regime in this period was implementing policies designed to consolidate his power after the victory in the election between himself and the exiled Bảo Ðại, in which he won in a landslide (however the election was almost certainly rigged).
In 1955 a republican referendum, which is largely considered to have been rigged due to the active presence of pro-republican military forces at voting booths, ended with a 98% vote in favour of abolishing the monarchy. In Saigon, Diem received 133% of the vote.
Dude, I hate to break it to you, but a historian didn't write that Wikipedia article. I hope you know that you can't use Wikipedia as a reference. you've got to come up with a better source than that. If you used Wikipedia as a source for something so benign as a college term paper, you'd probably get an F on principle alone.
This one better?:
Meanwhile, Diem announced he had no intention of participating in the planned national elections, which Ho Chi Minh and the Lao Dong were favored to win. Instead, Diem held elections only in South Vietnam, in October 1955. He won the elections with 98.2 percent of the vote, but many historians believe these elections were rigged, since about 150,000 more people voted in Saigon than were registered. Diem then deposed Bao Dai, who had been the only other candidate, and declared South Vietnam to be an independent nation called the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), with himself as president and Saigon as its capital. Vietnamese Communists and many non-Communist Vietnamese nationalists saw the creation of the RVN as an effort by the United States to interfere with the independence promised at Geneva.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552642/Vietnam_War.html
or this one: http://preface.calpoly.edu/2002/pdf/background.pdf
How about PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/whos/whos-bao_dai.html
From the PBS article about Bao Dai:
"He returned to Vietnam to rule under French control until he was ousted by South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem in a rigged election in 1954."
Oh c'mon! You're using PBS as your unbiased source! Give me a link that shows hard EVIDENCE for the "rigging" of the election, not just a bunch of sites that parrot each other's language. I want a PRIMARY SOURCE that demonstrates that the election was "rigged".
Ok, here is new language:
29 Mar 55Diem launches his successful campaign against the Binh Xuyen and the religious sects. US Ambassador Collins advises Washington to consider a change of leadership. Bao Dai, from Paris accuses President Diem of "selling the blood of Vietnamese". Diem is advised by the CIA to conduct a plebiscite and let the people decide. Diem is warned by the Lansdale(CIA) "not to rig the elections", "... I don't want to suddenly read that you have won by 99.99%" Diem holds the plebiscite and wins by 98%. CIA knows the plebiscite was rigged. President Diem places family members in key positions. http://www.ichiban1.org/html/history/bc_1964_prewar/the_two_nations_1954_1963.htm
Or this one: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/hans'.htm
From the University of North Carolina:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/vietnam-timeline
Or this one: http://25thaviation.org/Facts/id795.htm
If my sources are wrong, please show me other sites which refute their theories.
You have to prove the elections were rigged. You have to provide evidence that the elections were rigged. Evidence is not pointing to someone else who agrees with you, it is providing factual information that proves the elections were rigged. The Pentagon papers make no mention of the election being rigged (you can find them on the mount holyoke website).
Well, I guess the historians I cited are not enough. I apologize that I don't work at a library where I could scan in the first-hand sources you are looking for, but I took a class with a Vietnam War historian (a man who went three separate times to Vietnam as an adviser initially) who quoted those stats as well. Unless I get to a library with historical documents from that time period, I cannot provide the sources you are looking for. Thanks for keeping the debate civil, but I stand by my points.
Would that be the Diem we helped the Generals arrest and assasinate? Would those be the elections the Communists and Bhuddists werent allowed to run in? No sale [link to en.wikipedia.org]
The United States policy was that if the North Vietnamese would agree to it, the National Liberation Front would agree to it, that we would agree to hold elections in which all parties would participate in South Vietnam and let the people themselves determine their own destiny. ho Chi Minh and the head of the Nat'l Liberation Front refused to participate.
You are not seriously citing that election count. That sir, is pitiful. We (the U.S. Government tried to persuade Diem to make that number closer to 60 to 70%. That should tell you that that election was a fraud. IN any event, I wuld agree with you that in the beginning there was much more support in the South against the Communist North. I would call it nationalism more than support for Diem.
I would say that we lost support once we got we asked for with the removal of Diem. There was a lot of political and military improvement from '54 to '63, but it was all squandered when we asked for and received Diem's removal. the Diem government was a stable and productive one. Diem's overthrow and the instability left afterwards led to fighting amongst religious groups and gave the Viet Minh an opportunity to become more aggressive.
That is a valid argument. I don't agree in that Diem's brand of nationalism split the South into two factions. That was the beginning of the end. We had a chance to unify the country against the communists, but as I said before mistakes and by Tet the proverbial ship was taking on too fast.
I meant to write-As I said before mistakes were made and by the Tet Offensive...............
Jesus, this is pitiful. I will amend this one more time. I meant to write...As I said before, mistakes were made and by the time the Tet Offensive came the proverbial ship was taking on water too fast.
Save it, AA. America won the war, Saddam was deposed and summarily executed. Iraq has had democratic elections. America won the war. We are now occupying Iraq, the only question should be how do we leave?
I'm frankly a wee bit miffed at many of my fellow lefties for not seeing the truth: The U.S. won. Now is the time to put together a good plan for leaving Iraq to her sovereignty.
Don't be silly. We can't leave without the oil.
Or passing on a few billion more in taxpayer money to private war profiteers.
"Respectfully, you and some of the others here are simply defeatists."--AnotherAmerican
Respectfully, you and those who continue to cheerlead for more death to our troops are ignorant.
Pitiful, pitiful, pitiful. The only thing we were doing was keeping the north from overrunning the south. The only way we could have WON that war was to effectively overrun the North and occupy it. We all know and it is taught today that the most irreversable mistake militarily we can make is to get caught up in an extended ground in Asia. Ho Chi Minh told the French and us that for every ten of us you kill we kill one of you and at those odds we win. Hindsight is 20/20 and we could have done things differently and maybe the outcome of that conflict would be different. But your supposotion that we were on the verge of winning is ludicrous. It escalated into a protracted engagment with the Army of the North and they were going to keep coming until we anihilated them or left. The people of the south were somewhat disillusioned with this. Many felt no support for the North and were polarized by the corruptness of the South. Therefore we really had no significant support in the end from the people of the South. We had it in the beginning but it got shot all to hell just like everything else. That sir, is the plain and simple truth.
I agree wholeheartedly, Chris.
Thank you.
King,
It is truly unbelievable that people think that we should have stayed in Vietnam and could have won that war the way it was being fought. The irony is that those who think that didn't learn a damned thing from that war or the 58,000 dead and countless others who came home missing limbs, full of shrapnel, and mindnumb. The same ones who learned nothing are full steam ahead with our kids lives in Iraq. I can't help but to grit my teeth when talking to those folks.
Doris, BRAVO!!!!!!
Smitty, I think your anger is misdirected. Rush Limbaugh and his fellow liars refer to any kind of withdrawal as "defeat"...they've been using that rhetoric for months. Rush would rather have them stay there and die than leave in "defeat". Apparently, in Rushville, death is preferable to admitting a policy mistake and getting the hell out of there. I have a relative in Iraq as well, but I'm not nearly as sentimental about his pride as I am his life.
Those documents are found ONLY on Planet Wingnut on Planet EARTH even the Sec of Def. Clark Clifford said PUBLICLY that there was no military solution in Vietnam by 1969.
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/clifford.htm
By this time Clifford clearly disagreed with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who believed, according to the Washington Post, "that the war was being won by the allies" and that it "would be won if America had the will to win it." After he left office, Clifford, in the July 1969 issue of Foreign Affairs, made his views crystal clear: "Nothing we might do could be so beneficial . . . as to begin to withdraw our combat troops. Moreover . . . we cannot realistically expect to achieve anything more through our military force, and the time has come to begin to disengage. That was my final conclusion as I left the Pentagon on January 20, 1969."
I read here that Nixon new the Vietnam War was unwinnable in 1966.
I was rather hostile in my first post to Doris. I just have a problem with anyone saying we "lost." If we want out of the war, that is one thing, and I can respect one's angle that they feel this is not a war we should be involved in. But the reality is that we are there at the moment, and our soldiers have worked way too hard (whether they were misguided or not) to be called losers. I spoke with my brother and cousin the other day (a First Sergeant and Captain respectively) and they really do not like those over here saying we have "lost". They simply find that very discouraging. Please tell your relative I'm grateful for their service.
The soldiers over there are more worried abut keeping their head down and surviving. If they have time to hear about DORIS saying the word lost, then the biscuits are burning.
I spoke with my brother and cousin the other day (a First Sergeant and Captain respectively) and they really do not like those over here saying we have "lost". They simply find that very discouraging.
Tough. We have a First Amendment right to say the war is lost if that's what we believe.
Good for you. I'm glad you really appreciate those who make it possible for you to exercise your rights. I can tell you're really grateful too.
Good for you. I'm glad you really appreciate those who make it possible for you to exercise your rights. I can tell you're really grateful too.
Ya know. Smitty, I for one and getting FED UP with better-than-thou types such as yourself telliong me what I should think and how I should act regarding our troops.
I for one did not serve in the military - I was medically deferred in 1972 (4-F), and am now disabled. But my father was a Marine in WWII, my two uncles were in the NAVY, and I had one cousin who served in Vietnam in the Army. I appreciate all they did for this country. They're all gone now, but they would have no problem with what I'm saying.
Maybe you need to log off this board and go someplace with people who think more like you - such as Free Republic or Hannity.com. Or just go someplace and get a clue.
Smitty,
You and your family have my utmost respect. God bless all of you. I hope and pray for their safe return.
Thank you!
Nerzog,
The same respect and gratitude I expressed toward Smitty goes to your family member.
I appreciate that.
I appreciate that, but I'm sure my family is proud that you are grateful for their service. And I also would like to extend my gratitude to Nerzog and his serving family. Thanks.
OK, folks, this really doesn't get us anywhere.
I don't know when or how the national debate became framed as a question of who wants victory and who wants defeat, but it's an ugly disservice to our loved ones in Iraq to reduce their mission to a false, black and white matter of winning or losing. These are real lives we are talking about, not an Othello board.
Let me get this out of the way: I am by no means "anti-military," whatever that means. I am not a naive pacifist. My father served in the Army. I have friends who served in the first Gulf War. And I have no doubt that the world has seen no greater fighting force than the U.S. military. I don't think there are any military goals beyond their reach.
The problem is that I believe that the Bush administration is attempting to accomplish through military means a goal that requires a broad spectrum of tactics -- most of which are not military.
I believe that stabilizing a country takes more than just military might -- and stabilizing an entire geopolitical region takes much much more.
And if our enemy is Islamic terrorism, then we need to provide people with a viable reason not to turn to terrorism to accomplish political ends. That's a very difficult goal to achieve, and it's going to take a long time to do it. I think it can be done, but I don't think we've started on the right foot with the War in Iraq.
I'm sure I'm going to take some pretty intense criticism for what I just wrote. And that's fine. But we please not turn this into a question of who supports our soldiers more or less? That question won't help them achieve their goals or come home any sooner or safer.
I agree, and, a lot of foreign policy experts agree. The Iraq War has NOT helped us in the "War on Terror". At best, it's a costly diversion...at worst, it's actually making the problem worse.
I read an interesting article a while back about our unfortunate tendency to think of war in sports metaphors. If you read the punditry's comments about the war, especially those on the Right, you'll see a lot of terminology borrowed from boxing, football and baseball. This is nothing new, and we owe a lot of it to the glorification of war in movies.
The problem is, war is not a sport or a game. Even "winning" a war can leave a country economically crippled, not to mention the loss of life. The shameless cheerleaders for Bush's optional war are operating within this metaphor, and they either cannot or will not acknowledge the folly of it.
The war is over, we won it easily.
What is happening now is not a war, it is an occupation. As such, it can't be so easily defined by simple binary positions like winning and losing.
Do we lose if we leave before Iraq is a completely stable and perfect democracy? That's going take avery very long time.
Do we win if there is a complete cessation of insurgent and terrorist activity? How do we make that happen exactly?
Bush I knew that this would happen if he sent our troops into Baghdad after pushing the Iraqis from Kuwait. Rumsfeld and Cheney knew it too.
9/11 did not change everything, it definitely did not change the consequences of a poorly thought out invasion with no plans for what would happen after the regime changed.
It is not an insult to the troops to say we lost this, it is just false. We can neither lose this or win it, we can only try for the best outcome possible from a complete disaster.
Smitty:
Your the person who is full of it (Cow Chips that is) I guess you missed Rove on Meet The Press where he said twice that we are there because of it's strategic oil reserves, not for anyones freedom.
Furthermore, please stop telling us freedom of speechers that we can't speak the truth to your Dictatorial Decider.
My blood family died in vain in the Vietnam war just as surely as yours may die in vain in this lost war in Iraq. Bush said he would listen to his generals. They said we can't win by waging war and continuing to occupy that country. Bush fired them all and hired a Republican General to do his so called surge. The only thing that is surging is the amount of dead blood relatives.
Today Bush invoked the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq wars to make a case for allowing more blood relatives to die for oil. When I served my country in Vietnam Bush was cowering in my home state of Texas. If he really knew the historical lesson of The Vietnam War he would not have our young kids dying in vain in this horrible mess he has created. This is the worst foriegn policy blunder of all time.
You would be wise to tell those bloods of yours to get their butts the hell outta there before they have to come home in a pine box.
If Bush had served when he had the chance or if any of his priviledged blood family was serving our country now, I venture to say we would not have invaded Iraq.
You would rather we lie to them and tell them everything is going GREAT in Iraq? I'm sorry you have family in harm's way, Smitty, but they never should have been sent there in the forst place. And since the Iraqi governemnt isn't doing squat to stabilize things over there, we ARE losing.
Period.
You would rather we lie to them and tell them everything is going GREAT in Iraq? I'm sorry you have family in harm's way, Smitty, but they never should have been sent there in the forst place. And since the Iraqi governemnt isn't doing squat to stabilize things over there, we ARE losing.
I would rather we not tell them their progress. I'm pretty sure, seeing as how they are the ones actually over there, they know what our progress is and they know what's going on. We don't need to inform them at all. And I don't care if you think they should have been there in the first place. The reality is that they are there. I stand by my original post that saying we have "lost" the war only discourages our troops and does nothing to boost their morale. And I'm not sure what you consider winning or losing, but we have done away with their murderer of a dictator, and have given them the opportunity to create a free democracy for themselves. It is now their choice to capitalize on that. If their country falls again, that will not be our "loss." If they allow their country to go down again, we will have at least given them the opportunity to be free people.
Smitty,
Thank your friends and family who have served. You have listed great accomplishments. What other purpose do our troops serve by being there currently. It looks like we have already "won." If we have not won, what would be winning?
Nerzog, good question. And I'm not so sure I even know. I feel as though the administration is seeking to have Iraq completely self sufficient. However, the extent of sufficiency that is to be achieved may come at a cost more than it is worth. I do not know the specifics of what our goals are, but I do believe in helping the Iraqi people have control over their own free country. I'll be honest in saying that I do not know enough to say whether or not we should still be pursueing objectives there, or thinking of a safe way to come home. I think I have about as much knowledge as most Americans in that I've received much of my information from media sources. It's hard to know what is really going on if you are not there. You ask a good question, and I'll admit I don't have the answer. However, no matter what, I have got to believe that whoever is Commander in Chief, whoever, has our best interest in mind and protecting Americans in their #1 priority. These are my honest thoughts.
Smitty, I am Friedbergboy ;), not Nerzog, but I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I do believe that our commanders in chief do what they think is best for America and protecting us and I think its healthy to debate the strategy.
However, I think Bush is not doing his best by not defining the mission in a clear enough way so the troops, their families and the American public will know where the finish line is. He has not defined what costs we should be willing to undertake (so far, we as the general public have not had any costs) and, this is just my opinion, has overextended the army and weakened our national security greatly. If he truly believes that this war is the central front of the war on terror, we need more people, we need a draft, we need more firepower. Unfortunately, our children and grandchildren will have to pay for this war because our taxes have lowered and our debt has only increased.
I hope he defines the goals in September, but, unfortunately, I am not holding my breath.
I have sent money to funds that buy troops armor and I refuse to support any candidates who will escalate the spending on the war, but not take care of those who fought bravely. Until those hawks vote for measures to increase the benefits/opportunities/health care to those who are willing to serve, have served or are thinking of serving, I cannot support their war agenda. This does not mean I don't support the troops, this just means I think the preparations to take care of them need to match the efforts of the troops in the fields and if we are not prepared to truly support them here, they should not have to put their lives/well-being on the line.
Anyway, you and your family will be in my thoughts and prayers and I hope they all stay safe. Thank you for the constructive dialogue!
My apologies Fried, I don't know what I was reading. You make excellent points, and I too appreciate your constructive dialogue. Although I feel as though certain things certainly should not have a timeline or deadline, such as the end of the war (I feel this aids terrorits), I do agree that goals and objectives have not been effectively communicated to the public. Hopefully, somehow, someway, this country will come together in a way that we never have before. I don't know how that will happen, but I pray it does. Thanks for your words. Good day to you and yours.
...we will have at least given them the opportunity to be free people.
If not in this life, then in the next life.
I don't care WHO you have over there, Smitty, I think the war has been lost, we never should have been there in the first place, and NO ONE is gonna tell me to shut up.
Whether you think we should have been there in the first place is irrelevant. We are in the middle of it now. And our conversation is today, not back in 2003 when we launched it. And I appreciate your gratitude for the family I have, and so many others serving the country. They are fighting so you can continue to be the a$$ you appear to be. I didn't ask anyone to shut up, and simply asked that they refrain from saying they lost. Because as much as you hate Bush, and I'm sure you hate him a lot, when you and other political deadbeats keep stating we lost, you can't really believe that doesn't have a negative impact on our soldiers....do you? As I've said before, if you don't like being there and you didn't think we should have been there in the first place, that's fine. I can at least respect that. But saying we lost is the wrong way to get our boys home, if that is in fact your wish here. Support your legislators who want them home too, and they will be home. But saying they have failed is simply disrespectful. But you're ok with that apparently.
Smitty Said:
"Should not have been there in the first place is irrelevant. We are in the middle of it now. And our conversation is today, not back in 2003 when we launched it. "
Don't you see that the Iraq War is the biggest foriegn policy blunder in our history? And that correct statement was expressed by a Republican Senator.
Smitty, after making such a dumb decision as to place our young kids in harms way to be slaughtered day after day after day, it's high time for a correction. NOW! - TODAY! Our troops have already won the Blunderous Bush War, so instead of a Surge that results in killing even more of our brave young troops, while they are asked to babysit a Civil War, We should thank the troops and bring them home to begin the real war on terror, worldwide.
Todays Solution: Stop defending your cherished GWB. Start defending the troops. Start defending your blood relatives by demanding the troops begin to withdraw TODAY! and focus on the real war on terror.
I really believe you are in total denial on this issue. You seem to have placed your cherished Republican Party above the value of your own family.
Have you served in a foriegn war? If so, thanks for you're service to our country. I have served 5 tours of duty during the Vietnam War and I can enlighten you on this fact. The group of troops I was serving with were delighted to see the protesters and others who were concerned about us.
I am so proud that I fought for the people of our country, so they may be free to protest Presidents that become out of control dictators. Then on election day they voted against Republican corruption and the Iraq War. In 2008 I promise you now, we will take back our country
I don't know where you got the idea of me placing my views above the safety of our troops. I never said I didn't want them to come home. This entire time, I have asked that people not discourage our troops by telling them they lost the war. I at least respect one's opinion to bring the troops home, and that's totally fine with me. Again, I never said I didn't want them home now. I simply stated that our words are in fact heard by them over there, and to say we lost is a blow to their morale.
Thank You Smitty!
For proving to everyone here that you are in fact consumed by a total denial of the facts.
Fact #ONE: Our brave troops will continue following orders and most of them are proud to see us tell it like it is. IT IS LOST! By their own testamony they have said themselves "It will take a diplomatic political solution for us to get out of this mess Bush has created.
Fact #TWO: If we ever do get our poor troops safely home, the promise of a Democratic Iraq will not be forthcoming. We will have to install a Dictator to keep the Civil War from spreading. You Smitty will then be proudly supporting that Dictator and you will help Bush put back up his Mission Accomplished Banner.
Fact #THREE: In my war service we were so proud of the people back home demonstrating against the useless war and speaking the truth to the powers holding us there to die in vain.
Smitty Our troops love it when we are concerned enough to say it's lost and it's high time to make a correction to get them out of harms way, as we finally did in Vietnam.
Bush was ill advised yesterday when he, The Decider, decided to invoke the Vietnam comparison to Iraq. He, the man who decided not to serve our country in Vietnam when he had the chance.
If he really knew the lessons of Vietnam, he would not have invaded and would not be forcing our poor troops to occupy Iraq today.
Earth calling Smitty! Wake up and support the Truth and the Troops! They will love you for doing so.
"They fixed it. We're doing it the right way now. It's never too late for victory, Mrs. Clinton." (Rush Limbaugh , August 21)
She said that it was working then was an idiot and said it was years too late. IT IS NEVER TOO LATE FOR VICTORY, EVER. - insaneloki20024664 / Tuesday August 21, 2007 05:15:47 PM EST
Wow. El Rushbo has his parrots trained pretty well.
Ah, paraphrasing 'it's never too late for victory' say the Black Knight and his squire.
"'Tis but a scratch"
I see an analogy; our troops as "exterminators" in Iraq.
There can be no doubt that when our troops concentrate on a particular mound of termites, they can be successful at stomping them out, killing all in the area.
Meanwhile, the rest of the house is falling down around your ears.
There is NO contradiction between saying our military are highly successful, brave, and competent at executing specific strike tactics, and ALSO noting that the overall mission is unattainable, leadership from political civilians in the White House is incompetent, and prospects for overall "victory" are non-existent.
"we're winning, so let's quit". ok, so he is saying we're winning, we can't quit, as in come home. and then there was "we're losing, we can't quit" because that would dishonor those who died. rush, when exactly do we "quit"? sorta damned if you do, damned if you don't. is there an end somewhere to this?
That's the point. "Victory", for the Troglodytes, is a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. I think that was their plan all along. That way, we control Iraq's oil and can tell the Saudis to go to hell. The fly in the ointment is that the Iraqis weren't too keen on the idea of being colonized.
When did Rush put his decency and brain in a lockbox?
a very long time ago
Right after he spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
What exactly is a testicle lockbox anyway, and how does one manuever through the daily functionality of life carrying that around, men anyway?
Tommy, that was my next question, after "what the hell is 'no onions?' "
Hmm? "No onions", And the question Alex would be, "What does one say when they order a Big Mac and they don't want those vidalia things?"
I think the "no onions" thing is his way of saying someone has no balls.
It's a touchy subject with Rush since he himself is one of the "castrati".
And the testicle lockbox is probably an S&M thing since he and his listeners seem to love pain so much.
I mean who could listen to him, day after day after day.
Ah, those onions. The same guys who hyperbolize their other parts as "swords" and drive giant 4 x 4s would probably need to imagine their 'nads as onion-sized.
Although Rush's "onions" seemed to have been dwarfed by his polynoidal cysts when they were needed..
Tommy & Beach I was just about to ask that too.
I don't listen to Rush that often..but I've never heard him say that before.
J,
Considering his every word and inflection is monitored and recorded by the crack staff here, I will take MMFA's word for it that he has used the phrase before.
You're probably right Tommy, I bet they even know exactly how many times he's uttered it, being it's so important & all ;-)
I have heard "plastic banana good time rock & roll" from Rush. Maybe he just uses magic gibberish to trigger some sort of dittohead mind control.
Good luck tonight, Jeter.Should be a good shot at avoiding a sweep, as my hapless Halos are probably pretty tuckered out from running around the basepaths last night.
oops! You didn't want to go off-topic with baseball. Sorry ;0)
I thought I told you baseball was verboten, until further notice [like when the Yanks start winning again]
So Beach I don't know whether to Flag your post for being Off-Topic, or to just throw another tantrum.
Let me think about that. I'll get back to ya ;-)
I'm picturing something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA
Limbaugh periodically throws out terms like "testicle lock box," "new castrati" and "no onions."
My, how he loves to talk about testicles!
I love hearing "cut and runners" like Limbaugh talking about anything military. Sorry el-rush-bo, but the "I had a pimple on my big rear end so I could not enlist" excuse doesn't cut. You had your chance to serve and you cut and ran. Now you cheerlead from the sidelines...it's safer there.
Just heard another brave conservative talking head, Todd Schnitt talking about how we need to take the offensive because (everyone) everything has changed since 9/11.
Well, as it turns out Schnitt is of age but of course he has not enlisted.
It's truly amazing to hear these talking heads talk tough but act like cowards.
I posted this a while back, but it's relevant here.
[link to www.clarksvilleonline.com]
Who here is willing to call this guy a cut-and-runner to his face?
Nerzog,
I wish that could be post #1 in all threads. Thank you for sharing that. My prayers are with you and your family.
Ever noticed that when Mr. Limbaugh puts guttural emphasis on words, as in this case "Victory", that it is a clear sign that _he_ has no clue about what he means? Arrogant warmongers often are only interested in having others sacrifice. and in the case of the Iraq war they have no clue on what victory would look like--only the necessary the sacrifice of _others_. If this person was not so malicious in intent he would be pitiable. Most of the rest of us are humbled by our flaws and limitations. As far as I am concerned it is clear and obvious that these mean spirited cowards of the so-called "Conservative" M edia signify a _new class of social pathology_. I do not know, and do not claim it to be the case, but I sincerely _believe_ that this person is ill.
Rush you look awful.What happened?Did you pick up a dose from a teenage prostitute in the Third World somewhere?Just kidding big guy.I'm sure your new trim look has nothing to do with your sexual proclivities.You're probably just wired again.
What in the world do you think "new tactics" means? It's part of the "new" surge!!
Can't you guys comprehend this?? Why try and make something so simple sound as if it's not??
Bizarre!
Hubba Hubba, Way to go Rush!