Democrats & Liberals: Archives

What did you expect Iraq to base their laws upon, the Torah? Our constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian bible. I know this very thought drives you liberals insane. It doesn’t matter what Hagel or Feingold say, they both have visions of the presidency. The reason sane democrats won’t touch this crap is because they are afraid they will loose votes, & I might add, they will.

You guys just keep pumping the same bull. You are like broken records. We are there to finish the job. The job is finished when Iraq has a constitution, a voted government, & the ability to defend there own country. Why is that so hard to understand? Your tripe borders on treason. There is nothing like a bunch of nobody’s second-guessing the president. I can tell you what your answers will be before you say them. We support the troops, but not the war. The draft is going to start up again. Bla, bla bla.

It is so disgusting to read each column & the same liberals say the same things over & over again. Attack, attack, attack. , & yet no ideas from the left.

You talk about Chuck Hagel with such respect because of his Vietnam War record. A war that I am sure Paul Siegel actively protested against. Since you were against the Vietnam War & against those who served there, why in God’s name would you use his war record to bolster your position? There are many other republican politicians who support the president & the war effort & also served in Vietnam with honors. Will you bring out their war records & back their stand?

Cindy Sheehan lost her son & I am sorry she did. But she is no more than a liberal activist & a pawn in the hands of moveon.org & the communist press in this country. Honestly, I don’t know why I waste my time reading this blog. There is no intellectual discussion here.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 06:52 PM

Wow! What a vitriolic reaction. Did Paul’s post strike a nerve?

I have read your posts thoughtfully Perplexed, this one really surprises me.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 22, 2005 07:15 PM

Perplexed,
“We are there to finish the job. The job is finished when Iraq has a constitution, a voted government, & the ability to defend there own country. Why is that so hard to understand?”

But I distinctly remember President Bush strutting across the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, in front of a big sign that said “Mission Accomplished!” And I remember him dishonoring our government; the CINC is a civilian, and not one CINC ever stooped to wearing a military uniform for a photo op, not one, until Bush.

So! You’re happy about establishing a close ally for the Iranians in the emerging Shia Iraqi state? You know, I keep having this awful problem remembering things. And I could just swear I remember hearing Iran identified as part of an “axis of evil.” Ah, well.

But to be truthful, I figured this one out some time ago, that an Islamic state would take form in southern Iraq, so I’m not surprised, and not really disappointed. Of course, I wasn’t on an international stage proclaiming freedom and democracy for the middle east- well, for men in the middle east, anyway- Shia men, that is; With votes determined in advance by the fatwas of the Grand Ayatollahs.

Perplexed, there might be a constitution if it’s ratified October 15th, which at this point looks highly doubtful.

We might find a way to hold an election around the New Year regardless of ensuing debacles, constitution & government in place or no.

However, there won’t be anything resembling an Iraqi Army in place by the New Year. Not even close.

But we’ll leave anyway, Perplexed. Don’t believe the Bush administration rhetoric. They’re lying to you. We’ll leave next year regardless, don’t worry.

Posted by: phx8 at August 22, 2005 07:27 PM

Senator Hagel’s comparison of Iraq and Vietnam should be put in context.The two wars are not the same.Never were and never will be.But they are very similar.
The comparison is very apt ,however, because Vietnam has become a synonym for a conflict with no perceivable end in sight,numerous tough sounding operations that promise to break the enemies back (and never do),massive public affairs campaigns to keep the truth from the American populance and a heavy reliance on hope as a strategy.
Which is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

Posted by: John Doe at August 22, 2005 07:53 PM

Womanmarine:

I’m sorry I disappointed you. I must remember, “Critique the message & not the messenger”. For that reason I cannot speak freely about paul siegel & his posts. I don’t like our troops in Iraq anymore than anyone else does, but there they are & I support them & the president until the job is done. If I had been president, I would have put a big one down the smokestack of Baghdad when intelligence told me Sadam & his government was in town. Then I would have let the rest of them fight it out. But, unlike many on the left, I know my limitations & I am not the president.

Phx8:

I was in the military many years ago & I have the right to wear that uniform anytime I want. Despite the abundance of rhetoric & lies from the left, President Bush was a pilot in the US military & has the right to wear a uniform anytime he wants.
I said nothing about Iran. In fact I said nothing about pertaining to my happiness. What I did say was, should we be surprised that a Muslim state would base its constitution on Muslim law. Oh wise one, maybe you could tell us how we could have prevented it.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 08:02 PM

You guys just keep pumping the same bull. You are like broken records. We are there to finish the job. The job is finished when Iraq has a constitution, a voted government, & the ability to defend there own country. Why is that so hard to understand? Your tripe borders on treason. There is nothing like a bunch of nobody’s second-guessing the president. I can tell you what your answers will be before you say them. We support the troops, but not the war. The draft is going to start up again. Bla, bla bla.

Tell that to Tom “The Hammer” Delay, when he said “You can support the troops and not the president.”

The problem with you conservitards is you are hypocrits. You screamed and yelled “wag the dog” when Clinton tried to do something about UBL (and he is the only president EVER to order an attack upon his person) and end the Bosnian genocide. Keep squealing your lies, the president’s approval rating is a symptom of your party, and in the next six months you’re going to see quite a few vulnerable Republicans running away from Bush and Iraq saying exactly the same things as Hagel.

Posted by: JT at August 22, 2005 08:03 PM

—- Perplexed
There is no intellectual discussion here.
—-

Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Posted by: tony at August 22, 2005 08:04 PM

JT:
“Tell that to Tom “The Hammer” Delay, when he said “You can support the troops and not the president.”

Reference please, I’d like to see if he was quoted out of context.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 08:09 PM

We train our military in 4 to 5 months. We train FBI in 18 weeks. Surely, after 2 years now of training the Iraqis, we should be able to complete the task, even if the past 2 years was a lie, by the end of next year.

But the President would have us believe that setting a date would 1) allow the enemy to back off and lie in wait until that pullout date, 2) accelerate the enemies activities to hit us even harder while we are still there and available as targets. The man loves to cover his bases doesn’t he?

But, I suspect what is really the President’s intent, is to insure an American military presence in Iraq in perpetuity, which was one of the strategic aims at the outset in the first place, giving us an imposing presence with which to intimidate Middle Eastern members of OPEC against shutting off the spigot, and thus protect Bush dynasty and friendly company profits in oil and war industries.

Sound familiar? It was the same argument heard at demonstrations in the late 60’s and early 70’s about Viet Nam and they were true then, and they are true now. Who can deny that corporate America involved in the Oil and Military industries are profiting handsomely and who can deny their lobbying efforts since before the 2000 elections for a broader military presence around the world, with ever more advanced equipment and armament?

Just history repeating itself, folks. And hell the price for all this profitability is damn cheap. I mean we spent 52 thousand American GI lives in Viet Nam for the military industrial complex profitability, and we have spent less than 2000 in Iraq. Hell, we got years to go before the cost benefit analysis even begins to hint at an end to this American Enterprise in Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2005 08:17 PM

Perplexed-
This nation’s press is not that communist. The graphics are too pretty. It’s surprises me just how paranoid you guys get about us. Maybe if you relaxed, your stereotypes about would get traded for real-life association, and you’d learn we’re not all that different from you, in the end. You’d get this chip off your shoulder about being the only folks worthy to defend this country, the only ones who really believe in the market economy, and the constitution, and we’d actually get good policy enacted in this country.

As for getting at us in these debates, you are fully free to pick our posts apart with evidence, logic, and persuasive, thoughtful commentary as you see fit. You don’t have to attack people to convince others of the truth of what you believe. You just have to be able to relate the truth in your beliefs eloquently.

What’s wrong with that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 09:29 PM

Stephen:

It surprises me how you can accuse conservatives of being paranoid, when every hair brained conspiracy theory is written by those on the left. I don’t have the time or space to talk about each theory. All I have to do is mention the name of Dean & Moore, which will suffice. I don’t think we are the only people worthy to defend this country, but for the life of me, I don’t understand the constant attacks on our government & country.

You condemn our religious beliefs as trying to overthrow the government & yet the most recent plan of the DNC is to let us know they are religious too.

You speak against the president & the troops & give our enemy more ammunition. You are like the Palestinians, the more Israel gives in to them, the more they want. It wouldn’t matter what the president did, you would never be satisfied, because you hate him. No, hate is the wrong word. You despise him.

You call for more troops & say there needs to be a draft & yet if there were a draft, you would condemn the president for starting it.

There is no debate here. This post is overwhelmed with liberals & you attack & gang up on any logical original thought. Logic requires thought & the left is not motivated by logic. They are motivated by emotion. Hate is a strong emotion & it clouds your ability to reason.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 10:07 PM

Perp,
“Bush was a pilot in the US military & has the right to wear a uniform anytime he wants.”

As Commander-in-Chief of the military, by tradition presidents do not wear uniforms. It underscores the idea that the military is under civilian control.

There have been exceptions to this tradition, especially early in the country’s history. Bush crassly violated the tradition for a campaign photo opp.

“… Should we be surprised that a Muslim state would base its constitution on Muslim law. Oh wise one, maybe you could tell us how we could have prevented it.”

Well, not invading in the first place would have prevented it, wouldn’t it?

Perhaps a Shia/Iranian-dominated Iraq is somehow preferable to a secular one dominated by a brutal tyrant like Saddam Hussein.

For that trade-off we will pay: several hundred billion dollars, @ 2,000 American lives, over 13,000 wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, damage to our international reputation, the blackening of our moral standing due to torture scandals, and in the meantime we have been distracted from Afghanistan, Al Qaida, & OBL.

Oh, and just to add some zest to this trade-off; the impending Shia state will control an even larger portion of the world’s oil supply than before; their support for Hezbollah will probably increase…

And we haven’t even started talking about the possibility of a civil war yet, eh?

Posted by: phx8 at August 22, 2005 10:08 PM

David,

We train our military in 4 to 5 months. We train FBI in 18 weeks. Surely, after 2 years now of training the Iraqis, we should be able to complete the task, even if the past 2 years was a lie, by the end of next year.

We can train our military and FBI in a much shorter amount of time and there is good reason for that. Once our troops or agents have received their training they are inserted into units comprised of seasoned veterans. They have experienced superiors to continue the “on the job” training for lack of a better term.

In Iraq there is none of this built in infrastructure in the military or police forces. The training must be much more in-depth and cover all the aspects that our troops and agents get from their day-to-day dealings with superiors and veterans. Building an organization from the ground up always takes longer than inserting new recruits into and existing unit.

I agree with you and Feingold. Let’s go ahead and announce our plans. While we are at it we should just go ahead and publish all our troop movements and plans in the local paper.

Posted by: Kirk at August 22, 2005 10:09 PM

Perplexed:

tsk… tsk… How quickly they forget…

The following were Republican quotes regarding the Kosovo War. You can google them easily…

“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost out of cruise missles.”
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“I don’t know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag”
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We’re taking on not just Milosevic. We can’t just say, ‘that little guy, we can whip him.’ We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president.”
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

“You can support the troops but not the president”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that’s when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started”
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

“Clinton’s bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country”
-Pat Buchanan (R)

“These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark … who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton.”
-Michael Savage

“This has been an unmitigated disaster … Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we’ve killed. Ask the refugees that we’ve killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals.”
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring “wars of national liberation.”
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

“America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo’s capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country”
-Pat Buchanan (R)

“By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind’s history. Not even Hitler’s grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia.”
-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

Posted by: Aldous at August 22, 2005 10:24 PM

Phx8:

The president landed on the carrier by plane & he was wearing a flight suit. Did you expect him to land wearing a suit & tie? Is there a law stating the president is not allowed to wear a flight suit or did it just upset you?

How many lives were lost in gaining the freedom of Europe in WWII? How many were lost in the South Pacific while driving the Japanese out of occupied lands? What price do you put on giving another human being freedom?

I am confused, are the Shia (Iraqi nation) going to control the oil, or is the US? You guys are the ones spreading the lie, oil for blood.

Kirk: good thoughts, but falling on deaf ears. You see, you are trying to use logic & only emotion will work on these pages.

Aldous:

So, did you support Clinton or did you agree with all these quotes? Has you philosophy changed since you began to despise a republican president?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 10:33 PM

Perplexed:
I have a problem with some of your comments. It’s because I hear this kind of stuff so often from the right. It’s the additional word that you add to make it sound like liberals/democrats are unamerican. Here’s what I’m talking about:
1. “I don’t understand the constant attacks on our government & country.”
2. “You speak against the president & the troops”

In both cases you have added a word that is clearly not true, yet you use it as a fact which supports your implied claim that liberals are against the USA. In the first, you say that we attack “our government and country”. That is absolutely false. The government, or more specifically, the politicians in the government; yes. But the country; never. There is no one in these posts attacking this country.
In the second, you say that liberals “speak against the president and the troops.” Again, they are not the same and no liberal american here or anywhere has spoken against the troops. It is possible to be against the president’s policies and even dislike the man, and still wholeheartedly support our troops.
So please stop stating these falsehoods. I’m tired of hearing them on Fox News and from so many of the conservative news outlets, pundits, and articles every day. They are nothing less than personal attacks on the patriotism of Americans who are doing nothing more than practicing the right of free speech, guaranteed by the consitution. The people on the right don’t mind free speech when it agrees with their views. It’s only when it disagrees that it becomes a problem; or so it seems to me.

Posted by: Cole at August 22, 2005 10:41 PM

If we are going to rehash comments from the past how about this one?

It would be unthinkable for us to retreat in disarray and leave behind a society deep in strife and dominated by radicals

John Kerry, while running for President.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 22, 2005 11:07 PM

Cole:

Freedom of speech is a two way street. It is impossible to say you support the troops & yet do not support their work. That is like having a disease & going to a doctor & saying I support you as a doctor, but I don’t support what you do.

By telling the troops their work & sacrifice is for nothing, you demoralize them. Therefore: you do not support the troops!

Your hate rhetoric demoralizes the country & the sole purpose is power or the loss of power. With the hopes of somehow winning the next election. Pitiful.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 11:15 PM

Lisa, Lisa:

There you go trying to be logical.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 22, 2005 11:19 PM

Lisa Renee:

Kerry is right. I agree with him. We cannot leave Iraq. We must succeed regardless of lives or cost. This is not a Sony Playstation where we can turn it off.

The question here is the stupidity of going into this game at all. Its not as if nobody knew this might happen. The State Department knew the problems. The UN knew the problems. Unfortunately, it was the Pentagon left completely incharge. So now we play the game called “Eternal War”. Have fun.

Posted by: Aldous at August 22, 2005 11:22 PM

Perplexed:

Intersting. So Republicans did not Support the Troops during Kosovo? That’s a real shame. I suppose the fact that no GI’s died in Kosovo makes the Right’s lack of Support lesser. Next time a Democrat goes to War, we should have an incompetent plan to guarantee casualties. That way… we Liberals can have a stronger case when Republicans attack the “Government and the Country” or the “President and the Troops”.

Posted by: Aldous at August 22, 2005 11:31 PM

Perplexed wrote:
The job is finished when Iraq has a constitution, a voted government, & the ability to defend there own country.

Defend their country against whom? Against their own country? Or defend their country against Americans? Very unclear! Could you please clarify this?

Posted by: JD at August 22, 2005 11:46 PM

Kirk,
“In Iraq there is none of this built in infrastructure in the military or police forces.”

Oh? What happened to it? Wait. Thaaaaat’s right. At the urgings of the Neocon darling & Iranian spy, Chalabi, the CPA disbanded the Iraqi military & police infrastructure. This same Chalabi, convicted of an enormous financial fraud in Jordan, then took control of Iraqi government finances with the blessings of the Bush administration.

Incredible, isn’t it?

Perplexed,
“What price do you put on giving another human being freedom?”

That’s a great question. We have enormous resources, power, and wealth; yet even for the most powerful country on earth, there are limits. Can a price be put upon freedom? Should there be any practical restrictions in the pursuit of another’s freedom?

If necessary, should freedom be spread at the end of a bayonet?

“… Are the Shia (Iraqi nation) going to control the oil, or is the US?”

Originally, the Neocon plan was for the US to appropriate the Iraqi oil industry. Interestingly enough, the Big Oil companies rejected this idea, based on previous unpleasant experiences with payback from nationalizing regimes.

Instead of controlling the oil itself, we seek to control access. It’s not a matter of control. It’s a matter of access. Not control. Access.

That is what all those permanent military bases are about.

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2005 12:09 AM

Perplexed:

Let me make sure I have this correct…

Demoralizing non-support = trying to prevent unnecessary war, then demonstrating our desire to get them out of harm’s way, and hold accountable those who put them there and asked them to die for nothing

Support = starting unnecessary wars for dubious reasoning, keeping them in a hostile, foreign land much longer than they had promised, giving them inadequate protection and equipment, then cutting their pay and benefits while they’re gone

Personally, I’m guessing the troops prefer our kind of support.

Posted by: unkind k at August 23, 2005 12:10 AM

I’ll be perfectly honest in saying I don’t know if we need more troops or not. What I do know is what we are doing right now doesn’t appear to be making Iraq be able to stand on their own for us to leave. If it would take more troops to accomplish that? I’d support it.

Many of us, myself included had a pretty good idea that Iraq would end up more of a theocracy rather than a democracy. I have issues with the fact that it is entirely possible that women in Iraq will have had more rights under Saddam than under a new Iraqi government.

However there comes a point when it is not up to us. If we truly gave them the freedom to form their own government than it was a risk we took and lost as far as creating what our idea of a democracy was. However, from an islamic point of view this is preferable to what Saudi Arabia has.

Our goal should be establishing Iraqi police and security forces so we can bring our troops home. It is up to them to take it from there and hopefully with our support? They will make it. Democracy takes time to establish. Even for those who want it.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 23, 2005 12:34 AM

Lisa,
“Our goal should be establishing Iraqi police and security forces so we can bring our troops home.”

Yes, that has been the goal all along. Just one problem: the Shias and the Kurds and even the Sunnis have no loyalty towards something called ‘Iraq.’

‘Iraq’ is a figment of the western imagination. After World War I, the British combined the backwater provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra into a British colony. This had nothing to do with the wishes of the people living there. It had everything to do with the British ensuring access to the enormous oil reserves of the area.

Read the speeches given by the Brits at the time, the grandiose proclamations of liberation, even as the British occupied the territory. Interesting bit of trivia- did you know that, when the Iraqis rebelled against the British, Winston Churchill favored gassing them in aerial bombardments?

Moving right along… today Kurds exhibit loyalty to other Kurds. They have a perfectly good security force, the Pesh Merga. It consists of @ 50,000 troops. The Kurds have no intention of integrating the Pesh Merga into a national Iraqi force. They are loyal to their own ethnic group & region, NOT Iraq.

The Shias also refuse to integrate their militias into a national Iraqi force. There are @ 12,000 poorly trained, poorly armed, but highly motivated Shia militiamen… maybe more.

Ironically, only the Sunnis want an ‘Iraq’ to exist. Why? ‘Iraq’ gives the Sunnis access to the Kurdish & the Shia fields of… guess what resource?… c’mon, guess!

Oil.

And here we are. During her confirmation hearing, Condi Rice testified that there were over 140,000 Iraqi security forces at that time.

She was lying.

Within the past few weeks, Rumsfeld and Casey testified that there were over 170,000 Iraqi security forces at the time.

They were lying too.

The Shias have their oil. The Kurds have their oil. The Sunnis want access to the Kurd & Shia oil fields. The US wants… freedom & democracy.

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2005 02:30 AM

Perplexed

Our constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian bible

Perplexed sounds a little puzzled. Perhaps he should read Fighting Words For A Secular America.

For you see Perplexed, we are a secular nation. You seem to forget that many of the founding fathers had different faiths and beliefs. They announced their intentions with the Declaration of Independence “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”. The victors set about their new secular government of men and laws. It was not surprising then that in 1796 they wrote “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” for the treaty of Tripoli. I feel bad, being the bearer of bad news, for you see Perplexed; even you have to make room for the rest of us ;-)

I must admit, I get tired with “there are no ideas from the left” bit. One thing I hear from the left is we must PAY for the war, something the right forgets about. But then again they told us it would only cost 1.7 Billion- oops. I also hear we should get the UN involved, but I think we just can’t ignore them again for that to happen (remember 1441, second vote and all that). The right even ignores itself. The state department had a plan, but the Bush administration decided to wing it - was that smart? And the Right is FINALLY coming around to reality… My favorite new quote from a senior Bush Administration official is “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.” Duh- shedding the UNREALITY, I bet that’s going to take a l…o…n…g time

It is impossible to say you support the troops & yet do not support their work

The right continually cuts and tries to cut the militaries benefits. The left continually bolsters, and tries to see their needs met. It’s impossible to say you support the troops, & yet do not support their personal needs. It’s like having a disease & going to a doctor & saying I support you as a doctor, but I’m taking away your ability to treat people.
By telling the troops their work & sacrifice is for nothing, you demoralize them. Therefore: you do not support the troops!
Your hateful actions demoralizes the country & the sole purpose is power or the loss of power. With the hopes of somehow winning the next election. Pitiful.

Lisa

Many of us, myself included had a pretty good idea that Iraq would end up more of a theocracy rather than a democracy

You were quicker then the President. Bush on Iraq:
“Iraqi democracy will succeed — and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran — that freedom can be the future of every nation.”
I cannot help but notice, he’s not saying Iraqi theocracy will succeed. Ah well, that “reality” takes time to seep in.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 23, 2005 02:31 AM

Our constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian bible.

No perplexed. Certainly not to the extent that Iraq’s constitution will be based on the Koran. For example, we can work on Sundays. Hurray for secularism!

I also get tired of hearing Democrats have no plan. We’ve had one every step of the way: Only invade as part of a UN operation; Send more troops; Accept France, Germany, and India’s offer of troops under a UN mandate; Send more troops; Don’t hand over the country to the Iraqis until they have an army, police, uncorrupt judiciary, a constitution, a free market, and other democratic institutions; Send more troops; Don’t have an election without support of the Sunnis; Send more troops; Send more troops; Send more troops; And don’t leave until the country and its borders are secure; Send more troops!

Dude, Democrats have plans up the wazoo. Accusing Democrats of not having plans is like accusing a Kennedy of excessive sobriety.

And send more troops. We’re either in Iraq to win, or we might as well just leave.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 04:31 AM

Perplexed,

You have made several “assertions of fact”. What are the factual bases, including names, dates and any other documentation for your following statements:

“Your tripe borders on treason.” Forget the “tripe” part. Where is the treason?

“There are many other republican politicians who support the president & the war effort & also served in Vietnam with honors.” Names and war records, including honors, please?

“[Cindy Sheehan] … is no more than a liberal activist & a pawn in the hands of moveon.org & the communist press in this country.” Prove that other groups are using Cindy Sheehan without her knowledge (the definition of a pawn).

Also, what press qualifies as “the communist press”, and on what verifiable grounds? Please cite verifiable organizational ties of any large-circulation publication or news program covering Cindy Sheehan to any domestic or foreign Communist Party or verifiable front group.

Finally, which of the Republican politicians and right-wing “journalists” quoted by Aldous regarding Kosovo are inaccurately quoted?

Here is your chance to blow us out of the water. Are you man enough to do it?

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at August 23, 2005 08:20 AM

I think this sums it up quite well…

Americans continue dying in Iraq, but their mission creeps steadily downward. The nonexistent weapons of mass destruction dropped out of the picture long ago. Now the United States seems ready to walk away from its fine words about helping the Iraqis create a beacon of freedom, harmony and democracy for the Middle East. All that remains to be seen is whether the White House has become so desperate for an excuse to declare victory that it will settle for an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy.

(NY Times)

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 08:47 AM

AP

By law you can’t work on Sundays around here……

Can’t buy beer either :(

For my secular friends I will once again link this exhibit from the Library of Congress. Please put your “our government is/was secular” into the context of Federalism. As my State (Blue Laws) will show you might reach a different conclusion.

Otherwise, continue the banter on Iraq.

Posted by: George in SC at August 23, 2005 09:27 AM

George, are you telling me that the McDonald’s, the 7/11, and all the gas stations are closed on Sunday?! That’s crazy.

tony, that’s the sad truth, isn’t it.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 09:45 AM

Uh AP, our county doesn’t have a McDonald’s….

Gas stations and food stores are open though. In SC it is county by county; the next county over has Sunday beer sales and liquor at any bar that pays an additional tax. Not before 1:30pm though.

Not like your Ralph’s I guess (I lived in Manhattan Beach for a few years)…

Go to sleep!

Posted by: George in SC at August 23, 2005 09:51 AM

By law you can’t work on Sundays around here……

Gee George, what do you do if you need gas on the way to church on Sunday? And doesn’t your preacher work on Sundays?

It’s funny, but whenever somebody tells us that this country is christian, it’s usually to justify government intrusion into our personal lives. The same people who are always wanting government off their backs.

And apparently, it’s OK to allow the dominant religeous group in Iraq to force its dogma on the others.

Posted by: Loren at August 23, 2005 10:09 AM

Perplexed: “There is nothing like a bunch of nobody’s second-guessing the president.”
——————————-
Pardon me, but concerened, intelligent, tax-paying, voting citizens are not “nobody’s.”

Perplexed: “It is so disgusting to read each column & the same liberals say the same things over & over again. Attack, attack, attack. , & yet no ideas from the left.”
——————————-
Okay, where are the ideas from the right? “Stay the course” is not an idea.

Here ends the lesson.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 23, 2005 10:57 AM

AP,

The common point in your 8/23 4:30am post seems to be “send more troops”. This for the purpose of ending the war.

I happen to be in complete agreement however, my use of those troops would most certainly be different than yours (based on my perception of your basic position on rules of engagement, etc.).

How do you suggest we utilize those additional troops. Will they be simply more of our guys walking on eggs, afraid to shoot someone because they may be “innocent”. Will we presenting more targets for unidentifiable insurgents and terrorists to approach with explodable back packs?

IMO more troops must be supported with more firepower from the air. MORE troops is a signal
of MORE power, failure to use it it a sign of weakness.

In any case, at the end of the day, adding troops increases the number of potential casualties. On both sides.

Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 11:07 AM

steve, I’ve said before that our military is using the same old seek & destroy tactics that failed so miserably in Vietnam. We have no problem engaging these guys and driving them out of a town, but when we leave because we don’t have the troops to keep a credible presence, they just come back.

Frankly, I’m a big fan of Afghanistan-style Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Where they have the man-power to operate, they’re pretty successful in securing an area, gaining trust from the populace, and extending the reach of the central government - ie, law and order.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 11:41 AM

Go to sleep!

Ok. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 11:42 AM

—-
How do you suggest we utilize those additional troops. Will they be simply more of our guys walking on eggs, afraid to shoot someone because they may be “innocent”.
—-

I have no idea what to say to this, other than to ask: what do you see separating us from the terrorists? The weapons we use?

For some reason, I find your comments extremely grotesque.

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 11:57 AM

tony,

I would suspect that our weapons are superior to those of the terrorists/insurgents.

What I see separating us from the terrorists/insurgents is the willingness to shoot at a terrorist if he is positioned next to or near what some would call “innocent” citizens.

While you find my comments to be grotesque, I sense comments in your posts related to the administrations war conduct possibly tinged with schadenfreude.
The terrorist/insurgent mind set, training and cultural stance is to “kill Americans at any cost whatsoever”.

Make no mistake, a large number of “innocent” civilians are two things; 1) harborers of terrorists and 2) actually terrorists disguised as vendors, etc.

We are talking about people who use their own “innocent” children, women and, those citizens who have infiltrated our ranks as employees, contractors, aides, etc. to blow us up while we are helping them to reconstruct their country and lives.

Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 12:44 PM

Perplexed,

I have to add my opinion of your very first statement:

“What did you expect Iraq to base their laws upon, the Torah? Our constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian bible.”

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support this remarkable assertion?

Could you point out the chapter and verse that discusses the freedom of speech? How about the one on the right to assemble?

I’d be interested in knowing Jesus’ opinion on interstate commerce. Or Moses’ thoughts on a bicameral legislature. Or Matthew’s on due process. Was Abraham a “states rights” guy? Did Joseph and Mary support lifetime judicial appointments? Do you think that King David would have agreed with the prohibition against religious tests as a prerequisite to hold public office?

If you had the slightest knowledge of American history, you’d know that the authors of our Constitution were influenced the Age of Enlightenment, which placed a higher value on human thought than religious superstition, not the Bible. If you are interested in eliciting an intelligent discussion, you might want to begin your comments with a statement that doesn’t betray your own profound ignorance.

Were the authors of the Constitution aware of the Bible? Of course. Were they religious? Most of them were. Did they use the Bible as a template for drafting our nascent nation’s most fundamental laws? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That’s the problem with you conservatives: you profess allegiance to a mythical America that exists only in your own the fertile imaginations.

The tragedy of the Iraqi constitution is that the adoption of a totally secular constitution must be one of our non-negotiable demands. Nobody should be thrown in jail in Baghdad for ordering bacon with his or her eggs.

For a classic example about how to write the constitution of a defeated nation, I suggest you read Embracing Defeat by John Dower. It’s the history of Japan’s reconstruction after WWII.

Six months after our victory, the Japanese wrote a constitution that MacArthur didn’t like (it preserved the divinity of the Emperor), so he tore it up and had his staff write a new one. They sat down in a room and cooked one up in less than a week. The Japanese leadership swallowed hard when they read it, but they really didn’t have much of a choice. They translated it into Japanese, (it took longer to translate than it took to write), proposed it to the Japanese public as if they had written it themselves, and it was adopted. Generally, I don’t have much use for MacArthur, but I think that this was a brilliant move, and I think Japan turned out rather well with its brand new, American-made, secular Constitution.

I know that post-war Japan presented its conquerors with a very different set of circumstances than post-war Iraq presents to us today, but the same principles must apply. As the authors of our Constitution and the Japanese Constitution realized, any nation that predicates its most fundamental laws upon any particular religious dogma is illegitimate.

But that’s the biggest problem with the Republican reconstruction of Iraq: how can they keep the Koran out of the Iraqi constitution ethically if they imagine that the Bible is in ours?

If we allow this constitution to be proposed and adopted, we’re just looking for trouble, and I’m afraid that five or ten years from now we’ll find it.

One final note: both you and I know that Bush’s flight onto the aircraft carrier was a cheap publicity stunt. Even Dwight (“I will go to Korea”) Eisenhower, a man of slightly more military stature than our current president, didn’t stoop to a cheap theatrical event like that. He never wore his uniform as Commander in Chief, even when he was in a war zone.

Bush could have taken a helicopter out to the boat or had it dock in San Diego. Then he could have given his premature “victory” speech wearing a business suit as if he were the President of the United States instead of a little boy playing soldier on TV.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 23, 2005 01:46 PM

—-
Make no mistake, a large number of “innocent” civilians are two things; 1) harborers of terrorists and 2) actually terrorists disguised as vendors, etc.
—-
Can you prove this? Are you sure?

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 01:57 PM

I believe that Perplexed and others who are lashing out at the left are extremely frustrated — and simply find that it’s easier to take their anger out on us (perhaps because we’ve been so right about this war?) than it is to finally confront the facts on the ground in Iraq.
They’ve got to be feeling so wretched that everything this administration has done in Iraq has either been based on lies and arm chair warrior ideologies that was only compounded by their totally illogical choices that went directly against what our military leaders knew were the best and most logical decisions to make.
I think it also has got to deeply disturb even the strongest of true Neocon believers to realize that America has spent all this blood and treasure in Iraq only to have them end up with a Theocratic Republic, rather than a true Democracy.
And reflecting this fact is the president’s approval rating — on average currently at 42%. That’s got to be a major bummer for them.
Or how about the fact that in Salt Lake City, Utah (of all conservative places) where W. appeared yesterday to speak about the war, about 4000 war protesters showed up! Including the Mayor who made a speech saying we need to bring our troops home now!
Here is a link to the pictures of that protest.
So to sum up, I don’t think we need to react with the same sort of vitriol towards their rage — because we are witnessing the implosion of Neocon’s (at last America is coming to it’s senses!). Perhaps very soon this nation will be able to rise above all the nasty rhetoric — and we’ll find ourselves back to where politics is merely between garden variety liberals and actual conservatives once again.
What do you think? Agree, or Disagree?

PS. Chuck — excellent argument against the completely absurd and utterly nonsensical statement:
“Our constitution is based upon the Judeo-Christian bible.”

Posted by: Adrienne at August 23, 2005 02:37 PM

Hi Perplexed:

Almost all the points you made were answered well by many commenters. I concentrate on this:

“It is so disgusting to read each column & the same liberals say the same things over & over again. Attack, attack, attack. , & yet no ideas from the left.”

I’m sorry you feel disgusted. But I don’t think that “disgusting” is a rational argument. It may be emotional, but not rational.

Now, about saying the same thing. If you mean we do not like the Bush administration, I think this is true. However, each of us argues against a different aspect. It may sound the same to you because you are upset that anyone would dare to criticize our commander-in-chief. Don’t drag in the troops; they follow orders of the commander-in-chief.

Next “attack, attack, attack.” I thought that was the motto of the Republican Party. Whenever anyone dissents from the Bush-line, everyone in the Republican noise machine attacks. They do not attack the ideas. NO, they attack the character of the people dissenting. Yes, liberals attack too, but they attack Republican ideas, not the people presenting them.

Next “no ideas from the left.” My idea in this blog is that the president should say that we plan to leave Iraq in a given time. Nothing you said in your post is an argument against this. I hear about “bull,” “tripe,” and “treason.”

Don’t you think calling me “treasonous” is a little over the top? I hope you respond more rationally next time. You’re allowing your Republican emotions to get the best of you.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at August 23, 2005 02:47 PM

tony,

I can tell an innocent civilian from a terrorist as well as anyone. The innocent civilian is wearing a full length robe,(the robe covers the bottom half of his face) sandals, has his head wrapped with whatever they call that accessory and covers all but his eyes. Sometimes he is carrying a prayer rug which does not have a weapon concealed in it.

It is easy to differentiate between innocent civilian and terrorist.

Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 03:48 PM

steve -

I do see your humor, but your post gets to the point: Killing innocent people is called murder. That’s is abhorrent in America, Iraq… anywhere people are. That’s what terrorists do.

If you are OK with America becoming the next state to sponsor terrorism, then I guess we are completely at odds. The ground you call home does not make a difference in this.

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 03:55 PM

Adrienne,

We’ve been so right about this war?? Are you serious?

I recall all the major press saying how foolish it was for Bush to send troops into Afghanistan. Everyone tries to forget that now but at the time they were going on and on about it. Everyone from the Brits to the Soviets lost in that country, even to the point of showing abandoned Soviet tanks still dotting the landscape. We of course had no chance.

Now all the leftists are so concerned about our ‘troubles’ in Iraq but are quick to point out how Afghanistan is a great success. We’ll they weren’t for our effort in Afghanistan until it became clear it was a success.

Let’s see our so-called trouble in Iraq or “quagmire” as Mr. Kennedy calls it: Whipped Saddam of his block in months, have the terrorists pre-occupied there not here, elections have been held, and a new constitution. All these with less casualties than one day of battle in the Civil War.

That’s not bad.

Posted by: Todd Gandee at August 23, 2005 03:59 PM

—-
Afghanistan is a great success.
—-
?!?!?!?!?!?!

It’s controlled by war lords… most of the country is not under our control and still has terrorists (including OBL… maybe?) and we’re still loosing soldiers… and no one has even considered what the hell with do to get out of the mess we have there.

—-
Whipped Saddam of his block in months, have the terrorists pre-occupied there not here, elections have been held, and a new constitution. All these with less casualties than one day of battle in the Civil War.
—-
I like the reference to Civil War… remember that. The new Constitution has huge holes in it -and we’re basically looking at anything other than a real democracy there. We built a good neighbor for Iran, but they’re one leg of the ‘Axis of evil’ so how exactly does that help us?

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 04:31 PM

Todd,
Most people aren’t following Afghanistan. It’s a primitive place, a failed state.

And unless we change US policy, we have zero chance of winning there.

We’re supporting Karzai, “The Mayor of Kabul,” and a government based upon the support of The Northern Alliance. Karzai cannot even trust his own troops to protect him- his bodyguard consists of Americans. The Northern Alliance represent a minority of Afghans- Tajik, Uzbek, and others- the same bunch that lost to the Taliban the first time around.

Make no mistake, the Taliban is still there, Mullah Omar is still there, OBL is probably not far from there, the Pashtun warlord Hekmaktyar is still there, along with a plethora of mujahideen from the war against the USSR.

With the exception of the USSR government imposed upon Afghanistan in the 1980’s, every Afghan government has been dominated by the majority tribe, the Pashtun.

We, the US, can sit on Afghanistan for a long time & suppport the current puppet government, as long as we’re willing to spend more and more, and as long as we’re willing to put in more troops.

Leave the situation as it is, and as incredible as it might seem today, we’ll lose, just as surely as the USSR lost to the mujahideen.

It would make more sense to install a Pashtun government, but I guess setting up an Islamic government in Iraq is enough work for this year.

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2005 04:37 PM

Todd
“We’ve been so right about this war?? Are you serious?”

Iraq? Yes we were. No doubt about it.

“I recall all the major press saying how foolish it was for Bush to send troops into Afghanistan.”

Major press? Against going to Afghanistan? That’s not the way I remember it.

“Everyone from the Brits to the Soviets lost in that country, even to the point of showing abandoned Soviet tanks still dotting the landscape. We of course had no chance.”

We were going after Bin Laden, and yes we did have a chance, but this administration blew it and let him get away. Then, they decided to ignore Afghanistan, and invaded Iraq. The way these Neocon’s have waged war has resulted in nothing but complete FAILURE.

“Now all the leftists are so concerned about our ‘troubles’ in Iraq but are quick to point out how Afghanistan is a great success.”

Afghanistan a great success!? I suggest you start reading some newspapers Todd, because you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

“We’ll they weren’t for our effort in Afghanistan until it became clear it was a success.”

Bullshit.
Most of the people on the left in this blog saw the reason in going to Afghanistan — to capture or kill Bin Laden, to crush the Taliban, and to round up Al Qaida leaders, including myself.
I personally had a close friend die in the WTC on 9/11 and I completely disagreed with the president when he said of Bin Laden:
“We haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run”.
That too, was total bullshit.

“Let’s see our so-called trouble in Iraq or “quagmire” as Mr. Kennedy calls it:”

Yeah, and Republican Sen. Hagel just compared it to Vietnam. They are both right.

Whipped Saddam of his block in months,”

But can’t whip the insurgents because we took apart Iraq’s military, and because we’ve had too few American troops on the ground since the beginning.

“have the terrorists pre-occupied there not here,”

Like in England’s underground?

“elections have been held, and a new constitution.”

Which has given them an Islamic Theocratic Republic rather than Freedom and Democracy.

“All these with less casualties than one day of battle in the Civil War.”

Ugh. This is such a f*cking twisted a thing to say. I can’t even begin to go into all the reasons why this is so wrongheaded…

Instead, I’ll just answer like this:

At least at the end of the Civil War an honorable goal was reached — slavery was ended, and America’s had died so that all of us could live up to the founding ideal “That All Men Are Created Equal”.
In this war. Islamic Fundamentalism and Bin Laden has Won — and we have lost so very much.

“That’s not bad.”

“Bad” is too tame a word.
Terrible, Appalling, Horrifying, Disastrous, or Atrocious — any of those terms might apply here.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 23, 2005 05:00 PM

tony,

Honestly, my post was not written with any intent at humor. I have been asking for months, “how do you tell an innocent from a terrorist”.

Not one single person has responded. So I responded for them because my description is the truth.

In another thread today, same kind of subject a guy named Phillipe (supported by Jarin) said you should wait until the person fires first. This is the same camp that comments about us not having enough armor. What do you say to the guy, “OK first you fire and if I am not killed, do not run because it’s my turn to fire next”.

Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 05:07 PM

Adrienne’s comment about her recollection of support for Afghanistan is very telling:

“Major press? Against going to Afghanistan? That’s not the way I remember it.”

That’s the problem—-the anti war left’s memory changes frequently. They now support Afghanistan fighting, but not Iraq, and are quick to say so. But at the time, it just wasnt that way.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at August 23, 2005 05:18 PM

jeobagodonuts
Who’s short on memory? You seem to forget… All of the Senate Democrats voted for the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan. There was only one congressional Dem who did not. That seems to me to be overwhelming support for the war effort in Afghanistan.

That’s the problem—-the pro war right’s memory changes frequently.

Remember this little gem?

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

—George W. Bush.

Can somebody say taking your eye off the ball?

Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 23, 2005 06:18 PM

Perplexed:
So I guess what you are saying is that, even if the President is totally wrong and puts our troops in harm’s way, we are supposed to go along with it and keep our mouths shut.
I was supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan, because that is where the operations of Al Qaeda were centered, and the government gave them safe haven and other support. It’s when Bush sent our military into Iraq that I disagreed. I felt that way before it happened, so I’m not a latecomer to this idea.
So I feel it’s my duty as an American to state my disagreement with this action. However, as long as our troops are there, I want them to have all of the materials, numbers, and support that they need to stay safe and come home. Since I can’t order them home, I have to raise my voice to give them what they need. So I support them.
By blindly supporting Bush, even when he is wrong, and puts the troops in danger for the wrong reasons, without the materials and numbers and support they need to get the job done, you do not support our troops. You support only Bush to the exclusion of the troops.
There is a difference. I would rather support the troops than the guy who wrongly put them in Iraq without the means to do the job they were told to do.
What is demoralizing to the country is the fact that our president pulled off this total blunder and sent our military where they should not have gone, for reasons that did not exist, and greatly increased the instability in the region; not to mention increasing the cause for recruitment of new terrorists. Supporting that is wrong.
It’s time that the Bush supporters began to realize that what has happened is very wrong, and is completely against the standards by which we are supposed to live; the standards that we hold out to everyone else.
The best way to protect our troops and help our country would be to quickly finish the job in which we are mired and get them out of Iraq.

Posted by: Cole at August 23, 2005 07:09 PM

Re Todd Gandee’s post,

“I recall all the major press saying how foolish it was for Bush to send troops into Afghanistan. Everyone tries to forget that now but at the time they were going on and on about it. Everyone from the Brits to the Soviets lost in that country, even to the point of showing abandoned Soviet tanks still dotting the landscape. We of course had no chance.”

This is simply delusional, but bears a further reply. Many, if not most centrists and liberals, in the press and outside, knew immediately after 9/11 that, despite 2500 years of failed invasions, beginning with Alexander the Great, we HAD to go into Afghanistan. Some of us, myself included, had wanted to go after the Taliban, a regime at least as evil as the Iraqi Ba’athists, long before 9/11.

We also knew that it required going in with everything it took to win, even if that meant that those who were benefiting from the Bush tax cut might have to ante up and kick in like real citizens.

“Now all the leftists are so concerned about our ‘troubles’ in Iraq but are quick to point out how Afghanistan is a great success. We’ll they weren’t for our effort in Afghanistan until it became clear it was a success.”

Checked your brain at the door again? We wanted to STAY in Afghanistan until it DID become a succcess - which it is rapidly dis-becoming. While American troops trudge from one end of the place to the other, and assorted representatives of contemptible “Old Europe” do their best - and lose their lives - to police Kabul, Kandahar, et al, the Taliban is slowly but surely regrouping, and the whole country is turning into the world’s biggest narco-state

“…have the terrorists pre-occupied there not here….”

As someone else replied earlier, pre-occupied in London? I don’t know where you live, but every day, when I commute to New York, I, and the hundreds of thousands who join me, all know that we are more vulnerable than ever. Since 9/11, George Bush and the rest of the Bush League have not done one thing to increase the security of any train or train station, bus or bus station, ferry or ferry terminal, bridge, tunnel, hospital, school, shoppng mall, office building, chemical plant, LNG tank, police station, or fire house. We know that another terrorist attack is inevitable, and, if they ain’t done it yet, it’s only because, as far as they are concerned, it just ain’t time.

We all just live with that knowledge, going about our business with a stoicism that probably most of us never knew we had, all the time despising the posturing fools who could at least reduce the risk, but don’t have the brains, honesty, or character to do so.

THAT’s the real treason and those are the real traitors.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at August 23, 2005 08:11 PM

Robert -

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 09:26 PM

To all:

I have been away for almost 24 hours & I can’t believe the response to a few simple statements. I don’t know where or how to begin to answer my accusers. I will try to hit the high points, but let me first say I will exercise my right of free speech.

Saying you support the troops but not the war is illogical & provides aid & comfort to the enemy. Therefore I consider such reasoning traitorous.

Several wanted to know my proof for the constitution to be based upon the Judeo-Christian bible. I will continue to stand upon this belief. The constitution did not quote from the bible, Old or New Testament, but the principles of the Christian religion were incorporated into the constitution.

Chuck H said, “If you had the slightest knowledge of American history, you’d know that the authors of our Constitution were influenced the Age of Enlightenment, which placed a higher value on human thought than religious superstition, not the Bible. If you are interested in eliciting an intelligent discussion, you might want to begin your comments with a statement that doesn’t betray your own profound ignorance.”

And Patrick H said, “It was not surprising then that in 1796 they wrote, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”.

In answer to both of these, let me quote a few words from “What Hath God Wrought”, by Dr. William P. Grady.
“James Madison represented the Baptists (of Virginia) with his remarkable treaties entitled “Memorial and Remonstrance”, arguing from history that Christianity would flourish best without the support of the government:

The establishment proposed by this Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion.

Logic such as this rendered the bill untenable, and it died of natural causes in October 17, 1785. Madison subsequently reentered Jefferson’s bill on December 17, 1785, and, this time it was gloriously passed and signed by the speaker on January 19, 1786. The revolutionary legislation read as follows:

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever; nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened in his body or goods, no shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect the civil capacities.”

Christians, & in this case Baptists believed & practiced soul liberty. Meaning, a person could worship as they pleased without fear. No other Christian denomination in the colonies believed or practiced this “soul liberty”.

A Baptist preacher by the name of John Leland represented 10,000 Virginians & was nominated to be the Orange County delegate to the Virginia Convention for ratification of the Constitution. He was concerned about what the Constitution did not say about religious liberty. Upon promises from neighbor, James Madison, Leland agreed to allow Madison to take his place at the convention. Because of this, Madison promised this pastor & these Virginia Baptist that he would work for their cause of religious liberty. After the Virginia convention ratified the Constitution on July 28, 1788, Madison went on to defeat James Monroe for Congress & set out to fulfill his bargain.

Quoting again from Grady’s book:

Because the First Amendment was such a hot potato, Madison’s original draft was altered several times in committee. However, the cardinal point regarding his first proposal confirms the author’s clarity of intent. From the phrase, “nor shall any national religion be established”

On December 15, 1791 the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was ratified.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So without the tireless work of the Virginia Baptist this First Amendment may never have come about. Because of the unending desire for religious freedom, these Baptist also guaranteed the right of free speech & of the press. Of these people, John Locke wrote, “The Baptists were the first and only propounders of absolute liberty”.

Pastor John Leland’s memorial can be seen alongside a lone highway in Orange County, Virginia:

“1754-1841, Elder John Leland, Courageous leader of the Baptist doctrine, ardent advocate of the principles of democracy, vindicator of separation of church and state. Near this spot in 1788 Elder John Leland and James Madison, the father of the American Constitution, held a significant interview which resulted in the adoption of the Constitution by Virginia. Then Madison a member of Congress from Orange presented the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing religious liberty, free speech and a free press. This satisfied Leland and his Baptist followers. Presented by Eugene Bucklin Bowen president Berkshire County Massachusetts Chapter Sons of the American Revolution”

Do you still think religion played no part in our forming of a government or Constitution?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 23, 2005 11:15 PM

Preplexed,

Sounds like you made an eloquent argument, that makes my point. From your own post, we can summarize that James Madison fought hard to ensure that the constitution was secular. At least to protect the interests of the Virginia Baptists- great.

He also argued against chaplains in the military and Congress because that would be unconstitutional

Some more quotes by Madison…

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise”

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution”

“What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries”

Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 24, 2005 12:11 AM

Saying you support the troops but not the war is illogical & provides aid & comfort to the enemy. Therefore I consider such reasoning traitorous.

Thank you for bravely asserting your right of free speech by restating your position. However, since this position has been eloquently and repeatedly rebutted and dissected, it’s incumbent on you actually to support your position instead of simply restating it if you want it to be taken seriously.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 24, 2005 02:38 AM

Six months after our victory, the Japanese wrote a constitution that MacArthur didn’t like (it preserved the divinity of the Emperor), so he tore it up and had his staff write a new one.

If we allow [the Iraq] constitution to be proposed and adopted, we’re just looking for trouble, and I’m afraid that five or ten years from now we’ll find it.

Excellent post, Chuck. Too bad President Bush threw away the chance to have a secular constitution in Iraq, just so he could hand over the government to Iraqis last summer for a “victory” to crow about during his election campaign.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 24, 2005 03:57 AM

Patrick:

The quotes you gave concerning Madison are true, but they refer to the established religions. These religions were persecuted by Catholicism & the Church of England in Europe & were in turn persecuting others in this country. Up until the time of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights, Baptist had been persecuted in Virginia & their pastors thrown in prison. This is the reason there was such a great demand for absolute religious liberty by these Baptists. The original argument was that religion played no part in the forming of our laws. I say the desire for religious liberty by these people played a great role in our founding government.

You will notice Madison used terms like “bondage”& “establishment”, referring to organized religion. Baptists churches have never organized as an ecclesiastical body.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 24, 2005 06:53 AM

Patrick:

An interesting little game you played in your post responding to mine. Where I used the phrase “anti-war left”, you swapped that for “Democrats in Congress”. Nice trick.

You said that “All of the Senate Democrats voted for the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan. There was only one congressional Dem who did not. That seems to me to be overwhelming support for the war effort in Afghanistan.”

Two points for your consideration:

First, since they voted FOR the war in Afghanistan, they would by definition NOT be part of the anti-war left. Are you seriously suggesting that the anti-war left has always been in favor of either war. Dont forget Cindy Sheehan’s comments as an example, when she declared that both the war in Aghanistan and the war in Iraq were wrong.

Secondly, by YOUR definition, the fact that someone votes for a war makes them supporters of the war. Thus, each and every Senate Democrat who voted to approve the Iraq war must be considered a supporter of the war, despite their repeated cries of denial. Thanks for pointing that out—-it helps to keep them in line with their histories.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 24, 2005 08:09 AM

To Perplexed,

Re your statement: “The constitution did not quote from the bible, Old or New Testament, but the principles of the Christian religion were incorporated into the constitution.”

Any serious student of the history of the Constitution knows this. But every serious student also knows that the principles of the following were also incorporated into the Constitution:

1. The Iriquois Great Law
2. John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government”
3. “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes
4. The “Letters of a Farmer in Pennsylvania” by John Dickinson
4. The Dutch Calvinist Declaration of Independence
5. Every colonial charter
6. Montesquieu’s “Spirit of the Laws”
5. “Politics” by Aristotle
6. Plato’s Dialogues

The number of documents that influenced the Framers is vast, and many had a much larger influence than the Christian Bible. Unless, of course, evidence of that is unacceptable and must be rejected in favor of “the Truth”.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at August 24, 2005 08:14 AM

2 excellent posts, Robert Benjamin. Welcome to Watchblog!

Posted by: Adrienne at August 24, 2005 11:23 AM

To Adrienne,

Thanks. Glad to participate.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at August 24, 2005 11:58 AM

Patrick:

Don’t mind joe, he’s playing his own little word game by talking about the anti-war left, and then saying that anyone who ever supported the war is by definition not part of the anti-war left regardless of whether they are for or against the war. He’s basically stating a tautology and hoping no one will notice. He’s also conveniently blurring the lines between those who are against the Iraq war, and those who are against all wars, and trying to intimate that Sheehan is part of the group against all wars.

Posted by: Jarin at August 24, 2005 12:58 PM

Tony,

Regarding Afghanistan: Compared to what it was on September 12, 2001 and where it is today . . it has been a success.

Regarding the Constitution: Again the Civil War is a great reference to measure success in Iraq. Lincoln was shot, Reconstruction, the Klan … It took us a while to get where we are. We seem to be measuring the success in Iraq with quite a bit of unrealistic expectations.

The fact that they have some kind of Constitution is way better than living under Saddam’s thumb - for them and us.

Posted by: todd gandee at August 24, 2005 08:12 PM

OOh Adrienne . .

Yes, I do remember to ditched Soviet tanks on the news and the general “oh, no” mentality of the press reports. Just like the first Gulf War when Saddam’s “Battle hardened Republican Guard” was going to whip us. It’s always the same crap.

Iraq a FAILURE. Not just a failure but one in all CAPS. WOOOOOOO.

Of course what would be your definition of success? Howard and Ritchie Cunningham swapping Malt beverages at the local Hop in Baghdad?

And I should read the newspapers to learn about Afghanistan. . . “I just read the daily news and swear by every word” Steely Dan. Pretzel Logic. Live it Love it.

A few facts:
The taliban doesn’t run Afghanistan openly as before. If we find em we get em.
We are not hiding in caves nor in a rat hole like Saddam and OBL. Our way of life = freedom is expanding. We are not changing America into a State run by Muslim Clerics. Women in this country are free. Hollywood exists. Freedom of the press exists. Freedom of religion exists. Wall Street didn’t go bust. All these things and much more would not exist if Bin Laden had won. Pull your head out of the sand. We are not losing this war!

The only similarity with Vietnam is that people on the left and trying to screw things up.

When did the people of Vietnam (north and south) have elections? Was it before or after John Kerry lied about his war record? When did their representatives sit down and hammer out a Constitution?

England???

Last I looked its in … . England. (kinda over there, over there.) Yes a flipant comment but that attack, would you not agree was a radical Muslim prayer to see if they could pull off another Madrid? Don’t think it worked.

Posted by: Todd Gandee at August 24, 2005 08:55 PM

Sir Robert B.

So glad you reply to “delusional” comments. “going in with everything in Afghan.” - Short of nukes I think we did.

Oh - you’re right!! We forgot to drop the tax increase bomb on ‘em. That would of brought OBL out of his cave.

“Please, dain’t sic Imperial American IRS on me. I give up!”

I’m not against doing more in Afghanistan if need be though, but where do we send the tax form?

I agree with you that not enough is being done at home, but I don’t agree that it all has to be done federally.

(A small sidebar) Andrew Jackson defeated the Britsh Army in New Orleans with volunteers and Indians. The British troops were some of the same units that had recently defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. Jackson did not have the blessing of the U. S. Government but his actions were victorious.
(Reason for sidebar) Where is Mayor Bloombutt? Governor Patsomething, the train captain, the ferry captain(no jokes please) et all … You can’t tell me there’s not enough people and bucks in New York to organize the place against an attack.

Are all these people in the bush league? Where do you sign up?

Posted by: Todd Gandee at August 24, 2005 09:24 PM

Phx0,

Love the name. Agree with much of what you say but can’t follow your dots to our ultimate loss. We were supplying the Mujahideen with stingers.

Posted by: Todd Gandee at August 24, 2005 09:49 PM

joebagodonuts,

My mistake, I thought you were sweeping all Democrats (and all people on the left) into the anti-Afghan war movement. Automatic cringe response, and I’ll take that back. How do you define a Democrat (left) who was for the Afghan war? Also, what do you call people who are on the right of the political spectrum, but are anti-war?

Your second point is murky. First, I’ll say the law authorizing military force in Iraq as a last resort was NOT honored by the President. Here is the law. Please note how it’s full of “work with UN” this and “weapons of mass destruction” that. The Law that was passed is VERY different from President’s actions. Therefore, the war was a mistake. This is not a lefty conspiracy either; most Americans say that the war in Iraq was a mistake. I say it is what it is, Bush’s failed leadership.

Jarin,

Thanks, I must admit I got suckered. The use of “anti-war left”, hit a nerve. This presupposes that people who are anti-war are ONLY from the left, and that the left cannot support ANY war (even in self-defense).

Posted by: Patrick Howse at August 24, 2005 11:44 PM

To Todd,

First, some corrections to your historical references. The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, and the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815. I assume you are referring to His Majesty’s Time-Traveling Hussars in your post.

Second, the Americans, including regulars, were dug in behind solid earthworks, which made their defensive position hard to overcome. Especially since the British forgot to bring their scaling ladders.

Regarding your comments about “Mayor Bloombutt”, a gratuitous and childish insult aimed at a pretty good mayor doesn’t alter the fact that the New York area - including not only New York City, but the downstate New York counties, Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey as well - contains commuter railroads, ferries, buses, that carry hundreds of thousands of people each day, giant chemical storage facilities, the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and two of the largest and busiest airports in the country.

The US Conference of Mayors, National Governors’ Association, National Association of Counties, Rand Corporation, and several other groups that actually analyze factual data have all detailed the magnitude of the task of policing every vulnerable point in our urban areas.

Despite this, the Senate and the House have both cut funding for state and local first responder programs. The Senate cuts $642 million from FY05 enacted levels and $447 million less than the House’s recommendation.

Unless you have some facts at your command to back up your contention that our state and local budgets can make up these gaps without ruinous increases in taxes and “user fees”, you might want to hold off on the insults.

Finally, just as a sidebar, you might want to check out the latest intelligence reports about the current state in Afghanistan. We went in with about 15,000 troops, but had over 70,000 Northern Alliance forces allied with us (almost all Tadjiks, BTW, and none too friendly with the Pashtuns who make up the largest ethnic group in the country). Now, we still have the same number of troops but nowhere near the allies we had at the beginning.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at August 25, 2005 05:28 PM

Todd Gandee -
—-
The fact that they have some kind of Constitution is way better than living under Saddam’s thumb - for them and us.
—-

Would you care to actually discuss specifics - or is the just the halftime cheerleading? You have yet to provide anything of substance to back up your overtly happy assessment of life in Afg. or Iraq… and you seem to feel that the only downside to recent events are the poor, left-biased media reports that have prevented us from seeing the grand parade of successes.

—-
Pull your head out of the sand. We are not losing this war!
—-
Really - what war are you specking of? If you are talking about the war on terror… please explain the victories?

Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 10:03 AM

Sir Robert,

True, true . . that’s what I get for writing from the hip. What I was referring to were Wellington’s Ninety Third Highlanders who were victorious over Napolean in Spain. I just remembered the jist but not the particulars.

The point is still the same. Jackson with some Indians (and I forgot Jean Lafitte) whipped the British. Since you forced me to look it up I will also add some of the Brit force (the Army of the Chesapeake) had burned Washington.

The administration at the time was trying to distance themselves from Jackson politically. That was my main point. I don’t believe that we have to wait on the “Bush League”.

With regard to railroads, ferries, buses, etc… I am not going to argue with you over budget numbers. Washington D. C. budget numbers are the most manipulated entities in all the world.

Rather try this. Theoretically all the pile of money in Washington is accumulated from the several States. Could we agree on this? What sense does it make for Idaho, or Hawaii to fund a bus in New York? Isn’t New York one of the biggest markets in the world? Should it not be able to fund these things from within?

That is why I called on Mayor Bloom backside(better??). I believe every State government needs to get on the ball. I think we all have a role to play, and that’s what is missing. In doing something, not more tax taking. The only action I have seen is from Washington.

Instead the article from which we began commenting is about getting us out of Irag. I think that is the biggest nonsense of all. Get out to what?? To just sit on our hands and what for another attack?

Posted by: todd gandee at August 28, 2005 01:52 PM

Tony,

Was there an argument somewhere in your post?

Some kind of Constitution better than living under Saddam’s thumb . . I wrote that - do you disagree? Please explain.

Victories? I believe the taliban doesn’t openly run Afghanistan anymore. I believe I specifically stated that. Ch ching.

I believe that thousands of people voted in a real election in Iraq. Not some phony election where Saddam got 100% of the vote, but a real election where they picked from among themselves to represent groups of people to start a government. Ch ching.

Your move.

Posted by: Todd Gandee at August 28, 2005 02:04 PM