Skip to content

One bad turn deserves another

© Lee Judge

A war that never should have happened.



  1. Don wrote:

    “A war that never should have happened.”

    Amen, amen, amen. I mourn the deaths of 100,000s of people brought about by a sick desire to … what? I’m not really sure what truly drove Cheney and Bush and I’m not sure we, the American people, will ever know.

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
  2. The upper eschalon has some kind of plan, though I’m not exactly sure what it is. I have my doubts that it’s a good one.

    I have this feeling that the “right of the left” of this country has

    a. Problems with the Government spending money on American people


    b. No problem with the Government spending hundreds of billions of dollars on people (a “war for the people”) in another country

    Please tell me that I’m wrong in this assumption? Anyone? Preferably someone from the right wing/conservative base?

    Saturday, August 28, 2010 at 11:54 pm | Permalink
  3. ebdoug wrote:

    They don’t really spend money on other people in other countries unless it is through the UN. They destroyed Iraq and reconstructed Iraq. They did not give jobs to Iraqis to reconstruct. They put the money in American’s pockets to recontruct. they took your tax money to make an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country, knowing there was no evidence of WMDs. Then they used your tax money to reconstruct the country they destroyed.
    Meanwhile the infratructure of this country crumbled. At the Federal Parks, Bush took half the income so what “we the people” enjoyed crumbled.
    And Rove’s aim is to have have the wealth in this country in the top 5% of the country. You lessen the education so the peasants think the earth is flat. You tell them that we have to return to “values” as Palin’s children not graducating from high school, getting engaged, getting unengaged, having baby, fighting over baby and on and on. True American Values as opposed to Obama with his family values. You convince the television audience that black is white.
    Eisenhower was a communist because he wanted the wealth spread. Lie and lie and lie and lie. And the populact all 70% believe in the lies. Obama lowers taxes but they are told he raised taxes.
    Rove/Bush/Cheney ruin a country but John Boehner and his John Birch buddies are what this country needs. We put the Republicans back in, rescind Obama care and take everything away that Obama gained for us. Sick, sick, sick. All we can possibly hope for his that the Republicans are so split.
    Bush put his buddies in who sat back on our tax money and did not. Let the country go to hell in a hand basket. But that is, of course, good for the rich.
    Oh, and in three years it was 600,000 men, women and children in Iraq because Bush wouldn’t let Tommy Franks secure the borders before he invaded. Lots of oil in Iraq. Husband, pregnant wife, three sons, two daughters in their car come to check point. American yells “halt” husband thought they were being highjacked, speeded car. American opened fire. Pregnant wife and eight year old daughter survived. US gave her 11K. “That’s not enought to pay for her therapy.” Says this mother. Oldest civilzation still going. We destroyed it.

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 11:16 am | Permalink
  4. patriotsgt wrote:

    Never one to shy away from a challenge….I’ll take on this response as a veteran, and a long time Soldier. I’m also a democrat who is a fiscal conservative and have many conservative views along with being pro choice and for gay rights with no religious leaning except spiritual values. Now that you understand where i’m coming from I’ll explain this from my viewpoint.
    Iraq absolutely unequivocally had WMD (the gassing of 5000 Kurds by Chemical Ali), however, during the Clinton admin of please let us inspect or else, these weapons disappeared. Before the war started, the Iraq air force also vanished with much going to Saddam’s sworn enemy Iran. Speculation is the WMD was spread around, some buried, but most shipped out to places like Syria. But do not be fooled, Saddam had WMD. On the 100,000’s of people killed during the war, I’d like to see the facts on those numbers, because they were not killed by US forces. Saddam did kill 100,000’s of shia in the south after the 1st war when they revolted against his regime and were slaughtered wholesale. He even dammed up the Euphrates to cut off agricultural water to the south and starve out the Shites for their daring to challenge him. This I confirmed 1st hand by talking with ordinary Shite Iraqi’s in the south during one of my tours. The Iraqi’s there were very grateful for the US effort and the chance they now have to live a life without persecution from their government.
    On the conservatives who don’t want to spend on our people, but just on others… I don’t know where you come up with that. I and most people believe it is the responsibility of government to help those who need it or are down on their luck. What I and most don’t believe in is providing lifetime assistance to able bodied and minded persons who will not do for themselves. I personally think the govt should provide only limited foreign aid and that most of it (as does a lot currently) should come from individuals contributing. I think it is governments responsibility to help people help themselves. That is teach them how to be successful, independent and self sustaining, do not keep them enslaved by doing everything for them.

    So there we have it, an opposing viewpoint. Fire away.

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 11:51 am | Permalink
  5. Iron Knee wrote:

    I don’t think you will find many in here who will disagree with your values, but as always, the devil is in the details.

    The only point I’ll actually disagree with is your assertion that conservatives believe it is the responsibility of governments to help those who need it or are down on their luck. There are definitely plenty of conservatives and libertarians who believe that social security, medicare, medicaid, and other programs should be abolished. The Koch brothers, who fund the tea party and other conservative groups, certainly believe it, and are working hard to make it happen.

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
  6. Don wrote:

    I believe that there have been a multiple of 100,000 people killed in Iraq since the invasion, although, most likely not in the range as reported by the Lancet and Opinion Research Business. There are a gaggle of estimates based on various sampling schemes as well as collections of data put together by various organizations. There will never be a highly reliable count, in my mind.

    In looking at the available data, the following site used cross-checked sources to build its total -> Go to for documented civilian deaths caused by insurgent violence in Iraq since 2003. They believe it is somewhere between 97,000 and 104,000, but readily admit their numbers “may be missing many civilian deaths from violence”. The same site evaluates others’ estimates here

    That a very large component of the Iraqi civilian deaths are inflicted by non-coalition personnel (meaning insurgents) is clearly the case. Estimates for civilian casualties as a direct result of the invasion, though, still number from 10,000-25,000, again not saying that coalition troops killed that many, only that a sizable number died from whomever.

    There is no argument that Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and during the Iran/Iraq war and quite possibly against the Shiites living in the marshes. He had WMDs and he used them. Many were destroyed as the UN/US tightened the screws on the Hussein regime. What happened to the rest is difficult to ascertain because we really don’t know what the stocks of chemical weapons were nor how much were used. What is certain, though, is that the WMD information distributed by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the war was, for the most part, fiction. Colin Powell’s speech to the UN being the acme of hutzpah.

    As to the Iraqi air force. “By 2003, Iraq’s air power numbered an estimated 180, of which only about a half were flyable,” according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Although many Iraqi air force planes were flown to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War, most aircraft in 2003 were either in too poor shape to fly, were destroyed on the ground, or, strangely enough, buried by the Iraqi air force under orders from Hussein.

    As to your final point re: government subsidizing able-bodies/minded people who should be supporting themselves – I fully agree. The problem, and it isn’t a simple one, is figuring out just who fits in which category and why they are in that category. Many of us old libertarians from the 60-70s (“power to the people” is soooo libertarian to me) believe that society has a responsibility to itself to find ways to grow and expand and to do so by giving everyone a chance to find a way to be a contributing part of that quest. I’m no social Darwinist, though, who believes that we should let those who don’t have the ability to get by on their own just slide to the side. Puts me in that place where I think we should have supportive social programs but also think we shouldn’t give people a pass on being contributing members of society. I’m a “teach ’em how to fish” kinda guy, but I’m realistic enough to know some folks just can’t fish.

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
  7. Dave TN wrote:

    Since no one else brought it up, I’ll pony up and point out that the Gas used to kill the Kurds was given to Saddam by us, more specifically Rumpsfield, Cheney, and Reagan. In case you never held the joke, “we know Saddam has WMD because we still have the receipts”!!!!!!!!!!!!! So that being said why Bush senior or Reagan didn’t invade Iraq if that was the only requirement. Since this warranted such a response to stop evil and their perpetrators why are we not going after the Republiecans that give him the means.

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
  8. patriotsgt wrote:

    To wrap up the point concerning gov’t helping the needy, there is a difference between libertarians and conservatives I believe. I think conservative thinkers would want the gov to help, short term, however the libertarians may not. I’m not sure, because I havn’t met any true libertarians. Likewise I think there is a difference between progressives and liberals and democrats all though they say the progressives and liberals are the 2 sides of the democratic party, but I could not tell you the difference or what either truly believes in.

    Saddam’s regime killed as many Iraqi’s between the 2 wars as was killed by the infighting after 2003. Insurgents on both sides took alot of revenge. Mainly the shia who were very oppressed by the sunni minority under Saddam.

    To DaveTN- you have brought up a good point. We created Saddam, like we created/contributed to Al quaida and the taliban to fight the USSR. Our leadership’s foreign policy is a train wreck with the most miserable track record I can think of. The secret squirrels of many administrations just seem to have no clue what they are doing.

    I appreciate the open honest discussion, I thought y’all would kick my tail.

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
  9. Iron Knee wrote:


    Finding the truth rarely involves kicking anyone’s tail.

    Of course there is a difference between libertarians and conservatives. The root word of libertarian is liberty. The root word of conservative is con. 🙂

    ok, ok, maybe that only applies to neo-cons.

    Monday, August 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Permalink