Posted October 15, 2012 | comments 86 Comments

Letter to the Editor: U.S. foreign policy is dangerous


Our foreign policy, especially pertaining to the Middle East, is a dangerous one. We no longer project a strong, unequivocal presence there, thus allowing a vacuum invariably occupied by thugs and murderers.

How many more wars must we witness (or engage in) before the lesson finally takes hold?

Our national sense of isolationism allowed for the Treaty of Versailles, directly giving rise to Hitler. Thirty years later, we had learned the lesson and became internationally proactive. NATO and the Marshall Plan followed.

Conversely, when Noam Chomsky and other '60s college "intellectuals" succeeded with manipulating our eventual withdrawal from Southeast Asia, 20 million Cambodians - one-third of the entire population - died.

Our current passivity includes the withdrawal of adequate mission security in Libya, an announced timetable in Afghanistan (tied to impossible "negotiations" with Taliban demands over Gitmo) and only a couple of hundred troops left in Iraq - that country now a land bridge from Iran to Syria for matériel supporting Assad's murder of his people.

We left the Green Revolution to fail in Iran, yet we encouraged the "Arab Spring," knowing full-well the likelihood of the rise for the Muslim Brotherhood. Christians are wantonly murdered at prayer, and Israel has a new avowed enemy on its border.

The current administration is quite satisfied with its over-reliance upon drone kills - essentially assassinations - with no boots on the ground for gathering intelligence from such targets. Dead men tell no tales. But we now understand the various terrorist cells all the less and we are rendered clueless as to where the next attack will be.

Woe to any national who does work with us, as that physician in Pakistan well knows.

Even when applying a moral standard, we are failing miserably: though we have failed from time to time while acting for the right reasons, it is far more immoral to fail to act for the wrong reasons.

Our country is the proverbial rich man pushing the camel through the eye of the needle. We as a country have an imperative to push much harder. And soon.

Dan Flathers, Toms Brook

86 Comments | Leave a comment

    “America does not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East, or elsewhere. It only gets to choose what side it is on,” the 43rd President of the United States said — one of 23 times he uttered the word “freedom,” according to prepared remarks.

    "America does not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East..." Man oh man, why couldn't that have been his thought process before he ordered the invasion of Iraq?!!!


    DF, The US is now witnessing the monster we created when we pulled Saddam down and destroyed Iraq thus destroying the only stabilizing factor to unrest in the Middle East. Bush 41 put Saddam in his place and did it perfectly. Bush 43 and team has set into motion endless turmoil in that region which will eventually engulf the entire world no matter the current US president.

      George Bush had to go after Saddam to show daddy how tough he was. Saddam had threatened big daddy. Yes, they set this monster in place and then "destroyed" him. The USA does that all the time! Afghanistan's fight with the former Soviet Union comes to mind.

      We are a nation on the brink of total destruction and those warmongers, Bush/Cheney and company are to blame. They should have been IMPEACHED!

      Our country may never mend from that administration: I really do believe it will take an UPRISING from the people before anything ever changes. At this time - there is no will to fight back.

      Obama is far from perfect and yes, he has been brought down from his lofty start, but God help us if Romney/Ryan get in. We must reelect Obama and start raising our voice: I see no alternative at this time.

    Dan, you mean the same President who has taken our world approval rating from 30 % when he inherited office to 47%?

    This is the same guy who thinks our economic problems started January 20, 2009. LMAO

    As usual you hit the nail right on the head Diana, as opposed to Flathers who supports a chicken hawk (Romney) who hid in Paris rather then serve his country during Viet Nam years.

    Actually, ronbo, our approval rating went from 33% to 49% while Bush was in office 2007-2009. The approval rating dropped from 49% to 47% during Obama's first year. I couldn't find stats beyond those years.

      memo Valley Patriot, Obama took office in 2009 where the approval rating spiked at 49 % and has remained 47 % according to your link. That upward movement in the line was most likely because everyone knew Bush was history. Do you dispute that under Bush the approval rating for the US in 2007 was 32%? That was up from a low of 28 % under his administration.

        Ronbo, the chart is clear. The rating went up during 2007 and 2008, reaching 49% just before O took office in Jan 2009 and dropped to 47% during 2009, his first year in office. You can theorize about why, but those are the numbers. I researched prior years and could not find any before 2007. I'll take your word for it. Also couldn't find recent info.

        The point is, a lot of people and their leaders don't have much respect for or confidence in us these days. The more often we betray our true allies and the more money we borrow, the less they will.

    Trying to get the sheep prepared Flathers? Just in case some weren't quite smart enough to figure out Ryan dancing around admitting they plan to war Iran?

    In a moral world you and your ilk would be placed on the front line with spoons for weapons to fight the battles you clamor so hard for.

      katybug - Please tell us what you think will happen if Iran gets even short-range deliverable nukes.

        Yes it would be ugly but President Obama has consistently said he won't allow Iran to become Nuclear. There is time according to both Israel intelligence and ours to let sanctions and UN actions work. But are you advocating another mideast war irregardless?

        VP-First explain other than Bush lining the way for Iran, how it would even be only the responsibility of the US

        Second-tell us if you follow up on the actual impact the sanctions are having and which publications you follow it with. (where the news comes from does matter)

        Third-explain to us how the war hungry crowd has better intelligence information than not only US and Israeli agencies, but the many other established countries I'm sure are peeking in on Iran that keep telling us Iran is no where near capable of actually getting a weapon

        *To your question...it won't happen. The difference in not jumping the gun GWB style is partnership. If you look outside the propaganda news you see the sanctions are choking Iran. One of two things will happen before they become fully capable, they will be choked so much they surrender or a coordinated effort will be launched against them. coordinated. Not the USA flipping the war switch and a President unable to leave the country lest he be arrested and charged with war crimes. Not half the world claiming the US launched an illegal war. Most importantly not the US taxpayer paying for what would turn out to be a pointless expedition, there would be less American lives lost and the US wouldn't hold the sole responsibility in whatever regime rises as a result.

        People were called conspiracy theorists. nuts, yada yada pre-Iraq for telling the world Bush was BSing. NOW years later we know Bush was full of it and there is documentation of the set up to fool people into war...yet here ya'll are falling right in line AGAIN.

          @katybug > Your reply is a non-answer. Ahmadinejad has shown he is unwilling to negotiate or compromise. Sanctions have not affected him. Maybe we can wait him out until the Iranian 2013 election, and wish someone unlike him will be elected. That is my hope.

          But meanwhile, he should be made to feel that we are willing to go to the wall to stop his program. The only way to do that is to rattle our sword.

          BTW, we had over 40 countries as partners in Iraq.



            You still didn't answer how you "know" or Fox Spews, or anyone other war happy folks know better than the intelligence agencies....

            BTW..I never said the US acted alone, I said we wouldn't be stuck holding sole responsibility. Granted its not a 100% guarantee that Willard would get up and lie to the world to justify his actions. We all know he's more of a tour de france kind of wanker when it comes to war, but its not such a hard stretch to foresee Willard doubling down then completely flip flopping any position now is it?

              @ katybug 10/15 9:58am > Your first reference proves nothing. The first sentences of the first two paragraphs say "A dispute exists..." and "There is a heated debate..." meaning no conclusion has been reached. Biden, like many people, believed Iraq had WMD and in 1998, 2002, and 2003 supported action against Iraq. Likewise, the first sentence of your second reference says "The legality...has been widely debated..."

              I didn't say "know," I said "if" and should have more accurately said "when." But in matters of this nature, I would prefer to err to my benefit. Surely you don't doubt that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is no absolute proof at this time but in an August 2012 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated that "...Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities..." I wonder why Iran won't allow UN inspectors access to the suspected development sites.


              Today, the NY Times also provided what appears to be a just-the-facts-ma'am article about Iran's program.


              Calling me "war happy" is untrue and offensive. I've been in combat; didn't like it; don't take it lightly; don't want to send our young people into it. But I volunteered because I believe in our country and its heritage and the cause for which we were fighting at the time. I believe in our causes today just as I did then. Our country - right or wrong! We may not get it 100% right all the time but overall, I think we are on the right side of the fence. I returned home to ridicule and disrespect. Thank God (that's for you Rigelon) our warriors aren't enduring that today. So get off that "war happy" crap. I worked in the DoD environment for 27 years and never met anyone with that attitude. Anyone who does have it is an imbecile.

                1-The point of the links was to show that there are many that still perceive Iraq as an illegal war, not only within the US but on the world front. It matters not what you, I, Billy, Bob or Joe think, the perception is there.

                2-"I" do believe they are attempting to gain a weapon, I simply do not believe the first answer should be "boots on the ground" so to speak. War isn't a casual game. (you say you know this) The repercussions last years and years and in some cases never heal. We have a grim reality that the majority of a specific party absolutely refuses to raise any revenue at a time of economic crisis. Part of which is due to two unfunded wars. We just cant afford another one right now, and if we are forced to, how open are we leaving our backside? "Boots on the ground" has to be the absolute last option available, and we need the support of major countries not just the US bearing the brunt.

                3-Japanese war crimes. I'm well aware of them. I've stated previously my father spent time in the Navy. I grew up with the understanding that America is a "don't as, don't tell" as far as the real horrors of war. That we don't really want to know the truths of war and at times our own have committed horrors. My point was that its easy to clamor for war when we don't have to live it. When its an ocean away. Its not in our backyard, we wont suffer 100k innocents lost, towns destroyed, issues for years to come. IF we did, you find less people willing to just put "boots on the ground" soon as someone yells boo! at us. *and no. before its twisted, I don't consider Iran as just yelling boo!, you get the point.

                Do you really believe that the sitting President has less of a clue regarding foreign policy than the guy who went on a piss off the world tour labeling him "Mitt the Twit" that also happened to conveniently bicycle through France when his country called? Really?

            The real casualties of war...


            Nice to live in a place where we don't have to concern ourselves with this kind of problem, isn't it? Well unless the GOP has their way with deregulating air and water standards, but its okay, the "elite" will never have to suffer.

            vp: "we had over 40 countries as partners in Iraq."

            Yep, vp, we had 40 countries partnering with us in Iraq. Go ahead an tout that 'fact', but the reality is....

            Troop deployment in Iraq 2003-2011

            United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak-(withdrawn 12/11)
            United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)
            Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
            El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
            Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
            Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
            Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
            Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
            Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
            Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
            Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
            Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
            Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
            Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03-withdrawal date unknown)

            For a complete list of our 40 countries allies see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

            The Republic of Turkey was offered approximately $8.5 billion in loans in exchange for sending 10,000 peacekeeping troops in 2003. Even though the United States did say the loans and the sending of troops to Iraq were not directly linked, it also said the loans are contingent upon "cooperation" on Iraq. The Turkish Government swiftly rejected all offers of financial aid, and on March 1, 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly rejected sending military forces to help participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

            Critics of the war have argued that, in addition to direct incentives, the involvement of other members of the coalition was in response for indirect benefits, such as support for North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership or other military and financial aid. Almost all of the eastern European MNF-I member countries have either recently joined or are in the process of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (namely Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia),[citation needed] the exceptions being Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, which joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1999. Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, stated in April 2006, that Estonian military forces were to remain in Iraq due to Estonia's "important partnership" with the United States. (BTW, Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)

            American Deaths
            Since war began (3/19/03): 4488
            Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 4347
            Since Handover (6/29/04): 3627
            Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 257
            Since Operation New Dawn: 68
            American Wounded Official Estimated
            Total Wounded: 33184 Over 100000

            NOW, let's all sing together...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZf619DIpo

            Now let's go vote for Romney so we can invade Iran and see many, many more Americans die or injured for Life.

              @ jane 10/16 9:11am > This can't be a revelation to you. It has happened throughout history.

              What concerns me more is what I perceive as the disrespectful way you presented a song intended to honor the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made.

              Also, based on your comment about invading Iran, I assume you would have voted against entering WWII.

                Jane8 can defend herself but she has not come close to the laughable comparison you seek to draw. LMAO

                vp: voted against entering WWII.

                vp, Please enlightened me...tell me how you deduct that my being opposed to all this Republican hype about Iran relates to WWII? Can't wait to hear this one! Did you read any of the articles of the foreign newspapers I posted--esp the Israeli newspaper? Doesn't sound as if you did. If you have an earnest desire to know what is going on in the world, you need to look beyond Fox. I have noticed that you have ventured out of that comfort zone and began pulling from other sources, and I am really please to see your effort...then you back track with such an asinine remark as this.

                Oh, vp, Sad how your mind processes the info you see. So you can only absorb one liners and not a whole series of info at one time, huh? Sorry, didn't mean to overload your circuit board.

                I quote William Westmoreland*: "The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars"

                (William Childs Westmoreland was a United States Army General, who commanded US military operations in the Vietnam War at its peak, during the Tet Offensive. Wikipedia)


                Dwight Eisenhower*: The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.

                (Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He had previously been a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II, and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; he had responsibility for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45, from the Western Front. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO. ... Wikipedia )

                I listed the number of our military that were killed, wounded, etc.; lost for what? Defending our country? From a manufactured threat? I listed other nationalities whose blood is on Bush and Cheny's hands (I can't say conscious because I truly believe neither have one.) I listed how the Bush administration tried, and failed, to buy the support of other countries or bribe with other means in order to add that country to the list of supporters and I listed some of the countries who were willing to sell themselves for US favors.

                I could NEVER disrespect our military as my husband and son have both served. my son in the first Iraq arena.

                What I disrespect is these men like Romney and Ryan using and manipulating (obviously) the American public. We can sing all the songs to honor our heroes we wish; but why push to expose them to the same situation (Iran) as we exposed them to in Iraq...you tell me...who are the ones dishonoring them?

                  @ jane 10/16 8:24pm "...why push to expose them to the same situation (Iran) as we exposed them to in Iraq..." I do not know that anyone is doing that. I know some people, including some Dems, are calling for a specific plan in case sanctions don't work. A "boots on the ground" invasion with our allies may be required in the future. Please tell me who in a responsible position is advocating an invasion at this time.

    The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars. ~William Westmoreland

    The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

    DUBAI - Iran said it would seek to cut imports of non-essential goods and urged its citizens to reduce their use of foreign-made mobile telephones and cars, as the country struggles to cope with Western economic sanctions. The policies suggest the government is moving the economy onto an austerity footing to resist the sanctions, which have been imposed over Iran’s controversial nuclear program and have slashed its income from oil exports this year. Authorities have divided imports into 10 categories based on how essential they are, and will provide importers with dollars at a subsidized rate to buy basic goods, Deputy Industry Minister Hamid Safdel was quoted as saying on Sunday. (DOI: October 15, 2012)

    LUXEMBOURG - The European Union, about to ratchet up sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear drive, will keep up the pressure on Tehran failing a breakthrough in talks, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Monday.“Today we expect to agree fresh sanctions on Iran as a result of its nuclear programme and its continued failure to satisfy the world that that programme is for peaceful purposes,” Hague said on stepping into a meeting of the bloc’s 27 foreign ministers.“This is a sign of our resolve in the European Union,” he added, “that we will step up the pressure, we will intensify the pressure and we will continue to do so over the coming months unless negotiations succeed.”The new package of sanctions is expected to target EU dealings with Iran’s banks, as well as trade and gas imports, diplomatic sources said.EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said it was “very very important that Iran is sent a very strong signal from this European Union foreign affairs council that we want to see a negotiated agreement.” (DOI: October 16, 2012)


      I was reading last week (for the life of me I cant remember where) about the Iran government barring the currency exchangers from Tehran because of people exchanging all their money since the rial is steadily losing value. Civil unrest is happening and I don't imagine the new sanctions from the EU are going to help much. Its getting pretty ugly there.

    JERUSALEM, Sept 27 | Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:51am EDT
    (Reuters) - International sanctions against Tehran have caused more damage to the Iranian economy than initially thought, according to an Israeli foreign ministry document leaked to Haaretz newspaper on Thursday. "There are indications that the average citizen is actually blaming Iranian leadership for the situation and not the West, which has imposed the sanctions," Haaretz quoted an unnamed foreign ministry official as saying. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor reiterated that more pressure had to be brought to bear.

    "The sanctions have not yet succeeded in getting (Iranian leaders) down from their attempt to get ambitious nuclear capabilities ... We need to continue, strengthen and intensify the economic, diplomatic and other sanctions," he said.

    "If they want to survive as a regime and (remove) the sanctions, they need to step down from their nuclear project," he added, speaking in English.


    The foreign ministers of 27 European Union countries agreed Monday to impose a new round of wide-ranging sanctions on Iran, in hope of pressuring it into engaging in negotiations on its nuclear program.
    (DOI: Tuesday, October 16, 2012)


    Haaretz (Hebrew: הארץ‎) (lit. "The Land [of Israel]", originally Ḥadashot Ha'aretz – Hebrew: חדשות הארץ‎, IPA: [χadaˈʃot haˈʔaʁets] – "News of the Land"[3]) is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. It was founded in 1918 and is now published in both Hebrew and English in Berliner format

    DF: We left the Green Revolution to fail in Iran, yet we encouraged the "Arab Spring," knowing full-well the likelihood of the rise for the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Mr. Flathers, Here is an article I found just for YOU.

    George W. Bush: The Arab Spring and American Ideals

    We do not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East or elsewhere. We only get to choose what side we are on.
    Some in both parties in Washington look at the risks inherent in democratic change—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa—and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.

    But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic.


    Iraqi deaths since US Invasion 1,455,590


    It's been over a month since Benghazi.

    The WH has yet to take responsibility for sending Susan Rice out to continue to lie about it only 8 days ago (NOBODY from the administration goes on the Sunday talk shows without WH approval first.)

    None of the Obama supporters are going near this.

    Does the fair-minded wonder why?

    It's been 12 years since we went to war in Afghanistan. President Obama will finally get us out of this war and won't carelessly get us into another.

      @ronbo 10/16 9:44am > It's been 12 years since we went to war in Afghanistan. President Obama will finally get us out of this war and won't carelessly get us into another.
      I don't agree that Afghanistan was a mistake, but I agree that staying there so long was. After no more than 2-3 years it should have been obvious that we were not going to achieve our objectives in the near term.

      At the time, we had good cause to enter Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks had just occurred and we and our allies were concerned about al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who were hiding in Afghanistan.
      We didn't go into Afghanistan carelessly, but we stayed too long, and Obama contributed to that.

      My concern is that Obama will carelessly keep us from war when nothing else will do. I do not believe he understands foreign policy and how the military fits into it and I do not believe he has the stomach to make a tough decision about war.

        Sorry my post wasn't clear but I was referring to Iraq which made Afghanistan a secondary rather than primary objective. It resulted in a 12 year war than if resources hadn't been diverted to avenge "Daddys" mistake would have been shorter.

        I know based on Republican history their first reflex is to but boots on the ground in every perceived threat. I like a President that treads carefully in these instrances.

    ":...veteran suicides are rising at alarming rates in large part because of VA failures. In court, plaintiffs' lawyer Arturo Gonzalez clashed Thursday with Kussman over how to compile and report the suicide rates.

    "For instance, VA Secretary James Peake told Congress in a Feb. 5 letter that 144 combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide between October 2001 and December 2005."

    OBAMA PROMISE KEPT: Obama increased the VA mental health care budget in 2010 and asked for further increases in 2011.

      @ jane 10/16 9:45am > politico.com leans to the left and this is an example. Instead of giving credit to Obama, the Dem Senate, and the Rep House for the VA funding, politico reports it was all Obama.

        Well VP, It got held for blog owner. It didn't even contain a single link. I'll try again later. Maybe.

        vp: Instead of giving credit to Obama, the Dem Senate, and the Rep House for the VA funding, politico reports it was all Obama.

        Splitting hairs here, vp, Obama made a campaign promise. It passed. Mission Accomplished!

        Ah! By your thought processes Obama cannot take credit for that, right? So he cannot be blamed for the, what you perceive, failures regarding credit degrade, budget, jobs, etc. because all players have a hand in the pot...according to you. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, BUDDY..

    Obama also "promised" a transparent administration.

    Bush has nothing to do with what Obama has done (or not done) regarding foreign policy these past four years.

    You guys can ignore the issue brought forward -- and expand the argument to an infinate number of issues to avoid the subject -- but at the end of the day, this latest Clintonian "fog of war" excuse is simply mind-numbing.

    No longer will we hear that it's the video...It's now 'we didn't know what the hell was going on.'

    The Benghazi Cover-up is the final nail in the coffin. Even the MSM has had enough with excuse-making.

      df: Obama also "promised" a transparent administration.

      Your right. Obama has not met all of his promises; however, he has more transparency in government than any president before him.

      So you would rather have Romney sitting in the White House? Talk about lack of transparency! (1) Wouldn't release his tax returns; (2) won't release the latest amount of donations to his campaign; and (3) Romney has tax and spending plans BUT no one knows what they are--including Republicans who are increasingly urging Romney to provide the missing details of his plans.

      df: Bush has nothing to do with what Obama has done (or not done) regarding foreign policy these past four years.

      Your are joking, right? Almost everything Obama has had to deal with is a direct result of Bush/Cheney foreign policy screw ups...where have you been for the past 10 or 11 years, man?.

      df: Even the MSM has had enough with excuse-making.

      MSM will do anything in it power to keep conflict alive and well as their viewing audience is their bread and butter. I thought everyone understood THAT,

    Desperation like Romney trying to use the name of one of the Seals killed in the raid and whom he had casually met for political purposes? His mother was rightfully indignant over that.

    sorry katubug I didn't read your entire post but we are on the same page.

      No issues. If this were Salem circa 1692 Darrel Issa would be a crier of witchcraft and Fox Spews and the like would be the witnesses. *The like including Flathers

      How much money have Republicans wasted "investigating"? Its one thing to actually search for wrong doing but quite another to simply be on a witch hunt. Just throw it into the government waste column with attempts to overturn the ACA, attempts to outlaw choice, attempts to blame Holder, presentation/votes of deregulation *jobs* bills that wont pass the senate, renaming the post offices.....

      -My links regarding Iraq were to show that many within the US and worldwide do consider it an illegal action. Your, my, or "Billy's" opinions do not really matter so much on the grand scale. The idea is still there that the US acted in the wrong. We don't need to repeat that.

      No, "I" don't doubt that Iran is attempting to gain nuclear weapons. But I do not fall in line with the "boots on the ground" idea so easily bandied about within the GOP, when other methods are working that we are partnered with other major countries in doing. Its not a fantasy to say the US can not afford another war at this time. Our economy was, is and will be damaged for years to come from not one but two wars we could not afford. Handling this correctly will ensure that if the time arrives the US is forced to go in with our forces, we have the support of other major nations.

      -I'm well aware of Japanese war crimes. My point was that "we" US citizens don't have to bear the brunt of the wars some are so happy to go start. Its always an ocean away. If it were in our backyard, our women and children, our soil, I doubt so many would gladly demand "boots on the ground" soon as someone yells boo! *No before anyone twists it, I don't consider Iran as just yelling boo! but you get the point.

      If a local plant was legally releasing a bunch of dangerous chemicals in the air, who could easily move away to a cleaner area and how many would be left to deal with the consequences? Same goes for ground water supplies, if it were legal to just dump whatever, how many would be unable to buy enough water elsewhere? As I said, no the "elite" will never suffer. We all live somewhere close to a site that once held a factory shut down by the EPA, there is no morals when it comes to the bottom dollar.

      -Last. Do you truly believe that the sitting President has less foreign policy experience than the guy who went on tour ticking off other countries so that they even dubbed him "Mitt the Twit", who hid when his country called on him? Really? The guy who can't stick to any one policy stance, or even explain his own policies?

        @ katybug post 10/16 8:27pm >

        Romney has as much experience as Obama had when he took office. Since he took office, he has had some successes, but a lot of his experience has been bad:

        - attack on Benghazi embassy with four killed
        - politicizing bin Laden's death
        - failure to anticipate the Arab Spring uprisings
        - failure to quickly arm the anti-Assad Syrian opposition
        - announcing when we plan to leave Afghanistan
        - gave the Queen of England an iPod loaded with his speeches
        - gave the British PM an inexpensive box of DVDs
        - snubbed Israeli PM Netanyahu
        - mishandled the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran
        - bowed to the Saudi king

        So, yes, I think Romney can do as well and maybe better than Obama. Certainly no worse.

          - attack on Benghazi embassy with four killed http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-by-the-odni-s-director-of-public-affairs-on-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi
          - politicizing bin Laden's death darn right! The last President started two wars and still didnt get the guy. BTW, not giving the POTUS credit for the call to do so, is about as equivalent as not blaming Laden for his ordering 9-11
          - failure to anticipate the Arab Spring uprisings not US responsibility
          - failure to quickly arm the anti-Assad Syrian opposition not US responsibility
          - announcing when we plan to leave Afghanistan and? again not the US responsibilty to maintain peace, train their guys, get out
          - gave the Queen of England an iPod loaded with his speeches http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9355453/Barack_Obamas_gift_for_the_Queen_an_iPod_your_Majesty/
          - gave the British PM an inexpensive box of DVDs He was given a fur-trimmed brown leather bomber jacket by George W. Bush during his first trip to America in the summer of 2007
          - snubbed Israeli PM Netanyahu only according to right wing smear tactics
          - mishandled the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran AGAIN, it is not our responsibility to handle every other countries problems.
          - bowed to the Saudi king I expect my POTUS whether I like him or not to show proper respect when visiting other countries according to their customs. If it offends the teabillies back home who can't quite grasp proper etiquette, oh well.

            and yes, after reading your last comment I made sure to find a way to interject "teabillies". Its shorter and nicer tbh than typing out the qualities one by one.

            @ katybug 10/17 7:21pm > Weak replies. Not up to your usual standards.
            7:30pm > Please do type them out. I'm interested in how you define a "teabillie."

              You caught me, I was literally feverish and lazy. Still so tbh.

              So "teabilly" or plural.... Imagine I had I neighbor move in, we'll say a Japanese American, and I decide I don't like it. So I start spreading about the neighborhood he is an illegal. One day I start telling others he's a Satanist, the next I'm telling them he is a Sadist. I start making up lies about his parents, his education, his work history. Heck, anything I can think of. I tell the other neighbors he said things he didn't. I prey on their worst fears, tell them he's been staring at their children....You would call me crazy if you knew my ramblings to be untrue. Then you would wonder why I felt the need to disparage the man so with the only drawable conclusions that I am either just plain crazy or I hold a hatred to this man just because he not like me and I just don't have the nuggets to be honest about it.

              So when we have someone say making a big deal about the POTUS bowing another leader when the last guy gave said leader a freakin kiss, or offering up iPod full of speeches bullshite, or whatever the flavor of the day is...Teabilly is much nicer than saying "you ignorant, lying, racist, fear/hate mongering, stain on America's underpants" for instance sake.

              If somehow you, at this juncture in history still believe deregulation of banks is a good thing, then debate the point. Explain how giving them back the power they admittedly abused will turn out better than the first time, but don't give us..well..well..Obama is a Muslim!

              If you really believe that giving another tax break we can not afford will help fix the economy contrary to our history of much higher taxes with economic prosperity, debate the point, bring evidence of it, not...well...Obama is a socialist who wants to redistribute our wealth!

              If you really believe starting another unfunded war in a weak economy will help us more than hurt us, explain how then, not...well...Obama is snubbing other leaders! (Hello, even the guy you are lying about has called out the lie!)

              See? Prob not, but I'll just claim illness instead of my usual inability to spell it out in crayon.

      Oh! Please, vp, you are being childish here!


      I can match this with Bush actually kissing this leader, but I won't because it is just too nauseating.

      Let's be adults, okay?

        @ jane 10/16 11:51pm >

        My showing Obama bowing to the Saudi king is childish but your post is not:
        "Oh, vp, Sad how your mind processes the info you see. So you can only absorb one liners and not a whole series of info at one time, huh? Sorry, didn't mean to overload your circuit board."
        I researched the Saudi culture and found that both greetings (kissing and bowing) are acceptable to them but bowing, especially to another country, isn't tolerated very well here. While Obama did nothing wrong, it didn't set well at home. If I could retract the post, I would.

        I don't understand why we can't discuss without insults. I know I slip occasionally, but you, katybug, and ronbo continuously interject personal attacks. I don't mind being challenged, but I don't like being provoked.

    @ jane & ronbo > Unless you're in a thicker fog than I think you are, you understand the correlation. If you really don't, go down to one of the high schools and have someone explain it to you.

    I always find that "....pushing the camel through the eye of the needle." works so well.

    vp: "Please tell me who in a responsible position is advocating an invasion at this time."

    Actually, vp, you're right, no one who is in a responsible position; it's just Mitt the Twit being his usual self. Boy! If he is elected, certainly hopes someone/anyone gives him a crash course in foreign policy 101.

    "On Iran, one key policy difference does stand out between Obama and Romney: While Obama continues to insist that he would not accept Iran’s development and possession of a nuclear weapon, Romney has differentiated himself by saying he would not accept Iran developing a “nuclear weapons capability” – language employed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US Congress that suggests a lower threshold for attacking Iran."


    @ jane 10/17 9:17pm > Obama said almost the same thing:

    "Mr Obama also again stressed the US would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. He said the US would 'do what we must' to stop Tehran acquiring nuclear arms. Six weeks before the US election, the president said a nuclear-armed Iran was 'not a challenge that can be contained'."


    valley patriot replied to comment from Katybug | October 17, 2012 4:05 (Sorry, Katy, may I jump in here?)

    - attack on Benghazi embassy with four killed

    Obama is not responsible for the death of these men anymore that GW could be held responsible for the death of Pat Tillman.

    - politicizing bin Laden's death

    WHAT? Like Romney did with the dead soldier that he only met one time and for just a few minutes?

    - failure to anticipate the Arab Spring uprisings'

    You mean like GWB failed to anticipate the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon? Honestly, vp, how old are you REALLY?

    - failure to quickly arm the anti-Assad Syrian opposition

    I guess that begs the question how quickly is quickly!

    - announcing when we plan to leave Afghanistan

    Think about this for a minute PLEASE; how could this possibly be kept secret once the decision is made.

    - gave the Queen of England an iPod loaded with his speeches

    Where in the world did you get that bit of nonsense? The iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh

    - gave the British PM an inexpensive box of DVDs

    The gift boxed set of 25 DVDs were of great American movies as picked by the American Film Institute; Gordon Brown is a well-known movie fan. Anti-Obama media even went so far as to say that the American cut DVDs would not work in the UK, but the Prime Ministers owns a multi-system player.

    - snubbed Israeli PM Netanyahu

    Even Bibi denied that in an CNN interview.

    - mishandled the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran

    Now I really like this one, Please. vp, tell us...how did Obama mishandle this? Can wait to hear.

    - bowed to the Saudi king

    I'd rather see Obama do a respectful bow, than when I saw GW walking around holding hands with the Saudi King or kissing him. Of the three choices Obama, I believe. worked with the less offensive custom. Which would you have done? The kiss or holding his hand?

    It is SOOOOO predictable.... EVERY time 'valleypatootie' and that guy Dan Flatliner picks a fight on these pages, they get their noses bloodied. Ya gotta love it, huh?


    Bwaaahhhhh hahahahahaha

    I truly am NOT trying to pick a fight here.

    It is very troubling to see a list of items such as those posted by 'valley patriot' and realize that Americans reading disinformation such as that list accepts it as truth without question. I worked in a Third Wold country were the government controlled the media totally. Every single day the citizens read articles written that I knew positively to be false. The thing that is the most disturbing is the fact that no one really knows who is sitting around compiling this disinformation, what are their goals in doing so, are they actually citizens of the US or a foreign government, and who is funding their work?

    Leading the masses and mind control is how to succeed. The majority of American media is nothing but theatrics anymore. When you can get more truth from Comedy Central than you can from MSM, we are not too far from that Third World controlled media.

    “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” ― Edward R. Murrow

    @ all > No bloody nose, but my eyes water from all the smoke, I'm blinded by all the mirrors, dizzy from all the spin, and bloated from all the repetition. I empathize with those who have to deal with your hostility and venom more often than I do. You must be deeply ashamed of your standard bearer and at the same time fear and realize that he will lose the election.

    Bill Mayer must have had you in mind when he said:
    “The problem is that the people with the most ridiculous ideas are always the people who are most certain of them."

      LOL...exactly as I described.

      vp, I am NOT ashamed of Obama. He is exemplary in my eyes; e,g,, the fact that the President of the USA has a decent command of the English language and I especially admire that he will weigh heavily the alternatives before he acts. I have absolutely no hostility toward you; but I do believe the disinformation you post needs addressing. It is really mind bogging that if you are what you claim to be--a vet and 27 years in DOD--that you readily buy into some of the disinformation that you have posted? It simply doesn't compute!

      I could write a thousand words, but it would never convey with such clarity the truth stated below: (Food for though, vp.)

      The lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives - has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage. ~ Carl Bernstein

      All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

      “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ~ Malcolm X

      "While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment." ~ Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Majority (1970)

      “The United States spends over $87 billion conducting a war in Iraq while the United Nations estimates that for less than half that amount we could provide clean water, adequate diets, sanitation services and basic education to every person on the planet. And we wonder why terrorists attack us.” ― John Perkins

    thank you "blog owner" for posting my lost post lol

    Katybug, My 83 year old sister who has been witness to much history says YOU "ARE ONE SMART WOMAN". I could not agree more,

    DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!!!!!!!!

    1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 CLANG-CLANG-CLANGGGGG

    (vp - watch out... they just brought out the BIG guns ....that 83 year old left hook)


    Meant to say Food for thought:...think...think...think...

    True, vp, Obama may not get a second term. Should that become true, I guarantee, friend vp, you will feel the impact of that travesty much more than I.

      "If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL" -- Obama tonight on the Daily Show.

      Hilarous stuff.

      That's the travesty, Jane.

        On the same show:

        Obama: 'Jon, the truth is that information comes in, folks put it out throughout the process, people say it is still incomplete. What I was always clear about was we are going to do an investigation and figure out what happened.'
        Asked what caused the confusion about what was behind the attack, he (Obama) replied: 'Well, we weren't confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed, I wasn't confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened, I wasn't confused about the fact that we had to investigate exactly what happened so it gets fixed and I wasn't confused about the fact that we were going to hunt down whoever did it and bring them to justice.
        'So, as I said during the debate, nobody is more interested in figuring this out than I am. When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and you try to piece together exactly what happens.

          The word 'optimal' was first used by Stewart in the question. But Obama's use of it, in a sound bite that could be used to portray him as somewhat casual about the deaths, lit up conservatives on Twitter after it was first reported in a White House pool report by Mike Memoli of the 'Los Angeles Times'.

    There you go again Flathers. CNN was reporting that right media was already picking the one sentence to try to use against the President, without mentioning that "optimal" was phrased in the question given to him by Jon Stewart

    “Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.”

    Good little sheep aren't you? Couldn't wait to pass along the new line of BS. That'll do donkey, that'll do.

    Pulled this off a Facebook post:

    "In late 2008 after President Obama was elected but before he took office he was in his home state, Hawaii for Christmas. My daughter who served five years in the Navy as a Corpsman was at the gym on the military base with her husband who is now a Navy chief and has served for 15 years. The Obamas were there too. My daughter and son-in-law were working out and President Obama walked toward them to get to the weights. My daughter was nervous so she joked with him and said, sorry, somebody already took the 5 pounders. They both laughed and while they all were in the same area working out he noticed my son-in-law had a Red Sox shirt on. "Fan of the Red Sox?" he asked, my son in law said yes, sir! Obama replied "Sorry, I can't help you with that." They laughed and joked some more and he mentioned how crowded the gym was. My daughter said, they are just here to catch a glimpse of you, they are not "regulars." He said "Well, whatever brings them to the gym!" Then my daughter went to Michelle who was also in the gym and said "I want to thank you for the sacrifice that you and your family are making." Michelle thanked her and said, "No, I want to thank YOU for your sacrifice, your job is much harder." "I don't think so, my daughter said." Michelle said, "Our job will be difficult but your family may face deployment and that is real sacrifice." My daughter and another woman there both started to tear up as they told Mrs. Obama how much hope they had for her husband's Presidency and how much she and her family supported them. Michelle told her that her number one priority would be supporting military families while she was the First Lady, which she has done with Jill Biden, too. They cried and hugged and Michelle said, come here, I want you to tell that to Barack. They walked back over to the President and my daughter explained how much hope we had for his Presidency and how much trust her family and many of her military friends had for him. He was touched and hugged her, she said he was so genuine and kind that it was really a very profound experience. They all went back to working out but as the Obamas were getting ready to leave he went back into the gym to find my daughter and son-in-law to give them another hug. This man is real, this man cares about people and that caring affects every decision he makes."

      Thanks for posting this, Jane, and it illustrates the fact that both Barack and Michelle Obama came from middle class background so similar to the majority of Americans. In contrast, the Romneys both grew up with privilage and money far different from most Americans and although I have personally known and been friends with some extrememy wealthy people who still managed to be down-to-earth and have compassion for those in which life is more of a struggle, the Romney's are just NOT in that compassionate category. All someone has to do is open their eyes and see what Romney proposes---if you can pin him down which right there should make anyone suspicious. (Funny that the right-wing lambasted Obama for appearing on "The View" and then here comes Romney----actually afraid to go on that same program because he apparently felt he can not answer the questions of the women on there.)

      Although "Mr. Etch-a-Sketch, Flip-Flop Romney" who has changed positions sometimes in a day's time or less, has tried to make himself sound more moderate in these last few weeks before the election, anyone seriously listening to him these last few years knows he is NOT "for" the middle class. His 47% outrageous comment, behind closed doors not knowing it would be exposed, is very very telling as well as not respecting the American people he is asking to vote for him by being honest and open enough to give more than the last two years of tax returns that he has. Afraid to reveal something? Afraid the truth will turn off the American people? Feels he does not have to live by the same rules as the rest of us? These are questions Americans should be asking.

    Dan Flathers, your always illogical writings are fluffy exercises of Teabilly doublespeak and baffelgab, your promotion of nonsense never impresses, and your version of facts are always successfully challenged, a feat that seems to make you very proud as well perhaps explaining your gluttony for fact-checking punishment.

    I, for one, always enjoy your continuing humiliation and the establishment of your proud reputation for ignorance.

    49 New Romney Lies This Week

    As of Friday 10-19-2012, the number of Mitt Romney lies since January 2012 has reached 853 and counting.

    See #805 thru #853 for week of 10-19-12

    The Mendacity of Mitt Romney Lying To The Teabillies


Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137