Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack:

Funny you should use the Justice System in your opening when 500+ detainees in Guantanamo are being held without due process and hundreds more are being rendered to other countries to be tortured. I never cease to be amazed how easy it is for Conservatives to shutdown their brains to live a lie. Do you question that Bush Junior’s Policy has failed? Exactly which part of his plan actually went off without foulups? This Administration changes its story so many times you need a computer just to keep track. Tell me… Are the Deadenders in their last throes? How about Ahmed Chalabi visiting your Hero, Cheney? I suppose it is completely normal for you to welcome idiots and liersbut the rest of us do not. The rest of us do not support torture. The rest of us believe in honesty in Government.

You should mention to your GOP Contact to update those Talking Points they send you. Reality has come back and it will bite you in the ass.

Jack,
Beyond a reasonable doubt is only applied at criminal cases. The preponderance of evidence is the bench mark at a civil trail. And common sense governing requires people to use reason and logic to draw their conclusions. Now I can make a very strong civil case that both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress put their political party’s interest over that of our Nation in October and November of 2002. Care to debate me on it?

I can also prepare a civil case that dates back to the 1960/70’s on how certain citizens have used their civil and professional positions to influence/manipulate “The Invisible Hand of Society†that was established by our Elders in the 70’s to safe guard society against the Rapitalists of Nature which we find ourselves in. Although in doing so I would only add fuel to the conspiracy theorists of the world. Therefore, let me just ask you how much of the history and relationship between those in the current Administration do you know as fact?

While I can only hope that our current elected officials are only acting like children and like children “Total Incompetence†could be excused. I really have a problem with the fact of life that this current Administration & Republican Leadership was part of the “Establishment†that the American Society rebelled against. So as a political independent let me see if I got the “Rove†game plan down. First, the ability to prove/disprove the willful misleading of Congress and/or the American Public is an act of Congress so as long as the Republican Lead Congress stands strong there will be no real public hearings that comes out before Nov. 2006. Second; The move by the Republicans in the House was a neat trick to get rid of the voice of the anti-war movement Now, America is stuck with fixing Iraq and leaving. And it is this move that is the political gamble that only 2% of the population supports. “Stay the Course†says President Bush and with only a month or two before the elections in Iraq which happens to revolve around the holidays maybe they can buy some time before they have to use their lack of imagination to come up with a plan. Introduce a new product right at Christmas time showing a bright future for Iraq and our Troops and hopefully a workable plan and we are off to the 2006 Mid-term Elections with more bashing that Democrats for being unpatriotic because that don’t think exactly like the neo-con mentality. Screw the Truth, its money and power that matters. Am I close?

Now I do agree that something needs to be done in Iraq today. Not only for the sake of our troops, but for the Citizens of Iraq as well. Given the clear and present danger which exists in Iraq, if I were a Democrat I would push my party to support the complete open oversight hearing on the current conditions in Iraq and the workable solutions that are available to us. An argument that was started in the House of Representatives by the Republican Party asking the question of the Withdrawal of our Troops. For reasonable citizens are asking why would Republican Representative Hunter call for the Immediate withdraw of Troops considering that he chairs the House Arms Services Committee. Don’t all Americans deserve to know the reasons for such opposition against the Republican President which he has supported up until now? Considering the importance that Rep. Hunter brought his amendment to the floor of the House late on a Friday night, the Leadership of the Democrats could ask for the Congress to stay in session over he holidays to clear all matters of Iraq and our War on Terror. At last, I am not a Democrat nor do I have the ability to influence an entire political party, but I hope some of our elected officials are smart enough to know how to reasonably and logically figure us a way out of the mess created by President Bush’s Administration’s “Total Incompetence.â€

Hey look at that, Jack. That whole last section of that FactCheck article details that lie you won’t acknowledge Bush told. Ready now?

As for the rest, I can’t answer for the 29 Democrats who voted for the Iraq resolution (that vote is one of the big reasons I’ll be campaigning against Sen. Feinstein and why I love Sen. Boxer), but it’s interesting that the FactCheck article only deals with what Congress knew in 2002.

I suspect that by march 2003 — after inspectors had been crawling all over Iraq for months and found nothing — none of the Democrats (and probably several Republicans) would have voted to invade Iraq without UN support and as part of a legitimate standing alliance.

Jack-
You’re building a straw man.

Our problem isn’t that our government took risks. Our problem is that the risk it took, it took on information they intentionally used despite it’s known unreliability. Our problem is that they actively covered up the intentional intelligence failure, even to the point of creating new security problems like the outing of an agent. Our problem is that they abused their position on the intelligence food chain to make sure that only a select few knew how lousy the case was, and those people couldn’t say anything about it.

Our problem is, having committed the abuse of power that it took to get us into Iraq, they decided to take the risk of testing out their new theory of warfare- and kept testing it out even as it became apparent that the experiment had returned a negative result. They naively assumed that things would turn out their way again and again; they had no backup plans ready to go for such contigencies.

In short, we don’t blame them for the facts they could not anticipate, but for the fraud they perpetrated to get us into the war, and the stubborn resistance to any correction of their theories afterwards.

Nice work Jack,

Here is a great read from Hanson. I’m sure you have already read it. For the others…here you are.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson111805.html

Work hard everyone…millions of welfare recipients are depending on you.

And Jack,
The stubborn resistance of President Bush to protect his loyal friends in “The WHIG” is what has not only brought his numbers down, but continue to add fuel to the fire. Heads, stay the course and you go down in flames or Tails, you are left to tell Americans the Truth and are left to the Nature of the Beast. Flip the proverbial “Coin of Life” and the only hope that the Repubican Party has of staying in power come next November is that the coin lands on it’s third side. Care to give me odds on that happening in our life time? Even President Bush I do believe has finally woken up to that fact today.

Jack,

Sometimes it’s just better to be lucky, than good

Great article Jack and when this war is won and Iraq begins their own journey toward democracy and human dignity watch the Dems change their tune(once again). I also wish the left would just say what they really mean, and that is they want to surrender. This war is too difficult for them, any issue that takes longer to resolve than the average sitcom confuses the left. What they don’t realize is that Al Qaeda, and Saddam know that and they are playing them like a fiddle. We telegraphed this war to the point that Saddam had ample time to rid himself of incriminating evidence and did so. The Iraq Index and the continued successful elections are clear evidence that our mission is being accomplished and that our troops may soon be heading home, and it won’t because of any efforts by the left but because of the efforts of the brave decent Iraqi’s.

Work hard everyone…millions of welfare recipients are depending on you.

===========

Is that the problem or is our hard working dollars going into no bid contracts for Haliburton, new missles from Lockheed Martin, or corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts to the upper 1%?

I personally don’t mind helping the single mother of 4 feed her kids, I do mind giving money for new types of bombs to kill innocent iraqi’s…

Kill em’ here so we can kill em there right news man? They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps…

When I read the factcheck.org article, I knew it was not a slam dunk case for my position. Reading between the lines, however, I saw the complexity of the problem the administration and the congress faced. The President was advocating his policy. You can find examples where he was over zealous. Look at the opponents and you will find worse.

I also realized that the ex-post-facto analysis implicitly required a level of certainty that nobody could ever achieve at the time.

The analogy might be a cop that breaks down the door the door of a known killer and shoots him when he pulls a gun. Only it turns out it is not a gun. It is the remote control for his TV. How stupid is that? Isn’t it clear that a remote looks nothing like a gun? Of course, left along the killer could buy a gun and kill again. The cop might have saved some lives, but we never can know.

Aldous

We have detained thousands of people during the war on terrorism. We released those we determined were not threats. Some of these turned out to be threats; most did not. I think we should be more aggressive about explaining why we are holding these 500 guys. Various people from countries around the world have visited Guantanamo. The treatment of prisoners is good. They are not prisoners of war and they are not American citizens. It is a legal dilemma. It is a PR dilemma. I don’t find it a moral dilemma. Sorry but I can’t work up much outrage about this. If you made a list of the 100 worst prisoner abuse situation in the world, this wouldn’t make that list. If Americans were not involved, nobody would even pay attention.

Stephen

I believe in adaptation. We should change our strategies as necessary.

The President has not done a good job explaining the war to the American people. The Administration is not good at admitting mistakes. That is a major flaw. I don’t think the President has the personality to pull off a convincing mea culpa. Clinton was much better at this kind of thing, but one reason he was good is that he didn’t really make strong commitments. Bush is much more consequent. With that comes stubbornness.

Besides the political aspect - which is very important - I don’t know what we would do differently. We went in based on flawed intelligence. But once committed, there is no option but to finish the work. On the plus side we got rid of Saddam, Iraq has held elections and there is a chance for a democracy in the middle of the Arab world. Success in Iraq would be truly transformational and perhaps give a chance to a region where democracy has been viewed with no enthusiasm. The downside is that we have a long way to go before we achieve that.

tree hugger

No one is stopping you from giving ALl your money to whomever you please. Go ahead give ALL your money to the nearest welfare brood mare, I don’t care.

Tax cuts affect everyone, or didn’t you get that in economics 101? It works everytime it’s tried. Please look to the 6o’s and the tax cuts by Kennedy. Start from there and track the cuts and the resulting growth in revenue to the treasury. That should keep you busy for awhile. Get any love back from the tree, or is it a one way affair?

Jack,

Funny thing you should mention reasonable doubt. There was reasonable doubt about whether or not Iraq had WMD. There was reasonable doubt about whether or not Iraq had any operational links to terrorist organizations. There was reasonable doubt about whether or not we would be greeted as liberators or as invaders. There was reasonable doubt whether the invasion and occupation of Iraq had ANYTHING to do with the war on terror.

Why didn’t the Bush administration pay any attention to reasonable doubt? And why do you expect the Dems to live up to a higher standard?

Elliott

My point was that reasonable doubt it too high a standard when dealing with intelligence matters.

Do you think OJ Simpson and Robert Blake will ever find the “real killers”?

Jack

Reasonable doubt is way, way, way above the standard used by the administration. Look, I don’t know why you can’t just admit that they were looking for a justification to go in, they saw the nuclear threat as one that would pass muster with the American people, started down that road, and when the intelligence didn’t really jibe with the purported threat, stuck with it anyway, because it was the only winner they had. This ain’t rocket science, Jack, and admitting the truth may be painful, but it will clear the air so we can have an honest discussion about WTF to do now that we’re in this situation. Pretending the administration is a bunch of choir boys above cooking the info when the evidence is astoundingly clear to anyone who is thinking and not lock-step with the administration’s spinners that they gleefully pushed half-truths and discredited intelligence to get what they want simply makes you look like either a hack or a naif.

Jack,

OJ Simpson and Robert Blake have nothing to so with why we’re in Iraq.

Jack-
Your justifications of this intelligence failure depend on one important question: Did Bush or his officials know before they invaded that the intelligence they were using was bad?

The answer, as evidence has shown, is yes. Bush knew the case was too thin to justify a war, so he had his people bulk it up. On multiple occasions, when under advisement that intelligence or its sources were questionable, the Bush administration used it anyways. In presenting the evidence to congress, the Bush administration took out qualifiers, and included evidence they knew was thin.

The trouble isn’t merely that we found out he was wrong after the fact, but that he knew he was wrong before the fact, and went forward anyways. If a president cannot support a war with genuine evidence and the good faith presentation of the expert’s opinions (not censored, and rearranged to back his position) then he doesn’t deserve the authority to go to war, and America does not need to be sending men to fight and die without some assurance that there is a good reason why we take this risk.

As for torture, Senator McCain makes the point that excessive cruelty and degrading behavior on the part of our jailers, regardless of our reasons, undermines our claim to the moral superiority of democracy. We need to be able to present a bright line to the world in our regular conduct that establishes that in terms of how we act and how they act, we are clearly different.

Otherwise, there’s no incentive to support the U.S.’s drive to Democracy, and much reason to resent our intrusions here and elsewhere. Before, we have been successful in doing that. This is why people are so shocked that Americans did what was done at Abu Ghraib: the World expects better of us!

As to your statements directly addressed to me, let me say this: I believe in adaptation, too, but I don’t think that’s Bush’s way of doing things Bush just plugs along, trying to make the same plan work through sheer brute optimism.

Let me also say I agree- I think our best option is to finish what we started. That said, based on past experience, I don’t believe Bush’s plan has done the job, or will do the job. It’s not enough to be perpetually optimist. One must work towards the goal, putting the plans in motion to get things done and making them work.

The Republican party has been far too lackadaisical about getting this done, especially with the party’s military reputation on the line. If they can’t get this war moving, and moving soon, they will have serious credibility issues in leading this country to war in the future.

Isn’t it great that Lybia came clean about their programs. They knew they would be in line to receive our military. Reasonable doubt can be taken a long way by the guilty. After what sadam did to his own people, his case for reasonable doubt went out the window. Just like milosevich.

Jay,

Where and when did you serve?

R^2

Maybe one of the many cia agents Clinton let go to get money to balance the budget with could have found the intelligence we needed to have a more accurate report.

Jack,

For someone such as yourself who advocates blowing up San Francisco, you have a lot of balls to use the word “reasonable” in the title of any of your posts.

Burt

I never did or said any such thing. Neither did O’Reilly. These kinds of inudendo are sort of McCarthy-like, don’t you think?

Anyway, it doesn’t seem to me that it takes any “balls” to write anything at all in the U.S. We have complete freedom. We just pretend it takes courage.

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

This quote, which you refused to condemn, and in fact endorsed, is an encouragement for Al Qaeda to blow up a major American city.

Talk about McCarthyism! Express an opinion about military recruitment, and if we don’t agree, we’ll encourage Al Qaeda to blow you up.

Parse it all you want, Jack. The quote speaks for itself. I guess “balls” was the wrong word. What’s the opposite of brains anyway?

rick:

FYI… Libya was a British Success not American. The British Foriegn Service have been talking to the Libyans for decades. It is their success that Libya came clean.

Burt

Do you condenm Howard Dean for saying he hates Republicans? How about Dick Durbin comparing us to the Gulag? Or Teddy Kennedy talking about a plot cooked up in Texas to get us into a war. How much more hateful can you get than to say that our president started a war to make money for oil interests. There is lots of over the top rhetoric.

I do not support what OReielly said. His rhetoric was over the top. Tell you what, I condemn all hateful Republicans if you condemn all the hateful Democrats.

The bottom line as to why your statement was McCarthy like is simply that it was guilt by association. I didn’t say those things. You pick a quote and demand I condemn it. WHen you condemn Dean, Durbin, Kennedy, Moore etc then you can talk to me.

Hi Jack,

“Critics of the Iraq policy want to hold the President to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.”

Public opinion is different than legal standards.

“The Monday morning quarterbacks are in full frenzy and high rant about Iraq.”

Occupying Iraq had a probability of turning into a disaster. I knew that. Colin Powell knew that. Many high level Generals knew it. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Middle East, and isn’t a complete idiot, knew that occupation of Iraq was likely to go very badly.

Our country is being run by morons. Rumsfeld advocated “retaliating” against the wrong country. Rumsfeld said “absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence AND USED IT AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING INTO IRAQ….HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET!!!!…..sorry.

“2005 will be a remarkable year, a year when Iraq held three successful, reasonably free and fair elections”

The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of the Dawa party which is an Iranian anti-American terrorist group. The government is dominated by the Dawa party and the Iran-based “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq”.

Our soldiers are fighting and dying to support a terrorist friendly government.

Christian persecution is extremely prevalent and extremely vicious in Iraq. Some 3,000 police have been killed by insurgents. There are extremely repressive militias running around in Iraq who aren’t insurgents.

We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insugents aren’t losing.

We’ve got no viable options in Iraq. Staying in Iraq is an extremely bad idea and withdrawing is and extremely bad idea.

I realize there are a few positive things that we’ve accomplished and I think it’s great. Have you given much thought to the negatives I mentioned? American soldiers fighting to support a Prime Minister who is a member of an anti-American terrorist group doesn’t trouble you?

Louis

Look at the archives of this blog. Last year at this time people were projecting all kinds of horrible things and few people had any confidence that elections would be held at all. Everybody makes bad predictions. Let’s at least wait until after next month’s elections to make an assessment.

Iraq will not become Switzerland, but it is already better than it was under Saddam.

And we had no zero option. Leaving Saddam in power was a bad option. Despite all the Monday morning quarerbacking, nobody had a plan to get rid of him. We don’t need to look at intelligence to see how dangerous he was. History will do.

Aldous,

Kadafi was worried he was going to end up like Saddam,in a hidy hole filthy and having lost everything. Talk doesn’t make someone back down. Action does, or the threat of action. The U.N. talked…we acted. The British have been our allies, and it was a joint effort to rid the world of his programs. It really pains you to give any credit to the U.S. doesn’t it? I feel sorry for someone who so hates something that he can’t even give credit where it is due.
I wish you well.

Hi Jack,

“Last year at this time people were projecting all kinds of horrible things”

Clearly they were right. It doesn’t trouble you that our troops are fighting to support a member of the Dawa party?

“Everybody makes bad predictions.”

The White House predictions that the war was going to be easy were extremely stupid predictions……this is the Middle East we’re talking about.

“Let’s at least wait until after next month’s elections to make an assessment.”

The last elections were a disaster. The Iraqi government is riddled with Iran supporters now.

“Leaving Saddam in power was a bad option.”

Of course it was. Occupying Iraq was a far worse option. Strategic decisions frequently involve bad vs. worse options rather than good vs. bad ones.

Iraq wasn’t a significant threat to us compared with Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somolia and others.

“Despite all the Monday morning quarerbacking”

I’m not monday morning quaterbacking. I predicted that occupying Iraq would be the worst strategic decision made in the history of this country. I really hope I’m wrong of course.

“We don’t need to look at intelligence to see how dangerous he was.”

Saddam was/is a truly horrible person but he didn’t pose much of a threat to us.

Louis

I think you underestimated Saddam. He was kept in control only by sanctions. After the fact we learned that he didn’t have WMD on the day we went in. After the fact, we also found out that he was breaking sanctions with increasing success.

The U.S. and UK had to patrol Iraqi skies every day. The man was bold enough to try to kill a former U.S. president. He funded terrorism. He gave haven to terrorists. He hated the U.S.

Sanctions were very unpopular and becoming more so. If the inspectors had decided that Saddam had no WMD, what would happen to sanctions? What would happen to the no fly zones that protected the Kurds and Shites and kept Saddam in line?

Intelligence officials all over the world were convinced Saddam had WMD. They were all wrong. But why did they all come to that same conclusion? Because Saddam had and used WMD. We still don’t know when he stopped having them or where they went. And we don’t know if he stopped trying to acquire them. The intelligence there might also be flawed.

Actually, Burt, I don’t find it hateful.

That was your response to the O’Reilly quote. Not that it was hateful, yet over the top….you didn’t find it hateful at all.

Should Howard Dean say he hates all Republicans? No. Is that on par with encouraging an entire American city to be blown up? No. Are any of the other quotes you mentioned in the same league? No. The fact that you can’t judge the serverity of one comment over another is a problem.

How much more hateful can you get than to say that our president started a war to make money for oil interests.

How much more hateful can you get? Well, you could be hateful enough to encourage Al Qaeda to blow up an American city because their voters had the gall to express an opinion you didn’t agree with.

I think you underestimated Saddam. He was kept in control only by sanctions

So we can get you to admit that sanctions kept him under control. Do you think that in the lead up to war, we might have persuaded those nations who opposed it to give more ground in terms of sanctions in order to prevent the war from happening? Do you think that might have been worth a try? Or should we just rely on you to flatly state that sanctions would have been lifted in the near future although you have no evidence to that effect.

But why did they all come to that same conclusion? Because Saddam had and used WMD.

George W. Bush had and used cocaine. That doesn’t mean he still does.

Intelligence officials all over the world were convinced Saddam had WMD.

Does it interest you at all that Bush administration officials were telling reporters before the war began that the WMD evidence was weak? Strike you as odd in any way?

Hey News Man, got some news for ya,

Libyan support for terrorism appeared to have decreased after the imposition of sanctions. During the 1990s, QADHAFI also began to rebuild his relationships with Europe. UN sanctions were suspended in April 1999 and finally lifted in September 2003 after Libya resolved the Lockerbie case.

CIA Link for more info

I knew there was more to it than Bush taking all the credit.

Hi Jack,

I think you underestimated Saddam. He was kept in control only by sanctions.

We bombed the shit out of him periodically which was also responsible for his being contained.

Iraq wasn’t a significant threat compared to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somolia, and a few others.

Saddam was a deterable enemy. al Qaeda wasn’t/isn’t. Putting most of our military resources into Iraq was incredibly stupid for two reasons….It wasn’t a strategic priority and they aren’t at all effective there.

Last year at this time people were projecting all kinds of horrible things and few people had any confidence that elections would be held at all.

No, Jack. The argument was that we shouldn’t hold the election — not without Sunni participation. Otherwise it would further divide Iraq and prolong the insurgency. Which it did.

The whole way, Democrats warned that setting arbitrary timelines for Iraq’s democratic process was a mistake. The process should have been results oriented, rather than time-boxed.

Now we’re dealing with the fallout: security is non-existant, the Sunnis are underrepresented and pissed off, and the constitution is a self-contradictory piece of crap. It would have been better to do things right in the first place, as Democrats suggested.

“I don’t think we should be setting artificial timelines as this is a very challenging undertaking and we need to work with our Iraqi counterparts and make sure that the steps that are being taken are going to work.”

In retrospect, Hillary made a lot of sense back in 2003, didn’t she.

The President was advocating his policy. You can find examples where he was over zealous.

Jack, that “overzealousness” may amount to conspiracy to defraud Congress. Poindexter and North went to jail for that.

You keep arguing that intelligence is uncertain. No one disagrees — except President Bush, who insisted it was definite and concrete.

It’s amazing to me that Liberals don’t seem to be concerned about about Americans that are captured and tortured. They are more concerned with the civil rights of animals in Guantanimo that have no conscience to begin with and verses capture us, prefer to cut heads off and blow as many children and innocents to death that they can. Are you a human if you have no regard for human life? Liberals want more casualties and death in order to have a better chance in 08. For Iraq to have a constitution and show up in droves to vote under the most dire of scenarious was a crushing blow to the American liberal who despises Bush and this country and everything that we stand for. The US soilders dying in the line of duty beleive in their cause, and reenlist despite the danger. Why can’t you? But you pathetic liberals, who are safe today because of the blood spilt by our soilders both years ago and present day will never get it.

Well said, david. Yes, it’s obvious the liberal’s are trying to split the country just to have a better chance in 08’. Regardless of how many soldiers they get killed by fueling the enemy. What is more important, America’s survival, or electing a democratic president. The liberal’s can’t admit that America’s safety from terrorists is more important. We must fight them over there or we will fight them here. This country needs to unite.

david and rick,

Thanks for so eloquently proving why the far right has become the “hate Americans first” crowd. After 9-11, you folks blamed one person for the attacks. Nope, not OBL - Bill Clinton. Instead of blaming the terrorists for the deaths of US troops, you blame liberals.

Aldous, thank’s for the info. That’s great for the British. I’m learning just like the rest of us. I know I get mad, and agrivated, and want to write, and agree to cruel statements, but it is a pleasure to voice our opinion’s, and learn more about the world, and help each other get through this war, and understand each other. Thank’s again, I didn’t know it was the British. I misunderstood the situation.

Elliot,

If the attacks happen tomorrow, who are you going to blame? Previous posts of yours indicate Bush will be near the top of the list.

Neither derserved the blame, but both derserved to be questioned as the 9/11 commision rightly did.

More to your point though, it is interesting that those on this board that have villified Atwater for making liberal a dirty word are more than happy to use his tactics. I have seen more references to the “far right” or even better to “FREC’s” here than I can count.

Now the same is definitely true on the otherside. Conservatives are still bowing in the temple of Atwater and his associates. Swift Boats was as despicable as Willie Horton (probably even more so, since at least Horton had some basis in fact).

This board has bright shining moments of real debate where the name calling gets left on the playground, but far too often, it devolves into it again. Politics has become much too much about the message and not enough about the matter, and this board is no different.

AP, Stephen, Jack, and Sanger thank you for your contributions. They help point out to us what ideas truly divide us, and give us hope for making informed decisions on which side to choose when no middle ground is available.

To those of you more interested in calling people names, well, don’t.

Hi David,

“American liberal who despises Bush and this country and everything that we stand for.”

Your views are extremely un-American.

You right wingers are starting to realize that our situation in Iraq is a real mess. Our troops are fighting and dying in order to support a Prime Minister who is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist organization (the “Dawa” party.

Do you think it’s good that our troops are fighting to support a member of an anti-American terrorist group?

You’re trying to figure out ways to blame Democrats for the mess that Bush created in Iraq because the right wing doesn’t believe in personal responsibility?

Hi Rick,

“The liberal’s can’t admit that America’s safety from terrorists is more important.”

There are many experts who assert that America is less safe from terrorists due to our occupation of Iraq. You seem to be going in for right wing spin and distortion.

Mypetgoat

When did I ever claim all the credit goes to Bush? I simply stated it was a joint effort, something Aldous could not bring himself to admit.

I also believe that Kaddafi did not want to end up like Saddam. I state that again as an opinion. If you disagree, say so. I have some news for you as well:

I found this AFTER I made my claim. I am not alone in my beliefs as you are not in yours.

Byline: Frank Gaffney Jr., SPECIAL TO INSIGHT

Less than a week after U.S. forces pried a bedraggled Saddam Hussein from a hole in the ground and escorted him to prison to await trial for his crimes against humanity, another Arab despot signaled to the world that he had no interest in meeting a similar fate. Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi declared that he was willing to give up both his country’s various weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and his programs to acquire more and that he would allow international inspectors to verify these claims.

The question occurs: Even if Qaddafi took these steps, and met U.S. demands that he also end his long-standing support for international terror, should the United States and its allies endorse and facilitate his continued hold on power in Libya?

To be sure, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are entitled to credit for bringing Qaddafi even this far. His promises to disarm never would have happened without the object lesson of what befell his Iraqi counterpart. While Tripoli was anxious to get out from under U.S. and international sanctions long before the liberation of Iraq, the negotiations that resulted in Qaddafi’s recent pledges coincided with, and clearly were influenced powerfully by, the campaign that toppled another WMD-armed, terror-sponsoring regime.

To its credit, too, the Bush administration has indicated that it will not be rushed into normalizing relations with Libya. For one thing, there is powerful reason, given his track record, to be concerned that this dictator will not honor his commitments. Qaddafi is notoriously erratic, unpredictable and unreliable. In fact, as the New York Times reported recently, his mercurial diplomatic and personal antics have made the Libyan despot an object of ridicule in Arab governing circles.

News Man,

That’s a good thing for us then, maybe the real threat of the use of force finally persuaded Khadafi to come around. But as per your comment yesterday, it sounds like everything happened after the invasion in Iraq. This is the way the MSM and Bush himself makes it sound. Especially in his Pres. campaign last year.

I must say good job to you though, instead of spewing talking points like most, you did some homework. I only wish everyone did that. If I’m unsure of a subject, I find it’s much better to search for the facts because talking points memos blur the truth, tend to be one sided, and…..they suck.

LouisXIV, I know Liberals are as much for freedom as Republibans. We are all Americans. We all want a safe future for our familyes. I am angry, and hurt that this country is divided at a time of war. A war that not everyone agrees with, but it is a war that threatens our safety, and every day life as we know it. I think some Liberal leaders, as well as hollywood, and some entertainment leaders are trying to use the Iraq war as a way to discourage American, and the world. What I don’t see is using a war of this magnitude to make America look like the bad guy. Why would they do that level of harm to their own country’s image. Would it be to get their man elected next time? Yes, the war was unpopular around parts of the world from the start. If I recall correctly, we did get an ok to attack Iraq from the UN. But didn’t they back-out after Russia, Germany, and France decided not to support the resolution? We all know why they backed out ( the oil for food rip-off ).

Rep’s ane Dem’s will never agree on everything, and that’s a good thing. Personally, I am a Rep. in the middle of the road. I believe the war is justified. I am trying to understand why our own citizens, even Clinton is trying to make America, not Bush, look like the bad bully troublemaker. This doesn’t help our cause to win this war.

I knew the WMD’s reason for war was a mistake.I didn’t think it would hold up in the long run. sadam had too much time to hide, or move them to a difficult, or impossible place to find. I don’t like the reason to be to create a democratic policy in someone elses country. That’s what Bush want’s, but he did say they could develop what ever constitution that they want. I don’t care if Iraq is democratic, I just don’t want Iraq to be dangerous to the world.

I don’t recall hearing Bush say that America is the police of the world, All though, he may have, I do remember Clinton saying America needs to be the world’s police when he was president. I didn’t like that statement and thought it would make us look like a bully. What happens if no one polices the world? The UN is too corrupt to do it.Are we headed on a road to disaster no matter what the free countries do? Everyone need’s to make sence of this mess.

Hey, rick. There’s an excellent book by Thomas P. M. Barnett, “The Pentagon’s New Map”, that spells out a Grand Strategy for America’s place in the world.

The guy’s a Democrat, but his thinking cuts across the political divide. Even Eric Simonson likes his ideas. It’s out in paperback now, you should read it. It’ll give you hope for the future.

Elliotbay, there is not even a mention of Clinton in david’s and rick’s posts, so I guess I missed the part where they blamed Clinton for 911. There is a lot of truth in their posts. It is very apparent that Dems are more interested in political posturing on this war than winning it. There has been huge success’s in this war recently with three successful elections and nearly 200,000 militarily trained Iraqi’s ready to take over. Soon, our troops will gradually begin coming home and I know the Dems will try and take credit for it but it will only be because when “the Iraqi’s stand up, we will stand down”. Jeez, I wonder who said that?

Elliot Bay,
I don’t blame Liberals, or Clinton for deaths in Iraq. I do blame them for giving fuel to their fire, which I think creates a more dangerous situation for our troops. I don’t mean Liberals as a whole, I mean the extreme statements from leaders, and media coverage of cindy sheehan,etc. Someone is funding and pushing the extreme cindy. She lost her son as one or my hero’s. He did re-enlist and was then killed. I feel for all familyes in this company, as does most Americans. It isn’t good for an ex-president to go over seas and put down his country for any reason. That doesn’t make survival sence, So it musst be a political reason. Entertainers are doing the same thing. I don’t feel comfortable with our troops getting this kind of news . They need to focus on the most dangerous duties a person can be asked to do.
There hasn’t been a day go by that I havn’t thought about 911. So much daster for the free world on that day.

American Pundit,

Thanks for the book referal. I will look into it. I havn’t read 1 book in my adult life. I have a reading disability. I am 47, and just getting to where I can read well enough to understand some of the posts in here. I am trying my best to learn about the world, and politics. I don’t want my 4yr. old to learn so late like me. A strong military, and abortion are the bigest reasons I have voted Republican. Maybe the book will be something I can understand to read.
I enjoy reading the views of American people.

I find it so funny to watch you folks on the far right say anything - ANYTHING - to spread the blame for Iraq now that support for Bush’s invasion is draining like the water out of a flushed toilet.

Bush’s invasion has made the world LESS safe, not more safe - the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has INCREASED since Bush’s invasion, not decreased. Bush’s invasion of Iraq has led to an increase in the number of terrorists, not a decrease. Iraq has become a training ground for all the new terrorists, with targets conveniently provided by Bush.

I support this war completely and don’t have to say anything other than three successful elections and the southern part of Iraq now completely under the lead security of the Iraqi military (with US backup). And to imply that terrorists are increasing because of GW clearly indicates you don’t have a grasp of history. If we didn’t fight this war now, then our children would have been forced to fight it, but I know that doesn’t matter to the left, they only care about themselves, their power and their disdain for GW. I only wish the left would just say what they really mean; surrender. But then again, wanting a liberal to be honest just doesn’t work…..

jay,
I didn’t say that the number of terrorists are increasing because of Bush. I said that the number of terrorists are increasing because we invaded Iraq. Scroll up and look.

As for your statement that “our children and grandchildren” will be forced to fight, I think you’re right. I think our children & grandchildren will be fighting the Muslims who were radicalized by Bush’s invasion of Iraq. I hope I’m wrong, though.

Finally, regarding your silly statement that the left wants to “surrender”, I have two points:
1. I’m not a leftist, but I have never, ever heard or seen that word used by ANY of my liberal friends. The only people I’ve heard mention “surrender” are the folks infected with RWEHS - Right Wing Excessive Hatred Syndrome.
2. Do you remember the immediate withdrawal motion that was introduced in Congress earlier this week? It was introduced BY A REPUBLICAN. Republicans = right, not left. Actually, the correct equation is Republicans = wrong, not right.

They won’t say it because they don’t have the courage to but that is what they ultimately want. You completely ignorant if you think there are more terrorists because of our invasion of Iraq. 1972 Munich Olympic games is my first memory of terrorists killing innocent people and it hasn’t stopped since then. I know you want to think that it is all because of GW but that is just wishful thinking and the avoidance of reality from the left. The reps introduced that bill to get the dems of the damn fence post they love to ride waiting for the political wind to shift.

jay,

Why do you hate Americans so much? Don’t you want us to win the war on terror? Why are you being so divisive?

we are winning the war on terror and as far as divisive, I think you only need to look at the left to answer that question. Why don’t you debate me on the issues instead of changing the subject? Oh yeah, nevermind……….

American Pundit,

I have been thinkng about the hope for the future thing. It isn’t a lack of hope that bothers me. It’s the lack of comfort. I think that countries are reluctant to joining the war on terror from fear of being attacked. The lack of comfort that I have is knowing that the terrorist will eventually attack all free countries. Instead of choosing to stop the terrorist now, they choose to wait to be attacked later. Does Russia, France, and Germany believe that they can stay out of the fight completly? Russia has been attacked recently, I don’t think it was al quada. They were still terrorist. Europe seems to be against the war. France is having a rough time right now. We all know these countries could be a major help in this fight.
If my understanding is correct, I think you have a Liberal view. I would like to hear you”re view on these countries. Also where does China stand on this terrorist situation?

American Pundit,

I forgot to mention that I am uncomfortable with the amount of Americans that don’t believe we should be in Iraq. I can’t see a better choice to fight them here. And I am concerned about the negative coverage in the media. It has to have a bad effect on our troops. What is your’e opinion on these views?

We all know these countries could be a major help in this fight.

Those countries are a major help. Europe is securing and rebuilding Afghanistan and the French Navy is patrolling the waters around the Middle East. Europeans are also training Iraqi soldiers and police and are united with us against Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

France, India, Pakistan, and a bunch of other nations even offered to send large numbers of troops to Iraq in the fall of 2003 on the condition that we turn Iraq over to the UN, but President Bush turned ‘em down.

rick, President Bush has made one bad decision after another. People aren’t losing faith in Bush and the war because of politics or body counts. People are losing faith in Bush because he’s losing the war. He’s a really bad leader.

BTW, you can probably find that book on tape or CD.

American Pundit,

The info helps me alot. I remember Bush turning down the offer, now that you mention it. I don’t think Bush has much faith in the UN. They did turn their back on him (so to speak) after giving him the ok to get sadam. Of corse, three major countries backing out could do that. I had mixed thoughts about Bush saying no. It seems like the big picture would have been to ,(like it or not), accept the UN and get the proper backing of the world. That would have helped Bush alot in the polls. Bush has his plan. I wonder how much of the decisions are made by the military that over-ride Bush’s plan, and interest. I don’t have military training, and don’t know the procedures.

So, those countries are helping without the backing of the UN. That’s good to know. I’m sure Colon Powel, And Condolezza Rice have done alot of speaking over there that we don’t hear about. I don’t know how that works. Maybe they just decided to help. Eithey way, it’s good they did.

Where does China and Asia stand. China and Japan have so much at stake with the US with exports. Japanese own alot of our land, Do the Chinese own alot too?

With China wanting to take the Philiplenes back, or whatever it is, that puts them in a tight spot with the US. How can we protect the Philipenes, Israel, keep N. Korea at bay, possibily go after Siria and Iran, and fight the terrorist without a draft. I’m sure Siria would be in the terrorist war. N. Korea and Iran would be nuclear , and could take years of negotiations with santions. I wonder if Siria would take years with santions. This is alot on the table. No wonder presidents get gray hair.

I don’t know how to do research. Reading these blogs is giving me alot of info. It’s amazing what gets writen in here. I’m sure their is respect amoung the majority of writers, if not all. I appreciate you’re interest in helping me to understand. So many opinions and situations to sort out.

HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING AMERICA