I think we're talking about the wrong thing here. There's a difference between following a principle and the way you follow it. Let's say Bush's principle is to protect Americans. Great. I have no beef with that principle. But I have huge issues with the way the Bush administration is following that principle. Invading and occupying Iraq does nothing to achieve that principle. In fact, it works against it if you consider the thousands of American soldiers killed. It also works against it to the extent that occupying Iraq has taken away efforts to combat more genuine threats (e.g. finding OBL in Afghanistan/Pakistan).

Standing by one's principles is totally different from stan...

I think we're talking about the wrong thing here. There's a difference between following a principle and the way you follow it. Let's say Bush's principle is to protect Americans. Great. I have no beef with that principle. But I have huge issues with the way the Bush administration is following that principle. Invading and occupying Iraq does nothing to achieve that principle. In fact, it works against it if you consider the thousands of American soldiers killed. It also works against it to the extent that occupying Iraq has taken away efforts to combat more genuine threats (e.g. finding OBL in Afghanistan/Pakistan).

Standing by one's principles is totally different from standing by false factual premises and standing by failed policies.

Gee, I'm certain all you folks criticizing the president also have diplomas from Yale and an intelligence briefing every two hours, right?

Oh, you don't? Boy, then you folks sure make a lot of accusations for people that get your news spooned to you by the New York Times instead of from Quantico's intelligence-gathering analysts.

Before you call the president stupid, why not aspire to something a little more difficult to obtain than an AA from the local junior college, shall we? Before you start telling the world how the war in Iraq should be fought, maybe you should spend a little time at the Army War College, or at the very least study something about counter-insurgency tactics. At the...

Gee, I'm certain all you folks criticizing the president also have diplomas from Yale and an intelligence briefing every two hours, right?

Oh, you don't? Boy, then you folks sure make a lot of accusations for people that get your news spooned to you by the New York Times instead of from Quantico's intelligence-gathering analysts.

Before you call the president stupid, why not aspire to something a little more difficult to obtain than an AA from the local junior college, shall we? Before you start telling the world how the war in Iraq should be fought, maybe you should spend a little time at the Army War College, or at the very least study something about counter-insurgency tactics. At the VERY VERY least you could get an intelligence briefing so you have the foggiest idea what you're yammering on about.

Until you're actually an expert no one really wants to hear you speak. You might want to remember that.

AngryD, who the fuck are you to be telling people to shut up? We all know that the President doesn't even bother to read the papers or watch the news, according to his own staffers, because he thinks it's "distracting." He'd never been overseas before becoming president. What good are all those briefings if you can't understand them? By the way, I think you mean Langley, not Quantico.

Honestly, can we get past all this bullshit about standing by principles? Who honestly believes this anymore? What "principle" are we talking about, other than maybe "my way or the highway"? And n2sooners, no one is arguing James Baker is now president. If you want people to take your comments seriously, try ...

AngryD, who the fuck are you to be telling people to shut up? We all know that the President doesn't even bother to read the papers or watch the news, according to his own staffers, because he thinks it's "distracting." He'd never been overseas before becoming president. What good are all those briefings if you can't understand them? By the way, I think you mean Langley, not Quantico.

Honestly, can we get past all this bullshit about standing by principles? Who honestly believes this anymore? What "principle" are we talking about, other than maybe "my way or the highway"? And n2sooners, no one is arguing James Baker is now president. If you want people to take your comments seriously, try avoiding that kind of ridiculous crap.

The fact is, everyone -- from the CIA, to Congress, to the press, now to Bush family consigliere Baker -- says that the Iraq war is a complete fucking disaster. If your idea of "standing by your principles" is to ignore this fact, then you can keep your damn principles.

n2sooners. loyalty is an admirable quality, for without this quality society would soon disintegrate. But misplaced loyalty is, and has been, the source of strength that has sustained all corrupt regimes since the beginning of time. And the fact that you choose to ignore the simple truths and evidence before your very eyes does not make "your" President somehow competent or intelligent, or bestow one shred of integrity on him or many of his little band of ethically challenged insiders.

And speaking of losers, as you do: the world became a loser when this environment disaster , and those backing him, manipulated their way to power inside the beltway.

I'm sure you and I could really...

n2sooners. loyalty is an admirable quality, for without this quality society would soon disintegrate. But misplaced loyalty is, and has been, the source of strength that has sustained all corrupt regimes since the beginning of time. And the fact that you choose to ignore the simple truths and evidence before your very eyes does not make "your" President somehow competent or intelligent, or bestow one shred of integrity on him or many of his little band of ethically challenged insiders.

And speaking of losers, as you do: the world became a loser when this environment disaster , and those backing him, manipulated their way to power inside the beltway.

I'm sure you and I could really get along quite well if only you would quit insulting your own intelligence.

You're right Enbar. I meant Langley, not Quantico. Don't know what was in my head. Thank you for that correction.

However, you just proved my point. You said the president doesn't read the papers. Well, now. Didn't I just say that an intelligence briefing from an expert in the field sort of trumps getting your news from a sound bite on channel four? Thanks for the confirmation. Military commanders in the field usually don't get their data from CNN, either, jackass, and there's probably a reason if you look hard enough.

The president can't understand the briefings, eh? I forget, tell me again which graduating class from Harvard you were a part of? Columbia? Yale? Oh, I see. You never went ...

You're right Enbar. I meant Langley, not Quantico. Don't know what was in my head. Thank you for that correction.

However, you just proved my point. You said the president doesn't read the papers. Well, now. Didn't I just say that an intelligence briefing from an expert in the field sort of trumps getting your news from a sound bite on channel four? Thanks for the confirmation. Military commanders in the field usually don't get their data from CNN, either, jackass, and there's probably a reason if you look hard enough.

The president can't understand the briefings, eh? I forget, tell me again which graduating class from Harvard you were a part of? Columbia? Yale? Oh, I see. You never went to college, but you're so much smarter than people that have.

You know the great thing about this country? No matter how asinine someone is, like you, they can still yammer off their opinion to anyone that can listen. No matter how ill-informed someone is, like you, they can get in someone else's face with profanity and completely miss the point.

No matter how stupid someone is, they can hide behind and abuse the First Amendment and use it to undermine and attack our president and Commander-In-Chief during a time of war, even when they haven't got the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

Like you.

By the way, the Iraq war is a complete disaster because cowards like you have tied the hands of the armed forces and prevented us from prosecuting the war as a war. When it's "torture" to put underwear on a prisoner's head, but you fools don't bat an eye when an American prisoner has his eyes torn out, it becomes pretty obvious that your hatred of our president has blinded you to reality. No matter WHAT strategy he picked in Iraq you morons were going to attack him, undermine it, and criticize it until it failed.

Congratulations.

By the way, I didn't say "shut up." I said "shut up until you know what you're talking about." With that reminder, why are you talking?

~D.

And n2sooners, no one is arguing James Baker is now president. If you
want people to take your comments seriously, try avoiding that kind of
ridiculous crap.

Hmmm, the crux of this clip seems to be that the president should immediately enact the entire ISG report with no questions asked. That would be effectively making Baker the Commander in Chief of our troops since they believe his beliefs should trump those of the actual Commander in Chief. Democracy is lost when we become ruled by committees run by political appointees.

n2sooners. loyalty is an admirable quality, for without this quality
society would soon disintegrate. But misplaced loyalty is, and has
been, the s...

read more»

And n2sooners, no one is arguing James Baker is now president. If you
want people to take your comments seriously, try avoiding that kind of
ridiculous crap.

Hmmm, the crux of this clip seems to be that the president should immediately enact the entire ISG report with no questions asked. That would be effectively making Baker the Commander in Chief of our troops since they believe his beliefs should trump those of the actual Commander in Chief. Democracy is lost when we become ruled by committees run by political appointees.

n2sooners. loyalty is an admirable quality, for without this quality
society would soon disintegrate. But misplaced loyalty is, and has
been, the source of strength that has sustained all corrupt regimes
since the beginning of time. And the fact that you choose to ignore the
simple truths and evidence before your very eyes does not make "your"
President somehow competent or intelligent, or bestow one shred of
integrity on him or many of his little band of ethically challenged
insiders.

You try to sound high and mighty, but you still can't resist the 'your president is stupid' remarks can you? I am not overly loyal to Bush, but I am loyal to our system, and there is nothing in there about our troops being run by a committee of political appointees. Bush is the Commander in Chief for better or worse just like Clinton was before him. And it is Bush's job to run the troops and not pawn that responsibility off on someone else.

Klugman, while I don't wish to be disrespectful, you're WAY out of your league here. It is not a straw man argument to request that someone know what they are talking about before they waste my time. It's a simple fact: people with no higher education at all call the President stupid. People with no information claim he made incorrect decisions or lied to the American people. You have no idea whatsoever what information the President gets, and you have no idea whatsoever why he chose to make the decisions he did. Your position is completely unsupportable.

You call the president's conduct in Iraq "indefensible." Really? How do you know about it? What are your sources? The New York Times? Th...

Klugman, while I don't wish to be disrespectful, you're WAY out of your league here. It is not a straw man argument to request that someone know what they are talking about before they waste my time. It's a simple fact: people with no higher education at all call the President stupid. People with no information claim he made incorrect decisions or lied to the American people. You have no idea whatsoever what information the President gets, and you have no idea whatsoever why he chose to make the decisions he did. Your position is completely unsupportable.

You call the president's conduct in Iraq "indefensible." Really? How do you know about it? What are your sources? The New York Times? The San Francisco Chronicle? Pardon me, but I think that getting news from an analyst with four decades of experience in the country in question is a LITTLE more reliable than the paid leftist mouthpieces of a local newspaper. Your Yahoo! News RSS feed is not more accurate than the information that goes into the White House, and the fact that you are even trying to DEBATE this point with me further proves how misguided you really are on the subject.

It's very easy to sit back and carp and criticize, especially when you're badly informed. That's why you folks do it. If it was HARD you wouldn't do it. You have a built in excuse.

When was the last time you spoke with a member of the Armed Forces at all, much less one that was on the ground in Iraq? When was the last time you sat down with an operational strategist and discussed insurgent tactics? When was the last time you attended a program briefing?

Until you do, you're just making noise.

By the way, I don't completely agree with the Iraq strategy, either. The difference is that I make two qualifying points: 1) I do not have full information. and 2) The information i DO have leads me to believe that I need to trust my military commanders, not the members of the press.

Dan Rather is not my Commander-in-Chief.

~D.

Hey Toad;

I was just going to tell you the same thing: go read some History.

You remind me of the Viet Nam era, too. Lots of name calling, little information or intelligent processing. Perfectly willing to get people killed by undermining national resolve and aiding and abetting our enemies, abroad and within our borders.

Hey, thanks for putting my life and the lives of other servicemen at risk so you can sit at home in comparative safety and badmouth my leadership. We appreciate the way you undermine our morale and attack the people that set our strategy as incompetent, for all that you display precisely ZERO competence yourself.

Wars are won through correct prosecution, jackass. Befo...

Hey Toad;

I was just going to tell you the same thing: go read some History.

You remind me of the Viet Nam era, too. Lots of name calling, little information or intelligent processing. Perfectly willing to get people killed by undermining national resolve and aiding and abetting our enemies, abroad and within our borders.

Hey, thanks for putting my life and the lives of other servicemen at risk so you can sit at home in comparative safety and badmouth my leadership. We appreciate the way you undermine our morale and attack the people that set our strategy as incompetent, for all that you display precisely ZERO competence yourself.

Wars are won through correct prosecution, jackass. Before you make the rather foolish mistake of telling a history major to go read some history, perhaps you should start with some of your own. Try reading on the national response to December 7th, 1941 as a start. If this were 1943, people like you would be jailed. Have we evolved, or DEvolved since then, I wonder?

Actually, before you do that you might consider attending a reading comprehension class, because you completely missed the point, and it wasn't exactly hidden.

The problem with arguing with you is that you really aren't smart enough to tell when you're outclassed. Grow up, get a haircut, and read something on real paper now and then, okay buddy? You're wound a little too tight.

~D.

geez n2sooners, only ants and perhaps bees slavishly follow the system come what may.?

Lets look at an example: If the president became insane would you still insist that he was the "commander-in-chief", and therefore must not be second guessed, especially by some committee?

So, are you suggesting the president is insane, or are you suggesting that we should just follow the Constitution, or any other law for that matter, only when it is convient to us? Because if it is the first, then prove it. And if so, then there is a system for that which would mean his removal and the VP taking charge. There is nothing that calls for leaving him in office as a token head whi...

geez n2sooners, only ants and perhaps bees slavishly follow the system come what may.?

Lets look at an example: If the president became insane would you still insist that he was the "commander-in-chief", and therefore must not be second guessed, especially by some committee?

So, are you suggesting the president is insane, or are you suggesting that we should just follow the Constitution, or any other law for that matter, only when it is convient to us? Because if it is the first, then prove it. And if so, then there is a system for that which would mean his removal and the VP taking charge. There is nothing that calls for leaving him in office as a token head while the country or military is run by a bunch of non-elected appointees.

Of course, we both know that it is really pointless for me to point that out. You are just setting up a straw man to defend your own stupid remarks and lack of respect for the office and the system.

Sorry if I offended anyone with my earlier outburst, it's the sleep deprivation that comes with having a new baby in the house (plus the aggravation of having a newcomer suddenly start telling people to shut up and stop "wasting his time").

So AngryD, you're a history major, huh? Is that your special qualification? Why don't you give us a little more insight into your background -- you seem to be a real insider who knows how all those super-special eyes-only top-secret briefings in the White House actually work -- notwithstanding that you don't know the difference between Quantico and Langley.

You're also the first person I've ever run into who plumps for Dubya's great education. Since y...

Sorry if I offended anyone with my earlier outburst, it's the sleep deprivation that comes with having a new baby in the house (plus the aggravation of having a newcomer suddenly start telling people to shut up and stop "wasting his time").

So AngryD, you're a history major, huh? Is that your special qualification? Why don't you give us a little more insight into your background -- you seem to be a real insider who knows how all those super-special eyes-only top-secret briefings in the White House actually work -- notwithstanding that you don't know the difference between Quantico and Langley.

You're also the first person I've ever run into who plumps for Dubya's great education. Since you asked, yes, I do have several graduate degrees, from Columbia and Harvard, in history, not that that really matters. But I don't have access to the White House personally, so I have to rely on journalists to tell me what goes on in there. I thought it was pretty well established (I'm thinking of people like John DiIulio here) that Dubya doesn't much understand or care about policy, period. But I guess you know better. And all those military critics of the inept way the war's been carried out so far? Just a bunch of publicity-hungry poseurs, weenies, and Frenchified traitors, I guess.

I tend to see things in our current situation in Iraq a little differently than the left wing libs see it. Seeing a Conservative viewpoint just seems to make more sense than all the jibberish and anti-USA antics I've read on here today.
Yes, the War in Iraq has been a terrible thing, as all the wars we've been in in our history. But, should we sit back and let these jihadist nation's and antisemitic countries rule the world?? Iran can't wait for this to happen.. the little runt that wants to eliminate Israel off the face of the earth can't wait to get his nuclear arsenal built up.. Not to mention the Psycho in North Korea!
So.. go ahead and keep reading the New York Times, LA Times, and the...

I tend to see things in our current situation in Iraq a little differently than the left wing libs see it. Seeing a Conservative viewpoint just seems to make more sense than all the jibberish and anti-USA antics I've read on here today.
Yes, the War in Iraq has been a terrible thing, as all the wars we've been in in our history. But, should we sit back and let these jihadist nation's and antisemitic countries rule the world?? Iran can't wait for this to happen.. the little runt that wants to eliminate Israel off the face of the earth can't wait to get his nuclear arsenal built up.. Not to mention the Psycho in North Korea!
So.. go ahead and keep reading the New York Times, LA Times, and the SF Chronicle. They will keep you libs filled with anger provoking words that make you all miss the point. This is a simple comprehension here... either we control the Middle East or we lose it and $10 a gallon will be a distant bargain.. Keep it up..I'm sure you'll see my remarks and those of the Talking Points Memo of Dec. 1 2006, another way to stir up the anxiety you all have towards the USA. The US has always defended the worlds Freedom, and yes, we've made mistakes, BIG mistakes, but the overall results freed many in a chaotic world of oppression and gloom.
Read the statement below, I believe it's direct and to the point..

First of all, it doesn't matter whether there is a civil war there — that's a media-driven situation. What does matter is if the USA can control the situation in Iraq or whether the country is too far gone into the chaos zone.

If the Bush administration has failed there, here are the consequences for you:

One, Iran will increase its power and begin to dominate the world's oil flow. That means, if Iran tells Gulf Arab nations to charge $100 a barrel, they better do it or risk Iran undermining them with terrorism. And Saudi Arabia will be the No. 1 target. All Americans will be at Iran's mercy then when it comes to oil. Think about that.

You see, this is one big difference I have noticed between the two sides. Republicans didn't like Clinton. You could say they even despised him. They pointed out his many very stupid mistakes while in office. But they didn't stoop to trying to convince themselves and others that he was stupid. Same thing with Carter. But the left isn't satisfied with just disagreeing with their opponents, they insist on name calling and trying to make their opponent out to be an idiot. It never fails. Take this past election for example. Kerry was painted as a brilliant politician and Bush was an idiot. Yet Bush made higher grades when attending the same school only few years apart. And I don't know if they...

You see, this is one big difference I have noticed between the two sides. Republicans didn't like Clinton. You could say they even despised him. They pointed out his many very stupid mistakes while in office. But they didn't stoop to trying to convince themselves and others that he was stupid. Same thing with Carter. But the left isn't satisfied with just disagreeing with their opponents, they insist on name calling and trying to make their opponent out to be an idiot. It never fails. Take this past election for example. Kerry was painted as a brilliant politician and Bush was an idiot. Yet Bush made higher grades when attending the same school only few years apart. And I don't know if they realize it, but by stooping to the grade school name calling, the left, while trying to make themselves out to be superior, just end up making themselves look like children.

It was not my intention to start this heated debate amongst the Clipmarks’ community. But, I guess that’s what makes horse races.

Kmcolo, I appreciate your perspective, which may be the case. However, if you look up the definition of Coward you will see terms like fear and intimidated. For good, bad or indifferent, Bush is not easily intimidated.

Godfrey, Thank you for the clarifications. I fully agree with your statements below in bold:

Diplomat, in an entirely apolitical comment, simply pointed to the misuse of a word.

N2Sooners, not once commenting in defense of Bush, simply pointed to Constitutional protocol and order of authority.

Look at the responses. Unbelievable.

[...

It was not my intention to start this heated debate amongst the Clipmarks’ community. But, I guess that’s what makes horse races.

Kmcolo, I appreciate your perspective, which may be the case. However, if you look up the definition of Coward you will see terms like fear and intimidated. For good, bad or indifferent, Bush is not easily intimidated.

Godfrey, Thank you for the clarifications. I fully agree with your statements below in bold:

Diplomat, in an entirely apolitical comment, simply pointed to the misuse of a word.

N2Sooners, not once commenting in defense of Bush, simply pointed to Constitutional protocol and order of authority.

Look at the responses. Unbelievable.

It is truly remarkable how sensitized the US society has become to politics. My personal belief is that the extreme left and right need to juxtapose and come back to the moderate middle! Let the horse race continue.

Kmcolo, I appreciate your perspective, which may be the case. However, if you look up the definition of Coward you will see terms like fear and intimidated. For good, bad or indifferent, Bush is not easily intimidated.

Diplomat, thanks for your input. What I think those of us who see cowardly action are looking from the understanding that sometimes the hardest thing to do, the thing that brings up the most fear and is the most intimidating, is to publicly "eat crow" to put it meanly (in order to convey the emotion attached to the action) or as I would put it allow reality to challenge one's world-view framework.

From this perspective the bravest thing to do is to put your...

Kmcolo, I appreciate your perspective, which may be the case. However, if you look up the definition of Coward you will see terms like fear and intimidated. For good, bad or indifferent, Bush is not easily intimidated.

Diplomat, thanks for your input. What I think those of us who see cowardly action are looking from the understanding that sometimes the hardest thing to do, the thing that brings up the most fear and is the most intimidating, is to publicly "eat crow" to put it meanly (in order to convey the emotion attached to the action) or as I would put it allow reality to challenge one's world-view framework.

From this perspective the bravest thing to do is to put your assumptions up to a reality test and change accordingly. In my view of the world you need a little bit of both this type of reality testing and pigheaded determination. The art is knowing when to do which. I, personally, have no faith in Mr. Bush's ability in this art.