Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel

Is America really ready for anti-war Democrats like John Kerry, Howard Dean, Jack Murtha, and Russ Feingold to take control of the party from “moderate” Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman and lead it to victory in ‘08?
Here’s hoping that the anti-war crowd takes control of the Democratic Party once and for all, and here’s why….

I really hope that John Kerry, Russ Feingold or any other hard core anti-war candidate emerges as the Democratic front-runner in the '08 presidential election, and soon. Backed by Howard Dean , Micheal Moore, and a galaxy of media stars, America will finally see what the Democratic Party had de-evolved into: A party that maybe forty percent of America will vote for, and that's about it. If the hard left does emerge and does propose a candidate to the American people, expect the center of that party to be put into play come election time.

Take a guy like poor Joe Lieberman. He's being pillared in his home state and is mulling a switch to Independent status. Hopefully he will do that and reduce by one the Democratic minority in Congress. What did Joe do that caused him to be tarred and feathered by his own party? He supports the president in the War on Terror.

Take poor Hillary. For the last six months she has been trying to re-invent herself as a centrist Democrat. That makes sense since most of the American voting public occupies the center of the political spectrum, and if her bid is to have any traction at all, that is the segment that she will have to sell. What happens? She backs the concept of staying in Iraq until the job is done, and this week gets booed at a Democratic rally.

Kerry, Murtha, Dean, et al. are banking on changing the Party into the party of George McGovern. That's the best news I've heard in a long time. I bet if Kerry looks in his closet he'll even be able to find his old duds from his Vietnam Vets Against The War Days, and all it will take is one trip to the dry cleaners to primp it up. I bet that Theresa could probably get Jane Fonda to loan her Jane's old duds too.

I've already rummaged thru my old vinyl records, and have Buffalo Springfield cued on my record player. I found my Frisbee too. Now all I gotta find is my old SDS notebook filled with all those spiffy "off the pigs" sayings and I will be ready too.

Of course, George McGovern got crushed by one of the largest pluralities in American history. But that's ok. I think the hard left should nominate a hard left candidate. What America really needs is a return to the good old hippie days.

Trouble is, that by the time the '08 elections roll around, hardly any troops will be left in Iraq because the Iraqis will be over the hump and governing themselves very nicely.

Please don't tell John and his pals though.

Let's surprise him.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at June 15, 2006 7:23 AM
Comments
Comment #157994

SE,

So, you would disparage George McGovern.

A WW2 bomber pilot and decorated veteran, McGovern spoke out for what he believed and was pilloried for it.

Face it SE, in the last Presidential Election, we were handed, in the words of Lewis Black, two bowls of shit, the only difference was the smell.

The stentorian Kerry, and the “bought and paid for” boob Bush.
What kind of choice was that?

We will probably be subjected to another such snooze fest in the next two election cycles as well.

The American electorate has been lulled to sleep by a continuing parade of clueless, primped and polished morons that will do nothing to repair the breech through which the American dream leaks.

Posted by: Rocky at June 15, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #157995

Eagle:

There are those on the left who want the Democratic party to turn further to the left. They are the more militant ones who are so cocksure of their position, so sure they are right and that therefore, anyone who disagrees must be too ignorant to understand, too venal to care, or too corrupt to try.

These people fervently believe in their cause, and I freely support their right to do so. I do not support their cause, though.

The country does not follow them, though. The country does not support the hardness of their cause. They are too far left for the mainstream, and you pointed out that a decent man like Joe Lieberman (don’t love his politics, but I don’t hate them either) making a principled stand is hounded to the point of possibly leaving the party. No matter that Lieberman’s stand is every bit as principled as the stand of the hard left—they disagree with WHAT his principles are and so they demonize him.

I found a great article by former Democrat Seth Swirsky, who is a songwriter, author, recording artist and memorabilia collector(not your lockstep brownshirt Republican, by any means). He tells why he left the Dem party, or rather, why the Dem party left him. He says it very well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_i_left_the_left.html

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 15, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #157996

Woody:

How exactly did Eagle “disparage” George McGovern, who you so quickly point out was a WWII bomber pilot and war veteran?

The only two mentions of McGovern were about how some Dems want to have the “party of McGovern”, meaning a hard left turn to an anti-war stance, and how McGovern’s Presidential candidacy was crushed by one of the largest margins in history.

Nothing was said about McGovern the man—only about his politics and his campaign. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that facts about a person mean more than facts about a person.

If you can dispute the fact that McGovern lost in a huge way in 72, please do so. To acknowledge that fact does not disparage McGovern. He could still be a good man, a wise man, a decent person, or he could still be a jerk, ignorant and a vile person. I don’t know anything more about McGovern than that he was most certainly a politician playing a hopelessly losing hand, and one that he thought had a good chance of winning.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 15, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #158002

JBOD,

That was Rocky. I don’t think Kerry was that bad. Nothing wrong with being stentorian.

SE,

Kerry isn’t really antiwar re Iraq. Vietnam was a different war, thirty years ago.


Posted by: Woody Mena at June 15, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #158003

Rocky

I agree with JBOD…I didn’t disbarage McGovertn, just stated the facts.


Woody

Despite his voting record (he voted for force), he most certainly is courting the hard left on an anti-war platform, do I disagree with you.I see a split right down the very fabric of the party developing…and really two completely viewpoints are presented. If any of the two sides accept the view of the other, they co-op themselves. It may be time to start a Progressive Party.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #158004

This is the trouble with conservatives: they’re too fond of the past.

From the beginning the Right has responded to dissent as if it were the same old pacifism and left-wing wishy-washiness. Unfortunately for this country, that’s not what we were after. We were after reform, improving the strategy, improving manpower and equipment, and improving the diplomatic situation.

The Right poisoned the well, assuming the dissent on this war was equivalent to the dissent on the last one. They opposed reform so stridently, for so long, with so much degeneration in the war between then and now, that people essentially lost hope that our continued presence could help things.

You can’t win the fight for public support of the war by such divisive, arrogant means. Common understanding is what brings unity on the war, not political wedgework. The more you folks try to use this war to your political advantage, the more you will lose both your support and your war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #158005
I see a split right down the very fabric of the party developing…and really two completely viewpoints are presented. If any of the two sides accept the view of the other, they co-op themselves.

By 2008 the Iraq War will essentially be over. Either we will have beat the insurgency (a good thing but I’m not holding my breath) or the American public’s patience will have long run out. I’m sure there will be some discussion of who voted for what, but Democrats will be ready to move on. This may favor someone didn’t have to vote on the war, like Mark Warner (considered a moderate).

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 15, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #158006

Stephen

I asked where you stood on my last thread. Are you an anti-war Democrat or a moderate Democrat.

After twenty paragraphs of dodging the issue, you still didn’t answer. So,here it is again,right at the top of a new thread, and I ask you know: Are you an anti-war Democrat? Yes or no.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #158007

Woody

We will beat the insurgency. End of sentence.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #158008

Stephen,
Respectfully, the “dissent” you so moderately speak of has consisted of calling the president a liar, a boob, an idiot frat boy, sock puppet for Cheney, Bushitler, Chimpy W. Bushitler. Of course that is the far left, but haven’t Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Dean alluded to Bush as incompentent? That Iraq was unnecessary, unwarranted? And what of your claim of conservatives opposed to change? Don Rumsfield has transformed our military in ways that would have been unimaginable just 10 years ago. Our military is now the best in the history of the planet. The fact that we have lost 2400 brave men and women is tragic, but when compared with what they have achieved, there is literally nothing comparable in the known history of man. Or as my nephew a Lt. in the Marines notes, we have a kill ratio that is roughly 1,000 to 1. That might sound harsh/hawkish, I guess it is, but that is the nature of militarys and wars. We are not there to play tiddleywinks. And this grand achievemnent is derided by the left. I have news for you, the military guys I know, and I know a few, hate Kerry, Murtha, Dean. They know who really supports em. I am glad you think “us folks” are politizing the war, I really am. This just reaffirms my belief that those on the left are detached from reality.

Posted by: NHviking at June 15, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #158009

SE,

I think the diversity of opinions about the Iraq War will actually be an asset. If the public decides by then that the Iraq war was a brilliant success, Joe Lieberman would be a candidate who could honestly say that he supported it all along. If the public is angry about the war, Howard Dean can honestly say that we was a consistent opponent. If the public is tired of talking about it, Mark Warner can promise to change the subject.

This analysis probably looks cynical, but I think there will be more important issues on the table by then.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 15, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #158010

Joebag,
Typical liberal ideology. If you don’t agree with them, you’re villify and run out of town (or the party) on a rail.

All the while, the proclaim themselves as the “party of diversity”.

I don’t understand how so many people can continue to be blind to their hyprocrisy.

Posted by: Rich at June 15, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #158011
Or as my nephew a Lt. in the Marines notes, we have a kill ratio that is roughly 1,000 to 1.

Come again? There have been about 2700 coalition fatalties. 2700*1000 = 2.7 million dead Iraqis. So we’ve killed about 10% of the population of Iraq? Let’s hope not.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 15, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #158012

SE, et al.,

“Kerry, Murtha, Dean, et al. are banking on changing the Party into the party of George McGovern. That’s the best news I’ve heard in a long time.”

Your disparagement, is inference by association.

You all have ravaged “Kerry, Murtha, Dean”, pretty much unabated recently.

As far as McGovern being “anti-war”, IMHO, everyone should be “anti-war”.
Being such doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a pacifist, but being “pro-war”, closely borders on the psychotic.

It seems the definition of the word “Diplomacy” has recently been changed to “appeasement” rather than negotiation, and has been designated to the same insult status as the word liberal.
I forget, though, ” the my way or the highway” attitude of the right precludes any thought of the word negotiation.

War “is” sometimes necessary, but only if all other methods fail, and never as a pre-emptive act.

Posted by: Rocky at June 15, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #158016

Congress is FOR SALE. Congress is full of cheaters.
Haven’t you noticed ?
Incumbent politicians only care about fillin’ their own pockets, raisin’ million$ for their campaign war chests, and kow-towing to their big big money donors.

Not you.

They ignore you every year, and you keep re-electing them, which is why they are corrupt.

Ignore this partisan Democrat / Republican bickering.

Incumbent politicians love it when you wallow in that $#!+

Parties are not the problem or solution.
The problem is what parties consist of: irresponsible incumbents.

Polls show most Americans feel congress is more corrupt than the average American, but those same voters keep re-electing those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians. Hence, we are screwing ourselves. We are the problem. Congress won’t reform itself. Only voters can change it now.

If you really want to make a difference, ignore all this partisan warfare used to seduce you into unimportant minutia, and simply start voting out these irresponsible bums every chance you get, and you will finally start seeing some things change for the better for everyone.

Or, keep doin’ what you’re doin’ , and keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, and whinin’ about how corrupt they are, and reap what you sow, as congress grows increasingly dishonest, and fiscally and morally bankrupt.

Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-elect them!

P.S. The reason Bush won the last two elections is not because Bush is so much better than Gore or Kerry. Both elections were close. Each was won by a very small percentage of total votes. It was a toss-up. Our choices suck. And they all love to fuel the petty partisan warfare. They’re all extremely irresponsible, because we allow it, and we are too fond of wallowing in the time-wasting, destructive petty partisan warfare.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 15, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #158018

What’s like shootin’ fish in a barrel ?

It is luring voters into the petty partisan warfare, tricking voters to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, and allowign congress to grow increasingly dishonest, and fiscally and morally bankrupt.

Congress is FOR SALE. Congress is full of cheaters.
Haven’t you noticed ?
Incumbent politicians only care about fillin’ their own pockets, raisin’ million$ for their campaign war chests, and kow-towing to their big big money donors.

Not you.

They ignore you every year, and you keep re-electing them, which is why they are corrupt.

Ignore this partisan Democrat / Republican bickering.

Incumbent politicians love it when you wallow in that $#!+

Parties are not the problem or solution.
The problem is what parties consist of: irresponsible incumbents.

Polls show most Americans feel congress is more corrupt than the average American, but those same voters keep re-electing those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians. Hence, we are screwing ourselves. We are the problem. Congress won’t reform itself. Only voters can change it now.

If you really want to make a difference, ignore all this partisan warfare used to seduce you into unimportant minutia, and simply start voting out these irresponsible bums every chance you get, and you will finally start seeing some things change for the better for everyone.

Or, keep doin’ what you’re doin’ , and keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, and whinin’ about how corrupt they are, and reap what you sow, as congress grows increasingly dishonest, and fiscally and morally bankrupt.

Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-elect them!

P.S. The reason Bush won the last two elections is not because Bush is so much better than Gore or Kerry. Both elections were close. Each was won by a very small percentage of total votes. It was a toss-up. Our choices suck. And they all love to fuel the petty partisan warfare. They’re all extremely irresponsible, because we allow it, and we are too fond of wallowing in the time-wasting, destructive petty partisan warfare.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 15, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #158024

EVERYBODY CHECK THIS STORY FROM AP JUST HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!

It seems time IS on our side. The insurgency is weakening.

This from documents seized from hard drives during the latest round of raid by our soldiers.

Here’s the link:

Documents: Al-Qaida Sought U.S.-Iran War

Posted by: Jim T at June 15, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #158026

Kerry and Murtha are complete and utter bufoons! Just b/c they served in a war, doesn’t mean that everything they say about war is absolute. And, those two (I believe) should be tried for treason. The comments they’ve made about our troops are disgusting and untrue. They should be sent to GITMO!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 15, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #158029

“Trouble is, that by the time the ‘08 elections roll around, hardly any troops will be left in Iraq because the Iraqis will be over the hump and governing themselves very nicely.”

Have you heard of the 100+ acre embassy and 13+ permanant bases being build in Iraq that will hold 50k permanant troops? The writing is on the wall…..can you read?

Posted by: Patrick at June 15, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #158032

SE-
You’ve committed the fallacy of the complex question, first off. You’re asking me whether I’m an anti-war Democrat or a Moderate one, which is actually two separate questions car-wrecked into one. Am I an anti-war Democrat, or a pro-war one? If we were to get technical, I’m pro-war here. I believe we have to fight through this to win. However, I don’t consider Bush’s policies to be all that wise of a way to fight it, and I don’t consider Democrats who oppose the war to be lacking in moderation (your second part of the complex question is answered thusly: I am a moderate.)

But in the long term my previous answer stands. I am neither anti-war no pro-war as the long term goes, and I believe that is the right approach. War is to be avoided for the most part, but not on account of a dogmatic preference for peace. Rather it’s an expensive, messy, and dangerous way to solve problems, and needs to be use with appropriate care. We don’t need the politics of dove vs. hawks being the controlling debate about how we use our military, because the excesses of each side invites the excesses of the other. I would rather we not oscillate between the avoidance of any war and the heedless rush to unnecessary and unwise ones.

NHViking-
The dissent against the president runs deeper than the usual partisan name-calling. Bush is incompetent. You don’t commit as many errors in a row like he has if you know what you’re doing.

If Rumsfeld and Bush’s efforts in Iraq were truly such sterling examples of military policy, we would not be in the middle of an insurgency right now. It is only right to say that the charge to Baghdad was brilliantly executed, but when it came time to take control of the country, to own it, the forces placed in Iraq were at a disadvantage from the start. Rumsfeld’s problem is a doctrine of war-fighting apply in excess of its real world usefulness

As for kill ratios of a 1000 to 1, I doubt its literally true, as that would create a figure of 2.4 million insurgents dead. 10 to one, still good, is likely closer to the truth.

That said, strategically speaking you can kill a whole bunch of soldiers and still lose. All they have to do is be able to recruit new soldiers to replace the dead. It’s far easier for them to do that than it is for us. Our soldiers, best in the world, are even so expensive to train, transport, and keep supplied and equipped in a foreign land.

Whether the military folks in Iraq love or hate Murtha, Kerry, and Dean is irrelevant. Whether Bush’s policy harms or helps them is. People may hate us for what we believe, but the point of doing the right thing is not other folk’s approval. It’s avoiding the kind of screwups that get people killed One screw-up that I’ve heard of from people is the low manpower. Many soldiers have been complaining about that, and its been the thing the Bush administration has been unforgivably stubborn about.

I hope one day you can see past the rhetoric that flies around, and understand that our goal has never been to put our soldiers overseas at a disadvantage, or to abandon the Iraqis.

Rich-
Are we not allowed to disagree with people? Y’all criticize us for being too wishy-washy then turn around and decry our ideological intolerance. Maybe when you’re done smacking around your straw men, we can have a real discussion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #158038

Eagle

I must object! What species of fish are you talking about murdering? It had better not be the silver scaled rock darting owl eyed north american freshwater smelt! And could you provide a copy of your permit to own a firearm? Have you had your background check? Did you purchase your “assault weapon” from the trunk of a car? The barrel you have imprisoned these innocent creatures in, is it recyclable? Did you test it for harmful chemical residue before filling it with water? Is the ammunition certified “lead free”? Please tell me you won’t pollute both water and air with your hate crime. I need to know, I would be loath to have been associated (via this blog) with pollution, gun crime and the outright elimination of an endangered species. Oh the humanity!

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #158041

CARP!

Posted by: steve at June 15, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #158043

SE-

The split in the Democratic Party has been raging since the 40’s. The only real interesting part is seeing who is winning at any given point. Usually it is the liberal side up until it is time to nominate candidates. That’s when they do a 180 in the name of “electability.”

Here’s The Real Soul of the Democratic Party from the DLC website:

Under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton, the Democratic Party built the middle class, fought for social justice, defended America’s freedom, and promoted democracy and free enterprise in the world. The broad prosperity generated under these Democratic presidents has defined the central difference between the two parties, which is that Democrats believe in opening the doors of opportunity for real people everywhere.

What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That’s the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one.

The real tradition of the Democratic Party is grounded in expanding opportunity and economic growth, increasing trade, standing up for a strong national defense and for America’s interests in the world, and strengthening community at home. Don’t take our word for it: Take a look back at old Democratic Party platforms.

Posted by: George in SC at June 15, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #158045

George

Bravo! Now, TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY!!!!

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #158046

Oh hey the DLC has taken another shot accross the bow:

The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism

Posted by: George in SC at June 15, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #158048

steve

Sorry, no, you are actually referring to the soft bellied yellow-tailed libfish (conbushicus surrenderus). Recognized by a constantly bleeding heart, weak stomach, lacking defensive instinct and bright yellow backbone, plus they always swim to the left.

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #158051

Thank God they are not in the same tank with the CONFISH.

The Confish “cons” the other fish in the tank to think that everything is going well. And then when the other fish start to ask questions, they then tell them that the scary man with the net is comming. The only way to get rid of that man is to either believe in ghosts and start praying or to keep the confish in the tank.

Never disagree with a confish. They make sh*t up about you to get the other confish in a frenzy. Once that frenzy is beginning to die off, they remind you again about the man with the net.

Confish are simple minded. They would rather the big Confish in the sky take care of everything.

AND CONFISH DID NOT COME FROM ONE CELLED ORGANISMS. The big Confish made two of them. One took the bait on a hook and was deep fried at Longjohn Silvers. And the other lived and that is how the Confish started.

You see, Confish are greedy, and as you can tell by the story, they must be in a separate tank.


Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #158053

JR-
When Pearl Harbor struck us, FDR did not go about the business of looking to get political advantage over his adversaries. He reached out to them through Wendell Willkie, the challenger he defeated in the last election.

He knew that you don’t win wars by asking your country which side of the line they stand on. You win them by asking to stand with you, to be a part of the effort. You win by making sure the causes you ask people to go to war for a real, and appeal to the people’s common interests. Bush had that in the beginning, but he went about it in the wrong way and ended up losing that mandate. You have to be straight with people and straight with yourself.

It’s time for the Right to recognize that it can’t run this country by itself, and that it won’t be allowed to. The time has come to end the pointless, vicious namecalling and provocation, and recognize that the interests of the public and this nation at large outrank our partisan concerns.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #158054

As for Hillary Clinton, I hope she runs for President.

There are two good reasons for it.
(1) She doesn’t have a chance, or
(2) If she does win, things will get better sooner, since things can’t get better until they get much, much worse.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 15, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #158055

What party believes that you can murder a baby in the womb and it is ok. If you bust a spotted owl egg you have murdered a spotted owl.

this same logic says they can trash a conservative no matter what or who but if a member of their ilk has done any thing short of suicide you cannot touch them they are a sacred cow.

Is that why you cannot touch george can’t mcgovern. Sounds like a mcdonald special reject.

Posted by: lm at June 15, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #158056

Vincent

The Confish isn’t an endangered species as is the libfish!

Stephen

Where has this sudden call to “power sharing” and “bi-partisanship” come from? For the 40+ years that Dems controlled the hill it was their way or the highway. How do you think LBJ came to be so powerful within his “own” party? He ruled with an iron fist and the right side of the aisle be damned! Don’t cry now that your party can’t control the purse strings, the legislature or the appointment of Supreme court justices. Elections make for public policy, not polls or wishful thinking or misty water colored memories of the way YOU WERE. Win an election, make policy. End of story.

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #158058

Hilliary moderate?
What have you been smoking SE? And will you share?
She’ll be what ever it takes to get elected. Does anyone remember how all of a sudden she just ‘happened to find out’ that she’s part Jewish during her run for the Senate? Gee, that was great timing.
Now she’s all of a sudden for a war that she’s never was before? Give me a break. She’s a bigger lair than her husband.
John Kerry ran against the war in 04. He lost then and he’ll lose again. Anyone that bothers to listen to him can tell he a loser.
Howard Dean is the Carl Rove of the Democrat party.
Joe Lieberman I could live with. But he bares watching.
Then you really had to ruin my day didn’t ya SE? You just had to mention Hanoi Jane.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 15, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #158059

Bringing up Hanoi Jane and George McGovern as examples of anti-war Dems is like bringing up Richard Nixon and Watergate during the Plame debate, totally irrelevant. Were there anti-war Dems in the past? Yeah. Was there a corrupt Republican administration that thought it was OK to lie to the entire country? Yeah. What does any of that have to do with today? Drawing those comparisons is the worst kind of partisanship.

Posted by: David S at June 15, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #158061

vincent

you wrote:
“The Confish “cons” the other fish in the tank to think that everything is going well. And then when the other fish start to ask questions, they then tell them that the scary man with the net is comming. The only way to get rid of that man is to either believe in ghosts and start praying or to keep the confish in the tank.

Never disagree with a confish. They make sh*t up about you to get the other confish in a frenzy. Once that frenzy is beginning to die off, they remind you again about the man with the net.

Confish are simple minded. They would rather the big Confish in the sky take”

funny how your reply is exactly what you accuse conservatives of. Is this your idea of civility, open-mindedness, inclusiveness? Scared of a ghost? Oh, that’s right we need not fear Islamofacist. And you’re right, the economy is a problem, but only for Libs. And mercy me, us church goers sure have burned a lot of you all at the stake recently. By frenzy, would you be referring to Karl Rove and his status as a convicted leaker? As I’ve written before qouting a local talk show personality - “Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it’s stated intent” Cure poverty? Give out money. Result? Inner city decay. Choice? Dead babies. Where is their choice? Education? NEA. Result? American students have fallen off the radar as compared to students from third world counties whose GNP is less than the NEA budget. Diversity? Legalized racism. Free speech? Only as long as you don’t upset a liberal. Freedom of religion? Dang, we’ve been reading it wrong for 283 years, it’s freedom FROM religion, right? All the examples above are not sh*t I made up, they are easily recognized facts. My advice? None. You guys just keep pluggin’ along and we’ll see you in November!

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #158063

If being anti-war is bad, then I guess being pro-war is good!

What civilized rationale and compassionate human being would be pro-war? Why is being anti-war a negative? Was Christ pro-war or anti-war?

Being anti-war does not neccessarily mean you are a pacifist. But if you view war as “sometimes neccessary evil” and a last resort, then you are a rationale person.

There are differences as to when to go to war. Clinton and Liberals supported Bosnia, conservatives did not. Conservatives support Iraq, Liberals do not. Who is anti-war here?

The disagreement is when we should go to war. And that is always a healthy and neccessary debate.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at June 15, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #158064

Looks like I put a finger into the nerve today, and it’s about time.

Stephen

Ok, you are a “moderate” democrat. How to you vote then if an anti-war candidate is nominated who promises to set a date certain when you know in your heart that it is the wrong thing to do.

Say you have this: Somebody (Kerry,Edwards,Feingold0 pressing for a date certain and someone else (McCain, Guillini) pressing to stay they until the Iraqis stand up.
Everything else is equal. How do you vote?


Ron Brown

Hiliary IS a moderate conpared to the hard left folks, although to us she may seem out there.

George in SC

Excellent link…all should read it.


Posted by: sicilian eagle at June 15, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #158068

jerseyguy

You correctly stated debate. The problem is debate has become obsolete. I wrote tongue in cheek today to point out what happens on this blog far too often. Someone reads the headline and dives headlong into a diatribe, a rant and debate becomes the casualty. DEBATE = rationale, objective discussion, statements of facts in evidence and typically rules of procedure. It has come to mean how one FEELS about a subject, with the attendant emotional outbursts, it is impossible to debate a feeling. I stray into the mire from time to time, but almost always as a way to understand where the opposing view is coming from, feelings or fact. Who will take debait?

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #158069
What have you been smoking SE? And will you share? Posted by: Ron Brown at June 15, 2006 12:39 PM

This is the second thing I agree with you on this month!
But, you have to admit, the Rovian strategy of saying whatever you need to get the votes you need kind-of worked in ‘00 and ‘04. The GOPer base didn’t care that Bushie didn’t deliver on his social issues, that he lied constantly about his opposition and his war, or that he screwed everyone but the top 2% on the fiscal issues. They voted for him again anyway, so what’s the point of a politican saying what they think anyway?

George and SE;
Did you read the article? This is not a “shot across the bow”, it’s an actual position statement and is open for discussion between everyone. Not quite like the fascistic approach of the GOPer slimemongers where if you disagree with a talking point you’re ruined by lies or anything else they feel like.

Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #158070

Ah yes, once again the Righties are so frightfully concerned about what WE”RE doing. Never you mind, GOP, just worry about what YOU’RE going to run on in the next elections.
Let’s see here…
Fiscal Responsibility — Holy Moly, not a chance!
Contract with America — Oh no, so much corruption everywhere… Shhhh! Don’t even mention it.
Homeland Security — Borders wide open, ports unsecured, aftermath of Katrina, uh-oh. Oh well, you have been doing away with the fourth amendment with your spying, and phone tapping and data mining of American citizens — hmm, but that hasn’t been all that popular overall…
War on Terror — well, it’s a nice sweeping title, but it’s a real kettle of fish when broken down into it’s various components, is it not?
Afghanistan — oh yeah, we’re still fighting that one, aren’t we? You know, the war we should have fought and won completely — due to the fact that this was where the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were. But no, you didn’t do that, instead, you went to Iraq. Better continue to ignore that one… Hey, you’re “just not that concerned”, right?
Iraq — the disasterous war of choice, based on lies, that had no planning, and death galore, and became a training ground for terrorists, and fostered a large insurgency, and a Civil War, without nearly enough troops, or armor, or equipment. There was WP in Falluja, there was Abu Ghraib, and then there’s that Haditha thing… But still no exit strategy, though you are building permanent bases as a jumping off point for your next wars of choice… Stay the course?
Guess so, since you’ve spent so damn much on of our money (not to mention our childrens money) on it. Better to just keep calling everything the War on Terror, right? Maybe then nobody will notice there was never a good reason for any of it.
If that’s not enough — Abortion! Gay Marriage! Flag Burning! Fears and Smears!
Just let Karl handle that end — yeah, that’s the ticket.
And if all else fails, there are always your friends at Diebold, and ES&S and Sequoia, etc, who can be counted on to come through in a pinch on election day.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 15, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #158071

Adrienne

Looks like you hard left folks are killing your own party according to the DNC web site link referenced above. Did you read the link? I’d be curious as to your reaction. I like having you visit the thread by the way. I even think that once or twice (I think) we have agreed on something, but I’m not sure. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #158072

Has anyone seen American Pundit on any thread lately? Ever since we pummled him a couple weeks ago about that Phelps thing, we haven’t heard from him, I think.

Geez, maybe we were too hard on him.

Maybe he’s in the process of re-inventing himself and will re-appear as American Neocon Pundit or something like that. Anyway, I am now posting a 10 cent reward for his whereabouts…..I really miss the guy…..

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #158073

Sic E.
It is not surprising that you would revive the tired song about how Democratics are all hippies.
I guess when your stuck in the 60’s mentally,it makes sense. (or should I say chronologically)
I can just picture Republican fat cats sitting around bemoaning the lack of good fire hoses to turn on the Democrats.
Eagle,its really simple. The Democratics are the only party that has,as an agenda,the welfare of both Americans and the world as its priority.
Even Eisenhower warned of the power that the military-industrial complex had,and we can see the bitter fruit that has borne. Republican interests lie with Big business,and not with the people who they are responsible to. I applaud the Democrats who are trying to bring to their senses,the large population that has fallen under the Republican Parasites lies.
We can no longer afford to bleed the middle class dry,as the unholy alliance of Republican politics and big business interests are doing so well.Americans deserve and demand a government that truly looks to make things better for all the people. Not just the very rich ones.
While the spin-meisters and right wing talking heads may say the emperor has a beautiful wardrobe, the democrats and anyone else who treasures truth, know that he has no clothes.
BushCo. has shown all the world the greedy and unmerciful attitude that they have toward peoples lives and Americans in particular. Their rampant disregard for basic human rights and dignity is an affront to any thinking people. For you to want to keep such people in power speaks volumes about your moral and ethical standards. So,I say to all thinking and caring people in this country.
Make your voices heard in November and Democrats in 08!

Posted by: jblym at June 15, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #158074

This blogger read my mind!

Posted by: womanmarine at June 15, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #158075

SE-

The scenario you present Stephen is not very relevant, because everything else is not equal. The policy differences between a Kerry and a McCain go a lot further than just the Iraq war.

I think this war was a huge mistake, but leaving now would be wrong. However, something does need to change. Setting a date isn’t the right answer. A different strategy for handling the situation is. Right now Iraq is only producing about 80% of the oil it was producing under Saddam, that number needs to be in the mid-90’s before the country can stand on it’s own feet. Unemployment in Iraq is between 30-40%. That is huge number of bored, angry people that are easy targets, either for the civil war or for international terrorist recruiters. Leaving now would turn Iraq into what Bush told us it was before the war.

That said, Bush has mismanaged every aspect of this war. The only thing that is going well is the actual military effort on the ground, and that is because we have the best, brightest and most resilient fighting force in the world. But from a standpoint of policy, diplomacy and honesty Bush has bungled this operation every step of the way. That doesn’t necessary reflect on the rest of the party, but what does is the Republican leaderships steadfast refusal to question the administration. As far as I’m concerned, silence in the face of failure is just as bad as failure itself.

Posted by: David S at June 15, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #158077

Sic Eagle, I’m not interested in what Republican Lite has to say. They are the ones (in my opinion) who have been in the process of trying to destroy the Democratic Party. Do they think that Liberals haven’t noticed that those politicians are in bed with big business, and don’t give a rats ass about the middle class and the poor? Trust me, we have.
No matter what fantasies the DLC is harboring, the plain and simple truth of the matter is, their candidates can’t win if Progressive Liberals refuse to vote for them. If they run Hillary, which I expect is their plan, she’s going to lose.
Dems have had it with the DLC, almost as much as we’ve had it with the Neocons — we want a candidate with brains and principles and integrity and guts. Someone who will set our fiscal house in order, secure this country, protect our jobs and try to create new opportunities for Americans, respect the Constitution, and redeploy our troops from Iraq in order to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
If that sounds like the ravings of a Left Lunatic, then so be it.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 15, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #158082

Great point JerseyGuy…I was getting really sick of these hawks on here acting as if anyone who comes out against a particular war is some kind of liberal wimp. Well, what about all the other potential wars this administration has avoided. Shouldn’t we be in Darfur? Shouldn’t we have been in the Sudan?

It is clearly not a pro-war v. anti-war debate. Much more of a macho thing I think. Same reason some people feel safer carrying a conceiled weapon despite statistical evidence proving that it puts them in greater danger.

I am all for war when it is necessary. I’m actually in favor of a universal draft. Force congress to be just as likely to send their children as poor families. Only then will we have a real debate on the merits.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #158084

JR,

By “Ghost” I was refering to Christ.

“American students have fallen off the radar as compared to students from third world counties whose GNP is less than the NEA budget.”

PROVE IT! I am waiting to see which third world countries we have fallen off the radar from in education. BTW, the Repulican President that is in his second term RAN ON EDUCATION. He created the biggest education program (No Child Left Behind) in the history of our country.

How is that going for you?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #158085

SE,

“Trouble is, that by the time the ‘08 elections roll around, hardly any troops will be left in Iraq because the Iraqis will be over the hump and governing themselves very nicely. “

And what if the troop levels have not changed?

What then?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #158086

SE:

You prove my point about Republicans. Their motto is Divide and Conquer.

Yes, there is division between the so-called moderates in the Democratic Party and the the liberals. So, we’ll fight it out. We don’t need any help from Republicans.

Maybe you should be concerned about the fierce fighting in the Republican Party. The social conservatives are upset that all they got was a weak same-sex marriage amendment that did not even get a majority. Remember, Republicans are in the majority.

The so-called movement conservatives, all the brainy guys in the Republican Party, are upset with the way Bush borrows and spends like a drunken sailor.

The only group still with Bush is Big Business. And why not? They got lots of goodies from Congress this year.

There will be wild fights among the 3 major groups in the Republican Party. How come they can’t show any unity?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 15, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #158092

Sorry to change the topic, but following up a point by Paul Siegal - I thought the biggest complaint conservatives had against the democrats was their “tax and spend” philosophy. So where are they now that Bushco has effectively taken it a step further - “Borrow and Spend”? Seems to me that every year we get the same paradoxical plan. Balence the budget by raising the debt ceiling.

I guess what I’m saying is that being Pro-Iraq War is one thing. Wanting to follow the leader is one thing. But it is much more dramatic to me to force our children and our grandchildren to take the same stance - at least with their pocketbooks.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #158093

Kevin-

GWB is part of a secret plan developed by Milton Friedman and aimed at turning progressives into deficit hawks. Looks like it’s working…..

Posted by: George in SC at June 15, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #158097

That’s all ya got? Staying the course is a disaster. There are no good options anymore. Bush passed them by when they were still possible. Now we have the Iraqis saying they’ll give amnesty to anyone who kills Americans. Yeah there won’t be many US troops left in Iraq by 2008 and that hump the Iraqis will be over will be our soldiers’ graves.

Posted by: markg8 at June 15, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #158102

SE:

In case you were wondering (and I know you were), Adrienne’s post starting with “I don’t care what Republican Lites have to say”, encapsulates my position to a ‘t’.

And Stephen’s point about the country being ungovernable without the help of people across the political aisle is a fact. The Neocons are isolated, despised, and ideologically destitute. I don’t know, frankly, if that will translate into sweeping change in this upcoming election or not—with the gerrymandering and the vote rigging and the throwing legitimate voters off the rolls for bogus reasons, the GOP might hang on by their collective fingernails in Congress. Maybe Bush will attack Iran just for grins. Who knows?

But it doesn’t take a political scientist to ascertain that neo-conservatism is in serious trouble; it lacks the spark of new ideas, optimism, and innovative thinking. It’s limp, defensive, argumentative and belligerent. The international community is tired of it—and the American people are finally coming to that conclusion as well.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 15, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #158105

If a congress that has a 28% approval rating can stay in office, what does that say?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #158106

Republicans running scared?

For Shays, Simmons and other Republicans running for Congress in Democratic-leaning or swing districts in November, playing down their party label and playing up their independence has become a matter of political survival in a year when “Bush” can be a dirty word.

“This would not be a close election if
George Bush was popular. This would not be a close election if there wasn’t a war in
Iraq,” said Shays, who is embroiled in a tight race with Democrat Dianne Farrell.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 15, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #158107

“Somebody’s got to pay,” the president said; that’s his idea of justice. And boy, have they paid: well over forty thousand civilian lives in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, more than fourteen times the number of American lives taken on 9/11. Though it has long since been decisively demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had nothing whatever to do with the attacks of 9/11, the president clearly believes that all of these killings are justified by our mission, which was (once upon a time) to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, but which has since become—in the absence of any such weapons—to plant democracy in its desert soil. In view of that edifying aim, it is instructive to note what was scrawled on the wall of a house in Haditha after 24 of its civilians were shot by our marines: “Democracy did this.” Alternatively, the scrawler might also have written, “This is American justice.” For already we are being told that the marines who killed those civilians were shooting by the “rules of engagement,” so the killings were justified.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 15, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #158111

“The fact of the matter is the Democrats not being able to find somebody to defeat George Bush is beyond belief. It’s stunning. It would be like finding a normal person who would lose in the Special Olympics.” — Lewis Black on John Kerry

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #158115

“Maybe you should be concerned about the fierce fighting in the Republican Party.”

It’s amazing how the liberal media always reports on the infighting in the Republican Party, a party that as of this moment controls the White House, both Houses of Congress, the majority of the State governorships, the majority of the State Houses, and a Supreme Court with a decisive lean to the right.

I think the left needs to stop worrying about the DNC, and start trying to figure out what happened to the party of JFK.

Oooops…bad reference.

JFK was pro-growth, pro-civil rights, pro tax cuts, anti-Communist and Catholic. It’s intellectually dishonest to say that he has anything in common with today’s Democrats, the party of high taxes, racial quotas, abortion, and appeasement.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #158118

Luis Gonzalez,

We may not get to watch Lewis Black anymore after Bush signed his “Janet Jackson” bill this morning.

” The Christian Coalition had placed legislation to increase the fines as the No. 5 item on its 2006 legislative agenda. The new law also caps any continuing violations from an incident at $3 million.” ( CNN.com )

Thanks again Christians. I know since many of you don’t read anything other than the Bible, that it is hard not to watch TV. Maybe you should try it someday. It is easy. You reach over and grab your remote control. Push the “Off” button, and you will not see all the bad stuff out there.

Great use of Government time!!!

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #158119

d.a.n.

There’s a third reason why I hope Hillary!© runs.

Nothing could possibly emulsify the “fighting” factions on the right as much as her being on the DNC ticket.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #158120

Vincent…Lewis Black belongs exactly where I watched him.

On HBO.

Janet’s tired 40+ year-old breasts would have been fine on HBO as well.

Neither Janet’s breast, nor Lewis’ humor belongs on public air waves.

And I’m no Christian fundamentalist.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #158121

Just when I think all I will find here is Fox News regurgitation, someone writes a post with substance. Not that I find Fox News regurgitation any more repugnant than the original. Of course the occasional sighting of intelligent life, keeps bringing me back.

That being said, SE has evidently bought in to the obtuse correlation that Bush sold the nation between the “War on Terror” and the war in Iraq. I agree though that it would be irresponsible for the United States to leave Iraq, before the nation building is left unfinished. Wait, did I say “Nation Building”?

It has often been wondered how we would react to a terrorist attack. Europeans have been coping with terrorists since the 70’s. The formula they use, patience, intelligence, infiltration and a little luck is the same formula we are using. Unfortunately the knee jerk reactions that this administration tends to make, just distracts from the task at hand. Fortunately, even Republicans are separating themselves from this administration, so there is hope for the future.

Posted by: Cube at June 15, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #158122

Luis Gonzalez,

I believe the same thing. But who gets to draw the line when it comes to indecency? And how are those lines decided?

“Television and radio broadcasters are barred from airing obscene material…”

What is deemed obscene? To me, FOX News is obscene. They are on cable though, so for now they are safe.

BTW, Senator Brownback (R) is trying to do the same with cable. So maybe this will be the last time we see Lewis Black…

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #158123

vincent

I may have overstated our educational deficiencies by declaring some countries as “third world” I should not disrespect Latvia that way. But should the US be satisfied with results such as this report in the Times circa 1999 courtesy Third Int. Math & Science Study.

“While earlier versions of the international study, in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, produced equally poor results for American high schoolers, they were largely discounted because of perceived societal and educational differences between the United States and other countries. This time, officials say the differences have narrowed, and those that remain were statistically accounted for.

Those who carried out the study said there were no clear or simple explanations for the low level of American performance. “It is not class size or homework or social life or television,” said Ina V.S. Mullin of Boston College, co-deputy director of the study. “Around the world, everybody watches television.”

The examination given to the 12th-graders consisted of four separate parts testing general mathematics, which includes fractions and percentages, graphics and some algebra; general science, which includes earth science, life science and physical science; advanced mathematics, which includes calculus, geometry and equations, and physics.

Students were selected to represent their respective nations, with 23 countries participating in some part of the exam. To account for margins of error, the results were clustered into groups.

In general knowledge of mathematics, American 12th-graders did better than those in only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. Students in four countries, Italy, Russia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, performed at the same level as those in the United States. Fourteen countries outperformed America, led by the Netherlands and Sweden. The results were similar for general science.”

Should I find more data I will put it out.

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #158124

Cube,

“Unfortunately the knee jerk reactions that this administration tends to make, just distracts from the task at hand.”

Great point. We keep hearing from the right that “We have not been attacked since 9-11” which is one of their reasons to “Stay the course.”

Well guess what? Spain (train bombing),and Russia (terroists in the theater) have not been attacked again and they didn’t have to invade a country.

BTW “Staying the course” would have been to finish the job in Afganistan.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #158126

“But who gets to draw the line when it comes to indecency?”

To some, bestiality is not indecent…do you get to decide that bestiality is indecent and deny it to those who don’t believe that it is because it’s indecent to you?

Of course you do.

The public airwaves are just that…public, and the public decides.

I don’t have an iota of antipathy toward nudity on the screen, but I respect the idea that it should not be readily accessible via public airwaves to children whose parents don’t want them exposed to it.


Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #158127

tree hugger

Check your facts. Bush never said Saddam was in on 9/11. He was attacked with the “permission” of the UN & Congress because of security council violations. By the by, everyday more and more recovered documents are showing links between Saddam and Al Qaeda - perhaps not operationally, but certainly with an eye towards cooperating in the harming of Americans & American interests around the world. Check out website for Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents . Unless you believe this is propaganda TOO!

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #158129

Cube…

I can post you many quotes from Clinton administration officials, including Bill himself, on the dangers of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, so the intelligence on these WMD’s existed prior to the Bush presidency.

Now, either Bill Clinton and his administration had intelligence which led them to believe in the existence of these weapons, or they lied to the American people in 1998 and beyond.

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations believed in the existence of these WMD’s, and agreed on the potential and mortal danger they posed.

The issue was settled by the latter, while the former did nothing about what they publicly stated was a grave danger to the world.

I’d rather have the question answered than not answered.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #158135

vincent

John Adams wrote in 1817

“Have you ever found in history, one single example of a nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? …And without virtue, there can be no political liberty”.

Your diatribe against religion is chilling, your writings suggests moral relativism. This will most certainly lead to decay within the framework of government. No virtue, no trust, no trust, loss of engagement in the process, anarchy or worse.

Shall we go down the path of the Romans, and feed our every vice & desire & sensual distraction until we are conquered as well?

Posted by: JR at June 15, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #158136

All

Terrific posts. Both sides having gone back and forth with the vitriol left at the door. I applaud you all. Keep on posting!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #158139

Luis

I don’t have an iota of antipathy toward nudity on the screen, but I respect the idea that it should not be readily accessible via public airwaves to children whose parents don’t want them exposed to it.
Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 04:03 PM
(a) I hold the broadcasters far more accountable for the violence they show than the sex. Eventually, everyone has sex. Hopefully that won’t hold true for murder. Unfortunately, the rightwing only seems to think of sex as bad and war as needed. Not the other way around.
(b) If you don’t want your kids to watch nudity on TV, don’t let them. It seems many on the right can’t let teachers teach but they don’t take responsibility for their own kids when it comes to TV. (No, I am not accusing you of that particular defect, it was just a general observation/comment)

Bill himself, on the dangers of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction… Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 04:11 PM
Do you actually still believe the WMD lies? Even Bush admits there weren’t any, and the evidence is pretty steep that he knew it before the invasion. Remember the memos and Powell? What was true in 1990 was not true in 2003 after 10+ years of inspections, etc… Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #158140

JR,

Morality and virtue is not owned by religion, no matter how hard they try and want it to be.

Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #158141

I don’t think the issue being proposed here is whether or not Iraq was an enemy, but rather who was the greatest threat and does that threat justify a war?

Iraq was not our greatest threat according to everyone outside of the Bush administration (including the defectors). Bushco came into meeting with much more qualified people in the intelligence community and bullied them into only focusing on a fraction of the information.

Now we’re their and blood has been shed (mostly innocent of course). All we can do is endure what we rightfully deserve. It’ll be a combination of relief, resentment, praise, and bewilderment. Par for the course.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #158143

JR,

I am still waiting for those stats on education. Do you have them? Or do you just like opening your big mouth with no facts?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #158145

I suppose those who actually beleive we will win, and use the lame excuse of beating the insurgency are the same ones who will suddenly do the GOP flip-flop, once one of their fearless leaders decide to re-package their mistake and start calling it.
A civil war in Iraq.
Never saw that one coming.
Face it, Bush & Rummy screwed up.
Iraq is not an Al-Qaieda stonghold. All Al-Qaieda does is give money to fomer Iraqi Army soldiers.
Want $500? Go bury this box in the dirt by that telephone pole
The largest number of attacks are internal and directed from Sunni to Shiite and vice versa.
There is no way for the GOP to save face on this.
Maybe stop spending money might help, but I doubt it.
It’s like meth to a Republican….borrowing money.

Posted by: Joe at June 15, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #158146

JR,

BTW, stats from 1999 don’t count. You may not know this but it is the year 2006 (yes we lived through the millenium change).

Give me some stats AFTER NCLB then I can take you seriously.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #158152

What party believes that you can murder a baby in the womb and it is ok. If you bust a spotted owl egg you have murdered a spotted owl.

this same logic says they can trash a conservative no matter what or who but if a member of their ilk has done any thing short of suicide you cannot touch them they are a sacred cow.

Is that why you cannot touch george can’t mcgovern. Sounds like a mcdonald special reject.

Give me a George can’t McGovern and I’ll get the McPost out of here.

Posted by: lm at June 15, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #158160
Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war—- the administration went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.

It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community’s own work was politicized,

As quoted from Paul Pillar, a now retired CIA counterterrorism analyst, who was considered the leading expert in terrorism, Iraq and the Middle East, in an article he wrote for the journal Foreign Affairs in either March or April.

That there was a potential that Saddam had WMD’s I will not dispute. We assisted him on their use against Iran, in their fight against Islamic radicalism during the 80’s. Hey wait, isn’t that who we are supposedly fighting now? That this administration only focused on certain reports or cherry picked reports seems now also indisputable. We had placed an embargo that kept sensitive military materials from being purchased by Iraq during the 90’s. This embargo evidently did lead to the degeneration of sophisticated military armament in Iraq. That being said, how is this related to the war on terrorism? Unless, like I said, you try to draw an obtuse correlation between the two.

Posted by: Cube at June 15, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #158161

“…how is this related to the war on terrorism?”

You are asking how taking down a government that openly sponsored terrosism is relevant to the war on terrorism?

Is that what you’re asking?

Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups.

Personally, I believe this administration’s biggest blunder has been not taking Iran out right after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #158162

“A civil war in Iraq.”

Why would an Iraqi civil war be led by foreigners?

Because it’s NOT a civil war, that’s why.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #158164

Vincent:

The only way to get rid of that man is to either believe in ghosts and start praying or to keep the confish in the tank.

By “Ghost” I was refering to Christ.

It is comments like this from someone on the liberal side of the aisle, as you are, that help people to think of liberals as against religion. When you caricature Christ as being a “ghost”, you do so with the obvious intent to denigrate him and those who believe in him.

If you consider yourself to NOT be against religion, then why would you use such a derogatory manner of referring to Christ? If you are against religion, and if you consider yourself to be a prototypical liberal, then why would liberals have a problem with being associated as against religion—it would just be the truth? Which is it?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 15, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #158165

“…but rather who was the greatest threat…”

Iran was the greater threat when it came to state sponsored terrorism.

Now, from a military strategy stand point, do you attack Iran and leave yourself exposed to Saddam’s Republican Guard?

No.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #158166

Luis,

Do you really know of any direct link of a terrorist cell which committed any terror act to Sadam? Or did you just spew all that stuff in a knee jerk motion?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #158169

Isn’t the civil war between the Shia and the Sunni? The purpose of the foreigners is to instigate it. You’re confusing that conflict with the one we’re supposedly fighting against foreigners in Iraq. Funny how they have to travel to Iraq to fight us yet Iraq is supposedly their training ground huh?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #158171

joebagodonuts,

I should be obvious. Yes, I am against religion. I am sorry you need that void filled in your life. I don’t.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #158175

Hypocracy at its best….

“While the three-judge panel stopped short of setting a specific minimum age for such marriages, it said they could be legal for girls at 12 and boys at 14 under English common law, which Colorado recognizes. “

So the same people who have been fighting for the “Janet Jackson” law are the ones who think it is ok for a 12 year old to marry?


FYI…Gov. Bill Owens appointed Hartmann the judge in this case.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #158179

This is my first time visiting this blog. It will also be my last.

I know why most registered voters in the US don’t vote.

It isn’t that they’re stupid or oblivious or lemmings.

They are just so tired of all the crap.

And that crap is churned out with nauseating consistency by a bunch of people who feel the infantile need to tear down others to build themselves up.

Rather than being a forum for reasoned debate, every blog I’ve ever visited was really just a playpen for spoiled children acting out to receive attention and/or seek personal validation.

This is the state of political discourse in America.

And this blog is yet another disappointment.

God Bless America and those who defend her freedom.

Including the freedom to be a God-hating, America-hating, Capitalism-hating, self-loathing liberal.

This is my first post on this blog. It will also be my last.

But, hey… Have a Nice Day! :-)

Posted by: FreedomMan at June 15, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #158180

HAHAHA

So he hates the blog, but yet has to post. I mean, just walk away. People want to get heard…they just go about it differently FreedomMan. You slam us for being immature in our discourse; we slam each other with “facts” and instigation. But hey, at least we’re communicating. Not taking our ball and going home.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 15, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #158191

Luis

I honestly applaud you for knowing that different terrorists groups have different agendas and not all are a direct threat to the United States. It seems that many do not seem to know that. But I don’t see how gassing the Kurds in the north assisted them in their fights with Turkey. Nor from a foreign policy stand point; I wouldn’t believe we would invade Iraq in order to stop Saddam’s assistance of any terrorists groups operating in Iran. In fact the only groups that I am aware of Saddam supporting, were the ones operating for Palestine.

That being said, if we really needed to stop foreign terrorists that aren’t are a threat to us. We could have attacked Mexico; I understand that there is a small group operating in their south. It would be a lot closer, and hey, maybe by invading Mexico we could have solved two problems at once!

Posted by: Cube at June 15, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #158208

JR-
I actually use LBJ a lot as an example of what not to do. Like increase spending a lot without the taxes to cover it. Run big deficits. Escalate conflicts on flimsy information and run them by your prejudices and your will rather than being practical about the whole thing. Avoid owning up to your mistakes, become hostile with the press, accuse dissenters of disloyalty.

Do these things sound familiar?

The Democrats won many elections, post Depression. The bad taste that the Depression left in people’s mouths is a large part of what kept the Democrats in majority for all those years. But eventually, when it came down to it, they failed the people and left the opening for the GOP to exploit, which they did with a vengeance. The GOP, in a very short period of time has managed to commit the same mistakes that ended Democrat Supremacy last time.

The trouble with your party’s approach to politics is that story doesn’t end. Also, the story isn’t always what we think it is. Inner City Decay occurred in part because of the flight of the tax base, in part because of the disruptions of urban renewal to the community, and in part because the expense of the Great Society programs and the war together were taken care of with deficit spending, rather than covered with tax dollars. LBJ did this because he did not want to have to make a political choice between them.

On the NEA, I have real doubts they are the cause. I think the cause is that we encourage a culture of disregard for academic studies, and for upwards mobility based on that.

As for free speech? Good grief. You have a cable news channel, all to yourself. You got editorial boards out the ying-yang. You have talk radio filled up with your liberal-baiting rhetoric (hell, I see billboards for the stations openly proclaiming that they piss off liberals) I see an entire red column, and three of three branches of government. Where the hell are you not getting your point out? Freedom from the abridgment of your speech is not freedom from getting argued with, or the ability to compel everybody to agree with you.

As for Freedom of Religion, freedom from religion, if one so wishes is implicit. The government cannot, and should not force religion on you. Nobody can outlaw atheism.

If you want to know why I advocate what I do, it’s simple: I have no desire to eventually inflict on my party what your party has inflicted on itself by not being satisfied with what it has. This is a government we’re running, and there is more to running that well than winning elections. The story doesn’t end, it continues, and it’s your choice how.

SE-
I’d vote with the Republicans if and only if they had a plan for the war that made sense. Make no mistake, I want to win this war, but I don’t think that being wishy-washy on the end of this war is helping that. We need to put some kind of deadline in there that we are serious about, that we are willing to commit ourselves to diligiently, and that will have us require the same of the Iraqis. Like Sun Tzu said, nobody ever brilliantly protracted a war. Foreign wars were expensive in his time, and they expensive now, and we’d better get this war finished before our finances force a finish on it for us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #158226

Stephen

I believe that everyone’s hands were tied until the Iraqis formed their own goovernment. Think back to where we were one year ago. Nothing.

Now that the government is formed,expect changes at a frantic clip. Baghdad getting secured, bad guys finally getting caught, ect. PLUS the offensive in Afganistan. I think that one year from now this war will be unrecognizable from today, and many will be home. One interesting stat that I heard today is that all told, 922,000 volunteers have served in theater. I was amazed at that.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 15, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #158228

Sic Eagle wrote, and I now change slightly:
“I really hope that John Kerry, Russ Feingold or any other hard core anti-Iraq war candidate emerges as the Democratic front-runner in the ‘08 presidential election,”

Yes, I too am hoping Feingold will run in 08. Because he is exactly the kind of leader America needs.
Just one example:

Today, the U.S. Senate passed an amendment offered by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to strengthen a watchdog agency that monitors the spending of reconstruction funding in Iraq.

The Amendment, accepted onto the Department of Defense Authorization bill aims to extend the life of the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) to oversee spending on the Iraq reconstruction, monitoring for efficiency and effectiveness.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 15, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #158244

Vincent:
That void in your life can’t be filled with religion. Jesus is not a religion.

SE:
“That makes sense since most of the American voting public occupies the center of the political spectrum”
Is that a fact or just an opinion? I think the Rightous Right Rules(just barely).

Posted by: coonyjay at June 15, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #158254

“Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel”

Republican’s idea of sportsmanship.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 15, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #158260

No Womanmarine.

The Republican’s idea of sportsmanship is “Like shootin dim in da face”

Right Dick!!

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #158261

Adrienne

Stop giving them facts. They hate that.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 15, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #158263

Cube:

” But I don’t see how gassing the Kurds in the north assisted them in their fights with Turkey.”

Well, at least you are finally owning up to the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. That’s progress.

SADDAM HUSSEIN’S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support—temporarily, it seems—after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group. — Source

Read that article.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 15, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #158264

Kevin, read the article I just linked Cube to and answer your own question.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 16, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #158266

“I hold the broadcasters far more accountable for the violence they show than the sex.”

I’ve never seen a real murder on a broadcast network show. I’ve seen a dramatization of one, but not the real thing.

I’ve seen depictions of the sex act on a broadcast network, but not the real thing.

Neither real violence nor real sex should be allowed on the air waves.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 16, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #158267

Luis Gonzalez,

Here is a link for you that is about a relevant as your source is…

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49427

quote text

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 16, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #158304

Luis Gonzalez-
In the early 90’s al-Qaeda terrorism wasn’t that distinct from the ordinary kind. Not saying that to excuse Saddam’s activities, but it does go to whether there was a threat.

As for WMD, again the question is whether there was a threat. The Gassing of the Kurds occured before the Gulf War. If he was gassing them just before the Iraq War, you’d have a point, but as it is, you haven’t demonstrated that these facts imply a real threat that required an invasion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #158314
Neither real violence nor real sex should be allowed on the air waves. Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 16, 2006 12:05 AM
So you’re OK with simulations of each then. Good. Although I think Real Sex is just fine (fun HBO show BTW) and I deplore violence, even when it’s part of the news. Posted by: Dave at June 16, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #158326

I agree with FreedomMan. Some politicians stick to politics. Some try name-calling because they know NOTHING. I’m no politician, but any normal person can figure out if some politicians shouldn’t be in politics. I’m tired of some Democrats talking about how the Republican agenda is bad (and vice-versa). Politicians should talk about how their policy is good instead of name-calling and attacking. Nobody likes pessimists. Politics is for civilized, intelligent adults, not name-calling like children.

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at June 16, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #158368

““Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel”
Republican’s idea of sportsmanship.
Posted by: womanmarine at June 15, 2006 10:53 PM”

You are more clueless than the harridan you linked to express your position earlier.

The rules of war are that there are no rules. And, the object is to make the other guy die for his country.

The US could go its own way and lay waste to any country, group or region on earth; yet, we operate under strict rules of war. Rules which are not obeyed by any other country in prosecuting this war. We do not shoot fish in a barrel, we do not”break” the rules of war, because we are the good guys.

Those of you on the anti war - tuck tail and run bandwagon are just pathetic.

Posted by: izzy rommes at June 16, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #158378

izzy rommes-
Let’s put aside your assumptions about what liberals and Democrats want out of this war, and focus on which side of the fence you fall on. I’m not clear where your position is.

Do you support fighting dirty more, or would you rather have us fight with more discipline and obedience to rules and treaties?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #158406

SE,

I’ve gone over this time and time again.
John Kerry was not anti-war. He was, and is, anti doing it ILLEGALLY. We’ve talked about how it was that he was sound-bited to be made to appear to be waffling. It was Bush who waffled. First, Bush said he would go through the U.N. He said this both before and after getting article 1441. Then he made it clear he didn’t care about the requirements of the agreement with the U.N. or the Security Council.

The war was and is illegal. When Kerry opposed doing it the WRONG way…WITHOUT U.N. manpower and support, he was made to look like a waffler. Bush changed, Kerry did not.

Your accusation falls flat, Sicilian Eagle.

The republicans will lose, I hope, because the American people are finally wiseing up and seeing through it all. We can only wait and see. You know which way I am voting and I know which way you are voting. We both respect law. You doubtless don’t get my point of view any more than I understand yours. Sad, but there it is.

Posted by: RGF at June 16, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #158417

“…you haven’t demonstrated that these facts imply a real threat that required an invasion.”

But they did require eleven separate United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of Saddam’s WMD programs, did they not?

The point is that from 1997 forward, the entire world, INCLUDING SADDAM HUSSEIN, believed in the existence of those WMDs.

So decisions were arrived at according to the information available at the time, and in spite of the fact that some may have disagreed, the vast majority of Americans supported military action.

To question the decision at this point, is to try to retroactively fight a war using the luxury of hindsight.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 16, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #158419

“If a congress that has a 28% approval rating can stay in office, what does that say?”

That polls are unreliable.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at June 16, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #158427

Uh….no, Luis. You are wrong.

The U.N. Security Council and Article 1441 required that we go back to the U.N. PRIOR to taking action. WE DID NOT.

American law REQUIRED that there be a “Clear and Present Danger.” THERE WAS NOT. It is not good enough to assert that maybe there was -reason to believe…- It must have been REAL. That is the law.

I disagree with the supposition you made that the “Vast majority of Americans supported military action.” That is not true.
Kerry, and many others, supported LEGAL military action. There were huge segments of our country who were assembling and speaking out against the war before it happened. Even those who were against it, would have been less opposed if only the war had been entered into legally in a way that afforded us the support and manpower of the U.N.
But, we rushed in because, we argued, there were WMD’s there and time was of the essence. There were none and time was not of the essence. Even the insurgency was a PRODUCT of our going in. The insurgents are not pro-Sadaam so much as they are they are anti-U.S. That is why Bin Laden sent Zarqawe into Iraq in the first place. WE provided the physical battlefield for Al Qeada to kill Americans and Shia muslims.

…and then there is this to consider:

The Star Tribune October 29, 2004

KSTP tape may show Iraqi bunkers
In-Depth Coverage By Bob Von Sternberg and Paul Mcenroe

Videotape shot by a Twin Cities television news crew in Iraq suggests that explosives and munitions were still being stored at Iraq’s unsecured Al-Qaqaa military installation nine days after the fall of Baghdad in 2003.

The explosives could include HMX, powerful high-grade explosives that were recently reported missing from Al-Qaqaa.

The KSTP-TV footage has become a new focus in a controversy that has dominated the presidential campaign this week.

Sen. John Kerry contends that President Bush must take responsibility for the missing explosives. “You were warned to guard them,” Kerry said Thursday in direct challenge to Bush. “You didn’t guard them.”

Bush has accused Kerry of jumping to conclusions about the missing explosives, calling it a dangerous thing for a wartime president to do.

The Pentagon has said the weapons could have been moved before the U.S. invasion in March 2003. But in a potential blow to Bush’s case, the U.N. nuclear agency said on Thursday that it had warned the United States about the vulnerability of explosives stored at the installation.

The videotape shows a door of one of the Iraqi storage bunkers sealed with cable and a disk that resembles seals used by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

If that is confirmed, it would mean that high-grade explosives monitored by the agency were still being stored at Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003, the day the video was shot. In January 2003, U.N. nuclear inspectors had placed fresh seals over the doors of storage bunkers that contained HMX.

David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, said Thursday that he believes the explosives in the KSTP footage are HMX. He was in Iraq in the mid-1990s and is now president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C.

Inside the bunkers, the videotape showed boxes, plastic bags and drums of what appeared to be various munitions. “I could see that there were these cardboard kind of squarish boxes in the background, and that’s how I remember HMX being stored,” Albright told the Star Tribune.

Albright said he sought further confirmation with another former weapons inspector, whom he asked to review the tape. He declined to identify the colleague, but said he was at Al-Qaqaa during the last round of U.N. inspections. “He knows about these bunkers,” Albright said. “He definitely was in these bunkers at various times.”

His former colleague said that not only did the seal on the bunker in the video look like an IAEA seal but also that the inside of the bunkers “look just like I remember them when I was in there last.”

Earlier this week, it was reported that 377 tons of high-grade munitions disappeared from the Al-Qaqaa complex. Exactly when the munitions disappeared has become a flashpoint in the presidential race, with questions lingering over whether the explosives disappeared before or after U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein. Portions of the KSTP videotape were aired Wednesday night after Dean Staley, the reporter embedded with the 101st Airborne Division, recognized recent news photographs of the bunkers. “We didn’t know what we had until the issue of the missing explosives came up,” said Chris Berg, news director at KSTP. “At the time it was shot, Iraq’s munitions weren’t the news we were interested in.”

The footage shows U.S. troops cutting into the bunkers with bolt cutters, inspecting various kinds of munitions and then leaving without securing the bunkers.

The TV report created a buzz on the Internet, and KSTP reported that its Web site had received 200,000 hits Thursday, a tenfold increase over a typical day.

The buzz was fueled in large part by liberal and partisan bloggers using it as ammunition against Bush.

On Thursday, the U.N.’s nuclear agency announced that U.S. officials had been warned about the vulnerability of explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa after another facility — the country’s main nuclear complex — was looted in April 2003. The agency cautioned U.S. officials directly about Al-Qaqaa, the main storage facility in Iraq for high-grade explosives.

Iraqi officials say the explosives were taken amid looting some time after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, although the Pentagon and Bush have suggested the ordnance could have been moved before the United States invaded on March 20, 2003.

An IAEA official told the Associated Press that the high-grade explosives were stored in hundreds of heavy cardboard drums. A portion of KSTP’s video shows similar drums, labeled “explosive” and filled with powdery material.

“We’re not munitions experts, so nobody was sure what it was,” said Joe Caffrey, the photographer who shot the video during a five-hour tour of the complex.

Caffrey and reporter Dean Staley had been embedded with an air assault battalion at a base 2 to 3 miles south of Al-Qaqaa. On April 18, two off-duty soldiers decided to drive up in their Humvee to take a look at the complex, and the journalists went with them.

“They were just going up there to look around, and we decided to tag along,” Caffrey said.

They passed as many as 50 bunkers, some broken open and empty, others locked with chains and at least one with a seal resembling the kind used by the U.N.’s nuclear energy agency. The soldiers used bolt cutters to open about a half-dozen locked bunkers.

The soldiers were able to identify detonation cord, bombs and proximity fuses scattered on the ground. “I’m an air traffic controller, not a weapons expert,” one soldier said on-camera as he poked through a box of explosives.

Some barrels and boxes were labeled “explosive” and one crate was stenciled with the words “AL QAQAA STATE ESTABLISHMENT.”

The soldiers gathered some documents to pass to their superiors, but they took none of the munitions. “They didn’t tell their officers anything about it,” Caffrey said.

John Pike, who maintains an Internet Web site specializing in satellite imagery, GlobalSecurity.org, reviewed the station’s video for the Star Tribune.

Using the video and global positioning system coordinates provided by Caffrey, Pike concluded that the KSTP journalists were at Al-Qaqaa. He said he reached that conclusion because the video shows igloo-like structures that are consistent with buildings at Al-Qaqaa and because the global satellite coordinates recorded by the film crew match where the complex is located.

Military officials with the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade, in Ft. Campbell, Ky., said Thursday they couldn’t say for sure if the television crew had actually been at Al-Qaqaa.

“I don’t know if it’s the same place, but we did missions in that area,” said Lt. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit. “There were several facilities in that area that we dealt with.”

Posted by: RGF at June 16, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #158446

Addendum to above -


Guess what kind of explosives are being used to build the IED’s that are killing Americans and Shia in Iraq?

Posted by: RGF at June 16, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #158462

Luis-
There was an increasing doubt as to the existence of those weapons by the time the Iraq war came around. Bush erased a great deal of the doubt with his case for war, but that case was so shoddily constructed that many of the points were shot down as unsupportable according to the information by A Senate Committee mainly run by Bush’s own party. That’s how indefensible the intelligenc was.

Many of the military foul-ups that occurred in the course of this war were anticipated by experts. Unfortunately, reports that didn’t match the sentiments of the Bush administration didn’t make it to the President.

As for the Polls, I don’t think the unreliability lies in them. Its the subject that’s fallen short in that regard.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #158467

Stephen Daugherty,

You make a valid point.

I would also like to throw out the reminder that the intelligence for WMD’s was, in part, from British sources. The Brits had already thrown out that very report because it was known to be inaccurate and unreliable. It was the Bush administration who revived it.

…which beggs the question:
How the heck did Bush and company manage to get Tony Blair to reverse his position and support taking military action in Iraq contrary to article 1441, the U.N. security council agreement?

We will probably never know that answer. It is sure is curious though, isn’t it?

Posted by: RGF at June 16, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #158515

Luis,

It says nothing about how districts are drawn? Nothing about lack of financing for new candidates? Nothing about carefully crafted [non]messages being played ad nauseum whose clear purpose is to confuse issues? Nothing about the constant and unnecessary fear mongering in their messages to older people (who actually do vote)? Nothing about universal disenfranchisement with the political system in general?

I see things much less simply. In fact, if there is a bias in the numbers, they favor the republicans. I’ll show you evidence if you ask.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 16, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #158561

The Bush Administration doesn’t have a plan for Iraq?

Hmmm… Let’s see…

Topple Saddam Hussein… Check.

Remove Baathists from power… Check.

Write a democratic constitution… Check.

Hold multi-party elections… Check.

Develop national government… Check.

Train new domestic military and police force… Check.

Root out and destroy insurgents… Check.

Gradual withdrawal of American personnel as new goverment provides stability… Soon to begin.

Sounds like a reasoned, logical plan to me.

In fact, if you substitute “Hitler” for Saddam Hussein and “Nazi” for Baathists, it is exactly the Allied plan to handle post-WW2 Germany.

What irks the libs is that the plan is working. And nothing irks a lib more than America succeeding… especially under Republican leadership.

Awaiting the lib swarm. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 16, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #158571

wow…I can tell you all the good things my client has done in his life, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit murder Right-of-Way. Defining success is not “have you done good?” but rather “have you done more good than bad?”

You say we accomplished those things (although that’s hotly debated and certainly not all by Bush). Fine. But what have we sacrificed? I think we could have spent the Iraq money better. Maybe you think we got a bargain…the most expensive daily war to fight in history and we kill one major terrorist every 2 years. Not impressed.

Get me Osama, and maybe we can talk about Bush’s goals being accomplished. So far, he’s accomplished one thing: giving Iraq the most uncertain future in even its tumultuous history. And I’m guessing the Iraqi children are STILL better at math and science than we are.

Success? No, more like “priorities”. The question is “who’s?” My guess is that in August of 2001, none of these pro-Bushies would have even guessed we’d invade Iraq - no one considered it a threat (yeah, they checked it out, and came up with a bunch of nothing - see “The 9/11 Commission report”).

As for our “nation-building” effort there: we’ll see if any of that beautifull language ever amounts to anything real. Ever read the Russian Constitution? It’s got a whole lot more substance than ours. Never meant anything.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 17, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #158577

Kevin23:

Hitler killed himself. So, the Allies didn’t get him. So, I suppose WW2 was a failure, right?

I pity you Kevin. Nothing must ever satisfy you. Nothing is ever worth doing, because it can’t be performed perfectly.

If you want to wallow in such slop, go ahead. Brave American men and women died and were wounded, so you could live depressed. If that’s how you choose to live.

I choose to see the successes along with the failures. You learn from both. And you live to try another day.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 17, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #158579

I can imagine how WW2 (the last “good war” according to libs) would have been criticized by today’s libs…

(Imagine Rep. Nancy Pelosi on CNN Sunday)
“Yes Wolf, Goebbels and Himmler are confirmed dead, but, of course Hitler’s whereabouts are unknown. Obviously, President Roosevelt didn’t have a real plan for dealing with the Nazi threat. We need to withdraw now.”

(Imagine Dan Rather introducing a report on the CBS News)
“Nearly 10,000 American soldiers were killed at the D-Day landing yesterday. Some are saying ‘The price is too high. We shouldn’t have invaded at all. Did President Roosevelt mislead us about the risks?’”

(Imagine James Carville on Meet the Press)
“Tim, everyone knows Churchill is just a neo-con. Ya know, a war lover. This Hitler feller ain’t gonna do nuthin’ if we don’t provoke him!”

(Imagine Howard Dean on any show)
“Our plan? We don’t have to propose a plan. We’re not in power. It’s our job to criticize everything the Roosevelt Administration does. That’s the true mark of a real American patriot. Arrrrrgh!”

(Imagine John Kerry)
“When I served in Vietnam… blah, blah, blah, blah…”

(Imagine MoveOn.org web site)
“No blood for Jews! Withdraw Now!”

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 17, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #158585

“Liberal is just another word for nothing good to say. Ain’t nothin’ if it ain’t perfect.”
— “Bobby McGee” as sung by Kevin23 :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 17, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #158614

“Hitler killed himself. So, the Allies didn’t get him. So, I suppose WW2 was a failure, right?”

Seeing as how his defeat forced him to kill himself, and we know he died, I’d say job done. How does this equate with Osama still being alive and taunting us? Did anyone get the analogy?

You learn more from your failures than your victories. You can break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back all day long Right-of-Way. I’d rather get better, smarter, more effective, and more efficient. This administration has taken gargantuan leaps backwards in that regard.

And I’m guessing if you took a step back and looked, I’d be even more conservative than you are. But if you want to call Bush a conservative, then I’ll be liberal all day long. And all the while, just like the framers intended, I’ll argue for careful, slow, and gruelingly thoughtful legislation that can actually be enforced in a meaningful way. And I’ll actually try and read and understand, and abide by our constitution, laws, and treaties. Why? Because that’s how you lead…by example.

We’re the world leader in almost every capacity. I know Bushies LOVE knee-jerk policy-making, but at some point we have to understand we are setting an example, and we won’t be on top forever (see “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”).

I’m curious why instead of addressing the issues I raised head on, you immediately fall back on the trusty “our troops are dying.” How is this an argument? Is that not the fault of their leaders who could have used them to build levies, or public works projects, or protect the border? Nope, too efficient I guess.

As for the personal attacks on my “depressed” state of being:

=Pppppppptt

Try Again!

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 17, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #158708

Right-Of-Way-
Let’s work backwards here, and maybe you’ll see where our criticism comes into play

As soon as this government provides stability. Shouldn’t we have had this a long time ago? As an invading power looking to alter the political make-up of a nation, we should have had Iraq pacified the moment the invasion ended. It might not have been the lightning-fast, almost no casualty affair it was if we had secured each and every inch of Iraqi territory on our way to baghdad, but we would have had our enemy’s hash settled for good early on.

Those insurgents never had to be there. We’re only having to root them out because the Bush plan showed a major weakness to our plan: We couldn’t control our newly conquered territory.

We should never have had to train a new police force under these conditions, nor try and raise an army again. All other things being equal we should have simply vetted the army that was in place and moved on. Instead, we destroyed the native peacekeeping force that was already there, and in the process created a pool of unemployed, sometimes resentful professional soldiers looking for a paycheck.

We should have never developed a government or written a constitution without the nation pacified, under our control.

Ultimately, this all boils down to how we toppled Saddam Hussein.

Their plan for Iraq was to install Iraqi exiles over the decapitated body of Saddam’s regime. They had no plans or troops for an occupation, no plans or strategical thinking read for counterinsurgency. The Administration rejected the planning of the state Department and handed everything to a military that had never had been trained to do this kind of work, to managed a country.

Worse yet, Bush started the push for this war without a true debate either in the intelligence community, or in congress about the facts of the case. Bush hid important details about the intelligence, and pushed a story on the American people that has since imploded so completely as to rule out bad luck as the cause of the failure.

By doing this, Bush doomed this war to be a divisive affair. Americans can unite in the face of a common threat, but when the justification becomes one side’s politicized rhetoric instead, that’s much more difficult. It’s not wrong to be bold and righteous in the face of our rivals when they allow bad things to continue to happen. Interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were more than justified. We can’t, though, do ourselves the harm of going in with a faulty, poorly thought out justification. That is like handing ammunition to our enemies, and a license to our rivals to wash their hands of cooperating with us.

Our approach to Hitler was much more better managed. First and foremost, they struck first, so we never had to bother asking anybody else’s permission to strike back. We had that advantaged in Afghanistan.

Second, we didn’t go in light trying to test run a theory of doctrine. We used overwhelming force to make our points, and we had the war in Europe wrapped up less than a year after we hit Normandy Beach.

Third, we didn’t go in with unrealistic expectations of help from the people there. We went in their sufficiently equipped and manned to do the job. We even had a draft going, though I think most people simply enlisted.

Fourth, we didn’t go in expecting the government problem to take care of itself. We occupied those nations fully, and remade their political structure from the ground up. We occupied with enough troops to keep order, and made no bones about enforcing the law. We didn’t try to do everything the fast-food way, and for our troubles we have stable friends where we once had enemies.

What irks us, ultimately, is that this plan isn’t working, and all the political throat cutting the Republican committed against us, now has us in this problematic war.

I have heard again and again from you folks that’s everything’s working, that victory is around the corner. The reality is, victory should have been ours three years ago, not still waiting around that corner. Iraq should have been pacified and on its way to self-sufficiency three years ago. This whole war, practically, has been this nation making up for this administration failure to heed the foresight of other, wiser authorities on these matters.

Let me remind you also of something else: We won WWII with the most liberal government we ever had, the one that leaned further to the left than most any since. But one thing was true of those people who led us in that war: they were realists about it. They didn’t commit the sin of thinking that America’s power to fight would ensure every victory. Force is a part of winning wars, but so is good old-fashioned common sense, and situational awareness. People were a lot less careless with America’s destiny back then. I propose we should emulate the care they took with their policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2006 11:07 AM
Post a comment