Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"Split" seems to be the new buzzword in Democratic Party circles.
"A split over the war, the wimp thing, and how to win," read a Philadelphia Inquirer headline on Sunday. "Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War," followed the Washington Post yesterday. "Democrats are Split on Questioning Roberts," the New York Times wrote the same day.
Since we wrote about the "split" over Roberts last week, let's turn to Iraq. The mainstream media are playing the story as a stereotypical conflict between the Democrats' liberal base and centrist establishment. That's partially true. But what the Iraq debate really exposes is an insulated, timid, unaccountable DC elite ("The Strategic Class") that is unable to spot its mistakes and correct them. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled," says party strategist Steve Elmendorf, a former chief of staff to Rep. Dick Gephardt.
Instead of adapting to meet the bloody realities on the ground in Iraq or the profound shift against the war in public opinion polls at home, party leaders like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are sticking to a flawed stay-the-course strategy. Bold bipartisan criticism of the war from Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican Chuck Hagel has yet to sink in. Former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry presents a prime example: "Credit the Democrats for not trying to pour more gasoline on the fire, even if they're not particularly unified in their message," McCurry told the Post. "Democrats could jump all over them and try to pin Bush down on it, but I'm not sure it would do anything but make things worse. The smartest thing for Democrats to do is be supportive." Translation: Democrats should help prolong the war, not end it.
John Kerry tried a similar tack and voters didn't buy it. Yet old habits die hard. A DCCC analysis of Iraq war vet Paul Hackett's near victory in a rock-solid Republican district incredibly made no mention of Iraq. A new Democracy Corps memo warned Democrats against adopting an antiwar position. The McCarthyite DLC accuses war critics of "anti-American bias."
This is both bad politics and bad policy.
"Bad Iraq News Worries Some in GOP in '06," the Times reported last week. "There is no enthusiasm for this war," said Tennessee Republican Rep. John Duncan. "It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much." Added conservative mastermind Grover Norquist, "If Iraq is in the rearview mirror in the '06 election, the Republicans will do fine. But if it's still in the windshield, there are problems."
Defense expert Juliette Kayyem nailed the policy component in a must-read post Sunday at TPMCafe. "The question--what about Iraq--seems to me to be the pivotal, and only, question for Democrats right now," Kayyem writes. "What should the Dems be saying? Not more troops, please. The fact that many Democratic leaders are the ones clamoring for more troops, long after the American public has abadoned them on this one, is disconcerting to say the least. We have long passed that point."
Kayyem then admits what so few of her fellow Democrats have been willing to: "This was our war too. We ought, as a party, to be saying that we were wrong, and we ought to be saying it now. The notion that all we are complaining about is how they waged this war, rather than the war itself, strikes me as not truthful. It was--both from its inception, its reasoning, and its engagement --a bad war.
This is where the Democrats differ from Republicans, and where we are (at least from my reading of the polls) consistent with the American public. If we can't at least say that, then, to be honest, we have no reason to win elections."
Amen. It needn't take another 28 months.
YES YOU LIBS HAVE NO REASON TO WIN ELECTIONS BECAUSE YOUR WEAK AND ALWAYS WANTING TO PACIFY THE ENEMY. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REJECT THAT HORSESH*T AND WANT TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR DESPITE YOUR FLAWED LIB POLLS. ALSO PERHAPS BIDEN, CLINTON AND SOME OTHER MORE POLITICAL DIMS DO NOT WANT TO BE PULLED INTO THE HOLE WITH THE REST OF YOU NUTTY LIBS. BUT KEEP YOUR BITCHING UP....IT SHOWS AMERICANS WHAT YOU ARE NOT MADE OF!!!!
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 11:01am
ALUDRA, maybe you could provide examples to support your assertion that "YOUR WEAK AND ALWAYS WANTING TO PACIFY THE ENEMY".
I cannot think of one single Democrat who wants to "pacify the enemy" but maybe you've read something I haven't...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 11:07am
Problem is....no "plan" laid out by the Democrats, does anything but hurt them....
Plan #1- Stay the course, (i.e. Bush's plan)....anti-war libs abandon them, no "issue" for 2006.
Plan #2- Immediate pull-out or even a Feingold "Dec 2006" deadline....Dems get painted as "soft on defense...appeasers...etc" for another 30 years, and even some anti-war types hate it if it's not "immediate".
Plan #3- "Phased" pull out over 1-3 years ("Bush-lite" plan)....NOBODY happy, anti-war crowd hates it, centrists can't explain it, public doesn't see any "difference"!
Posted by Mask at 08/23/2005 @ 11:09am
I started reading The Nation's blog about a month ago and noticed that many of the comments regarding online articles are little more than harrasment from extreme right-wing "hackers". While seeing another perspective if often useful, e mails from folks like "Aludra" and "Freiheit" constitute little more than protracted diatribes utterly bereft of facts or logic. Given these tedious and frequent e mails, I think an interesting project for ambitious editors at The Nation would be to see if these comments are part of a coordinated campaign from the Republican "dirty tricks" crowd led by Karl Rove. Who knows where it would lead?
Posted by trabaris at 08/23/2005 @ 11:16am
Democrats shouldn't listen to extreme leftists if they want to get elected. Leftits are all upset that Saddam is no longer in power, so they blast U.S. foreign policy. However, if the war never happened, they would just criticize the U.S. for either supporting him or ignoring him. Leftists stand for nothing other than blasting the U.S. which gets old quickly. Oh wait, they are good at creating new buzzwords by sticking "neo" in front of words, in order to describe people they don't like.
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/23/2005 @ 11:18am
EXACTLY
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 11:23am
The problem with the Democrats is not being weak on defense, it's the lack of a spine. Why won't one of them say "I was misled into voting for the war and it was a mistake"? How can they be so out of touch as to support staying the course in Iraq!? They don't deserve to be elected. You can hate Bush all you want (I sure do), but at least you know what he stands for.
Posted by rain man at 08/23/2005 @ 11:35am
"Leftits are all upset that Saddam is no longer in power"
Who are you referring to?
Posted by rain man at 08/23/2005 @ 11:35am
Trabaris,
"I started reading The Nation's blog about a month ago and noticed that many of the comments regarding online articles are little more than harassment from extreme right-wing "hackers". While seeing another perspective if often useful, e mails from folks like "Aludra" and "Freiheit" constitute little more than protracted diatribes utterly bereft of facts or logic. Given these tedious and frequent e mails, I think an interesting project for ambitious editors at The Nation would be to see if these comments are part of a coordinated campaign from the Republican "dirty tricks" crowd led by Karl Rove. Who knows where it would lead? "
As I'm reading this, I start hearing the music from "The Twilight Zone" t.v. series.
It's the evil Republican strategist Karl Rove behind oksportsguy, aludra, loveliberty and ANY others that actually have the audacity to disagree with "us" liberals, that's the ONLY explanation for their posts, because "we" of course are educated liberals, and what else could explain the reasoning behind their disagreement?!?!??!
Right….. (Twilight zone music still playing.)
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 11:43am
Mask,
I hope all American political leaders would be anti-war. If they were then we wouldn't be in the present quagmire of the Iraq War.
Being anti-war is not the same as being a pacifist, and Democrats need to understand that difference and use it to their advantage. They should not let the pro-war Republicans have the only say on defining who they are; unless Democrats don't know who they are - as a Democrat I know otherwise.
Bush and the Republicans want the public to see them as the only party to protect America; excluding the Civil War, the Republicans have never led the nation to victory in war - only Democrats with cajones and critical foreign policy skills have done that.
Bush deceived the people in 'justifying' the war in Iraq and he is deceiving them now about how we are winning and how the Iraq War is connected to 9-11.
I offer the following excerpts from the Washington Post as an illustrative example of how the Bush Administration is an organized group of propagandists. Please note in excerpt two how Bolton, present U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., testified before Congress in 2004 - he testified with great certainty of the correctness of his argument, no doubt whatsoever. *********************************************************
No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program
Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment
By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Page A01
Excerpt No. 1:
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Excerpt No. 2:
John R. Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, served as the administration's point man on nuclear issuesduring President Bush's first term. He suggested during congressional testimony in June 2004 that the Iranians were lying about the contamination.
"Another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to and providing false and incomplete reports to the IAEA," Bolton said. "For example, Iran first denied it had enriched any uranium. Then it said it had not enriched uranium more than 1.2 percent. Later, when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts."
Source: No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program [washingtonpost.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:47am
Click on the link below for a different view of staying the course; it is somewhat different than Bush's view.
Staying the Course [news.yahoo.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 12:03pm
"I started reading The Nation's blog about a month ago and noticed that many of the comments regarding online articles are little more than harassment from extreme right-wing "hackers". While seeing another perspective if often useful, e mails from folks like "Aludra" and "Freiheit" constitute little more than protracted diatribes utterly bereft of facts or logic. Given these tedious and frequent e mails, I think an interesting project for ambitious editors at The Nation would be to see if these comments are part of a coordinated campaign from the Republican "dirty tricks" crowd led by Karl Rove. Who knows where it would lead?"
If Karl Rove was really concerned about you, he would have bloggers encouraging your looniness. The best thing for the Republicans would be if the next Democratic presidential candidate adopted the editorial positions of "The Nation."
Posted by RonS at 08/23/2005 @ 12:04pm
I was watching Juan Williams last night talk about Bush's speech to the VFW National Convention. During the speech Bush included the exact number of KIA.
Here's the amazing part. Williams says that it was good for the president to "finally" include the actual figure because "now" people will understand that he really does know what is going on in Iraq and by him saying this, Americans will now know.
What? Did Williams actually think that before Bush included this in the speech that he was unaware of the figure? Or even worse, was keeing it from the country.
There is some bizarre thinking patterns coming from the left these days.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/23/2005 @ 12:22pm
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
For more of the story read the excerpt below.
Excerpt:
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at "influencers" such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
Source: Military's Recruiting Troubles with the Affluent War Supporters [washingtonpost.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 12:38pm
Why would Democrats take a far-left stance? 80% of the US population rejects the far-left stance.
That is why Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of things that the far left hates :
The Senate voted 98-1 for the Patriot Act, and voted again in 2005 to renew most provisions, including the ones leftists hate.
The Senate voted 85-13 to let a Republican black woman become Secretary of State (against the will of racist leftists)
The Senate voted 92-8 to pass the 1997 tax cuts for the rich that Clinton proposed.
The Senate voted 77-23 to invade Iraq (with Kerry, Edwards, H. Clinton all voting in favor).
The Senate voted 100-0 to authorize another $80 billion for Iraq.
The Democratic Party is actually a good party on matters of common sense, that the majority of the US population supports. Why would they vote with the crazy leftists? They have no reason to.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 12:45pm
Yep, you have to hand it to Dubya on that - we know where he stands. He does what he says he will do.
That is why he is such a bad president. If he would only stop doing what he says he's going to do, the country wouldn't be in such a mess...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 12:49pm
KMG4, Ah, if only you would let facts filter into your mind once in a while. It is conservatives, not leftists, who are the racists.
Can you say Trent Lott? I knew you could....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 12:51pm
The "split" in the Democratic Party over Iraq started almost soon as the regime began misdirected the war on terror into Iraq.
My 11:30 am comment today on the Nichols thread [thenation.com] is an expression on what the legitimate debate is, not only within the Democratic Party but across party lines into those Republicans, such as Senator Hegel, not content to put on a mini skirt and sweater and wave their pompoms cheering for Mr. Bush's failed policies.
However, even in the early days, the split was obvious. Leaders of the party voted for the IWR. The DLC lauded those who did as "Blair Democrats". The strategy, which failed miserably, was to provide as little daylight as possible between the Democrats position and the war on terror, even though Mr. Bush's case against Saddam was far from proved and there was even evidence by this time of deliberate regime prevarication. The OSP was up and running.
In the end, there can be no doubt that those of us who dissented were right and those who followed Bush into Iraq were wrong.
Yet the DLC, like Bush and lieutenants themselves, have never changed their tune, no matter how obvious it is that the war was wrong both on moral and pragmatic grounds. The DLC's line is that the problem with the Democratic Party is that there are too many Democrats and not enough Republicans in it.
We need an open discussion on what to do in Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Bush regime itself refuses to be part of this discussion or to even listen to it. By so behaving, the regime has become part of the problem and not part of the solution. The policies it has pursued in Iraq have resulted in the spread and strengthening of international terrorism and the deterioration and disintegration of Iraq. Since it is unlikely that the regime can be removed until its term expires on January 20, 2009, we can only hope that between now and then no further harm is done and the situation does not deteriorate further. However, there is no cause for optimism in this respect.
Americans in general are increasingly aware of the regime's failure in Iraq. The most recent poll, released yesterday by the American Research Group, show Bush's approval ratings at well below 40%.
The time is right for a discussion on what should be done in Iraq without regard to what is actually being done there. Perhaps it would be better to extricate ourselves sooner rather than later or perhaps it would be better to increase troop strength in an effort to subdue the international terrorists who have found US occupied Iraq to be more hospitable to their freedom to operate than was Saddam's police state. What seems out of the question is to remain on the present course, which has only brought disastrous results.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 12:51pm
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people." From my post at 12:38am.
*******************
Well, we know the Republicans stand.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 12:52pm
Kentucky: Red state and racist.
Alabama: Red state and racist.
Georgia: Red state and racist.
Texas: Red state and racist. I could continue, but I've made my point.
Not everyone in those states is racist, mind you! I know that, so BLUETEXAN you have no need to jump me on this.
But I know racists from all of those states, and I've lived in 2 of 'em, so I speak from knowledge, not speculation.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 12:54pm
The excerpt below, from a Washington Post Op Ed, provides an example of Bush's and Republicans' worst nightmares; a thoughtful process to solving the war on terrorism. Click on source link to read the entire article.
Terrorism as Virus
By Paul Stares and Mona Yacoubian
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Page A15
The recent flap over whether to reframe the "global war on terror" as a "global struggle against violent extremism" reflects a much deeper problem than a passing dispute over wording. Without clarity or consensus on whom or what we are up against, we are unlikely to develop a coherent long-term strategy to overcome it.
Our preference is "Islamist militancy" -- a politico-religious movement that incorporates not only those who commit acts of terrorism but also those who espouse violence and intolerance in the name of Islam.
Source: Terrorism as a Virus [washingtonpost.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:04pm
ILOVEPHYSICS,
You didn't address my points that the Democrats have rejected leftists. You appear to be resigned to that reality.
And about racism, give it up, you leftists have been found out. Robert Byrd has more of a racist resume than any current GOP Senator. Plus, the leftist hatred for Rice, Thomas, and Janice Rogers Brown is palpable.
No wonder more and more minorities are moving to the right. I am one of them.
Yes, I am a right-wing person of color, and I became a Republican after the racism that I saw the left heap onto Condoleeza Rice.
Your actions speak louder than your words, and you are a racist.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:20pm
Al Franken has been proven to be a racist, by the way. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=85
Yet another reason Bush gained ground with all minority groups in 2004. EVERY SINGLE GROUP, whether black, Asian, or Hispanic, voted more for the GOP than in 2000.
This trend will continue as left-wing racism (as that exhibited by ILOVEPHYSICS becomes more obvious).
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:23pm
ORAIBI1952
Here are some facts, for your inference that REPS are not serving in the current war. A Military Times poll in JAN 05 found that respondents in the Armed Services(All 4 services)classified themselves as 60% REP; 13% INDEP, and 11% DEM. So you see those who are "pro-war" as many leftists say ARE in fact serving with distinction.
As head of a Army Recruiting Company, I will tell you we recruit everywhere, the problem is NOT people not wanting to serve, we could make our monthly qouta in week, but rather many who simply are not qualified.
As silly as that might sound to the likes of you and ILOVEPHYSICS, many have law violations or simply cannot pass the aptitude test, or are medically disqualified for a previous unknown condition. And many more are "college educated" applicants and from middle and upper class homes than you would think.
Posted by CPT at 08/23/2005 @ 1:24pm
The right is split as well. We are seeing more reports everyday where moderate republicans are not stepping in line with the far right. It's just more noticable with the Dems because they are so far out of power these days. In the end men Like Russ Feingold are defining themselves. I believe it's the person who ultimately gets elected not the party. As Aludra demostrates, post after mind numbingly meaningless post, there are always those who blindly follow a party or movement. For the most part the middle (who ultimately decides who is in office) follows the person not the party. As a progressive I would love to have someone who stands up for what they believe in not just what their party does. With the ruling party showing it's true colors it shouldn't take much to make the middle look further left.
Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 1:25pm
More proof of how left-wing racism has aided the genocide of colored people (from David Horowitz) :
Here is an email I received recently from reader Richard Rawlings and my reply:
Saw you on CNN book or something vaguely political. . . You don't look at all like the monster you've been portrayed as . . .
I realize you've run to the anti-semite defense at almost every turn. I will not disagree with you on the Palestinian question. Yes, they certainly hate Jews. Absolute agreement there. But questions like; Why? How do we solve it? How is justice served? What is Americas' role, if any, in this conflict? Are we already there, and no one is talking about it?
While the real horror of Nazi Death Camps compels our immediate, dynamic and committed aid, I've got to note our comparative inaction when the victims were of other races than white. Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and likely a host of present and future dictators will carry out their murderous agandas without fear of sanction from America. This compels me to consider the existence of a rascist, but unspoken, agenda, in our politics.
My answer:
You sound like you might be a serious person. Here are my views on the conflict in the Middle East: It's a heavy dose but if you can handle it get back to me.
Your argument about America being racist if taken literally is actually an argument that the left is racist because in case you haven't noticed the left has made it impossible to extrude American power anywhere in the world including Rwanda, Uganda and Cambodia. From 1973 (the truce in Vietnam) until March 2003, the United States was unable to put an army in the field for more than 4 days. For this you have Fonda, Hayden, Kerry, Dean, McGovern etc to thank. Finally, in March 2003, the US set out to unseat a dictator who uses poison gas on ethnic minorities -- and the left denounces him as Hitler and launches a political war at home to cripple America's ability to fight the war that follows. The one thing that really stands out for me in nearly sixty years of close observance of the left is that it never ever takes into account the impact -- let alone the consequences -- of its own actions, which are reactionary, anti-democratic and the cause of much of the mayhem and injustice in this world.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:26pm
""Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people." From my post at 12:38am."
Yes, a pretty racist and hypocritical statement, she doesn't speak for all Republicans, particularly not for all financially well off Republicans.
I support my sons' decision in wanting to join the military.
Todd the dum konservative.
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 1:26pm
ILP,
In reference to your 12:54 post, I was just curious as to whether or not you have ever seen this [bigpicture.typepad.com]? It's something a friend had sent to me right around the end of November 2004. It's also here [bopnews.com], here [silverchips.mbhs.edu] & (indirectly noted) here [en.wikipedia.org].
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 1:27pm
CPT, Well, thanks for your lecture. I expect better, but am not surprised I didn't get it. I KNOW about requirements for military service because I joined and served.
You write the problem is NOT people not wanting to serve, we could make our monthly qouta in week, but rather many who simply are not qualified. and assume that that will sound silly to me. But since I work hard to stay informed, I can tell you I already knew that. Spare me your sanctimonious lectures please.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:32pm
"Leftists are all upset that Saddam is no longer in power". Aludra, do you have ONE example of this or did you pull it out of your ass? It was the Reagan administration that sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The Reagan administration turned a blind eye to the gassing of the Kurds in 1988. Don Rumsfeld was photographed shaking Saddam's hand in 1984. in 1990, Bush 1's ambassador April Glaspie said "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Then Bush 1 got the idea from his Chief of Staff John Sununu that a war would be "political gold" for his re-election. To remove Saddam would have taken too long.
"LIBS" were no friends of Saddam. Howerver, Republicans have a long record of supporting the dictator. Now, the dictatorship in Iraq is the lawlessness brought on by a flawed invasion that left a power vacuum. We're still waiting for the rose petals to be strewn in the streets ahead of the advancing troops.
In the Neo-McCarthyite world of the far-right, anyone who disagrees with the administration is a traitor, even when the president is dead wrong.
Let's not forget the Halliburton contracts with Iraq and Iran let through Halliburton's offshore offices AFTER the Gulf War.
Posted by proudlib at 08/23/2005 @ 1:32pm
THEGAYMAN,
Uh... states like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. were all won by Reagan in 1984. George HW Bush also won California in 1988. This demolishes your typically brain-dead leftist whining.
Looks like leftist crying over the 2004 election is still going strong. And they still while over their failure to steal the 2000 election, nearly 5 years ago. tee hee,,
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:34pm
KMG, Do you often call people racists when you don't even know them? That really makes you look stupid. My advice is "get to know someone before judging them".
And now, for the internal contradiction to your post: First you wrote "
ILOVEPHYSICS,
You didn't address my points that the Democrats have rejected leftists"
Then you write "you leftists have been found out. Robert Byrd has more of a racist resume than any current GOP Senator"
Since Byrd is a Dem, your post is nonsensical.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:34pm
KMG4 wrote left-wing racism (as that exhibited by ILOVEPHYSICS becomes more obvious)
Typical right-wing tactic - lie about someone to slander them.
Because you have not one shred of evidence to back up your idiotic claim. Keep embarrassing yourself!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:37pm
ILOVEPHYSICS,
Well, let's prove you are not a racist.
Name one good thing, just one, about each of the following people : 1) Condoleeza Rice 2) Clarence Thomas 3) Janice Rogers Brown 4) Alberto Gonzales
That shouldn't be too hard for someone who is not a racist. Let's see you prove that you are not a racist.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:38pm
THEJMAN, Which part of that site are you referring to? (BTW, hadn't seen it...)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:41pm
Proudbib,
So, if we were wrong to support Saddam, and if we want to correct our mistake, why are you so opposed to our correcting the mistake of supporting Saddam?
BTW, we supported Saddam as he was an ally in the cold war. Forming alliances with all nations that opposed the USSR was sound policy. 49 out of 50 of those leaders were ok, but 1 out of 50 turned out to be bad. Not a bad percentage.
Of course, you probably are unhappy that US capitalism beat Soviet communism, which is why the support of Saddam at the time irks you so much. You can't admit that the world is a better place after the USSR collapsed, can you?
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:42pm
A Military Times poll in JAN 05 found that respondents in the Armed Services(All 4 services)classified themselves as 60% REP; 13% INDEP, and 11% DEM. So you see those who are "pro-war" as many leftists say ARE in fact serving with distinction.
With all due respect those stats are irrelevant. What they were when they enlisted would be the more relevant stat for your arguement. If you have that I would be interested as I don't have a srtong opinion on it. Much of the military lifestyle leads to becoming conservative. It would be more telling to see what their family was. My brother serves in the army. My parents are both registered Dems. My brother now is far more right wing than the rest of the family. That was not his position when he went in. Fact is he was to young to really have a well thought out political position. I'm sure the military experience helped influence it. So it could be argued the military makes the political position not the other way around. I should also divulge that while he is more conservative he has no interest in going to Iraq. He will serve honorably because it is his duty as a soldier but he certainly didn't sign up because of his belief in the war.
Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 1:44pm
Even though I do not support the war (never have) at this point it is outrageous to think we can just withdrawal the troops and all will be fine in the world. Bush & Co. have gotten us into a fine mess. And that's what the American people should be hollering about. They flat out lied to get into a war they now can't seem to handle. But we are there and have let the terrorists get there too. So now we have to stay.
The 9/11 commission and the CIA have both stated there was no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. All Americans, both consevatives and liberals, should be outraged. Do we all not feel a little screwed. Why wouldn't we talk about impeachment now? Let's see... which is worse... I didn't have sex with that woman... or ..... Iraq is getting uranium from Niger. .........A stain on a blue dress....... or........ over American soldiers 1800 dead.
There is no simple answer to when this mess will be over. I guess somebody forgot to think about that before they decided to attack. Or did they?
Posted by bbrizzy at 08/23/2005 @ 1:45pm
KMG4, can I answer your question...?
1) Has enough sense not to have borne any children
2) Prefers Coke to Pepsi
3) Who?
4) Would never torture someone he knows personally
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 1:45pm
KMG4, This is America - innocent until proven guilty.
By the way, are you still beating your girlfriend?
Anyway, you are in danger of becoming irrelevant to the thread with your postings that demonstrate lack of critical thinking, replacing it with knee-jerk slanders and accusations.
I supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, Einstein, and Condi Rice is about the only Bush administration official I have any respect for. The other one was (surprise) Colin Powell.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:47pm
To KMG4:
Your posts are so logically fallacious I don't know where to begin. As long as your willing to make straw men, I'm willing to burn them.
The Senate voted 85-13 to let a Republican black woman become Secretary of State (against the will of racist leftists)
The criticism directed against Condoleezza Rice had nothing to do with her being black. It had to do with her willingness to be part of the campaign of prevarication waged by the Bush regime prior to the invasion. Calling those who opposed her "racist" because she just happens to be black is no more a valid argument than any assertion that O. J. Simpson was charged with murder simply because he was black.
The assertion you make is baseless and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.
And about racism, give it up, you leftists have been found out. Robert Byrd has more of a racist resume than any current GOP Senator. Plus, the leftist hatred for Rice, Thomas, and Janice Rogers Brown is palpable.
Again, you are attempting to say that the only reason "leftists" have for opposing Rice, Thomas and Brown is that they are black. That's nonsense and you know it. Indeed, it would have been racist to overlook their objections to these people simply because they are black while they would have opposed a white nominee for the same reason.
And about racism, give it up, you leftists have been found out. Robert Byrd has more of a racist resume than any current GOP Senator.
Senator Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in his youth. He has called that the single greatest mistake he has made in his life.
Does Senator Lott really believe America would have been better off if the segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948? Just who are you kidding about Byrd's racism being worse than that of any Republican senator?
In addition, you imply in this remark that Senator Byrd is a "leftist". That's news to me. How are you defining that word?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 1:47pm
ZAKQUIET,
Yes, being in the military makes one more conservative. The reasons for this are :
1) The military teaches people about the real world and common sense. 2) The military teaches people about honor, duty, and manners. 3) The military teaches people about physical fitness.
These are conservative traits and are in direct opposition to the characteristics exhibited by most leftists.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:48pm
Regarding Democrats and the war: I marched in the streets in protest during the Vietnam War, which was started and escalated by a Democrat president and continued by a Republican president. I am a man of principle. I oppose unnecessary war, no matter who is president. I don't like having lots of people killed and billions of my tax dollars spent doing it. In my opinion, WWII was the last necessary (and legal) war. I will not vote for any Democrat that supports continueing this occupation and war. I am not alone in my opinion. Biden and Hillary take notice. This country is turning against this war. I felt the tide turn 35 years ago, and I can feel it now. And Bush's handlers can feel it too. Their bullshit doesn't work anymore. The tide has turned.
Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 1:48pm
KMG4, so when will you get your lesson in manners? You really need it soon...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:53pm
CPT - As head of a Army Recruiting Company, I will tell you we recruit everywhere, the problem is NOT people not wanting to serve, we could make our monthly qouta in week, but rather many who simply are not qualified.
As silly as that might sound to the likes of you and ILOVEPHYSICS, many have law violations or simply cannot pass the aptitude test, or are medically disqualified for a previous unknown condition. And many more are "college educated" applicants and from middle and upper class homes than you would think.
Your argument, as presented above, is circular and yes, silly. It doesn't matter why you aren't meeting your recruiting goals, the fact remains that you are not meeting your goals. Any good officer would correct that problem.
Also, your condescending attitude, just like Bush's, does not help your case at all.
From a veteran who served when the military had real leaders; not the obsequious types of today - you should be busy recruiting rather than sitting on your a-- posting radical right-wing propaganda to a blog site.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:59pm
Where were all of the leftists when Clinton launched illegal air-strikes war in the Balkans in order to remove Milosovich? That was done without a U.N. resolution. Now the U.N. judicial branch tries him and pats themselves on their backs. What a bunch of phonies.
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/23/2005 @ 2:00pm
KMG4
Just because one doesn't like the policies of a minority doesn't make them racist. I hate Bush does that mean I hate middle aged white men? No.
Do you like Jesse Jackson? If not, are you willing to be called a racist.
Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 2:00pm
PhilBQ,
So, what do you propose now? Do you propose we withdraw immediately?
Also, what is your opinion about the genocide in Rwanda? In Darfur? In Cambodia? These are all places where the US did nothing.
NATHANHALE,
By being that superficial, you have proven you are a leftist racist. You can't admit that each of those 4 people rose from very modest upbringings to positions of high power, on their own merit.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:01pm
""Leftists are all upset that Saddam is no longer in power". Aludra, do you have ONE example of this or did you pull it out of your ass"
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????PASTE WHERE I SAID THAT NITWIT
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 2:08pm
Once again, we've given the Bushbots the undue dignity of responding to their rants (although I still would like an example of a leftist that is upset that Saddam is out of power). If we could ignore them for a sec, who do you think will distinguish themselves as a real opposition candidates? It won't take going too far left of center to do that.
Posted by rain man at 08/23/2005 @ 2:09pm
KMG4,
Re: Condi Rice
She is being judged on the "content of her character" not where she came from or her difficult struggle to rise to the august position that she noe holds in our government.
To lie and help perpetrate lies in order to go to war is a despicable and poltroonish character content; her deplorable character content has contributed to the unnecessary killing of Americans, all races in the Iraq War.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:10pm
KMG4, isn't it interesting that most of our intellectual leaders (professors) are liberal, sort of like how the military is conservative? Using your logic, this is because:
1. Professors have excellent critical thinking and analytical skills.
2. As a result of said skills they encourage an awareness of social issues and justice.
3. Different theoretical and interdisplinary approaches foster "thinking outside the box" and tolerance for other points of view.
These are liberal traits and are in direct opposition to the characteristics exhibited by most right-wingers.
Gotta get back to my ivory tower now!
Posted by RG at 08/23/2005 @ 2:11pm
RAIN MAN,
Dude, if you can't debate on the internet, what must it be like in person?
Anyway, we are in the majority, not you. Even Democratic Senators have rejected what you brain-dead liberal faggots say :
The Senate voted 98-1 for the Patriot Act, and voted again in 2005 to renew most provisions, including the ones leftists hate.
The Senate voted 85-13 to let a Republican black woman become Secretary of State (against the will of racist leftists)
The Senate voted 92-8 to pass the 1997 tax cuts for the rich that Clinton proposed.
The Senate voted 77-23 to invade Iraq (with Kerry, Edwards, H. Clinton all voting in favor).
The Senate voted 100-0 to authorize another $80 billion for Iraq.
__________________________
Both Democrats and Republicans are mostly on OUR side, not yours. tee hee.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:12pm
KMG4, if you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question. Rising to a position of high power doesn't, on its own, confer competence in that post. See: Bush, George W.
Do you think Rice, as the president's NSA should have been aware that al Qaeda might use airplanes as missiles? Do you think there were no problems with Thomas as a Supreme Court nominee? Do you think Gonzales should be legalizing torture?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 2:14pm
To Aludra:
Democrats shouldn't listen to extreme leftists if they want to get elected. Leftits are all upset that Saddam is no longer in power, so they blast U.S. foreign policy. However, if the war never happened, they would just criticize the U.S. for either supporting him or ignoring him. Leftists stand for nothing other than blasting the U.S. which gets old quickly. Oh wait, they are good at creating new buzzwords by sticking "neo" in front of words, in order to describe people they don't like.
Posted by ZEDDMEN 08/23/2005 @ 11:18am
EXACTLY
Posted by ALUDRA 08/23/2005 @ 11:23am
While it would have been more proper if ProudLib to have asked the question of Zeddman, you immediately agreed with the remark. That makes you fair game.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 2:19pm
NATHANHALE,
Well, 52% of people did think Bush is competence. Of course, for leftists, the majority opinion (a.k.a. Democracy) does not matter.
I don't think Gonzales is legalizing any unreasonable form of torture. I see nothing wrong with Thomas as a justice, as he interprets the US constitution correctly (it is his job).
And yes, Rice should have known this. That is why we need the Patriot Act, and it has protected us for 48 months to date.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:20pm
"ILOVEPHYSICS,
Well, let's prove you are not a racist.
Name one good thing, just one, about each of the following people : 1) Condoleeza Rice 2) Clarence Thomas 3) Janice Rogers Brown 4) Alberto Gonzales
That shouldn't be too hard for someone who is not a racist. Let's see you prove that you are not a racist.
Posted by KMG4 08/23/2005 @ 1:38pm"
Well it's now obvious that if we do not think happy thougts about those whose political philosophy we happen to disagree with (and who happen to be non-white) we'll be branded racist leftists because David Horowitz said so...
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 2:23pm
JMAN, not only will KMG4 call us racists, but then add on the "brain-dead liberal faggots" talk. It's enough to make a cracker's head spin!
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 2:27pm
"Yes, being in the military makes one more conservative."
So you admit your stats were not used correctly then?
1) The military teaches people about the real world and common sense.
I agree. But then again the real world teaches a lot about that as well. Common sense is not exclusive to the military.
2) The military teaches people about honor, duty, and manners.
So does the mob (just Joking) These are traits to be admired indeed. The military helped teach that to liberal John Kerry I'm sure. Perhaps Bush and Rumsfeld should have joined. Honor seems to be one of their shortcomings. Again these are not traits exclusive to the miliary though. But it certianly does teach it.
3) The military teaches people about physical fitness.
So do athletics. What does that have to do with being conservative? As a matter of fact my brother in the army told me basics was easier than wrestling which he was involved with before the military. Al Franken seems to be in better shape than Rush so I guess conservatism and progressivism have notheing to do with fitness.
"These are conservative traits and are in direct opposition to the characteristics exhibited by most leftists."
Just listing a bunch of traits and saying conservatives have it and progressives don't is a load. Nor does it make it true. Unless you think John Kerry is a conservative or wasn't in the military. My guess is your military service didn't include actual combat or a real chance to die like it did in the Vietnam era. It is just a guess though.
I should also clarify my position on the military producing conservative attitudes a little. It produces that now. During the Vietnam war era there were far more "liberals" in the military than there are today. I am not against the military. I told my brother it was a good option for him, write to him weekly and tell him I am proud of how he is leading his life. But get off your sanctimonius high horse about it. As your own stats showed there are others doing their duty other than conservatives as well. Not to mention other ways to obtain the same qualities you mentioned than the military.
Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 2:32pm
ORAIBI152 LOL! Having the TOP Company in my battalion and one of the TOP producing companies in all of USAREC..ranked in the 10% allows me the a certain amount of leeway. FYI my company made Mission Box. Overproduced by 127%
But also FYI I feel its important to "know your enemy" or in this case ones ideological opponent, to counter some of the arguments that we encounter, mainly from young liberals. Ok please give me a clear and RATIONAL answer to the following question regarding the standard Liberal line that Bush "lied" us into the war over WMD.
If Bush indeed "LIED," as so many of you state with absolute certainty, then WHY did he send us into IRAQ, knowing that his "lie" was going to be discovered, once we knocked down the doors? And a full 20 months before the election in 04?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that Bush thought this would help him win a re-election? Again how would "lying" us into a war, a WAR not just any endeavor, and knowing the "lie" was going to be known to all, help ANY politician in a re-election campaign?
If you think it through rationally you will come to only one logical conclusion. Now before you respond with a bunch of non-sensical and mean-spirited insults, I would really like a response to the question, try and stay with the question. About 70% liberals cannot answer the others answer with the following:
"Well because Bush was counting on you Bushies to be too stupid to notice!! You dumb blind Bushie!"<< my favorite and least rational since it doesn't even remotely answer the question.
"Because he wanted to make his oil buddies rich, and that's all he cares about is the oil!!"<< this doesn't make much sense since high gas prices has spurned research into alternative sources. Business 101 says CREATE a demand, not alienate your market and encourage them to reduce demand.
"Well because he was counting on a short war and the Iraqis greeting us as liberators so by the time of the election people would forget, and you Bushies did"<< the rationale being Bush was hoping that people would forget? Are you serious with this? In this day age of 24hr media coverage? Not likely in the least, especially with all of the attention Bush himself gave to the WMD reports, in other words if he lied..why would you bring so much attention to the thing that you lie about? Answer, you wouldn't.
Now as tempting as it is going to be to just continue to bash Bush, here is a novel thought and suggestion. How about giving me a rational, thoughtful, and logical argument/answer. So far not one Liberal that I have asked, granted most of the ones I do ask are a bit on FAR FAR Left, can give me a RATIONAL answer devoid of any petty insults.
Posted by CPT at 08/23/2005 @ 2:32pm
Well, I think that the "brain-dead liberal faggots" talk is because we don't do exactly what Dubya & Co. tell us to do & because we don't think exactly like Rice, Thomas etc. I guess that makes us racist. Oh well, at least I'm not racist & homophobic. I'd hate to be two things at once.
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 2:34pm
"brain-dead liberal faggots"...KMG4 has demonstrated that he is unworthy of reponse. There are some thoughtful rightwingers at our(the Nation) blogs, but this lowlife is not one of them.
Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 2:39pm
"Both Democrats and Republicans are mostly on OUR side, not yours. tee hee."
That's pretty much why I wish that we "brain-dead liberal faggots" could refrain from "debating" with children and discuss how to bring sanity back into our government. I think the point of Ari's post was to discuss the idea of Dems as a real opposition party.
Posted by rain man at 08/23/2005 @ 2:39pm
As the truncated email below demonstrates, the Democratic Party's state organizations are leading the way in the effort to get out of Iraq. ****************************
Arizona Democratic Party Says, "Mr. President, bring our troops home - and BTW, please fully fund their benefits."
Rev. Gerry Straatemeier, AZ State Democratic Committeewoman August 22, 2005
Let us as Democrats take the lead to bring the US out of this quagmire.
This past weekend, amidst the cool Northern Arizona pines in Flagstaff, AZ, some very significant progress took place within the Arizona Democratic Party at its quarterly State Committee Meeting.
A resolution passed unanimously, asking the President and Congress, in support of our men and women in uniform and their families, to withdraw our troops from Iraq "as expeditiously and responsibly" as possible, and to fully fund veterans benefits. Arizona has thus became the seventh state Democratic Party to pass such resolutions, joining California, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:40pm
CPT: who was the last sitting president to be voted out of office when the U.S. was at war? Turns out Iraq was a win-win electoral decision.
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 2:41pm
CPT: you cannot call for a rational reponse, and then limit the acceptable reponses. Actually, you outlined several very good answers that millions have been saying for three years. You cannot push those answers aside. The very fact that you rule out these answers in advance show that you are afraid of them. And your intellectual exercise is a fraud. Look in the mirror...there is the fool.
Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 2:46pm
Once again, we've given the Bushbots the undue dignity of responding to their rants (although I still would like an example of a leftist that is upset that Saddam is out of power). If we could ignore them for a sec, who do you think will distinguish themselves as a real opposition candidates? It won't take going too far left of center to do that.
Posted by RAIN MAN 08/23/2005 @ 2:09
You are right on that one rain man. As I have said before I got distracted I think men standing up for their beliefs and showing who they are, not their party, is the way to regain what we want. That is more progressive leadership. For myself I think it's time to quit taking the bait and getting distracted. It really is one of the neocons best traits. Maybe all of us faggot liberals should just stick to topic. It gives them no place to go. All together now repeat the following.
I promise to stay on task. Only to respond to valid debate on the subject at hand. I will not give in to the temptation to be distracted and respond to any number of irrelevant points. So help me God, Ala, Budda, or whatever being I believe in.
There now let's get back to the business at hand. Anyone else think Fiengold is on the right path to buck party trends and define himself?
Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 2:49pm
CPT,
Tell us the name of your recruiting company and where it is located.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:50pm
Hillary,Biden, and all the pro-war Democrats have only the Biznocrats at the Democratic Leadership Council and AIPAC behind them. They are whistleing in the wind.
Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 2:51pm
ZAKQUIET, I am not sure yet (about Feingold). I haven't decided which of these clowns is just following the polls & which of them truly means what they say.
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 2:54pm
We have reached a tipping point in this war. Today I am finally 'liberated' from the tired old Democratic Party. I will continue to vote for Democrats, I'm sure - simply because they are closer to my viewpoint on most issues, for example environmental protection.
The real contribution Cindy Sheehan has made is to elevate the discourse on a true exit strategy from Iraq. Tom Hayden and others picked up on her contribution immediately - an opening to get the dialogue going & finally bring this horrible war to an end.
If I were Bush, I would have met with Sheehan - but that's beside the point now. The point of what she did for ALL of us is to get practical-minded, concerned citizens - liberal and conservative alike (think Feingold & Hagel) to pressure our representatives to pursue a plan to get us out of Iraq.
Bush is in never-never land on the issue, he speaks in platitudes only, and he can't even give a speech in Utah, of all places, without attracting an anti-war rally led by the mayor of Salt Lake City.
There's another election in 2006, and you'd better believe a lot of the folks running will be for a sensible, sane plan for withdrawing from Iraq - and yes, that includes a TIMETABLE for American troop withdrawal.
God Bless Russ Feingold AND Chuck Hagel. Let the dialogues begin for an exit strategy.
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 2:56pm
IT DOESNT MATTER...THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ON TO YOU LIBS AND WILL NEVER VOTE YOU IN OFFICE AGAIN AS LONG AS YOUR WEAKNESS IN THE DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY IS SOOO BLANTENTLY APPARENT....
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 2:59pm
ILP, sorry didn't mean to ignore you (re your 1:41 post). If you understood the 2 maps at the first link, the rest are pretty much the same.
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 3:02pm
KMG4 wrote to Rainman:
"Dude, if you can't debate on the internet, what must it be like in person?
Anyway, we are in the majority, not you. Even Democratic Senators have rejected what you brain-dead liberal faggots say"
KMG4's in the "majority", so what does he choose to do with his free time? He spends it at a liberal blog. Poetic justice that the liberal-haters are drawn to spend much of their free time with liberals.
"Brain-dead liberal faggots". Ah, that's the way to "debate".
Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 3:03pm
KMG4 wrote:
"And yes, Rice should have known this. That is why we need the Patriot Act, and it has protected us for 48 months to date"
How can you attribute us not being attacked in America since 9/11 to the Patriot Act? If we do get attacked with the Patriot Act intact, who's to blame then?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 3:06pm
Is there a way for sites like this to provide filters such that you can create a list of posters you aren't interested in? Technology must provide a way to allow me to skip by the knee-jerk diatribes of KMG4, Alundra (dude - the caps lock key is a toggle) etc. while still engaging in interesting dispute with folks like OKSPORTSGUY and others who can actually string together an argument. I enjoy interacting with folks on the right who offer up reasoned, thoughful points of view - of course they're wrong! - but there's a sense of give and take.
I think when the "brain-dead liberal faggot" comments start up (Posted by KMG4 08/23/2005 @ 2:12pm), that's when it's clear that rationale thought has exited, stage right. And please, don't respond to these idiotic comments indicating that folks that disapprove of policies being promulgated by non-whites are racist. This tactic (in essence a real life version of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety) has been a god-send for the right wing.
Posted by Fishbite at 08/23/2005 @ 3:06pm
To KNG4:
We seem to have a difference of opinion on these matters.
Well, 52% of people did think Bush is competence. Of course, for leftists, the majority opinion (a.k.a. Democracy) does not matter.
If 99% of the people were to state they believe the world is flat, I would still contend that it is round.
I don't think Gonzales is legalizing any unreasonable form of torture.
There is no such thing as a reasonable form of torture.
I see nothing wrong with Thomas as a justice, as he interprets the US constitution correctly (it is his job).
I can interpret the Constitution, too, and I don't even have a law degree. And, if I were inclined to do so, I, too, could sit on the Supreme Court and seldom ask questions and simply sign my name to any opinion written by some other member of the court.
When he was nominated, Thomas' credentials to sit on the court were challenged and his character questioned by Anita Hill, who, like Justice Thomas, is an Afro-American conservative.
In my judgment, Thomas was nominated because he was young at the time and had little paper trail with which one could find fault -- which is another way of saying he wasn't terribly distinguished. He has done little since to persuade me that he is of the stature that one would desire of a Supreme Court Justice.
And yes, Rice should have known [that al Qaeda might use airplanes as missiles]. That is why we need the Patriot Act, and it has protected us for 48 months to date.
NathanHale could be making a reference to the presidential briefing of August 6, 2001 [cnn.com]. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from that briefing:
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America" . . . .
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
In her testimony before the September 11 Commission, Dr. Rice said that the memo "lacked specifics". While I agree with Dr. Rice that there was no silver bullet that might have prevented the attacks, it was absurd to be dismissive of this report on the grounds that it "lacked specifics". The memo mentions Osama, the World Trade Center and hijacked planes. Did she want to know what seats the terrorists would occupy on which flights?
While we cannot be certain that anything would have prevented the attacks, more urgency given to what was by then a known to be a threat might have. That nothing was done is a valid and serious criticism of the White House (i.e., Mr. Bush) and the NSA (i.e., Dr. Rice).
The absence of the Patriot Act did not prevent either Mr. Bush or Dr. Rice from knowing of this threat. It is a red herring in your argument.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 3:12pm
I don't know how old most of you folks are who are making comments, but let's knock off the juvenile back and forth about sexual orientation. It's pointless.
Here's an actual EXIT STRATEGY PROPOSAL which I copped from the Progressive Democrats of America website. Perfect? No. Starting point? Yes. If you'd like to make comments or criticisms to it, try to refrain from juvenile name-calling and address the substance. I challenge you to come up with a better plan if you don't like it:
Thank you/Envirovarmint
THE PLAN:
We propose the following principles as essential to ending the war in Iraq:
First, as a confidence-building measure, the U.S. government must declare that it has no interest in permanent military bases or the control of Iraqi oil or other resources.
Second, as a further confidence-building measure, the U.S. government must set goals for ending the occupation and bringing all our troops home - in months, not years, beginning with an initial withdrawal of troops by the end of this year.
Third, the U.S. government must request that the United Nations monitor the process of military disengagement and de-escalation, and organize a peaceful reconstruction effort. The U.S. must accept its obligation to fairly compensate Iraqis for damages, assist Iraqi reconstruction, cease the imposition of privatization schemes, and end the dominance of U.S. contractors in the bidding process.
Fourth, the U.S. government should appoint a peace envoy independent of the occupation authorities to underscore its commitment to an entirely different mission, that of a peace process ending the occupation and returning our soldiers home.
Fifth, the peace envoy should encourage and cooperate in talks with Iraqi groups opposed to the occupation, including insurgents, to explore a political settlement. The settlement must include representation of opposition forces and parties, and power-sharing and the protection of women's rights as core principles of governance and economic and energy development. We believe such an initiative will reduce, though not eliminate, violence by lessening any rationale for Jihadist or sectarian conflict.
We send this message to all Americans in civil society, to our elected officials, and to the global peace movement. We demand that Congressional hearings begin to define an exit strategy now. We demand that members of Congress, reflecting the will of the people, adopt policy and budget initiatives that call for an exit strategy based on the above principles. We demand a peace envoy, peace talks with the opposition, reconstruction, the closure of U.S. bases, and the safe return home of all U.S. troops.
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 3:13pm
URMYGYRO,
"How can you attribute us not being attacked in America since 9/11 to the Patriot Act? If we do get attacked with the Patriot Act intact, who's to blame then?" This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they found a bear in town so the towns people demanded a bear patrol. Homer attributed the fact that there were no bears around to the bear patrol. Lisa reminded him that using his logic, one could say that the rock she picked up from the ground was warding off tigers. With that Homer says "Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock". Hey, guess what? I've got some plastic & duct tape that could save your life in the event of a chemical weapons attack by terrorists. I'm taking bids for the next 20 minutes...
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 3:14pm
I would like to make a request that people stop using the term "weak on defense" - or for that matter, "strong on defense."
The U.S. has probably been the most militarily active nation on the planet over the last century, and with the exception of fighting ourselves in the civil war we have never engaged in defensive battles. (Some will protest that we are defending ourselves against 19 dead Saudis and Egyptians right now by having started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; such immoral imbeciles should be ignored or taunted.)
Posted by Jason_Justice at 08/23/2005 @ 3:16pm
FISHBITE,
Yes, I do think most leftists are racists. I think you are too. If you disagree, please answer the following question :
1) Is it OK for a minority (whether black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.) to have the right to be a conservative and/or vote for the GOP, if they choose to?
Answer this simple question. Let's see if you can string together a coherent argument.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 3:22pm
Really, there is no need to worry. Reality is going to force a retreat from Iraq. The public no longer consents to the war and now largely believes it has been lied to by the power that started the war. Trust and credibility have been shattered in a sufficient majority to spell D-O-O-M for the Bush administration and any who stand with it. The question is whether or not the Democrat faction chooses to observe the obvious and then pursue the obvious responses of strongly opposing continuing the war to which the public no longer consents and appearing oppose the no longer credible power. If the Democrats choose to oppose, they will gain power, if not, they will join the Republicans in drifting further out of touch from the general public and in particular the "liberals" the Democrats wish to claim as their electoral base.
Given the quality of the relationship the Democratic party establishment now apparently has with the people it wants to claim as its base (increasingly poor) it's my belief that the Democrats ought to ditch their establishment figureheads and rally around a "maverick" who at least seems to side with the disenfranchised, alienated, and increasingly apathetic base, as well as the public in general that doesn't want more troops sent to Iraq.
Nothing to worry about. The questions at hand all have clear answers for the relevant parties.
Posted by Zero at 08/23/2005 @ 3:25pm
At least JASON_JUSTICE is honest about hating the US, unlike other leftists.
At least he can admit that the 50 million killed by Mao and the 40 million killed by the USSR in the last 60 years were something he approves of, since Communism is his ideology and the ends justify the means.
At least he is honest in stating that WW2 after the Pearl Harbor attack and the 2001 War in Afghanistan after 9/11 were not conducive to furthering the goals of those who hate the US (like he), and thus he, logically for an anti-American, opposes these actions.
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 3:26pm
JASON_JUSTICE's disturbingly ignorant statements are why leftists are completely out of touch.
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/23/2005 @ 3:26pm
Enviro.... Problem with Principle One of your plan: how do we know the Bush administration has no plan for permanent military base(s) in Iraq?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/23/2005 @ 3:27pm
THEJMAN,
Never mind that the Senate voted 98-1 in favor of the Patriot Act, and is voting again by a similar margin to renew it (destroying the Michael Moore claim that they voted for it in haste without reading it).
Well, if leftists cared about what the majority wants, they would not be leftists. tee hee
Posted by kmg4 at 08/23/2005 @ 3:28pm
Democrats have to stick to their postitions on topics. None of this "I voted for this before I voted against it" nonsense. The evironment, deficit-spending, stem-cell research... There are plenty of issues you can win swing voters on.
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/23/2005 @ 3:30pm
KMG4
Where did he say anything about MAO, USSR or communism?
Posted by BSF at 08/23/2005 @ 3:31pm
"Reality is going to force a retreat from Iraq. The public no longer consents to the war and now largely believes it has been lied to by the power that started the war. Trust and credibility have been shattered in a sufficient majority to spell D-O-O-M for the Bush administration and any who stand with it"
UNFORTUNATE LIBERAL WISHFUL THINKING.....SO SAD THEY WISH OUR COUNTRY DEFEAT..TO BAD FOR THEM IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN!!!!..HOPE YOU LIBS ARE PROUD OF YOURSELVES...
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 3:31pm
KMG4 is obviously a repressed homosexual...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 3:32pm
EVIRO,
1-Definately. We can't say we won't engage in nation building & then have plans to build one of the largest military bases outside of the US in Iraq.
2-Somewhat agree. I think that the withdrawal should be in weeks, not months. Actually, an immediate withdrawal is ideal, but might not be possible realistically.
3-Agree completely.
4-Agree that a peace envoy needs to be appointed, however it should be under the command of the UN. I don't think it is in the best interests of the Iraqis to have a peace envoy under the command of one nation (no matter who it is).
5-Agree. All voices need to be heard & civil rights need to be upheld (including the right to worship freely or not at all).
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 3:32pm
Just an observation. I can't remember the last time I saw Michael Moore mentioned here except via conservative commentary.
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 3:35pm
THE FAT ONE WILL SIT NEXT YOUR NOMINEE AT YOUR NEXT LIB CONVENTION....DONT WORRY HE ALWAYS LURKS AROUND THE FOOLISH
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 3:38pm
Nathanhale - I think that's the point: Bush probably DOES have a plan for permanent military bases in Iraq. It is important for our government to formally take the position that there will be no permanent military bases, nor a desire to control their oil, in order to gain credibility in Iraq and the rest of the world.
I have no illusions that Bush would buy into this. It is a starting point, as stated, and it IS possible to get some support for some variation of this proposal in the US House of Representatives & from candidates who will be running in '06.
EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 3:39pm
CPT:
You opined that it would be illogical for Bush to mislead the public regarding the justification fot the war and said, "Well because Bush was counting on you Bushies to be too stupid to notice!! You dumb blind Bushie!"<< my favorite and least rational since it doesn't even remotely answer the question."
- 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
- 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
- 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).
Harris Interactive Poll (Feb. 18, 2005).
Do want you want to rethink? Seems pretty "stupid" to me.
Harris Interactive Poll taken
Harris Interactive Poll taken
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 3:40pm
NOT GONNA HAPPEN
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 3:40pm
RAIN MAN: I try to engage in debate with everyone who comes to this website and wants to debate. I assume that the debater will stick to the issues and avoid ad hominum attacks. So, until proven otherwise, I won't ignore a person just because he/she is a right winger.
But once the person's responses begin to degenerate into insults and nonsense, I either ignore the person of make fun of him/her. I will continue with this policy in the future, but I respect your approach as well.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 3:42pm
We really need a filter option on this site.
Posted by rain man at 08/23/2005 @ 3:47pm
CPT, Like every other conservative who comes on here, you ask for a credible argument to support the accusation that Bush lied. Let me tell you, there have been dozens posted by KEVIN COLLINS, HMAN23, PHILBQ and others. So often, in fact, that I am tired of reading them. Check some of the older blog topics and their associated posts and you will find plenty to keep you reading for hours.
If you want me to respond to that question, my answer is I think Bush truly believes all that crap he's been saying for 3 years. I don't think he lied, I think he's too wrapped up in his own religious fanaticism to consider the facts.
Frankly, I think he has been "played" by Richard Pearle and other neocons who wanted the war and didn't care one way or the other if the reasons were true or not.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 3:50pm
To BSF:
Well, KMG4 has had his opportunity here this morning and he has demonstrated that he is about as worthy of attention as Aludra, NACL or JZimm (or Jones/Neverong, if you want a faux leftist tossed into the mix).
He assures us that leftists (and some liberals) are racists because they oppose presidential nominees of color for the same reasons oppose some white nominees. He assures us that leftists are undemocratic because they express views that go against the grain of public opinion. And how he divined support for Communism into Jason Justice's post, I really don't know.
A couple of points before closing this out:
1. Directed to KMG4: I support the right of any individual to embrace any idea he sees fit, including that of an Afro-American to be a conservative.
2. On Jason Justice's post: I disagree with what he said. We went into Afghanistan in order to defend ourselves against future attacks by al Qaida; it was, of course, pointless to defend ourselves against 19 dead hijackers. Nevertheless, while I disagree and find his reasoning fallacious, I do not read into it a hatred of America and certainly not an embrace of Communism. He may hate America and he may be a Communist, but I can't tell it from that post.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 3:52pm
TJMAN - Thx for feedback. I agree it would be great to get all troops home today - but as you say it is unrealistic. Russ Feingold sort of 'tested the waters' with a less aggressive version of this very proposal. He is proposing withdrawals starting in '06, I think. But he said the same thing I did at this discussion forum: THIS IS A STARTING POINT!
No plan by anybody is going to totally eliminate insurgent attacks in Iraq. But this 5-point proposal would greatly lessen the attacks, because the US would be demonstrating a desire to be constructive rather than destructive. Unfortunately, the current directionless quagmire is creating more insurgents on a daily basis.
EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 3:55pm
WITH THAT KIDA 5 POINT THINKING THANK GOD YOU LIBS DONT RUN ANYTHING ANYMORE....YOUR DANGEROUS
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 3:57pm
Hey Aludra - I specifically challenged each of you to come up with a better plan if you didn't like mine. So dude, where's your plan?
EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 4:03pm
THE PRESIDENTS PLAN
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 4:07pm
The President's Plan? ... can you be more specific, please? "Democracy is on the march" doesn't qualify as a plan.
Chuck Hagel even said the President has no plan.
EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 4:09pm
ENVIRO, I agree that what you presented was a starting point (just to clarify). I took the points and ran with them in the direction that I feel best suites the situation. Sure, it seems like Feingold 'tested the waters'. I don't disagree. I would just like to see someone take a more aggressive stance as far as withdrawal of troops goes.
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 4:10pm
ALUDRA
Besides a constant mantra of "Stay the course", what exactly does that plan entail?
Posted by BSF at 08/23/2005 @ 4:10pm
Yes, "stay the course" & "get the job done" are not plans (as many have said here before). Just meaningless propaganda slogans.
Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 4:11pm
ENVIROVARMINT, you have to learn to not accept not getting anything from ALUDRA but robotic answers. I am convinced ALUDRA is actually a right-wing computer program and not a person.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 4:12pm
IT IS NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU LIBS ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS ABOUT HIS PLAN IN IRAQ OR OTHER FRONTS ON THE WAR ON TERROR....PERHAPS IF YOU SPENT LESS TIME SLINGING MUD AT THE PRESIDENT AND ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 4:12pm
Aludra - I didn't sling any mud at W. In fact, in my earlier post where I presented a 5-point plan Exit strategy as a starting point, I asked for specifics, and no name-calling.
Since it 'isn't your job' as you put it, let the record show that Aludra has no plan.
EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 4:17pm
THEJMAN - Nothing wrong with a more aggressive stance on troop withdrawal .. thx. There's not a reason in the world the people of this country, thru their reps in Congress, can't develop a coherent, workable exit strategy from Iraq. And as I said in my very first post today, God bless Cindy Sheehan for getting us started.
EV
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 4:20pm
Actually, if you compare ALUDRA to KMG4 you are insulting ALUDRA. I have noticed that ALUDRA is just trying to make a point with all the name calling he does, and that point is that what he does isn't much different from some of the name calling that some liberals throw around. He had a very good post last week showing many examples, myself included. KMG4, on the other hand, is just a hatemonger; he is here to spew hate.
FREIHEIT, Yes I agree with you that there are racists on both sides. No argument there. But what about the two major parties? Let us look at the civil rights movement in the 20th century for the answer.
It was the Dems, led by LBJ, that passed civil rights legislation into law. For example, the Voting Rights Act in '65. I believe that it was on the occasion of the signing of the Civil Rights Act in '64 that LBJ remarked "we've lost the South for a generation," the "we" being the Democratic Party.
And wow, surprise surprise! The "Solid South" as it is known, which always voted Democrat in presidential elections because a Republican, Lincoln, freed the slaves, well now they always vote Republican because a Democrat ended Jim Crow laws.
Now, draw your own conclusions...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 4:21pm
"Chuck Hagel even said the President has no plan"
JOE LIEBERMAN SAYS STAY THE CORSE
HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON SAYS STAY THE COURSE
JOE BIDEN SAY STAY THE COUSE...INCREASE TROOPS
ANY FOOL CAN PLAY THAT GAME....BY THE WAY CHUCK HAGEL KNOWS HE WILL LOSE HIS PRIMARY RUN SO HE HAS DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT....HE IS A KOOK
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 4:23pm
I, for one, am grateful for the timidity of the majority of the elected democrats and the hawkishness of democrat leaders. It proves conclusively to anyone paying attention that there is no substantial difference between the two alleged parties. How is voting for dems going to end our immoral occupation of Iraq when the biggest hawks in the senate are Clinton, Biden and Lieberman? If there was any difference of opinion on any topic in Washington D.C., then there would be debates and opposition and there is none.
Posted by carpenters at 08/23/2005 @ 4:26pm
ORAIBI....sorry for late response.
The problem the Dems have is, they haven't figured out who's going to be in charge, and why the "others" have to shut up and tolerate it.
Is it going to be the Dean/Move On/Daily Kos side, going full-bore "liberal" and running on getting out of Iraq quick and dirty, and then trying to say any civil war is "Bush's fault for getting us in there in the first place"....AND risk another 30 years of "Dems weak on defense"?
Or is it going to be the Hillary/DLC/Biden wing with a "modified Bush Iraq plan", with no "strong" timetables for pull-out and a "tough stance...FDR during WW-2...blood 'n guts Truman" view on terrorism and national defense?
Right now, it's like the Hard Left side is about to detonate if the "sell-out Dems" don't jump on the Sheehan band-wagon and call for Bush's trial at The Hague....while the Washington Dems and Richardson/Warner Dems are trying hard as they can to avoid having to answer questions about Sheehan or Move On or whatever, and hope that the "Anybody But Republican" liberals "come around" in 2006.
Historically, I make an analogy to Chicago 1968 Dem Convention...with the "soft pro-war" Humphrey-ites and the "hard anti-war" Gene McCarthy-ites....and what MAY happen in 2006!
Posted by Mask at 08/23/2005 @ 4:27pm
PREPARE TO HAVE YOUR CLOCKS CLEANED AGAIN
Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 4:31pm
MASK, In any event, it will be interesting to watch...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 4:31pm
I'm really not sure, because it has been more slogan than substance, but the "plan" seems