Carol Platt Liebau: A Sad Commentary

Monday, September 11, 2006

A Sad Commentary

Democratic Senator Rockefeller has opined that it would be better to have Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq.

No doubt this woman, a survivor of Saddam's chemical weapon attack on the Kurds, would disagree.

Since [Saddam's] trial opened on Aug. 21, witnesses have offered grim testimony of entire families dying in chemical weapons attacks against their villages. They said survivors plunged their faces into milk to end the pain from the blinding gas or fled into the hills on mules as military helicopters fired on them.

So much for the party of "compassion." How far Democrats have come from teh days when they were willing to "bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

25 Comments:

Blogger Editor said...

Ronnie & Saddam
Under Reagan, Secret Deals Brokered by Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein Secured the Dictator an Arsenal of WMD

by Neil Mackay

It was just before Christmas 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld, then US presidential envoy to Iraq, slipped quietly into Baghdad to come face to face with the man who would become one of America's greatest enemies within two decades.

The trip by the current US defense secretary, to pledge US support for Saddam Hussein, marked one of the lowest points of the entire Reagan presidency, and symbolically represents the real legacy of the "Great Communicator". For Reagan was a president who allowed the US to secretly arm the Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), supported Iraq's military expansion, turned a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran and thereby set in train the events that would lead to George W Bush's disastrous decision to invade the country in 2002.

http://www.sundayherald.com/42648

11:46 AM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

Has anyone in the US not seen the Rumsfeld-Hussein handshake? Caro, American foreign policy is based on economics of the wealthy and therefore alliances can be made with Pinochets, Husseins, and Samozas with clear consciences on the part of those in Washington. It's up to the people in America to cry foul.

Hey editor!
Do you remmeber when the Iraqi jet crashed into the US naval vessel I think it was the USS Stark? was that in 1986? What was the US response to Hussein then?

D.T.

12:15 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Stark was deployed to the Middle East Force in 1984 and 1987. The ship was struck on May 17, 1987, by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 fighter during the Iran-Iraq War.

Thirty-seven sailors were killed and twenty-one were injured.

This has been called the U.S. Navy's deadliest peacetime disaster before the gun turret explosion onboard the battleship Iowa.

Because the U.S. and Iraq were not at war at the time, the attack was likely not authorized. According to Iraqi officials, the pilot who attacked the Stark was not punished.

----------------------

And Reagan’s version of “cut ‘n run” that he termed bugging out.

1984: US troops withdraw from Beirut

American forces have withdrawn almost all of their troops from the Lebanese capital, Beirut. About 1,000 US Marines left the coast beside the international airport as Shi'ite militiamen arrived in jeeps and armoured vehicles to take over.

Only 100 soldiers have been left in the city to guard American diplomatic personnel at the British Embassy on the western sea front.

US President Ronald Reagan ordered military personnel to begin pulling out of the area over a week ago following a recent upsurge in terrorist attacks.

The withdrawal ends 18 months of conflict in a country which has been torn apart by war with Israel.

“As long as there is a chance we are not bugging out. We are moving to deploy into a more defensive position” - US President Ronald Reagan

12:41 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Sorry, but are you two bozos trying to smear Reagan or boost Saddam?

12:50 PM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

Do you see Editor? You present the facts without spin and you must be a bozo? I don't recall making any personal attacks on anyone, do you?

Thanx for the headsup on the Reagan thing in Beirut that's good copy for when the Sadr militia blows its way into the Green Zone. Maybe that will mean "civil war" to the ruling party in Congress.

D.T.

1:38 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

No CLOWN, it was Bonzo the chimp that Ronnie talked to.

2:44 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Diane,

This is a really raw name calling, no facts please site. Carol feeds mindless nonsense...very right wing propaganda.

It is best not to try to do anything here such as feeding this site with comments. There are only 4 or so regular commenters here that are closed to fact based info. And Carol ignores senate, military and intelligence findings of facts and reports. She doesn't even acknowledge statements made by Bush, such as there was no relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Best, not to waste time here and just move on to more fact based site.

You also will never get a logical response or argument rather just name calling.

2:54 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Bring back Dittohead! I miss the guy!

3:11 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Oh,...and the dems will not gain power in November!

3:12 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Hi everyone. Just dropping by to see if the hamster lady is still on her wheel, having to spin ever faster and harder to keep the lights on at the White House. Yep, there she is, trying to outrun the apalling incompetence of Our Great Leader.

Carol, aren't you exhausted? It exhausts me just to think of all that clicking emanating from your office, of your nails on the keyboard, jabbing a little harder as the months of this presidency drag on and on and on.

Editor and Diane, nice meetin' ya. Editor's right, though, about the futility to be found on this site. But as long as you know in advance that you're never going to get anything but nonsense from Carol and the foamers here, like Cliff, it can be a decent way to pass the time.

Just make sure you shower afterward.

7:11 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Ah, the stupidity of the left. Keep flappin them gums kids, it makes winning elections that much easier. Rather than posit actual alternatives, you'd rather just harken back to the Reagan years and lie about that. Try some context, such as, troubles with Iran thanks to an idiot we like to call Jimma Carter. The Iranian threat was, at the time, somewhat more tangible, and supporting their enemies seemed a good way to go. Unless you consider Iraq being annexed by Iran a good thing. Talk of "cutting and running" from Lebanon was a matter of attention placed on the Soviet Union, which was also more of a bother back in the day. Were any of these perfect moves on the part of my man Ronnie? Perhaps not. And it's so nice that such high brow types as yourselves possess the 20/20 hindsight to point it out. BTW, are you suggesting the WE gave Saddam his bio and chem weapons? Well, you ARE a horse's ass.

But back to the thread, which is always such a bother to eddy-boy...

It seems Rockefeller is just the kind of crap for brains that those like Duke-sty would prefer. Perhaps not, though I can't think of any on the Dem side capable of leading the nation (that would be Dukie's nation) to victory in the WOT. Lieberman possibly, but look what happened to him. No. There seems to be nobody on the left with the brains to understand the reality of the situation with the type of foe we now face. God help the nation should the Dems ever come to power (and that's all that concerns them) before this struggle has been won.

11:08 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Marsall you failed to address that at the same time, Reagan secretly and without Congressonal approval sold weapons to Iran even though he had declared them terrorists.

Yep, he rewarded them for holding Americans hostage.

11:31 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

And the cries from the right become more shrill as they start to realize they don't have enough wagons left to circle around the master of disaster.

5:01 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Y'all hate Reagan. I get it.

This, though, is pretty appalling: "when the Sadr militia blows its way into the Green Zone"

Are you HOPING for that to happen? Would you cheer for that day?

This Civil War you are championing in Iraq... what do you stand to gain from it, Diane?

7:06 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

No one on the left is "championing" anything in Iraq except Bush, Rummy and Dick (and their dwindling numbers of supporters) pulling their heads out from whatever dark and opaque cavity they are stuck in. Staying the course is no longer an option.

As for those who looooove to beg for alternatives from the left I ask, "Why?" What good would it do? Has anyone controlling any of the branches of our government asked for input from Dems? Has any Republican leader done anything to foster bipartisanship other than pay lip service to the need of it?

No.

Our dollars burned. (Well, actually, our kids'.) Our sons' and daughters' lives cut short. Our credibility dashed.

Your mess.

8:39 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

I see Carol has lifted her ban on ad hominem.

More hypocrisy from the right.

8:45 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

As the dry drunk continually reinvents reality to provide cover for his imcompetence and payoffs to petro cronies, we don't have to put up with it like back seat passengers and victims of a drunk heading full speed towards a cliff. Perhaps the 29 percenters want to pray and believe all will turn out okay some how but the vast majority want out of the drunkards death trap before it goes over the cliff.

We won't celebrate the deaths of those foolish enough to remain commited to a walking and talking disaster but you can't blame us for saying we warned you. Even Papa Bush told his idiot son the hornet's nest he would create in the Middle East by invading Iraq on dead-wrong, cherry-picked intelligence.

9:27 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

As for those who looooove to beg for alternatives from the left I ask, "Why?" What good would it do?

I'll tell you why: to actually inspire someone to vote FOR the Democrats as opposed to vote AGAINST Republicans.

Democrats have been hating on Bush since 2000. In 2002 Nancy Pelosi guaranteed they would win back the House (*). Failed.

And again in 2004 the Democrats failed.

Negativity only gets you so far. "Cuz we Hate Bush" is not going to win you too many converts.

But keep trying. You've got a couple months. Maybe your message just isn't getting out. Shout louder.

Just wipe up the spittle a little. It's more dignified when you do.

( * - Just after the Wellstone Memorial, wherein Democrats turned one of their nicest, most genuine Senators into a big, dumb mascot at his own memorial. )

11:37 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Editor said...
"As the dry drunk continually reinvents..."

Man, you lefties are mean!

1:10 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Man, you lefties are mean!

No they aren't! They hold an absolute lock on compassion. Just don't ever let anything they say or do convince you otherwise.

1:16 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Yea, I know. We all got to see their, "compassion" last year in New Orleans, when Katrina blew the cover off their 40 year old
"welfare ranch," raising blacks as, "voting cattle." They had plenty of busses to get them to the polls at election time,
but where were those, "compassionate" busses during a flood?

1:33 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Cliff,

I'm not mean. I just see Bush for what he is and there is no reason to hide his past and pretend it doesn't affect him now.

Anyone who mismaanges and ruins twenty plus years of his/her personal life cannot manage the job of president.

It is so obvious!

7:22 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

I wonder what office eddy has ever held? And duke backpeddles with the same dodge all the whiners use when asked for alternatives. And how does Ronnie's "arms for hostages" deserve more scorn than Clinton's technology for nothing with China? At least Reagan was trying to get our people back. What was Clinton doing? You guys have a lot of nerve pointing fingers and making allegations with the Carter and Clinton administrations behind you. Good gosh, what simpletons. Yeah, buddy. Ad hominems. It would help if you didn't beg for 'em with you arrogant condescensions and attacks on Carol and the prez. It's one thing to disagree, but you guys are no class cretins. What you call dissent, we call lies and distortions, being a-holes and jerks. Listing crap you pulled off of koz-like sites isn't debate, it's pointless irrelevance. You want respect, have some and you'll get some.

10:03 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

What was Clinton doing?

My take is that he was trying to make the geopolitical situation more "fair", as he saw it. Fair, as in "It isn't fair that we are a lone superpower with no one to balance the US."

Now, thanks to Loral Space, the Chinese can orbit their ICBMs and hit us when they so choose.

1:38 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Yes, that was an unmitigated mistake on Clinton's part. (More than you guys ever concede.)

An equally pressing concern is the fiscal hold China now has on us, thanks to Bush's borrowed, titanic spending spree.

2:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google