3,332 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0

11 hours ago @ Daily - Littwin: Committed to ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Your description of Reagan/Bush "completely supported ... using chemical weapons against Iran and later against the Kurds" raises some questions and begs your answer to some questions.
1) If SH had and used those weapons then, what happened to them? (Y'all are always confident there were no WMD.)
2) GW used his opinion that invading Iraq might save tens or hundreds of thousands of Kurds otherwise doomed to death via WMD (chemicals.) Was he correct? Was he right? Be careful, because you may have to stand in defense of G.W. in a town where such a point of view could get you shunned. You are so against intervention of any kind at any cost you can't acknowledge even one good result - but I keep trying.

1 day ago @ Daily - Littwin: Committed to ... · 0 replies · 0 points

It's not that simple. Pick a country which doesn't want to "meddle" in other countries' affairs, and go there flatironette. You'll find the influence on world affairs of that country to be nil. And its freedom and independence to be limited. Maybe that is what you want. "Peace" at any cost. Trust those idiot monsters like Saddam to leave you alone. Go for it.

1 day ago @ Daily - Littwin: Committed to ... · 0 replies · 0 points

Whatever he's saying, and I'm not sure either, it's better than his past contributions calling conservatives stupid. I had lumped him with Pitts as a one-track mind with only one or two messages. But this is different. And I will read his future columns with more open-mindedness. He DID think this one out, and present more than one side.

2 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 0 replies · +1 points

But if you do, your answer will be different.

2 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 0 replies · +2 points

Yea, he should have known several hijackers would strike the towers and the Pentagon. CIA and FBI et al missed it, but it was obviously G.W.'s fault. bison65 joins millions all over the world blaming G.W. for 9/11. Good grief.

When will we (ever?) blame perpetrators for their crimes?

2 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 1 reply · +3 points

Nobody has the guts to propose their idea of where we'd be if Saddam had been allowed to continue. Remember the vitriol with which he vowed killing more Kurds and using WMD and all sorts of threats against Israel and the rest of his enemies? Does anyone really believe we could have ignored his threats and troop buildups, etc. as if he was no threat at all? He had money and a history of insane attacks on many and various groups. Does anyone have a credible argument to the effect "all is well" would somehow overtake Iraq under Saddam's leadership?

Remember- the Congress and the Senate and most of our allies agreed we had to take this guy out of his role. If you choose to harp on the importance of WMD and our failure to locate them, you are ignoring the many good reasons something had to be done with Saddam. Most on this board pretend that somehow Saddam would have just voluntarily pulled in his horns and become a sponsor of peace. Bush didn't kick a docile nest of hornets. Even the most selective memory will acknowledge Saddam had already murdered tens of thousands with chemical weapons. Do you doubt this? Do you remember?

3 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 4 replies · +1 points

No, I want perpetual peace, which sometimes requires sacrifice. Obama's policy of bowing to all and apologizing for our contributions of lives has been tested, tried and, I think, proven to fail. I believe a better leader would have left some advisors in Iraq and helped stem this tide of folks who have no respect for us. I believe he and his policies are weak, ineffective, and partly responsible for our current malaise. We are in danger of losing more lives because of his ignorance and stubborn resistance against advice from the military he commands.

You can and will suggest we were powerless to negotiate a deal which kept some advisors in Iraq. But I think you know and understand the responsible party was Obama. How you or anyone can defend his policies stretches my imagination.

3 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 6 replies · -1 points

The above will be better than anything I could say. What's really ironic is you're arguing this whole agreement and the honoring/amending of it was G.W.'s doing, while Obama argued in the debates the December pullout was all on him. Most of his military advisers, without regard to the agreement, were recommending negotiating leaving thousands of residual troops - they must have thought this was a negotiable option - even if you don't.

3 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 1 reply · -3 points

What will it take to get you to answer a simple, fair question?

3 days ago @ Daily - Pitts: Wondering \'wha... · 8 replies · -1 points

Yea, I guess you know more than G.W. and all those articles like the above. Look, tandp, hardly anyone denies we should have left some advisors there. It's one of those "proof is in the pudding" things, and even Obama supporters have acknowledged that. You can and will think what you want.