Democrats & Liberals Archives

Are Conservatives Traitors Too?

Ever since the beginning of the Iraq War, all those who have criticized it have been called traitors by conservatives. Anyone who said a bad word about our great commander-in-chief, was fiercely criticized. Then, most of the critics were liberals, so it was OK to bash and trash them. Now that Iraq is not in such good shape and the commander-in-chief is in even worse shape, coservatives are finding fault with their dear leader. They are even criticizing the war effort. Holy cow! Are conservatives traitors too?

The latest criticism comes from Richard A. Viguerie, Mister Conservative himself. I almost fell out of my chair when I read this statement of his:

"The main cause of conservatives' anger with Bush is this: He talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative."

Here I have been thinking all this time that Bush talks like a liberal to win votes and then he governs like a conservative to please his true constituents: the rich. How can both liberals and conservatives be right about this? Evidently Bush is a much bigger con man than any of us believed.

Then again, maybe conservatives now are overstating their case. For 5 and a half years they stuck by their president, loved everything he did and threw bouquets and hosannas at him. They agreed with everything he did when Bush's popularity was at 90%. Now that it is down in the 30s the bouquets are turning to brickbats.

Did Viguerie and other "movement" conservatives think that Bush was acting as a conservative all this time?

What is conservative about building the greatest budget deficit in American history?

What is conservative about awarding subsidies to oil companies?

What is conservative about a Patriot Act that reduces liberties of citizens?

What is conservative about torturing detainees?

What is conservative about going to war against a country - Iraq - in order to do regime change?

I have not heard it before, but now Viguerie complains about the Iraq War:

"We've been rewarded with a war in Iraq that drags on because of the failure to provide adequate resources at the beginning, and with exactly the sort of 'nation-building' that Candidate Bush said he opposed."

Here we are with Viguerie, a conservative if there ever was one, criticizing the commander-in-chief in the middle of a war. He is not the only conservative doing so. There are many. Shall we call Viguerie a traitor? Shall we say that all the conservatives complaining about Bush's handling of the war are wimps who do not want to fight the "war on terror"? They want to "cut and run"?

No, I as a liberal, would not say this. These conservatives were happy Republicans were in control so they went along with a lot they did not agree with. But this is an excuse, not something to cheer about.

Conservatives and liberals see things differently. Neither are traitors. No one deserves to be called such names to gain political advantage.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 23, 2006 5:14 PM
Comments
Comment #150616

Wait, if Conservatives and Liberals are not traitors… does that mean the president is a traitor… Holy Cow I thought he was the second coming of Christ or something, I never suspected our dear president of being a lying manipulative traitor… by the way if no one can tell, I’m being sarcastic.

-Einghf

Posted by: Einghf at May 23, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #150618

I have always thought that to be a conservative was to wish to maintain the status quo. The presidents actions dont strike me as a veering towards more liberalism.
When you do everything in your power to maintain a picked group of synchophants in gravy and bisquits,your everything a conservative wants.

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #150629

Paul,
I’ve been saying for awhile that these Neocons are not conservative OR liberal. But the obvious truth is, they’ll use the kind of messages that have worked for either party in order to sway peoples opinions — when all along their real motive is to do exactly the opposite of what they are saying.
It’s taken a long time for some conservatives to grasp this fact, because they were so delighted that “their people” were in charge — but now many have finally grasped that the Neocons don’t represent anyone but themselves and their own totally unwise, warmongering, corrupt and greedy agenda.
I know that people like to paint me as some kind of an extremist in this blog, but I’ve honestly got nothing at all against real, old-school conservatives. I may disagree with much of what they think, but in spite of that fact, I can often respect their views without sharing them, and often find a way to like these folks anyway. Many of the people I’m friendly with who are true conservatives voted for this president in 2000, quickly realized that this administration didn’t reflect their views, and then didn’t vote for Bush in 2004. These people were smart enough to understand that their honestly held conservatism had nothing in common with what the Neocons were really doing.

“Conservatives and liberals see things differently.”

We do indeed. The way I see it is this: Liberals and Conservatives actually NEED each other to keep this country strong. Conservatives need Liberals to help move the country forward, and Liberals need Conservatives to keep us from making sure that movement doesn’t happen too quickly or recklessly. We balance each other out — this is a very positive and good thing.
But nobody needs the Neocons. Nobody.

“Neither are traitors. No one deserves to be called such names to gain political advantage.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 23, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #150630

The real Republican treason lies in Pakistan. No, I don’t mean Osama Bin Laden, though there is an argument to be made there too. I am talking about A.Q. Kahn, who single handedly set up the world’s free marketplace for nuclear weapon development plans and materials, sold them to Iran, Libya, N. Korea, and who knows who else. This guy has all the intelligence we need act decisively toward terrorists with nuclear plans. Yet, Bush allows him to retire wealthy and quietly as an Islamimist hero in Pakistan under the protection of Bush’s “stand-up guy”, Musharraf.

Musharraf has had a number of assasination attempts made on him by Taliban/al_Queda, two as recently as 2 years ago. 60% of Pakistan praises OBL, yet, Bush defines Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea as the threats and befriends his “stand-up guy” Musharraf, even sending the man 10’s of millions of dollars.

If there is treason against the U.S., it sits in the White House not caring about OBL or A.Q. Kahn, the repositories of the information we need to protect ourselves against the coming nuclear weapon set off in the U.S.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #150633

You really do project your own opinions onto us poor conservatives. I go out of my way NOT to call you traitors. Few of the regular writers on the red side have called you anything approaching that except in very specific contexts.

In fact, in contrast to the doom and gloom over here on the left bank, we are usually upbeat. Yet you always want to portray yourselves as victims.

You know that if you criticize, you may expect others to object. On this side, we are constantly called liars, evil, fools, crooks and worse. Based on this evidence, I call liberals hysterical and everyone goes wild.

Let’s get this traitor thing straight. If someone gives aid and comfort to the enemy, he is probably a traitor. Democrats are often misguided, but are not traitors. Sometimes I think they get way carried away with their hatred of Bush so that it hurts their country, but that is politics and a judgement call.

So if you want to play the victim, I guess you will have to play by yourself.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #150641

Jack, treason is an action. Opinions under our Constitution are not, and cannot be construed as treason. Democrats may be a bit hysterical, they are the “girlie man’s” party, says Schwarzeneggar. But, Paul is right to make the case that huge numbers of Republicans demonized Democrats and Independents like Nader as traitors when they criticized Bush and his war in Iraq. They still do it today almost everyday on C-Span’s call in show Washington Journal. It is hypocritical of those same Republicans to now launch the same criticisms toward Bush and declare it patriotism to their party at election time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #150649

No.

Posted by: nunya at May 23, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #150656

I think paul is a communist - not necessarily a traitor per say. I say this in all seriousness, and would not be suprised to learn that Paul has a little red book by his nightstand, or a picture of mao hanging on his wall. I find it almost unbelievable that a person like Paul made it to his ripe old age and still believe the drivel that he spews. They say with age comes wisdom, well… “they” have been wrong before.

Posted by: b0mbay at May 23, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #150657

From Garrison Keillor

Having been called names, one looks back at one’s own angry outbursts over the years, and I recall having once referred to Republicans as “hairy-backed swamp developers, fundamentalist bullies, freelance racists, hobby cops, sweatshop tycoons, line jumpers, marsupial moms and aluminum-siding salesmen, misanthropic frat boys, ninja dittoheads, shrieking midgets, tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, pill pushers, nihilists in golf pants, backed-up Baptists, the grand pooh-bahs of Percodan, mouth breathers, testosterone junkies and brownshirts in pinstripes.” I look at those words now, and “cat stranglers” seems excessive to me. The number of cat stranglers in the ranks of the Republican Party is surely low, and that reference was hurtful to Republicans and to cat owners. I feel sheepish about it.

Garry gets it pretty much right. The Republican Party gained ascendancy through cobbling together a coalition of these misfits and fringe groups that (surprise!) manage to make up a majority of the electoral college in the US. This uneasy alliance of such diverse impulses and agenda is not long for the world, however. I’m counting the minutes.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 23, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #150661

I have just realized that all of these political blogs are a great waste to all people..and will only become another reason people choose not to vote…each one truly establishes what those who do not have to sound like blow-hards realized for years…jabber …

Posted by: mary at May 23, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #150662

The ultimate traitors sit idly by and watch proper Constitutional interpretation go to hell while devoted Americans get their phone calls tapped for shady reasons.

Posted by: Theresa at May 23, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #150666

I too sympathize with conservatives on a number of issues. I find these “new Republicans” to be a completely different, scary breed. They give no thought at all to spending constraints or a moment’s notice to historical precedent.

THEY ARE NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND YOU CALLED THEM ON IT. THEY ARE: NEO-CONSERVATIVES (A misnomer, since there is nothing conservative about them).

Are they traitorous - ask them: So guys do you believe in seperation of church and state, taxation without representation, that torture is a no no, and that the government can’t enter your home or listen to your calls without a warrant?

You would have been tarred and feathered by our forefathers.


Posted by: Max at May 23, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #150667

Bombay, I think you are about to lose your comment privileges here at WatchBlog for critiquing the messenger instead of the message. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at May 23, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #150670

A point people keep missing is that Neo-Cons are not conservative. Anyone who thinks the Bushes are conservative hasn’t been paying attention.
Neo-Conservatism has its roots in Trotskyism. Calling themselves conservative doesn’t make them so. It’s kind of like Lincoln’s famous question, “If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?”. Most people will answer “Five”. The correct answer is “Four; calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it one”.
To answer your questions, Paul, There is nothing conservative about any of it. All those things are hallmarks of Fascism. We are seeing a police state being built around us. For a long time it was kept carefully under cover but as time goes on and people become more ignorant and complacent the wraps are being removed.
It didn’t begin with Bush (or Clinton) and it won’t end with Bush or the next president. People who think the Reps are monsters and the Dems are saviors, or vice versa, are fooling themselves. They are all politicians. They want power and control above all else. They will all lie to get it.

Posted by: traveller at May 23, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #150671

Max, some Republicans would counter with: Desperate times call for desperate measures. They are desperate alright, not the times, Republicans. They see November coming and they just can’t seem to help themselves. If allegiance to their party will not sustain them, what have they left to look forward to? Well, I will help them answer that question. They can look forward to Democrats taking control and making their own mess of everything.

Democrats will need at least two years to undo all the crap Republicans set up. Then, they will need another two years to actually begin governing. By then, their inaction and preoccupation with payback will have suffered a nuclear attack by terrorists or a catastrophic economic meltdown due to the confluence of national debt, rising service costs on that debt, and continuous loss of competitive advantage in the global marketplace.

And all that before the baby boomers retire en masse.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #150673

the traveller said: “They will all lie to get it.”

I will add, “And they will legislate to protect it.”

Gerrymandering being just one of an enormous number of examples.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #150674

Not all conservatives equate critics of the Iraq War to traitors.

(this message brought to you by a conservative)

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 23, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #150682

David,
If the Dems take control after this election the only thing that will change is whose cronies benefit from the graft. I also don’t think it will take two years. They will be so consumed by vengeance they’ll have everything screwed up in record time. They’ll get rid of everything with even a hint of Republican on it, even the things that work, just as the ancients destroyed all vestiges of their predecessors. The cycle of piling idiocy on top of stupidity will just go on as it has for years. The only thing I wonder about is how long it will take the terrorists to nail us.

Posted by: traveller at May 23, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #150685

What is it. What happened to common sense. The issues you call Republican are really just AMERICAN. Is there some rule that regardless of fact, if a Republican says it, you have to find a way to muck up the subject with garbage to woid the actual point, to fool your mind into disregarding the truth of it.
1 - torturing detainees…we are just lucky to live in a country that when this happens we find out about it and are able to critize without
becoming the next tortured. You can be sure our record is cleaner than anyone else’s. Our troops are held responsible.
2 - encouraging oil production…oh my what a big fault that is…how will you feel when you lose many of the advantages you now have because we are unable to get the oil we need. How curious that Cuba can drill for oil off our coast but American companies cannot
3 - our budget deficit..take a look at history and tell me what the democrats as a rule have always done for our economy. With Honesty, if possible….then look at what the Republican do..surely you cannot lie to yourself that much.
4 - The Patriot Act - come on…is this a joke..consider this country a big family. When you have trouble brewing, do you not reduce libery for the safety and well being of all. Does this law hurt any law abiding human being?
5 - The war…you know, as with a family it is okay to disagree with someone in the family, but you do not take it outside the family, lest you bring harm and or disgrace in. However, it is a war that had to be. You cannot discourage a bully by side stepping him, you must carry a large stick and be prepared to use it. Democrat’s you were all for it and on the record, until you realized you could use it to your advantage with the mass of people that can be swayed by just hearing something regardless of the truth in it, because it sounded like what they wanted to hear.

Posted by: jak at May 23, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #150689

“They’ll get rid of everything with even a hint of Republican on it, even the things that work,”

Those things being???

“The only thing I wonder about is how long it will take the terrorists to nail us.”

AND, right back to the fear card.

Posted by: norby` at May 23, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #150698

traveller:

Speculation with not a whiff of fact. The last time a Democrat was President was when they balanced the budget, created a surplus and launched cruise missiles at Bin Ladin.

Posted by: Aldous at May 23, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #150699

bOmbay
Red-baiting? Soooo 50’s
Thanks watcher

Posted by: BillS at May 23, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #150700
Now that Iraq is not in such good shape and the commander-in-chief is in even worse shape, coservatives are finding fault with their dear leader.

Must be an election year…

Paul, don’t worry about the abuse by guys like Jack and b0mbay. They’re just pissed off that they let themselves get suckered by a failure like Bush. Nobody likes to have their noses rubbed in it.

I even like how they’re scrambling to deny that they ever called us “traitors” (though, to be fair, I don’t recall Jack ever doing that), the evidence is in the archives if you want to do a search. Again, it’s just a way to conveniently forget that they were wrong and to associate themselves with those of us who were right. Nobody likes to be wrong.

I say we accept their backpedalling as an apology and move forward to bring this country back on the right path.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #150701
If the Dems take control after this election … They will be so consumed by vengeance they’ll have everything screwed up in record time… The only thing I wonder about is how long it will take the terrorists to nail us.

Thanks for giving us Karl Rove’s playbook for this year. Let’s all be prepared to immediately debunk this piece-of-crap attack.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #150709

AP:

You’re a big man with a bigger heart. Too bad I’m not.

Posted by: Aldous at May 23, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #150712

Aldous, surely you are not speaking of our Clinton. Watch how it plays out and he goes down in the history books. If he were a common man he would be in prison for treason. And CHARACTER is something you either have or do not have. You cannot be a person of charater at work and at play have none. A person is either a liar or not. He was a great politician….meaning he was a man who could effectively speak out of both sides of his mouth. He did not in any way shape or form leave this country in good shape. Even for someone who votes both ways….to say this man did anything but damage our country is pure foolishness.

Posted by: sd at May 23, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #150716

AP,

If the Dems take control and we are attacked, just what would the dems do?

Negotiate?
Go to the UN?
Seek a truce?
Turn the other cheek?
Warn someone?
Tell them not to do it again? (or else?)

Posted by: Cliff at May 23, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #150718

“AP,

If the Dems take control and we are attacked, just what would the dems do?

Negotiate?
Go to the UN?
Seek a truce?
Turn the other cheek?
Warn someone?
Tell them not to do it again? (or else?)”


Posted by: Cliff at May 23, 2006 10:24 PM

Blame the Republicans because the only real thing they have done the 11 years they have controlled the agenda is to blame the Democrats and it has worked with the ignorant masses that have become the “American people”.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at May 23, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #150721

Norby,
You’re so consumed with partisan hatred you can’t see anything else.

Aldous,
Opinion, not speculation, with a touch of irreverence.
If the budget was balanced and in surplus when Clinton was president, (it wasn’t) it was the Republican congress that did it. Article I section 7, U.S. Constitution.
“The President proposes, the Congress disposes”
The president proposed and the congress passed a budget bill that was made to appear balanced using accounting trickery that would land a normal person in jail. In fact, they did exactly what got Bernie Ebers, Ken Lay and others in so much trouble.
Current expenditures were moved to future budgets while anticipated future revenues were placed in that years accounting. Some items that should have been counted were simply moved “off budget”. This was a massive fraud perpetrated by both the Dems and the Reps with the aid of the news media. It’s an example of what is commonly called “smoke and mirrors”.
As far as launching cruise missiles at bin Laden goes, what did he accomplish? He made some very expensive holes in the sand and not much else.

Posted by: traveller at May 23, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #150724

Cliff:

Simple. Democrats would flood Afghanistan with 130,000 GIs and find a 6-foot tall Jihadist living in a cave.

Something the He-Man Deciders have failed to do.

Posted by: Aldous at May 23, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #150736

sd..&..traveller

well said!

Posted by: LLE at May 23, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #150739

No Conservatives aren’t traitors. Republicans and Democrats might be. But not Conservatives.

Ever sense the beginning of the Iraq war, all those that have criticized it have been called traitors by Republicans, not Conservatives. Conservatives respect the opinions of those that disagree with them.

Republicans are finding fault with their leader. Conservatives have never claimed Bush as their leader.

“The main cause of conservatives’ anger with Bush is this: He talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative.”

How true. Only some of us didn’t fall for it either time. And some only fell for it once.


Conservatives are not Republicans. Republicans are not Conservatives. They might be a little more conservative that the Democrats. But they are Liberals.


Posted by: Ron Brown at May 23, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #150740

LLE,
Thank you

Posted by: traveller at May 23, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #150741

Adrienne

The way I see it is this: Liberals and Conservatives actually NEED each other to keep this country strong. Conservatives need Liberals to help move the country forward, and Liberals need Conservatives to keep us from making sure that movement doesn’t happen too quickly or recklessly. We balance each other out — this is a very positive and good thing.
But nobody needs the Neocons. Nobody.

Here’s just one reason why I like you and respect your opinion. You make sense.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 24, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #150742

Adrienne
Us old school Conservatives and Liberals need to stick together against the new crop. Neither know what they’re talking about.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 24, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #150743

No.

Posted by: nunya at May 24, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #150751

As far as I am concerned, anyone who voted for Bush is a Republican.

Everything else is trying to escape blame.

Posted by: Aldous at May 24, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #150753

Good article. We tend to generalize too much some times. Some conservatives / Republicans / neo-cons have demonized us and called us traitors. I have been called a traitor on this blog within the last two weeks. It happens. Certainly the Bush administration and its supporters have used demonization tactics to good political advantage. So, we tend to generalize and paint all of the “Reds” with the same brush(I like calling them “Reds” to playfully yank their chain - makes one think of commie pinkos - but red is their color). Anyhow, some of them (like probably Jack) have not used that tactic. I have seen a lot of liberals and independents call Republicans names as well. I have crossed that line a few times myself. It is easy to get carried away with our own rhetoric and emotions - although I think most of my insulting rhetoric has been directed at the Bush Regime specifically, as opposed to the “Reds” generally. I especially enjoyed Mental Wimps comments in this regard. So, the point is, these are individual comments by individuals and we should not paint all of any group with same brush.

I share Davids concern that the Dems may mess up when they finally take power. This country has swung far to far to the right and needs to trend toward the left. But the extreme polarization of this country does create the risk that it will swing too rapidly from one extreme to the next, with increasing instability and increasing alienation and disenfranchisment of the general population - particularly if the Dems are as corrupt and incompetent as Bush has been. Bush has destabilized the system and there is a risk a reactionary backlash. We need reasonable course corrections, competance, transparenct and honesty.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 24, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #150755

Aldous,
I disagree. There are a lot of people who are not Reps who voted against Kerry, just as there are people who are not Dems who voted against Bush. Although there were third party candidates, some people won’t vote third party, no matter what.
To some, Bush was the lesser of two evils.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a concept I dislike because it’s still voting for evil.
btw-I’ve never voted for a Bush and never will. For president I always vote third party.

Posted by: traveller at May 24, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #150759

The only real conservatives left are the Libertarians…all 6 of them. But they aren’t conservatives in the true sense of the word; they just like what the Constitution says and likes to use it as the guidebook. Neither the Repubs nor Dems do anymore, but at least the Dems get it right more often than the Repubs do. Well, the “neo-cons” is a better term to use for the current crop of religious fanatics masquerading as the party that cares about the Constitution. Yeah, whatever.

In the US, we are only a fancy symbol away from being a fascist dictatorship. We already have the short little imbecilic retarded failure as the leader, placed into power the first time by another branch of government illegitimately.

Think about it; they can tap our phones at will now legally, they can go to war with whomever they feel like whenever they feel like, they spend money like it’s water, defile the landscape, use a strategic resource for their own personal capital gains and use it as the reason to go to war. And what did we do about it, even when we all know deep down that all the stuff they used to fabricate the reasons for attacking Iraq was a complete lie from the start? Nothing.

Oh, and in pure Goebbels-like fashion, the neo-cons made US propaganda into a truly amazing spectacle. Only it just scares everyone else around us. Any wonder why the rest of the world thinks that the US is the real Evil Empire now?

Traitors? Democrats? That’s a big guffaw there, mate. When Clinton lied, I don’t think anyone died. He managed to get some nookie, but he didn’t send 2k+ fellow citizens to their deaths when he lied. He didn’t use terrorism as an excuse to get the family into Iraq’s oil business (and Cheney’s buddies at Halliburton as well). Lying about going to war is about as treasonous as you can get. Sending people to die over a lie is beyond treason. It’s plain, old fashioned murder. Only, as we all know, the Bushes (besides 41), Cheney, Rove and all the rest of the cowards in the Republican party avoided it when it was their time to be a “patriot”.

I’d be real careful about pointing fingers at Democrats as being traitors. You don’t want the red-state people really looking too close at the current crop of Genghis Khans, do you?

Posted by: joshuacrime at May 24, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #150760
If the Dems take control and we are attacked, just what would the dems do?

For one, we won’t let America get attacked because — unlike Republicans — we’ve got our priorities straight. Republicans spent ten times more money on tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of American elites than they have on protecting America. That’s utterly irresponsible and indefensible. And Republicans had twelve years to secure the border and they still haven’t done it. First responders still don’t have the equipment necessary to deal with an emergency. Republicans allowed FEMA and other emergency management organizations’ capabilities degrade. Republicans have demoralised and weakened our military in a pointless and failed quagmire that had nothing to do with 9/11. Republicans still haven’t created an integrated terrorist watchlist to keep terrorists off our planes. Republicans refuse to spend enough money on the special forces, civil affairs, and intelligence personnel necessary to defeat al Qaeda. And President Bush says he isn’t even interested in finding or killing the guy responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans on American soil.

Democrats and Americans are willing to pay any price and bear any burden to defeat al Qaeda. Repulicans would obviously rather have tax cuts for rich people and, frankly, I have no idea what they think they’re doing in Iraq.

When the intelligence brief says, “bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States,” you can bet any President other than Bush wouldn’t go golfing. And you can bet that any President other than Bush wouldn’t freeze like a deer in the headlights and then go hide in a bunker even if it did happen.

You can bet that a Democratic President would go after the guys who attacked America and not some podunk state with a tin-pot dictator who is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the United States. Democrats are — and have always been — focused on getting bin Laden and al Qaeda, and protecting our country and our liberty from other assholes like him.

And that’s the root of much of the anger directed at Republicans. Despite the tough talk, they are incapable of getting the guys who attacked America.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #150776

American Pundit said:

Democrats are — and have always been — focused on getting bin Laden and al Qaeda, and protecting our country and our liberty from other assholes like him.

I assume that when Clinton refused to accept Bin Laden as a prisoner during his term as a Democratic president that he had a plan. Or was he too busy showboating to drive up his speech fees?

It is a shame that the only electable Democratic president in recent history was only interested in self agrandisement.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 24, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #150778
I assume that when Clinton refused to accept Bin Laden…

It never happened. The 9/11 Commission Report is only the latest document to debunk that lie. Go read it; it’s free.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #150789

AP:

I think you are being too charitable in assuming a Republican will read that. Most still think Saddam did 9/11.

Posted by: Aldous at May 24, 2006 3:06 AM
Comment #150796

The 9/11 Report is not the Holy Grail and is far from inclusive. Clinton dropped the ball when Sudan offerred to assist the US in capturing binLaden.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 24, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #150798

goodkingned:

Funny. May I ask what Report you do find inclusive and acceptable?

I would also ask your views on the Government Accountability Office?

Posted by: Aldous at May 24, 2006 4:00 AM
Comment #150799

Jack,

Sometimes I think they get way carried away with their hatred of Bush so that it hurts their country

Maybe, but whose fault is that?
Does democrats have to agree with their country president whatever he do or does the president must do what it take to not have near half of his citizens hating him and, eventually, hurting the country?
Who matter the most, the country or its president?
Afterall, no presidents should survive their country.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 24, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #150807
Clinton dropped the ball when Sudan offerred to assist the US in capturing binLaden.

It never happened.

Good call, Aldous. goodkingned obviously has no interest in reality, and enjoys ruling over his little fantasy kingdom.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2006 7:08 AM
Comment #150819

Aldous:

Couldn’t help but notice your inclusion in this thread. You may have missed the following question from a thread that you left in the red column. I’ll repost it here so that you can respond to it. You’ve been accused of ignoring the question out of fear of answering—let’s assume you just didn’t see it:

Dr Politico’s an Israeli? Explains a lot.

Posted by:Aldous at May 21, 2006 10:16 PM

Aldous,

Please elaborate. In fact, you owe me as much.

So you know, my mother is Iraqi, my father is Israeli. Dr Politico is American. Tell me what that explains.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 21, 2006 10:25 PM

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 24, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #150821


Republicans have come face to face with that problem democrats had for years. To gain a majority in Congress and gain the White House takes a coalition. In 2000, their coalition was barely strong enough to achieve their goal over the choice of the majority. And, there are quite a few who believe that the Republicans actually cheated. These accusations strengthened the bonds of the republican coalition. Then came 911 and the coalitions leader had power like no president has had since 12/07/1941. America was united as we went after the terrorists in Afganistan.

Then came a major opportunity to realize that a coop had taken place in the republican party. The signs had been there but ignored. The character assination of McCain in the primary, Cheney’s announce that he was the best candidate for V.P. Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rice, Pearl, Wolfewich etc. A recent post on weblog ask if it was ok to marginalize Osama, this administration had marginalized him from the get go. Cheney, Rumsfeld et.al. had been packing around the invasion plans for Iraq every since George Bush 1 had abandoned them in their hour of triumph. And, 911 was a inconvenience which they were eventually able to use to achieve their objective.

The first ripple in the calm waters of the coalition was the fiscal conservatives. They got the tax breaks but not the budget cuts. Then came the propaganda on Iraq and the demand for a declaration to make war. The fiscal conservatives were concerned, hadn’t Bush promised no foreign entanglements. And, in my opinion, the democratic leadership were cowardly. They knew that they would be viciously attacked as to weak to defend America if they opposed the war.

Fiscal irresponsibility, millitary incompatence and republican scandal have all combined to start the unraveling of the coalition. Members are becoming brave and speaking out because of fear of what could happen to the party. And, now they claim that they did not call the dems traitors.

When the republicans accepted the talk radio neocons with their big lies wrapped around their little truths and their poisionous retoric,I don’t think they realized where it would lead them.

What will happen if the democrats win in the fall. They will work diligently to pass needed legislation. The president can work against them with the veto which will acheive nothing for the people or he can, in an effort to salvage his failed administration, work with the democrats.

Turning the attack dogs loose can only work against the oposition from without. The attacks become ineffective when used against members of your own coalition.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #150832

Paul, don’t worry about the abuse by guys like Jack and b0mbay. They’re just pissed off that they let themselves get suckered by a failure like Bush. Nobody likes to have their noses rubbed in it.

Im not upset that I got suckered by bush. Im upset that I am lumped in with “traitors?” as paul mentions above. I dont think I ever called anyone a traitor, and I dont think you are a traitor if you dont support the war. Traitors are eligible to receive the death penalty, so while paul’s article was possibly meant to be a bit trite, I have a hard time taking that word lightly and as such got offended. I apologize for my communist remarks.

Posted by: b0mbay at May 24, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #150833

I guess the next election boils down to who lies the least?

It’s a sad state of affairs…

Posted by: Cliff at May 24, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #150837

joshuacrime
The only real conservatives left are the Libertarians…all 6 of them.

Sorry to bust your bubble there but I’m not Libertarian and I am Conservative. I don’t belong to any party and really don’t like any of them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 24, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #150839

Well, to quote d.a.n, you could vote for neither party..a straight non-party ticket. At least that would confuse the hell out of them. It may not solve anything except create new theives.

Tbanks for the post Paul, even if you are a communist. He He. I don’t think Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will be inviting you to their wedding. Oops I mean secret affair.

Posted by: gergle at May 24, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #150841


Cliff: I’m afraid the next election will be same old same old. It will probably be the ones who are best at distorting facts that get elected.

Posted by: jlwilliams at May 24, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #150858

“The only thing I wonder about is how long it will take the terrorists to nail us.”

The only thing I wonder is when we Americans will stop being such incredible cowards.

We loose 25,000 people a year in car accidents. We loose millions to regular old diseases and accidents.

We suffered tens of thousands of causalties in wars to protect our democracy, sometimes in a *single* *DAY*.

Yet, somehow having two buildings knocked down and 1/10th the number of people we loose car accidents killed as a result, we now have to become a police state terrified of the boogey man terrorist coming at any old time. Our fears have been color coded for heaven’s sake!

We are a country of almost 300,000,000 people. We have the richest nation, most powerful military and are physically one of the largest countries on the face of the planet.

How can it be that when the Founding Fathers faced real soldiers on sometimes a few miles away across a river or hill, they stood firm and strong and today we quiver and quake?

If the Founding Fathers were still here, they would be *ASHAMED* of us today. They would see people that cower and waver in fear lest a nation of 300 HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE with MORE MILITARY MIGHT THAN THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN suffer some casualties from ragtag terrorists that manage to set off a bomb or crash an airplane.

We’re headed to a new hurricane season, and for all we know, Miaimi or some other city will get smashed by nature - yet we seem able to accept this threat.

I look at the terrorist threat as just another element that is a risk in the modern world. Can it be stopped completely? Nobody knows the answer to that and therefore I assume that it can’t be stopped, only managed like the occaisional hurricane, sometimes well and sometimes poorly.

Most people don’t sit in terror behind their car’s steering wheel terrified to drive out and face the possibility of a fatal car accident, yet, we fear that a bomb or airplane might make the 1 in near infinity strike and kill us?

I am also tired of the “oh the terrorists are coming and so we have to have Republicans/Democrats/Whigs/Transcendental Meditationists” running the country to save us.

We had the Soviet Union sitting on top of 12,000 ICMBs with the ability to annihilate us from the face of the earth starting in 10 minutes with the job being completed in under 30 minutes. Boomb, gone, everybody except those to die from radiation. No more civilization, no more anything. Yet people didn’t sit around fearing “when will the Russian missiles hit? Oh, I’m so scared.” Instead, we stayed strong, lived our lives and made darn sure that we kept our Constituion strong and our liberties intact.

If we have been reduced now to a bunch of scared little automatons that have their mental state defined by a color being announced over a tv/radio, then we truly aren’t deserving of anything and the world is right to see us as childish, self-involved, cowardly spoiled brats that are the legacy of great a formerly great and proud America that could stand up to anything and still have the greatest democracy in the world.

I just pray to God on a regular basis that our people stop being cowards and live as strong and proud and *free* Americans the way our forefathers did.

Sorry for the rant, but I served in the Army, stood at the East German boarder with a GDP (general defense plan) that pretty much guranteed I’d die outright the first day of engagement as 5 East Germans, 1 Soviet Division and a thousand airplanes or so attacked in just our sector against our single little Brigade - and I just cannot relate to the loss of courage and strength that we seemed to have in the cold war that has somehow shriveled and disappeared to almost nothing today.

I pray that America develops some courage and stops letting our minds and lives be channeled by fear.

Posted by: cbp at May 24, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #150899

every american that is sick and tired of the garbage that the republicians and democrats force feed us has got to take charge and revolt. bush has taken “wag the dog” to heights no one ever imagined. he has totally destroyed this country. my father is afraid to speak in his own home agaist bush and to my amazement he is not the only one “what the hell is up with that” i think i saw a movie like that called “the nazi’s are coming” im just a little person out here like all the other ignorant american people but…we are not ignorant nor little WE ARE THE MASS and all who cant take anymore of this crap and want to correct our standing in the world LISTEN UP to what i say—-the only way is to change this deplorable situation is to change your party GO GREEN PARTY. everyone slide on over and tip the scales this next election and make your voice strong again. this is the revolution. Go to war now. think about this Jeb Bush for President we must separate the american mass from this regime go green now http://www.gp.org/

Posted by: rose h.miller-machhour at May 24, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #150906

Ron:
“Here’s just one reason why I like you and respect your opinion. You make sense.”

Thank you, Ron. I truly appreciate that.

“Adrienne
Us old school Conservatives and Liberals need to stick together against the new crop. Neither know what they’re talking about.”

We really do. The demonization between both sides is just awful and has got to stop — because at heart, we all want the best for our country. While Conservatives and Liberals may have different ideas about how that should be done, and how we’re going to get there, we still have to join together and try compromise with each other.
I look at the this particular administration and I see them bankrupting us, and demonstrating a lot of fascist traits, and insisting on an insane amount of secrecy, and displaying a casual attitude toward torture and brutality. To me those things don’t seem conservative OR liberal. Then, I talk to the Conservatives I know, and they tell me they don’t support any of these actions at all. In fact, they denounce them, and say they worry over the fact that these men don’t seem to respect the Constitution.
I hear Neocon supporters and pundits calling Liberals communists, traitors, and terrorist sympathizers, but none of the conservatives I know would ever say that to me, or speak so disrespectfully about Liberals in general because they know those things just aren’t true. (In fact, since in the part of California where I live there is a majority of people standing on the left, people don’t tend to pussyfoot around about their politics — if they’re actually Communists, they’re not at all afraid to tell you that’s the case. I appreciate that kind of honesty and find it good to know exactly where people stand.)

The Constitution told us to:

“form a more perfect Union. establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Those are still the goals that Conservatives and Liberals need to work together to achieve — and how can we do that without working with each other? If remembering that goal isn’t enough, when we get bogged down in petty disagreements we need only think what Lincoln, who saved our Union, once told us: “a house divided cannot stand.” Wasn’t he right, then and now?
We might also remember the words with which he ended that speech:

Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now? Now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail - if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 24, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #150935

I am amazed at the kind of arguments that are being presented here:
Republicans are horrible
Democrats may be horrible if elected
So do not vote for either.

You are comparing something definite (the currently screwed up Republicans) with something indefinite (Democrats who may be screwed up later).

There’s too much emotion here. Let’s use some common sense. The Democrats have been out of power for a long time. They can’t possibly be - at least at the beginning - as corrupt as the Republicans are now.

bOmbay:

I accept your apology.

To make things clear, I did not call anyone a traitor. Read my article.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 24, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #150937

Aldous:

With your acceptance of the 9/11 Commission Report, I assume that you will be removing all other sources from your database. No document, report or finding is inclusive. I have seen many sources including CIA memos released throught the freedom of information act which reference the information available to Clinton regarding Bin Laden’s role in Al Quieda and his intentions towards America. Despite your ignorance of the issue, operatives in the region have reported on the Sudanese offer to provide info regarding bin Laden’s whereabouts. These offers were covert and not publicized. I suggest that you examine the material obtained by Justice Watch for further information about this topic.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 24, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #150955

goodkingned-
Okay, somebody tells you they can deliver a big terrorist hotshot. Of course you’re interested. Question is, Can and will this guy deliver the goods?

The person in question might not have had the power to do what he promised. He might have had the power, but might have been conspiring with the target to send us to one spot while he skedaddled somewhere else. Or he might have been just a pathological liar looking to get on our good side. As I understand it, doubts as to the trustworthiness of the person or government making the offer was likely at the root of the rejection.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #150962

Paul,

How quick we forget the past 40 years…
So, if the democrats have not had a chance to screw up in the near term, then we should let them. That’s a great reason…

Posted by: Cliff at May 24, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #150980

Stephen:

Wait, I thought you said there wasn’t an offer to turnover bin Laden. Now you say that it was an unreliable offer. Which do you stand by?

Posted by: goodkingned at May 24, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #150996

cbp….wow ! and thanks for the sobering post. You can add that thanks for the service to our country, as well.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 24, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #151014

“Are Conservatives Traitors Too?”

I surely hope not: Lord knows we have way too many traitors on the Left to be able to accomodate any more from the Right.:-)

To All:

‘It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.’
Mark Twain

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 24, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #151050

cbp,
You sure read a lot into that statement. It wasn’t an expression of fear.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are afraid and are willing to surrender essential liberty for temporary security.
That fear is evident on both the left and the right.

Posted by: traveller at May 24, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #151082

I have never thought in terms of democrats or republicans. If asked my opinion on politics, I refer to those in office as ” the government “. They are all after the same thing, a gravy train to ride the rest of their lives out on. There is no such thing as public service, that went out the window the day they started getting paid. The only way to restore service without prejudice is to set term limits, drop political contributions and lobbies, and the big one, cut their pay by about 80%. There will never be enough money to satisfy their lustful greed, their offices will never have large enough desks sitting on shiny marble floors, and they should be paid by punching into a time clock when they vote. If they don’t punch in, and ultimately vote, they don’t get paid. They all talk the good talk when they are elected, but I believe that if they are not corrupt when they enter office, they become so through greed, vanity or peer pressure. And where the hell is Bin Laden? From what I’ve read, we’re spending more time looking for Jimmy Hoffa then we are the greatest terrorist of our time. Maybe he’s out perch fishing.

Posted by: Scott Burgoyne at May 24, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #151102

Adrienne
I AGREE 100%
What passes for Liberalism and Conservatism today sure as hell ain’t. It seems the name of the game today is placing blame and name calling.
In the days I grew up in both side disagreed on how to do things, but worked together to come to a solution that everyone could live with. Today the idea of compromise is do it my way or the highway.
There’s also no respect for differing opinions.
In 2000 I saw Bush as the lesser of the two evils from the main parties. But I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. In 2004 I still couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. Even though I saw him the lesser of the evils then.
What I’ve seen coming out of the White House makes me sick. And what I see coming from Congress makes me sick.
None of it is true Conservatism or true Liberalism.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 25, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #151153

To answer the Question posed by this Topic:

Some Conservatives are definitely Traitors (notable examples being Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby - for revealing the identity of an active CIA “Control” NOC, thereby doing irreparable damage to the U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Iran).

However, in all fairness, most American Conservatives these days are not Traitors; they are merely Domestic Enemies of the Constitution Of The United States.

:o)

Posted by: Bett(er)y at May 25, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #151236

Bett(er)y,
Domestic Enemies of the Constitution of the United States? You care to back that up? You can’t.
The main thrust of conservatism is the preservation of the Constitution. It is our focus.
You seem to laboring under the misconception that the current leaders of the Republican party are conservative. I can assure you that they are not.
The Reps have been taken over by the Neo-Cons, who have more in common with the left than the right.
Neo-Con policies are Fascist, which is a form of socialism. Neo-conservatism itself has its roots in Trotskyism, which is a form of socialism. Its leaders have been known to openly praise Trotsky and debate the best way to implement his philosophy. When you criticise the Bush administration you are criticising Trotskyite policies, not conservative.
Using the word “conservative” in their name doesn’t mean they are. See one of my earlier posts in this thread.
You’re either just blowing hot air or you’re so full of partisan hatred you won’t see the truth.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 12:32 PM
Post a comment