2007.10.31
Discuss Wednesday's editorials
Curb Bush's thirst for war
Virginia's junior senator plans anew to keep President Bush from waging yet another senseless war.
The White House appears to be gunning for a unilateral military strike against Iran. This time, the bully president's mission must be aborted before he shoves a region balanced on the rim of chaos into the abyss of a widening war. Congress can stifle Bush's battle drum with Sen. James Webb's resolution clarifying that Bush cannot invade Iran without congressional authorization. True, the Constitution already limits the president's war powers, but Bush can't be trusted not to stretch the nation's law to his own ends.
Read more.
Lead safety needs city's commitment
How can Roanoke say it is dedicated to a program whose funding will expire at year's end?
Somewhat forgotten in the rush to pull lead-tainted toys from store shelves is that thousands of children in this country are exposed to lead on a regular basis in homes, including homes in Roanoke. With the help of grants, Roanoke has made small gains in recent years to educate residents about the dangers of lead-based paint. The city also has taken steps to reduce residents' exposure to deteriorating lead paint in their homes. But the efforts of Lead-Safe Roanoke are destined to slide if Roanoke does not fully commit itself to the program.
Read more.
RSS feed 
Good old Jim Webb. It doesn't matter if Iran kills 1,000 of our boys. Iran can blow up a skyscraper in New York city. Jim Webb is there to say "No soup for you, mean bad President Bush. Not one drop of Iranian blood can be spilled for your empire building".
Poor Bush. He was probably minutes away from storming the pristine child-filled beaches of sunny Iran when Jim Webb flung himself across the prostrate form of the Belle Iran and cried "Shoot if you must this old gray head but spare fair maid Iran". Your heart just swells with pride when you think of the young Iranian teens sitting on beach towels, strumming guitars and falling in love on the sandy shores protected by our senator, Jim Webb.
I bet Iran dedicates the next five car bombings in Baghdad to their favorite senator.
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2007 @ 9:07 am
U.S Casualties:
September, 2006 -- 72
September, 2007 -- 65
October, 2006 -- 106
October, 2007 -- 36
I frame it this way because the RT discounted the success of the surge from May to August, saying "Casualties were higher the same months last year."
Up until the summer, we were treated to editorials, roughly every two or three weeks on the "failure of the war". But we haven't seen anything on the war's progress for almost two months.
Why not, Dan?
So James "This War is Unwinnable" Webb was wrong on Iraq. What makes you think the little partisan snert has a clue about Iran?
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Webb was not wrong on Iraq. Go back and read the commentary he wrote just after the invasion began:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EEDF1439F933A05750C0A9659C8B63
The post-invasion situation is almost exactly what he predicted.
Even if the surge is working militarily, is the Iraqi government making any strides towards reconciliation?
You neglected to answer my question in another thread, Josh, about how the government is doing on those benchmarks. Last I heard, I think they were reporting progress on one out of 18. You call that success?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Let's try to keep things in perspective.
I guess the "bully president" really doesn't care about his children or future grand children. He loves war, couldn't care less about children's health care, the air they breathe or the water they drink. He is just a nasty 'Good Old Boy'Rebublican.
My thought is that he is doing a tough job well.
By the way we are winning the war in Iraq. You would not know that by reading the paper.
Back to perspective. What are we up to in volunteer soldier deaths after five years? Tragically, I agree something short of 4000.
One year murder rate in the US 2006 approximately 18000 deaths
Traffic accidents, same time frame 42000 deaths.
MRSA hospital deaths though foggy at best 20000 deaths last year.
You can argue with the last one because it is hard to find any sound reporting on numbers. Journalists are too busy manufacturing news through polls and studies that support their favorite sport,gunning for Bushy as Maureen Dowd would say.
Comment by Dan from Botetourte — October 31, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
I find it disingenious to compare the number of troop deaths in Iraq to the number of murders/traffic deaths/MRSA hospital deaths. That's very close to saying that just because the number of troop deaths in Iraq is insignificant to the number of other deaths in the country.
I doubt that you would find any family member of a lost soldier that would agree in any way shape or form that their loved one should be considered insignificant.
The other big difference between these numbers is that there was no intentional deployment of murders, traffic deaths or MRSA cases as there was for our troops. Our troops have been sent into a poorly planned, dreadfully executed and catastrophically expensive situation that this country will not recover from for multi-generations to come.
Clearly, I am not nor have I ever been a "W" fan. I think he is the worst sitting President in the history of the United States. To be certain, I voted for Ronald Reagan, Gerry Ford and Bush 41. The current Bush has no foreign relations skills which is evident by the decline in relations with the other global powers.
To believe anything he would say or do at this junction in time is laughable. To say that to disagree with this bafoon is being disloyal to our troops is plain purely and simply a lie. Our troops have no choice but to serve at the will and pleasure of the Commander and Chief.
To do otherwise would put them at risk of a Courts Martial for insubordination. Consequently, they must and will serve because of their sworn duty...not out of admiration or respect for a pitiful excuse of a President.
Comment by Will — October 31, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
"I doubt that you would find any family member of a lost soldier that would agree in any way shape or form that their loved one should be considered insignificant."
No one said they were insignificant. That's a strawman you created so you could knock it down.
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
I created no strawman at all. I merely pointed out the flaw in trying to draw any kind of analogy or comparison between the number of troop deaths with the number of traffic deaths, murders or MRSA deaths.
What is the point of the comparison but to show that overall deaths as a result of the war in Iraq are lower than the other statistics mentioned? In some twisted sort of way, is that supposed to make it more palitable to the United States?
A death is a death whether it be one or a million and should never be trivialized by comparisons of one type of death over another. That's just plain twisted.
Comment by Will — October 31, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
The number was posed as insignificant, not the people killed. If you compare the number of people killed in plane crashes vs the number of people killed by drinking drivers, the number of people killed in plane crashes is insignificant. It doesn't mean the people themselves are insignificant. It just seems strange that the 800 number gets a lot more notice from the liberals than the 18,000 murders in America. It's gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Will Jim Webb stand against murder?
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Henry...
I think you're digging in the sand now. The best way to save yourself is to stop digging and just stand there.
Your analogy is not working at all and the more you say the more ridiculous the argument becomes.
Comment by Will — October 31, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Dan,
Webb's prediction that Iraq could take time and cost casualties is like predicting it will get dark tonight. The administration said the same thing.
The sacred 18 benchmarks were created by a leftwing congress. One of them has to do with 'amnesty'. So typical.
Anyway, as for your claim that 1 of 18 benchmarks has shown progress. The administration reported three months ago:
"The interim July report determined that satisfactory progress was being made toward eight of the 18 benchmarks."
Petraeus echoed that progress was being made two months ago, and that was before these record low casualty figures. So I don't know where you're getting your figures from. I got mine from the folks running the war, and from the four-star general overseeing the whole operation.
I've repeatedly asked you who your sources were, and you refuse to answer. But whoever it is, they're not the ones there to see what's going on. Probably that doofus Webb when he was in your office yesterday.
But this still doesn't explain why you haven't chosen to talk about the war's progress the last two months, Dan. Is it because you don't like to report good news? You used to say there was no good news. Now even the most partisan hack has to agree there is a definite downward trend in casualties.
Why not write about it?
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Will,
Here's a yes or no question. Are you pleased casualties are dropping in Iraq? Just 'yes' or 'no'. No Hillaryesque evasiveness like we saw last night, no embellishments. Just 'yes' or 'no'. See if you can do it.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Josh: "Webb's prediction that Iraq could take time and cost casualties is like predicting it will get dark tonight. The administration said the same thing."
What? You're joking, right? You certainly cannot be serious.
Feb. 7, 2003:
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Josh....
I find your question absolutely assinine! Of course I'm glad the number of troop casualties is declining. I can't believe you would be idiotic enough to believe otherwise. And yes, I realize this is a pointed and direct remark at you personally; however, I take the inference from you that I would be anything other than happy about declining deaths as a personal attack on me.
But just so you will be able to understand my response to that stupid question in plain English...
YES, I amd glad troop deaths are declining.
The unmitigated gaul of you and your ilk are beyond comprehension of any civil and educated person. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself to believe anything else after the points I've made on this and other posts during the last several months.
Comment by Will — October 31, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
I think Henry said it well. Webb has been a left wing nut job from day 1. He is the poster child for whats wrong with the Democratic party today. He has shown incredible insubordination for his superiors since being elected. If anyone ever is on power trip it is Jim Webb.
As for today's editorial; I was taken aback at the venom spewing from the first two paragraphs. Maybe I haven't been reading the Times enough ,but I never realized how extreme far left it was.
Why does the extreme left have to eat ,breathe,sleep,and make everything about Bush? They do realize Bush will not be running for President again don't they?
How about this. Come up with a PLAN that isnt just anti-Bush.
As for the Roanoke Times, I have bought my last paper. I will not support such left leaning, venom spewing publication.
Comment by Jack — October 31, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Well Josh, Dan took an hour to research some soundbites, but still didn't answer the question you've been asking for days.
If truth be told, the liberal media, be they editorial writers or the "news" divisions, don't want to report good news from Iraq. And Dan, before you get self-righteous and indignant, I'm not saying you want troops to die. I'm saying you don't want to say or do anything this close to election time that could be perceived as an acknowledgment of any modicum of success for the Bush administration.
The liberals are counting on dismal news from Iraq to carry the elections both this year and next year. That's why you won't see any positive reports from Iraq. It seems that bad news is front page news, but good news isn't even considered news.
That's why Abu Gharib was on the front page of the NY Times over 60 times but the story about the only Medal of Honor winner of these conflicts was relegated to the Metro section.
The media will swarm all over any reports of American mis-deeds while all but ignoring any reports of American heroism, and all the while giving lip-service with a hollow "I support the troops, but not the war."
But Josh, from your question to Will it seems you don't think much of Senator Clinton's answers. I don't know why you would feel that way. I thought she did a great job of giving two diametrically opposed answers to the same question.
I guess that's the risk she takes when she spends all of her time trying to say what she thinks people want to hear instead of simply being honest about her position on an issue.
Comment by C Ramsey — October 31, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Will,
OK. You answered it. Thanks. It's nothing personal; it's just that it seems like these guys like Dan and other libs refuse to give one ounce of acknowledgment that things may well be turning around in Iraq. It's almost like admitting such discredits the whole Democrat agenda and campaign of the past four years; the one that will never give credit to Bush for anything at any time.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Josh:
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Wasn't the comment about how long the war might last somebody's opinion, and wasn't it heavily qualified with "it's unknowable"? That's really a stretch, Dan.
And as for the statement on the aircraft carrier, Bush was obviously talking about the initial mission of taking out Saddam. If he meant the entire mission, wouldn't there have been plans to bring all the soldiers home just like in Desert Storm?
You can't be that slow, can you, Dan?
As for your Oct. 17 editorial, it looked like that was more about the internet than it was about Iraq. But if you're counting the opening paragraph about us dealing a crippling blow to Al Queda in Iraq, you certainly didn't comment on that part. But it sure undermines your claim today that the war is failing, doesn't it?
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
C. Ramsey,
You have it exactly right. The MSM is firm in its desire never to allow Bush anything all the way through election day.
I do see how the media is beginning to play the low troop casualties now that it can no longer be ignored. They say "Yes, but....the political situation isn't ideal" or some such diversion. Just like they do with the economy. In 2003 when the economy was starting to roar, it was "Well, unemployment is still lagging". And now that the economy is cranking on all cylinders, it's "Well, what about the housing market?"
These people don't want to be pleased. It hurts their cause. Even if everything were perfect, they would always focus on some negative. It's all about politics, Dan included, unfortunately.
C'mon, Dan. Break ranks with your comrades at the Times and Post. Go ahead and devote an editorial to the undeniable improvement in Iraq.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2007 @ 12:02 am