Memo to Democrats

posted by Ari Berman on 08/23/2005 @ 10:54am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (170)

Subscribe Now

"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.

Comments (170)

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
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 to have been:

* invade Iraq;

* oust Saddam;

* have a colonial-style US governor general impose neoliberal economic deforms;

* get Iraqi politicians to write a constitution; and

* prevent terrorism from spreading.

The first two were real easy, and, since the Iraqi people didn't have anything to say about the third one, so that mission was also accomplished without problems. After that, it gets difficult.

The draft constitution presented yesterday [nytimes.com] is a disappointment. That is not because of anything it says; in fact, there are some good things in it. However, it doesn't really lay out the structure of the government; it says something about a parliament, a chamber of deputies and a president, but I'm not sure how they're supposed to relate to each other. In my judgment, this document is not ready for serious discussion.

As for preventing the spread of terrorism, since invading Iraq there have been terrorist strikes attributed to al Qaida around the world, including one six weeks ago in London. That should lay to waste the claims that we fight them there so we won't have to fight them here. A rocket attack from Jordan by jihadists last week against US ships in the Gulf of Aqaba suggests that international terrorists in the Middle East are getting stronger, not weaker. They had trouble setting off firecrackers in Iraq before the invasion, now they're killing foreign troops and Iraqi Shia in what looks like a civil war on sectarian grounds.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 4:34pm
"That should lay to waste the claims that we fight them there so we won't have to fight them here"

UH....EXCUSE ME....HOW MANY ATTACKS ON THE US SOIL SINCE 9/11 AGAIN???? UNBELIEVABLE

Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 4:36pm
To The Nation:

I don't like using it, but thank you for the ignore option. This thread looks a lot better without Aludra's "contributions".

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 4:41pm
CANT BEAT THE WAY LEFTIES SURE LOVE THEIR CENSORSHIP....

Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 4:50pm
Thanks for the idea, Jackrabbit!! I just 'ignored' Aludra as well. I gave him a chance, but he apparently is too immature to have an intelligent discussion about exiting from Iraq.

Feeling better already, EV

Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 4:50pm
Fishbite,

"brain-dead liberal faggot"

First, let me thank you for the compliment on enjoying reading my posts.

Second, I hear you brother!

I have been called "uneducated, Nascar watching, beer drinking, Christian, moronic, bigot, dumb conservative, ass hole, hypocrite" more than a dozen times.

Cutting through the diatribe, insults, and ignorance to find an intelligent post and response can sometimes be daunting.

Todd (the dum konservative) = )

Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 4:52pm
I will NOT use the ignore unless things get really bad. I am not here just to hear my own views...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 4:52pm
OKSG, Do they have a NASCAR race in OK? I don't think so... Guess you have to watch FOX for that, right? Anyway, I digress.

The point I want to make is that the discourse has become so uncivil in this country. We can't just disagree, it seems. We have to insult each other. At least I don't question your patriotism! But I must admit it is no fun to be called stupid or a**hole.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 4:55pm
Hey ILP,

You ARE a reasonable person and im sure a very nice one in real life. When I shout at the crazies in here I certainly dont include you on that list. I do enjoy reading your posts and hope you keep them up

Posted by aludra at 08/23/2005 @ 5:00pm
Physics,

I do watch Nascar actually, however I don't think however that watching Nascar makes one a "bad" person, or should be referenced as an indicator of one's intelligence level.

But to answer your question, no they don't have a Nascar track here in OK, I have to watch ESPN = )

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 5:01pm
ILOVEPHYSICS - I assure you I am not here to hear my own views. I am very interested in a true exit strategy from Iraq. Alludra was simply more interested in tearing people down & adding virtually nothing in terms of constructive solutions to a serious problem.

Thanks, EV

Posted by EnviroVarmint at 08/23/2005 @ 5:04pm
Mask,

I basically agree with your analysis, and I think the real answer for the Dems and the nation is somewhere in between Sheehan's come home now and Sen. Feingold's end of 2006 deadline.

I'm of the opinion that it is our troop presence in Iraq that must be reduced in order to move Iraq alone; this is in addition to not meddling heavy handedly in Iraq's constitutional process. Conversely, the problem with reducing the troops is, because we went it alone when it comes to Islamic nations participating in our Iraq military endeavor, there are no troops from Islamic nations who might be able to keep things from spinning out of control. Another Catch-22 for our nation.

Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 5:11pm
HEY MASK... You should follow politics more before you open your mouth: Howard Dean/MoveOn/DailyKos are NOT calling for immediate withdrawal. (I wish they were.) Please remove foot from mouth.

Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 5:12pm
To ILP (response to 4:52pm post):

I understand, and I hesitated to do it. I've posted on Democratic Underground for four years without using the ignore function there once, although I find a few posters there obnoxious. Of course, I've also moderated there and a mod cannot use the ignore button in any case; but he can, after some discussion with admins and other mods, ban disruptive members. Even on DU, which is not as monolithic as its reputation, obnoxious less often means politically incorrect as just simply rude and boorish.

Alludra does not contribute to rational discussion. Others can be annoying, but he goes way beyond that. And there are some from the right who post here, like RonS, who are a downright pleasure with whom to cross swords.

I found myself drawn into "arguing" with Aludra from time to time, but that "arguing" was more ridicule than rational. I don't enjoy that kind of thing.

This is the first time I've ever put a user on ignore on any discussion board and I hope it is the last.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 5:13pm
Progressives are tired of voting for the lesser evil War Party, who still vote in Congress for bigger and bigger military budgets. At a time when this country needs a Manhattan Project to be free of the oil economy, tax credits for alternative energy ,cheap solar panels, affordable hydrogen cars,etc., "our political party", the Democrats, keep voting for the war economy. With the exception of the Progressive Caucus in the House,The Democrats have become nearly useless.

Phil Quigley

Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 5:22pm
Lot of trolls out today. Parents must be visiting. So sad.

Posted by doog at 08/23/2005 @ 5:26pm
Phil,

"Progressives are tired of voting for the lesser evil War Party"

I can feel your pain bro…

Many conservatives (including myself) are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils as well.

I voted for Bush, primarily for his commitment to ending partial birth abortion, and his statement that he would stand behind an amendment to the U.S. constitution defining marriage (although he has conveniently put that issue on the back burner as soon as he got my vote and was put back in office). I also like the tax cuts he pushed through. I know he has not been honest about the war however, and I have serious criticism of how he has, and currently is handling both the war on terror in general and Iraq specifically.

However I do believe that democrats have an overall domestic policy that is more in line with working people. I would like to vote for the dem's because of their platform on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but I seriously disagree with the dem's on most (not all) social issues.

What can I do?

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 5:34pm
JR, I see your point and respect your decision.

OKSG, I wish we could have talked before the election last year. I could have told you the marriage ammendment thing was just a wedge issue to get votes and would drop of the RADAR as soon as the election was over. Sorry they snookered you on that one, bud.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 5:42pm
The following interview of Ed Asner was passed on to me by our friend Pamela at the Democratic Daily.

A Democratic Daily exclusive:

Last week, I had the opportunity to interview actor, activist Ed Asner. Ed Asner is a longtime activist for many causes dear to liberals. He's a brilliant, sensitive man with a profound understanding of the current pulse of politics in our nation.

My thanks to Ed Asner, for taking the time to speak in depth with me on wealth of subjects including his longtime involvement as an activist, Cindy Sheehan, the new book about the Bush administration that he co-authored with Burt Hall: Misuse of Power, what he loves most about America .

Pamela: At a time when we could certainly use more outspoken activists, the question for any great activist is what inspired you to get involved?

Ed Asner: I've always considered myself a liberal. Coming up in the blacklist era, the question was always do I shut up and go along, or be in the same boat with those blacklisted.

When El Salvador happened, I asked myself, if not now, when? In what was a humanistic statement, I became the spokesman for medical aid to El Salvador. When attacks were launched against me verbally for my participation, I responded in kind. I was somewhat blacklisted. My acts forestalled my going gently into that good night. I learned a savage lesson.

******************************************

Click on the link below to read the remainder of Pamela's Ed Asner interview.

Pamela's Interview of Ed Asner [blog.thedemocraticdaily.com]

Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:00pm
Democrats too stupid to oppose tyranny

The Democratic Party, not that anyone gives a crap, will enjoy an extraordinary if undeserved opportunity in 2006 to cut the congressional bubbles out from under the pathetic, sinking Bush duck – but whether its candidates will be smart enough to cash in is highly problematic. If by some stretch they were astute enough to take up the GOP-forsaken banner of constitutional social tolerance – and combine it with an only slightly more conservative economic and tax policy (kind of like the old Texas Democratic Party, remember them?), they could easily retake the Hill. But don't hold your breath, and even if they did, so what?

The "Party of the People" is far too corrupted itself by the narcotic of state power to lead society away from the tragic, paranoid nightmare the Administration's vicious warmongers have visited upon us.

The conservative majority peddled its utterly thoughtless, constitutionally fatal loyalty for a pottage, nothing more than insultingly miniscule tax cuts and lip flap about stem cells and abortion. You can almost understand the contempt the neocons must surely have for George's core constituency, while herding their kids into the grinder of "outreach democracy."

Of course, government by neocon fascists is as congenitally incompetent as by any other tyrant. Not only can they not secure the highway from Baghdad to it's airport, nor keep enough humvee armor nor body armor on hand to protect our children, nor convince anyone with a dictionary that quagmire means something different, every literate human on this planet now knows with certainty that this government is in so deep it can no longer do anything BUT lie.

Notice how these old statists bless each other's libraries, jointly collect money for worthy natural catastrophes and nod together knowingly when the inevitability of a (nonpartisan) draft is contemplated. Call Greenspan and tell him to crank up the rates another notch, too many jobs and we miss our recruiting goals. And maybe in spite of the brain-numbing they just received at the hands of the public education system, enough 18-year-olds are starting to snap to the fact that the "free" college education doesn't kick in until your tour of duty ends. And well. And, ah, if.

Be sure to wake me when the gaggle (or fewer) of clueless New Democrats gleefully don the vacant spineless-noodle suits and repeal nothing, free no unjustly imprisoned political miscreants, and sign en masse onto the next obscene "Patriot" Act. But for starters, all anyone really needs to do is just bring the troops home. So why does it already look like Chuck Hagel would do this and Hillary wouldn't?

Not that we didn't already know, but in recent days Democratic leaders have unaccountably let it become obvious. Glibly oblivious to their constitutionally sworn duty to call off the War on Liberty and the War for Oil, and no matter what they may say while campaigning, they apparently have no leadership that could or would even consider such a bizarre tact as standing up for individual civil freedoms, privacy from government snoops and non-intervention in foreign affairs. Quite the contrary; I think they can hardly wait to get their hands on the unbelievable power the Republicans have usurped and amassed.

lbrantley Former Chair, Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas and activist for Ron Paul, term limits (except for Ron Paul), anti-tax measures, school choice, ballot access, initiative and referendum and many other wonderful ideas.

Posted by lbrantley at 08/23/2005 @ 6:04pm
OKSPortsguy: I'm really trying to avoid sounding crass here, but, what you do it realize that the Republican party doesn't actually support the moral issues that are important to you (as you and ILP point out). Maybe you could "vote the Bible" based on the Gospels and focus less on the fallacy of the Republican "family values" meme. It's a sham...seriously, even a LITTLE research will illuminate the tremendous disparity between the practices of the Republican party (particularly Bush's administration) and the teachings of Jesus.

Posted by AnonymousDog at 08/23/2005 @ 6:06pm
To Todd (response to your 5:34pm post):

However I do believe that democrats have an overall domestic policy that is more in line with working people. I would like to vote for the dem's because of their platform on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but I seriously disagree with the dem's on most (not all) social issues.

Can we talk about that? I've complained for some time that the term is not an oxymoron and know a lot of people who prove it all the time. I wish they would stop being condescending to people whom they think of as "hicks".

It's one of the reasons I like to call myself a progressive rather than a liberal. There are even some features of Goldwater conservatism I like.

Now, what I can say is this: I am a freethinker; as such, I have no business telling a Christian how to worship or what to believe. When I say I believe in a woman's right to choose, that means I'll throw a big a fuss for any woman who is forced against her will to get an abortion as for the woman who is prevented from getting one. I am for gay rights, but I can't make you like like gay people and I'm not going to do anything more than is reasonsable to make you tolerate like them; you may interpret the Bible as you wish. No one is going to force you into a homosexual relationship.

I don't want to threaten your right to believe anything you want. I do think that at times it makes better public to tolerate some disagreeable behavior than to try to outlaw it or keep it outlawed.

As disagreeable as you may find them, things like abortion and gay rights do not directly effect you. Show me a "liberal" candidate for public office who says he's going to ban the Bible and I'll help you defeat him. Republican economic policies may harm you. Would you benefit if social security were strengthened? Would you benefit from universal health coverage? Would you benefit from stronger labor laws and a revitalized labor movement that increase your take home pay? Would your children benefit from better public schools?

Liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever you call them are not against the traditional family. It is the best way to raise children into productive adults. I can't even imagine a better one.

Democrats don't necessarily need to give an inch on social issues, but they do need to say to people like you: Vote for us, and we will help life better for you and your traditional family.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 6:10pm
Correcting my first paragat at 6:10;m

Can we talk about that? I've complained for some time that the term liberal elitistis not an oxymoron and know a lot of people who prove it all the time. I wish they would stop being condescending to people whom they think of as "hicks".

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 6:13pm
Let me try that 6:10pm post again . . .

To Todd:

However I do believe that democrats have an overall domestic policy that is more in line with working people. I would like to vote for the dem's because of their platform on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but I seriously disagree with the dem's on most (not all) social issues.

Can we talk about that? I've complained for some time that the term liberal elitist is not an oxymoron and know a lot of people who prove it all the time. I wish they would stop being condescending to people whom they think of as "hicks".

It's one of the reasons I like to call myself a progressive rather than a liberal. There are even some features of Goldwater conservatism I like.

Now, what I can say is this: I am a freethinker; as such, I have no business telling a Christian how to worship or what to believe. When I say I believe in a woman's right to choose, that means I'll throw as big a fuss for any woman who is forced against her will to get an abortion as for the woman who is prevented from getting one. I am for gay rights, but I can't make you like like gay people and I'm not going to do anything more than is reasonsable to make you tolerate them; you may interpret the Bible as you wish. No one is going to force you into a homosexual relationship.

I don't want to threaten your right to believe anything you want. I do think that at times it makes better public policy to tolerate some disagreeable behavior than to try to outlaw it or keep it outlawed.

As disagreeable as you may find them, things like abortion and gay rights do not directly effect you. Show me a "liberal" candidate for public office who says he's going to ban the Bible and I'll help you defeat him. Republican economic policies may harm you. Would you benefit if social security were strengthened? Would you benefit from universal health coverage? Would you benefit from stronger labor laws and a revitalized labor movement that increase your take home pay? Would your children benefit from better public schools?

Liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever you call them are not against the traditional family. It is the best way to raise children into productive adults. I can't even imagine a better one.

Democrats don't necessarily need to give an inch on social issues, but they do need to say to people like you: Vote for us, and we will help life better for you and your traditional family.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 6:29pm
God help you guys if you ever come up with a good idea.

Posted by whyme at 08/23/2005 @ 7:27pm
WHYME, To whom are you referring? Everyone on this thread? That includes righties, lefties and independents you know...Please be more specific - most of us are not mind readers.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 7:47pm
ORAIBI1952, ILOVEPHYSICS, PHILBQ, ILOVEPHYSICS

Sorry it took so long to get back to some of my critics.

ILOVE, sorry i dont intend to come off sounding sanctimonious, merely trying to make a point, it is a post on a blog after all.

ORAIBI1952: You dont seriously expect me to post on a public website my contact infomation, which in essence would be the effect of me telling you that.

PHILBQ: Sorry, I merely wanted a RATIONAL response which is the only criteria I asked...those that I had mentioned are not RATIONAL, most clear thinking Americans agree those positions are not rational.

HMAN23: Interesting take, but wrong, many responsible intell agencies believed the same thing, no doubt here comes the endless list of pre-war critics. I assume you are part of the "nothing whatsoever" connection between AQ and SADDAM.

Well I cede that there is no beyond reasonable doubt evidence, American court of law proof that SADDAM and AQ had a connection, but there is alot of GOOD circumstantial evidence of a connection, probably not on 911, but after recent revealations of the 911 commission their credibility is in question, then at the very least SADDAM was complicit in allowing AQ to use his country as a base.

Now many will chime in "NO CONNECTION YOU BIG DUMB BUSHBOT" but consider this, firstly it was "no OPERATIONAL link" key word in caps. Secondly, after the fall of Bagdad it was approximately a month before ZARAQAWI set up shop. Now since most of you on the LEFT are ABSOLUTLY CERTAIN that there was no AQ in IRAQ before the invasion. ZARAQAWI had to set up his entire operation in the northern part of IRAQ in approximately 6 weeks timeframe.

Consider what it takes to set-up a Terrorists operation, bent on killing and not getting caught. safe houses, alternate safe houses, routes to and from the safe house, alternate routes to and from the safe house. routes in and out of the city, alternate routes in and out of the city, alternate safe houses in other towns, financing securing of munitions, medical supplies, ammunition re-supply, spare parts to replace rifle parts, medical techincians or doctors. Detailed knowledge of the cities in Northern Iraq to go carry out attacks. Plus much more, all associated with these activities, than I could list.

All in such a little amount of time, considering the area he had to cover? Nope, It doesnt pass the smell test. HENCE...AQ MUST have been in Iraq before hand, that is to much to coordinate in such a short time span.

Granted it is still circumstantial, but I do not chose to give AQ or SADDAM the benefit of the doubt in a POST 911 world, to much at stake. Terrorists live in a shadow world, murky and not easily defined, they walk between the rain drops and they depend on not allowing smoking gun proof so as to paralyze action against them. So no HMAN23 I dont believe it is out of the realm of possiblity, those people in that poll probably believe something along similair lines.

Posted by CPT at 08/23/2005 @ 7:50pm
CPT, Allow me to suggest an alternative to the admittedly large task of Zaraqawi setting up shop in 6 weeks: Perhaps after the US attacked, then the insurgency that Saddam most certainly organized before the war decided to invite Zaraqawi to work with them or use some of their assets for a parallel effort.

In other words, the Baathist decided on an operational link with AQ precisely as a response to US aggression.

Alternative possibility #2: Zaraqawi joined AQ after he became an insurgent in Iraq, after being aided by the underground insurgency that Saddam must have certainly planned in advance of the war.

Could we have driven the Iraqis into the arms of our enemies?

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 9:15pm
The fact that Saddam was in the position he was in is proof of wrongdoing. How do you think he ever managed to procure weapons? You think the situation is the way it is for America's upstanding foreign relations and right minded agendas? Wake up. Directly and indirectly, the United States CIA has been banking from quagmatic world situations they in fact created. The Federal Reserve isn't even federally owned. It's privately owned and operated. So many par with the wrought course and Degeneration X couldn't figure Y out for the life of them.

We knew about energy problems 20 years ago. So many go to show that our education system is a monumental failure. It has been given to fallacy time and time again. The nation's, along with the world's grades continue to fall in the bottomless pit of falsehoods that so many have counted, and continue to count their minutes by due much to the media's impotent journalism running on every fault line there is. It's practically impossible to teach or learn basic truths, principles, and concepts of life... while living in a nation understocked and utterly bereft of the very same truths, principles, and concepts... In a world with no good reason, you get a world gone mad. People fear what they don't (want to) know at this point. What we're dealing with is systematic incompetence at large.

FACTS: Round about half the country (not to mention the international community just yet) can agree on certain fundamental common grounds and basic concepts, truths... and would advocate Bush's impeachment, along with indictments that hold the iniquitous accountable.

Ending the Bush Administrations faulty record, also requires a new record. A comprehensive and thorough account... an initiative. An agenda, which falls into place when the account is correct. It's simple like a science really. This bears all the responsiblity, nobility, and integrity in the world. Sometimes it just doesn't get any more essential and basic.

Who's had the wherewithal? Where's the institution of all in affinity that's overriding the media's time table because it's so unified and principled in the truth with initiative and impetus for the right mandates and agenda? Moveon and all the other factions are a long way from par. I don't call petitioning the very corrupt government a campaign action, nor do I advocate more controlled opposition factions that get nowhere in the face of this overtly feigned political and corporate corruption. Jon Stewart can joke..., and the sundance channel can promote free speech, but bushs 3rd reich will still utter sticks and stones until we get serious...

At any rate, Benign Energy is the only way to go, and in a macro way. Will somebody please get the ball rolling. The applications are unlimited and would save the day. Notwithstanding good character... this would account for most human solutions that exist at this time in more than one form on all dire fronts. A mandate and agenda focused on and for absolute humane priorities is a matter of urgency.

Like back to basics... The Constitution's default page. First things first. So again, a working constitution and proper cohesion of all people in affinity is all we need... a "Class Action" in no uncertain terms. When I say all in affinity, it's overwhelming to think of the spirit and voice that could be heard if the common denomination but grounded itself and created a bonafide catalyst to generate the truth efficiently and operate from in order to promote the right agendas.

I wrote this in May of 2003. The world is as confounded and dumbfounded as ever, where the American Presidency has been usurped and abused. Where the state has not taken revolution as humanity's intelligence holds true to date on mine and other's behalf. I can't believe the usurpation; the overall but not limited to... the hypocrisy, illegitimacy, and plain wrongdoing of the world's leadership and the apparent majority of it's people that unfortunately can't tell for ignorance, fear and greed etc... which is arrogance, and which is the right, true and relied connotation... of it all; I mean, it's as if people don't (have the ability to) look up, recognize and discern (configure for the life of them) between the real (life) constellation, and a newspaper's connect-the-dots (the way officials feign/ have it appear). The world's affairs and agendas now have ended up stagnant and malignant in consequence. Without firm beliefs, decisive and affirmative action of all the people, this is what you get. The situation is incredible (NOT CREDIBLE), yet somehow it predominates in the most critical and grave of circumstances.

Posted by emg at 08/23/2005 @ 9:16pm
EMG, Your post reminds me of a talk I heard a couple of years ago from a Nobel laureate (in chemistry) whose name escapes me. He spoke about the 10 biggest problems facing humanity in the 21st century. Guess which was numero uno? That's right - energy. I think the top 3 was rounded out with water and global warming, but don't quote me on that.

Sorry for getting off topic, people.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 9:28pm
After reading that transcript from Rush Limbaugh's program today (and thank you to Natinsucks for posting it), I need to make an immediate change in my scheduling.

I didn't think that it was worthwhile for this conservative to invest time in listening to Rush. I was wrong. If that is typical of his daily show, Rush I am in with you all the way!

That was about as well stated a critique and condemnation as I have seen for many years. There is still hope for America.

I can hardly wait to see if any liberals would actually read this transcript. Not likely; by the 3rd or 4th paragraph they were already looking for their protest clothing and sign making materials. That is if they didn't choke on their own saliva with a fit of rage. I know that Frankgrits appreciated it!

That posting just made my week and my month.

In the immortal words of Mick Jagger: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need"!

Posted by love liberty at 08/23/2005 @ 10:05pm
CPT:

After taking ten minutes to scoll through NATIONSUCKS1's double-dose manefesto, I saw your reply. Thanks for continuing the dialogue. Did you gloss over the poll results I posted? 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 and 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

This is not about a connection between Hussein and AG; its about Hussein and Iraqis being perpetrators of 9/11. It's not even debatable how wrong they are. You even seem to doubt it yourself. Obviously, Americans are very uninformed. For example, I overheard an argument several months ago, and one person yelled, "Well, if the President says Hussein did 9/11, why shouldn't we take him out?" Now where on Earth would he get that? Bush never said that. Maybe this person misheard something in a speech. Maybe it was because Bush implied this connection by continuously reciting 9/11 while stumping for war so people subliminally equated the two. Maybe it was because Cheney said, "we do not know [if Hussein was behind 9/11]," which was disingenuous because we did know Hussein was not behind 9/11. Bush even gave a speech a few weeks later stating this affirmatively because he was taking so much heat. Maybe it was because Don Rumsfeld said things like this doosy: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Regarding a Hussein/AQ connection, I'll let the record speak for itself, including your circumstantial case. By the way, shouldn't we demand a little bit more than a "circumstantial case" before starting a war? Regarding Zaraqawi specifically, I don't think you or I know how established or organized he was when he got to Iraq, or how much he needed to be before starting operations. Maybe all he needed was a non-traceable cell phone and a safe house. I am no expert on the lead-in time a terrorist needs to set up shop, and I think your notion that it would have taken years of pre-planning is speculative. Maybe he saw the writing on the wall before we invaded and made some contacts then. Anyways this puts the cart before the horse. It doesn't establish that he had long-established ties with Hussein before we came into the equation.

As to the last poll (WMD in Iraq), we will have to agree to disagree. I, and others (Jack Rabbit comes to mind), have addressed this ad nauseum, and made several long posts, cited references, and pasted articles on this.

In sum, I think Bush and his handlers really do believe the American people are that "stupid." Take note, I am not calling all people who support the invasion or Bush's policies stupid (because some make intelligent arguments), just addressing your initial inquiry regarding Bush's possible motivations behind the pre-war intelligence he offered. I think it is definitely plausible that Bush knew he did not have the goods on WMD and an AQ conncetion beforehand (which he was told he needed to win public support for an invasion), but went in anyway. He probably hoped from a political standpoint that something would magically turn up after the regime fell, but I think he always knew he had a few fallbacks: blame the intelligence (a charge that takes a long time to untangle and investigate); a significant subset would continue to be duped into thinking Hussein/Iraq is linked to 9/11 (see the 2005 poll results above); a shift of the justification to evicting an evil dictator and installing democracy; and finally no matter what happens after we get in, we'll be in and he could argue, "We have to stay the course," and to suggest otherwise means "you do not want America to win." Maybe I'm nuts, it would not shock me one bit if this was discussed contemplated by if not Bush himself, then Karl Rove and others in his administration.

HMAN

Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:09pm
PHILQ, Not sure why I warrent a personal attack. And apparently you're not paying attention, not me.

Check out Air America, Daily Kos, or even Ms Sheehan....what is their position on Iraq? "Get our troops out immediately"...not "as quick as possible" (Feingold), certainly not "when Iraq stabilizes" (Bush/GOP).

I actually LISTENED to those elements of the Left...and wasn't insulting them by accurately portraying their position!

Posted by Mask at 08/23/2005 @ 10:22pm
Jack Rabbit,

regarding your 6:10p.m. post

"Can we talk about that?"

Absolutely, that's what blogs like this are about right? The free exchange of ideas and free speech.

"that means I'll throw a big a fuss for any woman who is forced against her will to get an abortion as for the woman who is prevented from getting one."

I hear you, and understand, and to an extent I agree. I am not for striping a woman of her rights to make or not make decisions about her body.

I AM for prioritizing who's rights come first, it's simply an ethical question. In your statement above, you mentioned the word "woman" twice. When exactly do you intend to start discussing the rights of the unborn infant? You never even address it.

In my view the rights of the unborn MUST come before the rights of the mother, with the exception of cases of rape, incest or the mothers life is in eminent danger.

Please don't try to argue about "when does life begin", my wife is an RN, specifically working in Labor and Delivery. I have seen picture after picture, and ultra sound after ultra sound of little moving babies, with blood pumping, hearts beating, finger sucking, and all sorts of other physical action that make it very clear the baby is alive in the mothers womb.

And I will stand by my views, and vote accordingly.

"I can't make you like like gay people"

When did I ever say I don't like gay people??????

I said I believe that the institution of marriage, particularly by the church should be as it has been for thousands of years, a marriage of 1 man and 1 woman. Where in the previous sentence did I mention not liking gay people?

And again, I will vote my beliefs, as I did last November when we had a ballot initiative on our Oklahoma ballot that would amend our state Constitution to define marriage as I defined it earlier. The amendment then passed by an overwhelming 78% of Oklahomans.

"I do think that at times it makes better public policy to tolerate some disagreeable behavior than to try to outlaw it or keep it outlawed.

Out of curiosity, then are you admitting that in your view abortions or gays marrying is "disagreeable behavior"? I really hope to hear an answer from you on this one.

For me, it is "disagreeable behavior" and thus will vote to outlaw it.

Here's why...

With your reasoning, we put ourselves on a very dangerous slippery slope. For now the "disagreeable behavior" may simply be abortion or gays marrying (which are still bad ideas in my opinion).

Where is the line drawn?

What about flat out plain murder, at some point will we have murders in the streets of our cities, that are considered "disagreeable behavior" that is tolerated because to institute laws against it, it would be discriminated against ex-convicts?

What happens if the world gets more progressive, at some point will terrorism be considered "disagreeable behavior" that is still tolerated and not outlawed?

Again, where is your line drawn, and more importantly who draws it?

If you can't see and validate my argument, I guess we will have to respectfully disagree on this issue.

"Liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever you call them are not against the traditional family. It is the best way to raise children into productive adults. I can't even imagine a better one.

Democrats don't necessarily need to give an inch on social issues, but they do need to say to people like you: Vote for us, and we will help life better for you and your traditional family. "

Then why don't democrats ever say that?

I would have a ton more respect for the dem's if they would put into thier platform and not only give lip service to your stance that although yes, we support the rights of gays marrying, we fully know that a traditional nuclear family with a mother and a father is the BEST way to raise happy, healthy kids.

Yes although we support the right to a woman being able to choose to have an abortion; morally, however, the killing off of our own offspring, is really a reprehensible thing to do unless the mothers life is at risk, or in the case of rape or incest.

I never hear them say that, and therefore seriously question if they really think abortions are bad ideas for the human race in general.

Anyway, good exchange and would love to hear your response.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 10:27pm
FRANKGRITS:

No, I wouldn't go that far. Some people I have mixed it up with here have articulated their rationale for invading Iraq that went beyond WMD and so forth. A few that come to mind are RONS, OKSG and LL, when he isn't in the middle of his rah-rah "I'm a patriot and your not" rants; just playing LL, so don't slay me with a five foot post chalked full of defnitions of the word "patriot" and quotes from political philosphers. I do not agree with their reasoning, but I would be remiss to call either one stupid or unintelligent (unless of course they were part of the poll respondents I cited).

Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:31pm
Why don't you failure monkey Republicans get a life and give up trying to defend your extremely self-serving and inconceivably foolish Dear Leader?

The crude, harebrained scheme of he and his cronies to enrich and engorge themselves on the blood of America and please the "rebuild the temple"-type "Christian" heretics of their party has come to grief with a resounding thud.

Some signposts on the road of shallow minded Republican misleadership:

• Mesopotamia's immense oil wealth is now about to fall to the control of an Islamic Republic of Iraq which will significantly strengthen theocratic Iran

• Iraq has been transformed from a hobbled, non-threatening state to a stateless terrorist breeding ground

• America has been pushed from a luxurious budget surplus to a deadening $500,000,000,000 budget deficit

• The Iraq conflict is pointless and counterproductive to America's national interests but is now estimated to eventually cost American taxpayers $1 trillion which they could have much better used to strengthen America's defenses

• The Iraq conflict has sent oil prices soaring, further weakening not only America but world stability

• Blustering aggressiveness and hostility have driven Russia and China into the arms of one another in a strategic alliance where none existed previously

The Republican Party has wrought harm to not only America but the whole world which will last for possibly a generation. Enough is enough.

Posted by fromredbird at 08/23/2005 @ 11:23pm
ILOVEPHYSICS,

Thanks for the feed back! The President of the National Academy of Sciences managed to conclude the same with Charlie Rose last night. It doesn't/ shouldn't take a noble laureate to figure out...

Why is it practically still in the dark?

Well, let's ask the current oiligarchy. And speaking objectively, I'd say that that is right on topic.

FRANKGRITS,

Though I try pretty hard to stay clear of being too subjective, your point is well taken.

With the clandestine, ignobly wrought dealings that our foreign policy/ CIA has had for decades with that part of the world, along with America's utter arrogance, it should be all too clear why we were attacked. I wasn't surprised in the least. America's foremost enemy, for the most part, is here in America.

Posted by emg at 08/23/2005 @ 11:29pm
LL,

It is unfortunate that you appear willing to jump onboard with Limbaugh's show. After reading Media Matters for America for about the last 6 months or so, I have come to the conclusion that his daily broadcast is typically more along the lines of this [mediamatters.org], this [mediamatters.org] & this [mediamatters.org]. I say this because you constantly go on & on about people not having the facts straight here on these blogs & Limbaugh doesn't seem to know the definition of the word "fact". I mean, the guy says that "Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett" & that here story is all "forged documents". When he started to receive "hate mail" about this he back peddled big time and claimed that his comments were being misreported, while conveniently removing that statement days later from his website (see here [mediamatters.org] for that one).

Posted by thejman at 08/23/2005 @ 11:49pm
To Todd (response to 10:27pm post):

Thank you for your reply.

First, I'd like to apologize for implying you don't like gay people. I know a lot of people who really don't. I'm in California, which isn't Oklahoma. Here, the people who go out of their way to fight gay marriage are usually real fanatics; I've known some Oklahomans and Midwesterners (my mother was born in Nebraska) and I ought to know where it might not be that way everywhere.

Out of curiosity, then are you admitting that in your view abortions or gays marrying is "disagreeable behavior"? I really hope to hear an answer from you on this one.

No. But I am admitting there are some things I find disagreeable that I wouldn't outlaw or, they're already illegal, would at least entertain the idea of making legal.

The question of good public policy is simply: What is the best way to deal with a social problem? Criminalizing it or not criminalizing it?

Among the things I find disagreeable (that you may not):

* Smoking

* Gun ownership

* Some drug use (e.g., marijauna).

I'm 53 years old and raised two sons. I can be a social conservative about drug use. I can actually tell you about all the times I've blown grass, which is unusual for an American my age. I would be reluctant to legalize it, but I have always kept an open mind that it might be better controlled in the open than the way we're doing it. That looks to me like a losing battle that isn't worth fighting.

It's really no different than the views that you're expressing about abortion (which aren't that far from mine, by the way). I don't think abortion should be used as a method of birth control; but I know it is and I know I can't stop it.

This country once tried a "noble experiment" (I believe it was Bernard Shaw who called it that) with banning alcohol. It failed. That's not because alcohol isn't easy to abuse and causes great harm to someone who does and to those around him. There were good reasons behind Prohibition, but it was doomed from the start.

Think of the serenity prayer. Even people who deny the existence of God find it a wondrous piece of wisdom. When that is applied to social issues, then you can arrive at making a judgment when it is good public policy to permit behavior that a lot of us find disagreeable.

Viewed that way, no one is talking about legalizing murder or tolerating terrorism, even if we know we're never going to stamp out either. Those are the kinds of social problems best dealt with by criminalizing the behavior. On that, we agree.

Democrats don't necessarily need to give an inch on social issues, but they do need to say to people like you: Vote for us, and we will help life better for you and your traditional family."

Then why don't democrats ever say that?

It frustrates me, too. If they did, they'd get a lot further, don't you think? Of course the Republicans are going to talk about social issues and appeal to prejudice to get the Democrats off balance. It's worked for them for thirty years. Confronted with it, the Democrats get all apologetic and start mumbling about individual rights to follow the dictates of his sexual orientation and the right of a woman to making her own choices, etc., etc. The Democrats need to stop getting apologetic about that. Yes, that is part of their platform. But so are universal health care and stronger labor laws. Those are things that will help you a lot more than the other things will hurt you.

I agree that the Democrats really have to stress the economic part of their message more than the social issues. They've maxed out on the benefit they can get from taking the stands they do there. They need to stress what they can do for people like you.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 11:56pm
LOVE LIBERTY:Must you be an obnoxious jerk? Don't put all that Limberger propaganda in our faces. It's very rude.

Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 12:07am
MASK: I stand by my statement. Dean/MoveOn/DailyKos are NOT calling for immediate withdrawal. Instead they use the meaningless term "as soon as possible". That is code for continueing the occupation indefinitely. They use weasel words because they know that the grassroots of the Party wants the troops home now.

Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 12:25am
To the Democrats who seek a "strategy for withdrawal", you don't need a strategy for withdrawal any more than a murderer needs a strategy for stopping murdering...you just stop doing it.(Thanks to Norman Soloman)

Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 01:55am
Sorry guys, I stand by my "claim"....

Listen to Air America's OTHER shows...Morning Sedition, Randi Rhodes, Majority Report. ALL saying and supporting Cindy Sheehan and the "pull out NOW" movement. Franken's a Clintonite, true, but he doesn't control the rest of the programming.

As to Daily Kos as some "centrist" site, they just "declared war" on the D.L.C. for not supporting Sheehan.

Posted by Mask at 08/24/2005 @ 06:49am
Jack Rabbit,

Thanks for the apology on the "don't like gays" statement, however it really was unnecessary. I was asking the question in a rhetorical question to illustrate my point that I never did say I don't like gay people.

Love the person, hate the sin. Some smart guy wrote that one time, in a neat book, you're a smart guy, I'm sure you know which book I'm talking about = )

You didn't really answer my question though on the abortion question. You stated in your statement about the rights of the "woman" and used "woman" twice, but never mentioned the baby?

You also said that your view and mine weren't that far apart.

So when exactly do you start to address the rights of the baby, if at all?

What is your ethical beliefs in terms of who's humanitarian rights comes first the baby or the mother?

Remember that with Scott Peterson having been found guilty of not only killing his wife, but ALSO his unborn child. The courts have now set precedent at least for when life begins within the womb. For if in that particular case, how could Scott be found guilty of killing the baby if the baby wasn't "alive" yet?

"Panel discussion addresses bias in the media." New York Amsterdam News; 4/14/2005, Vol. 96 Issue 16, p4-36, 2p, 1bw

"Judge sentences Peterson to die" USA Today; 03/17/2005

"JUSTICE FOR LACI." People; 11/29/2004, Vol. 62 Issue 22, p68-72, 5p, 13c

And you apparently agree with me, on the "Then why don't the dem's ever say that?" question.

I really would have more respect, and would feel tremendously more comfortable voting for dem's if they would stand up for people with traditional values, and state the fact that killing babies from a moral standpoint is never a good thing to do, even though it's legal, even if at the end they say, however we still won't make laws to outlaw abortion, or gay marriage etc.

in '04, John Kerry never even toured through Oklahoma. That doesn't show much respect, or care for the constituents of Oklahoma, how did he really expect to help us understand him, or his platform and thus vote for him?

The end result? Every single county in Oklahoma went Red. I'm not suggesting that it would have changed a significant amount had he come through, I am suggesting that he didn't seem to care too much about outreach to Oklahomans.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 07:56am
Todd (aka OKSPORTSGUY),

Just for clarification of your 10:27 post, why exactly do you believe that the rights of the unborn MUST come before those of the mother? Why do you think that "morality" needs to be legislated?

Posted by neko-chan at 08/24/2005 @ 09:56am
Regarding Democrats and the war: Check out Gary hart's editorial in today's Washington Post. It tells the Demos to get a spine.

Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 10:38am
HMAN, Thats is just it. Terrorists will never give you more than circumstantial evidence, hoping to prohibit you from acting. And why not, this has been a pretty successful paradigm for them in the past. Thats why I dont support giving mass murderers the benefit of the doubt. Now of course as Americans this is contrary to how we have been taught to think, its not an easy concept to get behind. But in this POST 911 world, its one I believe we need to.

Now as far as ZARAQAWIs operation, look all I know is what 13 yrs of essentially studying and particiapting in military operations tell me. That in order to set up an EFFECTIVE operation bent on killing, you had better be at least half-way organized.

First Rule of Warfare: To preserve oursleves and destroy the enemy

To accomplish this, you had better know the enviroment that you are operating in, VERY WELL, if you hope to be effective.

To your comment on "shouldnt we ask for more than circumstantial evidence before we enter into a war" if this were pre-911, I would say yes, in a POST 911 world were the enemy is not easily defined by a nation state actor, then circumstantial is all we ever might get, and in the interim while we debate over what the proper course of action is? Terrorists continue mass murder, I know McCain said "its not about who they are but who we are" sounds nice, but woefully impractical.

I have been fortunate enough, or unfortunate depending on your point of view , to deal with some these AQ/Taliban face to face, they dont care about moral high grounds or if you hate Bush and his policies.

ILOVEPHYSICS Possible, but then that leads to the question of how easy was it to establish that relationship between AQ and SADDAM. Either way if we "forced them together", then how much easier would it have been had we not gone in and backed away?

Posted by CPT at 08/24/2005 @ 10:50am
CPT:

After 9/11 how was Hussein the enemy? He had nothing to do with 9/11.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:07pm
"why exactly do you believe that the rights of the unborn MUST come before those of the mother? Why do you think that "morality" needs to be legislated? "

You are right, morality doesn't need to be legislated, let's legalize murder, drunk driving, and stealing.

I'm sorry bro, that's not a very smart argument.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 4:46pm
MEMO TO DEMOCRATS:

I am very pleased to see that something with common sense of appropriate action (reaction) is finally taking place... But how whole (consummated) and bonafide is the recognition/ realization of PLAN's [progressivestates.org] potential initiative/ objective in real time? It's something of a start, a foundation to counter and supersede all this overt corruption... and for that I am truly ecstatic. In the mean time, I hate to see "progressives" taking gloves to so many gun fights.

This is the most exciting proposition. I only recently tapped into The Nation magazine and have had my insights honed and versatile for a very long time. Although I've said it before... I believe I know of the best and only real (preliminary) solution, even if it does break through the corrupt beaurocratic barriers of today's political labyrinth.

I can write the solution in a million blogs, and the truth of the matter can always be reported as it's happening. But as one person I don't have the wherewithal to develop this strategy and take action alone besides this. With the proper cohesion/ funding and organization (pipeline) of ALL in affinity from Adam Yauch to Ralph Nader to Redford... all the way to the local citizen, the people's right minded agendas can be secured, mandated, deliberated, and operated by it's constitution... in real time.

It starts with a phone call... In the mean time and initially, the campaign (theme) would be Benign Energy (powered and stocked by). In terms of humane urgency, this is the one and only immediate solution on most dire fronts. For instance, if an overwhelming percentage of american citizens organized... and supported the idea of transitional employment, testing, manufacturing, mass deployment of prototypes to Iraq and 3rd world countries for reconstruction and restoration... concurrently advancing and developing the most efficient macro applications, all initially based and funded by american citizens right here at home ... that would automatically wipe out Bush and Co.'s agenda, that is if he was still in office at that point. Ideally, a new department of the military teamed with the Peace Corps perhaps and engineers would be just the ticket, but would need the initial impetus...

ImpeachBush.com and 9/24 is coming up. Are we really prepared at all? Truth and America's constitution deems it our duty... I never said the solution wasn't simple. That's the only way to go at this point. A biosattelite, if you will, big enough to ground everyone with a common sense of/ for the truth and real, timely progress at scale. The media's time table will be overran, making it impossible to deny. I hate to leave it so rough and brief here, though I know it's the only thing that holds water all the same.

I have a million and one ideas that I would like to expound upon. Where do I start? Who can I get through to (call) not being an official, celebrity, or wealthy business person?!!! This is just one quickly written post, but imagine if it and I were taken seriouly.

Sincerely, Citizen #...

Posted by emg at 08/24/2005 @ 8:26pm
Is there anybody out there?

Posted by emg at 08/24/2005 @ 8:33pm
Bush was raised from a stacked deck and the whole world got dealt. Wargames over. Let the cards fall. Relieving Saddam of his duties in Iraq can well be fine and good, but everything that led to it was ignobly wrought, overtly corrupt, absolutely contrived, and not to mention ill thought out. And therein lies the real crux of the world's problems.

Fool you once.. but fool you again... And if you don't see get glasses. Don't get prescribed falsehoods that are obviously not true now, and have been proven to have never been true, because you then sacrifice the true values and justice of this country only to carry on a charade of superficial, convoluted illusions. The games been up for too long.

The people and the good powers that be have not gotten there heads on straight to do anything about it at scale... yet. What kind of weak traitor or moron do you have to be with all the facts in your face to still front with such obvious corruption. Is it a mass inferiority complex, mass obscurantism, systematic incompetence, perhaps a monumental education failure? YES. But worse, it's deliberate, known, and superimposed by overt political and corporate corruption. The truth has simply dictated that in no uncertain terms. What are you prepared to do!?!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

And LOVE TO EXPLOIT LIBERTY, Don't quote Mick Jagger here, just like any intelligent and good person, he doesn't support Bush's confounded wrongdoing on all counts in any way, shape, or form either.

Posted by emg at 08/24/2005 @ 9:41pm
man

Posted by emg at 08/24/2005 @ 9:49pm

Ari Berman

The Daily Outrage aims to shine a spotlight on the forces that corrupt our democracy. The outrages come from all over these days: lobbyists stifling reformers in both parties, defense contractors profiting off pre-emptive war, the mainstream media echoing government deceptions, and a rightwing attack machine defending neo-imperialists and distorting progressive values. These stories rarely make the front-page, penetrate talk-radio, or appear on the evening news. So let The Daily Outrage guide you through the tangled web of media, money and politics at home and abroad. And click here to let us know of any outrages you think we should be covering.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Memo to Democrats

posted by Ari Berman on 08/23/2005 @ 10:54am

Ari Berman

Archives

» The Notion

» Act Now!

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Editor's Cut

» Altercation

Memo to Democrats

posted by Ari Berman on 08/23/2005 @ 10:54am

Share this article

Ari Berman

Archives

» The Notion

» Act Now!

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Editor's Cut

» Altercation