Democrats & Liberals Archives

Outrage on Cue: Republicans and their Defensiveness Policy

Let me congratulate the Republicans. They managed to both scuttle a bill meant to give troops more time to re-equip, rest, and train, and to get one passed with the typically timorous group of Democrats voting to express the sentiment of the Senate condemning an add that questioned the honesty of a General. You see, material service to the soldiers isn’t supporting the troops. No, lip service will do.

A similar bill, which they used their typical partisan blockading tactics to also scuttle, at least would have had the good taste to extend such respect not just to General Petraeus, who was supporting the Bush Administration policy, but to all our men and women in uniform.

Of course, this would have meant the Republicans would have to admit that going after John Kerry and Max Cleland, among others, was wrong. So, we can safely conclude that military experience only counts for the Republicans when it's the experience of those who support the war. Everybody else is fair game.

I thought the headline was rather crass myself, and not particularly clever. I also don't think that devaluing the reputation of a soldier without solid evidence for wrongdoing on their part is a supportable political tactic. As a grandson of a veteran, I've never thought that fair game. Pretensions to being a great warrior, yes. Bush was fair game because he traded on a military career that by most evidence and accounts was rather less than stellar. But there, the evidence shows he did not fulfill his commitments. It wasn't innuendo, as was the case with Kerry, or the testimony of former soldiers whose accounts ran counter to the evidence, and even their own past statements and actions.

Long have the Republicans traded on the Democrats being a party of pacifists because of the Vietnam War, but they have a dirty little secret: few of their top politicians ever wore the uniform, and of the ones who did, their most notable one never wore it in combat. The President and Vice president who sent thousands to death and permanent disability never once had a shot fired at them, and in fact took deliberate steps to avoid serving in Vietnam. Cheney sought a number of deferments, and Bush applied for the Air National Guard in Texas, writing on his application that he did not want to serve overseas. The difficulties and waiting lists concerning getting into it indicate, along with his mediocre test scores, that he did not get in their on his own.

It's a very interesting thing if you look at the history of what these people actually said and did at the time. The Neocons, generally, were not supporters of the war in Vietnam, giving many of our same reasons for why they thought it was a waste of time. They had bigger fish to fry, like the Soviet Union.

Once the Soviets fell, it was Rogue Nations. They wanted America to be unhindered by any other commitments aside from moral ones, as they saw it. After 9/11, they added a gloss of counterterrorism, but it was all rationalized back into a fight against any rival who could potentially challenge America's ability to slay dragons as it would, one which in the final analysis distracted us from real counterterrorism.

Years of this political dominance on military matters, of being the party that wasn't chastened by the failures and division of the Vietnam war, made the Republicans the carrier of this image of Defenders of the Realm. The fact that they could, without qualification, advocate war against America's rivals in the world didn't hurt. Reagan's success in negotiating the beginnings of the Soviet's Cold War collapse, nor Bush's military success in Panama and Kuwait. However, those successes were not built on the mythology of Republican power, but instead on a shared, centrist foreign policy vision, one that used both diplomacy and military action with equal skill. Later small wars successes under Clinton reflected this. Americas failures came when they overcompensated in one direction or another, when they forgot the real lessons of Vietnam.

And what are those? You're not fighting to avoid losing. You're fighting to attain goals. Wars are about more than body counts, on either side. I know the left tends to emphasize the number of soldiers dead, but I think it would help to remember why this count mattered in the first place: the vast majority of deaths in Iraq have been technically post-war casualties. Remember the end of major combat operations? We won the battle against Saddam Hussein over four years ago. Won it brilliantly. But because of how the Republicans managed the war, before during and after, the triumph was brief. Since then Iraq has fallen apart, and our war effort has become a bloody mess. Republicans like to blame the subsequent meltdown on the terrorists, on the Saddam Loyalists, but the truth was that when you triumph so handily over an opponent, you only lose on account of your own failures. We had the initiative. We had the opportunities. It was our war to win at that point, and we never had it any better. If the Bush administration had responded then, we might have won the war, and met our goals as we originally envisioned them, not merely as it's become politically necessary to revise them to keep ahead of the failures of the war.

It was wrong for MoveOn to be so small in the language they used to criticize Petraeus, but largely the ad was rather irrelevant to the mood of the country either way it will likely remain minor political history to most folks. Americans simply didn't believe what Petraeus had to say.

Americans are smart. They look at the war, and they see goals never attained, even as the administration continues to fall back to less and less ambitious positions, taking the goalposts with them. They aren't fooled. The only people who respond to this are the Republicans themselves, who are seeking to regain the pride that they've lost during the course of the Bush Administration.

Democrats need to get past their crisis of confidence. Republicans have made it clear to their base and the majority of the country (who they oppose) that they own this war, that they're responsible for what has happened. They've made it clear that they're not going to admit how hopeless they've made their own situation, and that of their country in Iraq. They are clinging to their generation's worth of pride in themselves, trying salvage a legacy that they squandered in their hubris.

They have come to believe that fighting for their own tarnished honor and denying the depths of their current disgrace is one and the same with fighting for their country. They have become that narrow in their understanding of the policies, that close-minded to the extent that they've taken things down the wrong track. They believe perversely enough, that they can regain public support by fighting tooth and nail against what the public, in the majority, truly supports.

The time to try and make peace and compromise with the other side of the aisle has long been over. Those that will see the error of the current policy, have, for the most part, admitted to it. Those that remain are either too scared or too belligerent to take anything but Bush's party line. They see no problem in sticking a thumb in our eye and making sure that the legacy of this Current congress will be spare indeed. By year's end, they may have tripled the previous record for bills blocked by cloture votes in the senate.

Most of the time, when you hear about the Senate failing to approve of something, there is actually a majority in support of it, yet not enough to break a filibuster, and that is why the bill is being defeated. The Republicans are taking a party-line attitude towards thwarting the legislative agenda upon which the new Democratic majority was voted in.

Some Democrats in Washington are afraid that they may be seen as partisan, strident, or whatever term has been thrown our way by the Republicans about our opposition. They wish to appear as part of the center, as part of the mainstream, and not be labeled far left, or God help us, Liberal.

It's not surprising given that many of these people are survivors of years of such abuse that they withdraw in the face of such threats. But you know what? We won. And if you look, our position IS the center now. We are the majority now. The wind is at our backs, and the only thing draining us of support in the American public is our unwillingness to acknowledge how much of it we have to do what it is precisely our desire to do.

We have the mandate. Yes, they can technically beat us down every time because of the way the Senate ended up after the election. But you know what? We don't have to make it easy, much less painless for these people. When somebody keeps on socking you in the face, poking you in the eyes, and kicking you in the nuts, it is perfectly justifiable to start beating the crap out of them, to stop pulling the punches or making idle threats of what we're going to do if they don't stop.

The time has come to stop giving up without a fight. It's just ridiculous at this point that we're not giving these guys more black eyes or bruises. It's time to stand up for what we believe in. It's not like we'll be standing alone.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2007 10:09 AM
Comments
Comment #233913

The only reason the Dems put these bills up is to satisfy the extreme left…They really don’t believe in any of them and frankly, they are glad they don’t see the light of day…

I wish they would take the stand of the Moveon people and fight it out…then the american people could have a true chose this election…

Posted by: will at September 22, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #233914

will-
To satisfy the extreme left? The majority of Americans, the mainstream, want this war over. If the mainstream of American politics seems extreme left to you, what does it say about your own position on the political spectrum? The American people already had their choice, and they chose us. In 2008, they’ll choose us again. There’s a reason, you just don’t want to confront it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #233919

Stephen,

I thought this was interesting:

“What MoveOn hasn’t told you is that the “General Betray-Us” moniker isn’t their invention. It’s been reported in the British press to be coined by a retired General:

“Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.”

That quote comes from the same Lane Hudson that posted the emails from Mark Foley to a sixteen year old House Page on www.stopsexpredators.blogspot.com many moons ago.

His new blog is:
http://www.newsfortheleft.blogspot.com/

And the “British press” article he’s referring to is here:
August 19, 2007
Americans doubt ‘General Betraeus’ over troop surge
http://tinyurl.com/2xky52

I’m extremely disappointed in the 22 Dems (not including Lieberman) who voted yes on condemning moveon. It’s ridiculous. Moveon expressed a sentiment shared by MANY of us, myself included.

I think Petraeus deserves every bit of criticism he’s receiving in the media. It’s not only our right, but our responsibility to critique ANY of our nations leadership, whether they’re politicians or members of the military leadership.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 22, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #233922

If the “majority of Americans, the mainstream, want this war over…” then Democrats in congress would have no trouble getting the necessary votes to override a veto. Congress has a deeply ingrained habit of folding like a cheap tent when their actions are opposite of what the people want.

The trouble with your claim is, most Americans want this war over but they don’t want it the way you want it…surrender and defeat.

Their position reveals the hatred Democrats feel for their own country…a hatred for one man and his party that has overcome their common sense to the degree they wish defeat and destruction on their own country for their own short-term political gain.

If Democrats would, for once, fully support the troops by backing the mission, then the insurgency and AQ in Iraq would see a united front facing them and the war just might end soon.

But instead, they see division, and calls for retreat from the leaders of their enemy which encourages them to continue until Democrats force a premature withdrawal.

What Democrats are doing is joining with the enemy to defeat their own country in a war and refusing to address the consequences while dressing it up as some kind of self-destructive patriotism.

The public doesn’t buy it just like they were repulsed by the Moveon.org slander of the general risking his life to defend this country.

Calling Bush and Cheney cowardly while working daily to aid the enemy in defeating your own country is the height of hypocrisy.

The “majority of Americans” see what Democrats are doing and will respond accordingly at the next election because they don’t want what all the Democrats want, surrender and defeat, for their country.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #233925

“It’s not only our right, but our responsibility to critique ANY of our nations leadership, whether they’re politicians or members of the military leadership.”

It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.

If you want to “critique our nations leadership” why not do it by helping them win instead of working for defeat?

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #233931

kansasdem,

the whole to do with moveon.org is just partisan grandstanding… notice that when the republicans where in the majority and a similar thing happened with John Kerry and swiftboat that there was no such congressional condemnation, the republicans where tickled to death to see a smear of a dem but when it hurt the neo con agenda all of the sudden there is a vote to condemn. Kerry was a soldier and defended our county just as Petrayus is doing but i guess in neo con eyes he just didnt rate.

partisanship sucks

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #233932

SD
I reject the premise the Rep leadership refuses to acknowlege defeat. What they are acknoweleging is victory. What they are trying to protect is that victory. The US now controls the 3rd largest oil reserve.Oil companies are making huge profits. They won. They fully expect the occupation to continue,either with the large involvement of American troops or the Iraqi puppet army,paid for,supplied and directed for the express purpose of maintaining US control of oil ang global dominance.
I agree the Dems should play hardball. If the Reps want tp filibuster to exhaust the troops let them stand there for days telling how great it is to violate the Pentagons own rules for length of deployment.

Posted by: BillS at September 22, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #233933

sorry i misspelled Petraeus

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #233934

This bill was designed mostly to cripple the ability to deploy our armed forces. It is well that the Senate rejected it.

It sounds good. Who can argue with giving brave troops a rest before going back. The problem is that units are not made up of all the same guys. There is a mix of veterans and new recruits. It is a healthy mix. If you rotate out all the veterans, you will not get the benefit of their experience. You also would not be able to move soldiers around.

We have an all volunteer military. Most of those in Iraq would prefer to be somewhere else, but they are doing their duty and they are mostly proud to do so. I recently talked to a group of Marines who had been in Iraq and were scheduled to go back. They were not eager to leave their families and friends. They were eager to get back where they believed they would be doing something good and useful.

I believe that the problem is that Dems often view members of our military as victims. In fact, they are very mature men and women who made a logical (for them) and noble choice. Employers should be happy to have such young men and women. They are amazingly more mature and responsible than the run of the mill young person in our hedonistic age.

What we should do is pay them better and perhaps ensure more benefits when they return to civilian life. That is something Congress can do. Congress should not micromanage troop deployments. We should be thankful that the Senate has stepped away from that foolishness.

Posted by: Jack at September 22, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #233936
I believe that the problem is that Dems often view members of our military as victims.

What a bullshit statement.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 22, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #233937

“…notice that when the republicans where in the majority and a similar thing happened with John Kerry and swiftboat that there was no such congressional condemnation.”

The perception of Kerry’s war record is that he went to Vietnam to get his “combat ticket punched” with the goal of getting the required number of Purple Hearts to justify returning “as a viable war hero” which he promptly cashed in by joining the anti-war movement providing it with much needed credibility.

All Kerry needed to debunk as a smear what the Swiftboat Vets were saying is to release his military records - something he said he’d do but as yet we’re still waiting for.

What voters responded to was the fact that Kerry returned from a war and promptly turned on his fellow soldiers, calling them the army of Ghengis Khan - while they were still on the battlefield, and transparently for his own short-term political gain.

As an added insult to his brothers in the field, he met with leaders of North Vietnam to negotiate the US surrender in Southeast Asia which resulted in the murder of millions of innocent people which, in the face of overwhelming evidence Kerry maintains did not occur.

North Vietnamese generals have said that Kerry’s efforts aided them immeasurably in their victory since they knew they couldn’t defeat the US military in battle but they could hold on until America’s leaders were persuaded to leave. Democrats in congress cut off much needed funds to the South Vietnam army in 1975 and the NVA promptly overran them.

John Kerry and Jane Fonda committed treason - caused many unneeded US soldiers deaths with their sedition. Instead of being praised as a “decorated combat veteran” John Kerry should be tried for sedition and treason, convicted and hanged right alongside Jane Fonda.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 1:34 PM
Comment #233939

“It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.”

My kingdom for an original thought.

Posted by: Rocky at September 22, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #233940

Posted by: Snardius
John Kerry and Jane Fonda committed treason - caused many unneeded US soldiers deaths with their sedition. Instead of being praised as a “decorated combat veteran” John Kerry should be tried for sedition and treason, convicted and hanged right alongside Jane Fonda.

since when does exercising ones constitutional right for free speech equate to treason. wake up this is the 21st century mideval reasoning and ignoring the bill of rights isnt an option.

speaking your mind no matter how popular your opinion, is protected by our great constitution.

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #233941

“My kingdom for an original thought.”

My prayers that you will have one…

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #233943

“…speaking your mind no matter how popular your opinion, is protected by our great constitution.”

The first amendment guarantees your right to free speech but as with all rights it carries responsibility. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech and you have no right to do so. Similarly, we have no right to give aid and comfort to our enemy no matter how you want to dress it up as your right to “speak your mind.”

Encouraging our enemy in Iraq by publicly slandering the general ordered to conduct our forces there is, at best, irresponsible, at worst sedition and treason.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #233944

John,

“…since when does exercising ones constitutional right for free speech equate to treason.”

With Fonda and Kerry, they didn’t just exercise their right to free speech. Through their actions (Kerry testified falsely before congress about the actions of our soldiers - Fonda visited Hanoi and allowed herself to be filmed posed on an anti-aircraft gun for propaganda purposes) they undermined the mission of our soldiers in combat.

None of these actions can be called protected speech under the constitution.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #233945

BillS,

“…paid for, supplied and directed for the express purpose of maintaining US control of oil and global dominance.”

I hope so - I can’t think of a better reason to be there.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #233946

now this is funny you equate speaking out against a war that one finds unjustified with inciting a riot by yelling fire. no person of any intelligence sees a connection there i guess that when our forefathers argued publicly against king george that they should have been captured and executed for sedition and treason as well.

when a government infringes on its citizens uninalienable rights or freedoms it is the responsibility of TRUE patriots to speak up and tell that government that we will not go softly into the night and that the more they oppress civil liberties such as free speech, such as the right to have a dissenting view and vocalize it, the louder true patriots will sing their song.
I dont buy that speaking out against the government and its actions are treason that is a ridiculous position and is not supported by any law anywhere in the USA.

i think you need to really examine your beliefs , they more properly belong in 18th century europe or mid 1940’s germany.

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #233947

funny i dont remember Kerry being charged with and convicted of testifing falsely under oath to congress(perjury)… did i miss that?

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #233948

John,
“when our forefathers argued publicly against king george that they should have been captured and executed for sedition and treason as well.”

They were - and King George had every right to do so since they were advocating the overthrow of his government.

The difference here is that what Democrats are doing is not trying to overthrow our government so much as undermining our army in a time of war by siding with the goals of our enemy.

“…when a government infringes on its citizens uninalienable rights or freedoms it is the responsibility of TRUE patriots to speak up and tell that government that we will not go softly into the night”

Contrary to what you think, none of your rights have been infringed upon or we wouldn’t be able to have this conversation.

If there is any infringing going on it’s being done by the congress in their attempt to satisfy their fringe Left by hampering the president in his duty to protect our country “from all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #233949

John,

“funny i dont remember Kerry being charged with and convicted of testifing falsely under oath to congress(perjury)… did i miss that?”

No, because charging him with perjury would have been politically unpopular (to say nothing of elevating him further as a persecuted anti-war veteran). But his testimony has been repudiated. What he said was false and came from others in the anti-war movement who had not even been to Vietnam.

Kerry was not an eye-witness to any atrocities and if he were basing his testimony on his eye-witness accounts he failed, at the time, to bring them to the attention of his chain of command. That alone guts the credibility of his testimony.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #233950

the following are exerpts from a speech made by John Kerry about his antiwar activism in the 1970s’ and todays war and antiwar activism i believe that it speaks for itself.


I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971…..

The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive “war of choice” that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives…. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth…. And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: “A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood.”….America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #233952

I take exception to the statement that Republicans “managed to both scuttle a bill…” Since when is 56 vote a loss? Didn’t the bill win a majority? Isn’t 51 votes a majority? Sure, it isn’t veto-proof, but the Senate should have sent it to Bush for the veto. Make him do the dirty work where our troops are concerned. It reflects directly on him if he vetoes the bill.

Posted by: MikeF at September 22, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #233954
If the “majority of Americans, the mainstream, want this war over…” then Democrats in congress would have no trouble getting the necessary votes to override a veto.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are neither IN Congress nor are they REPRESENTED in Congress at the current time…just who are the obstructionists now???

Posted by: Rachel at September 22, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #233955

Isn’t 51 votes a majority? that is a simple majority on the introduction of a bill that is if all senators are present. in the case of a simplpe majority it needs only a true simple majority if the caucaus but it takes 60 votes in the senate to “break a fillibuster” and go on to final voting on a bill … dems missed that by 9 votes

Posted by: john at September 22, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #233956

Some of you have very strange logic indeed. If I recall correctly, The President of the United States received authority from Congress to make war on terrorists where ever found and at his discretion. That act of Congress made the President’s actions legal and the official position of the United States. Until Congress rescinds that consent, that authority remains. When a private citizen purposefully seeks, by words or deeds, to undermine the legal authority of the nation that is not patriotism. We have a ballot box to settle our national differences.
All this nonsense about who is right or who is wrong is counter-productive to our nation’s legal and stated purpose. Change peoples minds with civil discourse please, not blather.

Posted by: Jim at September 22, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #233957

“I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
— John Kerry

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 4:36 PM
Comment #233958

“The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong.

Millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians couldn’t be reached for comment because Kerry and others “dissented” and surrendered them to the communists.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #233959

“Since when is 56 vote a loss?”

When it takes 60 votes for it to pass?

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #233960

Jim, I believe what’s taking place on here certainly qualifies as civil discourse….the fact that you may not agree is irellevant:
v. (d-skôrs, -skrs) dis·coursed, dis·cours·ing, dis·cours·es
v.intr.
1. To speak or write formally and at length. See Synonyms at speak.
2. To engage in conversation or discussion; converse.
How is it that so many can so easily sidestep the fact that Bush took us into Iraq in spite of the information provided, rather than because of it???

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 22, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #233962

Sandra,

“How is it that so many can so easily sidestep the fact that Bush took us into Iraq in spite of the information provided, rather than because of it???”

Because the world community believed Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and reflected that by passing 17 resolutions demanding that he disarm and surrender his WMD (he’d used them before, he must still have them).

Bush asked for and got authority from congress to enter Iraq and disarm Saddam. Those in congress who now claim that Bush misled them must also claim that Clinton mislead them, too, since his position when he was still in office was identical to that which caused Bush to ask for authorization to disarm Saddam.

That Democrats who now say they were duped by Bush are guilty of pure political opportunism.

Aside from the fact that, if you believe as they do that Bush is a blithering idiot, if they were duped by a blithering idiot they are too stupid to lead this country anyway.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #233963

Snardius-
Silent majorities are wonderful, aren’t they? Problem is, nobody hears from yours. It’s not the people who block the bills coming out of the Senate, it’s a caucus of Republicans that consistently votes along party lines to extend debate (that is, threaten a filibuster). This is how bills with majority support, including the one that opposes general attacks on the military, manage to die.

Go check the votes if you think I’m full of it. I can wait until you return more familiar with what the polls and the Senate votes say.

As for Kerry? Let me ask you a question: If Kerry’s goal was to get his ticket punched, why did he take such a controversial view upon coming home? If he just wanted it for the aura of heroism, coming back home and making a lot of big noise would be counterproductive. He could have shut his mouth and kept himself much more electable.

One can interpret Kerry’s action once he got home in any number of ways, but there were much safer ways of becoming a political star.

As for Kerry’s military records? Why don’t you compare disclosures here? Bush gave scraps and your side praised his “full” disclosures. Kerry fills in practically his whole career, and your people say he hasn’t shown enough. Such bull. Republicans get a pass on their service(or lack of same), but Democrats have to practically send CSI to their theatre of operation to meet your standards. Thanks for proving the point of my original entry.

Kerry’s testimony was on behalf of many veterans like himself. The atrocities are well documented. Kerry didn’t spare himself, but he didn’t blame the soldiers for their actions. He chalked it up to the commanders and the politicians who were unwilling to admit the problems of the war, but fully willing to put soldiers in harms way to confront them with no way of triumphing over them.

As for North Vietnam? It’s interesting how quick you are to use their selective approach to telling soldiers the truth to justify blaming Kerry and those like him for the loss of Vietnam. Let’s get something clear here: When Kerry asked the question “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” The public he addressed understood that mistake to be Vietnam, and agreed with him. Nixon campaigned on having a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. The Neocons you would so quickly defend today, The Vice President even, were voicing their own criticisms, favoring a pull out.

Kerry was not responsible for America wanting to leave. The most he did was participate as a voice confirming that this was the better decision. As for America cutting off funds in 1975? I got a question for you: What good did America do by propping up South Vietnam all those years? The time to have won was early on, in the early sixties. We should have worked with the Vietnamese, rather than try and impose ourselves on top of them. Unfortunately, the way we conducted that war ended up playing to the enemy’s strengths and against our own. We didn’t lose Vietnam because of bad press and doubtful folks at home. We lost it because we applied inappropriate means to the goal we sought, means that did not work to get us, or the folks who trusted us in South Vietnam what they needed.

Our involvement in Vietnam was not free of charge. We essentially had to suffer through the economic disasters of the Seventies paying for the Vietnam War. Ironically, what made it worse was the deficit spending; had we done it out of straight tax dollars, it wouldn’t have hit us so hard.

But hey, all this logic, all these facts, you don’t care. You just want to continue four decades worth of partisan vitriol. Never mind examining the facts behind the claims. Never mind looking into the documentations to see whose story seems most straight. No, we’re just to call people names and disrespect service when the the people who paid their dues don’t also pay Republican dues.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #233967

Snardius, I do most certainly believe that Bush is a blithering idiot, but back before so many of us were proven right about that, there were a larger number still hanging onto the belief and hope that we were wrong, and that Mr. B.I. just might do something intelligent.
Check out more current information and see those on the red side of the aisle who were duped as well, and have since changed their opinions.
That 11% support is not just a partisan showing, either.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 22, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #233969

Stephen,

“As for Kerry’s military records?”

If Kerry’s military records would have debunked the Swiftboat vets, then why didn’t he release them all? Could it be that his military records supported what the Swiftboat vets were saying?

“The atrocities are well documented. Kerry didn’t spare himself, but he didn’t blame the soldiers for their actions”

Kerry didn’t spare himself? Just what atrocities did he commit? And calling them “the army of Ghengis Khan” is not assigning blame?

“If Kerry’s goal was to get his ticket punched, why did he take such a controversial view upon coming home? “

Being anti-war in 1971 was controversial? People in 1971 were calling returning soldiers “baby killers” and spitting on them. Kerry was preaching to the choir when he testified. He took the position he did because it made him more politically viable, not less.

Posted by: Snardius at September 22, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #233975

“Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are neither IN Congress nor are they REPRESENTED in Congress at the current time…just who are the obstructionists now???”

Rachel,

Wham ……… Bam …………. that is exactly how I feel!!!!!! The so called “report” from Petraeus and Crocker was so damn obviously a Republican hack-job it’s ridiculous!!!!!!!!!

And, for our own party to Betray Us by voting yes for this piece of crap amendment does make me wonder if we shouldn’t just let the Republican’ts win again!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it is time to go GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 22, 2007 7:13 PM
Comment #233979

Snardius, my compliments to you, you are the first of the righties to acknowledge this debacle is about our addiction to oil and not freedom for the Iraqi people from a brutish dictator and establishing a democracy in the middle east.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 22, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #233981

“It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.”

snardius,

That suggests that I’m guilty of treason!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’d argue that it is my responsibility to speak out regarding MY nations security and the treatment of OUR troops by a negligent CinC and his bunch of toadies!

Just consider that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz disregarded the advice of General Eric Shinseki who was the Chief of Staff of the Army and they openly criticized his recommendations regarding troop levels prior to and following the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to hang the title of “traitor” on anyone I suggest you begin with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice. From there you can work your way on through the whole damn administration ……… including General Betray-Us!

Petraeus violated his oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC ………… without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ………”

Need I repeat, “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”!!!!!!!!!

IMO Petraeus displayed a “purpose of evasion” and the 22 chicken shit Democrats that went along with the Republi-nazi condemnation of “moveon” should be run out of DC on a rail!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 22, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment #233982

Snardius-
What makes you think he didn’t? As for debunking the SwiftVets?

One of these guys is contradicted by his own medal citation. Two of these guys pitched in to help Kerry on tough election campaign, where they could have sunk him in a second. Much of what they say is countered by the official records and citations in question. Kerry authorized the Navy to turn over the records, and the Navy did. Are you telling me that the Navy joined Kerry in a conspiracy to defraud the voters of the nation?

All this “unfit for command” crap is mostly fog of war revisionism of events decades in the past, by people feeling the pressure of folks playing on their military spirit and patriotism at a time when many felt the war a necessary and critical enterprise. Without hard evidence to back the charges, this is just the former debating rival of Kerry coming back to do the dirty work of another political machine.

And yes, being anti-war in 1971 still was controversial, just as it is now. Not ever community greeted the anti-war movement with open arms, and Kerry lost the election he attempted at that point. The argument that it made him more politically viable runs right into the reality that it didn’t.

But of course, this is all a distraction from a fact you wish not to face: your own people didn’t like the war. Not until it became politically convenient for getting your knocks in on Democrats.

And how about Max Cleland? I remember the respect they gave him. Just because he wouldn’t support your war, he gets portrayed as best buddies with Bin Laden and Saddam. Worse, the accident that made him a triple amputee gets slimed by your people. Going to get a beer with friends becomes him being drunk. Picking up a grenade he thought may have fallen off his belt becomes stupid rather than responsible decision. An accident caused by an unfortunate private messing with the pin becomes a drunken mistake by Cleland. The accuse him of claiming to be a war hero because of being blown up by this grenade, when in fact his actions in the seige of Khe Sanh earn him this honor.

But of course, such honors will always be questioned, twisted, and have tortured logic applied to them to give the Republican party the unquestionable advantage on a war that many of them dodged, including the man they chose to run against Cleland.

I’m sick of this slimeball politics. You see, the problem is MoveOn wasn’t especially egregious in its words, it’s just that they were amateurs at the mudslinging your side employs without a second thought.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment #233987

Snardius- Do you really believe your attempts at

swiftboating those here on this Blog. are worth all

your waisted time invested? Since swiftboating is

tactless an with out facts, really is not all that

difficult, now is it!

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 22, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #233992

Whatever the truth is about Kerry’s military records, to this day it makes no sense to me at all that he didn’t simply release all of those records BEFORE instead of after the 2004 election. Why didn’t he? I only half-way paid attention to this controversy while it was taking place, but it always seemed strange to me that if he was telling the truth, he didn’t just put the matter to bed by releasing those records. And it still seems weird to me that he’s only allowed a few hand-picked media outlets to review them while refusing others—including the general public—the same opportunity.

Though it’s water under the bridge now, but I suspect that a great many people who were disposed to reject the claims of the Swiftvets at the time started having second thoughts as a result of Kerry’s odd behavior and the appearance that he was being less than forthcoming. Seems to me that Kerry supporters are the ones who should be most upset about how poorly he handled this matter—especially if they believe that the truth was on Kerry’s side.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 22, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #233995

This administration needs to get it’s story straight.

Are we in Iraq serving the needs of the Iraqi people?
If this is the case we need our diplomatic corps to start working some overtime, as this isn’t the mission our troops are trained for.

If we are there for the oil, we as Americans need to do some serious soul searching and realign our priorities.

If America has the abilities to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the technology to create and sustain war, why can’t we come up with a viable solution to replace our dependence on Middle East oil?

Posted by: Rocky at September 22, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #233999

Rocky

The diplomatic service is working overtime. We are doubling the number of PRTs and they are being led by senior State Department officials.

We were not in Iraq to serve the needs of the Iraqi people. But if we do not serve their needs, we cannot accomplish our security goals.

The new strategy we started in January 2007 is much more in line with the total diplomatic/security/building scenario outlined in the new army counterinsurgency manual, written in large part by General Patreaus.

We made many mistakes. It is still risky and very dangerous, but I believe we will win this one. We will help establish a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors.

Posted by: Jack at September 22, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment #234003

Wednesday Gates will ask Congress for more money- we’re up to $195 billion now.

Posted by: phx8 at September 22, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #234012

LO-
First, why should Kerry have expected to be slimed on his combat decorations (for which he provided all the relevant documentation)?

Second, why should Kerry have to prove himself innocent of having faked the deeds necessary to get the medals? Why isn’t the presumption that he earned them?

Why do the SwiftVets get such a free pass on all the factual mistakes and discrepancies, while again and again, Kerry gets roasted for the least bit of deviation from the record?

Why isn’t the burden of proof on these people who made these extraordinary claims?

The trouble we got here is that Republicans have given value for suspicions and insinuations equal to that of hard fact. If you work that way, though, Kerry can’t win.

And why does Bush get a free pass at having a document disclosure that most closely resembles a picked snowbird? There’s much more evidence to support that he ditched his drills than that Kerry faked his mdeals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #234013

LO- Your Republican Glass houses are just now beginning to crack, an seems the more they throw
stones at the Democrats the faster Republicans fall.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 22, 2007 11:25 PM
Comment #234017

Stephen,
Good link on the polls. When will Democrats start acting in accordance with what the majority of Americans want? Yes, the Republicans will filibuster, & yes, Bush will veto. Let them. Reid & Pelosi & the Democratic leadership keep trying to play nice, in hopes of getting something done. Forget it. The polls clearly show Americans favor the liberal agenda. It is time to demand it.

Kansas Dem,
Good comment. I am very frustrated with the Democrats. Okay, I understand they face endless filibusters. In their defense, they did try to pass a bill for immediate withdrawal, which failed miserably, as well as a bill for a more gradual withdrawal, which failed 47-47. They need to keep trying. Make it abundantly clear to the American people what Democrats stand for, and what the GOP stands for. Let”s vote on it in 2008.

I totally understand the urge to vote Green. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is doing what I want them to do. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of Democrats who enable the Republican agenda, whether they intend to or not.

Nevertheless, one thing I am absolutely positive about: I have had enough of the Repubican agenda to last a lifetime. And if it means voting for Dems to prevent those people from having power, well, as weak and pathetic as the Dems may be, they are far preferable to the “good germans” who back Bush. They have disgraced our country and its ideals.

With a little luck, the Democratic Party will have a supermajority in both houses & a Dem president.

Sadly, the Democrats will inherit a horrible mess.

Thanks, Republicans. Nice job. Way to screw our country.

Posted by: phx8 at September 23, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #234019

Stephen,

There is no point in going backwards on this. The focus must always be forwards. To me forward thinking says WE DEMS must let the Senate know just how bad this betrayal pisses us off.

Well, it really makes me think that the Green Party should prevail …………. honestly! If we Dems have grown so weak that we’ll cave in to just anything, maybe it is time to write an obituary for the Democratic Party.

Actually an obit sounds good. Maybe we should all take out a paid obit in our local papers designating the day the Democratic Party died!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 23, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #234021

phx8,

I hear you, but I’m so disgusted. How crazy is the obituary idea. A paid obit can’t cost more than $20.00. If a whole bunch of us run paid obits across the country declaring the Democratic Party dead will that wake some folks up?

Posted by: KansasDem at September 23, 2007 12:53 AM
Comment #234022

(Paid obituary)

Following a prolonged illness the Democratic Party died on September 21st, 2007 in spite of the efforts of many close friends. Once a strong and vital part of our communities fabric, she went out with little more than a whimper.

The funeral was attended by two winos and a homeless man who were rapidly taken into custody.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 23, 2007 1:05 AM
Comment #234023

If the United States were a family, democratic Presidential candidates would be home wreckers, kind of like the woman in this song:

Halloween Queen
Dr BLT copywrite 2007 Smash Records
http://www.drblt.net/music/Hallo7.mp3

Posted by: Dr BLT at September 23, 2007 1:16 AM
Comment #234024

KansasDem-
I think it would be fairly useless to protest to the Dems in Washington.

What Democratic groups need to do, and feel free to share this with as many people as possible, is organizing large protests and information campaigns aimed at stirring up public awareness and anger against the Republican’s obstructionism.

This is what we had to do with the war, this is what had to do with the 2006 campaign, and this will be what we have to do with the Republican obstructionism. The old Guard Democrats have had caution bred into them. If the public starts openly protesting against what the Republicans are doing, that’ll make it easier for we Democrats to push our Senators and Representatives to represent our interests more firmly.

Now it shouldn’t be difficult I mean, with the list of what the Republicans have gotten in the way of, there are sure some initiatives we can make them regret. The very number and pace of their cloture votes is a talking point in and of itself.

Let’s not waste time, energy, and political strength by getting into the usual circular firing squad. Let’s get the Republican party against the wall, and take some well-deserved shots at their obstructionism.


Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2007 1:19 AM
Comment #234025

To clarify: Protesting to the Dems in Washington is useless because they still remain the best candidates to carry out what we want done, compared to just about everybody else. Besides, they’re not causing the problem, they’re just responding weakly to it.

Democratic Party politicians have become fairly good over the years at second guessing themselves, at striving to be inoffensive. It’s taken a lot of leadership from underneath to get them to act more courageously.

What I propose is that instead of attacking the Democrats, who are on our side but weakly so, we attack the folks who are really fighting against us, and hit them back. They’ve been using these votes to quietly scuttle bills, and the time has come to make the process less than quiet, and the consequences of their actions less than remote. If the Democrats in Washington won’t lead the way, we will. And we should.

Don’t write obituaries. Write up bills that they’ve scrubbed, and make sure the world knows what they’ve gotten in the way of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #234026

Stephen Daugherty- Since most of the bills are “D.O.A,” I hope the Democrats kill that 200 Billion
dollar Defence bill, if they do not, we will be in
Iraq just as we are in so many other countries.
How many more and at what cost? The World can
no longer tolerate seize an seizure mentality.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 23, 2007 3:10 AM
Comment #234027

This is what we’re up against.

The problem here is that MoveOn made the mistake of trying to run its ad in the territory these people already know well.

I don’t recommend Democrats get too good at this, for it’s one part of the Hubris that closed the GOP’s mind to their own hypocrisies and shortcomings. One thing we should do, though, is get better at hitting them where they deserve to be hit. Democratic and Leftwards political organizations need to make national and international political hay out of their obstructionism.

Here’s the thing: we no longer have to convince people things are bad. We no longer have to convince them that the Republicans have the wrong policy. These are things people know and understand in their bones.

Now I’ve been pushing and pushing my points for quite some time now. I’ve done my very best to convince every last American I could about this. But now, we’re down to the Republican base, the people who are emotionally invested in the Republicans maintaining power. The Republicans cannot be backed down here by anything short of being publically confronted with the extent that they’ve taken draconious measures to interfere with the legislation most Americans want passed.

Right now, Democrats are getting blamed for not putting more legislation through, for not taking more action. It is the Republicans, though who keep on blocking the legislation. Perhaps we let it go quietly, in the hopes that we might be able to work across the aisle. Trouble is, the folks across the aisle aren’t cooperating, they’re covering their asses. We are unlikely to persuade them by reasonable means to break ranks, when doing so means dealing with the more fickle than ever Republican base.

This is something we’re going to have to force out of them. If any of you here have political connections or work with a campaign, start bring this up. Start researching it. This is a two edged sword the Republicans have picked up, and its time it started cutting both ways.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #234031

As usual Stephen, when I am at the end of one of your articles, I say to myself, “Damn Skippy.” In the non-vernacular that means, “the points in your summation are absolutely correct.”

I do want to restate some points that you made because there are still those, especially here, who will look through the “infinitesimally” small holes present by some of your arguments. They cannot, however, get through the directness of my statements with any conceivable intellectual/factual/reality-based counterpoint without resorting to “personal attacks”; but I can take it (I don’t need the protection of the Watchblog police—LOL).

The Bush/Iraq war from its unbelievable inception has been a fantasy of the worst and most dangerous kind of narcissistic idiot (one that has control over the lives and deaths of Americans) who was able to raise enough money to purchase the presidency of the United States. When he failed to reap the full return on his donators’ investments he had to rely on appointment by the Supreme Court for his ascendency to the office. Having made that point, AGAIN, let’s move forward to examining how an idiot is able to wreak the kind of havoc that only an idiot named George W. Bush has been able to inflict on the Country he claims to serve (although I think that claim was hoisted on him by the Presidential Oath of Office).

Here’s the recipe for—“How an Idiot Attempts to Ruin America”
1. You need greed, avarice, a sociopathic LACK of conscience, and unrelenting evil—enter DICK “CHICANERY” CHENEY as VP. Enough said about that ingredient.
2. You need the credibility of character—Bush, himself, lacks this raw material, so he had to drain it from someone possessing it (or at least has the semblance of possessing character). Remember the original “General BetrayUS” Colin Powell.
3. You need the most powerful propaganda, which can only originate from horrible human tragedy such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of 9-11-2001.
4. And of course, you need the inexorable blindness of stupidity—GWB himself supplies this ingredient “in spades.”
Put those things together and cook them over the course of a 7 year smoldering fire known as the Bush Administration and what do get…a meal that “sticks with you” (and NOT in a good way) and has the following consequences (Parts B, C,…to follow under separate posts):

(PART A) Americans who can be duped into believing that removing Saddam Hussein from power is worth the life a single American, let alone 4,000 American lives. Before my detractors play that tired card again, now that it is also propped up by the former Fed—Allan Greenspan— Please keep in mind that “Anything Saddam could have done, Iran can NOW do better (especially BECAUSE Saddam is gone).” Iran does not need to go marauding through the middle east (yet) for oil reserves they have their own. In addition, they will reap the benefits from newly re-established ties with Shiite Iraq (again, now that Saddam is gone) and the oil resources of Iraq. Oh yes, let’s not forget the new technology that continues to develop in Iran, which I am sure they will be willing to share with their returning prodigal son “Iraq” (NOW THAT SADDAM IS GONE). Yes, I’m talking about NUCLEAR CAPABILITY. NOW go ahead “Bushies,” “McCainies,” and all those who don’t want the “guilt by association” stigma of those names—play the card in the face of these Post-Saddam changes occurring in the Middle East, and tell me again why it was worth the lives of 4,000 American soldiers to remove the scourge of Saddam Hussein, and how America’s future is MORE SECURE as a result of the “victory” and the “end of major combat operation” in Iraq. I wonder if the Kingdom’s of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia feel more SECURE…now…that…Saddam…is gone.

SUMMATION: Stephen, I have to disagree that the war in Iraq was won, let alone, brilliantly won by the Republicans once Saddam was removed from power and executed. I think it is naïve, if not frankly short-sighted, to think that simply removing this particular despot from power would bring any kind of stability to that region that would serve American interests as whole, even if one considers ONLY AMERICAN INTERESTS. Unfortunately, the hatching and execution of the Iraq war has cost the lives of 4,000 of our fellow Americans. THERE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A BUSH/IRAQ WAR. I think it is boarding on irresponsible to invoke any kind of “victory” language regarding the events that have taken place in Iraq. I could have told you that our Military could have accomplished what they have WITHOUT even one of them having to risk their life. There was never any question in my mind about the prowess of our military and their ability to purge the world of Saddam Hussein. The question that should have been asked and answered: “Is it appropriate to leverage the lives of VOLUNTEER military personnel without careful, intelligent, and discerning thought and planning of military options and consequences of unwarranted military action in the absence of LEGITIMATE foreign or domestic threats?”

Precious few (Americans or otherwise) have benefited from the removal of Saddam Hussein—the most notable among the benefactors—ingredients #1 and #4 in the recipe of “How an Idiot Attempts to Ruin America.”

The current political and military “predictions” are that “victory” in Iraq will take at least 10 years at the present (or very similar) American troop presence—10 years (which war supports bought that pile of crap)—try 100 years—and that is an EXTREMELY conservative estimate. What that means to some of you is that your GRAND CHILDREN could be deployed to Iraq to face what our troops are facing now, or even worse.

To be continued….

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 23, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #234032

Posted by: Dr BLT If the United States were a family, democratic Presidential candidates would be home wreckers, kind of like the woman in this song:

if that statment where true then Bush would have to be the wife beating, drunk, cheating husband.

Posted by: Snardius “It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.”


The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion


We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy


If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire


For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, address to the officers of the army, Mar. 15, 1783

Posted by: john at September 23, 2007 11:09 AM
Comment #234033

Sorry I meant to post this quote as well in the last post.


“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood… . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” — Pres. Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: john at September 23, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #234036


You cannot negotiate, compromise or come to a consensus with those who are self-annointed morally superior beings. The fillibuster should be entering it’s second week. If the support of the American People isn’t going to give the Democrats the backbone to stand and fight this tyranny of the minority then the Democrats should resign. If they refuse to make a stand and they refuse to resign, the Democratics must challenge them in the primaries.

Posted by: jlw at September 23, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #234038

What the dems may need to consider is that their leadership in DC has been tainted by the same sickness that has befallen the repubs. That is to say the leadrship is not beholding to the people that vote for them but to the monied class that put them into office. IMHO that is why the dem leadership is playing softball in a hardball world. It benefits them to do so. Jefferson, Honest Abe , Eisenhower and others have warned us about the corporations since the beginning of this Country, at some point we should listen, otherwise there isnt a nickel’s difference between the two parties.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 23, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #234047

Jim, I believe what’s taking place on here certainly qualifies as civil discourse….the fact that you may not agree is irellevant:
v. (d-skôrs, -skrs) dis·coursed, dis·cours·ing, dis·cours·es
v.intr.
1. To speak or write formally and at length. See Synonyms at speak.
2. To engage in conversation or discussion; converse.
How is it that so many can so easily sidestep the fact that Bush took us into Iraq in spite of the information provided, rather than because of it??? Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 22, 2007 04:46 PM

Sandra, I am pleased that you took time to discover the meaning of “discourse.” YOur next assignment is to look up the meaning of “civil.” Then put the two together and you will understand my meaing.

Posted by: Jim at September 23, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #234048

Stephen (good article), KD, phx8, Sandra, DAVID, Kim Sue, jlw, j2t2, john, and other Liberals reading and posting here will find this interesting, I think.

Here are a few important facts about the Republican Lite Senators who voted for condemn Moveon for daring to question whether Petraeus would betray us (which he did, IMO).
As you’ll note, a lot of these people have a history of selling out our party:

Max Baucus (Montana), Evan Bayh (Indiana), Thomas Carper (Delaware), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Byron Dorgan (North Dakota), Dianne Feinstein (California), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Herb Kohl (Wisconsin), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Barbara Mikulski (Maryland), Ben Nelson (Nebraska) — every single one of these people also voted for the credit card industry written bankruptcy bill.

Bill Nelson (Florida) gets a nod for voting against the bankrupcty bill, but since he just voted against the first amendment, he still deserves to be voted out. He also deserves nothing more from Moveon since they gave him a lot of help with his campaign and in getting out the vote in Florida against Katherine Harris in the last election.
Indeed all of these people deserve our condemnation, to be voted out, and clearly they should never get a penny of money, or an inch more support from Moveon from here on out.

Now we come to those who owe enormous amount to all the hard work, and the truly national effort to raise money for their campaigns to the people who work for and contribute to Moveon.org, but who (in true Republican Lite fashion) decided to crap all over them:

Cardin (MD), Casey (PA), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Tester (MT) are all in their 1st term in the Senate after the 2006 election.
Next time they run they’ll likely be dipping into the deep pockets of the credit card industry and other corporations for their campaigns just like the those listed above (and all of the Republicans) do, but they certainly don’t deserve a penny more from any of us.

Note to Kansas Dem:
My friend, there is no need for liberals to leave OUR party just because some of the politicians who put a (D) next to their names aren’t truly Democrats. We just need to weed them out as time goes on. Also, as you may know, I briefly joined the Green Party, and from what I’ve gathered after talking to you here, I get the feeling that (like me) you wouldn’t enjoy the way they go about doing things very much. It appeared to me that the Greens weren’t good at getting much of anything done (and perhaps never will be) because they didn’t work well together. Maybe it isn’t the same everywhere, but where I live, there is a serious lack of cohesion, and far too much in-fighting and needless drama for this liberal lady to stomach.

John, great quotes! Here is another:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else.

But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

— Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Posted by: Adrienne at September 23, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #234050

Thanks Jim, and I especially appreciate the condescending tone and attitude.
My point that you’re missing is that whenever one doesn’t agree with what is being said, then the discussion becomes “blather”.
And by the way, I choose to not accept your latest assignment……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 23, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #234054

Adrienne-
Again, I’d recommend against the circular firing squad approach. We’re in a time of transition here. If we’re not somewhat forgiving here, we’ll end up like the Republicans, artificially taking our party out of sync.

It’s easy for those in Washington to get caught up in the insular environment there. The key here is to make it so profoundly obvious that things have changed, that it’s no longer necessary to be careful with our friends on the other side of the aisle, to take this kind of bullying, that these people get the message.

We can’t simply leave these guys alone, and just hope they’ll just get what we’re thinking. You can’t do that with any politician. It has to be an ongoing relationship, not merely an occasional running to these folks for help.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #234055

PART B—

I think if I hear, read, or sense anymore of this Iraq-Vietnam comparison and current federal legislators/”executives” with supposed military/war “honorables” prompting their commitment to fight Global terrorism I am going to [cough] up a lung. The other lung will come up if our current situation on the international stage continues to be associated with the hyperbole of how Ronald Regan initiated the end of the Soviet empire “freeing us from the Cold War, and how his “policy”, belief, or what-have-you spurred young republicans (i.e. fascists…oops…I mean neoconservatives) to envision and create a world aggrandized to such magnificence by the spread of American democracy. P.T.I.—give me a break, PLEASE!!!!

This post is not even so much as a criticism of Ronald Regan, so those of you prone to use the excuse of “defending” your icons to hi-jack intelligent discussion and marginalize and ignore legitimate arguments—spare me, please.

Let’s examine a few other things that had a far greater impact on the “fall of the evil empire” than Ronald Regan’s policies, belief, etc.

1. Mikael Gorbachev—In the fall of Communism (at least as far as the West (except Cuba) is concerned, I don’t know how some people rate Ronald Regan above this NOBEL LAURATE. Ronald Regan hardly got so much as an honorable mention from the Nobel Committee with respect to the “peaceful” end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

2. In my opinion even more important than which world leader should get the credit (Gorbachev or Regan) is the WELL IGNORED “Soviet invasion” of Afghanistan. I certainly can see why neocons (hell all republicans seeking some kind of re-election) want to ignore and avoid drawing parallels between that ISLAM vs. THE WEST conflict and our very own BUSH/Iraq War. The humanitarian, economic, political, and diplomatic consequences of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, in my opinion, had the greatest impact on dismantling the Soviet Union, in the post-Stalin era that is to say. Now that “democracy” has come to that portion of the West, how are they recovering following their “battle” with Islam?

I would be interested to know who actually thinks that American democracy ALONE can protect the US from the kind of deterioration and destruction of economic and political infrastructure that the Afghan/Soviet conflict had/has on the countries of the former (communist) Soviet Union.

SUMMATION: Stephen, as much as I would like to agree with you that Americans, in general, are smart. If “we” are, then why haven’t we all shown up in the voting electorate? I think as Americans, we are a generally optimistic people. However, this optimism has become shrouded in complacency, which set the stage for the ascendency of ignorance and incompetence to the highest level of our government. Now, we as the citizens who empower elected officials (irrespective of their party “brand name”) have become their victims because we are unable to dislodge them and purge them of power efficiently without risking anarchy. Some of the consequences to average Americans have been grappling with the day in and day out loss of our fellow Americans in Iraq, sky rocketing & rollercoaster gas prices, housing foreclosure rate the likes of which the “middle class” are quite unaccustomed, and the like. I’ve made no mention of those other pesky issues like the environment and global warming, immigration, fair housing, fair employment practices, civil rights, discrimination, education, etc.

Have we so successfully tackled the ills of our own country that we can now turn our attention and resources to ensuring “freedom” for other nations that only democracy can bring? Only a rich, white, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth, American born idiot could set out to execute such ludicrous ideologies (WAIT!…I’m wrong, a rich, arab, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth, Yemeni born idiot could accomplish a similar thing, but NOT under the guise and authority of any “civilized” nation).

Was ridding the world of Saddam really worth having to face these types of consequences and issues? TO ALL THOSE SMART AMERICANS THAT STEPHEN AND I HOPE ARE OUT THERE—By all means get out and vote, but I implore you, examine the “unexpressed” qualification (or lack thereof in the case of GWB) of those who seek political power before you cast a vote in their direction. No longer is the most eminent impact of governing officials felt solely at the local and state levels.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 23, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #234056

Adrienne- Bringing cohesiveness too our party is
especially important this year an your endeavors
are showing a greater loyalty an respect to our
Democracy, an shows many Democrats could indeed
show a greater loyalty to the Democratic Party.

By the way Adrienne, I added a link to your
energy post which has a picture an description
of that new supper, power device.

As always, excellent posts an a learning experience. Thanks

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 23, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #234058

Stephen:
“If we’re not somewhat forgiving here, we’ll end up like the Republicans, artificially taking our party out of sync.”

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. I think this group has proven time and time again that they don’t deserve our continuing loyalty or any more of our forgiveness. Indeed, I think we’ve given them too much of that already.
In my view it is their actions that have been taking our party out of sync for far too long. This group of cowardly DLC “moderates” continually weaken the Democratic position. They are eagerly and often needlessly allowing themselves to be played by the GOP’s silly bullshit antics that are intended to distract this country from the real issues, and hide their own failures. Additionally this group has been blatantly selling out our liberal principles for a very long time, while shamelessly doing the bidding of their corporate partners and/or masters, and clearly on behalf of their own self interest. I think voting against the first amendment and condemning a group like Moveon who has worked so hard and raised so much money for our party should truly be the last straw.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 23, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #234059

Stephen Daugherty- Just how many pieces of silver

needs to be given, to keep some of these Democrats

loyal to their party? Of the three cross roads,which

will you choose? [a trick question]

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 23, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #234060

Here’s just an interesting little “f.y.i.”…..
http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 23, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #234061

Sorry, this should have gone with what I just put up….

It’s Time To Draw A Line In The Sand In Iraq

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND THE INITIATIVE TO GET OUT OF IRAQ

The most remarkable thing about the Petraeus coached testimony on the
status of the failed occupation of Iraq was Republican senators using
their hearing time to TESTIFY THEMSELVES about the good news and
wonderful progress there. Why was he even there if only to have words
put in his mouth, not just by the White House but by Congress itself?
According to every impartial judge, like the GAO, the truth is that
there has been NO reduction in violence and the situation continues
to deteriorate.

OUT OF IRAQ ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

But finally now, at least in the House, there is a growing movement
to finally have Congress put its foot down and say no more. As of
today, 81 members of the House of Representatives have signed on to a
letter drafted by Out of Iraq Caucus Chairs Reps. Lynn Woolsey
(D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA), to the White
House, declaring that they will appropriate no more funds for this
war except to redeploy and protect our troops.

This is the best opportunity we’ve had so far to rally around an
initiative, to thank those who have already joined in, and to
encourage all others to sign on as well.

There can be absolutely no doubt that when we speak out in sufficient
numbers, Congress ACTS. This was proven yet again a small while back
when a million people (many perhaps not even citizens) demonstrated
against an immigration bill, and within 24 hours it was dead on
arrival in the Senate. Who could witness that and seriously maintain
that Congress won’t listen to us? Any such thought is a insidious
lie, promoted only by sad defeatists and those who would con us out
of our own participatory democracy.

OUR VOICES DO COUNT WHEN WE USE THEM!

As demonstrated by the recent drop of the popularity of Congress
ANOTHER 3 points to 11 percent (in a passively conducted poll), you
are not alone in being dissatisfied or even angry about what’s going
on in Washington. At the rate they are going they may have a ZERO
percent popularity rating by Christmas. But what most of the
currently remaining 89 percent have NOT yet done is SPEAK OUT
ACTIVELY to demand policy change. That is the only thing that moves
Congress. They know how unhappy we are. They are just waiting for
enough of us to tell them what to DO.

OUT OF IRAQ ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

So even if you are already speaking out, and we are asking ALL of our
participants to make it their particular mission to not only submit
the action page in this alert, but please also use the friends
section of that action page to invite everyone else you know to do
the same thing. Only if we mobilize every possible voice can we
expect Congress to comply with our demands, because until we MAKE
that demand in larger numbers there is nothing for them to be
expected to comply with.

Time and again we heard Democrats last week calling for Republicans
to have the courage to vote for the end of the occupation. But where
is THEIR courage to cut off funding, except for the purposes of
ending an occupation that can never succeed? There is NO courage that
does not come from us, from our voices telling them they have more to
fear in the coming primary and general elections from an angry
electorate, than they have to fear from being called a name by a
cable news TV talking fluff head.

WE MUST SPEAK FOR THE TROOPS WHO CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Is there anything more despicable than members of Congress stuffing
words in the mouths of our troops who are NOT allowed to speak out
for themselves? Have you ever heard the military expression,
“Permission to speak freely, sir?” Our military personal are PUNISHED
for speaking out against this insane war policy. They are demoted,
fired or worse. The chance of a member of Congress coming within 100
miles of a dissenting soldier in Iraq is about nil. In fact, when
they visit the green zone talking points are even distributed about
the “good news”, to be spoon fed to gullible visitors.

So first they gag our troops, and then a senator tries to tell us
they’re all just saying, “Let us win.” But to the contrary we know
that if they were allowed permission to speak freely, abused as they
are by multiple successive deployments, many of them grossly misused
National Guard volunteers, they would overwhelmingly say, “Get us the
hell out of here already!”

And soldier or not, nothing excuses the self-serving complicity of
General Petraeus. He is known by his fellow officers as a
bootlicking, ladder climber, who has collected his mounting stars
with his willingness to act as a political operative for the White
House, to promote their lies no matter how disreputable.

So when George Bush gets on TV, and exploits the grief of the
survivors of our dead troops to say we have to continue sacrificing
more of them, he is trying to lay on their shoulders responsibility
for being INVESTED in his own sick mission. The only people invested
in this policy are those who voted for it, and continue to defend it
so shamelessly. And milking a captive audience of suffering loved
ones for cheers for yet more vengeful blood lust is beneath contempt,
even for a pathological demagogue.

AT LEAST 40 SENATORS ARE BEYOND REDEMPTION ON IRAQ

Some had hoped that enough Republican senators would come to their
senses by September to turn around the Iraq policy. But instead we
have seen no movement despite the self-evident and inevitable failure
of the “surge”, which was never a military strategy in the first
place, only a marketing scheme to lull the American public into
another year of a doomed occupation.

It is clear that at least 40 Republican senators will vote lockstep
to the bitter, desolate end, the football analogy equivalent of a
“Hail Mary” pass. We strongly suspect that even those who side with
the Democrats long enough to get votes up in the high 50s would NOT
do so if they thought the vote might actually succeed, for example as
we saw Warner suddenly turn tail this week and reject a measure he
had previously supported.

OUT OF IRAQ ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

What this means is that the only way to stop the endless and
escalating blood flood anytime soon is by refusing to appropriate any
more money EXCEPT to bring the troops home. That does not take 67
votes in the Senate or even 60. It only takes 41 votes there and a
majority in the House. We must bring maximum pressure on the House
this week to take a stand to stop the insanity. They are all facing
reelection next year. They all must understand that failing we the
people AGAIN will make primary challenges a determined certainty in
the first instance, and right behind that jeopardy of their chances
in the general election.

It is not our job to advocate for or against a particular candidate.
That is YOUR job, when that time comes.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU LIKE KUCINICH ON THE ISSUES LET HIM KNOW

We would be remiss not to ask who other than Dennis Kucinich has
shown more courage to speak out against the Iraq disaster before it
even started? If you are asking yourself what you can do to encourage
Dennis to continue to stand strong on the ISSUES, why not make a
contribution, if you are so motivated.

DENNIS KUCINICH CONTRIBUTIONS:
http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

usalone117b:39955

Powered by The People’s Email Network Copyright 2007, Patent pending,
All rights reserved


Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 23, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #234062

Stephen D., you make excellent recommendations about what Dem’s should do to marginalize Republicans. But, you ignore the cannon which Dem’s give the Republicans, the Democrats insistence on open borders and promoting illegal immigration. If Democrats would get serious about border security and national security by advocating closing our borders to all but who we choose to let in, Dem’s could get their cannon back from Republicans. But, with the near guarantee of another terrorist attack within our borders, and Democrat’s championing wide open borders, it seems plain Republicans are going to fire that cannon straight at Democrat’s reputation on this issue at the next terrorist incident, and the public will cheer Republicans for having fired it.

Why are Democrats so blind on this issue? How is it possible for Democrats to fail to recognize the incredible power 9/11’s attack garnered for Republicans via public opinion. And how another attack will again make heroes of Republicans in the public’s eye, if Democrats fight secure borders as the next attack unfolds?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #234064

PART C—

Stephen, as I infer the intent of your points regarding the backlash on General Petraeus, I would agree that from a practical standpoint, the attacks may be of questionable significance. However, General Petraeus has a mind of his own and should have put himself in a better position if he wanted to avoid criticisms regarding the credibility of his “September” report on the status of Iraq.

How many more American generals with intellect, integrity and character will so readily place their lives, careers, and reputations on the “alter of George W. Bush.”

It is unbelievable to me that Petraeus would actually think he would escape any different fate than any other quality individual that is even remotely linked to the Bush administration. Who does Petraeus think was responsible for the dissolution of Tony Blair’s political career? Has he not figured out that George W. Bush is the forebear of the professional grim reaper? God bless the Republican Congress responsible for the 22nd Amendment—no matter what their motives were at the time, LOL. GWB for 12 years…YIKES!! What a horror flick that would make.

The very fact that he is now the top General in Iraq should have served as evidence to him that principle, character, good intent, and integrity have absolutely no stronghold in the Bush administration. How could he possible believe he would somehow escape being ground up in the George W. Bush “terrorist” machinery? Perhaps he was not paying close attention to the political events leading up to his own appointment as head of the military command in Iraq.

That he is being attacked now, because of his boss, should not be surprising to him. It is hard for me to feel sorry for him in that regard—not to mention the pesky little annoyance known as freedom of speech.

Like all people of character, intellect, and integrity directly or indirectly associated with the Bush Administration, General Petraeus was sought out because Bush could use these high-minded qualities politically to give life to his Iraq agenda and ensure that he could pass this mess on to someone else.

Back when the “Surge” strategy was being revealed, I posted a very similar claim about GWB (check the WATCHBLOG archives if you dare). At that time, I had not done my homework on General Petraeus and the conception of the actual “Surge” strategy. Ironically, I was hastened to do so when a participant in this forum with whom I frequently (instinctively) disagree on most political and social issues CORRECTED (i.e. he was right I was wrong) the “facts” of one of my posts concerning the “new way forward in Iraq plans and General Petraeus’ role in its conception.

SUMATION: There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that General Petraeus is honorable and believes in the fundamentals of the “Surge Strategy.” It might surprise some of you to know, that I fundamentally support his strategy as well—BUT FROM THE SAME ACADEMIC FRAME OF REFERENCE WITH WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED. From a military standpoint, I think it has had a degree of success in very very very limited portions of Iraqi society. In addition, the basis for its success, irrespective of how small the gains have been, has less to do with American military action and more to do with enabling Iraqi citizens to control their fate and environment. While I agree with many of the tenants of General Petraeus’ Surge and Secure, I question whether it is the responsibility of the American military to execute such missions.

As you pointed out, Stephen, American diplomacy used to accomplish the same thing without exacting the toll on the American military that has occurred because by some horrible means George W. Bush was able to get a hold of the highest political office in our Country.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 23, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #234067

David:
“How is it possible for Democrats to fail to recognize the incredible power 9/11’s attack garnered for Republicans via public opinion.”

That was only the case when the public didn’t know that George Bush did NOTHING AT ALL to prevent 9/11. It took a long time, but now almost everyone understands how horribly this administration fell down on the job, and Republicans no longer have such incredible power over public opinion when it comes to handling the threat of terrorism on American soil.

“another attack will again make heroes of Republicans in the public’s eye,”

No, they’ve tried to propagandize themselves as heroes in the public eye ad nauseum, but with no good reason. After Katrina, the public has no longer been buying into the bogus idea that only Republicans can protect the American people from terrorism or natural disasters, and help and guide them through such times of crisis.

“Democrats fight secure borders as the next attack unfolds?”

The Republicans had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and a Majority in the Supreme Court and didn’t do one damn thing about border security, but now somehow that’s supposed to magically be the Democrats fault?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 23, 2007 4:44 PM
Comment #234068

John, Adrienne,

Great quotes, many from some of our greatest leaders. It really makes one wonder about our current crop of candidates for President.

The tension between politics as compromise (“the art of the possible”) and truly wise, just, and effective moral leadership has always been there. I just wish I could be positively surprised instead of shockingly disappointed in our elected leaders for a change.

But after all, it is the people in a democracy who must demand better. If we are more concerned with the cost of gasoline, or the latest cable-crap TV show, or cell phone ring tone, or a single issue above all else, than our people and country and what our leaders do in our name then we will get what we deserve. Are the American people truly concerned and equiped enough to deal with this war, with mushrooming entitlement programs, corporate hegemony, illegal immigration, and an unjust health-care system? Why do civics courses and lessons seem to show up less and less in our schools?

This administration shows no faith in the American people and treats them like sheep to be kept fed and happy. We need to ask why? Schwarzenegger (moderate) gets elected governor of California on the back of an unpopular but necessary increase in car registration fees to prior levels in a state with crumbling infrastructure. Bill Clinton (moderate liberal) was voted out of the governor’s office for similar reasons where he learned his important political lesson and once again got elected governor. This administration (strange ideologues) knows reinstating the draft is a non-starter, no matter if they really believe this war is vital to America’s security and it would be necessary.

Being informed in a democracy is not only necessary but difficult and time-consuming but we as a nation, in the information age of all things, seem to be running the other way. In the meantime, OUR government starts wars resulting in hundreds of thousands of people dead as we wonder aloud, “Why do they hate us?”.

Posted by: chris2x at September 23, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #234072

PART D—

Stephen, your point regarding the Dems getting over their crisis of confidence is well stated and well taken.

I don’t believe, however, “it is a simple as that.” Barrack Obama has continued to hammer this point, the Dems that “supported” this war from the beginning made a big mistake.

Unless they come clean about their actual motives and/or fallibility, they are not going to be able to step away from this Iraq mess any more the GWB wants to step away “on his watch” as he puts it.

The majority of dems—even to some extent, my political icon Bill Clinton—got American military blood on their hands when they supported the “Iraq War.” Now a variety of semantics have been employed to explain away the dems grave mistakes over this decision. From my standpoint, the Dems decision to “vote for the war” stems from one of two things (that may not be mutually exclusive):

1. Dems who voted for the war in Iraq did so to avoid potential political fallout from the brand of “anti-american” soft of terrorism, etc. with utter disregard for the lives of our VOLUNTEER military personnel. By my way of thinking, unless they apologize (with true sincerity) they are no better than GWB with respect to this issue.

2. Dems who voted for the war in Iraq did so because they are as STUPID as George W. Bush is. In this case, that kind of profound stupidity would immediately disqualify them from receiving my vote for anything for which I might be able to vote for them. The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly list very many requirements to become President. Essentially, you have to be born in this country, be a citizen and resident of this country, and you have to be 35 years old. It certainly does go into any details concerning ones academic or professional accomplishments, ones intellect, etc. As part of the voting electorate, it is the responsibility of the American voter to make such assessments of a candidate’s ability to function competently and responsibly as President of the United States if so elected. I am of the belief that the “founding fathers” had some notion that the electoral college would compensate in some way for any potential lack of judgment and good sense on the part of the American voter. If that was there intent, how WRONG they were. No electoral college, no George W. Bush in 2000, no Iraq war in 2003, no 4,000 dead American soldiers and even thousands more permanently wounded as a consequence of the lunatic ideologies of George W. Bush.

The fact that I am certain and a have always been certain that George W. Bush is a total intellectually barren moron is what disqualified him from receiving my vote for president in the first place, NOT the fact that he was the republican nominee.

SATIRICAL ASIDE—I’m not proud of this fact now, but I voted for his father. My excuse is that I was young, didn’t know any better, and it was the first election in which I was eligible to vote. To those whom I owe an apology for that errant vote, here it is. I hope you will accept it and forgive my naivete. I don’t feel nearly as bad as one of my brothers who actually voted for the current George Bush—but he learned from his mistake and corrected it in 2004. Since Bush was appointed to the presidency in 2000, it made it easier for me to forgive my brother’s stupidity LOL.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 23, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #234085

Adrienne said: “The Republicans had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and a Majority in the Supreme Court and didn’t do one damn thing about border security, but now somehow that’s supposed to magically be the Democrats fault?”

Ahh, so you defend Democrats doing nothing as well? I think you missed the point entirely. With only 2 parties, a protest vote goes to the party NOT in power. Remember that Independents didn’t by and large vote FOR Democrats, they voted Against Republicans.

That flip can flop just as easily if another attack occurs while Dem’s champion open borders.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #234091

David R. Remer-
Look, you’re making the mistake Republicans make about Democrats on Terrorism: that just because we don’t advocate the zealous measures they do, don’t share the high anxieties you have, that we aren’t willing to make improvements and create a workable policy that will reduce the problems at hand.

But let me point out something: many of the hijackers came into this country by legal means, and if they had any immigration problems, it was once they were in our borders. The Border-centric strategy would not have stopped them.

No, while we do need to improve border security, internal security is the better way to handle both those who have already come into the country, and those who will inevitably get through as things go on.

The trick with security is that it needs to also be security from government and from excessively costly defense that grant diminishing returns, if it is to preserve our way of life. I would rather have a few illegal immigrants manage to get into this country and stay, than to give in so much to fear that we spend money on little else. Mind you, that’s just a few. Those who manage to successful in illegally immigrating should number not in the hundreds of thousands, but in the tens, the regular thousands if we can help it. I’m not scared of immigrants overpopulating our country; the numbers, even now, are dwarfed by population gains of years past. No, I too worry about the person who gets in this country. However, if we fail to prevent that coming in, our last line of defense is internal security. We need investigators who can follow up on those who overstay their visas, or whose names come up with unsavory associations.

Please don’t mistake the non-flammability of my hair on this subject for my being soft on it. I just think it’s mostly brought up to scare people, and by people who are scared of legitimate demographic changes that bring minorities further into their lives.

As long as America is economically powerful, it will draw immigrants here. If we work things right, as I’ve described in other posts, we can minimize the problem of illegal immigration, and at the same time not sacrifice their value as hard workers. Only with the kind of policies I would support, they wouldn’t be low-wage labor competition, they’d be documented and legal, drawing the same check a regular citizen would, and with prospects for becoming more productive, and more integrated into society.

A response from fear, I believe, will bring what we fear to pass: isolationism will turn their communities into enclave. Merciless legislation will give them no incentive to renounce illegal immigration. Walls will get Americans focused on the wrong lines of defenses. We need to think more creatively on this, respond more to the drives and motivations that keep the problem going, dealing with those instead of wasting time, money and effort on brute-force “git tough” measures.

But all that aside, the Republicans would be firing this shot with a broken cannon. All rhetoric aside, they’ve done worse than nothing in their time to manage the problem of illegal immigration. They’ve actually made things worse than they were in the Clinton years, doubtlessly on account of those contributors who had a lot to gain from cheap labor. The SwiftVet Story, in fact, might have a connection to the issue, as one of the lead funders of that venture is a homebuilder. Bob Perry, among other homebuilders, are alleged to use a lot of such labor.

From my perspective, its a matter of not turning the whole thing into a question of immigrant bashing, or anxiety about the effects of immigration, which have generally turned out very little like the alarmists have pointed out. There are plenty of PhD’s and Doctorate holders who can list ancestors that many of the Eugenicists in the 1920’s claim would breed like rabbits and flood the land with degenerate blood. Immigration is inevitable here, the question is how we manage it.

If it’s all the same to you, I don’t have much sympathy for those who use illegals to reduce costs. I’m not too much of a market fundamentalists, but I do believe staying in business is not a right but a privilege, and that circumventing the labor market prevents it from doing its job to set wages properly. Illegal immigration to me represents an economic problem for the proper spreading of the wealth, not only for those who live here, but also the workers being exploited as low-paid labor.

The trouble with Republican economics, in my view, is that it’s elitist, and uses false promises of allowing everybody to make more money to make sure that the elite can concentrate their wealth more and more with less and less obstacles in my way.

I’m sure that if you delivered an integrated case to Democrats based on such principles, you would not find yourself rebuffed on advocating greater security.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #234093

David:
“Ahh, so you defend Democrats doing nothing as well?”

No, it’s just that the Democrats way of dealing with this problem is definitely going to be different than the way the GOP has framed and dealt (or rather, not dealt)with it. We haven’t even had the opportunity to really get anything done yet. Not enough of a Congressional majority.
Now, when we get that majority, and begin to act on the problem, then criticisms of all kinds will be valid to discuss.
But not before.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 23, 2007 8:45 PM
Comment #234098

Adrienne, are you ignoring the Amnesty bill legislation that died this last Summer? Or, are you implying that Bill was not for real, and did not reflect Democrat’s true intentions, in which case, they deceived the public as to their true intent regarding illegal immigration and insecure borders?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #234099

Stephen D. said: “Look, you’re making the mistake Republicans make about Democrats on Terrorism: that just because we don’t advocate the zealous measures they do, don’t share the high anxieties you have, that we aren’t willing to make improvements and create a workable policy that will reduce the problems at hand.”

Nice bit of sophistry, Stephen. But, your party’s bill called for 370 miles of border security. Sorry, that on the face of it, is an objective and clear directive by Democrats in Congress on the importance they place on national security, national public health concerns, and the flow of 1 million illegal immigrants to this country each year.

Like Republican party loyalists, your comment is nothing more than an apologetic attempt to discredit the party’s critics rather than own up to its deficiencies and correct them. Democrat’s proposed 370 miles of border security. It is equivalent to putting a band aid on a sucking chest wound. Either, Democrats take border security seriously and propose securing the border, or they reject border security entirely and dispense with 370 miles worth.

370 miles of border barrier is a contradiction. If border barrier is effective why not 2000 miles of it. If it is not going to be effective, why even 370 miles of it.

Stephen, your party in Congress has their heads up their butts with this kind of illogical legislation. And your comment wreaks right up there with Republican party loyalists accusing critics of circumventing the FISA courts as being friends of terrorists.

The Bill sucked. It was illogical. And it failed to pass because of an incredible amount of public resistance registered in Congress person’s offices prior to the vote. And now your party is resorting to the same Republican tactics you criticized in the past of embedding the legislation in another bill having nothing to do with border security or illegal immigration.

Are you going to be just as hypocritically apologetic about this move by Democrats in Congress as well? Hiding their legislative intent from the people in another unrelated bill? Power corrupts, and it is corrupting Democrats to acting just like the Republicans they so criticized for these same actions when they were in control.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #234101

“Adrienne, are you ignoring the Amnesty bill legislation that died this last Summer?”

David, I saw that bill as a pretty lame attempt at a compromise with some of the Republicans on the issue of what we should do with all of the people who have already come into this country illegally (we certainly can’t afford to deport them all), as well as what we should do about Bush and the GOP’s desire to provide a steady stream of dirt cheap labor for their corporate buddies. It also seemed like a complete legal morass to me — what with having to create a whole new bureaucracy that wouldn’t actually be functional for many years — while we’re letting many more people enter the country. So, needless to say, I wasn’t too pleased with it. Yet I didn’t think of it as in any way a comprehensive look at this issue, or a truly Democratic-style one since we’re still not the ones in charge, and don’t have a majority.
Nevertheless, I didn’t and still don’t view that piece of legislation as having much to do with how best we can secure our borders as far as terrorism goes, since it had much more to do with people who are already living and working here illegally.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 23, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #234109

I wrote:
“and don’t have a majority”

That should have read: don’t have enough of a majority.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 23, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #234124

David R. Remer-
Why do you keep on calling me a liar? Why can’t you take my repeated expressions of my opinion, consistent expressions, as my stated position?

Also, do me a favor: research what my stated position was when the immigration bill was up for a vote. I opposed it then, and I oppose it now, on the grounds that it’s a bad deal for both Americans and immigrants. But see, if you read the post above, you’ll know that I’m not perfectly pleased with my party as it is. If you read my comments and take them at face value, you’ll know that I am not at all for the status quo.

You might want to confront me with all this evidence of what my party is doing, but you’re neglecting one important fact: The Democrats in Washington right now are lagging their constituents in this. Why don’t you go research what Democrats actually thought of the bill that was being offered before you go making generalizations about us? At least you can accuse Democrats of backing it by showing they really do.

You’re using the same tactics the Republicans are, with the same assumption: that only your solution can solve,or at least improve the problem. I think you’re wrong, and I’m not saying so in any uncertain terms. I think another plan can do the same job, and do it better, and more efficiently for the taxpayer.

A wall, especially a long one, strains the human ability to pay attention to things. If some weakness naturally develops in the wall, it may not be noticed for months or even years. Just think of the vigilance it will take to inspect and maintain thousands of miles of fence. We’re doing a poor job of maintaining the highway system at this point. Do you think a wall that’ll likely be forgotten by the public will receive all that much attention as it breaks down, or as budget cuts underman it?

Stop using me as your punching bag for your frustrations with my party. It should be clear to you by now that I don’t support such inconsistencies, and that I also acknowledge that they exist. I’m not being unclear in my desire to push and force my party to do the right thing.

As for the subject of this? You seem to have become as fixed on this notion of building the border fence as Dan has become fixed on his Anti-Incumbency movement, Joel Hirschorn his Article V convention, and Richard Rhodes in trashing the Democrats as uniformly corrupt. There’s been a narrowing of focus on the green column, and a withdrawal from both civil give and take in discussion, and a move towards the kind of us and them rhetoric that made many on the Republican side difficult to deal with, the notion that you could insult people and accuse them of wanting to destroy and undermine the country just because they don’t agree with you.

The impulse in discussing politics is to fortify a position and declare yourself a winner. But victory in politics is victory in persuasion. You can’t force people to go your way. You can’t threaten. Events like 9/11 might intimidate people, but political intimidation is often more likely to inspire a backlash. If they don’t buy your argument, not only may name calling and vilifying them not work, it may simply work to put more distance between you and them.

It’s also been my observation that people who insist on getting policy their way often run into the fact that the real world won’t let them get it their way, not and get the results they want. People in politics must not only be prepared to negotiate with others in discussion, they must also be willing to negotiate with the real world to find working ways to get things done.

A wall will only serve to focus more resources away from the interior of the country. If it fails to have the intended effect, the politically tenable position will be be reinforcing the wall, or ignoring the problem, claiming the wall is doing fine. It will suck the oxygen out of the room for internal enforcement.

The reason we have millions of illegal immigrants in the country is a failure of such internal enforcement. People will inevitably cross, and will try to stay. If we’re not properly enforcing laws and regulations concerning employment and visas, we are defeated on more than a third of the problem right there. No matter where they come from or how they get here, illegal immigrants will end up in the interior if they get past that border.

I have no problem with increasing border patrols, and no illusions that this will do it alone. I’m looking to build a system that works, not merely a wall that is claimed to work. A wall strikes me as a declaration of defeat, that we can’t control our own territory, and that we fear what’s coming in.

The real security problem is having non-citizens in this country we don’t know about, that we’re not keeping tabs on. My proposals are meant to funnel more of these people through proper channels, maintain enforcment to prevent and punish cheating, and lowering financial requirements so that those who might be tempted to cheat by the sheer expense of immigrating, which is amplified by strong gradients of wealth vs. poverty outside our country will not be, and will instead avail themselves of the system.

These people aren’t coming here to destroy our country, but to find opportunity. They’re doing so the wrong way, but we’re making the right way so difficult that many have to resort to illegal methods to seek out that better life.

The system is broken, and caters more to middle-class fears about poor non-whites and upper-class anxieties about having to actually pay people what their services are worth. Unlike Lou Dobbs and others, though, I don’t think that adding a wall to this broken system is going to make it better. The wall is a security blanket, a failure of imagination, and a response the the Bush administrations incredibly lax border and internal security. I never heard of such things in the 80’s and 90’s. It seems an idea born of desperation, not of clear thinking, and I have had quite enough of those out of the current administration, and out of my own congress.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 24, 2007 8:02 AM
Comment #234125

Adrienne said: “Nevertheless, I didn’t and still don’t view that piece of legislation as having much to do with how best we can secure our borders as far as terrorism goes, since it had much more to do with people who are already living and working here illegally.”

Quite right. My point exactly. The bill utterly failed to address the problem of millions more illegal immigrants to come into our country, hostile or benign. 370 miles of border barrier was a capitulation to both the arguments for and against stemming the flow with a barrier.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2007 8:10 AM
Comment #234126

Stephen said: “A wall will only serve to focus more resources away from the interior of the country.”

Is this an admission that Democrats can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Are you really expecting people to believe that our Border Patrol cannot monitor and work the border while INS and other Law Enforcement work the interior? Preposterous on its face.

Stephen said: “Stop using me as your punching bag for your frustrations with my party. It should be clear to you by now that I don’t support such inconsistencies, and that I also acknowledge that they exist. I’m not being unclear in my desire to push and force my party to do the right thing.”

Yet, you offer nothing, as your Party doesn’t, to take immediate, decisive, and effective steps to slow the million illegal immigrants a year coming across our border, hostile and benign. Another murder took place several days ago by an illegal. The week before, another. Several weeks ago 3 young Americans were murdered and a fourth seriously wounded by an illegal immigrant. Sure, we can argue, there are going to be some bad apples in any barrel of apples. But, that misses the point, because the clock is ticking on the next terrorist attack, which in all liklihood will be perpretrated by terrorists who entered our country illegally.

When that happens, Democrats will find themselves rightly the targets of blame for their unwillingness to impede the flow at the border, for no other rational explanation than illegals will make good Democratic voters in the majority.

It is an abjectly stupid position for your party to assume, which begs being torpedoed politically after the next attack. And you can’t logically or factually blame Congressional Republicans for this. They are en masse for acting on a border barrier. Democrats themselves are solely responsible for inaction at the border to impede the flow.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2007 8:25 AM
Comment #234133

Will the real traitors please standup!!!!!!!!

Only traitors would take over our government and use our military as political pawns!!!!!!

Only traitors would send our military to Iraq to be used as canon fodder for Halliburton stockholders!!!!!!!

Only traitors would deny fair pay, good medical treatment, and time off for our over stretched military!!!!!!!!!!!

Only traitors would use the US treasury department as their own personal bank account, for writing blank checks to other traitors who do not want to make fare bids on government contracts!!!!!!!!!!

Only traitors hate our government and want to eliminate regulations that protect the people of this country form corporations that do not care about our health and safety!!!!!!

Only traitors would deny the children of this country healthcare!!!!!!!!

Only traitors would give the rich people welfare and tax cuts in a time of war!!!!!!!!!!!

Only traitors would call the rest of use traitors for standing up and speaking out against their dirty deeds!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 24, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #234153

Well said Outraged!

Stephen,

I get where you’re coming from. I just really want to find a way of expressing our outrage with our own party over kowtowing to the Republicans in an attempt to limit free speech.

BTW, for what it’s worth, I largely share your views on immigration, but we must secure our borders …….. if for no other reason, just to quell the outrage by such an overwhelming majority of Americans. If we fail to do so the anti-“illegal” vigilante movement will continue to grow and we’ll be faced with a real nightmare.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 24, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #234156

Interesting that there isn’t one thread (thus far) that talks about this Iranian (punk) thug who is going to Columbia University. (Mr.) Hillary Clinton had no comment: “That’s between Columbia Unversity and the Iraian prez; I have no opinion on it”. What’s even more interesting is the fact that his comments were almost identical to the Democrat talking points; I mean, right on key. Yet, many of you will try that “I don’t listen to what my enemy says” crap now; even though, they (he and Bin Laden) are saying the same things as the dems in this country.

You BDSers are being “played” (bigtime!) by the enemies of this country; it’s a shame some of you don’t see that. Oh well, the choices we make…

Posted by: rahdigly at September 24, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #234158

For many years I have heard the addage:

“No-one ever went broke underestimating the inteligence of the general populace.”

I never liked it, but you can’t deny the truth of it.

Now, we are meant to believe, simultaneoulsy, Both that the war in Iraq is going well and that it is because it is going so well that we will have to be there for another 10 years!!! … ???

Sadly, too many Americans already buy this rediculousness.

Is it somehow unpatriotic to believe the American people should be smarter? …and to try to help people to see the truth that is so obvious to some of us?

I hope not. I don’t see how it could be. We are all in this together now, like it or not!

Posted by: RGF at September 24, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #234160

rahdigly, Ahmadinejad is Iran’s punk. Bush is ours. If you ask the respective peoples of each nation. All nation’s led to war have punks leading the way, unless attacked without provocation. Simply observe the inside of any prison to see how punks dominate through intimidation, threat, and violence. A civilized person exercises force only when absolutely necessary to defend their self, loved ones, or means of livelihood, and only as much force as is required to eliminate the threat.

Bush invaded Iraq without threat to the US homeland posed. And upon exercising sufficient force to remove Hussein and his armies, Bush elected to continue to use force long after the perceived threat was removed. Ahmadinejad is a punk too, but, engaging in a conflict in neighboring nation which posed no threat to his own.

Now if only we could get these two short little smirking punks into a ring, instead of allowing them to send proxies to die for their ignorance and absence of humanity, the world’s people would be greatly served.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #234163

“Now if only we could get these two short little smirking punks into a ring, instead of allowing them to send proxies to die for their ignorance and absence of humanity, the world’s people would be greatly served.”
You’re so right David…these two facing each other would be like them looking in a mirror! And wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall to hear what an unscripted exchange between the two of them would sound like?? It’s just too bad that millions are, and will continue to, suffer(ing) from their arrogance and drive to dominate.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 24, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #234167

Thanks, Sandra. Not sure my delicate ears could handle the epithets between these two smirking punks. Apparently, Bush has a pretty foul mouth and sense of humor according to Tony Snow, who said in a round table of former WH Press Secretaries, much of Bush’s humor is not fit for public airing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #234168

“What’s even more interesting is the fact that his comments were almost identical to the Democrat talking points”

Rahdigly,

Please, be specific. I watched the entire exchange and I didn’t hear any such thing, so please enlighten me. Come on now, quote for quote, show me.

I’d say many of his comments compare much more closely with Neocon nonsense. Compare his holocaust denial BS to the Iraqi WMD myth or the global warming deniers.

His views on homosexuality certainly compare more closely with those of the religious right. I could go on, but please show me an example of “his comments [being] almost identical to the Democrat talking points”.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 24, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #234181

Wow! I love this thread! You could make a college course on the mind of the Democrat grassroots out of this thing.

Who knew we had so much in common?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 24, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #234183


The Religicons of Iran and the Religicons of America are alike in almost every respect except their brand of religion. Both wish to dominate and therefor are enemies. They both proclaim that the progressive secularists are their domestic enemies and both try to claim that their counterparts are in league with their domestic enemies.

Posted by: jlw at September 24, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #234190

Kansas Dem, he didn’t deny the Holocaust, he said Europeans were responsible for it. A contradiction to his previous words in Iran, which may bite him in the ass when he gets back home.

My thought about Iran having no homosexuality was of course not, you execute them as quick as they are discovered. Being underground and hidden in some really deep closets, it is understandable he can rationalize that there are no homosexuals in Iran, (that he is aware of).

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #234206

“I could go on, but please show me an example of “his comments [being] almost identical to the Democrat talking points”.”

He said (in Sunday night’s 60 minutes interview): “I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next elections, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this… He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill their sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers’ money and give them to weapons companies. If and also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them, if they do these things.”

He just recited the democratic party’s (and the MSM’s) talking points! Oh, and he also said (about the 2006 elections) he was “encouraged” by the results; you know, the results where the democrats won the 2006 elections. Hello!!!! Wake up people!! This should embarrass the heck out the dems; yet, they (and some of you) are “encouraged” yourselves by this. Many of you should be running as far away as possible from this dirty runt. Yet, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is so seeped into some of you that you won’t even recognize the absurdity of this guy and the democratic party’s (similar!!) stance. Disgusting!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 24, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #234213

Sandra Davidson thank you for the out of iraq caucas link my wife and i both used it to contact our reps.

i have a novel idea…. want to show the dems we are upset with their rolling over and submitting to the neo cons? keep them in congress ahd vote locally up to the governor level for independants only send the Dems. a message start listening to the people or your party will die just as the republican party is doing.
It saddens me that patriots like Ron Paul are in the minority in the Republican party and derided as sucking up to dem voters. the once great party that gave us the most trusted leaders ever in history has in the span of my lifetime become a clan of criminals and thugs.

Posted by: john at September 24, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #234216

JLW, the money trail the religicons in the USA has funding global terrorism is blinding. But I have trouble finding legitimate sources of where Christian Americans are funding terrorism. Can you share some of your sources?

I think it is a gross over statement to compare religicons in the US to any other religious group. The is no comparison in a country that offers more religious freedom than any other country.

Posted by: Edge at September 24, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #234222

rahdigly, and Hitler demanded respect and patriotism toward his Brown Shirts and SS. Does that make Republicans making the same demanding respect and patriotism toward our soldiers anything like Hitler? I think not.

Bush railed against Clinton’s nation building policies. Now that Bush is the premier nation builder in Iraq, does this make Bush a Clinton follower? I think not.

Isn’t the reason Democrats are taking one party control of government in America in large part a result of precisely what Ahmadinejad was speaking to? Ahmadinejad is a terrible leader and person given his advocacies, but, that doesn’t mean everything that comes out of his mouth is untrue. If he said the sky is blue, would it be a lie because he said it? I think not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #234234


Edge: Perhaps it is a gross over statement to compare the two to each other. However, I think it is not an over statement to say that the religious right in America has more in common with the religious right that rules Iran than the Democrats do. I also think it is naive to believe that we haven’t trained terrorists, freedom fighters, insurgents or contras. Aren’t we training insurgents to go into Iran? What kind of actions do you think those insurgents will be doing in Iran?

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 1:09 AM
Comment #234235


rahdigly: If you were the President of Iran, what would you say on 60 minutes?

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 1:24 AM
Comment #234236

john, and wife, you’re welcome….and here is some information available on things coming up that we need to keep an eye on:
http://www.democrats.com/weekly-agenda

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 25, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #234254

David R. Remer-

Is this an admission that Democrats can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Are you really expecting people to believe that our Border Patrol cannot monitor and work the border while INS and other Law Enforcement work the interior? Preposterous on its face.

Look at what’s happened with Homeland Security. Bush, not confident he can do much there, instead puts the focus on the war in Iraq and keeps it there. As things go wrong, he advocates pouring more money and more into Iraq, while poor DHS languishes, underfunded, bureaucratically inept… No, this isn’t about Democrats not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, it’s about politics overwhelming practicality.

Truth is, nobody’s willing to impeded the flow of people at the border for the simple reason that our borders represent major trade routes. It’s economically necessary to keep the pace up.

As for the murders? Look, I live in Houston, and we hear about citizens doing this crap to each other all the time. Most illegal aliens are like most people: law abiding. If they weren’t, we’d see a hell of a lot more get sent home, because they’d get noticed when the police arrested them. That’s not to say they’re saints. They’re just human.

As for Terrorists? The terrorists who entered our country, did so for the most part legally, and where they did break the laws, they did so overstaying their visas. No Border Fence would have stopped the 9/11 hijackers, and if they use similar tactics as they did last time, none that you would build would stop them this time either. If they come from overseas, the fence is irrelevant. If they come through the Canadian border, they’ll likely have papers letting them through.

As for the Republicans not being to blame for all this? Six years: that’s the time during which these folks have had dominance. During those six years, illegal immigration has skyrocketed, enforcement has plummeted, and all we hear out of the Republicans is talk about a fence. And look what they come up with: it’s not even a real fence for the most part.

Has it occured to you that all this talk about a fence, about building this Great Wall of China across the Mexican border is just a political stunt, just something to mollify people who are anxious about the results of a laissez faire immigration policy that they’ve deliberately kept underenforced? I think you’ve been had. I think you’re listening to folks who don’t know their head from a hole in the ground, who are fully willing to be lead around by promises of absolute security.

The wall is going to be a great deal of expense, and it’s not going to stop most illegal immigrants. A third, it won’t stop at all. Those it does stop, are going to figure out ways like tunnels, like taking a flight, like being smuggled through with cargo along the borders, like getting travel visas and work visas and simply never coming back like they’re supposed to. Take a cue from history: the greatest wall that ever was built, failed to protect the Chinese from the Mongols. There’s a reason Kublai Khan was there to meet Marco Polo.

But you know what? I’m not going to depend on a wall, because the problem isn’t restricted to a border, and never can be. The problem is lax enforcement, and I have no reason to support that.

Rahdigly-
Hillary’s position was smart. She didn’t know what was going to happen. But you know something? I thought it was wonderful to hear Ahmedinejad get his balls busted by the folks there. I don’t know what you have against the public embarrassment of tyrants and dictators. I think your fears that Democrats and liberals are allied with these people are mostly the product of your party’s poor estimation of our character. Poor, that is, in accuracy as well as assessment.

As for what he actually said? Well, a broken clock can be right twice a day. Ahmedinejad has little room to criticize Bush, though, given the fact that he was chased from one of his speaking engagements by his audience, his bodyguards scrambling to get the cars out.

But yes, Bush should respect the opinion of the American people. What, do you think respecting the American people is wrong? Do you hold Americans in contempt? Wow, I didn’t know that about you.

Ahmedinejad probably has little room to talk about bugging conversations. His people probably do that every day. But should your party and your President not be in a position where they can say to our buddy Mahmoud, hey, we don’t bug our citizens without a warrant, how about you? The worst part about Bush’s civil liberty’s infractions is how much like hypocrites it’ll make us look like when we demand civil liberties on behalf of folks like those in Iran. I mean, how will we decry torture by a dictator like him, if people cough “Abu Ghraib” Or “Gitmo” behind their hands?

As for Defense expenditures? Broken Clock again. That should be common sense: in a time of war, don’t squander money on weapons systems you don’t need. We’re paying billions for a Missile Defense system that will never work that could easily be paying for much of what you begged from congress for the supplementals.

As for Katrina? Again, a broken clock. I recall that even the folks on FOXNews, even prominent Republicans were appalled by the response.

In short, Ahmedinejad took a bunch of easy truism about American political sentiment, and poked Bush and Republicans like you in the eye with them. Democrats make some of the same complaints. Does that mean they are tainted by association? No. It just means he’s trying to get you folks to be even more irrational.

The trouble here is just as its always been: the right is being reactionary, and is not thinking about what it’s really saying.

If what you were alleging was true, Why did our friend Ahmedinejad not get a warmer welcome from all the people you say are his quisling collaborators? I think Republicans like you need to step back and see how silly you folks have gotten about this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2007 9:33 AM
Comment #234255

rahdigly,

So what pisses you off more, that this guy made these comments, or that they might have a air of truth to them (a fact that doesn’t take a secret decoder ring to understand)?
I find it interesting you use the far right’s talking points to denigrate the Democrats. Rush made the same comments word for word.

Much has been made of Ahmadinejad’s wish to lay a wreath at the site of the WTC Memorial.
Is it a bad thing for a visiting dignitary to pay his respects at the site of one of the worst tragedies in American history, or are we so worried that he might take political advantage of that tragedy (something Giuliani has been doing for years)?

Is the right so afraid the American people are incapable of discerning the truth for themselves that they would attempt to silence any opposing view?

Posted by: Rocky at September 25, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #234261

Rocky-
Actually, I wouldn’t let him do it either. Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Iran doesn’t deserve to honor the victims of terrorism, if it’s willing to add more names to those lists.

But, by all means, let him speak. You will know the tree by it fruits, and I have much more faith in the discernment of Americans than some on the right do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #234262

Well, I didn’t see the 60 minutes interview but I did watch the entire exchange at Columbia and I watched Ahmadinejad’s interview on Charlie Rose.

One word fairly well sums up both: obfuscation!

I rather like David Remer’s idea of putting Bush and Ahmadinejad in a boxing ring and letting them have at it.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 25, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #234263

Stephen,

If the point was to merely honor those that were killed, what’s the difference?
Iran was one of the first countries in the Middle East to express condolences after Sept, 11th. Is America so small we can’t allow anyone, regardless of their ideology, to honor our dead?

I fear that our refusal to allow him to do so only confirms that we wish tensions in the region to continue, and we will do anything, no matter how petty, to make sure they do.

Posted by: Rocky at September 25, 2007 11:08 AM
Comment #234265

“we can safely conclude that military experience only counts for the Republicans when it’s the experience of those who support the war. Everybody else is fair game”

Sadly, we can also conclude that military experience only counts for the Democrats when it’s just the “opinion” of those who do not support the war.
How else do you explain a US General, with first hand experience, being called a traitor who was just “supporting the Bush Administration policy” and not giving a valid assessment of what he personally has seen?
Hell, the left was pretty much saying this BEFORE he gave his report. A tactic very much expected and right on cue.
How else do you explain that it is ok for the left to call a US General, with first hand experience, a traitor, but its wrong for the right to call sheehan, someone who doesn’t know jack-shit about what happens over there, a traitor?

Outrage on Cue: Democrats and their Defensiveness Policy!

Same crap, different party!

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #234266

Stephen, terrific replies to David and rahdigly. It’s a shame how often topics become derailed in this column. This particular one was derailed almost from the get-go. We have John Kerry’s War Records, John Kerry being a traitor for telling the truth about war atrocities, and for trying to end the Vietnam War, Democrats are treasonous (classic trollbait), Democrats on Immigration and it somehow being the Democrats fault if we have another terrorist attack, and Ahmadinejad’s visit and how Democrats are in league with him because he criticized the president.
Bunch of BS.

That being said, I disagree with this:

“Actually, I wouldn’t let him do it either. Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Iran doesn’t deserve to honor the victims of terrorism, if it’s willing to add more names to those lists.”

I think that not letting him lay a wreath was a missed diplomatic opportunity for America. I think we should have allowed him to acknowledge the terrorist atrocity that took place at ground zero, but in that location, he should have had no microphone to say a word afterward. Besides, there would have been crowds of New Yorkers screaming at him as he left.
Let’s face it, no one is fooled by Ahmadinejad, not even his own people. Everybody in the world knows his true position on terrorism, yet by denying him the chance to simply lay a wreath in observance, we missed the chance to have a better dialog with Iran. To me, this denial only points up how ineffective we have become on matters of basic diplomacy. Btw, let us not forget that Reagan laid a wreath at a cemetery in Germany where many Nazi’s were buried.

“But, by all means, let him speak. You will know the tree by it fruits, and I have much more faith in the discernment of Americans than some on the right do.”

I agree. And letting him speak only reminds the whole world that America believes so strongly in freedom of speech, that we protected that right with our First Amendment. It is one of our greatest strengths, and we should never miss the chance to allow others to see that we still support that idea 100%.
Which brings us full circle right back to the incredible fact that our Senate just voted on a resolution condemning our right to freedom of speech and of the press.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2007 11:38 AM
Comment #234273

Yes, an incredible fact that would be passed off as no big deal if the target had been the Swiftboaters or a Coulter.

Yes, a resolution which does nothing but tell a US General that they stand behind the General while he does the job he was given in a time of war is just terrible.
Is it not possible for a Democrat in office to be against the war but believe that the General assigned to run the war deserves support against extreme groups such moveon.org?
I thought you lefties could support the troops even if you do not support the war?

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 11:59 AM
Comment #234276

kctim,

A lie is a lie, whether it’s told by a civilian or a General. IMO Petraeus lied! Moveon was right to point that out.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 25, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #234277

kctim,
My replies to what you just wrote can be found in the “Senate Condemns Free Speech” thread center column, and in the “Hillary Is A Disciplined Campaigner” thread right column.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #234279

Exactly what did he lie about K-Dem?

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #234281

kctim-
The Democrats overwhelmingly passed legislation condemning all political attacks on those serving in Uniform. Many of them voted for a resolution condemning the MoveOn ad.

Criticism of the Report is a separate matter. His credibility on those matters is undermined both by news reports of funny methodology, and by years of similar sunshiney assessments that didn’t turn out to be well-founded.

The Democrats have not adopted the sensibility that it is alright to politically attack soldiers or their families for differing opinions on the war. We don’t beat up old men literally, or old mothers figuratively, for opposing a war that has taken their child away from them. We don’t accuse triple amputees decorated for bravery in war of using their disability falsely for political gain, or supporting our enemies, just for opposing our position on the war.

Cindy Sheehan has a right to work through her grief at her son’s death in her own way, and not have to be made into some kind of She-Devil for her opposition to the war.

The Democrats have a whole hell of lot less to be ashamed of here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #234282

Ok Adrienne. I read your response over there and I have to ask, how do you and moveon know that the General is serving as a mouth-piece and not reporting what he has seen first hand?

I know you guys don’t understand the military, but he is a soldier who has been assigned a task, and him not taking the same apocolyptic view you do does not automatically mean he has some sort of agenda.

And I don’t make a big deal out of the crap moveon feeds people either. I see it on a nightly basis on TV.
But, I also don’t see a problem with a Democrat saying “you know, I don’t support the war, but I am going to stand behind the General who is trying to do his best for our troops until this thing is over.”

The lefts assumptions and opinions of what is going on over there does nothing to support the troops that are actually there.

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #234283

“rahdigly: If you were the President of Iran, what would you say on 60 minutes?”


People of America, I have come to the US to officially announce that I am running for President of the United States for the Democratic Party in 2008!! I will defeat the “neocons” by ending the wiretapping program, helping the people of Katrina, taking care of the women and gays (like I do in my country*), eliminating all US prisons by sending them to Iran where prisoners get a “fair” trial and proper treatment, educating the world on the holocaust (doesn’t exist), developing better “relations” with Israel (wiping them off the planet), and getting our dependence off of foreign oil… Oh yeah, Bush lied and people died… Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (D) in 08!***
:-)


Posted by: rahdigly at September 25, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #234285

Guess what Stephen, General Petraeus IS one of those soldiers serving in uniform and most of the attacks against him are based on the past.
How is calling him a traitor a “Criticism of the Report” exactly?

“The Democrats have not adopted the sensibility that it is alright to politically attack soldiers or their families for differing opinions on the war.”

No, you just ignore 99% of those with a differing opinion than the lefts.
sheehan is lead story and front page news while average soldiers families who speak out are page 10, a blurb or not even mentioned.
And heaven help anybody on here who doesn’t hate Bush or hopes for a positive out of Iraq, they are labeled as dumb ass, brainwashed rednecks by the ever caring, holier than thou lefties on here.

“We don’t accuse triple amputees decorated for bravery in war of using their disability falsely for political gain”

No, the left just says our soldiers are dying for nothing, are murderers, rapists and have been defeated.

“or supporting our enemies, just for opposing our position on the war.”

Maybe its less to do with not supporting the war and more to do with giving more support to other countries and assholes like chavez than you do your own President and country?

“Cindy Sheehan has a right to work through her grief at her son’s death in her own way, and not have to be made into some kind of She-Devil for her opposition to the war.”

And those who support their country are not mindless drones intent on ruling the world under a Christian God either. And they too have the right to show their support.

“The Democrats have a whole hell of lot less to be ashamed of here.”

Try being an American and not a democrat for once and you will see just how silly that comment truly is.

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #234288

Rahdigly,

The entire world is an echo chamber!!!!!!!!

Bush is a fool!!!!!! Bush is a fool!!!!!!! Bush is a fool!!!!!!!!

Now we are accused of siding with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because he and the rest of the world know all about the smirking chimp and his dirty deeds!!!!!

Just because the entire universe has seen through the wing nut smokescreen, does not mean we are all on the same side!!!!!!!!!

There are still that 25% that have not caught on yet!!!!!

What a shameful time in our history, the rest of the world is laughing at us because we let a smirking chip take over our country without even a bit of resistance.

2009 can not get here soon enough!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 25, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #234289


Kctim: A resolution which does nothing but tell a US General that they stand behind the General while he does the job he was given in a time of war would do just that without even mentioning moveon.org. What Congress did was respond to a political attack with a political attack. The General was chosen for the job by the Administration because he has consistantly supported the Administrations policies in Iraq. His views are not shared by many in the military including his commanding officer.

The General has decided to be a politician and support the neocons. The facts that he has presented are not supported by the evidence. That is what happens when a general bases his opinion on a political position rather than evidence.

Before the General testified, the American people were polled about it. Their response was yes they support the military but they still thought that the Generals testimony would be another Administration white wash and they were right.

I thought righties could support the troops even if they did support the war? But righties sent our troops off to fight in a foreign land without sending enough troops. Righties sent our troops over there without proper equipment like enough body armor. Righties have stuck our troops into the middle of a civil war and insist on keeping them there because if they pull out the righties corporate buddies would have to pull out to. When the lefties took control of Congress they passed funding to provide for upgraded humvees. Now our troops can drive over a road side bomb without being killed. When it comes to supporting our troops, righties can talk a mean game but they are not very good at putting points of the scoreboard.

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #234292
2009 can not get here soon enough!!!!!!

Because that will change everything!

(not)

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 25, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #234293

“2009 can not get here soon enough!!!!!!”

Amen to that.
I know I can’t wait to pay more in taxes and lose more rights.

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 1:34 PM
Comment #234298

Rhinehold and kctim

2009 can not get here soon enough!!!!!!!!!

Sure I feel pessimistic sometimes also!!!!!
The last few years it has been the worst for me!!!!!

I just hope for the best for everyone, even that 25% that are dragging their feet!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 25, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #234300

JL
Could you please join with K-Dem and show us which facts he gave are not backed up by evidence and how you know it?

Why not mention moveon? They usually have something to do with all the negativity towards our President and soldiers and they are the ones who called the General a traitor.
Personally, I wish the Dems would have done this by themselves so that they could show the country that they don’t all take orders from sorros and his money.

“That is what happens when a general bases his opinion on a political position rather than evidence”

And you know his opinion is based on politics and not what he seen first hand how?

“I thought righties could support the troops even if they did support the war?”

They do, but the best part is that most righties also support the troops through hard times too. That was one reason I tended to favor the right over the left while I served.

There’s a problem with your leftie vs rightie fantasy JL: The right does not feel compelled to explain their support of the troops because their actions do not contradict their stance in the eyes of the soldiers.

“When it comes to supporting our troops, righties can talk a mean game but they are not very good at putting points of the scoreboard”

If putting down the General in charge of operations and calling him a traitor is “putting points” on a scoreboard for the left, I think I will side with the right when it comes to the troops.

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #234303

Outraged, what you have felt the last “few” years, I have felt the last 15 or so years and it’s only going to get worse.
Hopefully, your not one of those lefties who will go back to sleep once your side is back in power.

Posted by: kctim at September 25, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #234314

Kctim,

I won’t be sleeping if they do take back our government!!!!
Left, Right, Center, I can not agree with everything any of them do!!!!
They all bull $%#@ during the election process. You never know what you are going to get but all you can do is hope for the best!!!!!
I just go with the lesser of the evils that think similarly to me, and hope they keep some of their campaign promises. It looks like corporations have too much control of our government, I hope that will change!!!!

I think many of us have learned a lot from the smirking chip and his dirty deeds!!!!!
It will take time just to repair the damage done by him and his ilk!!!!

Good luck!!!! I hope for the best for all of us!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 25, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #234315

How about some of you analysts checking this out and let the rest of us know if we should start looking for those backyard shelters again…. :(

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 25, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #234316

That was brilliant….here is the info..
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001747.html

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 25, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #234321

Sandra,

This is merely a hegemonic attempt to walk as loudly as possible and pretend to have a big stick.
Let it be known that if you say, or do anything that the United States doesn’t want you to do we will threaten you with sanctions, and if that doesn’t work we will play up to our constituents by threatening to go to war with you.

This amendment is even a bigger waste of time than last weeks.

Posted by: Rocky at September 25, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #234331

Outraged, I continue to be drawn into Obama’s candidacy. He is a very learned Constitutional scholar. He has raised the bulk of his campaign money from the grass roots avoiding corporate lobbyists. His mind is very sharp and he can grasp complex scenarios and easily get to the nub of them. He has vowed to give the lobbyists the boot in his first days of office and prevent his staff from becoming or engaging lobbyists for the benefit of the lobbyists.

No person can be a perfect president in these times. But, Obama has all the appearances of having his head screwed on straight about what ails America, with some good ideas about how to fix them, and he is a person who won’t HAVE to rely upon others to think his way through problems for him. His opposition to Hillary’s grab for corporate and lobbyist money and hook ups, makes

Obama would be a clear choice for me, if it were not for my greater fear of a one party government without checks and balances on its excesses as we witnessed over the last several years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 25, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #234333

kctim asked of Adrienne: “I read your response over there and I have to ask, how do you and moveon know that the General is serving as a mouth-piece and not reporting what he has seen first hand?”

I saw the evidence of this while watching his testimony, especially his first day testimony, in which his stats did not coincide with the NIE’s, GAO’s, or the Iraqi Govermnent’s. That is one helluva lot of evidence that he was playing the White House’s agenda game, and why shouldn’t he come back appease his boss. Wouldn’t you? Haven’t you? I sure have to keep my job. No shame in that. He cherry picked and fudged the definitions of the stats to appear favorable to his bosses agenda.

That, as far as I am concerned, was to be expected. Doesn’t make him a traitor working with for a foreign power, that is pure hysterical hyperbole. It makes him a man whose entire career success has been based on following orders, spoken and unspoken. He is a good General. Obedient to the civilian authority he works for, as our Constitution calls for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 25, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #234337

kctim-
So how is his view different from the administration line that the current strategy is making progress and winning the war?

The whole point of their argument is that they’re saying the president is right, and they’re trying to make it difficult to gainsay him.

If he’s not right, and the evidence shows he isn’t, then it’s not support to give Petraeus a free pass from criticism, respectful or not.

I can’t take responsibility for what other people say. But I have done the most I can do: I have related my opinion that MoveOn was wrong to take the approach they did. If you expect me to start getting fratricidal to satisfy your need for justice, I’m afraid it really doesn’t seem to be worth it for me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2007 5:15 PM
Comment #234341

kctim,

Notice the “IMO” in my previous statement:

“A lie is a lie, whether it’s told by a civilian or a General. IMO Petraeus lied! Moveon was right to point that out.”

Unless you’re suggesting that your freedoms are different than my freedoms I believe I still have a right to express my opinion.

But look at the following chart and then consider the numbers Petraeus was pushing:

http://tinyurl.com/2cojlg

Some may say he was simply looking at the statistics differently, well try that excuse with the IRS if you ever get audited, but I call it a lie.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 25, 2007 5:53 PM
Comment #234347


Kctim: I will not go as far as KansasDem and say that General Patraeus lied. The facts that the general presented to Congress were true based on the evidence that was provided. However, the evidence was cherry picked and distorted to show the facts in the best light possible to support the Administrations assertion that progress is being made in Iraq. General Patraeus determined the number of deaths based on a Pentagon report that did not accurately account for many deaths. This was suspected but not confirmed until the Pentagon released it’s methodology.

The Generals testimony and the pentagon report put the Administrations spin foward. The GAO report, the NIE report and others tell quite a different story. But, you do not want to rely on lefties or the left wing media to compare how the other reports differ from the Administrations version.

If you are certain that the Patraeus and Administration version is the truth you don’t need to bother reading the other versions. If you are not 100% sure, read the other reports and compare them to the Administrations version. I think the most important one is The Report Of The Independent Commision on the Security Forces Of Iraq, chaired by General James L. Jones,USMC(ret). All of the men on this commision are former military officers and or law enforcement officers with long and distinguished careers. I was impressed by the amount of work they did. Compare what they have to say about the state of Iraqi security forces, especially the Iraqi national police with what the administration and Patraeus are saying. Read what they have to say about the way we are conducting our operations in Iraq and what their recomendations are. I can agree with most of their recomendations and honestly, I think you will to.

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #234352


“This amendment is even a bigger waste of time than last weeks.”

Rocky If you go to Talking Points Memo and watch Senator Webb’s response to the amendment you might change your mind about the seriousness of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #234355

Stephen Daugherty- Baite & Switch or Ponzi Scheme ?
President Bush specifically stated that General
Petraeus would come back to Congress with a “Report”
on the progress of the new surge and it’s progress
or lack there of! Just as Petraeus was to return,
President Bush made an assessment of things in Iraq, and
at that time President Bush made the remark that
Petraeus would make a “Statement, Bush did not say
Petraeous would give Congress a “Report.”

Statement-“An overall impression or mood
intended to be communicated, especially by means
other than words or a declaration.

Report-“To make or report an often official,
formal, or regular account of.

Now, after all this bickering across this Nation
since the return of General Petraeus, an his
some what contentious statements, I have to ask
the question, have our Countries best interests,
been served well by displays of {I got you)
mentality, or Democrats an Republicans showing an
insensitivity towards one another, kindness is
not a sign of weakness.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 25, 2007 8:12 PM
Comment #234357

The irony in all this is that the Republicans and Lieberdems, by taking their approach, shoot themselves in the foot. When they try to sneak around and do political end runs on these military policies, they only end up convincing people all the more that they’re policy ideals are dangerous to the country. Number one rule of politics: those who bring nasty surprises home to voters are not long for the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #234358

David, I understand why you think that Patreus is being a good soldier and following implied/other orders.

What I can’t reconcile is those generals that have been removed. Where they not following orders or politically not alligned with Bush? You always hear the later when the media relays the story. And you see that same thinking on this blog. The thought that the previous generals were asked to go. And these generals are held out as victims. Is Patreus a victim or a good soldier?

If the other generals were political casualties, then by definition Patreus is a political animal too to some extent. So it seems to simple to explain away his report as being a good soldier following orders.

Patreaus stands to loose a lot in his career if his words and thoughts prove to be propaganda for the Right. IMO he has more skin in the game than you give him credit for. However, I don’t recall your past positions on the generals that were removed.

As far as the GAO and other studies, I have heard that those concluded nine to ten weeks prior to last weeks presentations. And it would seem that two plus months might help, which is what Patreus reported on that those studies could not.

Posted by: Edge at September 25, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #234365

kctim:
“Ok Adrienne. I read your response over there and I have to ask, how do you and moveon know that the General is serving as a mouth-piece and not reporting what he has seen first hand?”

Because it’s obvious. It differed so widely from all the other reports, that it was immediately apparent that it was complete BS.

“I know you guys don’t understand the military,”

I understand quite a bit more than you think I do.

“but he is a soldier who has been assigned a task, and him not taking the same apocolyptic view you do does not automatically mean he has some sort of agenda.”

He was assigned the task of once more selling the president’s failed war, and that is exactly what he did. The moment he agreed to do this for a dishonest president with zero credibility, he then became fair game for any and all politicized comments that people wish to make. No matter what BS and phony outrage is being thrown around right now, that is the simple, unvarnished truth of the matter. Moreover, if Petraeus was a truly good soldier not just a political hack, he would NEVER have agreed to the idea of becoming this president’s mouthpiece, because it is always, always, always, a mistake to politicize the military in any way at all.
All good soldiers know this is true — well, at least the ones that I know feel that way.

“And I don’t make a big deal out of the crap moveon feeds people either.”

They don’t feed it, they offer it. It is nothing more than an opinion, and they have a right to give it, just as you have a right to give yours. You can take it into consideration, or you can ignore it. Just like people can take or leave yours.

“I see it on a nightly basis on TV.”

No you don’t. If that were true, the American people would be much better informed than they currently are.

“But, I also don’t see a problem with a Democrat saying “you know, I don’t support the war, but I am going to stand behind the General who is trying to do his best for our troops until this thing is over.”“

I don’t support the war, but I do support the troops, which is why I cannot support this General
who is doing his best, on behalf of a president who is a failed CINC with zero credibility, to keep our troops in Iraq for no good reason, indefinitely.

“The lefts assumptions and opinions of what is going on over there does nothing to support the troops that are actually there.”

Actually it does, and what’s more, an enormous number of our troops know this is true. They have been writing to thank Moveon in droves for doing everything in their power to bring them home, and a great many of them have been very busy donating money to the organization in appreciation ever since the advertisement ran in the NYT.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2007 9:19 PM
Comment #234368

jlw,

“you might change your mind about the seriousness of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.”

Sorry, I have been out of town working, and when that happens all of the days, and weeks seem to run together.
I was speaking about the Petraeus/moveon amendment.

Posted by: Rocky at September 25, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #234375

Sheesh, I’ve repeated some of this nonsense ad nauseum in recent days, but once again:

(1) Petraeus came out with a “glowing” assessment of the progress in Iraq just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election:

Battling for Iraq; By David H. Petraeus
Sunday, September 26, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/5d65f

(2) At his confirmation hearing in January he said, “…….. I will provide my bosses and you with forthright, professional military advice with respect to the missions given to Multi-National Force-Iraq and the situation on the ground in Iraq ……..”.

http://tinyurl.com/ynsqjt

(3) Then came the rumors, substantiated by Dana Perino and other White House spokespersons, that the “Petraeus Report” would actually be the “White House report. They even insisted that was what Congress had been promised from the get-go. Yet, when Petraeus began his diatribe to the House he insisted that NO ONE in the White House or the Pentagon had taken part in any way in the processing of the “Report”.

Come on folks!!!!!!!!!!!!

We’re all entitled to our own conclusions, but if you believe Petraeus was “forthright” then I have some wonderful oceanfront property just 45 miles north-east of Wichita, Kansas ……….. Atlantic or Pacific ………. take your pick!

It’s like “connecting the dots” regarding whether or not we provided material support to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Not all the dots are there, so one must fill in the gaps themselves. I come up with a picture of Petraeus being just another Bush toady, a toady with real ba!!$, but still a toady. (I’ll admit that he must believe we can pull this off)

Posted by: KansasDem at September 25, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #234377

Does anyone else have huge splotches of gray/black blocking text? Or is it my puter?

Posted by: KansasDem at September 25, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #234378

No splotches here KD…

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 25, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #234380
kctim: “Ok Adrienne. I read your response over there and I have to ask, how do you and moveon know that the General is serving as a mouth-piece and not reporting what he has seen first hand?”

Because it’s obvious. It differed so widely from all the other reports, that it was immediately apparent that it was complete BS.

ALL other reports? Really? That can only be true if you get “all your reports” from far left-wing blogs. Even the New York Times has been reporting a great many success stories out of Iraq recently, to say nothing of reports from numerous other sources.

If Petreaus says things you’ve never heard the likes of before from any of the sources you’re tuned to, that’s a problem with you limiting your sources to those of your own ideological bias. When you live in an echo chamber, don’t be surprised if all you hear is an echo. The general should not be blamed for anyone else’s limitations.

Posted by: Liam at September 25, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #234383

Liam-
Then you can explain to me how it is you determine the sectarian or non-sectarian nature of a murder from which side of the head somebody is shot in. Or how you exclude Sunni Casualties from the totals of those killed by sectarian violence, just because the bombs that blew them up where targeted at Shia, and not them in particular.

You can also explain to me how all those people who set Benchmarks in January to define victory, to tell these people our committment was not open-ended (the president’s own words), manage to call failing all but three benchmarks and promising a commitment for the next decade constitutes being forthright.

Finally, you can explain to me what the regression of the political situation in Iraq says about the the surge, since the purpose of the surge was to gain breathing room for the obviously necessary political reconciliation. If that’s not going to happen, the game’s up, and staying another ten years is a terrible idea, since there’s little we can achieve by any military successes.

The General’s doing what his CINC asks him to do: sell an unpopular war. He’s a good soldier. But a Good Soldier helped get us into this war, using similarly sloppy evidence. The idea of continuing on bad evidence what we started on bad evidence seems farcical.

The problem with always putting a positive spin on things, is that good or bad, it’s most always best to know where you stand. You just pick success stories, but success stories by themselves do not necessarily spell out an overall success by themselves. Part of the victory in Anbar is arming the very people who strike out at the Shia, and then turning around and doing the same about the Shia. On a smaller level you could call it a success, arming these people, but there’s a small problem: altogether, it’s a problematic situation.

Good in part is not always good in total. Wars are emergent creatures, and what you have to look out for is the overall strategic sense of things. If our point is political reconciliation, an arms race hardly serve the purpose.

Without political reconciliation among the Iraqi’s, America’s departure will be a problem. However, America can’t stay forever; as it is, it’s almost completely worn away at our readiness for any military emergency that might come our way. It has been counterproductive in terms of terrorism. At some point, if the results of your efforts are counterproductive, further attempts at winning will only make the losing worse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 25, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #234384

Liam:
“ALL other reports? Really? That can only be true if you get “all your reports” from far left-wing blogs.”

Duh. Try the GAO report, the NIE report, and then toss in what a multitude within our military have been saying.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #234386

Kansas Dem:
“I come up with a picture of Petraeus being just another Bush toady, a toady with real ba!!$, but still a toady.

I get the same picture, and oy gevalt, one would need a very large set to think that info could be interpreted as strictly his own, when everything he said matched up with all of Bushco’s claims so perfectly!

“Does anyone else have huge splotches of gray/black blocking text? Or is it my puter?”

I don’t see it on mine either, KD.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 25, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #234387

A couple of stories I read in the newspaper today:

Bomber Strikes Shiite-Sunni Meeting

Basra Police Headquarters Attacked

Posted by: Adrienne at September 26, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #234389

“I don’t see it on mine either, KD.”

Adrienne,

My thanks to both you and Sandra. Sadly it appears not to be a puter thing either. The same blotches appear in the TV, the bathroom mirror, etc. I’d guess it’s just a new neurological thing. Glad I have Medicare!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 26, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #234390

KD, I’m sorry to hear that….know that you’re dealing with some issues and hope this is minor and temporary one! Funny how we get to know people and never see or touch them, yet feel close.
I’ve meant to mention several times that I have family in Wichita, and have been there a few times over the years. Nearly lost a cousin in that one twister that did some damage out at Boeing.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 26, 2007 1:04 AM
Comment #234393

Kansas Dem:
“Sadly it appears not to be a puter thing either. The same blotches appear in the TV, the bathroom mirror, etc. I’d guess it’s just a new neurological thing.”

Aw jeeze, that really stinks KD! So sorry to hear that. But I wonder… were you having a marathon session on your computer today or tonight? Maybe you just need to give your eyes a bit more of a rest? Just a thought. I myself have been the type to not be able to put a book down until the words blurring together forced me to…

“Glad I have Medicare!”

I’m glad you do, too. Now if we could just get a president that cares more about helping folks like you get the care they need and less about doing the bidding of Big Pharma, we’d all be in much better shape.

Sandra:
“Funny how we get to know people and never see or touch them, yet feel close.”

So true.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 26, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #234398

Getting personal on a political blog is not a good idea, nor vice-versa. Sorry for that.

But I must say “watch CNN”. I swear I just saw a “photo-shop” job of Dem presidential candidates with “fangs”. Like we’re freakin’ vampires!

AND anyone that assumes a mental image does NOT stick is full of something!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 + 2 = ?

It appears that the fictional “Liberal Media” is pulling out all the stops.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 26, 2007 2:40 AM
Comment #234399

KansasDem,

Ala Overland Park I hope you are doing well and always appreciate your passion, logic, and point of view … even when I have to grasp that I am wrong! ;) Best wishes.

Posted by: Edge at September 26, 2007 2:46 AM
Comment #234406

Stephen D.
“I can’t take responsibility for what other people say”

That is not what I was saying nor expecting.
This play by moveon is to be expected and I do not believe most Dems agree with those sad tactics.
My biggest pain with your post is that you somehow believe the Dems are less defensive than the Reps.

K-Dem
“Unless you’re suggesting that your freedoms are different than my freedoms I believe I still have a right to express my opinion”

Why such a defensive tone there? I did not question your integrity about the matter, I just asked how he lied.
I saw that you had typed IMO and I do realize that it is your opinion. But to be honest, your opinion should be based on facts if you are calling someone an outright liar. Calling him a liar simply because his “first hand” experience disagree’s with what you have heard is great for politics but is not accurate.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 10:00 AM
Comment #234410

David
“He cherry picked and fudged the definitions of the stats to appear favorable to his bosses agenda”

Thank you for that post. As you, I do not believe he lied or “betrayed” his country and it is wrong to portray him as doing so.
Of course he picked through the info as anybody would, but that does not mean he is a puppet without a mind.
I happen to believe his personal first hand experience over there also contributed to his report.

JLW
“I can agree with most of their recomendations and honestly, I think you will to”

And I do, but I do not totally discount the Generals assessment either and I believe his personal observations contributed and are worthy of respectful thought.
I also believe those who agreed with this resolution were only showing their support for the military and not the war or Bush or whatever.

Adrienne
“He was assigned the task of once more selling the president’s failed war”

The left believes EVERY General who is given this job and does not completely agree with the lefts views is doing this and they usually come to this conclusion before they have had a chance to do their job.

Look, I’m not saying the General is going to bring everything to a happy end. The fact is that things are probably not as good as he says and not a bad as you all say. But that does not mean he is a “mouthpiece” being used and that does not mean the Dems who are able to put politics aside and show the man who is in charge that they can support the military and not the war, are wrong.

“No you don’t. If that were true, the American people would be much better informed than they currently are”

Um, yes I do. And when people do not agree with what the media and moveon feed them, it does not mean they are not informed.

“Actually it does, and what’s more, an enormous number of our troops know this is true”

And an enormous number want to finish the job, but their opinion is not worthy of the lefts consideration.
ALL of the soldiers wanted to come home before they first boarded to go there and everyone of them want to come home now. But that does not mean that those who see no progress and want to quit or the ones who see progress and want to finish, speak for all.

“I understand quite a bit more than you think I do”

Maybe so. But most civilians understand what they are told and agree with what supports their position and ignore what they are told when it does not support their position.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 10:57 AM
Comment #234411

kctim-
Here’s the main difference: Pelosi and Reid seem to be caught acting corruptly. When pushed on the matters, they go and they correct the oversights. DeLay and others in the Republican party get caught doing something, it’s “damn the liberal media” and “circle the wagons, boys.”

That is what I mean by defensiveness- to defend with zeal what doesn’t look good, rather than admit mistakes, rather than admit something looks bad. The Bush Administration is one of the worst offenders on this. Rather than admit policies look bad, they brazenly rationalize them, or accuse their critics of bias.

The Democrats are not morally superior, but have created a culture less tolerant of the appearance of impropriety, and which sees defending their leaders when they aren’t acting consistent with their principles as a waste of time. Go over to Daily Kos if you want to get a good sense of that.

The Democrats expect their leaders to support them, where generally Republicans have made a habit of supporting and defending their leaders. The difference is most of the reason why the Democrats are now the more favored party. They sense that the Democrats are more likely to change the course of things than the Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #234423

Stephen
The main difference is that it is now the Dems who are fighting for control.
When it is the Dems who are caught acting corruptly, its “partisan BS” or some kind of “vast right wing conspiracy.”
In 96 and 2000, it was the Republicans who were the more favored party and it was believed the Republicans were more likely to change the course than the Democrats.

You are partisan though, and you view the Dem troubles as “indiscretions” and you magnify the same troubles by Republicans.
The problem is, that for every Dem who does this, there is a Rep who does the same thing and NOTHING gets fixed. Dems take and the Reps get mad and then the Reps take and Dems get mad.
It’s a cycle that has divided our country and has sent it down a path which was not intended when it was founded.

You are correct though, Democrats DO expect their leaders to support them, in every aspect of their life.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #234429

Ron Brown, for the second time in about 3 years, I agree with you.. ;) I often think when someone launches into an “x” rated tirade that it makes them sound terribly ignorant.
It does take a little time to put together and voice some more appropriate words to fit the situation, but that time often works as a bit of a cooling off period as well.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 26, 2007 1:14 PM
Comment #234431

Guess I need to get some more sleep….apologies, that last post was mean for another thread…obviously….sorry!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 26, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #234436

kctim-
Provide examples. The easiest thing in the world is to flip my statements to suit your politics. Tell me: what happened when Pelosi’s bill seemed to lack provisions for the workers in the Marianas, or some other place? Did she complain about the Right Wing media, or did she revise the laws to head off that criticism. When there was that big brouhaha over that property, did Reid refuse to talk about it, or did he admit that he had failed to properly report the sale and do something about that?

As for your final insinuation? We don’t expect that kind of support. You don’t seem to see much of a difference between our asking some things from the government that Republicans wouldn’t, and asking all things. It might be self-gratifying to suppose that you’re made of sterner stuff than us, but it really isn’t the case. We expect our leaders to follow our lead. We’re not asking for loyalty oaths here, nor leaping to defend our leaders when they don’t do as they’re asked by supposing it’s for the good of the country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #234441

Stephen
The Dems are trying to gain power, so they give the perception of acting like they take care of their troubles when they happen. When they win in ‘08, the denying, ignoring and excusing will get back to full force again.
The Reps are trying to hold on to power, so they take the road which offers the least problems. When they loose in ‘08, they will then have less to loose and it will be their turn to go on the attack again.

reid and pelosi came up with half-assed fixes to cover their butts. If they were not caught, they would still be doing it. That is not ending corruption, it is cya when caught.

“You don’t seem to see much of a difference between our asking some things from the government that Republicans wouldn’t, and asking all things.”

The “some” things you ask from govt affect ALL of us Stephen. Whether it violates our rights, beliefs, responsibilities or not.
Liberal Dems want to use govt to force more intrusive laws onto the people more than real Dems or Reps and you know it.
It is this pandering which gives todays liberal Dem party its support and it is this lack of respect for ones personal freedoms and rights which has made “liberal” a bad word. It wasn’t the evil Republicans that you blame so often, they just capitalized on it. How? By taking the liberals very actions and using it against them.

“It might be self-gratifying to suppose that you’re made of sterner stuff than us, but it really isn’t the case.”

Please Stephen. The fact that I can survive without being told what to do and believe in personal rights and freedoms is hardly done to stroke my own ego.

“We expect our leaders to follow our lead.”

And only YOUR lead. To hell with their agenda that got them elected, they must lead as you want or they are ruining the country and need to be stopped by any means necessary.

“We’re not asking for loyalty oaths here,”

Of course not, just don’t mention that around Lieberman or any other Dem who dares not believe the liberals view of the issues.

“nor leaping to defend our leaders when they don’t do as they’re asked by supposing it’s for the good of the country”

Were you politically active during the 90s? EVERYTIME something questionable about the administration came up, the Dems defended, ignored or excused it. Much the same way the Reps have done for this administration.
Why in the heck should we believe it will be different your next time around? Why should we believe the Reps when they say it?

Truth is, the Dems are playing all over the field in order to get elected. Once elected though, it will be nothing but the same crap, different party. You might be fine with crap as long as its your own, but I for one, don’t like anyones crap.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #234444

You are correct though, Democrats DO expect their leaders to support them, in every aspect of their life.
Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 12:44 PM

I think you have things turned around with this statement!!!!!!!

Republicans get &%^$@$& welfare from their leaders!!!!!!

Laws written so that (We the People) can not negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get lower prices for pills!!!!!!

No bid contracts for Halliburton, KBR, Black Water and Titan, (We the People) want accountability for the use of our tax dollars!!!!!!

Deregulation of business so that (We the People) have poop in our food, unsafe work environments, poison in our children’s toys and polluted air, water and land.

This sounds like corporate welfare to me!!!!!!!

Maybe we should make a law to change it to say (We the Corporations that own this Government)!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 26, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #234447

So, Outraged, will you be voting for challengers in the Primaries? Will you vote for challengers instead of incumbents in Nov. 2008? Afterall, it is the incumbents of both parties who preserve the ineffective and horribly expensive system we have today. Hillary is setting up meetings between donors and committee chairs even before being elected. This is how the failing system is preserved.

The only rational answer for voters is demand a real change by removing these incumbents who preserve the system as it is, ripping off tax payers for the politicians and their donor’s benefit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #234448

Outraged
Dems don’t get welfare from their leaders? Or, they do, but thats “different?” or “not as bad?”

But, to be honest, I wasn’t really talking about “corporate” welfare as much as I was talking about the people who believe govt should take care of them, do things for them so they don’t have to personally and use govt to force their beliefs onto others.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #234451

So, Outraged, will you be voting for challengers in the Primaries?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 03:47 PM


I remember what you told me about Obama in an earlier post!!!!! You also made a statement about not liking a one party system. I don’t like the gridlock we have now!!!!!! Nothing positive is being done!!!!!

Hilary is getting money from bad people just like the other side is doing!!!! The campaign contribution system is broken!!!!!

I don’t care for Hilary’s health care program, I like yours better (Not For Profit Healthcare)!!!!

If you want to run as an independent I would consider voting for you!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 26, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #234456

Kctim,

Some Democrats and some Republicans are always at the trough!!!!!!!!

Most of us from both sides take pride in doing for ourselves, and not having to depend on some one else!!!!!!!!!

It does not hurt to have a little compassion for those that can’t!!!!!!!

If some one makes laws so we cannot survive in a dignified manor that is where I draw the line!!!!!!!

I know you want to take care of yourself and yours just as I do!!!!!!!

Our government should not make laws that tip the balance in favor of corporations so that you and I can not thrive!!!!!!

So Good Luck To You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 26, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #234463

Outraged
1- I agree.
2- Yep, but enough of us.
3- No it does not. But it is not up to govt or somebody else to tell who we must feel compassion for and support.
4- I agree. Glad to hear you believe we are over taxed too.
5- Yes I do and I’m glad you do, no problem there. The problem comes when you want govt to force me to support who you think should be cared for.
6- I agree. But I also believe govt should not make laws that tip the balance in favor of govt so that you and I cannot thrive. That happens far more than with the corps.
7- An good luck to you too.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #234469

kctim-
Look mister, I am a liberal and a real Democrat. Don’t peddle nonsense to me. I know what real liberals want. There’s no give in right-wing politics nowadays. No give on taxes, no give on regulation, no give on abortion or any number of other subjects. You talk about freedom and rights, but whose? In our modern society, we can’t separate ourselves so much from the needs of infrastructure, of common resources, to enforce fairness and safety in our dealings with business.

We’re not free, not without the government there to negotiate on our behalf, to give us some breathing room and back up to deal with the powerful.

We expect our leaders to start helping us, rather than just helping themselves or cowering in the face of their political opponents. If we have to change a few diapers to get rid of the remaining crap in Washington, that’s just what we have to do, and that’s just what I say we do.

And yes, we want them to follow OUR lead, because that is what got them elected. Why do you think Congress’s numbers are so low? Polls consistently show that people want Congress to help end the war in Iraq, and that they think not enough has been done to that end. It’s the timidity of the party that’s making folks angry outside Washington, not its temerity.

When I talked about loyalty oaths, you spun off on that Lieberman tangent. Really. Don’t we have a right to define our own politics? We give considerably more flexibility to our politicians than the Republicans do. Lieberman, though, tested the limits on things, and worse yet, showed contempt to his own fellow party members by refusing to acknowledge his primary defeat for what it meant. He is truly a Democrat in Name Only now. Hopefully, he’ll go extinct in the next election.

But that’s not the kind of loyalty I was talking about. It’s one thing for a party, God forbid, to expect its members to adhere to some kind of common platform. It’s quite another for a President and his party to make such political loyalty a defining test of loyalty to one’s country. Officeholders don’t swear to the president, but to the constitution, the law of the land. Kids and American pledge allegiance to a flag, and the Republic for which it stands.

For America, the tradition is that we swear to the constitution, or to our republic, swearing essentially to our common law and commonwealth. We make a promise to each other, between each other. Our loyalties have conventionally been to someTHING greater than ourselves, rather than someONE supposedly superior to ourselves, or some group.

You might consider this innocuous, but as we see Bush pile on all these supposed powers, above and beyond the constitution, these loyalty oaths to himself, and his excessive, even illegal politicizing of the bureaucracy, it all begins to form a disturbing pattern, one which presents a real threat to our freedom, our rights.

This is what I feared might start to happen, six years ago. You talk about freedoms and rights when it comes to things like regulations and codes, but much of that never really concerns you. All this could. What will it take for you to see that the greatest threats to your freedom come from your own allies?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2007 5:00 PM
Comment #234476

Stephen
Look mister? Thats classic!
You are a liberal Democrat and if you were to check with real people, not polls, the majority of Democrats are more moderate, not liberal. They are real Democrats.

There is no give on right-wing or left-wing politics today. THAT is why we are so divided.
Reps are for lower taxes, but don’t have the guts to lower them to a fair level. Dems are for higher taxes to support govt programs which do what they don’t want to do personally.

Whose freedom and rights? Um, ALL of us!
There is nothing wrong with govt negotiating, not strongarming, on our behalf and I have never said there was. Where do you get the idea that everybody who believes in personal rights and responsibility envisions no govt at all with We the People running around and surviving like cavemen?
I know its been a real long time, but individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and surviving without reverting back to the stone-age.

“And yes, we want them to follow OUR lead, because that is what got them elected”

Then why did you not want them to follow the rights lead when they won in 2004?
Look, you guys won in 06 and I agree they should do what they “promised” you they would do. But they aren’t and you guys aren’t complaining much about it. Its still Bush this and evil Republicans that. Just like it will be clinton this and evil Democrats that in 09.

“Hopefully, he’ll go extinct in the next election”

Why? Because he holds a different opinion about the war. Seven years ago he was liberal enough for you all to vote for him, but one free thought and he is shunned and mocked.

You refuse to see this Stephen, but the “Bush pile” you refer to, was not created by Bush. It has been a growin pile for many, many years. The disturbing pattern you see, presents a real threat to the freedoms and rights YOU care about. Many of us care about ALL of our rights and have watched this “disturbing pattern” for a long time now.

“This is what I feared might start to happen, six years ago.”

Well, it started long before six years ago and guess what, having Dems in power is not going to stop it from continuing. It may not bother you as much because at least its things you don’t care about, but it is happening.

“All this could. What will it take for you to see that the greatest threats to your freedom come from your own allies?”

Who are my “allies” Stephen? You are stuck in this left vs right war that serves no purpose other than to keep the people divided and thereby easily controlled. They keep us fighting amongst ourselves so we won’t pay attention to them.

The greatest threat to our freedoms are when we choose to give any of them up.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 5:52 PM
Comment #234484

Outraged said: “If you want to run as an independent I would consider voting for you!!!!!!!!!”

Yeah, but, would you donate to my campaign? :-) I have thought of running for office. Upon researching it, I realized I and my family would be bankrupt if I lost. I lack one incredibly important talent required of political campaigners, the talent to reach into other’s pockets with their permission.

For me, asking for their money has to be accompanied with the caveat that if elected, I would work for the greater good of all, even if that meant advocating for something the donor doesn’t agree with. It’s a campaign donation killer, nearly everytime.

It is however, very encouraging to me as a parent and voting citizen to find agreement with others such as yourself on many of these important issues. I thank you for that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #234492

kctim-
I said “look mister” because I was angry when I started writing my response and was tempted to write something much angrier, which wouldn’t wash well with this site’s policy.

Quite telling me what I believe in. I write under my own name to encourage myself to only stand for what I would stand for in person, from my own mouth.

In terms of what Bush has been piling on, his policies represent a significant break from what either Reagan, Bush 41 or Clinton policies were. None of them were so secretive as Bush 43. Nobody else has employed the Unitary executive theory to Bush’s extent. Hell, I’m not even sure it was all that well developed before he came along.

As for your allies? You don’t seem to vary your rhetoric all that far away from the Republican’s. You say the same things as they do, and about the most difference between you and them that I see, is that you occasionall call a pox on both their houses. You’re independent in sentiment without really being independent in many of your policy stances, your rhetoric, or your information sources.

I keep good track of the Republican talking points, and you consistently use them. You are not as free as you like to believe you are. You are still dependent on their heavily biased party propaganda for much of what you learn about the political process. Until you learn for yourself, you cannot truly think for yourself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 26, 2007 9:25 PM
Comment #234498

Stephen, you make many valid criticisms of the Bush administration, but there are some that are rather severely skewed by the same partisan blinders you accuse kctim of.

You point out every disagreement you have with the Bush administration’s agenda as if it were some massive and unprecedented grab for power instead of a policy disagreement, and you regard Democratic attempts to advance their agenda (and their attempts to grab power) as totally benevolent and natural. Noble even.

…the tradition is that we swear to the constitution, or to our republic, swearing essentially to our common law and commonwealth. We make a promise to each other, between each other. Our loyalties have conventionally been to someTHING greater than ourselves

When you see present such ideals as the possession of your own party in its attempts to foist its agenda on the country and fail to recognize that your opponents may be acting out of the same ideals in trying to advance a different agenda, you’re doing just what Democrats always accuse Republicans of. You’re in effect claiming that Democrats are the “true” standard-bearers of American democracy and ideals and everybody else is somehow un-American.

I can stand partisanship—nothing wrong with that. But it ought to be honest enough to call itself what it is and not try to couch itself in all kinds of lofty high-flown rhetoric about how noble our party is and how evil the other party is. Republicans do plenty of that themselves—that’s not my point of disagreement. But as the good book says, you’ve got to get the plank out of your own eye before trying to remove the sliver from someone else’s. You’re a very partisan liberal Democrat—and I see no problem with that. It would be better to just acknowledge it though and not accuse of others of “not thinking for themselves.”

Posted by: Liam at September 26, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #234505

Stephen
First, it was not my intent to get you angry. I speak my mind in a very frank manner and do not believe in trying to BS someone to get them to approve of me.
I do respect your work on here though and always appreciate when you add your two cents.


Now, back to what we are talking about.
President Bush is hated so much because he has done things to which the left cares about. clinton was hated so much because he did things to which many on the right cares about. That is where the problem lies. Rather than ALL Americans being concerned and fighting together to keep ALL of our rights, we have Republicans who fight only for the rights they care about and Democrats who fight only for the rights they care about. The current warrant thing and the gun issue are perfect examples of it too.

BOTH parties worry about what the other party is doing and they have forgotten what is important: worrying about what govt is doing and keeping them in check.

“As for your allies? You don’t seem to vary your rhetoric all that far away from the Republican’s”

Really? Know many atheist Republicans who did not support going into Iraq, are pro choice, pro gay marriage without exceptions and did not vote for Bush do you?

“You say the same things as they do, and about the most difference between you and them that I see, is that you occasionall call a pox on both their houses.”

Um, I’ve also called for an immediate withdrawal of all troops in a safe manner. Did you miss that one?

“You’re independent in sentiment without really being independent in many of your policy stances, your rhetoric, or your information sources.”

Ouch. Of course some of my stances are closer to the right than the left, I am a strong believer in the Constitution, personal rights and personal freedoms so I lean more to the right.

As for my “rhetoric.” I don’t believe it is that it runs more right than left that pisses liberals off so much. You can hear that from any passionate righty.
No, I believe people like me piss liberals off so much because we don’t accept their views and opinions without question. When told Bush said the war was only about WMD’s, we ask about the rest of the resolution. When told Bush lied, we say fine, please show us facts, not assumptions or opinions, on how. When told only Dems care about Constitutional rights, we ask what about the 2nd Amendment. Etc… Etc…

My information sources? Please go to infowars.com and have a look, that is where I read most.
Sure, I’ll watch CBS, NBC, CNN or olberman when I want to hear the lefts opinion and I will watch Hannity sometimes when I want the rights opinions.

“I keep good track of the Republican talking points, and you consistently use them. You are not as free as you like to believe you are. You are still dependent on their heavily biased party propaganda for much of what you learn about the political process. Until you learn for yourself, you cannot truly think for yourself”

Hey, your wrong and I’m sure many Republicans would disagree with you, but thats your opinion, no harm done at all.

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2007 11:53 PM
Comment #234513

kctim:
“an enormous number want to finish the job,”

“the ones who see progress and want to finish”

Define finish. In other words, define victory. It hasn’t been done. Indeed, it can’t be done. And this is why we all know it’s nothing but a bloody Mount Everest of BS.

“I am a strong believer in the Constitution, personal rights and personal freedoms so I lean more to the right.”

Oh my, how authentically independent this is! Would you just LOOK at the things you say?!

Stephen is right, kctim. You come over to the blue column to constantly dump all over us with these kinds of (totally unbelievable!) comments. And they ARE virtually identical to those of the Republicans. Carrying the label just seems to be the sticking point — but when it comes to the talking points? No trouble at all.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 1:36 AM
Comment #234533

Adrienne, the left is known for its people wanting large govt programs to “care” for people and the right is known for its people wanting to be left more or less alone. I did not create that distinction and I can guarantee you that if you all started being more concerned about individual rights and freedoms that I would lean more to the left.

I don’t mind you and Stephen saying I am a Republican either. I know many Republicans and they are very fine people. I believe it is unfair to them for you all to link me to them, but it is not an unexpected tactic from you all.

Jack is one of the most prominent Republican writers here and I believe he is a good example of the average Republican also.
I agree with Jack on many things, but do you really believe he doesn’t watch sometimes and say to himself “dang, I really wish they would quit saying he is a typical Republican” or “man, that guy is out there, I wish he would just give up?”
Most Republicans don’t want SS dead, just re-tooled so it can work better. I want it gone.
Most Republicans don’t want welfare totally ended, just fixed so that it helps those who truly need it. I want it gone.
Most Republicans don’t mind some infringments on their 2nd Amendment right, as it does with the left, it makes them feel safer to give up that right. I want the Amendment respected.
Most Republicans don’t want gay marriage or really just don’t care about it all. I believe it is their right to marry who we love, without restrictions or limitations.
Most Republicans are religious. I believe we become worm food, end of story.

Need I go on? I do not call myself a Republican because I do not believe I represent enough Republican beliefs and therefore, I feel it is unfair to them.
Just as liberals are not real Democrats, I am not a real Republican. I just have the guts to admit it while they do not.

BTW…when somebody doesn’t accept the lefts opinions and assumptions as facts, it does not mean they are just spouting off “talking points” that they heard.
Fact does not automatically equal fiction because it goes against what one believes and fiction does not automatically equal fact because they support ones views.
Bush lied! The war was only about WMDs! Bush lied! The economy sucks because of the Republicans! Democrats are less corrupt! ALL Republicans are blind followers!
Now, THOSE are talking points.

“You come over to the blue column to constantly dump all over us with these kinds of (totally unbelievable!) comments”

I can understand why you think that. I don’t automatically accept your all’s opinions as facts and I question. I point out your hypocrisy. I freely point out the similarities Dems have with Reps when it comes to being corrupt. I don’t accept that “its different” when you all start excusing your party.
But most of all, I believe you guys had your chance and you blew it just as the Republicans have. Your party has not changed since they were swept out and putting them in charge will not change the course our nation is on.
Both parties have screwed our country bad and neither of you deserve another chance.

But hey, label me as a Republican if you wish. As I said, they are good people.

Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2007 10:09 AM
Comment #234676

kctim says “the left is known for its people wanting large govt programs to “care” for people and the right is known for its people wanting to be left more or less alone.”
Perhaps years ago that was true but I doubt it. Your comment is nothing more than a talking point. The right is known for prying into peoples personal lives in the quest to protect us from terrorist. The right declared haebus corpus isnt a right of the people and the list goes on. Yet you are ever so quick to jump on the dems after giving the repubs 26 years? The dems have been in the majority in the congress less than 1 year yet you and the other righties started running them down before they were even in office and have continued to do so. That must be what Stephen is talking about when he mentions outrage on cue.
It amazes me that the cons dont realize the conservative god Reagan actually increased the size of government and the deficit as did Daddy Bush. We wont even mention W’s damage while hoisting the conservative banner, but it will take time to turn around almost 30 years of deliberate conservative destruction of our country. It will also take much more than the small majority the dems hold in the congress to do so. If the righties would show the same patience they did with the repubs then perhaps…

Posted by: j2t2 at September 28, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #234707

j2t2
I agree with you, the politicians on the right have acted much as you say and have gotten away from being the party of small govt and individual rights. Doesn’t disqualify that the left is about large, nanny state govt though.

“less than 1 year yet you and the other righties started running them down before they were even in office and have continued to do so”

At least they now know how Bush and the Republicans felt before he was even sworn in.
That is what partisan politics is about and yes, it is usually right on cue. The right runs the new Dem congress down and the left starts with the excuses after they said they would hold them to the same standards they held the Rep congress to.
Same BS, different party.

It amazes me that the majority of Americans are moderates, but have settled for the extreme Dems and Reps to represent them.
Why have they allowed that to happen? Because of things like “the Dems will give you free…” AND “the Reps are for the 2nd Amendment.” Stupid little taglines meant to make people vote based on one thing instead of all things.

“If the righties would show the same patience they did with the repubs then perhaps…”

No way of that ever happening.
The Dems didn’t give the Reps a chance from day one and the Reps aren’t going to just roll over now that it is their turn to be the minority.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2007 9:55 AM
Comment #234766

kctim asked: “Why have they allowed that to happen?”

The media gets a bad rap for a lot of things. But, not this. The bi-polarism in politics today is nurtured, and flourishes as flames fanned by the media’s epiphany some 200 years ago that sex and conflict sell. When media went corporate, and marketing and advertising became a researched science, extremes in political views, because of their potential for conflict, became the mainstay of media.

There are a huge number of objective and middle of the road common sense bloggers, speakers, think tanks, etc out there, but, their media coverage and audiences pale against Drudge sensationalism and Smirking Chimp contempt.

If a center moderate party does not rise up out of the growing numbers of Independent voters and PDQ, this country will go down the tubes at the hands of extremists of both parties. Their inability to achieve consensus on effective bi-partisan legislation to address debt and entitlement spending NOW will result in fiscal calamity in less than 2 decades. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) drove this point home very poignantly this week before the National Press Club.

Did you catch it? No? Neither did 99.9% of the rest of Americans. Which makes my point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2007 5:49 PM
Post a comment