Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The Right is still hung up on Jane Fonda? Yawn.

I was looking at the v-day website some more and in keeping with their theme they use v for everything. What does this mean? What is it supposed to signify? In other words, what effect are they really going for here?

v-world
v-spot
v-action
v-campaigns
envision a v-world

How can I take this seriously?

Eric, you take it much more seriously than anyone I know, that’s for sure.

-Cf

Well, don’t they expect to be taken seriously?

Frankly, I don’t think it’s much of a story at all. Who’s she supposed to support, Bush? Nader? Either of those two choices present four more years of Bush. This is more a matter of common enemies than common cause.

It’s good to remember that Kerry refused her an invitation to one of his events after the Hanoi stunt. It surprises me that even fifteen years after the fall of communism, your party still does the red-baiting by association.

So tell me, what’s your candidate’s plan, backdoor draft more national guard soldiers? Force elections in areas not prepared for them in desperate hopes that afterwards the insurgents will stop attacking us?

I heard John Mccain talk re Jane Fonda. He said that he can live with what she did and talk to her politely, but he can’t forgive her. As far as I know, she has never asked for forgivness. Jane Fonda is just a silly person whose looks and family connection made her famous. Since she was famous she got a forum. She turned out to be an articulate ciper. We sometimes mistake the ability to be articulate with the ability to think, especially in an attractive person. I can’t hate Jane Fonda any more than I could hate a trained parrot. But I think her squawking is harmful.

Stephen,

Who’s she supposed to support, Bush?

Did you read the quote?

Saying Bush’s decision to go to war was based on “a lie,” Fonda complained, “I agree with the military experts who say it’s a quagmire.”

The America-bashing actress then urged voters to back Kerry over Bush, saying: “I don’t think there’s ever been such a clear choice between radicalism and moderation. I mean, we are dealing with a radical ideologue here.”

John Kerry and Jane Fonda had the same position on the war in Vietnam, and they have the same position on the war in Iraq.

So tell me, what’s your candidate’s plan, backdoor draft more national guard soldiers? Force elections in areas not prepared for them in desperate hopes that afterwards the insurgents will stop attacking us?

I thought it was obvious. Bush’s plan is world domination. Empire. Don’t you guys read the DNC talking points? Seriously though, this attempt by the Kerry campaign and the Democrats to instill a culture of fear in voters to scare them into voting Democratic is disgraceful. What do they think they are doing fighting fire with fire? Seeing as how Republicans aren’t really using fear, but Democrats delusionally (or lyingly) believe they do, this tactic is actually comical.

THE REPUBLICANS DON’T USE FEAR ERIC. Don’t make me laugh at such a one sided partisian assumption. Quite frankly, Bush is the one who says that terrorists can get their hands on any nuclear weapon and we are toast. SUPPOSE, if you will that a terrorists can get their hands on any nuclear weapon, then WHY IN THE WORLD CAN’T SADAAM HUSSEIN GET NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS? My point is that the Republicans use the fear rhetoric way too much. A common terrorist can get a nuke but a rich powerful dictator Sadaam Hussein can not. Your assumption Eric is seemingly ridiculous and flawed. If you want to know the truth about the Iraq War. Watch Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War. The CIA, weapons inspectors, physicists, good ol Hans, the UN speak in this intriguing documentary not about the truths or the half truths BUT THE OUT RIGHT LIES.

Noel, ?

Noel,

What’s all this hubbub about the draft, and secret plans to send more troops to the quagmire that the Kerry campaign is putting out there then? If they are not engaging in fear tactics?

Eric:
The hubbub for the draft. Man, you really don’t understand the neoconservative agenda about always wanting a good ol war. Let me put it to you this way: a draft is afterall inevitable. Think about it this way Eric, we have had under the Bush Administration two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. One war in Afghanistan, after having Al Queda surrounded they LET Usama Bin Laden to get away in Tora Bora. The Iraq War was a lie. Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War cuts through all the bs behind it and CIA operatives and others express how they lied, when they lied, and specifically how disappointed they are with the deceptive Bush Administration. Iran and North Korea have nuclear capabilities. Contrary to what the Bush Administration is saying about North Korea, that they are TRYING to get nuclear capabilities, they have it. South Korea thinks so infact, North Korea tested their nuclear weaponry as of last week. South Korea saw the mushroom cloud and the Bush Administration is TURNING A BLIND EYE JUST LIKE THE CURRENT 50% OF AMERICANS WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE TO ME THAT george bush deserves a second term in office when clearly Mr. John F. Kerry deserves it because the Bush Administration is ABSOLUTELY incompetent. What are the neoconservatives going to do Eric? Use your logical thinking process. The Bush Administration clearly wanted to go to war with Iraq considering the lies and all that other garbage. They couldn’t even wait for a weapons inspection to be finished by the UN. They are not going to sit there and play foreign policy with Iran and North Korea. Right now in Camp LeJeune, for the citizens joining the military is at an all time low. If the Bush Administration tries to pick fights with Iran and North Korea, there will be a draft. We are taking care of two countries already as of right now. Iran is far bigger than Iraq and you are talking about some serious problems in the Middle East. Dealing with these countries, others such as Russia and China may join in this. You are talking about a possible SIX foreign countries battling at once. I am sorry Eric but the US will lose that one. All this crap just because Dick Cheney (who plays Bush like a puppet) wanted oil. Had they keep their ass out of Iraq this would not be happening right now. Do you honestly think that Dick Cheney cares whether this country goes down or not. No, just as long as money is in his pocket. And to answer your question about North Korea, if we go to war with Iran, you can bet your bottom dollar that North Korea maybe will maybe won’t but they will think about it, as far as dropping a nuclear bomb on California. They are close enough to do so. California will crash the economy forever due to so much coming from their and America may never recovery. Speak of mass extinction. John Kerry wouldn’t pick fights except settle with foreign allies. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT JOHN KERRY WINS THIS ELECTION FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA. Put it this way in English for you to understand Eric, NOT ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS GOING TO HELP THE UNITED STATES IN A WAR WITH IRAN AND POSSIBLY NORTH KOREA. I am way too pessimestic with the correct reason about another four years of the Bush Administration as they will bring this country down. With a Kerry Administration atleast there is a light at the end of the tunnel. As far as the fear rhetoric is concerned, the Democrats are not the ones lying in on this one, the draft is a nessicity due to the Bush Administration’s obsession with war and armageddon. The neoconservatives want to establish themselves as the world police and right now they are biting off way more than what they can chew. I hope for serious casualities in Iraq during the “civil war”, if Bush wins on Nov. 2nd. Why do I? Maybe this will be there wake up call that Iraq and war in general is not a game. It is a short-term dire situation that may have long term humbleness in the administration and if it will make the world a better place in terms of watching who to pick fights with enemies and a little optimism that the Bush Administration can use their heads and not their guns in terms of foreign policy with North Korea and Iran than GREAT. But either way, Bush has to get the hell out of office as this stems far more than the conservative, liberal, republican, democratic agendas. It stems from who is the better man and right now SEN. JOHN KERRY IS THE BETTER MAN. thank you.

As far as my sources go for the Iraq War being a deceptive lie and no it is not Michael Moore. They are these great Americans. Now here are the resumes for credible sources.

Milt Bearden- Former Head of the Soviet/Eastern European Division and Station Chief in Pakistan.

Rand Beers- Former Special Assistant to the President and National Security Council Senior Director to combat terrorism.

Graham Fuller- Former Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA.

Karen Kwiakowski- Former Air Force Lt. Colonel, office under the Secretary of Defense for Policy, East South Asia and Special Plans.

John Brady Kiesling- Former Political Counselor to the United States Embassy in Athens, Greece. Served in Foreign Service for 20 years.

Patrick Lang- Former Chief of Middle East Intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Dr. David C. MacMichael- 13 Year CIA Analyst.

Peter Zimmerman- Former Chief Scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Ray McGovern- Former Chairman of the National Intelligence estimate, responsible for the President’s Daily Brief.

The Honorable Henry Waxman- Congressman Representing California’s 30th Congressional District.

Colonel Mary Ann Wright- Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.

Philip Coyle- Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Pentagon.

Joseph Wilson- Former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and Special Assistant to the President.

Bill Christison- Former CIA Director of the Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

Patrick Eddington- Former CIA Analyst during the 1991 Iraq War.

David Corn- Washington Editor of the Nation Magazine.

The Rt. Honorable Clare Short- Former UK Cabinet Minister in Labor Government.

Chas Freeman- Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

John Dean- Former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon.

Thomas E. White- 23 year Commissioned Officer and the Secretary of the Army.

Robert Baer- Former CIA Operative who served in Iraq and Lebanon and was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal.

Scott Ritter- Former Marine Captain and UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998.

Mel Goodman- 20 year Senior CIA Analyst.

David Albright- Physicist and Former Weapons Inspector with the IAEA Action Team.

Admirable Stanfield Turner- Former Director of the CIA and Commander of the Second Fleet.

Those are all excellent sources to get through the bs that George Bush (better yet Dick Cheney)and his cronies present to the Americans. It is not the liberal media. Watch it if you can handle the truth!

It is on the stunning and fantastically displayed documentary called UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR. Download it on Kazaa, buy it for cheap on Ebay because I don’t believe it is available at the video stores.

I thought it was obvious. Bush’s plan is world domination. Empire.

Hahaha! Stephen, did you notice how Eric just completely sidestepped your question?

So tell me, what’s your candidate’s plan,

That’s a really good question that I’ve never heard anyone answer. Once plan A (the Iraqis greet us with bouqets of flowers and immediately adopt Jeffersonian democracy) failed, you don’t hear anything about a Bush plan for Iraq.

Bob Novak (why isn’t he cowering naked before the iron jaws of a vicious attack dog at Gitmo until he spills the beans over who betrayed Plame?) says Bush is just going to pull out - probably leaving a half trained Iraqi force to sort things out.

At least with Kerry, we’ll have a NATO force acting under a UN mandate to cover our withdrawal.

What is Kerry’s plan? French troops? Then what? As if non-US troops will not have to do exactly what the US troops are doing now.

Bush’s plan is to defeat the terrorists. In Najaf, they squeezed the ‘Militia’ there, and they have.

Your alternative doesn’t exist. Will Kerry send more troops? No. Less of our troops more of French troops? Then what?

Eric: This will sink his candidacy even further with the general public

This statment is based on nothing more than your own fervent desire to make it so.

Perhaps though, it is your belief, that if this idea is enunciated often enough it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy, and Kerry will indeed lose.

I admire your prolificacy Eric, but this is pretty weak stuff.

I have to admit though, that I am impressed with the brilliant way in which the Republican campaign machine can, en masse and in perfect unison, churn out a repetitious stream of short simple ideas to win over the voters…

Kerry’s a liberal
Kerry’s a flipflopper
Kerry’s gonna lose

In poetry, repetition is used as a simple, but powerful, way of reinforcing an idea in the reader’s mind without them being cogniscent of the fact. So no need for detail, debate or critical thinking, just repeat after me…

Kerry’s a liberal
Kerry’s a flipflopper
Kerry’s gonna lose

Kerry’s a liberal
Kerry’s a flipflopper
Kerry’s gonna lose

(Repeat)

Bob,

I was struck yesterday by MSNBC, they were talking about an assumuption of ‘coordination’ of the White House and blogs on this document forgery business. With, of course, no evidence of such, merely the anchors assumptions.

The liberal anchor talked with a liberal author, of a book about blogging, about how the ‘independence’ and reputation of bloggers might have been compromised by this whole C-BS scandal.

Of course that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals favor a top down autocratic organization where orders are issued from a central authority and just assume that’s how everyone organizes their politics.

Let me float the possibility of an autonomous citizenry who can come to their own conclusions. The C-BS forgeries were so obviously forgeries that anyone who looked at them would come to that conclusion independent of each other. So too the flip flopping and inconsistancy of Kerry is easy enough to see. Especially with the advent of the internet which brings all the necessary information available to every citizen to get the information themselves.

No, seriously, Eric, I was asking whether your candidate had strategical or tactical plans for taking down the insurgents and making Iraq whole again. The sarcastic remarks were just for emphasis.

If you’re going to criticize Kerry for not having that much of a plan, the least I can expect as your opponent is some idea of why your candidate’s plan is superior. I can’t very well judge the relative merits of anybody’s plan, if I don’t have your candidate’s. Kerry’s put his cards on the table, so why doesn’t Bush put his down too? Something more sophisticated than just “second verse, same as first”.

Even John McCain is getting tired of that crap.

As if non-US troops will not have to do exactly what the US troops are doing now.

And that’s the big difference, isn’t it? The US only paid 20% of the cost of the first Gulf War. We’re paying for all of this one. We’re paying the total sum in blood, too.

If the invasion was illegitimate, let’s at least legitimize the occupation. Not only will it lower the cost in US troops and tax dollars, but it will also extinguish (or at least deflect) a lot of anti-US sentiment around the world. It also has a better chance of success.

Bush’s plan is to defeat the terrorists.

Oh, really? I thought Bush said the terrorists were no longer a priority, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

But ok, assume that destroying al Qaeda and killing bin Laden really is Bush’s plan - despite all the inaction, distractions, and stonewalling. How does invading Iraq get the guys who attacked America and killed thousands of Americans?

Getting back to the original post for minute:

The choice between radicalism and moderation.

Jane’s never been known for moderation, but she has something of a point here. If Kerry is elected, he’ll be working with a Republican congress, and the two parties will have to find common ground and co-operate, so no matter how liberal he really is, we can expect a pretty moderate government.

But Bush’s noise about flat taxes, national sales taxes, and privatization of social security make it clear that if re-elected, he will take the chance to move the country farther to the right than it’s been in a long, long time.

Stephen wrote:
> seriously, Eric, I was asking whether your
> candidate had strategical or tactical plans
> for taking down the insurgents and making
> Iraq whole again.

Yeah, seriously. What is Bush’s plan? Kerry already outlined his on July 4, and he spelled it out in even more detail in his NYU speech on Monday: Convening an international summit of leaders, especially Iraq’s neighbors, and forming a reconstruction coalition to rebuild Iraq. Allowing other nations to participate in reconstruction contracts as a carrot for participating in the occupation effort and to lessen the perception among insurgents that the US is looting Iraq’s wealth. Radically expand the programs to train native Iraqi security forces. Aggressively and publicly fire or punish those who are responsible for mismanagement of the reconstruction process, at all levels. Aggressively condemn and punish misdeeds like Abu Ghraib, and condemn torture at all levels - instead of being ambiguous about America’s position on torture. Make the safety and credibility of the elections the number one priority, again using international help if necessary to ensure the election is respected throughout Iraq (instead of just hoping they go well).

I have a real strong suspicion that Novak is on the money: The plan is to have a perfunctory election and to declare afterwards, no matter how badly the election goes, that our mission is accomplished. Then we split and leave Iraq to its own bloody fate. I think Novak is right about Bush’s intentions, but I don’t want to ever find out how right he is.

Anyway, I repeat: What is Bush’s plan to bring peace to Iraq and to bring our troops home?

-Cf

Stephen, Cf,

You both know Bush’s plan. It’s simple and it’s been reiterated so often that, as you say, it’s the same old plan, and it is.

Our troops are fighting the insurgents and training the Iraqi army to take over. As more of them are trained and tested they will take over more of the fight for their own freedom.

Look at Najaf. Al Sadr has coalesced several times in an ‘uprising’. Our troops have decimated them everytime. The policy is a balance of slowly strangling these ‘insurgents’ and sapping their strength. And it is working.

I question why you would want Kerry’s latest plan, which is retreat.

You embrace the idea that we are losing. Kerry’s plan is consistent in the sense that it is the same plan he had for Vietnam. Pullout. Surrender. Retreat.

John McCain’s criticism at least has a sane suggestion which is lacking from Kerry’s ‘plans’, he suggests sending more US troops.

Kerry’s plan is to replace US troops with French troops. Which is like a pro baseball team saying we are losing so let’s send in some little league team players, and then expecting anyone to believe that will bring victory.

The invasion had an objective that was your kind of warfare. A quick and objectified victory. The occupation and eradication of ‘insurgents’ cannot be fought the same way.

It is a process of counter insurgency. More troops may not change the timeline all that much. There is a balance to be struck between being brutal, as the russians might be, and being targeted to avoid civilian casualties and perform reconstruction efforts. Notice the targets of the terrorists are iraqi civilians.

What will Kerry’s plan accomplish?

The assumption that French Troops are inferior or ineffective is Racist and displays your complete ignorance.

Those Iraq Troops you are so proud of may number 200,000 plus but only about 5,000 of them are willing to fight. The 30,000 in the Kurd Region is loyal ONLY to the Kurds and will secede at the first chance. Why do you think not a single Iraq City is garrisoned completely by Iraq troops? If the rest of Iraq outside the Sunni Triangle is “Safe”, then the local Iraqis would have been incharge.

FYI, Kerry could not pull out of Iraq even if he wanted to. Iraq is not Vietnam. It is more. The US will be in Iraq for decades.

Aldous.

Aldous,

French troops are inferior to US troops when it comes to battle. I’m not saying they are subhuman or racially inferior. I have no judgement to make on their individual humanity. In battle, US troops, the US military are the best of the best, that’s not rascist, it’s merely fact. In fact French troops are probably more ‘white’ than US troops are.

The Left predicted we’d lose 100,000 troops before we took Iraq (Was THAT a big lie or were they JUST misinformed?). I guess they are a bit upset we are at 1,000? God is obviously STILL smiling on the United States of America.

Using their prediction and the REAL rate of attrition we have another 150 years. So what’s the hurry?