November 23, 2005
Who is the Enemy?
If you listen to the left, the war in Iraq is lost. Our troops are dying in record numbers. The Iraqis hate us. ‘US Soldiers are the enemy’, ‘Bush is a criminal’, ‘Bush is the enemy.’ Formerly peaceful muslims are now terrorists cutting off the heads of civilians and exploding bombs in mosques because of Bush’s incompetence and intransigence. What war is the left really fighting? And against whom?
The calls for our defeat from the left came early and often: a mantra of defeatism that started with the fringe left with Afghanistan and is now official dogma on Iraq.
Afghanistan is beginning to look like a quagmire rather than a victory, with echoes of the confusion and uncertainty and persistent bloodshedding of Vietnam. Compounding the complications of the U.S. goal of hunting down the Taliban and Al Qaeda while stabilizing a fragile government is the swirl of ethnic tensions in Afghanistan fueled by competing warlords. Foreign Policy in Focus, Jim Lobe, September 2002-----
Afghanistan quagmire or strategic deception?When and where the next military front in the war on terror will open is anyone's guess. But surely open it will - and the apparent Afghanistan quagmire will in the meantime direct attention elsewhere.
For those already war-weary in only the fourth week of hostilities in Afghanistan and those innocently suffering the consequences, prolonged war is no happy thought. The very real possibility of the wider war we foresee is no more appealing. But it bears to keep in mind that the consequences of not fighting it would almost certainly be more dire still. asia times, Oct 30, 2001
-----
A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as VietnamCould Afghanistan become another Vietnam? Is the United States facing another stalemate on the other side of the world? Premature the questions may be, three weeks after the fighting began. Unreasonable they are not... R. W. APPLE Jr., New York Times, October 31, 2001
-----
Keeping Our Fingers Crossed: Is Afghanistan Slipping into a Quagmire?...Unfortunately, this is the scene in November 2001 as well. Despite futile media reports to the contrary, Afghanistan is on the verge of slipping into a political and socio-economic quagmire. In less than 48 hours, the despotic Taliban regime was forced to flee its northern stronghold of Mazar-e-Sharif, and eventually Kabul, to the rush of the Northern Alliance horde. By most eyewitness accounts law and order have broken down in the north, and Kabul residents, who had gleefully welcomed the Northern Alliance, are starting to show signs of concern that their new warlords will not leave. mediamonitors.net, November 21, 2001
Essential to the political future of democrats is that any war Bush leads must be a quagmire and another Vietnam. To regain power no defeat is too ignoble. No retreat is too swift.
Kennedy calls on US to begin troop pulloutWASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday called on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq shortly after national elections there Sunday, saying the presence of US troops is fueling an increasingly violent insurgency and exacerbating the security situation, not improving it. boston.com
Thus there is no role for ever using our troops anywhere in the world in the war on terror. Certainly we've learned our lesson: Don't ever try to remove dictatorships with US troops because if there is resistance they cannot do the job.
The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing. By that I don't mean that the loss of American and Iraqi lives is to be celebrated...So, as a U.S. citizen, I welcome the U.S. defeat, for a simple reason: It isn't the defeat of the United States -- its people or their ideals -- but of that empire. And it's essential the American empire be defeated and dismantled. counterpunch.org
Just the rantings of far-leftists? Doesn't represent mainstream liberal thought? Sadly these quotes perfectly represent mainstream Democratic thought on the war. As most of the posts on the blue column here on Watchblog can attest. Iraq is lost and that's a good thing if it results in the defeat of Bush and the 'neo-con cabal'.
In a resolution passed unanimously at the group’s recent monthly meeting, the Democrats agreed that the governor should “do everything within his power to immediately bring home all Oregon National Guard troops presently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or in training for those wars.” Washington County Democrats Official Blog
No, Murtha isn't the first Democrat to call for immediate troop withdrawal by a long shot.
Washington -- Sixteen House Democrats led by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma called on President Bush on Wednesday to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq..."While it may be logistically difficult to immediately remove every American soldier, we urge you to take immediate action to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This is the only way to truly support our troops,'' said the letter signed by Woolsey and her colleagues.
The House Democrats, all of them longtime critics of Bush's Iraq policies, said the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had stirred anti-American sentiments among Iraqis and other Arabs, made Iraqis and foreigners in the country less safe and "intensified the rage of the extremist Muslim terrorists.''
"By removing our troops from the country, we will remove the main focus of the insurgents' rage,'' the letter added. sfgate.com, January 2005
The calls for defeat have never ended. They certainly didn't start with Rep. Murtha.
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), one of the earliest and most outspoken critics of the Iraq war, urged the Bush administration on Monday to pull all U.S. forces from Iraq by mid-year. Chicago tribune
Chris Matthews, whose show has steadily declined into a two or three note symphony of defeat and revisionism, echoed Kurt Vonnegut's statements about how the enemy is not evil, but 'just has a different perspective'. I'm not sure who Chris thinks the enemy is, but I don't consider Zarqawi to be just another alternate viewpoint, I consider him to be an agent of evil.
In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years."The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.
"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that have built up worldwide animosity against his administration. torontosun.canoe.ca
If you listen to the left, the war is already lost. It was lost before it even began. The reason some can see only evil in the Bush Administration, but not in the terrorists who cut the heads off their victims, is because there is a long history of just this kind of thinking on the left.
During the invasion of Iraq the left argued that everything was going wrong and that it was already a quagmire. Every battle looked bad for the US and every mistake (or perceived mistake) was focused on to the exclusion of all else. This is the pattern that leads the left to conclude that Iraq is Vietnam. They can accept nothing else if they are to keep their world view intact.
Politically, the one thing that Democrats simply do not want to happen is for this war to have a victorious ending-- not for America but for Bush. It is far better for the left if Iraq is Vietnam. If it is a quagmire. If it brings Republicans out of power and the left back in, then all will be well again in the world.
Some Grim Milestones
What is most disengenous about liberal arguments for quitting in Iraq is that 2,000 deaths are too much to suffer in a war to liberate 50 million people, to create a democratic society, and to replace a repressive dictatorship with democracy.
Is it really the number of soldiers who have died? Are they in fact dying for nothing? Did they die for a lie?
What about dying for no reason at all right here in the states?
38,253 Americans died in 2004 alone in fatal automobile accidents- and,
38,477 died in 2003...
38,491 died in 2002...
37,862 died in 2001...
37,526 died in 2000...
37,140 died in 1999...
37,107 died in 1998...
37,324 died in 1997...
37,494 died in 1996...
37,241 died in 1995...
36,254 died in 1994...
Still, I don't hear any one calling it a quagmire of auto violence. Yet, these are grim milestones far surpassing the fallen in Iraq. But then Bush didn't invent the automobile so there's no reason for democrats to bring it up.
Is it worth it to bring democracy to Iraq? Is it worth it to remove a dangerous dictator who without a doubt would develop WMD and use them?
The left's exit strategy is based upon the (false) premise that Bush lied, therefore the war has no basis, and therefore Iraq should be abandoned to Zarqawi and the Baathist 'party of the return'. A huge mistake. But what is the Bush exit strategy? In his own words it is, "When the Iraqi's stand up, we stand down." Not only is this reasonable, it is the only logical option.
The insurgency has no future in Iraq unless we give it one. Unless we give up and walk away giving them the field of battle to slaughter and kill as many people as it takes to put the country back under either a Baathist or Islamofascist regime.
Supporting the troops means supporting the mission. Which means not declaring defeat in the midst of the battle and demanding we surrender immediately. Supporting the troops means not adopting the war propaganda of the enemy: Iraq: U.S. will be defeated
Posted by Eric Simonson at November 23, 2005 02:50 AMGreat post E. I especially enjoyed Robert Jensen’s piece where he says that defeat for the US is good b/c it takes down Bush. Yikes!! Man, that is scary; it’s amazing how people truly have a hatred for their leader like that. I still think that’s b/c they lack courage. See, for them, it’s easier to protest Bush than it is to protest these heinous clowns we’re fighting. The US laws already protect people from saying and doing a good number of things towards Bush without getting in trouble; and, even if you do get in trouble, it’s a fine or a night in jail. With the terrorists, you risk getting blown up, your head cut off, or (the worst of them all) you may look “insensitive” towards the “misunderstood” terrorists (I mean— FREEDOM FIGHTERS).
So, it’s really about courage, plain and simple. Our soldiers have it, the anti-Bush/anti-War/anti-America crowd and some on this blog (and you know who you are!) definitely don’t have courage. I mean, disagree all you want, just stand up to these terrorists and show some courage so we can win this war!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 06:47 AMEric
Terrific post.
Unfortunately in a few hours several hyneas from the left will jump the thread and castigate you for your view on the war.
No matter what the president does,these people cannot see past their hatred and resentment of this administration,its foreign and domestic policies,and the fact that in ‘06 there will probably be another Republician administration (McCain or Guilliani) in the white House.
Talk about sore losers.
See that’s the rub.
They still feel cheated out of the office.Gore should be in his fifth year of his presidency,not Bush.
Of course,had Gore been in office,all the women would be wearing burkas by now .(which isn’t a bad idea after reading some of these lefty posts lately…do they have sound-proof burkas?
Evidentely an election and constitution does not a good year make.Neither does the formation of an army and security force.
Yours statistics on auto deaths however pale next to those of the Nationial Police Chief’s Association figures…16,800 homicides in the United States last year…seven times the fatalities in Iraq since the start of the war…
a law enforcement officer slain every 72 hours….yet all we hear is that we losing the war.
Let’s see what happens after December 15.Let’s see what happen as 3,000 security personnel come on line monthly in Iraq.
In six months this will be an election issue,allright…a Republician election issue…despite what lefty says…
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 23, 2005 07:07 AMSicilianEagle,
“Unfortunately in a few hours several hyneas from the left will jump the thread and castigate you for your view on the war.”
______________________________________
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!…. Ok, ok, wait…Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!……
Dude! Why do you have to make me laugh that hard this early in the morning?!! That was good!
It’s true though, I’m looking forward to the ” Bush hate-bashing fest 2005”. Yeah! I mean, some of the posts on this site can make the terrorists look like choir boys.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 07:34 AMSicilianEagle,
“Let’s see what happens after December 15.Let’s see what happen as 3,000 security personnel come on line monthly in Iraq.”
Well that’s a start. However, given this administrations track record, I want to know exactly where America stands today compared to a year ago so that we have a bench mark to judge President Bush and the Republican Party Leadership in Congress work over the next 11 months. Iraq, Economy, Everything put on the record in the Halls of Congress. Do you think the Conservatives are ready for a good old revival?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 23, 2005 07:53 AMEric-
The plain and simple truth of our opposition to Bush is that while he did not do these things to us, he put us in a position where our enemies could. That is my major malfunction with our Commander in Chief.
Now, I accept the risk that is inherent in military ventures, but I must add that not all risk is created equal. It is one thing to to rush into a pre-emptive defense of this nation, and find out later you were wrong. It is another thing entirely to do that already knowing that there is no real cause for war.
Besides, in Afghanistan, if you don’t count the part at the end where we let Bin Laden slip from our grasp, the Bush administration proved its critics wrong. So far, in Iraq, Bush has only vindicated them.
As for traffic accidents, as usual the GOP sense of proportion is in play. The question you fail to ask is what’s the ratio of casualties to soldiers is, as compared to automobile fatalities to the number of vehicles on the road. Figure that math out, and you’ll see there is a greater chance of getting killed in Iraq, as a soldier, than on our roads as a driver. Unfortunately, that fact isn’t sexy enough to qualify as a Republican Revelation.
What really gets me, in the end, Eric, is that you link to my latest entry but you say something like this:
The left’s exit strategy is based upon the (false) premise that Bush lied, therefore the war has no basis, and therefore Iraq should be abandoned to Zarqawi and the Baathist ‘party of the return’. A huge mistake. But what is the Bush exit strategy? In his own words it is, “When the Iraqi’s stand up, we stand down.” Not only is this reasonable, it is the only logical option.
My article says this:
As the vote in Congress indicated, few think we can simply walk away. As my readers know, I’ve never believed we could do so. We have to write the third act. We can’t cut the drama short. The question here is whether we want this to be painful and with willing sacrifice, or extra painful, with the sacrifice unwilling, and a serious shock to the system. The key to whether it’s one or the other will be how we decided to end this war.
We end it the way the Bush administration wants to, and the end will likely be much more inglorious. They seem to think we can hang around and keep on killing terrorists forever. That, or they believe that at some point, the death-worshipping terrorists and insurgents of the Middle East will get tired of dying for their cause.[…]
First, we have to get a well-trained, permanent presence on hand to keep the peace, in the form of an Iraqi army and local police forces. In either case, the main impediment here is keeping the peace long enough to get these folks trained and solidly in place in the community is the continual attacks on law and order by the insurgents. Our strategy over the past two years has been to clear places of insurgents and move on. Unfortunately this has become an insurgent version of whack-a-mole, with them popping up in the places we just left to get their corrosive influence back in play.[…] So, we’re still mobile, and still running around trying to destroy the insurgency one insurgent body count by one. This, during a guerilla war. This is what’s nuts about our approach: it lets the guerilla war do what it is meant to do: lose again and again, but do so in such a way that we never completely destroy their capability to fight, and we exhaust ourselves trying to destroy them by conventional means, which don’t work.We have to stop playing their game. Regardless of what Bush says, a strategy of attrition fails in that regard.
[…]
Or somebody else could come up with a better idea of how to do this. Regardless, one thing is clear: if we let this go, we will have to come back, probably under worse conditions. It may not even be as simple as just returning to a failed state. It could end up being as bad as a multipolar war between the powers of the Middle East, or worse, a conquering tyrant or political movement emerging from the chaos. So we need to be prepared to do what’s necessary now, or we will pay dearly later.Of course, a lot of these things will not be easy to take. The government must be honest about why they do what they do. Americans are sick of being lied to, sick of being treated like children. Regardless of what choice our leaders gravitate to, they must present that choice to the voters with honesty, forthrightness, respect, and most importantly, a recognition that the best interests of all Americans are united, even if their opinions and discourses are not, and that compromise is the natural, though not always pleasing, end to which Democracy works.
So let us make and end of this war, and make it an end worth fighting for. Otherwise, let’s pack up our bags and carry our experiences away as a warning to later generations: if you don’t start the story in the right place, in the right way, you will pay for the failure of your wisdom.
Maybe you’re just not paying enough attention where its due.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2005 08:00 AMRahdigly
A good chuckle is the best thing when you read the post on the opposite side,no?I can just picture some geek on the left with tape-fixed glasses and a pencil protector on the breast pocket wearing black pants and a thin black tie reading their posts saying “RIGHT ON!BUSH SUCKS!”
And those are the women.
Henry:
Good
Year ago:No election
Today:2 elections
Year Ago:No Constitution
Today:Constitution
Year Ago:75,000 security personnell
Today:212,000
Today:Sunnis beginning to talk
Year ago:Couldn’t find any
Today:Bush President
Year Ago:Kerry,Dean and Micheal Moore saying “HUH?”
Bad:
Many deaths
Many Casualties
America torn
Little movement on Palestine(this is the biggest issue)
More Good:Left still hasn’t a clue going into 2006
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 23, 2005 08:26 AMWho is the Enemy?
Osama bin Laden. Whatever happened to that guy?
SE, sometimes you write intelligent posts and sometimes they’re just dumb. Anyhow,
Year Ago:IGC includes Sunnis
Today:No Sunnis in government
Year Ago:Secular interim constitution
Today:Parlaimentary theocracy
Year Ago:265,000 trained security personnel.
Today:1,000.
Year Ago:centrally-controlled socialist economy
Today:centrally-controlled socialist economy
Year Ago:electricity and oil
Today:not so much
Year Ago:150 insurgent attacks per month
Today:700
Year Ago:Republican Congress staying the course
Today:Republican Congress looking to withdraw before elections
Hey Eric. Define victory. Then tell me how President Bush’s strategy gets us there.
Hi Eric,
“If you listen to the left, the war in Iraq is lost. Our troops are dying in record numbers.”
Why can’t you confine yourself to the truth? I haven’t heard anybody say that our troops are dying in record numbers.
You’re making a bad attempt at a strawman argument here.
“But then Bush didn’t invent the automobile so there’s no reason for democrats to bring it up.”
You’re behaving like a useful idiot for the right. Are you able to discuss the problems in Iraq really are?
Our troops our fighting and dying in order to support the Iraqi Prime Minister who is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group. The Iraqi government if full of those who side with the Iranian government and the Iranian Ayatollahs.
We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t losing. It’s hard to think of a less effective use for the military resources we have tied up in Iraq.
“The insurgency has no future in Iraq unless we give it one.”
Rumsfeld says they’ll go another 10 years. They show no signs of being defeated even though we’ve got massive military resources in Iraq.
You seem to want to prevent everyone from telling obvious truths about our situation in Iraq.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 08:51 AM
Louis,
You just don’t want to see the good that’s going on in Iraq. The left sees it that way as well and that’s b/c they don’t see America as good. They think everything we do is bad; “we started this with the terrorists”, “we’re the ones that are creating more terrorists” and “Bush is a tyrannt so we can’t win w/ him”. Therefore, b/c we are bad, we don’t deserve to win.
It’s the wrong mindset and it sends a terrible message to our troops that “VOLUNTEERED” to fight for this country!
And “useful idiot” was used by someone more popular than you. Nice try though.
Hi rahdigly,
“You just don’t want to see the good that’s going on in Iraq.”
That isn’t true. Can you provide ideas that make sense here? Can you address what I said about the war or is your discourse limited to complete nonsense?
“Therefore, b/c we are bad, we don’t deserve to win.”
Is this your best work? Do you have the ability to use reasoning when discussing this stuff or are you limited to posting drivel and the propaganda of others?
“And “useful idiot‎ was used by someone more popular than you.”
I apply it accurately to those who spread right wing propaganda and distortions without bringing any reason to bear.
Do you think it’s good that our troops are fighting and dying to support the Iraqi Prime Minister who is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group?
Based on your previous posts I don’t think you’re capable of giving a straight answer to that question……why not suprise me?
Who is the Enemy? Osama bin Laden. Whatever happened to that guy?
Anybody ever tried to look at this from a different angle?
Why in the world would OBL continue to attack U.S. interests and provoke us into taking the war to the Middle East?
Hi Dawn,
“Why in the world would OBL continue to attack U.S. interests and provoke us into taking the war to the Middle East?”
That’s a good question.
My guess is that he’s conviced that having us fighing in the Muslim World will help his cause by……I’m not sure about the right wording here…..increasing the hatred that Muslims have for us.
Are we SURE we know his ‘cause’?
Do we have it right?
You know how our intelligence is….
But then Bush didn’t invent the automobile so there’s no reason for democrats to bring it up.
Give them time Eric, They’ll blame him somehow.
Hi Dawn,
“Are we SURE we know his ‘cause’?”
No. It would be a good thing if we did understand his motivations and whatnot. The fellow isn’t stupid….extremely evil but not at all stupid.
“You know how our intelligence isâ€.”
I know that the Bush White House distrorted the Iraq intelligence beyond recognition with respect to the aluminum tubes, the unmanned drones, and all sorts of other particulars.
Louis,
Below are my sources on the “good news” in Iraq that you haven’t been talking about in your posts. Maybe these will help educate you for future posts:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/20051118_3383.html
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
http://www.dod.mil/home/features/2005/IraqTransition/
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/20051120_3394.html
Chew on that for a while…
One “obvious truth” (using the term used by the naysayer LouisXIV) is that the close collaboration he and the other talking-point writers expect between the (Arab, Arabic-speaking) Shia of Southern Iraq and the (Persian, Farsi-speaking) Shia of Iran would require each group to put aside a millenium of mutual suspicion.
Ain’t gonna happen. Blood is far, far, thicker than religion in that part of the world. The Iranians will support the Iraqi Shia as far as it supports their national security; the Iraqi Shia will accept that support as far as it does the same for them.
But charctertizing the Iraqi Shias as “sid(ing) with the Iranian government and the Iranian Ayatollahs.”? The comment shows an ignorance of the dynamics of the region that doesn’t occur without real effort.
Mike
Mr. Monarch …
I was not discussing Bush. When you find a politician who tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … let me know. They all use bits of info to further their OWN agendas - things they believe are the right thing to do.
I thought we were trying to figure out OBL.
The intelligence we have on OBL actually has nothing to do with Bush.
Hi rahdigly,
Your logic is really bad here. Just because someone doesn’t mention something in a post doesn’t mean they don’t want to see it.
Do you think it’s good that our troops are fighting and dying to support the Iraqi Prime Minister who is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group?
Based on your previous posts I don’t think you’re capable of giving a straight answer to that questionâ€â€why not suprise me?
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 09:55 AM
Mike,
Do you think Louis would rather prefer them going back to the Sunnis dominated Saddam regime? That way they won’t have to worry about the Iranians; they’ll just have to worry about the “Butcher of Baghdad”…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 10:00 AMIt seems that Mr. Spock was right when he said: “In the world of the insane, the sane man would surely seem insane.” We seem to have found such a world here.
Let’s go sunny, not enough Pepto in the world…
Posted by: Dave at November 23, 2005 10:03 AMEric,
Every time I read one of your articles, I am more and more convinced that you are actually a raging liberal mocking the irrational, unsubstantiated, hypocritical, hasty-generalizing, liberal-phobic, out-of context-taking, and blatant mischaracterizing nature of right-wing talking points. Just like Aldous, only more subtle.
I, like I assume you are doing, enjoy a good chuckle when your followers jump on the hilarious ideas you come up with (Stephen Daugherty is for immediate surrender!), buying into them just because you say they’re true, despite the fact that they are actually the opposite of true (as I’m sure you knew all along). Or how you can get people to vehemently defend your purposeful logical fallacies, based only on their own ideology! You’re a master.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
And “useful idiot” was used by someone more popular than you.
LOL! rahdigly, the fact that you know the source of that quote confirms what a lot of people think about your posts. :)
Seriously though, I think we all realize that on an ad hoc basis that our civil affairs troops are doing some good humanitarian work over there. The problem is, every time they repair a sewage treatment plant, the insurgents blow it up again.
They’re also having to deal with a thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy, police force, and justice system, as well as the factional militias we still haven’t disarmed who are executing rival faction leaders and clerics, controlling the flow of aid, and imposing Sharia Law at gunpoint.
There’s a really good book on the subject, “Waging Peace”. Our civil affairs troops are doing some really good work, but they’re failing because there just aren’t enough of them in Iraq to make a difference.
You can’t rebuild a nation without security, and President Bush refuses to provide enough troops to secure Iraq.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 10:09 AMHi rahdigly,,
“Do you think Louis would rather prefer them going back to the Sunnis dominated Saddam regime?”
The notion of honest debate clearly has no meaning for you.
Do you think itâ³good that our troops are fighting and dying to support the Iraqi Prime Minister who is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group?
Based on your previous posts I donâ´think youâ²¥ capable of giving a straight answer to that questionâ?why not suprise me?
I’m right aren’t I? You’re incapable of providing a straight answer aren’t you?
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 10:10 AM
Louis,
To answer your question “Do you think it’s good that our troops are fighting and dying to support the Iraqi Prime Minister who is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group?”, I think it is good that our brave troops (who volunteered for this war in Iraq) are allowing the Iraqis the chance to have a democracy. The situation isn’t perfect (the close ties w/ the Iranians); however, these situations never are. I for one will certainly give the Iraqi gov’t a chance to get it right; I’m not going to fly off the handle everytime I hear one of the gov’t officials has ties to terrorists. We’re there. We’ll keep an eye on them. We have our foot in the door in regards to intelligence gathering now.
One things for sure, we have a whole hell of a lot better chance now than we did with Saddam in power. We will prevail, you’ll see. And that’s the truth.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 10:15 AMHi Dawn,
“When you find a politician who tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but †let me know.”
That’s an extremely relativistic view of morality…….Human beings tend to lie so it’s not acceptable to hold any human accountable their false statements.
“I thought we were trying to figure out OBL.”
We were. His goals are to gain control of Saudi Arabia and probably Pakistan as well. His stated goal for oil prices is 150/barrel.
Those who think of him as just someone who wants to destroy our basic freedoms is missing the point. He’s got widespread support in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and it’s not impossible that he could gain control of those countries.
He’d like to have Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and Suadi Oil. With those things he’d be a major world power.
Why in the world would OBL continue to attack U.S. interests and provoke us into taking the war to the Middle East?
He’s not. He’s constantly urging Zarqawi to attack “the far enemy”: the US. Zarqawi just doesn’t have that kind of reach yet. He’ll get to America sooner or later because there are plenty of places to set up terrorist camps in Iraq, and Bush has too few US troops there to find ‘em all.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 10:18 AMHi rahdigly,
“I think it is good that our brave troops (who volunteered for this war in Iraq) are allowing the Iraqis the chance to have a democracy.”
I suppose that it’s a good thing that the Iraqis have the freedom to choose to become allied with Iranian terrorists in the sense that Iraq should be able to choose it’s government.
I don’t see it as a good use for our military resources to help establish a government that’s allied with Iranian terrorists.
Saddam wasn’t a threat to us when compared with Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somolia, or Pakistan. He was a horrible dicatotor but he didn’t pose a significant strategic threat to us.
We’ve wasted our precious military resources going after someone who wasn’t a threat.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 10:21 AM
“That’s an extremely relativistic view of morality…….Human beings tend to lie so it’s not acceptable to hold any human accountable their false statements.”
Did I say that?
I am waiting for the PROOF that Bush lied. Show me the papers.
Someone saying they haven’t seen what the President had and claiming it was different is a stretch as far as I’m concerned.
Making an accusation without the proof is no different than someone having to prove their innocence in court instead of the state proving their guilt.
Just because they say he lied makes it true?
“We were. His goals are to gain control of Saudi Arabia and probably Pakistan as well. His stated goal for oil prices is 150/barrel.
Those who think of him as just someone who wants to destroy our basic freedoms is missing the point. He’s got widespread support in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and it’s not impossible that he could gain control of those countries.
He’d like to have Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and Suadi Oil. With those things he’d be a major world power.”
And you are sure about this?
Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2005 10:26 AMAP,
“I think we all realize that on an ad hoc basis that our civil affairs troops are doing some good humanitarian work over there. The problem is, every time they repair a sewage treatment plant, the insurgents blow it up again.”
_______________________
That’s true. However, the problem is this isn’t being reported on a routine basis. If it were, then the American people would get upset with the terrorists and would want us to continue and finish the job. Right now, the media “reports” car bomb after car bomb and all the other negative stuff. The Americans are seeing this and they are getting frustrated and tired of hearing it.
The bottom line, let us see both sides and you’ll see a big difference in public opinion. Also, go to that website: http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
This will give you all the information you need from the brave US forces that are there.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 10:27 AMBrian-
I posted a few threads back my suspicion that Eric and Aldous are one in the same……
We’re on to something here!
Posted by: George in SC at November 23, 2005 10:29 AMLouis,
“Saddam wasn’t a threat to us when compared with Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somolia, or Pakistan. He was a horrible dicatotor but he didn’t pose a significant strategic threat to us.
We’ve wasted our precious military resources going after someone who wasn’t a threat.”
___________________________________________
I disagree, he’s been a threat for over 12 years. We tried “containment” with him and it didn’t work; he just lied and bribed Countries in the UN Security Council with his “Oil” to lift the sanctions. He never was going to comply and, in the Post 9/11 world, we couldn’t play the “containment” game anymore.
Hi Dawn,
“Did I say that?”
Pretty much….”When you find a politician who tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but †let me know.”
“I am waiting for the PROOF that Bush lied.”
When he said that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges it was common knowledge that they weren’t. Either he was too stupid to follow the intelligence that I was well aware of or he was being dishonest.
The news media reported that the aluminum tubes weren’t for centrifuges before Bush said they were in his State of the Union Speech. This is all well documented and I’ll provide it if you like.
“And you are sure about this?”
Of course not. It looks that way though. I’ve read various accounts by various experts who make a good case for it.
I don’t think it’s at all a good idea to underestimate OBL as an evil nincompoop who is after our basic freedoms. OBL almost certainly is after control significant portions of the Muslim world.
the problem is this isn’t being reported on a routine basis.
No, the problem is that it’s not enough to make a difference. Meaningful good news would be disarming the militias, or rewriting that piece of crap constitution, or privatizing their socialist economy, or securing the borders, or a shitload of direct foreign investment, or 50,000 each of Chinese, Russian, and Indian peacekeeping troops, or killing Zarqawi.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 10:40 AMHi rahdigly,
“I disagree, he’s been a threat for over 12 years.”
A threat yes. A signficant threat no. OBL was a significant threat.
“in the Post 9/11 world, we couldn’t play the “containment‎ game anymore.”
Of course we can. We do it all the time. We don’t have the resources to occupy every country that poses a minor threat to us so we try to contain them.
Thanks for the honest discussion…..you proved me wrong about your ability to discuss issues honestly and I’m glad that you did.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 10:40 AM
Hi Dawn,
Here’s quotes from an article that give an idea of the sort of thing that Bush was misleading us about:
“QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush say in 2002 that “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program” when two critical reports – an IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 – made clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush’s nuclear claim was “absolutely supportable” when in fact it was not? QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in his 2003 State of the Union address did President Bush claim that aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for uranium enrichment, when the White House received intelligence in 2002 that such a claim was untrue? And why did Condoleezza Rice in July of 2003 claim that the intelligence community’s “consensus view” was that the tubes were being used for nuclear weapons, when in fact a March 2003 IAEA report specifically said that wasn’t true?
QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in late 2002 did President Bush say definitively that Iraq “could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes” and that Iraq definitely “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” when, in fact, Bush’s own Defense Intelligence Agency said it had no proof to support these claims?
QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush and Vice President Cheney repeatedly claim that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had an operational relationship, and why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim there was “bulletproof” evidence of such a relationship, when intelligence and foreign government sources repeatedly told the White House that wasn’t true?”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/009986&printer=1
AP,
“No, the problem is that it’s not enough to make a difference.”
Well, try it and find out. Don’t do what the media does and tell us what they think is good for us or not. Did you look at that website? What did you think? I’ll tell you what, I certainly felt good after reading that site. It’s definitely a morale booster that’s for sure. The parents of our troops and our vets (I’m certainly one) can truly appreciate going to that website and finding out what’s going on with their loved one, friend or military buddies. Check it out and read the “mission statement”: http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 11:06 AMRahdigly-
History is important when examining any critical shift in public opinion. You say we are critical for no reason. Wrong. If we were that unreasonable, how could we convince people of anything? No, there is a history to why so many folks of the Blue Column are this critical, and it all starts, typically, is with the effort to take This country to war with Iraq.
When it started to become clear that Bush was pushing for the second phase on the war on terror in Iraq, I was scratching my head, as were many other liberals. Iran and Syria, to either side, presented more inviting targets, as far as we were concerned.
It took a massive, willful effort on the part of the Bush administration to covince enough of us that Iraq was a terrorist/rogue nation threat that we gave in and consented to going after this counterintuitive target…
Only to discover that we were right all along to be skeptical, and all this new evidence and findings were just bullshit, crap that the administration intentionally, selectively, actively gathered together, because they knew it would scare Americans into disregarding their skepticism.
We were not only tricked into a war we might not otherwise have consented, but we were denied the chance for America to choose a target that would make the best difference in fighting this war on terror.
As for what’s good for the soldiers to hear, how about the truth? They aren’t the ones that chose Iraq. They aren’t the ones to blame. They can’t be blamed for wanting to get the job done, to fight for the freedom of Americans and Iraqis alike. They are doing their honest best, and should be appreciated for that and supported in their efforts. Their only problem is that the president who came to be their Commander in Chief is not fit for command.
It doesn’t matter whether we deserve to win or not. It was never a question of deserving to win, but rather one of needing to win. At the beginning of this war, we believed we needed to win to disarm Saddam and defeat terrorists. Unfortunately, it turns out that Saddam had disarmed himself, and really never been in league with the terrorists. As the errors in the Pentagon’s judgment misplaced and underused the Armed forces’ capabilities, then and only then did terrorism and the insurgents become the real threat. The Soldiers carried out their duty to the best of their capability. Their leaders just didn’t use them right.
What me and others like me have been campaigning for all allong is the proper use of our military, the fulfillment of the usefulness of our soldiers in combat to the greatest degree possible. Our aim has not been to diminish or discourage the soldiers, but to give them their greatest possible glory: Victory against our enemies that preserves the freedom of our nation, and furthers the peace of the world.
Unfortunately, your side has had to assume the opposite, because you don’t want to admit how far we’ve fallen from that. You don’t want to believe that somehow we might have had the better judgment on what to do next in the war on terror, that we might be better supporters of the soldiers than you believe yourselves to be. You don’t want to think that you’re falling short here, and unfortunately that means you do little to put the brakes on the failures of this administration.
You have been wrong to doubt us, and wrong to assume that we do not believe in our country enough to defend it. The time to argue who are the better guardians of the realm is over. We Democrats made our mistake in Vietnam, Trusting the wrong leader and picking the wrong war for the wrong reasons. The Republicans have done the same thing here. Both sides can be fallible in their choices. What that means is we need to be more canny about how we go about these things, more practical, more firm in our recognition that war is a complex, dirty, morally trying endeavor without any clear theory to provide perfect answers.
We must realize that errors are inevitable, and so is the need to correct them without getting hung up on our egos.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2005 11:09 AMrahdigly,
I, like LouisQuatorce, appreciate your return to a reasonable discussion. I also have a question; Why do you place so much trust and weight in the posting of sites like goodnewsiraq and those from DoD (which have obvious motives beyond just news reporting) over the rest of the worlds legitimate news outlets?
Posted by: Dave at November 23, 2005 11:14 AMI would like to ask all you Liberals in the house who say Iraq was not an eminent threat. Why were they not upset when Clinton when into Bosnia with no approval of the U N. Do you Liberal think that Bosnia is a national security threat to the U S. My question is why? Could it be that Clinton is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican.
Posted by: Thomas at November 23, 2005 11:23 AMWe know why the liberals hate Bush; here is a good article on why the Arabs hate Bush.
Who Hates America in the Arab and Muslim World, and Why
“The new element in the American-Arab-Islamic arena was the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and the U.S. ‘s powerful and decisive response. This response was aimed at accomplishing three goals simultaneously.
“First, to strike a crushing blow against the Al-Qaeda organization and its allies in the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. This goal was accomplished.
“Second, to destroy the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein and of the fascist Ba’th party in Iraq. This goal too was accomplished.
“Third, to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East. This project will continue for decades to come.
“The first blow infuriated the Islamists; the second blow infuriated the pan-Arab nationalists; and the third blow infuriated the Arab regimes.
Posted by: George in SC at November 23, 2005 11:37 AMAP
I want to respond to you on the other side(your article) and I am happy that (sometimes) what I say has a modicom of intelligence to it.
Really though,we DO have Sunni’s in government…just not enough.I think that will be rectified soon.I think the Iraqi President reaching out to the insurrgents is a good idea too…more and more Sunnis will get into the process as Saddam’s officer corps returns to the Army.
The problem with the army right now is that mid-level officer corps which will be fixed soon.Plus,the Iqar army (any arab army really)is very very lazy.They work a 4 day week with 3 days off.They all do.
I don’t mind a theoracy either.I don’t think it will be an Iranian theoracy,if that’s what you think either.I bet the Sunni and Kurds ultimately will influence this item a great deal.
The fact of the matter is that what I posted above are facts…cold hard facts.You gave me back “yes buts….”right down the line.
By the way,I think OSL bought the farm a while ago.That’s the scuttlebutt on several Palestian sites that a few people I know visit every day.They have been telling me that for weeks too.We’ll see.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 23, 2005 11:41 AMDave, you need to read my post earlier to why I go to the military websites for news about the war; part of it is b/c the mainstream media won’t report the positive news stories. Here, let me paste my reason why from an earlier post:
“I’ll tell you what, I certainly felt good after reading that site. It’s definitely a morale booster that’s for sure. The parents of our troops and our vets (I am certainly one) can truly appreciate going to that website and finding out what is going on with their loved one, friend or military buddies. Check it out and read the “missionstatement”:
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
Thomas;”Why were they not upset when Clinton when into Bosnia with no approval of the U N. Do you Liberal think that Bosnia is a national security threat to the U S.”
1) I believe Clinton had NATO and UN approval and cooperation to be militarily involved in Bosnia. BTW, I don’t believe there were American troops in ground combat there. They were over the border. Remember the patrol that got lost and was captured?
2) Yes. The stability of Europe is a key strategic interest to the United States.
That wasn’t my question, it was:
Why do you place so much trust and weight in the posting of sites like goodnewsiraq and those from DoD (which have obvious motives beyond just news reporting) over the rest of the worlds legitimate news outlets?
I asked why you relied on those sites more? Why do you think the rest of the world is lying?
I try to read up from all sides, “Know your enemy as you would know yourself”.
Even with all of Bush’s faults I still can’t go along with Dems who voted for the war based solely on evidence given to them by a White House(President) they didn’t think belonged there in the first place.
The Dems hated and did not trust Bush from the get go and we are supposed to believe they were duped?
Are you telling me that those who voted for the war were not smart enough to question first? That they did not know who to go to to verify the info they had received?
That they couldn’t go running to the cameras and yell out - ‘This isn’t true. Don’t believe it!’
If that’s so… they don’t belong there either.
Question that needs answering:
Why didn’t the Dems who have ALL the answers now do a better job of keeping us out of Iraq to begin with?
Maybe they knew, and they did it intentionally, so they would have a good argument for regaining power!
Thomas-
We were not upset because Clinton was honest about why we were intervening, because the genocide was real, and because Milosevic was truly on the warpath and deserved to be stopped. There are many, like myself, who felt it was long overdue, after years of reports of the murder of innocents, of camps performing “ethnic cleansing”, and the like. The evidence for this atrocity was overwhelming.
Bush never put forward humanitarian concerns as the justification for war, instead relying on the issues of disarmament and taking the fight to the terrorists as his authorization of the use of force. National security was the main dish. The concerns he highlights now, in all their revisionist glory, are the ones you people now quote regularly. I think you people can’t see past your emnity for us to recognize just how badly this whole thing got screwed up.
We can at least admit that we were wrong to help Bush get us into this war, that we were had. You people keep on making unsupportable claims about WMDs being whisked to Syria, about collaboration with al-Qaeda, about WMDs being a minor matter in leading us to war. You folks simply won’t admit you got it wrong, and that your president actively pushed a case that he knew to be questionable. You support a policy of excuses, of pretexts, all with a negligent regard for the facts. I think we can and should do a hell of a lot better than that.
George in SC-
Park a tank into your neighbor’s backyard and fire a HEAT round through his house, and a Sabot round through his car. Then ask him why he’s angry. People are going to be angry when we make war on them. That’s a fact of life: nobody likes being shot at.
The question is, how do we (and can we) justify our actions? That’s important to whether or not people park tanks in our backyards, so to speak. In this case, we should have done a hell of a lot more to convince Iraq’s neighbors that he had it coming, or even that they should join us. We had to pass up some much superior options because we couldn’t get local support for our efforts.
Rahdigly-
We accept bad news so that we can do something about it. If we don’t accept bad news, we don’t know to correct our mistakes, now do we?
That’s the issue. It may be a balm to our worries to see good news, but we need to take care of the nagging problem before thos problems destroy everything we’ve gained.
Wars are not won on the pleasantness of the news they bring. The Pleasantness of the news depends on whether the wars are being won.
I swear, if this administration had put as much effort, thought, and strategy into winning this war as they did in winning their fight with the press and their opponents, we would have won by now. That the Republican party has become so obsessed with protecting the image of the war is indicative of how much politics has trumped policy. For God’s sake, get people in there who know what they’re doing.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2005 12:53 PMeric,
Nice job of flame-baiting. Karl Rove, Rush Limbo, and Ann Coulter would be so proud of you - you’re doing an excellent job of dividing this country.
Thomas,
Clinton sent troops to Kosovo at NATO’s request, honoring our treaty obligations. You remember treaties, don’t you? Those are the constitutionally-mandated obligations that the Bush administartion doesn’t believe in.
Dawn,
I am waiting for the PROOF that Bush liedOK. Here’s a link to the Wikipedia definition of a lie. Just a few days ago, the president said “We do not torture”. Remember that? Now go back and look at the stories about Abu Ghraib. Bush knowingly said something that was demonstrably false. That meets the definition of lie. Posted by: ElliottBay at November 23, 2005 12:54 PM
rahdigly,
What gets me is that for the entire time Bush has been President it’s been one outrageous accusation after another. After Gore lost the election Bush was an illigitimate President and that every Republican election has been ‘rigged’.
Democrats started saying Bush was going to institute the draft, when they were the ones introducing the idea, and even introduced the legislation in congress!!
There has been no shame on the part of the left in accusing Bush of every kind of corruption with not a shred of truth.
Posted by: esimonson at November 23, 2005 12:58 PMeric,
Yeah, the Right was a LOT more reasonable during the Clinton years, wasn’t it? Accusing Clinton of murder, serial rape, money laundering, etc. Yep, that was a LOT more reasonable. Gimme a break.
There has been no shame on the part of thePosted by: ElliottBay at November 23, 2005 01:07 PMleftright in accusingBushClinton of every kind of corruption with not a shred of truth.
Hi Dawn,
“Even with all of Bush’s faults I still can’t go along with Dems who voted for the war based solely on evidence given to them by a White House(President) they didn’t think belonged there in the first place.”
Neither party thinks that the President of the other party belongs in the White House…..that’s a given.
I hold everyone who supported the war accountable. Many Democrats caved or were too stupid to understand what was widely reported in the media.
“The Dems hated and did not trust Bush from the get go and we are supposed to believe they were duped?”
These accusations of Bush hatred are quite silly. Some hate Bush but most who disagree with him disagree with him for things that he’s said and done.
“Why didn’t the Dems who have ALL the answers now do a better job of keeping us out of Iraq to begin with?”
That’s a good question.
“Maybe they knew, and they did it intentionally, so they would have a good argument for regaining power!”
I’m not much on that sort of conspiracy theory.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 01:10 PM
Hi esimonson,
“There has been no shame on the part of the left in accusing Bush of every kind of corruption with not a shred of truth.”
That statement isn’t at all true. There are many accurate accusations that have been made about Bush.
“QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush say in 2002 that ≲aq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program‎ when two critical reports ân IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 âade clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush’s nuclear claim was “absolutely supportable‎ when in fact it was not? QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in his 2003 State of the Union address did President Bush claim that aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for uranium enrichment, when the White House received intelligence in 2002 that such a claim was untrue? And why did Condoleezza Rice in July of 2003 claim that the intelligence community’s “consensus view‎ was that the tubes were being used for nuclear weapons, when in fact a March 2003 IAEA report specifically said that wasn’t true?
QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in late 2002 did President Bush say definitively that Iraq “could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes‎ and that Iraq definitely “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons‎ when, in fact, Bush’s own Defense Intelligence Agency said it had no proof to support these claims?
QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush and Vice President Cheney repeatedly claim that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had an operational relationship, and why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim there was “bulletproof‎ evidence of such a relationship, when intelligence and foreign government sources repeatedly told the White House that wasn’t true?‎
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/009986&printer=1
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 01:13 PM
Stephen,
Bush never put forward humanitarian concerns as the justification for war
You know, for someone who claims not to like it when people lie…
Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2005 01:21 PMBut what is the Bush exit strategy? In his own words it is, “When the Iraqi’s stand up, we stand down.” Not only is this reasonable, it is the only logical option.
So, what’s the problem?
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 23, 2005 01:35 PMDawn, Louis,
The reasons why enough Democrats voted to give Bush “the authority for war as a last result” are bound to be varied. You can be certain that those reasons involved political viability (imagine the campaigns against someone if they’re not in a liberal district)and the fact that no President ever before had lied with such impunity to go to war, including Nixon.
At the time, how could you vote against even if there were real concerns about the decision. Just read Kerry’s statements (try to do so without the blinders of the Rove-spin)
Eric,
You are absolutely correct. The left is our enemy. If we lose this war it will be because of them. I wish we could have all of these kool-aid drinkers put in prison. They are no better then the terrorists we are fighting right now. Treason is one of the worst things you can be a part of. I feel sick to my stomach everytime I see Cindy Sheehan on the television. The media blows my mind. Who gave the media the right to freedom of speech? Our founding fathers never existed according to our media. When will our media recognize that they are American? God bless you Eric, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Tony at November 23, 2005 01:47 PMThe only difference in a Democrat and a communist is the spelling.
Posted by: Norman L Evans at November 23, 2005 01:59 PMThank you to the right wing punditry and their sheep for giving aid and support to our true enemies: the terrorists;
who want to see us divided against each other instead of talking to find the common ground;
who want to see a free press tied and beholden to the plutocrats and theocrats instead of the voice of truth to enable open and honest discussion;
who want to see free speech not in line with the bosses of the week become an anachronism and a reason for imprisonment instead of a right;
who want to see the bill of rights become a bill of lading for our freedoms instead of the foundation our founding fathers wanted for their children.
Thanks alot.
Stephen,
The plain and simple truth of our opposition to Bush is that while he did not do these things to us, he put us in a position where our enemies could. That is my major malfunction with our Commander in Chief.
Like when he could have prevented 9/11? Like when we argued about what a failure the invasion itself was? Or even how Afghanistan was becoming a quagmire?
Besides, in Afghanistan, if you don’t count the part at the end where we let Bin Laden slip from our grasp, the Bush administration proved its critics wrong. So far, in Iraq, Bush has only vindicated them.
That’s part of my point. If you only focus on what goes wrong, and what might go wrong, or more correctly, what you can possibly make look like is going wrong, then you will come to only one conclusion.
But Afghanistan is a case in point. Is Afghanistan a failure? No. Yet, we argued here on this blog that Bush had botched the whole thing. From not having enoung troops to bombing too much, to failing to get Osama. Iraq is a larger version of the same thing.
For Democrats and the left disaster is anything that can be made to look negative. In reality Iraq has not been a disaster, military or otherwise, WMD or not. If you wish for it to be a failure you attack it politically and keep pounding until it gets traction. Congratulations you seem to be succeeding.
What really gets me, in the end, Eric, is that you link to my latest entry but you say something like this:…
In referring to your post the key sentence is just following it. I was referring to your feeling that Iraq is lost.
Iraq is lost and that’s a good thing if it results in the defeat of Bush and the ‘neo-con cabal’.
Something about these kinds of phrases:
The terrorists have already had their victory. We’ve made them a new training ground, and like Bernie Casey in Spies Like Us we’ve added the element of live ammunition.
The problem you have is that while you say you want us to win, you cannot win and destroy the Bush Presidency at the same time. You cannot simultaneously support the troops but not the mission, and still expect the mission to succeed. The only option left to you after saying everything up till now has been a failure is to pull out. What’s more all your elected representatives are saying that there’s nothing you can do to win.
Or somebody else could come up with a better idea of how to do this. Regardless, one thing is clear: if we let this go, we will have to come back, probably under worse conditions. It may not even be as simple as just returning to a failed state. It could end up being as bad as a multipolar war between the powers of the Middle East, or worse, a conquering tyrant or political movement emerging from the chaos. So we need to be prepared to do what’s necessary now, or we will pay dearly later.
Now that the left has set the mold for their position on the Iraq war denying that the war on terror and democracy is a component in this and insisting that WMD was a lie therefore the war was doomed from the start.
Of course, a lot of these things will not be easy to take. The government must be honest about why they do what they do. Americans are sick of being lied to, sick of being treated like children. Regardless of what choice our leaders gravitate to, they must present that choice to the voters with honesty, forthrightness, respect, and most importantly, a recognition that the best interests of all Americans are united, even if their opinions and discourses are not, and that compromise is the natural, though not always pleasing, end to which Democracy works.
Must be honest? Sick of being lied to? Treated like children? Are you speaking of John Kerry? Democrats? or the Blue column on this blog?
eric,
You seem to think Afghanistan is a success. Why is that?
Is it because they don’t have suicide bombers? Or is it because our casualty rates are relatively low? They have bombers and we have casualties.
If it were such a success then where is Osama? (Remember him, the reason we were there in the first place). Why are we still there? Where’s the Afghani army?
Pretty low standard for victory. It’s as if ‘almost’ were a gold medal in the 3 yard dash.
Posted by: Dave at November 23, 2005 02:19 PMHi Norman,
“The only difference in a Democrat and a communist is the spelling.”
You have us confused with your mother.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 02:28 PMHi Dave,
They just convicted a reporter for blasphemy in Afghanistan which indicates religious repression has been restored.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 02:43 PM
Which reminds me of a joke:
Q: What’s the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
:-)
Posted by: William Cohen at November 23, 2005 03:09 PM“who want to see the bill of rights become a bill of lading for our freedoms instead of the foundation our founding fathers wanted for their children”
Amen!
Damn right wing punditry are always trying to re-write the 2nd Amendment. You bastards.
America is the enemy Eric. Dont you ever read the blue or yellow column?
Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2005 03:19 PMHi Mike,
Here’s one of many.
http://feeds.afghanistannews.net/?rid=82a1ceb07eef0f4c&cat=6e1d5c8e1f98f17c&f=1
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 23, 2005 03:36 PMEric:
I guess you should add Condoleezza Rice to your enemies list. This is what she just said:
“The president has said that as soon as Iraqi forces are ready, we want to see a reduction in our own forces. And I think those days are going to be coming fairly soon when Iraqis are going to be more and more capable of carrying out the functions to secure their own future. I do not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they aare now… for very much longer, bgecause Iraqis aare stepping up.”
Isn’t this a hint that troops will be coming home soon - in time to make an impact on the 2006 elections?
Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 23, 2005 03:41 PMCAIRO, Nov. 21 - For the first time, Iraq’s political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule.So, what’s the problem?
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 23, 2005 01:35 PM
Read on the othe side over a Month ago, This whole argument is about who gets credit for bringing the troups home.
We had already won in Iraq by that time.
TheTraveller-
Would I be lying if I were referring to Bush’s authorization for war? No, I would not be. While such concerns show up in the “Whereas” clauses, they are not part of the authorization itself, the binding portion that sets out under what laws and what conditions the President is permitted to use military force.
This, by the way, is what makes WMD’s, The UN, and the Terrorists so important, when we talk about the justification above. The conditions for going to war involve those, and little else.
Eric-
Bin Laden should have been caught. You don’t leave a charismatic leader like him out in the field, where his scattered followers can regroup around him, and his legend can grow.
The Afghanistan Campaign was intended to destroy the Taliban as the ruling regime of the country, and deny al-Qaeda its sanctuary. For a large part, it succeeded, with a few nagging failures attached.
The Iraq War, as originally presented by the president, was supposed to disarm a tyrant of his WMDs, and destroy the nation as a al-Qaeda co-conspirator. Regime change was important, but secondary, and not the main cause given for war. It was not included as part of the binding sections of the authorization to use force.
The Afghan War has the advantage of having done most of its job. Because of this, despite early problems and concerns, the war is almost universally well-regarded. The opposite is true for the Iraq War. Even with the astouding campaign that destroyed Iraq’s remaining conventional forces, the fact that we didn’t find the threats we were looking for meant that the War could never be successful in that which it was originally intended to do.
Instead, the reason for our continuation of military action became pacifying and occupying Iraq, then turning it into a functional Democracy. But these Ad Hoc purposes for maintaining military intervention have not had a whole lot of success. Oh, the votes have been done, but it’s important to recognize that the votes signify the will of the people, but without a functioning system to carry out that will, or to include minorities and dissidents in the process, it’s a success in name only.
What the Republicans succeeded in doing was telling people that success would come tomorrow if they really got behind the president. They did, and now, they don’t see the success promised. This is the bill come due.
Bush promised to get Osama. Bill came due when he said he wasn’t concerned about getting him. Bush said there were WMDs and Terrorists plotting to get us from Iraq. Bill came due when it became apparent that they weren’t there. Bush promised to protect the Homeland better than anybody else could. Instead, he went guitaring, and left a crony in charge who made bad jokes about being a fashion god in his e-mails, while a major U.S. City fell to ruin and chaos. The Bill came due.
Bush told us we could juggle tax cuts, outrageous spending, a problematic war in Iraq, and cleanup in Afghanistan, and do well by the American people. The bill has come due.
You can’t fail forever and expect people to give you one more chance. Afghanistan proved that the Administration could outdo what the Critics expected. Everything else has merely vindicated them, with rare exceptions. Actions matter in messages, and the Bush administration’s actions have not complemented the rest of his messages with the truth they need to convince people of Bush’s quality.
By the way:
Iraq is lost and that’s a good thing if it results in the defeat of Bush and the ‘neo-con cabal’.
Those are not my words.
As for my phrases, I don’t apologize for them. They are meaningless though, if you only comb my words for things to twist. If you had been more careful, you would have the context of my quotation, and my point: that Bush has allowed this country, through his negligence, to suffer a strategical defeat. Does that preclude a victory to come? No. America, if you remember, came back from a profound strategic defeat to win WWII, and in Korea to force Stalemate, where once utter defeat was near certain.
This is a revealing quote from you:
The problem you have is that while you say you want us to win, you cannot win and destroy the Bush Presidency at the same time. You cannot simultaneously support the troops but not the mission, and still expect the mission to succeed. The only option left to you after saying everything up till now has been a failure is to pull out. What’s more all your elected representatives are saying that there’s nothing you can do to win.
We won The Revolutionary War after losing nearly every battle we fought. We just had to get the right opportunity to act and take it. By doing so, by trapping General Cornwallis at Yorktown, we won our independence.
Washington set an example by not making this country a monarch, and himself a royal king. This was not to be a country lead by one man, but by the will of all its citizens. Why? Because one man can fail in other forms of government, and take everything with him.
Our government can stand the loss of a president, and in fact has done so on multiple occasions, some to disease, some to assassin’s bullets, and some to their own shameful actions. In each case, our nation has continued.
What makes Bush different? If his presidency is destroyed, another will take its place. The office is greater than one man, on personality, and we can win the war on Terrorism without him.
The soldiers can certainly do their job, and help this country find its victory in Iraq without the help of Bush’s animating spirit. They are not puppets who drop when their strings are cut.
What your president deprived the soldiers of was first purpose, and then, as a new purpose arose, the means to fulfill the changed mission. Either way, it’s his responsibility to win this - not the media’s, not the party out of power’s- His.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2005 04:03 PMDawn:
“I am waiting for the PROOF that Bush lied.”
So you don’t believe that where theres giant puffs of smoke there’s fire? Smoky stuff like this, for instance:
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
Then again, it’s not always the lies, it’s the cover-ups that keep wafting smoke our way. Like this Journalistic Bomb, for instance.
kcTim, you’re starting to sound like an Eric dittohead. Now, stop that.
I hope all you turkeys on the Right have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Dave,
“I asked why you relied on those sites more? Why do you think the rest of the world is lying? I try to read up from all sides, “Know your enemy as you would know yourself”.”
__________________________________
I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking me then, b/c I thought I answered that in the previous post. If I didn’t then I’ll give it one more shot.
First of all, I don’t think I’m being lied to by anyone; I just don’t feel like I’m getting an even mixture of both sides from the MSM, I see more bad than good. This site I was referring to is a site, that as a fellow military vet, it’s good to hear from the people that are over in Iraq fighting the good fight and you get to hear about their accomplishments. Don’t get me wrong, they still report the bad on this site, and the other news media(websites, radio, TV, journals, etc.) that I read and listen to give me mostly the bad and some good, so it evens out.
The main thing is that they tell the truth, and I believe this website is; it’s just that I get more of the accomplishments from this site. I don’t have to sift through the sex scandals with school teachers, runaway brides, missing people, Ben and Jen, Brad and Jennifer, etc. Just the facts.
And, it pumps me up when I see that are troops are doing well and accomplishing their mission over there. I like hear about when they build schools, create jobs, get clean water up and running, electricity, etc.; it shows that we are having success. These facts are just as true, to what’s going on over there, as the car bombs and the beheadings. This is both sides.
I hope that answers your question…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 05:06 PMEric,
How do quotes from the “Asia Times” from October 2001 reflect U.S. Democrat opinion? You had to dig to pretty deep through Google to find that crap to back up your strawman argument eh?
Thus there is no role for ever using our troops anywhere in the world in the war on terror.
And you come to this conclusion how? By the 80%+ approval ratings for military conflict in Afghanistan?
The calls for defeat have never ended.
Why would withdrawl at some point in the forseeable future be a defeat, Eric? I mean, we’re winning this war, right? Look at all the good that’s been done. Look at all the schools with new coats of paint on them. Pulling out soon would only make sense, because victory is just around the corner, right?
Or are you saying that everything the troops have accomplished is meaningless and that a pullout would mean surrender and defeat? Why do you hate the troops, Eric? Why do you hate America?
What about dying for no reason at all right here in the states? 38,253 Americans died in 2004 alone in fatal automobile accidents-
Way to support the troops, Eric. Make the argument that their deaths are meaningless because they pale in comparison to auto deaths each year. That’s not a strawman. That’s your argument. So again, why do you hate the troops, Eric?
But what is the Bush exit strategy? In his own words it is, “When the Iraqi’s stand up, we stand down.” Not only is this reasonable, it is the only logical option.
Yes, leave it to the Bush administration to boil down the solution to an unbelievably complicated situation like Iraq to 8 words. Just enough for the slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, dittoheads to swallow. The solution to Iraq is NOT A GOD DAMN BUMPER STICKER! It requires hard thinking and tough choices. I’m not surprised that you consider that slogan to be “reasonable”.
Posted by: Burt at November 23, 2005 07:06 PMRahdigly-
Let me share with you a belief of mine: The Liberal Bias theory serves three functions.
The first of those functions is of course to stifle media oversight of the politicians. The second is to isolate Republican voters from more moderate viewpoints. The third function, I believe, is to serve as a way to insulate themselves and their conduct from the long term and short term scrutiny of their own constituents. If you think I’m wrong, take note of what every Republican politician claims when a news report alleges ethics violations and other skullduggery.
The point is to create an atmosphere of paranoia about attacks against your politicians, and as I’ve said, paranoia is a waste of good suspicion. In this case, a waste encouraged for political gain. If you’re always scared of what the Liberals might do to this country, you won’t be paying attention to what the Republicans ARE doing to this country.
Most of the time, the best way to deal with bad news is to do something about it. I think we would have been much better off at this point, had Republicans focused less on defending the president, and more on demanding better from him.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2005 07:58 PMStephen Daugherty,
“Most of the time, the best way to deal with bad news is to do something about it. I think we would have been much better off at this point, had Republicans focused less on defending the president, and more on demanding better from him.”
_______________________
Let me start by saying: I think you have too much free time on your hands. :O)
I just love to hear the libs try to defend the “liberal bias” of the media. There’s no defense! They’ve had their way with the big three for soooo long and now that talk radio, the internet and Foxnews has come along; the liberal media will continue to be exposed and debunked on a daily basis. It’s over libbies!! Ha!
In addition to the big 3 (ABC,CBS,NBC), you have CNN,CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, etc. And the latter (PBS) is so horrible that they can’t get enough viewers to watch; and yet, they are making the taxpayers fund it. In fact, there was a vote on the Senate floor last week to get liberal talk radio out to the troops b/c all they listen to is Rush Limbaugh. It was shot down by the way. That’s just ridiculous. The military shouldn’t be force fed liberal talking points; all they have to do is pick up just about any paper and watch any of the news networks except foxnews. And, even foxnews can be a little mainstream sometimes.
So, to respond to your comment “I think we would have been much better off at this point, had Republicans focused less on defending the president, and more on demanding better from him.”, I think your premise is false. If the dems would’ve just come up with some ideas and solutions, instead of obstructing and acting like the enemy, we would be in a much better position.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 09:27 PM
rahdigly,
There’s no need to defend “liberal bias” in the media, because there’s no such thing as liberal bias in the media.
1. The right wing zealots have become SO paranoid that they believe that if you aren’t with them, then you MUST be against them. Bush himself said that either you’re with him or with the terrorists. No middle ground - the classic sign of the zealot.
2. Because the mainstream news media doesn’t share the biases of the right-wing zealots (or left wing zealots for that matter), the zealots believe that the mainstream news media must, therefore, be biased against them. When in fact what the zealots are REALLY complaining about is that the mainstream news media doesn’t share their biases.
3. Numerous academic studies have been conducted, looking for evidence of “liberal bias”. They have, for the most part, failed to find any proof one way or the other.
4. As my journalism professor told me many years ago, “when you’re getting about the same number of complaints from BOTH sides of the political spectrum, that’s pretty good evidence that you’re somewhere in the middle.” There are also complaints that the news media has a CONSERVATIVE bias. Read Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media?” for an example.
5. Speaking of the middle, imagine that the political spectrum in this country can be represented by a horizontal line. The left end of the spectrum is marked as “0”, and the right end of the spectrum is marked as “100”. The middle is “50”. With me so far? Imagine someone at point “5” (way to the left) - they’ll think that someone at point “50” (in the middle) is way far to their right. Agreed? And to someone way on the right (point “95”) will ALSO think that the same person in the middle (at point “50”) is way far to their left. That’s exactly what’s happening today. The mainstream news media is pretty much at point 50, but the folks on the left and right ends of the spectrum BOTH think the news media is biased against them. When in fact, the mainstream news media is pretty much where it’s always been - smack dab in the middle.
The fact is that the far right LIKES bias. They WANT bias. They just want ALL the bias to be in their favor.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 23, 2005 10:27 PMrahdigly,
“So, it’s really about courage, plain and simple. Our soldiers have it, the anti-Bush/anti-War/anti-America crowd and some on this blog (and you know who you are!) definitely don’t have courage.”
I suppose you include congressman Murtha in this category? You know him….the guy who has been awarded the Bronze star and two purple hearts?
Stick with debate, friend. Quit slinging mud because we all just get dirty.
The question I would like to ask is simple: Someone please define victory? Even in business one sets milestones and goals. What are some of our milestones and goals? I would immagine the first election would be a milestone and the constitution another milestone, but what are our goals for exiting? Do we have a roadmap?
It seems to me we put a lot of thought into getting into Iraq but I’m concerned we aren’t putting as much on getting out. Maybe another good milestone would be clean water and reliable power for the populace…that would be helpful and show that we care about their families.
Don’t get me wrong. There have been some good things happening in Iraq. I agree they are too under-reported. However, there have also been some very, very bad things happening and they deserve to be reported. In fact, they are probably very much under-reported as well. We can’t stick our head in the sand. War is a nasty thing that should be undertaken with careful consideration and in self defense. I hold the President accountable AND everyone who voted for war on BOTH sides of the isle.
I disagreed with going in to Iraq and still do, but we need to ensure the region is stable. We made this mess and we damn well better make sure its fixed. The President has seemed to cave to political pressure by not sending enough troops to finish this thing early on. It appears we are now going to compound that mistake by pulling our guys out too early when we should be doubling or tripling our forces to secure the boarders, stamp out the transient terrorist, get power and water to the people, employ them to rebuild their country, and build schools to educate them and hospitals to treat those we’ve helped maim.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Tom l at November 23, 2005 11:50 PMjust don’t feel like I’m getting an even mixture of both sides from the MSM, I see more bad than good. This site I was referring to is a site, that … you get to hear about their accomplishments…so it evens out.
…I hope that answers your questionâ€
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 05:06 PM
=======================================
My first thought was “yes, thanks” Then I read on:
the liberal media will continue to be exposed and debunked on a daily basis. It’s over libbies!! Ha!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 23, 2005 09:27 PM
So again: I asked why you relied on those sites more? Why do you think the rest of the world is lying?
Posted by: Dave at November 24, 2005 12:12 AMStephen and Elliott are right. The successful creation of the “liberal bias” myth has been the single greatest political victory for Republicans in the last 50 years, if not more. In addition to the points you’ve made, the myth has another effect. It creates a situation where the mainstream media now actually leans further to the right in order to try and avoid any appearance of lefty bias.
Posted by: Burt at November 24, 2005 09:24 AMRahdigly-
The problem is, the only thing that would disprove a liberal bias for you would be a conservative bias.
The question here is about the quality of your information. The question is, why we have to force feed conservative talking points to the troops through Rush Limbaugh. Hell, with all his doom and gloom about us, he’s probably half the reason morale is in the toilet!
The Problem is, that so long as you only listen to and read sources that are markedly Republican, and in agreement with your position, then anything they don’t you to consider or know remains outside your grasp. You need outside perspective, if only to keep your B.S. Detector functioning.
President Bush’s actions have spoken much louder than his pages and pages of heavily prepared and catchphrased speeches. If you guys had early on demanded better actions, you would not need such an intense, fanatical devotion to him to defend his actions. You wouldn’t need to hold hostage the morale of our troops to try and guilt trip people into supporting the president You wouldn’t need to insist so heavily on Blue Column unworthiness or Bush’s transcendant sparkling ability to lead us to war if people could see his brilliance just by looking at events in Iraq.
Actions speak louder than words, no matter how many you flood people with. Right now, the Democrats are only the position to pull legislative stunts. Only with Republican cooperation can they get anything done, and such cooperation comes at the price of conceding ideological points that would defeat the purpose of many of our reforms and new strategies.
The real problem here is that the Republicans are wrong right now, and they’re not willing to admit that, or get out of the way so somebody can do things right.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2005 09:57 AMEillotbay
There’s no need to defend “liberal bias‎ in the media, because there’s no such thing as liberal bias in the media.
I reckon you aint watched ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or read a newspaper lately. If you have, you wouldn’t have made a statement like that. That is unless your somewhere to the left of Uncle HO.
From what I can see Fox News is the only Conservitive news there is. And I aint so sure of that either.
Ron Brown,
You criticism of the mainstream news media is evidence of YOUR bias, not evidence that the news media is biased. Please scroll up and re-read point 5 in my last post and tell me where you are on that line. If I remember correctly, you’ve said before that you’re no longer a Republican because they’re too liberal for you. That in and of itself is evidence that you’re way out of the middle of the political spectrum. So with all due respect, you probably think that most Americans are “to the left of uncle Ho”. And they ARE, compared to you.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 24, 2005 11:08 AMYou are absolutely correct. The left is our enemy. If we lose this war it will be because of them.
Hah! This stuff just cracks me up. With a Republican President and Republican control of Congress and the judiciary, what “the left” says or does is totally inconsequential.
No, if we lose this war it’s because of the idiocy and incompetence of our Republican leadership. It was the Republicans who went into Iraq without overwhelming force, clear goals, and an exit strategy. Or a clue, for that matter.
rahdigly, I love to hear about our soldiers doing good work in Iraq. I wish there were more of them there so we could establish the security necessary to rebuild, attract gobs of direct foreign investment, create jobs, privatize industry, encourage entrepreneurs, and reconnect Iraq to the international community. But that’s not happening, and it’s far more important than rebuilding a school here or there.
Eric, if you ignore the fact that President Bush let bin Laden escape, I think he did a fine job in Afghanistan by turning the country over to NATO and the UN. The “ink blot” strategy is slowly (there really should be more US troops there, too) bringing the country under the control of the central government. I think it’s going pretty well.
It’s a shame President Bush turned down the UN’s offer to take over in Iraq and provide significant French, Indian, Pakistani, and other international peacekeeping forces in November 2003.
Elliot,
I looked. Can’t find the memo.
Here’s what I did find in the link you provided:
“Taguba cited numerous organizational and leadership failures at Abu Ghraib.”
And another:
“The Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations [26] (PDF) did specifically absolve senior U.S. military and political leadership from direct culpability:
“The Panel finds no evidence that organizations above the 800th MP brigade or the 205th MI Brigade-level were directly involved in the incidents at Abu Ghraib.” “
I can not find the ‘Executive Order’ and the section on it was not definitive.
It also has this:
“General Karpinski claimed to have seen unreleased documents from Rumsfeld that authorized these tactic for Iraqi prisoners …”
You probably trust her but I have my doubts about her.
Find the documents - I can’t.
Louis,
“Maybe they knew, and they did it intentionally, so they would have a good argument for regaining power!”
I’m not much on that sort of conspiracy theory.”
How about this one…
The Reds and Blues do work together more than we realize.
They figure out how to take turns being in power so that the ‘idiots’ who vote for them don’t see them as ‘the only power’ and convince us that we really do choose who runs our country when we cast a vote.
By doing this they maintain the ‘Two Party System’ and manage to prevent any other Party from gaining ground.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone !!!
Posted by: dawn at November 24, 2005 12:04 PMElliottBay
I’ve read about the Political Spectrum before. While I don’t have any real disagreement with it, I don’t really agree with it either. It’s one of those things that’s a non issue with me.
No, I don’t think that most Americans are left of Uncle Ho. I sure hope that not many are.
The only difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party is the name. I figured this out in 1960 at the age of 14.
This was the first election that I paid any attrntion to. I was listening to and reading what both sides were saying and there wasn’t a dimes difference between them. The same has pretty much been true for the elections sense.
The only Republican President that we’ve had that I would say even came close to being Conservitive is Regan.
This is why I say that Republicans are not Conservitive.
accually Elloit, Im most likely somewhere to the right of Atila the Hun.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 24, 2005 12:52 PMHi Dawn,
“How about this one—
That’s a very nice conspiracy theory….HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Po