"W" Didn't

l recognize we are likely to have wars/conflcts at various times in the future while fighting extremism. Afghanistan was thoroughly justified, and yet we pulled back before the job was done. We train alot of Navy Seals here in SD, and also have a Marine Air Station, as well as tons of Navy. I'm all for giving them the tools to do the job, and then getting out of their way. This administration has repeated the mistakes of Viet Nam with politicians attempting (and failing) to manage field matters through a political lens. And our troops have and will continue to suffer for it.

The more 9/11 rememberences I've watched, the madder I've gotten at how poorly this has been handled since then. The poem was my way of venting. Glad you liked it, and welcome to Gather.

As Robert Frost rightly said, "Poetry without rhyme is like tennis without a net." Look, as an artist you need something to fight against, something to overcome. Sound has a strong, innate power. You dismiss it. Too bad.

The Kipling poem "For All We Have and Are" is a much better example, and I might add, has a much more inspiring message.

Its a wonderful poem, andy, to be sure. The problem is, there is no gate for the Hun's to be at. Listening to Cheney yesterday was quite stunning. He still is trying to fight the 1991 Iraq War, and is stunned that those tactics dont translate to today.

Our enemy today, is a friend yesterday or tomorrow
Our enemy tomorrow is likely our friend today
Our proper course is not to charge the breeches
Its to sneak up behind him, and blow his ass away

Michael, glad you had a chance to vent...we all need to from time to time. Notwithstanding, I cannot agree with anything you have attempted to state because there is no foundation for your complaints other than your obvious frustrations.

Let's say we capture or kill Bin Laden. Will that stop the complaints? Will that stop the jihad against American? In both cases, I think not.

You say we should have taken a "more prudent course of action". Can you suggestion one that would respond to the threat?

Finally, you infer that Bush lied. Can you tell me one lie that has been documented to confirm your position? I asked this same question the other night on a similar link, but all I got in return was left-wing rhetoric and visceral gut-reactions that could not be documented.

Please do not think I'm launching a personal attack because I'm not; rather, I'm looking for the logic that drives these type of comments.

When POTUS stands in front of America and the world and says about Bin Laden and Co. "There is nowhere you can run, there is nowhere you can hide that we can't find you" and then shifts the focus to another front without getting him, and then says "Aw, I'm not interested in him, he's not someone I think about that often" When they disband the CIA task force devoted to Bin Laden without getting him, Tom, that empowers the terrorists a helluva lot more than honest debate in this country ever could. Funny folks cant see that.

Oh, and dont worry about the personal attack stuff, I dish it and take it with vigor. I dont have thin skin, and dont have much patience for debating those who do. This is a super important topic, and candor on both sides is the only way to get to the meat, in my opinion.

I didnt not infer Bush lied. I inferred he never held his people accountable, in any way, for failures to provide proper intelligence, have proper planning for the aftermath of Iraq, understanding how removing Saddaam would embolden Iran ect. Its just like "Brownie, you're doing a great job" after Katrina, "Secy. Rumsfeld is the finest Defense Secy. in history" "Director Tenet is one of our true heroes", Tom, these people have made incompetence their middle name, and he backs them to the hilt. He can never admit he or anyone in his administration "F"'d up, and we all suffer greatly for it.

More prudent course of action - yes, sending enough troops to meet his military leaders recommendations.

Oh, and how bout a draft? If we're in a decades long war, with special forces troops leaving to go "private" in droves because they make 10 times the money for one tenth the risk, I suspect we'll have some rather substantial needs for troops down the road, dont you?

Michael, what is a more prudent course of action? Have you ever served in a bureaucracy...they are cumbersome and slow. Given the finding of the 911 Commission, could the dots really have been connected? Was the 911 Report really well founded? FEMA was not stellar, but I have some appreciation what they were up against, especially when you factor in city and state government involvement. I saw that first hand when our unit waited for days to respond to a hurricane in Florida in the early 1990's, and it was only a fraction of the devastation that hit during Katrina.

Regarding the draft...why? The Armed Services are meeting their enlistment goals, and from the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines I see frequently back here in the US, most are anxious to return to complete the job. I'm not aware of special forces troops leaving in droves, you may be right, but if that portends a problem down the road, I'm sure the bureaucracy will be working on it.

As far as the CIA disbanding the UBL cell, from what I've read, it was a realignment to within another organization...perhaps for the synergy it might create. Notwithstanding, I did note that the Democrats pushed through an additional $200 million tax bill to reestablish this cell and to show their fervor for the fight. Then, they complained about the spending of the Congress...imagine that.

These are tough issues, but having been at fairly high levels within DOD as a planner, I can understand what they are faced with.

On the subject of sending more troops to meet the military leaders recommendations, that is an area that requires a full assessment of the pros and cons. For every trigger puller, you need support. The bigger the footprint, the more support you need. Before long, it becomes a matter of balancing available resources, not to mention having some reserves available to meet contingencies elsewhere.

We both understand what we are faced with, Tom, dont think I'm looking for simplistic solutions. I am looking for a leader who isnt afraid to give the boot to those who dont do their job in a time of war. That's not aiding the enemy, that's showing that nothing will stand in our way.

Also, it would help just a little bit if they'd get some people who actually understand the motivations of these folks to be in Bush's inner circle of advisors. If Bush's church had taught him from the time that he was old enough to talk that democracy and free though were tools of the Devil and there was only one proper way to act and any other way would lead to damnation, he might be a little more understanding why a significant portion of the people we are "liberating" dont exactly want to be liberated.

Who says poetry has to rhyme?!!! Huh? I'm not even going to bother reading the other comments. I agree with you one hundred percent... he's a warmongering dunce.

I have to chime in here and respond to the comment excusing Bush's inaction by blaming the "slow and cumbersome" nature of bureaucracies.

Bush hasn't let bureaucracies (or the Constitution) stand in his way when there were civil liberties to be walked all over. He would be well advised to take a page from Harry S Truman, who had a plaque on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here." How refreshing that would be, to have a chief executive who actually holds his people accountable.

To blame "bureaucracy" for the incompetence and inaction of the most powerful man in the free world is just adding one more page to the things he's failed to act on. If there's too much bureaucracy for the government to act efficiently, it would be HIS job to address that.

The funniest part, amanda, is that it does rhyme. I just typed it differently to get people to pause at "about" so they would get the impact of the next phrase to a greater degree. Came out more like song lyrics. Properly typed it would be:

Didnt give a damn about the cost to the Treasury
Didnt give a damn about what "facts" were or were not true
Didn't give a damn about who did or didn't like it
Cuz you do what you want when your name is "W"

Didn't give a thought about the long term consequences
Didn't give a thought about what to do in Iraq Phase Two
Didnt give a thought about the Iraq/Iran equation
Cuz you don't give a thought when your name is "W"

Didn't give a speech about the failure to catch Osama
Didn't give a speech about which "facts" were really true
Didn't give a speech about a more prudent course of action
Cuz you don't speechify,when your name is "W"

Victoria, there is plenty of blame to go around. One curious point however, what civil liberties of yours have been trampled? Sure we've denied the terrorists some civil liberties and I'm all for that.

Bush has lied continuously since stealing office. I honestly cannot fathom why people still contest this. There are websites that exist solely to document the specific lies and when and where they were told. This shouldn't be a matter of contention for anyone at this late stage in his failed and disaster-producing presidency.

The fact regarding 9/11 is that this president not only chose to ignore over 40 seperate warnings and threats, including a very specific one that actually mentioned commercial aircraft being used as weapons to fly into the WTC (8/6/1 pdb), but that he also never bothered to assemble a single cabinet level meeting on counter terrorism until 9/4/1.

Why? Clinton held those meetings 3 times per week. Why did Bush refuse to? I think that part of it was because they wanted to make sure that everything that they did was exactly the opposite of what Clinton would do, because of the typical, irrational, rightwing Clinton hatred factor, and part of it was because they clearly had other things on their minds.

According to former treasury sec. Paul O'Neil, from the very first day, they began talking of ways to invade Iraq. This certainly makes sense when one realizes that much of this administration is comprised of the very PNAC folks who drew up and published such plans 10 years ago.

They were also quite obsessed with tax cuts for millionaires, handing out massive welfare checks to their corporate pals, helping ENRON rape CA's economy, and trying to invent a reason to pour yet more massive funding into the ridiculous rightwing pork dumphole known as "missile defense."

As for the failures of FEMA, it should be noted that, under Clinton, when the program was made a cabinet level position, it was run brilliantly. Under both Bush's, and particularly this young failure, who has chosen to privatize the agency (to predictable, disastrous results), the agency was treated as an afterthought, and responded precisely in the same manner.

Why a military draft? Because, when ALL Americans begin to be intimately involved with the disaster known as Bush's Vietnam, there might FINALLY be enough uproar to DEMAND that we get the hell out of something that we had no business being involved in at all in the first place.




"As far as the CIA disbanding the UBL cell, from what I've read, it was a realignment to within another organization"

You apparently read wrong.
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/reports/osama-bin-laden

"Alec Station was established in 1996 after bin Laden's initial calls for global jihad, and employed about two dozen people.

The unit was strengthened after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the bin Laden unit was disbanded late last year and quoted its first director, Michael Scheuer, as predicting the move would harm the CIA's efforts to find bin Laden."

The group has been redesignated. Instead of tracking our #1 enemy, they are now tracking general al Qaeda movements. Nobody is looking for Osama anymore, which shouldn't come as a surprise, since our president stopped being concerned about him the moment he got to launch his illegal war in Iraq.




"I did note that the Democrats pushed through an additional $200 million tax bill to reestablish this cell and to show their fervor for the fight. Then, they complained about the spending of the Congress...imagine that."

Why would a unit that is still together but no longer tracking Osama have to be "reestablished?" As for democrats complaining about gluttonous GOP spending, they should. While the GOP has been pissing money away by the trillions, into costly and ineffective corporate welfare programs and tax giveaways to millionaires, democrats want to provide funding for REAL national security. If you can't see the difference, nothing more need be said.

"Victoria, there is plenty of blame to go around."

Yes, there are plenty of republicans in office right now, that's for sure.




"One curious point however, what civil liberties of yours have been trampled?"

What a dumb question. Any time your basic constitutionally protected and provided rights, freedoms, and liberties are eroded in any way by a rapidly overbearing federal government, we ALL lose. I can't really understand why some people find this so difficult to grasp.

Today, it might only be democrats who cannot exercise their right to free speech in the presence of the president, and it may only be brown people who're being whisked away to be held indefintely without charges or legal representation, and it may only be 2/3 of the nation whose phone calls are being illegally monitored and tracked, but tomorrow, it may be YOU. THAT is why it's critical to prevent the abuses when they occur. If you wait until YOU'RE whisked away illegally, how will you have a voice to complain?




"Sure we've denied the terrorists some civil liberties and I'm all for that. "

Nobody is denying Bush's desire to combat terrorism. We object to him doing so illegally, in violation of everyone's rights. FISA has been on the books since 1978, and this congress has, on several occassions, offered to adjust it to better suit Bush's needs, but he's refused, choosing instead to just violate that federal law, and our 4th amendment rights along with it. That is NOT acceptable. We are a nation of laws, not lawless men.

Clark, we won't even agree to disagree on any of these issues. But one question keeps coming to the forefront...if Bush and the Republican's are doing all this "illegal" action, why haven't organizations like the ACLU been successful in prosecuting?

As for ignoring warnings...the PDB was no more specific than the same UBL briefs I routinely received while on active duty. Were there intelligence failures...obviously. Could we have stopped it...questionable at best.

Thomas W., now that I'm on the ground in Chicago, perhaps we can restart our discussion. You asked what I thought might be a more prudent course of action, and I tried to answer taking the tact that Bush really believes we are in a life and death struggle with Islamic extremists, that this war will go on for at least a decade in many countries, and that we must show strength and determination. All those things add up to needing a draft, by anyone looking a few years down the road. Yet I hear NOTHING about it? Does that make sense to you?

Michael, At this juncture, I think it is unnecessary to reestablish the draft. One of the key lessons learned from Vietnam was the need to involve the populace. To achieve this support for future wars, the Army made a deliberate decision to realign a majority of their combat support and combat service support to the reserves after Vietnam; thus, should we go to war, the reserves must be activated which, in turn, would garner the support of the people.

This approach did work well in Gulf War I, but I'm not yet convinced it is the solution for long-term conflict such as the war on terror, especially since the military is still able to meet its recruiting goals.

I was caught up in the draft in 1969 while in college, and to say the least, I was not a happy camper because I could see where we were headed with Vietnam absent the support of the people. Moreover, the ability of some to avoid serving their country forced large numbers of what we called CAT IV draftees into service. Although they served well while in Vietnam, throughout the early 1970's their remnants turned into a nightmare. It was common to have large desertion rates, heavy drug abuse, race riots, and a miriad of major headaches. To a great extent, this group was disinfranchised by socieity before they entered, only to be further belittled after the war with all the post war sentiment that ran rabid throughout our country. Shockingly, Servicemen were not allowed to wear their uniform off post during that era.
Carter even went one step further and ordered all Servicemen in Washington DC to wear civilian attire daily to avoid conflict. It wasn't until Reagan was inagurated that things started to improve. On his first day in office, he ordered us to put the uniforms back on and he began to heal the division between the people and the military.

What's all my diatribe have to do with the draft? Essentially, if it's not managed in a balanced manner equal for all (to include females), the potential for failure and internal conflict will be increased dramatically.

Today's volunteers are highly motivated, well-educated, and proud to serve. Accordingly, as long as we can meet our Nation's requirements by volunteers, that will always remain my first choice.

How's that 'activating reserves, in turn, garnering the support of the people' thing workin' out? Seems to be having a counter-productive response at this point based on polling and my travels.

Everything I read, and the military I talk to, say we are losing specialists at a very fast rate. I just saw two reports this morning that say we cant win without lots more troops, and that's just this piddly little war. If this goes global, as Bush, Cheney et al state is possible, then our current force levels are clearly insufficient, and getting worse.

You asked me for more prudent strategies, and I'm replying that instituting a draft would address two factors, enabling us to better fight current and future conflicts and send a clear signal to our enemies that we are in this for the long haul.

The simple reason that this isnt happening is the same political leaders who say the American people need to be strong-willed dont have the political will to even let the word "draft" cross their lips

Micahael, your recommendation for a draft has some merit that I will not discount and it certainly would send some good signals to our adversaries. With the highly devisive rantings of our current politicians, however, I fear it it would only serve to further fracture our country.

As many have stated, the American people have really not been impacted by the war in Iraq and they go about their daily schedules like it was just another day in life. My biggest concern is that we won't attain the public's "buy-in" until there is a "significant emotional impact" that far exceeds what we saw on 9/11.

You have made a very constructive suggestion here and maybe the Gather group can offer some similar ideas as well.

Thomas, I'm not suggesting a draft, I'm suggesting that those in charge need to realize they can't/shouldn't play both sides of the street. If they believe this threat is as large as they say, they need to fight this conflict much more aggressively, and prepare for much larger conflicts in the future. They are doing neither, which is one of the main reasons people are loath to believe them, either here or abroad. Its like someone saying they've got liver disease while ordering a double martini - 'what's wrong with this picture' They are saying there is a huge threat that will go on for decades, but not acting that way.


If you want to kill a gopher, put a snake down the hole
If you want to win at poker, have an ace in the hole
If you want to win a horse race, put your horse on the lead
And if you want to win a war, don't be afraid to bleed

I'm not opposed to going to war, if the cause is just
I'm not naive and realize that sometimes you just...must
But if we decide to go to war, and you dont want to hear "PASS"
then, dammit, don't spend several years fighting it half-assed.