"Pullout must look like defeat"

If there is one thing that marks the general consensus on the left today it’s that losing is somehow a winning position. The determination with which the left seems to pursue securing a political defeat for America is astounding. Is it just that the wrong party is in power? or would this be their position if a democrat were in power as well? I begin to wonder.

Likely it's too alien a prospect for me to fathom. But the ferris wheel of defeat goes on whether I understand it or not. The sixties radical protest template was no doubt in full psychic force among those eager to see Cindy Sheehan fulfill prophecies of a popular uprising against the war. Nostalgia for Nixonian scandal, with the hope that it could lead the left back to power, is rife. It is likely that this spells out the entirety of democratic strategy for winning back their power in the 2006 elections.

Some observations from listening to the left.

There is no indication yet that democrats in particular are ready to change their failing strategy from the last two elections. For one, they are still catering to their Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan far-left base and until the far-left gets fed up with the current crop of Democratic spinelessness and defects to the Green Party (perhaps), or elected Democrats defect from them in favor of right-center positions, there is no hope for democrats to regain their power.

For instance, there is no constituency among ordinary Americans for worrying that our eventual withdrawal from Iraq will, "look like a victory."

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing." nro

Democrats are still convinced that defeating Bush depends on appeasing their hardcore left base by making sure that they portray Iraq as exactly like 'unwinnable' Vietnam and a complete failure from start to finish. The fact that this requires not only gross exaggeration, damage to morale of both the troops and the American people, but also looks a lot like sour anti-americanism doesn't seem to matter still.

The loudest, longest applause of the evening came not after any statement by Murtha or Moran but after a member of the audience said that "Bush and his cronies" had been "criminally negligent" in the run-up to the war in Iraq. "My question is simple," the man continued. "With this criminal negligence going on, why shouldn't you impeach Bush/Cheney?"

"I tell you, I get a lot of letters just like that," Murtha said. But he did not answer the question, turning instead to the enthusiastic reception he has received after taking his antiwar stance. Moran, however, took the issue straight on.

"I don't think impeachment is the right course of action," he said. "We have a democracy, and the right course of action is to express yourself at the polls." nro

Another icon of liberalism paraded out to make useless statements defining defeat down is Walter Cronkite. Please note again the 'unwinnable vietnam' template evident.

Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.

"It's my belief that we should get out now," Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.

Now 89, the television journalist once known as "the most trusted man in America" has been off the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter-century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them. yahoo 'story will be gone tomorrow' news

I think my favorite part of this quote is the last, "He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them."

He does little for me as well. But I digress... the heart of the story is the following: We can put all of the leftist statements about how unwinnable this war is in the same category: Setting aside any objectivity is key to saying we cannot win.

Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.

Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

The best time to have made a similar statement about Iraq came after Hurricane Katrina, he said.

"We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States," he said. "Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home." yahoo 'story will be gone tomorrow' news

This is the same man who said that Bush is President because of the ignorance of America.

If we expect this country to work, it depends on an informed, an intelligent electorate. You know, Thomas Jefferson said very early on in our republic that the nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects it never can and never will be.

We're an ignorant nation right now. We're not really capable I do not think the majority of our people of making the decisions that have to be made at election time and particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency of course. I don't think we're bright enough to do the job that would preserve our democracy, our republic. I think we're in serious danger. Cronkite

A typical liberal response. The people are ignorant. The people are deceived. It couldn't possibly be because in the free market of ideas, the American people didn't want what the left was selling. The message of defeat and retreat cannot possibly be at fault here. They were just too stupid to understand that it was in their best interest to vote against Bush-- OR perhaps his point was that our public educational system is not doing enough to indoctrinate Americans in what the 'correct' political ideology is?

The question is, are these positions just temporary because the wrong party is in power? or would this be their position if a democrat were in power as well? I wonder because there is evidence that those like Murtha are practiced in advising retreat at the first sign of enemy resistance. As if Americans are not meant to win, battles are not meant to be fought... Perhaps America is not meant to win because America is the problem in the world and should be humbled?

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

... Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia.

Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale.

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."

Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

The comments were eerily similar to Murtha's assessment of U.S involvement in Iraq last week, when he declared, "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home." newsmax

Hmm. Deja vu?

Posted by Eric Simonson at January 16, 2006 4:17 PM
Comments
Comment #113624

Bushwa.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #113629

Eric,
The Republicans have quietly killed any additional funding for reconstruction. Iraq is over. We’re done. Stick a fork in it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #113631

Yea… when you want to understand the mindset of the opposition, make grand generalizations, assume the worst, edit and organize your quotes to fit your argument and plow ahead.

I have no idea what light or new insight this post is suppose to encourage. Obviously, the people on the ‘right’ will agree with you and the people on the ‘left’ will call it BS. As soon as your write ‘typical liberal’ or ‘you on the left’; you are no longer making an argument… you are making an politically biased assumption.

I was going to try and add in a liberal perspective on this, but it seems obvious that you have your mind made up - and any following discussion would be pointless. I will toss out one point - you do not get it. You do not understand the intention or the logic liberals use… and as long as you blindly assume you know, you will continue to be wrong.

Posted by: tony at January 16, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #113632

It is amazing to me that all of the following is considered an abject failure and defeat for the U.S.:
Removal of top-ten all time mass murderer from power.
Stopped the filling of mass-graves/torture rooms, etc.
Implemented a democratic form of government—among the first of its kind in the region (see Israel and Afghanistan).
Liberated millions of women from ultimate tyranny.
All we hear is what terrible crimes were committed! Remove the BDS goggles and try to see some good in this endeavor.

Posted by: nikkolai at January 16, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #113635

IF winning is an issue—then let the military run the military! As far as Mogadishu is concerned the Elite forces were obvisoulsy not in charge or they would have taken care of business. Shame on Rep Murtha, who ever that is for making such a comment. The U.S. should put up or shut up. We have the best warriors in the world let them do their job. It will get done!.

Posted by: B. C, at January 16, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #113689

Bush needs to try telling the Bidons and the Kennedys of this world that they are wrong, misguided, and trying to convince Americans that we are not winning in Iraq is anti-American and results in more wounded soldiers daily!! Bush needs to look at them and just say, “youre idiots and I will do what it takes to get the job done. You are a discrase to our country.” We need to be much more intollerant of their anti-American retoric.

Posted by: R. C. at January 16, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #113695

“We need to be much more intollerant…”

I don’t see much more room left in that arena.

Posted by: tony at January 16, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #113700

ha ha ha ha ha ha he he he he ha ha ha ha OK I’m done. No I’m not. ha ha ha ha Thanks for yet another great laugh, Eric. Your posts are nothing if not humorous, and I always get a good laugh from them.

In case you’ve forgotten, Eric, the left doesn’t control the White House. The left doesn’t run the defense department. What’s causing the problems in Iraq is the complete and utter failure of the inept ideologues in the White House and the Defense Department to plan for ANY scenario other than being “greeted with flowers”.

Support for our policy in Iraq is flagging (to put it mildly) and the knee-jerk response from the far Wrong is to blame the left. You’re so desperate it’s funny.

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 16, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #113706

tony,

I was going to try and add in a liberal perspective on this, but it seems obvious that you have your mind made up - and any following discussion would be pointless. I will toss out one point - you do not get it. You do not understand the intention or the logic liberals use… and as long as you blindly assume you know, you will continue to be wrong.

I guess now I’ll never know.

Actually, I don’t think that we have a deficit of liberal perspectives, not on this blog and not in America. The liberal perspective is quite well represented I should think. Can I help it that when some of those perspectives are pointed out that despite agreeing with them liberals also want to disown them?

This is what I don’t understand. If I’ve got it so wrong how come those who say I am painting the wrong picture of the stated (quoted) beliefs of the left don’t disagree with what these guys say, but instead try to argue that what they said was something besides what they clearly said?

Posted by: esimonson at January 16, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #113709

Eric:

Well thought out post. I couldn’t agree with you more. Too bad your correct logic will be lost on the spineless, cut-and-run, whining, defeatist liberals. Didn’t algore give a verbose diatribe today on more defeatism and how Bush is shredding the constitution? Let them keep talking and rallying around the cow sheehan and the idiot moore. Biden and kennedy do more for the right side of politics than any advertising could accomplish. Facts and logic mean nothing to the left, only smear, innuendo and hate are the accepted means of communication amongst them.

Posted by: Beak at January 16, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #113710

Eric Simonson:

You’re pathetic and desperate attempt to shift the blame for Iraq is a sign that Republicans recognize it is failing. I would believe Iraq is a success more if your Fearless Leader would visit it outside of a fortress. As it is, Iraq is a Republican War and Republicans should fight in it.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #113716

Elliotbay,

ha ha ha ha ha ha he he he he ha ha ha ha OK I’m done. No I’m not. ha ha ha ha Thanks for yet another great laugh, Eric. Your posts are nothing if not humorous, and I always get a good laugh from them.

That’s what I’m here for. “Don’t hate me because I’m my ideas are beautiful.”

In case you’ve forgotten, Eric, the left doesn’t control the White House. The left doesn’t run the defense department. What’s causing the problems in Iraq is the complete and utter failure of the inept ideologues in the White House and the Defense Department to plan for ANY scenario other than being “greeted with flowers”.

Support for our policy in Iraq is flagging (to put it mildly) and the knee-jerk response from the far Wrong is to blame the left. You’re so desperate it’s funny.

Let’s examine this for a moment. One the one hand the left refuses to see any good in Iraq. No objective assessment can be made by someone who thinks that no good can come of it. Such intolerance can never truly be rewarded by the universe.

I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that we have been defeated in Iraq, and yet that is what the left has pronounced. Defeat. We can’t win this militarily they say. We are in a quagmire they say. Talk down the war as a failure. Tell young americans that they shouldn’t join the armed forces to fight and die for a lost cause.

I don’t think our troops are fighting for a lost cause. The nature of morale is such that talking negatively can affect it. Or do you disagree? Dissention has a direct affect on morale. Talking about defeat is the definition of lowering morale. And yet troop morale, especially of those in Iraq, is still very high!

I am only one voice after all. Can I not voice my opinion about the effect of the lefts positions on morale?

The left is beginning to succeed in lowering the morale of the American people. Speaking out about that is not a knee-jerk response, unless you view it as a danger to be countered, as it should be.

What is the purpose of ensuring that everyone believes we have already lost?

Posted by: esimonson at January 16, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #113717

Ericd Simonson:

Maybe you should visit Iraq as a tourist and interview the locals in Baghdad, Mosul and Tikrit on the street? Come back and tell us about it.

Then maybe I will start believing the Republican Shills.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #113722

“This is what I don’t understand. If I’ve got it so wrong how come those who say I am painting the wrong picture of the stated (quoted) beliefs of the left don’t disagree with what these guys say, but instead try to argue that what they said was something besides what they clearly said?”

You’re still wrong. You need to ask and listen… you are still making assumptions, grasshoper.

Posted by: tony at January 16, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #113727

Eric:

“The nature of morale is such that talking negatively can affect it.”

I wouldn’t be so sure that morale is the issue we should be discussing. Rather, as my brother, a Marine stationed overseas, rightly points out, more important are the much more tangible issues of supply logistics, proper bedding, armor, ammunition, and the like, etc. As he says “I’m defending your right to disagree with me, but at least give me good armour and body protection to do so”.

Blaming liberals for creating poor morale does nothing except illuminate the generally myopic nature of the right at present and its inability to grasp the practical realities of the war in Iraq.

Posted by: ant at January 16, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #113729

Exactly, what is wrong in pointing this out?

“The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin [body armor] and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.”

Ah yes… damaging morale indeed. Nothing like having inferior body armor EVEN TODAY to keep your Troops happy.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #113739

>>Let’s examine this for a moment. On the one hand the left refuses to see any good in Iraq. No objective assessment can be made by someone who thinks that no good can come of it. Such intolerance can never truly be rewarded by the universe.

I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that we have been defeated in Iraq, and yet that is what the left has pronounced.

esimonson,

We were defeated before it began. I’m not sure how to approach this, because children sometimes misunderstand plain talk, but here goes…when a junior high bully whips up on the weaker nerd and takes his lunch money, it might be said by a Republican that the bully ‘won’. A Democrat, on the other hand would see the same outcome and say, not only the bully ‘lost’, but everyone who allowed it to happen also ‘lost’.

Now, if Dubbya placed us in Iraq through bullying, and he did, because we had zero business there, Republicans will take any positive position as a ‘win’. But since our invasion and subsequent actions lack honor, a Democrat will say that no matter what the end result is, we have ‘lost’.

The only honorable thing to do is back away with as much integrity as we can. By that I mean, be honest with the Iraqis and be honest with the American people.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #113740

‘Democrats are still convinced that defeating Bush depends on appeasing their hardcore left base by making sure that they portray Iraq as exactly like ‘unwinnable’ Vietnam and a complete failure from start to finish.’

Speaking as a former member of the hardcore left base of the Democratic Party, I think the Dems have done a terrible job of appeasing me. With the Liebermans, Bidens, Clintons et.al. they’ve done a particularly good job of ‘straddling the fence while keeping both ears to the ground’,(as H.L.Mencken once said of politicians),at least in regard to the war, anyway.

The portrayal of Iraq being a no-win situation like Vietnam doesn’t need the Dems’ lame hand-wringing—the facts alone seem to be enough.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 16, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #113745

The debate of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong to be in Iraq is one debate.

The debate that is current is are we winning?
YES!!

When can we change the winning to won? We don’t know; only the military leaders can get a grip on that.

The present left political scene is that they hate President Bush so much that they would rather see over 2,000 military lives lost in vain. They would rather have turmoil than peace. This is demostrated daily. They open lie and distort fact. The big picture is that we will win in Iraq. It is not a victory that will satisfy the left. It will be an Iraq victory. When I see the leftist, socialist, marxist, totalitarianists, stand and decry how evil the United States is, it makes me sore and angry that their words and actions are an attempt to destroy this great nation. It is truly sad that they are trying to destroy what our forefathers fought and died for so that we can enjoy the liberty and freedom that we so take for granted.

God Bless America!

Posted by: tomh at January 16, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #113747

God has blessed America over and over and over agian. Frankly, I think she’s getting tired of it. And she really is getting fed up having her name used to win schmaltzy political arguements.

After this administration trashs what is left of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the least of this country’s problems will be the political Left.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 16, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #113748

“The present left political scene is that they hate President Bush so much that they would rather see over 2,000 military lives lost in vain”

If you seriously believe this crap - then you are completely blinded by politics. You go on about the evils represented by the left, so I am guessing that you don’t know any liberals.

Posted by: tony at January 16, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #113749

As long as the voters of————— re elect the kennedy”s We are screwed. Ted is a fellon and a coward! He covered his policical ass and it worked. It is hard to converse as long ss this pervails. Talk talk talk the voters have spoken. BC

Posted by: B. C.. at January 16, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #113753

>> It is truly sad that they are trying to destroy what our forefathers fought and died for so that we can enjoy the liberty and freedom that we so take for granted.

tomh,

Sorry son, but our forefathers would roll in their collective graves if they witnessed Dubbya’s type of republic. The very Constitution of which they were so proud, has been weakened by the ‘warrentless wonderboy’. They would NEVER condone FORCING democracy on another sovereign nation. The reason they thought ‘checks and balances’ was so important was foreseeing how power grubbers can wrest control of the government and the governed so easily. They may be crying now…I know I am.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #113756

>>The present left political scene is that they hate President Bush so much that they would rather see over 2,000 military lives lost in vain

tomh,

Those deaths have BEEN in vain. What I’d like is for the next two thousand to not be lost at all.

Tell you what…if Dubbya will take our people out of Iraq, put enough of them in Afghanistan to find ObL and his henchmen, then rebuild that nation to the point that it can carry on without our help, he will have actually won something. That MIGHT make dying in vain, as you put it, worth something. And, as an added bonus, Iraq will have an opportunity to heal. It can become a democracy if the people wish it, and if they do wish it, the resulting democracy will be something they can be proud of. If they don’t wish it, the one we have forced them into won’t last anyway.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #113760

Sometimes I think the Republicans are deliberately supplying poor Armor to the GIs to increase the body count. Certainly the phrase “over two thousand from dying in vain” sounds a lot better than “can’t leave cause noone’s dead yet”.

We can’t leave because it would betray the dead so we stay and create more dead to reinforce the reason we are staying in the first place.

Makes perfect Republican Sense.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #113768

Tony

My friendship list makes the UN look like pikers.
I have worked with socialists, communists, liberals, and so on at the political level. I know what their bankrupt policies are and where they would take this country. They are not honest. They deceive. They will enslave you. I know because I have been there in the innner circles.

Posted by: tomh at January 16, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #113810

No such thing as a Liberal Slaver. Slavery is a purely Conservative Action.

Posted by: Aldous at January 17, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #113866

Walter Cronkite is a perfect example of what the Democratic Party has become. Old and of little use to the American Public or CBS. Murtha and Moron are the perfect examples of what the Democrat Party will become. Losers out of touch with the American Public. Doesn’t matter to me. They like trying to lose wars and can always be counted on to lose elections. And that’s good. Murtha can’t be too good of an Ex-Marine, or he would believe in “Death Before Dishonor”. He’s Dishonoring our Brave Men and Women in the Military and putting them at risk for political gain and I find no Honor at all in the man. He could still show a little Honor and resign from the House of Representatives now or quit calling himself a former Marine!

Posted by: Gopher at January 17, 2006 4:05 AM
Comment #113872

Eric Simonson

That’s a weak arguement! So weak a zeitgeist you had to use the name “Michael Moore” (I’m guessing that is the barrometer of whether you are going to start a blame game and gee-whiz I was right).

WE are by and large not opposed to the war because we side with Saddam—you didn’t make that charge but we, speaking mostly for myself, are against it because:

A) It was a pointless venture with little or no value, diplomatically or otherwise.
B)We hadn’t yet finished the job in Afghanistan at the time and by and large under Bush we still haven’t.
C)The Administration tried to sell this war under the heading of Al Qaida linkage (utter bull-crap!) and they were in on 9-11 (real bull-crapola) and that they had weapons of mass destruction even after the CIA, who would know, said explicitly that there were NOT. Now proven to be correct even after fighting with Republicans online who said well Tennet said this and that.
D) We HAD NO FRICKIN’ PLAN—HELLO? And claimed, to our open-mouthed expression, that it WOULD COST ONLY A FEW MILLION DOLLARS before The United States congress—Ha, that’s barely the plane ride?
E) WE knew full well that this conflict has been on a republican thinktank wishlist for years including the PNAC of which directly connects to The Bush White House of which even Jeb is a member.
F)George Bush was a moron, okay seriously that’s just me.
G)They claimed they WERE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS WITH OIL REVENUES!!!! Oooh what happened to that, huh? Sounded dumb then, sounds dumb now, WTF is the difference? Stoopid is as stoopid suggests.
H) A no-BS answer was ever provided as to why they wanted to do this. It was all crap via Rove and White House aversion to any questions. With claims that it helps the enemy to ask questions of our government of which we all pay for. They were never straight forward with us about it.
I) From day one in theis new whitehouse, there was this weird spooky drone sound eminating which kept saying “Stand behind your new leader” this was war talk from 2000 on.
J) The man’s innauguration was a war parade with military outfits and not only that HIS CABINET WAS A WAR CABINET. Not only a war cabinet but an OIL war cabinet stocked with the likes of Cheney(Halliburton), Condi(Chevron) and ofcourse George(Zapata, Harken Energy, and the other one that his father owned out of Texas I’ll think of it later). Plus they had Colin Powell AS SECRETARY OF STATE—A US Army General, think about it), War of some sort was on their agenda at the starting gate.
K) I did not trust them nor had any faith in them as they were all coldwar dinosaurs it was all about what they were bound to cook up eventually—I didn’t honestly think it would be anything this dumb, but lo’ and behold.

Just to give you some idea Eric, there you have it. Anyone care to add anything on????

Posted by: Novenge at January 17, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #113887

And secondly as far as Murtha, that’s all you can do to defend this war that’s sad and a sign that you are losing the debate. The war was dumb and radical and if you misdirect attention to Murtha, Kennedy and Dean enough you might only come out of this looking half-retarded. The war from it’s genesis was stupid and planned befor eBush took office AND COMPLETELY ILL-THOUGHT OUT AS EVIDENCED BY THESE WHITEHOUSE DINGBATS HAVING NO PLAN even after a decade of having been on the table in republican circles—still nuthin’, duh nada. Even after ten years of thinktank that’s what you got—duh.

There you want the truth? There it is.

Posted by: Novenge at January 17, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #113908

‘Murtha and Moron are the perfect examples of what the Democrat Party will become. Losers out of touch with the American Public.’

If voicing the concerns of the majority of Americans regarding this war is being out of touch, if raising the alarm about warrentless spying on Americans is out of touch, then stomping on the Geneva Conventions and Nuremburg rulings on pre-emptive aggression on third-rate military powers is out of touch, and shredding all the beliefs and laws and legal precedents (sp)that this country has stood for over 200 years in a swirl of fear-driven expendiency is about as out-of-touch as you can get.

This absolute insistence in following this president off a moral and legal cliff in the name of patriotism and national solidarity, is the biggest lie (of many many lies) that the Republicans and the neo-cons have perpetrated.

This entire administration is based on lies, nourishes lying, encourages lying, in fact, could not exist as a viable entity without its lies. It has lied about the economy—trade deficits don’t matter, the national debt doesn’t matter—, global warming doesn’t matter, fair elections don’t matter, Congress doesn’t matter, the constitutional principles of checks and balances and transparency in government doesn’t matter, a Medicare perscription bill that works for real people doesn’t matter, corruption and outright thievery doesn’t matter. Profits, power, and the unfettered right to use both is all that matters.

The seriousness of all these issues is of no concern to them. And the undermining of the principles of freedom and the republic to insure their own continuation in perpetuity will be their undoing.

And I am doing what little I can to hasten that day along.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 17, 2006 6:14 AM
Comment #113954

” I know what their bankrupt policies are and where they would take this country. They are not honest. They deceive. They will enslave you. I know because I have been there in the innner circles.”

OK - no idea what inner circle you’re talking about, but I can tell from your posts that you do not understand the perspective of liberals, so you devise assumptions to dismiss their point of view. I’m not here to convince you are wrong, but… you are.

Posted by: tony at January 17, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #114032

We have already won the war in Iraq. Why doesn’t anyone understand that. We have taken down a brutal government, killed the sons of a dictator, arrested that dictator, installed a constitution and had elections. WE HAVE WON.

So why don’t we send our men and women home now?

Please don’t respond with the “Fight them over there” quotes, because as England found out that is absolutely false.

We have won and our job is finished.

Posted by: Vincent at January 17, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #114033
J) … HIS CABINET WAS A WAR CABINET. … Plus they had Colin Powell AS SECRETARY OF STATE—A US Army General, Posted by: Novenge at January 17, 2006 04:39 AM
Don’t forget that Powell, the only real military man there, resigned as soon as he figured out that there truely was nothing good he could do working for BushCo and as soon as was praticably possible. Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #114037

Vincent,
“We have won and our job is finished. So why don’t we send our men and women home now?”

We won the war, we’re now in the process of winning the peace. It’s a volatile region (middle east) and it certainly takes time. We have won the war and we WILL win the Peace! God Bless America…

Posted by: rahdigly at January 17, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #114042

“Win the Peace”?
You mean when Rummy woke up about 1 year ago and decided that “post-fighting” was kind of important too? Even though it took 60,000 troops to keep the peace in Bosnia, BushCo had said it would take 50,000 in Iraq?

There was never a good war, or a bad peace.

Benjamin Franklin

Leave it to this administration to bastardize even that simple truth.
Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #114044

tERRORISM IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Come on everyone give socialists and dictators another chance - The US is evil - who are we to prevent torturing, killing en masse?? LIke who do we think we are?

Libs for Sadam!!

Posted by: miKE at January 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #114045

“Blaming liberals for creating poor morale does nothing except illuminate the generally myopic nature of the right at present and its inability to grasp the practical realities of the war in Iraq. “

Yea cause liberals understand war so well!
Scuse me while I hide under the covers

Posted by: Mike at January 17, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #114051

Mike:

You do that. Of course, ducking the issues posted in the previous paragraph of the post you just quoted from does nothing to address the issues. Rather, you just made a vague accusation (what I’m guessing is a veiled reference to pacifist ideology) and thereby make yourself feel better about the Right’s inability to understand that ideology alone does not win wars.

Yes, we have made some headway in Iraq; removing Saddam from power is something that is good. But that does not justify putting our troops in harms way without the very best that we as a nation can provide for them (not to mention even having a good reason to go to war to begin with). Do you have anything to say on the specific issues of supplies, armour, etc? Because I tend to believe those who are living it over those that only walk lockstep behind an ideologically driven President.

Posted by: ant at January 17, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #114052

Dave,
“”Win the Peace”? Leave it to this administration to bastardize even that simple truth.”


Yeah that’s right, “winning the peace”. So sorry that it’s not as simple and quick for you Mike. Maybe if the anti-war and anti-bushies would wake up and (truly) support the troops, it wouldn’t be so hard. However, with the negative stories, not giving our soldiers the benefit of the doubt, and all the Democratic Congressmen speaking out against the troops and the war, it’s unbelievable we’ve come this far. Way to go troops; they’ll win despite the critics, politicians and naysayers.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 17, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #114054

a quote from Houston, the Bush backyard, on Iraq:

“we cannot leave and we cannot stay and we cannot win - a total mess”

Removing Saddam in exchange for an unstable theocratic state, the training ground for the next generation of terrorists and the decline of American prestige throughout the world, all for the low price of $300 billion dollars. Yes, that’s a bargain.

Yes, please go claim that victory. I know I am overwhelmed with pride and am ready to disavow any complaints I have made in the past about this administration.

Posted by: CPAdams at January 17, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #114056

hey rahdigly,

Let’s see how good your statements are once we remove the “Against the troops” lies that KKKarl wants you people to promote:

Yeah that’s right, “winning the peace”. So sorry that it’s not as simple and quick for you Mike. Maybe if the anti-war and anti-bushies would wake up and (truly) support the troops, it wouldn’t be so hard. However, with the negative stories, not giving our soldiers the benefit of the doubt, and all the Democratic Congressmen speaking out against the troops and the war, it’s unbelievable we’ve come this far. Way to go troops; they’ll win despite the critics, politicians and naysayers. Posted by rahdigly at January 17, 2006 01:54 PM
Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #114059

Dave,
“KKKarl”

????? The Democrats are the ones that are associated with the KKK; not the Republicans. Dems were for slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. One of your Democratic Senators, Robert (KKK) Byrd was a former member of the Clan. Nice.


So, except the fact that we’re winning the peace and (maybe) pick up a history book to find out about the “beloved” Democratic Party.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 17, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #114060

‘But that does not justify putting our troops in harms way’

oNLY A LIB could think of a war where no one got hurt -

‘could we all just get along?? Maybe we could all just tie so that way no one would feel bad’

Posted by: MIKE at January 17, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #114065

Bush sabotaged himself. He went into a huge WWII style invasion and occupation thinking he could get out before Christmas, thinking that the Iraqis, weighed down for thirty years under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein could spontaneously start thinking like folks in a Democracy, and do all the expensive reconstruction for themselves.

Worse yet, he failed to make up for those mistakes, or even admit they were mistakes long after the fact. By doing this, he let problems fester until America lost control of the situation. Now after much sacrifice Americans wonder whether this sacrifice that Bush never really asked for was worth it, and seeing the results of the policy, Americans mostly cannot see the worth.

Now we can try the emotional blackmail of talking about not denigrating the sacrifice of the soldier, but as said long ago, a soldier sacrifice belongs to him and her, and the honor is theirs. A nation can waste those honorable sacrifices, especially if it doesn’t ask the sacrifice at home and in the field necessary to get things done.

By the way, when Murtha talks about making the pullout look like a victory, he’s not implying that we should like losers coming out of this. He’s saying that we should draw this out excessively just to prove our machismo. If is our strategy to withdraw, we should do so in a timely fashion, and not drag things out.

And Murtha’s right: if we’re unhappy with the way the GOP did things, we should express that at the polls, and take them out of those offices they so roundly failed. I know David and d.a.n. might think I’m pro incumbent, but I have no problem in kicking incompetent people to the curb. In fact, I think that’s our duty as Americans. The strongest message we can send to our leaders is the voting out of candidates that don’t suit us, and the retention of those who please us. We can be the equivalent of natural selection that forces our politicians to evolve into the leaders we want.

I think you come down on Cronkites statements about our ignorance too hard. After all, yours is the party implementing no child left behind, and yours is the party saying that our culture is being led down hill. If Cronkite is an elitist, what are you, with your Books of Virtues, and your Ann Coulters and Sean Hannities going on smugly about the foolishness and depravity of half the country.

As for deception, aren’t you the guys constantly going on about how the media isn’t showing everything, and about how folks aren’t getting the whole story on the war?

I don’t take Cronkite’s pessimism, but I do think we should be more humble because it is in humility that we will admit to ourselves that we screwed up, that we need to do better, and figure how to get ourselves out of our situation.

As for Somalia, it was a mess. Period. Mohamed Aidid was one warlord among many in a country that had no real government. The UN here had its problems, as did we. What would your solution have been? To launch airstrikes on Mogadishu? When we defeated Aidid, would we go and defeat all the other warlords and then set up a new government amidst all the tribalism?

All this in response to what was supposed to be temporary humanitarian mission the UN was supposed to get handed? One that the elder Bush handed him to begin with?

Eric, you’re just looking for ways to paint the same picture over and over again regardless of the actual details. You buy your party’s line, then you try and sell it to everybody else. Has it ever occured to you to inspect the products yourself?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #114067

Yea we dont want ideologically driven leaders - we want leaders who have no ideas at all (Like Billy Bob - Hey Monica could u do a lewinsky on Sadam maybe he will quit acting up for awhile)

Democrats for Sadam!!

Posted by: MIke at January 17, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #114068

David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, standard bearers for the ACLU, - isnt that right rahdigly?

Posted by: CPAdams at January 17, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #114074

ragidly,

Good comeback, should look good in your book report. Is that for the 5th grade?

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #114075

Its amazing to me that pulling out will seem like a loss….does that mean we were never going to pull out? Ever? Of course not. So we pull out now, save some money and some lives (at least american ones). Or we pull out later, spend a sh** load of money, lose more american soldiers, lose more political capitol with the new Iraqi gov’t. Wow, doesn’t seem like much of a choice, now does it.
toni

Posted by: Antonia Reed at January 17, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #114079

Bush needs to try telling the Bidons and the Kennedys of this world that they are wrong, misguided, and trying to convince Americans that we are not winning in Iraq is anti-American and results in more wounded soldiers daily!! Bush needs to look at them and just say, “youre idiots and I will do what it takes to get the job done. You are a discrase to our country.” We need to be much more intollerant of their anti-American retoric.

Posted by: R. C. at January 16, 2006 07:08 PM
Well R.C. you need a spell checker! You need to look at how you are communicating. I would think, wow, are all conservative and/or Bush supporters so dumb? Of course not.
Questioning something is not un-American. In fact, we have the gov’t that we have in place so that we can question our gov’t’s decisions. In dictatorships, you cannot question your gov’t’s responses. Are you suggesting that we would be better off under a dictatorship? I’m sure that you are not.
While it is true that interfering with the armed forces decisions does little to win or lose an engagement, we do have that thing called “checks and balances” for a reason. Bush and his cronies have not adequately given the necessary equipment to our “warriors” to help them win this entanglement. They are cutting services for the “warriors” that have done as good a job under the circumstances, when they come home. Is this the type of gov’t that is sending mixed signals? Yes, it is. On the one hand, the Bushies say we will be there until the bitter end. But they are not making the appropriate decisions regarding equipment and in some cases have misspent the money allocated to Iraq. But if anyone questions their decisions, then we are Un-American. Sorry that does not fly.
Hope you learn to a) get your point across better and b) use your spell check and or learn your grammar.

Posted by: Antonia Reed at January 17, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #114085

I would like to thank all of you good liberals for the support you are giving our movement. If you could keep putting pressure on your goverment to pull out of the MIdeast we will be able to establish an Islamic EMpire which should overtake the west in the next 50 years. Your women should buy veils and you men get prayer mats - we offer no such freedoms like those horrible intolerant Christians do!

The biggest threat to the west was islamic fundamentalism - the biggest threat to islamic fundamentalism - is the United States and George Bush - get rid of him and we can take over - keep up the good work!


Osama

Posted by: MIke at January 17, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #114086

Dave

Why bring up the KKK slur at all? Most KKK members historically Democrats and the only former KKK member of congress is a Democrat. The South was solidly Democratic during the KKK ascendance. Today the organization is just silly. When they march, the protestors tend to outnumber them by wide margins.

As for me (and most Republicans), we just want to judge people by the content of their characters, not the color of their skins and most of us have never believed otherwise. Few of us took part in the civil rights struggles on either side. Many were not born. The 1960s are getting to be a long time ago. Someone who voted was been politically active back in 1964 would have to be at least sixty years old today. Don’t try to blame this generation of Republicans for something a former generation of Democrats did. (BTW - I would not blame the current generation of Democrats either. A person is responsible for what they do or don’t do. No guilt can be inherited).

Re Colin Powell, do you really believe what you wrote? Took the guy a long time to get around to it and I don’t recall his making the same point you do.

Posted by: Jack at January 17, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #114087

Hey Antonia

Sometimes its not a spell checker but one of the translators that takes one character and changes it - but I know as a very tolerant liberal you would never make fun of somone whose intellect YOU CONSIDER is not up to par as a result of being educated in the US Public school system.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at January 17, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #114088

Ok it was Clinton who started the slashing of the military, I was in the Coast Guard under him, he took away Sonar Men and torpedoes off the cutters, he got rid of Armor, and did his best to ensure that the military was punished for not voting for him.

Now Bush should have ramped up and replaced what Clinton took away, but rest assured that is not how the government works, it literally takes an act of Congress to get anything done, the life time civil servants are what mucks up the works.

To my brothers and sisters on the right, you guys have got to stop trying to argue with the left, they do not understand.

:” We were defeated before it began. I’m not sure how to approach this, because children sometimes misunderstand plain talk, but here goes…when a junior high bully whips up on the weaker nerd and takes his lunch money, it might be said by a Republican that the bully ‘won’. A Democrat, on the other hand would see the same outcome and say, not only the bully ‘lost’, but everyone who allowed it to happen also ‘lost’.” Marysdude

See they do not get it, they would rather let someone take their way with them so they can maintain a morally superior attitude.

“Those who beat their swords into Plowshares, will soon find themselves under the yoke of those who kept their sword”

Whose job is it to ensure your own security? YOUR OWN, not the governments on anything, do not depend on them for your retirement, your medical care or anything. That is the difference.

>> It is truly sad that they are trying to destroy what our forefathers fought and died for so that we can enjoy the liberty and freedom that we so take for granted.
tomh,
“Sorry son, but our forefathers would roll in their collective graves if they witnessed Dubbya’s type of republic. The very Constitution of which they were so proud, has been weakened by the ‘warrentless wonderboy’. They would NEVER condone FORCING democracy on another sovereign nation. The reason they thought ‘checks and balances’ was so important was foreseeing how power grubbers can wrest control of the government and the governed so easily. They may be crying now…I know I am.
Posted by: Marysdude at January 16, 2006 09:21 PM “

I agree, they would have not been pleased with the new deal at all, and the seditious commentary by those around would have been dealt with much harshly.

I am looking forward to the revolution when all try and come for me.

Sean

Posted by: Sean at January 17, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #114090

Sean,

“Ok it was Clinton who started the slashing of the military,”

How can I take you seriously, when your first statement is so wrong?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #114093

I was there, I know what he did, Bush dropped the ball, and did not return to prior budgets, but it began at Clinton. Believe it or not.

Sean

Posted by: Sean at January 17, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #114094

Sean,

Goggle Peace dividend.

The draw down of the military was started by Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defence, under then President Bush.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #114095

Jack,

re:Rove
rahdigly focused on the clan aspect. I associate Rove’s and DeLay’s K-St. Project etc… tactics with those of pre-war Southern slave states (See: Charles Sumner. It’s not an important association. My regret is the distraction it allowed.

re:Republicans & Guilt
I don’t blame past actions by dead people (with the possible exception of Reagan and Attwater…)for what the GOP has become. {my former party by the way}

re: Powell
Yes, I believe that Powell stayed as long as he did out of an incredibly deep sense of duty to this nation. I believe that he left as soon as he could do so with a clear concience. For his service, I hope he’s been able to purge the guilt he has over the UN speech.

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #114096

The peace dividend was coined by a democrat congres under GHWB. Congress controls the money

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #114097

Weray Willie,

And?

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower
US general & Republican politician (1890 - 1969)

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #114098

ok you win. I know what I know.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/05-03-01/loy.html

Sean

Posted by: Sean at January 17, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #114099

Who was where in 1994?

“This year, I am pleased to report that the active duty enlisted work force is back to its authorized strength for the first time since 1994. “

http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/05-03-01/loy.html

Posted by: Sean at January 17, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #114100

And..It is congress that cut the military budget. You can’t blame Bush and Chaney because they don’t control the money. They had to make do with what they were handed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #114101

Wille,

“You can’t blame Bush and Chaney because they don’t control the money. They had to make do with what they were handed.”

Who ok’ed the budget?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #114102

Sean,

In 2002 alot more people than today were stupid enough to believe Bush. They signed up for how many years? How many are in Iraq after their tour was up?

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #114103

Who beat the hell out of Bush for saying “Read My Lips”. Bush tried, he tried, he tried to get along. All he got was screwed up the behind by a congress that had every intention of beating him up.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #114105

Willie,

The question was who ok’ed the budget?

Clinton didn’t start the Defence Dept. drawdown. If you are going to re-write history, you might as well blame him for the Civil war as well.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #114106

>>This year, I am pleased to report that the active duty enlisted work force is back to its authorized strength for the first time since 1994.

Sean,

As Rocky said, >>The draw down of the military was started by Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defence, under then President Bush.

It lasted until 1994. Who was President from 1994 until 2001?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 17, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #114107

Sean,

I will add this…how is the military strength standing today? Are not enlistments down and rentention down? Is that not one of Rummy’s worries?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 17, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #114108

Marysdude,

“Ok it was Clinton who started the slashing of the military, I was in the Coast Guard under him, he took away Sonar Men and torpedoes off the cutters, he got rid of Armor, and did his best to ensure that the military was punished for not voting for him.”

Posted by: Sean at January 17, 2006 03:48 PM

Again I ask, who started the Drawdown?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #114111

I stay away from Watchblog for a few days, simply to give my temper a bit of a rest, and this completely retarded and half-assed troll of an article is the first thing I see.

But wait a second… Why get angry? Why not completely escape from the harsh reality the way all these righties do?

If there is one thing that marks the general consensus on the left right today it’s that losing is somehow a winning position. The determination with which the left right seems to pursue securing a political defeat for America is astounding.

I couldn’t agree more.

Is it just that the wrong party is in power?

Oh, without a doubt. Most everything these Republicans have been doing seems to be wrong in one way or another.

But the ferris wheel of defeat goes on whether I understand it or not.

Well, it’s actually quite easy to understand when you consider that an Iraqi insurgency was never even considered or planned for before their pre-emptive, optional, and mistaken invasion.
Truly, only the most appallingly stupid of men could have ignored the warnings and advice of their generals to do what Bushco has done/ is doing. The history of guerilla warfare and insurgency has shown us that these are extremely hard and bloody wars to fight and win. And they also tend to last for a very long time.
For instance, The ETA (Basque separatists in Spain and France) have been around for close to fifty years. The Provisional IRA in Ireland lasted almost forty. The Palestinian insurgency, forty years and running. The Chinese Communist insurgency, over thirty years. Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan has now been around for more than twenty. The Sandinistas lasted for almost twenty. The Kashmiri insurgency has lasted fifteen, and is still not completely gone. The Chechen’s have been around for ten. Even our own insurgency, the American Revolution, lasted for eight long years.

Yes, guerilla insurgencies are very tough beasts to put down —and you’d think that our military would have been obsessively studying them since they’ve become so commonplace in the modern era, yet they haven’t been. Instead, our government has been allowing them to put all their focus and money toward studying “future threats” (ie. Starwars, anti-satellite weapons, laser warfare, etc.) and building lots of high-tech weapons systems that do absolutely nothing to addresss old fashioned guerilla warfare, or prepare us for something as small and deadly as a suitcase bomb.
When all this is considered, the ferris wheel of Neocon defeat becomes a lot easier to understand.

There is no indication yet that democrats republicans in particular are ready to change their failing strategy

How right you are. Clearly, we have no strategy in Iraq at all when it takes the most powerful army in the world about two days to get from the airport in Baghdad to the Green Zone, because our troops have to keep fighting to secure the same stretch of highway over and over and over. Now, I don’t know about you, but being the practical sort, I find myself extremely unimpressed with things like super high-tech unmanned drone planes, when I know our soldiers are fighting to secure those roads with insufficient body armor and not enough armored vehicles to protect them against these simple IED’s which are killing and maiming them everyday.

Of course, Bushco keeps claiming that “when the Iraqi’s stand up, we’ll stand down”, then in the next breath, they lie about the numbers of Iraqi people they’ve managed to train. They say things like 110,000 policemen and 100,000 soldiers have been trained, then we find out that the actual number is more like 5000 to 18,000 — and that among those who have supposedly been trained, it’s quite common for them to throw down their weapons and refuse to fight when they’re supposed to.
Learning things like this tells us that not only can we not trust this administration to ever speak the truth, or deal with anything remotely approaching reality, but that our troops will be fighting and dying over their mistaken quagmire of a war for many years to come — or until our economy goes completely broke — which ever comes first.

Democrats Republicans are still convinced that defeating Bush this grim reality depends on appeasing their hardcore left rightwing base by making sure that they portray Iraq as exactly like a ‘un ‘winnable’ Vietnam and a complete failure victory from start to finish. The fact that this requires not only gross exaggeration, damage to morale of both the troops and the American people, but also looks a lot like sour anti-americanism completely nonsensical bullshit doesn’t seem to matter still.

You’re right, it really doesn’t seem to matter to them at all. But have you seen their poll numbers? They’re not fooling too many people these days!

“those like Murtha are practiced in advising retreat the kind of brave, highly experienced veterans who recognize that there has been no planning or strategy, therefore, there can be no victory.

Yeah, really. Personally I wonder how they can smear a heavily decorated Marine veteran like Murtha, when the vast majority of these Neocons have never been anywhere near a war.
And good lord, does it ever show!

“Deja vu?”

Indeed. It’s exactly like Vietnam all over again.
What a bunch o’ numbskulls!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 17, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #114114

>>Indeed. It’s exactly like Vietnam all over again.
What a bunch o’ numbskulls!

Wow! Adrienne, you go!!!

Posted by: Marysdude at January 17, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #114120

Adrienne:

Nice. Really excellent.

You’re going to have to give me lessons on how to use this site—that was very effective, what you did. How do you cross out words like that? In fact, how do you offset a quote, with a line down the margin? That really helps in clarifying what you’re commeting on. (Can you tell I’m no computer geek?)

Welcome back, by the way!

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 17, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #114129

This Looks Better :)

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/monos/bushdef/craig.html
Lessons of the Bush Defeat:
The Promise Breaker and the Future
by Mickey G. Craig


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19900201faessay6008/gregory-f-treverton/the-defense-debate.html
The Defense Debate
Gregory F. Treverton
From Foreign Affairs, America and the World 1989/90
Article preview: first 500 of 5,343 words total.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517021.500.html
Article Preview
Fewer guns, but not much butter, in Bush’s budget …
03 February 1990
CHRISTOPHER JOYCE, HELEN GAVAGHAN and CHRIS VAUGHAN
Magazine issue 1702

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/USmilitarybudget02.htm
PENTAGON MYTHS AND GLOBAL REALITIES:
THE 1993 MILITARY BUDGET
by Jeffrey R. Gerlach
Jeffrey R. Gerlach is a foreign policy
analyst at the Cato Institute.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #114131

Willie,

I can only assume that your previous post is meant to counter my claim that as Sean posted, “Ok it was Clinton who started the slashing of the military” was technicly incorrect.
Nowhere in any of your links does it say that Clinton was responsible for the initial downgrading of the military as Sean claimed.
Your previous claim that Bush had to deal with a Democratic Congress, while correct doesn’t take into account that the ‘93 budget was also signed by Bush and ‘94 was the “Republican Revolution” and the “Contract with America”.

Please, let me point out that all Presidents have to deal with Congress.
This administration has had a relitively easy time of pushing through defence spending after Sept, 11th.

I will still stand by my original statement.

The drawdown of our forces started under President Bush 1, and Sec. of Defence Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #114135

The drawdown of our forces started under President Bush 1, and Sec. of Defence Dick Cheney

I’ll give you that.

I didn’t know Mr. Murtha made the same comments in the 70’s as he’s making now! I didn’t know that.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to fight an insurgent war in Afganistan. A land locked mountain. What value does it have.

Alexander didn’t conquor Afganistan. He conquored Babalon. That was a good movie btw. :)

I’m not equating Bush with Alexander. Bush really isn’t gay. But why wouldn’t you go for the biggest prize when you’re playing for keeps.

Iraq has water. More than Saudia Arabia has oil. More than anyone there has water.
How many cowboys fought over water. Alot.

Iraq is the cornerstone of the Middle East. It has to be brought into the real world the same way Europe did in the last century.

“Those that no not their history are doomed to repeat it.” Someone

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #114138

Willie,

Are you saying this war was over water? I mean, why not? If O’lielly et. al. jump on the Karlspinwagon, that may be this weeks sheep food…
Also, I like the Gerlich link: “The
proposed fiscal year 1993 defense budget calls for spending $281 billion.” Even with inflation, that’s comperable to this war. Way to go Bushie!

Adrienne,

Well done! I’m going to keep using the strikeout if you don’t mind…

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #114139

Thanks Marysdude.
Tim Crow, you too.
To use the formatting tips, just look above the comment box when you’re writing a reply. You see where it says HTML Formatting Tips? That’s everything you might want to use right there — just highlight, copy, and paste those into your comment box, and substitute your own words between the symbols. For instance you’d take out the words bold text, or italicize text and then substitute something like:

This article sucks.

Where it says http://domain.com/link, you’d erase that and between the ” quotes ” type in your own url to make a direct link to another webpage.

Use the blockquote formatting at the very bottom to get

the little dotted line to appear on the margin beside any quoted piece of text.

To make sure what you’ve tried to do is actually going to appear as you intended, make sure to hit the preview button and check out how it’s going to look before clicking on the post button.
Hope this helps rather than confuses you! If it does, let me know and I’ll take another stab at trying to explain again. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at January 17, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #114140

Thanks Dave!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 17, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #114146

Here, Here, Hey, Hey! Adrienne!
You may take this the wrong way when I say “Well Done!”.
But maybe not.
You’ve educated a new person at the expence of our time.
Does that sound condesending?
I hope not because your post was directed to a person who asked a question and it was factual and specific and it answered the question barring any political preferrence.
May I say again “Well Done”

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #114149

Would anyone be interested in something called a “Block Government”?

My Governor is trying to eliminate the Township Trustee position in my State Government. I’m trying to find an alternative to an absence of local government. I can’t see a benefit to “no” local government.
I’m not a publisher on Watchblog.com but I do listen and I do have an opinion. I learned tonight that I have to know what I’m talking about
But I can’t rely on court cases to make my point that local government should stick around.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #114150

Put me down as glad too that Adrienne’s back. You rock!

Posted by: ray at January 17, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #114153

What does a Dog do best? A Dog, Man’s best friend. What does he do best?

First and formost he protects his territory!

It’s good to have a dog on your property. They’re attentive, they can hear better than us, They’re faster than us.

A well trained dog is more qualified to protect your home than the local police department is.

The dog knows the territory. He’s naturally atuned to his environment. He wakes easily and hears much better than we do. He is the perfect mechanism to patrol our envirnment.

But…

They don’t talk.
They have teeth. They kill things they fear.

Does that make them dangerous?.. Or Valuable?

Let’s see if George Bush has anything to do with this one? What does Our man Mitch say about turning over protection of our homes to dogs?

Let’s see if GWB or our man Mitch can get into our yard when our dogs are here!

My dog has to get into contact with it’s adversary before he makes an impression. I do too. I have to make contact before I can make an empression.

How much more personal can you get to a man and his dog.

The Federal government is training dolphins to carry bombs to ships. That’s drastic compared to what we need to do.

You can buy a camera in Walmart that you could attach to your dog’s head and he will record anything and everything he sees. It’s that easy to protect your environment.

You don’t need “300,000 new cops on the street”. You don’t need tougher laws on crime. You just need a resource that will document the crime. And that would be your dog.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #114154

“Let’s see if George Bush has anything to do with this one?”

If I see George peeing on my mailbox I’m gonna shoot him.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #114157

It would depend on if the terain was rocky, or not. Dogs piss on things that don’t move. Dogs like stability but they also know when they have the advantage.
A rock still stays where it is even tho the dog has moved on.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #114158

The rock will still be there when the dog comes back.
The dog needs the rock. The rock couldn’t care less.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #114169

Willie,

Is Bush the rock, the dog, or the pee?

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #114174

We could go on the offensive. We could patrol the 2 some miles by remote control. We could man the entire area with remote control vehicals that would see the dumbasses planting the bombs.

My kid could see a bomb from his class room easier than your dad could see it from his jeep.

oops, humvee. soory

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #114175

Dave,

The pee…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 17, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #114176

The rock! The Dog! The Pee! Oh! My!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #114178

Do you know why nothing gets done? Because we bicker and gripe.

Block Government. Floor Government. Individuallity. Let’s try that again.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 17, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #114190

Adrienne:

Many thanks for the tips—I’ll see what I can make of it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 17, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #114234

TC,

Just tried it (copiying and pasting) let’s see how it works…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #114235

With the exception of the typo, it worked pretty good.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #114237

Just tried it (copiyingcopying and pasting) let’s see how it works…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 18, 2006 7:58 AM
Comment #114290

R.C. that was all that needed to be said.Thank you.

Posted by: G A Phillips at January 18, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #114590

Irak is arabic for Vietnam. Beware of foreign entanglements. It tends to kill too many American young men and women.

Posted by: G. DuBois at January 19, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #114619

GA,

You just applauded RC for advancing intollerance. Way to go…sic ‘im fido! Let’s have hate prevail.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 19, 2006 12:38 PM
Post a comment