A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
My first posting seems to have disappeared....
Published on November 19, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In War on Terror
]"The reasons why we went to war in Iraq don't matter any more, we are there and that mission is accomplished."

That's a quote from a fellow blogger, buried under 99 other responses. Of course, I think he's wrong. The reasons we went to war in Iraq are central to our mission, and those reasons are changed and manipulated at the whim of this administration.

Measures of success, in a similar fashion, are "evolved".

Today, Bush cites the lower death tolls and levels of violence as his barometer of success. Never mind these numbers, when they were bad, were classified by this administration and kept from the American people. Never mind that photos of our soldiers, those who were killed in the ultimate sacrafice for our country, were hidden from view (and the photographers vilified.) Never mind that we seem to prop up the least likely leaders in a country whose termoil reaches back to about 400 ad, if not beyond. Never mind Bush seeks the advice of the Saudis (since before Bush was even elected)to shape his form policy. (wording is deliberate).

The reasons we went to war in Iraq are key. Those reasons set the framework of what our goals -- and measures of success -- should be. By losing view of those reasons, we muddle around in waters that should be crystal clear. Perhaps it is this lack of vision which leads to scandals like Abu Grab. Perhaps it is because we are blinded by confusion we can't see the forest for the trees. When our truest beliefs -- that freedom and justice and a certain moral action -- are shoved aside in the name of security is counter-American.

That's why I believe this administration, no matter what the outcome of the Iraq war, will be viewed as one of the worse in our more than 200 year history. I believe this Administration is unamerican.

Response? None will be deleted. That, also, is UnAmerican.



Comments (Page 4)
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Nov 20, 2007
If we had the Liberals in power in 1860 the civil war would not have happened, or if it did happen after the first serious battle where 7 or 8 thousand troops were killed it would have been called off, slavery would still be here in America if one President did not void certain constitutional rights {honest Abe} Yet today Abe is considered one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, History will place Bush where he belongs. not us!
on Nov 20, 2007
(Citizen)ParaTed2kNovember 20, 2007 11:26:48Reply #42
Yeah, that sure worked through the 90s, idiot!

Hey Gene, do you have any original thoughts? Or do you just rehash the same tired lines you found on a MoveOn.org website 8 years ago? I'd really like to know if there is an original thought in your head.


Compared with the Bush/GOP thoughts my ideas are light-years ahead of their thoughts or yours!

Many of my ideas are basic concepts that Bush and his minions IGNORE like to balance the Budget. That concept may not be NEW but it surely is needed!
on Nov 20, 2007
the liberties they they take with our liberties.


i have to agree here.

the last people i know of that had a so called home land security was Germany world war 2, the soviet union. and neither of them cared about anyones rights either. except of course for the leaders.
on Nov 20, 2007
History will place Bush where he belongs. not us


Very, very well said.
on Nov 20, 2007
Daniel,
I admit my add kicks in on a regular basis, but I'm not finding your quote (the liberties they take with our liberties). It's well said, though, if I'm lucky it's one of mine but probably not. And I agree with our elongation of the point. I get worried when people tell us stuff is for our own good. I get nervous with a governmet that pokes it's nose in where it really doesn't belong (my bedroom). I get nervous when governments tell us they are better stewards of our money than we are. (the current crazy tax system). On those fronts, I'm pretty conservative. But, I get the most nervous when people (far left and far right) suggest not speaking is better than speaking.

Gene: you are very original, I think. Thanks for your participation here.
Ted's comment, however, was kinda funny. The Move On part. Forgive me, I'm still pissed over the General Betrayus ad.

Last, history will be the judge of Bush, not us. That's true. History is judging Reagan better than I ever dreamed possible. So, perhaps I'm off here. But if I was Bush's defense attorney, I'd be looking to buy a juror or two.
on Nov 20, 2007
Last, history will be the judge of Bush, not us. That's true. History is judging Reagan better than I ever dreamed possible. So, perhaps I'm off here. But if I was Bush's defense attorney, I'd be looking to buy a juror or two.


I had a discussion of what LASTING benefits we have from Reagan. The issue that came up was the end to the Soviet Union. After talking about that we agreed that is not as much of a benefit as you first think. They were a known enemy and helped control much of the Islamic unrest. In addition, the seeds of the end to the Soviet Union were sown before Reagan. When we tried to come up with ANY other positive long term benefit from the Reagan Presidency we could not come up with much. What he did leave behind was a $3 Trillion dollar increase in the debt that we are still pay the interest on today. Reagan did not leave much of a long lasting benefit to the U.S. and the added debt is a BIG Negative!!!
on Nov 20, 2007
The issue that came up was the end to the Soviet Union. After talking about that we agreed that is not as much of a benefit as you first think.


i guess you forgot the clinton boom years. that was due to reagon not anything clinton did.

in fact clinton tried to destroy it.
on Nov 20, 2007
the seeds of the end to the Soviet Union were sown before Reagan.


Well, the Soviet Union's downfall was a lack of technology. When an associate of mine was there, who was a scientist, the infrastructure of the Soviet Union was pitiful. This was right before the fall. I think Reagan's timing was great, and he lucked out. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

I will never forgive Reagan for his initial response to AIDS. Again, that's a whole 'nother discussion.
on Nov 20, 2007
not according to members of congress.


Congress, the institution, indeed had the same intelligence. That not each & every Senator & Congressman had all the intelligence is a different issue, one having to do with the way Congress conducts its own business. I don't believe the Executive Branch can dictate to Congress which individuals and which committees get which intelligence - I believe that is structured by Congress itself.

To say "Congress didn't have all the intelligence" is highly misleading and would be fair to say only if every Senator & Congressman was entitled to all the same intelligence information and some didn't receive it, or if those authorized to receive it didn't. I've not heard any Congressman say that those authorized to access all the intelligence had anything hidden from them.
on Nov 20, 2007
i guess you forgot the clinton boom years. that was due to reagon not anything clinton did.

in fact clinton tried to destroy it.


Ummmm -- we're off topic here. Perhaps my next article will be why Bill was the best president ever. At least, according to Monica.

I will say this: I'm not sure trickle down works. I'm not sure it doesn't work. I know I think the economy does better when people are spending their own money.

My problem with Reagan centers on divisive issues, like AIDS and Iran Contra, not the typical democratic demonizations of him.

I also just can't stand Nancy. It's that big head thing, I'm sorry, I don't know what it is -- I just say no.
on Nov 20, 2007
I just say no.


  
on Nov 20, 2007
Well, the Soviet Union's downfall was a lack of technology.


not technology


When an associate of mine was there, who was a scientist, the infrastructure of the Soviet Union was pitiful. This was right before the fall.



money which was one of the goals of the cold war. to bankrupt them.
on Nov 20, 2007
Congress, the institution, indeed had the same intelligence.


No, Congress did not. I'm sorry, this is a matter of fact and record. Briefing reports for congress are blocked out with top secret matters, and at the time much of this info was top secret. The Senate Armed Services Committee complained bitterly they were not shown all the intelligence. If they weren't shown the intel, who was????

In fact, I'm not sure BUSH had all the intelligence. Tenet presented warnings to Rice that their findings of WMD were really off,(Read: SLAM DUNK TENET) prior to the invasion, and she waived him aside.

That's part of my reasoning as to why Bush is one of the worst presidents of all time: his team, at the very least, failed to inform him -- and he failed to seek the information.

I'm sorry, but if you state something as fact, you have to back it up. I was in McCain's office around this time -- and I can tell you --- he insisted information was remaining classified and out of their reach, even behind closed doors.

on Nov 20, 2007

money which was one of the goals of the cold war. to bankrupt them.


money and technology go hand in hand. And in driving the Soviet Union towards bankruptcy with programs like star wars, we drove up our own deficit in a dangerous game of cat and mouse.
on Nov 20, 2007
I've not heard any Congressman say that those authorized to access all the intelligence had anything hidden from them.


I have. Repeatedly. And they have been Republicans. Let's see: McCain, (Senate ARmed Services Committee), Warner (same committee plus Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Biden (Democrat)(Foreign Relations), Specter (Veteran Affairs). Even members of the president's party don't like being shut out.
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last