Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric,
You and I may not agree on much, but this time the want-to-be kings and queens of the world are making a stupid argument; however, those who think that they are the kings and queens of the world have lost sight of what true capitalism can do? Could you just imagine a world where the “Poorest Consumer” was a Millionarie? It’s the 21st Century, both sides better jump on board because a href=”http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003669.html#more”>new white light among other things is going to make the 90’s Markets look weak.

Eric Simonson:

Before you go to the bulk of your tirade, perhaps you could offer PROOF that Cindy Sheehan is a member of Code Pink? Not that we don’t trust your declarative sentences, mind you. Its just after seeing Bush claim Iraq had WMDs in the State of the Union Address, we kinda have little trust for Republicans.

Hypothetical: If (Any country) invaded the US, would you be a terrorist, insurgent, or freedom fighter?

Perhaps you would just go along with the invaders because they know whats best for you in your own country.

Henry,

I guess we agree on LED’s. How did you know that I am nuts about LED’s? My wife says I don’t need another LED flashlight.

Seriously though, my plan is to replace every light in my house with an LED light, but do you know how expensive these AC multiple white LED light bulbs are?

aldous,

All you have to do is google Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink. I’d give you more but I have to go to bed.

Deep ties:

“For starters, Ms. Sheehan has been posting on Michael Moore’s Web site, writing, “We have such a strong coalition of groups. GSFP, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out and the Crawford Peace House. I talked with John Conyers today and he wrote a letter to George…” nysun.com

—-

“Marching with Sheehan was CODEPINK co-founder Diane Wilson, along with many members of CODEPINK: WOMEN FOR PEACE, a grassroots peace and social justice movement that seeks positive social change through proactive, creative protest and non-violent direct action. Wilson, who continues to stand vigil with Sheehan, pledged that CODEPINK would join Sheehan in solidarity through a hunger strike. Members of CODEPINK are flocking to Crawford to support Sheehan’s stance, and are embarking upon vigilant fasts around the globe. Ann Wright, who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service on March 19, 2003, in disagreement with the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq without the authorization of the UN Security Council, has joined Sheehan and Wilson in their roadside vigil. codepink

—-

“My Last Post From Crawford, by Cindy Sheehan
CODEPINK: Jodie Evans and Tiffany and Alicia were the first ones here on Monday 08/08 to jump in and save me from going crazy and hopping on one of the trains that runs past the Peace House and pulling an “Agatha Christie.” Code Pink also worked tirelessly (and I mean tirelessly) outside of Camp Casey. (On the code pink website.)

—-

“Code Pink was a huge presence all weekend in D.C.: from the march on Saturday to the
jail cell’s on Monday. Just before the march began, Cindy Sheehan stopped by to thank
CODE PINK for their support. We were also entertained by the one-and-only: Joan Baez.”
Code pink Phoenix

—-

“About that time, a cameraman shooting the scene noticed something. “I’ve seen a lot of these people before,” he said. Pointing to a woman a few feet away, he said, “That one was at the World Bank thing. They’re professional protesters.”

And indeed, that one — Fithian — had been at the protests in Washington a few years earlier. And so had some of the people working with Fithian. And Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin, exchanging a warm hug with Fithian on the Capitol lawn, had been at hundreds, if not thousands, of protests. There were some real protest veterans in the group.

Indeed, the photographer’s observation pointed to something telling about the day. On close examination, the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon appears not to be a mass movement of any sort but rather to consist of a small group of relatives of U.S. servicemen and women — there were perhaps 30 in all with Sheehan on Wednesday — accompanied and guided by a group of full-time organizers like Fithian, Benjamin, and the people from Mintwood Media Collective. People like Sheehan and the other Iraq relatives — many of them grieving and angry — don’t know how one goes about organizing protests. Fithian and Benjamin do.”
nationalreview.com

—-

“…as is the more radical anti-war group Code Pink organized by San Francisco’s Medea Benjamin.

Money donated through these groups and others is helping to pay for Gold Star families whose children have been killed in Iraq to attend anti-Bush protests.” abcnews.com

“5-7pm Reunion Reception
Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace
with Cindy Sheehan and Joan Baez.
at Constitution Ave. between 14th and 15th St.
Look for the Crawford Peace House Tent ”
crawford peace house

—-

Send Cindy flowers from code pink.

Eric,
The why I understand the article is that this guy accidently found a set up that produces the white light. Now the question is who isgoing to invest in manufacturing and marketing them. Just think how much every home in America could save if every 100 watt lightbulb was replaced by a 2 watt LED Light.

Savings 98 watts per hour for say 10 lightbulbs in your house can’t make the electric companies happy, but it sure would help the Consumer save major bucks each and every month. Than the only question is will people buy more 2 watt lightbulbs. Keep an eye open for that stock because I dare say we built a better light than Mr. Edison and GE.

Eric,

You support the war. Many of us do not. Attacking those who oppose the war does not give proof that the Bush administration was just in invading Iraq. It just shows that you and others like you who do not see the harm in attacking another country, based in misinformation, that has cost hundreds of billions of our tax dollars, created record debt, killed thousands of people, hate to admit when you’re wrong.
You don’t have to admit anything. The world already knows.

Eric-
By your rationale, I could be a follower of Jerry Falwell. One of my professors worked for him once. Now, by your logic, mere association would decide my loyalties.

Fact is, though, the quality of the relationships means that me and him are not aligned with Falwell. Fact of the matter is, you can associate one person with another by just six steps. It’s what they call Small World Networks. If you consider it’s implications, we could consider you a radical by your own principle, because it’s very likely you know somebody who is a radical themselves.

To prove that the connection is solid, and not just incidental one, you have put these people together in one place, together, communicating the same message, and not just compassion for the people of Fallujah.

So, I got to ask you, what kind of relationship can be set out on the facts? Have they made statements sharing economic or social positions, rather than just the common cause of opposing Bush’s policies on the war, which even conservatives like Brent Scowcroft have voiced opposition to.

Even if your position is true, does that make Bush right about his policies? No. Socialism is not the root of objection to this war. The Root of the objection is Bush’s diversion of us from the real war against al-Qaeda, the deception it took to get permission for that diversion, the subsequent incompetence of the initial plan, the prolonged covering of the Bush administration’s collective rear end, and finally the failure to shift to more effective plans after it became apparent the plan has not been working.

It took a while, but the reality is sinking in across the country. You want to say that the reason that this war is unpopular is that the left and the socialists have been setting up a fifth collumn with the terrorists in America, trying to undermine our great country by being persistent pessimists. That’s something that only makes sense if you think half the country wants to destroy the other half, and if you completely ignore the effect of the real world on people’s opinion.

In short, you want us to believe, that despite all the power you on the right wield, that you’re not responsible for putting us in a difficult, unneeded war with a losing strategy.

It’s time to get busy changing things for the better, rather than bitch and moan about being subverted by the other side. History will record, otherwise, that the GOP tried to talk the crisis to death.

I can’t believe you are still pushing this “Iraq War protesters are all Marxists” meme. If that is true, then Marxists must be the smartest people on earth. If I have to tough decision to make, I will find someone who attended the World Socialist Forum. ;)

Stephen,

I in no way think that everyone who is against the war and protests are socialists.

I do, however, believe that of Cindy Sheehan.

Many defend her at every turn, for some unknown reason, as if she is above criticism. We are told that if we question her motives or leanings that we are trying to suppress her or smear her.

The simple fact is that she does lean very heavy to the ‘left’, there is plenty of evidence of this. And while that does not invalidate anything she says, it is important sometimes that we do know where people who are given podiums to speak upon are coming from.

The simple fact is that she does lean very heavy to the ‘left’, there is plenty of evidence of this. And while that does not invalidate anything she says, it is important sometimes that we do know where people who are given podiums to speak upon are coming from.

So, Eric, when its come to Cindy Sheehan, it’s more “critique the messenger not the message”!?

So Marxist Benjamin is leading an entourage to the socialist event and providing services from her capitalist tour agency. Talk of hypocrisy. She gets her money from capitalism to spend on socialism. Fits every time.

Hey Aldous,

Code PINK organizes a lot of Sheehan BS stunts. Just check the indymedia sites for their Crawford reports. Code PINK was her media coordinator before Fenton Communications took over. Code PINK’s Jodie Evans was on the Joe Trippi conference call too.

BTW, look up the World Tribunal on Iraq (www.worldtribunal.org),

Poor Cindy will cry for the dead, yet her friends tell the terrorists it is OK to kill our troops. Code PINK is an endoirser of the WTI, where in Finding #11 they say when the resistance commits acts of desperation against the occupiers, it is legitimate and justified.

If Code PINK were really for Peace, wopuldn’t they tell bot sides to stop? Yet they tell terrorists to keep killing. Osama’s #2 guy told Al-Zarqawi to stop bombing mosques. So far, Code PINK still says that’s OK. Imagine that, Osama came out against bombing mosques and Code PINK hasn’t. Way to go Code PINK.

The question, Rhinehold, is why you believe that is the case. Why do you assume she’s a socialist? If you can’t explain that, then maybe you should rethink your assumption.

Our tendency to dismiss negative information put out by the Republicans about Cindy Sheehan is that they are willing to take comments like her saying that a White House Cabal is running the Pentagon, and turn it into charges of anti-semitism. Recall the ferocious ad hominem attacks directed at her, attacks that alleged the worst of her in terms of her motives and her character.

We don’t trust what Simonson wrote because he offers little evidence from her own lips of it. You should not be surprised that we give Sheehan the benefit of the doubt, minus that information, especially in the light of Simonson’s sheer antipathy to her.

If you want to make this the truth, then we need quotes, in context, showing her true beliefs. You have to make it very difficult for a person to reject that interpretation without going into complete denial. That, of course, depends entirely on your ability to dig up that information.

On your last part, let me say this: the place from which a person expresses themselves on the political continuum is not as important as the truth of what they say. Even if you do not agree with their interpretation, you have the information from them to form your own. The Right and the Indepedents far too often censor their information flow, and end up depriving them of the facts that could allow them to shape arguments that are neatly integrated, and convincing to those outside their political sphere.

Eric,

In this column you attack Cindy Sheehan, while in the Blue column you claim that such attacks “move us toward … bitterness and vitriol.” Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.

What floors me here is that some of us are still so afraid of communists and socialists. I think history has made it pretty clear that pure communism and socialism don’t work as governments in the real world (the only arguably successful communist government is China, and with the capitalist concessions they’ve made over the past two decades in order to compete in the world market, they could hardly be called purely-communist).

I honestly thought that screaming “commie!” went out with the Reagan era (replaced with screaming “terrorist!” during Bush II). I guess some kinds of frantic, bug-eyed fearmongering never really go out of style.

I have a couple of specific comments here:

1) Most of us on the far left (myself among them) are not looking to turn the US into Cuba. We are looking to move the US from a nation of selfishness to a nation of social responsibility. Regulation and social responsiblity are not communism, any more than anti-war protestations are socialism. Profit, markets, competition — these things are not inherently bad. But when the fiscal largess of a coporation becomes more important to the powerful than the physical health and well-being of the workers, that is a problem. While it’s true that profit *can* be turned to humanitarian needs, it most often is not. That’s how we exist now in America, and it needs to be fixed.

2) Giving humanitarian aid to civillians ravaged by war is and should be the moral responsibility of every human being, regardless of where the war is taking place, and the loyalties of the victims. War is brutal and awful, and leaves in its wake not only dead soldiers (whose families deserve as much help and comfort as we can offer them), but also dead, wounded and traumatized civillians. Those people should be supported, and their lives returned, as much as possible, to the state in which we found them. If the entity who is responsible for the destruction is not willing to do so (and we in the US have been either unwilling or ridiculously slow thus far), NGOs and various non-profits will fill the gaps.

3) The omlettes/eggs metaphor makes me want to scream — what “omlette” are you making? Whose “eggs” are you willing break? Who ordered this unecessary, bloody breakfast? And, Eric, who are you in this metaphor? A chef? A waiter? Just someone who likes the smell of omlettes? This is not breakfast — these are nations of proud people (the US, Iraq, etc.) who are fighting and dying. All this so someone can have breakfast? It’s insulting to boil people’s lives down to quaint, easy metaphor, and it makes me sick.

4) While I’m not a close follower of CodePink’s activities, I am familiar with them, their website, etc. While I think they have been disingenuous in caharacterizing their “friendship trip to Cuba” mission (traveling to Cuba to try to break the cold-war era policies is an interesting ambition, but ignoring the poverty and oppression of the Cuban people is in direct opposition to their mission statement), saying they support terrorism and killing of American troops seems to be going a bit too far. I may be wrong on this, and missing information, but I just don’t understand where that statement comes from (if I’m missing some critical bit of data, please enlighten me). Also, based upon the organization’s mission statement, they are no more communist or socialist than any other humanitarian NGO.

5) Lastly, and again, most of us trying to create change on the left are not looking for bloody revolution — we do our best to create change within our flawed but beloved American system of government. We want things to better, for everyone. No doubt you do as well — we just disagree on the method. Labeling someone who disagrees with you “communist” — baby, maybe you need to try to remember the shameful days of McCarthy, and the lives wrecked by such hysterics.

My God this article is riddled with conjecture and assumptions. But I bet it was sure fun to write.

Travelling to Cuba to extend a hand of fellowship to the citizens is an endorsement of communism? “Pairing with a Cuban brother or sister” is following Castro? I thought it looked more like they were trying to be friendly people. I have a Cuban friend here in the states. Am I a commie rat too, or is it allowed only if they live here?

Medea Benjamin’s statement was stupid. I’ll grant you that. But your interpretation of it was also stupid. Giving money to the residents of Fallujah is not supporting the enemy. These are not insurents. These are the families bombed out of their homes that are looking for clean water to drink! Hell, the Red Cross is trying to get them food. Are they terrorist lovers too now? How many times must this Administration tell you not all Iraqi’s are terrorists and that we’re there to help them before you believe it? I know, I know, they’re all darkies and they should all be slaughtered and burned. Let God sort them out. Right? Fine. I don’t expect you to understand what I’m saying. In fact, I expect you to reply and call me a commie nigger vegetarian pig or whatever assumptions are on your mind today. Ok. Have at it. History certainly won’t remeber me, so it will be a small win for you.

It’s always fine to break a few eggs until someone asks you to break yours. But the easiest egss to break are of those who don’t look like us and you’re standing there with a hammer thinking what you’re doing is ok. Embarrassing.

Get over yourself.

Eric,

At the risk of being redundant (I have not read each and every reply), I fail to see what point you are trying to make. Cindy Sheehan lost her credibility a long time ago, and many people on both sides of the aisle would agree. More important, however is the alleged relationship she has with Code Pink, as you point out. Why are you trying to smear her with your unproven allegations? Has she ever come out and said she was a Socialist? No. But you sure pretend that she has. Pat Robertson never said he hated women. But by using the same train of logic you’ve used in your article, it would be safe to extrapolate that by his distaste of feminism, that all women are evil. (Granted, Robertson is a nut-job…but you get my drift.)

And when you state “…progressives the world over still cling to the discredited idea that profit is evil and capitalism is oppressive,” you could not be more incorrect. Progressives are not against capitalism. But we are against the often slimy, selfish and corrupt means used to create capitalism. You don’t have to look very far past Frist, DeLay, Cheney, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, et. al. for examples.

Unfortunately, blaming a convenient target for your house falling apart instead of blaming the people who actually built your house is never a good idea. Then again, it is your party’s favorite weapon…

As usual, Eric doesn’t know what he’s talking about AT ALL.
Code Pink has nothing to do with being a communist or socialist. It was started by women in November of 2002 and according to their website:

The name plays on the Bush Administration’s color-coded homeland security advisory system that signals terrorist threats. While Bush’s color coded alerts are based on fear, the Code Pink alert is based on compassion and is a feisty call for women and men to wage peace.

Here is their mission statement/initial call to action:

We call on women around the world to rise up and oppose the war in Iraq. We call on mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and daughters, on workers, students, teachers, healers, artists, writers, singers, poets and every ordinary outraged woman willing to be outrageous for peace. Women have been the guardians of life, not because we are better or purer or more innately nurturing than men, but because the men have busied themselves making war. Because of our responsibility to the next generation, because of our own love for our families and communities and this country that we are a part of, we understand the love of a mother in Iraq for her children and the driving desire of that child for life.

There is no mention of “Pink” being a hidden reference to being a “Pinko”. They do however, write “pink slips” to political leaders who support the Iraq war on actual pieces of women’s pink lingerie.

Stephen wrote:
“To prove that the connection is solid, and not just incidental one, you have put these people together in one place, together, communicating the same message, and not just compassion for the people of Fallujah.”

There is no solid connection between the majority of the women of Codepink, in fact, according to the definition on their website, even I could be considered a Codepink sort of woman, even though I’m not a member:

Without the regular trappings of dues, official induction or secret handshakes to learn, many people wonder how they know when they are members of CODEPINK. Just using the word member implies that there is an established organization and accepted code of behavior to which you have to pledge in order to be included as one of the privileged few.

CODEPINK doesn’t have members. We don’t require official affiliation to speak, act, or protest with CODEPINK.

People* committed to creative protest against militarism and injustice are CODEPINK.

People who want to influence a shift in the focus of world society and governments from militarism to life-affirming endeavors are CODEPINK.

People who are not ashamed to wear a big pink button, and thereby encourage conversation are CODEPINK.

People who are not afraid to be unreasonable or to be called un-patriotic in the name of peace and social justice are CODEPINK.

People who realize that you must be the change you want to see in this world are CODEPINK.

*People includes all people regardless of their gender. Though initiated by women and composed primarily of women, CODEPINK does not discriminate on the basis of gender, sex, ethnicity, age, religion, or social-economic status.

“So, I got to ask you, what kind of relationship can be set out on the facts? Have they made statements sharing economic or social positions, rather than just the common cause of opposing Bush’s policies on the war, which even conservatives like Brent Scowcroft have voiced opposition to.”

On the facts, he has nothing of the sort. There appears to be no official relationship between Cindy Sheehan and Codepink (although obviously she too, could be considered a member by their definition). However, she has and does protest with her Gold Star Families for Peace group where Codepink also shows up to protest. Therefore, all he has is supposed guilt by association.

“Even if your position is true, does that make Bush right about his policies? No.”

Exactly. But Eric’s (and many other people who stand on the right) ongoing goal is to smear all who protest against the Iraq war by implying that everyone who does so is an Unpatriotic, Terrorist Sympathizing, Communist who want to destroy America, steal Republican cars out of Repbublican garages and drain Rightwing bank accounts to give to the poor.
Such articles are never about analyzing or holding Bushco accountable for their actions. Indeed very few of the posts which appear in the Red column ever question the validity or purpose for anything Republican politicians or the Republican party does. As if even the mere thought of questioning their leaders or the goals of the Republican organizational machine would automatically make them a traitor of the USA.
I consider such an attitude extremely twisted and utterly nonsensical.
The fact that the Democrats who write articles for the blue column on this blog don’t do the same thing with your own politicians or party is something I think you should all be very proud of — because the minute American’s stop questioning the authority of the government and begin blindly following the words and the goals of any group of political leaders, the notion of America as a nation “By and For the People” is completely dead.
Or in other words, it appears that you guys are still critical thinkers, whereas they are all too often “faith based”.

“Socialism is not the root of objection to this war.”

No, it isn’t. And yet, there are many socialists protesting against it, just as there are many from every other political persuasion protesting against it. And there are many, many others representing all views who are not out protesting, but who also strongly object to this war, as well.

“The Root of the objection is Bush’s diversion of us from the real war against al-Qaeda, the deception it took to get permission for that diversion, the subsequent incompetence of the initial plan, the prolonged covering of the Bush administration’s collective rear end, and finally the failure to shift to more effective plans after it became apparent the plan has not been working.”

Well said. Not to mention the obviousness of people like Robert “mouthpiece” Novak, and Judy “in cahoots” Miller, and the seemingly generalized acquiescence of the media and the press to let them get away with all of the above.

“It took a while, but the reality is sinking in across the country. You want to say that the reason that this war is unpopular is that the left and the socialists have been setting up a fifth collumn with the terrorists in America, trying to undermine our great country by being persistent pessimists. That’s something that only makes sense if you think half the country wants to destroy the other half, and if you completely ignore the effect of the real world on people’s opinion.”

Clearly none of what the Republicans have been saying is based on Thinking, or Reality, or Sense. It’s based solely on Appearances, Damage Control, and on Stirring Up The Emotions of those who don’t think, or read, or try to make sense of anything. But amazingly, even that last group seems to now be starting to wonder if they’ve been sold a bill of goods.

“In short, you want us to believe, that despite all the power you on the right wield, that you’re not responsible for putting us in a difficult, unneeded war with a losing strategy.”

Yes, indeed. And yet, characteristically, it is they who will all come out on the same day with identical talking points, often parroting terms like “Blame Game”.

“It’s time to get busy changing things for the better, rather than bitch and moan about being subverted by the other side. History will record, otherwise, that the GOP tried to talk the crisis to death.”

I don’t think Bushco can get busy changing things for the better. Their preconceived, unrealistic, willy-nilly, fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants ideology seems to have precluded them from understanding that it is an analytical, critical, creative, but strictly reality-based procedure to try to transform problems into successes. IMO, these clowns simply don’t have the Right Stuff. Never have, and never will.

I would just like to comment on the AP story where a female gorilla in the Congo is using tools! They can bring her in and give her a bath, put perfume on her, shave her legs, put a dress and shoes on her, even elect her to Congress. And although she may act like a Liberal Democrate, you still just have a smart gorilla.

David Nett
Give me some names of people “wrecked by such hysterics” of McCarthy.

Eric:

Name calling is not a way to prove anything. You don’t like Cindy Sheehan, so you call her a Socialist. She says something about Code Pink, and you see that Code Pink women are going to Cuba, so you say she loves Cuba and communism.

Don Romsfeld recently went to China. Does that make him a communist?

You have a right to your opinion that the Iraq war was necessary. Cindy Sheehan has a right to her opinion that the war was wrong. That happens to be my opinion too.

Neither Sheehan nor I represent the entire left. Don’t pick on any person, find fault with her and generalize the fault to everyone on the left. This is bad logic.

Tom:

Give me some names of people “wrecked by such hysterics‎ of McCarthy.

You need to catch up. You really don’t know??

Amazing.

Daniel Younger:
“I would just like to comment on the AP story where a female gorilla in the Congo is using tools! They can bring her in and give her a bath, put perfume on her, shave her legs, put a dress and shoes on her, even elect her to Congress. And although she may act like a Liberal Democrate, you still just have a smart gorilla.”

Where have you been? The Gorilla Girls have been around since 1985 and you’ve just learned of them?

Aldous, before you claim that Bush lied please explain why Democrats and the Clinton administration were saying Iraq had WMD back when Bush was running for Governor in Texas?

You have just been Fact Slapped

Aldous, before you claim that Bush lied please explain why Democrats and the Clinton administration were saying Iraq had WMD back when Bush was running for Governor in Texas?

Simply because others were wrong (and I think you’ll have a hard time proving that the “Democrats” as a group were claiming Iraq had WMDs) does not excuse the actions of this administration.

This is not to mention that Iraq, DID, at one point, have WMD.

Womanmarine
There were a handful of people named by Sen McCarthy as having loyalty to some other government than the United States. He wanted them removed from the government. There were also a list of several hundred that were only listed by a number, not by name. Some of those mentioned by name are:
Philip Jessup, Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Esther Brunauer, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley and Gustavo Duran. Each and every one of those mentioned belonged to communist front organizations or to the CPUSA.

There were a handful of people named by Sen McCarthy as having loyalty to some other government than the United States. He wanted them removed from the government.

…and did any of those accusations pan out?

Eric,

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the insurgents are freedom fighters, but I will not say they are fighting for freedom from America, I would rather say they are fighting for freedom from this administration. The Bush Administration has brought the Iraqi people a society that is anything but reflective of American ideals.
Torture, depleted uranium, and an Islamic-based Constitution are hardly ideals that are the heart of what America is. We are mobilizing Iraq with the very ideas that are used to mobilize the populist of the Middle East against America. I would say that they are doing this on purpose to keep a perpetual state of war going forever, but then I read things from idiots like you who really believe that the people would surrounder everything that makes them an individual just to have Americans around.
As for your article it sucks ass as usual. I swear you would go down on Bush if he asked you to. Your more of a pinko-commi than a liberal would ever be.

Not to mention what he put so many people through.

Sorry, it wasn’t just the people in government, and it wasn’t just a handful.

I have no more to say. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

I must say, I can’t say that I’ve seen anyone actually defend McCarthy’s idiocy. This is a first.

Of the names mentioned above here are a few examples of why Sen McCarthy was wanting to have them removed from government positions. Harlow Shapley belonged to at least 2 dozen communist fronts. This should not be considered an innocent action. Frederick Schuman belonged to nearly 30 communist fronts and adjuncts to the CPUSA. Owen Lattimore had testimony against him for activly participating in the highest levels of the CPUSA. Philip Jessup spent a number of years in the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The American Communist Party considered the IPR “as an instrument of Communist Party policy, propaganda and military intel”. Most of this information is archieved under those peoples names. I have yet to hear of any names you could surrender that do not fit into a loyalty risk that the late Sen. McCarthy destroyed.

MattLaw
Explain your position on “McCarthy’s idiocy”. Much of the media as well as society felt something similar to that statement. But when you got to the bottom line the senator was trying to remove from the government people who should not have been there.

Andre M. Hernandez,
“You support the war. Many of us do not. Attacking those who oppose the war does not give proof that the Bush administration was just in invading Iraq. It just shows that you and others like you who do not see the harm in attacking another country, based in misinformation, that has cost hundreds of billions of our tax dollars, created record debt, killed thousands of people, hate to admit when you’re wrong.
You don’t have to admit anything. The world already knows.”

Ok let me break this statment down, first off you are speaking now for a majority of the American people, no you are not so don’t say “Many of us do not”. Maybe among the liberal majority but certainly not the American people. Secondly who is to say that us who support the war are wrong, most certainly not you. Its all opinon no body is right or wrong for that matter. Its more or less what you believe in. SO maybe you don’t support the war and feel that we are wrong, but there are a significant amount of people who still believe we are doing the right thing.

All we see in the newspaper is all the bad things that are happening in Iraq, like all the suicide bombings and the violence. But the newspapers do not show any of the good things like the fact that Americans are there building schools to help educate the Iraqi youth. Many people have been helped in that country and appreciate what we did. So here you are sitting here and saying we should not do this and all Republicans are wrong, but alot of Iraqi people are sitting home living a better life thanking their god that we were here for them.

Take a good hard look at everything not just what sells news papers

Explain your position on “McCarthy’s idiocy”. Much of the media as well as society felt something similar to that statement. But when you got to the bottom line the senator was trying to remove from the government people who should not have been there.

His process of going about such attacks were often based on unsubstantiated information … in excess to the point that the entire ‘investigation’ was discredited. This quite possibly had the effect of allowing those who were truly guilty of actual crimes (not simply just being sympathetic to communism) to go without detection or punishment.

Ok let me break this statment down, first off you are speaking now for a majority of the American people, no you are not so don’t say “Many of us do not”.

Actually, the majority opinion for awhile has been that the war was a mistake and was not worth it.

Drew,

I watch Fox News all the time and they don’t even try to act like Iraq is going great or good or fair or o.k., it’s more like a picture of a pool of shit that my own family is swimming in. How about you give us a link to this fairy tale world where instead of people having not even the bare neccessities to live they have something… hell anything that resembles living in a world that wasn’t created by Stephen King.

according to some polls yes but not all polls show those results

according to some polls yes but not all polls show those results

That might well be the case. Can you direct my attention to any?

“As for your article it sucks ass as usual. I swear you would go down on Bush if he asked you to. Your more of a pinko-commi than a liberal would ever be.

Posted by: ericsucksballs at October 24, 2005 06:01 PM”……I hardly see where this kind of comment is called for.

This is a new low. Someone actually defending a jerk like Joseph McCarthy? What’s next - Timothy McVeigh was misunderstood?

To Tom, who wrote:

“David Nett
Give me some names of people “wrecked by such hysterics‎ of McCarthy.”

and the three or four others who have said the same thing:

Holy Crap! Are you serious?

Okay, first off, communism and socialism are not and never were illegal. We have a freedom of association in the United States, which allows any of us to attend meetings for any group, whatever the purpose, as long as they do not participate in an illegal activity. And, again *communism is not illegal.*

As for a list, here’s a short, completely non-exhaustive list, just off the top of my head (some of these named names, some fought the commitee, but all were forever changed by McCarthy’s fearmongering):

W.E.B. DuBois
I.F. Stone
Arthur Miller
Edward R. Murrow
Eli Kazan
Clifford Odets
Bartley Crum (the lawyer for the “Hollywood 10”)
the Hollywood 10, including Dalton Trumbo, who wrote “Spartacus,” but was unable to take credit for it due to the blacklist

Not to mention the estimated hundreds of people who lost jobs, etc., because their bosses thought/feared the had communitist sympathies

I know it’s fashionable in some circles right now to feel that McCarthy did no harm, that HUAC under his rule did not infringe upon civil liberties, that the anti-communist hysteria he invoked did not become a national witch-hunt. Still, I’m startled every time I hear it.

I guess I will respectfully say that, if you honestly believe Joe McCarthy did more harm than good, we will have to agree to disagree on this post — our fundamental ideas of right and wrong are in direct opposition, and no amount of verbal or written wrangling will change that.

—david

Drew:
“Many people have been helped in that country and appreciate what we did.”

Well, they’re not appreciating us lately according to a new poll (secretly commisioned by senior officers) that was just done by the UK Ministry of Defense.
This is what they found:

Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;

less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

From the link:

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

Elliotbay:
“This is a new low. Someone actually defending a jerk like Joseph McCarthy?”

I believe this is happening because of what I said in my first post — that there are too many people in this country who don’t really think, or read, or try to make sense of anything.
Wouldn’t someone have to be one of those to actually defend the over-reaching actions of such a man?
And maybe this inability to to think and read and reason is why the majority of Republican’s have yet to reach their “have you no sense of decency” moment with the people they’ve elected, and who they continue to so vociferously, yet senselessly, defend ?

David Nett
You are mixing the HUAC and SISS up. The Hollywood scene and Sen. McCarthy had nothing to do with each other. Your statement “that HUAC under his rule” is mis-information. The senator was never a member of the house and therefore could not have served on HUAC.
W.E.B.DuBois was a member of the CPUSA. He was a racist. He spend his adult life advancing communist and socialist programs. He was truly Un-American. In that particular time in our history is was illegal to belong to any organization that advocated the violent overthorw of our government.
I.F.Stone belonged to about 2 dozen communist fronts. He was a publisher, editor and writer that wrote in strong support of communist causes and projects.
Edward R. Murrow, or course received his orders from the top at CBS. He also was socialist in his beliefs. Maybe it was his chain smoking that clouded his vision.
And lastly, maybe I understand something from your perspective. You are mixing up Charley McCarthy and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Never the twain had nor will meet.

Ack — I just proofed my last post! The last sentence should read:

“I guess I will respectfully say that, if you honestly believe Joe McCarthy did more good than harm, we will have to agree to disagree on this post — our fundamental ideas of right and wrong are in direct opposition, and no amount of verbal or written wrangling will change that.”

I typed too fast, then did not proof. Maybe *that’s* how you become a republican — through insidious typos ;-)

I don’t see anywhere that says I am a republican. See how easy it is to distort what one thinks but cannot prove.

In that particular time in our history is was illegal to belong to any organization that advocated the violent overthorw of our government.

….and one of the better decisions ever made by the Supreme Court did away with that.

Tom —

My bad about HUAC — I should not have said “under his control.”

Sadly, you and I just fundamentally disagree. There is nothing, in my estimation, un-American about being a communist. In fact, I’d say that attempting to silence, censure, blacklist or imprison people simply because their political beliefs run in opposition to yours is desperately un-American.

I know who all these folks are/were — I could not have rattled off the names if I did not. Our estimation of them, socialist, communist, or no, and our inability to see eye to eye on whether they were harmed, just shows our fundamental difference of opinion on what is decent and reasonable, and what is not.

I will say, in specific, that Murrow was, by all accounts, an independent-minded reporter, and seeker of truth. His bosses “at the top” made some small attempt to reign him in — of course, that was a time when corporate interest had not quite yet trumped the desire for truth in broadcast news. Murrow would never have been allowed to go on-air today as he did then. And, a socialist sympathizer? Maybe, if by “sympathizer” you mean that he defended every persons’ right to hold his own philosophy, so long as it did not harm another, and that includes socialists. I do not doubt, based upon these responses and my embrace of the ideas of socialized medicine, collective bargaining, living wages publicly-funded electoral campaigns, that one, maybe even you, would call *me* a socialist sympathizer. By your definition, maybe I am.

You also say:
“In that particular time in our history is was illegal to belong to any organization that advocated the violent overthorw of our government.”

That’s something I didn’t know — I’d love to be pointed to an article or something verifying that (I like to learn new things).

That’s something I didn’t know — I’d love to be pointed to an article or something verifying that (I like to learn new things).

The government had much wider latitude to restrict such speech until this decision by the Supreme Court.

David
Whatever your definitions are, it is detrimental to the government of the US and the citizenry for people who have an allegiance to another country and belief structure. Sure they can say and do as they please, but when they become part of the government and cannot support the Constitution of the United States, then someone in authority must investigate how this would be happening and remove the threat to our security. We can ill afford to have beliefs that are not in accordance to the constitution making laws, enforcing laws, running rough shod over peoples choices (read that as judges). If those whose beliefs fit that description, then they need to be outside the government pushing their agenda whatever way they choose. And also suffer the consequences for those actions.

Tom —

You said:
“I don’t see anywhere that says I am a republican. See how easy it is to distort what one thinks but cannot prove.”

I never said *you* were a republican, I just speculated as to how *I* might be accidently becoming one ;-) (the “you” in the sentence was meant, in context, to refer to a universal any-person)

Perhaps you and I *both* need to read my responses more carefully ;-)

—D

David
Became would have been directed to me. You used become. My mistake.

Adrienne,

I am aware that all these polls exist, but how accurate are these polls really. Are they really taking a poll of everyone in Iraqs opinons? no that would be almost impossible. So the that 45 percent you speak of is in only a perticular area. Take a poll of the people of Iraq that have been truely liberated and lead better lives now, and see what percent that comes out to be. Open your eyes, does it really matter what facts and figures say, if they are even accurate for that matter, the Iraqis appreciate it more then you think. We have improved so many peoples lives and helped so manny people its amazing. If the true Iraqis did not want us there then why are alot of them voting on important issues that will determine the future of their coutry. This shows that alot of Iraqis care, and whether you believe it or not are happy that we are helping. Would you rather have a dictator like saddam who uses warheads against his own people just becasue of their religion, as your leader, or live in a democratice nation. Just think about that

Adrienne:

And maybe this inability to to think and read and reason is why the majority of Republican’s have yet to reach their “have you no sense of decency” moment with the people they’ve elected, and who they continue to so vociferously, yet senselessly, defend ?

And just who would you like we Republicans to change our view and vote for?

Someone who,

1. Belittles our God.
2. Is prochoice.
3. For gay marriage.
4. Looks stupid trying to hunt in Ohio.

Come up with a leader we can identify with and you might be able to deal us in.

Dave Broder in a recent column said that for Democrats to win the whitehouse they need a candidate that,

1. Has a strong marriage.
2. Is strong on defense.
3. Is comfortable with prolifers.
4. Has a strong religious affiliation.

Rush Limbaugh correctly said, was, what David Broder is saying, is that in order to get the Whitehouse back, Democrats need to nominate a Repubican!!

And that was the conclusion of a DEMOCRATIC think tank.

There is a reason Hillary Clinton does not suport your position on the war. If she does, she will never see the Whitehouse in 2008. (Actually I don’t think she will anyway).

To win the Whitehouse, a Democrat must,

1. Support Civil Unions.
2. Support the war, but not Bush’s handing of it.
3. Have a strong marriage.
4. Be moderate on abortion. (Oppose partial birth abortions for instance).
5. Be from a Red state.
6. Attend church. (Any church, Jewish, Catholic, protestant, Muslim).

Start sending out some of those types and we Moderate Republicans just might vote for them for President. Are there any Democrats like that left?
Fourty years ago, the Democrat party looked like America with liberals, conservatives and moderates, almost in the same percentages as Americans. Now, it is hard to find Moderates, much less conservatives.

As long as Democrats keep the energy with Code Pink and Cindy Sheahan, you will go to your grave a very angry woman, wondering why those dumb Republicans never woke up and started thinking.

Craig

Rush Limbaugh correctly said, was, what David Broder is saying, is that in order to get the Whitehouse back, Democrats need to nominate a Repubican!!

You know what Craig, I’d be happy with the Republican party nominating a conservative.

Are you not tired yet with this neo-con nonsense? Don’t the REAL conservatives in the Republican party realize how badly they’re being damaged by the administration?

Look at the signs. The president’s approval rating is absolutely abysmal, and it hasn’t stopped plummeting yet. The White House is about to get slammed with indictments. The GOP House leader is under indictment, and the Senate leader is sure to follow. Many Republican incumbents are double-digits behind their challengers, and many would-be candidates are opting not to run.

The GOP is damn lucky that the Dems don’t have their act together, or they’d lose more than a few seats in 2006 (and they will definitely lose seats).

I’m not happy with the Democrats, but I will not vote for a Republican candidate until the neo-cons are given the boot. Hopefully that isn’t too far off.

Mattlaw, the fabled “neocons” have little to no influence in Congress (unless you’re thinking of Joe Lieberman) so I’m struggling to understand your point.

It seems that to many “neocon” has come to mean “Everything I don’t like about Republicans but can’t put my finger on.”

DeLay a neocon? Frist a neocon? Huh?

A neocon is by defintion a former liberal, hence the “neo.” Do you mean that you want Republicans to be more conservative? Fine. I do too. The more conservative the merrier. So register Republican and vote for the most conservative candidates you can find in the primaries. If the Democrats pick up seat in Congress it won’t because they’re fielding more conservative candidates than the Republicans.

Sanger,
As conservative, do you define this as someone who believes in the progressive movement started after the civil war or those that believe America should be ran by Natural Law? Is it not funny how one can be conservative and still be liberal own their views of America?

I think it’s time I leave this blog. I’ve had some fun reading and analizing the articles and posts, however, when the blog can’t follow it’s own MAIN rule of not criticizing the messenger, it’s time to go.

As an example I refer you to a post above:
“Eric,

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the insurgents are freedom fighters, but I will not say they are fighting for freedom from America, I would rather say they are fighting for freedom from this administration. The Bush Administration has brought the Iraqi people a society that is anything but reflective of American ideals.
Torture, depleted uranium, and an Islamic-based Constitution are hardly ideals that are the heart of what America is. We are mobilizing Iraq with the very ideas that are used to mobilize the populist of the Middle East against America. I would say that they are doing this on purpose to keep a perpetual state of war going forever, but then I read things from idiots like you who really believe that the people would surrounder everything that makes them an individual just to have Americans around.
As for your article it sucks ass as usual. I swear you would go down on Bush if he asked you to. Your more of a pinko-commi than a liberal would ever be.

Posted by: ericsucksballs at October 24, 2005 06:01 PM”

The name of the poster in itself is a critique of eric and the last two sentences can’t be described as anything other than a critique of the messenger.

This is the only example I see in the current scroll of posts, but I have seen several examples in the last few weeks.

I will take this opportunity to say THANK YOU to everyone who has, is, and will serve their country.

Thank you and good day.

Do you seriously expect readers to take your assertions on faith? Who are you, President Bush? Oh, wait. Nevermind. I’m tired of watching Bush apologists smear Cindy Sheehan and anyone else who dares to speak out against a war into which we as a nation were misled. A year ago, you’d have been praising a mom who raised an Eagle Scout and a soldier. Now you associate her name with every “socialist” group out there in a patheitc campaign to ridicule her. Interestingly, six months ago, you might have gotten away with it. These days it’s clear that your entire cabal is morally and ethically bankrupt.

Adrienne,
I don’t think people who support McCarthy at this day and age are stupid. I think they’re “evil-doers”. ;-)

Tom,
You said “but when they become part of the government and cannot support the Constitution of the United States, then someone in authority must investigate how this would be happening and remove the threat to our security. ” I bet you can hardly wait to see whichever Bush administration officials leaked the name of a covert CIA agent, as well as those who covered it up, thrown in jail. But if you’re suggesting that opposing the party in power is detrimental to this country, I suggest you read the 1st Amendment of the Constitution you profess to support.

Drew,
You said “So the that 45 percent you speak of is in only a perticular area. Take a poll of the people of Iraq that have been truely liberated and lead better lives now, and see what percent that comes out to be. ” First, please prove that the poll you criticized came from one “perticular” area. You made the claim, so show us the facts to back it up. Othewise, it’s meaningless.
Second, are you suggesting that polling methodology be changed so that only Iraqis in favor of our policies be polled? Doesn’t that strike you as just slightly biased? That would be like using a poll of those four people who FEMA actually helped after Katrina to stand for everyone’s opinion.

sanger,

A neocon is not, by my definition anyway, a former liberal. I take the “neo” prefix as a derivative of the Greek word “neos,” meaning “new.” Thus, I believe that the term neocon more aptly describes a new type of conservative than a conservative who was once liberal. So in this context, what does it mean to be a “new” conservative, or neocon?

Other may disagree, but I view a neocon as someone who has abondoned the time-honored principles of limited government and fiscal restraint — the very two points that used to make the Republican party great. So in answer to your question, YES — DeLay and Frist are neocons. So are Bush, Cheney, and most other memebers of this administration.

Louis Greenstein,
While I may support Eric in this matter, rest assured it is not due to Cindy Sheehan. Cuba has always attacked our capitalistic system and showed that even in a limited way communism can not bring about a society where every citizen is able to live a simple productive life of their own freewill.

Although our parents and grandparents wasn’t right in the early 70’s when they chose the Beast of Nature “I the Consumer” to lead America’s Society, they did prove capitalism works as long as those citizens who want to be “I the Rapitalists” are kept at be.

Now, although I do not support the reasons for the Iraq War nor believe that the actions under President Bush are right, I do understand the necessary logic for removing Saddam by Force. The only thing I can hope for is a person of rank to pull the rest of the heads out of the sand so that we can win this war. So Cindy or anybody else has a right to yell about our leadership, but don’t tell me that The Founding Fathers of America got it wrong 229 years ago because I’ll be happy to prove them politically wrong.

Mattlaw, the fabled “neocons” have little to no influence in Congress (unless you’re thinking of Joe Lieberman) so I’m struggling to understand your point.

It seems that to many “neocon” has come to mean “Everything I don’t like about Republicans but can’t put my finger on.”

DeLay a neocon? Frist a neocon? Huh?

A neocon is by defintion a former liberal, hence the “neo.” Do you mean that you want Republicans to be more conservative? Fine. I do too. The more conservative the merrier. So register Republican and vote for the most conservative candidates you can find in the primaries. If the Democrats pick up seat in Congress it won’t because they’re fielding more conservative candidates than the Republicans.

Ummm…Sanger, you might want to do a little research here. Rampant federal government spending and expansion, a desire to dictate morality and religion, often also on the federal level, etc.

I’ll have no respect for the Republican party until they stop supporting politicians similar to our current administration.

Many supporters of Bush decry the term “neoconservative” and call it meaningless. Any ‘of the true’ conservatives that I am familiar with know EXACTLY what it means.

I’m a libertarian … so this current so-called “conservatism” is useless to me.

Cuba has always attacked our capitalistic system and showed that even in a limited way communism can not bring about a society where every citizen is able to live a simple productive life of their own freewill.

I’m no proponent of communism, but I’m guessing you are aware of one of the major external issues that has caused Cuba to falter for decades…

Okay let me get this straight Eric. You and the others who do not agree with defending our country will just sit in your own little make believe world and ignore the chipping away the terrorist are doing to our country. One day you will open your eyes and blame someone but not yourselves. Or just be totally surprised by the fact you are no longer free. It will be too late guy!!!!!

Elliotbay:
“Adrienne,
I don’t think people who support McCarthy at this day and age are stupid. I think they’re “evil-doers‎. ;-)”

Elliot, maybe we’re both right, eh?

Craig, I don’t think the Left should take political advice from the likes of you, or Rush Limbaugh. As for Broder, IMO, he’s always been a bit too wishy-washy and deferential towards politicians on both sides for me to consider him an effective journalist, let alone the one with all the answers regarding what kind of candidate the Dem’s should run.

“As long as Democrats keep the energy with Code Pink and Cindy Sheahan, you will go to your grave a very angry woman, wondering why those dumb Republicans never woke up and started thinking.”

:^) How kind you are to concern yourself with my wellbeing, Craig.
While I do often wonder why so many Republican’s are often so dumb, won’t wake up for some reason, and don’t seem capable of logical reasoning, I don’t live a life full of rage, because I have too much in it to make me happy.
I must say though, if we attempted to gauge which side of the political fence feels more love and compassion, knows how to have more fun, and has a better sense of humor, I believe the Left would clearly win hands down.

Adrienne:

Craig, I don’t think the Left should take political advice from the likes of you,

Too bad, if they did, I might be a Democrat, and you might be a part of a majority party.
40 years ago, my ideas would be welcome in the Democratic pary. If you choose to remain a part of the angry minority, it’s your choice. You will win more elections with a bigger tent though.

Craig

When will all the liberal idiots stop their junior high school tantrum “Bush lied about WMD’s!” Do they forget that Clinton harped on it, Gore yelled about it, Kerry lambasted Clinton for lack of action on it, and Chirac thought it had to stop. What am I talking about? They ALL lamented about Hussein and WMD’s in Iraq in the late 1990’s!!! Bad on Bush and Rove for not bringing this up every day of the week. I wish they would to shut up these buffoons who refuse to acknowledge history … to include Iraq’s use of WMD’s on Iranis and, amazingly enough, Iraqis. Get a new chant for God’s sakes! You Michael Moores and Arianna Puffingtons have me fired up and I’m outing your ignorance at every turn! What’s your next intelligent emotion … getting upset that the illegal entry of aliens is under fire?

Craig:
“Too bad, if they did, I might be a Democrat, and you might be a part of a majority party. 40 years ago, my ideas would be welcome in the Democratic pary. If you choose to remain a part of the angry minority, it’s your choice. You will win more elections with a bigger tent though.”

What good can be found in winning an election if one is forced to give up all their principles in order to achieve it? I’m afraid there is no sense of “victory” in that for me.
And as I said before, I’m not an angry person (though you’re probably going to keep insisting that I am), but I’ve certainly plenty of righteous conviction, which compels me to speak as well as act, on behalf of what I believe.

When will all the liberal idiots

Maturity, friend. Look into it.

stop their junior high school tantrum “Bush lied about WMD’s!” Do they forget that Clinton harped on it, Gore yelled about it, Kerry lambasted Clinton for lack of action on it, and Chirac thought it had to stop. What am I talking about? They ALL lamented about Hussein and WMD’s in Iraq in the late 1990’s!!! Bad on Bush and Rove for not bringing this up every day of the week. I wish they would to shut up these buffoons who refuse to acknowledge history … to include Iraq’s use of WMD’s on Iranis and, amazingly enough, Iraqis. Get a new chant for God’s sakes! You Michael Moores and Arianna Puffingtons have me fired up and I’m outing your ignorance at every turn! What’s your next intelligent emotion … getting upset that the illegal entry of aliens is under fire?

Iraq certainly HAD WMDs at one point. That does not change the fact that the American Public (heard of them?) were intentionally mislead into supporting this war. You can throw out the names of democrats at me all day long, and it won’t make a lick of difference. There were plenty of people who were NOT twisting intelligence, and who knew exactly what was going on.

There’s new word out today that the Administration might have known the Niger documents were forged before using them. Members of the intelligence community complain that the were forced to ‘twist’ the intelligence they had, turning data that amounted to little more than guesses into supposed “facts.” Powell refers to his UN speech as the “low point” of his career. Countless numbers of inspectors argued that U.S. claims were simply wrong (and guess what…those inspectors were correct).

Post 9-11 politics dictated that politicians in this country HAD to support the war effort (I’m sure you’ve seen the numbers about how many Americans actually bought the misinformation campaign that would have one believe there was some connection between Hussein’s regime and 9-11). I absolutely fault those politicians for that.

The public is finally coming around now, even members of the GOP are beginning to see the light, and this ill-concieved war is going to bring down this administration. Not a moment too soon, in my opinion.

I don’t believe an unilateral pullout of Iraq is the answer at this point.

“Iraq certainly HAD WMDs at one point.”

They most certainly did and were at least attempting to obtain more. And if hundreds of tons of conventional weapons combined with tons of “pesticides” (that just happened to be located next to ammo dumps), doesn’t qualify as WMD, then perhaps my liberal neighbors will comfortable with my single assault rifle.

“That does not change the fact that the American Public (heard of them?) were intentionally mislead into supporting this war.”

Repeating a leftwing delusion does not make it a fact. The fact is that regime change in Iraq was official US policy since 1998. The fact is that leaving Saddam Hussein (who harbored both terrorist groups and terrorists) in power after 9/11 would have been the height of irresponsiblity. The fact is that Congressional Democrats who supported the war had acess to the exact same information to which the administration had. The fact is that long delay insisted on by idiotic Democrats looking for “peace” allowed the Iraqis to move the WMDs out of the country, likely to Syria.

Also, the fact is that the situation in Iraq is stablizing daily, the Iraqi Army and Police are getting stronger by the day while support for the “insurgency” is weakening, and the Iraqi people just ratified a Constitution.

The fact is, the left has been wrong regarding everything before the war and during the war, and is now flailing about in a desperate attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. The left laughed after millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were massacred after the US pulled out of Vietnam; it’s not going to happen again.

“What’s your next intelligent emotion …”

—not letting it overpower reason. Try it.

Brian,

Repeating right wing falsehoods over and over doesn’t make them true.

First of all, US troops were pulled out of Vietnam by Richard Nixon, A REPUBLICAN. Not a Democrat, certainly NOT a liberal. A REPUBLICAN.

Second, although “regime change” may have been “official US policy”, it was NOT official US policy to invade Iraq.

Do you remember the Colin Powell presentation to the UN? Do you remember the DETAILED satellite photos? Do you seriously think that Saddam could have shipped WMDs out of his country without all those satellites seeing anything? The Bush administration was desperate for a reason to go to war, and was hunting for ANYTHING to back them up. If there was any evidence of WMDs being moved, the Bush administration would have trumpeted it from on high as a reason to go to war. But they didn’t say a word.

The UN inspectors didn’t find any evidence of either WNDs or a prgram to build them, and neither did the thousands of US troops who looked. They didn’t find anything because there was nothing to find. Saddam didn’t have WMD and didn’t have a program to reconstitute them. The sanctions were working. Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice BOTH said so.

So, since the sanctions were doing their intended job, Iraq was not a direct threat to us or its neighbors. That leaves the only reason for going to war as the desire to “spread freedom”. But if that was the case, why didn’t Colin Powell mention it at his UN presentation? I’ve read the transcript - he didn’t say the words “freedom” or “democracy”. Not one time. And why was Bush talking about invading Iraq BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED IN 2000?

If Bush had been president on December 7, 1941, he would have declared war on Argentina. If the Bush administration had been in charge during WWII, we would have landed at Normandy with NO PLAN for anything after that. The fact is, Brian, that it’s the ineptitude of the Bush administration that’s doing the damage. The right wing has been so wrong about everything that we ought to start calling you the wrong wing.

To the point and none of the small talk and bullshit. Saddam is the weapon of mass destruction!!!! As Hitler was and every dictator brfore him.

Vam,
You make a good point about Saddam being a WMD, but using that same standard could you not declare the leadership of President Bush and Company a Weapon of Mass Confusion?

Ken Cooper,
Since the Republican Party is liberal (progressive), I take it that you are including them in your argument. Because is it not true that we are a nations of laws? Upon that fact, does not the required proof need to be produced? Surely you are not suggesting that we allow our government or any government level charges against an individual without real evidence. So where is the WMD’s? Should President Bush or your local DA be allowed to charge someone without their hand being caught in the proverbial cookie jar? Or are you so liberal that your belief says that government needs no proof before taking actions?

Adrienne:

And as I said before, I’m not an angry person (though you’re probably going to keep insisting that I am), but I’ve certainly plenty of righteous conviction, which compels me to speak as well as act, on behalf of what I believe.

I don’t have a clue if you are angry. I do think you are a part of the “angry left”.

What good can be found in winning an election if one is forced to give up all their principles in order to achieve it? I’m afraid there is no sense of “victory” in that for me.

Would you rather have Kerry or Bush appoint people to the supreme court?

Craig

Craig:
“Would you rather have Kerry or Bush appoint people to the supreme court?”

Oh, I think you know the answer to that one. But what you’re really talking about is the choosing between appointments by Bush or someone like Liberman, or… I don’t know, Zell Miller?
And I’m left wondering what the real difference would be…

to pose this hypothetical is simply assonine:
Hypothetical: If (Any country) invaded the US, would you be a terrorist, insurgent, or freedom fighter?
MyPetGoat you are losing sight of what this war was all about to many people. ill give u the WMD thing since we have turned up next to none, but how about the fact that 400,000 PEOPLE DIED UNDER SADDAM HUSSEIN! is this not enough to justify war? if my government was enforcing laws the way Saddam’s did, you are damn right id be fighting on the side of the “invaders”. We were not invaders and it is rediculous to say such a thing. 400,000 men and women died! How can anyone with a soul not see the justification for this war. You liberals either need to stop whining and develope your own solutions or shut up permanently. All you do is whine to make Bush look bad, but the fact is that John Kerry and all your other left wing homeboys supported the war. But just like u they use the situation to grandstand and make Bush look bad, since noone remembers their original position.

Adrienne:

Oh, I think you know the answer to that one. But what you’re really talking about is the choosing between appointments by Bush or someone like Liberman, or… I don’t know, Zell Miller?
And I’m left wondering what the real difference would be…

I really don’t think so. Build bridges to the right enough to get one more state. As a Republican for instance, I am not worried much about Hillary because she is from a blue state. Increase the tent big enough to get another state.
You probably wouldn’t get me because I’m prolife.

You know the Adrienne, some of this really ticks me off. I support more rights for gays for instance, but not gay marriage. I support civil unions. So I am a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. There are so many issues that I can work with liberals or conservatives on.

Actually I should be happier, as I do vote on the winning side a bunch!!

Craig

Was the war justified? At the time of his ousting, Hussein did not have the ability to pose any real threat to our national security. But as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, he was a threat to millions of other people. (RVAG…’s 400,000 number is low if anything).

Well, if you’re a big strong guy and you’re out in public and see somebody getting assaulted, don’t you have an obligation to get involved? Clearly Hussein’s brutality is the global equivalent of much worse than a mugging.

On the other hand, there are three other issues. The first is that as evil as Hussein was (is), he was not the worst thing going on the world. We have stood by while millions of others have been slaughtered around the world. The moral certainty of the good Samaritan interceding in a mugging loses some credibility if he just walked past others being raped and murdered because those situations were too complicated.

The second issue is really more a question for discussion: given that we are a democracy, should our leaders actions reflect the national will or do we elect people in whom we place the trust to make unpopular decisions that they, in their judgment, feel are in the best long term interests of the country? This of course would seem to presume that the President’s motives were true, a notion that I realize will cause near apoplexy in many readers. But even if this is a war about oil, or Haliburton, or settling old scores, is it not eventually justified if it results in a nation of people being given a better chance for survival?

On that note, the third issue is this: if our justification was saving the Iraqi people, is it not important that they never asked for our help and don’t seem to want us there now?

I think the Jewish dominated Liberal Media is responsible for the philosophy of journalism, manipulation of events, distortion of facts, and premeditated message now portrayed in the majority of today’s current news publications. I think the basis for this stems from institutionalized learning. People striving for a higher education are taught to believe that communism, Marxism, and socialism are the growing norm and majority in America. They are instructed to believe that it’s latest fad, new movement. Liberal professors, usually left over communists or socialists from the sixties, feel this is a way of continuing their agenda, which leads to the breakdown of true American values. Check out this article http://www.natvan.com/pub/2005/101505.txt to learn more about the growing problem in today’s higher learning institutions.

Natal,
And the Conservative point of view is to oppress this information and knowledge which is now begining to take on a life of it’s own? If you do not act, think, and talk like us your are some how wrong? How’s that right?

The natural evolution of society as a nation and global community is not going to stop because some want to hide the books and facts of life. Therefore, true liberalism to include the progressive republican party need to check out why the radicule political views of our Founding Fathers still to this day can not be matched by their ideology of a more perfect union.

Henry,

Don’t you think its better to ignore stupidity than to dignify it with a response?

Adverbal:

Don’t you think its better to ignore stupidity than to dignify it with a response?

Chamberlin tried that. I think it is important to confront bigotry head on. The brighter you shine the light the more they squint!!

Craig

NATAL,

Wow, that was a centrist web site if I ever saw one.

HAPPY NEW YEAR Henry Schlatman

Henry I think killing people in masses the real picture here. Saddam did a good job of that as the dictators before him. Defending ourselves in a whirlwind of WMD always appears confusing.

Henry,

Don’t you think its better to ignore stupidity than to dignify it with a response?

Sorry, didn’t mean to post that twice.

Craig,

Confronting bigotry is one thing. Responding to a bigot as though he/she/it might be making a point that is even worth refuting is another.

This is HOW I was tought,Republicans think that if you make your bed you should sleep in it,I’m so tired of the far left saying we don’t do enough for the people of USA.

WHEN WE WERE LITTLE OUR MOTHERS AND FATHERS TOLD US TO STAY IN SCHOOL AND GET SOME SORT OF SCHOOLING AFTER HIGH SCHOOL SO WE DON’T HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE GOV. TO HELP FEED OUR KIDS, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE SOME JUST DON’T GET IT AND THEY THINK THEY WILL JUST GET BY.

SO IF YOU DO NOT GET SCHOOLED IN LIFE AND BE SOMEBODY, A BAD HURRICAN MIGHT HIT YOUR CITY AND YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO GET OUT BECAUSE YOU WENT THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED CAN’T SAY THE GOV. DID NOT CARE ABOUT AND THEY DON’T CARE BECAUSE WE ARE POOR. DON’T BLAME THE REPUBLICNS THAT WE DON’T CARE ITS YOUR FALT.

CAN SOMBODY BACK ME UP WHO SEES IT MY WAY?

p.s there are free grants, laons, and ways for every person black,white,spansh,chines all sorts of people can do it just look for it and you will find a way. MY WIFE IS DOING IT NOW AND I MY SELF AM A MARINE AND WE ARE GETTING AT THE END OF HER 3RD YEAR OF SCHOOL. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THE SERVICE PAYS.

Adverbal,
The line between ignorance and stupidity is one of those finite lines I will allow others to judge for themselve, for I have realized that many times what I know as common knowledge is not always commoningly known among “The Learned” of our society. Thus, the right thing to do is to explain why our Forefathers were smart enough to put limits on what can be done by government and society. However, it is up to us as a society to come to terms with those limits and learn why the siad all governments must follow The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Vam,
While I can state many reasons for the forced removal of Saddam and the cluster ____ that we find our troops in, were I have a problem is the two standard policy that the Republicans want to put on themselves. Don’t you think it is kind of strange that only a few years ago the Republicns were screaming about President Clinton wanting to make our troops the world police? Isn’t that still the question?

Marinedomyanic,
It is that very concept of a Republican that keeps me an Independant. Although I understand your point of view, I believe freewill wins out on that issues. Besides if we would actually teach some of the things children want to know than we could solve alot of these problems. However, why is it that I catch so much grift from Republicans when I propose such things as teaching investment and credit classes in high schools?

Jeez, what year is this?
“Socialist in orientation”?

“Calling Mr. Birch. Would Mr. John Birch please step to the blog comments.”

Henry,

Now the question is who is going to invest in manufacturing and marketing them. Just think how much every home in America could save if every 100 watt lightbulb was replaced by a 2 watt LED Light.

My guess is: a whole lot of people in a free market. But in a state run economy you might have only one investor, and if they say no, what then?

I’m not sure that you were going in that direction but I thought I might point it out.

I trust you’ll keep me informed when it is time to buy that stock. ;)

Andre,

You support the war. Many of us do not. Attacking those who oppose the war does not give proof that the Bush administration was just in invading Iraq.

I am merely pointing out the philosophical and ideological vision of those who oppose this war. You can as well ask why they refuse to admit they are wrong. They don’t have to admit it because the world already knows?

Was the invasion of Iraq on par with the Stalin purges? Or Pol Pots restructing of society into a more ‘egalitarian’ one based on the principles of community over competition? Or how about Mao? Was the great leap forward a great moment in history?

Is it mere hypocrisy that the same anti-war activists who routinely label the US as a genocidal military junta can’t seem to correctly discriminate whether Cuba is ruled by a dictator or a saviour?

Stephen,

It took a while, but the reality is sinking in across the country. You want to say that the reason that this war is unpopular is that the left and the socialists have been setting up a fifth collumn with the terrorists in America, trying to undermine our great country by being persistent pessimists. That’s something that only makes sense if you think half the country wants to destroy the other half, and if you completely ignore the effect of the real world on people’s opinion.

No actually, what I am saying is that we deserve the whole truth from the left and not just the part they want to put forward. We deserve to know why America is considered a fascist country. We deserve to know that they would consider Afghanistan as much a lost imperialistic war for oil as Iraq and for the same reasons.

I don’t mind if you oppose the war Stephen, just don’t leave out the main reason you oppose it— if it is the same as Cindy Sheehan’s— that you despise America to begin with.

It’s disengenous to say that this missing info is irrelavant. I’m sure it would be relavant if our President were David Duke, would it not? If the cabinet were all bona fide neo-nazi’s from Idaho would you want that pointed out?

In short, you want us to believe, that despite all the power you on the right wield, that you’re not responsible for putting us in a difficult, unneeded war with a losing strategy.

Two things here.

1. We live in a democracy. The hard power you say the right supposedly weilds is nothing without the soft power of morale and determination. Without Americans understanding why it is we are at war, we can lose no matter how powerful our armed forces are. The fact is that we have a committed group of Americans who selfishly demand they be put back into power or else they will not support the war they voted for (ie democrats). And then we have a group, Code Pink et al, who are actually enemies of freedom and will cheer if they can convince Americans that America should be beaten.

2. We (neo-cons) are responsible for putting us into a difficult but needed war with a good strategy and a determination that rather than dooming one third of the planet to abject poverty and oppression we should intervene and right the wrongs of our past as well as the past of many others. You may view such things with committed pessimism if you want, but I believe (rightly) that to do nothing in the face of evil is the only way that evil can triumph.

Woody,

I can’t believe you are still pushing this “Iraq War protesters are all Marxists‎ meme. If that is true, then Marxists must be the smartest people on earth. If I have to tough decision to make, I will find someone who attended the World Socialist Forum. ;)

This isn’t a stipulation that they are right, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. They also vehemently opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Not it’s execution mind you, but any invasion at all. There’s also Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao…

I don’t think they’re all marxists. But the fact is that many if not most of the organizers are. Shouldn’t this be news? International ANSWER is a Marxist group and they organized EVERY major anti-war march in the US since 9/11.

Philippe,

So, Eric, when its come to Cindy Sheehan, it’s more “critique the messenger not the message‎!?

How can pointing out what she believes possibly be ‘critiquing the messenger’? Unless what she believes is so discrediting that you would not want anyone to know?

David Nett,

I appreciate your attempt at candor but I’m not following the logic here. I’m paraphrasing of course: “Capitalism is great but it needs to be judged by socialist principles?”

The omlettes/eggs metaphor makes me want to scream — what “omlette‎ are you making? Whose “eggs‎ are you willing break?

I’m sorry if I didn’t make it perfectly clear that you can’t have marxism in practice without breaking a few eggs. That’s what I meant.

Sarah,

I don’t expect you to understand what I’m saying. In fact, I expect you to reply and call me a commie nigger vegetarian pig or whatever assumptions are on your mind today. Ok. Have at it. History certainly won’t remeber me, so it will be a small win for you.

I think you may want to examine yourself for prejudice here as well. It’s unfortunate that whenever anyone questions socialist or leftist objectives and ideology that many times they are characterized as somehow calling names. Is that what I’m doing?

Suppose someone called me a capitalist? Would I shout back that they are slandering me? No I would say they are correct. Now ask yourself why you have this reaction when I point out an obvious fact that progressive ideology is in fact socialist ideology?

Mister magoo,

Has she ever come out and said she was a Socialist? No. But you sure pretend that she has. Pat Robertson never said he hated women. But by using the same train of logic you’ve used in your article, it would be safe to extrapolate that by his distaste of feminism, that all women are evil. (Granted, Robertson is a nut-job…but you get my drift.)

And when you state “…progressives the world over still cling to the discredited idea that profit is evil and capitalism is oppressive,‎ you could not be more incorrect. Progressives are not against capitalism. But we are against the often slimy, selfish and corrupt means used to create capitalism. You don’t have to look very far past Frist, DeLay, Cheney, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, et. al. for examples.

Unfortunately, blaming a convenient target for your house falling apart instead of blaming the people who actually built your house is never a good idea. Then again, it is your party’s favorite weapon…

Progressives are not against capitalism? By the same train of logic I could say that I’m not against the system of communism just the actions of everyone who