Comments on: Bush’s Legacy: Two Lost Wars

By: MiMiCcS

MiMiCcS — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:24:27 +0000

We do not fight wars for any reason but as an excuse to occupy a nation, and feed our MIC-Fed beast. The wars in Afghainistan and Iraq were won. The governments we wanted toppled were. We could have left anytime. We do not want to leave. So we stay. Everything else, democracy, surge, war on terror, etc is just BS for stupid people whom have lost the ability to think and do not know their own countries history. Bush and Cheney, and a host of others in the Executive Branch and Pentagon are guilty of war crimes, so is congress, and since it was done in your name, Americans are also are war criminals (yes, I am American).

People say we want change, and yet, in NH, who gets the top votes, Hillary and McCain. The 2 guys who without question would end our wars, Ron Paul and Kucinich, get 1 in 20 votes. Guilty as charged.

By: peony

peony — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:05:43 +0000

Erdla, I hate what the American occupation and war is doing in Iraq. The aerial bombardment is not being covered at all in the U.S. The people who made and make the decisions live in ivory towers and are oblivious to the horrors they have unleashed in Iraq (or this is the only explanation that makes the incomprehensible, comprehensible). For the most part, so am I…thank you for reporting and please keep us advised. A group of friends tried two years ago to send a message to the Iraqi people – group photo and banner with message against the U.S. occupation through a contact at al Jazeera, but al Jazeera had been banned at the time.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:43:19 +0000

Obama, Nancy, Harry and Hillary. Doesn’t get any better. Right?

Which is the more appropriate quote for this?

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

It’s the best of all possible worlds.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:40:44 +0000

Mark Penn is riding high again. With his Iraq war supporting, fear mongering candidate. And as to rock star Obama? He’s a real pip too.

I am reminded of a line from a movie named The Lion in Winter. Katharine Hepburn is the queen in merry olde England and she says, “I don’t much like our children.”

We started out with such nice candidates, but the more we get to know them the less likable they are. Why is it everybody has to have so many skeletons in their closet(s)?

Well, of her children, one became King Richard the “Lionhearted” and another was King John who usurpsed Richard’s throne and the final was the (invisible) Geoffrey of whom I’d never heard until I saw the movie.

So, we know Richard & John are represented by today’s Obama & Clinton (no particular order) and Geoffrey, the invisible one, is obviously Edwards.

Richard & John were disasters, so maybe somebody ought to consider learning from the past and make Geoffrey, er Edwards their choice.

By: MDCitizen

MDCitizen — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:34:26 +0000

Just before Christmas Bush said:

Congress’ responsibility is clear: They must deliver vital funds for our troops — and they must do it before they leave for Christmas. Our men and women on the front lines will be spending this holiday season far from their families and loved ones. And this Christmas, they deserve more than words from Congress. They deserve action.

He got his bill. Then he vetoed it (or maybe not - has that been decided yet?).

So how will this troop increase be paid for?

By: nemo

nemo — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:15:23 +0000

Two lost wars, one lost economy, one lost Constitution and one lost American city. And a partridge in a pear tree.

By: dov12348

dov12348 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:04:49 +0000

My reply above was re Congress’ current Constitutional duty that they’re unwilling to execute. When a Dem Prez gets in it should be much easier — with a cooperative and sane Prez.

By: Prairie Sunshine

Prairie Sunshine — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:02:06 +0000

Breaking: Kerry endorses Obama.

Well, there’s the kiss o’death….

By: elef

elef — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:56:25 +0000

Last night, on local news, I heard that 9 more American service people were killed in Iraq. I also heard that the surge is working because there are fewer American deaths. If fewer deaths is the measure of what works, how about just getting the heck out of there? That would certainly “work”. I’m getting sick of this!

By: Praedor

Praedor — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:55:27 +0000

It is EASY for a President to stop (or prevent) wars. The President and only the President can send troops into battle, with or without a legitimate declaration of war. A Dodd or Kucinich could simply declare that the “mission” is complete and that it is time to bring the troops home and let the Iraqis have their country back. They could expressly NOT try to provoke countries (like Iran) into taking some sort of action that could be misconstrued to be an unprovoked act of aggression. Even WITH acts of aggression, a President can respond without going to full-on war. You can attack the occasional training camp for terrorists or militant groups in this or that country when they are known to be a problem (or in direct retaliation for an attack by said group) without going to war with the entire military. You can do a LOT short of war, war, and more war to prevent an attack or to respond to an attack with or without legitimate, though constrained, force.

Only the President can order troops anywhere. The Congress can’t even if they declare war.