31. Take the oil, kill them all and let GOD sort them out. Get it over with save the taxpayers some money and save some american lives at the same time, and be done with it. Wash our dirty little hands and reap oil booya!!!

Timothy at 10:14PM on May 28th 2007

32. Take the Pledge

All Presidential Candidates should make pledges like those below. If they refuse, then you should refuse to vote for them.

1. No More Oil Wars.

2. Work for independence from foreign oil on day one.

3. No more wars for corporate profit.

4. No more secret deals for $4 per gallon gas.

5. No more Chicken Hawks promoting wars of choice when they themselves avoided combat.

6. Make government green--if you can't make what you have the most control over green, I don't care about your plans to make the country green.

7. No more torture.

8. No more lying about torture.

9. No more re-defining torture.

10. No more drunken hunting.

11. No more secret deals with big corporations to divide up the spoils before the war even starts.

Poetry at 9:39PM on May 28th 2007

33. # 17
The Good Dr. Asturi

I read your post and was overwhelmed by all the far left web sight talking points. Lets see;

Deliberate wickedness check
low life criminal Bush check
sheer profit check
relentless pig check
raped our constitution check
false pretenses check
impeach those pigs in the white house check
belong in jail not in office check

So Dr. do you have any independent thoughts? Did you feel compelled to inform us you are a Dr. so as to make your spew seem more creditable?
As for facing horrors many professionals with just as much education as you had to face the stark reality of burning to death or jumping only to hit the pavement at 100-110 mph a minute or so later. Im guessing they would vehemently disagree with you.

Do they have this factoid on your left wing web sights:

Successful terrorist attacks:

Clinton 5 Bush 1

FDR was president for 10 years before Pearl Harbor and history has not blamed him for the success of the Japanese attack. Clinton ignored terrorism for 8 years dispite terrorist attack after terrorist attack on:

The World Trade Center 1993
Air Force barracks in Saudia Arabia
Our embassies in Africa
U.S.S. Cole

Bush was President for only 9 months before September 11th. I think history will be kinder to Bush than Clinton.

Based on the Clinton years when the next terrorist attack comes and Bush is vindicated you and your ilk will be the Copperheads of history.

So please, good Dr., if you are going to dazzle us with your Dr. brilliance leave out the left wing BS spew.
But then what argument would you have?????

PETE at 7:42AM on May 29th 2007

34. "Clinton ignored terrorism for 8 years dispite terrorist attack after terrorist attack on:"

"The World Trade Center 1993"
"Air Force barracks in Saudia Arabia"
"Our embassies in Africa"
"U.S.S. Cole"

Come come now Pete. I understand your distaste of titles. I do not necessarily agree with you, but I do understand. Title or not, the facts should not be skewed to demonstrate culpability. Consider the following:

Apr. 18, 1983 - Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
Oct. 23, 1983 - Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
Dec. 12, 1983 - Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
Mar. 16, 1984 - CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped
Sep. 20, 1984 - Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
Dec. 3, 1984 - Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
Jun. 14, 1985 - Hijacking of TWA Flight 847
Dec. 21, 1988 - Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

Does it really make any difference who was on watch when certain events occur? If it does, then Clinton is not the only one who has some 'splaining' to do.

vegastracon at 2:38PM on May 29th 2007

35. #34 Vegastracon

I read your post and enjoy the cerebral sparring.

The key difference between all the terrorist attacks you have listed (As a Navy Corpsman stationed in Camp LeJeune, N.C. I knew people in the barracks) and the Clinton era is this:

The terrorist organizations that were responsible for these attacks were small. Hezbulah/Hamas was responsible for the Beirut bombings. At the time they were seen only as a regional terrorist threat. Hezbulah/Hamas were not seen as having the capability to attack the continental U.S. They were delt with at the time as an international law enforcement issue.

I'm sure you know where I'm going now.

Early in Clinton's term Al-Qeada, an international terrorist organization formed by OBL from contacts he made in Afganistan, displayed the resolve, intent and ability to attack us here at home.
The truck bomb in the lower level parking garage was intended to blow out the foundation and bring the entire building down instantly. At 2 or so in the afternoon when the bomb went off the building was full and the death toll easily would have been double or triple 911.

The difference here is the clear and present danger of terrorists with the intent and capability to attack us at home.
Everything about this attack stands out as different and is the turning point Clinton ignored.
Unlike all the attacks you quoted Clinton was the first and only (at the time) president to face this terrorist threat, at home, and his response was to continue to cut our military and intell services to fund his domestic spending adgenda.
Al-Qeada continued to come after us outside the U.S. time and time again throughout his presidency and he just ignored it, period. Ok, so he did fire a few wag the dog cruise missiles during the Whitewater and Lewinski scandals.
Blaming Bush seems the vouge thing to do now.
Our children will write the history books about the decisions we make today. They will have the facts, just the facts (except what Sandy Berger distroyed) and not the political opinions we have today.
FDR was president for nearly ten years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. History has not blamed FDR for the success of the Japanese attack.
Bush was president for only 9 months and had yet to pass his own budget. He was working with what Clinton had left him.
History, I believe, will be much kinder to Bush than Clinton. So I stand by my facts:

Clinton 5 Bush 1

I don't believe I skewed the facts. I just did't waste my time elaborating on them to the good Dr.

PETE at 11:16PM on May 29th 2007

36. Pete, I am not discounting your position as it pertains to President Clinton's lack of action to address terrorist attacks. Actually, I am embracing your position because it supports my position. If you do not address the problem when it is small, the problem will only get worse.

The terrorist attacks that I listed were not dealt with as they should have been. They too were ignored. And the problem only got worse. In each instance, inadequate response invited more attacks. In each instance, inadequate response fueled even greater confidence to pursue future attacks.

U.S. embassies are American soil. Military barracks overseas are American soil. U.S. warships are American soil. (And by the way, CV-61, 1982-1984). None of which should be treated more sacred than the other. When the first bomb exploded at the first U.S. embassy, we should have then opened an industrial sized can of 'whoop ass'! But we didn't. And so on. And so forth.

OK, so let's say that President Clinton's past policies are to blame. Pete, how does that blame address the present and beyond? Pete, how does 'blaming' President Clinton past policies further our efforts to destroy our enemies forces? It doesn't. It's no more so than me saying that it was really President Reagan who first dropped the ball. It's pointless.

I've pointed out in another blog that the objective of war is 'to destroy the enemies armed forces and their will to fight'. What we are doing in Iraq does neither. Who should we 'blame'?

vegastracon at 1:55PM on May 30th 2007

37. All I have to say Why don/t Bush get in a uiform and get a weapon and go see what our boys are doing I bet he would glady order all our boys and girls back home when he has to dodge the lead flying over his head and trying to dodge the road side booms.

Joseph at 8:07PM on May 30th 2007

38. # 36 Vegastracon

You are right that it is pointless to assign blame. Assigning blame does allow me to make a point about how we got where we are. I find however that most people know very little about history.
I find the far left to be insulated from reality by an academic eliteism. John Kerry's "end up in Iraq' comment is a perfect example. He forgot his PC manners and let the truth slip out.
In dealing with far left Bush bashing liberals who spew invectives and unsupported left wing rhetoric that has been repeated so many times they believe it is a fact, (650,000 dead Iraqis is a good one) I find history and facts usefull.

We are now nearly two generations removed from the end of the draft. A larger and larger segment of the population has never served in the military.
In the military we remember the 1980's terrorist attacks and the The First Gulf War cease fire terms that Clinton pissed away because those events DIRECTLY affected our lives. For a larger and larger segment of the population what goes on in the world is a concern only in how it pertains to them.
IE: End the war so gas prices will go down.

I will be the first to agree with the most hatefull Bush Basher that this war has not gone well and mistakes have been made.

Based on history I do not see anything, anything at all that events in the Middle East will improve if we leave.
After we pummeled Saddam in 1991 the world saw our military might and drew up new plans. Our last defeat, at the hands of democrats, was a hit and run gorilla insurgency in Vietnam.

Iran is fueling this insurgent gorilla war, Iran is a great example of a mature radical Islam terrorist organization that has evolved into a terrorist government. (In response to #19 Iran had no trouble selling oil in 1979 and a terrorist state in Iraq, should we leave, will have no trouble either.)
Iran sees the success of a democracy next door in Iraq as a life and death issue. They will not be able to maintain their repressive regime with a thriving democracy next door.
Another budding democracy in the Middle East is Lebanon. Syria is supporting Hamas in Lebanon. Hamas is a political party in Lebanon. Terrorists have evolved from the PLO. Hamas starts a war with Israel and then hands out Iranian money amid the destruction to buy the hearts and minds so as to increase their political power. By pushing Hamas out of missle range Israel is indirectly helping Iran/Syria gain power in Lebanon.
Iran is fueling the insurgency in Iraq to do the same thing Iran/Syria are doing in Lebanon. With the oil Iran has and the oil in Iraq they will have great influence over, with another terrorist government in Iraq, they could manipulate the worlds economies.
The price of oil and gas goes up with the news of a broken pipe, refinery shut down or rebel attacks in Nigeria. With supplies so tight Iran/Iraq could conceivably cut oil production in half and wait for the price to double. Any rise in oil/gas prices instantly sucks billions directly out of the economy.
Berneake regulates the economy with intrest rates that take 6 months to filter through the economy. By controling so much oil Iran/Iraq are in the drivers seat for much of the worlds economy. A free Iraq keeps large amounts of oil out of the hands of terrorists and allows us to buy a steady supply of oil on the world market at the going rate. Just like Kuwait.
How do we win? General Petrus is an expert on counter insurgency. Maybe he is the General Grant Bush has been looking for. I wont pretend I have the answers, I dont.
I believe Iran is the key. We are not at war with a country we are at war with an idealology that has stated clearly they what to kill us and wipe Israel off the map. If we leave Iraq where do we hide?

Hope I did't bore you. Go Navy!

PETE at 11:48PM on May 30th 2007

39. "Iran sees the success of a democracy next door in Iraq as a life and death issue."

Truth be told Pete, Iran is not alone in that sentiment. Democracy in the Middle East is not looked upon favorably by any of the major Arab players.

"If Iraq Ask, We'll Leave?"

Pete, I caught your attention with message #34. Let me point out to you that I have addressed you in earlier postings. Specifically, message #18. I bring this to your attention only to say that the contents of the discussion then remain relevant.

vegastracon at 6:05PM on May 31st 2007

40. #18 Vegastracon

I will use your format: Presuppose that terrorist will be able to:

1) Take over Iraq.
I believe terrorists have evolved from the PLO. Hamas has infiltrated the government in Lebanon and I believe Iran will do the same in Iraq. Iran is essentially a terrorist organizaton masquerading as
a legitamate government. Someone will always come forward to fill the power vacuum. I believe Iran will support and influence that someone.

2) Sell oil on the open market.
Iran did in 1979 when their organization was far less mature than it is now. I dont believe terrorists with AK-47's in Iraq will be trying to sell oil. If terrorists come out on top in Iraq they will copy what Iran did with Iranian support.

3)"If Iraq asks, well leave.
If Iraq has a high profile parliament debate and they pass a resolution for us to leave and their president asks us to leave, then yes we should go.
Would that not be the same as our process over the current troop funding?
A majority of Iarq's parliament signed a DRAFT bill for a timetable only means they are talking about it, not asking us to leave.

4) How many terrorists are we talking about?
Radical Islam, Al-Qaeda and terrorists are the same. They come and go into and out of Iraq. Hit and run attacks have never required large numbers. The green zone is the equivilant to the U.S. embassy in Saigon, Tet 1968. The media here would display any attack just like 1968, probably with the same results. Sadly it takes large numbers to protect a large area from a small force that can pick and choose where to attack.
Timetables the democrats propose just tell the terrorists where to focus their attacks for maximum effect.

5) Then we find OBL and kill him.
Great propaganda but changes nothing.

6) We then go after the sponsors of terrorism and wipe them out too.
You know that is Iran, right? I agree. I hope not but I think we will end up there.

It has been nice talking with you. God Bless

Pete

PETE at 9:23PM on May 31st 2007