Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Though I have no desire anymore to vote Democratic, I must say, Henri, I agree with the thrust of this article entirely. Well said.

Now if Kerry would address the issue of the American Total Debt I discuss in the Third Party column in a rational and intelligent way, I might be persuaded to reconsider with some arm twisting.

Well said, Henri. Just out of curiosity, what would you rather see Kerry do about Iraq?

I just found this site a couple months ago & have enjoyed reading all the different views on all the different issues. You guys leave me here talking to my computer screen, laughing sometimes & shaking my head sometimes. This is my first post,however and I thank you for hearing me out.
I know the war is the toughest issue of all, because it is indeed a matter of life and death. I live in Jacksonville N.C. (home of Camp Lejune) and have many friends and church members in Iraq & Afganistan. That is why this issue is so close to my heart and has prompted me to speak out.
They are all proud and believe in what they are
doing and well trained to accomplish it. They are
not our children getting sent into harms way, they are men and women who chose
to make the military their career and they are good!

After America got attacked on our homeland over 90% of Americans wanted a response, myself included. What has changed is that the war has been politicized. Politicians and celebrities started with the (I support the troops but not the war.)They say we rushed into war without adequate forethought or building alliances or an exit stratagy etc. I’m just guessing here, but wasn’t it almost a year after (oops, I almost said 911), that is way too clean to describe war being declared on the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!) I like to beleive that our elected leaders used that time to grasp the very many very complex elements of warfare. One side keeps taking hindsight potshots which forces the other side to take their efforts off the true matter at hand and defend why & how they did it. I like what American Pundit said “what would you rather see Kerry do about Iraq?” Both parties should be at the same table on this matter, not using it as an “issue” to get in office. Then it would be their turn to question virtually evey thing you decide to do! This has to make us look like a bunch of fools around the world. “I’m a war hero, I have a film of the reinactment I made to prove it!” (PALEEEASE) Then If he wins he’ll expect the Republicans to reach across the aisle. The point we are at right now is that whoever reaches across better have one of those dog training gloves on!
If we are not united in anything else, we should be united when we have our families and friends in war zones. It’s no time for playing word games.
“The main reason for going to war was WMD” we should give the inspections more time to work. How long would you keep playing a shell game on a street corner?
“Iraq had nothing to do with hijacking 4 airliners full of innocent people and crashing them into the twin towers and the Pentagon,killing some 3,000 people & having the one for the White House thwarthed by true hero’s” (I mean 911) Some try to make people think that this is just a war on Iraq and not looking at the big picture. Terrorists and those who support or harbor them declared war on us. The last time I checked taking over another country & using WMD that you don’t have on your own people could qualify you.
We have lost lives & nobody likes that. But we are not fighting a war against a country (if we were, we already won. We beat Saddam & his government and army) Remember, we are fighting terrorists.A war that has many fronts. Terrorists don’t care about the shrines,hospitals,schools,graveyarde, citizens and women & children, other than they make nice sheilds! They strap bombs on their brainwashed kids & fill their cars up with explosives & commit suicide & murder inocents.900 lives is a high price to pay, but going in, I and many others thought fighting urban door to door warfare could be many times that amount. Many have been accidents & suicide & roadside bombs. Under the circumstances I am proud of the troops and how our country has done. All the media talks about is numbers killed and hurt. But look at the terrorist network overall. They are in shambles and nothing close to what they were two years ago.
We built the coalition that was there, and chose to go forth where nations that lacked courage to go against a terrorist network that had gotten more organized and infiltrated than anyone (or at least I) could have ever imagined. I respect Bush & all the leaders of our government (both parties) who had the moral fiber to together decide to confront the terrorists now. It’s not a time to keep looking at the pessimist side of everything & questioning other peoples decisions (or even your own) it’s time to look at the big picture and see how far we have come in such a short period of time.(Vietnam took all those years and lives & injured and never made the progress that our military & it’s leadership have accomplished already!) Some would have chosen to just sit around with their thumbs up their butts
trying to pander & cower to timid countries who don’t want to help make other countries or the world a better place, but just sit in their little safe zone & let the terrorists get strong enough to take over world!The French especially should be glad we are willing to help! A lot of them wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for our grandparents.

Think about it, knowing what you know now, how organized,united,equiped,infiltrated,powerful, and did I mention UNITED? would the terrorists be left unchecked for,say, 10 or 15 more years?
If we just stayed in a defensive mode they would still be free to have well organized and thought out planned attacks. I kinda like them being on their heels for a change! If we are to continue to call ourselves the United States Of America, we need to think about becoming united again. I was a lifelong (conservative) Democrat until the Clinton fiasco. People tripping over themselves to try to protect someone that obviously lied,& instead of admitting wrongdoing & apologize and moving on,he chose the selfish rout & put himself ahead of his family & country. I didn’t lie, I misremembered! Now the same people reach waaaay out to try to say Bush lied. Get over it. Let’s go forward together.There is a problem when so many votes are along party lines. They are all supposed to vote the way their constituants would,
not the way their party wants.I am now a Republican and believe in this president and know he is a great commander in cheif and the troops again have a leader they respect! Didn’t mean to get carried away,sorry. God Bless the United States of America! I the average Joe

Gentlemen, while watching CNN this morning i was struck by the fact that retired general Tommy Franks said that we will be in Iraq for at least three to four years, no matter who is elected.

That said do you not agree that we should be staying with the same horse until we cross that stream? In my opinion to do less would be giving our foes “aid and comfort”, as well as a great chance to “play dead” until we leave.

This is what they have wanted all along, so why at this stage do we even think of giving it to them. After all, while they are there, they canno’t be here! I know that most will say that we need to bring the troop’s home, but let me remind you that this is an all volunteer military, and as such they know what is expected of them.

So if you want to help the troop’s, please send them your support, and let them know we are all very proud of them! I served eight years in the Navy, and believe me when I look at my three year old grandson, I thank god we have a military who will keep us safe, and a commander in chief, who will get the job done!

Respectfully, Tom

Joe, you appear to have a good heart and a good ear for your party’s spin.

Unfortunately, you prefer to believe that which supports your party decision rather than all of the facts regardless of party. You are not alone. It occurs in the 10’s of millions on both the right and left.

You are of course, free to believe whatever you will. If however, you are going to attempt to persuade, you must stick to the facts, or lack credibility, especially in the leftie’s column.

Fact 1. Not only were there no WMD but there were no terrorist training camps or numbers of terrorists within Saddam Hussein’s sphere of influence. The premises for invading Iraq were wrong, if not false. Many centrists and most lefties believe that when a commander in chief makes such huge errors regardless of the reasons for them, and those errors cost close to a thousand American lives, and 10’s of thousands of other lives, that person should be held accountable and responsible. In a democracy, the way to hold an official responsible to the people is to vote them out of office.

Fact 2. Even our own Pentagon and State Department’s agree, the huge majority of folks fighting us in Iraq are not al-Queda, they are insurgents who lived in Iraq before the invasion and resent the hell out of our continued occupation of their country. These same people were mostly glad of our rescuing them from Saddam, and would have no beef with us had we left upon Saddam’s capture. But the fact is according to our own government, the forces we are fighting now in Iraq are our enemies only because we refuse to leave, not because they are linked to fundamentalist Islamists who live to destroy Americans on American streets. Hence we are creating our enemies in Iraq who were not our enemies up to Saddam’s capture, for the most part.

Fact 3, look at how Republicans responded to Clinton’s error in judgement over having an affair in the Whitehouse. How would you anticipate Republicans would have responded if Clinton had invaded Cuba, which proved to pose no imminent threat, after he justified our invasion on that claim? And if Clinton had said we were also invading because Fidel has nuclear missiles pointed at us, after a thousand or so of our troops had been killed, and a few thousand maimed and injured, and Republicans found out that there were no missiles at all? The cries of Clinton going after potential Republican immigrants would be blasted across the airwaves from here to doomsday, and impeachment hearings would have been well underway.

Be realistic Joe. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would likely be leading the offensive against a Democrat President here at WatchBlog instead of trying to defend GW Bush for the very same acts.

I respect your candor about how you feel, but, your expressions fall far, far short of persuasion.

Tom, Gingrich and Meese testified this week before a congressional hearing and stated this war on terrorism will consume generations. Are you suggesting Democrats, Green Party and Libertarians lay low for the next 7 decades letting Republicans have their way with them. It is a seductive but nonetheless rapacious notion in my book.

I will support the troops by working to bring them home from Iraq to rest up before going to fight our real enemies, the Islamist Fundamentalists with designs on killing Americans in our own homeland.

In reference to “the facts” Mr. Kerry has stated he would have voted the same way, “knowing what he knows now”!

You cant have it both ways,yes, or no, in or out of Cambodia! may I suggest he take a week off to get it streight! We all know now that he is going to say the phrase du jour, so, what’s next?

Tom

David, I reread my note and fail to find where I strayed from any facts. I try my best to listen to the spin from all the parties and sort through
it to draw out the views that form my own opinion. Like I said, I don’t believe in party line votes. I don’t stand behind every Republican stance. (NAFTA being the most noteable grrrr) I don’t hate Democrats (well maybe a few) Just kidding.
Your fact 1-That’s why there was a vote on whether or not to go to war. All the same facts were available to every polititian that voted. Based on what they had, they deemed it sufficiant to proceed. Do we vote out every member that voted ya? Most of Saddams regime were terrorists!
your Fact 2- Dead on. I agree totally. I want my friends to come home also. But we can’t just cut and run. The majority there want us to stay until they become stable. I think (for what that’s worth) Al Sadr is a criminal and should be taken out of the picture, have elections,see how that goes, then split. Being at that location puts us in a good spot to keep Al Queda from coming down & getting into the mix. The people are too regimented into being controled & would be vulnerable to getting right back where they were.
your fact 3- All conjecture. Too many ifs. I thought to maintain credibilty you had to stick to facts. But anyway if our intelligence gave clinton enough evidence that he persuaded both sides of the isle
to agree that action needed to be taken, so be it.
Then it turned out wrong, do just what we did to
revamp our information system. The 911 commission. A lot of good came out of it. I believe that was a democrat idea. Though it was intended to find out what went wrong some tried to turn it into a witch hunt to point fingers, until they were being pointed at both parties.
The only persuasion I’m trying to project is that the leaders of this great land sit down in a room with a big table and be on the same page on a matter this important and not in the media for the whole world & even the bad guys to see. How Ununited do you think we look to them? We give them their talking points against us!
As far as an exit strategy, this is like a chess match,you don’t know exactly what the other guy is going to do in reaction to every one of your moves.You’re doing great & looking good one minute & they make a bad move that hurts them, but it hurts you also. Then you have to change your stratagy.

You have some very excellent points MR Reynard. i am curious with all of your excellent points noted in the beginning of the column, are you an ex or current military person/ you seem to really know what you are talking about. Are you a political science professor? I was just impressed, that’s all.

One fact that people tend to forget is that Iraq, fiscally, supported suicide bombings in Israel. This is not a disputable fact. See, also, how the number of bombings has dropped to almost ZERO since Saddam has been forced out of power. The fences and Israeli security forces inevitably play a role, but now there is no financial incentive to blow yourself up for Allah. I guess 72 virgins isn’t enough these days…

Joe said, “What has changed is that the war has been politicized. Politicians and celebrities started with the (I support the troops but not the war.)They say we rushed into war without adequate forethought or building alliances or an exit stratagy etc. I’m just guessing here, but wasn’t it almost a year after (oops, I almost said 911), that is way too clean to describe war being declared on the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!)”

Joe you appear to completely fail to distinguish between the war against al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the invasion and occupation of Iraq in your above comment. Let us not forget, there was near unanimous support in this country on the both the left and right for the invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was viewed as justified and warranting the costs of American GI losses and expense as a defense against further attacks,

The invasion of Iraq, is what divided the left and right. But you seem to view both these wars as the same war. The Fact is, they were not, they had different targets, different reasons for invading, and different objectives. You appear to not make that distinction regarding asking everyone to unite behind this President whom half the country views as having led us unnecessarily into Iraq.

“All the same facts were available to every polititian that voted.”

Facts issued by the intelligence community which was under the direction and control of President as commander in chief. Congress got the facts the President wanted them to have. The truth came out later and almost completely refuted the President’s facts. The President had the power and authority to tell the intel community they needed to get this one RIGHT before he commits GI deaths and maimings and 100’s of billions of dollars our your and my money toward invading Iraq. HE DID NOT DO THAT OBVIOUSLY ! Hell, even his own Secty. of State refused to issue forth a host of the “facts” given him by his President in his presentation to the U.N. Powell knew they could not be substantiated, that means the President knew that too! (Unless you believe Powell was too meek and mild a person to have questioned the Whitehouse, and simply refused to use what they had given him without objection - which we now know is not the case as well.)

“Most of Saddams regime were terrorists!”

OH? Against whom were they terrorists? Where is your evidence that Saddam posed any significant threat, terrorist or otherwise, toward the U.S.? Saddam’s regime was engaged in terrorizing his own people and even went so far as to encourage non-Iraqi terrorists in Palestine with money. But where is the evidence that he posed any threat toward Americans?

If the rationale that the U.S. has an obligation to intervene militarily in any country that strikes fear into the hearts of its own people is valid and warranted invading Iraq, then we had best prepare for nuclear holocaust with China, because there is no doubt 100’s of millions live in fear of their leader’s edicts regarding birth control, freedom of dissent and speech, and absence of fair trial by peers. And why are we not in Darfur? Why are we pulling troops away from Taiwan, N. Korea, instead of building up? That rationale simply does not hold up against the light of facts and reality and stands in almost complete contradiction to what the Whitehouse is actually doing with foreign policy.

“I think (for what that’s worth) Al Sadr is a criminal and should be taken out of the picture, have elections,see how that goes, then split.”

Al Sadr, is a hero and champion for 100’s of thousands of his fellow Iraqis. To kill him will martyr him, and increase the resistance and attacks against our troops. I commend our military commanders and even the President, for not going down that road with al-Sadr. It is not in our short or long term interests to make him a martyr for the young in Iraq.

I will let the discussion on Fact 3 go except to say, that the passionate hatred on the right for Bill Clinton is simply now mirrored on the left toward GW Bush. It is a group psychology phenomena that has dozens if not hundreds of historical underpinnings.

If Kerry is elected however, I guarantee the same vehemence that was felt toward Clinton will be directed toward Kerry. The Right simply cannot tolerate the idea of a long haired peace oriented hippy type holding the reins of power, among other things. For a great many on the right, peace oriented former hippies are still agents of the devil sent to destroy America with their sex, drugs, and rock n roll.

I absolutely echo your intent to persuade our leaders toward more bi-partisan effort to effectively deal with and resolve the major issues facing us as a people. But, the only way that will happen is if both sides begin including each other in their deliberations and submit to compromise. That is almost completely absent in Washington, and as I indicated in my third party column National Debt: The All Important Vote, it is up to the voters whether they will ever again sit down in a bi-partisan way to effectively and efficiently deal with our nation’s issues.

Thank you Joe for a stimulating debate, and for participating in this process at WatchBlog of bringing to light the multiple experiences, interpretations, and perspectives of our American experience. It takes a certain amount of courage and self-confidence to speak up in a public forum with ones views and ideas, and you have shown you have an adequate amount of both to hold your own, here. I look forward to further discussions with you and toward your views on the myriad of other issues our country must eventually deal with.

Adam, you quite correct about the incentive Saddam offered to the families to sacrifice their son’s and daughters for the cause in Palestine. And I refer to it and have not forgotten.

The problem I have is that that was a regional problem for the countries in the middle east and posed not threat to Americans. I fail to see how over 900 GI losses and thousands wounded and maimed was justified by resolving an issue the neighboring nations would have resolved eventually anyway when the problem became more than they could bare? And if your response is that we had an obligation to spend those lives and 100’s of billions of dollars to stop that incentive, I have to ask where our principles are as we move further and further away from our alliance and defense of Taiwan and the S. Koreans?

If Israel as ally was our motivation, we are immensely hypocritical as we now pull away from the defense of our allies in other regions of the world. I don’t buy the argument that America is the puppet of the Israeli government, but, if your proposiiton were true, it would certainly lend credence to that argument.

I absolutely echo your intent to persuade our leaders toward more bi-partisan effort to effectively deal with and resolve the major issues facing us as a people. But, the only way that will happen is if both sides begin including each other in their deliberations and submit to compromise.

David, that is too true. The fact that Republicans physically locked Democratic legislators out of the room when the Medicare prescription drug plan was being written is a clear indictment of the Republican leadership. They simply do not feel the need to compromise when they have the majority.

Here’s Pilosi condemning these exclusionary tactics,

“On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.

“It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans — but we had no role in conference negotiations, no chance to offer amendments, no alternatives, and limited debate or discussion.

“It degrades our democracy when secret negotiations — such as those on energy legislation — rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new provisions approved by neither House.

“Mr. Speaker, this is not the House our Founders envisioned. Such behavior is unfair. It is un-American. And it is unacceptable. It is not for this that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives, their liberty, and their sacred honor, so that we could have government of the few, by the few, for the few, behind closed doors. Why are Republicans so afraid to subject their agenda to the normal rules of debate?

It’s pretty obvious which party is polarizing the country.

I hope Kerry’s reasoning for taking a similar stance to Bush on Iraq is for short-term political gain, and we will pull out after he wins the election.

Joe Gulat-
We should go to war like this to defend ourselves and our allies. The Bush Doctrine, while it sounds good at first, is essentially flawed. We have always reserved the right to protect ourselves from imminent harm to ourselves or our allies by pre-emptive attack. Kennedy almost did that.

The Bush Doctrine, though, as applied, would have you believe that it is right for America to essentially attack future threats- that is threats not immediate and imminent, but off in the long term. Pre-emptive doesn’t describe this- preventative does.

There is no provision for preventative war in international law, and with good reason. It’d be excuse of the month for territorial conquests- We take this territory to prevent attacks on our borders. Would it matter that the countries in question posed no immediate threat? No it would not. In the meantime, though, the precedent is set for North Korea to invade South Korea once again, to make the peninsula safe for Communism! I know its nutty, but that’s effectively the military philosophy that our Commander in Chief is using, one that is ripe for abuse, and may end up making an imperial power out of us, instead of a mere superpower.

It will do little to prevent terrorism. where are the terrorist bases, the agreements signed in blood between Osama and Saddam? They don’t exist. Saddam never wanted a power-hungry Islamist settling down in his country, one who was not only willing to fight him when he invaded Kuwait, called him a apostate leader (deserving of death), but also had a bad habit of gathering power to himself. What reason would Saddam have to foster a rival?

No, the terrorists that attack us now do so because we didn’t invade in large enough numbers. They are not in shambles. They strike us at will in Iraq, and pulled off rather complex operations in Madrid and Java. Certainly, the people at Homeland Security take the threat seriously enough to warn the major cities and businessesabout it. How could they be such a threat if they were in shambles?

The pause we have now is illusory, because Al Quaeda is known for its patience. 9/11 was long in the making. I find it deeply Irresponsible that Bush committed us to Afghanistan, failed to capture Bin Laden, then took us into a country that had not attacked us on evidence as flimsy as he did.

Worse, they’re trying to justify it by stretching the definition of who exactly the enemy is. We Democrats have known since the Clinton Administration who the threat is: Bin Laden and his terrorist group. The party of the president you support, though, is openly claiming that Osama is the tip of the Iceberg of something called “Islamofascism”, a movement that I doubt any Arabs or Muslims would recognize themselves as being part of.

In this category, we find secular dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak, dictators that are strongly modernist, give little more than lip service to Islam, and generally suppresses any religious group that attains enough power to challenge their authority. It’s from Egypt that we get Egyptian Islamic Jihad, one of the main constituent groups of Al Quaeda, a group founded by religious radicals that the Egyptian government cracked down on repeatedly

In this category, we find Osama Bin Laden, and his ilk, folks who call most of the governments of the region apostate, including those who get lumped in with him by this Neocon category. It is a designation for a bad muslim at the very least, and at most a renouncer of the faith. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama Bin Laden wanted his people to be a vanguard of a force protecting the Kingdom. His break with them in part comes from the fact they chose us instead. Given that the Saudi’s were unwilling to accept him back even to kill him, I can’t say it’s smart to lump Saudi Arabia there either.

Reality is, the Middle East is problematic not because of a unified political and religious agenda, but precisely for the lack of it. So, your president is basically on a fools errand if he thinks that declaring war on Islamofascism, the big joke that it is, will do us any good.

This is precisely our criticism of George W. Bush: he has no real idea of who our enemy are, and his advisors are academics drunk on their own theory.

You don’t have to vote for Kerry. If you don’t believe in him, don’t vote for him. But if you care anything about having a Commander in Chief who has not been dangerously mislead as to the character of the issues facing us, don’t vote for Bush.

This is a bit off the subject but needs to be widely disseminated:
Bush & Co. would love another ‘68 convention:
Please forward this article in today’s Altercation, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/, to anyone you suspect may be planning on protesting at the Republican convention. Please do not help Bush get re-elected and watch out for “plants” amongst you. Better yet, stay home and/or work to get Kerry get elected; he may not be the best choice but is much better than the alternative. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

David—

You make good points as usual, but I am afraid U.S. troops are in Iraq for the long haul. There is just no way to extract them without leaving a power and security vacuum only a terrorist or two, or a thousand would not love to fill. The Europeans having been ignored, dismissed, disrespected, and insulted by the Bush Administration will not send troops to relieve us even if Kerry wins unless he eats considerable crow.

Our only way out now is to secure the Iraqi government, setting up a viable framework that will ensure stability; that is if the Kurd, Shi’a, and Suni’s can all get along. Then and only then, will we be able to leave and concentrate on Afghanistan where our attentions should have been all along.

I too will vote for Kerry because I believe he will make a far better President then the dunce currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.