Democrats & Liberals Archives

Are We Gullible Enough?

I was widely criticized when I suggested that the “surge” was not working for the American people in my article titled: The Surge is Working.

The Bush Regime and the military, industrial, corporatist media, complex continues to lie to the American people. The truth will out. The Pentagon is trying to sell the Iraq war to the next President and to us. See: "The US military recognises this fact, and they are already lobbying hard to influence the policies of Republican candidate John McCain and Democrat front runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

Clearly a part of the Pentagon effort, Bill Gates is trying to manipulate the Presidential election in order to get someone more sympathetic to the war elected. He says that troop levels will be coming down in 2009 for sure, (2009??? After we have committed ourselves to another vicious hawk, if he gets his way. That is when troops will come home???). He can not see that far ahead in such an unstable region unless he is willing to end this war. He is not. Further, he promised troop reductions after the "surge." There are more troops there now than before the surge. Bush is so articulate that I hate to correct his regime's English, but that is called a permanent escalation - not a surge. See: "I'm not saying when in 2009, but I believe we will have a lower number of troops in Iraq in 2009," That is called a bait and switch. Promise troop reductions, get a hawk elected, then say oops and create a new slogan. When people ask awkward questions about troop reductions, instead of saying; "Victory in Iraq", say; "When hell freezes over, we can walk on water."

Even though Gates has a political agenda for the upcoming Presidential election, the truth must out - and here he tells like it is. See: But he said that "there are no exit strategies". "There are no exit strategies"!!! At last this Regime admits that it has led us into a trap. What ever happened to: "When the Iraqis get an erection, we will lay down" or stand up or stand down or something." What ever happened to "Victory in Iraq." What ever happened to "Mission accomplished." "There are no exit stategies"!!! But any liberal that develops an exit strategy must be a terrorist loving, defeatist, cut and running, surrender monkey... Now, I don't claim to be no military genius. (That is why I use double negatives.) But I think, as a general rule of thumb: When you are trapped in a kill zone, it is best to git to hell out of it. Iraq is a kill zone. We are trapped in Iraq. We need to get out. There needs to be an exit strategy. Every time the Democrats try to present one they are attacked. Without an exit strategy, and, refusing to consider exit strategies, the Republican plan for Iraq is no plan. Their plan is to cling to a security blanket and cry for Mommy. Problem is, the Republicans claim to be the world's Daddy. So Daddy is crying for Mommy to save him... ...pretty wimpy...

By the way, "hell" is not a swear word for me because I am an atheist. For me it just an innocent metaphor for a bad place. Fornicate Under Carnal Knowledge only describes human sexuality... Bush... ...now that is a filthy four letter word. The next time you are really mad, instead of saying;Fornicate Under Carnal Knowledge IT!!!, just say; BUSH IT!!! People will know what you mean. You could also say; IRAQ IT!!! This filthy four letter Regime has given us endless possibilities to create new urban slang.

U.S. and Iraqi security forces regularly discover mass graves in different parts of Iraq for people killed in chaos and sectarian violence since the U.S.- led invasion in 2003.Yea! The surge worked... ...we are winning... ...Iraq is becoming a stable democracy... If you believe that, you probably watch Faux News. We can keep the lid on their civil war - at great cost to ourselves. We can sweep it under the rug. We can bury our heads in the sand about it. We can have rah, rah, Republican lapel flag pin patriotism, or we can be real American patriots and take responsibility for our own country and stop sticking our noses into other peoples business.

The Republicans think that they have a right to stick their noses into other people's business.

The Republican party thinks that they should have a right to stick their noses into a woman's reproductive business whether she lays down and lifts her dress or not. If she doesn't lay down, they would throw her down and stick their nose in by force. They think that they should have a right to stick their noses into Terri Schiavo's business and deprive her of the God given right to die. They think that they should have a right to stick their noses into the romantic, sexual, domestic relationship choices of consensual GLBT adult men and women and tell them what color their picket fence has to be. They think that they should be able to shred the Constitution and spy on Americans. They stick their noses into the foreign affairs of sovereign nations. See a pattern here? The base of the Republican Party are nosy, pushy, self righteous people. There are of course, plenty of nice Republicans and plenty of nosy pushy Democrats, but the core of the Republican Party and the core Republican ideology that they embrace are based on nosy, pushy, self righteousness. See: "Reacting strongly to State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey's observations in Washington on Tuesday, A spokesman of the India's Ministry of External Affairs said "both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention." Given these core personality defects of the Republican Party, is it any wonder that they believe that they should stick their noses into Iraq's civil war. The world is all about them after all. They smoke their offensive cigars, weave in and out of traffic in their huge un-American Toyota Tundras, boss, push, and bully people around... They are belligerent drunks or self-righteous dry drunks... Us nice elite, intelligent, effete, liberals drive politely in our American Saturn Vue Hybrids, sip our latte, toke our organically grown joints, and say peace man... ...but at least we are intelligent and polite.

We can keep the lid on Iraq's civil war - at great cost to ourselves.

But it is happening in slow motion anyway. We can drag it out for fifty years - "Heck, make it an even100"" - or we can get out of the way and let the Iraqis get it over with. Reality has the property of being real and we can not change it. The civil war in Iraq is happening in slow motion and is going to continue regardless of what we do. However we can protect Bush's legacy and dump the blame for his failure on the next Emperor... er... President, or the next... or the next... or... the next. How broken do you want to break our country on behalf of Haliburton and Exxon? How many Americans have to die for their profit and pleasure? How many Iraqis must die for their profit and pleasure? How many new terrorist must we create for their profit and pleasure?

It appears that the war mongering war whores (Bush and Cheney) are determined to have a war with Iran one way or the other. Their best efforts to start a shooting war have been repeatedly blocked so clearly they have decided to engage Iran in a proxy war. Sader is Iran's man and our puppet Maliki is cracking down on him at our behest. So, the proxy war with Iran is on. If they did not crack down on him, I would have, and have, criticized them for handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.

That is the whole point.

They have led us into a no win situation. If they don't engage Iran directly or indirectly then we lose Iraq. Our enemy Iran becomes much more powerful and gains regional hegemony. If we engage Iran directly, it will be a real mess. Can you say: Apocalypse Now? Not the movie - the real thing. If we indirectly engage Iran in a proxy war then it is a major escalation of an already unwinnable war and Iraq immediately morphs completely into a Vietnam style war where we are fighting entrenched insurgency in the active war zone and an enemy outside of the war zone that is beyond our reach. There is absolutely no way to win that unwinnable war.

Bear in mind, Iran wants to keep us bogged down in Iraq and will try to influence our elections. To that end they will probably restrain Sader until after the elections. It is win - win for them. After the election, if a Democrat wins, they can turn Sader loose and make it look like they drove us out - - - - - which - - they kinda did. We will have to fight our way out of the kill zone, but our guys will kick ass all the way out. If the war monger wins, then they can turn Sader loose - cut us - and watch us bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed in blood, lives, treasure, national focus on real existential threats, national creativity, national confidence, national political resiliency, and national military preparedness. Why would we want an exit strategy?

See: "In response, Sadr threatened to formally lift the ceasefire on his fighters first ordered in last August, which was credited to the security gains and significant violence drop ever since."

See also: "The insistence of the Americans to lay siege on Sadr City has led to the killing of innocent people and is a mistake that will lead to negative results and the Iraqi government will have to shoulder the responsibility," Qomi added.

See also: "First of all, there is nothing called an improved security situation, all that has happened is the government-backed militias who used to butcher people, were stopped from doing so for tactical reasons." ------ "More than 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, who killed them? The resistance of course, but they [the US] do not want to talk about it, they only want to continue crying loud 'al-Qaeda'."

We are not just fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq. We are not just fighting an insurgency. We are also fighting Iran, Syria, and most of the people in Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan. Syria appears to be offering peace in exchange for the Golan Heights or maybe the U.S. and Israel are doing the offering. I believe that the Bush Regime deserves the credit for this. They did not plan it this way, and they will probably screw it up, or get taken for a ride, but everybody gets lucky sometimes. They handed Iraq to Iran and they handed Syria negotiating capital to exchange for the Golan Heights. None the less, peace between our proxy Israel and Syria is a big thing.

See; "Olmert's interest in keeping the fires of a potential agreement with Syria stoked seems geared, at least in part, to weakening Iran by pulling Syria out of its orbit. The isolation of Iran is an overarching aim of Israel and the US, and pulling Syria away would help achieve that goal."

The Bush Regime and its apologist, (like McCain and Lieberman), have no connection to reality which means that by definition they are certifiably insane. See:"While official sources today speak of nearly 20 victims in the clashes and bombings of the last two days, Rice congratulated the Iraqi government for advances in security."

See also my articles titled:
The Surge is Working
Bush's Private War
Success in Iraq?
The Fog of War
Iran has won the war. It is time to sue for peace.
The Democrats Do Not Have a Unified Plan for Iraq


Posted by Ray Guest at May 2, 2008 5:00 PM
Comments
Comment #251958

Ray,
It’s an awful thing, no question. All the talk about a successful surge has fallen into memory hold along with “turning the corner,” “dead enders,” “Mission Accomplished,” and all the other versions of how we are ‘unquestionably winning.’

Most people seem to have more or less given up on Iraq. Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any president in modern history. But short of impeachment, he’ll be in office through the end of his term, and we’ll be in Iraq until then, too, and then it will end. It’s lost American lives and money down the rathole in the meantime, but so what. According to polls, most people are far more concerned about their own economic well being right here, right now. Forget Iraq.

By the way General Sanchez ripped the Bush administration, calling them “grossly incompetent.”

Well, it’s a disgraceful chapter in American history, but one that will close soon-

Unless, of course, a couple 20 year old Iranians with a speedboat, a gun, and a couple beers in them get too close to an aircraft carrier…

Posted by: phx8 at May 2, 2008 7:39 PM
Comment #251969

phx8,

Thanks for your comment.

Bush and Cheney are praying for some 20 year olds with a couple beers in them. The other thing that may prevent it from ending soon would be the election of McCain. The American people are not concerned about Iraq for two reasons. 1) No draft / no personal stake. 2) The corporatist media are focused elsewhere.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #251981

ray

“Bush and Cheney are praying for some 20 year olds with a couple beers in them.”

nice ray, what does this say about your opinion of those who enlist. what an insult.

“The other thing that may prevent it from ending soon would be the election of McCain.”

i’ve got news for you, it won’t end soon no matter which of these losers gets elected. that includes john mc cain.

“The American people are not concerned about Iraq”

now you’re going to insult your own countrymen, nice.

if you don’t believe we should be there thats a perfectly reasonable debate, but these comments are disgusting.

Posted by: dbs at May 3, 2008 12:04 AM
Comment #251982

ray

do you send out invitations for these kool aid parties ? how do you expect to have any reasonable discussion when all you’ve done here is throw bombs. if you made any legitimate points in there, they’re completely drowned out by the kool aid haze.

Posted by: dbs at May 3, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #251988

dbs,
Ray is referring to a comment I made about 20 year old Iranians, not American soldiers. But you may have a surprising and unanticipated desire to defend the honor of Iranian soldiers.

“The American people are not concerned about Iraq”

I don’t think Ray intends that as an insult to anyone. It’s just a reflection of what has happened. According to a poll that just came out, the war is more unpopular with Americans than ever. But I don’t think anyone doubts that the Bush administration will hand off the shame and disgrace of Iraq to the next administration, so until 2009, the American public will concentrate on the upcoming election. It’s not as if Iraq actually represents a threat to national security. The only Americans who will really care about Iraq for the rest of 2008 are the military and their families, because they volunteered, and they are the only ones with their lives on the line.

And if that strikes you as horrible and insulting to our military, please fix the blame where it belongs, on Bush and Cheney and Rice and the warmongers who hurt our country by supporting them.

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2008 2:12 AM
Comment #251991

IMO the reason the American people on the whole are apathetic (I think unconcerned is incorrect) about Iraq is 1) by and large american sons, daughters, brothers, sisters don’t have to go. Institute the draft and that would change everything. 2) the media has tired of the war so we hear nothing about it. 3) Bush refuses to allow coffins returning to this country to be photographed and no one challenges him. Start taking pictures of the coffins coming off planes and our disinterest would change. 4)it all seems so hopeless and as Barack said there are no good solutions only bad and worse solutions on how to get out-Americans know this and it is only normal when you think something is hopeless to bury your head in the sand. I could probably come up with a few more but this is enough for now.

Posted by: Carolina at May 3, 2008 7:35 AM
Comment #251993

Guys

The American people are not concerned about Iraq. Those coming back from Iraq all have similar experience in that most people do not want to hear about recent developments. They have their image of Iraq frozen in 2006 and they want to keep it that way. The only way an Iraqi returnee can get noticed is if he/she criticizes the situation there. Telling the positive story is much more telling truth to power than taking the easy line of criticizing everything.

THere are several different realities in Iraq these days. In places like Anbar, which was “lost” and called the “triangle of death” a couple of years ago, the situation is well in hand. The Kurdish areas are developing economically.

The surge has pushed AQI up to the Mosul area, where they are making their last stand. AQI cannot win if it doesn’t have a strong foothold in Baghdad and it cannot survive if it loses its enclave in Mosul.

Sadr is a wild card. His hold on power is tenuous and he need to create violence in order to stay relevant. Unfortunately, it is easy to kill civilians, as we in the U.S., UK etc know too well. Sadr is a stupid man and that is what makes him dangerous. He can create chaos, but cannot end it.

The enemy is Iraq is chaos. There is nobody ready or able to step in. In the Vietnam case, the North was ready to move in and take over. There is no similar player in the Iraqi drama.

What is instructive is how the debate has moved. Last year, guys like Harry Reid were saying we were defeated. He was unequivocal. Today equivocation is rampant and the talking points have moved from defeat to the cost. This is a valid argument, BTW, but it does indicate how far we have come. The permutation on this one is that Iraq has so much oil revenue that it should pay its own way. This is also valid, but also shows how far we have come. Think about this. Last year Dems talked defeat. This year they say that victory is too expensive and we should get the Iraqis (who last year Dems said were permanent basket cases) to pay.

We should all stay away from the moral outrage. You know that I am morally outraged at what I consider … well I won’t use the words here. However, I believe they are probably sincere in their beliefs and so I try to lay off the outrage. I would appreciate similar respect. Nobody supports war. What people like me want is to finish the job because we feel that the risks of a quick pullout are worse than the costs and risks of staying a while longer. And many of us are putting our own safety and comfort on the line. I think it is fine if you guys want to argue the political points, but please do not presume to speak for those in Iraq. The people here are not duped or stupid. Nobody really wants to be in Iraq, but they are doing their duty and everybody is a volunteer.

War is an intensely human endeavor and that is what makes it impossible to predict. Sometimes you get what you expect. Sometimes it is a matter of will and morale. What we cannot do now is just give up and expect a decent outcome. No matter which course we choose, people will die and money will be lost. I believe that we will lose fewer lives and spend less money if we stay and finish the job. You disagree. Keep the outrage out of it because believe me when I tell you that there is plenty of outrage against your position too. Emotional exchanges will help explain nothing.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2008 8:43 AM
Comment #252001

Jack,

You’re just wasting your breath, Jack. They have already decided that we’ve lost and that’s that.

So why don’t you and I, in the words of Ray, just say Nancy Pelosi IT!! Or perhaps, since he already declared that we have lost, just say Harry Reid IT!! Or since ALL of our troops serving are nothing more than criminals, John Murtha IT!!

Thanks, Ray for the suggestion. I feel a lot better now.

Posted by: Jim T at May 3, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #252004

phx8,

Thanks for answering dbs. I was talking about Iranians although there is a real problem with alcoholism in this country and in our military in particular.

dbs,

Kool aid??? “I am made of rubber…” Republicans are known to like a bit of kool aid themselves - so - no I don’t send invites because I would be overrun with Repubs.

Carolina,

Absolutely agreed.

Jack,

I jabbed arch nemesis Jack hard enough with a stick to wake him up. This is great.

You wrote:

Telling the positive story is much more telling truth to power than taking the easy line of criticizing everything.
Speaking truth to power??? The Repubs control the Whitehouse, filibuster power in the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Corporatist mass media which is all owned and controlled by five large conservative corporations. Exactly what Republican power does not want to hear good news about Iraq. Would it the media that said the “surge” worked even though it clearly did not. Even the Dems want to hear good news about Iraq. We are Americans and besides: If you guys could clean up your filthy crap before we take power, then we would not have to get our hands dirty.

You wrote:

The surge has pushed AQI up to the Mosul area, where they are making their last stand. AQI cannot win if it doesn’t have a strong foothold in Baghdad and it cannot survive if it loses its enclave in Mosul.

“AQI” (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) the branch of Al-Qaeda that we created was never more than 2% of the problem and the Iraqis would have driven them out long ago. They went a little over board and themselves unpopular in Mosul - now they are playing it cool and gaining strength. We are driving Iraqis into their open arms.

You wrote:

Sadr is a wild card. His hold on power is tenuous and he need to create violence in order to stay relevant. Unfortunately, it is easy to kill civilians, as we in the U.S., UK etc know too well. Sadr is a stupid man and that is what makes him dangerous. He can create chaos, but cannot end it.
He and Iran are winning, Bush is losing in spite of the heroism of 140,000 American soldiers and over 140,000 ruthless mercenaries whose salaries our children and grand children will paying for generations to come. Who did you say was stupid?

You wrote:

The enemy is Iraq is chaos. There is nobody ready or able to step in. In the Vietnam case, the North was ready to move in and take over. There is no similar player in the Iraqi drama.
You are refusing to look at the 2 tons pink Iranian elephant crap in the middle of Iraq. Syria is already a client state of Iran. Iraq will most likely become a client state of Iran. Where as Syria is heavily influenced, Iraq will be a complete puppet. No one “ready to move in and take over”??? Let’s at least stick to the basic facts.

You wrote:

Today equivocation is rampant and the talking points have moved from defeat to the cost.
Yes, the corporatist (fascist) media and the lobbyist campaign contributions of the military, industrial, corporatist media complex have bludgeoned our leadership into relative silence again. Your point is?

You wrote:

What people like me want is to finish the job because we feel that the risks of a quick pullout are worse than the costs and risks of staying a while longer.
You know also that I was one of those people who opposed the war from the start but thought that our imperial empire needed to win it once it started. This has long been a long cause. It was lost when the Iraqi Army was disbanded. Is was lost when we deBathified. It was hopelessly lost at AbuGrabass. There is point in fighting lost causes. The “costs” are too high. Even pro-imperialist Republicans like yourself should want to get out and save the rest of the empire.

You wrote:

And many of us are putting our own safety and comfort on the line. I think it is fine if you guys want to argue the political points, but please do not presume to speak for those in Iraq. The people here are not duped or stupid. Nobody really wants to be in Iraq, but they are doing their duty and everybody is a volunteer.
Not sure anyone is doing that here, although the recently discharged former soldiers in my immediate family think we should get out.

You wrote:

Sometimes it is a matter of will and morale. What we cannot do now is just give up and expect a decent outcome. No matter which course we choose, people will die and money will be lost. I believe that we will lose fewer lives and spend less money if we stay and finish the job.
I strongly disagree. This war is lost. The cost of what we have already lost, what we have already done to ourselves, what we have already done to the Iraqis, the death, the maiming, the post traumatic stress, the treasure… Those cost are already greater than the value of “complete victory” with complete western style democratization of Iraq would be. It has already cost more than the total value of anything that we could ever have hoped to gain for ourselves and the Iraqis and the Mideast and the world. I refer you again to the fact that your own Republican Secretary of Defense Bill Gates says that “there are no exit strategies.” No end is even in sight. AND IT HAS ALREADY COST TOO MUCH. The situation is deteriorating. Iraq is disintegrating. We need a date certain to get out and some diplomacy in between time. We need to understand that we are in the middle of a civil war that we cannot stop.

There are plenty of people with outrage on both sides. I will play the role of agent provocateur because the American people need to be outraged. There should millions of people rioting in DC and elsewhere. This country should be on the verge of civil war. I will be satisfied if I get people to get up off from their dead couch and walk to the refrigerator for their own beer.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #252005

Jim T.,

You wrote:

So why don’t you and I, in the words of Ray, just say Nancy Pelosi IT!! Or perhaps, since he already declared that we have lost, just say Harry Reid IT!! Or since ALL of our troops serving are nothing more than criminals, John Murtha IT!!

Oh please, You know that BUSH IT and IRAQ IT have a much better ring and that people, (even Republicans), would intuitively know what you meant because of the underlying truth of this filthy Regime.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #252008

Ray,

Hmmmmm…it MIGHT fit better on a bumpersticker.

Of course, if you were to say, “Excuse me. I have to go take a huge Murtha…” I dare say even Democrats would know exactly what you meant.

But that wouldn’t fit too well on a bumpersticker, would it?

Posted by: Jim T at May 3, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #252010

Jim T.,

You wrote:

Of course, if you were to say, “Excuse me. I have to go take a huge Murtha…” I dare say even Democrats would know exactly what you meant.

I would know what you meant and admittedly it does have a nice ring to it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 3:17 PM
Comment #252012

Ray, you’re absolutely ‘spot on’ and Caroline has nailed some major points too.
Jack and Co. continue to go back along that same worn and dusty road that they’ve been on for a long time.
They are travelling it with far fewer people now, though.
If anyone wants to admit that there are still major losses among our soldiers, it can be found several pages back behind the headlines. And as Ray has pointed out, several major news agencies are owned by conservative powers, so it would seem they are even aware of the need to bury the ongoing bad news.
So go on and talk, rant, spin and deny that Iraq continues to produce NO GOOD NEWS all you want…..it doesn’t change what is!

Posted by: janedoe at May 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #252014


phx8

“dbs,
” But you may have a surprising and unanticipated desire to defend the honor of Iranian soldiers.”

is that the best you can do. accuse me of defending iranian soldiers, when knew exactly what i meant. that whole article is nothing more than a bomb throwing exercise, and who the hell considers al jazeera as a reputable source ? what a joke.

Posted by: dbs at May 3, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #252015

janedoe,

Thanks for your gracious comment. Here is a link to a site that breaks down who owns different media companies. They break it down to about 60 different companies. Who Owns What

I have seen breakdowns that show that just 5 major corporations own almost all of the American mass media but the link to that has become obsolete.

There are liberal media outlets because the big corporations that own the media want to make a profit and so they market to the liberal demographic. But the big corporations that own these liberal outlets are conservative and can still manipulate the flow of info to liberals. See my article titled: Selection Bias and the Polarization of America

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Comment #252016

dbs,

You wrote:

that whole article is nothing more than a bomb throwing exercise, and who the hell considers al jazeera as a reputable source ? what a joke.
al jazeera is a reputable source, more reputable than Faux News by far, especially when it come Mideast news. Clearly they have their own ax to grind as well and must be taken with a grain of salt. But, at least they are not owned by the American corporatist / fascist so it gets you outside of the Faux News bubble.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #252018

dbs,
Why would you not consider Al Jazeera a reputable news source? I don’t get that. The United States is not the same as the world. Most of the world has a different perception of events than the US, including Arabs and Al Jazeera.

Take a minute and think about it. Do you think the US has a monopoly on truth? That our perceptions are true to the exclusion of all others, because they are our perceptions?

Drop into the Al Jazeera site and read what they have to say. Check out The Guardian, Independent, and the London Times and you’ll see a lot of material about the Bush administration which American media pretends isn’t happening.

The rest of the world is nearly unanimous in into condemnation of the US and its presence in Iraq. I really don’t think there is a single country in the entire world where the majority of the population support the US invasion and occupation-

With the exception of Israel.

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #252021

ray

“al jazeera is a reputable source, more reputable than Faux News by far, especially when it come Mideast news.”

“faux news” how childish, sure al jazeera is more reputable, if you happen in the ring for islamic terrorists.

“least they are not owned by the American corporatist / fascist so it gets you outside of the Faux News bubble.”

no just by middle eastern terrorist, far more objective ray. BTW ray, would include the new york times in your class of “corporatist/ facist ? do you think media owned by nations sypathetic to terrorists are more reliable?

like i said, pass the the cool aid please.

phx8

if you find the US that objectionable, and put more faith in foreign news which continualy bashes the US why not leave? obviously if you did you’de be amongst like minded people, or friends, and not this poor excuse for a country which you seeem to have so much animosity towards. good riddance.

Posted by: dbs at May 3, 2008 7:17 PM
Comment #252022

dbs,
LOL! Most people agree with me, dbs, and disagree with you. I am the true patriot here, the American true to American ideals, and I do not support wars based on lies and pretexts and misinformation. But I would like you to know that you can stay in the United States, if you want. It’s ok with me. You’ll have to get used to the idea of associating the American flag with peace, and changing the the current marital national anthem to “America the Beautiful” if I have my way, but you’ll like it once you adjust.

Oh, and get used to Bush being remembered as the worst president in the history of the United States.

And shame on anyone who still supports an unjust war in Iraq. Most of us don’t, most of us good Americans that is, but for the few who still do support the occupation, it’s shameful and contrary to American ideals, and you will be stopped peacefully, at the ballot box this November.

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #252029

Jack,
You said, “Money would be lost.” Whose money is being lost to whom? Sometimes you’re so right on, depending upon “context” or lack thereof.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at May 3, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #252035

phx8

laugh it up all you want. the biggest laugh is your willingness to put more creedence in foreign news sources who constantly bash this country.

“You’ll have to get used to the idea of associating the American flag with peace,”

as opposed to what, strength,determination, and freedom.

“Oh, and get used to Bush being remembered as the worst president in the history of the United States.”

now i’m LOL. was this just an after thuoght you figured might rile me up. actually he would have to take a back seat to jimmy carter. he’s been out of office for 28 yrs and still keeps embarassing you guys. i’de call that the gift that keeps on giving.

“but for the few who still do support the occupation, it’s shameful and contrary to American ideals, and you will be stopped peacefully, at the ballot box this November.”

don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched bub, we’ll see what happens. you guys picked the two weakest candidates available, and have a good chance of blowing what should’ve been a cake walk. unless mc cain craps his pants in public he’s got a good shot, but he’s not my choice even though i’ll hold my nose and vote for him.


Posted by: dbs at May 3, 2008 8:26 PM
Comment #252039

dbs, thanks for bringing home the points being made here! When one has nowhere to go with positive statements or facts, just throw out the nastiness. And how narrow-minded to think that reading news published in a source outside of America makes any of us haters of this country.
Why do you think we have lost so much support outside of this country from those allies who were once proud to stand with us?!?! One hint is that this aministration and all the puppets with Bush’s hand up their backsides have turned supporters away.
It’s just laughable that you expend so much effort to maintain such an unpopular position.

Posted by: janedoe at May 3, 2008 9:32 PM
Comment #252041

It’s amazing to think that just six months ago McCain was dead in the water.
He was broke, he wasn’t conservative enough, he didn’t have enough support, he didn’t vote for Bush’s tax cuts, in fact, he wasn’t truly standing with Bush at all.

Talk about duplicity.

Now you guys are going to hold your nose and vote for McCain.
How noble of you.

My how the worm has turned.

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #252046

dbs,

You wrote:

no just by middle eastern terrorist, far more objective ray. BTW ray, would include the new york times in your class of “corporatist/ facist ? do you think media owned by nations sypathetic to terrorists are more reliable?
Oddly, the CIA does not say anything about that, but I suppose Faux News does. See: CIA World FactbookDoggone those pesky facts.

ph8x,

You wrote:

I am the true patriot here, the American true to American ideals, and I do not support wars based on lies and pretexts and misinformation.
You / we are the true patriots, and the true conservatives fighting to conserve, preserve, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.

Stephen Hines,

Thanks for pointing that out to Jack, I missed that. Yes, “money will be lost.” Our money to Haliburton.

dbs,

You wrote:

laugh it up all you want. the biggest laugh is your willingness to put more creedence in foreign news sources who constantly bash this country.
The “biggest laugh” is the naiveté of people who have a blind faith based belief that Faux News is telling the objective truth about America and are afraid to consider other view points.

You wrote:

as opposed to what, strength,determination, and freedom.
Please tell me that you do not think that our impotence in Iraq is a symbol of American “strength.”

You wrote:

unless mc cain craps his pants in public he’s got a good shot,
This might be true, but McCain is at that “Depends” age so there is a real good chance that he will have incontinence. We can hope for the highest and best for all to concerned.

janedoe,

Thanks again.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #252047

Rocky,

You wrote about McCain:

My how the worm has turned.
Agreed, especially if McCain is the worm. The “Straight Talk Express” has quietly been renamed the: “Pandering Pimp Mobile.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 3, 2008 10:29 PM
Comment #252050

Rocky,
I really don’t think McCain has a chance. Every few days he commits another gaffe. I’m not sure why that is. Maybe it’s his age showing. Maybe it’s a set a antiquated beliefs. Maybe he is uniformed, or misinformed. But Iraq will be hung around his neck, along with the rest of the GOP.

Personally, I think McCain’s belief’s are messed up, and that’s why he keeps getting blindsided by reality.

Today, most Americans identify the economy as the most important issue, with Iraq a distant second. ‘Apathetic’ is probably the right word when it comes to Iraq. No one will care about Iraq until the chance comes to actually do something about it in November.

All of the attention is focused on the horse race aspect of the competition between Obama & Hillary. But anyone actually following the competition, and ignoring the excited media chatter, realizes Obama is a lock for the nomination. It’s done. Stick a fork in it.

And as much as the Republicans will try to turn the election into a campaign of character assassination, they will be unable to escape blame for Iraq. This fall will be really ugly, because going negative is the only chance the GOP has in the election, and character assassination will be the only option.

Obama is a Muslim, terrorist, racist, unpatriotic, unamerican negro. It’s not that Republicans object to his being a Muslim or terrorist or unpatriotic or unamerican or a negro. Oh no. No, no, no, no, no. No. They are a very open minded bunch! But why must Obama LIE, and deny being all those things?

dbs,
Jimmy Carter. Oh yeah. The guy who did all that peace mongering. Brought together Begin & Sadat to sign the Camp David Accords, the most effective single diplomatic initiative in the history of the Middle East.

Under Carter, the US economy created about 10 million non-farm payroll jobs in just four years. Under Bush, the US economy has created about 5 million in over seven years, half of those in the government, and that despite the US having a much larger population.

Dbs, I’d be happy to compare Bush and Carter all night long.

Posted by: phx8 at May 3, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #252052

phx8,

It’s not that I am pulling for McCain, though I was defending him against folks like dbs only six months ago.
No, what I was pointing out was the baloney that these guys were shoveling back then about how they “could never” vote for a guy like McCain, because he wasn’t conservative enough, etc…..
Now, however, he’s their guy, everything is cool and he is now the second coming.
I truly haven’t made up my mind on who to support other than this version of McCain isn’t the guy I supported and would have voted for back in 2000.

BTW,
I would bet money that the guys that bitch the loudest about the foreign press have never been outside America’s borders. They haven’t a clue what the rest of the world is like except what they have been spoon-fed by Limbaugh et al.

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #252054

janedoe

“And how narrow-minded to think that reading news published in a source outside of America makes any of us haters of this country.”

it’s not the reading of them jane, but believing of them. my guess is if al gore were president, and al jazeera was slamming the US in it’s news stories we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

Rocky

i’ve gotta vote for someone, and it sure aint gonna be hillary, or obama. i was just being honest.

“Now you guys are going to hold your nose and vote for McCain.
How noble of you.”

that was my statement and i’ll own it. don’t try to pin it on everyone else.

ray

“The “biggest laugh” is the naiveté of people who have a blind faith based belief that Faux News is telling the objective truth about America and are afraid to consider other view points.”

your sure hooked on this fox news thing, oh wait i mean ” faux news “thats cute ray, i like that. where did i ever indicate that was where i got all my news ?

“Please tell me that you do not think that our impotence in Iraq is a symbol of American “strength.””

please tell me if you consider the new york times part of the ” corporatist/fascist ” media.

“This might be true, but McCain is at that “Depends” age so there is a real good chance that he will have incontinence. We can hope for the highest and best for all to concerned.”

this is childish ray.


phx8

“I really don’t think McCain has a chance.”

like i told you before don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. i’m not making any predictions, i believe it can go either way, but you could have had a sure thing with a blue dog democrat, and you picked these to leftists. not smart.

the US economy was in the toilet, thats why carter didn’t win a second term. can you say stagflation.

ya carters done a hell of a job lately meeting with hamas terrorist and all. this clown needs to go back to farming peanuts.


Posted by: dbs at May 4, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #252055

“the US economy was in the toilet, thats why carter didn’t win a second term. can you say stagflation.”

Of course the oil crisis had nothing to do with the economy under Carter.
Or the fact that he didn’t really campaign because of the Iranian hostage situation.
Or the fact that the minute that Reagan took office the hostages were released, and merely by coincidence the Iranians received weapons (via Iran-Contra) to use against Saddam.

“ya carters done a hell of a job lately meeting with hamas terrorist and all.”

Call me crazy, I think that ignoring a problem like Hammas doesn’t make it go away.

Say what you like about Carter, but name one world figure that has worked harder for world peace.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2008 12:30 AM
Comment #252063

Rocky,
As you pointed out, Carter was hobbled by the Iranian hostage crisis. By some strange coincidence, the hostages were released the day Reagan took office. And then, the Reagan administration secretly provided the Iranians with arms…

If I remember, something like 10% of Americans have passports. Most do not go to other countries, and for that matter, can’t even locate other countries on the map. But in a way, people are the same everywhere. Most think the place they grew up is the best, most beautiful place in the world.

By most measures, the United States has fallen behind the countries of the EU, Australia, and so on. I think that trend can be reversed, but it will take a sea change in leadership.

dbs,
Hamas was democratically elected by Palestinians to represent them. Why is a bad idea for Carter to meet with them? Do you have a better idea?Talking is the first choice as a way of resolving conflict. Diplomacy and negotiation are always the best option. War is a last resort. Have you learned nothing from Iraq?

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2008 1:29 AM
Comment #252071

phx8,

“But in a way, people are the same everywhere. Most think the place they grew up is the best, most beautiful place in the world.”

I agree but only to a point. World wide people are pretty much the same. They want a warm place to live, food for their families, and they want to worship as they choose.

My experience has been mainly in Asia in the ’90s, but virtually everyone I met wanted to “go to America”. The problem is that they wanted to go to the America they had seen on TV.

During my time in Asia the #1 TV program in the world was “Bay Watch”, and McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and KFC were making headway, so you can just imagine which “America” they were looking forward to.


dbs,

You are not the only “conservative” on this blog that said you wouldn’t vote for McCain. Many of you said you would rather vote for Clinton, or not at all, but you are only the most recent to say you would “hold your nose” and vote for McCain anyway.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2008 8:44 AM
Comment #252077

phx8,

You wrote:

Under Carter, the US economy created about 10 million non-farm payroll jobs in just four years. Under Bush, the US economy has created about 5 million in over seven years, half of those in the government, and that despite the US having a much larger population.
Excellent point. I am using it as the basis of a whole new article titled: As Usual, The Repubs are Lying To Us.

Rocky,

Thanks for comment. I liked McCain back then too. I think that it was a big mistake, although I have always thought that he would have been better than Bush. I think that I still think that, but I am not sure.

Especially now; he seems senile, power mad, and sold out. I think that he was always sold out. We forget about “The Keating Five” and the fact that most of his campaign staff and support come from lobbyist who are obviously just pandering for future influence. I bet a lot of them are from the military, industrial complex.

There is so much more to answer here, but I will be busy for several days. I will try to respond to everyone eventually.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 4, 2008 11:03 AM
Comment #252090

rocky

“You are not the only “conservative” on this blog that said you wouldn’t vote for McCain. Many of you said you would rather vote for Clinton, or not at all, but you are only the most recent to say you would “hold your nose” and vote for McCain anyway.”

i don’t recall saying i wouldn’t vote for mc cain, but i’m sure it’s possible. i definitely made it clear i’ve never liked him. i also predicted he wouldn’t be the nominee, OOPS. i definitely did not say i would vote for hillary though. while i could have said i’de never vote for him,( i’m guessing you’ll pull up a comment i made a year or so ago ) not voting for him is like voting for hillary, or obama, so i’ll swallow my pride and deal with that dirty feeling that won’t wash off soon.


Posted by: dbs at May 4, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #252097

Ray,
The thing about Carter- and Ford, for that matter- is that they inherited the economic fallout of Vietnam. Ford had the “WIN”- ‘whip inflation now’ buttons; and Carter saw the inflation continue to balloon. It wasn’t until the recession under Reagan that inflation was finally forced into a downward trend, and that trend took a long time to develop. So while Nixon and Ford and Carter can all be blamed for the debacle that reached its crescendo under Reagan, some people such as dbs imagine that Carter was to blame, and that Carter was somehow a bad president.

What makes Bush so appallingly bad in comparison is that there is simply no excuse. Unlike Carter, Bush inherited a pretty good situation in every respect: no Cold War, nothing worse than a small occupation in Kosovo and the need to be as cautious about terrorism as Clinton.

Incredibly, Bush initiated a series of terrible decisions: he and Rice and Cheney and the Republican Congress ignored warnings about bin Laden, cut taxes, increased spending, brought about the invasion of Iraq for reasons no one can even explain anymore, passed no legislation worth mentioning other than a bankruptcy bill that protected Visa and MasterCard and Amex, brought corruption and cronyism to new heights, manifested GROSS incompetence in the occupation of Iraq and especially after Katrina-

But what really did them in was the inability to create jobs.

Under the guise of “free trade” and “free markets,” the Bush administration presided over the outsourcing of jobs.

Because jobs were not being created and it was so easy to outsource, real non-supervisory wages remained flat, or dropped, while tax policies rewarded the wealthiest 1% with jaw-dropping increases in their fortunes.

Meanwhile, the debts and federal deficit and trade deficit skyrocketed, and the dollar tanked.

Welcome back, inflation.

Yet the Federal Reserve kept rates low, because without job creation, the economic recovery was very, very fragile. While large corporations and the wealthiest 1% were doing pretty well, everyone else was staying even or falling behind. Low rates encouraged consumer debt and a housing bubble, and given negative savings rates and stagnant wages, only consumer debt could finance the consumer portion of recovery.

The really awful thing is that all of this was unnecessary. It was a self-inflicted wound upon the economy, courtesy of Bush and conservative policies. Unlike Carter, who had few choices in the aftermath of Vietnam, Bush did the country in through sheer incompetence, and simply being wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #252099

phx8

“So while Nixon and Ford and Carter can all be blamed for the debacle that reached its crescendo under Reagan,”

you left out johnson. carter instituted the energy policy, through price controls that lead to the shortage, and massive gas lines we saw back in the 70s, oh for the good ole days. the rest of that fairy tale i’ll leave alone.

Posted by: dbs at May 4, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #252106

dbs,
With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Please look it up. The first oil shock came in 1973, during the last all-out conflict between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. It had nothing to do with US economic policy.

The second shock came in 1979, as a result of the fall of the Shah of Iran (which caused panic buying, even though the actual fall of Iranian production was minimal), and the Iran-Iraq War (which caused a very real interruption of supply). Once again, those oil shocks had nothing to do with US economic policy.

Because of conservation measures instituted under Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter, combined with increased exploration and increased output from Saudi Arabia (whose Royal Family feared Islamic extremism), oil prices declined substantially after 1980.

I’m not sure what you are talking about with price controls. Nixon attempted them and they failed. Carter attempted energy price controls too, but it was not much of a factor, one way or another. The 1973 and 1979 oil shocks were almost entirely the results of events abroad, not policy at home.

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #252137

dbs,

You wrote:

i could have said i’de never vote for him,( i’m guessing you’ll pull up a comment i made a year or so ago ) not voting for him is like voting for hillary, or obama, so i’ll swallow my pride and deal with that dirty feeling that won’t wash off soon.
I feel your pain at the same time that I glory in it because your lack of enthusiasm tilts the playing field in our favor. Unless Hillary winds up being our nominee, then my lack of enthusiasm will tilt it back. Of course her supporters may lack enthusiasm for Obama, but over all I think he generates more enthusiasm.

You wrote:

please tell me if you consider the new york times part of the ” corporatist/fascist ” media.

Since Judith Miller, Scooter, and selling the Iraq war, not sure, but I think so maybe. I like salty food, and I would take anything they said with as much salt as aljazeera. I was listening to Faux news a couple hours ago. Really did not need any more salt for them, since the right wing bias was blatantly obvious.

the US economy was in the toilet, thats why carter didn’t win a second term. can you say stagflation.
I can say stagflation. I suggest we all practice the word, since that is what we have now. They have changed the way that they calculate inflation, such that it no longer accurately reflects the cost of living. You know that inflation is rampant every time you go to the gas pump or the grocery store. You know that our economy is stagnant and the Fed is cutting interest rates which will drive inflation higher. Can you say stagflation?

You wrote:

ya carters done a hell of a job lately meeting with hamas terrorist and all.
Ya, the part about getting them to agree to a 2 state solution, to accept any peace negotiated by Abbas that passes a Palestinian referendum, and to be willing to accept a separate cease fire for Gaza, all of which are concessions that they have never made before… Ya… Ya… Ya, Ya.

Rocky,

You wrote:

Of course the oil crisis had nothing to do with the economy under Carter.
Or the fact that he didn’t really campaign because of the Iranian hostage situation.
Or the fact that the minute that Reagan took office the hostages were released, and merely by coincidence the Iranians received weapons (via Iran-Contra) to use against Saddam.
Thanks for setting dbs straight.

phx8,

You wrote:

The really awful thing is that all of this was unnecessary. It was a self-inflicted wound upon the economy, courtesy of Bush and conservative policies. Unlike Carter, who had few choices in the aftermath of Vietnam, Bush did the country in through sheer incompetence, and simply being wrong.
Thanks also for setting dbs straight.

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 5, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #252141

Ray,
Thanks. I’m really not sure why dbs thinks Carter was a poor president. There are definitely reasons to criticize Carter, but dbs did not raise them. Personally, I think Carter did a very good job. He was president during one of the most difficult times in the country’s history. He took office after Vietnam, with an economy in trouble, and most Americans were deeply disillusioned with what the country had become, and with disgusting people like Nixon, Agnew, Ford, and others…

But what really makes Bush so piss poor is that he did not inherit problems. Bush implemented conservative Republican philosophy, and it was a freaking disaster. He created the problems. And when reality proved the philosophy wrong, and the problems kept growing worse and worse, Bush failed to adapt.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2008 12:27 AM
Comment #252144

phx8,

You wrote:

But what really makes Bush so piss poor is that he did not inherit problems. Bush implemented conservative Republican philosophy, and it was a freaking disaster. He created the problems. And when reality proved the philosophy wrong, and the problems kept growing worse and worse, Bush failed to adapt.
My only disagreement with you here is the idea that Bush “implemented conservative Republican philosophy.” Bush certainly is not a liberal, but he is not a conservative either - robber baron maybe??? Proto-fascist???

Posted by: Ray Guest at May 5, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #252145

Ray,
I would argue that Bush is a conservative, and that the problems implementing conservative philosophy are caused by inherent contradictions. I don’t think it is a coincidence that both the Reagan/Bush administrations and the current Bush administration resulted in some of the same failings, namely a huge increase in military spending and a huge increase in the federal debt.

That is because at its heart, conservatism is motivated by fear, greed, resistance to change, and an instinctive urge to obey authority.

Those are the underlying flaws which cause the implementation of the philosophy to fail. In theory, Conservatives favor small government, liberty, freedom, and so on. In practice, when these laudable goals come into conflict with other aspects of conservative philosophy, the result- in reality- is a War on Terror, corporate welfare, cronyism and corruption, wiretapping, torture, and so on.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2008 1:23 AM
Post a comment