Bush and the permanent campaign | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Bush and the permanent campaign

Monday, August 11, 2008

Comment

Dear editor, praise God; unlikely people can wake up! Former White House Press Secretary and Bush loyalist, Scott McClellan, in a just-released book, confesses that instead of effective and honest government, Americans were subjected by the Bush administration to a “permanent campaign” that was “all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage” and that Bush relied on an aggressive “political propaganda campaign” instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war.

Nevertheless, because today’s Democratic Congressional leaders lack moral fortitude and have not impeached George W. Bush, the Bush presidential fiasco continues merrily on its perverse way.

On Memorial Day, George W. showed up at the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia for a “patriotic photo op” and told an audience of veterans and their families that the men and women buried in the cemetery were “an awesome brand of people and the U.S. is blessed to have such citizens.” Well, as a 76-year-old American citizen who grew up during the Roosevelt-Truman era, and who has retained a democratic conscience despite all the political-economic forces in the U.S. that have continuously worked to create a population of conformist sheep and mindless consumers, I denounce President Bush for using falsehoods and deception to mislead the nation into an illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq that has caused the unnecessary deaths of more than 4,000 “awesome Americans” to date, and left thousands more maimed for life.

Al Cardwell

Napa

76 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:00 AM:

" Sorry Al, as usual you are wrong yet again: Congress authorized the war in Iraq, it was not "illegal". You can even read it online. It lists numerous factual reasons for removing Saddam from power; many formulated during the Clinton administration.

With the recent political changes in Iraq, it is obvious that President Bush and our troops are succeeding; that Iraq is becoming a stable and productive country. Worldwide, deaths from terrorism are decreasing and the islamofascists have failed to mount any domestic US attacks.

It must drive Liberals like you crazy to know that the President was correct and history will record it as such... "

funnyme wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:26 AM:

" Mr. Cardwell,
Thank you for your service to our country.

Al,
How does it feel now that you got your "patriotic letter to the editor op" too? "

antipc wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:37 AM:

" Al,
You should be happy that President Bush had the foresight to move the battlefield for the war on terrorism to that giant litter box referred to as the Middle East, (the homeland of evil). A true patriot would back the policies that have protected us from attacks since 9/11. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:35 AM:

" Kevin - Invading another country without a UN mandate to do so is illegal under international law. Mr. Bungle promised on video tape to get that UN resolution -- but crawfished out of his promise when he knew he would not get that UN resolution -- and attacked anyway.

Germany started WWII by invading Poland, a country that had done nothing to Germany -- kind of like Iraq had done nothng to the USA. When that WWII was over, the Nuremberg Trials were held to punish those people who started that preemptive war. Many of those criminals were hung or imprisoned for many years.

Mr. Bungle LIED to Congress and the American people to get the Authorization to Use Military Force. I am sorry but Mr. Bungle is definitely eligible for prosecution under international law -- just like Slobodan Milosevic and Herman Goering as examples of other bad guys.

Hopefully -- if there is any justice for the thousands of squandered American lives ant the tens of thousand of dead Iraqis -- after Mr. Bungle has left office, we'll get to see him and his cronies in orange jumpsuits at the Hague.

This is one proud US military veteran who would gladly chip in to help fund the extradition and prosecution of Mr. Bungle and all of his cronies. Maybe a little prison time for these cretins will warn off others with dreams of being famous as a 'War President'.

Oh, and there's that little thing about torture authorizing that Mr. Bungle and cronies signed off on. Waterboarding got the Japanese that did it in WWII hanged too.

Eighty-four days until the election -- tick-tick-tick!

~Ruff "

Dwayne wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:50 AM:

" Apparently computer literate people who hate Bush and keep dragging the impeachment mantra out, could have saved us all from shaking our head, by simply reading the articles of impeachment that are readily available on line.

Are the articles of impeachment an "inconvenient truth'...??? "

antipc wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Ruff,

What does international law say about terrorists hijacking planes & flying them into buildings, killing 3000 innocent Americans? What did the impotent U.N. do about it?

Exactly! "

a teacher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Usually, I skip over the "impeach Bush" letters, however, I was fooled by the permanent campaign title. I was struck by the usual ditto-head tactics:

First, Lie. "It lists numerous factual reasons for removing Saddam from power". The only legitimate reason for war is self defense. It has been widely reported that Saddam was no threat to the USA. The Suskind book is only the most recent revelation. The most damning thing is that the Bush Administration Knew that Saddam was toothless, but cherry picked the data to make him seem more dangerous.

Next: The "Congress authorized the war in Iraq" claim. Yes, based on lies distortions and cooked data, Bush managed to bully a frightened public into war.

Then: question the integrity of anyone who questions policy. Call them unpatriotic or Bush haters.

Don't forget to claim success. The "success" of the Iraq War is still in question and certainly tainted by our failure in Afghanistan where the people who actually attacked us are still alive, active and making trouble. AND... do the ends justify the means?

Finally when all else fails, blame Clinton.

Priceless... "

a teacher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:42 AM:

" And then there is the AntiPC approach. Let's shout 9/11 as if THAT has something to do with Iraq. "

gatekeeper wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:50 AM:

" ruff~ you are so cute. And when you are on 3,2,1...you will start again with 1460, 1459...take a breath in between. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Too many people have already forgotten the UN Sanctions would not have been extended, that was clearly stated by France, China and Moscow, Saddam planed on rebuilding his WMD stockpiles in massive quantities upon the expiration of sanctions…Saddam was indeed a growing and gathering threat, subsequently, voluminous Iraqi documentation confirmed his intent to rearm, his links to al Qaeda and his passing WMD technology to Sudan which transferred to al Qaeda while OBL was residing in Sudan.

Saddam ruled by the Arab proverb…’the enemy of my enemy, is my friend’…up until the liberation terrorism to Saddam had been a very low risk business….imagine, and we certainly know our leftists have plenty imagination capacity, a fully rearmed Saddam today….oil would be $300.00 a barrel, al Qaeda would be infinitely more deadly….and Al would still be ranting and raving.

The world is better today than before the liberation and the Iraqi people overwhelming support our presence…no thanks to those who politicized this war to levels not seen since Vietnam…not too surprising many being the same people. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Glenroy and the Right Wing Fantasy Factory. Sounds like a kids book.

Most of his accusations come from talking points of a White House that would say or do anything to justify this war.

My favorites are:"subsequently, voluminous Iraqi documentation confirmed his intent to rearm, his links to al Qaeda and his passing WMD technology to Sudan which transferred to al Qaeda while OBL was residing in Sudan." Not really. Bin laden was s much an enemy of Saddam as he was of the West. The Enemy of my enemy is at best a specious argument.

The other is:"the Iraqi people overwhelming support our presence…"

They actually overwelmingly support our leaving. "

kevin wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:10 PM:

" By Charles W. Corey
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- Residents of Baghdad "overwhelmingly believe" -- by nearly a two-to-one margin -- that removing Saddam Hussein from office was worth the hardships they might have personally endured since the coalition military action began in their country, according to a poll by The Gallup Organization "

Kevin Eggers wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:26 PM:

" From the Wikipedia Encyclopedia

“Declaration of War by the United States”

“Current status of the U.S. debate”

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that greatly increased American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolution that started the War in Iraq. Some question the legality of these authorizations of force. Many who support declarations of war argue that they keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.

Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that AUMFs satisfy constitutional requirements and have an established historical precedent (see Quasi-War). Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:56 PM:

" I guess that depends on who you ask. Another poll done by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center , found 90% of Iraqis feeling better off before Saddam was removed.

More recently (March 08), an ORB/Channel 4 (British) survey found 70% of Iraqis would like to see all foreign forces withdrawn now.

Actually, a look at all the more recent polls of Iraqis seem to indicate that they are not so happy with the invasion and occupation. How old is your poll, Kevin? "

Raven wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:57 PM:

" So there is no Iraq War, we have rather, an Iraq Authorized Use of Military Force, just rolls of the tongue doesnt it....well, just as good as the police action in Korea I guess...

The AUMFs are a sly way of avoiding asking Congress for a Declaration of War...which presidents know they wouldn't get. "

russ wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:32 PM:

" Al & Ruff,

Wind 'em up and the same old stuff rolls out every time. I get so tired of Liberals looking in the rear view mirror.yayyb

Where is pinkplasticflamingo when we need him?

Whack a mole.

I vote for looking forward and picking a president who will move the US ahead in the right direction.

-Energy policy of doing all options, including drilling, wind and solar.

-Protecting the American homeland

-Growing the economy "

glenroy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:35 PM:

" Teach….nothing seems to bother a liberal more than an American success story…nothing….whether in business, sports or politics…having worked with many it can kindly be explained as intellectual arrogance…though I’ve never personally notice any unusually intelligent liberals amongst the many I interned with….but they were all bitter to the core.

You obviously don’t know too many Americans who have served in Iraq….more than a few I happened to teach and coach, and of those not one felt the mission wasn’t absolutely necessary….4 volunteered for 2nd tour and one is now on his 3rd tour which required extraordinary effort on his part…maybe they listened to too many Democrats while they were in High School…then Democrats were claiming Saddam was clearly the greatest threat to American security…of course they also claimed Clinton didn’t sauté cigars…

Kevin’s comments were specifically Baghdad….the Kurds average around 90% support….the Shia support has never dropped below 50%….do the math.

Well….it is what it is…the remarkable thing about this war is the underwhelming support Democrats have extended, despite the fact that it was their policy to unilateral remove Saddam in the first place…which of course with their then overwhelming support President Bush implemented.

The moral this war….as Lincoln knew well…never trust em….they will undermine, lie and distort for political gain…even surrender after victory. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:08 PM:

" Al, as usual you are wrong on your facts. The invasion of Iraq was authorized not only by our Congress but also by a UN resolution.

And Scott McClellan, whom you seem to adore, is a thoroughly disgraced individual who apparently had full knowledge of, and participated in the White House decisions for years. Now that he sees a chance to make big money with his 'tell all' book, suddenly his conscience has forced him to come clean? Give me a break! "

Raven wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:11 PM:

" glenroy, did a Democrat frighten you as a child?.....

how many people one knows who have gone to Iraq is irrelevant....as for the American success....66 percent of American oppose the war.....and while Democrats are the largest party, they only account for about 42 percent of registered voters....so there is probably one or two Repubs in there.....as a matter of fact, polls done in april indicates 24 percent of republicans oppose the war... "

a teacher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:12 PM:

" GlenRoy: And yet the data about Iraqis says differently. I actually named sources.

As for:The moral this war….as Lincoln knew well…never trust em….they will undermine, lie and distort for political gain…even surrender after victory. " sounds more like the current crop of conservative Republicans, except you could add delusional to the list. Personally I think Lincoln would shake his head in sorrow and disbelief at what his party has become. "

kevin wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:35 PM:

" For once we agree ateacher: Lincoln WOULD shake his head in disbelief. HE didn't pussyfoot around like President Bush, when Lincoln didn't like someone's criticism, to heck with Habeus Corpus, he threw them in jail or expelled them to Canada... "

John Richards wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:37 PM:

" United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously, was billed as the UN's final warning to Saddam. What did Saddam do? He thumbed his nose at it, just as he had done with all the previous UN resolutions. What was left on the table except an invasion?
Before the Democrats turned into pansies, a famous Democratic president said "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
The time to use the stick had come.
As a Vietnam vet I am proud of President Bush's resolve in this matter. This time we're not gonna pull out precipitously and let the bad guys overrun the country that our soldiers spilled their blood in. "

antipc wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:29 PM:

" Glenroy,
All the libs writing here want the USA to loose the war, that is why they focus on the legitimacy rather than the actual results of our efforts; Vietnam all over again. The Satan that will never show his face is revered while brave Americans fight to free the oppressed & keep the inevitable off of American soil. Winning on the battlefield means nothing if you can show a loss in the media (Stalin, Marx, & Hitler used this to their advantage in reverse). Praising soldiers while questioning our motives is not patriotism it demoralizes our troops & enables our enemies. When hating President Bush interferes with our ability to defend ourselves as well as the defenseless, we are in trouble "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:32 PM:

" Kevin - With the recent political changes in Iraq, it is obvious that President Bush and our troops are succeeding; that Iraq is becoming a stable and productive country. Worldwide, deaths from terrorism are decreasing and the islamofascists have failed to mount any domestic US attacks.

Are you sure your name is Kevin?

I could swear it was Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. "

Raven wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:45 PM:

" hate to burst yur bubble JR, that was teddy roosevelt ...A republican.....

and when the head of the UN inspection team asked for a couple of weeks time to complete the inspection which would have shown there were NO WMDs....one might say Bush thumbed his nose at the experts and went ahead anyway...

Seems like there are a lot of supposed champions of freedom here that are more than willing to chuck away their rights at the drop of a hat.....one of the most despicable things Lincoln ever did was suspending habeas corpus.... "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:00 PM:

" Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I repeat, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The Project For A New American Century or PNAC wanted to invade Iraq during the Clinton administration and even wrote a letter to him urging him to do it.

90 page Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, is written by the Project for the New American Century. It calls for unprecedented hikes in military spending, American military bases in Central Asia and Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes, abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, total control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals. (Source)

"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, asst. director of the PNAC about what was meant by the "need for a new Pearl Harbor": "They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event," neither the politicians nor the military would have approved. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:09 PM:

" Why does this remind me of arguing with an adolescent know it all….

March 2008 BBC/ABC Survey

Were American’s justified removing Saddam?
Yes
Kurds 87%
Shia 65%
Sunni Arabs 28%

The survey stated ‘no’ percentages in the ‘context’ of a title ‘Disgruntled Iraqis‘…when in fact it is a portion of a small portion of ‘Iraqi Sunni Arabs‘…. never mentions the fact that Kurds and Shia equate to 85% of the total population…so it‘s a disgruntled portion of less than 15% that makes the survey Headline…and of course libs run to the NVR and start the silly name calling…such is the state of their actual subject knowledge.

It’s a common problem with polling to intentionally slant to obtain the desired results, in this case that didn‘t even work so the slanted the Headliner. If generically asked would Iraqis like the Americans to leave….you’ll get your answers regardless of sect. Who wouldn‘t prefer to manage their affairs?…Who isn‘t miserably in the middle of war? Who now has freedom without sacrifice? There isn’t a single Iraqi survey that supports Americans just picking up and going home….though it’s been polled dozens of times…this data is completely ignored…like ignoring 100 to 200 billion barrels of known domestic crude…

When asked would you like the Americans to stay until the country is safe…the overwhelming majority of all sects is… yes….combined with justifying Saddam removal, another overwhelmingly yes… add it all up and weight the data….that is the process…that is the only accurate objective method, though objectivity has nothing to do with this debate nor does understanding Iraqi opinion.

Kevin…thanks for the hand, silly me to assume they would actually make an honest effort… "

glenroy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:11 PM:

" antipc...loud and clear...amen bro. "

russ wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Bauhausfan,

The reason the politics are working in Iraq is that THE SURGE IS WORKING. Al Qaeda is on the run, the US and Iraqi government forces are in control on most of the country. We have killed and captured so many extremists that they are dead or gone!

The deaths worldwide are down BECAUSE WE ARE KILLING the Islamic jihad extremists.

I think that kevin is actually Rush in disguise. They both have such common sense and want America to prevail. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:58 PM:

" So we're back to the usual tactics. Misinformatin and name calling. Hrere I am at the Global policy forum website reading about a dozen polls about Iraq by Iraqis and not one agrees with GlenRoy's or Kevin's poll.

But don't acknowledge a contradiction in the data, call the person who dares to disagrees an adolescent. It doesn't really bother me, it's the same old nonsense they've been feeding us for years. Most of America is, fortunately, done with it.

My guess is that 30 yars from now Americans will be shaking their heads and asking :"what were they thinking?". "

Raven wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:06 PM:

" there is a technical term for the polls they are citing......fiction "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:45 AM:

" In answer to your last question teach...the answer is simple..

THEY WEREN'T

I sincerely believe MOST "THINKING", Thats a keyword folks, Americans are fed up with being lied to, bullied and manipulated. Unfortunately, we will not hear the end of the status quo until its no longer the status quo.

I'm sure you remember the phrase...Absolute power corrupts absolutely..

.I'm sure the next thing the neos will support will be mandatory implantation of the RIFD chips,

( oops the RIFDS are already in Cable tv and new passports)

The Amero, The North American Union and again to suspend Habeas Corpus..Or course NOT to do so would be simply un American..Bush signing the NAU was in fact TREASON! Look it up! I'm really interested in how the neos can justify that..I'm waiting lemme have it! LOL!~

I wish some would wake up...one can dream though. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 12, 2008 6:31 AM:

" I did not say anything in my post about IMPEACHMENT... Nancy Pelosi has successfully headed that off and protected George W. Bungle from being run out of office during his term.

I was discussing EXTRADITION for War Crimes... a far different thing that the US president can not pardon.

One of Slobodan Milosevic's buddies was just recently arrested after hiding for years, because there is no statute of limitations on War Crimes.

This past two weeks it was revealed that the Bungle Administration FORGED DOCUMENTS to make the case for the Iraq invastion. Forgery is lying on paper. And if Americans do that at a bank, what happens?

The rantings of the 'Usual Suspects' in Napa won't change the fact that we must purge the War Criminals from our midst or the sacrifice of the over 4,100 American lives for Mr. Bungle's lies will not be washed clean. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:34 AM:

" Global Policy…LOL....LOLX10.…....that's good....that's real good. You can save what little time and effort you put into research and go to the sources.... Al Jazeera and Radio Iran they're both just as objective...….LOLx100.…good...real good.

People wonder why so many American’s distrust Democrats on critical issues….maybe even after voting for and winning a war... they still undermine the effort....after $5.00 gas they still won't drill for oil....LOL Keep it up. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:51 AM:

" " Why does this remind me of arguing with an adolescent know it all….

March 2008 BBC/ABC Survey

Were American’s justified removing Saddam?
Yes
Kurds 87%
Shia 65%
Sunni Arabs 28%

The survey stated ‘no’ percentages in the ‘context’ of a title ‘Disgruntled Iraqis‘…when in fact it is a portion of a small portion of ‘Iraqi Sunni Arabs‘…. never mentions the fact that Kurds and Shia equate to 85% of the total population…so it‘s a disgruntled portion of less than 15% that makes the survey Headline…and of course libs run to the NVR and start the silly name calling…such is the state of their actual subject knowledge. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Another right wing tactic: when ever the data doesn't agree with your point, attack the source, through scary sounding names around, heap scorn. Don't forget to repeat the same lies, a lie repeated enough will be believed, it worked for Bush and D*ck Cheney.

Too bad there are other facts that support the data I presented. For instance, the Iraqi government is pressing hard for a firm date for US withdrawal. They don't want "aspirational time lines" they want it in writing. They don't want bases, they don't want troops, they want us out.

Why does this remind me of arguing with an adolescent know it all…. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Global Policy…LOL….silly…silly….I’ll continue to keep these comment generic to pass the NVR litmus test which I happen to support, though don‘t always exercise self control….and this one really tested it.…

The Global Policy of the United Nations….GP-UN is the correct acronym, GP-UN has always been an extreme left agenda driven socialist/Marxist mouth piece, anti-capitalist, anti-west and very anti-American…if I felt like I could give you the entire history of this propaganda production company dating back to an internship with Amnesty International using our reports…bullseye…took a double take but bullseye. .might just be time to dust off the NLF Flag? Maybe even dig out the old The Little Red Book? ‘One, two, three…what are fighting for, don’t ask me I don’t give a….’

The BBC and ABC are rightwing now too…egads….LOL….too much Mr. Magoo for you…way too much Magoo…blind as a bat too…just like Magoo….we use to have a lot in common…though I never swallowed the cool aid…just acted like it. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:52 AM:

" 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, which I was against. Saddam was a seperate issue. The world is better off with out him. I am not a fan of Pres. Bush, but I have followed the news, and I have never seen him say that we went into Iraq because of 9/11. I knew if we invaded Iraq, we would be dealing with exactly what has happened. BUT, we invaded....We broke it, we own it.... The U.S has a many times started things and then cut and run when the going got tough. We cannot continue this legacy. We now owe the people of Iraq stability before we leave. To do anything else is reprehensible. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Sometimes I wonder if glenroy actually reads the things he claims or just makes stuff up.

I looked at the actual survey results of the BBC/ABC poll he mentioned, which can be found at the website I mentioned or on the BBC. According to the survey, when asked whether the US was justified in invading Iraq, half say yes, half say no(page 5).

If you dig deeper, you will find that the majority of Iraqi's polled have little confidence (page 10) in the Coalition's Forces and believe they are making things worse(page 15). They give US forces little credit for improvements and 70/30 oppose their presence. No one wants them there, 38% want them gone now, the rest will wait until various conditions are met.

Bottom line, they really don't want us there and would like us to leave. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:36 PM:

" Teacher, the Iraqi government request for a pull-out timetable is of rather recent origin, and it reflects the growing stabilization of that country.
I would not by surprised if Bush comes out with some sort of timetable before the November election. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Raven, it doesn't burst my bubble to admit that Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. That certainly doesn't detract from the wiseness of his "big stick" saying. Thank God his cousin FDR was not afraid to use that big stick after the 12/7/41 event. Interesting fact, the Pearl Harbor death toll (2350) was somewhat less than the 9/11/01 death toll (2752), yet the latter stirred up much less response in the American people. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 6:35 PM:

" JR: You are right, this a more recent development that does indeed reflect the success of the surge. That said, the people of Iraq have pretty consistently wanted us out (check the responses in the poll Glenroy was kind enough to recommend, they list the results of the previous 4 polls).

As for your Pearl Harbor comment, well of course. As a result of the attack, we were at war with powers which up to that point had been kicking the snot out of the rest of the world. Al Queida caused more damage, but Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany posed a real threat to our country. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 6:38 PM:

" Sandra: "We cannot continue this legacy. We now owe the people of Iraq stability before we leave."

I don't completely disagree with you, but don't you think that is up to the Iraqi people? They actually "own it". "

Sandra wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:18 PM:

" Teacher, sure, it is up to the Iraqi people, and their leaders...and so far, those in charge have wanted us there until they feel stable....if they want us to leave, then we should leave. But if we leave before the country is stable, it would be a disaster. The average guy on the street, especially in a war torn country cannot always know exactly what would be best. Opinion is based on which ever way the wind is blowing at the time. The elected leaders have a better understanding of what their country will face as a whole, and are more equiped to make the decision. I am sure very few in Iraq want a continuing U.S presence with no end in sight. Polls are tricky things, and how the questions are worded can result in very different answers. And teacher, quit acting as if you do not understand what I mean when I say we own it. That is a very annoying trait, and does nothing to further discussion..... "

russ wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:25 PM:

" teacher,

Please link me to the quote that the Iraqi government wants us out very soon.

I am thinking the Iraqi government is talking the same timetable as Bush and McCain.

Thanks, "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:38 PM:

" Russ, go to BBC and search for "iraqi opinion poll" You should get to the article, which includes a PDF with the most current results as well as the results of the last 4 polls conducted by ABC/BBC. You know NVR won't allow links.

My question about the "timetable" or whatever the Bush people want to call it, is who gets to decide? Do we leave when the Iraqi government says they have to go? Who is in charge? The Iraqi gov't seems to want us out, no strings attached, with a firm date.

Sandra, of course I was yanking your chain a bit, but it is a good point. "

Raven wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:55 PM:

" the Iraq govt announced a timetable of 2010 last week......but Bush is still balking at it because of silly details like immunity for contractors and the military for any crimes committed against Iraqis....

if we are there to bring democracy and a new govt to Iraq....shouldn't we be packing our bags when that govt says we want you to go? "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Aug 13, 2008 12:48 AM:

" It was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Of course, he was repeating a well-known African proverb. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:01 AM:

" "silly details like immunity for contractors and the military for any crimes committed against Iraqis...." Raven finds these details silly. Raven...do you have any idea what it is like in Iraq? Do you have any idea the chaos that could possibly ensue as we withdraw? Do you have any idea about the possible political tug of war that could take place as we leave? Do you understand that any contractors or military personel who are the last to leave could be used as pawns to placate opposition? Our soldiers need our support, they do not need the rug pulled out from under them. Civilian contractors, likewise. This is NOT a silly detail, and I am sure it will get ironed out. "

Raven wrote on Aug 13, 2008 4:35 PM:

" so, even if the Iraqi's want us out, we should ignore their wishes and stay until we decide?....how is that spreading democracy....?

as for immunity, why should any soldier or contractor be above the law?...I am not talking about a legitimate firefight for soldiers....but the immunity asked for is for any and all activities....so a contractor rapes an Iraqi woman....no big deal...even soldiers ahve to follow the law and face the consequences when they break...no soldier in the united states would be above the law if he committed a crime off post...or on post for that matter... "

sandra wrote on Aug 13, 2008 6:22 PM:

" Raven, immunity is needed to protect the innocent from being accused of crimes they did not commit, and to protect them from being used as pawns in the power struggles which will most certainly break out as we leave. Americans will need that added protection to leave safely. The scenarios you suggest are ludicrous. Civillian workers are kept in compounds unto themselves, and soldiers are held to more strict military laws than average citizens. If military personel break any laws they are held accountable by the military. They do not need to be tried by Iraqi laws, which I can assure you are very different from our own. You also obvously did not comprehend my posts, or you would not say, "so, even if the Iraqi's want us out, we should ignore their wishes and stay until we decide?....how is that spreading democracy....?"... Before you make statements about things you do not understand, you should learn about the situations you are giving opinions on, don't you think? "

a teacher wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:01 PM:

" I can agree with Sandra about US Military personnel, but the mercenaries are completely unaccountable. They are not under military control, they answer to no one but their bosses. The Iraqis are understandably concerned about them.

Another bad legacy of the Bush administration, huge private armies. Now THAT's a good idea... "

Raven wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:07 AM:

" Rule of law protects the innocent Sandra.....laws that all are accountable to......if you make the troops above Irtqi law, then you simply remain an occupying force. as for being ridicluous, the cases I have mention have happened....do the research....

Troops are always a pawn in a power struggle...it is the nature of using military force...they are there to enforce a political objective....

if we are so worried why don't we have similar agreements for immunity in other places where US troops are stationed, in Europe, Japan for example...troops are subject to local laws when they are assigned their and if they break them, they are punished.....

Sandra, how many ways can you interpret and the Iraqi's saying they want us out by 2010. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:37 AM:

" Teacher, It is my understanding that most of the mercenaries are not U.S citizens. I would expect that if you go into that line of work, you would understand the danger, and be prepared for whatever may come your way. Hiring mercenaries is gaining popularity....most hired by companies to protect civilian workers....I can understand why Iraq has concerns, but am I correct in assuming that the immunity Raven refers to would not apply to them? Does anyone know the answer to this? "

Raven wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:06 AM:

" actually, if by mercernaries, you are referring to the private contractors providing 'protection' they are mostly ex-service men who left the military for a higher-paying job......

and yes the immunity would apply to those contractors "

Sandra wrote on Aug 14, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Raven, I never claimed that no Iraqi woman was ever raped by a foreigner. My point was that these occurances are far outweighed by the advantage of having immunity for the people who are last to leave the country who have commited no crimes. War is ugly, and ugly things happen. Raven, you keep harping on the Iraq's wanting us out by 2010. I have made no argument that we should not do as the leaders ask. I suggest again that you read my post. Most specifically "Aug 12, 2008 8:18 PM". MY research on hired mercenaries showed the bulk coming from Chili, and Africa. Yes many are exmilitary. AGAIN, I am asking if immunity wouls apply to non U.S. citizens. And even so, under the circumstances, it would seem silly for Iraq to not agree to immunity, just to expediate our leaving. I can assure you that anything questionable that any mercenary has done would be pretty much par for the course in a war torn country that was formerly under Saddam's rule, that has been subjected to Al Qaeda, and Hizbollah. This has been the way of life for this part of the world for many, many years. Sadly, in this part of the world, life is very cheap. To not grant immunity, would only prolong things, and really makes no practical sense, considering the history of this area. Also in the past, no occupying forces have had to answer to the laws of the countries they are leaving. This is a modern phenomena, as is our trying our soldiers for doing the job we ask them to do. We have experienced that on a local level with one of our Marines. It was unheard of in WW11. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 14, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Sandra, I'm unsure about your numbers, but even if you're right and the bulk of mercenaries are foreign, there is a problem. These mercenaries are unaccountable to anyone but their bosses. When they cause a problem, shoot some innocent or run over some kid, nothing happens to them.

Who do you think gets the blame?

Next time some one drops a plane on us, there will be no shortage of willing bodies for the mission. They will say, the Americans killed my (substitute your choice of cherished relative) for no reason.

Life may be cheap over there, in your opinion, but they still have a sense of justice. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 14, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Teacher, I am not defending the use of mercenaries, just stating the reality. The United States is not the first to use such, and probably will not be the last. "

Raven wrote on Aug 14, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Sandra, when the Allies handed back control of Japan and Germany to their own people, the immunity that an occupying force, in Germany it was called the US Constabulary, ended...and the military lost that immunity from civilian authority they enjoyed while being occupiers for anything happening in civilian jurisdictions....namely off the posts they were assigned to.

And why should we have to have any conditions for leaving Iraq if the Iraq people and government ask us to go?... Last time I check it is their country. If they want us to go, we should be packing our bags and leaving.

Regarding those mercenaries..... according to the State department, Blackwater, a US company based in N.C. is currently the largest of the U.S. State Department's three private security contractors, providing a total of 987 contractors. Of the 987 provided, 744 are U.S. citizens.

oh yes, one other thing, just because something may be par for the course, doesn't make it right, and we are not talking about what happened under Saddam, or what al Qaeda has done, we were talking about US military and contractors. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 15, 2008 7:32 AM:

" Raven, I am beginning to think you have a reading comprehension problem. I refer you to this sentence in particular, "Teacher, sure, it is up to the Iraqi people, and their leaders...and so far, those in charge have wanted us there until they feel stable....if they want us to leave, then we should leave." What about that sentence do you not understand? I do not know how to state it any more clearly.
Raven, you seem to think that war should be humane. All very nice, but war is not humane. It is the last resort of desperation. It is ugly. Ugly things happen. We cannot ask our soldiers to do a job, and then prosecute them for being put in an ugly situation. We cannot ask corporations to not protect their workers in a war zone. Once we have placed people in this type of situation, they deserve to be able to withdraw from the situation in the safest manner possible. You must not have a friend or loved one in the military. I do. If my son was there I would not want the possibilty open for him to be used as a pawn in a power struggle between Iraqs rulers. I do not want my friends sons and daughters to be used in this way. I do not want my friends grandson who worked for 6 weeks in Iraq as a civilian used when he tried to go home to make a "point", that will only fuel more terrorism. The protection of these people , in my mind, far out weighs the few who have possibly commited crimes. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 15, 2008 2:22 PM:

" And Raven.....Concerning the Iraqi timeline for withdrawel, I have had some time to do some research on your claim that "Bush is still balking at it because of silly details like immunity for contractors and the military for any crimes committed against Iraqis....". I took your word on it that this was actually what was happening, but from what I have found on the subject, I think it is again possible that you have misunderstood what was happening. Unless you can show me different, it is my understanding that the Iraqi timeline included immunity for insurgents against U.S. soldiers and civilians. I could find nothing about immunity for soldiers or private contractors....only immunity for those who have attacked us. If you could point me in the direction where you got your info, I would appreciate it "

14obama wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:23 PM:

" Too bad some of us are so easily led. Now sit up straight and listen Kevin. You'll never learn til you can force yourself to be open minded. The Truth will Always reveal itself and when it does you'll have your head in the sand. You still cannot believe that the president you elected could do such things as lie and kill just for oil. Aren't you a patriotic guy ! I'd say you've got a bent rod. "

Raven wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:18 PM:

" Okay Sandra...I spent 13 years in the the military and know from first hand experience just how ugly war can be. I can a permanent reminder of just how ugly it can be with a scar on my shoulder.

Maybe you didn't read my post carefully...I have never said any soldier should be under legal threat for carrying out the lawful orders he has been given. But that does not cover crimes such as rape....not only are those crimes against international law but a also a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...ask your son, he received training in what is and is not acceptable and how he could be punished for that unacceptable behavior. An army that can act in any manner without fear of punishment for violating the rules governing them, is not an army, it is a mob.

War is not just a matter of violence unleashed...it is a matter of controlled violence aimed for a specific political goal.

As far as immunity is concerned, Iraq's stand is private contractors will lose the immunity they currently have and will be subject to prosecution any time they break Iraqi law.

Google SOFA Iraq if you like... "

Sandra wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Raven, thank you for your past service, and thank you for the link. I am even more surprised at your statement about Bush and silly details after learning you were in the military. It is not so simple as balking at silly details. I have a couple of links for you to check out, maybe it will help you undertsand that this is not all about what Bush wants, but about what Iraqi leaders want, and what opposition to those leader want, as well. As I stated earlier I think this will all get ironed out. It seems the most recent delay is stemming from Iraqi opposition, and not Bush, or Iraq's elected leaders. Here are the words to google: "U.S and Iran Bicker and Flirt on Iraq's SOFA", and "Council on foreign relations, U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq ". Raven,I never thought you meant soldiers should be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders. MY point, and I hope you understand what I am trying to say....is...When troops begin to withdraw, chaos will most likely ensue. There will most probably be a power struggle in Iraq, and I do not want the possibility of our retreating soldiers, or civilians to be used as pawns in this struggle. "

Raven wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Chaos may exist will but you cannot put people above the law merely to avoid chaos...

No person, no institution can ever be above the law....and granting immunity to them elevates them to that status and defeats the purpose of the law in the first place.....one of the hings that sets the United States apart is they we profess to place no person above that law, including those in the military.....

as for beings pawns, you have to face the fact that the military in Iraq and the contractors are already pawns...and have been since march 2003...and the military will always be a pawn, it is the nature of the beast

and if you continue your research, try looking at the AP and Reuters news services..... "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Saw a photo-op of Condi Rice and some Iraqi Minister signing the 'aspirational time horizon' ... err... 'timeline'... err... 'withdrawal'... 'whatever this month's name for the lipstick on the Bushite Republican pig of a war'... documents.

It would seem that America has lost 4,140 and counting kids dead, thousands more wounded and a trillion dollars so that Bush could say he kept the troops there 6 months longer than Obama would have.

A truly glorius victory for Bush and McBush over the wishes of the American people as expressed in November of 2006, eh?

~Ruff "

Sandra wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:12 PM:

" These are not "kids". These are American Heroes, and should be addressed as such, not reffered to as children. "

Raven wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:10 PM:

" Sandra....a lot of them are just that...children, dead in a war that never should have been started... "

Sandra wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Raven, My son is in the military. When he made the informed decision to serve his country in a time of war, in this mothers eyes, he became a man. He made a decision many do not have the strength of characteer to make. You insult all of our brave military when you refer to them as children. I find this quite surprising, that you would say this, claiming to have served your country yourself. "

Raven wrote on Aug 23, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Sandra, merely putting on the uniform doesn't change the fact that many of the men and women that served with me and under my command were, despite the uniform, children, trying their hardest to deal with situations that no one, at twice their age should ever have to face. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Raven...just the fact that they have to deal with situations no one should have to face, and they do face them makes them no longer children and I feel they deserve our respect. "

Raven wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:23 PM:

" how do you figure I don't respect them, anyone willing to put their lives on the line gets my respect...I respect them enough to try my hardest to get them out of a war that is throwing their lives away.....I saw enough of that in an earlier war and wont stand by doing nothing when I see it happening again.... "

kevin wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Sandra, you and your son's sacrifices ARE greatly appreciated.

AND with the hard won success of the "surge", it is now possible for the troops to come home with victory and honor.

Who would have thought that President Bush would end up being correct after all? "

cab e-girl wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:19 PM:

" Raven- even the thought of you suggesting they are throwing their lives away is representative of your thought process. Have you ever considered the possibility that our young men and women serving in the military made an adult choice to serve their country? These young men and women (not children) know they are making positive contributions to the world today.

Sandra, thank you and your son for your contributions and your sacrifices. God speed in is return if he is serving abroad. "

Raven wrote on Aug 25, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Cab-e-girl, I stand by my statement, through no fault of their own, these young men and women in Iraq have been placed in harm's way as pawns for ill-thought notion, by men and women who see them as mere tools to establish an American hegemony in the middle-east.

I honor their choice to serve their country, my daughter has done the same, but I would remiss in my duty as a parent and an American if I didn't try my damndest to end the continued throwing of their lives and limbs in a reckless adventure.

The phrase is not, my country right or wrong, but rather my country, right or wrong, if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Cab-e-girl, and Kevin, Thank you, you "get" what I am saying. Thank goodness my son is at Beale, and I can sleep at night. But I have friends who've sons and daughters are in the middle east. It is a very scary thing for them. My son does his part here. His job is working with messages the spy planes pick up, and working with the preditor drones. But I know they, just like me, are very proud of the choices their adult children made to serve their country. It really bothers me to have people call them kids. My son has his own mind, and made a decision he is very proud to have made.
Kevin, thank goodness for the surge so our soldiers can come home with Iraq being as stable as we can expect. If it had been left to the "left" I am sure many more would have been harmed as things drug on and on. If we had gone in like we should of from the beginning, it would of probably been resolved even sooner. People do not realize that these are our best, and to not support them in their sacrifices only hurts them. The talk of cutting off funding, etc, was pure foolishness. There is now light at the end of the tunnel, and I hope everyone welcomes them home, and we do not have a repeat of what happened when our soldiers returned ron Viet Nam.... "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: