Fixing the First War

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 5:18:37 PM

    Never Fear, BUSHtraeus is here...I feel so safe now, so tell General, what has Bush/Cheney told you to tell us now?

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 06/19/2008 11:08:42 PM

      As much as I hate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and this war, I doubt very much that General Petraeus is a Bush puppet. He's done a great job with the surge from a military point of view, even though the surge was flawed policy - that isn't his fault.

      It is a soldier's job to accomplish his strategic mission, and Petraeus has done that, and probably by standing up to Rumsfeld who had no business directing a kindergarten play, let alone our miltary.

      No, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are the real villians here, not Petraeus - he has performed well in an almost impossible situation.

      Too bad we have wasted our brightest and most courageous on flawed policy. Too bad we didn't send him to Afghanistan in 2002.

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/20/2008 2:30:04 AM

        Well the thing is if he wa'nt he, like 5 other gemerals, would be forced to retire...that is the preception.

  • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/18/2008 10:24:27 PM

    So Obama and Petraeus agree on one thing. Whoop dee doo! Let's crown him the "bestest man ever" as the media has already done. Obama talks about bridging across to work with 'Pubs. McCain has DONE IT in his career (re: worked with 'Dems cross aisle). Obama talks about not engaging in "politics as usual"... then says that McCain *wants* to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

    Who are we going to trust? The man who called for the "surge" in Iraq years before it actually occured and who declared the '94 Agreement with North Korea a failure (intel shows that North Korea worked to learn how to enrich uranium as early as the mid 90's... with verifiable proof uncovered from the Pakistani A.Q. Khan network) or the naive upstart who says that he will send troops into Pakistan after Al Queda WITHOUT Pakistani permission (a realist knows that Pakistan is on the knifes edge of being a nuclear armed extremist Islamic state... talk about a STUPID thing to say publicly).

    Who has the PROVEN track record here... McCain or Obama?

    Finally... Obama voted against going to war with Iraq in 2003. At the time BELIEVING conventional wisdom that Iraq had WMDs or their programs (i.e. the consensus of every intel agency in the world outside of Baghdad... not one simple lie that the "simpleton" Bush fooled the entire world with).

    There is a reason why the 'Dems historically look weak on national security issues... because they are.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:13:38 PM

      A lot of people were against going to 'war' (occupation) despite having the false knowledge of WMDs. So they supposedly had weapons. So? Did they threaten to use them on us? Korea's had nukes that can reach California for years. Russia had them on target for the US in the 60s. Did we go to war with them? No, because at the time we had leaders that were intelligent enough to not take the knuckle-dragging bomb 'em all approach. THAT takes nerves of steel, great courage, and strong leadership. We were fine then, and we would have been fine. If we had been patient and waited, we would have seen that there were no WMDs, and there would have been one less breeding ground for terrorists.

      • Posted By: burbank @ 06/19/2008 11:34:02 PM

        To: summer4077
        FM: burbank
        Madam, if you want the real picture of why we went to war in Iraq, might I suggest Yosef Bodansky's book The Secret War In Iraq. He is the House Chair on terrorism and unconventional warfare. In his book he provides the evidence that paints quite a different picture than the one painted by the media. It certainly seems strange that in all the debate about the events that led up to the war, Mr. Bodansky's voice was one you did not hear. Even today, all we hear is what a huge mistake Iraq was and how this president made one blunder after another in a bloodthirsty drive toward war. Mr. Bodansky's tome, though quite lengthy, provides another side to the war equation that gets very little mention in the mainstream press. You and others would do well to read what Mr. Bodansky has to say. It would give you a clearer perspective on why we are in Iraq and why we had to go there in the first place. Good luck with you research.

      • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:30:05 PM

        Gathering threats.

        Al Queda didn't start killing Americans until the mid 90's but were they a "gathering" threat to Americans before that? Apparently so...

        And there is far more to the story of WMDs being in Iraq than the average American realizes. Sarin shells (which are now deteriorated past the point of being effective) are continuing to be found in Iraq.

        Are you familiar with how deadly Sarin is? Have you every heard of binary sarin warheads?

        (hint: binary sarin warheads have been discovered in Iraq and have an estimated useful shelf life of 10-15 years... it is conceivable that by the time the US invaded in 2003 that there were some still around which were still deadly... and how many sarin shells exactly does a "WMD" make?)

        I also suggest Googling "Madhi Obeidi". Uranium centrifuges can be used to make nuclear weapons... and they don't grow on trees.

        Wrong on North Korea having nukes that can reach California for "years". North Korea launched a missle that landed off Alaska back in 1998... but that is a far cry from California. It has also been "best guessed" that the missle in 1998 would not have been able to carry a nuclear warhead.

        There is a lot of speculation of what North Korea's ability to launch a missle with a nuclear warhead *may* be... but there is nothing definitive. Your statement is far from being proven.

        The Cold War between Russia and the US is quite different than what we are faced with today. Where MAD (mutally assured destruction) kept the US and Russia from obliterating civilization during the Cold War, Islamic extremists have no such limitations. Osama bin Laden said it best "We desire death as much as you desire life". Being martyred to an Islamic extremist is actually quite appealing. You arwe trying to make a comparison which simply is not a good one to make.

        As far as the "bomb them all" approach goes... exactly which country other than the obvious Iraq and Afganistan (who most consider to be the "good fight") has the US hit? There has only been two in the Bush years... one of which the vast majority of people agree on ebing nessessary.

        Your "bomb them all" statement is simply a knee jerk reaction from the angry left.

    • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/18/2008 10:43:51 PM

      Wait, Obama wasn't a US senator until 2004? He didn't vote for or against the war.

      • Posted By: eternity875 @ 06/18/2008 11:49:06 PM

        He voted against the surge that is working.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:10:34 PM

          Depends on what your definition of working is.

          • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:30:25 PM

            And as far as Iraq being a "breeding ground" for terrorists. Most terrorist plots these days that get caught and busted up have the participants citing both Iraq AND Afganistan as being their motivation. Had the US never invaded Iraq... Afganistan would have been a "breeding ground" all on it's own. In fact, I have never heard of prospective terrorists distinguising ONLY Iraq as being a motivation for them.

            I would also suggest looking at the broader picture... does Iraq (and Afganistan) end up killing more terrorists than it breeds? Or visa versa? Terrorists are drawn to Iraq like a moth to a flame where many of them are snuffed out and do not get a chance to reproduce and spread their hate. You have to evaluate the entire "net sum"... not just the part of the equation that fits yor own agenda.

      • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/18/2008 11:57:30 PM

        My bad. He was AGAINST going to war despite the incorrect (now known... not then) evidence.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 12:28:14 PM

    Mc Cain't, either.

    • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 06/19/2008 12:42:22 PM

      you wouldn't be a bleeding heart liberal would ya?!?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:05:21 PM

        If you've ever read posts by olderwiser, you know he has both liberal and conservative views. His views are very grounded and spot-on. Not everyone who thinks the Bush administration is a grave mistake is a bleeding heart liberal. If that were true, then 75% of the country must be liberals right now. People are just sick of the Republican regime and want a change. McCain may not be as bad as Bush, true, but he's closely associated with Bush in everyone's minds, and that's not good.

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 8:55:28 PM

          Not true.

          The extreme right hates McCain... they are simply out of any better options.

          McCain is only associated to Bush in the minds of people who want him to be. McCain has gone against Bush and his own party to his own disadvantage.

          How many times has Obama gone against the will of the Democratic party? Riddle me that...

          Obama and the 'Dems are desperate to paint McCain as Bush v3.0. McCain is desperate to distance himself from Bush. The person who convinces the American public the best will probably win the election I think.

          Don't assume that Republicans are all big fans of Bush... because not all of us are.

          Some of us are even able to seperate unbiasedly some good from some bad. Most others only see the world in black and white.

  • Posted By: JWSmith90291 @ 06/18/2008 9:17:20 PM

    Wow, so we can look forward to deciding between a war hero with real-world experience, and a lying upstart politician who promises he's doing things differently, all the while doing things exactly the same as all the other politicians that came before him. He thinks we're all too stupid to figure it out, so that's why we cling to religion and guns.

    Fortunately, there are still enough of us out here who fully realize that being "close" to the right answer isn't what we need -- or what we want. In a President, it's deadly. Thanks for pointing out that Mr. Nobama isn't up to the job.

    • Posted By: hold2file @ 06/18/2008 9:57:03 PM

      Obviously JWSmith30291 believes that the Vietnam War was justified rather than a lie "justified" by Lyndon Johnson's false "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution."

      McCains "experience" is that he was gullible to believe in Johnson's lies and was tortured for it.

      I'll take Obama's judgement and rationality any day over McCain's experience.


      A Proof of Evolution is that dogs no longer jump out of moving pickup trucks. Eventually all of the Fundamentalist current Bush supporters will have their children killed or wounded in Iraq and we won't be able to buy any more US soldiers to go fight there.



      • Posted By: JWSmith90291 @ 06/19/2008 12:12:47 AM

        Can this be? Is this another apparent Democrat who relies on lying to try to make a point? No wonder Mr. Nobama is so comfortable lying about his releationships with "spiritual advisors" who rant hate from the pulpit. His constituents can't tell the truth from lies to start with.

        Mr. Nobama, incidentally, has not ever been right on defense policy. Never.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:14:24 PM

          Hmm well he was right when he didn't support invading Iraq on false pretenses.

          • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:27:11 PM

            But he didn't vote on the basis of "false pretenses". His opinion was that we shouldn't go to Iraq in spite of the evidence presented in the day.

            (i.e. He never disputed the idea that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and more importantly their programs).

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 5:58:10 PM

          To quote Hilary Clinton, "It takes a willing suspension of belief" to believe that Obama was part of that church and had Rev. Wright as his "mentor" (Obama's words) for over 20 years and yet was unaware of the fiery sermons and the corresponding thunderous applause to it

          One could say that he can't be guilty by "association". But another tuism exists in life... quite often "birds of a feather flock together".

          I find it almost impossible that Obama didn't know what went on at his church in the sermons.

    • Posted By: sedonakaren @ 06/18/2008 9:44:16 PM

      That young upstart has already been right three times on the subject of national defense when McBush has been wrong. Yes, McCain has "experience," but so far I don't see what good it's done him.

      Obama's figured out more of the complicated strategies necessary in 3 years than McBush has done in 26!

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:36:41 PM

    Where is the oil that Cheney and Wolfowitz said would pay for the three month war that they started? As it turned out, there wasn't even enough oil to pay for the flowers that they said that the grateful Iraqis would throw at our soldiers as they left for home after the three month war. How on God's earth do we let such liars continue to stay out of jail?

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 12:30:23 AM

      I do think that Iraq needs to start paying for their own reconstruction.

      But in case you didn't know, the situation is looking like it is stabilizing in Iraq. Security (the starting point for getting anything done) is getting better. Still not adequate... but improving.

      Iraq is now pumping oil at pre 2003 levels. And with no more UN Sanctions (supported by most countries and the centerpiece of Clinton's "containment" of Saddam Hussein... not an issue now) Iraq is free to sell as much oil (re: at these prices, more is better) as they see fit. After more than ten years of decay and neglect, their oil infrastructure is getting rebuilt. Their oil exports will likely continue to rise... which can only help the worlds supply pool of total oil and provide some sort of relief to us at the pump.

      2nd largest conventional oil reserves in the world coming back online... has to be viewed as a good thing.

      • Posted By: Galasso @ 06/19/2008 1:31:38 AM

        Agree. The Iraqi Ambassador to the US said that they indeed have the money and the motivation to begin rebuilding the decayed infrastructure that Saddam left as a legacy. He said that the difficulty lies in the present security situation that makes potential contractors in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East hesitant to bid and commit to these projects - right now. The interim measure he said was to transfer some of this money to the US and have the US initiate the first phases of reconstruction. This is a sensitive period for investors but the price of real estate in downtown Baghdad is markedly increasing and the security situation is improving - all good signs but something you rarely see on the news.

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 7:05:19 PM

          In the news today was some of the larger oil companies in the world negotiating with the Iraqi government to rebuild the infrastructure. It is progress and it is in the making.

          What I do know is that "security" is essential before any progress can be made in other areas... rebuilding the oil industry, water, power, political reconciliation, etc. Without security, the country cannot move forward.

          I was reading George Tenet's "Eye of the Storm". He had a chapter written on the peace process between Palestinians and Israel in the 90's. He said that everytime progress looked to be being made, an attack by one side or the other would derail the whole process and it'd be back to square one.

          This seems to be the case in Iraq. Security isn't "good" but has been getting measurably better. When/if security gets to the point that it's ok, real leaps of progress will/can be made in Iraq. And the fact that oil companies are getting to the point where they are starting to feel safe about the idea of doing business in Iraq is testament to the fact that things are improving there from a security standpoint.

  • Posted By: bigdman @ 06/19/2008 9:10:05 AM

    Hypocrisy? Telling the turth is Hypocrisy? The turth is the turth. Period.

    Call me on it, go ahead I am not afriad of you right wing nut jobs!! The future belongs to people of color, your days are numbered, (Yea to China, India and others!!). You idiots confuse military power with economic power. Read real history!! See what happens to an Empire that spends all its Resouces on war, while pushing voodoo economic policies that only further enrich the rich.

    Take your head out of you know what and read the book "Bad Money" by Kevin Phillips.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:48:36 PM

      Digest this:

      The US spent vast boatloads of money fighting WWII. It spent money that it quite simply didn't have.

      Furthermore, it spent more boatloads of money rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII. The Marshal Plan.

      So I do not think that you can make the blanket statement above and make it stick to every possible situation/scenerio.

      We don't know what the end result of Iraq will be. Period. People like to think that they "know" but nobody does.

      Here is one possible scenerio though... a secular democracy in the heart of the Middle East that is an example to all Muslims throughout the world what their countries could be. A place where radical extremism is confronted. A place that sells it's oil on the world market and provides some level of relief from the supply side of the economic scales.

      Contrast that to an alternate reality... one where Saddam Hussein was still in power. One where Iraq continued to be on the State Departments top list of terrorist sponsoring states (as it was in the Clinton years... long before Bush came to power). One which had simply "waited out" the UN's resolve and who now not only had deep ties to terrorism but was reconstituting it's WMD programs.

      Which future holds more promise? The possible futures of Iraq today or one where Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose to the entire world?

      Side note:

      It is widely speculated that Iran dropped it's ACTIVE quest for the nuclear bomb in 2003. Libya shocked the world and disclosed it's own nuclear aspirations in 2004 (one which the IAEA had no idea even existed). There is good reason to speculate that the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003 scared both of these countries straight.

      Actions have spin off reactions... both posative AND negative.

      The inability of people to see both sides of the equation is really a spectacle to behold.

      Ohhh... and the Bush Admin brought Pakistan away from being a rogue nation who had A.Q. Khan exporting nuclear technology throughout the world. There is yet one more "good" that the Bush Admin did that the Clinton Admin never made any progress on.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 12:27:38 PM

    "Change" is not a cliche. It is an absolute necessity. "Surge" is a cliche. Here, general, take this cliche and see what you can do with it. What a travesty.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 06/19/2008 6:41:50 PM

      surge is a simplification of a plan that is being implemented. Change is a wide open dream that has no grounding in reality. Tell me what the Change is? He has no idea he is running on the premis that Bush is so terrible that he can just scream change and the lemmings will fall in place.

      MCCain is a change from Bush also but atleast he has a plan. Obama just claims to want to work with everyone without ever stating what it is he will do.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:35:04 PM

      You may think that "change" is an absolute nessessity. And this may shock you, but I tend to agree. I actually think that McCain would represent a better President that Bush ever was.

      But every election cycle, "change" IS A CLICHE. If you have not come to this realization then you're susceptible to being duped by every new slick used car dealer every election.

      Surge a cliche?!? LOL! Are you kidding?!? The vast majority of the US public is now against the war in Iraq and has been for quite some time now. How exactly is it in your mind that "surge" is a cliche?!? It's not popular at the moment, nor has it ever been!

      LOLOLOLOLOL!

      (rolls eyes)

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 11:54:06 AM

    Petraeus is one of our shining stars out of West Point. Highly intelligent, effective, able. What a shame to be assigned the crap that has come to him from this historically notorious administration. Seldom has history been so predictable so soon. I was here when Truman was president, and I can assure you, Bush is no Harry S. Truman. It's the only thing left that he can claim, tainted by failure after failure, lie after lie, war crime after war crime, and he thinks that a few decades can shield him in this false claim to posterity that is not his to claim. The honor goes to our historians to come, not the desperate screwup who claims it now.

    • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 06/19/2008 12:43:46 PM

      every president lies?? and didn't truman drop nukes???? twice???want to compare japan and iraq?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:07:03 PM

        Also, almost every historian and military tactician, even Japanese ones, have agreed that the nukes were a necessary evil. Invading Japan would have cost millions of lives. Japan was actively fighting and bombing our military bases--we were fully engaged in WWII. COMPLETELY different from Iraq. Night and day.

        • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:30:21 PM

          9/11 *should* have taught us a few lessons. First and foremost in my mind is that gathering dangers should not be allowed to develop uncontested.

          In my mind, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the very definition of a "gathering danger". Years of Clinton's "containment" policies hadn't taken care of the root of the problem.

          We found no WMDs in Iraq (though absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence). We did find WMD programs that were in "suspension" which is very different that the destruction of these programs that the UN called for (uranium centrifuges... the same kind used in Iran today... hidden in Obeidi's backyard on the ecpress orders of the Hussein regime do not a "destroyed" WMD program make). In the much ballyhooed WMD Report in 2004, one of the major conclusions made was that Saddam Hussein had every intention of restarting his WMD programs once UN Sanctions were dropped and that support for UN Sanctions was faling apart.

          Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the very epitome of a "gathering" threat.

          Biggest lesson of 9/11 was lost on many apparently. Forget about that though... what is Paris Hilton wearing tonight?

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 3:32:24 PM

        Hey FatBoy, You can't compare Japan to Iraq as Japan ACTUALLY ATTACKED US....DOH!

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:06:47 PM

      The only reason why I mentioned Truman wasn't to try to draw some direct comparison to Bush and Truman... but to highlight a point that Truman was very unpopular but who history has judged fairly well. That is IT. There are no other comparisons that can be made. Radically different men in radically different times.

      If you want to try to make some sort of direct comparison or non comparison... hey... knock yourself out. I wouldn't.

      As for history being "predictable"... I'll trust the psychic down the street to predict the future rather than anybody here who tries to predict the future definitively. Cripes... the local psychic has more qualifications to predict the future than anybody here.

      History will judge the Bush Admin... maybe not even for another 20 years or so. Not anybody in the "here and now". Ohh how that must eat at some people... LOL!

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/19/2008 11:45:50 AM

    Hey, albertanseperatist, mark gershenson and albertanseparatist, you don't know how grateful I am that you came to the rescue and explained things about how well the war goes in Iraq and why, and about why we pressure Mexico to stop drugs but at the same time protect the Afghan opium crop. It was a pleasant surprise to read these this morn and ease my aged mind about such things. Fitful night's sleep.
    Noticing what you've bought in our government's policies in those countries reminded me that I have this bridge up there in Minneapolis that I don't need any more. It's a fixer upper, so I'm selling her cheap. Couple of million. You can fix her up and make a fortune in tolls. Best bargain I've had since I sold one in Brooklyn years ago to some smart enterprisers. If you are interested, as I am sure that you will be, such a bargain, just leave me a reply here and I will try to find a way that we can get in touch to iron out the details. Thanks again.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:23:03 PM

      Maybe you need to take a class in reading comprehension. Nowhere did I paint a rosy picture of how Iraq is today. It is far from perfect and a lot of work still needs to be done. But only a blindman doesn't realize or admit that Iraq has taken a measureable turn for the better in comparison to late 2006 when it appeared to be on the fast track to Civil War (in fact, some of you "experts" on the internet definitively declared "Civil War" to already be reality in Iraq).

      Iraq is far from resolved... but it is getting comparatively better. It is measureable in many different ways. As Hilary said... "It takes a willing suspension of belief" to think otherwise.

      I had not mentioned Afghan opium nor the Mexican border... so if you insist on engaging on those points it'll have to be with a figment of your own little imagination.

      And I haven't brought anything to "our government's policies". I am Canadian. I cannot vote (yet). Nice assumption though. Your assumptions are indicative of the rest of your arguement. A real tribute to them.

  • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 6:16:00 PM

    I love how the angry left (is there such a thing as a "moderate" left anymore?) does anythign from outright smearing Petraeus (MoveOn.org) to discrediting him, to only saying that he's a good man put in an impossible situation.

    Like somehow his expertise in the field is null and void or all the way to he is simply a mouthpiece of the Bush Admin.

    Heaven forbid we actually consider that he happens to believe in what he says and be more qualified to make statements than some of these armchair QBs of the general public.

    I believe that the left has been hijacked by the more extremist elements. And that really is a shame because I think that a healthy "left" is essential for good and meaningful debate and ideas in this country.

    I think that it was Politico a while back who ranked the various Senators on their voting records. Obama had the most "liberal" voting record. Hilary was something like the 10th most "liberal". McCain couldn't be measured completely, but on social issues was like 56th most "conservative".

    With Obama promising to work across the aisle and to "unite" Americans, I am highly sleptical that somebody who is the most liberal Senator in America somehow has the ability to do this in comparison to someone like McCain who has historically shown the ability to work across the aisle... sometime to even the scorn of his own party.

  • Posted By: rminden @ 06/18/2008 7:35:53 PM

    you know where you can pack that bunch of lies; obama fans!!!

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/18/2008 8:01:33 PM

      I agree.( I did n't read your comment at first). You just have to read first few lines of this material. ! such a BS newsmagazine!!

      • Posted By: Tyrantstalktoomuch @ 06/18/2008 9:41:52 PM

        I am so tired of listening to fools like you all. We tried letting the idiots rule, now it's time for people like you to shut the F up and get out of the way.

        • Posted By: adirondack_1 @ 06/18/2008 11:01:30 PM

          Making a mistake when in uncharted territory is better than copying a mistake and using a racist smartalec used car salesman to get the economy going by robbing the people who create all the jobs and giving it to all the non productive people. Thats redistribution of wealth by government mandate or better known as a dictatorship..

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/19/2008 4:15:59 PM

            Uh, what are you talking about? Hopefully not Obama. He doesn't support people who laze around on welfare, regardless of their race. He's continually said he believes everyone should get off their butts, get an education, and work.

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 1:31:37 PM

    Sen. John McCain told the American people Wednesday night, Jan.30, 2008 at the conclusion of the final Republican Presidential Debate broadcast live on CNN from the Ronald Reagan Library, that if elected president,



    "I will bring our troops home with honor."



    This declaration was no doubt said with (forked) tongue in cheek by McCain. In reality this closing statement of McCain is hard to believe when in 1993 as a ranking member of the Senate Select Investigating Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, McCain declared, the final chapter in the POW/MIA Investigation had been written and then issued the Final Report of his Committee in which he concluded:



    "We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today (1993). We have not hidden anything from the public. There is some evidence???though no proof to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America???s military involvement in Vietnam. The Committee found absolutely no credible evidence that the U.S. Government conspired to prevent the American people from knowing that Americans remained captive in Southeast Asia. (Report p. 468)

    Link to article: http://powermusicinc.com/

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 1:26:47 PM

    The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides
    Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files
    April 25, 2000
    By Sydney Schanberg

    PART 1 OF 2

    NEW YORK (APBnews.com) -- The voters who were drawn to John S. McCain in his run for the Republican presidential nomination this year often cited, as the core of his appeal, his openness and blunt candor and willingness to admit past lapses and release documents that other senators often hold back. These qualities also seemed to endear McCain to the campaign press corps, many of whom wrote about how refreshing it was to travel on the McCain campaign bus, "The Straight Talk Express," and observe a maverick speaking his mind rather than a traditional candidate given to obfuscation and spin.

    But there was one subject that was off-limits, a subject the Arizona senator almost never brings up and has never been open about -- his long-time opposition to releasing documents and information about American prisoners of war in Vietnam and the missing in action who have still not been accounted for. Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career. Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community, has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.


    Link to complete article: http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/schanberg_mccain.html

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/19/2008 1:20:31 PM

    McCain v. McCain: a master list of his flip-flops
    by: Steve Perry
    Thu May 08, 2008 at 9:13:29 AM

    Steve Benen at Carpetbagger Report has made a fresh batch of updates to his running list of John McCain's "evolving" positions on a long litany of issues.

    Excerpt:

    * McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

    * McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

    * McCain considered and did not consider joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004.

    * In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

    link to article:
    http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=250E51506446F50825E6214393E4CCE0?diaryId=3922

  • Posted By: speckelbelly @ 06/18/2008 8:00:30 PM

    GET REAL!! THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK HIS EYES OFF THE PRIZE~! NOW IT IS TIME FOR SOME REALISTIC ACTION! THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE IRAQ! WMDs!BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC/CONGRESS!
    THATS TREASON!BUSH SHOULD BE TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW RIGHT ALONG WITH HIS SUBORDINATES! PERIOD!BY THE WAY I AM AN OBAMA FAN!

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/18/2008 8:06:06 PM

      we will send you to Pakistan with Obomba. That is where he spend sometime in his twenties,,,probably he knows some Mujahuddins there!!!

      • Posted By: speckelbelly @ 06/18/2008 9:03:25 PM

        NICE TRY! HIS NAME IS OBAMA PROBABLY GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO LEARN HOW TO SPELL HIS NAME!
        AS FAR AS OBAMA LIVING THERE-NEVER HAPPENED!
        IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN A (WE WILL SEND YOU TO PAKISTAN BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THOSE PEO[PLE WHO CLING TO MY GUNS.NOT ONLY THAT BUT YOU HAD THE TERRITORY WRONG TOO!
        AFGANISTAN IS THE CORRECT LOCATION!!
        DEET TA DEE!

        • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/19/2008 12:52:49 PM

          It shows that you don't know much about Barry. Yes he did take a trip to ... where? say with me? Pakistan? Why in the world? There was no other country he wanted to visit and study?. yes I know, he wanted to know, how Islamic democracy works.. and why in particular Islamic? Click your cap lock and think. and don't teach me about Pakistan, i know the area well.

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 06/19/2008 12:23:38 PM

    the 11 dead pakistani "soldiers" who died were fighting alongside the taliban, wtf do they think they're kidding?

  • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 06/19/2008 9:38:37 AM

    Fixing is the operative word here. Move on dot org has been vindicated.

  • Posted By: R Lawrence @ 06/18/2008 10:55:03 PM

    Some day in the future we may all read the news that Bush, Chaney, and Company were tried for war crimes and are rotting in jail somewhere, but for now all we can hope is that these crooks and incompetent idiots will not finish distroying this planet between now and the end of their term in office. I think that the world is just hold its breath until then. The Bush Administration will go down in histroy as the Presidency that failed at everything except make their crooked friends richer at the expense of the American tax payer. They have been a total failure in Afganistan, Iraq, and all domestic and foreign policy effort. I hope that we elect Obama rather than McSame because if not, we will just see a continuation of Bush... and Chaney.

    • Posted By: AlbertanSeperatist @ 06/19/2008 12:23:31 AM

      Destroying the planet. Now that is a knee jerk, "the sky is falling" reaction.

      I hate definitive predictions that people make on the future but here I find myself making one:

      The day after the Bush Admin is out of power, you and I and everybody else will wake up and life will go on as usual. Bush and Co. won't be "distroying" the world.

      As for his Admin going down in history as a "failure"... oddly enough Truman's Admin ended with him being wildly unpopular. He is now regarded as having been a pretty decent President. People seem to be fixated on declaring the Bush Admin as going down as being the biggest failure in history. I'll let history make that determination... not people like you.

      • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/19/2008 1:38:50 AM

        Excellent point about Truman...There was an excellent piece on Truman broadcast on PBS about a month ago. I hope that they rebroadcast that because there are lessons to be learned from him and his administration...

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/18/2008 10:54:39 PM

    It's so strange that we put pressure on the President of Mexico to do more to keep drugs from coming into our country from Mexico, but we do not disturb the opium crop in Afghanistan. Do we think that all of the heroin from there will go to those countries who did not join our coalition? Is it Bush's revenge against those who didn't cooperate with his madness? We have soldiers who are under orders not to trample on the opium crop in Afghanistan so as to mollify the growers. Somebody, help on this blog. Answer these questions. Set me straight. What am I missing?

    • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/19/2008 1:27:27 AM

      You are missing the catch 22 situation of being in that part of the world vs Mexico which is south of us. Remember, we are not doing a terrific job in Mexico either...All of this Opium ban is wishful thinking.

      You are not going to being able to stop the Opium trade in either Mexico or Afghanistan. What other types of crops can make as much money as Opium, and what type of legal crops can be grown in Afghanistan or Mexico that would be as profitable?

      Our troops are spread so thin, how are they going to enforce a ban on Opium? Your question is a good one...in summary we are SOL

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse