Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I would really like to see some evidence that the bombings in Spain were really what caused so many to vote the way they did. I guess it could not be possible that they were upset with the way the government was run or at being participants in Iraq under false pretense.

Furthermore, while I do not enjoy the idea of candidates receiving foreign endorsement I can empathize with Zapatero. Bush is the one who lead the war and is leading poorly. Iraq, for all the improvements that have happened under the US military is still in chaos with bombings a common occurrence. There was one this morning as well which destroyed a city block including a hotel. In a situation like this you blame the leader and his administration.

So what do you do to fix it? You get rid of the leader and install a new one in hopes of mitigating the situation.

Haha! The same group that called a truce also came out and supported Bush for re-election.

From my site:

The announcement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat states that the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades has decided to back incumbent George W. Bush instead of the Democratic contender John Kerry because it was not possible to find a leader, “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.”

The statement went on to say, “Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.”

“Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

Following the will of the people of Spain is hardly a surrender. When 90% of the people say they don’t support something and the government ignores them in a democracy, therein lies the problem.

Ahh… Democracy in action. For some reason, that just drives conservatives nuts. When Turkey voted to keep the US from using it as a staging point for the Iraq invasion, there was name calling. When France followed the will of its electorate to oppose the war, French wine was spilled in the gutters. And now Spain votes to stop support of the US occupation of Iraq, and the Republican’s are casting aspersions on Spanish manhood.

“Here is a country that stood against terrorism, and had a huge terrorist act within their country, and they chose to change their government and to in a sense appease terrorists,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert, of Illinois, said.

Appeasers! Man, them’s fightin’ words. If I was Spanish, my sense of honor would demand that I punch Hastert in the nose.

Doesn’t it seem like every time the Republicans don’t get their way, they start bad-mouthing people. Even after getting a Republican in the White House and a majority in Congress, they’re still so bitter and angry. Why is that?

In any case, I’m not sure how that statement reconciles with Zapatero’s stated position on terrorism:

“My most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism.” and, “I am planning … to finish off terrorism. (Armed Basque separatist group) ETA will not have a minute’s rest from the day I become prime minister. Nor will the violent ones, nor all those who cooperate with terrorism,”

That doesn’t sound like an appeaser. It sounds like a man who agrees with the 90% of Spaniards and a growing number of Americans who think the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It sounds like the Spanish have their own ideas on fighting terrorism which don’t include garrisoning Iraq.

And if the Spanish troops or even Spain’s moral support was so important to the United States occupation of Iraq, why isn’t President Bush sending teams of diplomats, or Colin Powell, or even going himself to convince Zapatero to remain in the fold?

following the will of the people of Spain is hardly a surrender. When 90% of the people say they don’t support something and the government ignores them in a democracy, therein lies the problem.

It is, when the will of the people is in effect to surrender. They’re free to do it, I’m free to critizise it. The policies of these european socialists are wrong.

And if the Spanish troops or even Spain’s moral support was so important to the United States occupation of Iraq, why isn’t President Bush sending teams of diplomats, or Colin Powell, or even going himself to convince Zapatero to remain in the fold?

Spain’s Zapatero has rebuffed offers of help from the US cowboy. It seems the FBI is not welcome for instance.

But the Spanish government appears to have rejected the U.S. offer and has instead invited other European law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to help in the case—an apparent snub of the Bush administration that U.S. officials tell NEWSWEEK may be an ominous portent for the future.

…in light of evidence that the Spanish police had failed to act on repeated intelligence dating back at least to 2001 about a key suspect in the case. The failure seems to underscore major differences in the U.S. and European approaches to the war on terror—a gap that could get wider and impede U.S. efforts to roll up terrorist networks on the Continent.

This isn’t so much a difference between policies, but a real difference between ideologies.

Lee,

Hmmm, a group claiming to have links with al Qaeda…

Oh, I don’t know, is it the DNC? The Kerry campaign? I give up who is it?

“The Spanish people… chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America,” the statement said.

“We bomb. You choose peace. It is good.”

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.”

The point here? Using Force is not effective? (Except when used on Spaniards and Europeans.)

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.” “Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

Yes. I agree with that, the democrats are better liars. Man, these thugs are smart!

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

Choose ‘peace’ or else. Or choose Bush? Or is it, “Give Bush a chance?”

“Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?” the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets. Reuters.com

We will kill you unless you re-elect the criminal Bush! Because he… is… our… enemy? Mahommad! I am getting confused. Who do we kill and who do we want to get re-elected again? Oh yeah, re-elect George Bush, his will use force against us.

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization”

Bush is an easy target for his opponents here and abroad. He is not backed by any strong consensus at home, his staffers are very undiplomatic about criticizing allies, and he himself is know for pronouncing bright line divisions of who he considers friendly and who he doesn’t He made a pre-emptive attack on Iraq with accusations that he can’t prove to anybody here outside his choir of political backers.

Terrorists love stubborn intractable ideologue leaders. They don’t sneak behind terrorist backs and hamstring them in unexpected ways. They don’t enlist the cooperation of leaders across divisions of race, religion or politics. They burn bridges to allies. Most importantly, they don’t restrict the likeminded fanaticism of their underling, which means there is a nice supply of irrational behaviors and pointless atrocities for terrorists to use to radicalize moderates with.

They get the feeling that it will be more difficult with Kerry, that they won’t get so many bright-line statements and policies that would have their fellow arabs lining up in clashes of civilization agains their enemies.

Kerry’s advantage in the war on terrorism is that he can be nuanced, subtle, and even secretive about his strategies in a way that’s simply against Bush’s nature. He has the kind of patience and competence that allows him to put aside pointless bluster. He is an internationalist at home with playing an international field.

Kerry frightens the terrorists, because the Kerry can get what Bush can only demand: cooperation.

To paraphrase Cheney, “At the very least, we have a right to know what [Bush] is saying to [the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades] to make them supportive of his candidacy.” :)

I only brought up that link because you mentioned the ‘truce’ declared by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades. After claiming responsibility for the recent North American blackouts, they don’t have much credibility on anything.

Yes. I agree with that, the democrats are better liars. Man, these thugs are smart!

Oh, here we go. More bitterness and name-calling.

I havent seen a list of misleading statements and outright lies made by Kerry, yet. Why don’t you tally them up, and if you can beat 237, I’ll take that statement seriously.

And being a Democrat, I take exception to being called a liar. Unless you want clarify your statement or apologize, my sense of honor demands that I punch you in the nose, Mr. Simonson.

Oh, but wait!

Oh, I don’t know, is it the DNC? The Kerry campaign? I give up who is it?

It says right there in the article that you linked that it’s the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades. Hmm… If there is some extenuating circumstance for your bellicose statement, illiteracy, mental incapacity, etc., then I am willing to overlook your grave insult.

Oh, and the article you linked about the FBI, it says,

A spokesman for the Spanish Embassy in Washington said that under Spanish law, the criminal investigation must be conducted by the Spanish police.

That sounds reasonable. I don’t recall Bush asking for Spanish police to help with the 9/11 investigations.

Also, barring the extenuating circumstances I mentioned, I’m sure you noticed the fact that the article doesn’t mention anything about Bush sending diplomats to convince Zapatero to continue Spain’s support for his occupation of Iraq.

That article brings up an interesting point, though:

“It appears they [the Spanish] had a line on this group—just as the Germans had a line on the Hamburg cell prior to September 11,” notes Kenneth Katzman, a terrorist analyst with the Congressional Research Service. “One question is going to be, why didn’t they act sooner.”

So is that going to be the new Republican talking-point? That the Germans are responsible for 9/11?

If there’s a big “Anybody but Bush” movement in the Democratic Party, it looks like it has it’s counterpart in the “Blame anybody but Bush” movement embraced by many Republicans.

Stephen,

I love you stephen I really do. When you don’t post a comment on one of my posts I feel like I must have did something wrong. But I think you should re-read your comment. Is it supposed to be sarcastic? Or does it just read like that to me?

This is my favorite paragraph. I wish I had wrote it. In fact I may paraphrase it, or otherwise plaguerize it, as my own but in a sarcastic vein.

Kerry’s advantage in the war on terrorism is that he can be nuanced, subtle, and even secretive about his strategies in a way that’s simply against Bush’s nature. He has the kind of patience and competence that allows him to put aside pointless bluster. He is an internationalist at home with playing an international field.

Lee,

re: Waxman’s list of lies.

Maybe we should get a cadre of republican staffers working full time *cough*(taxpayers money) on just such a project.

Especially considering the low threshhold for considering statements to be ‘lies’.

For instance:

This is only one of your supposed 237 ‘lies’. I am surprised they only claim 237.

When Kerry says he did vote for the 87 billion dollars for the troops in Iraq, but actually he voted no on the final vote. Would you consider that a lie? Sure he said he voted for it before he voted against it, but that’s part of the point. He wants everything both ways. No one is going to be afraid of this guy. He just does whatever he thinks he needs to.

One day he votes for the war, the next day he votes against it. During the democratic debates he says we should not be in Iraq and should get out of Iraq, now he says that he’ll take military action whenever and wherever he needs to. Flip a coin.

Get ready to be nuanced!

“I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world,” Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.

“But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically,” he said. -Yahoo News

What is he saying? The jews control Bush. Hmmm. Has to be the effects of “The Passion” on poor Mahir.

Oh, and the article you linked about the FBI, it says,

A spokesman for the Spanish Embassy in Washington said that under Spanish law, the criminal investigation must be conducted by the Spanish police.

It also said:

…and has instead invited other European law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to help in the case…

Maybe we should get a cadre of republican staffers working full time *cough*(taxpayers money) on just such a project.

Wow! You’re really going to bring up spending a few bucks to compile a list, after the Republicans in Congress spent $52 million of our tax dollars to to find out that the Clintons were innocent of any wrong-doing in the Whitewater ‘scandal’? I still haven’t heard the Republicans apologize for that, BTW.

Kerry voted ‘yes’ for a version of the Iraq funding bill that the Republicans voted against before he voted ‘no’ on the version that passed. I know that may be a little confusing, so take a few minutes to think about it before you resume the bitterness and name calling.

Emerson said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If Kerry did not feel the final version of the bill was a good version, it was his duty to “flip flop”.

Bush has the problem of being consistent in his choices and strategies, even in the face of their practical failure. He is devoted to the idea of what he is supposed to do, but for him, orthodoxy overrides experience.

He believes right-thinking will produce right action. he’s half right, but it’s other half that creates the problems, because human beings are always flawed in their ability to correctly think out and feel out a situation beforehand.

The Bush White House uses this as an excuse, an explanation for performance that they have no choice but to admit has been flawed. No stockpiles of unconventional weapons have been found in Iraq, no hard evidence of working relations between the terrorists and Saddam. 57 attacks on leadership targets that didn’t hit any leaders. There explanation? Hey, we’re not perfect. But that answer has a key problem with it: it evades the question that’s really being asked.

Did Bush and his foreign policy team test their conclusions or were they too busy building a case for an invasion that Bush wanted since the beginning of his term and before?

The beginning of this pathological situation doesn’t have to be an evil conspiracy. It can be much simpler than that, and much scarier for that. I think Bush always believed Iraq was a threat. I think he was annoyed with those who thought otherwise. I think he doesn’t have much respect for the authority of intellectuals, and I think that’s what he saw in the CIA. I think he believed that if only they had an organizational shake up, they’d do their job better, and go after the real threats, as Bush saw them.

Bush, by virtue of his political connections picked people for his cabinet and his administration that strongly agreed with him, people not unqualified for the job. The people he picked, though, were Neo-Cons, often enough, and the peculiar breed of sentiment among the Neo-Cons is a kind of ends justify the means sort of sensibility. Add that to a very anti-internationalist mindset, combine it with a very Manichean outlook on the world, and you will get a very management-driven sort of organizational pattern.

I think many people in the Room With Bush shared his desire to take on Iraq. I think they may have honestly believe that Iraq was a threat, and may still believe it that it was, even in the fact of the discrediting facts that have surfaced. I think they were looking for a certain narrative, a certain arrangement of facts to benefit their cause, and that they thought that going through the process of the verification and vetting of the intelligence was only going to contaminate their cases with the biases of the stuffy intellectuals they felt ran the place.

One can say that there is a greek tragedy aspect to this, if the above low-key description of what happened is correct, a tragedy rooted in considering one’s opponents to be enemies. It is in the distrust of Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives alike for Liberals and Democrats that the seeds of the current controversies were planted. The divisive unwillingness to let the system work out differences as it’s supposed to, and this disrespect conversely for the diversity this system preserves have placed the Bush adminstration in the center of the firestorm, perhaps even without their realizing the errors that lead them to that point.

Bush must be voted out of office, because he does not understand what he did wrong. He doesn’t want to understand at this point, because he doesn’t believe it necessary. He is so closed-Minded about his policy, and so utterly surround by people who share his views, that petition and persuasion will not do the job. He must be replaced with a candidate who hasn’t backed himself into that corner of continuing to support his mistakes, of continuing to be believe his previous actions were wise in the face of contrary evidence.

Kerry must win the White House.

Kerry must mean ‘Karing’ for the little people.

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, “I don’t fall down,” then used an expletive to describe the agent who “knocked me over.”

The incident occurred near the summit. No one was hurt, and Mr. Kerry came careering down the mountain moments later, a look of intensity on his face, his lanky frame bent low to the ground.
-NYTimes.com

Seems a little mean spirited to me. Are we sure he doesn’t have some Republican blood in him? Next he’ll be cursing speech writers for not stopping him from saying he voted for it before he voted against it. “I don’t say contradictory things, damn F*&^$#% speechwriters.”

Talk about nuance.

What never fails to amaze me is that wealthy, technologically advanced democracies like those of Europe feel that they are the ones who need to go in fear of stirring up anger on the part of backwards, illiterate war-mongers who are a minority even in the failed societies they live among and constantly terrorize.

When a few civilians get killed by accident in a crossfire in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, Euoropeans—and many American Democrats—start to quake with fear at the thought of “creating more terrorists.” All of us should hate it when innocents die—and I’m all for apologizing, compensating them, and of course taking any steps possible to minimize the chances for it ever happening again.

But when 3000 of us are killed in NY, or 200 in Madrid, who is it should be afraid of reprisals? Who is it who most urgently needs to reevaluate their relationships with the rest of the world? To the extent that Bush’s tactics aren’t working (and there’s plenty of evidence that they are, as Ayman al-Zawahiri by many accounts is spending the day hunkered beneath Pakistani bombardment, Hussein is sitting in jail and Iraq is hammering out the blueprint for the potential first Arab democracy), the blame lies squarely with those who have failed to provide a united front against despotism in the face of terrorist intimidation.

“I never fall down! That @#$^*! made me do it!”

Great idea, Senator Kerry. Insult the guys who are there to take a bullet for you. Not only does Kerry fall down, he’s fallen and he can’t get up!

This would be great material for an ad.

the blame lies squarely with those who have failed to provide a united front against despotism in the face of terrorist intimidation.

You know Martin, I getting really tired of Bush supporters using the “you’re either with us or you’re a terrorist” line. People are ticked at Bush because they think he’s failing at eliminating terrorism, and in some cases his policies are aiding and abetting them.

So stop throwing that crap around or their sense of honor will dictate that they all punch you in the nose.

Moving past the typical bitterness and name calling, there’s no connection between despotism and terrorism except that the two are usually directed against each other. But I know what you meant.

What never fails to amaze me is that wealthy, technologically advanced democracies like those of Europe feel that they are the ones who need to go in fear of stirring up anger on the part of backwards, illiterate war-mongers who are a minority even in the failed societies they live among and constantly terrorize.

“backwards, illiterate war-mongers” with a stockpile of automatic weapons, RPGs, SAMs, explosives, and the intelligence and resolve to fly a 747 into a building.

Occupying Iraq didn’t stop the attacks. If you have some other super-secret plan to expose these terrorists and eliminate them before they strike again, please share.

…there’s no connection between despotism and terrorism except that the two are usually directed against each other.

No connection? What about poverty? Is there a connnection between terrorism and poverty? What a coincidence that dictatorships are the poorest nations in the world.

Stephen, someone is not “utterly close-minded” if they don’t swallow whole (complete with personal demonization of themselves) the partisan agenda of their political opponents. Perhaps if the case you want Bush to be pursuaded of were in fact more pursuasive, he’d be more likely to sign on.

Lee, when Bush said “You’re either for us or for the terrorists” he was NOT referring to domestic oppponents of his specific policies, even those related to fighting terror. The suggestion that he was is a total distortion on the part of Bush-haters who, having a political interest in demonizing Bush and casting themselves as martyrs for truth and freedom, have completely divorced his comments from reality. It’s as if some can’t believe they’re right without also believing that Bush has ushered in a Fourth Reich in America.

Bush’s statement was clearly aimed specifically at the Taliban (and to a lesser degree middle-eastern rogue states). At the time, the Taliban was claiming that they had no connection or control of Al Qaida, although Al Qaida was operating freely within their borders. The meaning and context of Bush’s comments were clear.

I would never in any debate of the war or other matters accuse Democrats of being on the side of terrorists. Too frequently, however, in an attempt to immunize their positions from scrutiny—to in fact suppress criticism of opposing views—they play this whole you’re-saying-I’m-a-terrorist-card.

To say that someone’s misguided views may be enabling, emboldening and playing into the hands of terrorists is not to say that they are terrorists or even terrorist-sympathizers.

Hi Martin, I’m sorry if my remark was unclear. To his credit, President Bush himself has never branded Democrats as traitors. I was speaking of Bush supporters.

And thank you for clarifying the Bush supporter position for me. I now realize you are helpfully pointing out that detractors of President Bush’s (so far fairly unsuccessful) anti-global terrorism policies are merely the ignorant, unwitting pawns of terrorists, rather than terrorists themselves.

I appreciate your candor. You have a fascinating world-view.

“I’m all for apologizing, compensating them, and of course taking any steps possible to minimize the chances for it ever happening again.”

did you know that we americans have given $5000 dollars to the families of dead iraqie civillions while we offered 1 million dollars to the families of the 9/11 victoms, if they promised not to sue?

it is just an intresting fact take from it what you will.