Sunday, October 29, 2006

The War

Kevin Tillman, brother of the decesed Pat Tillman, has a powerful, must read piece on Truth Dig:
[...]
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
[...]


Meanwhile, Joe says he'd vote for the war again (via tparty):
On Iraq, Lieberman now tries to steer the debate away from the wisdom of the original decision to invade, a vote that Gerstein said Lieberman does not regret and would cast again.

It makes me sick.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

A couple dozen more reasons to end the war and stop Lieberman, Shays, Johnson, and Simmons.

brickbat said...

Conservatives love to babble about "accountability". Everybody's got to be held "accountable" for everything - like teachers for lousy test scores, poor people for being, well...poor.

Except them. Conservatives never want to be held accountable themselves.

This election is a perfect case in point. Lieberman has been a cheerleader for one decision after another that has led us to the fiasco that is our involvement in Iraq.

He has now, once again, demonstrated a Bushian inability to admit error.

If elections are about accountability, he will be tossed out on his ear by an electorate that overwhelmingly opposes this war.

justavoter said...

Now that this new news report is that Lieberman would vote again to go to war if he had to. Which is the George Bush mindset that kiss means everything.

For Joe to still say he will do it again says big time that he has to be kicked out of office for good.

He will lose more votes because he now again reinstates his pro war position like the President.

If your anti-war then you now need to decide who represents you Pro War Joe or Pro Peace Ned.

I will take Pro Peace Ned.

Joe nolonger represents the people of Connecticut he's totally lost it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tillman's loss was tragic and his statements seem to be coming from his grief and prehaps guilt from his brother's death. The comments are for the most part not rational.

Shadow said...

Oh really? Point out one thing he says that isn't true, and explain why.

Anonymous said...

Ed Koch is on the record talking about "hundreds of millions of terrorists". Basically he thinks the entire Muslim world is his sworn enemy, and he seems to subscribe to the notion that "the only good Arab is a dead Arab".

Does Lieberman share Koch's delusions?

Even the GOP is beginning to move away from the Iraq fiasco. What the heck is up with Joe and his thinking?

Jim said...

Anonymous said...
Mr. Tillman's loss was tragic and his statements seem to be coming from his grief and prehaps guilt from his brother's death. The comments are for the most part not rational.


Looks like simple statements of fact to me. But then I'm part of that Reality Based Community that people like George Bush, Karl Rove and Joe Lieberman find so objectionable.

Anonymous said...

The Next drop of Bloomberg,Koch or Lieberman Blood shed for this country will be the first drop.

Chickenhawks with no skin in the game always find it easy to talk tough.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>> Conservatives never want to be held accountable themselves

Oh really?

How do you explain non-union automobiles in front of a union employee's campaign headquarters?

The hypocrisy of the left

Genghis Conn said...

What kind of car is that?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Mitsubishi Lancer - made in Japan, a nation that blocks their markets from our companies with great regularity.

brickbat said...

What does that have to do with Joe Lieberman trying to avoid accountability for his cheerleading on Iraq?

Gee, could it be another Republican misdirection play?

Jim said...

Mitsubishi Lancer - made in Japan, a nation that blocks their markets from our companies with great regularity.

Which is related to the Bush-Rumsfeld-Lieberman war in Iraq, or the administration's attempt to lie about Pat Tillman's death in order to create a propaganda campaign.... how?

Anonymous said...

If anyone cares to get a historical perspective on this they should read DK Goodwin's Team of Rivals. Lincoln was criticized by the main-stream press for almost all of they same things that Tillman is listing against the current administration. The Easten elite characterized Lincoln as the idoit from the west. I am not saying Bush is in the Lincoln's league, what I am saying is that there has never been a universally supported war in America. In fact each war led to deep divides in this country. Each war led to charges that individual liberties were being exchanged for the war effort. It would be great if people studied they past a bit because it shed great light on the current state of affairs and gives insight into the future.

Jim said...

It would be great if people studied they past a bit because it shed great light on the current state of affairs and gives insight into the future.

Well, that is interesting. I always thought that one of the primary reasons to study history is to not repeat the mistakes already made. But here, as near as I can tell, I see it proposed that we study history so that we can see that mistakes were made in the past, so it's okay if they're made in the present. Following this logic, the fact that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin makes it okay that Bush lied about WMD and the link between Saddam and 9/11. Fascinating.

In all seriousness, if you want to compare Bush to a Civil War era politico, think George (how's that for a coincidence) McClellan. An incompetent fool who was supported by other fools because he looked and talked like fools thought a leader should. If there had been a FoxNews and Chris Matthews in 1864, they would have been drooling over McClellan.

Anonymous said...

On second thought I withdraw the idea about the Team of Rivals since it would be wasted on Jim and others who beleive they already know all there is to know.

And by the way General McClellan was a brillant organizer and very intellegent. His problem was he was always afraid to use the Army of the Potomac. The Chris Matthews of the day were all over him. Sort of like a Wesley Clark.

Jim said...

On second thought I withdraw the idea about the Team of Rivals since it would be wasted on Jim and others who beleive they already know all there is to know. '

I sincerely apologize for your incohorence, if my pointing it out offended you. I don't pretend to know all there is to know, but I do know this:
I before E except after C
or when sounded like A
as in Neighbor or Weigh.

I don't suppose you'd care to argue the substance of your post, if you can remember what you thought you meant?

Shadow said...

If progressives can have the Iraq issue going into this election, then conservatives can have the Mitsubishi issue. I'm not saying it doesn't matter - all hypocrisy in our government should be rooted out (particularly when it hurts American workers) - but in terms of analyzing voter priorities in this particular election, I think it's safe to say that Iraq and Mitsubishis don't have quite the same impact as each other, as the latter is but one grain on the beach of the economy issue, an issue which even as a whole still ranks second to Iraq in voters' minds.

As to the comment about historical perspective, I agree that it's vital for understanding the events and decisions of the present and the future. However, ALL HUMAN HISTORY shows that externally imposing a regime change CANNOT lead to democracy, and in fact causes the situation to get much worse, resulting in years if not decades of hostility towards the country that attempted the regime change.

Our current problems with Iran and the government there are just one example, as they are all the results of covert US attempt to achieve regime change in Iran over fifty years ago, where the CIA kept the King in power and deposed Mossadegh, a champion of democracy in Iran who had been poised to take over the government with the will of the people behind him. The result: revolution to overthrow the monarchy, theocratic goverment, nuclear concerns, the infamous "Death to America" chant that now resonates across the Middle East, and an adversary where we really need an ally. Not to mention delaying democracy in Iran for half a century to a century.

If this current President and his neo-con buddies had any clue about history, they never would have pushed regime change in Iraq, ESPECIALLY after 9/11 when it became clear it was necessary to REDUCE the amount of terrorism and anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world, not increase it.

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

ALL HUMAN HISTORY shows that externally imposing a regime change CANNOT lead to democracy, and in fact causes the situation to get much worse, resulting in years if not decades of hostility towards the country that attempted the regime change.

Which explains why the Germans and the Japanese are our bitter enemies to this very day.

Shadow said...

I was just waiting for this one; the regime change apologist's last refuge. We didn't just up and decide to invade the Germans and Japanese, genius, the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and the Germans declared war on the free world. Then we declared war on them, and went to war. That was the last time in US history we did it right according to the Constitution, by the way; Congress DECLARED war. There weren't neo-cons in the 1930's eyeing the sushi in Japan and plotting regime change against Hirohito; we were in a fight for our lives, we won the war, and their governments surrendered.

You clearly do not understand that the term regime change is a much more recent concept in goverment policy.

Regime change means more than just losing a war and getting a new goverment, it involves pre-meditated social engineering from the external power that imposes it.

Remember that the next time one of the countless terrorists your neo-con policies create kills another American, and feel a little guilt for the blood they shed for your ignorance.