>>>> Your link ratifies what I'm saying. A quote:>>>>>
Petroleum
production
The pendulum continues to swing...
But seriously folks, it's the Democrats' turn to hang themselves. The Republicans have had years to screw things up (and boy, have they!). So it may very well be time to see what kind of damage the Democrats can do. As I've said, it all comes down to the lesser of two evils.
That's been the case for quite a while with both parties.
Michael, I believe you alluded to it earlier - we really need a major change in the way politics works. The basic structure is pretty much broken.
The country can only withstand so much damage. The best course of action we can hope for is gridlock so neither side can do any more harm. IMO, the direction the Democrats like Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to take us is toward socialism. We have seen that socialism just doesn't work. Also, once they start the ball rolling on all these new entitlement programs it will be almost impossible to to stop it let alone reverse it. Then the only thing they can do is raise taxes more and more to pay for them. Unless people like you and I roll into our retirement years with a big bag of our own money we are going to be living a bare minimum existence just waiting on death to get any relief.
It is going to take some MAJOR breakdown in our way of life before the population gets off its collective ass and makes real change happen. By then the Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Republicans may have us screwed so bad there are no alternatives left. Either way we are getting EXACTLY what we deserve for being so apathetic for decades. I wouldn't blame the younger people if they just told all the Baby Boomers that when they retire they will be euthanized since they squandered all the money that was to go toward their retirement costs.
I did get that reference. He got off easier than I figured he would. Something like 5.5 years with credit for time served so he has another 5 months or so. Another five months at the Gitmo CC should be a breeze to complete. They could have turned him over to the Pakistanis and never been heard from again.
Don't get me started on him. I have all kinds of theories as to why he isn't taking a dirt nap by now.
"Capturing Osama" has become quite an indusry, hasn't it? Oh my yes, we're trying real hard to _look like_ we're trying real hard to catch that ol' dog. :o
I don't profess to know the truth about why he hasn't caught the business end of a smart bomb but I can think of some credible reasons why he hasn't. They range from the righteous to the cynical. Of all of them I think the least plausible is that he can hide himself effectively for seven years.
It sounds interesting. I agree that our biggest threats come from within our own borders and I'll go even further and say they come from the very politicians we elect to solve our problems. It wouldn't take them more than a year to pass all the legislation needed to right the ship. It will take years to actually make it happen but to set the framework for it would be easy. I think there needs to be a fundamental change in our political structure and it needs to start with term limits. I think career politicians are killing this country.
Michael Johnson wrote in news:zKadnWfkzpmybzvVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Bacevich knows what he's talking about. Here's a brief bio on him:
formatting link
Here's an interesting article he wrote last month for the Boston Globe:
formatting link
To date, nobody else has professed more sobering ideas than Bacevich IMO. Unfortunately, it will take a radical mindset change in America before we see real change such as he describes.
"Frank ess" wrote in news:VLKdncxYj7GkaDvVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Indeed. Here's his brief bio:
formatting link
Check out his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last month: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_YJCADRg8icJ:armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI071508/Bacevich_Testimony071508.pdf+andrew+j+bacevich&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us
I don't agree with all his assessments in this article. I'm not a water carrier for Bush these days but some of the things he bashes Bush on in that article are yet to be determined. As time passes the real benefit or folly of the Iraq war will be known. A talking head just can't say whether it was, or wasn't, worth the expense at this point in time. I don't know much about this guy but reading that article didn't do must to impress me with his insight on foreign affairs. He seems a little too biased. He made too many statements of fact when all the facts aren't known at this juncture.
Iraq could very well turn out like Vietnam. When one looks at Vietnam in and of itself it wasn't a war worth fighting. When put into context with the overall goal of stopping the expansion of communism, opinions as to its worth change. Had the USSR been allowed to expand their influence unchecked we might have a very different world. The same can be applied to the radical Islamics today. If they are allowed to run unchecked we might be facing a dire situation 25, 50 or 100 years from now. No one, and I repeat NO ONE, knows whether the decision to invade and transform Iraq to a more Western political ideology was a worthwhile endeavor. It is way too early to tell. When I read this guy stating unequivocally that the Iraq war was a mistake it makes me think he has too high an opinion of his mental prowess.
The guy has some good ideas from a domestic standpoint but like most talking heads, he is far from having all the answers to our problems. Thanks for the heads-up on him though. It never hurts to get all sides of the argument.
Michael Johnson wrote in news:7sadnafKnK34NzXVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
formatting link
> /07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought/ >
After watching the piece 60 minutes did tonight on Valerie Plame, I'm more convinced than ever that the Bush administration should and will be thought of as one of the more corrupt and irresponsible administrations in history. If nothing else, it proves that politics in the 21st century is most definitely out of control, and the current administration is right at the forefront.
Bacevich certainly has an ax to grind; his son was killed in Iraq. However, all his ideas are based on factual history. He's certainly one of the most respected and knowledgable people that have spoken on these issues, and what he says makes the most sense to me out of anybody I've heard to date.
IMO, the Plame case was them looking for their 15 minutes of fame. They tried to do everything possible to stay in the spotlight. There was probably a money angle in it for them. The Plame investigation was the Democrats version of the Kenneth Star investigation except it never got as much traction. The only thing that came from it was Scooter Libby's perjury conviction that had nothing to do with the original investigation. Plus, I don't look to CBS, ABC, NBC etc. to provide unbiased news or reporting.
I have no doubt that Bush sold the war to the public, Congress and the world, in general. Then again all wars have to be sold in this country. IMO, what we have today is a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks whining about being duped and/or using this issue to score political hits. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people whining now bought into it and went right along with Bush. Then when things got dicey they bailed and started revising history to make themselves look like prophets. Now that Iraq is stabilizing they are running back the other way. We won't know if the Iraq war was worthwhile for another two decades, if not longer.
This explains his tone. It also requires a footnote be placed on his statements. Things like this cloud people's judgment and can skew their thought process.
From what little I have read I respect his domestic ideas more than his geopolitical ones.
Michael Johnson wrote in news:0Iidncf6EY2IXzXVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
formatting link
>>> /07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought/ >>> I don't agree with all his assessments in this article. I'm not a>>> water carrier for Bush these days but some of the things he bashes>>> Bush on in that article are yet to be determined. As time passes>>> the real benefit or folly of the Iraq war will be known. A talking>>> head just can't say whether it was, or wasn't, worth the expense at>>> this point in time. I don't know much about this guy but reading>>> that article didn't do must to impress me with his insight on>>> foreign affairs. He seems a little too biased. He made too many>>> statements of fact when all the facts aren't known at this juncture.>>>
Bush and his cronies (and yes, he _is_ ultimately responsible for the actions of his people) outed Valerie Plame (which, by the way, is an act of treason and a capitol offense during wartime, and we are at war according to Bush) because Bush wanted revenge against her husband, Joe Wilson, for exposing the sham about Niger and yellowcake uranium. To top it off, Bush outright lied when he said that he'd fire anyone involved with leaking the name.
IMO, allegations (whether true or not) that news sources are all biased and untrustworthy is an excuse not to look at the facts.
Maybe in this day and age, and that's one of the major problems. Why do wars have to be "sold" in the first place?
I completely disagree. IMO, many of the horrible truths about this adminstration's chicanery are now being brought into the public's view, and as a result, more and more people are questioning what the hell has been going on.
Bacevich has been up front all along about his son's death, and his views and ideas are all valid regardless. He's still one of the few people who make total sense.
You might want to read more, as he's making the most sense of anyone these days.
Her operations in the CIA weren't all that secret. She and her husband made it no secret she was working for the CIA. They made it sound like they were on some super secret mission when they were supposedly outed. This was just one of dozens of ways the Democrats tried to pin something on Bush and his staff. They wasted so much time on this stuff instead of solving some real problems like the rising cost of oil. The Democrats have been fiddling trying to nail Bush while Rome burned.
That is the problem though. You can't rely on the media to present the facts. All I know (and all 99.999999% of us know) is that millions of dollars were spent on a witch hunt that yielded Libby getting his hand smacked for perjury which had nothing to do with the original reason for the investigation. Then after the investigation was over Plame tried to suck off the government tit some more by launching a civil lawsuit but her case was thrown out of court because it had no merit.
It has always been this way. The Revolutionary War had to be sold as did the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The next one will have to be sold too. During WWII the government regularly manipulated the news and other information fed to the general population to keep interest in the war high and bad news in the shadows. It is just the way mankind works because wars need the support of a majority of people to be fought and won.
IMO, we can all get whatever we want from the news reports. I don't claim to know one way or the other who did what to whom. Whether the war was worth the cost in dollars and lives won't be known for decades, IMO.
He seems a little too sure of himself for me to give him my unwaivering seal of approval.
He might be. I'll try and read his stuff more now that I know he is out there.
Michael Johnson wrote in news:FIOdne5By4bNfTXVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
formatting link
>>>>> /07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought/ >>>>> I don't agree with all his assessments in this article. I'm not a>>>>> water carrier for Bush these days but some of the things he bashes>>>>> Bush on in that article are yet to be determined. As time passes>>>>> the real benefit or folly of the Iraq war will be known. A>>>>> talking head just can't say whether it was, or wasn't, worth the>>>>> expense at this point in time. I don't know much about this guy>>>>> but reading that article didn't do must to impress me with his>>>>> insight on foreign affairs. He seems a little too biased. He>>>>> made too many statements of fact when all the facts aren't known>>>>> at this juncture. >>>>>
By no means are the Democrats innocent. But I'm still convinced that the current administration is guilty of a lot more than they've been held accountable for.
The facts are out there - it just takes a bit more legwork to find them. My only point was that some people's claims that they can't find facts to support certain allegations is nonsense. Facts are there, they just need to have all the crap scraped off them.
Perhaps we have different ideas about "selling" war. When a cause is obviously justfied, there's no selling involved IMO. The example that immediately comes to mind was Peal Harbor. Sure people can cite 9/11 as well, but the big difference is that the "enemy" in 9/11 was never correctly identified until recently. Even then, we continue to plunder along in the wrong arena.
There is a huge difference between Americans supporting a just cause and Americans being sold a war like it's a used car.
Sorry, Michael, but I believe that's utter nonsense. Simply put, we are involved in something we should not be because of certain people's agendas.
I'm not asking you to give him any kind of approval. I'm simply pointing out that what he says and what he's said make more sense to me than just about anyone else I've heard on the course of American history. If you disagree, that's fine. Please tell me who makes more sense to you and I'll gladly read him/her.
It's nothing to do with Bacevich, but this is a very interesting link nonetheless:
I guess the very same complaints the Democrats had about the Republicans when Clinton was in office are now applicable to them. They have wasted two years trying to pin anything on Bush and it was all in vain. The hypocrisy on both sides is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I only give the Republicans a slight edge because when it comes to things like taxes, drilling etc. they talk a good game but then even they never seem to be able to close the deal.
The facts are somewhere but neither side can be trusted to present them. They each have something to gain from their story being accepted as truth. This story is going the way of Roswell. The truth will never be known.
IMO, the Iraq War is the same kind of war as the Vietnam War. They are tactical wars that fit into a bigger strategic picture. Before the worth of these kind of wars are known a good bit of time has to pass to see the results. If Iraq does stabilize and becomes a positive force in that part of the world then history will be a kinder judge of Bush. The Middle East needs to be brought into the 21st century and a strong, and basically democratic, Iraq would be a good start to accomplishing it. If Iraq does prove pivotal in reshaping the Middle East would you change you mind about whether the war was justified? I think there are some people that won't regardless of the outcome.
I think saying Americans were sold a bogus war is ignoring the many Americans that felt the war was worth fighting. Right now I think it was worth fighting and I don't feel I was sold anything. Besides, Bush did get re-elected so at least a majority of the voting public wanted to give him four more years. There are still a lot of people that support the successful prosecution of the war to the end. If the public is as much against the war as the liberals claim, then Obama would be miles ahead of McCain in the polls instead of being tied. By all normal conventions, Obama should be wiping the floor with McCain.
Every war is someone's agenda. The Revolutionary War was more the agenda of the aristocracy than the common man. It was conceived, planned and managed by the wealthy like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin etc. Bush didn't start this war on his own. Congress and the UN was right there with him. There is a lot of people trying to revise history on the Iraq War before its history is even finalized.
No one makes total sense on everything. This guy is no different. I don't see how anyone can determine the worth of fighting in Iraq at this point in time. It is too early to tell. Was the Vietnam War worth fighting? That can be intelligently debated both ways. The only way we can know for sure is to know what the course of history would have been from not fighting it and that will never be known. Had we not confronted the Soviets in Vietnam we might be fighting a conventional war in Japan or South Korea right now.
He's definitely a person that sees the glass as half empty.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.