Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe peace majority is real.
A CBS poll finds that 80 percent of Democrats believe the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and more than 60 percent want US troops home as soon as possible. A Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 70 percent of Independents feel the war was not worth it, and 33 percent of Republicans agree. Even 72 percent of our troops believe US forces should leave Iraq in the next year.
So what are so many Democratic politicians so afraid of? And how do we translate this majority into a politics of change for the 2006 elections and beyond? How do we send a message from the grassroots – the people outside of the beltway – that ending this war matters, and that the time to show moxie and conviction is right now?
VotersForPeace has initiated the Peace Voter Pledge along with 18 other antiwar organizations – including United for Peace and Justice, itself a coalition of 1,400 local groups.
The pledge is focused on the Iraq war as well as potential armed conflicts such as that with Iran, and – using language crafted by The Nation in its cover editorial last November – it reads: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
Linda Schade, spokesperson for Voters For Peace, points to a nationwide poll indicating that 67 percent of Democratic voters support or strongly support the wording of the pledge; 59 percent of Independents and a stunning 25 percent of Republicans support it as well.
"The Peace Majority is now here. Peace Voters are the new Soccer Moms," Schade said.
Peace Voters see how the war is undermining our security and causing a tragically unnecessary loss of life, while also depleting needed resources for healthcare, education, and the rebuilding of America.
Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action, expects hundreds of other groups to join in the Peace Voter Pledge effort. The goal is to obtain two million signatures in 2006 and Peace Action is aggressively promoting it online, while chapters and affiliates circulate it at local community events across the nation.
"Support for this war, or unwillingness to speak out against it, are both morally unacceptable," Martin said. "Democrats can't beat Karl Rove by offering no real alternative on this."
Which is exactly the point Sen. Russell Feingold made in a recent interview with Dan Balz and Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post: "If we don't show that we have a strong vision of how to complete that mission, bring the troops home, and refocus in a positive way in the fight against terrorism, I'm afraid people will once again by default, you know, hedge it and maybe allow Republicans to stay in power."
One Democrat who understands the painful consequences of hedging is Senator John Kerry. On Tuesday, the former Presidential candidate spoke at the fourth annual Take Back America conference and announced that he will soon sponsor an amendment to the defense spending bill demanding a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.
As the death toll has increased--more than 2,500 US troops have been killed to date--and voters have become increasingly disgusted with the war and the lack of Democratic action in opposing it, antiwar candidates have emerged as challengers to the status quo.
In Connecticut, where over 60 percent of voters oppose the war, Bush's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, is receiving a surprisingly stiff challenge from Ned Lamont. Lamont needed the support of 15 percent of the delegates at the state convention to secure a place on the August 8 primary ballot – he doubled that.
Even in instances where a challenger falls short – as occurred in last Tuesday's California primary between Marcy Winograd and hawkish incumbent, Jane Harman – these contests are forcing Democratic strategists who would water-down any position on Iraq to confront the depth and power of the antiwar sentiment. "The voters are sending a clear message to the party," Schade says.
In New York, writer and labor organizer Jonathan Tasini is challenging Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary – a David and Goliath contest in which Tasini has no delusions about winning. But Tasini recently proved that Senator Clinton could not dictate Iraq policy at her own state convention, where he led a successful effort to pass a resolution labeling the decision to go to war an "error" and urging "a safe and orderly withdrawal of US forces."
Peace Action's Kevin Martin says, "In the end, we want politicians to know the power of the peace voters. Even in the so-called ‘safe districts.' We want them to see the political potential of our constituency."
Hopefully, the Democratic Party leadership will soon follow the lead of grassroots activists and courageous leaders such as Feingold, Kerry and Senate candidates, Rep. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, John Tester in Montana, and Bernie Sanders in Vermont.
As Feingold said, "America knows we have to regroup and refocus on the real fight against terrorism. So I don't understand why Democrats are so meek about basically associating themselves with the number one issue in America which is to find a way to end our huge military involvement in Iraq."
Let the race for peace begin. Sign the Peace Voter Pledge today.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Polls, schmolls. If they make you happy, by all means take their outcome as gospel. The only true polls that count come every other November.
This just in: A nationwide poll of the working public was taken today with an overwhelming result. 98.4% of Americans favor a 3 day work week. Why are our elected officials not listening to the will of the people.
LOL....
Posted by Sliver at 06/15/2006 @ 4:24pm
Hey Van dumb Evil,
Another stupid post.
"A CBS poll finds that 80 percent of Democrats believe the United States should have stayed out of Iraq"
Why dont you post the Demoncrat polls of how they felt BEFORE the war????The LIBS politicians stepped all over themselves trying to vote FOR the war. All your post proves once again is LIBZ are good at looking in the rear view mirror and bitching and undermining our country like the traitorus LIBZ you all are. Pathetic pukes all of you!!!
THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/15/2006 @ 4:24pm
Geez Louise, Ms vanden Heuval....look at the VOTES for Gosh sakes!
John Nichols' latest "Online Beat"....."...U.S. House of Representatives ... when it voted 351-67". That's a LOT of Democrats who, for all the "nationwide polls indicating that 67 percent of Democratic voters support or strongly support the wording of the pledge..." don't seem to worried about signing off on what Mr Nichols calls a "blank check" for Iraq.
"So what are so many Democratic politicians so afraid of?"....well, obviously NOT a "Peace Pledge" (or any of its dozens of predecessors back to March 2003).
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2006 @ 4:34pm
Also...(Since ZERO is Ignoring me, I feel free to lift his post from another thread)....on Dem politicians and the "Peace Pledge"
By DAVID STOUT and JOHN HOLUSHA Published: June 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a call this afternoon for withdrawal of most American combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
The 93-to-6 vote came after a maneuver by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican, who introduced a measure that he said was taken from a proposal by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, calling for President Bush to agree with the new Iraqi government on a timetable to withdraw most troops by Dec. 31.
The vote was to table a proposal that only those forces essential to completing the mission of "standing up" the Iraqi security forces remain in the country in 2007, and it reflected a deep reluctance in both parties to commit to a firm withdrawal schedule.
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2006 @ 4:37pm
Thank you RIO for all your wonderful posts. Please keep them up :-)
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/15/2006 @ 5:00pm
Geeez...a "traitor/LibZ/FU/Aludra" - Rio Loco jack-fest. Why don't you guys get a room or something
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:08pm
Unfortunately the numbers show what us Progressives already knew....our elected officials are NOT doing the will of the people....they are doing what "they think is right"
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:09pm
Rio
If indeed the polls are accurate (and hence ARE an accurate representation of what is desired by the public of their elected officials) and these same officials vote in ways contrary to these wishes....then indeed we have a gov't doing "what it wants" rather than what it should be doing...yes?
So now LibZ instead of being a dumb FUK, is garbed in the robes of "TRAITOR" How appropriate!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:27pm
but no matter how many times he changes his pants, there is a certain aroma that comes with his presence.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:28pm
Hey Left of Nitwit,
Still got rocks in your head there fool...Seems you still have that obsession with all things Homosexual...At least your a consistant anti-american asshole
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/15/2006 @ 5:33pm
Gee TRAITOR. Is there something wrong with being homosexual? We aren't holding it against you. If you and Rio wanna get jiggy down at the armed Wingnut enclave - I say "Have at it".
(Any funny how most of your incarnations deal with "fuck" and you have an obession with "assholes")
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:46pm
"Is there something wrong with being homosexual"
I think the question is not whether it is right or wrong...It is your obsession with all things related to it and USING that subject as your rebuttle to arguements....Did you ever consider people dont want to hear that shit??? How about just using your so-called geologist brillance in your arguements instead of using homosexual subjects as your frame of reference
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/15/2006 @ 5:49pm
Traitor-boy...all I said was "jack-fest" & "Geez, get a room" to you and Rio's back-slapping. YOU are the one who went all "homo" with it, not me....of course, once you did it was just plain fun to push that button becuase you get all home-crazy like many Wingers.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:53pm
oops, spell check alert
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 5:54pm
Dont over estimate the effects of your brillance....
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/15/2006 @ 5:55pm
or the effects of age on eyesight!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 6:02pm
This chick is so full of herself.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/15/2006 @ 7:29pm
Senate votes 93-6 to shoot down Kerry proposal that would have demanded that we be out of Iraq by December of this year.
The Progressive Movement has a whole lot of Democrats to roast.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/15/2006 @ 8:59pm
Kerry - the cream of the crop. Always on target.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/15/2006 @ 9:58pm
LL
funny you should trudge down the "short attention span theatre" trail as it is short time spans that the entire pseudoscience of economics operate. In fact, many true progressives are much more atuned to the thought of post-generational planning as opposed to the "I'm gonna get my toys now" right-wing who can just barely see beyond tomorrow and the next double-cheesburger or fill-up of the old SUV.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 10:01pm
Bush - cream of the crap. Never learned how to find targets as he was AWOL from National Guard training.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 10:02pm
oooops, should be an "IN" between is and short....
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 10:22pm
This new generation is unwilling to do the tough things that sometimes involve a great deal of self sacrifice for extended periods of time. For them, if it takes longer than a few weeks, costs more in lives than they think reasonable, it isn't worth it.
Imagine our history if this mentality had been present in previous generations. FDR would have been impeached, Lincoln would have been shot much sooner, and well you get the point.
FDR and Lincoln didn't have to lie to get us into the war in the first place, and their wars were much worthier causes. It has nothing to do with the short attention span of this generation and a lot to with this administration's truth deficit.
Posted by brunowe at 06/15/2006 @ 10:24pm
Bravo Katrina for highlighting Voters For Peace. It is great to see the anti-war movement getting focused on the area where real power can be exercised -- in the voting booth as a voting bloc that will not be fooled by two parties both putting up minor variations in pro-war candidates. The non-profit I direct, DemocracyRising.US, was one of the co-founders of this effort and we're pleased to see it taking off.
By the way, I'm also running for US Senate in Maryland, independent of the two parties in a unity campaign for peace, bringing together three third parties -- Greens, Populists and Libertarians along with those frustrated with the two old parties and their defense contractor funded candidates. In the campaign, I've found the real dividing line between peace candidates and pro-war candidates is Iran. Even those who call themselves peace candidates will not take the bombing of Iran off the table -- despite it being a violation of international law that will kill tens of thousands of people.
Let's not be fooled -- no more war candidates.
Kevin www.ZeeseForSenate.org
Posted by kzeese at 06/15/2006 @ 10:35pm
good for you kzeese and good luck!
Posted by loveloki at 06/16/2006 @ 12:11am
wow, nothing like a thread about peace to get the cockroaches all riled up. they're crawling all over this thread. they must really hate the whole concept of peace. why don't all of you avid nation bloggers form your own group--creepy sociopaths against all forms of peace unite.
leftofcenter--nice of you to be the only liberal voice for quite awhile on this nation thread. it seems most of the left-leaning bloggers on this site are becoming rather burned out lately.
i signed the pledge. my friends and family are signing it as well.
Posted by loveloki at 06/16/2006 @ 12:17am
it seems we have a few new fwends to play with
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:19am
wow, nothing like a thread about peace to get the cockroaches all riled up. they're crawling all over this thread. they must really hate the whole concept of peace.
Posted byLOVELOKI 06/16/2006 @ 12:17am
To a pro war hamster
peace is an abomination
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:20am
will! i'm very glad you're back.
:)
Posted by loveloki at 06/16/2006 @ 12:36am
the traitor isn't new. it's just ann, with her daily name change.
Posted by loveloki at 06/16/2006 @ 12:37am
the traitor isn't new. it's just ann, with her daily name change.
Posted by LOVELOKI 06/16/2006 @ 12:37am
you don't have to walk very far into hamsterland before you trip and fall over a traitor
to be evangelic you must swear to war against all of gods creation
:)
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:42am
sorry will, you're wrong about that. to be evangelic you must swear to send other people to war against all of creation. because if you're evangelic, you're way too chickenshit to even come out of your parents' basement.
Posted by loveloki at 06/16/2006 @ 12:45am
:)
Ha Ha Ha Ha
I stand corrected
Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 12:47am
"Unfortunately the numbers show what us Progressives already knew....our elected officials are NOT doing the will of the people....they are doing what "they think is right" "
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/15/2006 @ 5:09pm
Thought the name of the game is representative democracy?
That means that one does put their trust in the selected then elected representatives to make the right choices. Or does it?
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 02:38am
Yes, I sure do hope the Democrat party embraces capitulation to our enemies, by cutting and running. Republicans will win again, in 2006. :)
Posted by Tymbrimi at 06/16/2006 @ 04:44am
LRJ
a repaste from my note to Rio yesterday:
If indeed the polls are accurate (and hence ARE an accurate representation of what is desired by the public of their elected officials) and these same officials vote in ways contrary to these wishes....then indeed we have a gov't doing "what it wants" rather than what it should be doing...yes?
a funny thing trust...sometimes is placed properly, other times, well...not so much
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 07:27am
Posted by KZEESE 06/15/2006 @ 10:35pm
Kevin, thanks for stopping by. (I'm sorry that this thread couldn't offer you something more in the way of meaningful discussion.)
Congrats on the third nomination.
You have my vote.
(South (AA) Co.)
Posted by drhammer at 06/16/2006 @ 07:35am
they must really hate the whole concept of peace.
Our military is confronting aggression to ultimately bring peace (notice I didn't say "Restore peace", as the region wasn't peaceful to begin with)
Historically, it works better than clicking your heels and wishing that the conflict would end on its own. We tried the Democratic "Ignore" button in the 90's, when you-know-who was closing military bases and scaling back the army alone from 18 divisions to just 10, while our embassies, ships, etc were being blown up.
Bush is being, dare I say "progressive" with a different strategy to confront some bad guys.
Posted by Sliver at 06/16/2006 @ 08:27am
"Confronting" aggression?!
That friendly, frosty, anthropomorphic pitcher pours out yet another mugfull...
Posted by drhammer at 06/16/2006 @ 08:37am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 07:27am
LOC
A bit like government by referendum. Sounds good. On that basis you could probably do away with seat warming, time wasting representatives and have a sort of head office where polls on the most popular issues were fed into a computer, that in turn, was able to churn out legislation. Such legislation could be overturned or modified as the mood of the electorate changed or thought, on an issue, progressed.
The newspapers and other media would be great former's of public opinion which might tend to be all over the shop but that wouldn't matter much in the US, as you could have first past the post opinion polls where say 25% in favour of a particular issue, was the lowest possible pass. That would accord with what you have at present where only about half the electorate vote anyway. You could run a poll on peace so you blokes could get your jollies and just to keep the right wing nutters happy have a poll on activist judges and whether they should be jailed if they have the audacity to tamper with poll driven legislation. No doubt, a bit of something for everyone, should make for a happy and contented electorate :-)
In my neck of the woods Capital Punishment hasn't been on the books in any state for about 50 years. Haven't checked lately but polls produce about 70% in favour of the noose for all sorts of crimes. Our problem is like your's over there, we also have these gutless pollies who won't take any notice of the will of the electorate. The wimps think they know what's best for us :-( It's a real bugger isn't it?
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 09:27am
Yes, Confronting would be appropriate. Look it up. It's something contrary to ignoring, denial, etc.
Posted by Sliver at 06/16/2006 @ 09:34am
Posted by SLIVER 06/16/2006 @ 09:34am
Thanks for your attempt at edification, but I wasn't confused about the definition of the word. I was taking issue with its use.
I think "perpetrating" would be the more appropriate word.
Posted by drhammer at 06/16/2006 @ 09:58am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 07:27am
Posted by LRJONES4 06/16/2006 @ 09:27am | ignore this person
Are you guys SERIOUSLY proposing "direct democracy" for major issues?
('member now... capital punishment, abortion restrictions, prayer in school, school vouchers, arresting illegal immigrants....all poll over 50% or better...hardly a liberal agenda).
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 10:17am
Mask
When the people are 3:1 against the war and the Legislators claim they are "just doing what people want", don't you see a disconnect? LRJ has a real point and profers some kind of solution...you have better idea, because clearly DC is way past broke...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 10:24am
"Bush is being, dare I say "progressive" with a different strategy to confront some bad guys."
Posted by SLIVER 06/16/2006 @ 08:27am
Sliver,
Think you are not daring enough. Bush is a radical. Something the Left once was but unfortunately these days is not. It has lost its reforming zeal and has degenerated into a grouping of reactionaries trying to find a place in a world it does not understand and that has been dominated for decades by the intellectual vigour of the "new conservatives".
Backing the wrong horse (and wrong ideas) in the cold war is probably partly to blame for its irrelevance in a globalised world which it has difficulty coming to terms with and never thought possible.
These things tend to be cyclical but the left needs a more positive and rigorous intellectual approach to many issues if it is to get back into the game. It's more fundamental than just doing a better job of selling its ideas.
Pretty sure Bush's idea of peace is a little more radical than the mere absence of war, which seems to be the way many supporting "peace" understand it.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 10:27am
I saw a lot of blog complaints here by supposedly right wing but most of you sound like Neo-Con Democrats, sitting around drinking your coffee and watching your elitist stock in Lockheed Martin, Exxon and whatever other corporate thing your selling out too. I never would have guessed you would all be freaking out that if the peace-head are getting their act together again.
If they are successful then suddenly Joe Liberman and Hillary will have to work for a living. Not to mention the hundreds of other corrupt politicians in this country.
I don't know who will take there place but it will be fun to watch. With the low voter turnout and everything else wrong in the nation who knows what is gonna happen. We haven't seen this many fissures in the 2 parties in decades and they both are unpopular. Maybe we will even see one of these old parties replaced in the next 10-20 years (how fun will that be)? If one falls the other will too in all likely hood. --- If people disagree with this pledge then go out there start your own political organization, organize your millions of voters to do whatever you want to do.
P.S. capitol punishment should only be used on politicians and corrupt bureaucrats.
Posted by Alex35332 at 06/16/2006 @ 10:30am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006
LOC,
I was trying, by using irony, to show that the "referendum idea" is fraught with all sorts of dangers. Think we are living in a more conservative world where people are less committed to causes than at other times. Many expected Iraq would be amenable to the pressures that stopped the Vietnam war but so far that has not happened. I think that is a measure of a different electorate. That may change.
Still think representative democracy, for all its faults, is the best system we have. If you want better representatives you need to get involved in the selection process.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 11:01am
"...your elitist stock in Lockheed Martin, Exxon and whatever other corporate thing your selling out too."
Posted by ALEX35332 06/16/2006 @ 10:30am | ignore this person
I'm working on my retirement portfolio....can I get the complete list of "elitist stocks"?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 11:18am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 10:24am | ignore this person
That's fine, LOC....Direct democracy sounds GREAT...when the polls are favoring YOUR view, but what about the other issues?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 11:20am
Mask..
GREAT. After all...if we had direct democracy in 2000, Dubya never would have been president to begin with!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 11:33am
LRJ
re: "the selection process"..always. Although note the problem we found here in 2000 when a minority of the populace elected its leader.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 11:34am
Still think representative democracy, for all its faults, is the best system we have. If you want better representatives you need to get involved in the selection process.
Posted by LRJONES4 06/16/2006 @ 11:01am | ignore this person
...and then buy a huge corporation (Diebold, for example) to really make sure you get the representatives you want. Just for insurance, it helps to have a judiciary beholden to you. Anybody want to go duck hunting?
Posted by Turk33 at 06/16/2006 @ 11:41am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 11:33am | ignore this person
Yep....and little or no abortion rights in half the country, no gay rights in ALL of it, no separation of Church & State, no moratoriums on capital punishment, and we likely would have voted to nuke Mecca on 9/12/2001.
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 12:09pm
I agree with Mask - it's bad enough the huckleberries we get in Congress, can you imagine if people like NACL and Ann/traitor/fu*libs had direct votes? "Oh, Canada..." would sound pretty good to me!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/16/2006 @ 12:48pm
lrjones
you are so completely correct about the intellectual vigour of the neocons. their rigorous intellectual posts here, see all of annie's personalities, prove your point.
we on the left could never contend with the vigour and rigorousness you mention.
"backing the wrong horse..." i'm sorry, my liberal brain cannot comprehend the vigour and rigorousness of your metaphor. it is foreign to me.
Posted by loveloki at 06/16/2006 @ 1:54pm
LRJONES4
intellectual vigour of the "new conservatives"
Ha... HaHa...HAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
But seriously, all kidding aside, what do you really think?
Posted by Turk33 at 06/16/2006 @ 2:00pm
Back to Ms vanden Heuval's article....as we've seen today....
42 House Democrats didn't take the "threat" of the "Peace Pledge" too seriously....3 Republicans did though, if that helps.
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 2:04pm
The Vote today just proves that not ALL the LIB politicians are suicidal leftwing nutjob loonies that want to cut and run like the majority nitwits that troll this miserable blog....There may be still hope for the once great demoncrat party...one can only hope
THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/16/2006 @ 2:38pm
Majority wants peace? Not a majority of the Democrats, thanks to the "Gang of 42".
Posted by woodyee at 06/16/2006 @ 2:40pm
Mask
no abortion rights in half the country, no gay rights in ALL of it, no separation of Church & State, no moratoriums on capital punishment,
...and if that would come to be, would we be ANY different from the zealots we are currently at war with? (tailor's aside.)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 2:52pm
Move to France if you dont like it
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/16/2006 @ 2:54pm
Comprenez vous le peu je, âne chapeau?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 3:20pm
Pardon. My French is a bit rusty....it is:
Comprenez vous mordez-moi, âne chapeau?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 3:22pm
vous baiser le traitre
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/16/2006 @ 3:33pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person
LOC...the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment stalled in the Senate.
Think if put up for a POPULAR mandate that would have happened?!??!
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 3:40pm
Embrassez-vous? Je ne pense pas ainsi, âne chapeau.
Êtes vous me demandant hors du garçon?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 3:49pm
would love to see the polling where the American public and their short attention span actually supports anything tough that isn't finished in less than a month.
Our socialist public education system has succeeded in raising generations of wimps and spineless nimbys who will never make make the sacrifices necessary to achieve victory over evil...
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/15/2006 @ 8:17pm
LL, your rant was good for a laugh! Have you forgotten your meds? The majority has turned against the war, not because they see it for the debacle that it is, but because of the damn commies in the school system!
It makes for a hilarious mental picture, you sitting in your rocker, slamming your fist on your knee, muttering "back in my day, we didn't have commies in our schools. And we walked to school uphill - both ways."
I almost busted a gut...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/16/2006 @ 3:57pm
I'm working on my retirement portfolio....can I get the complete list of "elitist stocks"?
Posted by MASK 06/16/2006 @ 11:18am
Just check the financial section of your newspaper :-)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/16/2006 @ 4:05pm
That's fine, LOC....Direct democracy sounds GREAT...when the polls are favoring YOUR view, but what about the other issues?
Posted by MASK 06/16/2006 @ 11:20am
MASK, I have to disagree. Direct democracy sounds like a pain in the ass. I don't want to have to take time to go to the polls every damn time a "major" issue is up for a vote. A bloody nuisance is a more apt description.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/16/2006 @ 4:08pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/16/2006 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
Well, I think "Ben & Jerry's" is publicly traded...are they an "elitist" stock?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 4:09pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/16/2006 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person
Sarcasm, ILP....sarcasm. No, as you'll note in my later posts to LOC, I don't favor it either...neither should any liberal (few conservatives either for that matter).
LOC seems to like the idea, because the polls are against the Iraq War....but he needs to check out some other "popular issues" and see if he'd like them voted up-or-down with 51% deciding everything.
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2006 @ 4:12pm
"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
This is why I cannot sign the peace pledge. It may be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from making nukes.
If it were just for the war in Iraq, I'd sign in a heartbeat. But my crystal ball is broken, so I cannot predict what the future will necessitate.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/16/2006 @ 4:13pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/16/2006 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
Well, I think "Ben & Jerry's" is publicly traded...are they an "elitist" stock?!?!?
Posted by MASK 06/16/2006 @ 4:09pm
Sarcasm, MASK,...sarcasm.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/16/2006 @ 4:15pm
Certain people think all stocks are "elitist," my aunt being one of them. I don't agree. Thus I was on your side for once.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/16/2006 @ 4:16pm
Mask
No, I throw the idea out there not JUST because Iraq, but going back to the 2000 elections (and the POTUS should be popular vote IMHO) In fact, I think that we should go pre-electoral college and do a POTUS only election and VP is the loser...make for a true bipartisan admin. Force them to live in the same admina nd get along like adults.
But would direct democracy work...no probably not, ILP & LRJ are correct. Too much pain in the ass. However, with election scandals, etc. etc. some kind of change is needed.
My advsior 9an Aussie) tells me that "down under" they also have a "vote of no confidence" thing where they can "clean house" when foot-draging partisan bullshit occurs.
Now THAT sounds like a "fuckin' A" plan
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 5:00pm
BTW... I think Traitor likes me.
Posted by TRAITORLIBZ 06/16/2006 @ 3:33pm
Shhhh....I think he asked me to kiss him....Would one of you guys pass him this note and tell him I don't swing that way. But if it works for him, hey I've got a friend...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 5:07pm
Hey Nitwit...Dont think you speak french too well....Translation:
FUCK YOU TRAITOR
Hardly a request for a kiss from a Homosexually possesed LIB
See what I mean...All those rocks in your head have done some strange things to your perception of reality
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/16/2006 @ 5:29pm
Hey Traitor McAsshat
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 5:45pm
Hey Traitor McAsshat
the French verb baiser means "kiss", hence my confusion over your statement which translates as "kiss you the traitor". However, the term IS also used for the word "sex" but never in the dergoatory. (sex you the traitor) The proper verb as an insult is either a conjugation of foutre, or enculer. As in the phrase
Va te faire foutre âne chapeau! (Go fuck youself asshat!)
If you are going to insult me, at least have the where-with-all to do it properly...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 5:45pm
sorry, it didn't post the first time for some odd reason....
Egads, I am giving French lessons to a wingnut...hey, wait It's my day for public service I guess...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 5:46pm
"If you are going to insult me, at least have the where-with-all to do it properly..."
I think its self evident what I meant...You are tiresome and not worthy of my valuble time...You are a silly LIB nitwit that has very little to offer in intellectual exchange...And it obvious your LIB politicians wont give 2 shits about your silly phone calls either to them. They do not care about you and neither do I
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/16/2006 @ 6:02pm
"kiss you the traitor" is self evident in meaning?...clear as Dubya speechifying I guess. Now if you want something direct and to the point:
Va te faire foutre âne chapeau!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 6:08pm
as to "very little to offer in intellectual exchange" I can only answer:
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
Which I think is the same in French...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 6:10pm
Traitor
...and actually while I do sometimes get form letters back (as many do I suppose) I have also gotten my share of individually written letters as well...so they DO respond to queries.
You know, if you didn't want attention you wouldn't keep "changin' yer pants" every time you got too loathsome and got bulk-ignored. You remind me of a dog that has been raised by an abusive drunk. After all the kicking, its what you expect, what you love, what you crave...so you yap and piss on the floor and bite the heels of those around you - hoping for a kick, becuase its the only form of attention you understand. But feel free to put me on YOUR ignore list....I'd consider it an honor.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 6:23pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 06/16/2006 @ 1:54pm
LL,
Didn't really have in mind the right wing "intellectuals" on this quality (:-)) forum but rather what has been happening in most countries around the world. Former socialist economies have enthusiastically embraced free market economics. That agenda has been set by capitalist forces of the new con. variety (for want of a better term). Even the idea of pre-emptive war was up and running while the Left was still asleep on its watch. Thus it has been a reactionary force with that issue and in so many other areas as well, rather than setting the agenda.
Just making the point that the last few decades have been dominated by the new conservatives many of whom were some of the brighter and more caring members of the old left but deserted it because of its irrelevancy.
On another but related note just saw this item in The Australian:
GERMANY CONTINUES IN IRAQ
From correspondents in Copenhagen June 17, 2006 GERMANY remains committed to helping to restore stability in Iraq and the surrounding region, Defence Minister Franz-Josef Jung said on Friday.
Mr Jung told a news conference with his Danish counterpart Soeren Gade Berlin "would like to maintain its support for Iraq with a view to coming to a peaceful development in the region".
"It is important to continue the stabilisation process and support to Iraq," Mr Jung said.
Berlin, which opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq in spring 2003, is helping the stabilisation process from outside the country, training police and army officers from its base in the United Arab Emirates.
Mr Jung said he deemed it "essential" to continue democratisation efforts in Iraq so that the country can become "capable of assuring its own stability."
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 7:22pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 5:00pm
LOC,
The vote of no confidence is a gimmick to use when things get a bit boring. At present the conservatives (Liberal Party in coalition with National Party which is really a farmers party ) control the House of Representatives (lower house) where legisaltion is made and the Senate (or upper house) where the legislation is reviewed and passed or rejected. The opposition Labor Party has proposed a motion of no confidence in the present PM and many of his ministers many times but the motions are always defeated on party lines.
Much more entertainment is had through observing the power of the Speaker (HR) or the President (Senate) to throw out unruly members. As these offices are held by the Government their impartiality is displayed by almost exclusively throwing members of the opposition out of the house for 24 hours. Eight of whom got sent to the sin bin this last week.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 8:05pm
LRJ
sounds like we need a "penalty box" round here in DC! Gods, I'd love to see some of them get a "time out" LOL
Traitor
You think I lack the intellect to keep up with you? In my kinda trite "Silly asshat, brains are for libs!" there are two distinct levels of insult. The first is obvious...do you discern the second? OK, someone start playing the Jeopardy music!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 8:37pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/16/2006 @ 8:37pm
LOC
No I don't think like that. Intellectuals have never been fashionable and are barely tolerated in Oz. (Too many beaches, sun and sports to worry about thinking). Just enjoy the cut and thrust of good arguments as well as some of the gratuitous but often humorous insults that fly around forums like this one. Think one's opinions are continually refined by argument and controversy.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2006 @ 9:10pm
LRJ
Traitor & I have been "sparring" today and he threw down the gauntlet upthread, so figured he was right for a challenge. Of course, anyone is welcome to answer it, but folks out of country might be at a disadvantage as the reference is American 9although has probably been seen in other countries perhaps.)
My advisor was telling us about the political system there and it does sound intriguing, and perhaps a bit less dysfunctional than our own.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 10:20pm
Frei
That's funny about the polls because all I hear on this site is the wingers saying they are all "liberal polls" if they don't agree, and "polls don't matter"...but when its on stuff like gays or abortion they grab them up and rattle them around like a bulldog with a bone to show...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/16/2006 @ 11:33pm
Posted by LRJONES4 06/16/2006 @ 7:22pm
I think you need to define what you observe as "free market economics". In general, this is not something that is either politically conservative or liberal, at least in this country. Liberals and conservatives both want governmental interference in the economy no matter how much they deny it. I think most in this country agree that the best we can hope to achieve is an economy that flows as freely as possible with a government to make certain that the game is played fairly (that individuals, the environment, the country's interests, etc. do not suffer). To assume that what we are seeing in, for example, former Communist countries is an embrace of western conservative thought is to mistake a movement away from totalitarianism as a move to the right.
Conservatives have more think tanks because conservatives have more money to fund think tanks. The requirement for justifying their actions is greater and they are blessed by the fact that those who have the most will fund others to tell the rest of us that they deserve to have the most. This is also not to be confused with a dominance of conservative thought over liberal thought, but rather a more abundant flood of rightwing shit at this time than there is coming from the leftwing bowels. A matter of quantity appearing to defeat quality.
As for pre-emptive war being an idea that caught the left napping...well I suppose each side might have outrageous notions that the other side might believe will never fly. But this country has endured previous eras in which its executive branch overstepped its legal authority, only to be followed by eras in which law was restored. Each pinhead who finds himself inhabiting the White House forgets that he has not been anointed or crowned. Perhaps we have gone so far from traditional interpretations of our laws to ever come back to equilibrium. But if this excessive grasp of power by a small, single group is actually the shift the you perceive, then I am very sad. It might be true. But it will be anti-intellectual.
That is, unless drinking a case of beer, climbing to the high dive of a pool, and doing a belly flop is seen as both intellectual and revolutionary. Wow, we never saw THAT coming. Why didn't we think of that? And then we're faced with an onslaught of reports indicating the health benefits from the mix of yeast and hops, particularly when the abdomen is struck shortly after consumption by the hard, yet yielding water after a drop of 10 meters.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/17/2006 @ 12:35am
In terms of what is going on in the US, the intellectual victory is defined not by a credo but by a symbol: $.
This is an obvious thing, but you can get a little glimpse here [realnews.org]. Is "looking out for number one" some form of intellectual conception that my public education failed to present to me? All we are witnessing is a growing lack of compassion combined with a willingness to subvert whatever order might have been previously established to profit most handsomely. I guess that's smart. But it's not a theory that will last very long. I think we saw this system employed in Europe approximately 700 years ago or more.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/17/2006 @ 01:00am
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/17/2006 @ 12:35am
TJB,
The wrong horse, that many on the "Western" Left backed as the panacea to the flaws in the capitalist system, was "the planned economy" as observed in the Soviet Union. A free market economy is the antithesis of that aspect of Soviet socialism. It is that (more or less) embrace of free market principles, in much of the world, that I was referring to. That all economies are mixed to a lesser or greater degree doesn't alter the reality that most of the intellectual "free market" principles were born and nurtured on the Right. The New Conservatism is for more government welfare and regulation than other varieties of conservatism.
The pre-emptive intervention in the affairs of other states is only part of the wider New Conservative agenda, which is to make America a safer place by spreading the "blessing" of freedom and democracy to those thought to be sorely in need of it. That is not a traditional conservative position, which position would prefer to let "the lesser breeds without the law" stew in their own juice. (which is lauded on the grounds of allowing other cultures the right to exist) Which approach, incidentally, seems to be warmly applauded by the new Left.
Thoretically, at least, it is an about face from the past practices of the US in supporting oppressive regimes against fledgling democracy movements. Surely that is an advance, thanks to the New Conservative principles.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2006 @ 03:47am
Geez, Katrina, isn't this 'America should retreat in the name of peace' shtick getting a little thin by now?
Posted by pontificus at 06/17/2006 @ 08:05am
In the interest of providing balance in my comments, I'd like to provide an alternative viewpoint.
Blah blah right-wing Rumsfeld warmonger chickenhawk evil Bushies Wolwowitz and his neocon cabal for oiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah ignorant stupid bloodthirsty morons, the real axis of evil on a ranch in Crawford and blah blah blah no WMD he lied, Bushitler lied, people died died died tie-dyed peace peace peace down with the Zionists! peace peace Kyoto! they hate us they hate us they hate us and what can we do and root causes and root causes and blowback and Plame and Plame and Chalabi Plame Wilson blah blah blah unilateral multinational Halliburton Enronism crony capitalism and it's all about oiloiloiloil blah blah blah, cowboyish disregard for allies, for the wishes of the world community who rise up against us, the terrorist threat is overblown and anyway, it's all our fault because we gave Saddam his weapons to begin with, photo of Rummy and Hussein, but make no mistake, he no longer has those weapons because inspections worked, containment worked, and blah blah blah Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan handle it, Roy, handle it handle it, Caspian pipeline oiloiloiloil blah blah blah show me the stockpiles, anthrax CIA plant Richard Clarke said so and we believe him because and unless unless unless Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib, square-jawed cocksucking military jarhead torturing fucks, bring home our troops! We care about the troops! We support the troops and don't you question our patriotism our love for this fucking filthy crass consumerist bullying country of redneck dolts and biblethumping bourgeois suburbanites with their SUVs and where are the CAFE standards fight the real terror, eco-terror, Israel, the US, imperialist colonialist racist homophobic hegemonic and blah blah blah blah blah because dissent is patriotism and fighting against your country is really fighting for your country and our dissent keeps the nation strong and we're brave and heroic and up is down and black is white and oiloiloiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.™
Posted by pontificus at 06/17/2006 @ 08:39am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/17/2006 @ 08:39am
hey
My favorite roman might actualy be starting to get it. There were glimmers. I saw glimmers.
we might be witnessing the birth of the first real life "gettin it" conservative ever
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 09:50am
or not
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 09:50am
Posted by LRJONES4 06/17/2006 @ 03:47am | ignore this person
Good post....actual, meaningful input as opposed to:
Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/17/2006 @ 08:39am
aka "Garp"
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/17/2006 @ 09:55am
Ev'rybody's talking about Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism This-ism, that-ism Isn't it the most All we are saying is give peace a chance All we are saying is give peace a chance
Ev'rybody's talking about Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters, Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes, And bye bye, bye byes. All we are saying is give peace a chance All we are saying is give peace a chance
Let me tell you now Ev'rybody's talking about Revolution, Evolution, Mastication, Flagelolation, Regulations. Integrations, Meditations, United Nations, Congratulations All we are saying is give peace a chance All we are saying is give peace a chance
Oh Let's stick to it Ev'rybody's talking about John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy smothers, Bob Dylan, Tommy Cooper, Derek Tayor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna All we are saying is give peace a chance All we are saying is give peace a chance
Posted by woodyee at 06/17/2006 @ 09:59am
Posted by WOODYEE 06/17/2006 @ 09:59am
holy dakota Bat Man!
not two in one day!
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 10:11am
'America should retreat in the name of peace'
Gotta read between the lines. This translates to: "Hurry up and pull out, before we win, otherwise we don't stand a chance of getting back into office for another 4 or 5 election cycles"
Isn't that what the whole "Let's set a timetable for withdrawal" madness is about?? A political, not strategic, move to set a deadline which can easily be surpassed and used in campaign commercials. Show us just one war that ever had a deadline. Stop using the death scoreboard and a deadline to measure progress and someone might take you seriously regarding supporting our troops.
Since liberals like to rehash Vietnam so often, this is the one true parallel to Vietnam....protest, protest, protest....gives the other side a reason to continue the fight, which will cost more US casualties and prolong the war. This view was also expressed by the leadership of the North Vietnamese, so it has precedence.
Posted by Sliver at 06/17/2006 @ 10:51am
Since liberals like to rehash Vietnam so often, this is the one true parallel to Vietnam....protest, protest, protest....gives the other side a reason to continue the fight, which will cost more US casualties and prolong the war. This view was also expressed by the leadership of the North Vietnamese, so it has precedence.
Posted by SLIVER 06/17/2006 @ 10:51am
what other side?
Oh, you mean the iraqi's
so i take it were going to have to be in there forever to make sure they never get their country back.
(you go girl)
Posted by Will C. at 06/17/2006 @ 11:07am
Ponti and wood,
great posts...Ponti's post is what a number of us hear and have come to understand as the position of the libs and the left..inside the obvious hnour, there is the core of what we think most here feel about the US and the repubs..
Posted by john maasch at 06/17/2006 @ 12:59pm
Slvier,
I agree to a great extent with your post.
Posted by john maasch at 06/17/2006 @ 1:00pm
JM
you demean yourself by praising tripe (well, woodeye's is actually OK, Ponti's 06/17/2006 @ 08:39am though is pure unadulterated sewage...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/17/2006 @ 1:02pm
Posted by SLIVER 06/17/2006 @ 10:51am
"Show us just one war that ever had a deadline."
First how about showing us some evidence that this is a "War". A hand full of Saudi extremists create a terrorist act on American soil and that gives Bush the excuse to launch an open ended, never ending war on "Turism". Bull shit. That gives Bush the excuse he had been looking for all along ever since the dark powers behind him wedged his fat ass into the Presidency for their own purposes in the first place i.e. to gain a foothold in the middle of the oil fields of the middle east. Period. Surely every one knows that by now ?
This bull shit has no more to do with war than what the French and Italians were doing in North Africa had to do with war, or the Dutch in Indonesia or the British in India or this country in much of South and Central America.
Why can't you right wing nuts ever call a spade a spade ? You can't have a discussion when one side insists on defining the terms of the discussion to suit themselves. Show some intellectual honesty for a change and start using the word Colonialism and quit all this bull shit, red herring about a "War on Terror".
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/17/2006 @ 1:09pm
LRJONES,
Thanks for the quite unnecessary restatement of Neo-Con theory. The problem is that it's not so new. We saw it 108 years ago in the Havana harbor as we used a still mysterious explosion on The Maine to Christianize the populations of little Spanish colonies around the world. We blame the enemy for things it denies. We orchestrate war when none is desired or deserved. We attack a country that has no chance of victory. And we do it in the name of spreading civilization. Once the country is "liberated," we find it a tough thing to remove ourselves. In fact, for Cuba, we never did and we did a good Paul Bremer routine when constructing the constitutional foundation of the new government (see the Platt Amendment).
The only difference we see today is the scope of ambition. Now that the other former colonial and global powers are no more, we have designs on reshaping any portion of the world we choose, bringing our brand of civilization to those dullard countries who insist on charting their own destinies. It is easy to recognize countries around the world who could use our assistance. But it is less easy to determine who needs the type of assistance offered by the US Dept of Defense. And as to the intellectual victories of the Neo-Con, they're just reading old playbooks without regard for how the games will actually be played.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/17/2006 @ 1:17pm
Well come on damnit. I gotta go in a minute. I'm still waiting for some justification for calling this open ended assault on the Iraqi people a "war". What kind of a war pits Abrahm Tanks and Black Hawk helicopters and drone guided missles against 20 year old Russian Kalishnikovs. You heros should really be proud.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/17/2006 @ 1:28pm
Still no response ? Ta ta you fascist war mongering morons. I'm off to get a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/17/2006 @ 1:37pm
That gives Bush the excuse he had been looking for all along ever since the dark powers behind him wedged his fat ass into the Presidency for their own purposes in the first place i.e. to gain a foothold in the middle of the oil fields of the middle east. Period. Surely every one knows that by now ?
If the rest of your argument revolves around this nonsense, you might want to consider a REALLY long walk. Bush is just enforcing Clinton's written policy of regime change in Iraq. Willy passed the buck to actually enforce the existing 17 UN resolutions while our allies were lining their pockets. Your disdain for your own countries actions are misplaced.
Posted by Sliver at 06/17/2006 @ 2:08pm
Posted by SLIVER 06/17/2006 @ 2:08pm
I believe that the passing of the buck you mention is what you just did to blame Clinton for Bush's actions. At the core of every Republican misstep, I assume, is a Democrat who came up with the idea, tricked the good Republican into believing it to be a good idea, and then retreating into political oblivion.
Smart ones, those Democrats.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/17/2006 @ 2:17pm
US
TIMELINE | FLASHBACK '91 | FORCES IN THE GULF | VIDEO | BIOWEAPONS EXPLAINER Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance Clinton President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance # Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
# Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors. US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region. ALSO: Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike RELATED VIDEO Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iraq Windows Media 28K 56K
Pentagon outlines 'Operation Desert Fox' Real 28K 56K Windows Media 28K 56K
British Prime Minister comments on the airstrikes Real 28K 56K Windows Media 28K 56K
Watch as anti-aircraft fire erupts over Baghdad Real 28K 56K Windows Media 28K 56K
In this story:
* 'Without delay, diplomacy or warning' * Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs * Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998 Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world. Offensive Strike
•Timeline •Maps •Where They Stand •Flashback 1991 •Forces in the Gulf •Bioweapons Explainer •Message Boards •UNSCOM Documents •Related Links
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Sound familiar?? Story was from 1998. Judging by all the ancillary articles that accompany this report, the media actually supported these actions. Ahhh....the good old days, before traitorous actions were considered fashionable.
Posted by Sliver at 06/17/2006 @ 2:31pm
"I'm still waiting for some justification for calling this open ended assault on the Iraqi people a "war". What kind of a war pits Abrahm Tanks and Black Hawk helicopters and drone guided missles against 20 year old Russian Kalishnikovs"...
You aren't getting a responce because your premise in the above statement is beyond lunacy..I don't think even Feingold, Michael Moore, oe even Dean, hell, even Sheehan sees the Iraq war in your terms...you got crickets...
Posted by john maasch at 06/17/2006 @ 2:36pm
Party of Rapist Proud to be Godless
I thought I'd put off that column on ethanol subsidies I'd been planning to write this week and instead address the topic that has so riveted the nation -- the hot new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."
First of all, I'm getting a little fed up with people trying to make money off my book. Worthless little cable TV shows with teeny-tiny audiences, ridiculous legislators and tabloid newspapers are all trying to make a name for themselves off the profundity of "Godless."
Second, let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist.
My book makes a stark assertion: Liberalism is a godless religion. Hello! Anyone there? I've leapt beyond calling you traitors and am now calling you GODLESS. Apparently, everybody's cool with that. The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore.
In addition to the consensus position that liberals are godless, no one has made a peep about that swipe I took at Hillary, proposing that she have a chat with her husband before accusing others of being "mean" to women in light of Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Bill Clinton raped her. Hillary beat a hasty retreat on her chubby little legs and is now hiding behind Rahm "Don't Touch My Tutu" Emanuel.
Yes, the Democrats' pit bull, Rahm Emanuel, is a former ballerina. And they wonder why the concerted effort of the MSM (as we call the mainstream media) and the Democratic Party can't lay a finger on me. A ballerina. Hey, if the padded, silky shoe fits ...
The establishment's current obsession with me is the MSM's last stand. They've deployed the whole lineup of yesterday's power brokers against me, and all they've accomplished is to make my book the No. 1 book in the country. In other words, their efforts to defeat me have just created more people like me. Now who's stuck in an unwinnable quagmire, losers?
Take note, conservatives: No American need ever fear the liberal establishment again. It's all over but the sobbing.
Back when there were only three TV stations and no Internet, talk radio or Fox News, it used to be so easy for the MSM to destroy reputations -- Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Robert Bork, Dan Quayle, Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, to name a few of the MSM's prey.
Liberals aren't having so much fun now that the rabbit has the gun.
Last Wednesday, Brian Williams began the "NBC Nightly News" -- currently watched exclusively by old ladies in nursing homes -- with a report on "civility" in America, which has apparently been horribly despoiled by my book. Williams complained that the "explosion in our media, our deafening national noise level and our changing mores have made this a much different era in America than the one our parents grew up in."
Oh, the civility of having only three TV stations back in our parents' day! It was even more civil in the Soviet Union where there was only one TV station.
In precisely five minutes on the Media Research Center's Web site, I turned up some random examples of the sort of civility we got from the MSM before the alternative media allowed conservatives to be heard, too. These are all-new quotes I've never even seen before. There are about a hundred more in my book "Slander."
-- On Ronald Reagan: "I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man (Ronald Reagan) and followed him the way we did."-- CBS News White House reporter Lesley Stahl on NBC's "Later With Bob Costas," Jan. 11, 1989
-- On Pat Buchanan: "On the road I travel to the mall in Wheaton, Md., two white men severely beat two black women Tuesday. One was doused with lighter fluid, and her attacker tried to set her afire. Both men cursed the women for being black. I couldn't help but shudder: That could have been me. This heinous act happened only hours after Pat Buchanan voters gave him 30 percent of the vote in the Maryland GOP presidential primary." -- USA Today columnist and former "Inquiry" page editor Barbara Reynolds, March 6, 1992
-- On Lee Atwater: "(Lee Atwater) was a scoundrel, one of the darkest figures to dominate our recent politics, a man with a comprehensively cynical view of his fellow creatures. ... He made it in the most improbable way, learning to dress at Brooks Brothers and keep his funky white trash wickedness too. ... In running campaigns that played on racial divisions, he was something worse than a bigot; he was a man who pretended to be a bigot in hope that it would sell." -- Washington Post op-ed by reporter Marjorie Williams, March 30, 1991
-- On Newt Gingrich: "So how do you put an end to what Jim Wright called 'mindless cannibalism'? Do you put a muzzle on Newt Gingrich?" -- "CBS This Morning" co-host Kathleen Sullivan, June 1, 1989
Ah, the civility of the old media! Sadly for the MSM, the Silent Majority is silent no more.
THE GREAT ANN COULTER SHOVING IT UP YOUR LIBERAL ASSES LIKE NO ONE ELSE CAN
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/17/2006 @ 3:24pm
Oh dear god, he's puking on every thread...this is the kinda crap that gets him tossed in the "ignore" can...bout time to open it up I guess.
Au revoir, âne chapeau.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/17/2006 @ 3:36pm
Your disdain for your own countries actions are misplaced.
Posted by SLIVER 06/17/2006 @ 2:08pm And your acceptance of its ongoing rape of the Iraqi people is shameless. We'll see which camp history judges most harshly. And much as I hate the many, many mistakes Clinton made this hamster bullshit that he's still the cause of all the country's woes was beginning to wear thin by 2002 already.
Mash:
You're an idiot. But you've been told that enough you should already know that.
Traitorlibz:
Can I give you some advise ? I'm going to anyway. What you're doing is not healthy. And it's certainly not normal for a boy your age. The reason the other kids won't play with you is your attitude. So change your outlook on life. Now that school's out get out in the street this summer and make some friends ( you know face to face as opposed to cyber pals ). Play ball, meet some girls your own age. Yes they seem yuki to you now but very soon you're going to begin to get "urges". This is normal for a boy your age and you shouldn't be sitting alone in your room in front of your computor when it starts to happen.
It's a long time till school starts next fall. You can't just sit in your room all summer angry at the world. Divorce is not the fault of the children although in your case it is a possiblity. But even if it was your fault ( and I'm not saying it was ) you have to move on with your life. I say this for your own good. Frankly I don't give a damn. I can always keep putting you back on my ignore list no matter how many times you change your name.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/17/2006 @ 5:04pm
Rio
...and a fine-fuckin job you asswipes have done! No federal funding for the most promising medical breakthough in may years (stem cells), a war against an eternal idea that can NEVER be won (I guess that's job security, huh?), a bigger fiscal hole than the world has ever seen, a country more divided than ever, environment going all to hell while the wingnuts go la-la-la with fingers in their ears, the promise of a listening device in every home (if we can hear everything you say, you'll be safer...just trust me), a SCOTUS line-up that would make Torquemada blush, gas will be like $5 next year, plus they wanna teach "Adam & Eve rode to church on the backs of freindly dinosaurs" , and let's not forget the "presto" theory of evolution.
Sure am glad you guys are in charge! ..........NOT!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/17/2006 @ 6:16pm
Rio writes as if picking words at random. Perhaps he uses this site as practice for learning the language. Go, Rio, go. You'll get the hang of English one day. Then, perhaps, you just might make sense.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/17/2006 @ 6:20pm
As another commenter noted, an argument in favor of peace does seem to send a swarm of angry bees up the butts of the wingnut trolls. Why, though? Why is peace considered a bad thing? And how many of these folks embracing the horror of war claim honorably to worship the "Prince of Peace"? How do they reconcile their worship of Jesus with their worship of war?
Anyhow, Katrina, you say that this section won't be about manifestoes. Question is, what's wrong with manifestoes? Many of us progressives lament that our elected representatives seem to be governed by polls and focus groups rather than by out-in-front commitments to principle. What's unworthy of respect in an elected representative is equally unworthy in a magazine editor or on-line blogger.
So why not make a statement affirming your principles for all to read--that is, why not publish a manifesto? A manifesto isn't forever. A manifesto captures one frozen moment, hinting at how one arrived there and stating bravely where one hopes to go from there. Subsequent manifestoes provide an index of growth (one would hope!) or at least of change.
I suspect your hesitation reflects your desire simply to participate in honest discourse rather than to posture like such tight-sphinctered bombasts as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson. Not to mention DeLay! I'm sure it does not reflect your fear of being labeled a waffling flip-flopper. After all, a person whose opinions never mature is a person whose opinions are unworthy of being taken seriously. ["When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.]
Give it a shot, Katrina. As an intellectual discipline, if nothing else. Publish it to the world if you choose, but do at least publish to yourself Martin Luther's commitment: "Here I stand…!"
Posted by Scarabus at 06/17/2006 @ 6:23pm
TJB
Either his father beat him with a dictionary regularly and now he's taking it out on us...or he's eating alphabet soup.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/17/2006 @ 8:17pm
Dear God will you please stop referring to "the war in Iraq" and try saying this: "Illegal U.S. military occupation of Iraq". Stop using extreme right-wing frames and speak the truth. There is no damned war! There is no enemy HQ; no enemy field hospitals; no enemy artillery command; no enemy air force or navy or anything. There are thousands of members of a rag-tag resistance trying to throw our butts out of their country. This was an invasion and is now an occupation which is a very long way from a war.
Posted by Jimsteeves at 06/17/2006 @ 8:39pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/17/2006 @ 1:17pm
TJB,
Probably was gratuitous but hopefully a little embarrassing for the propaganda machine. That doctrine idealistically has to be better than a slogan like "Peace" which is often nothing less than a putty nose in the hands of ideologues.
I have a more pessimistic view of the human condition than Neo-Conservatism does but its attempt at righting the world is not (in its statement anyway) anything like colonialism. The attempt to export democracy to another country is surely not classical colonialism or even neo-colonialism nor of course could an attempt to unite religious and ethnic communities, despite the insurgents attempts to do the opposite, be in anyway construed to be a variation of the successful colonial approach of "divide and conquer". My own view is that it is a naive but idealistic set of political beliefs but in the hands of a "no surrender" Bush and with general Iraqi support it may just work. (At this stage the only reliable indicator of that support is the last election results in Iraq).
The doctrine of Realism, as practiced by the US, has led as much as anything else to the alienation of countries in South America and has a been a far greater instrument of colonialism, even if through proxies, than the "consistent with Neo-Conservative ideas" ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Realists guidelines can be shown to have led to the practice of some form of colonialism and the Neo-Conservative ideas do not support it, which doctrine or variation is your preferred option?
ps . Could the banning of the Baathists from the Army and political life by Bremmer be regarded as the act of a colonising power?
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2006 @ 8:43pm
Posted by JIMSTEEVES 06/17/2006 @ 8:39pm
Jim,
Lot of sympathy for that view. The war lasted a few weeks. What we have now is insurgency and counter-insurgency. The latter being performed by an elected Iraqi government. (with some help from the US military)
Of course some would find it a little hard to not see a fair bit of ethnic cleansing being done by the insurgents (and some other Iraqi elements as well) but then who in the "Peace" movement cares a penny about such distinctions?
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2006 @ 8:59pm
LRJ
Lots of us in the US do care...however, at present the inmates are in charge of the asylum. We're just hopeful that we don't get cleansed or disappeared to GITMO or worse before November!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/17/2006 @ 9:20pm
The attempt to export democracy to another country is surely not classical colonialism or even neo-colonialism nor of course could an attempt to unite religious and ethnic communities, despite the insurgents attempts to do the opposite, be in anyway construed to be a variation of the successful colonial approach of "divide and conquer"
Posted by LRJONES4 06/17/2006 @ 8:59pm
I think this is undetermined at this point. One of the left's great fears is that what you state is not going to be the case in point. Are we going to pull out? Do we not have plans on playing either the hardass or the gentle colonizer? Hard to export an ideology without the muscle to back it up.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/17/2006 @ 11:50pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/17/2006 @ 11:50pm
TJB,
No doubt you filled in the unstated but some may not have. It should be self evident that the exporting of democracy is a self defeater for any would be coloniser, particularly if becomes a popular commodity.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2006 @ 03:19am
I only wish the general public had enough interest to understand the whole neo-con pipe dream about Iraq--from rosy projections of the aftermath of the invasion to the plans for a "new" Iraq based on the "free-market"... I wonder if future history texts will adequately cover the hubris of those who got us into this mess. I'm just glad that the Nation has archives.
Posted by John Earl at 06/18/2006 @ 10:58am
Scarab
War and Fear is their chant of power....if we have peace then they have NOTHING (well, except to fight aoubt gay rights, evolution, and abortion)
See my little "ode to GOP fear mongering" HERE [geodude.home.mchsi.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/18/2006 @ 12:43pm
but RIO
god's children recieve their soul at first breath.
only an evangelic, yes only a lamb of lucipher would go out of it's way to raise the flesh to the same level as the soul.
That's you baby
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 5:28pm
RIO
Okay there big fella...take a Prozac and count to three.
The reason that there is little advance in the embryonic research is two-fold. 1) With limited Federal funding, there are signiificant limitations as its private $$ mainly. 2) is summed up nicely in the Wikipewdia brief below:
Embryonic stem cells are cultured cells obtained from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of an early stage human embryo (sometimes called a blastocyst, which is an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells). Embryonic stem cell research is "thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells," according to the National Institutes of Health.[3] Research using embryonic stem cells remains at the zenith of stem cell science because, unlike somatic cells, embryonic stem cells are totipotent. However, research using stem cells derived from the human embryo is still in the basic research phase, as these stem cells were first isolated in 1998 (at least for humans), whereas adult stem cells have been studied since the 1960s.[4]
Its a simple time function.....
from U-Wi- Madison:
Why not derive stem cells from adults? There are several approaches now in human clinical trials that utilize mature stem cells (such as blood-forming cells, neuron-forming cells and cartilage-forming cells). However, because adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited: skin cells will only become skin and cartilage cells will only become cartilage. Adults do not have stem cells in many vital organs, so when those tissues are damaged, scar tissue develops. Only embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to become any kind of human tissue, have the potential to repair vital organs.
Another limitation of adult stem cells is their inability to proliferate in culture. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which have a capacity to reproduce indefinitely in the laboratory, adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age. Therefore, obtaining clinically significant amounts of adult stem cells may prove to be difficult.
Studies of adult stem cells are important and will provide valuable insights into the use of stem cell in transplantation procedures. However, only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases.
What are the benefits of studying embryonic stem cells? Pluripotent stem cells represent hope for millions of Americans. They have the potential to treat or cure a myriad of diseases, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, spi
Why are embryonic stem cells important? Embryonic stem cells are of great interest to medicine and science because of their ability to develop into virtually any other cell made by the human body. In theory, if stem cells can be grown and their development directed in culture, it would be possible to grow cells of medical importance such as bone marrow, neural tissue or muscle.
and if you want to see the plethora of research directions underway worldwide, take a gander here: News [stemcellresearchnews.com]
or find out WHERE in the world you can expect research to be occurring HERE [mbbnet.umn.edu]
or take a short coure: JH [tinyurl.com]
in China Research [usembassy-china.org.cn]
You see Rio...its not like they intentionally create fetuses on some "farm", but they use (in countries where they do allow it...and Calif) fetus from abortions and other medical procedures, cadavers, etc. that would be discarded anyway. You would discard materials that have great promise actoss the entire medical spectrum - because you think your god might get pissed? I think if there is such an entity, he/she/it has bigger things on the plate...watch the news buck-o. Besides, the embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated - meaning with coaxing they can become ANY type of cell. THAT is the brass ring, to grow new cells for damaged spines, organs, etc. Can't be done with adult stem cells.
But you wanted ONE breakthrough...try this:
Bone marrow cells adopt the phenotype of other cells by spontaneous cell fusion N Terada, T Hamazaki, M Oka, M Hoki, DM Mastalerz, … - Nature, 2002
Human embryonic stem cells can differentiate into myocytes with structural and functional properties I Kehat, D Kenyagin-Karsenti, M Snir, H Segev, M … - Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2001
Insulin Production by Human Embryonic Stem Cells S Assady, G Maor, M Amit, J Itskovitz-Eldor, KL … - Diabetes, 2001
Transplanted embryonic stem cells survive, differentiate and promote recovery in injured rat spinal JW McDonald, XZ Liu, Y Qu, S Liu, SK Mickey, D … - Nature Medicine, 1999 (not human, but early research...whaddya want in one year)
Dopamine neurons derived from embryonic stem cells function in an animal model of Parkinson's JH Kim, JM Auerbach, JA Rodríguez-Gómez, I … - Nature, 2002
Embryonic stem cell-derived glial precursors: a source of myelinating transplants O Brustle, KN Jones, RD Learish, K Karram, K … - Science, 1999
Just to pull up a few asstd references - remember, the adult stem cell research has been going on for 40+ yrs. Can't expect miracles in 8.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/18/2006 @ 5:51pm
Rio
So if those lives are "lost" (as per your perspective) it is more meaningful to your god that they go into a dumpster, or perhaps it would be a better end if those remains went to further the interests of humankind? Think about it...
I did note too, that you are quick to jump on the zealotry bandwagon, but less so to the scientific claim that made....
"Embryonic is being falsely pushed as the godless liberal justification or benifit of killing babies by abortion! To claim otherwise is just another outright lie seeking rationalization!"
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 5:06pm
little crow stuck in your throat there buddy?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/18/2006 @ 7:13pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 6:36pm
Job 31:15 "Did not He who made me in the womb make him,And the same one fashion us in the womb?
yes, we call it fetal development
Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,The fruit of the womb is a reward.
yes, children are a gift from god. And their birth day is the same day the point of ensoulment.
Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts;You wove me in my mother's womb
once again... we call it fetal develpment. God does know about this stuff.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.
Thank you for illustrate the absurdity of the hamster claim that ensoulment occurs at conception. First breath of course occurs after the fetus leaves the womb. So I'm perfectly capable of knowing that first breath is the point of ensoulment.
These are but a few of 72 references specifically illuminating God's view of the beginning of human life. To me one the most emphatically clear pronouncement for mankind occurs in Jeremiah.
if that's the best you got your case is weak. No... it's non existant
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,And before you were born I consecrated you;I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
further prof that the soul is formed separately from the flesh and is available for God to unite with the body at first breath
Lastly one of the most important two would be speaking of John the Baptist;
Luke 1: 14"You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth.
many rejoice at just about everyones birth
15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will (A)drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.
god stops by for a little quality control and if there's a problem... Well we call that miscarriage. One more thing, my boy jesus drank wine. As a matter of fact he had a glass at the last supper.
16"And he will (B)turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God.
apparently you're not a son of israel. too bad
And lastly an angel phrophesyingly speaking of Jesus Christ the son of god in flesh and spirit;
Luke 1:31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
we call that pregancy. It's actually quite common.
If I err I would prefer to do so in light of what most percieve to be God's evidence furnished to us. If the world prefers to ignore that evidence who will dissuade them?
what evidence are you speaking of? perhaps this evidence?
genisis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
we know now that the elements that make up the peroidic table are the same elements that make up both the dust of the ground and living tissue. But then there are many things in the christian text which as ancidotal story's illustrate many scientific facts. The holy trinity parrallels nicely with the with the three building blocks of matter. Jesus walking on water with the states of matter. Turning water into wine with the transformation of matter through fission or fusion. The order that the beasts were created with the theory of evolution. The tree of life with the evolutionary tree. The fruit of that tree with the human mind which at birth is the size an apple...
the truth is there for those who would look past the surface. But then all truth and knowledge is avaliable to god's children if they just use the mind that god gave them.
but then you worship a different god rio. One that god created this universe to hold for all of time.
and are blinded by this angel of light to all the things I just said.
What a waste
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 7:39pm
Rio
When you toss out a bushel of scripture, clear is the last thing that comes to mind...but I see your point. I don't agre with it, but I see it amidst the mass of preach-ifying.
However, I repeat the meat from above...in instances where such lives are already lost, does not the use of these corporeal materials for the betterment of humanity lend a greater meaning to these lives that the dumpster does not? Would not your god find this more "pleasing"?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/18/2006 @ 7:56pm
but rio it isn't. In Exodus killing a woman gets you death. Killing her fetus doesn't
the commandments don't apply until first breath.
I don't know how I can make it any more plain than that
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 7:58pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 8:08pm
misinterpretation?
I think the christain text is a rather elegant way for god to say simply "I'm here"... using stories rivaling the simplicity of Suess.
and like suess, children see them as simple tales of majical existence.
But adults have the wisdom to see past the surface of those stories and into the core issue
You need to grow up Rio
created in gods image life, like god, has the ability to understand and use the knowledge of the universe to both better our own existence and complete the task the God created us here for.
to do the former requires only the knowledge and wisdom we are capable of gleaning right now. To do the latter requires a depth of thinking that we have yet to evolve too.
And we never will evolve to that point if the angel of light keeps his strangle hold on your soul and you and all other evangelics keep your strangle hold on human progress.
either way you have to go.
the only real question is...
will the rest of life on this world go with you?
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 8:27pm
Better yet not to sin at all especially if any believes that they may obtain heaven by their works rather than by faith in Jesus Christ which the New Testament specifically denies is possible.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 8:18pm
but our works are the works of the nazareene. We walk the walk and he walks with us. What greater honor can we bestow on him...
or he on us
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 8:37pm
but please feel free to keep talking
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 8:38pm
you hamsters are good at that
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 8:38pm
since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 8:46pm
then why are you attempting to justify embryonic tissue?
or the pleasures of the flesh you derive from your obsession with the root of all evil?
can you not see that we heal like he heals, we give like he gives, care like he cares.
we live our faith. We carry it in our hearts as we walk in his foot steps. Our actons are our words.
Face it Rio, get yourself a mirror. You guys are all talk.
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 8:53pm
actually
I'm a carpenter
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:09pm
rio
you dance around anything approaching a direct answer...unsurprising.
I ask again....in instances of accidental death, or other medical procedures, where a dead detus is caused to be (specifically in this case NOT abortion....no sin to confuse your pseudo-argument) - what is the "wrong" in the utilization of this accidentally dead tissue for the betterment of humanity?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/18/2006 @ 9:29pm
I'm 43
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 9:59pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/18/2006 @ 9:29pm
did the fetus have a donor card?
(just kidding)
:)
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 10:01pm
I wonder if the more common-sensical (if it isn't a word, it should be!) Puritans had conversations with the "true believers" like this:
Common Sensical Puritan (C.S.P.): But Brother Rio, we can't put Goody Smith to death because her neighbor said she's a witch. Jesus says that we must love her as we love ourselves!
Santimonious Anal Puritan (S.A.P): I'm sorry Brother Will, but she is EVIL!!!!! The devil is in her and if she won't admit it, she must be put to death. Brother Will, you're either with us or against us.
C.S.P: But Brother Rio, the lord came to fulfill the law and the prophecy, and Jesus makes it very clear that we are not to condemn lest we be judged. We must not resort to violence in our practice of our religion or that would make us hypocrites.
S.A.P.: Brother Will, I'm sorry to say this, but...YOU'RE EVIL!!! YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A SATAN SYMPATHISER AND YOUR DIVISIVENESS IS WEAKENING THE STRENGTH OF OUR COMMUNITY! YOU MUST BE POSSESSED! ADMIT IT OR YOU SHALL JOIN YOUR EVIL SISTER IN BEING BURNED AT THE STAKE!!!!!
C.S.P.: You're a loon! Can't we just discuss this...let go! I'm a citizen - I have rights!
S.A.P.: But we have the matches!
Sounds of screams and burning flesh mingle with the pious Brother Rio praying to the Prince of Peace.
Back to the dark ages, anyone?
Posted by Turk33 at 06/18/2006 @ 10:04pm
which only goes to show that a bird in the hand is in as great a danger from dick cheney (due it the hands proximity to the face and the scatter pattern of bird shot) as any two birds are in the back gound on a bush clear skys photo op
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 10:15pm
WILL C.'s facitious "donor card" would actually be the next of kin's decision as reguards a fetus not the medical profession or sciences.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 10:35pm
excellent
so if a couple agrees to donate their frozen embryos to stem cell reasearch you're cool with it right Rio.
I've glad we've cleared this whole mess up.
see how easy that was
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 10:45pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/18/2006 @ 11:04pm
oh rio
you ain't too bright are you
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 11:10pm
So I take it this means you hamsters will embrace us when we call you schtoopid?
this is so cool
Posted by Will C. at 06/18/2006 @ 11:36pm
Rio
Yes, let's talk about god-like determinism...please. Medical ethics to be precise. We save children that are so screwed up that, but for massive intervention, would die. Are we already practicing 'god-like intervention'? Methinks we may, and how is this so different from further expanding our reach of medical knowledge?
My point is that your type would shut down such research no matter where the fetus comes from because you see it as "godlike actions", which quite frankly is BS.
You certainly have the right to believe life begins wherever you want. But don't I have the same right? It would seem not as your religious belief has somehow worked its way into the law.
Funny that...thought we had this "separation" thing?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/19/2006 @ 12:22am
.
The anti-war people are now flourishing polls showing public disapproval of the war. Katrina vanden Heuvel pretends that is a valid reason to quickly withdraw. Is it?
It might at least be a consistent argument had she in the past, when 69% of the public was pro-war, and only 25% opposed, the invasion. But she was just as opposed then as now. She did not think positive poll numbers constituted a serious argument. Why not? Because polls reflect the public's emotions, how it responds to stirring or depressing events. They don't reflect a careful evaluation of the nation's long term interests.
The Left never talks about what a defeat in Iraq would mean to America's future. Why is that? Because the Left, certainly the radical left as reflected by The Nation, does not worry about a sour American future. It worries about a strong and successful America, now and in the future. Which is why it soresents the PNAC. It believes the problem with the world is that America is too strong and too successful. Such people are are in the forefront of those urging the country to withdraw.
One might ask, what about Vietnam? There too the public demanded withdrawal because the situation looked hopeless and the casualties were alarming. large. The public was right about VN.
First of all, our casualties back then were significant, often 50 and 60 deaths a day. That was how a 60,000 total was wracked up. (In Korea it was 50,000 dead in 3 years.) But in Iraq we are suffering around 50 dead not per day, but per month. That is why, after more than 3 years of war, we don't have the death toll of just one day on Normandy.
But the key point is not that our casualties were much higher in VN. Rather, fighting and winning in VN was not in America's interest.
We were lashing a genuine liberation struggle that had been fighting everyone, including the Japanese since the 1930s. We were killing those people, for a clique of corrupt generals with no wide popular support. We were bleeding for them in VN's steaming jungles, while doing no harm to our real enemies the USSR and China. They had the missiles and nuclear arsenals that truly threatened us. In fighting the NVN we were merely expending our wealth, our blood and our good name, while actually stengthening the communist camp. They had serious ideological differences with one another. Their national interests clashed. They were natural enemies who had already had fire fights along the Amur river. Mao detested the Soviet leadership. It was to our interest for that mutual antagonism to operate. Instead our presence in Asia was forcing them to cooperate with one another. Leaving VN allowed Nixon to go to China craft the beginning of the Cold War's end. Gorbachev leaped into perestroika because he saw China overtaking the USSR.
None of that operates in Iraq. There we are siding with a genuine constitutional govt freely elected by 8.5 million Iraqis. The Iraqis overwhelmingly oppose the Islamists and old Baathists. They want their govt to prevail. In supporting that govt until an Iraq army is strong enough to that job we are with the Iraqis, not against them. Leaving now, and allowing the insurgents and sectarian interests to tear the country apart, would be ignoble. And it would not end but deepen our military commitment in the Middle East.
A successful insurgency will in due course turn against the Gulf's oil states. Because they are corrupt, the creatures of the West, and unable to defend themselves. The veteran Iraqi insurgents will attack from outside, and internal Islamists will attack from within. The kings and princes will quickly grab their money and run to villas in the West. Which would leave OBL and company, or in any event, people who see the US as the Big Satan, in charge of the oil fields. They would have their hands around the West's economic jugular.
The US could not accept that. Sizable US forces would have to defend the Gulf regimes, or perhaps take over the oil fields. That really would make for perpetual war.
It is in America's vital national interest to see the Iraqi govt well established and the insurgency defeated. That may mean keeping 50,000 troops in the area for decades. It will be worth doing, just as our garrison in Korea successfully stabilized that area for half a century.
.
Posted by nacl at 06/19/2006 @ 03:34am
Two points
1. It is obvious that the war in Iraq is unpopular, and that things seem to be going badly as far as security and stabilization.
2. It is also true that "The Nation", despite polling, has always been opposed to this war, AS WELL AS the war in Afghanistan (which most mainstream liberals say "they always supported"). (i.e. November 19th, 2001 issue of "TN").
What's odd is, that despite the positive polling for war in Iraq in 2003...and the negative polling for war in Iraq in June 2006....Ms vanden Heuval wanted us to ignore the earlier polls as inaccurate and based on lies, and the newer polls as a reason to immediately withdraw....but always to support her original contention against the war.
Was she right in 2003?...possibly. But she dishonestly is using polls NOW, that she wished ignored in 2003, and that's the hypocrisy.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2006 @ 09:36am
.
I agree with that. I tried to make the same point above, but got it garbled. My second paragraph should have read:
.
Posted by nacl at 06/19/2006 @ 09:52am
Posted by NACL 06/19/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person
Obviously a LOT of Democrats in Washington not as eager to jump on those "Peace is the majority" polls either (atleast 42 in the House, and almost ALL in the Senate)....why?
Perhaps as politicians who actually HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS, and not Manhattenite left-wing columnists, they have a better grasp of how the public REALLY feels and how any vote against the war would be used against them quite effectively.
But the main point we're both making is true....Ms VH didn't want polls deciding us going into the war, but NOW she wants polls deciding us getting out of it. Hypocrisy.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2006 @ 10:09am
Posted by NACL 06/19/2006 @ 03:34am |
I liked your essay on the mistakes we made by going into Viet Nam. In fact I liked it so much that I copied it below word for word changing only the place names, proper nouns and references to idealogy which I then put in parenthesis.
"We were lashing a genuine liberation struggle that had been fighting everyone, including the ( British ) since the 1930s. We were killing those people, for ( the Shiite interests ). We were bleeding for them in ( Iraq's sweltering deserts ), while doing no harm to our real enemies ( al quaida ). They had the ( terrorist mindset ) that truly threatened us. In fighting the ( Iraqi insurgency ) we were merely expending our wealth, our blood and our good name, while actually stengthening the ( terrorist threat ). They had serious ideological differences with one another. Their ( idealogical ) interests clashed. They were natural enemies. ( Sadam's Bathist party ) detested ( Islamic fundamentalists ). It was to our interest for that mutual antagonism to operate. Instead our presence in ( Iraq ) was forcing them to cooperate with one another."
Thanks for pointing out the lesson that we never seem to learn i.e. that "those who forget the lessons of history and blah blah blah".
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/19/2006 @ 12:51pm
Mask, "Perhaps as politicians who actually HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS, and not Manhattenite left-wing columnists, .."
I supect it is the same as Bernie Goldbergs book quote, where, after Reagans(or Nixons) election victory Goldberg was at a dinner party at the home of the CBS owners, big libs were heard to to say they were surprised to learn Reagan won the election as she knew of no one who voted for him.....Reagan carried 49 states that year....
this is what you are dealing with and CANNOT WIN. Forget it....
Posted by john maasch at 06/19/2006 @ 12:54pm
Red,
Too bad you missed the point of NACL..but, you can have a cookie anyway for creative cut and pasting,....
now,..go to the kitchen, I think Zero and Will are there, they found the source of those voices you have been listening to......
Posted by john maasch at 06/19/2006 @ 12:56pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/19/2006 @ 12:54am | ignore this person
The story you refer to is about Pauline Kael, former movie critic for the NY Times, and it was about the Nixon 1972 election.
Ms Kael, as many effete liberals, was shocked that Nixon beat McGovern by a 60%–38% margin (49 states and 520 to 17 electorals to be exact).
Her quote was "I don't know ANYBODY who voted for Nixon". The obvious subjectivity of the answer completely lost on the poor woman.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2006 @ 1:03pm
Mask
Perhaps as politicians who actually HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS, and not Manhattenite left-wing columnists, they have a better grasp of how the public REALLY feels and how any vote against the war would be used against them quite effectively.
I really don't see the connection between "politicians who actually HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS" on the one hand and "how the public REALLY feels" on the other. True, in a democracy there would be a connection. But in the good ol' US of A Congress gets re-elected at better than a 95% rate so how do you square that with Congress' 28% approval rate ?
The answer ain't all that complicated. Congress does what it wants to do as long as it brings home the pork to its district and finds a hot button issue or two six months before an election to distract the public.
But if you think this Congress actually gives a good god damn about how the American pubic REALLY feels I'd honestly be interested in knowing on which issues ?
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/19/2006 @ 1:16pm
Posted by RED NECKERSON 06/19/2006 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person
RED, the Congress ultimately HAS TO care about how the American people feel...and that's been demonstrated time and time again.
It's how Gingrich won it in 1994. And I think that if those Democratic politicians who voted for the Republican House resolution (42 in all, plus several cowardly failing to vote) or those in the Senate (almost all), who voted for a bill (that John Nichols called "perpetual war" funding).....REALLY thought that Ms vanden Heuval's polling was accurate, they'd be committing political suicide for no good reason.
So why did they do it?....the only answer I can come up with is...they know they'll get hurt a LOT worse by voting against the war or funding for it, despite "The Nation's" dire warnings of the "will of the people", than supporting it.
These are not stupid people, atleast not when it comes to saving their own jobs. Why, Ms vanden Heuval herself asks, do they continue to vote against "all the polling"?
Maybe the polling doesn't matter...or isn't exactly accurate?!?!
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2006 @ 1:52pm
Since liberals like to rehash Vietnam so often, this is the one true parallel to Vietnam....protest, protest, protest....gives the other side a reason to continue the fight, which will cost more US casualties and prolong the war. This view was also expressed by the leadership of the North Vietnamese, so it has precedence.
Posted by SLIVER 06/17/2006 @ 10:51am
If you think the NVA and VC only kept fighting because of the protests then you need your head examined.
They had been fighting for decades, against the Japanese, then later against French and then finally against the US. They weren't going to stop fighting until they won their independence, protests or no protests.
You know, they make you study history in school so that you will learn from the past. Apparently that isn't your philosophy...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/19/2006 @ 2:03pm
Posted by SLIVER 06/17/2006 @ 2:08pm
I believe that the passing of the buck you mention is what you just did to blame Clinton for Bush's actions. At the core of every Republican misstep, I assume, is a Democrat who came up with the idea, tricked the good Republican into believing it to be a good idea, and then retreating into political oblivion.
Smart ones, those Democrats.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/17/2006 @ 2:17pm
Remember, TJB, the rightwingers only believe in personal responsibility until they fuck things up. Then they blame Clinton.
Not enough jobs in 2006? Blame Clinton!
Insurgency in Iraq? Blame Clinton (it was his idea...)
Bush is an idiot? Well, uh, uh, uh, ... Clinton had sex!
Budget deficits? Blame Clinton! (And the surplusses during Clinton's presidency? Oh, those came from Reagan, don't you know).
Etceter, etcetera, etcetera.
The sad part is, so many rightwingers believe that shit.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/19/2006 @ 2:10pm
Rio writes as if picking words at random. Perhaps he uses this site as practice for learning the language. Go, Rio, go. You'll get the hang of English one day. Then, perhaps, you just might make sense.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/17/2006 @ 6:20pm
To all the lefties here: I cannot believe you people put LUVLIBERTY & JOHN MAASCH on your ignore lists yet still keep responding to this RIO nut.
RIO is a crackpot. I put him on ignore a year ago. You should all do the same.
Sure, like you other lefties, I am usually scratching my head about how MAASCH and LIBERTY come up with their baloney, but at least they aren't writing from the nuthouse. RIO is a complete kook. Quit wasting time on him, PLEASE!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/19/2006 @ 2:14pm
.
I thank you. You are a reminder that that famous old bird, Boobus Ideologus remains in season.
You are anxious to deal with al Qaeda, eh?
Everyone knows that the way to settle their hash is not to kill a few hundred or a few thousand more. OBL has plenty of happy jihadists ready to make good any losses. The one sure way to cook al Qaeda's goose is by establishing an elected Arab govt in the Middle East. And they know it. Which is why al Qaeda's man in Iraq, Zarqawi, declared democracy and freedom of speech and religious toleration, wicked and machine gunned voters. That is why they are fighting so hard. The Islamist's worst nightmare is an open and prosperous Iraqi society with a democratic govt.
Finally, I notice your transposition effort did not find a way to translate the fact that we had little popular support in VN. In Iraq however the population supports the govt and 8.5 million voted for it. Try to get around that, you democrat.
.
Posted by nacl at 06/19/2006 @ 2:54pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/19/2006 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person
Doesn't that cut a little both ways, ILP.
As noted earlier to GLENN.LEMONN, I've never heard a liberal take "personal responsibility" for losing an election.
It's always..."Republican smears"..."Republican lies"..."Republican distorting the facts"..."Willy Horton"..."Karl Rove"..."Diebold machines"....never "**** was a lousy candidate with unpopular ideas".
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2006 @ 2:54pm
"RIO is a crackpot. I put him on ignore a year ago"
Big fucking deal...RIO makes more sense than any of you nitwits ever will....RIO when they say they put you on ignore....wear it as a badge of honor....They simply do not have the brain cell count to understand logic...otherwise they would not be traitorus LIBS
THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
Posted by traitorlibz at 06/19/2006 @ 3:10pm
I have no problem blaming every democratic loser since Dukakis for his loss. Mondale never stood a chance, But Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were beaten (however we wish to parse that word) by two very, very dumb, out-of-touch candidates. No one to blame but them for failing to connect in the least with an electorate eager to hear a little passion behind as well as a clear statement of their beliefs.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/19/2006 @ 3:52pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/19/2006 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person
Curious, TJ....why did Mondale "never stand a chance"?
If his ideas, policies, and agenda were superior to Reagan, and the facts were on his side....why'd he lose (or not even compete, as you say)?
Also, why is it (Gore, Kerry, Dukakis) that the Democratic Party in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina....keep refusing to nominate "passionate" candidates?
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2006 @ 4:02pm
I notice we never see Traitor boy on the weekend. Work release program from the local jail perhaps?
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/19/2006 @ 4:39pm
Jesus Christ, MASK. You ask for someone to blame the Democratic candidates for losing and now you question that?
I hated Reagan. Even though 1984 was my first opportunity to vote, however, I couldn't see tossing my vote to Mondale. Reagan scared me (I was just 18) and I don't think I was alone. I think the idea that he was willing to blow up anything and everything to prove that he was right was palpable, and I think that is why a lot of people still worship him. He was a tough motherfucker. To battle him in an election, the Democrats needed to put up someone just as tough. I think that Reagan in his prime versus Clinton in his would have been the most entertaining campaign we could have witnessed. But Mondale? He had neither the toughness nor the clarity nor the charm nor the passion that would have been needed to overcome the power of Reagan. So I sat my absentee ballot sat unused in my college dorm room.
As to why the Democrats don't nominate better people, why don't you ask them yourself. You have voted more consistently for them than I have in recent elections. For some reason the party faithful like a little milque with their toast, a little safe with their pick. The Democrats should realize that most people would prefer that they present someone at the general election who most clearly represents Democratic values rather than some middle of the road amalgam of Democratic and Republican values.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/19/2006 @ 5:00pm
Nacl
"You are a reminder that that famous old bird, Boobus Ideologus remains in season."
Thanks salty but I ain't too worried. Unless uncle Dickie gets into his cups and goes hunting again.
As to your miracle of democracy in Iraq can I ask you why we never heard BOO about elections over there untill we finally had to ask U.N. special envoy Lakdar Brahimi to come up with some way of defusing what was rapidly becoming an untenable situation and giving us cover ? Entertain this thought for just a second salty... is it possible that this whole democracy promotion thing might just have been an after thought to salvage something and save face after all else failed and the lame justifications for going to war were down the toilet and things were going to hell in a handbasket ? Maybe I missed something but I did'nt hear shit about any altruistic desire to spread democracy to Iraq untill after Georgie had to eat crow and ask the U. N. to finally get involved. Did you ?
Anyway after we've found out that the New democratic Shiite government of Iraq isn't going to allie with Iran and become a major pain in Georgie's butt and spoil all his carefully laid plans of controlling middle eastern oil, ater that danger is over there will be lots of time to crow about the joys of middle eastern democracy. 'Till then it ain't over till it's over.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/19/2006 @ 11:44pm
wear it as a badge of honor....They simply do not have the brain cell count to understand logic THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD
chapeau bas TRAITORLIBZ.... now use your automatic translator and try speaking french again .... that cracks me up
Posted by Fabrice_ at 06/20/2006 @ 05:02am
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/19/2006 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person
Sorry TJ, you misunderstand....I was just asking your opinion, not saying you weren't giving me examples.
You thought Mondale wasn't charming enough (actually, it wouldn't have been "charm" that Clinton would have given Reagan a run for his money in 1984...it would have been his "Third Way"/"New Democrat" ideas!)
And the reason Dems don't nominate the "passionate" guys?....because they typically are SO far left-of-center (easy to spot...they're the ones getting "Nation" endorsements in the primaries...hehe) that they could NEVER win the moderates and independents, and the Democrats know it. (Hint..."YEAAAAARRRHHH!")
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2006 @ 08:49am
Polls prior to 2003 - when a larger majority of the populus believed the commando-in-chief's lies about WMD - support military action.
Polls taken in the past year - after the realization by those with common sense (that leaves some of you out - you know who you are!) that the US was lied to by our government about WMD, no occupation, post-war planning, etc. - do not support military action.
To compare the polls of both time periods is comparing apples and walnuts. Nice try, though.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/20/2006 @ 10:46am
Posted by TURK33 06/20/2006 @ 10:46am
Apples & walnuts, hmmm? Now all we need is to have some of those illegal immigrants pick us some lettuce and tomotoes before the Arnold & co. throw'em out and we can have a nice salad for lunch!
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/20/2006 @ 11:17am
Probably a dead thread, but...
And the reason Dems don't nominate the "passionate" guys?....because they typically are SO far left-of-center (easy to spot...they're the ones getting "Nation" endorsements in the primaries...hehe) that they could NEVER win the moderates and independents, and the Democrats know it. (Hint..."YEAAAAARRRHHH!")
Posted by MASK 06/20/2006 @ 08:49am
The Democrats know this? How could they since their strategy has been to eliminate the true liberals from their leadership and...lose. I understand an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" strategy in politics. But how more broke do the Democrats wanna be, before they try a little fixin' or two?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 12:28pm
And I mentioned more than "charm" that Mondale lacked.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 12:29pm
Yow!!!
I just looked at my mistake with the bold emphasis. Apologies! I'm really not angry. I just meant to bold the word "know" in the first sentence and did not mean to italicize any portion of my response to MASK's post.
Guess I need to follow my own advice to Maasch and utitilize the preview screen.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 12:31pm
.
Entertain this thought for just a second salty... is it possible that this whole democracy promotion thing might just have been an after thought to salvage something and save face after all else failed and the lame justifications for going to war were down the toilet and things were going to hell in a handbasket ? Maybe I missed something but I did'nt hear shit about any altruistic desire to spread democracy to Iraq untill after Georgie had to eat crow and ask the U. N. to finally get involved. Did you ? You missed more than something. Incidentally Lakdar Brahimi was a complete waste. You missed half a year of hollering and howling in 2002/03 about neocom ambitions to create an elected Arab govt responsive to the people which will serve as a model to the rest of the M/E..
That ambition has us huffing and puffing now. Had we been satisfied with our easy 3 week victory over Saddam and kicking out the Baath, we'd have no troubles today. We might have installed another Iraq general to crack heads with a reconstituted Republican Guard and have been on our way. Instead we stayed, invested billions, and showed we actually meant to help an elected Iraq govt to its feet. That's when all hell broke loose. Then the Islamists streamed in and a resistance formed. A resistance to what? To the swamps of squalor where Islamofascism festers. That was when they began to chop off heads, denounce democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration as ungodly, machine gun voters and explode bombs amidst crowds. You missed all that, eh genius?
You sound pretty cocky. You think your friends have it made. You may be right. The US might pull out. It sure doesn't look good right now. Still, I don't think so. I don't think we'll abandon Iraq regardless of who is elected in November or in 2008, or in 2012. We will create an effective Iraqi army that will break bones in a way we can't. It will settle the insurgency's hash, and that of the sectarian militias. The govt will sink roots and slowly after plenty of setbacks and scandals, turn the country around. In the end the Arab world will have that democratic model. It will take longer than we suppose. I may be wong, but I think that will happen.
.
Posted by nacl at 06/20/2006 @ 2:15pm
.
In my next to last paragraph I meant to say:
Resistance to what? To the threat to the swamps of squalor in the Arab world where Islamofascism festerz.
.
Posted by nacl at 06/20/2006 @ 2:26pm
Then the Islamists streamed in and a resistance formed.
Posted by NACL 06/20/2006 @ 2:15pm
Gee,
First the terrorists were already there. Now the terrorists streamed in. Take a moment. Catch your breath. And come back when you stop typing what comes out of your ass.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/20/2006 @ 2:28pm