A Howard Dean Comment and a Little bit More.

Something has been tickling at the back of mind all week about the Howard Dean this is a war we can not win comment, and I just put my finger on it.

Where did he come out and say this? San Antonio, Texas that is where.

I used to live in Texas, let me tell you something it just is not smart to say something like that there. In a State that many think of as a country unto its own, sending a message that anyone, anywhere, can kick your butt, it is just not part of the mind-set.

If Howard Dean wanted to go out and say what he said, would it not of been better received in San Francisco, perhaps Portland? How about somewhere in the North East?

I can not think of a worse place to say something like that than Texas. Cut and run may be popular in some parts of the country but I can assure you Texas aint one of them. Ever seen a gun-rack on the back of a tricycle, you may see exacly that in Texas.

Yesterday it was reported that Democratic North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy came out and sent a message to Howard Dean. That message, "shut up". Earlier in the week Democratic Congressman from Georgia Jim Marshall said of Dean, "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful"

The New York Times reported there is all kinds of internal back biting against Joe Lieberman for the more hawkish stance he is taking on the war from his party leadership. Dean's own brother is gathering signature for his group, Democracy for America, for a letter critical of Lieberman.

Earlier this week, Code Pink came out and said they are going to bird-dog Hillary Clinton for her war stance.

So what do we have here? We have a party Chairman without a sense of place or time telling a Texas audience a bunch of middle east types are going to kick our butts, not a smart move. We have hawkish Democrats who are coming under attack from party leaders, apparently there is only one opinion allowed. We have Democratic representatives being critical of the direction and voice of their party and my guess is this is the first many of you have heard about it. Meanwhile we have Rep Murtha who can not change his tie without it making CNN.

The left seems to think they have the next two elections already won. Go ahead keep acting like you are now, I like the chances of the GOP just fine.

Posted by RealDebate at December 10, 2005 10:01 AM
Comments
Comment #100870

Hitting the nail on the head once again RD. The Dem Party is on the verge of implosion. 2006 will see Iraq become stabilized with their own representational government and military and our troops gradually heading home and what will the Dems be doing then? Of course they will be saying that they voted for the war and supported it all along. They have no shame.

Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2005 10:50 AM
Comment #100872

RD,

This article is a joke, right?

It seems that those of the GOP have such a short sense of history.

Where was the outrage from the Republicans when Bush said that the “war on terror” pobably wasn’t winable?

Dean is such an easy target. He says things that are outrageous, and the right responds with outrage.
Gee, how predictable.

Jay,

“Of course they will be saying that they voted for the war and supported it all along. They have no shame.”

It would seem that there is plenty of shame to go around, and not just for the left.

Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2005 11:05 AM
Comment #100884

Dr. Dean should go back to bandages and bedpans.

Posted by: tomh at December 10, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #100892

Hi RealDebate,

Dean frequently says dumb things.

The war in Iraq doesn’t seem winnable though. The Iraqi government is full of terrorists.

It looks like it’s a question of which terrorists win in Iraq not whether terrorists will win. It looks like the Shiite terrorists associated with the government will win.

Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq. Dean is right about things being really bad there.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 10, 2005 11:58 AM
Comment #100895

“The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” said Hagel. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq,” said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050619/pl_afp/usiraqpoliticshagel_050619194125

“The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq,”

Did you criticize Hagel for saying we’re losing or is it different when a Republican says it?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 10, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #100898

I find it quite interesting after the Dems paint the Reps as a “culture of corruption” 3 senior Dems get the final report that was used to indict Abramhoff etc.and lynch DeLay by inference is suddenly forbidden to be released. The independent Counsels invetigation is to be closed down and release of the report is barred. Don’t Americans have a right to see the huge number of Dems who also received campaign contributions from the very same tribes that brought these “corrupt” Reps? The language to bar release of this final report was introduced and inserted by none other than John Kerry, Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan. hmmm. Use the ‘paint’ brush on the Reps. then throw the dirty ‘brush’ away?

Posted by: pige at December 10, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #100903

RD,

Well, It does show a bit of strength to go to the heart of the presidents following and state that fact, doesnt it, Might not be bright, but at least now it is out there in your back yard. So, Dean has done and said some dumb things. but at least every time he speaks it is a differnet thought. How often have we heard anything new from this administration. The president only speaks to screened military audiences, never a truly PUBLIC forum. If he and the right is so correct and they have all the information why is the topic of choice for your party whether it is correct or not to say happy holidays vs chritmas? The art of compromise is lost in this nation and it was one of the main components of our government. and i’d rather see a bow rack on a trike!

Posted by: Thomas G at December 10, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #100907

This seems to just be a rambling list of hype and opinion without much fact…

—-
I can not think of a worse place to say something like that than Texas. Cut and run may be popular in some parts of the country but I can assure you Texas aint one of them. Ever seen a gun-rack on the back of a tricycle, you may see exacly that in Texas.
—-

One - you seem to suggest that you should only make comments that make your audience happy. I happen to think that people should be told the truth, and those who violently oppose the truth should be told the truth as loudly as possible. Do you think Dean (or any other public figure) should only make statements to friendly audiences?

Two - you seem to think that Dean is crazy, yet you seem to support your ideas by present people with gun racks on their tricycles. Who’s crazy - the Texan Gun Totting Toddler or Dean? Calling someone crazy because crazy people disagree with them hardly seems logical.

Three - you act as though Dean is the only person making this statement about Iraq.

Four - you seem to want to connect the statement that the war in Iraq is unwinnable with ‘cutting and running’. That’s just boneheaded logic. No one is cutting and running, no matter how many times you say that they are. ‘Cutting and running’ is retreating during the heat of a battle. Seeing that the current tactics are not working is a logical assessment of the situation. Does ‘logical assessment’ = ‘cowardice’ in your book?

Five - What is your issue with Murtha? I know how much your party hates war heroes who disagree with them, but what does his tie have to do with anything? Or his exposure in the media?

Six - What is your problem with Code Pink? Women who oppose war… seems like a logical stance to me. Why should they not pressure their representatives to act as they see fit? They also target every representative in DC, why do you only focus on Hilary?

Seven - “The New York Times reported there is all kinds of internal back biting against Joe Lieberman for the more hawkish stance he is taking on the war from his party leadership. Dean’s own brother is gathering signature for his group, Democracy for America, for a letter critical of Lieberman.” Sounds very similar to Bush and McCain’s disagreements. I happen to prefer open discussion and freedom to present your true feeling on an issue. Who says that a political party can not have varying point of views on any given topic?

Posted by: tony at December 10, 2005 12:30 PM
Comment #100910

—-
I find it quite interesting after the Dems paint the Reps as a “culture of corruption” 3 senior Dems get the final report that was used to indict Abramhoff etc.and lynch DeLay by inference is suddenly forbidden to be released.
—-

Shouldn’t we focus on getting each and every representative involved with this (and every other illegal or unethical action) out of office? Shouldn’t our first question always be: “Is this what we want our elected officials to be doing?” rather than “What party are you in?” I am a Dem by default, but those Dems who break laws or ethics (I feel) should be given double the punishment of the Reps guilty of the same crime. Both did wrong, but the Dem represents me and had the benefit of my trust.

Posted by: tony at December 10, 2005 12:40 PM
Comment #100911

The war against evil is never “winnable” (despite very recent pro-Narnia Hollywood propaganda to the contrary.) At best we reach a kind of affordable stalemate. To defeat Naziism we had to ally with Stalinism, then after we won we immediately found out that Hollywood was infected with people who truly did think that Uncle Joe was a folk hero, despite the fact that his holocaust against his own people butchered more innocents than Hitler did Jews. It was all so quiet in Siberia, you see. People were worked to death in the snow because they protested having their grain stolen by the state,and nobody in some circles in the West cared—but did they carry on about Joe McCarthy’s clumsy attempts to inform the American people that the most genocidal ideology in history still had strong, unapologetic, and sincere adherents in our own land!

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 10, 2005 12:47 PM
Comment #100926

Realdebate,

Your username doesn’t square with your post. If this were a real debate you would be engage the position that the war isn’t winnable with some facts showing it is. So what that Dean said the war is not winnable in Texas? He’s saying what he believes. Shouldn’t he do that? Regardless of where he is? It doesn’t bother me there are democrats that have differing opinions on Iraq. What does bother me is that the Republican party has no room in it for these differences. You are either “with us” or “against us”.

No one would argue that mistakes haven’t been made in this war, that we didn’t send in enough troops to begin with, that we erroneously assumed we’d be hailed as heros instead of the enemy. In hindsight, shouldn’t the administration have listened to some of its generals and security advisors recommendations for providing more troops, etc. at the outset of the war?

There is a culture of arrogance within this administration preventing the basic discourse needed for effective planning. Nothing could hurt the troops more than this culture of “You got something to say? Well, shut up.” If you cannot answer basic questions, such as “Why do you think this war can be won”? You shouldn’t support it. At the least, please stop contributing to war’s problems by denouncing everyone and anyone who has a criticism.

“Critique the message, not the messenger” doesn’t just apply to our community but to how we engage the issues.

Posted by: Max at December 10, 2005 1:32 PM
Comment #100932

RealDebate,

At least Senator Lieberman hasn’t been accused of having an illegitimate black daughter, like John McCain was. The Republicans sure play dirty.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 10, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #100934

RealDebate,

That’s kind of a strange screen name for someone who writes drivel like this. It’s nothing but the usual liberal bashing…blah, blah, blah.

Just remember when you attack the views of politicians you are also attacking their constituency. The majority of Americans think the Iraq war is unwinnable and agree that some sort of timeline for withdrawal is needed. I agree it took leadership for Dean to make his statement in Texas. What seems very dumb to me if you want your party to get elected is attacking the electorate.

“From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, or decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?”

Increase: 11%
Keep the same: 24%
Decrease: 32%
Remove all: 28%
Unsure: 5%

“How important do you think it is right now for members of Congress to question the Bush Administration about the way the intelligence was used in order to make the case for going to war in Iraq? Do you think it is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not important at all?”

very important: 56%
somewhat important: 24%
not too important: 9%
not important at all: 9%
unsure: 2%

“Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?”

Republican: 35%
Democrat: 40%
Both: 2%
Neither: 8%
Don’t know: 15%

These are the most recent poll numbers out. Even if you do not put much stock in polls, you have to admit that there is a large number of the population that agree with the Democrats. So go ahead, keep attacking their representatives, you only help their chances in elections.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 10, 2005 1:55 PM
Comment #100938
What does bother me is that the Republican party has no room in it for these differences. You are either “with us” or “against us”.

Max,

Very good point. If you are against them then you are more likly to vote for someone who is with you. The Democratic party has a better representation of how Americans feel on this issue. The Republican party only seems to represent those who feel strongly that this war is just and should be continued unabated. Of course this is only one issue, albeit a major one, but the outcome of elections will be determined by how many people are better represented by each party.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 10, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #100954

Howard Dean
best tool the republicans have ever had,the longer he runs the democrats party the more seats they will lose in congress and the senate hopefully the democrats will leave him where he is …..

Posted by: rylee at December 10, 2005 2:54 PM
Comment #100955

Howard Dean
best tool the republicans democrats have ever had,the longer he runs the democrats party the more seats they will lose win in congress and the senate hopefully the democrats will leave him where he is …..

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 10, 2005 3:05 PM
Comment #100958

In response to “Rocky”….

QUOTE: “Dean is such an easy target. He says things that are outrageous, and the right responds with outrage.
Gee, how predictable.


I think you are confusing Republican outrage with “glee”…….(You go Howard!)


Howard (I just can’t keep my mouth shut) Dean seems to be trying to surpass the contributions of Micheal Moore (for part is the last Republican win) in the next Presidential election….

Howard….The Republicans of America salute you!

Posted by: Firstteam at December 10, 2005 3:11 PM
Comment #100964

If the best thing to happen to the Republican party is ‘who is running the Democrat party’, exactly what does that say about the Republican party?

Posted by: tony at December 10, 2005 3:26 PM
Comment #100967

So many points, so little time.
To those of you who just wanted to pick on my name, my blog is www.realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com I created RDW to have a place for persons of all spectrums to debate the issues, much like Watchblog does on a national level, that is where it comes from.

Commenting on some of the responses. My issue with Dean saying what he said where he said it went to timing and location. Can you think of a worse place to say that tha on a radio program at the home of the Alamo? I can not think of a worse one.

Just for clarification, I am not sure Dean is crazy but he does seem to be a couple of fries short of a happy meal. Additionally I agree with Rep Pomeroy that Dean seems to be campaigning for something rather than running the party.

In regard to the point on Hagel, you make my point for me. Every rightie was questioned about Hagsl’s comments. Can you really see Chairman Dean being asked by George Snuffelupagus on Sunday morning how he feels about Pomeroy’s comments that he is going over board and he should “shut up”? I can’t.

In the same interview Dean said Dems are coalescing their opinions on the war. Seems to me for all their sniping they should of already coalesced. Or was he just saying they needed to reign in the likes of Liberman?

In response to the poll point, tell me how do you feel about the recent polling that said 70% of Americans thought the rhetoric coming out of Democrats in the Senate was harmful to the war effort?

To the point this was rambling hype and opinion. Not sure how much hype there was, is there something wrong with opinion? I drew a conclusion from a list of recent news stories, that is what opinion is all about. Supporting references were linked so I am not sure what hype you are talking about.

Some conservatives, most prominently Shawn Hannity, have come out and called for Dean to resign this week. Frankly, I think they are wrong he is fine right where he is.

All this anger is going to play well to those of you who are so fired up you take the time to blog on a Saturday, but it really kind of makes you look unhinged to the middle. Bush may be a lot of things, but unhinged aint one of them. Another thing, you guys seem to forget he is not running for anything anymore. Coming up with some actual ideas might help.

This was a topic on my blog some time ago. Someone went and copied and pasted all kinds of position papers form the DNC website calling my point silly. No one in their right minds reads those things, this is the arena of public ideas so what matters is what you say.

All you Dems are saying is we are doomed, we can not win Bush sucks, that is not playing well with the voters but you guys are so andry you really can not see it.

Now go ahead attack this as drivel, that seems to be the word of the day.

Posted by: Real Debate at December 10, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #100974

—-
All you Dems are saying is we are doomed, we can not win Bush sucks, that is not playing well with the voters but you guys are so andry you really can not see it.

Now go ahead attack this as drivel, that seems to be the word of the day.
—-

You make the point so well, anything I could toss in would seem redundant. (OK, one point - anytime you start a statement with “All you DEMS….” - that statement immediately becomes ‘drivel.’ How can you say that ‘this is the arena of public ideas so what matters is what you say’ and then so dogmatically lump people into party politics?)

Posted by: tony at December 10, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #100978

Bush never said the war on terror was not winnable; typical of leftists, Bush’s remarks are taken out of context and deliberately misterpreted.

What the president said was that this war will not be won in a conventional sense like World War II was, when the Nazis and the Japs surrendered. There is no conventional enemy with an army or navy and military leaders to surrender like happened in 1945.

And yes, I have criticized Chuck Hagel (RINO-Nebr.) for making statements that encourage the enemy. Same as with Murtha and the French-looking Senator, John F-ing Kerry, no member of Congress should be allowed to hide behind their military service and take pot-shots at the commander-in-chief while we are at war and be immune from criticism.

Posted by: Peter DiGaudio at December 10, 2005 3:57 PM
Comment #100979

QUOTE: “If the best thing to happen to the Republican party is ‘who is running the Democrat party’, exactly what does that say about the Republican party?”

It say’s that it’s a shame that this country has been reduced to a one party political system..It also sets the stage for another claim of a “stolen” election in 2008….
Those making this claim will be victims of their own words, when Republican reiterate the multitude of anti-American falsehoods that have been so loudly exclaimed to the American public, not to mention the slanders against American troops (ie..Worn out, “broken down failures” who are “destine to lose” but not before they “terrorize the women and children of Iraq”, (in reference to comments made by Dean, Murtha, Kerry and the rest of the leftist element) …It will be then that they will claim dirty politics on behalf of the opposition for having reminded the American public of the matters of public record and therefore “stealing the election out from under them….

Makes ya wonder if Howard isn’t part of some diabolical Karl Rove plot..All I know is I’m very glad that I’m not charged with the unenviable task of defending the “undefendable” Howard Dean….

“The fact is that we wouldn’t be in Iraq if it weren’t for Democrats like Senator Kerry.”
Howard Dean


Posted by: Firstteam at December 10, 2005 4:02 PM
Comment #100980
To the point this was rambling hype and opinion. Not sure how much hype there was, is there something wrong with opinion? I drew a conclusion from a list of recent news stories, that is what opinion is all about. Supporting references were linked so I am not sure what hype you are talking about.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it, I read some news articles, came to the conslusion that Dean probably angered Texans by saying war is not winnable in Texas! Will keep you posted!

All you Dems are saying is we are doomed, we can not win Bush sucks, that is not playing well with the voters but you guys are so andry you really can not see it.

This is precisely my problem with your post. “Dean says war is not winnable, and I think that will play badly in Texas” doesn’t really give anyone anything to debate does it? Did it ever occur to you that maybe Dean really feels the war is not winnable? You’re stunned that Dean is apparently unaware that the war is popular in Texas. Hello? Don’t you think he knew that? Don’t you think we all did?

You must be really impressed with Bush’s ability to, you know, pile of load of garbage on everyone about how the economy, war, and homeland security have no problems whatsoever. What an admirable ability to tell people what they want to hear in the face of the most obvious and damning facts. I’ll bet it plays great in fantasy land.

Posted by: Max at December 10, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #100981

—-
Makes ya wonder if Howard isn’t part of some diabolical Karl Rove plot..All I know is I’m very glad that I’m not charged with the unenviable task of defending the “undefendable”….
—-

…Bush?

Posted by: tony at December 10, 2005 4:09 PM
Comment #100982

Dems just can’t get it together. They are always jumping on the wagon at the wrong time or on the wrong wagon.

Kerry/Dean/Murtha/Pelosi represent the mainstream of the party. Consider this. Joe Lieberman comes back from Iraq and makes a reasonable statement about our progress there. Democrats jump on his back and some even talk about working against him. Murtha makes a statement that we should leave. He is instantly an icon. Now who is Lieberman and who is Murtha? Lieberman was candidate for VP. He ran for the Dem nomination for president. Most informed Americans know him. Murtha is a representative from rural western Pennsylvania. I don’t remember hearing of him before he made his comments. So who do the Dems consider more of their leader?

Problem for the defeated Dems is that the situation in Iraq is stabilizing and will soon improve. Just like with the economy, they will have to pretend it is worse, but eventually - and sooner rather than later - the truth will come out. Then they will look stupid again. But they will not know it, except when they once again don’t win at polls.

So thanks to KDMP Republican troubles will not mean Republican defeats. Thanks guys. We love Dean as much as the lefty Dems do and I am increasingly fond of Pelosi. With enemies like them, we don’t need friends.

Posted by: Jack at December 10, 2005 4:12 PM
Comment #100983

Hi Peter,

“no member of Congress should be allowed to hide behind their military service and take pot-shots at the commander-in-chief while we are at war and be immune from criticism.”

The Iraqi government is full of terrorists. Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists.

Is it wrong to point this sort of thing out?

Do you think the fact that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists should be questioned?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 10, 2005 4:13 PM
Comment #100984

Hi Jack,

“Problem for the defeated Dems is that the situation in Iraq is stabilizing and will soon improve.”

The number of attacks in Iraq has increased from 150/week to over 700/week since last year.

What is stable aside from the rate of increase in violence?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 10, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #100987

Is it just me or do I find it impossible for liberals to stay on topic whenever Howard Dean’s name comes up?

We won’t always have the strongest military.”
Howard Dean….

I’ve waffled before. I’ll waffle again.”
Howard Dean

Someone earlier made a remark about losing 500 soldiers and 2,200 wounded in Iraq. Those soldiers were sent there by the vote of Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Edwards and Sen. Kerry. I think that is a serious matter.”
Howard Dean

SOMEBODY STOP ME!

Posted by: Firstteam at December 10, 2005 4:21 PM
Comment #100989
In response to the poll point, tell me how do you feel about the recent polling that said 70% of Americans thought the rhetoric coming out of Democrats in the Senate was harmful to the war effort?

Taken together with the other polls, all this tells me is that most Americans are afraid to say it themselves, but that they approve of the politicians that do, and take the the heat for them.

Some conservatives, most prominently Shawn Hannity, have come out and called for Dean to resign this week. Frankly, I think they are wrong he is fine right where he is.

Interesting this is coming from conservatives. If a conservative (Pinky and the Brain, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Jean Schmidt, The Duke, Vice President Halliburton, Ahunald, Mr. Cut and Run Duncan Hunter, “Scooter”, etc.) were hurting the Republican party, I would never call for his or her resignation. Maybe they are worried he is being effective with swaying the electorate to the Dems.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 10, 2005 4:25 PM
Comment #100991

It does not matter what Dean thinks or says. In the end, what is important is the undisputable fact that Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans and Republicans ALONE will bear Iraq’s Rewards or Punishments.

Posted by: Aldous at December 10, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #100999

Peter DiGaudio,

I’m curious about your comment. I’m quite tempted to believe that your post is a parody written by a liberal intended to make fun of the worst ways to present a persuasive argument.

typical of leftists…taken out of context and deliberately misterpreted.
Poor debaters and manipulators on each side do take words out of context and misinterpret them. On your side, see anything by Eric Simonson or Ann Coulter for an example. <sarcasm>Typical of conservatives to pretend that only liberals do bad things that everyone really does.</sarcasm>
Chuck Hagel (RINO-Nebr.)

Insults only weaken your argument, making your actual message ignorable. Also, using jargon from your side in a general forum neither wins friends nor influences others.

…making statements that encourage the enemy.

That’s an incredibly-spun statement. Weakens your argument again.

the French-looking Senator, John F-ing Kerry

Ooooo… a double insult. It doubles the message that we shouldn’t take you seriously.

..take pot-shots at the commander-in-chief while we are at war and be immune from criticism.

This statement is an invitation to be shown quotes from Republican leaders that criticized Clinton during the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia; is it worth the trouble?

I know my advice was unsought, but I could tell that you thought you had a point to make, and it really saddened me how much reason you gave everyone not to take you seriously.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 10, 2005 4:56 PM
Comment #101002
It does not matter what Dean thinks or says. In the end, what is important is the undisputable fact that Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans and Republicans ALONE will bear Iraq’s Rewards or Punishments.

I WISH this could be true, but everyone is already paying for Republican mistakes through the nose, especially our soldiers.

Posted by: Max at December 10, 2005 5:18 PM
Comment #101004

Hi LawnBoy,

I gotta tell you that your post to Peter is really good.

I’m tired of people using spin in place of reasoning. Rush Hannity has helped rob a lot of people of their ability to reason at all with respect to political matters.

You did an exceedingly nice job of cutting out the spin in Peter’s post.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 10, 2005 5:24 PM
Comment #101006

REAL DEBATE,,

MAN I HATE TO CONCEDE ANTYTHING, but your comment on Texas as just the wrong place to say that, I’m going to have to agree. The site of the Alamo and the home of the Bowie knife, not the best place to lay claim to anything unwinnable.

It was a GLIB remark that pissed me off, and actually a very hackneyed as Bush used it first in his GMA interview with knucklehead with perrenially bad haircut Matt Lauer. It wasn’t even insightful it was the usual Dean styled flippant assertion.

Ken Mehlman and Eddie Gilespie must just love this guy. I on the other hand as a moderate dem wish we could maybe drop him off on the roadside somewhere in Nebraska. I don’t want rhetoric out of my DNC chair I want resonating substance and real policy answers.

Please Terry McCauliffe, I’m sorry I thought you sucked. Now I know what suck is and since Ed Rendel isn’t available…

Posted by: Novenge at December 10, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #101007

Dean is just rallying the Base. Think of Bush in Bob Jones College. What we need to do is fight. Nothing matters than beating the GOP.

Posted by: Aldous at December 10, 2005 5:43 PM
Comment #101009

I would contend that if we are to win elections we need a strongman as chair not a rhetoric spouting leper of a politician. There are real things to consider with Iraq and Bush policies. But these remarks out of Dean were so inane it’s almost sad. There’s real substance out there, Dean’s just not bright enough to find it hence not bright enough for the job.

It’s just like Kerry toting around four things to discuss and missing the point on everything. Kerry was so bad i almost thought it was a conspiracy with a Bush pay off that he was stinking up the stage that bad. Dean is who we saw running and he needs to find the logic to say something friggin’ worthwhile because we need contributions.

Any contributions we are getting now are out of sympathy and maybe there are bigger dividends there. Maybe that’s the plan.

We need a smart stable mind to run our 2008 candidate and give out smart answers in a needed time instead of spouting “TRIPE”. “Tripe” is the best way of discribing the remarks, like a dumb jingoism. Jingoisms are what pissed me off about Clinton, this was a jingoistic remark with little or no meat to it.

I’m not going to defend him.

Posted by: Novenge at December 10, 2005 6:00 PM
Comment #101029

Lawn Boy,
You failed to deal with anything I brought up … in fact, you are the one tossing around 3rd grade insults. There is no spin at all … pure logic. If the Left would stop using spin in place of facts, perhaps we could unify in the face of an enemy that wants a complete destruction of our way of life. But all the left is concerned with is scoring “touche” debate points and regaining power in 06 and 08 … to do what? My guess is surrender.

Louis XIV,
The Iraqi government is not full of terrorists. The Iraqi government was elected by the Iraqi people. The terrorists we are fighting are not even Iraqis; they are Al Qaeda intent on making a last ditch stand. A free Iraq is a direct threat to the enemy. Why do you want to surrender to these people so badly? Al Qaeda is not the Viet Cong — in Vietname, we declared victory and ran; here, if we cut and run before the job is finished, these bastards are going to follow us, eventually to our own streets.

Posted by: Peter DiGaudio at December 10, 2005 8:45 PM
Comment #101030

After reading the hard-core leftwingers on this board, all I can say is thank God the American people saw fit not to give them any power in this country. The enemy we are fighting with has no better friends in America than these guys

Posted by: Dave at December 10, 2005 8:49 PM
Comment #101034

Peter,

“You failed to deal with anything I brought up … in fact, you are the one tossing around 3rd grade insults. There is no spin at all … pure logic. If the Left would stop using spin in place of facts, perhaps we could unify in the face of an enemy that wants a complete destruction of our way of life. But all the left is concerned with is scoring “touche” debate points and regaining power in 06 and 08 … to do what? My guess is surrender.”

Wow, more talking points from the school of Hannity and Limbaugh. The glee that you discribe at Deans words probably compare to the glee that Hannity had when we started killing people in Iraq.
The problem with the right and left is you both think that there are side to be taken.
Grow up.
Surrender?
Another miserable, far right attempt at humor?

Posted by: Rocky at December 10, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #101037

Peter,

I’m sorry you feel that way. My goal was not to address your argument, but instead to give you some free advice that might help you make your argument better.

I did not insult you, but I only offered advice. I suppose you might have found being mistaken for a liberal as an insult, but that would not be the intention of such words from me.

If you truly think that your words represent “true logic” instead of spin and insults (which is hard to believe in regards to a post that used RINO as an insult, an obscenity as an insult, “French-looking” as a preposterous insult, and associated a bad behavior common to both sides as just to your opponents), then I won’t bother again; you need more help with logic and manners then I care to bother with.

If the Left would stop using spin in place of facts, perhaps we could unify in the face of an enemy that wants a complete destruction of our way of life.

I think one could replace “the Left” with “everyone”, then we’d have a chance. However, as long as each side sees blame only in its opponents we will have no chance.

But all the left is concerned with is scoring “touche” debate points

Again, why do you point out the speck in our eyes while ignoring the plank in your own?

My guess is surrender.
“Pure logic” or spin? Posted by: LawnBoy at December 10, 2005 9:43 PM
Comment #101039

Show me where the left wants to fight. They don’t; their idea is essentially to surrender in war we cannot afford to lose. It really seems to aggravate them when it is pointed out to them.

As I see it, a good day in America is a bad day for liberals. They say, “Don’t you question my patriotism!” then in almost the same breath are using the same words and phrases and expressing the same ideas as our enemies. How can we NOT question their patriotism? Would we have tolerated Americans espousing the goals of the Nazis and Japs in WWII? Of course not.

All this does is encourage the enemy to keep fighting; don’t forget, bin Laden described us as a paper tiger in the 1990s … all talk and no action. The enemy believes we as a people cannot tolerate any troop losses. People like Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Hagel, Murtha, etc., reinforce that misperception.

The enemy we are fighting here is not the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong did not follow us home to our streets after we cut and ran; this enemy will. They will attack us at home, at embassies, anywhere we are found. This is a war we cannot afford to lose.

Posted by: Peter DiGaudio at December 10, 2005 10:00 PM
Comment #101040

Peter,
Louis is correct. Here is an article with background on the Dawa party. Prime Minister Jaafari belongs to the Dawa party. To be fair, the current incarnation of the Iraqi Dawa party has not had connections to terrorism since 1990, excluding current activities in Iraq. Before then, Dawa was involved with bombings of the US embassasy in Kuwait, among other things.

SCIRI and its military arm the al-Badr brigades, is also an Iranian backed organization with its roots in terrorism. Again, in its current incarnation, it has not had connections to terrorism since the mid-90’s. However, it’s al-Badr brigades do wreck considerable havoc in Iraq. Death squads are active, and most likely they are instruments of SCIRI.

Finally, the violently anti-american cleric al-Sadr heads The Mahdi Army, which recently fought US troops. We stopped efforts to capture him; he has toned down his political ambitions, at least for now.

We’re stuck with Iranian-backed parties taking control of Iraq. Most of these people are NOT disposed to view the US kindly.

It’s a screw-up of colossal proportions. This is the ‘victory’ staring us in the face: a democratically elected, Shia theocratic state, closely aligned with Iran.

So go ahead, make fun of Dean. He called it like it is, and called it correctly. The gist of his message is not nice. It’s very unpleasant. But once again, Dean is right.

You’re doing a heckuva job, George.

Posted by: phx8 at December 10, 2005 10:07 PM
Comment #101044

Peter,
“Show me where the left wants to fight.”

You mean like in Afghanistan? The country shares near unanimity on actions there. Hope hitting your first sentence out of the park for a 522 foot home run isn’t too “aggravating.”

Nah, too easy. Leave it at that for now.


Posted by: phx8 at December 10, 2005 10:18 PM
Comment #101047

Howard Dean might said dumb things in his years but I agreed with the comment not winning in Irag. How long can Bush expects our military to hold up in Irag? I don’t believe the Iraqis’ government is ready to take over their own country any day soon, heck, half of those people are terrorists. I’m not a fan of Howard Dean but he does have his own opinions.

Posted by: LT at December 10, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #101048

Here’s a taste of things to come, from an AP article today:

“A group of Shiite and Sunni parties has signed a declaration condemning terrorism, urging a timetable for the end of the US military presence, and vowing never to normalise relations with Israel.

The parties… included followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Sunni Iraqi Consensus Front.”

Apparently al-Sadr was the motivating force.

Posted by: phx8 at December 10, 2005 11:05 PM
Comment #101050
You mean like in Afghanistan? The country shares near unanimity on actions there.

After the launch of the war in Afghanistan, over 10,000 left wingers people marched in New York to protest it. Many of the same people who are against the war in Iraq were against that war too, and saying otherwise is just revisionist history.

Here is a quote from the founders of Moveon.org in a petition they circulated (Moveon.org is a huge player—perhaps the hugest in the current left-wing antiwar movement).

“Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists’ hands.”

A few weeks into the Afghan war, New York Times editorials were already comparing it to Vietnam and saying it was a “quagmire.” Here is a link.

Today, antiwar icon Cindy Sheehan, who is widly supported by not only leading liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift but was embraced by prominent Democratic leaders like Howard Dean and John Kerry, says “we’re obviously not having any success in Afghanistan” and calls for the immediate departure of American troops from Afghanistan.

It’s pretty clear, phx8, that the left is doing now exactly the same thing they did with Afghanistan. The record is there for anyone who cares to examine it.

Posted by: sanger at December 10, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #101054

Al-Sadr is a swine, but he’s very influential with young, radical Shiites and is the son of an important Shiite figure, and he is now being used big time by both the Iraqi authorities but the Americans.

Since the time his followers fought against coaliton troops and were slaughtered by the thousands, he’s been successfuly co-opted and has urged his followers to participate in the democratic process—something that is tolerable because al-Sadr himself does not enjoy enough broad political support to take the reigns of power.

It’s a strategic decision and it makes a great deal of sense. Allowing him his freedom now, as long as he performs his service as mouthpiece for the governing authorities, effectively splits the radical Shiites from the radical Sunnis, who are behind the insurgency.

It’s a strategy of divide and conquer. Once the Sunni insurgency is put down and as stable Iraqi government is in place, al-Sadr will be marginalized and can be dealt with in due time.

For the time being, al-Sadr is far more useful alive than he is dead.

Posted by: sanger at December 10, 2005 11:29 PM
Comment #101060

Sanger,

“Do you support or oppose the U.S.-led airstrikes on Afghanistan that began this week?”
Support Oppose No Opinion
% % % 10/8-9/01
92 6 1

“Would you support or oppose sending a significant number of U.S. ground troops into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government?”
Support Oppose No
Opinion
% % % 10/8-9/01
76 21 4

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror7.htm

With Afghanistan, we saw about as much unanimity in this country as possible. If I recall the breakdowns of polls, Republicans favored invasion over Democrats by 2-4%. A protest by 10,000 people is insignificant, particularly when you compare it to the protests prior to the invasion of Iraq, which generated hundreds of thousands of protestors. The congressional resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan passed almost unanimously. The resolution for Iraq was opposed by half of the Democrats in the Senate.

As to whether Afghanistan is a quagmire, and as for the degree of success, that’s open to debate. I wish we would discuss it more.

Both the US and al-Sadr caved to the demands of Ayotollah Sistani for the nature and timing of elections. We, the US, have been dancing to the Iranian-backed Shia’s tune for some time. For now, al-Sadr is cooperating with SCIRI, and preventing a united front to the rest of the world.

Interestingly, al-Sadr seems to be more nationalistic than the Iranian-oriented Shias, yet more violently anti-american.

We’re screwed in Iraq. Dean is right. The more important long-term question is how to develop a tolerable relationship with the democratic theocracies of the newly dominant Shias.

Unfortunately for us, Bush couldn’t be more unfit to develop that relationship. It will take a new administration for that trick.



Posted by: phx8 at December 11, 2005 12:16 AM
Comment #101156
As I see it, a good day in America is a bad day for liberals. They say, “Don’t you question my patriotism!” then in almost the same breath are using the same words and phrases and expressing the same ideas as our enemies. How can we NOT question their patriotism?

This is an example of what I call the “Ann Coulter Logical Fallacy (#19)”.

  • I am patriotic
  • I want what’s best for America
  • My opposition wants something different for America
  • Therefore, my opposition wants bad things for America and are traitors/unpatriotic

The problem with this line of thought (however inviting it is) is the implicit assumption in step 2 that you are unassailably correct in what’s best for the country. What you think is best for America might actually be good for America, but it very well might not be. The same is true for your opposition: what they think is best for America might actually be good for America, but it very well might not be.

Sadly, Ann Coulter sold millions of copies of her book on this flawed premise of “Agree with me, or else you’re a traitor.”

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 11, 2005 9:46 AM
Comment #101158

PH, “Bush couldn’t be more unfit to develop that realtionship”? Who in the hell has gotten us this far without any help from your side of the aisle. So now that the hard work is nearly done (something the Dems would NEVER have done) you propose that somebody else needs to step in to finish the job. What a bunch of crap. Have you seen the Afghanistan polls at www.kashar.net?

87% of Aghani’s think the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban was a good thing.
75% of Aghani’s feel that their country is headed in the right direction with the right leadership (ironically only 30% of Americans feel this way)
60% of Afghani’s feel that the attacks on Americans are unjustified (funny how many in your party feel just the opposite)

The Afghanistan admin. has a very good relationship with the Bush admin., seems like he patched that one up alright.
And here you go again denigrating the people and the leadership of Iraq, just like Dean. Are you not willing to give them a chance or are you merely playing politics? I vote for the latter.

Posted by: Jay at December 11, 2005 9:53 AM
Comment #101178

Lawnboy

The mighty Sicilian Eagle thinks Anne Coulter is a babe.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 11, 2005 11:27 AM
Comment #101202

SE,

“The mighty Sicilian Eagle thinks Anne Coulter is a babe.”

Now if she only made any sense.

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #101208

Jay,
Yes, I think it’s going relatively well in Afghanistan, and yes, I saw the poll. I don’t think it’s going quite as well as most people think. The Afgan Prime Minister, Karzai, still depends upon US bodyguards for protection. He cannot trust his own troops. His government still primarily represents the minorities of the Northern Alliance. Not a good sign.
The recent elections went pretty well. It’s inevitable the Pashtun will regain ascendancy over the minorities of the Northern Alliance, and over Afghanistan. The Pashtun were represented by the Taliban, and they will be represented again by a similar organization. Fortunately, we had the good graces to stay quiet while four Taliban and one member of the Muhahideen were elected to Parliament.
So yes, it’s going well, but not in the way most people think.

The situation in Afghanistan is very different from the one in Iraq, or the state of our relations with Iran.

The situation with Iran requires the cooling down of antagonisms, and the building of relationships. Instead, the US and Iran are in a mutually-reinforcing spiral of antagonism. As bad as it is, it could get worse; if the Iranians goad SCIRI into a full blown, violent insurgency against the US, we’re screwed. But we keep saber rattling and shoving the Iranians further and further, and they keep getting more bellicose and more crazily anti-american. Their president keeps making ridiculous statements which are also calculated to stir up hatreds.

But there’s no question in my mind, the Bush administration and the Neocons are the last people we need to draw Iran into a tolerable relationship.

Posted by: phx8 at December 11, 2005 1:01 PM
Comment #101212

Hi Peter,

“The Iraqi government is not full of terrorists.”

You aren’t aware of the facts. “The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq” is one of the major parties and they engage in terrorism. Some of the terrorism they go in for is perpetrated by Iraqi Security forces on our payroll.

The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of the “Dawa” party which is an Iranian anti-American terrorist group.

“The terrorists we are fighting are not even Iraqis; they are Al Qaeda intent on making a last ditch stand.”

You obviosly know next to nothing about what is going on in Iraq.

“Why do you want to surrender to these people so badly?”

Why are you telling filthy lies about me?

I don’t think American troops fighting and dying to support terrorists is a good thing. You are without a clue about what’s going on in Iraq.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 1:13 PM
Comment #101215

Hi Sanger,

“For the time being, al-Sadr is far more useful alive than he is dead.”

Al Sadr is a brutal terrorist who weilds a lot of power in the Iraqi government. He also has many followers in the Iraqi security forces who do his bidding.

Do you think it’s a good idea for American soldiers to fight and die in order to help Al Sadr and his terrorist minions?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #101233

“The mighty Sicilian Eagle thinks Anne Coulter is a babe.”

Funny. Because “she” is either a transvestite or fully transgendered. Look at “her” adam’s apple — it’s enormous. Real women don’t have those. Then look at “her” hands. Not the hands of a woman. Listen to her voice. Not the voice of a woman.
She is Man Coulter.

Posted by: foryourinformation at December 11, 2005 1:44 PM
Comment #101245

Republicans are the party of corruption?????
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Let’s start keeping score…..shall we????:

http://www.noagenda.org/

Posted by: Lug at December 11, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #101246

Yeh..foryourinformation….we should be fawning over Molly Ivens instead of Ann!

Posted by: Lug at December 11, 2005 2:30 PM
Comment #101260

Jay

You wrote: 60% of Afghani’s feel that the attacks on Americans are unjustified (funny how many in your party feel just the opposite)

That’s it? That’s the big stat that’s suppossed to show how well Bush did over there? That means almost half of them think the attacks ARE justified.

The whole “look at the great job he did in Afghanistan” thing is a joke. He sent less funding there than most state’s get to build a football stadium. He spent little time there before moving to Iraq. He let OBL go? You know, the guy that masterminded 9/11? This is where Al Qaeda comes from, not Iraq. We could have really done something in Afghanistan and really had something to show for it, instead of moving on to Iraq, because, let’s face it, Bush puts showing up Daddy higher on the agenda than American security.

Posted by: Max at December 11, 2005 3:40 PM
Comment #101261

“we should be fawning over Molly Ivens instead of Ann!”

Well, Molly Ivans is definitely a female even if she is a bit older. But if you want a decent pundit match up by age, most Liberals would put Katrina vanden Huevel (editor of The Nation) up against Man Coulter any day.
Of course, she doesn’t have bleached hair, fake tits or a serious eating disorder, so maybe you rightwingers would still prefer Man…

Posted by: foryourinformation at December 11, 2005 3:43 PM
Comment #101318

The American intervention in Afghanistan has been a triumph on so many levels. Firstly, they said it couldn’t be done at all. It would be another “quagmire”, we would lose worse than the Russians did, blah blah blah.

Secondly, nay-sayers claim that it was all a waste of time because we didn’t get OBL. Well,Afghanistan is one hell of a lot better place to be a woman or a child today than it has been in recent history. Afghanistan has a long way to go to become modern, crippling illiteracy being the worst problem, but Chaney/Rumseld fought this war on a budget and eliminated one problem nation as a training ground for terrorists.

In Iraq, we didn’t find the WMD’s, but we have again made progressive, modernizing changes in the way Iraq works. Many of these changes I maintain will not be entirely reversed once the intervention ends, and some may continue to progress. Once again, maybe not enough money was spent on the purely military end of the equation.

Everything has been done with noteworthy economy of force, allowing a large percentage of the funds flowing to Iraq to be spent trying to fix civil and infrastructure problems. Leftists complain night and day about how the money isn’t getting through the Halliburton funnel efficiently. Compared to what? Some mythical company that they would never hire? It looks to me like Halliburton is an honest group of people doing as well with a difficult situation as can be done.

Leftists are not going to get away with writing the history of the Iraq intervention anyway they want, because too many smart people are on to their lies and distortions. This intervention is a saga of heroes and of a great many good things accomplished in extradordinarily difficult circumstances.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 11, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #101322

Are you serious? Why does the comservative right continue to ignore real issues and concentrate on junior high crap. I think realdebate needs to get a girlfriend or a hobby or something. If you would like to look it up, it is spelled P R I O R I T I E S in just about any dictionary.

Posted by: Jeff at December 11, 2005 9:31 PM
Comment #101332

Hi Michael,

“but we have again made progressive, modernizing changes in the way Iraq works.”

The government and military are riddled with terrorists.

Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists.

“Leftists are not going to get away with writing the history of the Iraq intervention anyway they want, because too many smart people are on to their lies and distortions.”

Do you aknowledge the many neocon distortions with respect to Iraq? The cakewalk bit, the WMD’s bit, the insurgency is just a bunch of deadenders bit, the “we’re winning” bit….

What left wing distortions are you refering to?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 9:54 PM
Comment #101364
“Leftists are not going to get away with writing the history of the Iraq intervention anyway they want, because too many smart people are on to their lies and distortions.”


I just don’t get it when I see statements like this. What hole are you people living in? You dismiss everything that looks bad for the right as lies or distortions. If the news media reports it, you label them as “the liberal media”. They can show the video of righties lips moving and the words coming out of their mouths, but if it is not what they want to hear, then the leftist media is just making it up. Come on people, wake up, take the blinders off before it’s too late. If it isn’t already.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 2:30 AM
Comment #101379

I don’t dismiss everything that looks bad for the right as a lie or distortion. Was Michael Brown of FEMA an incompetent jerk? Of course. Is Cunningham a disappointment? Of course. Is Iraq a disastrous quagmire and the wrong place to seek vengeance for 9/11? Not by a long shot…
-
I believe firstly that we had to respond forcefully to 9/11 without waiting for perfect intelligence. I believe that Bush/Cheney surmised correctly that the threat of WMD’s is so great that the USA had to be seen taking bold action. If 9/11 proved nothing else, it proved that the nebulous network of world terrorism will do absolutely anything, further that they are well-funded and capable of first-class, patient planning.

Personally, I would rather have invaded Saudi Arabia directly, maybe even Pakistan, Iran, and Syria as well. Doing everything I would have done would probably have cost America 50,000 dead by now.

The fundamental leftist lie is this: doing nothing was acceptable. The next great distortion is this: just because we didn’t find WMD’s in Iraq that means they don’t exist and at any rate will not likely be employed against us, ever. But if we give great credence to French intelligence and the career Democrats in CIA and State, we will be more safe and secure in the long run. I consider that wishful thinking.

My approach may be junior-high school reasoning. I learned a lot in junior high. The primitive parts of my brain especially picked up on the sheer terror in the air during October of 1962. Never actually forgot it. JFK, bless his heart, scared everyone to death we veered so close to Armageddon.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 12, 2005 7:11 AM
Comment #101395

I think both sides are abit screwed up. I know it may sound a little corny, but I still believe…
In united we stand, what two halves =, and most of all…
Divided we fall.

Posted by: LLm at December 12, 2005 9:04 AM
Comment #101416

Good comment, Llm

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 12, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #101424

PH, I am not sure there is a tolerable relationship with Iran with that lunatic in charge. Let’s face it, he’ll hate everyone of our admins. be it a Democrat or Republican. I agree with you it would not be wise to stir up anymore animosity but we must present a very strong front against them and let them know that we will NEVER back down. These guys are bullies and prey on weakness, unfortunately their crazy enough to defend their lunacy to their own peril. If we continue to demonstrate that we are prepared to have unwavering defense against them, the rest of the civilized world will rally behind us. It is only when we show weakness that the rest of the world gets a little nervous, because we are the only country that can truly battle them. Max, Give the Afghani’s a chance. The majority of their people are peaceful and enjoying their new government and that IS something that the Dems would NEVER have done. In my opinion, UBL is dead, there is no way a lunatic like him with his massive ego would have been this dormant this long. He definitely would have let the jihadists know unequivocally that he is alive and in charge by now. So either dead or seriously injured. And cleaning up Afghanistan without addressing Iraq would have been pointless. You are strictly politically motivated. BTW, poll today in Iraq, 75% of Iraqi’s feel that their country is headed in the right direction. ABC News 12-12-05.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 10:32 AM
Comment #101429
And cleaning up Afghanistan without addressing Iraq would have been pointless.

Why do you say that? Why would it be pointless to remove from power the forces that attacked us unless we went after another group, too?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 10:48 AM
Comment #101437

Okay, lawnboy, following the clean up of Afghanistan where do you think the jihadists would have gone? What country in the region was sympathetic to their movement? And don’t say that Saddam was a secularist and did not subscribe to the Islamic movement. Saddam would have welcomed them, financed them and had them do his dirty work. Everyone knows that. Saddam was a ticking time bomb, for God’s sakes listen to what Clinton, Rockefeller, and Kennedy had been telling us for years in the 90’s because they were right.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 10:56 AM
Comment #101442
What country in the region was sympathetic to their movement?

Let’s see, significant portions of Pakistan are extremely sympathetic. They were largely financed by the Saudis. There are active cells of their movement in countries from Philipines to Indonesia to Germany.

Sorry, your argument falls on its face.

Everyone knows that.

translation: “Don’t bother me with facts or contrary arguments - I have my own conventional wisdom.”

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 11:19 AM
Comment #101443

The President of Pakistan has the worst job in the world. I kind of like the guy, but any head of state in a Moslem country always has to have one finger in the air to see which the direction the wind is blowing. I’m thinking Pakistan could go either direction—either cooperate more with the West, or join with Iran and maybe Saudi Arabia to make real trouble for the U.S.
The majority of the sizable and extreme well-equipped Saudi military are Pakistani mercenaries, I am told.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 12, 2005 11:20 AM
Comment #101444

Also, your theory about where the jihadists would have gone wasn’t bourne out by the facts. Only a small portion moved to Iraq after the Taliban fell.

Justifying the war on Iraw based on what you would have done in the bad guys’ place instead of what they actually did is a very ineffective approach.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 11:24 AM
Comment #101445

In my opinion you are parsing the argument and ignoring reality. Saddam was by far the most entrenched and powerful ally they had and that’s where they would have gone. Germany? Give me a break. I also conclude that by your statements that you recognize they would have fled to another area. So my question is this, would the left have been prepared to battle them in Indonesia, Pakistan, Phillipines? Or would you have just focused on Afghanistan and let them set up shop somewhere else? Really, how would the left battle this threat? I really, really want to know the answer to that.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 11:25 AM
Comment #101447
Really, how would the left battle this threat?

By dealing with the actual threat of Al Qaeda and related groups - not by using 9/11 as a cover for an unrelated war. There were a lot of options on the table in 2002 using the international community, NATO, and our allies that the Bush administration didn’t follow up on because they decided to divert attention to Iraq instead.

If you really want to read about one proposal, check out Kerry’s plan for Terrorism. It’s not universally agreed-upon, but it’s a good start.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #101457

“We have to get back to the place where terorism is a nuisance”. Enough said. That was the policy of the 90’s and look where it got us. Al Qaeda grew in strength and ferocity and eventually they reached our soil. That is not a plan. That is a cop out. We seriously disagree.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 12:09 PM
Comment #101481

Oh boy. I grabbed the wrong link from my search. What I linked to was anti-Kerry. Try this one.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 12:56 PM
Comment #101512

lawnboy, forgive me not reading John Kerry’s plan. I have heard enough from Kerry. In my opinion he demonstrates no leadership and is subject to bend in any direction polls will take him. That is not a leader. He has changed his mind so often I got confused and his most recent “plan” sounds a lot like Bush’s. I am all fo someone coming up with a coherent and successful plan aside from Bush, but so far none exists. Hillary’s silence on this subject is deafening, it shows me that she (as being in the WH for 8 years) clearly understands the threat and has no other viable alternative than what Bush is doing. Then comes along Lieberman (remember Gores VP) pay attention to his comments, HE GETS IT.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #101521

Jay,

What I get from your latest comment is that I shouldn’t have bothered. You’ve bought the flip-flop spin and you discount him with an ad hominem attack. You say no coherent alternative exists, but you refuse to read one when presented. You define “getting it” as agreeing with you.

This started from wondering why you believed action in Afghanistan was meaningless without Iraq. I’m still waiting for a coherent answer to that question.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 2:11 PM
Comment #101527

lawnboy, remember I heard John Kerry for two years leading up to the 04 election and have listened to him since. You don’t think I understand his “plan” by now. I can repeat your statement right back at you. You like Kerry’s plan because it agrees with yours. I said earlier, we seriously disagree, I can’t convince you, you can’t convince me. I am just glad the guy that has the plan that I agree with won. And if you didn’t listen to Kerry, Clinton, Rockefeller and Kennedy in the 90’s in respect to Saddam and believe we shouldn’t be in Iraq, then you just DON’T GET IT. My opinion.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 2:22 PM
Comment #101529

BTW, tell me what you think of the Iraq poll out today, 71% of Iraq’s feel that their country is headed in the right direction.

Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2005 2:24 PM
Comment #101542

Actually, I’m not saying that I support Kerry’s plan. I don’t know what we should do now in Iraq - every option has serious risks. I know I think that we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place because it’s a distraction, but I don’t know what we should do now that we’ve done it.

So, no. You can’t repeat the statement back to me. I gave you Kerry’s plan because you asked for what Liberals would do. I gave you one option and you rejected it without reading it. There are other plans and opinions out there, too, but I suppose you don’t really want to see them, either.

Yes, I don’t agree with you. Your defense of your position is that disagreeing with you is not “getting it”. Sorry, but I think I understand the situtation as well as you do, I just disagree with you.

About the poll? It’s good news, although it’s not quite as rosy as you say:

Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country’s situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.
ABC

In fact, you are mischaracterizing the poll results:

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

For the question you quoted (national direction), the number is 44%. The 71% positive is for something else (personal situation).

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 2:39 PM
Comment #101722

Good news for the Sunnis. George W. Bush is cutting the Shiite militias no slack on these private prisons they are running where they throw any Sunnis or outsider Arabs they catch and suspect of terrorism. Everybody is going to have to play by the advanced Western conscience rulebook.
Unfortunately, the advanced Western conscience rulebook seems to be constantly revised. People are playing politics with it, perhaps.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 12, 2005 10:52 PM
Comment #101779

This whole discussion/thread, is why I refuse to belong to either the R or D party. People don’t look at policies and whether they are good, bad, meritorious, wise, foolish, bound for failure, incorrect, likely to suceed, naive. Instead, they look at who supports/sponsors the policy, are they on my team—flip your coin, R or D, kicking off—and then in well-marketed, brainwashed, largely thoughtless partisan fashion, get behind their chosen team and start yelling, cussing or insulting the opposing team. It really truly is that brainless. Look at the policy, and beyond whatever party.

All that said, Howard Dean might be proven correct by history. Time—5 plus years at least, will tell. It’s just hard to say what will become of Iraq. I’m impressed with a lot of the resiliency and optimism a lot of Iraqis have shown, but there is an awful lot of hell going on there, especially apparent when one reads of accounts of the Badr brigades. My personal opinion is that there were much wiser ways of continuing fighting Al Queda and the “war on terror” than an invasion of the country. Bush/Cheney were very dumb and stubborn in fixating on Iraq, and they were quite dishonest in pushing the war. I won’t forgive them for that dishonesty. But we are stuck there now and must try to persevere in the next year.

Posted by: J. Meister at December 13, 2005 1:59 AM
Comment #101852

Hi Michael,

“George W. Bush is cutting the Shiite militias no slack on these private prisons they are running where they throw any Sunnis or outsider Arabs they catch and suspect of terrorism.”

There are a few problems with that.

As we withdraw (Rumsfeld, Rice, and others have said we will) there isn’t any reason to think the militias will become less brutal.

In many cases the militias are tied to, and taking orders from, people in the Iraqi government. Bush hasn’t said that he’s going to punish the terrorists in the government.

Iraqi security forces are riddled with militia members. Bush hasn’t said what he’s going to do about that.

So far Bush has been cutting the militias all kinds of slack. Many militia members on on our payroll and are being supported by our troops.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 8:11 AM
Comment #101907

Perhaps sooner than we imagine, our troops will be gone. Then Iraq will be a self-governing country. I suspect that a number of Iraqis have noticed the radical Western concept that even secret police and prison wardens have to be held accountable. They may not be able to emulate this concept right away, but I suspect that the reality of instant world communications will force them to it.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 13, 2005 10:54 AM
Comment #102108

Hi Michael,

Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorsts in the Iraqi government and security forces.

You’re saying that when we leave things will improve with respect to the terrorists in Iraqi government and security forces. Your view is a bit too opomistic for the Middle East in my opinion.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 5:10 PM
Comment #102204

The nice Iraqis I have met here assure me that most of their relatives back home want only what all the fortunate citizens of advanced, prosperous nations enjoy. I think the Shia must be given allowance to defend themselves against the genuine terrorists in their midst. The Bush administration has really put all the Shiites, both the backwards-looking ones and the progressives, in a corner where they have no choice. They either fight, or they get some type of Baath-clone dictatorship foisted right back on them. Having forced them to this, we should not be overly critical of their methods.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at December 13, 2005 9:44 PM
Comment #378424

www.airjordan.us.com
www.valentino.us.com
www.valentinoshoes.us.com
www.isabelmarantshoes.us.com
www.coachfactory.us.com
www.timberlandboots.us.com
www.timberlandshoes.us.com
www.truereligionbrandjeans.us.com
www.truereligionjeans.us.com
www.louisvuittonoutlet-purses.com
www.coachoutletstore-factory.com
www.michaelkorsoutlet-purses.com
www.ralphlauren.us.com
www.marcjacobs.us.com
www.supra.us.com
www.giuseppezanotti.us.com
www.louisvuittonoutlethandbag.com
www.coachoutletstoresinc.com
www.coachoutletstoresofficial.com
www.truereligionjeans-2014.com
www.tiffanyandcoinc.com
www.pradaoutlet-factory.com
www.coachfactoryoutletspurses.com
www.coachfactoryoutlete2014.com
www.coachfactoryoutlet-handbag.com
www.louisvuittonoutlets2014.com
www.coachfactoryoutletstoreco.com
www.coachfactoryoutletonlineinc.com
www.michaelkorsoutletonlineco.com
www.michaelkorsoutletstoresco.com
www.coachfactoryoutlet-co.com
www.coachoutletonlinehandbag.com
www.michaelkorsoutlet-factory.com
www.coachfactoryoutlets-online.com
www.coachoutletstoresco.com
www.coachfactoryoutlet-store.com
www.michaelkorsoutletsmk.com
www.michaelkors-co.com
www.pradaoutleteco.com
www.tiffanysjewelry-co.com
www.celineoutlet-online.com
www.cheapjerseysco.com
www.tomsshoescompany.com
www.alexanderwang-shoes.com
www.alexanderwang-bags.com
www.sacsburberry.com
www.celinebags-outlet.com
www.tomsusashoes.com
www.fitflopsandalssale.com
www.fitflopusaonline.com
www.giuseppezanottisneakers.co.uk
www.marcbymarcjacobsoutlet.co.uk
www.tiffanyjewelry.us.com
www.alexanderwang.us.com

Posted by: coach outlet at May 17, 2014 1:06 AM
Comment #380047

http://www.ray-bansunglasses.usray ban glasses prices
http://www.louisvuittonoutlets-inc.comlouis vuitton suitcase
http://www.airjordans.us.comjordans shoes online
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comall jordans
http://www.airjordans.us.comwhite jordans
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comjordan duffle bag
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach sale outlet
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.biztory burch patterson
http://www.truereligion-outlet.infotrue religion sneakers
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.usfree shipping tory burch
http://www.oakleysunglasses.namearmy oakley sunglasses
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.ccmichael kors factory outlet website
http://www.louisvuitton.namelouis vuitton outlet bags
http://www.cheap-oakleysunglasses.usoakley sunglasses store locations
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban rb4075
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.comfactory michael kors
http://www.louboutin.us.comchristian louboutin women shoes sale
http://www.louisvuitton-outlet.us.combuy louis vuitton bag
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinemall.comcoachfactory
http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley frames outlet
http://www.louisvuitton-outlet.us.comlouisvuitton
http://www.michael-kors-outlet.ccmichael kors shoes outlet
http://www.coach-outlet-factoryonline.comcoach online store
http://www.toryburch-outlet.orgtory burch reva
http://www.true-religion-outlet.ustrue religion jeans reviews
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comconcord 11 jordan
http://www.louboutin.us.commen red bottom shoes christian louboutin
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinemall.comcoach outlet stores online shopping
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach handbags sale
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.usmichael kors charlton
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.biztory burch factory outlet
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netsaks fifth avenue christian louboutin
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comconcord 11 jordan
http://www.michaelkorswatches.uscheap michael kors watch
http://www.coach-outlet-factoryonline.comcoach wallets
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach wristlet
http://www.true—religion.ustrue religion wrentham outlet
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.ustory burch outlet shoes
http://www.louisvuittonoutlets-inc.comlouis vuitton outlet online
http://www.louisvuittonoutlets-inc.comdiscounted louis vuitton
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.ustory burch jelly flats
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael michael kors outlet online
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.orgtory burch patterson
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.netmichae kors
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors runway watch
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netred bottoms boots
http://www.ray-ban.us.comray ban aviator sunglasses
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.ustory burch outlet cabazon
http://www.true—religion.ustrue religion online
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgdiscount ray ban wayfarer
http://www.louis—vuitton.uslouis vuitton scottsdale
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.nethot michael kors outlet
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comjordan cleats football
http://www.truereligion-jeans.cctrue religion jeans girls
http://www.louboutin.us.comred bottom shoes for cheap
http://www.louboutin.us.comthe red bottom shoes
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.usray ban mirrored aviator sunglasses
http://www.michaelkorshandbags.usmichael kors outlet store locations
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.uscheap ray ban wayfarer sunglasses
http://www.cheap-jordans.us.combuy jordans
http://www.louisvuitton.namelouis vuitton pre owned bags
http://www.louboutin.us.comchristian louboutin heels
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comjordans shoes online
http://www.louisvuitton-outlet.cclouis vuitton doctor bag
http://www.airjordans.us.comwholesale jordan shoes
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comcheapest jordans
http://www.truereligion-jeans.ccpantalones true religion
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.biztory burch cheap handbags
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.orgtory burch retailers
http://www.true—religion.ustrue religion white jeans
http://www.ray-ban.us.comray ban clubmasters
http://www.louis—vuitton.usauthentic louis vuitton handbag
http://www.toryburch-outlet.orgtory burch stores
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netmen christian louboutin shoes
http://www.ray-bansunglasses.orgwayfarers ray bans
http://www.tory-burch-outlet.orgcheap tory burch outlet
http://www.officialcoachoutletsfactory.comofficial coach factory outlet online sale
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinemall.comcoach purses for sale
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach outlet wrentham
http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley sunglass styles
http://www.true—religion.uskids true religion
http://www.louboutin.us.comcheap christian louboutin
http://www.officialcoachoutletsfactory.comcoach handbags outlets
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.netmichael kors jelly sandals
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinetinc.comcoach purple purse
http://www.christianlouboutin-outletsale.netauthentic christian louboutin sale
http://www.louisvuitton.us.comlouis vuitton never full
http://www.jordanshoes.us.comjordan basketball shoes
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach outlet coach outlet
http://www.toryburch-outlet.orgtory burch pocketbook
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach sale
http://www.cheap-jordans.us.comjordan lanyard
http://www.true—religion.ustrue religion authentic
http://www.true-religion-outlet.usbaby true religion jeans
http://www.michael—kors.commichael kors brasil
http://www.michael-korsoutlet.netmichael kors charlton tote
http://www.louisvuitton-outlet.ccloui vuitton bags on sale
http://www.louisvuitton.nameloui vuitton bags outlet
http://www.louisvuitton.namelouis vuitton official website
http://www.louisvuitton.nameauthentic louis vuitton bags outlet
http://www.michael—kors.compurses michael kors
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comjordans furniture
http://www.michaelkors-outlethandbags.commichael kors cosmetics
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach outlet freeport maine
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray ban official
http://www.oakleysunglasses.nameoakley sunglasses replacement lenses
http://www.cheap-oakleysunglasses.usoakley half jacket polarized
http://www.ralph-lauren.us.compolos shirts
http://www.cheap-jordanshoes.netjordan sale
http://www.louboutin.us.comlouboutin neiman
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinemall.comchristian life coach
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinemall.comcoach outlet online stores
http://www.cheap-oakleysunglasses.usoakley cheap sunglasses
http://www.true—religion.ustrue religion in new york
http://www.coachfactoryoutletinc.uscoach duffle
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usfaux ray ban sunglasses
http://www.coach-outlets.comcoach hand bag
http://www.jordan-shoes.us.comall black concords
http://www.toryburchoutletonline.ustory burch on sale store online outlet
http://www.michaelkorswatches.usmichael kors purses
http://www.louis—vuitton.usbuy louis vuitton bag
http://www.louisvuitton-outlet.us.commens louis vuitton
http://www.coach-outlets.comauthentic coach handbags outlet
http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.comoakley sunglasses replacement lenses
http://www.rayban-sunglasses.usray bans outlet store

Posted by: xiangjiaomeimei at June 26, 2014 2:57 AM
Post a comment