Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I'm never grateful to people who fifth-column for humanity's enemy, and even less so to people who try and make America lose without even the crappy excuse of being foreigners.

Success, from a long-range point of view, was delayed: Vietnam eventually concluded Communism doesn't work as an economic system, and now seems to be turning capitalist in the streets while maintaining Communism as a sort of state religion. For the time being.

Which goes to demonstrate we were on the right side in that war, and that, blue, is something I've always understood -- since about fuckin' fourth grade. You, OTOH, have some catching up to do. I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.

And where is McGovern now? -- retired and good riddance.

Yet, you're a Nixon fan. Whatever happened to him? Give us some spin on how disgracing the office of President makes America win. And, while you're at it, how one 'catches up' to a fourth-grade opinion of the Vietnam war.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Blue, I never have patience with the pseudosophisticates either. You are not able to fight totalitarianism; I am, and I have, and it's a way you'll never be, which keeps you the lesser. You can't even catch up with "a fourth-grade opinion." How lame is that?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You are not able to fight totalitarianism; I am, and I have, and it's a way you'll never be, which keeps you the lesser.

So Urbane Guerrilla just announced either his suicide or his impending mental self destruction. UG - you are the classic example of totalitarianism. You even preach (lie) exact same spin as those who did it in 1970 support the liar Nixon. Nixon also promoted and Cheney currently promotes same totalitarianism that Urbane Guerrilla promotes.

[Ibby]

Amen. Something truly sensible from tw for a change (sorry mate).

[tw]

From the New York Times of 10 Jan 2007:

U.S. and Iraqis Hit Insurgents in All-Day Fight
The fighting raged less than 1,000 yards from the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses both the American command and the Iraqi government. It was the latest episode for the troubled neighborhood around Haifa Street, where major campaigns have repeatedly been initiated to rid the area of insurgents, only to have them re-infiltrate.

Iraqi officials said that at least 50 militants were killed Tuesday, but the Americans said they could not provide a count.

Complete with body counts, this reeks of Vietnam. US Military with a second surge this fall in Baghdad (troops removed from Anbar province execute this surge) still fight battles all day long - even with Apache helicopters and fighter bombers? This is a crowded city. Right outside the Green Zone. This is a victory?

Green zone - where Americans did not leave in 2004 due to security risks even in Baghdad – when the entire administration said we were winning hearts and minds? US troops and civilians could even walk the streets of Saigon during a losing war. A raging all day battle only right outside the green zone? This sounds more like the Tet Offensive.

Frank Miller was a 22 year veteran of the Pentagon; an analyst who viewed documents that most others only saw after being censored. Condi Rice, so frustrated for information in March 2004, sent Miller to Baghdad. Remember, this is when Iraq was secure – even according to many in The Cellar; reconstruction was rumored to be ongoing; the press was accused of being negative.

Miller was struck by how the Coalition Provisional Authority had become a hermit city, ensconced in the Green Zone. He explained to one CPA official how he planned to fly around the country to visit with the US military division commanders ... "Wow," the CPA official said. "I wish we could to that. I wish we could see the country." ...

It was striking, Miller thought, that the Iraqis he saw seemed generally friendly, or at least not antagonistic. Little kids came running out, smiling, saying hello, and giving the thumbs-up sign as they moved through.

And that is what many even in the Cellar posted.

It wasn't the middle finger, he noted, not realizing that in Iraq the thumbs-up sign traditionally was the equivalent of the American middle-finger salute.

Reality in Iraq even in 2004 was quite different from what our Rush Limbaugh and Fox News liars promoted.

It was that bad then. It’s many times worse now - an all day battle fought even right outside the Green Zone. What does that say (and obviously say to all Iraqis)? The insurgents are winning just like the Vietcong 30+ years ago. The president is lying to save his legacy as Nixon did (knowning full well that Vietnam could not be won). George Jr will send more (and too few) troops as if securing Baghdad will somehow win “Mission Accomplished”. He does this why? Read those posts on and after Sept 2003.

[tw]

Some samples of what we were saying about Iraq in The Cellar in late 2003 and early 2004. Saddam was on the run. Abu Ghraid had not yet happened. Tobias posted from Iraq. Fallujah was not yet fought. deBaathification and disbanded Armies in May had started a summer of violent attacks.

How corrupt the media?
So, UT, what do you think of the Iraq big picture now? where xoxoxoBruce says

The hell you will. You started this thread. Git back here.

Major Concession
Bush goes to Baghdad
Pissed Iraqi foreign minister kicks UN squarely in the nads

Can't you anti-war people keep your bullshit pretenses straight? ...
The reason we're confused is the story from the White House keeps changing.

Iraqi poll results
America's Antagonistic Allies

It was where we made a major mistake when our civilian leaders failed to plan for Iraqi surrender in 1991 - leaving Schwarzkopf to jury-rig a solution. As a result of mistakes made in Washington, we stayed and became a target of regional extremists.

What David Kay said and what they report

What he also said, which they don't report (source UK newspaper): Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief.

Nation Building 101

As the Joint Chiefs said was necessary before the Iraq invasion even began - 200,000 troops for at least two years - minimum. ... I am struck once again by the incomparable hold VIETNAM has over some people.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Nixon also promoted and Cheney currently promotes same totalitarianism that Urbane Guerrilla promotes.

This is true -- in that I promote no totalitarianism at all. My mind, tw, remains clearer than yours at all times, at least those times when I am awake. Keep this in mind -- to the degree possible in yours.

It is remarked, from the National Review quarter, that Nixon was no conservative -- and I think with justice, taking the quickly-failed wage-price regulation as just one example. The Bush Administration's fundamental political instinct is more in line with conservative Republican thinking: minimize tax burden (though in the typical Republican/Beltway/Democrat fallacy, don't minimize the burden by cutting government services and staffers of agencies, hence being vulnerable on the score of deficit spending), don't monkey with the Bill of Rights even where it might be convenient (a besetting sin of the Clinton Administration, which never gave a tinker's damn about the BoR and perennially worked to subvert it, though they were more successful at subverting the Department of Justice), and if a war comes, and come it did for certain on 9/11, try and win it rather than do the Dem Party thing -- make a half measure and call it "unwinnable."

This is what they try for, and they keep trying, even if they don't achieve it in the press of circumstance and the roar of war. The previous occupant of the Oval Office never even tried, and was an inept cypher at foreign policy. What can you say of a President who never recognized he had a war to fight? Glad I never voted for this -- this indescribable Ol' Possum Head.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

... don't monkey with the Bill of Rights even where it might be convenient ...

Oh my fucking god. You have got to be kidding me. Bush has unabashedly trampled every amendment but the second.

Oh wait, thats what you meant by the Bill of Rights. Nevermind then.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You also forgot the First, whose robustness is demonstrated right here, as you display without let nor hindrance (certainly not from me) your seventeenness.

The Third is a hard one to trespass upon -- it's been legitimately invoked a grand total of once AFAIK, and that case was settled without trial, or anything being established in the caselaw either.

The Fourth is where we come into furious debate indeed. There seem to be points to be made on both sides. I just note that no person here present has been searched unreasonably.

The Fifth through Eighth aren't touched.

Then we get to the Ninth and Tenth -- and the quiet campaign to revive these more fully. There isn't a triumphalist conquest by these two yet for two reasons: their particular partisans figure there's a long way to go yet, and there isn't really active opposition by anyone, just an inertia.

Unabasedly wasn't the word you wanted. When checking your prose, read slowly. I remind myself of that, from time to time.

[Ibby]

abasHedly.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

One is being tightened more and more.

Four is gone.

Five is gone.

Six is gone.

Seven is gone.

Eight is gone.

[Undertoad]

Where the word "gone" is just hyperbole to make a point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They just added, "Usually" to the front, or "except when..." to the end, of each amendment. I think amendment VI got both.

[Ibby]

If it's not universally applied, if they get to pick and choose at ALL who does and doesnt have the rights given by the bill of rights... It's over. If they can pick and choose, it might as well not exist.

[Ibby]

Now that I have time I'll explain a little, I posted the simple list when I was really really tired.

One - Christianity is becoming more and more of a state religion under the republican regime, and free speech is more conditional now. "Free Speech Zones", anyone?

Four - Illegal wiretapping and spying on US nationals without warrant and at the discretion of the white house alone.

Five - Forced confession, and holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Six - Again, holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge without declaration of war.

Seven - Trials not by jury but by military against prisoners.

Eight - If torture isn't cruel and unusual I don't know what is.

Part gone is GONE.