Wed
Sep 6 2006
09:34 am

Let me see if I've got this straight.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine is to preemptively invade countries that are not a threat to the U.S. without any plan for a post-invasion occupation, assume it will only take three weeks and we will be greeted as liberators and democracy will magically flourish thus defeating terrorism, and three years later we will stay the course by sending our soldiers out on sitting-duck patrols to get blown up by a faceless enemy we can't (correction: mostly can't) shoot back at, and this is a "war" on "terror" and if you don't agree you are a Nazi appeaser and a traitor.

This doesn't seem like much of a "war" on anything, except the Constitution. Our presence doesn't seem to provide much "stability", and it hasn't seemed to result in much of anything except U.S. casualties, Iraqi civilian deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.

Rumsfeld, though, seems like a world class idiot and a madman. His alleged "boss" is an idiot manchild who couldn't find Iraq on a map until Dick Cheney showed him. Continuing this disastrous policy doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than its criminally negligent architects "saving face."

And the 60% or so of Americans who oppose the failed occupation of Iraq under incompetent U.S. civilian leadership just sit around and take being called traitors and appeasers by their elected officials on the evening news as if this is all perfectly normal and acceptable.

Does that about sum it up?

74
like
Brian A.'s picture

Corrections

Part of the time American troops in Iraq do have an enemy to shoot at.

Oh, and the troops are also required to play referee between two long-standing rival groups in a low-grade civil war.

Other than that, this post basically sums things up. 

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

WhitesCreek's picture

"Part of the time American

"Part of the time American troops in Iraq do have an enemy to shoot at."

Doesn't the rest of the world call those 'civilians'?

"Oh, and the troops are also required to play referee between two long-standing rival groups in a low-grade civil war."

I count a little over three groups. Can't give a whole number to the small rudimentary group that claims to be the local lodge of Al Qaeda, and it does seem that the Kurds have a territory.

Steve

earlnemo's picture

Diehard

Yep- that's the subplot summary.

This war is actually a distraction for a robbery in progress. Think "Diehard". 

Sven's picture

What strikes me is that

What strikes me is that they're not even bothering to lie anymore. There's no goal, no policy, no assessment of where we stand. No relation to, or assertions about, the real world whatsoever. Just posturing. To some degree that's always been the case. But now the speeches are completely without refutable content.

It's just pure, unmitigated BS of the kind described by Harry Frankfurt:

What BS essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since BS need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The BSer may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

I think the appeasement talk is only the tip of the spear. The real, underlying message being sent here is:

It's not our fault. How could it be? We're Americans, for crissakes.  You're Americans.  When "those people" criticize us, they're really blaming you.

 

 

Tman's picture

No, it does not.

First of all, there is no "Rumsfeld Doctrine". There is an effort by Rumsfeld to transform the military in to a more efficient, lighter and faster reaction force to meet the new threat of our current enemies in the modern world, but Rumsfeld wasn't the one who voted to send our military to Iraq.

That would be congress. They are the ones you can hold accountable for our military intervention in Iraq. Only congress can give the authority to send a full military force in to action. By the way, this was a majority of congressfolks that voted for this, across party lines.

And for the record, when Iraq was stable they were attacking everyone and everything in the neighborhood, and supplying, protecting and funding Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill westerners.

I don't expect Iraq to turn in to Vermont overnight, but the alternative -leave Saddam in power and "hope for the best"- was a far more dangerous option than what we have now. Germany, after WWII, did not turn in to Vermont overnight either.

I am not calling you either a traitor or an appeaser, but your entire rant is just ridiculous, and devoid of any factual content.

Knoxquerious's picture

Only congress can give the

Only congress can give the authority to send a full military force in to action.

We should ask congress to vote on bringing the troops back. I guess somewhere between "stay the course" and "cut and run".

Brian A.'s picture

Tman has a point . . .

in that this isn't really a "Rumsfeld Doctrine."  Rumsfeld's main contribution to the mess was in invading "on the cheap" (too few troops) and thus Iraq started to fall apart before it had a chance to stand.

As far as the talking points go, I'm sure that's Rove's handiwork, not Rumsfeld's.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

metulj's picture

"First of all, there is no

"First of all, there is no "Rumsfeld Doctrine". There is an effort by Rumsfeld to transform the military in to a more efficient, lighter and faster reaction force to meet the new threat of our current enemies in the modern world, but Rumsfeld wasn't the one who voted to send our military to Iraq."

I see this guy has a copy of Limbaugh's 'How to Set Up a Strawman' seminar.  

 

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

R. Neal's picture

Sometimes Wiki-truthiness is

Sometimes Wiki-truthiness is useful:

(link...)

Tman's picture

What Strawman?

You guys are the ones throwing insults. And lumping me with Limbaugh is an insult as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a republican, but I supported the war in Iraq, and I still do.

I would absolutely agree with you that the war was done "on the cheap" as a result of Rumsfelds desire to transform the military. But I would disagree that this was against conventional wisdom. Some of the generals at the time said there were enough troops, some said there weren't. I believe that the situation may have been made more stable today as a result of sending more troops, but I think we would have had more dead soldiers than we do now.

Either way, the "The Rumsfeld Doctrine" is absolutely NOT to "preemptively invade countries that are not a threat to the U.S.". In fact, looking at the posted Wiki link, it has nothing to do with it at all.

I would debate this in a meaningful way, but there seems to be a confusion of what consitutes a valid point.

And making fun of me by dismissing my rebuttal as a "talking point" just shows that you don't have any point to make.

R. Neal's picture

Either way, the "The

Either way, the "The Rumsfeld Doctrine" is absolutely NOT to "preemptively invade countries that are not a threat to the U.S.". In fact, looking at the posted Wiki link, it has nothing to do with it at all.

You really should read the Project for a New American Century report from 1998.

(P.S. I thought there was no such thing as a "Rumsfeld Doctrine". Now there is, but we are interpreting it incorrectly?)

JaHu's picture

Tman, "Rumsfeld wasn't the

Tman,
"Rumsfeld wasn't the one who voted to send our military to Iraq.
That would be congress."

Congress voted to go to war because, the administration decieved them to think Iraq was a threat to this country by making false claims.

"I'm not a republican, but I supported the war in Iraq, and I still do."

Would you send your children to attack a person next door, just because you had heard a rumored that the person may have had some weapons in his possession even though this person wasn't a personal threat to you! The proper thing would have been to send the police (UN) to handle the situation and not to go it alone! A lot of innocent people have been killed by people taking matters into their own hands from false rumors. Maybe your neighbor had the weapons to protect himself from you, and by attacking him, you proved his fears were justifyed.

Captain Bringdown's picture

T-man,it nevers ceases to

T-man,it nevers ceases to amaze me how full of horse hockey you really can be.This current attack on disent,the very fabric that my country is founded on,is evidence enough of an evil doctrine that seeps from garbage that the Bush administration has been spoonfeeding us since the beginning of this misadventure [IRAQ].Don't you ever tire of being an apologist for such a bumbling group of idiots and crooks,or do you think that anyone who reads that drivel will ever be impressed?

Tman's picture

Is that a point?

Captain,

Who is attacking your dissent? Because Rumsfeld says that people need to wake up to the real issue means that your dissent is attacked?

Cry me a freaking river. I have never seen more unassailed dissent than during this administration. I haven't attacked your dissent, and nobody is stopping you from posting on the internet to your hearts content.

Go ask a regular joe in Iran or Cuba or China what it's REALLY like to have your dissent disabled. You haven't a clue what it means.

I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm just correcting people when they spew nonsense. And calling the war in Iraq the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" is nonsense.

Brian A.'s picture

The problem with the post

It discusses several different issues under the heading "Rumsfeld Doctrine".  They, and the corresponding fault, can be simply broken down as follows:

Preemptive war  =  Cheney (incorporated under the "Bush Doctrine")

Bungling the war  =  Rumsfeld (aforementioned invading on the cheap)

PR spin (dissenters are Nazi appeasers)  =  Rove

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Sven's picture

First of all, there is no

First of all, there is no "Rumsfeld Doctrine". There is an effort by Rumsfeld to transform the military in to a more efficient, lighter and faster reaction force to meet the new threat of our current enemies in the modern world, but Rumsfeld wasn't the one who voted to send our military to Iraq.

Balderdash. The Rumsfeld Doctrine is inseparable from the Bush Doctrine, the Cheney Doctrine, the Kristol Doctrine, or the doctrine of any other of the administration's assorted bozos and sychophants. The purpose of a "faster reaction force" is to make it easier to go to war. Jim Henley put it best:

We went to war with the army we had when we went to war because it was the only way to have the war in the first place. We used the number of forces we used because a bigger call-up would have alerted the American public that this was going to be a big freaking deal...

The Administration sold the war to the American people as something akin to an emergency raid against a conquerer with an arsenal of doomsday devices primed to take out Chicago, a raid that would end with the bulk of our troops driving back out of town by the holidays, wreathed in the flowers of a grateful people busy paying for their own reconstruction entirely out of oil revenues. That's why we used "the army [we] have" when we used it - it was the sales pitch the hawks could close.

 

Tman's picture

Man I love that word.

"Balderdash". Great word. Anyways.

Brian A.,

Again, congress was the reason we went to war in Iraq. Period. The idea to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam from power is as old as the first gulf war. Clinton made it official policy to work towards removing Saddam from power in 1998.

(link...)

As far as "bungling" the war, I disagree. Saddam was removed from power, which was the purpose of the war. Erecting a democratic nation out of the remnants has more to do with the State department than the military. Hell, if we had left it up to the military, we'd probably be a lot better off right now. As usual, bureaucratic mishandling has delayed stability. I don't see this as Rumsfelds fault at all. His job was to remove Saddam. Mission accomplished.

The PR spin stuff is silly. Dissent all you want, but realize when you accuse the Bush administration of being worse than the terrorists, people will wonder just whose side you are on. Freedom to dissent does not include from FROM criticism.

Sven,

The purpose Rumsfeld has in regards to "transforming the military" has to do with the fact that we aren't fighting conventional armies any more. We are fighting groups that hide behind innocent people and laugh off any rules of engagement. Therefore, we need a different type of response than brigade style tanks and artillery.

It's never "more or less easy" to go to war.

R. Neal's picture

Saddam was removed from

Saddam was removed from power, which was the purpose of the war.

So then you'd agree that we can declare victory and bring home our troops?

Again, congress was the reason we went to war in Iraq.

This is hilarious. Congress didn't go in front of the American people and the UN to lie about nonexistent WMDs and mushroom clouds, nor did they lie about inspectors not being allowed into Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was planned by disgruntled former Bush I lackeys long before Junior was sober enough to run for President.

I will admit, however, that Congress could have stopped it if they had wanted, but that would have required principles and backbone and common sense.

They correctly surmised, however, that the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential elections hinged on the outcome of their pathetic vote in the climate of fear being whipped up by Dick and Rummy and the boys.

Congress was just an enabler, duped like the rest of America.

Brian A.'s picture

Congress?

Oh yeah.  I forgot about Frist's "Mushroom Cloud" speech presented at ORNL.  That classic frightened Cheney so badly that he literally ran over to the Pentagon to convince Rumsfeld to draw up the war plans.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

metulj's picture

"As far as "bungling" the

"As far as "bungling" the war, I disagree. Saddam was removed from power, which was the purpose of the war."

Actually, if you parse the reasoning for going to war, if Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs then the war was not necessary. Well....

"War is a continuation of politics by other means" --Clausewitz

As for pushing the war off on Congress, I kindly refer you to Donald Fehr, et al and their little missive from 1998. It was on Bush's mind, such as it is, before 9/11. His rant on the golf tee about getting Saddam a couple of days before the attack notwithstanding,  the facts hurt your argument. Sucks doesn't it.

 

 

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Sven's picture

It's never "more or less

It's never "more or less easy" to go to war.

The hell it ain't.

It's easy to go do war when you can fool Congresscritters into believing there won't be a protracted conflict and occupation, high costs and heavy casualties -  and therefore no political consequences.

It's easy to go to war when you blow off your traditional allies in Europe and don't have to build an international coalition, because you've deluded yourself that it can be done on the quick and cheap.

The Powell Doctrine was designed to put obstacles in politicians' path - forcing them to face the true costs and therefore set realistic objectives ("democratizing the Middle East" does not qualify).

The Rumsfeld Doctrine was designed to accomplish precisely the opposite. It dovetailed perfectly with PNAC's stated goals - "forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases" and mission - to remove the restraints on the projection of American miltary power.

Brian A.'s picture

Comparison

Sven,

Interesting contrast of the Powell Doctrine vs. the Rumsfeld Pentagon. 

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Tman's picture

Nope.

R. Neal,

So then you'd agree that we can declare victory and bring home our troops?

No. We need to stay until the Iraqi's can defend themselves. And believe it or not, we're getting closer everyday. More and more Iraqis are taking over the security of their own country.

This is hilarious. Congress didn't go in front of the American people and the UN to lie about nonexistent WMDs and mushroom clouds, nor did they lie about inspectors not being allowed into Iraq.

Really. You ought to get out more. Here's a few examples.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
(link...)

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
(link...)

There are plenty more where that came from.

metulj,

Actually, if you parse the reasoning for going to war, if Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs then the war was not necessary. Well....

Hans Blix January 2003- "I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. "

(link...)

And finally, this is THE REASON CONGRESS GAVE for going to war in Iraq. Because apparently everyone forgot. WMD's were not the only reason.

(link...)

R. Neal's picture

OK, you win. I defer and bow

OK, you win. I defer to and bow down before your superior reasoning and linking skills. I take it all back. We were right to invade Iraq. We should stay until the job is finished, or Jan. 20, 2009, whichever comes first.

(Did you read the 1998 PNAC report yet?)

Brian A.'s picture

Victory accomplished

"No. We need to stay until the Iraqi's can defend themselves. And believe it or not, we're getting closer everyday. More and more Iraqis are taking over the security of their own country."

Defend themselves against whom?  The Iraqi militias roaming the streets?  Good to know the U.S. military is getting closer to protecting the Iraqis from themselves. 

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

metulj's picture

"Whereas members of

"Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

Another one that wasn't true, well, until after we invaded. 

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

airrn's picture

US and Iraq

It is quite amusing you should bring up the Iran Iraq war considering the fact that Rumsfeld and the US aided Saddam in his use of these weapons and in fact supplied them. As for any argument that they could have been used on us after 2000 remember they were useless due to their age.

 As for your arguement that congress or Kerry in particular supported the war please read the following. Emphasis is of course mine.

"That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take."

This clearly shows that yes, they thought he was a threat but they did not believe a unilateral war with zero planning or world support was called for, despite what you say.

As you stated so eloquently, there are  " There are plenty more where that came from".

JaHu's picture

""Without question, we need

""Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003"

I don't know if Kerry can be trusted, he was in that same little secret group at Yale with Bush. Their vows of silence about the groups activities seems to be more protected than the Constitution.

Sven's picture

Thanks Brian, but it's no

Thanks Brian, but it's no great insight on my part. Apologists like to characterize the Rummy Doctrine as some great advance in military theory, but it's really nothing more than the latest volley in the ideological battle over the legacy of Vietnam.

Both doctrines are really arguments about the efficacy of diplomacy, as we saw play out in the fight between Rummy and Powell before the war. Powell says the political and diplomatic processes should play out before troops are committed, so that military action if and when it comes has a clear goal. Rumsfeld believes those processes are BS, and that the only way to compel action is if the other side knows you'll commit troops regardless of what anyone else says. 

 

.... the other vector in all this is Rumsfeld's views on executive authority, which he has shared with Cheney going back 35 years and were shaped by the belief that Congress crapped out on Vietnam because of politics. Small, nimble units allow the president to get away with a lot without legislative meddling on war powers or appropriations.

Kevin Barbieux's picture

Congress thought of invading IRAQ all by itself?

Give me a break. Tman tries to play it off like it was congress's idea to invade! The only reason there was a vote was because the Administration (read: bush - cheney - rove) was pushing for it.

Tman's picture

Whoops, I stepped on some nutroots.

Hi airrn,

you wrote-

It is quite amusing you should bring up the Iran Iraq war considering the fact that Rumsfeld and the US aided Saddam in his use of these weapons and in fact supplied them. As for any argument that they could have been used on us after 2000 remember they were useless due to their age.

That would be a great point, airrn, if it was true. The US didn't arm Saddam with "weapons". They gave him some helicopters.

They weren't selling him tanks. Or Missiles. Like the Soviets or the Chinese were.

Of course you've read the SIPRI study, right?

(link...)

Your expansion of the Kerry quote only furthers my point.

Kerry:

"I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force."

In 2003? Yep. Sure did. No more screwing around with the guy who earned what PJ O'Rourke described as "a lifetime achievement award for evil" in the global neighborhood.

John, regrettably, continues.

I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it.

Except he didn't. He voted for it. Not after or before he voted against it. But then. When the resolution was presented.

He sounded like the "me too" kid at recess. Let's just be happy he isn't president and move on.

It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.

Yes, that's the one you voted for, Mr. Kerry. Both the one in 1998, which you voted for, and this one.

It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take."

That's because he already had tried to "build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take". The only nations who could support us for whatever course of action we ultimately would take and WEREN'T selling Saddam tanks and missiles went with us to do exactly that.

This clearly shows that yes, they thought he was a threat but they did not believe a unilateral war with zero planning or world support was called for, despite what you say.

We delivered Saddam his lifetime achievement award for evil.

We did not worry about whether or not we had planned the future of the Iraqi democracy perfectly because the Iraqi Regime was a problem that had to be dealt with while we could. There is a good reason why Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan.

It's not as if there aren't other deserving candidates, but jeebus. I can't believe it's so hard to get people to believe that Saddam was part of the problem.

WhitesCreek's picture

Sigh...Ok,

"That would be a great point, airrn, if it was true. The US didn't arm Saddam with "weapons". They gave him some helicopters.

They weren't selling him tanks. Or Missiles. Like the Soviets or the Chinese were."

Technically true in a word parsing sense but not really, Tman. You might want to back off on the Kool aide, maybe. That stuff can kill you.

( And please don't try to make points by showing us what a pussy John Kerry has been recently...We know, believe me. From a brave warrior to this...it's a shame.)

The US sent bioweapon precursers to Iraq during the Reagan and Bush Administrations:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three.
And after Iraq made these weapons they needed some way to deliver them. Now comes those "helicopters" you mentioned.
In addition, 19 or so American companies were implicated in
supplying Saddam with war material, which requires Administration approval. Rumsfeld work for at least two of those companies, but his main focus was with an oil pipeline conglomerate attempting to build and control pipelines in two countries..Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you happen to recall where the American troops, who were supposed to be maintaining order in Bagdhad, were sent immediately after the invasion? They had two missions...Guard the oil fields and shut down the pipelines to Syria and Jordon, small middleeastern nations who by chance became rivals to Rumsfeld's corporate masters in the pipeline biz.
Now, friend, you seem fixated on being a Bush apologist in spite of the evidence. Listen, we all know Saddam was a creep, but a coalition of Corporations and Neo-Cons was helping him and then, when they got double crossed by not getting their pipeline, they got us into a stupid war under the banner of WMD's and mushroom clouds and "Terrists"...If W had tried to sell the Iraq war on Saddam alone it never would have happened. 
He had to lie...And you bought it. Thanks a lot!
End of story,
Steve
Steve Plonk's picture

End Game

When will the end of the game be? Afghanistan has been lasting much longer, than Iraq, and there is still no end to it. At least we're fighting the good fight there. Iraq was bought into "hook, line, and sinker" by lots of fish--Democrat and republican. Many of these same folks are backpeddling on Iraq now. However, like Hillary says, my paraphrase: "There is no public un-do". Possibly so, however back peddling is allowed. Kerry showed us that... Can the Democrats win on one issue? I don't think so. We need to realize the environmental catastrophe of four or five years of more conflict. Heck, kind folks and gentle people, we may be drawn into this Lebanese and Palestinian situation before this thing is over. Israel clearly needs help with its affairs. The United Nations is needed to get dipped in deep.

The "War Against Terrorism" or the "Twilight Zone War(s)" as I like to call it is liable to get into full swing when we try to eradicate
the opium crop in Afghanistan. The world will be squawking for a fix and no where to go but back to Vietnam. Hee Hee! Oh Yeah! Ziggyboogiedoo!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Shopper Columns

Local News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Site Statistics

Last 7 days:
  • Posts: 29
  • Comments: 494
  • Visits: 14,853
  • Pageviews: 39,756
Last 30 days:
  • Posts: 106
  • Comments: 1591
  • Visits: 46,979
  • Pageviews: 121,134

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large: