Thomas Young: Letter to Bush and Cheney

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomas Young: Letter to Bush and Cheney

I came home today expecting some one else to post this, but here it is.

His letter sums up my feelings about the entire mess and I support his opinions.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html

I will always consider Bush and Cheney enemies of our country.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I will

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I will always consider Bush and Cheney enemies of our country.

What about Obama and Biden?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I will always consider Bush and Cheney enemies of our country.

What about Obama and Biden?

Why do you consider them enemies of our country?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I will always consider Bush and Cheney enemies of our country.

What about Obama and Biden?

Why do you consider them enemies of our country?

No, but I don't consider Bush and Cheney "enemies of our country" either. My question is whether you are being consistent considering that there has been no significant change in our foreign policy and proclivity towards war. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I will always consider Bush and Cheney enemies of our country.

What about Obama and Biden?

Why do you consider them enemies of our country?

No, but I don't consider Bush and Cheney "enemies of our country" either. My question is whether you are being consistent considering that there has been no significant change in our foreign policy and proclivity towards war. 

Actually, the issue is the reasons for being in Iraq.

No "significant" change? Please explain where the line is drawn between your opinion and mine?

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:No

digitalbeachbum wrote:

No "significant" change? Please explain where the line is drawn between your opinion and mine?

I don't consider any of our recent Presidents "enemies of our country", you apparently do and I think that is a pretty significant line since enemies of our country are people who should be killed or imprisoned. 

What change have we had in our foreign policy that you consider significant? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I consider them war

I consider them war criminals, but I don't see why they could be considered enemies of America. That would imply that they willingly and knowingly fucked up the country. Neither of them are smart enough.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just shut the fuck up, you

Just shut the fuck up, you are merely a victim of Nixon and all the memes that followed because he couldn't understand "It's isn't illegal when the President does it".

You are just a sore loser. We can't have a liberal president EVER because elections suck when you lose. You lost, get the fuck over it. Republicans and Libertarians and "Ayn Rand" "third partiers" like you love it when you win but hate voting when you lose.

Either you want a free society or you don't. If I can suffer under the ineptness of your "let them eat cake" bullshit, I think you'll survive if one of us evil liberal commie nanny state lovers ends up in the drivers seat.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Someone woke up on the wrong

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Someone woke up

Vastet wrote:
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

No I woke up on the right side of reality. Others seem to get focused on word choice.

Now, if I was claiming to be perfect you'd have a case, but all I am doing is bitching.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The problem is all you are

The problem is all you are doing is bitch. There's not even an argument in there. Certainly not one that involves the subject matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

No "significant" change? Please explain where the line is drawn between your opinion and mine?

I don't consider any of our recent Presidents "enemies of our country", you apparently do and I think that is a pretty significant line since enemies of our country are people who should be killed or imprisoned. 

What change have we had in our foreign policy that you consider significant? 

I think you are speaking about our government being an aggressor?

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I consider them

Vastet wrote:
I consider them war criminals, but I don't see why they could be considered enemies of America. That would imply that they willingly and knowingly fucked up the country. Neither of them are smart enough.

They lied to America about WMD and terrorists being connected to Iraq. They knew it was a lie and it wasn't to benefit America, it was benefiting business ventures. It was about greed.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I consider them war criminals, but I don't see why they could be considered enemies of America. That would imply that they willingly and knowingly fucked up the country. Neither of them are smart enough.

They lied to America about WMD and terrorists being connected to Iraq. They knew it was a lie and it wasn't to benefit America, it was benefiting business ventures. It was about greed.

And Biden didn't? Biden was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and had access to the intelligence reports. He was a very influential person in the Senate who ran the hearings that would ultimately lead to the Senate granting authorization to go to war in Iraq. Given that Biden was in an influential position and had access to the intelligence estimates, his opposition may have made a large difference. His support of the war, especially in the light that he opposed the first war in Iraq, went a long way towards ensuring that President Bush would get the authorization with a large proportion of the Senate behind him.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg81697/html/CHRG-107shrg81697.htm

Biden wrote:

 Welcome, everyone, here this morning to what is the 

beginning of, I hope, for lack of a better phrase, a national 

dialog on a very important question. There are some very 

difficult decisions for the President and for the Congress, and 

we think it's important, the members of this committee, that we 

begin to discuss what is being discussed all over, but not here 

in the Congress so far.

    The attacks of 9/11 have forever transformed how Americans 

see the world. Through tragedy and pain, we have learned that 

we cannot be complacent about events abroad. We cannot be 

complacent about those who espouse hatred for us. We must 

confront clear danger with a new sense of urgency and resolve.

    Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, in 

my view, is one of those clear dangers. Even if the right 

response to his pursuit is not so crystal clear, one thing is 

clear. These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or 

Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power. President Bush has 

stated his determination to remove Saddam from power, a view 

many in Congress share. If that course is pursued, in my view, 

it matters profoundly how we do it and what we do after we 

succeed.

    The decision to go to war can never be taken lightly. I 

believe that a foreign policy, especially one that involves the 

use of force, cannot be sustained in America without the 

informed consent of the American people. And so just as we have 

done in other important junctures in our history, the Foreign 

Relations Committee today begins what I hope will be a national 

dialog on Iraq that sheds more light than heat and helps inform 

the American people so that we can have a more informed basis 

upon which they can draw their own conclusions. 

 

Even 5 years later he maintained that his decision was the right one

 

Quote:

MR. RUSSERT:  I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing.  Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein:  “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”

“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat.  This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN:  That’s right, and I was correct about that.  He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about.  I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant.  What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have.  When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had.  The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax?  And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth.  And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all.  But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT:  Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN:  Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.  The weapons inspectors said he had them.  He catalogued—they catalogued them.  This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream.  This was, in fact, catalogued.  They looked at them and catalogued.  What he did with them, who knows?  The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so?  Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

But the point was, we were talking then about whether or not we could keep the pressure of the international community on Iraq to stay in the box we had them in.  And remember, you had the French and others say the reason all those children were dying in Iraq, the reason why hospitals didn’t have equipment is because of what we, the United States, were doing, imposing on Iraq these sanctions.  And that was the battle.  The battle was do we lift these sanctions or do we in fact increase the sanctions?  And everyone at the time was talking about—from the secretary of state to even the president—that this was to demonstrate to the world the president of the United States had the full faith and credit of the United States Congress behind him to put pressure on the rest of the world to say, “Hey, look, you lift the sanctions, you’re—we’re going to be on our own here.  Don’t lift the sanctions.  Get the inspectors back in.” That was the context of the debate, to be fair about it.

MR. RUSSERT:  But when you read the national intelligence estimate, which has now been released, there’re a lot of caveats put on the level of intelligence about the aluminum tubes and...

SEN. BIDEN:  Absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT:  General Zinni, who’s been on this program a few weeks ago, said that when he heard the discussion about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, he said, “I’ve never heard that” in any of the briefings he had as head of the Central Command.  How could you as a U.S. senator be so wrong?

SEN. BIDEN:  I, I wasn’t wrong.  I was on your show when you asked me about aluminum tubes, and I said they’re for artillery.  I don’t believe they’re for cascading.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you said Saddam was a threat.  He had to be...

SEN. BIDEN:  He was a threat.

MR. RUSSERT:  In what way?

SEN. BIDEN:  The threat he presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon—not by building it, by purchasing it.  I also believed he was a threat in that he was—every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of—after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating.  Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t.  The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not.  And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening.  They were pulling away.  They were saying, “Well, wait a minute.  Maybe he’s not so bad.  Maybe we should lift the no-fly zone.  Maybe we should lift the sanctions.” That was the context.

And on your show, you had that one Sunday the vice president of the United States saying he’s reconstituted his nuclear weapons.  I was on a simultaneous program, they asked me the question.  I said either the president—either the vice president’s not telling the truth or he did not get the same briefing I have or he fully misunderstands what he was told.  So I did not believe he had weaponized his materials.  But he did have material that, in fact, could theoretically be weaponized.  And to let it sit there at the time, I wanted the inspectors back in to force him that position of having to give it up.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/page/2#.UUxOxxxkxTM

His only criticisms of Bush were not about the statements regarding WMDs but was in how the war was being fought, which he described as "incompetent". We live in a democratic republic, the President can't go to war without authorization from the legislature. Authorization that was overwhelmingly granted to him with only a handful of democrats voting against it. 

Obama at the time was a nobody with no power. He did make speeches against the war, but when he got to the Senate he voted to approve every appropriations bill through 2006. It was in 2007, when he started running for President that he suddenly started voting against the appropriations. Cutting off funding is the quickest way the Senate can force the President to bring troops home and stop the war. Both Obama and Biden were in the senate and neither did anything about it. 

Once he became President, Obama followed the "status of forces" agreement that was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration governing the departure of US troops, despite the desire of the Iraqi government that we leave earlier. There is no reason why Obama couldn't renegotiate that agreement for a shorter time table. In fact, he did attempt to renegotiate it by trying to get the Iraqi government to allow 10,000 troops to stay in Iraq. Something that they ultimately refused. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/us-troops-iraq-withdrawal-_n_890551.html

So is either Obama or Biden an "enemy of our country"? 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I consider them war criminals, but I don't see why they could be considered enemies of America. That would imply that they willingly and knowingly fucked up the country. Neither of them are smart enough.

They lied to America about WMD and terrorists being connected to Iraq. They knew it was a lie and it wasn't to benefit America, it was benefiting business ventures. It was about greed.

Almost everything the US has done since 1944 is exactly the same. Cuba. Vietnam. Korea. South America. Israel. Everything.
If Bush and Cheney are enemies of America for wasting soldiers lives on greed, then every president since the 40's is equally guilty.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I consider them war criminals, but I don't see why they could be considered enemies of America. That would imply that they willingly and knowingly fucked up the country. Neither of them are smart enough.

They lied to America about WMD and terrorists being connected to Iraq. They knew it was a lie and it wasn't to benefit America, it was benefiting business ventures. It was about greed.

Almost everything the US has done since 1944 is exactly the same. Cuba. Vietnam. Korea. South America. Israel. Everything. If Bush and Cheney are enemies of America for wasting soldiers lives on greed, then every president since the 40's is equally guilty.

Hmmm. I wouldn't go that far to say ALL the Presidents are under that umbrella, but I do agree with you that this "colonial conquest" attitude needs to end. If we were smart we would focus spending all of our money on living on Mars. We could claim the planet as our own, terra-form it, then move on to bigger and better things.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Biden

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Biden is a dolt.

As for Obama, he was saying politics a usual. Do I blame him for the war? No. Do I think he could have done a better job at ending it? Yes, but it's difficult to coach a team in the super bowl if you come in with 2 minutes remaining, 4th quarter and down by 10 points.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Biden

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Biden is a dolt.

Yes. And I would agree that Bush and Cheney are both dolts too. But is he an enemy of our country?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
 

As for Obama, he was saying politics a usual. Do I blame him for the war? No. Do I think he could have done a better job at ending it? Yes, but it's difficult to coach a team in the super bowl if you come in with 2 minutes remaining, 4th quarter and down by 10 points.

I agree, it really doesn't make sense to put blame on Obama for Iraq since he wasn't around for the initial vote and his votes for funding would have been more politically toxic to vote against. It would have been nice if he stood alongside the handful of real anti-war representatives. 

What I do criticize him for is the assassination of American citizens overseas without trial. Then a couple of weeks later we targeted and murdered a fucking 16 year old kid his 17 year old cousin and seven other people having a bbq. Then proceeded to lie to us about it. 

I criticize him for the prolific use of drones and special forces in countries where we have never declared war and lead to a high rate of civilian deaths. There is a lot to criticize him for and I find it extremely disturbing that so many who were quick to criticize Bush on similar grounds apparently let Obama slide simply because he has a (d) by his name. I find that disturbing and sad.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X