Democrats & Liberals Archives

Ultra-Left?!

I can’t take it anymore. Over and over again, commentators describe Ned Lamont supporters as being members of the fringe, extreme, anti-war left. Have these people looked at any of the polls on Iraq?

Well, I have, and you can too. According to the latest CBS/NYT poll, 62% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. 63% say it wasn't worth it. Most tellingly, 55% of respondents say the that the US should "set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq".

This is really the crux of the issue. Iraq War supporters say, "Ok, I get it, you think Bush messed up. But what do we do NOW?" This is the answer which is supported by a majority of the American public: set a timetable and leave. You can say this approach is defeatist, you can say it's a bad strategy, you can say that people who support it are ugly and dress funny.

What you can't say, however, is that it is the approach of the "extreme" left, the "fringe" or any word implying that it is an unpopular position. Objectively, the average American is closer to Ned Lamont than to Joe Lieberman on Iraq. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Posted by Woody Mena at August 3, 2006 7:50 AM
Comments
Comment #172979

ned went on The Colbert Show. Liberman won’t go on, even with the offer of cocopuffs and Mistic River.

That says a lot.

Posted by: tony at August 3, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #172980

I didn’t mean this post to focus on Lamont-Lieberman, but the latest polls shows Lamont ahead 54-41. If Lieberman really gets thumped that badly, I hope he has the good grace to withdraw.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 3, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #172989

You are laboring under the delusion that 1) this war was ever supported by facts, and 2) that the supporters for this war, especially the NeoCons, have the moral fortitude to ever admit that they are wrong. With these two factoids in mind, it makes perfect sense that war supporters must pigeonhole everyone who does not agree with them as part of “the fringe, extreme anti-war Left”

L

Posted by: leatherankh at August 3, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #172990

yes - sorry to get off track, but just saw Lamont on Colbert… tehn last night he did the whole enticement for Liberman. CocoPuffs and a DVD of his favorite movie. Funny.

The ones who would classify Lamont as ulta-liberal do so because Liberman is one of the few Liberals they can tolerate. I don’t think it’s so much the position of Lamont as it it the position of those who portray Lamont as extreme.

I’m sure that from the Jonestown perspective - the rest of the world looked pretty damn crazy.

Posted by: tony at August 3, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #172991

leatherankh,

I’m not expecting Neocons to admit they are wrong. How dumb do I look? I’m just expecting the “liberal” media to acknowledge that you don’t have to be batshit crazy to be against the Iraq War. Doesn’t seem like much to ask.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 3, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #172993

leatherankh,

You are going on the mis-assumption that the war itself was wrong. There are many people who feel that the war was the right thing to do, the RUNNING of the war was wrong.

Of course, that’s a whole other discussion, one we’ve had many many many times. It also relies on those who oppose the war now not redefining the issue, which happens a lot as well.

Basically, you’re doing what most who disagree with the right accuse them of doing, putting things in ‘black and white’ issues and trying to pigeonhole those who belief one way or the other. Hence, no room for acceptance of disagreement from either side exists.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 3, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #172997

“Invading and occupying Iraq has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack Americans and the United States”

61 % agree versus 37 % disagree.

I guess that means that people like me - thinking that meddling around militarily over there as a proxy for “democratization” creates more terrorists instead of less - are not “far left”, but part of a centrist majority.

I hope Fox and the other non-“liberal” media take notice and act on these numbers.

Posted by: Josh at August 3, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #173000

Woody-

So what are you upset about, the label “ultra-left”? Extreme? Come on you guys have been flame trowing labels at the Bush Admin and the right for years (Theocrats, NeoCons, fascists…..)

As Jay Jay pointed out last week this race is the chosen battle within the party for control of its leadership. It’s the progressives versus the DLC. Using a label such as “ultra-left” is journalistic laziness maybe, but it is obviously being used to describe to spit within what is considered the left party (the Democrats).

Are you looking for left vs. lefter????

Posted by: George in SC at August 3, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #173002

Woody,

I think both sides are too poll driven. The media over recent years have been relying on polls as “news”. They aren’t, and can be self creating and self relying on themselves. Politicians who rely on them are doing our country a disservice. I think Teddy Roosevelt said it best. When asked about a poll that was in contrast to his position, he said, (I’m paraphrasing here) “I’m not the leader of American opinion, I am the leader of the American people.” Positions with principal should be applauded, not derided. Sticking your finger in the wind may be fine for you, but not for the type of leaders that I am interested in.

Keith

Posted by: keith at August 3, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #173004

George in SC,

The only split within the Democrat Party is over political strategy. Very few Democrats are as pro-war as Lieberman. It is the country as a whole, not the Democratic Party, that’s divided. That’s a huge difference.


Posted by: Woody Mena at August 3, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #173005

Here is the crux of the confusion: The media treats this primary as representative of what Democrats think about Iraq. This is way off. It is more representative of what the whole country thinks about Iraq.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that Lieberman appears to be getting the roughly half the vote. But that doesn’t mean that half of Democrats agree with him about Iraq. (It is probably more like 10%.) That just means that a lot Democrats like him enough to support him anyway.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 3, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #173008

All of the kicking and screaming about the war being right or wrong is not going to change anything. Anyone who could not see this coming the first time George bought his way into office, was not looking very closely. You could have seen it coming if you had looked at who was proping him up. The second time he bought his way in you should have realized that Iran and Syria would be next. Anyone who does not thing the Pres knew nothing about the attack on this country, just doesn’t want to think that hard. This has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. I have voted Republican most of my life but, I could see this one coming a mile away. You think we are fighting for democracy? We are fighting for Oil. All we need to do is start developing the wind, sun and water. How difficult is that. Oh yes you have to take control away from the big oil companies. In the interim while we are supposed to be fighting for democracy over there, look at the rights you have lost over here. We all need to wake up to this the piece by piece demanteling that is happening in this country.
June

Posted by: june at August 3, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #173011
All we need to do is start developing the wind, sun and water.

Agreed. So let’s do it. Why are we wasting our time waiting for the government to do it for us? Did the government invent the internal combustion engine, flight, the Hershey bar, etc?

What is this fascination on giving so much control of our lives over to the government and then act SHOCKED when they mistreat us and don’t do what we want them to do and us it as an excuse to give them MORE power?

THAT is what is meant by ‘loony left’, thinking that the government has all of the answers instead of relying upon americans to figure them out for themselves.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 3, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #173012

I would rather die an “extreme, ultra-Left, liberal,” conspiracy theorist than live as a fascist neocon.

June,
Thank you for your post. It is refreshing to see an avowed Republican do the “unpatriotic” thing and speak against(gasp!) the Evil Empire!

The real Axis of Evil: Bush, Cheney, Blair.
Is everyone aware that Bush and Blair are related? The first revolution got the British imperialists out of our country; Anyone ready to try again?

Posted by: ChristianLeft at August 3, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #173014

THAT is what is meant by ‘loony left’, thinking that the government has all of the answers instead of relying upon americans to figure them out for themselves.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 3, 2006 11:10 AM

Doesn’t that mean Rush Limbaugh and Annhole Coulter are part of the “loony left?”

Posted by: ChristianLeft at August 3, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #173016

We don’t have to worry about the “ultra-left” (do they really exist????…if so, we’d at least have an alternative to the so-called “centrists”)….regardless…what we really need to worry about is the fact that not only do our votes quite often not get counted, we get taken off voting lists and aren’t even allowed to vote!! Our democracy, which runs on people’s votes, has been gerrymandered to the point of destruction…

Editorial Strong-Arming the Vote Published: August 3, 2006

President Bush’s Justice Department has been criticized for letting partisanship guide its work on voting and elections. And party politics certainly appears to have been a driving force in a legal maneuver it just pulled off in Alabama, where it persuaded a federal judge to take important election powers away from the Democratic secretary of state and give them to a Republican governor. The Justice Department says it is trying to enforce the election law, but that is unconvincing. There are plenty of ways to enforce the law without creating the impression that it is tilting the electoral landscape in favor of Republicans.

Alabama is one of many states that have been late in meeting a federal requirement to create a computerized statewide list of voters. Secretary of State Nancy Worley says the delay is due to factors outside her control. Her critics disagree. But whatever the reason, the Justice Department has every right to try to speed things along. The trouble is, rather than work with Ms. Worley to get the job done, it decided to go to court to take away her authority and hand it to Gov. Bob Riley.

Sadly, a federal judge agreed yesterday to do just that, in a one-sided proceeding that felt a lot like a kangaroo court. The Justice Department and the Alabama attorney general, Troy King, both argued that Governor Riley should control the voter database. Mr. King, a Republican, was appointed to his job by Governor Riley after serving as his legal adviser, and when Ms. Worley realized that Mr. King would not represent her interests, she asked him to let her hire a lawyer to argue her side. He refused. The Alabama Democratic Party tried to intervene in the case, so it could argue against giving control of the voter rolls to the governor. The judge, who was recently named to the bench by President Bush, would not let the Democrats in.

The Justice Department’s request to shift Ms. Worley’s powers to Governor Riley is extraordinary. Normally, the government would seek an order telling a state official what to do, or it would ask to have a nonpartisan person appointed as a special master. And the Justice Department’s aggressive stance stands in stark contrast to the forgiving approach it has taken to Republican secretaries of state. After Katherine Harris removed eligible voters from the rolls in Florida in 2000, and Kenneth Blackwell tried to block eligible people from registering in Ohio in 2004, the Justice Department made no effort to limit their powers.

Controlling the voting rolls can yield important advantages, as Ms. Harris proved in 2000. The Justice Department’s actions in Alabama appear to be less about enforcing the law than about wresting control of the voter rolls from the opposition party, and making a Democratic secretary of state who is up for re-election in a few months look bad.

It would not be the first time the Bush Justice Department seemed to play party politics with elections. Political appointees approved the pro-Republican Congressional redistricting plan in Texas and a voter ID law in Georgia, despite objections from staff lawyers that the plans violated the Voting Rights Act.

The Justice Department has enormous power over state elections. It is important that this power be used in a way that appears — and is — nonpartisan. Undercutting a Democratic secretary of state, and taking the extraordinary step of handing her powers to a Republican governor, meets neither test. The Justice Department is giving the impression that it is less concerned that elections be lawful and fair than that they come out a particular way.

Posted by: Lynne at August 3, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #173018

Rhinehold

Could you provide an example of anybody on the left saying that the government has the answers? What you doing is creating a straw dog for you to slay. The radical right loves to state what the left believes (framing the argument) so hat they can control, and dominate and manipulate opinion.

What the government can do is provide incentives, and invest public money in research. This happens all the time in the pharmecutical industry and the military as well as granting and loaning money to business.

Posted by: 037 at August 3, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #173039

So the left isn’t allowed to vote? Since when? Your vote wasn’t counted? How do you figure? Bush “bought or stole” the election? What a whiny attitude.

Ya know, I’m kinda hoping that the Liberals DO win this November and in 2008. That way, WHEN they screw up, miss the boat, lie to the people, cover up scandels, etc….. then us poor, confused, pathetic,conservatives will “see the light”…………. Wait! We already did that - during the Clinton years….. that’s why we voted for Bush!

The constant bullying, browbeating, name-calling by the left of the right will not win any votes from our side. Why not try a new tactic? Stop insulting our intellegence and tell us EXACTLY how you would ‘fix’ things. Solutions, people. Not who you’d vote for, but how YOU, if in that place of power, would effect real change with real ideas to current (not past) problems. Until that happens most of the posts here are just hot air.

Remember the Air America coverage of the last election? Pathetic. Learn from the past but don’t dwell on it.

Posted by: MWF/CCR at August 3, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #173041

MWF/CCR-

I got all the answers to your questions as well as a lot of great ideas regarding possible solutions to current problems from just reading this thread alone.

The only real point I see in your post was to bash liberals for being “whinny” (even though your post was the ultimate whine) and to bash Clinton for who knows what.

“Learn from the past but don’t dwell on it.”

Exactly! So why all the “hot air”?

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 3, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #173045

mwf/ccr appears to think that Clinton was a bad president. Well that may be right. After all he had the nerve to leave us with about a $343,000,000,000. surplus. Compared to the deficit we now have I guess he was a really dumb president. I really don’t care abut his personal life, or George’s personal life either. They are my political leaders not my spiritual leaders. I don’t know how to take power away from these people except to vote them out of office. Oh wait! We can’t do that either. The voting machines are fair game, since they have no way of verifying votes. How do you get rid of a regime that works strictly for big business. Haven’t you noticed our job market. They say the economy is great. For who is it great? Our medical system sucks, our education system sucks. Our borders are not protected. Better our military are guarding our borders instead of fighting in some far off country where we have no business in the first place. We need to stop listening to what they are saying and WATCH WHAT THEY ARE DOING. Is there anyone here who seriously believes we are fighting over there for our freedom? We are fighting for THE BIG OIL COMPANIES. It is not their sons and daughters over there, it is yours. The day I see a Cheney or a Bush child in uniform will be a day I may change my mind. However, I will not hold my breath. We need to take care of our country. Nobody else is going to do the job for us.
June

Posted by: june at August 3, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #173050

We are still in Iraq? Ridiculous, I do not believe it. Why are we hanging around there after all these years? Too profitable for some to let go?

Bush and Blair are related? We are all related if you go back far enough, His mom claims to be a descendent of Franklin Pierce, another worthless alcoholic POTUS.

Lieberman has probably reached the end of his political career, the high point of which involved people trying to vote for him on butterfly ballots, who ended up voting for Buchanan instead.

Lamont would probably be an improvement, if he wins, but left is a terminology used very loosely by the right to describe anyone who advocates income taxes, and fair voting practices. We are supposed to be able to vote here in advance of election day, but they have not set it all up yet.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 3, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #173055

Just a little link for MWF/CCR

White House Clinton Biography

William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country’s history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring “the era of big government is over.” He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.

Posted by: Lynne at August 3, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #173057

MWF/CCR

The constant bullying, browbeating, name-calling by the left of the right will not win any votes from our side.

It worked out so well for the Republicans after doing it for the 8 years between 1993 and 2000 that it’s definitely worth a try…it worked once, it can work again, but this time for the “other” party.

Why are you afraid of a little criticism and namecalling…your party holds the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme (and most District) Court! Are you feeling a little frightened???

As far as having legal voters taken off lists, see the 2000 presidential election in Florida; for not allowing more liberal factions to vote, see Ohio in 2004. I’m guessing you can read.

Posted by: Lynne at August 3, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #173058

“Stop insulting our intellegence and tell us EXACTLY how you would ‘fix’ things. Solutions, people”

We do. You guys just refuse to listen and desperately cling to your prejudiced beliefs of what a “liberal” is. No matter what message we put out, you’ll simply tell us that the candidate in question is a far left, loony, unqualified liar flip flopper who you could never bring yourself to vote for. So why should we bother?

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #173059
mwf/ccr appears to think that Clinton was a bad president. Well that may be right. After all he had the nerve to leave us with about a $343,000,000,000.

People thought Clinton was a left wing nut. That’s why the Republicans were swept in to power in both the house and senate. He certainly moved to the center quickly after that, huh? Maybe even a bit right of center.

Who know’s what he would have ‘blown’ it all on with full control. Fortunately, the Republicans made sure he did not frivolously spend the $343,000,000,000.

Posted by: G.K. at August 3, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #173061

June,

We only import roughly 4% of our oil from Iraq. Not quite the open spigot that the left antiwar wackos would like us to believe.

This war was fought for many different objectives - and yes democracy was one of them.

Ask yourself this - how many true democracies have gone to war amongst each other in the last 50 years. Argentina and Great Britain come to mind (and was small in scale and very short lived), but I cant think of too many others. My point being, that if the US exports democracy to despotic regimes, we can build closer ties (including economic) as well as increase stability (no more war - yipee!)

How is that a bad thing?

Posted by: b0mbay at August 3, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #173065

“Who know’s what he would have ‘blown’ it all on with full control. Fortunately, the Republicans made sure he did not frivolously spend the $343,000,000,000.”

What an amazing spin! You must be dizzy after that one. Too bad it was HIS BUDGET that created the surplus. Remember the budget showdown where newt lost?

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #173066

leatherahnk:

“You are laboring under the delusion that 1) this war was ever supported by facts, and 2) that the supporters for this war, especially the NeoCons, have the moral fortitude to ever admit that they are wrong.”

Oh, that’s right. I can remember hundreds of times the left has admitted mistakes. Let’s see…..um…..well, there was that time…….uh……nope, can’t think of one.

I believe you are operating under the delusion that either party is ever capable of admitting a mistake or that they were “wrong.” The structure will not permit it. Get over the parties and the labels. They don’t contribute to the discussion, they just fester the emotions.

Vote out all the bad ones. Clean the slate.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 3, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #173067

“My point being, that if the US exports democracy to despotic regimes, “

By “exporting”, of course, you mean “forced at gunpoint”?

“This war was fought for many different objectives - and yes democracy was one of them.”

Yes, the Iraq experiment has failed on MULTIPLE goals. Thanks for pointing that out.

“We only import roughly 4% of our oil from Iraq. Not quite the open spigot that the left antiwar wackos would like us to believe.”

Not sure your point here.

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #173072

“Oh, that’s right. I can remember hundreds of times the left has admitted mistakes. Let’s see…..um…..well, there was that time…….uh……nope, can’t think of one.”

Really? Here’s a few democrats admitting mistakes for your pleasure:

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.
John Edwards, 2005


For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake
Newsmax, Nov. 2005

Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.
Seattle post, Nov. 05, Rep. Norm Dicks

GEPHARDT: “It was a mistake … I was wrong.”
The Rose Garden compact was a mistake. The War Powers vote was a mistake. Trusting this Administration was a mistake.”
Dick Gephardt, 10/05

“Kerry - Iraq Vote was a “Mistake””
Kerry speach, june 06


Guess that blows the whole premise of your post, huh?

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #173073

But, it takes a good deal of faith in these so-called “commentators” to conclude that they don’t know that the Lamont anti-war pov is both a Left-ist view “and” the prevaling, majority sentiment in the general population.

Of course they know. Of course they’ve looked at the polls. But, it’s their job to hoodwink the public. What else can a rational person conclude?

jp

Posted by: john polifronio at August 3, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #173077


June: You have to be aware that the war wackos love to throw curve balls like ” We only import roughly 4% of our oil from Iraq.” Ask them how much of our Alaskan oil is exported to other countries. The fact is that our oil corporations sell oil all over the World. Our oil corporations want control of the Iraq oil. The war in Iraq is about control of the oil and an attempt to influence OPEC and possibly break their control of oil. The war is not about democracy or freedom, it is economic in nature as has most wars in the past have been and those in the future will be. War on behalf of our corporations would not be tolerated by the American people. Hence, the beautiful propagandistic retoric about liberation and democracy. If the oil corporations want to wage war for the control of the oil they should hire mercanaries. Instead, they buy politicians who send young Americans to do the fighting and have the American taxpayers finance it.

Posted by: jlw at August 3, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #173079

Jane Hamsher did take down that disgraceful picture of Lieberman. What a mess.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 3, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #173082

I despise the extreme left, but saying we should get out if Iraq is not extreme left. I disagree with leaving Iraq anytime soon wholeheartedly, but such an opinion is far from extreme left.

Saying Bush is a Nazi, Bush set up 9/11, Republicans are all warmongerers, cozying up with Hugo Chavez, Bush only cares about oil, saying America is worse for the world than Iran or Al Qaeda … these and other wacko statements/actions like these are the extreme left things that get me asking the question, “Does the extreme left hate America that much that they would propagate this hateful vitriol time after time after time? It certainly seems that way, so if they hate America that much, why wouldn’t they want to leave?”

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 3, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #173084

This statement below for example is wacko-left. Yes, I’m sure we went to Iraq for the oil. According to this guy we’ve probably already built a pipeline from Baghdad to Galveston on our way to “domination of the world’s oil” … arrrghhh!!!:

(start twilight zone music)
June: You have to be aware that the war wackos love to throw curve balls like ” We only import roughly 4% of our oil from Iraq.” Ask them how much of our Alaskan oil is exported to other countries. The fact is that our oil corporations sell oil all over the World. Our oil corporations want control of the Iraq oil. The war in Iraq is about control of the oil and an attempt to influence OPEC and possibly break their control of oil. The war is not about democracy or freedom, it is economic in nature as has most wars in the past have been and those in the future will be. War on behalf of our corporations would not be tolerated by the American people. Hence, the beautiful propagandistic retoric about liberation and democracy. If the oil corporations want to wage war for the control of the oil they should hire mercanaries. Instead, they buy politicians who send young Americans to do the fighting and have the American taxpayers finance it.”
(end twilight zone music)

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 3, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #173085

My goodness, with all of this partisan talk and apologies for certain votes you’d think there was a mid-term election on the horizon. Ahhh, politics.

Yes, let’s review the “laugh-if-it-wasn’t-so-demoralizing-to-the-troops” recantations before people are either up for re-election or help others get elected:

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.
John Edwards, 2005

For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake
Newsmax, Nov. 2005

Dicks now says it was all a mistake” his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.
Seattle post, Nov. 05, Rep. Norm Dicks

GEPHARDT: “It was a mistake … I was wrong.”
The Rose Garden compact was a mistake. The War Powers vote was a mistake. Trusting this Administration was a mistake.”
Dick Gephardt, 10/05

“Kerry - Iraq Vote was a mistake”
Kerry speach, june 06

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 3, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #173086

“Who know’s what he would have ‘blown’ it all on with full control. Fortunately, the Republicans made sure he did not frivolously spend the $343,000,000,000.”

…so they could frivolously take it!

Posted by: Dutch_Expat at August 3, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #173088

If we went to war for the oil, we’d have already taken the oil. We do desire the opportunity to buy their oil at hugely inflated market prices.

Again, if we wanted to steal the oil, or control it, or whatever, we could have turned Iraq into glass. I’m sure we could figure out how to drill throuhg two feet of glass.

Posted by: nikkolai at August 3, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #173105

Let’s just say that Rumsfeld isn’t exactly changing course to where the significant majority of this country wishes him to go on Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Rather the opposite.

Either the majority of U.S. citizens are “far left”, or either Rumsfeld & co are far beyond right.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206851,00.html

” “Americans didn’t cross oceans and settle a wilderness and build history’s greatest democracy only to run away from a bunch of murderers and extremists who try to kill everyone that they cannot convert and tear down what they could never build,” Rumsfeld said. “

Great war rethorics, but viewed in looking for a solution to the Lebanese conflict extremely unwise again.

The majority of Lebanese - including 80 % of Lebanese Christians - already support those people that “tear down what they could never build” as freedom fighters. Well, Beirut was up and coming, but Israel is bombing the place into oblivion with our ammo and under our diplomatic umbrella. Wouldn’t you be extremely offended at Israel - hence the U.S.? Even worse than before?

“Iraq is only one part of a broader regional struggle underway. … The vast majority of the people in the region do not want extremists to win,” Abizaid said. “

That is not what the polls say.

And just to remind you:

” Winning the global War on Terror “will not be easy, this will not be quick and this will not be without sacrifice, but we will persist and we will prevail.” “

Posted by: Josh at August 3, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #173106

Second sentence should read “Apparently the majority of U.S. citizens are “far left”, so Rumsfeld & co must be far beyond right.”

Sorry about that.

Posted by: Josh at August 3, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #173118

“This statement below for example is wacko-left. Yes, I’m sure we went to Iraq for the oil. “

Ken, you like to throw around labels and make blanket statements, but what’s missing is an explanation WHY you think the statement is wrong. I see no content in your post beyond prejudice.
Our entire involvment with Middle east nations and politics revolves around oil. To simply say dismiss oil as a motivation for the Iraq decision without explanation bears little credibility.

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #173120

“Again, if we wanted to steal the oil, or control it, or whatever, we could have turned Iraq into glass. I’m sure we could figure out how to drill throuhg two feet of glass.”

I’m sure it feels good to make such statements, but it’s a bit immature for this forum.
A. if we nuked Iraq, the world would have REALLY turned on us.
B. The ground would be contaminated with radiation, thus making the oil impossible to retrieve.
C. bush’s plans got a bit murky after the rose petals failed to appear. Fact is that the insurgency continues to blow up pipelines as soon as they’re fixed, thus reducing the flow to a trickle.
D. Claiming that because of bush’s FUBAR Iraq decisions it somehow disproves his motivations is not a coherent argument. We may never really know why we invaded in the first place since all the plans have been thrown into such disarray through bad planning, innacurate assumptions, and incompetent execution.

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #173122

“My goodness, with all of this partisan talk and apologies for certain votes you’d think there was a mid-term election on the horizon. Ahhh, politics. “

So, let me get this straight, Ken.
In responding to another right wingers claim that democrats, being politicians, can’t admit mistakes, I produced half a dozen Democrats admitting mistakes.
Your response is to say, “well, their politicians, so they were lying when they admitted their mistake in order to help their reelection?
Your argument is an inescapable black hole of cynicism. Glad I don’t live there.

Posted by: Observer at August 3, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #173127

the era of big government is over, Posted by: Lynne at August 3, 2006 03:21 PM

I thought Aaron Sorkin invented that line for TWW S1 Ep12 He Shall from Time to Time:
JOSH: The era of big government is over.
TOBY: Oh, when did this happen?
JOSH: This morning, we had a meeting.
TOBY: We decided to offend poor people?
JOSH: The people we’re offending won’t be watching the State of the Union.
TOBY: Yeah, I can’t imagine why not.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 3, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #173128

Observer,

Sometimes the simplest answers are right.

First, if we wanted the oil we could have bought it at a MUCH cheaper cost than we have spent or could possibly have spent if everything did go as Rummy thought they would. The ‘we did it for oil’ mantra is not only illogical but just plain stupid, IMO.

Second, why is it so hard to believe that Bush did what he did in Iraq for just the reasons he gave? I mean, why do so many who disagree with the president, and call him stupid, think he was able to pull of this sinister planning and have other nefarious motives when its quite possible IMO that he felt that he was doing the right thing?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 3, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #173131
Could you provide an example of anybody on the left saying that the government has the answers?

Sure,

Why just the other day the DLC tells us that in order to solve all of our problems is to provide more money to pay for people’s colleges.

Then there’s the nationization of our healthcare program, the nationalization of our education system, the nationalization of our charity system, the nationalization of our…. well, you get the picture.

As for ‘providing money’, where does this money come from?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 3, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #173132

I’m not expecting Neocons to admit they are wrong. How dumb do I look? I’m just expecting the “liberal” media to acknowledge that you don’t have to be batshit crazy to be against the Iraq War. Doesn’t seem like much to ask.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 3, 2006 09:48 AM

Batshit crazy helps if one chooses to believe there actually is a liberal media, ugh?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at August 3, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #173162

Gee, what’s the matter boys, don’t like being called what you truly are, a bunch of left wing thugs. I wouldn’t mind it if you really debated the war, but you vermin would rather distort Lieberman’s record, or in the case of Jane Hamsher, paint Lieberman in blackface. You guys are just a bunch of Lamont thugs who only hate Jews and Lieberman in general.

By the way, speaking of being racist, why don’t you ask Lamont about his association with Round Hill CC. Lamont was a member of that golf club for ten years. The problem is, is that it’s an all white country club!!! Lamont quit the club only this year seeing it would adversely affect his campaign. Also ask him about the Halliburton stock his wife owns. Ned Lamont, a white, racist, rich dude. Everything you always wanted in a Democrat.

Posted by: LamontNazi at August 3, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #173183

All Conservatives and Right Wingers:

Speaking as a card-carrying member of the ‘ultra-left’, I would like to assure one and all that I haven’t seen any Dems come this way in several years. Please take heart that the Democratic Party and the DLC has bought the Republican view that elections are won in the middle of the political spectrum and that the “looney Left” has had no impact on party strategy or policy. In fact, the Democratic Party spends so much time running away from it’s looney Left ‘base’, that it hardly has time to vote for Bankruptcy Laws that gut the middle classes, embraces big-business trade bills that gut American industry, wring their collective hands while the Constitution is dismantled, and generally whine about how bad Iraqi policy is, but does nothing to challenge said policy.

Please don’t concern yourselves about the looney Left. I realize that most references to us are a straw man to emphasize neo-con points, but please be assured that we haven’t had anything to do with Democratic Party policy in, oh…thirty years? The country is awash in centrist and right-wing thinking. Blaming the Left for where we are is rather disingenuous—and a downright lie.

Please don’t mention Mr. Clinton as an example of the Left—a man who described himself as an Eisenhower Democrat. Whatever the hell that is. He also declared the “era of big government is dead.” So much for the prognostications of a centrist Democrat.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 4, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #173196

I agree with Tim on Bill Clinton. As an intelligent centrist politician he was dangerous to the Republican power base. That’s why he was bashed so hard - and still is.

Murtha also is an intelligent politician, dangerous to the Republican power base. That’s why he is being bashed so hard, although he hits the nail right on the head:

””Killing people is like squashing an ant:” former US soldier

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060730/ts_alt_afp/iraqusmilitaryprobe

“I came over here because I wanted to kill people,” he quoted Green as saying. “The truth is, it wasn’t all I thought it was cracked up to be.

“I mean, I thought killing somebody would be this life-changing experience,” Green was quoted as saying. “And then I did it, and I was like, “All right, whatever.” “

“I shot a guy who wouldn’t stop when we were out at a traffic checkpoint and it was like nothing,” Green was quoted as saying. “Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant.”

“I mean, you kill somebody and it’s like, ‘All right, let’s go get some pizza.’”

Tilghman said “danger was everywhere” in the area where Green’s unit was based and the battalion was losing an average of about one soldier a week including a sergeant whose death in December had a big impact on Green.

He said Green saw the war in Iraq as pointless. “I just want to go home alive,” he quoted the soldier from west Texas as saying.

“See, this war is different from all the ones that our fathers and grandfathers fought. Those wars were for something. This war is for nothing,” Green reportedly said.

ps: Is Yahoo now officially part of the “far left” media?

Posted by: Josh at August 4, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #173216

“LamontNazi”,

Your a real trip. Look at your name, and you accuse Lamont supporters of not wanting to debate the issues…

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #173262

Observer:

Not really. In most instances, if you look at their comments in context, the speakers are referring to the mistake being someone elses, namely President Bush. Most of them will never come out and say “I made a mistake.” This is what I find amazing about all the political hacks out there (from both parties). No conscience. No ability to say one of their own was wrong. Always defending at all cost. Backpedaling and rationalizing are the norm.

Vote out the bad ones. Clean the slate.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 4, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #173342

“Not really. In most instances, if you look at their comments in context, the speakers are referring to the mistake being someone elses, namely President Bush. Most of them will never come out and say “I made a mistake.” “

Sorry, your wrong. Only Hillary’s was hedged a bit. The other quotes said directly ‘my vote was a mistake. I was wrong’.
I know it sticks in the craw to admit a politician did something right, but in this case, that’s the facts.

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #173343

“don’t like being called what you truly are, a bunch of left wing thugs. “

Wow, don’t think I’ve ever been called a “thug” before!
And what a creative screename. I’m sure lots of thought went into that one.
Gotta love how the right wing is throwing a fit over us kicking Leiberman out. Kind of like we exposed a double agent. If the right is scared, were on the right track!

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #173348

“First, if we wanted the oil we could have bought it at a MUCH cheaper cost than we have spent or could possibly have spent if everything did go as Rummy thought they would.”

Not sure what you mean. Rummy’s estimate of the total war cost was 60 billion. Iraq’s reserves are in the trillions
And your leaving out the issue of OPEC converting to euros instead of dollars which scared the crap out of the oil gods.
And no, I don’t think Oil was THE reason, it was one of many, including chopping Iraq’s economy into privitized business ventures doled out to private companies connected to ‘you know who’.


“The ‘we did it for oil’ mantra is not only illogical but just plain stupid, IMO.”

See above. And if your calling me stupid, your violating the lists TOS guidelines. Where’s our omnipresent watchblog censor now??

“Second, why is it so hard to believe that Bush did what he did in Iraq for just the reasons he gave? “

Gee, I dont know. Perhaps his penchant of serial lying, his constantly changing explanations and goals, his denial of the obvious situation there??

“I mean, why do so many who disagree with the president, and call him stupid, think he was able to pull of this sinister planning and have other nefarious motives when its quite possible IMO that he felt that he was doing the right thing?”

We don’t think HE planned all this, he’s merely a pawn of higher powers who play him and his ego to acheive their goals. I don’t really know how much he’s IN on the plans, or if he’s just too dim to figure it out.
But plain and simple, Iraq is one giant business deal, oil being only one component.
And right now it’s going sour.

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #173359

I’m a proud Liberal Democrat, who wants to get rid of the DLC, GOP-lite losers in my party. They are corporate appeasers, and do not work for the middle and lower classes.
I also no longer care what the right has to say about Liberals — these people are actually unimportant now, because they’re going down. Due to all the ways the Neocons have given the country incompetence, corruption and failure, the GOP has deeply disgusted the nation. I just don’t believe that America can or will want to vote for them until they clean house and get rid of this totally unwise and radically extremist element that has invaded their party.
Perhaps I am giving America too much credit for being intelligent enough to vote in their own best interest, but I hope not.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #173383
First, if we wanted the oil we could have bought it at a MUCH cheaper cost than we have spent or could possibly have spent if everything did go as Rummy thought they would.

Not sure what you mean. Rummy’s estimate of the total war cost was 60 billion. Iraq’s reserves are in the trillions
And your leaving out the issue of OPEC converting to euros instead of dollars which scared the crap out of the oil gods.

Except Iraq wasn’t part of OPEC and we could have easily bought the oil at a very cheap price from them as other countries were doing at the time. Especially considering no one, no where, can show any evidence that the US has any intention of ‘taking’ the oil now, we are going to be buying it from the new Iraqi government for about the same price we could have bought it from Hussein.

The �€˜we did it for oil�€™ mantra is not only illogical but just plain stupid, IMO.

See above. And if your calling me stupid, your violating the lists TOS guidelines. Where’s our omnipresent watchblog censor now??

No, I wasn’t calling you stupid. I was calling the argument stupid, and it is still.

Second, why is it so hard to believe that Bush did what he did in Iraq for just the reasons he gave?

Gee, I dont know. Perhaps his penchant of serial lying, his constantly changing explanations and goals, his denial of the obvious situation there??

I’m sorry but I’ll have to disagree with you, I don’t see any ‘changing explanations’, other than those who opposed him doing it for him. He said up from that there were many reasons for going into Iraq and I even detailed many of them out here and previously in other venues, just because the administration did a bad job of selling and the left has done an even worse job of arguing the facts doesn’t mean that Bush was lying about anything.

When debating with a non-partisan you really have to go with the evidence and facts, not just that you despise him so he must be an evil bastard with alternative motives. That line of reasoning just doesn’t work unless you are already there…

I mean, why do so many who disagree with the president, and call him stupid, think he was able to pull of this sinister planning and have other nefarious motives when its quite possible IMO that he felt that he was doing the right thing?

We don’t think HE planned all this, he’s merely a pawn of higher powers who play him and his ego to acheive their goals. I don’t really know how much he’s IN on the plans, or if he’s just too dim to figure it out.

Ah, of course, the great ‘powers behind the powers’ argument. Nice. It doesn’t help support he ‘he’s an idiot’ argument while assigning all kinds of evil motivations argument at all though. Either he was evil and his plans nefarious and underhanded or he was manipulated by the powers that are by them playing on his lack of intelligence in which case he was most likely doing things for just the reasons he gave. It’s kind of hard to argue both, isn’t it?

But plain and simple, Iraq is one giant business deal, oil being only one component.

Nice, so all of the people who supported the action for non-business related reasons, and it was a majority, that people now think it is being handled horribly doesn’t change that, we are all just duped and you and your group are the only ones who ‘see the truth’ right?

Or, you could provide the evidence that those who supported and planned this did it because of business reasons… If it’s obvious then it shouldn’t be hard and I shouldn’t be able to shoot them down one after the other, right?

Do you also think we are in Afghanistan for just business reasons like Moore does? The pipeline and all…?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 4, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #173384

Observer,

You have to admit that the very recent dem apologies for voting for the Iraq War have a very interesting timing to them as people start the heavy campaigning for themselves or their close friends.

In any case, if you continue with this “we only do it for the oil” mantra, then where is it? Why aren’t we paying $1.10 for gas? What secret harbor is taking the boatload after boatload of Iraqi oil?

And yes, what about oil? I’m sure you were a “no blood for oil” yelper during Gulf War I. Is it the Bush’s fault that oil is the primary source of the world’s energy? Should we have just let Saddam take over 1/3 of the world’s energy? (It is interesting that the Gulf War debate is 100% dead, n’est pas?) And do you care about that man or woman just able to hold on to their apartment, just able to pay their electric and heating bill? I say you don’t, because if you completely disregard oil as if it were peanut butter then that person barely hanging on is the first one to tank into the abyss in a world energy crisis.

I’m all for new forms of energy, but right now oil is still the primary energy source. And least time I checked it wasn’t George Bush who invented the fossil fuel drinking reciprocating engine.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 4, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #173594

The few democratic senators who supported this war against Iraq such as Senators Lieberman, Biden, and Hillary Clinton should not attempt to lessen the importance of their decision to support the war by suggesting that it was not conducted right.
The decision to go to war with Iraq was flat out wrong!
Afganistan and the Taliban and Al Queda were the legitimate targets of war against terrorism.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2006 6:08 AM
Comment #173642

Is the same type of name calling that the “left” uses with the right: “Far-right, fill in
the_____ is an extremist” and so forth. I could do without the name calling. Let us focus on the substance of the issues at hand.

Posted by: Anthony Mason at August 6, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #212947

I have hated what the Bush regime has been up to since he lied about wmds. This is the scariest president I have lived to see. But when the lily livered democrats refused to take a stand, when the Dixie Chicks were ostracized, and when ultra right wing email spewed its way throughout the internet supporting a war that anyone who ever had any knowledge of the Middle East would not have given a second thought to, we purchased IRAQ. We broke it, now we have bought it.
We should have taken notice when the Russians spent their last ruble attempting to tame Afganistan, and we should have taken note then, and not bought the line that President Reagan’s lavish taste for feeding the military/industrial wellfare queens had pushed the Russians to their knees. They bought their demise in Afghanistan. Now we are responsible for the payments in money , respect, and in blood. Now when we leave, we will most certainly have a problem with extremists in Iraq. The longer we stay, the more we lose, and there is nothing left but the song the fat lady sings. And she will sing for us.

Posted by: S. A. Mac at March 21, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #214933

Lets get to the bottom of this. Here are the facts:
1) We were either lied to, or this president is a fool, and then we re-elected him.
2)As a nation, we have gained nothing but the capture, and the killing of Saddam & family.
3)There were no WMD
4)There was no tie between Saddam’s Iraq and the 911 terrorists.
5)We have lost the lives of 3500+/- Americans.
6)We have no idea of how many American lives have been destroyed.
7)We will have spent in excess of half a trillion dollars in Iraq before we get out.
8) We have destroyed the glue that kept Iraq from becoming a terrorist country.
9)Now there are terrorists in Iraq.
10)We are waiting for the Iraq government to control this mess before we leave, but we haven’t taken control yet, even with the Iraqi’s help.
11) We’ve lost world support, even the coalition of the “willing.”
12) We have destabilized the region.
13)We are ethically responsible for returning stability to the region.
14)My nephew has joined the Army and when I suggested that he may be called to active duty in Iraq, he tells me “I think it will be fun.”
15)We’re screwed! There is no way to come out of this with any dignity. We better be ready to explain why we did this when our grand children find themselves so deep in debt that they must beg countries like Venezuala and China for aid. At least I can say that I never voted for that Texan SOB, and that the Dixie Chicks were right, had a right, and as Americans, had the responsibility to say what they said. Other than the embarrassment I feel now for this this president and his supporters actions, it is great to live in a country where those who speak against fools can live long enough to be redeemed.

Posted by: S. MacIntosh at April 3, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #215820

The one thing I have noticed in these political blogs is the very real anger and sometimes outright hatred directed at fellow americans and the currant administration and the total lack of the same against the terrorists and countries that support them who have killed innocent americans and our fighting agaist us now.

Posted by: dolan at April 10, 2007 3:48 AM
Post a comment