Democrats & Liberals Archives

How to Win War on Terror

President Bush is determined to win in Iraq because he thinks Iraq is “the central front in the war on terror.” He is deluded. First, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Second, this is not an ordinary war, the kind nations wage; so there is no front, central or otherwise. Third, Bush’s attack brought some jihadis to Iraq; they need to be countered, but this does not make Iraq a front. We will not win the war on terror unless we forget about fronts and implement a broad range of strategies, some military and some not.

There are at least 7 strategies we must implement worldwide in order to win the war on terror. I don't like this expression but we are more or less stuck with it. Here are the strategies:

  1. ATTACK TERRORISTS - We did this when we went to Afghanistan. But then Bush took his eye off the ball and transferred troops to Iraq. Big mistake. We need to return to Afghanistan to finish the job. We must also attack the terrorists wherever they rear their heads

  2. COUNTER JIHADIST PROPAGANDA - The number one source of jihadist propaganda is Saudi Arabia, where many, many jihadists come from. Saudi Arabia establishes in Pakistan and other Muslim countries madrassas that nurture jihadists. We must counteract this. So far we are doing nothing.

  3. KEEP WMD FROM JIHADISTS - Old Soviet scientists, who are unemployed, are susceptible to making deals with jihadists about nuclear weapons. We can stop this. Pakistan has secretly proliferated nuclear weapons among Iran, North Korea and who knows where else. And we call Pakistan an ally! Let's put this sort of thing to an end

  4. EXCHANGE TERROR INFORMATION WITH FRIENDLY NATIONS - Our enemy is global. Our response must be global. We must have a good way of exchanging timely information about terrorists, their plans, their actions and the consequences of their actions. We need to work together with our friends in Europe, Asia, Africa and with our friends in the Middle East. To start with, let's make more friends

  5. DISSEMINATE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS WORLDWIDE - Not democracy; this is something that develops within a given society. I'm talking about ideals that may influence people to shoot for a democratic form of government. Start at the UN by getting it to define terrorism, and then outlaw suicide bombing. It's a tragedy that America is not on the Human Rights group. Let's get on it and lead the world in defining human rights and let's organize a democratic caucus in the UN to prevent the spread of bigotry and racism and to spread democratic ideals. Instead of denigrating the UN, let's make it a platform for discussing freedom, harmony and peace

  6. EXERCISE GOODWILL TO THE POOR AND UNFORTUNATE - We do some of this already. We donate for tsunamis and AIDS eradication. We also offer foreign aid and humanitarian aid. But we must do more. We, in association with other democracies, must do what we can to aid countries in distress. Instead of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, we can accomplish miracles in the lives of the extremely poor. Who would become a jihadist after such compassionate treatment?

  7. EXEMPLIFY GOOD DEMOCRACY - Bush tells us that we must sacrifice some liberties for security. This is wrong. We must do the opposite. Let's increase our liberties. Let's reduce further tensions among races and religions. Let's stamp out secrecy and torture. Let's reduce the polarizing divisiveness and seek unity. Let's show the world how well all people in a great democracy live together in harmony. The best way to convince the world of the superiority of democracy is by example. Let's be that example
We are faced with a very different kind of war. It requires more than military action to subdue our enemies. It requires a huge effort to change world opinion about America and about democracy. Changing world opinion so that it frowns on suicide bombing and war, and smiles on freedom, human rights and democracy will require a new level of cooperation among nations.

U.S. is the nation that must lead this effort. Not only will we win the war on terror, we will open the world to a new era of goodwill, prosperity and peace.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 20, 2006 6:00 PM
Comments
Comment #159688

Paul-
what America is good at exporting is capitalism and objectionable music. No wonder people fear us. our deeds speak louder than our words.
I agree that we can and should make more effort to explain to the world the benefits and realities of democratic living.

Posted by: jblym at June 20, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #159696

Paul:

Good plan! Now you pass out the nametags indicating who is a potential jihadist needing hugs and nuturing and who is a terrorist needing to be attacked. Please tell them not to stand too close to each other so there won’t be any unfortunate accidents.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 20, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #159713

Paul,

I like your body of recommendations fine but there has been something so nagging at me since 9-12. What has been done about the funding???

Did we get control of Hawala banking? Did we hault monies coming out of Saudi Arabia (I do concur with your assessment there for the most part) did we get a handle on that? These are the things that fund wars. Someone is purchasing the ammo and it isn’t a bunch of broke-ass militants. Is it hezb’allah? Hamas? Saudi Royals? Al Qaida? Iranian Clerics? What do we know and how do we stop the supply train or trains?

Your ideas have a bit of a liberal flavor—not an insult—but are on target and can get us back into some advantage of soft or negotiative power that could aid in creating dialogue.

I agree that a good portion of the Iraqis do see us as the invaders, let’s do what THE ART OF WAR SAYS and that is exactly what you said in your assessmant in recommendation #6. You always want to win over those whom you dominate. That is the art of war for God sakes quintessential reading for most war colleges and military schooling but our US policies don’t get it.

Stalin overwhelmed Nazi Germany through the use of the Art of War tactics the same way Mao Tse Tung conquered China with the same book of tactics. But Americans don’t have the foggiest notion how essential such guides are and HENCE A QUAGMIRE as was the case with Vietnam. Our historians on Vietnam don’t and won’t get Vietnam until they read the Art of war—that’s why the have a communist country today really.

Did you know that getting soldiers hooked on heroine, rice wine and Marijuana is in the Art of War? We aren’t the ugly american we are the really Stoopid American by not understanding the use of such strategies.

Our American military needs to get smarter about how to go into these things if these are the kinds of wars we are going to be having in the future.

We are in a quagmire over there because we couldn’t strategize our way out of a balled up teeshirt. I support our troops but they are fighting too effectively to play bureaucracy broker.

Posted by: Novenge at June 20, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #159725

Good points.

I’d like to especially underline the part of “Exemplify Good Democracy”

We, as a nation, are putting forth a “do as we say not as we do” approach. This is eternally self-defeating. We must exemplify ritiousness if we expect to be treated in kind.

Look at our own reaction to injustice. How does the memory of 9-11 galvanize us to act against the perpetrators.

Imagine how other peoples react to our positions and actions regarding:
Torture
Land Mine Treaties
Collateral Damage/Civilian Casualites
Darwinian Capitalism
Arms Proliferation
Adherence To International Law
Our Own Domestic Incarceration Rates
Our Own Access to Health Care
Our Own Social Priorities
Our Own Economic Intrgrity (Enron,WorldCom..)

None of this sets a shinning beacon to the rest of the world that we are the apex of modern civilization.

Imagine that you and your family live in one of the “Terrorist breeding grounds” of the world and your 20 year-old son has just come home full of vitrol wanting to “crush the American occupation”. You’re not going to do much to change his mind by pointing out how we occasionally drop food shipments to famine areas or condoms to Africa.

A person can lead the most most ritious and generous life and yet be known to society for one heinous transgression. The same can be true for a nation.




Posted by: A Aragon at June 20, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #159743

Here are some things we did wrong if going into Iraq was going to be done.

1st f’k up—we allowed Saddam to have warning not weeks in advance, ten frickin’ months, stupid.

2nd F’k up—we did not secure the borders, so we are less capable than the Nazis of the late 1930’s

3rd f’k up—we went in there playing sherriff and friendly sheepdog into tribal areas when we should have been the pit bulls from day one. Smiling and waving???

4th f’k up— we should have been doing more to buy off the populace to bring them to our side but instead we lay off thousands before the flames are out and replace nothing. they have no water, no electricity if they have no morale they will blame the dominator of the region, us. This stuff that we are facing are situations thousands of years old.

5th f’k up—we didn’t put a quick hault to the looting afterwards. But Bush said ooh lookie freedom—what an ass.

6th f’k up—we made ourselves look like homosexuals in the region with carting men off naked—which makes us look like we are easy to “take” which you NEVER EVER want. Not to mention Abu Graib and Saddam in his underpants which make our forces look like down right queers of the lowest ilk to that populace summarily destroying whatever image we were trying to procure and/or maintain of ourselves in that region.

7th f’k up—we use our troops as political forces when we had more at hand than just lookie here comes democracy—we had entire fractured tribes to negotiate with that we barely knew a damn thing about.

8th f’k up—we should have gone after Al Sadr/Al Sistani knowing they had more power in the region than we did. Taking them out would have lowered morale of any combative force they were putting together namely the Mahdi army. Now they are in our pockets perched to rise once we ditch the region.

I’ll think of more of them..

Posted by: Novenge at June 20, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #159755

That Mess in Iraq
On May 1, 2003, George W Bush declared victory in Iraq aboard an aircraft carrier to an audience of the world news and 5,000 Marines and sailors, “Iraq is free,” *Bush said, “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror.” It was at an end that day by public declaration, the Iraq War. Iraq’s army was disbanded, their government leaders captured, their weapons silenced, and much of the country in ruins. We were in control of the cities, the towns, the prisons, and the countryside. The Iraq War was over. What a mess that has enfolded in Iraq since that day in May of 2003.
What we have in place of war is a mess in Iraq that must be called an occupation not a war. There is no organized military facing us. There are instead Insurgents, for we have already won that war, but lost that peace. Insurgents and people that Bill O’Riley recently described as deserving a bullet to the head if they violate a 7PM curfew, no questions asked. Yes, we control Iraq, now how do we ever leave?
We won the War, yet; we continue to have over 135,000 troops in Iraq. We continue to pour billions of dollars and supplement that each year by over $80 billion more. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and over 2400 lives after we won that War and spending may eventually reach over a trillion dollars in cost of materials, replacements, and Veterans benefits plus hospital care for the wounded. How many more Americans will be wounded or die? What a glorious victory!! How can we ever afford such success?
There was once an exit strategy for Vietnam that was simply declaring a victory and withdrawing our troops before we lost. We were fighting a war for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. We were in Vietnam fighting an organized government in the North Vietnamese army and a guerrilla army in the Viet Cong. We did not declare a war over, and then when the peace failed due to incompetence, say we can’t leave because we’re in a war. Never was there a suggestion that we declare a victory and stay there until we bankrupted America and then ignite a civil war because we had neither the competence nor the ability to nation build. The Republicans withdrew after they declared that war over. One day, we left and gave the country back to the Vietnamese.
Despite Mr. O’Riley combat analysis, we are the occupying force. We have tortured prisoners at Abu Grave Prison, we have incarcerated people without trial in Guantanamo, and we have left a country in worse structural shape than when we started. We have disrespected their rights and their sovereignty, and we have a mess in Iraq. I don’t know how we get out of this mess in Iraq, but I know this, we need discussion and analysis by better minds than George Bush and Dick Cheney to ever figure that out and soon.

- Thomas P Love

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm

Posted by: Thomas Love at June 20, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #159758

#F’k up #9—Bush fighting this as a political war trying to use it for political gain. Dividing the country means your OWN nation is divided—and that is effective somehow? Not coming before the nation in honest dialogue was a mistake. It was all done as phony as a bag of plastic flamingos and he expects us all to buy it AAAAAnd furthermore he couldn’t find a better opening strategy than what that whole thinktank of jabrones came up with. There are chessplayers in gradeschool that have a better grip on things.

Posted by: Novenge at June 20, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #159766

F’k up #10—not shoving Israel aside so we could get better grounding in the Islamic territories. In other words so they don’t see us as an extension of “Zionist occupation” as it’s termed.

Posted by: Novenge at June 20, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #159770

F’k up #10 (?)—setting a troop deadline for departure from the region buys intelligence time so they can begin gathering the information as fighting slows and it all becomes a waiting game to that date. We can always backtrack but at this point our strategy isn’t even remotely strategic.

Our strategy is “slog on” great which translates into make few if any gains and don’t do anyting clever to gain control of that region.

Posted by: Novenge at June 20, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #159775

F’k up #11—Bush claiming mission accomplished and I’ll tell you the real reason why that is stupid, when you make a war a political one you have started a rivalry. Rivalries have enemy parties and sides and they will jump your ass and that is what the dems are doing and have done because Bush and company wanted to earn political brownies and they got a sharp stick for it. His low ratings are a product of how he handled war-making, namely by politicizing it instead of making claim, proper claim that this is for the good of the transformation of that region or something sensible.

He could have based this war on some viable reason instead of idiotically chasing leprechauns.

Posted by: Novenge at June 20, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #159803

Great ideas Paul. We need to win the hearts of those we are trying to save, and stop giving ammunition to those who recruit for extreme islam. Furthermore we need to start having an honest dialogue in this country about our security. None of our leaders have been very honest with us.

Posted by: Loren at June 20, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #159813
Now you pass out the nametags indicating who is a potential jihadist needing hugs and nuturing and who is a terrorist needing to be attacked.

That’s definitely something that will endear you to the average Arab-American.

Posted by: Loren at June 20, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #159816

The “war” ended a few years ago when the president said “mission accomplished”. By leaving Iraq now we would not be backing out of a war but ending our on-going, purposeless and futile occupation of that country. There is no “war on terrorism” any more than there is a “war on crime,” a “war on drugs,” “a war on illiteracy.” It’s just a cute slogan our president made up for his own political purposes. He would have the American people think that anyone opposed to our occupation of Iraq is a coward or traitor, unwilling to fight the “war” to the end. THERE IS NO WAR. End this pointless occupation and bring our brave troops home.

Posted by: Stan at June 20, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #159821

Paul

You often list some very good ideas, but you evidently do not realize that we have been doing or trying to do many of the things you say for many years.

We have had many successes in cooperating with others re terrorism. President Bush has tripled our non-military foreign aid. We have been trying to get the UN to define terrorism for half a century.

These are not Democratic ideas (or Republican ones for that matter). They are American ideas that we HAVE been pushing.

Posted by: Jack at June 20, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #159827

we need to do all these things to win the war really? all we need to do is kill so many of then camal kissing nigger’s that they beg for the peace and the stability of freedom and democracy.How about asking them what there plans are.why don’t you go over there your self and ask them your self to please make nice.It seams to me that you have some great ideas I am certain if you point out to them point by point number by number as you have here in your post they will understand and accept and accommodate you accordingly if you would have only done this sooner the war would have been over by now. god speed you on your quest for peace and understanding.

Posted by: angry white capitalist pig at June 20, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #159833

“Now you pass out the nametags indicating who is a potential jihadist needing hugs and nuturing and who is a terrorist needing to be attacked. Please tell them not to stand too close to each other so there won’t be any unfortunate accidents.”

The inevitable, non constructive belittling post. So, your advocating bush’s strategy of just killing all brown people and hoping?


“but you evidently do not realize that we have been doing or trying to do many of the things you say for many years.”

Hardly. We’ve coddled Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc, prioritizing business deals ahead of terrorist fighting. (I wont even mention the name of the family so in bed with the Saudis they can’t tell eachother apart at family reunions). Pakistan is a military dictatorship!
Our words ring hollow with the rest of the arab world. The future viability of terror groups is assured by our current policies.


“all we need to do is kill so many of then camal kissing nigger’s “

Now, in an effort NOT to stereotype political affiliations, I’ll leave it up to the forum to decide if this guy leans left, or right.

Posted by: Observer at June 20, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #159841

There is only one way to stop the terrorism that this administration has engaged in, (and brought upon our nation and the people of Iraq).

That is to get rid of this administration!

This administration can not fight or win in any war, and a war on terror, by this administration, is laughable.

We need to declare the War “won”, (like Bush did years ago), and get the heck out of Iraq.

(But, that won’t happen, Bush’s buddys would loose too much money).

It’s a shame, what our young people are dyeing for, over there. Just a damn shame!

The only “terror” in Iraq today is the “terror” that we are causing by being there!

NICE POST STAN :-)

Posted by: PlayNice at June 20, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #159843

First, one cannot win a war on terror. It’s impossible. Who gives up? Does Osama come down from the mountains waving a white flag? Do we get a bunch of extremist to sign an official surrender? Do we capture three terrorists, put them in jail and claim victory? How do we win? What needs to be done for the official end?

Whats going to stop that little 11 year old who’s holding the head of his dying father on the street. That child is not angry at Osama or his country. Americans did this to his father. That’s what he’s thinking. It doesn’t matter that his father died from a car bomb. That 11 year old is going to grow up hating americans.

Do we follow him around for the rest of his life to make sure he doesn’t become the next terrorist? 10 years from now. 15, 20. What about the thousand other little boys that watched a family member die. Do we follow them around also?

What this administration fails to realize is that the longer were there, the more harm we do.

If Dubya wants to win this war, he should leave now and hope those thousand little boys have forgiveness in their heart and not revenge.

Posted by: big tom at June 20, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #159852

Big Tom

We absorbed most terror attacks w/o vigorous response until 2001. Those thousands of little boys don’t need a reason to seek revenge. They are more or less seeking revenge on the world for being born.

And you know, of course, that few terrorist are poor little boys. Terror is a strategy employed by some leaders. It is not a desparate act of individuals.

Posted by: Jack at June 20, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #159853

Stan,
You called it. I have been saying that for some time. In practice, there is no War on Terror. Al Qaida ceased to exist as an effective organization in 2003. What is this really about? It is all about instilling fear. Ironically, the biggest “terrorist” of them all is Bush, and the most “terrorized” people in the world are Bush Supporters. They cannot give up their constitutional rights to a Unitary Executive fast enough, because they are horribly insecure, they are terribly afraid. They cut and run away from their own freedom.

Posted by: phx8 at June 20, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #159857

Big Tom,

The way things are going in the region those little boys future will be too caught up in cross sectarian fighting to do any major American hating. It will all be Shiite versus Sunni and we will barely be in the equasion other than politico deckchair straighteners if this all goes to shitsville.

I believe we’ve made some devastatingly stupid mistakes that people like Jack and SE are completely oblivious to (some I’ve listed above)but we must stay the course being that the alternatives right now are worse.

If we leave it will cause the terrorist to lay claim that UBL won and that will energize everything. They will use it all for their propaganda and their numbers will grow, we need to deal with “Islam” as the mess it is as it has always been. I say we fight on but employ smart strategies not the Republicanized ones that lose wars.

I also think that we have too many cooks stirring the pot and Bush has dumbly made this a political volleyball so you have congress battling. It needs to be taken out of Rove’s fat stubbly little fingers so it can’t be used any longer as a political manipulation stick. We are there Dubya, so quit with the political manipulation you Texas whore bitch.

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #159859

Observer:

What the F##K! In the post below you seem to indicate that I advocate killing brown people and sand kissing canal negroes. You are linking my comment with two other comments by someone else. I said the first quote below in response to the rather whimisical plan outlined by Paul. My point was to show that his plan is a feasible as having Santa Claus step in as a mediator.

This is what goodkingned said:
“Now you pass out the nametags indicating who is a potential jihadist needing hugs and nuturing and who is a terrorist needing to be attacked. Please tell them not to stand too close to each other so there won⦣x20AC;™t be any unfortunate accidents.”

- Your response:
The inevitable, non constructive belittling post. So, your advocating bush’s strategy of just killing all brown people and hoping?


This crap came from someone else:
“but you evidently do not realize that we have been doing or trying to do many of the things you say for many years.”

As did this crap:
“all we need to do is kill so many of then camal kissing nigger⦣x20AC;™s “

-At this point, you now finish off with a slur of righties using the manufactured evidence you compiled from God knows where:
Now, in an effort NOT to stereotype political affiliations, I’ll leave it up to the forum to decide if this guy leans left, or right.
Posted by: Observer at June 20, 2006 10:06 PM

Observer:
Agree with me or disagree with me, but don’t falsely attribute quotes to me.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 21, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #159863

Another thing that bothers me is that if you are behind this war, seeing as necessary that you have to be behind Bush junior. I’m not standing behind that dumb-ass he and his clique have shown they clearly do not know what they are doing, on anything thus far. But Republicans keep insisting we have to stand behind that cadre of corporate shilling knuckleheads and their teleprompter princeling. I know they are clueless as the track record shows and they play political games to no end.

Who trusts him really at this point but a bunch of suburbanite armchair generals who like the occasional warbook from Time Life and think scotch is a food group.

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #159871

Wow! For once I don’t want to vomit after reading one of Paul’s posts. Bravo!

One small quibble tho - you said…

“President Bush is determined to win in Iraq because he thinks Iraq is “the central front in the war on terror.”

and then you said…
“Bush’s attack brought some jihadis to Iraq”

If terrorists are flocking to Iraq from Iran, Syria, S.A., Egypt, and other middle east countries to fight the “crusaders”, then aren’t we in fact making Iraq a front? And as most of you libs are so fond of pointing out - Al Quaida had nothing to do with Iraq…Well, they most certainly do now, as Iraq and Afganistan are where most of the Al Quaida shenanigans are being carried out.

Which would you prefer? To have terrorists form multiple cells across the world so they can plan for the next 9/11? The cache of papers confiscated with the Al Zarcrappy bombing/death spoke to the fear that Al Quaida has in losing this incursion “…time is on the side of the crusaders (ie the US)…”
If you remember - Al Quaida’s strategy laid out in these papers was to somehow get Iran involved in a war with the US. To somehow make this a broader conflict. And in that sense, Al Quaida is right. The US cannot afford to expand our military presence into Iran, or god forbid PRK.

This is NOT Vietnam. Anyone who makes those comparisons hasn’t studied that war. It is true that both wars have been politicized, however, we have WON the war in Iraq. It is over. PERIOD! What we are struggling with is the occupation/nation building. If we (the US) can somehow make it more attractive for other nations to become involved in Iraq, I think the Iraqi people have a much greater chance of securing peace, prosperity and democracy.

Why don’t we offer to have other countries be a part of the rebuilding effort - with the stipulation that securing newly built infrastructure is part of the package. In other words, why don’t we let a country like France (blech) build a couple of power plants (or radar installations - they are good at that) and have a security force in place to ensure that the infrastructure (as well as the region) is secure.

I don’t know - just a thought.

BTW - Novenge, I agree with about 60-70% of what you say, but damn if you aren’t funny. Im cracking up reading your posts. Keep em coming…

B0mbay

Posted by: b0mbay at June 21, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #159883

We are fighting this war like a bunch of prima donnas. We see the way they deal with prisoners or collaborators. We prosecute the underlings in the prisons and the few who snap from time to time. Pointless propaganda to win the hearts of the opressed. (bullsh*t) We need to take off the kid gloves with these jihadists. There should be a well publicized new procedure for dealing with the terrorists, insurgents and foriegn fighters. Prison meals will be pork everyday. Announce that in the future all recovered bodies will be buried with the entrails of pigs. Buried with pig entrails = no heaven = no virgins. That should be enough to give them pause to consider the new result of their martyrdom. Simple stuff.

Posted by: sndyrmony at June 21, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #159885

Phx8: For fear of being accused of mutual admiration—nice post. I agree with you 100%.

People keep talking about this “war.” I reiterate, there is no “war on terrorism.” At best it is a campaign to reduce terrorism, just as a “war on poverty,” is a campaign to reduce poverty. Wars can be won or lost. Campaigns such as the one on terrorism, can only result in progress.

But we are not even doing that. I fear we are backsliding. During this campaign we have:

1. Lost as many more American lives as we lost in the 911 attacks,

2. Given the terrorists something to really hate us for.

3. Increased the terrorist population by several times.

4. Eliminated one of the Middle East’s strongest foes of Al Queda (Saddaam Hussein).

5. Made it significantly easier for the terrorists to recruit new young passionate terrorsists.

6. Voluntarily given up many of our own freedoms (the terrorists don’t need to take our freedom from us, we’ll give it up of our own free will).

7. Spent close to a trillion dollars that might have gone toward securing our homeland, educating our children, protecting us from natural disasters, etc.

STAY THE COURSE? I think we’re on the wrong course. We need some sanity here.

Posted by: Stan at June 21, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #159906

Sndyrmony,

Pork’ll learn ‘em!

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #159909

B0mbay,

You don’t think them shooting at us, car bombing and roadside bombing us enmasse constitutes a war? THEN WHY DO YOU REPUBLICANS KEEP SAYING WE ARE AT WAR!!!

Holy crap, here I thought we had a war going on.

“Don’t be a traitor liberals, we are at ‘Occupation and Nation Building’!!!” I’m waiting for that crap to appear on Fox.

B0mbay—“make it more attractive for other nations”??? It’s a nation of dirt where by which they get the opportunity to have the sh*t blown out of them by militant Islamic psychos with ied’s. Maybe we should do a brochure for them.

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #159948

This whole post is myopic and insane in nature…for more then 30 years we have had islamic extremists hell-bent on killing anyone with a “western” culture. Does that mean anything to you?

We cannot ignore them and hope they go away.

We cannot placate them and think they will be happy eating bon-bons.

We cannot reason with them, because there is no reasoning with suicidal extremists.

We cannot “leave them where they are” and hope they stay where they are.

We cannot let it be someone elses problem.

We cannot stick our heads in the sand.

We cannot create a “passive” terrorist.

When we have someone in the US who acts the way these terrorists do, we go into overdrive and engage every possible resource to apprehend them…This is no different.

In fact…It’s the same thing…

Posted by: Cliff at June 21, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #159949

Sndyrmony,

Dude, that was classic.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 21, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #159951

B0mbay,

Why don’t we offer to have other countries be a part of the rebuilding effort - with the stipulation that securing newly built infrastructure is part of the package. In other words, why don’t we let a country like France (blech) build a couple of power plants (or radar installations - they are good at that) and have a security force in place to ensure that the infrastructure (as well as the region) is secure.

Because doing this will equal to recognize that France was right when she warn Bush about the risk and underestimations of Iraq War and when she propose via UNSC right after the fall of Saddam to move Iraq rebuild process under international umbrella.

Also, no way nations opposed to Iraq War will now accept to give money to fix the mess.
You broke it, you own it.

Sure, if Bush has enough will, he still have the option of asking others nations to help him rebuilding Iraq. If US is ready to pay them for rebuilding what she broke, some could actually join, sure.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #159954

Overall, a well meaning post. Thanks! And I feel bad being mainly negative in this posting, but:

1. ATTACK TERRORISTS - … We must also attack the terrorists wherever they rear their heads
I THINK THIS CLEARLY INCLUDES IRAQ, NO??

2. COUNTER JIHADIST PROPAGANDA - Saudi Arabia establishes …. madrassas that nurture jihadists. We must counteract this. So far we are doing nothing.
NOT NEARLY ENOUGH (c’mon Karen Hughes!), BUT AMONGST MANY THINGS, WE PAID FOR STORIES IN IRAQ NEWSPAPERS … UNTIL THE US LEFT RESPONDED SO NEGATIVELY BUSH ROLLED AND SAID WE WOULD STOP THAT.
RE MADRASSES, I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO CLOSE SCHOOLS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES SO THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED AT ALL. HOW MIGHT THIS BE PERCEIVED IN THE MUSLIM WORLD??

3. KEEP WMD FROM JIHADISTS - Old Soviet scientists, who are unemployed, are susceptible to making deals with jihadists about nuclear weapons. We can stop this. Pakistan has secretly proliferated nuclear weapons among Iran, North Korea and who knows where else. And we call Pakistan an ally! Let’s put this sort of thing to an end
THERE HAS BEEN *A LOT* OF ACTIVITY HERE SINCE ‘90. MUCH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE CIA, WHICH IS STRONGLY OPPOSED BY MUCH OF THE MOST FAR LEFT.
ALSO, REMEMBER LIBYA GIVING UP THEIR NUKE PROGRAM SO BUSH WOULDN’T GO AFTER THEM, WHILE WE WERE DOING IRAQ?? THIS IS HOW WE UNCOVERED THE PAKISTAN CONNECTION, RIGHT? AND THIS WAS APPARENTLY ENDED, RIGHT? AND WE ARE MORE REALISTIC WRT N.KOREA THAN 8YRS AGO, YES?

4. EXCHANGE TERROR INFORMATION WITH FRIENDLY NATIONS - Our enemy is global. Our response must be global. We must have a good way of exchanging timely information about terrorists, their plans, their actions and the consequences of their actions. We need to work together with our friends in Europe, Asia, Africa and with our friends in the Middle East. To start with, let’s make more friends.
AGREED! AND LET’S NOT GO AFTER THE US AND ALLIES WHEN WE ARREST / HOLD / TRANSFER TERRORISTS, RIGHT? LET’S BE SUPPORTIVE WHEN THE USA WORKS W/ ALLIES!

5. DISSEMINATE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS WORLDWIDE - Not democracy;
“YES” TO DEMOCRACY!! THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES WANT. IF YOU DON’T THINK SO, ONE OF US IS VERY WRONG AND IS OUT OF CONTACT W/ REALITY. PLEASE LISTED TO MUSLIM *PEOPLE*, NOT LEFTIST WESTERN PROPAGANDA OR AL QAEDA.
Start at the UN by getting it to define terrorism, and then outlaw suicide bombing.
HUH???? AND THIS WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT???
It’s a tragedy that America is not on the Human Rights group. Let’s get on it and lead the world in defining human rights and let’s organize a democratic caucus in the UN to prevent the spread of bigotry and racism and to spread democratic ideals.
REMEMBER HOW V. LONG WE WERE ON THAT? MAYBE ONE OF US COULD VIEW THE UN MUCH MORE REALISTICALLY.
Instead of denigrating the UN, let’s make it a platform for discussing freedom, harmony and peace.
CAN WE ALL BE JUST AS/MORE SUPPORTIVE OF OUR OWN COUNTRY, WHICH HAS DONE I THINK FAR MORE PROPOGATING FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY & PEACE THAN ANY(right?) OTHER COUNTRY. RE DENIGRATION, CAN THE LEFT PLEASE NOT DENIGRATE THE US, WHICH IS OUR COUNTRY AND HAS FAR, FAR BETTER RECORD THAN THE UN??
RE A GOAL FOR THE UN, HOW ABOUT ACTION IN SUDAN NOW!! (USA HAS BEEN THE ONLY ONE REALLY PUSHING THIS, BUT WE ARE MILITARILY EXTENDED)

6. EXERCISE GOODWILL TO THE POOR AND UNFORTUNATE - We do some of this already. … Who would become a jihadist after such compassionate treatment?
WE DO MORE THAN *ANY* OTHER COUNTRY WRT $$, $$/PERSON, AND %OF GNP. WE OFTEN OUT-GIVE THE REST OF THE EARTH ON MANY INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS. …YET STILL MANY JIHADISTS. WE WERE THE BIGGEST GIVERS TO PALESTINIANS, YET THEY DANCED IN THE STREETS ON 9/11. EINSTEIN SAID DOING THE SAME THING AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS IS MADNESS.

7. EXEMPLIFY GOOD DEMOCRACY - Bush tells us that we must sacrifice some liberties for security. This is wrong. We must do the opposite.
I DISAGREE. (WHAT OPPOSITES? RE-ESTABLISH THE CLINTON/RENO WALL TO PREVENT THE CIA & FBI FROM WORKING TOGETHER? OR DON’T LISTEN TO INTERNATIONAL CALLS W/ SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, OR…?)
Let’s increase our liberties. Let’s reduce further tensions among races and religions. Let’s stamp out secrecy and torture.
NO SECRECY???? THIS IS A V. ODD SUGGESTION TO ME. WHAT TORTURE – MAYBE HOW AL QAEDA GOUGED OUT THEIR EYES, CRUSHED & RIPPED OFF THEIR TESTICLES, AND ELECTRICALLY TORTURED, KILLED, AND BOOBY-TRAPPED OUR TWO SERVICEMEN THIS WEEKEND? I HOPE YOU ARE NOT MORE CONCERNED, LIKE THE NY TIMES’ 57 FRONT PAGE ARTICLES, OF MOSTLY ANIMALHOUSE BEHAVIOR W/ NAKED PRISONERS??
Let’s reduce the polarizing divisiveness and seek unity. Let’s show the world how well all people in a great democracy live together in harmony. The best way to convince the world of the superiority of democracy is by example. Let’s be that example.
AMEN!! CAN WE BE LESS POLARIZING/DIVISIVE AND MORE HARMONIOUS WRT AMERICA HERSELF?? CAN WE ADMIT THAT WE CLEARLY *ARE* THIS GREAT EXAMPLE ALREADY … EVEN THOUGH WE SHOULD GET MUCH, MUCH BETTER?

Posted by: Brian at June 21, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #159962

General Paul Seigel The United States Of America has been doing No.1,3,4,5,6and 7.No. 2 however as the folks can see not only do we need to shut down the Jihadist Propaganda but the propaganda of some Americans who honestly beleive they are smarter than the Generals on the fronts of the war on Terrorism.And make no mistake these American Proagandist know exactly what they are doing.Therefor We have to hold these Anti-American Propagandist accountable.When you hear Americans like Paul Seigel Tell you we should do things that are all ready being done and has been since 2001 you know that you are listening to Anti-American Propagandist Hell bent on helping the enemy!!

Posted by: justwondering at June 21, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #159964

Paul,

Due to the nature of extremist Islamic ideologies, the war on terror cannot be “won”. At best the U.S. can reduce or prevent terrorist attacks against our homeland and our allies. By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is responsible for creating more terrorists.

-Patrick

Posted by: Patrick at June 21, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #159967


Brian: Hopefully someone in Iraq will lead us to those who tortured, killed and mutilated our young troops. Here is what I can’t understand, Why were three of our soldiers manning a highway checkpoint all by themselves without support? Who is running this war? What the hell is wrong with them and why haven’t any of them been fired?

The administration has run this war as if they were a bunch of morons and attacked anyone who dares to question their military tactics.

Why have the president and vice president of Iraq asked us to set a timetable and get the hell out of Iraq? Is it because they have had enough of the morons in this administration? I know that moron might not be the appropriate adjective to use but I am trying to be leant.

I am so tired of being called a terrorist lover by those who think these incompetents can do no wrong. If this was a democratic administration, myself and many other democrats would be calling them the same things or worse and so would all the republicans.

Posted by: jlw at June 21, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #159972

Patrick-

I disagree. If Arab land (Iraq) or Sharia law countries (Afghanistan) are the price for a terror group’s attacks on the U.S. they will not be so likely to do so in the future.

As to Iraq not be a central front to the war on terror, Bin Laden seemed to think it was a big issue on his Fatwa list.

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

Posted by: George in SC at June 21, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #159976

jlw,

Think about what you have said…
What you are asking for is an additional 120,000 more troops. This is logistically imposssible…

Posted by: Cliff at June 21, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #159980

Cliff,

I can’t remember one nation on earth that was fighting a long war without having to (re-)establish draft. Does War On Terror a part-time war for the US or is it *the* war US will “prevail”, as recently re-stated officially?

The US Government should get his actions in line with its speeches.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 21, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #159982

I must say that our war on terror is going just as swimmingly as our war on drugs…and how’s that anti-gang initiative of Laura’s going????

You can’t fight ideas with guns…

Posted by: Lynne at June 21, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #159985

What do you fight it with Lynne Retreat?

Posted by: lookingout at June 21, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #159994


Cliff: I despise war, but I don’t make policy. In my opinion, the war against Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. It had everything to do with the gruge that Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld had with Sadam, Bush’s father and Ronald Ragan. If this war is so important to the survival of this nation, why is another 120,000 troops logistically imposible? Why were Colan Powel and the generals not listened to? Why all the tax breaks in a time of war? Why aren’t we reinstituting the draft? If all these complaints are taken as a whole, it would seem to some that this war isn’t really as important to the survival of this nation as this administration and their true believers want us to believe. Why don’t you try reasoning some of these questions yourself. If the administration is serious, get her done! I don’t want to see America fight any other wars but, if we are then let us do it right and let’s get serious about it instead of screwing the whole thing up and calling your critics terrorist loving liberals.

Posted by: jlwilliams at June 21, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #160004

“it would seem to some that this war isn’t really as important to the survival of this nation as this administration and their true believers want us to believe. Why don’t you try reasoning some of these questions yourself. If the administration is serious, get her done!”

Great comment, JLW.

Whether invading Iraq was right or wrong, we may not agree on. But if we’re going to invade and occupy, we need to do it right. “Stay the course” is not an option - the current “course” is just an ill-planned epilog to a photo-op.

The options are to get the hell out, or else to pay the price to do it right - establish order, build an infrastructure, all of that, which might easily take 100,000 or 200,000 more troops.

Posted by: William Cohen at June 21, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #160006

Hope is not a strategy either…
There’s nothing new here…

Posted by: Cliff at June 21, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #160035

Energy independance is the key. Developement of alternative fuels ,conservation etc. should be considered patriotic acts. Fot years our dependance has warped our forign policy into a rapaseous grab for oil. We have seen this all over the world especially in the middle east. examples: Replacing the democratic government in Iran with the Shah, playing kissy-kissy with the brutal dictators of Saudi Arabia,giving money and arms to Saddam etc. The Jihadists should have been an expected reaction to the US putting oil ahead of national integregrity.Time to stop. We are financeing the terrorist,for heavens sake.

Posted by: BillS at June 21, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #160039

“You can’t fight ideas with guns…”


“What do you fight it with Lynne Retreat?”

No, BETTER ideas.
Too bad our current WH resident is bereft of them.

Posted by: Observer at June 21, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #160044

“Observer:
Agree with me or disagree with me, but don’t falsely attribute quotes to me.”

Don’t blow a gasket, kingned. I don’t always seperate my responses to different people. I never attributed the racist quote to you. But we seem to have hit a nerve.

“I said the first quote below in response to the rather whimisical plan outlined by Paul. My point was to show that his plan is a feasible as having Santa Claus step in as a mediator.”

Your OPINION that his plan in “whimsical”. So far, from my point of view, bush’s plan is whimsical, illplanned, and starting to look like a big lie designed to get us a foothold in the oil feilds of the ME.

Can I point out something? The name of this forum is “Democrats and Liberals”. Yet we seem to have more right wingers and conservatives than not. Every essay is greeted by jeers from the right with the tone of astonishment that someone dared espouse a liberal position.
GET OVER IT!
You HAVE your forums where you can all stand around and jack each other off to pictures of Karl Rove. This is OUR forum for espousing OUR points of view.
Your welcome to comment, but save the outraged astonishment that there is an opposing viewpoint to yours for someone that gives a damn.

Posted by: Observer at June 21, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #160049

Paul,

Great post.
Bush defenders and those who hate camel kissing:
Soft power is often misunderstood by the “kill’em all let god sort’em out” folks. Soft power is to appeal to the masses. Set the example of what a true democracy really is.Be the sole superpower by influencing change towards making the world a better place for all. Be a humanist, not just an American. Be the standard barer on policies like human rights and polution. We are on top. Why is this administration spitting on all below us?
When we torture we help the terrorists.
When we interfere we help the terrorists.
When we occupy a country without any real plan of action, while being led by idiots, we help the terrorists.
When we disregard world opinion we not only help the terrorists but we continue to convince the world that the most powerful nation on the planet are bullies who spit down on them.
Soft power means that you have enough strength and power that you can be the good-guy and not abuse that power just because you can.
We can not sic our military on everyone because we can. It’s terrible short term policy and make no mistake, It’s long-term effects can be devistating to us all.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 21, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #160054

I am happy to see that most comments address the issue and are not emotional. Among the harshest comments was that my ideas are being followed. I wish it were so.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 21, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #160084

I do like Paul’s ideas even though some them just are not possible. I wish they were. I wish Bush would approach this war with more of an offensive mindset. I’m not sure he has the hutpah to take on the politics of such a move. Iraq had the most powerful terrrorist (Saddam)in the world; taking him down was the right thing to do. If you don’t think he was a terrorist you should have visited the Persian Gulf.

One other thing must be added to the list to defeat this war on terror. Stop politicizing the war. We can’t have Democrats attacking Republicans and calling this Bush’s war. Its America’s war, they gave their vote to Bush and they should stand behind their decision. Few are showing courage to take such a stand. Politics comes first.

To add to Andre’s list:

When we attack each other we help the terrorist.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 21, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #160094

—justwoundering Many years ago, people with dissenting views were called communistic by a man name Joe McCarthy(Senator)ruined many lives because of his paranoia by holding congressional hearings! Do you think it possible we could make that same mistake again?

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #160102

I disagree Curmudgeon. Saddam was not a terrorist. In fact I think he was more afraid of El Qaeda then we were. He knew that they (El Qaeda) could take him out anytime they wanted too. Saddam did not hold all the power in that region. El Qaeda does not hold all the power in that region. The Koran does.

Posted by: big tom at June 21, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #160104

—curmudgeon Spins come in all shapes and sizes an sometimes just plain irresponsible. I guess when a lie about getting into a war, I guess you must perpetuate those lies to keep that war appealing an any one pushing the belief in that war, are as guilty as those who illegally lied to get us into said war.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #160110

“When we attack each other we help the terrorist.”

What you mean is “when democrats attack republicans, we help the terrorists. When republicans attack democrats, well, that’s just politics, baby!”

“Its America’s war, they gave their vote to Bush and they should stand behind their decision”

They didn’t forsee such incompetence. No one did. It’s unprecendented.

Posted by: Observer at June 21, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #160114

Curmudgeon:
This is not America’s War. As I stated it is not a war at all, but rather a campaign to reduce, not defeat, terrorism. Attributing the debacle to Bush is appropriate. America elected him, in large part, based on lies we were fed. This whole exercise is Bush’s folly. Ask 10 Americans on the street why we are in Iraq—why did we enter in the first place. I doubt that one will be able to come up with any response that does not echo what we now know to be lies.

Posted by: Stan at June 21, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #160120

Paul
Again and again. At the top of your list should be oil independance. How are we supposed to deal with Iran when they could turn off the spigot and collapse our economy in about a week? How much blood and treasure could we save if it was not for Rumsfeld and the rest of the military-imperialist on going plans to build a ring of bases in the mid-east to control the oil supply? The Iraq war is just one piece of that plan.
Would it not be great for us to be able to tell the Arab world that if THEY did not stamp out the jihadist ,WE would stop buying oil from them and they could go back to an economy based on goats and dates?

Posted by: BillS at June 21, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #160125

Big Tom said, “Saddam was not a terrorist. In fact I think he was more afraid of El Qaeda then we were. He knew that they (El Qaeda) could take him out anytime they wanted too.”

Abe Lincoln said, “It is better for others to think you may be a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Observer said, ““When we attack each other we help the terrorist.” … What you mean is “when democrats attack republicans, we help the terrorists. When republicans attack democrats, well, that’s just politics, baby!””

C’mon people. Let’s not put words in others’ mouths. Right? And maybe we all should put peer pressure on anyone who then tries to insult made-up words. This is intellectually dishonest, a waste of others’ time & an insult to thier intelligence, … and just plain stupid.

My OPINION is that arguments dwelling on whether we should have gone to Iraq may enable others to rant & let off steam, but they don’t help nearly as much as CURRENT POLICY — WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW, given the current situation.

C’mon, 2nd rate people just insult/deride as Mon-morn-quarterbacks. If you are GOOD and come up w/ something better GOING FORWARD, you are doing the nation a service w/ something we might all get behind.

Posted by: Brian at June 21, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #160130

Another thing that should be looked at is Israel. You know that the Israeli government does not recognize marriages between Arabs and Jews? They have other esentially Jim Crow laws as well. Yes,they are a democracy and yes there are a few Arabs in parliment but an Arab could never become prime-minister. High time for them to give up their 2000 year old land claim and realize they have to live with the people of the region. Another good arguement for the separation of church and state. Whats wrong with a state where Jews are welcomed and protected instead of a Jewish state?

Posted by: BillS at June 21, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #160131

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY

Here is your chance, in the microcosm of this daily blog, to turn Democrats/Liberals from a party of shrill knee-jerk Bush-haters into a party of DIFFERENT, BETTER IDEAS, passing the test of scrutiny, to improve America going forward.

Let’s start something great for Democrats, Liberals, and America.

Posted by: Brian at June 21, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #160133

Brian,
Your words might have more weight if in the same post, you didn’t first call tom a “fool”, then call me stupid.
I was, in fact, just reacting to someone else derailing the discussion. You need to take that into account before jumping down my throat.
As for your suggestion to come up with a new strategy: well sure. Except the events since republicans took total power have made it clear to us that our opinions are NOT welcome, we will not be considered when making policy decisions, and until we regain power, we are “irrelevant”.
Thus, we will continue to attack the current admins policies and attempt to win at all costs, since that’s all that seems to matter in todays political arena

Posted by: Observer at June 21, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #160162

“curmudgeon Spins come in all shapes and sizes an sometimes just plain irresponsible”

Ah, again with “the lie”. If the lie conspirators would look at all the intelligence from multiple nations, THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT may have been wrong, but not liars (not on that anyway). That argument is lame and ridiculous. I am not a big fan of Bush, but I also won’t “make-up” lies to bash him. Plenty of REAL issues for that.

I spent time in Iraq in the early 90s, Sadaam was a terrorist with his own people, not to mention Kuwait. He should have been removed then just on human rights issues.

Observer,

I don’t support namecalling by any party. It just so happens Republicans are in power, therefore Dems have shown the majority of bitterness and chidishness. What does it accomplish?

What’s wrong? Are you OK with their irrresponsible backpedaling on going to Iraq? They HAD the power to STOP the action! Now they wsnt to shut the barn door as if they had no choice in the action. If you don’t like the war, thats fine but hold all involved responsible.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 21, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #160188

Brian. There’s an old chinese proverb that goes something like this. “Those who live near the temple, make fun of the gods”

Posted by: big tom at June 21, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #160192

“therefore Dems have shown the majority of bitterness and chidishness. What does it accomplish? “

Uh, having commitee meetings without telling democrat members, cutting off microphones, telling a senator on the floor to “go F*ck himself…these are the acts of mature representatives of the majority party?
Hello Kettle, this is the Pot. Your black.

“If you don’t like the war, thats fine but hold all involved responsible.”

Ok, I’ll tackle that issue.
1. By no means did the average senator or congressman have access to the raw intelligence that cheney/rummy did. They were given synopses or ‘interpreted’ data.

2. They did NOT vote to go to war. Being patriotic, they voted to AUTHORIZE the use of force, by the president, IF NECESSARY, as a show of solidarity to Sadam, AND assuming the president meant what he said by “the decision to go to war has not been made. I hope we don’t have to”. For that, your damn right I hold them responsible.

3. Reasonable people admit mistakes. Most Democrat leaders have admitted that their vote was a mistake, that the war isn’t worth it, that we ALL were mislead to a degree, and that they should not have conceeded war powers to bush.
This is not “backpeddling”. This is admitting reality.


“I spent time in Iraq in the early 90s, Sadaam was a terrorist with his own people, not to mention Kuwait.”

Invading a neighboring country to seize their assets, however contemptible, is NOT terrorism.
More like imperialism.
The word terrorism has been overused lately and lost much of its meaning, along with words like ‘treason’, ‘traitor’, ‘patriotism’, the phrase ‘support the troops’, etc.

Posted by: Observer at June 21, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #160207

I was just reading the following USA Today editorial regarding Congressman Murtha and comments made by members of his constituency who also happen to be troops returning from Iraq.

Among those:

“”I’m not sure we’re doing a whole lot of good,” Myers, 46, said of the U.S. presence in Iraq. “Everybody thinks we are. We’re trying to, but we’re not going to change what they want to do, and if they don’t want to change, they’re not gonna.”“

“Said Sgt. 1st Class George Wozniak, 36, of Murtha: “He’s definitely for a strong military and he definitely supports the troops.”“

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-21-murtha-troops_x.htm?csp=34

Now, an increasing number of conservatives seem to love telling us Democrats that “we’re providing aid to the enemy” when we say it’s time to change policy in Iraq. When people that have served there say the same thing does it hold any more credibility? I would think so.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at June 21, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #160219

—curmudgeon When you start a conversation by telling someone they are liars then say you do not call names and should not throw stones at you! Their is a problem here. Spin and plausible deniability have no place in these conversations! I am sure you realise exactly what you are doing, Most people get wise to hit an miss attacks, I am sure we can disagree with out disagreeable.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #160264

Brian, Actually no attacks here—I’m just happy to see you found the Caps lock button.

Curmudgeon,

I 100% agree, the congressional dems were pandering like a bunch of bitches with their pollsters on too tight. I’d like them to be held accountable too but they can’t hold a position long enough for that. Bush tricked me—awwww. Yeah the feet will never hit the flames on this issue. And when they do hold the position they should have had all along—aw shucks, it’s too damn late. Someday congressional democrats will become actual democrats—and that’s my pipedream and I’m stickin’ to it. Well you have political mess party number one or political mess party number two really—hell it’s practically a toss up.


David, lighten up, my God, we’ve all been over to the red column and said far worse than that. You’ve never called Eric Simonson a slave to all the wrong ideals?—you should try it, I highly recommend it as it is quite theraputic.

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #160266

Sorry “therapeutic”

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #160276

Another word for “timetable” is “exit strategy.” The incompetant Bush and his war machine went into Iraq without one. This is in clear violation of the Powell Doctine that has served us well. They even asked Powell himself to leave his post. Which he did in shame after being fed lies to repeat to the UN.
After Nov. the administration will no doubt announce some sort of timetable,most likely similar to Kerry”s but useing Murtha’s over the horizon baseing. That means what they are doing now is exposing our troops to more danger for domestic political goals. Support the troops indeed.

Posted by: BillS at June 21, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #160287

—Novenge-Being A Forensic Psychiatrist I no longer do second therapeutic reading, but you are right being part of a solution is better than being part of the problem. Being sort of new on web. I guess I really should not be here in the first place. Sorry if I offended any one.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #160337

DAVID
No offense here, keep on posting, I like your ideas.

Posted by: PlayNice at June 22, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #160363

CURMUDGEON WROTE:

Iraq had the most powerful terrorist (Saddam) in the world; taking him down was the right thing to do. If you don’t think he was a terrorist you should have visited the Persian Gulf….

We can’t have Democrats attacking Republicans and calling this Bushs war. Its Americas war, they gave their vote to Bush and they should stand behind their decision….

When we attack each other we help the terrorist.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at 6/21/06 4:42 PM

AND…

Ah, again with the lie. If the lie conspirators would look at all the intelligence from multiple nations, THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT may have been wrong, but not liars (not on that anyway).

I spent time in Iraq in the early 90s, Saddam was a terrorist with his own people, not to mention Kuwait. He should have been removed then just on human rights issues.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at 6/21/06 07:42 PM

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

Interesting, very interesting! Sometimes you have to look at the spin on the right, and just shake your head. What else can you do, when you are confronted with such a distortion of the facts? It’s sad really. When people can not put together history and the facts, and have that mesh, with their own reality.

1) First off: What do you mean that “Saddam was/is a terrorist”? Do you mean like, when he invaded Kawait, for oil, in the late 80s or early 90s, which started the first Gulf War? Or, do you mean like Bush invading Iraq (for oil), in 2003, which started the second Gulf War?

Maybe, you mean because he gassed his own people. Like he did with the Kurds, in the late 80s or early 90s, just before the first Gulf War? (Seams like both those cases were more than 15 years ago. Who was president then, I forget? Seams like we could have gone to Bagdad then if those things (invading Kawait and gassing Kurds were important).

I guess creating genocide on your own people would constitute terrorism. Kind-a like Bush, stopping the work (funding) on the leveys (in New Orleans, the first time in 37 years, funding for the leveys dried up and work stopped); and letting flood victims, created by this decision, sit in a dome for days, and days, or under a freeway over-pass, promising help, help that would never come, while people died. Is this the kind of terror you mean?

Oh, of course not! You mean, like the torture prisons! Like Abbo Grabe, where Saddam put political prisioners, (that disagreed with him, that were a danger to his rule). Where people were held, without trial, and tortured until they were no longer useful. Gee,… I think we are doing that now? Aren’t we?

2) Secondly: “This is America’s war?” Really? Because Dems and Reps both choose to go into it? No, no they didn’t. Sorry. The congress agreed to let Bush make war ONLY as a last resort. Only if certain things failed. Like negotiations, (that Bush never tried), like regular reporting to Congress, (which Bush has never done), like backing from the UN, (which Bush never got), and only when attempts for inspections failed, (which were never tried, even though Saddam agreed to the inspections, when he realized that he had no other options. But, Bush said that Saddam would just move the “WMD” around in mobile units or hid them further underground.)

Both Dems and Reps were lied to, with reports sadly lacking in truth from the CIA. There was just a special on this last night on PBS. Oh, that’s right, you Reps don’t like PBS, do you? You only watch FOX. Well, since you don’t know what’s going on in the world, let me enlighten you, - not to political hipe, but on some facts.

Bush had been trying to go into Iraq since Dec. 1999. Finally the CIA came across a man in Germany, who was known by the German Government to be a lier, a con-man, and a complete profiteer. Armed with this completely fabricated report, the head of the CIA convinced Colen Powell that the government had numerous eye-witnesses and dozens of reports of nucular power plants, uranium and war-heads, and a host of other lies, including mobile war heads. (The administration finally got the smoking gun that they wanted to finally go into Iraq). Bush, Chaney, Condie, and Rummy then convenced Congress, the American people, and Great Brittian, that Iraq had “WMD’s”.

Now, is this “America’s” war? Or, is this “Bush’s” war? What do you think? And the outing of a CIA operative, what do you think all that was for? Because the Administration didn’t like her parfume? Can you put 2 and 2 together? Can you still connect the dots? Or, are you too far gone —— to the right?

3) “When we attack each other we help the terrorists?” What! When we envade a country that never threatened us; when we open the door for Alkida; when that door was never opened before; when we distroy another countries army and it’s means to protect its self, (and attempts to build it up again are only half-assed, ment more for show rather than substanance); when we take a beaten country from years of sanctions and deplete it’s resources even further, (while our private contractors make a financial killing); when we take a secular people who admired our country, our way of life, our freedoms, and we turn their country into a state run religion, feeding on violence, and waring factions, bombings, and war in the streets, then…, then my friend, WE ARE THE TERRORISTS!

But, when we disagree about the war? When we speak up about the war? When we state the truth about this war? We are not the terrorists, we are not helping the terrorists. If you want to promote terror, just keep on believing the lies, continue to promote and support the terror we have brought upon Iraq. AND, the terror we bring to thousands of military American men and woman and their families, every year, because of this peverse war, (who’s only purpose is to pad the pocket of Hallaburton and other private contractors).

Go ahead. Be a TERRORIST!. Continue to support THIS INSANITY!

Posted by: PlayNice at June 22, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #160374

—This is as good as it gets, excellent job and well done! Keep up the good fight, some of the rest of us get off track.

Posted by: DAVID at June 22, 2006 5:59 AM
Comment #160380

Since when did Congress agree to invade another country/start a war?

They agreed to “take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations.”

OK - but if Al Quida was not in Iraq/working with the Iraqi government… this resolution does not give permission for invading Iraq.

Or maybe “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;”

But, since Saddam had disarmed, in agreement with these UN Resolutions… but we attacked anyway…

Or… “the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;”

OK, but what does Iraq have to do with all this?

How about “members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;”

DOH!

But hey, who can’t agree that “Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;”

DOH! DOH!

One more? “…the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;”

(oh jeez.)

Posted by: tony at June 22, 2006 6:54 AM
Comment #160391

Playnice,

It is quite sad how a discussion of terrorism always becomes a Rep vs dem or Right vs Left issue. Whatever, let me address a few of your remarks

“First off: What do you mean that “Saddam was/is a terrorist”?”

I mean like when he gassed and tortured his own people. I Million murdered. Thus my original response we should have took him out in the first round. Yeah, Bush Sr. was president and he made an unwise chice. Its great not to be a “partiest”. Talk about getting off topic….New Orleans….?

NEXT!

“Secondly: “This is America’s war?” Really? Because Dems and Reps both choose to go into it? No, no they didn’t. Sorry. The congress agreed to let Bush make war ONLY as a last resort. Only if certain things failed. Like negotiations”

Sorry, you blew it here. You better go back and see where congress GAVE UP their responsibility. THET GAVE UP their right to stop Bush from going to war. Why? Political of course they can now take a step back and say “He did it!” Go back and read the Kerry, Hillary and others who ststed this man must be stopped. Go back and see where they SUPPORTED the war effort early on. Stop protecting the party. I will not even deal with the decade of sanctions or “Negotiations” with a mad man.

“When we attack each other we help the terrorists?”

Actually speaking of our leaders in Washington, not you. Folks like you drink the “Kool Aid” that the DNC feeds you. They have suceeeded quite well at blinding you in believing Bush sent us to war and they could do nothing to stop it. Why do we even have a congress if they are not going to exercise their authority? The “partiest” are all alike, none of you want to hold your party responsible for anything. I got a little “TRUTH” for you today. You both sent me to war the first round, and you both sent our troops to war the second round; right or wrong.

imo, it was the right thing to do wmds or not.

Posted by: curmuudgeon-at-large at June 22, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #160394

Does word of documented WMD in Iraq make a difference on the Blue side?

Link

I doubt it…
They will not believe it…
Facts do not matter…

Posted by: Cliff at June 22, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #160399

Cliff,

Did you read this part:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.

Damned. So close!
Okay, then where are the WMDs for which your country went to war in Iraq???

The same article sum up this itself:

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that “there is still a lot about Iraq that we don’t fully understand.”

I love FoxNews.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #160400

Let’s get back to basics. What do we really want and/or reasonably hope to accomplish by our occupation of Iraq?
(1) prevent Iraq from becoming a training and/or logistics base for Al Qaeda after we leave.
(2) prevent any future Iraqi government from purchasing or developing WMDs.
The simplest, cheapest and fastest method of accomplishing these goals is to give up the idea of a united Iraq, and divide it up into separate, sovereign countries for the Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. Iraq never was anything more than an artificial construct cobbled together by the Allies after World War I.

The Kurds have been fighting for their freedom for thousands of years, so if we give them their independence, they will be our bosom buddies, and would maybe even sell us their oil at a decent price. They aren’t even Arabs, so Osama and his ilk cut no ice with them. So, the new Kurdistan will be no happy home for Al Qaeda, and will have no interest in obtaining or using WMDs.

The Shi’ites don’t exactly like us, but they don’t like the Sunnis, either. One of Al Qaeda’s many failings is that they like to murder Shi’ites almost as much as they like to murder Christians and Jews. So, if we give a large segment of “Iraq” to the Shi’ites to run as they see fit and then leave, they will dislike us a lot less than they do now. They may even be willing to do business with us after we leave. In any case, Osama’s Sunni boys will emphatically not be welcome in the new Shi’istan.

So, that leaves only the part of “Iraq” that would be the new Sunnistan. The Sunnis of course hate our guts, but they always will, no matter what we do. They will never forgive us for knocking them off the top rung of the Iraqi social scale, where they were under Saddam, so let’s not waste our time and talent trying to win their hearts and minds.
Fortunately, most Sunnis live in areas of “Iraq” that have little or no oil. No one in the Administration batted an eye when radical Islamists took power in Somalia, for the excellent reason that the Somalis don’t have any money, and therefore cannot obtain any WMDs or establish a viable base for Al Qaeda. The same reasoning would apply to the new Sunnistan.

So, let’s forget the rhetoric about “establishing democracy” [Republican administrations have dealt, and continue to deal with vile dictators all over the world] and do something with Iraq that might actually make a difference in the war on terrorism. And of course, once our troops are out of Iraq, they can go back to Afghanistan, which is rapidly going to hell in a hand basket.

Posted by: dragon at June 22, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #160454

Houdoin,

That senior official can’t be right…he’s lying…it’s a cover up…After all he’s part of the Bush Whitehouse

Posted by: Cliff at June 22, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #160456

Its Official America can stand proud again as the Senate sent a strong message to the Democrat party that America will win this war and the Dems. can not stop us.This is a great day for Americans and a Very Bad day for the Cut And Run democrats.These people are not capable of Protecting the American Way of life or the future of our children.Where do these traitors go from here?Its clear now Demorat leaders have no Voice.

Posted by: lookingout at June 22, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #160461
These people are not capable of Protecting the American Way of life or the future of our children.

Lookingout, it’s a lost cause already.
Check the debt. Check oil addiction. Check climate change. Check China economic power raising rate.

Protecting won’t work. Changing will. It’s not necessary a bad thing.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #160479

Philippe CHECK THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!We want Victory.We want to live in our America not yours Not Usama Bin-ladens Not John Kerrys Not Teddy Kennedys.We want God in our life.We want to be able to say The U.S.A. is the greatest country on the face of the earth.We want to wear Baseball caps.We dont want to wear turbans.We dont want to have to make our children leave their love for Jesus At the front door of our childrens Schools.The democrats can no longer take rights away from god loving people of the United States Of America!!

Posted by: lookingout at June 22, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #160510

France?

Hmm were they not one of the countries involved in the oil for food scam? Talk about an oil addiction! Is it any wonder they are against the us; we took away Daddy Warbucks.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 22, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #160532

—IN the past many years our public schools have functioned very well due in part because of a little clause in our Constitution called THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Posted by: DAVID at June 22, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #160535

“I mean like when he gassed and tortured his own people. I Million murdered.”

Amazing how every year, the number we claim Sadam killed goes up exponentially.

“Folks like you drink the “Kool Aid” that the DNC feeds you. They have suceeeded quite well at blinding you in believing Bush sent us to war and they could do nothing to stop it.”

No, what they say is that the were mislead (true), that they thought bush was more competent and thoughtfull than he turned out to be (I ALWAYS knew he was an idiot), that they regret their votes (a rare admonition of a mistake) and that the war has been prosecuted so ineptly, they now need to step in to end the carnage (couldn’t be truer).

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #160536

“The democrats can no longer take rights away from god loving people of the United States Of America!!”

Question from a new guy.
Does ANYONE on this list take this guy seriously?
If so, WHY?????????????????

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #160538

David you might want to look at once again the effect that not having christ in our schools has had.Pregnancies at 12 years old,Teachers molesting children on a daily basis,educaters teaching students to hate their country.Thanks to Liberal Democrats these things are common place!

Posted by: lookingout at June 22, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #160539

—War on Terror- I believe our country would be Impenetrable from terrorist had we taken all the money we have spent on Iraq and secured our own Country, and let the U.N. take care of Terrorists after all is that not their job?

Posted by: DAVID at June 22, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #160540

“That senior official can’t be right…he’s lying…it’s a cover up…After all he’s part of the Bush Whitehouse”

Cliff,
Admit your first post on the “found” WMD’s was incomplete and blown out of proportion (tip: always read to the end and NEVER take rick santorum seriously).
Your credibility is at stake.

I can just imagine bush’s SOTU speach in ‘03, trying to convince us to go to war.
“My fellow americans, it is clear to us that Sadam MAY have a few rusted out, non viable chemical warheads, that WE sold him, leftover somewhere in the desert, where he probably forgot about them, and pose no real risk to anyone, and because of that, WE MUST INVADE, even if it costs thousands of US lives, costs a TRILLION dollars and destroys our credibility around the world”.
Yeah, I’m sure everyone would have got behind the real truth.

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #160542

“David you might want to look at once again the effect that not having christ in our schools has had.Pregnancies at 12 years old,Teachers molesting children on a daily basis,educaters teaching students to hate their country.Thanks to Liberal Democrats these things are common place!”

Once again, WHO IS RESPONDING TO THIS CLOWN?

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #160544

“—War on Terror- I believe our country would be Impenetrable from terrorist had we taken all the money we have spent on Iraq and secured our own Country,”

AMEN DAVID!
Best post I’ve seen in a week.

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #160547

You are Observer.Go figure

Posted by: lookingout at June 22, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #160548

“France?
Hmm were they not one of the countries involved in the oil for food scam?”

Uh, another little country involved in that scandal goes by the initials, U.S.A.

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #160557

—looking out I do believe parents are responsible for teaching their children moral character not schools. You might recall all the problems the churches roughton schools about sex education. Schools are for higher learning, Churches are for moral and religious teachings. No person can hold any other person, schools, groups an even churches for responsible for their children’s behaviour.

Posted by: DAVID at June 22, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #160559

“Question from a new guy.
Does ANYONE on this list take this guy seriously?
If so, WHY?????????????????
Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 04:00 PM”

No. Or at the least very seldom, but in spite of that I sent an email to the address included in the Rules For Participation just because these “trolls” have grown past the point of annoying to the point of nearly shutting down any serious debate on the blue side of Watch Blog. Certainly not the way it was when I first found Watch Blog.

Right now the Neo-Cons are revelling in the “discovery of WMD’s” in Iraq which any thinking person know’s by reading the actual report (which is a “summary” of events) is just an election year ploy.

At any rate, stick around, just follow the rules and sooner or later you’ll soon be able to see one troll fall just about the time another joins in.

Beware though, not everyone with radical ideas is a troll, including myself.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 22, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #160573

Yes observer just follow the rules which are Bash Bush Bash America and you will do Splendidly.

Posted by: lookingout at June 22, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #160589

Observer…

Keep whispering to yourself…

Bush lied…Bush lied..Bush lied

It’s the only way you survive…

Posted by: Cliff at June 22, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #160599

Observer,

You notice how the trolls avoid any real issues?

Don’t let them distract you.

In actuality the trolls are quite representative of what the Republican party has become: a bunch of mindless trolls marching in step behind the “grand master”.

Just don’t resort to the the same low standards they set for themselves and keep on keepin’ on.

Sooner or later they always self destruct.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 22, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #160603

Kansasdem,

We’ll see what happens in November…
I may be wrong, but I don’t think much will change…

If it does change dramatically, I’ll admit minority status…will you?

Posted by: Cliff at June 22, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #160604


If anyone wants to know what lookingout’s Christian nation will be like, take a look at Iran’s Muslem nation.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #160606

“You notice how the trolls avoid any real issues?”

The real issues are on our side.
I just wonder how so many were convinced to check their brains at the voting booth door.
My black lab has a longer attention span and more discerning intellect than middle america.

“In actuality the trolls are quite representative of what the Republican party has become: a bunch of mindless trolls marching in step behind the “grand master”.”

I assume by ‘grand master’ , your reffering to rove?

“Sooner or later they always self destruct.”

As does the republican party. And they’re past due. My worry is that tricks like pretend troop drawdowns, divisive base issues, and rampant voter fraud will once again allow them their tenuous hold on power.

Posted by: Observer at June 22, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #160607


Christian Madrassas, won’t that be nice.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #160613

I think that we can also look at the divisions in opinion by what we consider the core of this country. The Bush followers consider the president to be the core.
Liberals consider the ideals expressed in Constitution the core.

Some people prefer their decisions to be simple and what they consider to be right to be determined by someone else. That someone (or something) else who sets their standards could be the President, or could be their religion. It is easier and faster to simply accept and follow what you are told. Right and wrong are clear and any one who disagrees with them is by definition wrong. This is the credo of the conservative.

On the other hand, if you take responsibility for your values, it is a more difficult path. You have to examine, discuss, perhaps argue. You do not simply accept what you are told. You will see there are many areas where there are few, if any good answers. You will be forced to tolerate ambiguity. You will have fewer heroes. Your world is painted in shades of grey, not black and white.

You will recognize that the functional answers may include consideration of the needs and viewpoints of people you dislike or consider immoral. But, you realize that part of that panoply of ideas embodied in the Constitution are the rights of the minorities, in group and in opinion.

It isn’t nearly as easy to be a real liberal. I recently came to these forums hoping to find intelligent discussions where we could perhaps come up with good ideas that could lead to some liberal solutions for some of the nasty problems.

It is too bad that we end up arguing with the closed minded, rather than investigating possibilities.


Posted by: dana at June 22, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #160657

“We’ll see what happens in November…”

Quite simple, we will have elections and we will continue to have deadlock. I wonder…..these congress apologists (Observer) will they let congress off the hook so easily if the congress is blue? Poor democrats, being fooled by Bush like that (gag). If they are that easily fooled they need to be ousted in November. Geez, imagine in Kerry had become president….and he was fooled by BUSH!. Let the troll references begin, I don’t kiss the alter of the blue or red party.

One more thing on Novemnber: One thing I have learned in my many years, the dems and Reps are not the answer to our problems. Never have been…never will.

Observer anyone who advocates cut-n-run at this point is really completely uninformed. Geez, go tell the families of the dead soldiers…..ahh we think its time to come home……the mission just wasn’t worth it. Removing Sadaam was worth it and I don’t need to rely on the media to inform me on that observation.

On the WMDs, Sadaam told us he had WMDs. Think he was just bluffing (lying)? He had his own generals fooled if he was. I can’t imagine such a nice fellow lying to us like that.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 22, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #160663

lookingout,

CHECK THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!We want Victory.

So does the enemy. Will is not always enough.

We want to live in our America not yours

I’m french, not american.
So I totally agreed here: I myself would not want to live in yours France but mine.

We want God in our life.We want to be able to say The U.S.A. is the greatest country on the face of the earth.We want to wear Baseball caps.We dont want to wear turbans.We dont want to have to make our children leave their love for Jesus At the front door of our childrens Schools.The democrats can no longer take rights away from god loving people of the United States Of America!!

And the link with Iraq War and War On Terror is???

Oh, BTW, *I* want a space after period in your sentences. But I know while I could repeat it as much as I want, my will alone wont make this happend anytime soon. ;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #160665

Damned, bad quoting. Sorry guys.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #160674
France?

Hmm were they not one of the countries involved in the oil for food scam? Talk about an oil addiction!

France is one of the countries where some citizens were found involved in the oil for food scandal, yes. IIRC, UK and USA are also some countries where citizens were too. So what? Since when corruption care about citizenship?

Now show me one fact proving that the actual France opposition to US’s Iraq War, Gitmo and climate change policy is directly due to some frenchmen being involved in Oil For Food scandal.
Please.

Regarding oil addiction joke, check some data about the world largest oil consumer. If burning fossil energy was not that much responsible for world polution and the actual energy war, I would have laught of your flat joke…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #160679

“I’ll admit minority status…will you?

Posted by: Cliff at June 22, 2006 05:37 PM”

Cliff,

My party has been in the minority. Have you heard me say different?

Now, if you’re asking me to simply tow your party line if we Democrats still end up in the minority, uh, really what do you think?

A few months ago I got angry with my party and I looked at the alternatives. Well, I found out that I’m still a Democrat. If I lived further south I guess I could say I was a “Yellow Dog Democrat” but that’s not the case.

Make no mistake. I’m a Democrat and proud to be so.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 22, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #160680

curmudgeon-at-large,

On the WMDs, Sadaam told us he had WMDs. Think he was just bluffing (lying)? He had his own generals fooled if he was.

Most experts actually think that’s the reverse: his own generals fooled him, most probably because they failed to restart WMDs programs under sanctions but can’t tell him without facing death…

I can’t imagine such a nice fellow lying to us like that.

All leaders eventually lie. Your included. Mine included. Saddam included. Power and lies are very good friends.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #160760

“Make no mistake. I’m a Democrat and proud to be so.”

There is the number one problem with America. Party affiliation over the interest of a nation. Kansasdem, wake up and realize that party cares about party FIRST, and not our nation. There are INDIVIDUALS who are an exception to the rule but the programming and policy of the party is about votes and elections. BARF! Try being proud to be an American.


“Most experts actually think that’s the reverse: his own generals fooled him,”

Not from the reading I have done. I found it VERY difficult to believe his generals knew more than Sadaam. Not in his personality. The man had his fingers in everything. Point is, the leaderrship in the country did not know the TRUTH!

Philippe, I will admit the US is definitely addicted to oil but so is the EU. The rest of the world is addicted to America. Let the US fall and the rest of the world will feel the impact in a huge way.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 22, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #160789

“Kansasdem, wake up and realize that party cares about party FIRST, and not our nation.”

c-a-l,

I gave serious thought to dumping the Democratic Party (I should also say that I’ve not always voted across party lines) but I really looked at the alternatives. By now the Republican agenda should be very clear to you, but seriously look at the agenda’s of the other parties before yuou jump too far.

You can check it out as well as I can, but I’ll post some links if you ask me to.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 22, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #160849

curmuudgeon-at-large wrote:

I mean like when he gassed and tortured his own people. I Million murdered. Thus my original response we should have took him out in the first round. Yeah, Bush Sr. was president and he made an unwise chice. Its great not to be a “partiest”. Talk about getting off topic….New Orleans….?

No, I’m not off track, you are:
Saddam has killed his own people. But, not to the extent that you have been led to believe. He gassed about 5.000 Kurds in the 1980’s. But, that didn’t make daddy Bush envade Iraq. We only got into the first Gulf War after Saddam envaded Kawait. And, at that point, the Kurd thing was already ancient history. Also, in the first Gulf war, we did not envade Iraq, we only pushed the army back to the boarder. (Guess daddy Bush didn’t think those Kurds were as important as baby Bush does). And, if YOU think those Kurds were really important, then why wait almost 10-15 years to avenge them? Talk about being a “partiest”, and talk about reaching for straws to justify your arguement!

In case you can’t follow:
New Orleans was brought up to illistrate what real terror looks like, at home, right here. Maybe we should look at our own terror, before we start to clean up other countries preceeved problems. First off, Bush was briefed by the out-going President. He was told that Al Keita was the #1 problem and terror from this and other extreemist groups should be this administrations #1 priority. Clinton should have known this. The first WTC attack was within the first month of his (Clinton’s) Presidency. But, would Bush listen? NO! We now know that Bush was talking about going into Iraq as early as Dec. 1999, before he even took office. Did Bush pay attention to all the pre-9/11 intel reports? NO! He was so unconcerned that he didn’t even stop reading to that grade school class when the attacks began. That night he had the Saudie family to dinner in the WH, and shortly after that he secreted that family, and the Ben Lauden family out of the country. Then he took a photo-op and a well deserved rest at a stocked fishing pond. Then why should we be surprised when he stopped funding the levey on the Gulf Coast, even after repeated warnings of a class 5 hurricane. (Possiably caused by Global Warming - Caused by in Bush’s words as our “addiction to oil”. Oh no, sorry I forgot, Bush doesn’t believe in “Global Warming”…It’s “natural”, like the “natural” desaster that distroyed New Orleans. (Hey, it’s nature,,,,,don’t blame us).

Let’s tally up the Bush/Saddam death toll, shall we?

Saddam…..5,000 Kurds (in the 1980’s)

Bush……..

1) Not heeding prior intel, taking no action to avoid - The World Trade Center - Total: 3,000 people

2) Invading a foreign country (Iraq) - Americans 2,500 killed; Americans 20,000 seriously injured (crippled, mamed and permently damaged); Iraquis - 130,000 killed (and more every day because of the civil war that our envasion has caused that country). Total: 152,500 people

3) Not listening to NOAH (The National Weather Service) and HLS (Home Land Security-See the “Pam Practice”, 2004), nor the ACOE (Army Core of Engineers); the New Orleans tole runs something like this - estimated 1,500 - 3,000; displaced 100,000-1,000,000 people homeless; body bag clean up (?) unknown. The reason this figure is unknown is because a “no-bid contract” (see any pattern here???) was issued for body removal. A company that this administration was comfortable with because they kept such private records about the body count that they are hired to dispose of. However, an estimated 6,000 people are missing. Total: guesstimated at at minimum of 110,500 prople.

Now lets add them up shall we?
Saddam 5,000 Bush 266,000

curmuudgeon-at-large wrote:

Go back and read the Kerry, Hillary and others who ststed this man must be stopped.

I suggest that you go back and read the pack of lies, half-truths, and pertenent omissions that were given to our Congress, our Senate, and the American people, in order for “us” to support this deliberate, non-warrented agression. That’s the only way this Administration can get anything done that they want to do. Keep us afraid and hiding under our beds. “BE AFRAID, BE BERRY BERRY AFADE” (You silly wabbit you). Yes, we all agreed to go to war. Yes, we all did it. Are you happy, now? You’re right. We agreed to go to war, Democrats and Republicans alike, we all did it. And it was based upon a pack of lies, truths and half truths, that were couched to make people believe that attack by Iraq was immenent. If Saddam was such a depraved, insane, deranged, homocidal maniac, killing people in the streets…then why, just why did it take the Bush Administration from 1999-2003 to get the goods on this guy? He was chomping at the bit to get at him since he took office in Jan or 2000. Why did Bush and Chaney out a CIA agent that knew the truth about yellow cake uranium?


curmuudgeon-at-large wrote:

You both sent me to war the first round, and you both sent our troops to war the second round; right or wrong. The first Gulf war was justified because we needed to stop the agression on Kuwait. But we never went beyond the Iraqui boarders. This Gulf war is Bush’s war. It has nothing to do with helping the Iraqui people, it’s hurting the Iraqui people. It has nothing to do with “Democracy”. The old government of Iraq was secular. This government is based on religious extremism. It has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Iraq didn’t have “terrorist extremeists” before we went there, Saddam wouldn’t have allowed it.

The war in Iraq is just “business as usual” for this Administration. I am not confused, I am not supprised. And I’m not Bush bashing. It makes perfect sence. Bush isn’t the bumbeling idiot that he pretends to be. He’s right on schedual. Everything is going according to plan. There is no difference in how Bush is handling the war in Iraq, and how he handled New Orleans. He out-bids and out-sources everything, (are our ports in the hands of foreign extreamists yet?), and Americans keep dying. We are dying over there, and we’re dying over here.

And, Bush says, “It’s better to dye over there than over here”. Well, we are doing both by this neglectful Administration. A world led by an idiot, were corporate imperialism over-rides humanitarism. A world where everything is a business opportunity, where the government does not serve at the hands of the people, but the people continue to service at the hands of the government. A government that is froth with corruption and moral bankruptcy. You say, “Why New Orleans?” I say, if you understand New Orleans, you will start to understand this Administration.

And until you can really understand this Administration, you will never understand what it really means to be an AMERICAN.
Americans don’t cheer when others are hurt. They don’t support an unjust war, where the only good, that can be gained out of needless death and distruction, can be the profits, the profits that are made by the “No-Bid contractors”, where money flows-out like water from this White House.

I am happy that you served your country, and I appreciate your sacrifice. I too, wanted Bush #1 to finish the job. It was a shame that that oppurtunity was lost. But, there are things in life, that you just don’t get a “re-do”. Especially, for no reason. If Saddam was the “terror” over there that you say he is. Well, he’s gone now. It’s time to call our victory, and it’s time to come home. It’s time for Americans to stop dying. And, it’s time for Iraqis to get on with their “freedom”. Job accomplished!

WE’VE WON.

Posted by: PlayNice at June 23, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #160862

“It has nothing to do with helping the Iraqui people, it’s hurting the Iraqui people.”

Playnice, you my friend have bought the Kool-Aid. I have personally spoke with no less than 30 veterans of this war, the Iraqi people are very greatful we are there. As well, I can quote you many sources in the media and military that has his count of killings at 1 million. But you are free to do your own adding. Comes down to what you WANT to believe. I already said we should have taken him out in round 1.

Why do you keep bringing up New Orleans. I lived and went to school in that town. If you think Bush is behind the corruption and ills of that town you are WAY of base. That town was a time bomb in the 80s and probably before. Bush had nothing to do with TERROR in that town. Give me a break. Why aren’t you blaming Blanco and Nagin? People in the La. had a petition to remove Blanco. Is she a terrrorist as well? Screwing up is not terror.

“If Saddam was the “terror” over there that you say he is. Well, he’s gone now. It’s time to call our victory, and it’s time to come home.”

I agree, but you can’t leave a country with no infrastruture and with no leadership. That will be when the job is done.

Posted by: curmudg-at-largeeon at June 23, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #160863

“By now the Republican agenda should be very clear to you,”

I guess you are telling me my choices are to put Republicans or Democrats in power? Why not tell me I must vote for Michael Moore or Ann Coulter? I’ll look to the hills first. They may not win, but my conscious will be clear. I admit, when I see a promising individual within the mainstream I have gone with a party. That’s becoming more and more difficult. If more though this way, we could possibly change things.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 23, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #160896

curmudgeon-at-large,

Philippe, I will admit the US is definitely addicted to oil but so is the EU.

In 2004, USA consumed 20.4 millions of barrels per days while France consumed 2 millions. Ten (10) times less oil than USA in 2004.
Sorry, but in oil addiction decease, our both countries are not on the same league!

Source: US Energy Information Administration.

The rest of the world is addicted to America.

To American *dollar*.

Let the US fall and the rest of the world will feel the impact in a huge way.

That’s even worst than that. The world nations are now co-dependent, except for the most closed nations like N.Korea every nations on earth will be hit badly if one of the majors economical nations were to collapse tomorrow. Domino theory may or may not work for bringing democracy but for economy it’s working already since decades.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 23, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #160909

Before one say “hey, there is more american than french”, which I agree, France count around 66 millions of people while americans are around 300 millions. So, one american everyday consume twice more oil than a french. Or a german.

And both french or german are far from being good on this field. Go figure.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 23, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #160953

curmudg-at-largeeon

Well, my friend, if I have brought the Kool-Aid (what ever the hell thats supposed to mean), you just keep believing the drool you keep spitting out. Yes, the Iraqui people are glad that we did get rid of Saddam. But, now a lot of them are wakeing up from their night of over-endulgence to find out the price. Like you with a hang-over after the big party the night before. Most are wakeing up to find that the party had a price. It’s brought our country to a war, built on lies, and one that can never ever be won. (There will always be terror). And, the price that the Iraquis are paying now, is that the price of peace, involves living with terror. That’s why over 80% of Iraquis want us out. Even the “President of Iraq” has asked us to leave.

We only “saved” them from one terror, only to subject them to another. They never had Alkita there before, they do now. They had a repressive secular dictatorship before, they have a reign of terror, based upon religious repression and an on-going civil war, now. The Iraqui people are not “free”. Their freedom is a joke. If they were really an independent soverign nation, then they would control their own future. It wouldn’t be dictated to them by a foreign occupier, bent to stay there for the duration, until bases could be built, to over-see them forever, while private contractors are entrenched to extract their national wealth.

You’ve heard every reason, every excuse, every BS de jour, for why we went into Iraq. Here’s the real reason. Saddam was planing to convert his oil business to Euros. That’s it. It’s that simple. But, you keep beliving this drivil you keep pukeing out. It’s so much easier than seeing the truth. It’s so much easier to wave that flag, than to see the con-artists and corporate profit mongers that have it in the mud.

And as for Blanco and Nagin? You keep spitting out all that garbage too. Last time I looked, Blanco and Nagin didn’t run Home Land Security or FEMA. It wasn’t local aid, those people were promised. New Orleans was a National Disaster, not a local one. It was promised Federal help, (it was that big) Federal help that never came. Volunteers from Canada, for cripes sake made it there 3 days before the Federal Government, and a day before Bush’s press conferance where he said, “You’re doing a heck of a job Brownie”. And, Brownie was. He was doing the exact job that the Pres wanted. He cut the communications. He stopped the buses, he denied help from any group of people in this country and other countries. On a Brittish Royal visit to the area many months later, the area was discribed as a “3rd world country”. Blanco and Nagin were never responsible for work on the leveys. (That caused the disaster in New Orleans, not the hurricane.) It wasn’t a natural disaster, it was a result of the leveys breaking. Work was stopped on the leveys for the 1st time in 37 years, ON BUSH’S WATCH, NOT CLINTONS. The Army Core of Eng. went on working a full year on their own after funding was stopped in 2003. The ACOE is a Federal Program, but I’m sure that you can find a way where by you can still blame two Democrats for that too. MAYBE CLINTON, BLANCO AND NAGIN shouldn’t have underfunded the levey project in 2003. Those Bastards!

YOU CAN’T LEAVE A COUNTRY WITH NO INFRASTRUTURE AND NO LEADERSHIP.

Oh, yes I can. I’m retiring in two years. I’m going to a place where I can still aford Health Care on a fixed income, and I can get the decent Health Care that I deserve. Not the substandard Health Care dicted to me by my Insurance Company (instead of my doctor), and not the carte-blanch check written by our government to the drug Companies, that allows them to rape my bank account.

YOU CAN’T LEAVE A COUNTRY WITH NO INFRASTRUTURE AND NO LEADERSHIP.

Just watch me!

Posted by: PlayNice at June 23, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #160979

well 7 more american camal kissing niggers are exposed why don’t some of you anti-war democrats and liberals ask the easy questions? Questions like are these american niggers’ the same american niggers, as the nation of islam, the nigger black panthers, or any of the many nigger hip-hop, crack head, democrat funded anti-american groups.The home grown son’s of islam’ stinking niggers.It has not come out yet but it will as the summer heats up maybe you can do a report on how George Bush the devil discriminated against there civil rights by stoping them from killing true americans in the name of alia and islam.

Posted by: angry white capitalist pig at June 23, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #161068

Angry White Capitalist Pig!!!

You’re my favorite cracka! Post more—would ya? I want to hear the backlash but on a shorter thread maybe. I don’t share your views especially but that’s bound to get a sideswipe, it’s just like watching Nascar just for the crashes into the guardrail.

You rock!

Posted by: Novenge at June 23, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #161073

Angry white capitalist pig,

I’m sorry, I must have missed something. Just which 7 American Camal Kissing Niggers are you refering to?

Maybe I can cheer too! Im afraid that all your raceist slurs, has obscured just who you are talking about.

Posted by: PlayNice at June 23, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #161136

Santa Claus Busted In Terrorist Plot

Late last night Federal Agents of the Department of Homeland Security Agency arrested Santa Claus after a brazen attempt to purchase Weapons of Mass Destruction and smuggle them into homes all over the country. We have had our eyes on him for sometime, declared the field agent for DHSA.
We think he has been in contact with foreign elements all over the globe. He wants nothing less than to create some kind of dirty bomb using enriched snow and a cadre of demented elves. The distinctive yellow snow was recovered and is undergoing analysis along with a mysterious sleigh and a dangerous assortment of jingle bells. A suspicious sack containing hundreds of banned objects was also recovered.
Santa was finger printed and the id came back with several aliases including Kris Kringle, a suspected mastermind of a plot to infiltrate countries suspected of having ties to AL Qaeda and subvert impressionable minds. Reliable reports say Santa will undergo Extraordinary Rendition in an undisclosed location. Stay tuned for further breaking news on this the network that presents only fair and biased coverage of the news that’s fit to report.

_Thomas P Love

Posted by: Thomas Love at June 23, 2006 9:48 PM
Post a comment