Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spark

snip~ And I’ve seen those lists of participants with my eyes! ~snip

Welcome to the Cellar Spark.

How did these lists of participants get to Cochabamba?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Inasmuch as "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America" was completely unspecific and had nothing actionable in it, tw is engaging in the most harebrained of spin-exes and I'm calling him on it. Reading the report or not reading the report would have made no difference.

Tw, don't you understand how well informed we are? You cannot lie like that without getting your cock in the Cuisinart. Oh, that's right, this is how you indulge your subconscious masochism -- you bring it on yourself. Not something a man of integrity or acumen would do, seems to me.

A mindless prejudice against Republican Presidents is at work here -- and an absence of thought before operating the keyboard well in evidence.

[Happy Monkey]

The article goes through how those sources got the story. The right wing noise machine can be halfway around the world before the "mainstream media" even decides not to bother fact-checking them.

[richlevy]

Well, the war critics among the active military seem to be at a disadvantage.

The last words of the op-ed written by seven soldiers serving in Iraq were courageous and poignant.
"We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Sadly, that mission came to an end for two of those soldiers just three weeks after that editorial was published in The New York Times.
Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, and Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, two of the authors of "The War as We Saw It," were killed in Baghdad Monday when the five-ton cargo truck they were riding in overturned.
Another of the authors, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head while the group was working on the article.
The controversial Aug. 19 editorial gained international attention for its skepticism about the American war effort: "To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched."
The news of their deaths arrived as Gen. David Petraeus was finishing his testimony to Congress about the progress of the military's surge in Iraq.

[richlevy]

I try not to post 2 in a row, but it has been 3 days since my last post on this thread.

Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.
In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.
The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street

Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

There are a lot of critics of Mr. Greenspan. He had a very important, very high profile job for a very long time. Economics is not a 'hard' science, so his decisions will be second guessed for a very long time.

He does, however, have a reputation for intelligence, honesty, and usually tactful silence. He spent decades trying to say as little as possible in public, knowing the consequences. Now that he is 'out of uniform' and being paid a healthy book advance, he is starting to talk.

A lot of respected former military and intelligence people have come out against Bush's military and intelligence decisions. Now here is one of the most well known economic policy makers in US history saying what many of us already guessed, that there was no long term thinking in the White House when it came to fiscal policy.

This should get interesting. I almost pity the talking head that tries to debate Greenspan.

[tw]

Who do you work for - the people or for a political agenda? These questions are again being asked in Washington as more people in government are found working for a political agenda rather than for America. From the Washington Post of 19 Sept 2007:

State IG Accused of Averting Probes
Howard J. Krongard, the State Department's inspector general, has repeatedly thwarted investigations into contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, including construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and censored reports that might prove politically embarrassing to the Bush administration, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged yesterday in a 13-page letter.

The letter, addressed to Krongard and signed by the committee chairman, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who released it yesterday, said the allegations were based on the testimony of seven current and former officials on Krongard's staff, including two former senior officials who allowed their names to be used, and private e-mail exchanges obtained by the committee. The letter said the allegations concerned all three major divisions of Krongard's office -- investigations, audits and inspections.

Two former senior officials who allowed their names to be used.

Waxman accused Howard Krongard of:
_ Refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts.
_ Preventing his investigators from cooperating with a Justice Department probe into waste and fraud in the construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
_ Using "highly irregular" procedures to personally exonerate the embassy's prime contractor of labor abuses.
_ Interfering in the investigation of a close friend of former White House adviser Karl Rove.
_ Censoring reports on embassies to prevent full disclosure to Congress.
_ Refusing to publish critical audits of State's financial statements.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans

There are a lot of critics of Mr. Greenspan. He had a very important, very high profile job for a very long time. Economics is not a 'hard' science, so his decisions will be second guessed for a very long time.

He does, however, have a reputation for intelligence, honesty, and usually tactful silence. He spent decades trying to say as little as possible in public, knowing the consequences. Now that he is 'out of uniform' and being paid a healthy book advance, he is starting to talk.

A lot of respected former military and intelligence people have come out against Bush's military and intelligence decisions. Now here is one of the most well known economic policy makers in US history saying what many of us already guessed, that there was no long term thinking in the White House when it came to fiscal policy.

This should get interesting. I almost pity the talking head that tries to debate Greenspan.

This is probably the only book of it's genre that I think I could actually read easily. Greenspan has been around for so long. He's a smart man but an honest one too. Nice piece of history I suppose.

[tw]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

This is probably the only book of it's genre that I think I could actually read easily. Greenspan has been around for so long. He's a smart man but an honest one too. Nice piece of history I suppose.

Read Paul O'Neill's story - George Jr's Secretary of the Treasury. "The Price of Loyalty" was published in 2004. It demonstrates how incompetent the George Jr administration was so early on. Worse, it demonstrates how incompetent a president can be and so many citizens will just deny. Appreciate from that book - as also demonstrated by the Pentagon Papers - how so many will see facts and yet all but deny those facts.

Paul O’Neill was from the same circle of Republicans as Greenspan. The difference – it was not safe for Paul O’Neill to be so honest so early.

[DanaC]

Hi there Spark, nice to meet you.

If you've seen things with your own eyes which contradict what politicians are telling you....then I'd say believe your own eyes

[Ibby]

Cause that had a whole bunch to do with Bush...

[DanaC]

I think it has something to do with dishonest politicians....which has something to do with Bush.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think it has something to do with dishonest politicians....which has something to do with Bush.

When a president is corrupt, crime increases everywhere. Top management defined the 'attitude and knowledge'. Did we not learn from Nixon?

Military doctrine says the US needed 600,000 troops in "Mission Accomplished". Since the president is an MBA - a proverbial cost controller - America is so incompetent as to even use cost controls on military deployments. 40% of the US military equipment should be in Iraq. However nobody knows for sure due to cost controls. From the Washington Post of 20 September 2007 is but one example:

Pentagon Probes $6 Billion in Contracts
U.S.-led command training Iraqi forces did not have enough people in Iraq to properly catalog the thousands of weapons flowing into the country. As a result, the Pentagon does not know if the number of weapons that were destined for the Iraqis "were in fact transferred," he said. The issue first surfaced in May when Pentagon officials learned that Turkish officials were concerned that American-issued weapons were being used in violent crimes in their country. In July, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent the Pentagon's top lawyer, William Haynes, to Turkey to hear the concerns.

Pentagon Inspector General Claude Kicklighter was subsequently directed to investigate the failures that led to the distribution problems. Gimble said that inquiry is one of his office's "highest priorities."

'Highest priority' is the high Cheney and George Jr get from spending money and wasting American soldier lives. As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". Even drug dealers don't spend money so corruptly. Too few people meant we did not even know weapons are missing until the Turks complain? What happen to those 747 plane loads of $100 bills? Any good deals yet on a nuclear bomb?

No. Not very funny because some even in the Cellar still love scumbags in the George Jr administration who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Add to the list Democrats with no balls.

The patriot is even a bank robber because our leaders are that corrupt.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

For contempt for the American soldier, it is among the worst kept of secrets that tw is unmatched.

[queequeger]

His point was that it doesn't matter the intent of the 'american soldier,' they're no longer fighting for the security of their country, they're fighting for whatever special interests are popular at that time.

"You don't support the troops," "you hate american soldiers," "they need our support, not our dissent," blah fucking blah. I am sick and tired, exhausted even, at how many people talk so much much god damned bullshit about 'the american soldier.' They're people doing a job, and there's nothing more noble or ignoble than anyone else living their life.

They don't deserve excess scorn, or excess praise. Most of the people that I know that enlisted, did so for the GI bill, some steady cashflow, the benefits for their kids, and occasionally 'service to their country.' They're not all Toby Keith's painting of some soft spoken super hero. In fact, a bunch of them can be real shitbags. But then again, it's about the same percentage as every other group of people on this green earth.

If you live in this country, guess what? You pay their salaries, so you 'support' them. They get a pretty damn good wage and benefits (despite what they say), and while there are some that do it 'for god and country,' most are doing it as their job. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that at all, I'm saying you need to stop treating them like they're fucking Jesus come back to earth.

I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same Foxnews-Pentagon-Channel-Dick-Cheney bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So just shut the flying hell up. I'm going to go puke now.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by queequeger

His point was that it doesn't matter the intent of the 'american soldier,' they're no longer fighting for the security of their country, they're fighting for whatever special interests are popular at that time.

"You don't support the troops," "you hate american soldiers," "they need our support, not our dissent," blah fucking blah. I am sick and tired, exhausted even, at how many people talk so much much god damned bullshit about 'the american soldier.' They're people doing a job, and there's nothing more noble or ignoble than anyone else living their life.

They don't deserve excess scorn, or excess praise. Most of the people that I know that enlisted, did so for the GI bill, some steady cashflow, the benefits for their kids, and occasionally 'service to their country.' They're not all Toby Keith's painting of some soft spoken super hero. In fact, a bunch of them can be real shitbags. But then again, it's about the same percentage as every other group of people on this green earth.

If you live in this country, guess what? You pay their salaries, so you 'support' them. They get a pretty damn good wage and benefits (despite what they say), and while there are some that do it 'for god and country,' most are doing it as their job. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that at all, I'm saying you need to stop treating them like they're fucking Jesus come back to earth.

I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same Foxnews-Pentagon-Channel-Dick-Cheney bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So just shut the flying hell up. I'm going to go puke now.

Yea, you make some really good points... and on the same note don't forget that the door of perception swings both ways... Those damm good wages and benefits are for a good reason. Most people who are not in the military could never hack the lifestyle. Most marriages would never survive. I would venture to say that many wifes and husbands would divorce their partners after the first long azzed deployment of undetermined length. Most of us did as a job. But most don't do it just for the benies. None of us want to be treated like "Jesus come back to earth", far from it.

And I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same MoveOn.org conspiracy theorist news-antiwar.com-Channel-GeorgefuckingSoros-NancythecuntPelosi-KenedyClintionclitlicker-bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So say what ever you want, but we are sick of it too. I'm going to go puke now as well.