Democrats & Liberals Archives

War on Democrats

“War on terror.” Republicans use “war on terror” a lot. Do you think they say “war on terror” as a way to fight the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or other terrorists? No. Every chance they get, Republican leaders, from President Bush on down, use “war on terror” and similar expressions to wage war not on terrorists but on Democrats.

After Ned Lamont won against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, the Republicans exploded with invective against Democrats. At a press briefing, Tony Snow, the presidential spokesman, said that Connecticut's senate primary gave voters the chance to answer the question:

"Do you take the war on terror seriously?”

Not to be outdone, Rudy Juiliani, in a letter asking for donations to the Republican National Committee, said:

"In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before.''

Other Republican leaders used other disgusting words:

DICK CHENEY: "The al-Qaida types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

CHUCK ROBERTS, on CNN: "How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have already argued, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

KEN MEHLMAN: "It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a 'blame America first' attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

DAVID KEENE (American Conservative Union): "Lamont’s victory was a triumph for the left and a defeat for the United States because it may mean that future elections will be run between candidates of a pro-US party and nominees of an anti-US party."

CAL THOMAS: "The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing."

The barrage continues. Evidently, Republicans believe that "war on terror," "Taliban," "Al Qaeda" are useful bombs to throw at Democrats. They have no idea how to fight terrorists so they fight Democrats and all others who disagree with them.

Republicans think that the most recent event where the Brits thwarted a terrorism plot will help them win in this fall's elections. All they need do is hurl these gross epithets - as they have been doing since 2003 - and the public will swoon at their feet and honor them as saviors of our security. Boy, are they in for a surprise.

First of all, Britain uncovered the plot, not U.S. The U.S. had very little to do with the investigation.

Second, the plot consisted of using two forms of liquid which when combined, usually with the aid of an electric current, produces an explosion. So immediately our Homeland Security Department made all air travelers dump their sodas, makeup kits, toothpaste, wine and all other "contraband" liquids. Why? Because we don't have a clue as to how to test for these explosives.

This is criminal negligence, because we knew about these liquid explosives over a decade ago, even before 9/11. In 1994, Ramzi Yousef, whose uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was later the chief architect of the 9/11 attacks, tested liquid explosives in a small way, which resulted in the death of a Japanese businessman. In 1995, we caught Yousef while preparing for Operation Bojinka, an attempt by supporters of al Qaeda to simultaneously destroy airliners over the Pacific using liquid explosives. We caught Yousef because a fire broke out in a Manila apartment where some of the plotters were working.

With all this information in the 9/11 Report, what did Republicans do? Nothing. Now they are telling us to come to the airport an hour earlier and keep our coffee and our laptop out of the aircraft.

Third, the uncovered plotters are of Pakistani descent. While Republicans have been shouting "war on terror," they have been cozying up to Pakistan. Where does the Taliban hang out? Pakistan. Where are the terrorists who attacked Indian cities? Pakistan. Where is Kahn, who built a nuclear arms network that includes North Korea and Iran? Pakistan. Is this the way Republicans are fighting the terrorists?

Republicans don't know how to fight the terrorists. The "war on terror" is truly a war on Democrats.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 12, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #175164


Does it really matter who uncovered the plot? Does it matter more that the criminals were British born but of Pakistani decent or that they were Islamic would-be martyrs? Is it important to note that the phrase “war on terror” is used on both sides of the aisle, in the media and on these boards? Apparently, because to read your post, you would think that this is strictly a partisan problem. The point that should be made about what liberals did to the one moderate voice that Republicans could respect, if not in reality vote for, was that the party of inclusion, diversity and tolerance turned their backs on a man that only six years ago they wanted in the White House. Can you say, “flip flop”?
Now I can’t stay for the fall out my comments will make, but just let me say that your post is one of the reasons that the Democrats will not do well in November.

Posted by: Ilsa at August 12, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #175179

Ilsa: Dream on.

Posted by: BillS at August 12, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #175185


Of course it matters who thwarted the plot, and the origin of the terrorists. If our “war on terror” is being fought against Iraq, but the terrorists are from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia(9/11), isn’t something wrong with our strategy? If good old fashion police work stops terrorists with surveillance performed with a warrant, are we spending our dollars on the right front?

I would love to call it something other than the war on terror, but we’ll let GW call his war whatever he wants to call it, and if we rename it, he’ll get confused.

Posted by: Loren at August 12, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #175187

The Republicans respect submission from Democrats. The Democratic constituency no longer respects submissiveness to the right wing from our people. Lieberman ran afoul of that. End of story.

Americans have come to strongly dislike where the Republicans have taken their country. If Democrats can throw Lieberman under the Bus, then the rest of America is well motivated enough to throw a bunch of the Republican incumbents who have served their interest poorly under those wheels as well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #175189

Herein lies the problem with the democratic party. They do not recognize the enemy…….they do not recognize the absolute necessity of victory in Iraq……..they do not recognize the implications on us and the world if we lose in Iraq. Frankly, the party has done more to hurt the efforts in Iraq than any single group in this nation. They spend all their time criticizing our President and whining about Republicans.

Now they are actually proud to be called the anti-war party. What a absolutely stupid label. We are all anti-war until a threat presents itself. Frankly, I am not interested in becoming another France where the enemy needs to be marching on the Champs Elysees before we take action.

The Republicans get no pass here…..they have handled this war incompetently and with one hand tied behind our backs. A war needs to be fought as a war and not as a game of paintball. But at least they do recognize the threat and are willing to take action.

Clinton best illustrated the democrat’s policy on terror when the USS Cole was attacked. Nothing…..

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 12, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #175191

Ilsa, did you really respect him or did you just wanted to use him? You might want to look at what some of your fellow republicans are doing to their own up in Michigan and elsewhere if you think being voted out of office because you didn’t listen to those you represent is so bad.
Paul’s comments seem to be a fairly accurate reflection of the facts. It is about the only avenue the repubs have left to run on, after their dismal offerings to the Country the since the “war on terror” started.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 12, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #175193

The Dems have a serious peace movement on their left side. These guys advocate immediate pull out of Iraq and a less aggressive use of things like wiretapping, computer monitoring, surveillance and infiltration of suspected terrorist groups. It is not incorrect for a Republican to point out this fact and ask the people if that is what they want.

For example: I believe the domestic surveillance of suspected terrorist groups and recent financial monitoring are necessary. If I was a candidate, I would promise to continue those polices if I could. Presumably a Democrat would advocate a scaling back. Just say it and let the people decide and stop complaining when someone asks you to define your views on the war on terror. BTW - do democrats believe there IS a war on terror?


Democrats throwing out one of their own moderate candidates does not mean “the people” are rejecting Republicans or embracing Democrats. Let’s wait for the election and see just how many you win.

BTW - if the Dems win a majority of the House, does that mean that the people are firmly behind Dems or does it mean that just over half have done so? Now that you have answered the question, substitute the parties. I mean if you think a Dem victory would mean that the people shifted Dem, it must have meant that they were equally firmly Republican from for the last 12 years.

Posted by: Jack at August 12, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #175194

Re Cheney’s comments

“The al-Qaida types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”

Do you think this is an incorrect statement? I agree with the VP. That has to be the al-Qaida plan. It is the plan of all insurgents and terrorists almost by definition. They want to wear down the destroy the will of the stonger power.

The proper Dem response should be, “We also would be resolute in the war on terror and see it through to the end.” Just say that and Cheney has no point to make. But some leftist Dems won’t go along.

Posted by: Jack at August 12, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #175198

lol loren, that was good. Poor guy gets confused a lot, except he doesn’t realize it.

Here’s my take on this “war” —

Myles wants end to Republican “state within state”

(a take on a recent article I’ve been seeing…)

Posted by: myles at August 12, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #175201

“If our “war on terror” is being fought against Iraq, but the terrorists are from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia(9/11), isn’t something wrong with our strategy? If good old fashion police work stops terrorists with surveillance performed with a warrant, are we spending our dollars on the right front?”

Amen! Absolutely! That made my night. The rest of the country will catch up in a few years. The evidence is right in front of our faces, but unfortunately for Bush Supporters, reality has a liberal bias.

Two dozen guys in Britain threatening airliners is dastardly. But it is a matter for police work, intelligence, international cooperation, and perhaps Special Forces (in Pakistan). That does not constitute a “War.” That does not enough constitute enough to make it a focus of US foreign policy.

Watch approval ratings for Bush continue to drop, and opposition to the occupation of Iraq continue to increase. Americans cannot help but notice: the recent threat against airliners by those Brits has nothing to do with Iraq.

Bush Supporters are desperate to find someone to blame. I have been saying this for some time, and we will see the shrill voices grow louder- the fault for Iraq is because Democrats just did not support it enough.

It is a stupid and laughable ploy. The Sunnis and Shias are going at each other. They do not care much about Americans anymore. The suicide bombers and Death Squads target fellow Iraqis, not Americans, other than to want us out of their land.

We have debated Iraq in the past. What I have said has come true. What you have said has been proven wrong by events. It is just reality, Jack. Remember those elections and all those purple thumbs, and Republicans crowing about the turning the corner? Well, perhaps it is mean of me to remind you how wrong you have been. But this is a case where being wrong means supporting a policy which as cost lives, and caused suffering. Americans continue pouring money down the rathole at a rate of $257 million per day.

You know, Jack, a lot of Americans see that money disappearing, and they do not care about the details, or partition, or whether Iraq has a democracy. They want to spend the money on their fellow Americans.

Oh! Warrants. Nothing wrong with surveilling warrants. Just observe the law, observe FISA. It is not difficult. It even has the benefit of ensuring future Democratic administrations will not abuse their powers to search. The current administration would, of course, never consider such an action.

Posted by: phx8 at August 12, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #175202

The war on terror is just that, a war on terror. If you think for a minute that the rest of the world is being ignored because of the problems in Iraq you are sorely mistaken. And the war in Iraq is a huge part of the war on terror. Now, I don’t want our troops fighting over there any more than anyone else, I know what they are going through because I am a vet from the first gulf war. I want to see them come home. However I have to say again that Iraq is definately a vital part of the war on terror. And they need to finish the job, they need to have the resources necessary to do the job, partial troop withdrawals do nothing more than put the troops still there in more danger. Why can’t you understand that although the original justifications for war may have been shaky at best (I don’t think we had near enough support from the world community and the invasion was based on bad intelligence) the fact remains that we are in the middle of it now. If we withdraw our troops it sends the message that we don’t have the fortitude to win in the long haul.

I have to emphasize here that I am not in favor of this war! However we are in a situation as a country that victory is imperitive if we are going to have a ghost of a chance in the bigger picture concerning the war on terror.

And for the record, I am not a republican, I am an independant. I normally vote for just as many democrats as I do republicans. I have to say though, that the far left of the democratic party is pretty scary right now, probably just as scary as the far right was just a few short years ago. What happened to moderates?

Posted by: Sheldon at August 12, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #175204

Please explain how the debacle in Iraq is associated with the war on terrorism. Had we not gone in would you response be the same?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 12, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #175205

Just wanted to stop by and thank all of you democrats for trying to help the us retreat and be defeated by us great humanatarians ,promise well never behead a democrat for you all have virtually assured us of a victory in the very near future …and as i told some of your hollywood friends we wont attack there we get way to much support there….however those evil lying republicans who keep bombing my caves and friends you really need to rein in ….any way thanks for all the support …keep pushing your anti american peace nick policys till youve convinced enough people to oust the mean ole republicans and well have world peace once you dems win again ….

Posted by: bin laden at August 12, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #175207

Sheldon, Jack -

Exactly how long do you think it will take before the war is won and we have ‘seen it through to the end’?

We’ve been there over three years and things CONTINUE TO GET WORSE. We’ve wasted 2,600 lives and hundreds of billions in cash so far, to say nothing of the additional terrorists we have created by unnecessarily agitating the Muslim world. If there were any reasonable chance of ‘victory’, whatever that means, in two years, it might be worth another 1,000 lives and $200b, for the sake of Iraq. I, for one, don’t think it makes sense to send more Americans to die to delay a civil war that is going to happen anyway, just to say that we haven’t retreated.

How long, exactly, would you propose keeping US troops in Iraq if the current situation remained the status quo? 2 years, 5 years, 20 years, or would you be willing to spend $100b and 800 American lives per year forever, just so you won’t have to bear the pain of admitting that we made a horrible mistake?

Sheldon - Bush and war supporters bear direct responsibiltiy for the 2,600 US troops wasted thus far. Don’t let the next 2,600 be on you, too.

Posted by: wallster at August 12, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #175209

Oh, lest I be accused of only thanking one side of the aisle, BIG thanks to Bush and the neo-cons for invading Iraq instead of concentrating on the Taliban and little old me.

Although its certainly been an inconvenience since you arrived in Afghanistan, I truly appreciate being able to hang around and munch popcorn while I watch you guys struggle in Iraq.

I was nervous for a while there, when you vowed to track down those responsible for 9/11, I thought you were serious! Ha ha, good one!

Posted by: bin laden at August 12, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #175210

Jack,Sheldon,”bin laden”
The war in Iraq is already lost,lost because of Bush regime bungling. Our troops are dieing and our treasure is being poured down a hole for domestic political reasons. Watch how we declare victory and pull out after November and remember. You will see just how low your fearless leaders will stoop to keep power. What are a few hundred dead working class kids when you have a country to loot.

Posted by: BillS at August 12, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #175211

I wouldn’t be too cocky about how dems will do this november. the whole point of the lamont-lieberman vote is that politicians are supposed to represent their constituents, not the other way around.

and don’t even mention flip-flopping. check out bush’s history.

Posted by: spencerD at August 12, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #175214

Jack said

The proper Dem response should be, “We also would be resolute in the war on terror and see it through to the end.” Just say that and Cheney has no point to make. But some leftist Dems won’t go along.

I’ll be even more specific: We should be resolute in the war against Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, and any other islamic fundamentalist group that uses their tactics. Show me a single Dem who would disagree with that, Jack. We don’t equate that with Iraq.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #175215

Phx8 et al

You have stated our Democratic opinion. Fine. Why should you care if Republicans (or others) characterize you by it?

I made my predictions in October 2005. You can look them up. I tried to choose concrete measures, not impressions or ephemeral issues. Based on the Iraq index, they look like they will come in about not that far off.

Many Dems think that we have already lost in Iraq and that pulling out now or very soon is the smart thing to do. I can respect this idea, but I think it is incorrect. I will stand by president Bush who says we should pull out as soon as practical, but that it will be determined by events on the ground.

According to the Economist which I have in my lap, 31% of Dems want to pull out of Iraq immediately. 46% want to pull out by next year. I call that trying to impose our political needs on the situation. By contrast, only 3% of Republicans want to pull out immediately and only 25% want a one year pull out. Most Republicans (58%) want to pull out as conditions warrant. Most Democrats just want to pull out. It is a clear difference. I am willing to run on it and I think Republicans have the right and the duty to make sure Dems run on theirs.

Elections are choices. The choice is between Democrats who want to get out of Iraq now or Republicans who believe in staying until the job is done. The choice is between Democrats who feel we have already lost and Republicans who believe we still can improve the situation.

If Dems think this is slander, they should check the left end of their party.

So run on it or change it, but stop complaining when Republicans call you what you are.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #175216
if the Dems win a majority of the House, does that mean that the people are firmly behind Dems or does it mean that just over half have done so?

OMG Jack I completely forgot that GW got 87% of the vote in the last 2 elections, because it couldn’t be that just over half have ever supported him.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #175217


As Victor Laslo said, welcome back to the fight. This time I am sure I side will win.

Do inform Cindy Sheehan and, will you?

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #175218


I believe the one who wins a majority of the vote represents the people of his district of of the country. IF the Dems will, they will represent the people … just as the Republicans do now and have since 1994.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #175225


Unfortunately your article is like someone complaining about being called “fat” and then ordering up 2 Big Macs, large fry, large chocolate shake, and a hot fudge sunday.

By the numbers … and a one, and a two, and a three:

#1 - There really is a war on terror. There really are terrorists deserving concern, including from liberals who I assume would not take kindly to being told they have to practice Islam and that their wife/wives have to be covered up in a black sheet. To announce that Republicans have falsified the threat only to really wage war on democrats shows your lack of seriousness of the threat, which you are purportedly argue against… hence the “fat” analogy.

#2- Cheney’s quote “staying in the fight and completing the task” . . that’s vulgar to you? Or do you promote a Kerry-like “softer, less abrasive” approach when dealing with terrorists?

#3- You are assumedly upset about Mehlman’s “Blame America First” comment, but, HERE’S THE KICKER: when confronted with the recent UK plot you claim “criminal negligence” ON THE PART OF THE US!!! Which is, for those not keeping up, BLAMING AMERICA FIRST!!! Where’s the distaste for, uh, you know, THOSE GUYS WHO WANTED TO BLOW UP AMERICANS & BRITS!!! You see, because with all of the extreme left wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories and “Bush is Hitler” articles . . we folks on the Right need to know you understand the enemy is the terrorists and procedures at home are a debate … not the other way around.


“Republicans … have no idea how to fight terrorists so they fight Democrats and all others who disagree with them.” ——- Would you like the Bush terrorist count vs. the Clinton terrorist count? … because they were most definitely around (1993 WTC, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc. etc.) during Clinton’s time. Do let me know if you need those numbers. I’m sure all the folks at Guantanamo and other terrorist prisons are simple sheep herders.

“Because we don’t have a clue as to how to test for these explosives.” ——- We actually do, it’s fairly simple chemistry. But it is a whole other line of equipment. That costs money and takes time away at airports, you know, civil rights and all that. Until now, compound explosions weren’t considered a rampant enough threat to dictate the cost & hardship. Now it obviously is.

“With all this information in the 9/11 Report, what did Republicans do? Nothing. Now they are telling us to come to the airport an hour earlier and keep our coffee and our laptop out of the aircraft.” —— The vast majority of 9/11 recommendations were enacted. And I wouldn’t doubt that it was an aggressive letter from the ACLU threatening billions of dollars of law suits if shampoo and toothpaste were tested, even randomly. And, being a major airline pilot, I just flew on Friday, albeit domestically, and laptops were allowed, just no liquids or gels. I saw one person switch them from her carry-on to her checked luggage. Indeed, I think it was the worst 45 seconds of her life.

“While Republicans have been shouting “war on terror,” they have been cozying up to Pakistan.” No, we’ve been cozying up to the Pakistani government which is led by a guy who’s been a target of Al Qaeda assassinations several times. I DON’T THINK HE’S ON THEIR SIDE!

Ahhh, clarity.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #175228

Paul, good article. I was just making a similar argument over in your other thread in this column.

Of course all thinking people should be dismissing the GOP talking points regarding this issue because they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Just as we liberals should immediately dismiss the comments of our resident righties in this blog — and anyone else who still actually believes that the Iraq war has thing one to do with “winning” the “War on Terror.”

Here is professional, expert, and bipartisan proof that it is Democrats who are looking at this topic logically and sensibly, and that despite all their tough talk, and bluster, and insults, and scare tactics, and namecalling, it is soley thanks to the Republicans that AMERICA IS LOSING THE “WAR ON TERROR”:

The Terrorism Index
Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.

Quote from the link:

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts’ belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. “Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration’s performance abroad,” says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. “The reason is that it’s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.”

Do you love America? Do you hate terrorism? Are you sick to your soul over all of the lies they’ve fed us? Are you starting to see through the baseless propaganda against Democrats and Liberals, when we desire just as much as anyone to see our country secured, and want our troops to only fight necessary wars?
Well, you might try voting for people with a brain in their heads and a firm grasp on reality — you could Vote for Democrats in November.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 13, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #175227

I forgot to add, my airline serves a pretty popular brand of coffee on board, …. and it’s free of charge! No worries.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #175230


So you’re either saying (a) there are no terrorists in Iraq (which I think most well-read folks would disagree with) or you’re saying (b) we can’t fight Iraq and The War on Terror at the same time.

For the former, even if you think Saddam’s former henchmen are life-loving people (giggle) I think you need to recognize that Iran & Syria, both of which have sent large number of insurgents/homicide bombers to Iraq, are arguably the 2 biggest hotbeds for terrorist training.

For the latter, FDR heard we couldn’t fight Japan & Germany at the same time. “Not in this or the next decade” he was told by one advisor if I remember one book correctly. Well, you know his thoughts on the American spirit. I only hope, nervously so, it’s still close to the same spirit.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #175233

1. He didn’t say the GOP falsified the threat, but seem to spend more time equating Dems with terrorists than actually fighting real terror.

2. Cheney’s comment is not vulgar, but disgusting in that he continues to tell Americans that a vote for anybody but them is a vote for Al-Qaeda. That does make it a war on Dems.

3. If a parent neglects their child, they need a good kick in the pants, or some jail time. Don’t see how the legal definition qualifies as hate.

Yeah, how many terrorists has GW put in prison? Compared to the number of times they have smeared anyone who disagrees with them?

If those in Gitmo are bad guys, try them and put them in jail, or let the sheep herders go.

I’m sorry, but th 9/11 commission give Homeland Sec a big fat F for their implementation of the 9/11 recommendations.

As for airport security, I doubt the ACLU has any plans to fight toothpaste rights, because they are too busy trying to uphold the constitution, since GW won’t.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #175236

Sorry Adrienne, had to hit you on one more thing.

Your quote “Democrats and Liberals … want our troops to only fight necessary wars?”

But I’m sure you didn’t think Gulf War I was a necessary war and that Saddam having control of 1/3 of the world’s energy was acceptable. Now that the punditry has died down the world shudders to think what it would’ve been like with Saddam owning Kuwait. Or are you now going to blame Bush that the world’s ability to heat, feed, and transport itself largely relied on fossil fuels, at least for then and now?

Oh, and a democrat led us into Bosnia without being attacked. Oh, and into Vietnam. Oh, and into Korea. Oh, and into Germany too. Kinda blows a hole in your “democrats only defend” theory.

Were they wrong wars? No, even Vietnam was a noble goal, it was just micromanaged as hell from D.C. Proof Vietnam was a noble goal through 2 questions: (#1) Have you noticed how rotten the Vietnamese have had it these last 30 years? (Our media hasn’t done even 1% worth a damn of a job reporting that issue.) (#2) Don’t you think that a free South Vietnam could’ve prospered much like a South Korea?

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #175240

necessary wars doesn’t equal only defending

Name a Dem who was against the liberation of Kuwait

BTW, Clinton had to fight the GOP tooth and nail to go into Bosnia. We should be chanting wag the dog at GW, because he wouldn’t have much of a presidency without it.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #175241

here’s an interesting article for those “Bush haters” who say our commander in chief has a peanut for a brain.

Who’s Smarter? by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like “stupid” , “morons”, and “idiots”. Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let’s look at the biographies of these “stupid”, “ignorant”, “moronic” leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I. Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS. COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney: Earned a B. A. in 1965 and a M. A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney’s primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush’s vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration’s legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor’s Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U. S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell’s civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President’s Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.(Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U. S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U. S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U. S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans’ public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U. S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U. S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master’s from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph. D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master’s Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver’s Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U. S. Ambassador’s Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender — Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D. C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand : Completed high school Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting

Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal. Career: Acting

Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting

Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in
Washington, D. C. Career: Acting

Ed Asner; Completed High school. Career: Acting

George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career: Acting

Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career:
Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-loving Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a “good enough friend to tell us we were wrong”? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them. Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba
in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President
Ronald Reagan… PEACE through STRENGTH.

God Bless Our Troops and Keep Them Safe!

Posted by: Sheldon at August 13, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #175243

I guess I should say that this article is a couple years old, but the basic idea is still the same.

Posted by: Sheldon at August 13, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #175245

9/11 doesn’t equal war in Iraq.

No rallies against Clinton because they agreed with him. Rallies against GW because they don’t agree with him. It’s called freedom of speech.

BTW college degrees are no indication of superior intelligence. Those in power got there with money, not intelligence. And all the briefings in the world don’t have an impact if you don’t listen to facts, but cherry pick what suits your political goals.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #175246


Standard vitriol from the left. In order:

1. “seem” is subjective. You see, I think Bush doesn’t give a rat’s behind about name-calling and spend’s more time on Iraq/terrorism than any other issue. But hey, what you said makes for good “Air America”, so have at it.

2. No where in Dick Cheney’s quote does he reference Democrats, to think so is paranoia. He says Al Qaeda “types” because some/several terrorists have no real connection to the Al Qaeda mainframe, such as Zawqari’s old group in Iraq. And if you’re sane enough to realize “types” isn’t referring to democrats then please let me inform you that terrorists are indeed looking to break our will by scaring us and, yes, terrorizing us.

3. You lost me on that one, not sure what you’re referring to.

“Yeah, how many terrorists has GW put in prison compared to the number of times they have smeared anyone who disagrees with them?” —— “smear” is subjective. I hear the left use “smear” when it was only a hearty debate from both sides. If you’re talking about the Plame case, that’s in court and being addressed. Otherwise, that’s just a very emotional, “Harry Belafonte” type of statement/question.

“…. because they are too busy trying to uphold the constitution, since GW won’t.” —- Pure emotion and part of the “Blame America/Bush First” nonsense discussed above. You liberals act like Homeland Security programs like data mining for cell phone connections came out of thin air without any real-world scenarios to be alarmed about. Remember, this is a time of war and if you’re worried the numbers on your cell phone might be reviewed by the relative few dedicated to such programs then you’re either:

(A) A real threat who should be monitored or
(B) Think way too highly of yourself.

I say again, this is a time of war. (Unfortunately that does need repeating.)

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #175247

It is obviously clear from all the posts here that the Republicans are scared that they are going to lose this fall, so they are resorting to baseless lies. I don’t know any Democrat who is against wiretapping and bank account surveillance so lond as there is OVERSIGHT!!!!!!!
I have no problem with my government tracking terrorists, but how do I know they aren’t targetting innocent civilians, you know like when they were monitoring and infiltrating the anti-war groups back in the 60’s and 70’s. So all you Republicans should stop spreading the lies that we are against legal surveillance with congressional oversight. Another lie is that Iraq is a part of the war on terror, and that we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. Well what do you call what happened in England, or Toronto a few weeks back? The real war on terror will be fought using police methods, you know surveillance, espionage, working with police agencies of foreign governments, and not by steamrolling through a country with our powerful military creating 3 terrorists for every 1 killed. Fighting the war on terror using police methods will be much cheaper than the way we are fighting it now, leaving us the extra cash to increase security on our docks and borders (HELLO!!!!…It’s been nearly 5 years and the borders and docks are no safer than they were pre 9/11). What is really going on here is that the Neocons are using the war on terror as an excuse to spend my tax money on unnecessary military equipment, it’s a big giveaway to the military-industrial complex, and if you can’t see that then you are a FOOL!

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 13, 2006 1:54 AM
Comment #175250



“Name a Dem who was against the liberation of Kuwait”

They may have been “for” an independent Kuwait but the OVERWHELMING majority of dems voted against military action to make it happen. MANY more dems, Senate and House, voted for the Iraq War than the Gulf War.

Ha! I love it! 20 years from now I’ll hear from liberals “Oh yeah, we were obviously for going in a freeing Kuwait. Yup, that *No Blood For Oil* chant is computer generated video nonsense, pay no attention to it. And all those congressional votes against going into Kuwait, those were indeed votes against but an ensuing vote the next day had us all voting for it … the recording of that vote is just lost is all.”

What does Dick Enberg say? “Oh My!”

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #175251

OK, we pull out of Iraq, then what?
How do we deal with the immense control that Iran now has over the shia and subsequently over Iraq?
What do we do about the fact that Iran now has influence over the whole region?!

Remember, we no longer have a presence there, I sure hope the fledgling democracy can survive the insurgency fueled by Iran. Oh wait, I forgot, the UN can make the warring factions lay down their arms, they have a great history with that type of operation. Maybe NATO can pick up the slack. If neither of them can do it we can surely rely on the French.

The fact of the matter is this, it’s a bad war, nobody wants to be there, but we are there. We can’t take a mulligan on this one, too late for that. If one democrat can tell me how to get out of Iraq and not make a bigger mess out of the whole region you have my vote. I want to hear what your policies are going to be aside from more police actions. What is your plan?

I don’t much care for the plan the republicans have but I’m not hearing a better one from the dems.

Posted by: Sheldon at August 13, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #175252


Couldn’t disagree more with relying on police methods alone. Obviously it’s part of the picture but relying on that alone condemns us to only fighting terrorism at home. (There’s no American cops in Yemen or Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria … you get the picture.)

And asking for more Congressional oversight is a fine debate point. I disagree with it because I think telling all 535 members of Congress a secret and you might as well publish it in the newspaper. Certain, high ranking, bi-partisan members of Congress were let in on the programs. Of course the other problem was that the laws on the books dealt with land line phones only. A command decision, while maintaining the classified integrity of the programs, had to be made. Again, it’s fine to debate in favor of more oversight, but to make it sound like the original effort was some desperate attempt to break the law like others have suggested … absolutely ridiculous.

And, hopefully we’ll ID the leakers soon.

(Say high to JFK for me.)

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #175253


How is it vitriolic when someone demonizes you and you call them on it? Stay the course doesn’t take very much time to say, so I think GW has lots of time to equate Dems with terror.

Please don’t try to act naive. Cheney is saying that the terrorists hope that the Dems win.

Using the term criminal negligence is not America bashing, so stop being so sensitive.

If I want to hear the word smear, all I have to do is turn on Hannity or O’Reilly. Equating terrorists with those who disagree with you is smearing.

You liberals act like Homeland Security programs like data mining for cell phone connections came out of thin air without any real-world scenarios to be alarmed about.

I have no problem with those programs as long as our system of checks and balances is respected. And I see plenty of evidence that they haven’t been.

And could you stop the annoying habit of putting words in people’s mouths that they haven’t said and try to respond to them? Try to respect the spirit of this blog.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #175254

I hear a lot of pretty vague policies and plans from republicans, but I am not hearing any actual plans at all from the dems. Help me understand what you would do?

Posted by: sheldon at August 13, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #175255

“hi”, not “high”, my apologies.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #175256

Sorry Sheldon, I should have said Ken

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #175257

President Bush was the one who recieved the final report on the Cole. It was he who was given the chance to act. Do you recall his response? There was none.

In terms of the enemy, the Enemy was here before 9/11. It continues to be here now, I bet you. Unless Bush and others can get better intelligence than that they started our latest war with, and find out what the terrorists are doing right now, here in this country, when the order comes from Bin Laden, we will be no better off than France was in 1940.

Iraq is not doing us any favors, so long as Bush procrastinates on it. We should withdraw. I prefer we withdraw after greatly improving the situation as it is now, but at some point we have to let the Iraqi’s stand on their own.

That day would have come regardless of how badly things got screwed up. The question now is whether it’s possible to improve anything by our efforts. I badly want to believe that is so, but the chance to do that good will not last forever.

Immediate pullout? You haven’t read the polls, nor have you read the kind of bills we have written if you think that’s the majority position. We know we can’t just jerk the table cloth right out on this one.

As for the covert measures you describe, it’s not the aggression that’s the problem, it’s that combined with a lack of oversight. Power must have the price of accountability.

Bush doesn’t want to pay that price. He instead accuses those who ask him to be accountable of trying to hobble his war effort. He fails to realize that it is our war effort, too; It belongs to the rest of the American people who don’t agree with his direction, the Democrats among him. It’s this insidious false alternative that permeates most Republican talking points on the war: we do things our way or failure’s assured. It is that arrogance that has ruined this war, as you have used that point time and again, clothed in language of necessity, of support for the troops, and of other difficult to disagree with principles, to prolong a policy that should have long been tossed on the ashheap of history and replaced with something more effective.

Check the readiness level of our forces. They’re not going to be useful anywhere else for a while. That will make it more difficult to deploy them elsewhere. I agree that Iraq has become part of the war on terrorism, but I think it only became so because the enemy exploited a mistake on our part. That is why I am not anti-war, just an advocate for a change of policy. Even wars started on illegitimate grounds can be problematic to lose.

Don’t be scared of the far left. They’re not the driving force here. Mostly its moderates who no longer see the benefits of cooperating with the right. I guess you could include me there. I think the Republican notion of superiority on policy has lead them to become both lax and arrogant as a party concerning those policies. That’s a bad mix. You don’t really have people in charge of developing military policy who have a serious notion of what it takes to fight a war, much less win it, and you don’t have many leaders who can separate themselves from politics or speak the truth about what’s needed to their superiors. Much of the party’s attitudes about things have been built around insulation of the leaders from criticism and dissension. It’s won elections at the expense of maintaining incompetence an corruption in the ranks.

Bin Laden(not really I know, but we’re role-playing here)-
What gives you the impression we’re really your friends? You think you can bring down towers in the bluest of blue states, and somehow some mythical treachery dreamed up by Republicans will somehow evince itself and you’ll be safe? We were going after you when the Republicans were still obsessing over soiled blue dresses and obscure land deals years after the fact. We took pre-emptive action to keep chemical weapons from your hands, and those loyal Republicans believed one of your friends before they believe our president and his intelligence. We shot cruise missiles at your fortress like “farm”, and the Republicans accused us of trying to distract from the impeachment proceedings. As if anything could. You are tremendously naive if you think things will get better when we’re in charge, because you see, we consider you about the worse threat out there, and we will strangle your resources and your connections, until you can’t put a cherry-bomb down an embassy toilet.

The Republicans wouldn’t tell you this, but this backstabbing story is about all they have going for them in this next election. They have to pretend they were the first to really fight against your kind of terrorism. They have to pretend they’re the only ones able to do what’s necessary. Otherwise they don’t have an issue.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #175258

War? What war. I thought Congress was supposed to declare war.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 13, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #175259

Didn’t you hear? GW put a signing statement on that part of the constitution.

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #175261

It seems only the Bush worshippers are happy with the progres in Iraq. It appears from Sheldons moving account of the resume’s of W and his administration that they do have the brainpower to do the job of winning the war in Iraq, unfortunetly that hasn’t happened yet. If its not the brainpower it must be the philosophy, lack of planning and defective strategy they have employed to date to get such a small return on our investment in Democracy for the Iraq people. Maybe standing on the deck of a ship and announcing “mission accomplished” take’s a degree from Yale, but it shows that we really didn’t have a clue as to what we were doing over there. Doesnt that bother the Bush worshippers at all?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 13, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #175262


Well since this whole Iraqi occupation was really about setting up a pro-US government in order to secure future oil contracts (And before you make the stupid point of “Well if we’re fighting for oil then why is the price of gas so high”, you have to realize that Iraqi oil production is purposely being kept lower than pre-war levels to keep prices high and keep a well stocked reserve for the future), instead of relying on the free markets and taking our chances bidding against the Chinese, it comes down to 2 options.

Option 1: If we feel that Iraqi oil is vital to our economic future then we will have to stay and continue to occupy Iraq. As it stands now, if we leave then the whole place will descend into civil war, then a Shiite government will ultimately win and take over with the help of Iran, and we can kiss that future cheap oil goodbye.

Option 2: We make a bold initiative to ween ourselves from foreign oil by government instituted fuel efficiency standards, flex fuel requirements on all brand new cars, a phased in flex fuel requirement for older cars over the next five years, and some government investment in domestic renewable energy production infrastructure. Then we just leave Iraq and tell the people to F*** OFF! and fight for their own damn freedom.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 13, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #175263

There’s a reason that a Book entitled The Best and the Brightest serves as a cautionary tale for the way intellectual theory can go wrong in leadership. Read Rise of the Vulcans if you want to know what kind of personalities went into this current debacle. You’d be surprise how reasonable these people come across. Trouble is, reasonable people can get fixated on bad ideas, and brilliant people can really fixate on them. As for the intelligence of those actors, there’s something you have to keep in mind: many actors drop out not for a lack of grades, but because they plan on starting their careers as soon as they can.

I personally think you should hold off on bashing Hollywood. It’s a textbook ad hominem attack, no better than attacking Reagan for being an actor or a very old man at the time of his inauguration.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2006 2:32 AM
Comment #175264

Probably one of the best posts I’ve read here. finally someone with a realistic viewpoint. Thanks.

I think a lot of moderate republicans feel the same way. A change in policy is desperately needed. I think the GOP has certainly gotten away from it’s roots and needs a wake up call. I just hope and pray that in ‘08 we actually have some candidates that are worth voting for instead of picking the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: sheldon at August 13, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #175266

Yes, I did play a little devil’s advocate with my earlier post. I wanted to point out the fact that we don’t have people in power with a 6th grade education and I am tired of hearing every day how stupid our administration is. I am sure you could lay out just as impressive a resume about Clinton and his staff, and yet we heard the same things from the far right about slick willy that we hear from the left about GW. My point is this, if you disagree, discuss the policies, provide alternatives, but leave the grade school insults on the playground. I’ll get off my soapbox now.

Posted by: sheldon at August 13, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #175268

there is no plan to get out, that is the problem. The plan is to stay the course, no matter how many lives are lost, no matter how long it takes, no matter what it costs. Why do you think people are so upset, we played straight into the enemies plans. In a nutshell, the dems once put forth a plan to move out and let the Iraq governemnt handle the internal problems. We would be just over the hill if they needed us. I think it was Murtha that proposed that and well, we all know what that got him from the repubs don’t we. So do you really want a plan from the dems or do you just want something to call names about so the repubs can gain votes?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 13, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #175269

Our current problems with modern anti-US Islamic terrorism really started with George Bush Sr. The approach our government should have taken in handling the middle east back then was to use Saddam like the Reagan administration did. Saddam was known as someone with aspirations of creating a secular Pan-Arabia by military force, this was the ultimate goal of the baathist party. If Bush Sr. didn’t choose his families and business partners Saudi Arabian connections over Saddam then the first gulf war would have never happened. It was our involvement in the gulf war, and the establishment of bases in Saudi Arabia, that pissed off Osama and the rest of the former US sponsored Mujhadeen. Wouldn’t it have been better to let a secular dictator steamroll through the middle east killing off Islamic extremists, than having to deal with them today? Now I know most of you are thinking “Support a brutal dictator?” but you should remember that was our policy for a long time during the cold war. We could have secretly supplied Saddam with weapons and intelligence to get the job done, while publicly denouncing his actions. We would have let him have free reign over the region so long as he followed 3 rules:

1. Keep the cheap oil flowing.
2. Don’t develop nuclear weapons.
3. Lay off Israel.

We could have made it crystal clear that a failure to adhere to these rules would be responded to with swift military action. He knew his army was no match for us, and the only reason he felt safe in going into Kuwait was that he was thinking we were still on his side like in the Reagan days. Instead Bush Sr. chose his personal future economic interests, and those of his closest business partners, over the best interest of the American people.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 13, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #175273

After reading most of these posts, I had to go back to the top to remember what the whole article was about. That’s because all I read was vindictive comments from the conservatives and explanations from the liberals. You can replace republicans and democrats for those two descriptions, if it pleases you.
So I realized that the posts were on-topic! Okay, then so be it!
Stephen Daugherty did a good job in answering every post by conservatives/republicans; yet they were completely ignored or passed over. Let’s not let it be said that conservatives/republicans will let facts obscure their talking points. They stick with the script; no matter what is offered as contrary evidence.
The truth is so plain that the conservative side of the column refuses to listen to facts that it hits one square in the face. Deny the truth and attack; regardless of the facts, is the rule that they live by.
I would find it refreshing if someone from the “right” (and I use that term loosely) would simply argue the issues and facts instead of using name-calling and insults as their argument. I really wonder if they even know the facts.
I, for one, would like to see an enlightened argument, with facts and figures (not some link to a right-wing opinion blog) against the democratic view.
Oh yeah: on another point: The party is called the “Democratic Party”. It’s not the “Democrat Party”. Perhaps your guy in the White House should learn that. After that, teach him how to pronounce “Nuclear”.

Posted by: Cole at August 13, 2006 5:29 AM
Comment #175278

To Curmudgeon-at-large:
Iraq was never the fight on terrorism. What WMD’s? You mean the one’s with the U.S. labels on them that we sent to Sadaam after the Gov.’t. ok’d 770 licenses to sell them to Iraq? Osama, you know, the one who actually IS a threat to us, is the fight on terrorism. Oh yea I forgot, we don’t actually look for the real deal. And while we’re on the subject, the true threat is this administration. It’s going to get us all killed. I hope the Connecticut Democratic Primary showed the world that the citizens of this country do NOT condone this administration’s actions.

Posted by: cookie at August 13, 2006 7:22 AM
Comment #175280

“The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like “stupid” , “morons”, and “idiots”. Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.”

Sheldon well done. President Bush will not go down in history with Raegan, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt (in my book) but the disrespect the office now receives is disturbing. I think Clinton lowered the standards of the office and now hateful speech fills the air on a office that at one time held great respect.
The claims of “Hitler” are bad enough but now they desire to paint the man as a moron and an idiot is ridiculous. After reviewing their stellar record of achievment, any party that Hollywood supports should be looked at with great scrutiny.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 13, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #175281

“Herein lies the problem with the democratic party. They do not recognize the enemy…….they do not recognize the absolute necessity of victory in Iraq……..they do not recognize the implications on us and the world if we lose in Iraq”

OK - I could care less what you (or others here spewing political crap) have to say about the Democratic party. It’s now moved from obscene to boredom. I’m going to assume most in this group support Bush - and I find it hysterical that you seem to want to find issues with DEMs over the Iraqi war and the deplomatic fiasco in the Middle East. The above quote is completely “in the face” of this Republican leadership and the problems they created. And now, since your leadership has lead us in to the most monumental military & deplomatic failure, you’re trying to push the blame on the other side of the isle.

You guys are like a bunch of alcoholics. First, you get “drunk” and launch to a stupid barroom brawl, then you deny you have a problem, and then you push the blame off on anyone other than yourselves. You need to realize you sickness, and get some help… it’s kind of pathetic.

Rebuplicans have taken a huge opportunity (after 9/11) to help unify the world against these terrorists, but spent the last 5 years inciting hatred among every group of aliies we’ve had. Take a quick look at the Middle East at the end on 2001 - and take a look at it now. That is what you have done with your opportunity - absolute, complete failure.

I think someone needs to come to grip with and accept the failures your leadership has created and you have supported. You’re sick - get help.

Posted by: tony at August 13, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #175286

If there is a real terrorist threat, why was the Bush administration attempting to transfer $6 million away from a program slated to find ways to detect liquid explosives???

This current administration doesn’t take terrorism seriously…it just uses it as a way to line up the sheep behind it.

Posted by: Lynne at August 13, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #175287
now they desire to paint the man [Bush] as a moron and an idiot is ridiculous.

Never wrong to tell the truth. Bush’s actions (and inaction) prove him to be such…

Posted by: Lynne at August 13, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #175290

Wonder if I’ll be in Gitmo after this? For some reason I have a hard time giving up my right to free speech. To practice such may label me as a terrorist.

Tony says that the republicans have taken a huge opportunity after 9/11. There are many university professors who claim that they took one PRIOR to 9/11 and they have scientific evidence to back it up. Personally, I have always wondered where NORAD was that day? Why did they allow 3 huge airliners to hit their targets? Why did the towers seem to implode? It makes sense to me that the administration would conspire to commit an act that would unite America. There are other questions as well. Where are our allies? (other than the English) Do they know something we don’t? Why wouldn’t the UN condone our actions?

Conspiracy theory you say? Why not? After all, what would an administration bent on selfish greed with power hungry men in charge have to gain? Money? Power? A country to look up to them? A world to fear them? Prezzie Bush needed to boost approval for himself and his croonies back in ‘01. Remember his apathetic attempts to run the country back then? Does anyone remember that??Of course his handlers (including big oil) knew they had the boy for the job. One that had that whoop ass philosophy. One that had an alkie mentality. One that would do what he was told. One who just wanted to be worshipped as a king. What better than to put the U.S. at war? Hey, that would fix everything.

There are way too many people just waiting for a horrible tragedy to befall America not long before the upcoming elections. This latest terrorist plot kept the people on their toes, didn’t it? Why, because that is the way they play their games. Who is victim? We are. The American public. So is the rest of the world. And it may never end because they even rig the vote, buy the judges and intimidate the citizens. A sad day for mankind.

Posted by: Donna at August 13, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #175291

I would submit that the wars in the middle-east and the war on terror that has grown out of them are very much a continuation of the cold war for global domination,this time with China as the chief adversary. The second largest oil reserve is not in Iraq,but Canada. They are quite willing to sell us enough oil to meet our needs. The goal in the middle-east is not so much to secure a supply but to deny that supply to China in what is concieved as a long term plan to contain Chinese expansion. The people calling the shots are cold warriors,stuck in the past,unwilling and unable to embrace a new paradigm that unmistakably calls for the rapid development of alternate sources of energy.That is the reason for so much anti-global warming propaganda, the half hearted lip service to fuel cell develpoment etc. They are playing a dangerious game that requires oil dependance to continue. We as a people owe it to ourselves and the world to clean house. We are going to stop playing this game and do what is right for the world. This is not a left-right issue. The extent that our right-wing readers are prepared to deny and ridicule the concept of of alternate energy sources is de facto evidence of propaganda effectivness,not a real argument against the needed changes. The technology for this fundemental change exist now and could become a reality with an important but minimal amount of government involvement.

Posted by: BillS at August 13, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #175293
I think Clinton lowered the standards of the office and now hateful speech fills the air on a office that at one time held great respect.

You mean the GOP lowered the standards for how the opposition party is supposed to act. Hopefully we will elect a Democrat president in 2008, though, and you guys will get another chance to show us the right way to be a loyal opposition. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 13, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #175296

“Bush doesn’t want to pay that price. He instead accuses those who ask him to be accountable of trying to hobble his war effort. He fails to realize that it is our war effort, too; It belongs to the rest of the American people who don’t agree with his direction, the Democrats among him.”

Stephen, there is where we disagree. I think he does care about those who disagree with him, BUT, he was elected by the people to make decisions and he is making them. Just because you disagree with his decision doesn’t mean he hasn’t given thought to your ideas.

As far as being accountable, He is accountable by the numerous checks and balances built into our constitution and most importantly on election day.

Don’t get me wrong, President Bush (His title deserves enough respect to capitalize) pisses me off probably as much as President Clinton did but not because of his war efforts.

President Bush has done more to pushed me away from the Republican side than any force I can think of. Unfortunately, I don’t see the answer in the Democratic party either.

If you’re willing, let’s play a little game
Suppose I’m politically ignorant and make $50K a year, I work for a service company and drive a company van. I own five acrees in North Georgia with a mortgage and have no other debt.

Why should I be a Democrat?

Posted by: tomd at August 13, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #175297

You forgot one, Rush Limbaugh. Dropped out of collage after his first year. Three marriages, drug addiction, Republican and Conservative icon.
(Got to love that defense of marriage)

The USS Cole? That was Oct 12 2000. I don’t think Clinton had much time to respond. It took another 3 years before the terrorist were identified. I guess we should have just hurled some missiles at any Arab country to make us feel better?

Posted by: 037 at August 13, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #175298

I’m I reading this right. Your plan is to retreat from our current positions in the Middle East by fighting wars with Saudi and Pakistan and anyplace that we know terrorist are hiding. We are going to move quickly with the new Democrat lead congress to declare war against these countries that harbor terrorist and we are going to do that in all places that we know have terror groups. So, we can include Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Palistine in our declaration of war. In addition, I noticed that many of you were interested in addressing our inability to police these issues at home and as the British Police have done such a good job, I think that we should use them as an example of how to catch terrorists. So, I expect that our new Democrat lead congress will move aggressively to pass the required changes to allow our police the same tools as the British. Now, this is the kind of forward thinking that will get me to vote Democrat. FDR Democrats are back! About damn time.

Posted by: mike at August 13, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #175302


“Wonder if I’ll be in Gitmo after this? For some reason I have a hard time giving up my right to free speech. To practice such may label me as a terrorist.”

Of course you know that is not true, or you would not have written it.

There are around 500 prisoners at Gitmo. Many journalists and members of congress (Democrats too) have visited the place. We don’t run gulags for American citizens. You know it and I know you know it, so cut the insults.

If you do believe these things, I have no more pearls to cast before you.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #175313

Jack says,

“Re Cheney’s comments

‘The al-Qaida types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.’

Do you think this is an incorrect statement? I agree with the VP. That has to be the al-Qaida plan. It is the plan of all insurgents and terrorists almost by definition. They want to wear down the destroy the will of the stonger power.”

Cheney’s statment is typical of him, of course. Note the slippage between Al-Qaeda and Iraq? (Read the link Paul supplies to view Cheney’s statement in contect.) These guys read the same polls and news stories as us; they know a large number of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It is clever rhetoric to bury an assumption at odds with the truth and to attempt to force debate along lines that support the assumption, espcecially when the false assumption is one that the great many uninformed already believe. (Why do they believe this? I ask any Iraq war supporter for an honest answer.)

Now, having conflated the Iraq war with the war on terror, Cheney implies that our success on the war on terror is entirely dependent on our staying in Iraq. Has a single Iraqi been implicated in a terrorist plot against the United States? We all know the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists and those so far caught by the British in what apparently is the latest Al-Qaeda plot.

The war on terror and the war in Iraq are separate issues, but it is understandable why Republicans seek to conflate the two.

Moving on — now apparently it is Al-Qaeda’s aim to drive us out of Iraq. Because? You got me. Iraq looks like a win-win for Al-Qaeda. If we stay, Al-Qaeda has a ready-made recruiting tool. Frankly, given that the terrorists apparently hope to incite a war between the west and Islamic culture, I sincerely doubt that it wants more thoughtful leadership in the United States. Bush and the neo-cons are the enemy they apparently want. We have played into their hands. IF we leave, of course they will use that as propaganda against the United States. But assume that what actually happens is what we all wish to happen — that the Iraqi government is deemed strong enough to handle the country’s security without massive number of our troops. We are still talking about a weak government in a country torn by sectarian conflict. Hardly a defeat from Al-Qaeda’s point of view.

Moving on to Jack’s support of Cheney’s statement. For the record, I consider Jack far more honest than our vice president. He at least makes a distinction between terrorists and insurgents, with the implication that the war against terrorism and the struggle in Iraq are not wholly the same thing. Yet he too conflates the two and says both terrorists and insurgents hope to wear our will down. On the face of it, the statements make sense. I suppose it comes down to what we believe the goals of Al-Qaeda and the insurgents are. Is Al-Qaeda hoping to wear down our will? What form would that take? That we would no longer try to beef up our security? That we would leave their oil alone? What exactly would victory for Al-Qadea look like? I think we are dealing, essentially, with religious wackos who seek WWIII. How should our strong will express itself? By giving them WWIII? Or targeting terrorism and terrorists through, essentially, effective police action? (Which is, of course, how the Brits caught the last round of terrorists.) As far as the insurgents in Iraq are concerned, I think it is more accurate to speak of the larger sectarian conflict. It’s hard to see how our staying or leaving will settle that mess.

Someone once said that when confronting an enemy, seek to find out what it hopes to gain, and deny him that.

Posted by: Trent at August 13, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #175317

War? What war. I thought Congress was supposed to declare war.

Posted by: womanmarine

Didn’t you hear? GW put a signing statement on that part of the constitution.

Posted by: Loren


So were those 3 out to destroy the Constitution too. I’ll expect your demand for Clinton’s head this week.

Ahh, clarity for the Left strikes again.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #175321

Paul linked to Tony Snow’s comments during a press conference about Lamont’s primary win. I think it’s worthwhile to look at his comments on the subject in their entirety:

“Take a look at the blogs today, they’re pretty hot. And the real question for the American people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously? With all the developments around the world — and, if so, how do you fight it to win? There seems to be two approaches, and in the Connecticut race, one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of the Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn’t stay the course and that led to September 11th.

It is important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda and it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they’re not going to ignore. They will continue to build strength and they will continue to build adherence and it is a vitally important debate to have.

And it’s really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror. Do they want to have the sort of time-table approach, leave by a date certain? Do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere? Or do they want to acknowledge the fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it takes persistence? Throughout American history, generation through generation has been faced with difficulties, and each generation has risen to the challenge and we’re confident this generation will do the same.”

This is classic use of rhetoric to set the agenda and obscure the truth. (It’s not very well done, but let that go.)

First we are given a false either/or choice. If you do not support the president’s agenda, you are not serious about the war on terror.

Second, Snow proceeds to read the mind of Bin Laden, and says that he was emboldened by the United States’ walking away in 1991. I suppose that means that because the United States didn’t march on Baghdad after we kicked it out of Kuwait and kicked the shit out of its army that we didn’t stay the course. The implication is that if we had made a fullscale invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War, that we wouldn’t have had 9/11. Impossible to know, but we do know we did invade Iraq a decade later and that we do still have terrorist attacks and plots. That’s because kicking the shit out of Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Third, we get some grand words about the United States rising to challenges. Meaningless feel-good talk meant to obscure the truth, which is that one can be against the war — indeed, one can believe the war is a distraction from what should be our real goal, thwarting terrorists — and making our country safer from terrorist attacks. The United States will rise to the challenge, I hope, and remove these guys from power.

The Republican strategy is clear. Mislead and misinform, cloud the issues and count on the ignorance of the American people. Mere advocacy? Or deliberate deception? The answer seems clear. For shame.

Posted by: Trent at August 13, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #175322

I’m still waiting for Alec Baldwin to leave the country, as he promised to do if Bush was re-elected.

Baldwin is a perfect example of the lengths these so-called “stars” will go to get their names in the media.

It’s not that they don’t have the right to express their opinion, it’s that they and the the media believe that their opinions are more important than mine.

And the media fawns over them and brings them on legitimate news programs as “expert” commentators.

Just because you play a doctor in a movie doesn’t mean I’m going to let you operate on me.

But, to paraphrase an old adage, in Hollywood, money talks and intelligent, thoughtful, legitimate dissent walks!

Posted by: ulysses at August 13, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #175324


First off it was a joke. Lighten up. Secondly, Clarity would be recognizing that Bosnia and Iraq have nothing in common. Furthermore, I hope that we have learned something from Korea and Vietnam, and Dems won’t repeat the mistakes of the past. Can we say that about the right?

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #175326

hey i wanna talk about chris shays he have done nothing for ct and he supported the war in iraq he is just like bush so ct lets vote for dian fharell come november and ned lamount

Posted by: jkk at August 13, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #175328

Sheldon and ulysses,

It’s apparent that both of you both forgot about the illustrious Ronald Reagan. He graduated from *Eureka College,which is, from what I have read, requires a fairly high Sat and Act to obtain admittance, as well as the usual grades etc.

He also in starred in 58 movies.

While I am still waiting for the “Tickle down” to trickle down to me, I must give him credit for managing to put himself through college, since apparently that’s the only requirement to run for President. (not that money, money, and more money don’t help a little too, a well-known name helps too, as well as PARTY POLITICS)

One other thing I learned while looking up Reagan. G.W.Bush is a little late in the terrorism war idea. We never actually finished the first one. Or maybe we lost it? (9/11/2001)

Reagan declared a war against international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub.

Not doing just a wonderful job there are we?


Posted by: Linda H. at August 13, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #175330

Ken Strong: Womanmarine can speak for herself but I will add that the fact that Clinton,Truman,Johnson et al also went to war without a war being declared by congress does not mean,nor did she state,that it is a good idea. You are too quick to apply partisan rehtoric I see. What she was suggesting is that we return to the constitutional requirements before we go to war. The War Powers Act is too broad and permmisive. Purhaps it made more sense during the cold war but I doubt it. Its use led us into some very negative operations. The founding fathers had good reason to reserve war powers to congress. I thought “strict construction ” was a onservative principle,is it not? The way given to us to avoid unpopular wars(which we lose)and to insure continuing support is to re-apply what our founders knew. They were well aware of the ravages Europe suffered from wars set in motion by kings. The real sport of kings is not horse racing. It is artillery. England even went so far as to sieze the crown jewels to keep the king from pawning them to finance a war. Shouldn’t the peoples house decide whether or not to send our sons and daughters in to harms way?

Posted by: BillS at August 13, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #175336

the war on terror and the war on democrats are synonymous

Posted by: sandy at August 13, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #175342

“the war on terror and the war on democrats are synonymous”

…as is the current Republican mindset and IBS.

Posted by: tony at August 13, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #175365


Hope you are still reading this thread. What are you are missing about Cheney’s comment is that he said it in the specific context of Lamont winning. This was horrible for two reasons:

1) He was using terrorism to make a cheap partisan point.

2) He was implying that people should people in a democratic country should base their votes on what the terrorists would want them to do.

I don’t think you can condemn this kind of statement strongly enough. This is a democracy, not a fear-o-cracy.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 13, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #175369

“Rebuplicans have taken a huge opportunity (after 9/11) to help unify the world against these terrorists, but spent the last 5 years inciting hatred among every group of aliies we’ve had. Take a quick look at the Middle East at the end on 2001 - and take a look at it now. That is what you have done with your opportunity - absolute, complete failure.”


I sense bitterness. It is such an ugly trait. Why must everyone who criticizes democrats be a republican? I criticize both with the truth. But, just like a loyal fan, the party elitist cannot accept criticism.. Grow up you are showing your childishness with ridiculous “YOUR” comments.

The Middle East hated the United States before Bush became president. The attacks are in the history books… about them.
Terrorist plotted their strategy during Clinton’s (YOUR) administration. Terrorism is real and must be confronted. Learn some histroy and become an American not a democrat or republican. Why is it that party elistist become blind when discussing politics?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 13, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #175374

“I don’t think Clinton had much time to respond. It took another 3 years before the terrorist were identified.”


I served in the Army for 22 years and actually was on special assignement with the USN when the USS Cole was attacked. We knew within two days who attacked the Cole. So did Clinton. He wanted to get out of the White House as quickly as possible and leave as big a mess as possible for Bush to clean up. It is politics and it was the hated republicans coming into power. After all, that many pardons takes a long time to generate.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 13, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #175409
He wanted to get out of the White House as quickly as possible

This is pretty funny. You know that Clinton had no choice about the exact date when stopped being President.

I sense bitterness, such an ugly trait.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #175424

This is a War on Islamo-Fascism, NOT simply a War on Terror. Though, it’s more cumbersome, people should use the correct phrase, “War on Islamo-Fascists” not the vague War on Terror.

After all, I don’t see the Shining Path in Peru posing any immediate threat to the United States.

Posted by: Eric Dondero at August 14, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #175444

“This is a War on Islamo-Fascism”

More accurate, just less catchy.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 14, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #175524

it’s a big giveaway to the military-industrial complex, and if you can’t see that then you are a FOOL!

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 13, 2006 01:54 AM
Truer words have never been spoken. Excellent post!

Posted by: hulk at August 14, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #195716

Difference between a republican and a democrat is very simple… Similar to your mindless liberal bumperstickers. Except with substance.. :Democrats live in a dreamworld, Republicans live in reality:

Posted by: Brooke at November 19, 2006 5:25 PM
Post a comment