Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush WILL Change Course

Pessimists are saying that it is pointless for Congress to approve a resolution against escalating the war in Iraq. The resolution is non-binding and President Bush will disregard it and do as he wishes. He has been disregarding public opinion and he will just as easily disregard Congress. I say, that as stubborn as he is, he will be forced to change course when enough Republicans in Congress, worried about their own prospects, desert him. When he is isolated, he WILL change course.

When the pressure increases, Bush does change his mind. He stuck with Donald Rumsfeld since 2001. But when the Democrats won the 2006 election, Bush fired him.

From 2001 to 2006, Bush paid no attention to what Democrats said. Bipartisanship to him, was a dirty word. His first few years in office he undid many of President Clinton's initiatives - just to show who is in charge now. After the November elections, Bush is suddenly promoting bipartisanship. I doubt he means it. However, with pressure, he will come around to working together with the Democratic Congress.

Today I read in the L.A.Times:

The Bush administration, reversing itself on one of its most controversial counterintelligence measures, said Wednesday that it would no longer secretly eavesdrop on the international calls of terrorism suspects in this country without first getting a court order.

I did not believe this as I was reading it. After hearing the attorney general's testimony in a Senate hearing - and seeing Senator Leahy get red in the face - I could see that what the public is being told may not be the truth. Still, Gonzales felt enough pressure to come up with a new rationale for the domestic spying program. More pressure - currently being supplied by Senators - will eventually convert this program into something Americans can support.

Which brings me to the resolution:

Setting up a showdown with the White House that could come next week, several antiwar senators, including one Republican, introduced a resolution Wednesday opposing President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. The bipartisan resolution drafted by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) would not place any legal limits on what the president can do in Iraq.

The resolution would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq can be sustained only with support from the American public and Congress.

The resolution is non-binding, but if passed with a decent number of Republicans - 10 Republicans seem to be in favor of the resolution - it will increase the pressure on Bush. After it passes, I don't expect Bush to buckle. However, the tone of the conversation will change. The pressure will build further when more Republicans leave the fold and legislators introduce more drastic bills (many are already in the hopper). When the pressure gets to be too difficult for Bush to bear - everybody, even Bush, has his breaking point - we will develop a true bipartisan approach towards solving the Iraqi and other Middle East problems.

Apply the pressue and Bush WILL change course. You can do your part by pressuring your Senators and Representative.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 18, 2007 5:28 PM
Comments
Comment #203878

I’m a little confused.
Was it a “domestic surveillance program, that secretly listened in on email and phone conversations of all American citizens”
OR WAS IT
“eavesdropping on the international calls of terrorism suspects in this country?”

Or were they two seperate things?

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2007 6:01 PM
Comment #203881

I claim neither Democrat nor Republican. The thing that irks me about all bleeding heart liberals is that when the government, no matter what party is involved, does something that most people would consider protecting them. Liberals scream about it being unconstitutional. Personally I don’t care one bit if every intelligence agency we have taps every phone in the country, I have nothing to hide and if they want to listen to very boring conversations more power to them. So maybe all you people that are complaining have something to hide. We tapped phones prior to WW2, probably Korea and Vietnam too.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #203888

Paul, what a wonderful victory over our intelligence gathering capability. When the next strike against our country occurs, as it surely will, conservatives will know exactly where to point the finger of blame. Unfortunately, it may be my city and my house that is ground zero.
Tapping the phone calls of anyone, anywhere who is receiving a call from a known terrorist is sensible, sound and certainly constitutional. Wake up some dead presidents who did exactly that and ask if it helped.
We are becoming a country of idiots, bent on our own destruction in order to smear the party or politician who isn’t in our camp. Public polls be damned…We elect a President to act in times of war and peril and we sure as hell don’t need 500 and some congressional pundits second-guessing the Commander-in-Chief.
Liberals and other “non-thinkers” believe that this is just some kind of skirmish that should have been over with a battle or two. The President told the American people from the start that the war on terrorism would last long and be a very difficult fight. Sure, mistakes were made as they have been through-out the history of warfare. Could some other President have done better…probably. In January 2009 when we swear in the new President, I will be behind him or her also as long as he or she doesn’t capitulate to the Muslim hordes aching to put a Mullah in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Jim Martin at January 18, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #203890

KAP
You might try reading a book titled”1984” by George Orwell. Also a quick read of the US constitution might clear up your confusion about our concernes. If you truly have nothing to hide,no secrets,then you are a rare individual indeed.

Posted by: BillS at January 18, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #203892

When the pressure gets to be too difficult for Bush to bear - everybody, even Bush, has his breaking point - we will develop a true bipartisan approach towards solving the Iraqi and other Middle East problems.

How can we have a bipartisan discussion about Iraq when one side refuses to get involved? A non-binding resolution is just what the name implies. The Do-Nothing Congress did not end when the majority flipped.

The democrats are doing nothing about Iraq and will continue to do so because they will take a political hit for whatever they try. If they support any troop increase or any plan proposed by Bush (or even appear to be working with him), they take a major hit from their base. If they end our involvement by cutting funding, they will be blamed for the inevitable increase in violence and death that will ensue.

What the Democrats should do is put President Bush’s words about bipartisanship to the test. For all the talk about Bush not working with them, they’ve never really tried. The Democrats in Congress should work with Bush and our military leaders to form a new plan for Iraq, something both sides can live with. Bush has said he would be willing to do this. Does he mean it? We’ll probably never know.

The Democrats will continue to do nothing on Iraq because, despite all the talk, their political wellbeing is more important than policy. In that, they are fairly reminiscent of another party I can name.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 18, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment #203894

Jim Martin

Do you regard Rep. Senator Chuck Hagel as a “non-thinker” or the other 9 Rep Senators that intend to support the proposed anti-escalation in Iraq resolution as doing so for partisan reasons. I beleive they are brave people trying to steer our country away from a disaster. “Mistakes were made”That is putting it mildly. How about a consistent pattern of gross incompetence leading us into the the biggest forign policy blunder in our history.Because of his actions we are losing the “war on terror”. You are correct. Bush is the CINC for now. Lets pray we can keep him from doing any more damage till we can get a new one.

Paul

I wish I shared your optimism. I like Dodds suggestion that another Iraq war resolution is in order. He argues that the premises for the first one,getting rid of Saddam and Iraqi WMDs, have been either fulfilled or non-existant so congressional re authorization is in order for furthur involvment.

Posted by: BillS at January 18, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #203895

BillS
I’ve read it. I’m not confused. Was it unconstitutional for FDR. Is it unconstitutional for a Police Officer to stop you if you are acting suspicisously. Maybe you haven’t heard of probable cause. After 9/11 I don’t care who is President he has probable cause. I have nothing to hide when talking on the phone.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2007 8:36 PM
Comment #203897

I highly agree with Jim Martin.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #203898


I would be curious to know what those on the right think the president could do that they would consider going to far?

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2007 9:08 PM
Comment #203900

Bush’s so called “reversal” on the domestic wiretapping issue is actually just a refinement of the program which spells out broader responsibility for the FISA court while still retaining the administration’s emergeny powers under Article II.

It actually changes nothing.

The LA Times article is grossly misleading. It says that the US is “ceasing” operations which nobody knows were actually taking place in the first place, since the orginal measures ALREADY required recourse to the FISA courts when possible if, and only if, one party to the communications in question was located in America.

There was NEVER any program that allowed authorities to eavesdrop on Americans talking to other Americans. And in the program in question here, there is no information suggesting that Bush or other authorities have EVER felt that the emergency was great enough to go outside of FISA in the first place (which they still, incidentally, reserver the right to do under Article II).

Basically, the media whipped up anxiety with mischaractizations of the program, sowing fear that Big Brother is watching average citizens, and now the administration has clarified the program and behold: Big Brother is not watching average citizens after all!

It’s all quite silly. People are relieved about a change they don’t understand to a program they didn’t understand either. This is just the media leading people by the nose and playing on their ignorance.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 18, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #203901

Since the majority of the public are against the war and are fed up with King Bush’s ways of doing things,(my way or no way approach), why don’t the American people get him out of office by impeaching him? Is there a simple explanation why they don’t?

Posted by: w00189wr at January 18, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #203902

KAP
Really,you read 1984? Pretty chilling stuff. Many Americans see paralells. Even beyond the constant survallence there was the constant warfare. It did not matter who was fighting who so much but war was a necessity for the continuence of the state.
Granted FDR,and lincoln at times violated the constitution . Those violations were short lived. The “war on terror” has already been going on longer than WW2. Those protections are there for a reason. To protect freedom. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. A short term violatation for survival is in order but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a conflict of many years according to Bush. That is more than I am willing to trust the government,this regime or the next.
It comes down to an issue of trust. myself and a growing number of Americans do not trust the current regime to not use gathered info for political reasons. Placing undercover agent amongst old Quaker ladies or checking to see what library books I read has nothing to do with winnig the war but has every thing to do with political repression. Why send burglers to the Watergate when you can as easily read their e-mails or listen to their phone calls.If you choose to “love Big Brother’ go right ahead but us real Americans will have no part of it.

Posted by: BillS at January 18, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #203905

BillS
We’re talking about phone taps. Not what books little old ladies read, or what comic books liberals that think they are real americans read. We are talking about someone who could cause real destruction. Maybe the next time a 9/11 type event will come to your home town or even mine. Like Jim Martin said, we know who to point fingers at then. To bad there are no FDR’s Lincoln’s or JFK’s anymore.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #203906

BillS, in the novel 1984 there were fake wars fought against fictional enemies that were reported by government-controlled media sources. Anyone questioning this arrangment was imprisoned, tortured and murdered. There’s no comparison.

How many Americans who speak out against Bush have been imprisoned, tortured and killed? Seems to me that the likes of Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand are actually doing pretty well for themselves, making millions of dollars while they run around the country trashing Bush in their spare time. Further, any of us can visit a website like this and say absolutley anything we want, and are even free to vote against the President and his party (as just happened in November).

And indcidentally, there is not, nor has there ever been, any measure proposed by the administration which would allow them to read your e-mails or listen to your phone calls, as long as those e-mails or phone calls weren’t coming from or going overseas to KNOWN terrorist affiliates.

Fact is, if Bush wanted to be a dictator and just ride roughshod over our rights in these areas, he’d have no motivation to publicize his intentions by asking Congress to pass laws allowing him do it. That’s not how real totalitarians behave. He’d just do it, and kill or imprison those who stood in his way.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 18, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #203908

KAP
Maybe you should point fingers at the last guy that slept through the warnings.

Posted by: BillS at January 18, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #203909

Yea BillS the first time they tried to get the wtc was on your boy Clinton’s watch.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #203911
KAP Maybe you should point fingers at the last guy that slept through the warnings.

BillS, aren’t you the same guy that just said that the threat is a made-up ploy intended to subjegate us in the fashion of Orwell’s 1984?

Why shouldn’t anybody sleep through the warnings? Isn’t that what you want?

I mean, you’re against surveillance. Be consistent here: 9-11 was fictional. Al Qaida is made up. No threats to worry about… Bush is the only problem… go back to sleep…

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 18, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #203913

I wonder what Paul Siegel thinks of this. His hero Nancy Pelosi agreeing to fund the troop surge.

This is typical for the current batch of Democrats.

They have the ACTUAL power to stop the troop surge by not funding it, but they choose instead to vote on a symbolic and meaningless protest against it on one hand while supporting it with funds.

One good thing about the new Democratic majority is that they won’t be able to get away with this nonsense forever.

When you’re in the majority, you can put your money where your mouth is. But the Democrats choose not to do this, to try and have it both ways, to say nothing, do nothing, stand for nothing.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 18, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #203914

Please.
We’ve been through this.
Clinton cannot be blamed because our nation’s history began the day Bush took the oath.
Burgerboy took ,and probably wiped his ass with, the evidence that proves Cinton was aware and did nothing - not even make sure the next administration was fully aware of the threat.
How could one party EVER give the other the advantage? - even if it meant preventing 9/11.

We have a problem folks - and it ain’t Bush.


Posted by: tweaky at January 18, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #203917

w00189wr, yes, the simple answer is Dick Cheney would then be President. The trick is to get rid of Cheney first. Then impeach the president. Odds? 5%.

Impeaching both Cheney and Bush at the same time. Odds 9%.

Those odds though may improve IF the Libby trial exposes Cheney in a deliberate breach of law. Then the odds jump to 40% for both candidates. It would then be up the media to push the odds close to 60% popular support for the move, before Congress would make the political move.

All odds are my own.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 18, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #203919

It is not an impeachable offense to fall in the polls. Bush won’t be impeached now for his unpopular policies for the same reason those who opposed those policies when they WERE popular weren’t impeached then. We have elections for this stuff.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 18, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #203920


What those who don’t trust Bush can’t understand is that IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. The less we citizens know about what the president is doing, the stronger we are as a nation.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2007 11:37 PM
Comment #203921

Loyal op.

You mis-read what I said. You also miss read 1984. The wars were not fictional(in the context of a fictional work) but contrived btween 3 states with alliances switching. You could take a reading compehension course at the JC. You could practice on the 9/11 commission report.

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 12:32 AM
Comment #203922

JLW:

Thanks for the laugh after some of the bizarre responses to this thread!!

Posted by: womanmarine at January 19, 2007 12:33 AM
Comment #203924
It is not an impeachable offense to fall in the polls.

LO,

No, but lying about your private sex life is. What a f’d up world we live in.

Personally I don’t care one bit if every intelligence agency we have taps every phone in the country, I have nothing to hide and if they want to listen to very boring conversations more power to them.

KAP,

And that reflects on you how little you really care about this country and it’s founding principles. You cannot love your country then turn around and support initiatives that erode it’s very foundation. Terrorism, in and of itself, has only limited ability to damage the foundation of America; only as much damage as we allow our own government to do. Once the foundation is gone, so goes the country. The real threat to America is not terrorism, it is our own reaction to it.

It reminds me of how the avian flu virus works. The virus itself does not kill you, your own body’s immune system does. The healthy are more at risk of dying from avian flu than the elderly or those with compramised immune systems, just the opposite of the common flu. The virus causes an overreaction of the immune system. Likewise, if we overreact to terrorism, we will wind up destroying ourselves.

Not what books little old ladies read, or what comic books liberals that think they are real americans read.

Real Americans are those who fight to protect America’s foundation. Without that, the country fails.

Maybe you should point fingers at the last guy that slept through the warnings

BillS

It absolutly amazes me how fear makes some people completely irrational. I guess that is the whole point of terrorism, to put a boogyman in everyone’s closet. If another attack happens, I will be pointing my finger directly at those incompetents who turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground.

Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, President of India, asks the question, “What should we do to free our planet from terrorism?”, on Yahoo! answers. Out of the 12684 responses, so far, that I read many are quite enlightning.

Posted by: JayJay at January 19, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #203926

Liberals make me sick. Always boo-hooing about the constitution this, and freedom that. Somebody call a waaaahmbulance! Well, I was not using my freedom anyway- SO THERE! Liberals just want to use their freedom to do something they should not be doing anyway. Clinton! If liberals would just obey our ruler, we would be safe. Because there is no such thing as a right to privacy. But because of those stinking libs, it is only a matter of time before we will all be converted to Islam. Probably by next Thursday. Liberals are traitors, cowards, and undermining the war effort. Not only that, they will not come up with any ideas on how to stop losing the war.

Clinton!

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2007 2:00 AM
Comment #203928

And what is the problem with eavesdropping on terrorists? The liberals keep blathering on and on about Czecks im-balances. Now, why do liberals care more about Czecks than
Amermicans? Especially that terrorist Czeck organization, I think it is called FISA. Do the liberals want more Czecks immigrating to this country? Czecks do not even speak English! Next thing you know, it is only a matter of time before terrorist Czecks will convert all of us to Islam. Probably by next Thursday.

What? Checks and balances? Oh… Well. Um.

Clinton!

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2007 2:34 AM
Comment #203931

Loyal Opposition seems to have been in a coma or something during the news of the circumvented FISA court. That is an impeachable offense if the House moves for impeachment and it is proven in the Senate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2007 4:25 AM
Comment #203934

Keith, thank you. I am pleased that my writings have had the desired effect on readers of your ilk.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2007 4:32 AM
Comment #203935

Why is it using the word Liberal is always used in conjunction with the absence of thought?

It’s vagely reminiscent of a loyalty salute.


David,

It is without doubt that this was the motivating factor here.

I don’t see the same situation with Iraq. It seems to me to be an all or nothing bet. There is nothing for Bush to gain by backing down on Iraq. While it may have been his beliefs that led him here, it is his political legacy that he is fighting for now.

Posted by: gergle at January 19, 2007 4:43 AM
Comment #203940

gergle said: “While it may have been his beliefs that led him here, it is his political legacy that he is fighting for now.”

I concur. And have written at length on this. It is a moral crime that he would spend American and Iraqi lives for vanity, but, that seems to be the case.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2007 5:13 AM
Comment #203945

“To bad there are no FDR’s Lincoln’s or JFK’s anymore.”

Perhaps you also long for the times when J. Edgar Hoover treated the FBI as if it was his own private cabal.

Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin Constitution.

Do you long for the backyard bomb shelters, and “duck and cover” as well?
How about “black lists”, or internment camps, or “separate but equal”?

While I do not pine for the times that they lived in (and good riddance), I do long for the men that were JFK, and FDR, and Lincoln.

Unfortunately, we have Mr. Bush, and we’re just going to have to deal with that.

Posted by: Rocky at January 19, 2007 8:39 AM
Comment #203961
Loyal Opposition seems to have been in a coma or something during the news of the circumvented FISA court. That is an impeachable offense if the House moves for impeachment and it is proven in the Senate.

David, what you’re saying is absurd.

The president believed—and his lawyers made a case—that circumventing the FISA court is not only his right but his responsbility in certain emercengy circumstances under Article II. Even if he turns out to be wrong, it is not an impeachable offense for one branch of government to butt heads with another.

It happens all the time, and the remedy is not impeachment for the judges, congressmen, or executivies who turn out to have been “wrong.”

And what if Bush turns out to be right under Article II—if the Supreme Court supported him (which, incidentally, they’ve come very close to doing in other rulings)?

I guess then that anybody in Congress who disagreed with Bush—or anybody in the judiciary who did—would need to be removed from office through impeachment. The very idea is ridiculous.

What you’re saying is really no different from saying that a congressmen should be impeached if a bill he sponsored or even voted for got struck down by the courts.

It sounds to me that you are interested in a coup than impeachment.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 19, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #203975

Paul,

I blew all of my optomism on the notion that Bush would have to listen to the ISG. I expected him to oppose the idea of bringing Syria and Iran into any regional talks, but otherwise I felt that he might listen to Baker. Just didn’t happen. Bush and Cheney are hell bent on following the Neo-Con philosophy of “westernizing” the middle east by force.

Reports like this; “Washington snubbed Iran offer” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm
cement the notion in my mind that Bush and Cheney have no desire to pursue anything but a military solution to all of our middle eastern affairs.

On the Iraqi front, Maliki says his forces lack the weaponry to be effective. We don’t trust them to keep the weapons out of the hands of the death squads and insurgents, but we trust them well enough to embed 20,000 of our bravest fellow Americans among them. Huh? And what exactly is going to keep Shia from turning on Sunni, and vice versa, after the “surge”?

At some point we must let Iraq solve it’s own internal conflicts. I say better sooner than later. I personally like John Warner’s approach:
“Rather than denouncing the president’s strategy, it would voice support for recommendations by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. That panel did not recommend sending more troops unless specifically requested by a military commander.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2368411.shtml

At the end of the day it’s a phenomenal mess and I fear it’s only going to get worse. Did I mention Iran? Arrrrgh!

Posted by: KansasDem at January 19, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #203977

Jay Jay et al
You are right. It is amazing what fear will do to some people. If Bush declared the next election was postponed because of national security some of our contributers would still support him. Alas we do not have a parlimentary system. If we did he would be dead meat and the world would be spared much grief. With congress actually exerciseing their responsibility of oversite I am pretty confident that they will turn up some serious “high crimes and misdeamors” that require impeachment. I wonder how many will still support him even in light of clear evidence?Cheny may well be forced out first. There is precedent with Agnew. At which point congress would have to approve his replacement. A person of Spectors caliber perhaps.Then ,and only then,if irrefutable evidence of inpeachable offense arizes should we move toward impeachment.At which point a constitutional crises will ensue. Then we will see who really believes in the Constitution.
There is some hope. Just read the Senate is getting rid of an oil subsidy and setting aside the money for alternative research,an item severly reduced in Bushco’s budget. The also passed ethics reform. This is happening with bipartisan support.

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #203985

“It absolutly amazes me how fear makes some people completely irrational”

“You are right. It is amazing what fear will do to some people”

So, believing our govt should do something to protect us from terrorists who have declared war on us, have killed thousands of us and will do everything they can to aid in our destruction, is based on nothing but fear?

But, believing our own President is trying to start WW III, is a regime, reads EVERYBODYs email, listens to EVERYBODYs phone calls, is intentionally sacrificing our soldiers for political gain, is leading a Christian takeover of America and the world, intentionally tortures innocent people, Iraq is all about oil etc… based in patriotism?

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #203993

Kctim:

What you posted is quite an extreme interpretation :)

I do believe that our president’s actions COULD start WWIII. Is he trying to? Probably not, but I do believe he wants to control the middle east. I don’t trust his knowledge or judgement in this area.

I also believe that bypassing the FISA court is not the same as “reads EVERYBODYs email, listens to EVERYBODYs phone calls”, but something we should be very concerned about.

There IS an aspect of political gain in this “surge” and it is highly questionable how thought out this approach has been.

“intentionally tortures innocent people” I’ll let that speak for itself.

“Christian takeover of America”, not to that extreme, but faith-based initiatives do concern me.

Iraq has always been about oil, perhaps not the driving force, but it is part of the deal.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 19, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #204005

WomanMarine
Do all of your concerns you just mention mean that you fear the Republican President and that you are allowing that fear to dictate your life? Do you live in constant fear of President Bush doing the things I listed?
Somehow I doubt that very much.

So why is it that when people are concerned about terrorism happening here again and they dont mind temporarily giving a little on some rights of theirs, are said to be blindly living in constant fear of terrorism?

Most people don’t fear Bush, they fear what some of his policies may do.
Most people don’t really fear terrorists, they fear what their actions may do, again.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #204011

Kctim:

We agree again :)

As for your first question, no, the fear does not dictate my life, and I’m not sure I would qualify my concerns to the level of fear. Sometimes it feels that way in my gut though. Constant? No.

It’s one thing to be willing to give up some rights, and another having them taken away from you. I think we differ there, on both the reason and the amount of loss. We’re probably not as far apart as it sometimes seems. The words on a page syndrome. I have never said people are blindly living in constant fear of terrorism. I suppose there might be a few people, there are almost always some folks at each end of a bell curve.

It just sometimes feels to me that the current administration goes to extremes (my opinion of extremes).

Posted by: womanmarine at January 19, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #204029

David Remer - not for vanity. We have to stay in Iraq because the moral crime would be to pull out now, if pulling out would mean that Iraq descends into chaos and bloodshed and we end up with another holocaust on our hands. We can argue all day about whether the war was justified (many believe it was, including many democrats at the time), but that’s irrelevant now. We are there and have created the situation that Iraq is currently in. We have a responsibility to the Iraqis to stay.

I wonder if all those who are advocating a withdrawal of troops are willing to accept responsibility for millions of deaths?

Posted by: nchoosier at January 19, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #204030

womanmarine:
“I do believe that our president’s actions COULD start WWIII.”

If we go to war with Iran, I think it’s likely to be the beginning of WWIII.

“Is he trying to? Probably not,”

I find it hard to get a read on the dimwitted and mentally unstable. They may not know anything at all about what their actions may lead to, yet will often act very cocksure and arrogant.

“but I do believe he wants to control the middle east. I don’t trust his knowledge or judgement in this area.”

I agree completely. Btw, have you heard about this?:
Condi Rice’s former speechwriter: “No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have even the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history.”

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #204034
I wonder if all those who are advocating a withdrawal of troops are willing to accept responsibility for millions of deaths?

They are not willing to accept responsibility for it… they are willing to ignore it completely, as happened with Vietnam.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 19, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #204036

nchoosier:
“We have a responsibility to the Iraqis to stay.”

No, not during their civil war. With the way things are there we have a much greater responsibility to our troops to get them out of harms way. And, after all we’ve spent these past four years to no avail, we owe it to ourselves to stop pouring billions of borrowed taxdollars into that country for no good reason.
They had a chance to have a peaceful democracy, but instead, they chose a theocracy, and wanted their civil war more. So, we need to pull back until it’s over, and when it is, we might then talk again about offering aid for reconstruction.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #204039

WomanMarine
“It’s one thing to be willing to give up some rights, and another having them taken away from you. I think we differ there, on both the reason and the amount of loss”

We only differ if you do not feel that way about ALL of our rights.

“It just sometimes feels to me that the current administration goes to extremes”

This is where we probably differ.
I do not believe the “current administration” is the correct term to use IF one is serious about doing what is best for our country. It is our government as a whole which has become perverted, goes to extremes and continues to do so, which is abusing us. And we willingly allow it.

Most things the left blames Bush for are similar to the same things the right blamed on clinton.
Did we stand together and demand justice? No.
The respective sides stand behind “their” guy and ignore, defend or excuse his actions. Nothing gets done. Nothing changes.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #204055

What a joke. Over 70% of the Shias and over 90% of the Shias WANT us out of THEIR country. The majority of Iraqis believe we are only in THEIR country for the oil. Three percent believe we are there to bring them democracy.

We have to be the most ethnocentric, self-centered country on the face of the earth.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2007 7:13 PM
Comment #204063

kctm
“Most of the things the things the left blames Bush for are similar to the same things the right blamed Clinton for”

What on Earth are you talking about? As I recall the right tried to blame (and still do) Clinton for every thing from peeling paint to atheletes foot but finally had to settle for lieing about a blow job.Oh yeah,they blamed him for”wagging the dog” when he ordered missile strikes against Al Quieda.
The left blames Bush for much more. I guess its because we have more material to work with.

A partial list:

Ignoring warnings about terrorist attacks
Dismissing top terrorist advisor,leading directly to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Turning what should have been a major police action,long since completed into a long term global threat by radicalizing Muslum youth with a unnecessary invasion based on personal grudge and a Imperial lust to control Middle-East oil.

Lieing about the reasons for the invasion.

Incompetant planning for the aftermath,leading directly to the deaths of over 3000 American soldiers and at least 34000 Iragis with no end in sight.

Squandering the budget surplus. Giving unneeded tax relief to the rich and very little to the middle class.

Purposefully running the deficit up for the idealogical purpose of keeping the government from honoring SS and other commitments.

Ignoring warning about the devastation of a major American city.Failing afterwords to deliver an adaguate or timely response.

Rammming through a prescription drug benefit designed to destroy Medicare for idealogical reasons.

Torture

Deverting funds to political cronies.

Denying reasearch funds to cure deseases for political reasons

I could go on all night. Anyone else care to contribute?

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 7:59 PM
Comment #204066

kctm
“Most of the things the things the left blames Bush for are similar to the same things the right blamed Clinton for”

What on Earth are you talking about? As I recall the right tried to blame (and still do) Clinton for every thing from peeling paint to atheletes foot but finally had to settle for lieing about a blow job.Oh yeah,they blamed him for”wagging the dog” when he ordered missile strikes against Al Quieda.
The left blames Bush for much more. I guess its because we have more material to work with.

A partial list:

Ignoring warnings about terrorist attacks
Dismissing top terrorist advisor,leading directly to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Turning what should have been a major police action,long since completed into a long term global threat by radicalizing Muslum youth with a unnecessary invasion based on personal grudge and a Imperial lust to control Middle-East oil.

Lieing about the reasons for the invasion.

Incompetant planning for the aftermath,leading directly to the deaths of over 3000 American soldiers and at least 34000 Iragis with no end in sight.

Squandering the budget surplus. Giving unneeded tax relief to the rich and very little to the middle class.

Purposefully running the deficit up for the idealogical purpose of keeping the government from honoring SS and other commitments.

Ignoring warning about the devastation of a major American city.Failing afterwords to deliver an adaguate or timely response.

Rammming through a prescription drug benefit designed to destroy Medicare for idealogical reasons.

Torture

Deverting funds to political cronies.

Denying reasearch funds to cure deseases for political reasons

I could go on all night. Anyone else care to contribute?

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #204108

Kctim:

“We only differ if you do not feel that way about ALL of our rights.”

Well, I do feel that way. I suspect where we differ is that I believe we have to work backwards a little at a time to regain those rights. We also may differ on what rights we have actually lost or are losing. It would be an interesting discussion, as I appreciate how you respond to my posts.

“It is our government as a whole which has become perverted, goes to extremes and continues to do so, which is abusing us. And we willingly allow it.”

Absolutely true, I agree. Where we differ is in degree again. It’s kind of a case of who we consider the lesser of the evils :)

The big consideration is how to change direction as citizens, with so many levels of disagreement.

Sometimes I just want to go to Congress, each of the houses and yell “STOP”!! What the hell are you thinking!!

Posted by: womanmarine at January 20, 2007 12:41 AM
Comment #204109

Phx8:

We have to be the most ethnocentric, self-centered country on the face of the earth.

We certainly are. I couldn’t agree more. So many times I wonder who the hell we think we are as a nation.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 20, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #204126

We are a nation trying to protect itself. Have you all forgotten about 9/11 already? Have you forgotten that many democrats, including Hillary Clinton, thought that Saddam had WMD and was an imminent threat? Have you forgotten that the intelligence agencies of many other countries also thought Saddam had WMD? Have you forgotten that Saddam wouldn’t let the UN weapons inspectors finish their work? Have you forgotten that Congress authorized military action against Iraq?

Had Bush not gone into Iraq, and had there been another terrorist attack here on our soil after 9/11, you all would be blaming Bush for not protecting us.

Posted by: nchoosier at January 20, 2007 8:43 AM
Comment #204133

nchoosier
The problem we had with the wmd thing was that Bush told Sadam he had so much time before we would invade giving him time to get rid of them. I do fault Bush for this had he just invaded or if Bush Sr would have finished what he started wmd’s probably would have been found.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #204186

KAP - DUUUUHHHH! there were no WMD’s! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. On the other hand, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Now, why didn’t GW go after Saudi, a country that funds terrorist schools around the world. That funds Islamofacism around the world. That has done a deal with the devil (wahabis) whereby as long as they don’t threaten the regime, they can pretty much do their own thing. In reciprocation, the regime will not do anything contrary to Wahabi strict Islamic teaching. That’s why women can’t vote, why they have public beheadings, why they have religious police etc etc etc. Now that sounds to me to be a country that could do with a little bit of democracy. Anyone on the right agree with me and if not, why not? Surely if democracy is good enough for Iraqis, it should be good enough for Saudis?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 20, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #204561

You don’t sound very reasonable to me but I’m going to proceed as if you are.

What does Stay the course and change the course mean? Well, it means one thing to a hyper political Bush HATING left winger and it means something else to people who are more moderate.

Bush is changing his approach, so in a sense, you are already right….Bush has responded to the pressure but changing the course that things are taking over there in what amounts to one last chance for Iraq to avoid civil war.

But if by “change the course” you mean surrender and run away…then no, Bush has no plans to surrender and run away. Why? No, it has nothing to do with his Daddy, his pocket book, his legacy, or any of the left wing hate BS.

Bush will not surrender because he can see the other side to that. He can see a civil war that kills hundreds of thousands. He can see radical islam assendent. He can see countries on the edge being pushed over as a result of that disasterous defeat. He can see suffering and loss of freedom and human rights spreading throughout the middle east, in Africa, and even the far east and the pacfic rim.

The democratic party has no plan for that, and will accept no responsiblity for that, even if they cut funding and force it to happen.

After all, those who suffer wont be your children right! They will be foreigners killing each other, losing their nations, their hope, their lives to radical Islam.

So if you define “Changing Course” as “Cut N Run” no, Bush has no plans to do that. Not at least until he’s made another try to salvage the situation for all of us.

Posted by: stephen L at January 23, 2007 2:50 AM
Post a comment