PDA

View Full Version : Wow! Bill O'Reilly admits what most left here can't bring themselves to admit...


jAZ
05-31-2006, 03:11 PM
During his opening to an entire segment dedicated to trashing Murtha as a "cut and run" "bomb thrower", Bill O'Reilly as essentially an after thought mentions the following points:

1) Chaos in Iraq and Afganistan will never end
2) Should have gone to war in Afganistan after 9/11, but...
3) Iraq was optional war, should not have invaded Iraq
4) There were other ways to depose Saddam
5) Iraq war mistake should be a lesson learned
6) Iraq will be another Isreal (Palistinian) situation

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TOF-Clark-Murtha.wmv

He does throw in a "we may still win in Iraq" after going on and on about how the chaos and fighting in Iraq "will never end".

Wow, I never thought I'd say that Bill O'Reilly is less partisan than patteeu or Kotter. I'm just shocked.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 03:21 PM
1) Chaos in Iraq and Afganistan will never end
2) Should have gone to war in Afganistan after 9/11, but...
3) Iraq was optional war, should not have invaded Iraq
4) There were other ways to depose Saddam
5) Iraq war mistake should be a lesson learned
6) Iraq will be another Isreal (Palistinian) situation
I'm pretty sure this puts Bill O'Reilly in the "hates America" crowd.

jiveturkey
05-31-2006, 03:41 PM
I'm pretty sure this puts Bill O'Reilly in the "hates America" crowd.
Is that anything like the "hates O'Reilly" crowd?

BIG_DADDY
05-31-2006, 04:02 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself. I was never for the Iraq war. Now that we are there though we need to at least try to set up some form of government to support once we have left.

Taco John
05-31-2006, 04:14 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself. I was never for the Iraq war. Now that we are there though we need to at least try to set up some form of government to support once we have left.



"...once we have left" ROFL


It's almost as if we just up and decided that it sucks that only Israelis have to worry about cafe bombings and culture disputes. Why don't we just throw ourselves in the middle of it just for the hell of it?

jAZ
05-31-2006, 06:17 PM
1) Chaos in Iraq and Afganistan will never end
2) Should have gone to war in Afganistan after 9/11, but...
3) Iraq was optional war, should not have invaded Iraq
4) There were other ways to depose Saddam
5) Iraq war mistake should be a lesson learned
6) Iraq will be another Isreal (Palistinian) situation

I just want to point out that this is exactly what every single liberal or democratic poster in this forum has been saying since BEFORE we went to war in Iraq.

Yes, even "hate America" types like Deni.se and and a handful of other long-timers here... all said that we needed to invade Afganistan, but that Iraq was a horrible idea.

patteeu
05-31-2006, 06:24 PM
Wow, I never thought I'd say that Bill O'Reilly is less partisan than patteeu or Kotter. I'm just shocked.

What does "partisan" mean to you, jAZ? Bill O'Reilly has never struck me as a partisan.

go bowe
05-31-2006, 06:29 PM
i thought they were guys that ran around in the night blowing up shit, circa 1943...

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 09:30 PM
What does "partisan" mean to you, jAZ? Bill O'Reilly has never struck me as a partisan.


I actually have to agree with you on this patteeu. He's not squarely in the conservative camp. He may be a blowhard with bad manners but he does jump around on some issues.

Boozer
05-31-2006, 09:42 PM
i thought they were guys that ran around in the night blowing up shit, circa 1943...

Then their leader turned to the timbales and mambo music.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 10:46 PM
What does "partisan" mean to you, jAZ? Bill O'Reilly has never struck me as a partisan.
Bill earns that title by virtue of his endless willingless to parrot the GOP talking points no matter how often the facts get in his way. He shills for the GOP. It probably has everything to do with money and nothing to do with personal ideological beliefs, but that too defines a partisan.

patteeu
05-31-2006, 11:45 PM
Bill earns that title by virtue of his endless willingless to parrot the GOP talking points no matter how often the facts get in his way. He shills for the GOP. It probably has everything to do with money and nothing to do with personal ideological beliefs, but that too defines a partisan.

I guess if you spend your time on the far left and get your O'Reilly updates from TPMuckraker and Josh Marshall it seems like he is always shilling for the Republicans. If you actually pay attention to him over the long haul though, you'd find that he takes on both Republicans and democrats and despite the fact that he isn't guided by any discernable ideology, he is always extremely confident that he's right. Lately, his 3 big issues seem to be Iraq where he tends to support the war (but he's a little wobbly), harsh penalties for child abuse which tends to put him at odds with the bleeding hearts, and persecution of christians which tends to put him on the side of christian conservatives so I guess I can see why a casual observer might mistake him for a Republican shill.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2006, 11:50 PM
I don't follow O'Reilly at all....but if you've represented his commentary accurately, I don't know how, with the benefit of hindsight, you can disagree with much of what he says. I agree with him. What's your point?

:shrug:

Other than bashing the Bush admninistration, I mean?

Dave Lane
06-01-2006, 01:21 AM
O Reilly is an empty suit. This really proves nothing. His opinion on any subject is worth less than $.02 to me.

Dave

memyselfI
06-01-2006, 04:58 AM
To be fair, Baba O' Reilly was not one of the cheerleader/war drummers leading up to the war in Iraq. MOF, he was downright skeptical compared to others of his ilk. But once the decision was made he became Captain of the SS IraqRUS. He waivered in his support again when the WMD issue blew up in the believers faces. Since then he's been speaking out of both sides of his mouth...

the war was wrong and will never end/we must stay and finish it. :rolleyes: :shake:

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 06:54 AM
Bill earns that title by virtue of his endless willingless to parrot the GOP talking points no matter how often the facts get in his way. He shills for the GOP. It probably has everything to do with money and nothing to do with personal ideological beliefs, but that too defines a partisan.

One of the few times I bothered listening to BO’R’s radio show he was voice’n his approval of gay marriage.
That’s not exactly a “GOP Talk’n Point”. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 08:42 AM
One of the few times I bothered listening to BO’R’s radio show he was voice’n his approval of gay marriage.
That’s not exactly a “GOP Talk’n Point”. :shrug:

Anyone who doesn't tow the "GOP and Bush are da debil" moon bat line......is spouting "GOP Talk'n Points" in Justin's fugged up world.

jAZ
06-01-2006, 09:13 AM
I don't follow O'Reilly at all....but if you've represented his commentary accurately, I don't know how, with the benefit of hindsight, you can disagree with much of what he says. I agree with him. What's your point?

:shrug:

Other than bashing the Bush admninistration, I mean?
So I take it this is the first time you've publicly admitted that

1) Iraq was an optional war
2) Going into Iraq was a mistake

Those two points alone are absolutely huge reversal for anyone to make. Especially anyone who has railed against myself, Denise, UD, TTC or any other long time anti-war poster here who personal creditbility, national loyalty and very manhood was shredded in this forum for pointing out those 2 issues 4 years ago.

And every day for the last 4 years.

Hindsight didn't have anything to do with it for about 50% of the country. Now the other 50% wants to avoid the "you were right" speech so that they don't have to face the question of leadership and judgement that follows such a concession. That question goes straight to their own personal judgement for supporting the idea and the snakeoil salesman from the beginning.

jAZ
06-01-2006, 09:14 AM
One of the few times I bothered listening to BO’R’s radio show he was voice’n his approval of gay marriage.
That’s not exactly a “GOP Talk’n Point”. :shrug:
Re-read my response to patteeu. If you have any questions, let me know. I clear it up for you.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 09:17 AM
So I take it this is the first time you've publicly admitted that

1) Iraq was an optional war
2) Going into Iraq was a mistake

Those two points alone are absolutely huge reversal for anyone to make. Especially anyone who has railed against myself, Denise, UD, TTC or any other long time anti-war poster here who personal creditbility, national loyalty and very manhood was shredded in this forum for pointing out those 2 issues 4 years ago.

And every day for the last 4 years.

Hindsight didn't have anything to do with it for about 50% of the country. Now the other 50% wants to avoid the "you were right" speech so that they don't have to face the question of leadership and judgement that follows such a concession. That question goes straight to their own personal judgement for supporting the idea and the snakeoil salesman from the beginning.1. Of course, it was "optional." All wars are.
2. A mistake? I retrospect only. Hindsight is 20/20. If we KNEW then, what we know now....we should done it differently.

As for you and Duhnise being "right?" Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Enjoy it. Only a pansy would want a "you were right" speech.

McGovern was "right" in retrospect. He's still a pansy though.

History is much more grey, and a lot more complicated than "we were right, and they were wrong." If you are comfortable being an ideological shill that happened to be right, on this occasion....fine. More power to you. However, it doesn't mean reasonable people can not disagree over policy decisions, that ONLY in retrospect seem clear.

memyselfI
06-01-2006, 09:31 AM
One of the few times I bothered listening to BO’R’s radio show he was voice’n his approval of gay marriage.
That’s not exactly a “GOP Talk’n Point”. :shrug:

As a regular listener to his radio show I can state this is complete bull shit and quite obvious you have not listened to him. BO'R is a self described traditionalist and as such is against gay marriage. He is in favor of granting civil union rights and recognition. He does not feel any church or religion should be forced to marry homosexuals. He makes the distinction between a religious sanctioning and a legal one...

his position is EXACTLY the correct one on this issue.

memyselfI
06-01-2006, 09:33 AM
So I take it this is the first time you've publicly admitted that

1) Iraq was an optional war
2) Going into Iraq was a mistake

Those two points alone are absolutely huge reversal for anyone to make. :hmmm: for pointing out those 2 issues 4 years ago.



My manhood wasn't threatened in the least, thank you. ;) :p ROFL

patteeu
06-01-2006, 10:12 AM
So I take it this is the first time you've publicly admitted that

1) Iraq was an optional war
2) Going into Iraq was a mistake

...

1) Iraq was an optional war. So was Afghanistan, Gulf War I, the Balkans, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. etc. etc. The question is whether or not it was the right option.

2) We won't know until we see how it plays out. It's possible it will turn out to have been a mistake although the mistake will have been believing that the US people could be relied upon to see a relatively inexpensive war (in terms of both blood* and treasure**) through to success. I'm very disappointed with our fair weather war supporters and even more disappointed with those who hope to repeat our Vietnam disgrace for political purposes.

-----------
* Of course, each individual casualty is extremely important to those impacted by it, but in the big picture sense, this war has been much less costly in terms of blood than previous major conflicts like Vietnam, Korea, and the two World Wars.

** While this war has set records in terms of the dollar price, it is actually a very cheap war as a percentage of our GDP. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but WWII cost something like 30% of our then GDP while this war is costing us about 0.5% of our current GDP.

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 10:15 AM
As a regular listener to his radio show I can state this is complete bull shit and quite obvious you have not listened to him.

One of the few times I bothered listening to BO’R’s radio show he was voice’n his approval of gay marriage.
That’s not exactly a “GOP Talk’n Point”. :shrug:

:rolleyes:

BO'R is a self described traditionalist and as such is against gay marriage. He is in favor of granting civil union rights and recognition.

That’s it, argue semantics so you can make bellicose claims of “bullshit”. ROFL

Grow the fug up Denise.

patteeu
06-01-2006, 10:15 AM
Re-read my response to patteeu. If you have any questions, let me know. I clear it up for you.

Radar Chief's post is at least the beginning of a refutation of what you said in your response to me. There are other examples of O'Reilly taking the side of an issue that matches democrat talking points rather than Republican. Gas price gouging by big oil, global warming, big government solutions to social issues, etc.

patteeu
06-01-2006, 10:17 AM
As a regular listener to his radio show I can state this is complete bull shit and quite obvious you have not listened to him. BO'R is a self described traditionalist and as such is against gay marriage. He is in favor of granting civil union rights and recognition. He does not feel any church or religion should be forced to marry homosexuals. He makes the distinction between a religious sanctioning and a legal one...

his position is EXACTLY the correct one on this issue.

This is true, but Radar Chief's larger point is still correct. Bill O'Reilly is not in lock step with the Republicans on this. In fact, as you admit, he's in lock step with you.

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 10:23 AM
This is true, but Radar Chief's larger point is still correct. Bill O'Reilly is not in lock step with the Republicans on this. In fact, as you admit, he's in lock step with you.

Exactly, never mind that I’ve stated the exact same thing on this board, and therefore agree with Denise and BO’R, we’ve got chit to stir. :rolleyes:
Guess she ran out of kids to scare by jump’n out from under her bridge. ;)

jAZ
06-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Radar Chief's post is at least the beginning of a refutation of what you said in your response to me. There are other examples of O'Reilly taking the side of an issue that matches democrat talking points rather than Republican. Gas price gouging by big oil, global warming, big government solutions to social issues, etc.
If you think so, then re-read my post cause trust me it isn't related to my point.

I said that a "partisan" is someone who will repeat the party line no matter how boldly the facts of the matter get in the way... in this case the Republican party line.

You and RC are trying to ignore my definition (the one you asked me to provide) and pretend that I said "he agrees with the GOP on all issues (I dare you to find even one issue he splits with them on)".

The one I provided isn't the one you were hoping for because with your preferred definition there's always some example someone can pull out that would make someone not be a "partisan". Of course, that being the case, John Kyle, John McCain, Bill Frist, Trent Lott or any other Republican that didn't 100% agree with either the GOP or the GOP Partly leaders position on all issues would be defined as not being "partisan".

Baby Lee
06-01-2006, 10:30 AM
1) Chaos in Iraq and Afganistan will never end
2) Should have gone to war in Afganistan after 9/11, but...
3) Iraq was optional war, should not have invaded Iraq
4) There were other ways to depose Saddam
5) Iraq war mistake should be a lesson learned
6) Iraq will be another Isreal (Palistinian) situation
All of those 'points' sound in 'we're not up to the task,' rather than 'the task was not worth tackling.'
Everyone on board with that?

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 10:45 AM
All of those 'points' sound in 'we're not up to the task,' rather than 'the task was not worth tackling.'
Everyone on board with that?
Given the political constraints, and a queezy American public that in the words of Colonel Jessop "can't handle the truth" of war..... or the dynamics of fighting a war in modern times, I reluctantly concede....we may no longer be up to the task.

Can't fight, effectively, with one hand tied behind our backs.

banyon
06-01-2006, 11:47 AM
All of those 'points' sound in 'we're not up to the task,' rather than 'the task was not worth tackling.'
Everyone on board with that?

I think I'd rather call it "the task was not worth tackling in the way we chose to handle it."

jAZ
06-01-2006, 11:50 AM
I think I'd rather call it "the task was not worth tackling in the way we chose to handle it."
No, no, no... nueance is not permitted. It's either one extreme or another.

Off with his head!

memyselfI
06-01-2006, 11:52 AM
This is true, but Radar Chief's larger point is still correct. Bill O'Reilly is not in lock step with the Republicans on this. In fact, as you admit, he's in lock step with you.

Ok, so his larger point is correct but the example he used is clearly incorrect. Which, if he had listened to him, he should know.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:53 AM
Heh. Nice, Parker. In the Lounge....come on man, bring over TJ's "conspiracy" thread and a couple of Jim's for good measure....:clap:

This ought to be good....ROFL

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 11:56 AM
Ok, so his larger point is correct but the example he used is clearly incorrect. Which, if he had listened to him, he should know.

We’ll try this one more time for the read’n comprehension impared.

One of the few times I bothered listening to BO’R’s radio show

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 11:59 AM
I said that a "partisan" is someone who will repeat the party line no matter how boldly the facts of the matter get in the way... in this case the Republican party line.

You and RC are trying to ignore my definition (the one you asked me to provide) and pretend that I said "he agrees with the GOP on all issues (I dare you to find even one issue he splits with them on)".

You made a statement. I posted an example of the inaccuracy of that statement.
You overreached, admit it, it happens. ROFL

jAZ
06-01-2006, 12:03 PM
You made a statement. I posted an example of the inaccuracy of that statement.
You overreached, admit it, it happens. ROFL
What are you talking about?

Nothing you pointed out will change the definition I was asked to provide. Your opinion of an alternate defintion is wonderful and all, but it's still your definition, and it has nothing to do with the one I was applying when this conversation started.

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2006, 12:03 PM
Given the political constraints, and a queezy American public that in the words of Colonel Jessop "can't handle the truth" of war..... or the dynamics of fighting a war in modern times, I reluctantly concede....we may no longer be up to the task.

Can't fight, effectively, with one hand tied behind our backs.What is the hand tied behind our backs?

memyselfI
06-01-2006, 12:08 PM
We’ll try this one more time for the read’n comprehension impared.

Oh, I saw that. I'm trying to clear up the misinformation coming from the listening/hearing impaired.

Radar Chief
06-01-2006, 12:15 PM
Oh, I saw that. I'm trying to clear up the misinformation coming from the listening/hearing impaired.

:spock: Really? When have you "said" anything? ROFL

Baby Lee
06-01-2006, 12:50 PM
I think I'd rather call it "the task was not worth tackling in the way we chose to handle it."
No, no, no... nueance is not permitted. It's either one extreme or another.

Off with his head!
What are you even talking about?
My remark wasn't about the entire panoply of possible reactions to the situation.
It was a characterization of O'Reilly's specific reactions.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 01:03 PM
What is the hand tied behind our backs?
Why should I elaborate? You seldom do. Why should our posts reponding to you, require any more effort than you ever offer? :shrug:

I'll tell you what.....you give us more than 3 or 4 brief, often TIC or sarcastic remarks, that are serious....that portray a real attempt on your part to wrestle with the complexities of the issues you post on, yet you post with little or no explanation of your thoughts....then I'll be happy to respond in a more thoughtful and sincere fashion.

jAZ
06-01-2006, 01:06 PM
Given the political constraints, and a queezy American public that in the words of Colonel Jessop "can't handle the truth" of war..... or the dynamics of fighting a war in modern times, I reluctantly concede....we may no longer be up to the task.

Can't fight, effectively, with one hand tied behind our backs.
What is the hand tied behind our backs?

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2006, 01:42 PM
Why should I elaborate? You seldom do. Why should our posts reponding to you, require any more effort than you ever offer? :shrug:

I'll tell you what.....you give us more than 3 or 4 brief, often TIC or sarcastic remarks, that are serious....that portray a real attempt on your part to wrestle with the complexities of the issues you post on, yet you post with little or no explanation of your thoughts....then I'll be happy to respond in a more thoughtful and sincere fashion.I generally go into great detail on the topics I understand the best. Otherwise, I let the experts provide most of the details.

Here's an example of something that I understand quite well:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140942

Of course, I generally post more on Chiefs/Royals/NBA topics as I enjoy talking about them more than others. Given my limited amount of time here to post, I do what I can. I suspect others, such as Amnorix and stevieray, do the same. I don't claim my posts to be of the same quality, but rather I share the style of shorter comments unless we have more expertise on the topic.

banyon
06-01-2006, 01:46 PM
What are you even talking about?
My remark wasn't about the entire panoply of possible reactions to the situation.
It was a characterization of O'Reilly's specific reactions.

So was mine.

Calling it a mistake doesn't sound in "we aren't up to the task", IMO.

HC_Chief
06-01-2006, 01:48 PM
This thread should be in D.C.

You continue to post political threads in the Lounge, jAZ. Stop it.

KcMizzou
06-01-2006, 01:51 PM
This thread should be in D.C.

You continue to post political threads in the Lounge, jAZ. Stop it.ROFL

banyon
06-01-2006, 01:51 PM
This thread should be in D.C.

You continue to post political threads in the Lounge, jAZ. Stop it.

he didn't. Try looking at the board.

Baby Lee
06-01-2006, 01:56 PM
So was mine.

Calling it a mistake doesn't sound in "we aren't up to the task", IMO.
Not necessarily. But calling it a mistake because it'll never end and will end up like Palestine does.

banyon
06-01-2006, 02:10 PM
Not necessarily. But calling it a mistake because it'll never end and will end up like Palestine does.

Isn't that "no one is up to the task" (i.e. it is not a task we can/should take on)?

John_Wayne
06-01-2006, 02:21 PM
Why is this thread not in the DC forum?

jAZ
06-01-2006, 02:23 PM
This thread should be in D.C.

You continue to post political threads in the Lounge, jAZ. Stop it.
:$2500:

jAZ
06-01-2006, 02:24 PM
Why is this thread not in the DC forum?
:$2500:

jidar
06-01-2006, 02:25 PM
As a moderate in this US here is the decision process I went through after 9/11

Hell yeah, bomb those Afghani bastards. Bin Laden is gonna eat it.

Wha? Iraq was in on it too huh? Not surprising! And they might have nukes. Ok that's it, ****ing own em.

Hrm.. yeah I guess we need a base in the middle east but I wish we could get Bin Laden. We can get him when we are in Iraq.

Oh wait.. the WMD thing is bogus.. the Iraq terrorist association is bogus.. the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11
WTF?!

Bin Laden is still loose and we invaded Iraq for fking nothing. God mother****ing damnit!!! ARGH

The thing I don't get is why more people don't focus on the fact that the people who did 9/11 essentially got away with it. In fact, by invading Iraq we've probably played right into their hands as the entire god damned world is against us and terrorism is thriving.

patteeu
06-01-2006, 03:30 PM
terrorism is thriving.

I bet it doesn't seem that way to the average terrorist. Especially those in Iraq. Double especially for those in Guantanamo. Triple especially for those in the secret CIA prisons that might or might not exist and those who have been turned over to the authorities of their home countries.

Baby Lee
06-01-2006, 04:20 PM
Isn't that "no one is up to the task" (i.e. it is not a task we can/should take on)?
Wanna break out the Vin Diagrams? ;)

Clint in Wichita
06-01-2006, 04:23 PM
I bet it doesn't seem that way to the average terrorist. Especially those in Iraq. Double especially for those in Guantanamo. Triple especially for those in the secret CIA prisons that might or might not exist and those who have been turned over to the authorities of their home countries.


What about all of the terrorists in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc?

The USA might as well call the "War on Terror" the "Please Become a Mudda Fuggin Terrorist" campaign.

banyon
06-01-2006, 04:24 PM
Wanna break out the Vin Diagrams? ;)

So long as we're parsing words, it's "Venn".

:p ROFL

jAZ
06-01-2006, 04:27 PM
The USA might as well call the "War on Terror" the "Please Become a Mudda Fuggin Terrorist" campaign.
No shit.

ChiefFripp
06-01-2006, 04:29 PM
It took me about two seconds after I knew we were going to attack Iraq to realize that Bush and his cronies were just using 911 to pursue their own agenda, I'm suprised that most people are just now seeing it. I thought it was a little too obvious on his part actually. Just shows that using "patriotism" as a divider still works as well today as it ever has.

Baby Lee
06-01-2006, 04:30 PM
So long as we're parsing words, it's "Venn".

:p ROFL
I swear to God, both my HS logic teacher and my College logic Professor taught me wrong!!

:cuss:

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2006, 06:47 PM
Wanna break out the Vin Diagrams? ;)Those are the one's used by Vin Diesel, right?!?

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 07:44 PM
I generally go into great detail on the topics I understand the best. Otherwise, I let the experts provide most of the details.

Here's an example of something that I understand quite well:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140942

Of course, I generally post more on Chiefs/Royals/NBA topics as I enjoy talking about them more than others. Given my limited amount of time here to post, I do what I can. I suspect others, such as Amnorix and stevieray, do the same. I don't claim my posts to be of the same quality, but rather I share the style of shorter comments unless we have more expertise on the topic.Fair enough. I give more effort and attention to some threads more than others too. And sometimes my own posting can be terse and flippant--we can all be busy. My main complaint with you (and Talking Can) has been your obvious displeasure or taking issues with someone (often me), and then failing to offer more than a cursory or TIC sarcastic remark in return--failing to explain your displeasure, and your thinking. It just seems to me, IF you disagree enough to post, you'd take the time to explain yourself. JMHO.

As far as what I meant by "one hand, tied behind our back"....I think there were several things we could have/should have done to ensure success in Iraq:

1. A larger troop presence. Another 40-60k, initially....
2. A larger and more united "international coalitition" which should have been cobbled together much sooner. The UN had proven to be a failure over the preceding 12 yrs, in it's dealings with Saddam. We should have continued efforts at putting together something there, but should have directed focused energy on getting a real commitment from others besides Britain--outside the UN, if need be.
3. Ground war (not Air war) "shock and awe"--true shock and awe.....hard, fast, and with less regard for the unfortunate "collateral damage." War is hell. 24/7 cable and internet news coverage of the week or two after D-day in a "living room war" rendition of what we saw in Vietnam, and what we've witnessed to a lesser degree in Iraq over the past two years would have sapped public resolve...even then. If we choose to send troops in, send enough to do the job.....thoroughly and well, quickly enough to END IT. So we can destroy as much "opposition" as possible, as quickly as possible; then get our boys home. It's a lesson we claimed to have learned in Vietnam; but apparently, we learn slowly.
4. A plan with shared responsibility for rooting out, and stopping the spread of the insurgency. Agrressive, ruthless, even brutal. I'm not saying illegal or unethical tactics (which I know are subjective), but if there was ONE area we screwed up bad--this was it.
5. Training and establishment of an Iraqi government, including necessary security forces should have been priority number two (next to establishing security and stopping the insurgency--at least the one inside Iraq.) Excluding all of the former law enforcement and government people from the "rebuilding" process was another big mistake. Timelines would have also been a part of the discussion--to increase the sense of urgency among the Iraqis themselves. But those time lines would never, under any circumstances, have been acknowledged publicly--to avoid a "waiting it out" scenario, like the VietCong employed. A process for identifying people who could and would have truly helped, EARLY in the process would have saved us a year or more of agony.

Now, I know hindsight is 20/20....and much of this, in the minds of some, can be blamed squarely on the administration. However, we know politics can be enormously complicated. I don't give the administration a pass on this, I simply believe they had constraints at the time: fiscal, political, civilian "expertise," bad intelligence, and, yes, an arrogance of some within the administration in underestimating the task ahead.

That said, while things could have and should have gone better.....I remain convinced, that eventually a lot of good will come of this. Yes, I realize to some it looks bleak; I'm just convinced we are still doing much more good in the region, than harm. I remain absolutely, 100% convinced of that. The real debate is over the "costs." Some say it hasn't been, and won't be, "worth it." I simply disagree.

We shall see.

tiptap
06-01-2006, 07:56 PM
The constraints of time where of the choosing of the administration. No one disagreed with the timetable in Afganistan, just the haste to proceed to Iraq when we could hone skills back in Afgan without the cost. All the while putting the focus on utterly crushing the Taliban and Al Qeada. We would have and did have the backing of the world.

This administration just thinks narrowly in military terms and poorly at that.

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2006, 08:08 PM
Fair enough. I give more effort and attention to some threads more than others too. And sometimes my own posting can be terse and flippant--we can all be busy. My main complaint with you (and Talking Can) has been your obvious displeasure or taking issues with someone (often me), and then failing to offer more than a cursory or TIC sarcastic remark in return--failing to explain your displeasure, and your thinking. It just seems to me, IF you disagree enough to post, you'd take the time to explain yourself. JMHO.
I wasn't disagreeing; I was looking for clarification, which you have provided.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 08:21 PM
The constraints of time where of the choosing of the administration. No one disagreed with the timetable in Afganistan, just the haste to proceed to Iraq when we could hone skills back in Afgan without the cost. All the while putting the focus on utterly crushing the Taliban and Al Qeada. We would have and did have the backing of the world.

This administration just thinks narrowly in military terms and poorly at that.
If you are responding to me, I feel the other constraints were much more accute: political, fiscal, civilian buttheads in the administration, arrogance, and bad intel to name a few......

Time? If anything, IMO they should have gone sooner--provided they could have mustered the larger force in time to do that.....

Gary
06-01-2006, 09:06 PM
The real debate is over the "costs." Some say it hasn't been, and won't be, "worth it." I simply disagree.

We shall see.

I agree with you that this is the prominent debate in the now, but the "Was it right & in the best interest of the country" debate is not over. When we (& I mean everybody!) get politically charged, we tend to de-humanize the overall picture & focus on how to fight off/refute any possibilities of being wrong. When we finally realize that it's ok to lower the guns & be human, we usually realize that we aren't miles apart on some of these issues.

Ok Ok...Tony Robbins has left the building!

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 09:26 PM
I agree with you that this is the prominent debate in the now, but the "Was it right & in the best interest of the country" debate is not over. When we (& I mean everybody!) get politically charged, we tend to de-humanize the overall picture & focus on how to fight off/refute any possibilities of being wrong. When we finally realize that it's ok to lower the guns & be human, we usually realize that we aren't miles apart on some of these issues.

Ok Ok...Tony Robbins has left the building!While I agree, the "Was it right & in the best interest of the country" debate is not over. ....it really is a pretty futile debate at this point. I mean, especially in light of the bad intelligence and second guessing-hindsight-is-20/20 perspective.

I do agree about the rest of you post though, Tony....er, eh.....Gary. ;)

jAZ
06-01-2006, 10:56 PM
Looks like Keith Olbermann caught an entirely different aspect of this same interview.

KO is *pissed*...

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReilly-Malmedy.wmv

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 10:58 PM
Looks like Keith Olbermann caught an entirely different aspect of this same interview.

KO is *pissed*...

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReilly-Malmedy.wmv

Can you summarize? I don't want to wake the wife.....

FWIW, you spend way too much time at that site; sheesh, find a good free porn site, or something....pansy. ;)

jAZ
06-01-2006, 11:00 PM
Can you summarize? I don't want to wake the wife.....

FWIW, you spend way too much time at that site; sheesh, find a good free porn site, or something....pansy. ;)
Here's a "rough" transcript...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/06/01/olbermannOnOreillyAndWesleyClarkTranscript.html

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:04 PM
Here's a "rough" transcript...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/06/01/olbermannOnOreillyAndWesleyClarkTranscript.html

Has my clarification (in this thread), of what I've been with-holding from you and the other moonbats here.....been satisfying for you?

Just curious, dick weed. :)

jAZ
06-01-2006, 11:06 PM
Has my clarification (in this thread), of what I've been with-holding from you and the other moonbats here.....been satisfying for you?

Just curious, dick weed. :)
Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing because I didn't care. I was just trying to help Pitt get his answer.

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:27 PM
Oh wait.. the WMD thing is bogus.. the Iraq terrorist association is bogus.. the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11
WTF?!


Well, Iraq did have ties to terrorism, but not 9/11.

And I'm sure Saddam did have WOMD, but by Bush trying to play to both sides (drag his pecker in the UN for 6 monts and then STILL invading) there weren't any when we got there.

Busting a crack dealer and finding no crack doesn't mean there wasn't any crack, it means you botched the whole bust and now you have no idea where the crack is.

A MONUMENTAL blunder that no one pins on the administration...

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:30 PM
Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing because I didn't care. I was just trying to help Pitt get his answer.

"....I didn't care...."

And you have the audacity, to call others a "fraud"? ROFL

jAZ
06-01-2006, 11:33 PM
"....I didn't care...."

And you have the audacity, to call others a "fraud"? ROFL
I think you can add "narcissist" to "fraud" if you expect me to care about a discussion between you and Pitt.

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:36 PM
"....I didn't care...."

And you have the audacity, to call others a "fraud"? ROFL

If you start calling out the apathetic on this BB you're going to have a fight on your hands...

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2006, 12:06 AM
I think you can add "narcissist" to "fraud" if you expect me to care about a discussion between you and Pitt.
Couldn't be further from the truth....ROFL

Besides, your indignation over my "defense" of Bush (FTR, which was more a deference to the current administration and respect for the office) is well-documented.....

If you start calling out the apathetic on this BB you're going to have a fight on your hands...

That was direct solely at Justin, for his constant haranging of me as a "Bush defender," apparently because I have given him the benefit of the doubt, in many instances....

jAZ
06-02-2006, 12:12 AM
Couldn't be further from the truth....ROFL

Besides, your indignation over my "defense" of Bush (FTR, which was more a deference to the current administration and respect for the office) is well-documented.....
For the record, your minute description of "hands tied behind our backs" is NOT synonymous with "defense of Bush".

Sorry to hurt your feelings with my lack of interest in EVERYTHING you post.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2006, 12:21 AM
For the record, your minute description of "hands tied behind our backs" is NOT synonymous with "defense of Bush".

Sorry to hurt your feelings with my lack of interest in EVERYTHING you post.
No harm, no foul. I'd have to care what you thought for that to be an issue.

And FTR, don't mistake my curiosity, with caring.....:)

Taco John
06-02-2006, 12:23 AM
It's heartwarming to see Bush-monkies like Kotter in a full on back pedal...

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2006, 12:24 AM
It's heartwarming to see Bush-monkies like Kotter in a full on back pedal...

Another basher, who mistakes deference for enthusiastic support....how quaint.

Don't you have a donkey bulletin board to moderate? :rolleyes:

Taco John
06-02-2006, 12:28 AM
However you want to rationalize it Kotter, it's heartwarming from where I'm standing. Don't worry... You're not alone in the people who all of a sudden are indifferent to the guy they voted for.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2006, 12:39 AM
However you want to rationalize it Kotter, it's heartwarming from where I'm standing. Don't worry... You're not alone in the people who all of a sudden are indifferent to the guy they voted for.

It's been that way since '88....why would I worry? :banghead:

go bowe
06-02-2006, 12:48 AM
what's beem that wauy simce 88?

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:03 AM
However you want to rationalize it Kotter, it's heartwarming from where I'm standing. Don't worry... You're not alone in the people who all of a sudden are indifferent to the guy they voted for.

Voted?

Hell, I donated time to electing his arse 2nd term.

I haven't been this unhappy since I saw "Santa" making out with my uncle's girlfriend...

Taco John
06-02-2006, 01:43 AM
I did my part. I voted Libertarian AND I talked my neighbor out of voting for Bush. That's like voting twice, right?

Pitt Gorilla
06-02-2006, 12:56 PM
Voted?

Hell, I donated time to electing his arse 2nd term.

I haven't been this unhappy since I saw "Santa" making out with my uncle's girlfriend...I had no idea, Rausch. I figured you for a "neither party" guy.

go bowe
06-02-2006, 01:50 PM
Voted?

Hell, I donated time to electing his arse 2nd term.

I haven't been this unhappy since I saw "Santa" making out with my uncle's girlfriend...i'm sorry, i just like older women, what can i say?