Defeat, the Liberal Exit Strategy

Militarily there is no way we can lose in Iraq. Our soldiers know what they are doing and they are doing it well. Which makes the liberal view of Iraq not only wrong but inexplicable. The left is not only not eager for victory, but are instead desperately assuring themselves we will be defeated.

It's all in the ideology, I guess. What would a victory in Iraq mean for the left? Nothing less than total cognitive dissonance. It's my contention that the left has so much invested in the failure of Bush and the rejection of the idea of American exceptionalism that to even admit the possibility of progress in Iraq cannot consciously be considered, much less admitted.

Where's the progress, they say? Indeed where is the progress in our predominently liberal news media? Rep. Murtha, of whom 99.9% of America has never heard of before, is national headline news, but Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Leiberman is a backpage mischaracterized paragraph (if we're lucky). What's more newsworthy? A democrat against the war? Literally, a dime a dozen. Or a Democrat saying that there has been great progress and our troops are accomplishing their mission?

The truth is that victory has been slow but steady. Unfortunately, most Democrats are waging a completely different war. One that demands we hand the enemy a victory they couldn't win militarily, but can claim nonetheless. A victory not well fought, but which will nonetheless be used to recruit thousands of suicide bombers willing to inflict many more 9/11's on a weak and decadent American paper tiger.

As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ... Osama Bin Laden, on why terrorism will defeat America (Pre 9/11, and pre invasion of Afghanistan.)

Assured of our defeat?

Militarily there is no way we can lose in Iraq. Politically, well, that's another matter. In war you are not necessarily just killing folks, you are defeating the enemy's will to fight. Al Qaeda in Iraq believes that Ted Kennedy's Vietnam strategy will pay off for them. Every liberal declaration to that fact only boosts their morale and will to fight on and continue the killing of Iraqi civilians.

Lie, Damn Lies, and Misleading about the war.

Revising history is one way for Democrats to avoid cognitive dissonance on the war. "I wasn't wrong, Bush lied."

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton left one thing out this week when she tried to explain her views on Iraq - namely that she used to agree almost completely with President Bush, even after the war took a nosedive.

...Clinton emphatically told The News in her 2003 call, "I felt that it was appropriate under the circumstances, which really went back to 1998 under the Clinton administration's conclusion that the regime had to change, that the President [Bush] had authority to pursue that goal."

"Why was the intelligence consistent from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration?" Clinton added. "The intelligence was consistent for over a decade."

On the eve of war, even the senator's aides echoed Team Bush's confidence in a swift victory, including one who boasted, "It's going to be a cakewalk."

At the time of the 2003 phone call, the insurgency had blossomed and the White House had finally backed off claims that Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear bomb program.

Some experts don't fault Clinton for her omission, but admit she is clearly "feeling the heat" over Iraq.

"If the tide shifts, she's on the wrong side of the sea wall," said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio.

Flustered Clinton aides yesterday sidestepped the question of why the senator's letter ignored the intelligence from her husband's administration. nydailynews.com

Re: Iraq War: Reflections

As rationale for our retreat, the left insists that our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan is actually increasing terrorist recruiting. This is like saying that sending police into bad neighborhoods creates gangs. Just the opposite is true, not sending police into bad neighborhoods virtually assures that the criminal element will get stronger. The middle east is not able to police itself right now. It does not have the political structure to do it. Bush's strategy includes building new political structures that will be able to do so.

The idea that the invasion of Iraq caused terrorist recruitment, and that therefore pulling troops out would lessen terrorist recruitment is quite frankly 'highly uninformed'. After all, Osama Bin Laden's rationale for declaring war on America was not the invasion of Iraq. The ancient cause of irrational hatred doesn't need a rational reason to kill those it dislikes. Lacking any valid reason we know that irrational hatred will invent one.

Do you have a message for the American people?

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ... . We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world, especially the Islamic world. American presence in the Gulf provides support to the Jews and protects their rear. And while millions of Americans are homeless and destitute and live in abject poverty, their government is busy occupying our land and building new settlements and helping Israel build new settlements in the point of departure for our Prophet's midnight journey to the seven heavens. America throws her own sons in the land of the two Holy Mosques for the sake of protecting Jewish interests. ... Osama Bin Laden

Must we pull Israel out of the middle east in order for there to be peace with terrorists? Then, after having done so, would anyone believe that the Osama's and the Zarqawi's would be content to kill no more? Or would this not embolden them into believing, falsely, that a new worldwide caliphate was in fact possible?

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 5, 2005 4:06 PM
Comments
Comment #99009

Blah, blah, blah, liberals suck, they’re no better than the terrorists, etc….

Posted by: surethingbob at December 5, 2005 4:22 PM
Comment #99013

Militarily, there was no way we could lose in Viet Nam, either, Eric. But, guess what?

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 5, 2005 4:30 PM
Comment #99015
Lie, Damn Lies, and Misleading about the war

“Last throes”

“mushroom clouds”

“9/11”

“Al Qaeda”

Posted by: bobo at December 5, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #99016
As rationale for our retreat, the left insists that our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan is actually increasing terrorist recruiting. This is like saying that sending police into bad neighborhoods creates gangs.

First, take Afghanistan out of that sentence. I challenge you to find one RESPECTED Liberal (someone is elected office would be nice) who is opposed to our work and presence in Afghanistan.

Second, this is one of the stupidest analogies I’ve heard from the right. The actions of invading and occupying a foreign nation are immeasurably different from domestic police work.

Posted by: steve K at December 5, 2005 4:40 PM
Comment #99017

I’ve been watching the Holy Spirit’s messages over on The Christian Prophet blog, and it seems the Holy Spirit is trying to get everyone to accept the idea of victory in general in life. I’m sure liberals mean well deep down, but it seems they have a strong ego-vested psychological resistance to the concept of victory and to any kind of victory, as if they worship mediocracy and feel they have to bring down anyone who super-achieves, and even self-sabotage themselves if they happen to achieve.

Posted by: A Christian Prophet at December 5, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #99018

Success in Iraq would make the left even more irrevelent to “The People.”
We dont hear anything good from Iraq because the left NEEDS it all to be bad in their mad dash for power.
The “Black Sox” would look like amateurs next to these people.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/

Posted by: kctim at December 5, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #99019

Eric,
It’s a Republican War. Your people are Commander in Chief, in control of Senate & Congress, & effectively in control of the Supreme Court. Sorry guy. Yours to win or lose. Own it.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2005 4:42 PM
Comment #99022

Eric,
So how do you measure progress? How will we know when we have won? When is it that leaving becomes leaving victoriously and not “slinking away?”
Do you think that with our current forces, we will be able to completely eliminate terrorist/insurgent activity? Is that our goal?
Is our goal to allow for Iraqi self-determination? If so, then after these next elections we will be finished, and leaving would be a victory, not a defeat, and Murtha would be exactly right to call for troop withdrawals.
I’ve heard a lot about school openings. Can we leave when we have the proper student/teacher ratio? Is that victory?
I have not heard any conditions for victory other than “as they stand up, we will stand down”. However, meeting clearly stated goals is the only way we can have victory.
I think the president won’t set such goals because he’s afraid of not meeting them, and having to change plans (read, admit he’s wrong or made a mistake) if real, measurable progress is not being made. Or worse, listen to the innumerable democrat-generated ideas for actually winning.
I want to win the war. To do that, we have to know when we’ve won.

Also, I had to laugh as you confirmed my belief that you are demonstrating the illogic of republican debate. You said:

The idea that the invasion of Iraq caused terrorist recruitment, and that therefore pulling troops out would lessen terrorist recruitment is quite frankly ‘highly uninformed’. After all, Osama Bin Laden’s rationale for declaring war on America was not the invasion of Iraq.

So an insult and a meaningless statement that because it wasn’t the cause of one terror attack, it can’t be the cause of any. Hilarious!

Posted by: Brian Poole at December 5, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #99025

Hi Eric,

“It’s my contention that the left has so much invested in the failure of Bush and the rejection of the idea of American exceptionalism that to even admit the possibility of progress in Iraq cannot consciously be considered, much less admitted.”

You don’t seem capable of honesty? Are you?

“The truth is that victory has been slow but steady.”

The truth is that we’ve got massive military resources supporting terrorists in the Iraqi government.

I don’t think you’re capable of aknowledging the truth. I think hateful spin and vicious lies is all your good for.

Perhaps you’ll prove me wrong and aknowledge what is going on in Iraq with respect to the terrorists in the Iraqi government.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 4:59 PM
Comment #99028

kctim:

What have we actually accomplished in Iraq as of yet? The website you posted looks like an organizational description of what USAID plans to do in Iraq and how it seeks to accomplish those goals, but it does not appear to actually provide evidence of accomplishing any of the goals mentioned therein. Moreover, the facts of the matter, regardless of how it is to be spun, is that the Iraqi government is pro-Iran, and therefore a liability to us in the future. The market economy that is to be created requires a basic energy infrastructure, which is not in place to the degree required for a market economy. And we are not defeating the insurgency; rather, they are spreading like a plague. I could go on, but my overall point is that our so-called “accomplishments” are not there to be had. And before I am called a liberal terrorist sympathizer, it should be noted that my brother is currently serving over there as a Marine, and so I understand that we are making headway and we are doing what we can, just not what Bushco says is happening.

Posted by: ant at December 5, 2005 5:07 PM
Comment #99033

Does it occur to Republicans in this column that all the left bashing does not one thing to assist your party in keeping a majority in 2006. Of course, a similar comment can be made in the Left column about acquiring a majority.

But, really, instead of attributing the left, your fellow Americans, with the derogatory labels, would it not serve your cause to lay down arguments that at least have a chance of winning back support from those millions being polled who have lost confidence in the Republican party and the Iraq war effort?

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 5, 2005 5:24 PM
Comment #99037

The whining, sniveling tone of the article unintentionally makes a good point.

The War in Iraq is a matter of politics for the US. It’s not a matter of survival, or national security. Mostly, it’s just a question of whether a victory can be claimed by Republicans, or a defeat blamed on Democrats. Nothing significant will be lost if the War in Iraq goes south for us.

If any war were truly a matter of national security, it would be over in a day. If it were truly important, we’d hold a draft, and end it in months. But for the Bush administration, it’s all about politics, about the accumulation of power and doling out of rewards. A draft would be unpopular.

For the Iraqis, the War in Iraq is perceived as a matter of self-respect, of cultural survival, of life itself. In classic 4GW style, they seek to overcome the US not through military might, but through politics, through will.

Their motivation for succeeding is order of magnitudes greater than our motivation.

We want to succeed. If not, we’ll go home.

They must succeed. There’s no alternative.

Like a bacon and eggs breakfast, the chicken is interested, but the pig is committed.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2005 5:28 PM
Comment #99038

Ant
“What have we actually accomplished in Iraq as of yet?”

Surf the WHOLE site and look for accomplishments.

“The market economy that is to be created requires a basic energy infrastructure, which is not in place to the degree required for a market economy”

Maybe not, but they are working on it and are getting nearer to a positive end result.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html

“I could go on, but my overall point is that our so-called “accomplishments” are not there to be had”

Wrong! They ARE there, people just refuse to acknowledge them for political reasons.

“so I understand that we are making headway and we are doing what we can, just not what Bushco says is happening”

Then you should also be willing to acknowledge that some things are bad, just not as bad as the liberals say it is.

I was and still am against this war, I just dont allow my thinking to be dictated by my politics.

Posted by: kctim at December 5, 2005 5:35 PM
Comment #99041

“it’s just a question of whether a victory can be claimed by Republicans, or a defeat blamed on Democrats”

More of how much a victory will benefit the Republicans or how much a defeat will benefit the Democrats.
And both sides only care about what is best for their party.

Posted by: kctim at December 5, 2005 5:39 PM
Comment #99050

A Christian Prophet wrote:

I’ve been watching the Holy Spirit’s messages over on The Christian Prophet blog, and it seems the Holy Spirit is trying to get everyone to accept the idea of victory in general in life. I’m sure liberals mean well deep down, but it seems they have a strong ego-vested psychological resistance to the concept of victory and to any kind of victory, as if they worship mediocracy and feel they have to bring down anyone who super-achieves, and even self-sabotage themselves if they happen to achieve.

Liberals have “…a strong ego-vested psychological resistance to the concept of victory…as if they worship mediocracy”?! Wow.

Let’s see…Abraham Lincoln is historically considered a LIBERAL Republican. Jesus was considered quite the liberal in his day. Civil rights activists? They were considered liberals (the conservatives of the day supported ongoing segregation, as you may recall).

I’m not trying to blast conservatism here, but your assumptions and speculations about the psychological underpinnings of “liberals” strike me as naive, uninformed, and insulting.

Leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals.

Posted by: Steve Westby at December 5, 2005 6:16 PM
Comment #99061

JUST STOP IT DAMMIT! For 8 years under Clinton all we heard from the right was Clinton bashing. Now, under Bush, all we hear from the left is Bush bashing. My personal beliefs are not important here, but someone has to call a truce. This nation is becoming a state of whiners. “It’s their fault” both sides say. Well, I am an independent voter who is sick and tired of the 2 parties’ complaining.

You are all at fault. We, Americans, are all threatened by fundamentalism of all sorts. Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism are merely 2 views of the same monster. They both threaten anyone who disagrees, they both think God (Allah) has chosen them above all others, they both want to establish their version of God’s plan on the rest of us, and they both despise gay people.

This continued whining about whose fault everything is detracts from the danger of those around us.

Remember Katrina, vote them all out!

Posted by: Bill Todd at December 5, 2005 7:03 PM
Comment #99065

As my grandfather told me, when you start calling someone names, you’ve admitted that you can’t defend your position. Eric proves time and time and time again that he can’t defend his position. This is nothing new.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 5, 2005 7:16 PM
Comment #99076

We have reached a turning point in Iraq. Things are in place for exponential improvement. We can’t lose this war anymore except in Washington. Fortunately things are bound to improve so much within the next 6-8 months that even the lefties will need to admit it.

When conditions in Iraq dictate, we can withdraw troops. The critics of the war will get what they want, but it will be on the right terms.

Watch how successful the elections will be two weeks from now. As the people of Iraq see that their own government will be THE government, they will begin to be drawn to it. Nothing motivates like self interest and people will see that the Iraqi government will be in charge and they will want to be part of it.

This will split the Dems, with the responsible ones cooperating with the Bush Administration and some of the others in sullen withdrawal.

Moveon.org will have to move on. Howard Dean will need to find something else to complain about. The country will be better off.

Posted by: Jack at December 5, 2005 8:02 PM
Comment #99080

Jack,
Why would the Sunnis want to participate in a government dominated by the Shias? From what I’ve read, people in Iraq place their loyalties to clan, tribe, ethnic group, and religious group before their loyalty to an Iraqi nation. Given the long history of enmity and conflict, why would the Sunnis want to cooperate with an occupying force of infidels, and place themselves at the mercy of the Shias?

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2005 8:16 PM
Comment #99089

Steve’s (kickstand1141@cox.net) comment calling folks here fools and idiots required removing his comment and his comment privileges at WatchBlog.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at December 5, 2005 8:52 PM
Comment #99098

What is this, but a big article full of liberal bashing. That proves that you either have no Logos argument toward the war, or you are an ignorant liberal basher.

Posted by: independentvoter at December 5, 2005 9:44 PM
Comment #99099

PH, you have to give the Iraqi people some credit whether they be sunni or shi’a. Not every single member of either party is hell bent on destroying the other, there are certainly elements of that within each group, but my bet is that cooler heads will prevail amongst them. Did you hear Kerry’s comments over the weekend, accusing our soldiers of war atrocities (again). The man has no shame. He will say anything for political posture.

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 9:48 PM
Comment #99100

Hi Jack,

“Things are in place for exponential improvement.”

We’ve been hearing that all along. Right wingers keep saying that it’s about to get better and it keeps getting worse.

The terrorists are winning. Even if the insurgent terrorists don’t do well (they’re not losing) the other terrorists (the ones in the government) win.

The terrorists are ahead. They are in control of the government and they are in control of the insurgency.

You don’t think Republicans are split? I know many who have thought that the war was a terrible idea. Why do you think it’s only Democrats who disagree?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 9:49 PM
Comment #99101

Hi Jack,

“PH, you have to give the Iraqi people some credit whether they be sunni or shi’a.”

They both favor rule by oppression. The various Shiite death squads aren’t really any better than when the Sunni oppressors were in power.

This is bigger than your attempts to potray Democrats as wrong about everything. Iraq is a serious mess and you want to blame Democrats.

I not only predicted disaster in Iraq. I predicted that right wingers would blame me for it even though I thought it was a bad idea to go in.

It’s amazing how right wingers (in general) can’t defend what’s going on in Iraq without attacking Democrats. The basis for the right wing support of our occupation of Iraq is to attack Democrats.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 9:55 PM
Comment #99103

Louis, again you’re placing zero faith in the Iraqi’s and our military. Two free elections with large turnout including women voters and the third just days away, a freely elected representational government in place finalizing their first ever Iraqi constitution, Saddam on trial by his peers, The Iraqi military and security forces now over 200,000 strong and growing daily and securing much of the north and the south by themselves, and just this weekend the third ranking member of Al Qaeda killed in Afghanistan. And yet this equals a sure loss in your opinion. Wow, you know what they say about opinions.

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 9:57 PM
Comment #99107

PH, who’s blaming democrats? Conservatives are only trying to tell you guys that we are WINNING. Iraq is NOT a mess, in fact it is improving in leaps and bounds daily. Just wait until the Dec. 15 elections are held. The decent people of Iraq are being empowered daily and you overlook them time and time again always focusing on what can’t be done. Conservatives will take full credit for this war and the success of it will ensure another victory in 06 and 08

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:02 PM
Comment #99108

Hi Jay,

“Louis, again you’re placing zero faith in the Iraqi’s and our military.”

I have little faith in Iraq’s military. Iraq’s military is riddled with those who support, and in many cases, engage in terrorism.

I have great faith in our military. Sending them in to support terrorists in Iraq is a horrible thing to do to our military.

“And yet this equals a sure loss in your opinion.”

The insurgents aren’t losing. Maybe they will start losing at some point but up until now they’ve been getting stronger. You are unable to account for obvious facts.

“Wow, you know what they say about opinions.”

Are you saying that, unlike me, you don’t have opinions? Are you saying that your opinions are better than mine and I shouldn’t question them?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:03 PM
Comment #99112

Hi Jay,

“PH, who’s blaming democrats?”

Most of the right wingers on here are. Sean Limbaugh and Rush Hannity are. The White House is. Lets just say that all of those who engage in and buy into right wing spin are.

“Iraq is NOT a mess”

You don’t have a clue Jay. You are ignoring reality and running on the spin and lies that are being fed to you.

“who’s blaming democrats?”

You should consider the possibility that right wing spin is preventing you from engaging in clear thought.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:08 PM
Comment #99113

No Louis, you’re too defensive, an old saying is that opinions are like a@#holes, everyone has one. I was just trying to make some fun of it. Of course I have my opinions and they are sharply different then yours. You should actually ask the people in the military who are in Iraq because nearly 70% support this effort and are proud of the difference they are making. For instance, my brother-in-law. He doesn’t want you trying to bring him back home. Consider your line “maybe they (insurgents) will start losing at some point”. Are you saying you don;t have the toughness to stick it out? That you would rather cave in to them because it is taking longer than you want it to?

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:09 PM
Comment #99114

Hi Jay,

“the third ranking member of Al Qaeda killed in Afghanistan. And yet this equals a sure loss in your opinion.”

Why are you lying about my opinions Jay? If you’ve got a case by all means make it but please don’t lie about what I said.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:09 PM
Comment #99115

Oh I get it now Louis, I am operating strictly on right wing talking points and spin while your position is solely based on clear analysis of the situation. Ignoring the fact that everything you say has been repeated time and time again by Kerry, Pelosi, Dean and the rest of democratic spin machine. Get real.

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:11 PM
Comment #99116

Hi Jay,

“Consider your line “maybe they (insurgents) will start losing at some point”. Are you saying you don;t have the toughness to stick it out? That you would rather cave in to them because it is taking longer than you want it to?”

I was stating a fact Jay. You keep repeating “we’re winning, we’re winning, we’re winning” and I was pointing out that you have little basis for saying so.

I think we’ll be stuck in Iraq for a long time. We’ll be “sticking it out” for years to come.

There were many Repbuclicans who predicted this. Bush’s father and Brent Scowcroft are two of the many.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:13 PM
Comment #99117

There’s the “lie” word again. What opinion of yours am I “lying” about. And seriously, you guys have to drop the “lie” mantra, it makes you sound so immature and juvenile.

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:13 PM
Comment #99118

Jay,
Why is the national army of Iraq unable to fight insurgents?

“… The biggest concern was
reassuring all of Iraq’s neighbors that Iraq would not be a threat. One of the
ways you do that is by building a motor infantry force with no logistics” - that
is, an army that can’t sustain any large-scale offensive operation. Such an army
might assuage concerns in Syria and Iran, but it would do little to provide
internal security, and would not be prepared for domestic counterinsurgency
work. (This tension has not been resolved: to this day the Iraqi government
complains that the United States will not help it get adequate tanks, armored
vehicles, and artillery.)”

From Atlantic Monthly, “Why Iraq Has No Army”

There is no effective Iraqi military because we cannot afford for there to be an effective Iraqi military. The Iraqis give their primary loyalties to their own ethnic groups, not Iraq. We cannot arm them with tanks or artillery because it would be turned against us, or against other Iraqis.

Btw, I’ve heard Kerry’s comments, and I’m not impressed. I wasn’t impressed with him as a candidate, and he’s done nothing to change my opinion. Lots of ambition, but like so many politicians, he’s looking for the middle ground. I’ve little use for him or for Hillary. But don’t get too excited about a liberal damning Kerry & Hillary with faint praise. There are few politicians as inept and corrupt as the Neocons fronted by Bush. Kerry & Hillary might be mildly offensive. Bush and Cheney are deeply offensive. With any luck at all they’ll resign or be impeached.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2005 10:14 PM
Comment #99120

OK once again Louis and try and stay with me here. My basis for winning is based on the FACT of two successful free elections for the first time ever in Iraq with the third one just days away, a representational government is finalizing a national constitution, Saddam is on trial by his peers, the Iraqi military and security forces are now over 200,000 strong and a high ranking Al Qaeda member was killed over the weekend. And your basis for Iraq being a complete disaster is what?

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:17 PM
Comment #99121

Hi Jay,

“I am operating strictly on right wing talking points and spin while your position is solely based on clear analysis of the situation.”

If you can show that to be the case please do so. If not I encourage you to retract it.

“Ignoring the fact that everything you say has been repeated time and time again by Kerry, Pelosi, Dean and the rest of democratic spin machine.”

As far as I know that is not true. I haven’t heard Kerry, Pelosi, or Dean say what I’ve been saying about the Iraqi government being full of terrorists.

If you have examples of them saying it I’d be interested in hearing it.

I’m an independent thinker. I don’t trust politicians to give me my opinions and I certainly don’t trust people who tell hate filled lies all day, such as Sean Limbaugh, to give me my opinions.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:18 PM
Comment #99122

Don’t hold your breath PH, and BTW Gen. Casey who is actually in charge of the Iraqi security and military force buildup, disagrees with your opinion. He has clearly stated that many batallions now are quite capable of fighting on their own with many more needing only a few embedded American military personel. So who am I going to believe, you or Gen Casey. HMMMMMMM, I will go with Casey, sorry.

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:21 PM
Comment #99125

Louis, I was being facetious. Do you know what that means?

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:25 PM
Comment #99126

Hi Jay,

“My basis for winning is based on the FACT of two successful free elections for the first time ever in Iraq with the third one just days away, a representational government is finalizing a national constitution”

The elections have given us a government that’s full of terrorists.

The Iraqi military is untested and riddled with terrorists.

The Consitution says that know laws shall violate Islamic laws which is a recipe for repression. The Afghani Constitution says the same thing and someone there was recently convicted of blashpemy.

“a high ranking Al Qaeda member was killed over the weekend.”

That didn’t occur in Iraq. You’re engaging in spin here.

“And your basis for Iraq being a complete disaster is what?”

I have not been shy about what I base my statements on.

The Iraqi government is riddled with terrorsists. The terrorist influences in the government are getting stronger rather than weaker.

We’ve got massive military resources bogged down fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t winning.

When you say “we’re winning” do you realize that we’re fighting on behalf of terrorists in the Iraqi government? Our troops are fighting and dying in order to support terrorists. “Winning” is not what comes to mind when we’re fighting to support terrorists.

These are by no means the only reasons I assert that our occupation of Iraq is going badly but they are important reasons.

“Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” Hagel tells U.S. News. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050627/27bush.htm



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #99128

Hi Jay,

“Louis, I was being facetious.”

You didn’t assert that I’m basing my opinions on Kerry, Pelosi, and Dean?

If you din’t than I apologize for my mistake.

If you did I, once again, encourage you to support your accuastion.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:32 PM
Comment #99129

Oh ok if you say so Louis, it must be true. BTW, if you had bothered to actually read some of my posts, I stated that the Al Qaeda member was killed in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Could I now say the you “lied”. That’s a fun word isn’t it? So let me get this straight, you’re saying that since you don’t agree with whom the people of Iraq elected into office, that the war is a total loss?

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:33 PM
Comment #99132

Jay,
No need to take my word for anything. Read the article:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/browse_thread/thread/401fbc651c78cddb/d8cda9181b8c0689?lnk=st&q=%22why+iraq+has+no+army%22&rnum=3

Think about it, Jay. We can’t arm the Iraqis with tanks or artillery or mobile armor or attack helicopters. You know that’s true. Yet without the firepower & mobility & logistical support & independent command & control, how are they supposed to defeat the insurgents?

Furthermore, why would an Iraqi soldier obey an American order to shoot a fellow Iraqi? Good luck with that one. Unless, of course, the fellow Iraqi is from the wrong religion or ethnic group.

We found that out in Fallujah. The Peshmerga helped us. The only problem is that the Peshmerga went after the Sunnis with a zeal beyond our comfort zone.

What it comes down to is, the Iraqis will have to sort it out for themselves. I dont’ think it will be pretty. The death squads are already at work.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2005 10:39 PM
Comment #99134

Hi Jay,

“Oh ok if you say so Louis, it must be true.”

If I have not supported an assertion can you please point that out?

“I stated that the Al Qaeda member was killed in Afghanistan, not Iraq.”

Here is what you stated “a high ranking Al Qaeda member was killed over the weekend.” You stated it as an example of how things are going well in Iraq for us.

You used the Al Qaeda member as an example of how Iraq is going well Jay.

“you’re saying that since you don’t agree with whom the people of Iraq elected into office, that the war is a total loss?”

You’re twisting things again Jay. I said that the Iraqi government is riddled with terrorists. I DID NOT SAY that because I don’t agree with them the war is a total loss…..I SAID THAT SUPPORTING TERRORISTS ISN’T A GOOD IDEA.

Would you care to discuss what I’ve said or do you plan to make up things and accuse me of saying them?

Do you think supporting terrorists is a good thing for our military to be doing Jay?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 10:42 PM
Comment #99139

So every single Iraqi member of government is a terrorist ready to wreak havoc when we leave. I am sure Al Jafaari will be interested to hear from you. You demonstrate a complete lack of faith in, and disdain of the Iraqi people that honestly you should be embarrassed. Most of your premise of why this war is a loss was because that the Iraqi government was comprised of terrorists. Quote “The Iraqi government is riddled with terrorists”. That was your response to my question on why you thought the war was a complete loss. I don’t think I twisted anything. BTW posted by me at 9:57, ” a member of Al Qaeda killed in Afghanistan”. PH, you are referencing an article posted ona Howard Stern website. Puhlease. Do you know who General Casey is?

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2005 10:52 PM
Comment #99143

Hi Jay,

“So every single Iraqi member of government is a terrorist ready to wreak havoc when we leave.”

I didn’t say that. Can you please stop lying about what I said?

“I am sure Al Jafaari will be interested to hear from you.”

Al Jafaari is a member of the Dawa party which is an Iranian anti-American terrorist group. I encourage you to look him up. He recently (a few months ago) visited Iran and laid a wreath on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini (the one who took Americans hostage).

“You demonstrate a complete lack of faith in, and disdain of the Iraqi people that honestly you should be embarrassed.”

All I did was tell a few important truths. I have disdain for terrorists. Are you saying that I shouldn’t have disdain for terrorists?

Answer the question please Jay. Am I wrong to have disdain for terrorists?

“Quote “The Iraqi government is riddled with terrorists”.

I did say that. I gave several other examples of why things aren’t going well in Iraq.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #99144

“Al-Jaafari, one of the top leaders of the Islamic Dawa Party (search), fled to Iran in 1980 and remained there until 1990, organizing cross-border attacks while studying Shiite theology in the city of Qom. He was seen as the leader of a pro-Tehran faction of Dawa with close ties to the country’s clerical government.

The Dawa was Iraq’s first Shiite Islamic political party, headed by one of its most popular clerics, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Sadr (search), who was executed by Saddam’s regime in 1980. The Dawa Party uprising began in the late 1970s and was crushed by Saddam’s forces in 1982. The group said it lost 77,000 members in its war against the Sunni Muslim dictator.

In the early 1980s, Dawa carried out several homicide bombings in Baghdad, and there was speculation that al-Jaafari was behind an attempt to assassinate the then Iraqi-allied emir of Kuwait. Al-Jaafari has denied involvement in the attack.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148391,00.html

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 11:10 PM
Comment #99146

Hi Jay,

“the third ranking member of Al Qaeda killed in Afghanistan. And yet this equals a sure loss in your opinion.”

You had asked what I was accusing you of lying about. That is what I was accusing you of lying about.

It is not my opinion that killing the Al Qaeda member is a loss. I didn’t say that it was nor did I say anything that remotely indicated that was my opinion.

I have been straightforward here Jay. Why can’t you do the same?

I’ve clearly stated what my assertions are and I’ve supported them. I don’t understand why you feel the need to distort what I’ve said.

You actually seem like a reasonable fellow. I’m guessing that your in over your head here but that’s just a guess.

Do you suppose we have any common ground?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 11:23 PM
Comment #99147

Jay,
(Sigh). Have it your way. Here is a link directly to the Atlantic Monthly aritcle. It’s by subscription.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200512/iraq-army
Casey. Hmmm. Yes, name rings a bell. Does this tesimony sound familiar?

General Casey: “We fully recognize that Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time, because they don’t have an institutional base to support them. And so Level One is one battalion.”

Senator McCain: “It was three. Now it’s gone from three to one?”

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #99149

Hi phx8,

Here’s a quote from a general you may find ironic:

“I don’t think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq.”-General Myers

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 5, 2005 11:30 PM
Comment #99154

the way to win the war is let the troops on the ground fight it the way they see fit. We can’t let pencil heads in Washington make the day to day decisions.

Posted by: gary at December 5, 2005 11:52 PM
Comment #99162

Dave Remer,
Since you have such an accute eye for the polls, why don’t let the dems know that they rank below the republicans in the eyes of the American electorate and perhaps they could stop whining about evrything that has happened for the past six years and put forth an idea or a solution other than raising taxes for all of the problems that afflict us. Not calling you any names, just hanging you on your own petard.

Posted by: scolex at December 6, 2005 12:28 AM
Comment #99171
why don’t let the dems know that they rank below the republicans in the eyes of the American electorate and perhaps they could stop whining about evrything that has happened for the past six years and put forth an idea or a solution other than raising taxes for all of the problems that afflict us.

David,

Not to step on your toes but I must know.

scolex,

Where are you right wingers finding these poll numbers at? The only poll that ranks Dems below Repubs is the Harris Poll, and that is only by one point.

Percent of respondants who disapprove of the job congress is doing by party.

The Harris Poll, Nov. 8-13, 2005
Republicans 69%….Democrats 70%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Nov. 8-9, 2005
Republicans 50%….Democrats 47%

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, Nov. 3-6, 2005
Republicans 50%….Democrats 44%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll, Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2005
Republicans 61%….Democrats 54%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, Oct. 21-23, 2005
Republicans 58%….Democrats 53%

Would you be more likely to vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in the district where you live?

Personally, I think polls are worthless but, if your going to bring up polls at least be honest about them.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 1:02 AM
Comment #99175
First, take Afghanistan out of that sentence. I challenge you to find one RESPECTED Liberal (someone is elected office would be nice) who is opposed to our work and presence in Afghanistan.

steve K,

You are absolutely right. President Bush and the Republicans would be enjoying record high popularity right now, if they would have stuck to the real war on terrorism. The fact is whatever the Dems may or may not have voted for is irrelevant. Dems are the minority party and any and all ideas are shot down by the Republican controlled congress. Republicans are in control of congress and the White House. Iraq is their baby.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 1:18 AM
Comment #99180
You are all at fault. We, Americans, are all threatened by fundamentalism of all sorts. Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism are merely 2 views of the same monster…

…This continued whining about whose fault everything is detracts from the danger of those around us.

Bill Todd,

The danger is all around us. We have learned absolutely nothing from history.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” -Hermann Goering, second in command to Hitler
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 1:34 AM
Comment #99188


“It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them.” — Adolf Hitler

They say history repeats itself. They also say knowledge is power. I am not saying that Bush is Hitler, but the parallels between what happened in the past and what is happening now are startling. If we don’t want to repeat history then we need to open our eyes and see what is happening to us.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 1:54 AM
Comment #99190

jayjay,
As polls also don’t neccessitate fact to me I really don’t keep track as closely as you. I beleive Fox poll had the democratic congress ’ favorability poll rated three points below the repubs. If I’m not mistaken, I heard a spread of six the same way on another station, possibly N.P.R? I’m sorry that I cannot be more specific than that. Actually, I think it was an approval poll, not favorability. Anyway, the only posotive result of anyone listening to polling data in recent memory was your boy Bill, for I firmly beleive that his obsession with them prevented him from wreaking havoc with some of he , his wife’s and his partie’s hairbrained schemes. (r.e. national health care, etc., etc.)

Posted by: scolex at December 6, 2005 2:08 AM
Comment #99194
As polls also don’t neccessitate fact to me I really don’t keep track as closely as you. I beleive Fox poll had the democratic congress ’ favorability poll rated three points below the repubs

scolex,

Hum, you brought up the subject of polls not me. I just think if you are going to cite something it should at least have some truth to it. Acutally, more people disaproved of the job Republicans were doing than the Dems by 3 points in the Fox poll.

Anyway, the only posotive result of anyone listening to polling data in recent memory was your boy Bill, for I firmly beleive that his obsession with them prevented him from wreaking havoc with some of he , his wife’s and his partie’s hairbrained schemes. (r.e. national health care, etc., etc.)

Then why did you bring it up?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 2:26 AM
Comment #99196
Since you have such an accute eye for the polls, why don’t let the dems know that they rank below the republicans in the eyes of the American electorate and perhaps they could stop whining about evrything that has happened for the past six years…

scolex,

So, this was just liberal bashing?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 2:29 AM
Comment #99210

et al, (the bashed),

…instead of attributing the left, your fellow Americans, with the derogatory labels…

…As my grandfather told me, when you start calling someone names, you’ve admitted that you can’t defend your position. Eric proves time and time and time again that he can’t defend his position. This is nothing new.

…What is this, but a big article full of liberal bashing. That proves that you either have no Logos argument toward the war, or you are an ignorant liberal basher.

…You don’t seem capable of honesty? Are you?

…I don’t think you’re capable of aknowledging the truth. I think hateful spin and vicious lies is all your good for.

…The whining, sniveling tone of the article unintentionally makes a good point.

…As my grandfather told me, when you start calling someone names, you’ve admitted that you can’t defend your position. Eric proves time and time and time again that he can’t defend his position. This is nothing new.

I am amazed. What derogatory labels? What name calling? What hateful spin and vicious lies? Did any of you read the post at all, or did you just read the title?

I merely stated my observation that the liberal position on Iraq is wrong. It’s my opinion folks! I guess it hits too close to home?

phx8,

It’s a Republican War. Your people are Commander in Chief, in control of Senate & Congress, & effectively in control of the Supreme Court. Sorry guy. Yours to win or lose. Own it.

I agree fully. We own it. It’s Bush’s war. The left has no part in the liberation of 50 million people. Nor does the left have any part in any long term strategy to bring freedom, liberty, and stability to the middle east.

The whining, sniveling tone of the article unintentionally makes a good point.

The War in Iraq is a matter of politics for the US. It’s not a matter of survival, or national security. Mostly, it’s just a question of whether a victory can be claimed by Republicans, or a defeat blamed on Democrats. Nothing significant will be lost if the War in Iraq goes south for us.

I’m glad you agree then that, militarily, Iraq is not a losing situation. If that is so, the question remains: Why is it being painted that way by Democrats and the left?

Nothing significant will be lost if the War in Iraq goes south for us.

Unless it is in fact the act of retreat that encourages terrorism more than anything else.

If any war were truly a matter of national security, it would be over in a day. If it were truly important, we’d hold a draft, and end it in months. But for the Bush administration, it’s all about politics, about the accumulation of power and doling out of rewards. A draft would be unpopular.

An entirely fallacious argument. Iraq requires a draft? I can accept the argument that more troops would be beneficial, but the draft argument is simply part of the left’s ‘Vietnam Strategy’. Why is it important to you for the war to be unpopular? This is precisely what I am talking about.

When I say, ‘We can win this’. The left says it’s already lost. The truth is that it is being won. After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Posted by: esimonson at December 6, 2005 3:20 AM
Comment #99239

Jayjay,
“Where are you right wingers finding these poll numbers at? The only poll that ranks Dems below Repubs is the Harris Poll, and that is only by one point. Percent of respondants who disapprove of the job congress is doing by party.”


Try this poll on for size:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745_pf.html

“Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale…Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”


And, as far as the polls about congress and where they sit with the people:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967566

“MR. RUSSERT: The other issue that the Republicans still have the upper hand with Democrats, strong moral values; 35 percent see the Republicans are better on that issue. Only 18 percent of Democrats. “

“MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about the Democrats and some of the polling data. Congressional Democrats have the same priorities as you: yes, 26 percent; no, 54 percent. So the Democrats aren’t perceived as the answer. And look at this, Chairman Dean. We asked independent voters: Do you believe that Democrats have a clear message, a vision for the future? Fifty-two percent of independent swing voters say no. One in four Democrats say you have no clear vision, no agenda, no clear message.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 7:06 AM
Comment #99257

Eric,

I am amazed. What derogatory labels? What name calling? What hateful spin and vicious lies? Did any of you read the post at all, or did you just read the title?

Here’s hateful spin and a vicious lie:
The left is not only not eager for victory, but are instead desperately assuring themselves we will be defeated.

Saying that we want to lose in Iraq, and that we want things to go badly, is the worst kind of hate and disdain.
Here’s another one:
Unfortunately, most Democrats are waging a completely different war. One that demands we hand the enemy a victory they couldn’t win militarily, but can claim nonetheless.

Most Democrats are for staying in Iraq until the job is done, and practically no one voted for that fake, childish resolution to pull out now (Nothing like a republican temper tantrum to cut off adult discussion of options). So your assertion that most Democrats are for “surrender” is a lie. It’s an obvious lie.

I merely stated my observation that the liberal position on Iraq is wrong. It’s my opinion folks! I guess it hits too close to home?
It’s my opinion that conservatives love to send other people’s kids off to die to score political points. Disagree? Well, I guess I just hit too close to home. Posted by: Brian Poole at December 6, 2005 9:39 AM
Comment #99270

Brian,
“It’s my opinion that conservatives love to send other people’s kids off to die to score political points. Disagree? Well, I guess I just hit too close to home.”

Well, I disagree with your opinion; I believe conservatives have a better understanding how to combat the enemy, and yes that means war. The libs have dropped the ball bigtime in that category and the American voters know that; that’s why the dems aren’t to be trusted with National Security.

I (also) believe you cannot support the troops without supporting the war.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #99274

Why is being opposed to the war considered a Democrats only position. I was raised in a Republican family, most of whom supported Bush for election/re-election. None of them, not even my far right father, now agree with the President on this war. The Reich (oops, Right) insists that the Democrats are the problem. Actually, the problem is the American people who are awakening to find themselves in a horrible nightmare. The nightmare includes the war, the economy (oh, someone is making money but noone I know), morals (most Americans are not moralists, most believe in live and let live), and separation of church and state. Hitler said in Mein Kampf, “The best way to control the people is to first convince them they are free.”

As for our nation founding democracy around the world, what they forget is that democracy evolved over 800 years in the West. The Magna Carte first wrote into law the concept of representative democracy and it took another 500 years for a country to come along and implement the beliefs. Democracy is not part of the Middle East’s history. Expecting them to accept a system we only adopted 200 years ago is quite naive.

Posted by: Bill at December 6, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #99277

Rahdigly,
I don’t really believe that

conservatives love to send other people’s kids off to die to score political points.
It was an example of the kinds of emotional manipulation and poor logic that Eric uses to make his points. I personally don’t have the kind of hatred for my fellow Americans that would allow me to actually believe that they want the country or our soldiers damaged to score political points.

Posted by: Brian Poole at December 6, 2005 11:29 AM
Comment #99284

Is anyone here familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? It says that a person has to satisfy their most basic needs (food, shelter, warmth, personal safety, etc.) before addressing any higher level needs (companionship, love, self-respect, etc.).

Maslow’s needs hierarchy is applicable at national levels, too. When applied to Iraq, it predicts that democracy in Iraq cannot take hold until the Iraqis’ more basic needs for food, water, personal safety, etc, are satisfied. So the elections in Iraq don’t mean shit.

We need to address the Iraqis’ need for food, water, electricity, and personal safety BEFORE we can hope for any sort of stable democracy. All nation-building efforts are doomed until we learn this lesson.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 6, 2005 11:49 AM
Comment #99289

Brian,

I understand that you were saying that to retort someone else’s logic. I do feel that there are certain people in this country that have hatred for the President that they feel losing in Iraq will be enough so they can impeach the Prez. Now, I’m not going to call out names; we all know exactly who they are (and they know who they are), it’s a case of “if the shoe fits”.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 12:07 PM
Comment #99292

rahdigly,

Look, I think polls are worthless, but if you want to argue about it, ok. The only reason I brought it up was because scolex, stated that the Repubs were leading in job approval ratings. That is not true, and even the MSNBC poll you point to gives the Democrats the lead. The poll you picked out at MSNBC was about morality not job approval. That exact same MSNBC webpage you point to also had this to say:

And look at these numbers. This is what the voters say. Preference for 2006 congressional candidates, Republican-controlled Congress, 37; Democrats, 48. Our congressional Republicans, “Do they have the same priorities as you for the country?” Same priorities, yes, 24; no, 58. “In which issues do you prefer the Democrats over the Republicans?” Environment, gas prices, health care, Social Security, education, reducing deficits, energy policy, economy, government spending, taxes, trade issues, foreign policy, abortion, immigration, ethics in government, and Iraq—16 of the 19 issues we presented to the people, they chose the Democrats.

So people favor Democrats on 16 issues and Republicans on 3 issue. Your other source was not about job approval, it was about troop morale. Keep on diggin.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 12:14 PM
Comment #99298

Jayjay,

I’m certainly not “digging” with the polls; and like you, I don’t put much stock in them either. Since you brought up the polls, I threw one out there that would hit home with many of us. The war is paramount importance to many, and that’s a poll I’m interested in.

As far as the Tim Russert quotes, that was his polls he was reading to Howard Dean and Dean struggled with them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967566

“Do you believe that Democrats have a clear message, a vision for the future? Fifty-two percent of independent swing voters say no. One in four Democrats say you have no clear vision, no agenda, no clear message. Joe Trippi, your former campaign manager said, “Obviously, the results” from Election Night “are great for us Democrats. But given the GOP’s problems, the tightness of the results suggest that people aren’t happy with either party right now. Democrats have got to push an alternative agenda.”

DR. DEAN: We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that’ll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that’s a pretty good agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?

DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don’t control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the ‘06 elections.

MR. RUSSERT: But there’s no Democratic plan on Social Security. There’s no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There’s no specifics. They say, “Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone,” but there’s no plan how to pay for it.

DR. DEAN: Right now it’s not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It’s our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that’s what we’re going to do. We’re doing our best. Look at the trouble they’re having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there’s still a few moderate Republicans left who don’t think it’s OK to cut school lunch programs, who don’t think it’s OK to do some of the appalling things that they’re doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can’t go to law school. We’re going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, “Trust us, the other guy’s no good. We’ll do better, but we’re not going to tell you specifically how we’re going to deal with Iraq.”

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT: When’s the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We’re going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.”


That’s what the trusty polls indicate, they say that the dems are ahead; however, the dems don’t have a plan and the leader of the party has no clue, about anything. Yikes! That’s scary!!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 12:33 PM
Comment #99302
That’s what the trusty polls indicate, they say that the dems are ahead; however, the dems don’t have a plan and the leader of the party has no clue, about anything. Yikes! That’s scary!!

This is a different argument than the original reason for citing polls (brought up by scolex). The argument you are making, about the dems lacking a plan and having a poor leader, I agree with. I don’t understand what is happening at the DNC. The Repubs have handed the DNC opportunity after opportunity to make a stand on the issues, but all we get is this divide within the party. They have no unified voice. However I think both parties are worthless. Whats coming from he Dems is no more scary than what’s coming from the Repubs!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #99306

Jayjay,

“This is a different argument than the original reason for citing polls (brought up by scolex). The argument you are making, about the dems lacking a plan and having a poor leader, I agree with. I don’t understand what is happening at the DNC. The Repubs have handed the DNC opportunity after opportunity to make a stand on the issues, but all we get is this divide within the party. They have no unified voice. However I think both parties are worthless. Whats coming from he Dems is no more scary than what’s coming from the Repubs!”

I concur! The Repubs are better than the Dems; however, that’s not saying much, it’s just picking the lesser of two evils. They both don’t represent “We the people anymore”.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 12:49 PM
Comment #99317

rahdigly,

Imo, the lesser of these two evils would have to be the Dems, the direction the Repubs are taking the country scares the shit out of me. I think the Dems have the most potential to change and turn things around. The first thing they need to do is to demote Dean. I think Dean has his place within the DNC (fund raising) but it is not as it’s leader. They need a leader that can get the party back in order. Someone like Mark Warner, who’s state of Virginia, under his watch, was named the best managed in the country. The Dems need organization, if that happens (I’m not holding my breath) then they will have no problem sailing to control congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Dean’s chaos obviously is not moving the party in that direction.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #99320

Jayjay,

“Imo, the lesser of these two evils would have to be the Dems, the direction the Repubs are taking the country scares the shit out of me. I think the Dems have the most potential to change and turn things around.”

How can you say the lesser of two evils is the dems when you said: “I don’t understand what is happening at the DNC. The Repubs have handed the DNC opportunity after opportunity to make a stand on the issues, but all we get is this divide within the party. They have no unified voice. However I think both parties are worthless. Whats coming from he Dems is no more scary than what’s coming from the Repubs!”

Not having an agenda and not being able to pick up where the repubs have dropped the ball, is definitely the greater of two evils. Do you honestly think that Amerericans trust the DNP with National Security in this country? I don’t, and last years election certainly proved this point, as well. The lesser of two evils were certainly with the Repubs in 2004, and will continue to be as long as the Dems side with “cut and run” or “pulling our troops out” with this war.


BTW, what does “IMO” stand for?

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #99328
BTW, what does “IMO” stand for?

rahdigly,

In my opinion.

The other part, I agree with. That’s why I said if they turn things around. I believe the Dems are the lesser of two evils because they have the potential to turn it around, not because they have a plan to pick up the ball the Republican’s dropped. Republican’s are unwilling or don’t know how to get the ball back in their court.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 1:48 PM
Comment #99335

Jayjay,

“Republican’s are unwilling or don’t know how to get the ball back in their court.”


Well, that’s were you and I differ. I believe it’s the dems that are the ones who are the greater of two evils; b/c they don’t have any plans or agendas and all they say is that the other party is wrong, without offering any solutions. To me, that’s no different than grammar and high school level thinking and these politicians are supposed to be adults.

The post 9/11 world is a very dangerous world to live in, not to mention lead in. So, to hand over national security to a party that has no agenda is just flat out ludicrous. This is my opinion of course, I appreciate you giving me yours in a spirited debate.

Also, thanks for decoding the “Imo”, I’m still getting used to the cyberspace lingo.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #99360

Brian,

Saying that we want to lose in Iraq, and that we want things to go badly, is the worst kind of hate and disdain.

More troops? Please. That’s on par with the demand for a draft.

When democrats don’t want something they come out against it. Tax cuts. Social Security Reform. Privatization. The Iraq War. Democrats and the left are against these things. Do they want tax cuts to succeed or do they predict failure of tax cuts? Do they want the Iraq War to succeed, or do they predict the failure of the Iraq War?

Dean: U.S. can’t win Iraq war

You cannot have it both ways, Brian. To want something to succeed, you have to support it. Not supporting it, is wanting it to fail.

Who’s calling for a draft all the time? Democrats and Liberals. Why would you call for a draft on the basis that it will weaken support for the war? Does wanting support to weaken for the war amount to wanting the policy to fail?

There is no hate and disdain on my part. I am telling you the facts as I see them. You on the other hand are engaging in a personal attack to deflect from this truth.

Support the troops but not the war? Doesn’t that mean that you don’t want the mission to succeed? Somehow you want the troops to fail in their mission, but you still support the troops?!

Posted by: esimonson at December 6, 2005 3:04 PM
Comment #99365

Hi esimonson,

“Not supporting it, is wanting it to fail.”

Did you support every foriegn policy of Clinton’s? If not then, going by your “logic” you wanted America to fail.

“”I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now.”-Tom Delay

“You can support the troops but not the president.” — Representative Tom DeLay


Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come
home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” — Sean Hannity


“President (…) is once again releasing American military might on a
foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has
yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not
informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from
home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” — Senator Rick Santorum

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is.” — President George W. Bush, while Governor Bush of Texas

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #99376

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now.”-Tom Delay

“You can support the troops but not the president.” — Representative Tom DeLay”
______________________________________


This goes back to my theme which is, you can disagree with the President, not hate him. Having a debate in congress (which Delay was doing) and calling for pullout of troops three weeks before the Iraqis are going to have a third (Historic) election in a year w/ a newly drafted Constitution, are two separte things. Also, to say the Prez lied about intel, when three separate (bi-partisan) commissions already exonerated Bush and his administration, is hating as well.

Rahdigly 3 Liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 6, 2005 3:35 PM
Comment #99396

Hi Rahdigly,

“Also, to say the Prez lied about intel, when three separate (bi-partisan) commissions already exonerated Bush and his administration, is hating as well.”

Bush did lie about specific intelligence. Bush was not exonerated for lying about specific intelligence.

You are spinning out of control here rahdigly.

“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?
All of the backup information supporting these questions is in our article. Harry Reid has taken the first important step in finally getting to the bottom of things. Now it’s time to demand answers.”


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:10 PM
Comment #99397

Hi Rahdigly,

“Rahdigly 3 Liberals 0”

I’m going to ask again for examples of when you’ve shown me to be wrong.

Up until now you’ve shown yourself a real wimp here Rahdigly. Can you back up your nonsense or not?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #99405

eric,

Attack liberals. That’s all you ever do in ANY post. You seem to be consumed with hatred for them. You and some others (and they know who they are) are proving my contention that the far Right hates Americans first. I think the Right is now so consumed with hatred for all things liberal that it will go to ANY means to destroy liberalism, no matter how much damage it does to the country.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 6, 2005 5:35 PM
Comment #99432

Eric,
“It’s Bush’s war. The left has no part in the liberation of 50 million people. Nor does the left have any part in any long term strategy to bring freedom, liberty, and stability to the middle east.”

Confusion. You’re original article & my first comment concern Iraq. When you refer to the “liberaton of 50 million people,” you must be referring to Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Most people agree about Afghanistan, regardless of political persuasion.

I actually like what Bush says about long-term plans for bringing liberty to the Middle East. It’s the disparity between words and deeds I find so unacceptable. Bringing liberty to the Middle East through military conquest is an insanely bad idea.

Is Iraq a losing situation? Yes. Is it possible to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Sure. But if you don’t change course, you end up where you are headed. This is a slow motion bus(h) crash. It just keeps getting uglier.

“Unless it is in fact the act of retreat that encourages terrorism more than anything else.”
Perhaps. Hard to see how any more encouragement could be provided to terrorists than what we’ve already done.

About the draft. I keep seeing certain Dems & moderates advocate more ‘boots on the ground.’ Baloney. We’re maxed out as it is. That’s just Dems trying to sound tough. They’re scared witless of being perceived as ‘soft on defense.’
Where are these troops supposed to come from? Some speculate that Murtha represents generals from the Pentagon who believe the military cannot support current troop level much longer.
Furthermore, I think the idea of putting ‘more boots on the ground’ is wrong in the first place. To my thinking, that puts more targets on the ground, more reasons for the locals to become resentful & angry, more obvious symbols of a foreign armed occupation. That’s not a knock on our troops. That’s just the nature of the beast. We’re trying to win the war by doing more of the same- more troops, more bomb runs, more raids; all in the name of creating more peace.


Posted by: phx8 at December 6, 2005 6:37 PM
Comment #99435

Eric,

You said:

More troops? Please. That’s on par with the demand for a draft.

First, that does nothing to adress the point I made, which is that you lied and slandered liberals. Second, thinking more troops are necessary does not mean demanding a draft. Third, liberals have not been demanding a draft. Fourth, even if we did think a draft would be a good idea, it would not mean we want to lose. I don’t know why you’re bringing in a draft here, except to muddy the waters to hide your lies and spin.

Who’s calling for a draft all the time? Democrats and Liberals
No we’re not! Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Please prove to me that democrats and liberals are constantly calling for a draft, or I will consider this another lie.
Do they want the Iraq War to succeed, or do they predict the failure of the Iraq War? You cannot have it both ways, Brian. To want something to succeed, you have to support it. Not supporting it, is wanting it to fail.

This is another example of pseudo-logic. Just because you think something is a bad idea doesn’t mean you want it to fail. I was against the war. I thought it was a terrible idea. Once we went in, however, we needed to win, something which president Bush seems unable to manage.
An example. Before the report from our WMD investigators came out, I was literally praying that we would find some, just so that we could maintain a shred of credibility after insulting pretty much the entire world. I was hoping with all my heart to be wrong. But guess what.
President Bush doesn’t even know what winning means. I asked you what your definition of winning is, but you ignored it to make more attacks.

Support the troops but not the war? Doesn’t that mean that you don’t want the mission to succeed? Somehow you want the troops to fail in their mission, but you still support the troops?!

No one wants the truth to fail in their mission. The only ones who said anything about anyone wanting to troops to fail are the righties, bashing the liberals. Why can’t you get this? THE LEFT DOES NOT WANT THE WAR TO FAIL! A major reason the left is angry is because president Bush has allowed it to get to the point where we might fail! Talking about conditions for victory does not mean failure. Saying that the war was a bad idea is not saying that we want it to fail. Even saying, as some have, that we can’t win is not wanting it to fail, just being upset about the decisions that made it that way.

What do you think is more damaging to troop morale? Murtha saying, look, we’ve done everything we came there to do, let’s have the elections and go home; or Rush Limbaugh screaming lies and distortions every day about how half the country wants them to fail? You’re just wrong, Eric. Your premises are flawed, your logic is horrible, and you are using those premises and faulty logic to engender hate and divide people. You do it over and over again, all the time thinking you’re serving some rightous cause. It’s just sad.

Posted by: Brian Poole at December 6, 2005 6:56 PM
Comment #99437

“No one wants the truth to fail”, above, should be “no one wants the troops to fail”

Posted by: Brian Poole at December 6, 2005 7:16 PM
Comment #99440

Hi Brian,

“Just because you think something is a bad idea doesn’t mean you want it to fail.”

In order for me to have wanted our mission in Iraq to fail I would have, according to basic logic, wanted to go into Iraq in the first place.

I was against going into Iraq therefore I was against failure in Iraq.

Those who say “stay the course” are the ones who favor failure in Iraq.

Those of us who thought it was a bad idea are being blamed by the right for it being a bad idea.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 7:24 PM
Comment #99444

Louis,
That’s hilarious! Well said! Next year will be interesting. When we withdraw from Iraq, will the Neocons declare victory? My bet is we’ll declare victory, victory, glorious victory. Really, it would be stupid not to declare victory. Of course, that doesn’t mean a victory has actually been won. There will be some very, very ugly moments these next few months, as the Neocons come face to face with the horrible realization they have replaced the dictator Saddam Hussein with a Shia government allied with Iran.

I was opposed in the first place. I was opposed as US troops entered Bagdhad in apparent victory. I said, “I support the troops. Get them out NOW!” And it wasn’t because of WMD’s or whatever. It was simply a terrible idea, removing the repressive government from an almost ungovernable nation. We’re finding out why.

Posted by: phx8 at December 6, 2005 7:45 PM
Comment #99461

Hi phx8,

I meant to add “I was against failure in Iraq therefore I was against going into Iraq” to “I was against going into Iraq therefore I was against failure in Iraq.”

I don’t think we have any valid options in Iraq. Leaving or staying are both almost certain to go very badly for us.

This situation (no valid options) was obvious to many, including me, before we went in. It boggles the mind that the neocons STILL can’t see it…..although I guess if they did see it they’d cease to be neocons.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:31 PM
Comment #99463
Attack liberals. That’s all you ever do in ANY post. You seem to be consumed with hatred for them. You and some others (and they know who they are) are proving my contention that the far Right hates Americans first. I think the Right is now so consumed with hatred for all things liberal that it will go to ANY means to destroy liberalism, no matter how much damage it does to the country.

ElliottBay,

This is a good example of what is going so wrong in this country. Polarization. The right wing charges we hate liberals. The left wing charges we hate conservatives. Well guess what folks? That is never going to change. The left and right have very different ideas on how to reach the same end. Instead of concentration on our differences, which is counterproductive and achieves nothing, why don’t we try to figure out what we have in common?

There will always be things that we are not willing to compromising on, as it should be, but shouldn’t we be talking about the things we are willing to compromise on? I have rarely seen anyone here on the extreme left or extreme right give an inch on anything. Instead it turns into bashing which doesn’t help anything. I suspect the same thing is happening in Washington.

If we want to help our troops and America we, and Washington, need to abandon the rhetoric and propaganda. Bring forth ideas based on truth, then let’s debate them like adults and see what we agree on.s Then build on those commonalities.

If we don’t then we are all guilty of the bashing coming from both sides.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 8:42 PM
Comment #99577

LouisXIV,

Did you support every foriegn policy of Clinton’s? If not then, going by your “logic” you wanted America to fail.

Good examples of Republicans opposing war. I wish to god that the left would follow their example.

Let’s remember that Clinton went to congress a day before he started bombing. Republicans brought up their objections. Clinton went to war anyway— without UN approval or so much as a resolution. Republicans by and large shut up once military operations were well under way and did not continually call it a failure over and over. They did not call Milosovich a freedom fighter. They did not vote for the ‘$87 billion dollars before they voted against it’, ie refuse to fund the war. They got behind the mission once the President put the troops in it.

And we are still in Bosnia!!!

But more to the point, when you want something to succeed, (even though you may have disagreed with getting in there), you support the mission. What is the meaning of wanting something to succeed otherwise?

Posted by: esimonson at December 7, 2005 3:40 AM
Comment #99588

LouisXIV,

Bush did lie about specific intelligence. Bush was not exonerated for lying about specific intelligence.

The spin. The spin. For this to be true the meaning of the word ‘lie’ has to be redefined and not only that, but, it must only apply in this redefinition to one person, George W. Bush. Everyone else, such as the entire Clinton Administration was just mistaken when they said Saddam would surely strike again with WMD.

Sadly Louis, you need to step back a bit and get some perspective on this.


ElliotBay,

Attack liberals. That’s all you ever do in ANY post.

I am so sorry, Elliot. I don’t know what I was thinking. Honestly, to be making political ‘attacks’ on a blog like this is unconscionable. To take actual quotes of liberals and attach some sort of criticism to them is beyond the pale. From now on, I promise to never ‘attack’ a liberal ever ever again.

In fact, I think that it would be a good idea in this reformation process if I take my cue from the peace loving and tenderhearted left. So from here on in I will emulate the blue column of this blog in formulating my posts. Because I know that Democrats and liberals never ‘attack’ anyone, I should be safe if I follow the examples of other liberals in the content, attitude, and character of their criticism of Bush.

You seem to be consumed with hatred for them. You and some others (and they know who they are) are proving my contention that the far Right hates Americans first. I think the Right is now so consumed with hatred for all things liberal that it will go to ANY means to destroy liberalism, no matter how much damage it does to the country.

Let me put your mind at ease, I feel no hatred. But yes, I do want to defeat liberalism in general. Liberalism, progressivism, the idea that the state should provide for my every need and should have the ability to control all economic aspects of life. Egalitarianism should be opposed for what it is, a tool for dictatorship. Whatever you want to call it, communism, socialism, communalism, cooperativism as opposed to ‘competition’… it’s all generally a bad set of ideas. For the reason that whenever they are put into practice bad things happen.

I do find it interesting that any opposition to your beliefs is translated into hatred. I don’t think I’ve ever made a statement exhibiting hatred here on watchblog. Maybe hatred is the new racism? I’m conservative therefore I hate?

No, I feel the same opposition to many of the things said about conservatives. Is it hatred to call Republicans spiteful and mean? To say Republicans are trying to starve seniors and children because they want to slow the amount of a budget increase?

Posted by: esimonson at December 7, 2005 4:04 AM
Comment #99655
I am so sorry, Elliot. I don’t know what I was thinking. Honestly, to be making political ‘attacks’ on a blog like this is unconscionable. To take actual quotes of liberals and attach some sort of criticism to them is beyond the pale. From now on, I promise to never ‘attack’ a liberal ever ever again.

If only that’s what you did. If only “some sort of criticism” were an accurate description of the distortions, intentional omissions, illogical comparisons, and bile you produce with your every post.

I don’t think I’ve ever made a statement exhibiting hatred here on watchblog. Maybe hatred is the new racism? I’m conservative therefore I hate?

Don’t play such a coy victim. Your statements are filled with sufficient illogical vitril to betray the hatred you seem to try to hide from yourself.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 7, 2005 8:38 AM
Comment #99763

The difference between the left and the right is that the left usually confines their attacks to the Bush administration, and confines the attacks to disagreements over Bush’s policies. Note that I said “usually”.

The Right on the other hand usually attacks the ENTIRE left. And those attacks are based on lies - ‘the left wants America to lose the war on terror’ is the most current lie. Your own statements associating liberals with communists is another.

And eric, if you don’t think you’re filled with hate, I think you’re lying to yourself.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 7, 2005 11:37 AM
Comment #99815

LawnBoy, ElliotBay,

If only that’s what you did. If only “some sort of criticism” were an accurate description of the distortions, intentional omissions, illogical comparisons, and bile you produce with your every post.

I think your confusing the fact that I am responding to the lies and distortions put forward by the left.

Don’t play such a coy victim. Your statements are filled with sufficient illogical vitril to betray the hatred you seem to try to hide from yourself.

****

The difference between the left and the right is that the left usually confines their attacks to the Bush administration, and confines the attacks to disagreements over Bush’s policies. Note that I said “usually”.

The Right on the other hand usually attacks the ENTIRE left. And those attacks are based on lies - ‘the left wants America to lose the war on terror’ is the most current lie. Your own statements associating liberals with communists is another.

And eric, if you don’t think you’re filled with hate, I think you’re lying to yourself.

Chancellor Palpatine… uh, I mean ‘Mr. Rove’, says I have enormous potential.

Posted by: esimonson at December 7, 2005 1:46 PM
Comment #99816
I think your confusing the fact that I am responding to the lies and distortions put forward by the left.

If I tell you that’s not the problem, will you take an honest look at your words?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 7, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #99998

Hi esimonson,

“For this to be true the meaning of the word ‘lie’ has to be redefined and not only that, but, it must only apply in this redefinition to one person, George W. Bush. Everyone else, such as the entire Clinton Administration was just mistaken when they said Saddam would surely strike again with WMD.”

You are spinning out of control here. I SAID THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT SPECIFIC INTELLIGENGE.

Can you comprehend this obvious and important point esimonson? BUSH LIED ABOUT THE ALUMINUM TUBES. CLINTON DIDN’T LIE ABOUT THE ALUMINUM TUBES. BUSH LIED ABOUT THE UNMANED DRONES. CLINTON DIDN’T LIE ABOUT THE UNMANED DRONES. BUSH LIED ABOUT SADDAM BEING ABLE TO ATTACK US IN 45 MINUTES. CLINTON DIDN’T LIE ABOUT SADDAM BEING ABLE TO ATTACK US IN 45 MINUTES.

You aren’t willing to aknowledge the truth are you? You engage in all spin all the time don’t you?

“They got behind the mission once the President put the troops in it.”

Once again the truth gives you fits. I quoted examples of Republicans who didn’t get behind the mission one the President put the troops in it.

Do you actually believe what Rush Hannity says? You seem to be an extremely gullible fellow when it comes to right wing spin.





Posted by: LouisXIV at December 7, 2005 9:37 PM
Comment #100879

Eric,

Elliot is right. The left is quite specific about who it’s anger is aimmed at.

You and your rightist comrades, on the other hand, paint anyone that questions your agenda with a vitriolic claim of traitor, or terrorist sympathizer.

Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2005 11:27 AM
Comment #102811

Brian,

I am a liberal and am ashamed to say that he is right about the draft. Both bills introduced into the Congress have been from Democrats. I think his mistake is assuming that the words “liberal” and Democrats” are synonomous. They are not! I am a proud liberal and despise the Demos for introducing a draft. So, as it turns out, you are both right.

Posted by: Bill at December 15, 2005 1:26 PM
Post a comment