@katiecouric: Mike Huckabee

[DWDave67]

We are at war with religious extremists... That is who attacked us on 9/11. Saddam was not a religious extremist. Bush used 9/11 to go to war against Saddam and you know as well as I if 9/11 did not happen, the Iraq war is not happening. That is a fact. Bush manipulated 9/11 to wage war in Iraq and it has cost us dearly.

[MrDoublehappy]

Yes but the price is in excess, you have fragmented a land that was ironically unified ... countless dead and wounded that you must still pay rehabilitation for ongoing ... my god if only the accountants came out with their calculators it would scare Americans. This strategy you speak of just exposes America, still if that is your nations destiny so be it .... I suspect China is the super power of tomorrow. Europe is consolidating its position, but Muslim relations are testing Europes patience.

[chukmaty]

We have a ton of technological advantages, a huge industry base that has a foundation in chemicals and technology, an enormous economy, and an extremely stable political system... The US, despite this current downturn, is not going anywhere, God willing.

China is building itself up, but they have serious problems inherent in a totalitarian society and planned economy that may not be the center of media coverage but are still there nonetheless. I would never trade places with a Chinese citizen.

[chukmaty]

The war cost is a tiny fraction of our GDP, less than our education system, less than social security, and less than our medical costs... Our GDP is nowhere near the output of past wars.

[chukmaty]

Whoops, mistake here. Our slice of GDP devoted to military endeavors is nowhere near past figures. Or GDP is obviously far larger...

[gumpydoood]

Are you counting just the "endeavors" (I think you're referring to undeclared wars) or does that total also include our defense budget and our secret "black" programs? Because we spend more on our military than all other countries combined and that does not include the off the books black programs, I think the actual figure would be quite higher.

[DWDave67]

1 Trillion dollars on a war that has not done a thing to increase security, in fact has undermined our security... is ok. But 1 trillion on something that helps people and actually reduces the debt over time like HC reform... is bad...

Priorities, priorities....

[chukmaty]

HC "reform" would have vastly increased our national dept and gravely lowered our health care standards. Our medical system would have been damaged so heinously that decades would have passed before we would have recovered.

[DWDave67]

You obviously are very unaware of the reality of this current system we are under. Get sick and deal with insurance companies in a right to work state and have the treatment be deemed "experimental" by the insurance company and then get back to me. If you are rich, the system works great... if you are not. The system can bankrupt you and has for many. The #1 cause of personal bankruptsy is medical expenses. It is morally wrong.

[chukmaty]

Yea, being that I have no insurance I guess I wouldn't know how hard you have it ;)

I believe in reforms that actually increase real private sector competition, interstate competition, and ability to buy an insurance policy that might not have coverage for things I will never need.

Dirty fact of life, we cannot afford all that we want, which is why we have either prices or rationing determine who gets what. Prices are the far lesser of two evils.

[DWDave67]

The falacy here is that an employer based system where the employee's choices are limited to in plan doctors gives any downward pressure on prices and provides real competition. The insurance industry has a nice quasi-monopoly thanks to the employer based system. It is a joke for most people. When you actually use the system, you will realize this. Theory is no substitute for reality.

[chukmaty]

You bring up a great point, the employer based system comes out of the wage price control era were the government mandated a lot of rates and so forth. It is archaic and broken, but still preferable to the bill offered up last year.

We need open up state boundaries, deregulate what people need to get in their coverage, aggressively pursue tort reform, and lower taxes on all segments of the population. This will make it so people have the choices and buying power to take their health care over.

[DWDave67]

Sorry, I disagree... the empoloyer based system was a product of big business getting involved in HC and that people could not afford so behold... the inurance industry and employers picking up the tab for much of it. You cannot open up state boundries without the proper regulations, otherwise, it is a race to the bottom. People cann't afford HC because to many people have their hands in the pie to make money off keeping you sick.

[chukmaty]

Why would big business want to pay for health care again? The reason that the latest "reform" almost happened is because of corporate pressure to dump costs off on the taxpayer.

[DWDave67]

Big Business got involved a long time ago with the Kaiser family and for profit HC that made the business model profitable to keep people sick and keep going to the doctor and taking drugs. There is no financial benefit to prevention and keeping people out of doctor office. That fact is why we have employers taking a portion and insurance companies who do nothing but take a piece of the pie. Lawyers go where the money is and it is the big business of HC that got lawyers involved. Not good.

[chukmaty]

And to say that we are not safer. In the last decade we have relegated AQ to an internet sensation instead of a well organized paramilitary organization that it was earlier. In Iraq we have done two things, first we got rid of Saddam who was a top threat and we also forced AQ to commit resources to fighting us over there instead of here in the US.

[DWDave67]

Saddam in 2003: 70% of his militart capability is gone, no-fly zones in the north and south, effectively surrounded on all sides... the only thing getting rid of saddam has done is give Iran an even bigger hand in the area. Iraq to my knowledge to this day has never attacked the US....

[chukmaty]

9/11, the Cole bombing, and the original WTC attack taught us that it did not matter if a conventional military was broken and not a threat.

[DWDave67]

Another thing you also need to realize is that you can't paint everyoone in the region with the same political brush. Saddam and Al Quead are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The two have nothing to do with each other. That is the falacy in your arguement. Learn about the area and US policy history before you make your assertions.

[chukmaty]

Ideological agreement are hardly important. Saddam was willing to use all avenues to pursue his goals. He was a pragmatists while AQ is idealistic.

From our standpoint it did not matter why we were being attacked, or threatened... in the end, even if Japan and Germany were both threats for different reasons, they were threats. I think that is all I was trying to point out.

[DWDave67]

The difference is... Iraq posed zero threat to the US, Japan attacked this country and germany declared war on us. Going to war beacuse f what some thinks someone else will do in the future is not good enough.

[chukmaty]

Do you know why Japan attacked us? It was not because they wanted to invade the United States. If we really wanted to avoid a confrontation with Japan, it would have actually been very easy.

Same goes with Iran, if we want to compromise our values as a country, turning a blind eye to the mullah's could be easy. The difference is that the mullah's have declared us "the Great Satan" because of what we represent culturally and economically, not just because we are allies with the "little Satan."

[chukmaty]

Oops, misread your post. I thought you said Iran not Iraq. Just got in from plowing an ice skating rink and my glasses were fogged over.

Iraq did threaten us actually. Especially in a post 9/11 world were we know new with painful clarity that groups, nations, and individuals could reach our shores and that their threats of terrorism were not empty.

Saddam may not have been directly connected with AQ or OBL, but he was a top sponsor of terrorism worldwide and voiced a desire to attack the US.

[DWDave67]

Yes, I do know why Japan attacked us and when they did, we won because we had the moral high ground and the clear goal to win. Saddam is not the major exporter of terrorism you claim it to be unless you have examples of terrirst acts that were perpetrated by Saddam and please do not say the Iran-Iraq war or the gasing of his own people that was largely the fault of our broken promise to the Shites and Kurds. Saddam was a thug, and he was our thug for a long time.

[chukmaty]

We have the moral high ground in Iraq, and under the Bush administration and the leadership of General Patraeus.

Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Documents was released two years ago.

You can find abstracts and redacted versions quite easily online. It outlines Saddam's local and global terror connections, and the cautious way he used terrorist organizations as a implement of power. He was very shrewd about maintaining separation and maintaining deny-ability.

[DWDave67]

Umm... no we do not. We were not attacked by Iraq and that is the only excuse for invading and destroying a country on our own. Only the UN should make the decision on war to enforce resolutions and they voted no.

You might think that not listening is a good enough reason to go to war, cost the country 1 Trillion dollars and counting, killing over 100K people including many of our service people. Saddam had minimal terrorist ties and compared to the Saudi Royal Family, Saddam is an amateur.

[chukmaty]

Ll, you have a funny idea of minimal.

We were not attacked in the first Persian Gulf War, frankly we should have probably finished the job then like Al Gore wanted. That is just me though.

[DWDave67]

Saddam was given all but the go ahead before the 1st Gulf war after a meeting with our diplomat that we said land disputes was not our concern. I guess after the cold war we needed a new boogeyman to take the attention off of the srewing our leaders were giving this country. On 9/11 we were attacked by religious fanantic, most were from Saudi Arabia, Iraq was secular. The Saudis also give money to terrorists and laid the ground work for the people that attacked us. But they are our friends...

[chukmaty]

When we attacked Saddam, it was not that we thought we were bringing justice to the ones that attacked us on 9/11... that was Afghanistan, sure we suspected that Saddam might have loose associations with AQ, but it was a peripheral issue that got blown way out of proportion.

And Saudi Arabia did not attack us, individual within Saudi Arabia and many other countries were recruited by a rouge former Saudi Arabian. Saudi Arabia is a horrible country, but fixing them is not a military matter.

[DWDave67]

I suggest to re-read every speech made by Bush leading up to the war. Every speech, Saddam, 9/11 and Osama was mentioned in the same breath. That wasn't an accident. It was bush wanting war with Saddam on Sept 12th 2001 and the record showed how they tried to find the Iraq smoking gun so they could have the war they wanted.

[chukmaty]

Indeed, we used Iraq as a pawn against Iran and vice versa, but they were never our friends.

And yes, part of the reason that we put a new emphasis on the region was that the Cold War was indeed over. It was not a distraction or a conspiracy, now that there was a power vacuum in the region, we had to get the rouge dictators under control before they stared wildfires. Saddam had the forth largest military in the world and was very dangerous, time had come to put him down.

[DWDave67]

So is Indonesia next? India? China? They don't play by our rules either. They should be attacked using your logic. They all have gone rogue.

[chukmaty]

That does not even make sense. All those are nations which we are allied with, none of which sponsor terror. I do think we should adopt a harder diplomatic line with China and Saudi Arabia though.

The difference between and Iraq and an Indonesia is largely the government. Afghanistan and Iraq has governments that directly sponsored or sheltered terrorists. The Taliban never declared war on us, they did not attack us on 9/11.

[DWDave67]

What do you mean it makes no sense???... these country's are provoking us, using your definition. We should attack them immediately. Japan and Germany both saw us as a obstacle to their empire plans.

The Taliban gave shelter to AQ in exchange for money.

[chukmaty]

You are beginning to fall to the level of ridiculousness. You honestly think that China, India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia are provoking us in a similar way to Saddam Hussein.

And we were not an obstacle to Japan until we intervened and made ourselves an obstacle, something I would have whole heartedly support, but something that (if you were consistent about your beliefs) would have to oppose.

All the nations you mentioned are either neutral or partners with us in some way.

[DWDave67]

Well you are the one who said we provoked Japan by not selling them the materials they needed for their war machine. The country's I mentioned, are threatening us economically and under your definition, are provoking us.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Lybia, Syria, Iran and many others also give money to terrorists. So Hussein talking smack without the resources to do it, means nothing. Saddam does not possess the religious component and the followers of AQ know it and so should you.

[chukmaty]

"Threatening us economicall"

Are you fucking kidding me? Really man? I could maybe understand this argument coming form some arguing for terriffs, you want to bomb China because they "threaten us economically."

Fuck you man, you are one cold hearted motherfucker.

Saddam was behind terror attacks, giving money to the families of suicide bombers, forming suicide squads, he made chemical weapons, made threats towards the US, and many believed he wanted a nuclear program at some point.

[DWDave67]

I am just playing on your rediclous Japan theory. And chief... WE SOLD SADDAM CHEMICAL WEAPONS, so did Germany and so did the French so come off it. As I said, Saddams activities are no different than the Saudis when it comes to terrorism. You just choose to ignore reality. So because he wanted a nuke... that is your justfication for going in a destroying a country? Do you ever stop to think of what will replace saddam after we leave??? nah... of course not.

[chukmaty]

No we didn't.

They obtained their chemical a biological capabilities from Singapore and other third parties. They got the cluster bomb tech used in some of those weapons from us. We partnered with them because we wanted the two bad boys fighting each other so that they would both stay weak.

With Iraq quickly gaining the upper hand and building a military force ready to be reckoned with, he showed himself a real existential threat to the region and the world.

[DWDave67]

Yes, we did... We sold him chem weapons, the technology to make more and intel during the Iran-Iraq war. It is a fact. And Iran and Iraq, you need to check our history's with both nations before you label Iran or Iraq as a true enemy. We earned the hatred we have in Iran if you check the history.

[chukmaty]

The Iranian people do not hate us. They are the most pro American nation in the middle East. It is the government that gives us trouble. Us taking out Mossadegh was a very good thing for Iran. The Shah was a boyscout compared to the Mullahs. Carter made a huge blunder letting Khomeini take power.

We also would have made a huge mistake if we had not done something to counter balance the Iranian Mullahs, if they had become the uninhibited power broker in the region, screw life.

[DWDave67]

But the reason for Iranian revolution in the first place is due to our interference with the elections in Iran in the 1950s and our continued support for the Shah until his exile. We could have saved ourselves alot of trouble if we butted out of thier affairs. That was a provokation.

[chukmaty]

Also, I still do not think we provided chem weapons. It was a good idea at the time to help Saddam. History is littered with good nations having to make strange bed fellows. Iraq was close to France, always has been, so they were a natural barrier from Iran getting to the rest of the middle east.

It would have been worse for everyone if Iran had free reign of the region.

Also, we take more direct action now, back then it all had to be covert. 9/11 made it so direct action was acceptable.

[DWDave67]

Well... we did...Iraq attacked Iran not the other way around. Now with our blunder in Iraq, Iran has more influence in the region than it ever did. Iraq not matter how you slice it was a dumb move on our part. Now we will be paying for this stupidity for decades.

[chukmaty]

Lol, I think you confuse media focus on Iran as them gaining influence. Imagine the arms race that would be going on right now with Iran's recent nclear announcement if Saddam were still in power. Out of desperation he would have to arm himself if he hadn't already.

We will be reaping the dividends years from now, with Iraq the worst is past in an ordeal we would have faced to some extent someday. Iran has been a problem since Carter put the Mullahs in charge, we are paying for that today.

[DWDave67]

No that is reality. No I will agree on the arms race bit but that still is no excuse for our actions of unilateral action on the behalf on the UN without the UN's approval. Besides the fact it is wrong to invade another country on our own for anything besides an attack on us or our allies, the ROI is negative. Iraq was never a major threat to the US even at their worst. That is a fact. The 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion.

[chukmaty]

The UN was a corrupt body with its hand in the cookie jar with food for oil. The sooner we reform the UN or replace it with a better organization, the better.

And no, there are plenty of good reasons to invade a country other than the two ones you mentioned, what a naive person you are.

[chukmaty]

We learned from 9/11 that Iraq didn't need to have a huge standing army to be a threat. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and many other nations have governments that support terrorism directly.

Not every nation that fits that extremely broad criteria should be invaded, but with a nation like Iraq, were nothing seemed to work with them... it was an eventuality.

[chukmaty]

9/11 changed our philosophy, we now see it as a better to deal with foreign policy threats directly instead of through allies we may not agree with. While more expensive, and more likely to lead people to resent us as a power and not just the country that makes good TV, it is better for almost everyone internationally.

Iraq and Afghanistan will both be better off when we leave them than when we came.

[chukmaty]

Destroying a country? We are rebuilding it. Sanctions were destroying Iraq, so was Saddam.

And Saddam has been replaced, it is not a great government, but it is far stronger than it was five years ago and soon could be left to govern without a large force supporting it. We will always have some forces there, like we do in Korea. The situation in the middle east is so much better now than it was, us in Iraq is far better than Saddam in Iraq.

[DWDave67]

When you bomb and invade a country, you are not building it. I don't know your definition of building is but it runs contray to the traditional definition.

[chukmaty]

You do have a very good point, it is irrelevant because it uses hindsight. We thought that us going in to Iraq would allow us to remake that country like we remade South Korea, Japan, German, and Italy. We were totally wrong.

[chukmaty]

While we overestimated his capabilities, we were never wrong about what sort of long term threat he posed. China is simply the beneficiary of a trade imbalance. I would argue that it has been good for both nations, a trade deficit is not terrible, because it forces that country to eventually buy products from us in the American money they have. And you think that this makes them as worthy of being bombed as Saddam Hussein, you are effed up or just ignorant.

[chukmaty]

Also Yemen is cooperating with us, much of the country is not in control of the government there, it is anarchy. If we invaded Syria, we would be justified, we just do not have the resources and it would not be the most pragmatic thing to do. Iran is in the same boat, the world economy which is base on plastic products from Asia would collapse if we invaded or even just bombed Iran.

I do not know about Libya, but we have taken military and economic action against them, maybe you forgot.

[chukmaty]

Also, we are not talking about whether or not it was a good idea to invade given hindsight. In hindsight I do not think even the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq, and if they did they would have gone about it very differently.

The behavior of the Obama administration has proven a point I have long believed, if a democrat like Al Gore had been president after 9/11, our foreign policy would have been largely the same, except that the opposition party would not have bailed at trouble.

[DWDave67]

BS, Gore would not have invaded Iraq. he would have focused on the real issue in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen etc... Iraq has been a huge waste of men and materials for little gain in our security.

[chukmaty]

Yes he would have. Up until Bush invaded Iraq, Gore was one of the strongest anti Saddam voices in politics. He wouldn't have needed an excuse, he would have just gone and done it.

Bush actually moved his political position on foreign policy from an isolationist one to a position similar to what Gore campaigned for, all in response to 9/11.

[DWDave67]

Wrong, you mistake regime change like we wanted regime change in the USSR with an armed conflict. 2 different animals altogether. Gore never advocated invasion and occupation and please cite where he did.

[chukmaty]

Right, and Saddam gave money to terrorists for political ends while voicing a desire to harm the United States.

[chukmaty]

Also, back to Japan. They attacked us because we purposefully undermined their efforts in Asia even though their actions there did not directly threaten us at all. We cut off oil to their military, they needed to invade Indonesia to get their own, they needed to take out our Pacific navy to be able to do that successfully.

[DWDave67]

By purposefully undermine, you mean not sell them raw materials for their war effort. I hope you are not suggesting we should have kept selling oil, scap iron to the country responsible for the rape of Nanking?

We were not attacked in the 1st Gulf War but we did act in concert with the UN. The UN did not sanction the 2nd. Funny how you forget we sold him WMDs when they served our purposes.

[chukmaty]

You are missing the point, we provoked them. They attacked us for a reason. The point is war happens very often when we do the right thing, and just because we came into conflict with the interests of dictators does not mean we are the bad guys.

If the sole reason to go into war is if we are attacked, then our foreign policy should have called for ensuring that Japan did not attack us. I think you are just now beginning to see how your logic is unraveling.

[DWDave67]

A provokation is not giving you something I own that you want. Japan attacked us for that reason and that is when they crossed the moral line. We have the will to win because we were attacked. No so with Iraq sorry. I don't know what kind of logic you are using but it is extremely flawed.

[chukmaty]

No, you miss the point, our actions are determined by more than other nations attacking us.

If other nations not attacking us was the sole motivator for our foreign policy, WW2 would never have happened because Japan and Germany had zero real conflict of interest with us with the exception of German submarine warfare.

[MrDoublehappy]

Further more America needs to focus on its economic purpose, what will it provide the world???? Or will the world base itself in America??? These are economic potentials, the auto industry is collapsing slowly, China out ranks America for commerce now, its stock markets are bulging .... America is a leader in IT and technology, if they dont move soon some one is going to steal the thunder .... the world likes America and Americans and all it has provided us, dont let a good thing ... go rotten.

[MrDoublehappy]

I am sure if America retrenches itself it can start focusing on its domestic affairs and spare itself the enormous cost of having military bases all over the world, it must cost trillions in the long run. The soviet union collapsed, the world is changing, China is on the move and for America to stay competitive it needs to divest itself and allow everyone's sovereign right to manage their own interests ..... managing itself under these current conditions, is risky .... downsize is the way to go.

[MrDoublehappy]

Its best place in the global future needs to be frugal and practical, the world needs to work out its own interests within their own independent sovereignty immaterial of whether these conflict with western ethics and politics. It needs to step back from the Middle East, Asia, South America and Europe ..... it has a reasonable physical alliance with NZ, Australia and Canada .... It needs to withdraw, out of economy and out of politics from these regions and just concentrate on own its homeland.

[gumpydoood]

Who deleted my fucking comment? Who is the fucking coward? Huckabee, did you do that?

[joewilder]

I like Mike. He's also my favorite Republican, but most people don't identify with his definition of right to life. His position is based on a newly developed Christian stance. Developed in the time of Reagan. To constantly position this issue at the top of his agenda and to be so strident about it makes him appear disingenuous. If this is really how he feels, he needs to be a little smarter politically.

[chukmaty]

"Smarter politically" isn't that the definition of being disingenuous? ;)

While I understand what you mean, it is not really a new position, it only became a stron position because abortion was a fairly new problem in the United States from a legal standpoint and the Reagan era is were the GOP put it in their platform. When Huckabee was supporting Reagan in the late 70s it was largely because he had adopted a pro life position. Health care is also bringing the issue to the front again.

[jimijackson]

my question is, why do all these politicians needs to have to many books? lol they dont talk enough, that they need to write a book about their beliefs? :p

I wonder who it is that buys this rubbish...

[MrDoublehappy]

Its a bit like prevention medicine - dollars spent wisely not at the bottom of the cliff - dollars spent keeping away from cliffs. The Trillion dollar budgets for military campaigns and the cost after the conflict are cumbersome ..... America needs to use influence and incentive to smooth out the conflicts of the world, it needs to intensify its own home defense, you need to go back to the drawing board .... this current course is futile.

[chukmaty]

"America needs to use influence and incentive to smooth out the conflicts of the world"

Wish it were that easy, influence does not change minds, "Trillion $" war budgets do. Though it is not quite that a year.

[MrDoublehappy]

I suppose what I am alluding to is a totally fresh new approach to the global conflicts ..... America got too involved in everyone's business .... it crossed the line of sovereignty too many times which provoked more than aligned ..... (Don't get me wrong I am not blaming or condemning America for its then actions, its now academic about rights and wrongs) .... America needs to move on, move forward and learn from its choices made.

[chukmaty]

Isolationism and pacifism does not work, I really wish it did. Our world is too interconnected today for us to simply mind our own business. There are nations that directly interfere with our nations safety and interests (as in our ability to live and breath freely) and this has to be dealt with.

[MrDoublehappy]

You do so at enormous cost and at a time when your nation is vulnerable in more ways than one .... you are competing economically with China, you have economic stress and losses, you have health care to contend now, and you have a military bill that is hammered, trillions of dollars in losses, to continue without breathing is strategically risky .... Eisenhower would not have blinked at the prospect of withdrawal under these conditions .... Its false economy and logic to maintain this course.

[MrDoublehappy]

You cannot win any of these conflicts without a scorched earth policy and i just do not see that happening ..... what administration could justify it? Truman doctrine is applicable .... carry a big stick .... peace corps and UN missions are the better alternative, diplomacy a necessity, monitoring and surveillance yes, but America has to spend its dollar more wiser with a much more holistic approach to outcomes achieved - jumping into the latest fight of the day is just pointless.

[MrDoublehappy]

In all respect for America ...... when will you not just lay down and concede that this insignificant Asian country caused enough grief for America to rethink its defensive, diplomatic and pro active global policy/strategies - face it - This is not WW1 or 2, McNamaran ideology does not prevail anymore Iraq, Afganistan, and any other conflicts need to be approached in accordance with sensibility - all the military technology in china will not prevail - this is a different world

[chukmaty]

I do not think the media of then is the media of now. It is far more diverse and the cycle is far, far shorter. There are far more sources of news, and the news we trust is no longer from only two of three sources and we no longer share the same news as our neighbors.

Cronkite was certainly a product of his era, it is undeniable that his impact was enormously greater than I think any public figure today. What Cronkite believed, the country respected, he had power to mold opinion like no other.

[classic14rider]

It seems as though the prospective Republican candidates for 2012 are now lining up to get in as much air time through promotional books as they can possibly get. Right now it looks like the top contenders are Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

Both Palin and Huckabee have been gobbling up air time lately, and they both say "I don't know yet" when asked if they are going to run -- which means, of course, they're going to run and they are now getting free publicity.

[WakeUpDreamers77]

now this is a coherent Republican. Palin could learn alot from him, LOL

[MrDoublehappy]

Katie Couric is up there with the league of Cronkite, and I say that knowing Cronkite was an institution of historic journalism ..... I don't make the comparison lightly ...... Cronkite was personable courteous and less himself and more the issue or subject at hand ..... ego did not enter the equation by comparison to say someone like Barbara Walters ..... and I think middle America likes Katie ..... and middle America today is that not of the era of LBJ ..... but it is there ... with Katie.

[chukmaty]

And he was responsible for the killing fields, used his position to provide biased reporting that unfairly skewed national opinion rather than reporting the truth free of a biased reinterpretation.

[MrDoublehappy]

Hmmm thats rather extreme ..... still thats an opinion expressed. The media of that era is not that of today. You do the best you can within the schematic of the time that you belong to - even the media of this moment - one can only do ones best, society is evolving. Look back on interviews taken in the 60s 70s 80s, you have to laugh at some of the notions held then .... people are becoming more honest as time elapses. The age of denial is over friend and you seem stuck there ....just an opinion

[chukmaty]

With that power, Cronkite could tell the nation that we had lost the Tet Offensive even if we had overwhelmingly been victorious, to the point that the Viet Kong was on the verge of imploding.

Cronkite however chose to interject his personal bias, the result is we adopted a policy of slow defeat in Vietnam and when we left the Communists killed millions who could not defend themselves who had been on our side of the fight. Like the Hmong an many in Cambodia.

[gumpydoood]

Revisionist Republican history. We lost Viet Nam, not because of Cronkite, but because our "military intelligence" did not understand the scope of the underground tunnel systems until the very end & had no means to counter it. We lost because our military was stupid, plain & simple. Yet, even if we had won, what would we have won & for what purpose? There never was a good point to it except arm sales.

[chukmaty]

Tunnels or no, it was at that point in time that the Johnson administration gave up trying to plan for a victory, and the VietKong and the North Vietnamese were very beatable regardless of our errors in intelligence and strategy.

[gumpydoood]

Again, this is Republican revisionist history. The fact is both Johnson and MacNamara knew the war was lost. Johnson spoke of it on his white house tapes. And MacNamara spoke of it in his memoirs. Macnamara should have been brought up on charges of war crimes against his own people for leading them into a war he knew he could not win.

At one point during the war, a returning vet on a ferry boat recognized macNamara and tried to throw him overboard. It's just too damned bad he did not succeed.

[chukmaty]

Why would I want to revise history in favor of one of the most liberal Democrats ever?

"They knew they lost" is too bad, because we had not. Cronkite telling the nation we had lost had a lot to do with us losing, it prevented us from committing more fully with the necessary measures to win, indeed with what we were putting in we could not win. Cronkite bending opinion sufficiently ruined our chances for doing what had to be done.

The Iraqi surge would never of happened in the 60s or 70s.

[MrDoublehappy]

Faith in military solutions is costly, try to forgive Cronkite - tho you attribute so much to his swaying America - thank god the likes of FOX were not around when America needed an honest face to tell it how it really was. If you left Sadam where he was it would have been less expensive to the process for everyone in lives and cost. No WMDs, and they still have not caught OSBL, withdrawal is vital before they draw you in for a fight, the terrorists need you in the loop to justify their cause.

[chukmaty]

I do not have faith in military solutions, they are often sad necessities in the world we live in.

Saddam being gone has made the world far safer, though us being involved in it first hand makes us falsely believe that it is more dangerous than before, it is just that we are more intimately confronting that which is dangerous.

Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD's, only reason he did not was because for the moment he was unable to, he overplayed his hand. Great he is gone though.

[gumpydoood]

Saddam being gone has NOT made the world safer. As was predicted, Iraq became a great recruiting tool for Al Queda. It also gave Osama exactly what he wanted. . .war with the west. Additionally, the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu graib electrified the Muslim world, creating many more radicals.

No sirree. . .we will not see the end of the poison fruits born by the Bush administration for perhaps a hundred years.

[chukmaty]

AQ would use something else as a recruiting tool if Iraq were not available, like Afghanistan, Pepsi Cola, or our music videos. Has it helped overall recruiting? Sure, so has other things we have done which are right. Why should it shock us that bad people will be against us doing what is right. If people hate us taking out evil dictators, maybe they are an enemy worth fighting.

[gumpydoood]

The Iraq "surge" is only part of the solution. Aside from increased troops, we have begun to BRIBE the various warlords. What happens there when the flow of money stops?

And finally, why didn't Bush fire Rumsfeld long before the surge. Why didn't he fire him a year into the war when he made the most stupid statment ever made my a military man, "quite frankly, we did not anticipate this level of insurgency". Why was there no accountability? (Aside from sheer incompetance!)

[chukmaty]

Yes, bribing is a part of the deal. And shacking up a power structure should not be based on a comment given in a press conference, I do not think that anyone really expected a grassroots insurgency coming because we did not anticipate Iran getting so involved. Also, Saddam had things so heavily locked down we did not think the religious fanatics were so powerful.

[gumpydoood]

Come on, chucky. . .everyone knows that when you occupy a country, there is a corresponding insurgency that grows with each passing day. History teaches that lesson. The war colleges teach it. The war colleges also teach to be prepared, even over prepared. Bush made no plans for the aftermath of the invasion. In fact, as we entered Iraq, Georgie was still unfamiliar with the 3 major powers in Iraq, a personal failing of the commander in chief that is really quite astounding & very sad.

[chukmaty]

Yea, like Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Granada... errrrr, wait.

[chukmaty]

Why would we have won? Is this question real?

To prevent Communist expansion in the reigon, to prevent the atrocities that took place in the region after the war, to show the Soviet Union that we would stand up to them if they tried to expand their influence in remote regions of the world. To do so directly demonstrated for later, when we defended Poland, that we were a nation willing to face the Soviet Union, winning would have been even better.