Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <major snippage>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is going to take some MAJOR breakdown in our way of life
>>>>>>>>> before the population gets off its collective ass and makes
>>>>>>>>> real change happen. By then the Democrats and, to a lesser
>>>>>>>>> extent, the Republicans may have us screwed so bad there are
>>>>>>>>> no alternatives left. Either way we are getting EXACTLY what
>>>>>>>>> we deserve for being so apathetic for decades. I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> blame the younger people if they just told all the Baby
>>>>>>>>> Boomers that when they retire they will be euthanized since
>>>>>>>>> they squandered all the money that was to go toward their
>>>>>>>>> retirement costs.
>>>>>>>> Saw an interview with Andrew J. Bacevich last night on Bill
>>>>>>>> Moyers' Journal on PBS. Absolutely riveting, and that's not an
>>>>>>>> exaggeration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bacevich is highly accredited and tells the real story - he is
>>>>>>>> right on the money IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's a preview of what he's all about:
>>>>>>>> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html
>>>>>>> It sounds interesting. I agree that our biggest threats come
>>>>>>> from within our own borders and I'll go even further and say
>>>>>>> they come from the very politicians we elect to solve our
>>>>>>> problems. It wouldn't take them more than a year to pass all
>>>>>>> the legislation needed to right the ship. It will take years to
>>>>>>> actually make it happen but to set the framework for it would be
>>>>>>> easy. I think there needs to be a fundamental change in our
>>>>>>> political structure and it needs to start with term limits. I
>>>>>>> think career politicians are killing this country.
>>>>>> Bacevich knows what he's talking about. Here's a brief bio on
>>>>>> him: http://www.bu.edu/ir/faculty/bacevich.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's an interesting article he wrote last month for the Boston
>>>>>> Globe:
>>>>>>
>>
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed.../articles/2008
>>>>>> /07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought/
>>>>> I don't agree with all his assessments in this article. I'm not a
>>>>> water carrier for Bush these days but some of the things he bashes
>>>>> Bush on in that article are yet to be determined. As time passes
>>>>> the real benefit or folly of the Iraq war will be known. A
>>>>> talking head just can't say whether it was, or wasn't, worth the
>>>>> expense at this point in time. I don't know much about this guy
>>>>> but reading that article didn't do must to impress me with his
>>>>> insight on foreign affairs. He seems a little too biased. He
>>>>> made too many statements of fact when all the facts aren't known
>>>>> at this juncture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iraq could very well turn out like Vietnam. When one looks at
>>>>> Vietnam in and of itself it wasn't a war worth fighting. When put
>>>>> into context with the overall goal of stopping the expansion of
>>>>> communism, opinions as to its worth change. Had the USSR been
>>>>> allowed to expand their influence unchecked we might have a very
>>>>> different world. The same can be applied to the radical Islamics
>>>>> today. If they are allowed to run unchecked we might be facing a
>>>>> dire situation 25, 50 or 100 years from now. No one, and I repeat
>>>>> NO ONE, knows whether the decision to invade and transform Iraq to
>>>>> a more Western political ideology was a worthwhile endeavor. It
>>>>> is way too early to tell. When I read this guy stating
>>>>> unequivocally that the Iraq war was a mistake it makes me think he
>>>>> has too high an opinion of his mental prowess.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To date, nobody else has professed more sobering ideas than
>>>>>> Bacevich IMO. Unfortunately, it will take a radical mindset
>>>>>> change in America before we see real change such as he describes.
>>>>> The guy has some good ideas from a domestic standpoint but like
>>>>> most talking heads, he is far from having all the answers to our
>>>>> problems. Thanks for the heads-up on him though. It never hurts
>>>>> to get all sides of the argument.
>>>> After watching the piece 60 minutes did tonight on Valerie Plame,
>>>> I'm more convinced than ever that the Bush administration should
>>>> and will be thought of as one of the more corrupt and irresponsible
>>>> administrations in history. If nothing else, it proves that
>>>> politics in the 21st century is most definitely out of control, and
>>>> the current administration is right at the forefront.
>>> IMO, the Plame case was them looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
>>> They tried to do everything possible to stay in the spotlight.
>>> There was probably a money angle in it for them. The Plame
>>> investigation was the Democrats version of the Kenneth Star
>>> investigation except it never got as much traction. The only thing
>>> that came from it was Scooter Libby's perjury conviction that had
>>> nothing to do with the original investigation. Plus, I don't look
>>> to CBS, ABC, NBC etc. to provide unbiased news or reporting.
>>
>> Bush and his cronies (and yes, he _is_ ultimately responsible for the
>> actions of his people) outed Valerie Plame (which, by the way, is an
>> act of treason and a capitol offense during wartime, and we are at
>> war according to Bush) because Bush wanted revenge against her
>> husband, Joe Wilson, for exposing the sham about Niger and yellowcake
>> uranium. To top it off, Bush outright lied when he said that he'd
>> fire anyone involved with leaking the name.
>
> Her operations in the CIA weren't all that secret. She and her
> husband made it no secret she was working for the CIA. They made it
> sound like they were on some super secret mission when they were
> supposedly outed.
> This was just one of dozens of ways the Democrats tried to pin
> something on Bush and his staff. They wasted so much time on this
> stuff instead of solving some real problems like the rising cost of
> oil. The Democrats have been fiddling trying to nail Bush while Rome
> burned.

By no means are the Democrats innocent. But I'm still convinced that
the current administration is guilty of a lot more than they've been
held accountable for.

>> IMO, allegations (whether true or not) that news sources are all
>> biased and untrustworthy is an excuse not to look at the facts.
>
> That is the problem though. You can't rely on the media to present
> the facts. All I know (and all 99.999999% of us know) is that
> millions of dollars were spent on a witch hunt that yielded Libby
> getting his hand smacked for perjury which had nothing to do with the
> original reason for the investigation. Then after the investigation
> was over Plame tried to suck off the government tit some more by
> launching a civil lawsuit but her case was thrown out of court because
> it had no merit.

The facts are out there - it just takes a bit more legwork to find them.
My only point was that some people's claims that they can't find facts
to support certain allegations is nonsense. Facts are there, they just
need to have all the crap scraped off them.

>>> I have no doubt that Bush sold the war to the public, Congress and
>>> the world, in general. Then again all wars have to be sold in this
>>> country.
>>
>> Maybe in this day and age, and that's one of the major problems. Why
>> do wars have to be "sold" in the first place?
>
> It has always been this way. The Revolutionary War had to be sold as
> did the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan and
> Iraq wars. The next one will have to be sold too.

Perhaps we have different ideas about "selling" war. When a cause is
obviously justfied, there's no selling involved IMO. The example that
immediately comes to mind was Peal Harbor. Sure people can cite 9/11 as
well, but the big difference is that the "enemy" in 9/11 was never
correctly identified until recently. Even then, we continue to plunder
along in the wrong arena.

> During WWII the
> government regularly manipulated the news and other information fed to
> the general population to keep interest in the war high and bad news
> in the shadows. It is just the way mankind works because wars need
> the support of a majority of people to be fought and won.

There is a huge difference between Americans supporting a just cause and
Americans being sold a war like it's a used car.

>>> IMO, what we have today is a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks
>>> whining about being duped and/or using this issue to score political
>>> hits. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people whining
>>> now bought into it and went right along with Bush. Then when things
>>> got dicey they bailed and started revising history to make
>>> themselves look like prophets. Now that Iraq is stabilizing they
>>> are running back the other way. We won't know if the Iraq war was
>>> worthwhile for another two decades, if not longer.
>>
>> I completely disagree. IMO, many of the horrible truths about this
>> adminstration's chicanery are now being brought into the public's
>> view, and as a result, more and more people are questioning what the
>> hell has been going on.
>
> IMO, we can all get whatever we want from the news reports. I don't
> claim to know one way or the other who did what to whom. Whether the
> war was worth the cost in dollars and lives won't be known for
> decades, IMO.

Sorry, Michael, but I believe that's utter nonsense. Simply put, we are
involved in something we should not be because of certain people's
agendas.

>>>> Bacevich certainly has an ax to grind; his son was killed in Iraq.
>>> This explains his tone. It also requires a footnote be placed on
>>> his statements. Things like this cloud people's judgment and can
>>> skew their thought process.
>>
>> Bacevich has been up front all along about his son's death, and his
>> views and ideas are all valid regardless. He's still one of the few
>> people who make total sense.
>
> He seems a little too sure of himself for me to give him my
> unwaivering seal of approval.

I'm not asking you to give him any kind of approval. I'm simply
pointing out that what he says and what he's said make more sense to me
than just about anyone else I've heard on the course of American
history. If you disagree, that's fine. Please tell me who makes more
sense to you and I'll gladly read him/her.

>>>> However, all his ideas are based on factual history. He's
>>>> certainly one of the most respected and knowledgable people that
>>>> have spoken on these issues, and what he says makes the most sense
>>>> to me out of anybody I've heard to date.
>>> From what little I have read I respect his domestic ideas more than
>>> his
>>> geopolitical ones.
>>
>> You might want to read more, as he's making the most sense of anyone
>> these days.
>
> He might be. I'll try and read his stuff more now that I know he is
> out there.

It's nothing to do with Bacevich, but this is a very interesting link
nonetheless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&fmt=18