Discuss Detroit Ľ Archives - Beginning January 2007 Ľ Michigan Senator Carl Levin ę Previous Next Ľ
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 453
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:17 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's interesting to note thate Senator Carl Levin, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, has never served in the U.S. miliary according to the Military Officers Association of America web page.

While I've always thought highly of Senator Levin since occasionally observing him whle he served on the City of Detroit's Common Council, I do not respect his recent public criticism of the Iraq War in the media.

While all of us would like to see the war resolved as soon as possible, for a leading U.S. politician to use the media to voice his concerns rather than working behind the scenes with his immense power as Committee Chair, to me is aiding and abetting the enemy of our troops.

Bob Cosgrove
Top of pageBottom of page

Zephyrprocess
Member
Username: Zephyrprocess

Post Number: 234
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:24 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perhaps someone visiting the museum this weekend will have the courtesy to inform Bob that his account has been hacked by someone who believes that only one branch of government is allowed to advocate for policy decisions in public.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 502
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:43 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't buy into the notion that military service is a pre-requisite for being able to make decisions about - or even criticise - our military. However, I do agree that Sen. Levin is showing a severe lack of leadership on the Iraq War and he is letting his partisanship get in the way of a better solution.

Even the Brooking Institution finds fault with Levin's approach:

quote:

Levin said the November elections that tipped Congress to the Democrats forced Bush to own up to problems with the war strategy. Likewise, he said, a bipartisan show of opposition in Congress could nudge Bush to a quicker withdrawal of troops.

"This puts tremendous pressure on them, even if the president doesn't adopt it," Levin said. "The Iraqi leaders have to get their political act together. We believe there's not a military solution to this violence.

"When they hear we're impatient and are not going to continue on the course we're on - that they should be given notice and we start to leave in four to six months - I think it will have an impact."

That could be effective to a point, said Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He called Levin a smart, serious and charming legislator who often acts in a nonpartisan manner, in the tradition of the Armed Services Committee.

But O'Hanlon said that while Levin offers a strategic out for Bush to withdraw, he should lay out a clearer plan of his own without appearing to abandon ship in Iraq.

Top of pageBottom of page

Bongman
Member
Username: Bongman

Post Number: 1407
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:53 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It's interesting to note that Senator Carl Levin, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, has never served in the U.S. miliary according to the Military Officers Association of America web page."

You must really get a kick out of our Prez' and Vice Prez' war resumes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dave
Member
Username: Dave

Post Number: 127
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 9:36 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You think when the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voices his concerns about the war he is "..aiding and abetting the enemy". Who has a greater responsibility to speak out on the war? The only fault I can find in Levin's actions is that he didn't recognize and speak out against the Bush lies that put us there.
dave
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 2410
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 9:42 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why not fault him for also not doing his job (again) for not declaring war against Iraq?
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 408
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 9:57 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually, the fact that many American's disagree with Bush's policy in Iraq IMPROVES the view of our country in the Muslim world. After the 2006 elections, Muslims now understand that many Americans are decent human beings who are gravely concerned with Bush's lack of truth-telling, morality, and incompetent strategies in the Middle East.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3617
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:05 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Had Levin sent our sons and daughters into a war based on lies, dressed up like a soldier and crowed, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed" and then, when that proved false, taunted, "Bring'em on", and stumbled into a war longer that WWII with no end in sight, I would understand your point.

Fortunately our founding fathers understood not only the necessity of civilian control over the military but the need to balance the power of the branches of government to prevent the reckless abuse of the military by another branch of government.

As for O'Hanlon's call for a "clearer plan" there was another president who in a similar situation took an opposite approach from the current president. When marine barracks were bombed by a suicide bomber, killing 250 marines during another civil war, Lebanon, Ronald Reagan immediately pulled all American troops out. There was no cries of "Cut and Run", no cries for clearer plans, no gloomy predictions about 'consequences' and no more needless loss of American troops in someone else's civil war.

But then what did Ronald Reagan, with no combat experience, know?
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 493
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:10 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's sometimes good to have different perspectives on committees though...

for example, not every member of the Senate judiciary committee is a lawyer...there are one or two who have no legal background whatsoever...
Top of pageBottom of page

65memories
Member
Username: 65memories

Post Number: 336
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:17 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob,with all due respect, Senator Levin has been consistent over the past five years with his criticism of this war and his views are supported by a large majority of his constituents.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 5953
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:43 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bongman always seems to forget that somehow his favorite dummy (with degrees from both Yale and Harvard, and with better grades than Kerry) somehow managed to be highly trained enough, pass enough tests and gain the highest security clearances to be given the keys to an armed fighter jet - to be flown alone - so we'll let Bongman remain clueless.

But Lowell's continued forgetfulness that ALL Dems joined with Bush in calling for the topple of Sadaam & his weapons of mass destruction seems odd since Lowell isn't clueless, nor does he flaunt a screenname with "bong" in it. EVERYONE operated off the same intel. Further, Lowell never peeped while Sadaam whacked his countrymen by the 100's of thousands, but whines eternally when a Republican attempts to bring peace to a corrupt country - and, gasp! - civilians are caught (or intentionally put there by Iraqis) in the crossfire.
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 3926
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 11:25 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Levin needs to pay a little less attention to Iraq and a little more on his state.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 2358
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:07 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey, Charlie Rangel is the head of a major committee now...Levin is nothing compared to that guy.

As for a military service requirement, I'm not so sure about that. However, regardless or whether you've been there or not, you should know that, if you're going to make decisions about our war policy, you should probably rely on the current generals on the scene for info. I don't want to see more troops go to Iraq, and I admit I've lost most of my faith in our ability to change Iraq (because I think too many Iraqis don't want freedom) but something tells me that the president is making a good objective decision because he relying on the generals' opinions to make this unpopular call.




(Message edited by mackinaw on January 27, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2280
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:17 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I know that this is OT, but does Levin really think that his wearing spectacles off the tip of his nose somehow makes him seem more scholarly and less of the doofus he is?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3618
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:18 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All Dems did not join "with Bush in calling for the topple[sic] of Sadaam[sic] & his weapons of mass destruction". Furthermore many, myself included, saw through and protested against those unproven lies ~before~ and after this insane war began. Get the facts straight before more lies are spread and more wars started.

As for Levin paying attention to his state, ending the war in Iraq is doing just that. Time to stop closing schools, fire and police departments in Michigan while our tax dollars build new ones in Baghdad and Iraq.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 1273
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:26 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lowell,

I thought we were borrowing all the money for the war, not using our own taxes.

1953

P.S. I think some of the responses to Bob Cosgrove's thoughtful post were quite distasteful.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit

Post Number: 184
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:33 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Our "Commander in Chief" has quite the military background now doesnt he?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3619
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:35 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point 1953. I stand corrected.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1644
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:37 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Levin voted against invading Iraq
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 188
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:38 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How is that aiding and abetting? Are we all to follow the president blindly? Communication and discussion between all parties, ESPECIALLY the citizens, and especially that which dissents from the prevailing opinion (or the opinion in power) is vital to the health of a democratic republic like ours. There is supposed to be disagreement in government! Now, if he was giving out classified information, such as 'we have a bunch of troops hiding out here ready to attack such and such place' THAT would be aiding and abetting.

There MUST be civilian oversight of the military, so I fail to see why military service should be considered a prerequisite for much of anything other than being a general, or why it should even be brought up in this case.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1314
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 1:44 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also keep in mind that most of the money we are "borrowing" for the war is coming from China.
Top of pageBottom of page

Schoolcraft
Member
Username: Schoolcraft

Post Number: 92
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 2:32 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What a disservice to his constituency. The economic state of affairs in Michigan is the worst in the whole nation. The worst in the whole NATION.The politicians that are current own this in the sense that it is
on their watch to bust their butts to fix.
And these politicians are not pissed and foaming at the mouth to help.There would be plenty of democrats to step in to Levins post as Senate Armed Services Committee head. Unbelievable.
Levin owns half of Lafayette Park in Detroit and while collecting his rents laughs all the way to
the bank....while rest of local economy forecloses.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 2359
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 2:41 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's quite the scholarly, economically correct opinion, Bob.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1315
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 2:55 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is in not true that a large percentage of our government's debt is being financed by China? I would love to be wrong on that, I thought I read somewhere (Newsweek maybe) that it is true.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 2360
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:03 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The government's debt is a public debt. It will come back to us in the form of higher taxes or less services sometime soon. Bringing in China distracts us from the notion of public debt, and is normally used by critics of globalization.
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 411
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:05 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hate to agree with Bob, but he's right on this one.

(Gee, its gonna be interesting when we get into the inevitable military conflict with China.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2281
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:15 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's common knowledge, Bob, and no secret that China holds a huge share of US debt.

Why not? Much of what the consumers in the US buy is manufactured in China, and China has funds aplenty to purchase US debt of all kinds. Hell, they may even own the mortgage of your house, or some houses in your neighborhood.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 636
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:15 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Bongman always seems to forget that somehow his favorite dummy (with degrees from both Yale and Harvard, and with better grades than Kerry) somehow managed to be highly trained enough, pass enough tests and gain the highest security clearances to be given the keys to an armed fighter jet - to be flown alone - so we'll let Bongman remain clueless.



And a helluva job he did too, keeping the VietCong out of Houston. Did you know that Bush had his flight status revoked for the last TWO YEARS of his Guard committment because he failed to take a REQUIRED flight physical? Yeah, Bush took his duties and responsibilities as a pilot so seriously that he couldn't find the time to go visit the Flight Surgeon in those two years. It should be noted that Bush refused to get a Flight Physical during the same year that the Air Force instituted random drug screenings during its flight physicals, although I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with Bush's decision to skip it.


It should also be noted that Ben Barnes, who was Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives when Bush entered the ANG, admitted in an interview that as a favor to George HW Bush, he intervened on behalf of GWB to get him pushed to the top of the waiting list for ANG pilot positions, ahead of many more qualified candidates.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1316
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:50 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, we really have a global economy now. And I have to agree with Mackinaw's assessment of the situation. The relationship between China and the US is a very complex one, and one that I think will not lead to war. China needs someone to buy their goods, if we go to war with them, this will hurt their economy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Chitaku
Member
Username: Chitaku

Post Number: 1076
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:57 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

plus most of the powers that be are well invested in China
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2282
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 3:58 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The US has been on fairly good terms with China ever since the days when President Nixon effected that and caused a wedge between Soviet-Chinese relations way back then.

For China to go to war with the US would cost them much the US debt they hold. Whatever the outcome, they would have kissed off ever getting repaid and losing the US market for their trade.
Top of pageBottom of page

3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity

Post Number: 427
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 4:08 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As a former Army officer (years ago) I have no problem with someone w/ influence over the military having no formal military experience.

There are many talented and dedicated senior military officers I'm sure. However, I have a problem frequently trying to decide if our senior military leaders are incompetent or the politicians (w/ and w/o military service) are screwing them around so much they can't do their jobs. I tend toward believing it's the latter.

I think they ought to turn the military loose and see if they can do their jobs and get us out of the Iraq mess -- and I mean give them all the money and men necessary to do their jobs and see if they can do them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 2361
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 4:08 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree Bob; this will not lead to war, but a lot of loud people sitting on the sidelines tell us it will. Lately, however, I've heard more people say that China's capabilities and ambitions are overblown.

They first have to deal with growing an economy that can integrate all 1 billion of them and end the massive poverty. Imagine the strain put on the world's resources, especially oil, if this becomes a full-blown consumer economy. If we make the best of it, it becomes something that will force us ahead into the future and make us embrace alternative technologies, rather than something that leads to a military buildup.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1318
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 6:31 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well said Mackinaw and LY. You are both correct in your assessments.
Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:03 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl,

While being a pilot does require excellent eyesight, reflexes, and the physical stamina to endure extreme G-forces, it does not require that the pilot have a top secret clearance of any kind whatsoever. My uncle was in the Navy for over 25 years. He spent most of that time as the navigator on a sub-hunting plane on carrier battle groups. He did not get his first security clearance until he was 15 years into his career and he was being re-assigned to the Pentagon.

Point of the story. Air National Guard member, George W. Bush was never entrusted with a top secret clearance (until he became President). He was just an amatuer jet jockey hiding from the war thanks to his daddy's ability to keep him safe at home.

The irony of his National Guard service is that unlike the war he was protected from in his youth, he made sure that the National Guard was not the safe haven that it was in his day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 1085
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:40 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How our military (God bless 'em) can ever end a Civil War among 30 million Iraq Sunni/Shiite nuts is beyond me.

Bring 'em home. F Iraq.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2283
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:42 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The irony of his National Guard service is that unlike the war he was protected from in his youth, he made sure that the National Guard was not the safe haven that it was in his day.


Huh? Isn't the author of this ignorant rant being more than a bit disingenuous because it takes little to disprove it? The total force policy of the US military has been in effect since 1973 and was used by EVERY president since then. Bush hasn't affected this doctrine in any material way. The National Guard has been absorbed into the active military for some thirty-three years already.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 27, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2321
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 9:34 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

While all of us would like to see the war resolved as soon as possible, for a leading U.S. politician to use the media to voice his concerns rather than working behind the scenes with his immense power as Committee Chair, to me is aiding and abetting the enemy of our troops.


Yes, because the War in Iraq was going just fine until Sen. Levin started to criticize it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2322
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 9:53 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Huh? Isn't the author of this ignorant rant being more than a bit disingenuous because it takes little to disprove it? The total force policy of the US military has been in effect since 1973 and was used by EVERY president since then.


Evidentially, you're even more ignorant than said author. From the Wikipedia page that you linked to:
quote:

The total force policy was adopted in the aftermath of the Vietnam War...


It was enacted specifically because of people like President Bush, who used their service in the National Guard as a means to avoid being drafted into the regular Army.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2285
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:16 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh! Izatso? El_jimbo said:
quote:

he made sure that the National Guard was not the safe haven that it was in his day.


So, do you really believe that Bush was acting any differently than the six other presidents since 1973 in this regard? So, why not bitch retroactively about them too?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ltdave
Member
Username: Ltdave

Post Number: 30
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:42 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

actually the National Guard of several states were FEDERALIZED in WWII...

28th Infantry Division (Pennsylvania)
45th Infantry Division (N.Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma and Arizona) come to mind...

NOW, stop the BS about 'Bush's Lies'. if Bush lied then so did:
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Tom Daschle, CARL LEVIN, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Bird, Henry Waxman and Jay Rockefeller...

ALL of them have been quoted as saying Hussein has WMD and is still researching and building WMDs...

""There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies.""
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001


""Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.""
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


""In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.""
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

david
Top of pageBottom of page

Dave
Member
Username: Dave

Post Number: 129
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:08 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem with that ltdave is that those people were supporting Bush because of the lies and politically motivated twisted intelligence he was feeding them. I fault them for that. I, and most of the world, at the time thought his push to war looked overhyped. Nobody liked Saddam, but Bush took us to war saying he was going after us with WMD and was working with Osama. In both cases it has been proved since that he had evidence at the time this was not true.
dave
Top of pageBottom of page

Jrvass
Member
Username: Jrvass

Post Number: 29
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:45 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My, My. Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?

The current problem is that if we pull out before winning, the place will go into a deeper hellhole than it is now or even under Saddam's regime.

Funny thing. You never hear of the positive things the US has done there. The media gets outraged if a war isn't won by the US in less than a month.

Is any soldier's death OK? Of course not. But how many (net) Iraqis have been saved now that the Husseins (Saddam, Uday, Qusay) are now dead?

You can blame the insurgency on Syria and Iran. With help from weak-kneed RePUBICans and Democrats like the detestable Karl Lenin and Debbie Stabmenow.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2288
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:56 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The problem with that ltdave is that those people were supporting Bush because of the lies and politically motivated twisted intelligence he was feeding them.


Big words presented w/o any facts. IOW--BS.

The same intel people have been there for decades, including during the entire Clinton regime.

Granted, Bush the Elder was the head of the CIA back in the 1970s. So, obviously he pulled the wool over Clinton's eyes too, I reckon.

Would the country be better off without any intel? The Wahabists were attacking US interests for decades already and will continue to do so as long as they believe they must. Remember Beirut? Twin Towers 1993?

Some presidents attack and destroy the enemies of the US militarily, while another might take out an occasional aspirin factory or two.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2323
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 10:08 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

actually the National Guard of several states were FEDERALIZED in WWII...


Yes, in WWII; not during the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War, service in the National Guard was a good way to avoid being drafted into the regular Army.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 503
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:01 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

...those people were supporting Bush because of the lies and politically motivated twisted intelligence he was feeding them.



"Big words" that are totally undercut by the assessment of a number of people who spoke on the subject of Hussein & WMD way back while GWB was still the Governor of Texas (emphasis mine):

"The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary.
If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
------------------------------ ---------------
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
------------------------------ ---------------
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
------------------------------ ---------------
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
------------------------------ ---------------
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


source
Top of pageBottom of page

Innovator
Member
Username: Innovator

Post Number: 51
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:15 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"But Lowell's continued forgetfulness that ALL Dems joined with Bush in calling for the topple of Sadaam & his weapons of mass destruction seems odd".

Yeah, it does seem odd, considering that you make blanket statements like that that are COMPLETELY FALSE.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2289
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:30 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Iraq Resolution was passed by a (more than) 2 to 1 majority in the House and by (more than) 3 to 1 majority in the Senate. These days, anything that has a 55 to 45 majority is considered a landslide. So, the numbers authorizing military force in Iraq by both chambers of the Congress were indeed quite conclusive back in 2002.

Naysayers (revisionists) can (and will) bitch all they want, though. But the facts are clearly out there for all (who are not too blind) to see.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 2414
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:44 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a big difference in making a declaration of war, and voting against a declaration approving the invasion of another country.
Top of pageBottom of page

Themax
Member
Username: Themax

Post Number: 517
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 1:22 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Funny how with all the countries with WMD's the one we decided was worth disarming also had the second largest oil reserves. And let's not forget that wahabis of Saudi Arabia financed 911. But the Bushes are in bed with the Saudis, especially the Bin Ladens, through the Carlyle Group. I don't hear much comment from the media on this. If a Dem were in that position, I'm sure the talking heads would be screaming.

The National Guard was the place to avoid the draft during Vietnam. They started deploying them overseas during the first Persian Gulf war after Dan Quayle's "service" came up in an unflattering way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2291
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 1:56 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually some Guards were sent to Nam around 1968, but the regular Army distrusted them. So the Guard units did such support as sorting and delivering mail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2324
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 3:23 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

"Big words" that are totally undercut by the assessment of a number of people who spoke on the subject of Hussein & WMD way back while GWB was still the Governor of Texas (emphasis mine):


Congrats on finding quotes to support a conclusion that there were Democrats who thought that Iraq had WMDs.

Now, would you care to address something more meaningful?

Now that we now that the threat of WMDs has been eliminated, why should the U.S. continue to occupy Iraq?

How can you support the cause of democracy in Iraq by defying the will of the Iraqi people?
quote:

So, the numbers authorizing military force in Iraq by both chambers of the Congress were indeed quite conclusive back in 2002.


Yes, they were. However, if you bothered to read said resolution, you would have known that it authorized the President to undertake a specific series of objectives. Those objectives have now been accomplished.

In spite of that, President Bush and the GOP insist on a on-going occupation of Iraq; getting more of our troops killed and squandering billions of our tax dollars in the process.
quote:

The current problem is that if we pull out before winning, the place will go into a deeper hellhole than it is now or even under Saddam's regime.


News Flash: The U.S. has won in Iraq. We went in to accomplish a specific series of objectives: to eliminate the threat of WMDs, remove Saddam Hussein from power and enforce U.N. Resolutions. Those objectives have been met.

Therefore, by definition, the U.S. has won.

The good news is that we only have to wait another 723 more days until the grown-ups return to the White House.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2325
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 3:30 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

While I've always thought highly of Senator Levin since occasionally observing him whle he served on the City of Detroit's Common Council, I do not respect his recent public criticism of the Iraq War in the media.


It's interesting how some people think nothing about criticizing a President who had sex with an intern and then lied about it, but regard it to be an act of blasphemy to criticize a President who is getting thousands of our troops killed for no good reason and who is wasting billions upon billions of our tax dollars.

It shows a lot about their underlying values.

Sex = bad.

Getting troops killed = good.

Wasting billions of tax dollars = good.

I'm just glad we only have to put up with it for another 723 more days.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2292
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 4:32 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:


I'm just glad we only have to put up with it for another 723 more days.


Hello? Wake-up call!

The Dems in Congress (along with the others) had a chance to pull the plug on Iraq earlier. The results of that vote was about 90% or more for staying there. Some might say by so doing the Congress was "staying the course" also, although I'm sure they wouldn't use those same words.

It matters little who's in presidential office concerning the Middle East. We're going to be there much as we did in Germany and Korea. Gosh! We're still there, aren't we? And when were those wars over--perhaps, back in 1945 for one and 1953 for the other?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2329
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 4:52 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Hello? Wake-up call!

The Dems in Congress (along with the others) had a chance to pull the plug on Iraq earlier. The results of that vote was about 90% or more for staying there.


Yes, there were Democrats who supported the War in Iraq. However, you have to ask an important question: is it better to do something to do something stupid and then learn from your mistake or should one deny that the mistake ever happened and keep making it over and over?

President Bush and the GOP clearly prefer repeating their mistakes over and over again. Congressional Dems, in contrast, have learned from them.
quote:

It matters little who's in presidential office concerning the Middle East. We're going to be there much as we did in Germany and Korea. Gosh! We're still there, aren't we?


Pop quiz: how many of our troops have been killed in Germany or Korea lately?

How many German or South Korean citizens are there who are so determined to see the U.S. leave their homeland that they're willing to kill us?

If we waste our resources in one part of the world, does wasting even more of them in another part make everything better?

As of this post, you have 722 days, 7 hours and 14 minutes to ponder that question. After that, the grown-ups will be running things again.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dave
Member
Username: Dave

Post Number: 130
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 6:17 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard quoted my post in his:

quote:
The problem with that ltdave is that those people were supporting Bush because of the lies and politically motivated twisted intelligence he was feeding them.


Big words presented w/o any facts. IOW--BS.

The same intel people have been there for decades, including during the entire Clinton regime.

I respond:
I didn't say the intelligence people lied, I said Bush did. As far as saying I said that without any facts to back me up. The facts are pretty widely known. Colin Powell told Barbara Walter in an interview that his lies to the UN about WMD and terrorist ties to bin Laden would forever be a blot on his record.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w ashington/2005-09-08-powell-ir aq_x.htm

In the 2003 State of the Union Address Bush asserted that the British had a letter that proved the Iraqis were trying to obtain uranium for an atom bomb.
Here is a Wikipedia report of the chronology of that series of events.

In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush stated in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
In late February of 2002, responding to inquiries from the Vice President's office and the Departments of State and Defense about the allegation that Iraq had attempted to buy enriched uranium yellowcake from Niger, the CIA had authorized a trip by Joseph C. Wilson to Niger to investigate the possibility. He concluded then that there "was nothing to the story," and presented his report in March of 2002.

When Wilson subsequently reported these facts, the White House retaliated through Scooter Libby and probably Vice president Cheney by leaking info to the press that Wilson's wife (Valerie Plame) was an undercover CIA agent.
dave
Top of pageBottom of page

Gene
Member
Username: Gene

Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 4:26 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What really bothers me is the fact that the terrorists have started a battle right here in this country within our political system.Its called divide and conquer. Looks like they are winning.
Top of pageBottom of page

Harpernottingham
Member
Username: Harpernottingham

Post Number: 124
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 12:36 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Man, this thread is WAY better than "Flashpoint."
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 715
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 8:22 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good post Bob.

Really, Senator Levin is no different than Bill Ford.

Sure the decisions that he makes are abhorrent and he remains one of this state's most public embarrassments, but as long as fans keep buying Lions tickets and voters keep putting this traitor we call a Senator into office, both Ford and Levin can tell themselves they are doing the right thing.

Men like these are why they create pubs for right minded people.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mjb3
Member
Username: Mjb3

Post Number: 139
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 8:50 am: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All the Dem's in the Senate drank the "Bush/Rove" kool-aid on Iraq. Now it's in the sh&t and everyone rightfully wants to get out of dodge.

Should have stayed in Afg. and finished the job(got bin laden, taliban m. f*&kers). Then move on to Saudi Arabia to get them to modernize schools(madrasa's) to quit teaching the wahabbi bs(70 virgins if you strap a bomb to belt).

Levin, Hillary, Kerry, Edwards all realize they should have voted against Iraq. Sure Saddam Hussein was scumbag but world is full of dictators and we should have stayed focused on real war on terror.

2006 election meant people given up on Bush and GOP. Unfortunately, by 2008, the people will have given up on Dems after they make too many stupid statements.
Top of pageBottom of page

1st_sgt
Member
Username: 1st_sgt

Post Number: 23
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 12:22 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I donít think Mr. Levin or any one in Congress needs to have served in the military. It would be beneficial, but congress does not make any direct decisions on how the military does its job. It provides the means, and gives permission for it to be used but not how it fights.

The President is different. He has direct leadership responsibility for how the military executes its mission. A working knowledge (I think) should be required. We could set up a boot camp for candidates LOL. And teach them how to salute correctly (something Mr. Clinton never learned to do) and then they would appreciate the circumstances they put the military and their families into.
Someone who has never served can never fully know what it is like. They never had to give up their rights, their family and comforts to risk life and limb in faraway places for ideas they many or may not agree with.

Unless you have humped (walked) in my boots I canít expect you to understand me.

Example;
I had six Great Uncles who fought in WWII, and also neighbors who never talked about what they went through.
I was in the service many years and went home on leave many times and they still never talked about their experiences (War).
Until, I returned from the first Gulf War, and when welcoming me home and visiting they started to share their stories.
I guess they figured I would not/ could not understand until I had seen the elephant my self.

Just my two cents worth.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 1921
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 3:14 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why is this in Discuss Detroit?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2352
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 3:37 pm: ††Edit PostDelete Post†††Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What really bothers me is the fact that the terrorists have started a battle right here in this country within our political system.Its called divide and conquer. Looks like they are winning.


You're totally right. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a U.S. Senate where no one ever asked questions about the President's policies and no one cared if American soldiers were killed for no good reason.

What is this country coming to? It's as if someone found a dictionary and looked up the word "democracy" or something.
quote:

Sure the decisions that he makes are abhorrent and he remains one of this state's most public embarrassments, but as long as fans keep buying Lions tickets and voters keep putting this traitor we call a Senator into office...


Amen, brother! If there's one thing I simply cannot stand it's when people actually try to use their brains or care about America's national security.

What's wrong with this Levin guy?!?

*sigh*

Someday folks are going to find this post in DY archives. When they do, I really hope they have their sarcasm detector turned on.

Until then, the good news is that we only have another 713 more days until the grown-ups returns to the White House.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.