The Need For A United Front

What are the qualities of a great leader? While a simple enough question, the answer has eluded academic theorists and laypeople alike — perhaps for lack of real world examples. There exists an infinite number of books and articles that address the question, though little accord can be found among them. They all offer a non-negotiable list of 5 to 500 qualities that a great leader must possess while never pointing out a specific person who possessed them. Perhaps great leaders are nonexistent, outside of fairytales and the Almighty Himself.

Still, examples of mortal leaders are easily found. While they lack many of the qualities required for greatness, the qualities needed in order to lead the people are all present. And that’s what it all comes down to: Is this or that person capable of leading? Does he have vision and direction? Is he decisive?

The American people today are not faced with a crisis of leadership, as the democratic party would have us believe. At the fore of our country stands a decisive President whose voice is clear and strong and whose message is unequivocal. Standing behind him is an unwavering Republican majority that echoes his message in unison.

America today is faced with an altogether different crisis. The brave men and women of our armed forces are spreading the message of democracy in one of the most savage regions in the world. They have displayed courage and valor. They are heroes one and all.

Unfortunately, the average American has grown tired of the current Iraq conflict. Their support for these brave soldiers and the mission on which they embarked has dwindled. Americans at home have failed their soldiers abroad.

The Democratic Party has jumped shamelessly at the opportunity to manipulate the American people in their most vulnerable of moments. They have leveled unfounded accusations at our President and have derided the war effort as criminal and unjustified. All this while our troops remain in harm’s way.

Yesterday, we received news of the savage butchering of two American soldiers — PFC Kristian Menchaca (RIP) and PFC Thomas L. Tucker (RIP)— at the hands of terrorists. Those brave soldiers died in defense of our country and now walk alongside G-d in the aisles of heaven. Our prayers are with those soldiers’ families.

While the Democratic Party and the American people may question our soldiers’ mission, the soldiers do not:

"Be proud of me Mom, I'm defending my country. Tell sis and my nephews hello for me, I'm OK, I'm on my way." PFC Tucker.

The growing divide in America is being constantly widened by a Democratic Party that is itself divided. Our troops abroad are in desperate need of strong, supportive leadership at home, which they have yet to receive from the Democrats. Our troops are not empowered by division, though politicians are. The Democratic Party has been treasonous and vile, and the American people should not stand for it; indeed, the American people will not stand for it.

Not all of America’s enemies reside in foreign lands; many of them are right here at home.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 3:47 PM
Comments
Comment #160070

Get ready, Dr.

Methinks thou hath opened a can of indignant worms.

But this is a good test, also. Let’s see how many posts it takes for this subject to end up in mindless squabbling.

Posted by: Jim T at June 21, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #160075

Jim T,

I figured it would, but it needed to be said. After yesterday’s news, I can’t take any more of this bull sh**.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #160080

Here’s where you go wrong, DP. It is the soldiers’ job to follow their orders and fight bravely and selflessly whenever they are asked to do so. It is the American government’s job, and by extension the American people’s job, to ensure that we only make such requests when absolutely necessary. Voicing opposition to a war based on the merits is a requirement of any patriotic citizen who sees a base for such opposition.

The reason the support for the Iraq war has “dwindled” is because all of the reasons given for starting the war have turned out to be mistakes at best, lies at worst. Our fighting men and women deserve better than that.

If the case for war in Iraq had been made without WMDs and al-qaeda ties, we would not be there. “Spreading Democracy” is not reason enough to get the American people behind a war. Cheney/Rumsfeld knew this, so they pushed a different agenda, one with shakey intell that they probably knew was shakey. Even Bush was smart enough to ask, “Is that all we’ve got?”. The American public was conned. The American soldier was conned. This administration should be ashamed.

Posted by: David S at June 21, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #160083

In regards to leadership, I’d say being right is more important than being decisive.

Posted by: David S at June 21, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #160086

“Standing behind him is an unwavering Republican majority that echoes his message in unison.”

True. But that is a far cry from the world. Or even reality.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 21, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #160087

The Democratic Party has jumped shamelessly at the opportunity to manipulate the American people in their most vulnerable of moments.

=============

You retard. If you replace “Democratic” with “Republican” you will basically have the reason why we are in Iraq in the first place.

I have never forgiven the president for his rationale for the Iraq war and never will. He has tarnished the image of our nation, forever.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 21, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #160090
The Democratic Party has been treasonous and vile

This is despicable. And you and your friends wonder why the country is so divided.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 21, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #160100

Dr.

I don’t think America’s enemies reside here at home. There are alot of people with whom I totally disagree, but I don’t suspect their love for their country. While I might find their ideas, tactics, and strategies misguided, I don’t question their patriotism.

As an example, do you remember when New Coke came out? It was a flop, but a very well intended flop. Some viewed it as trying to get rid of ‘regular’ Coke, which then became Coke Classic. The point is that the marketing team behind New Coke was trying to do the best they could for their company—-they were just misguided in their ideas of how to accomplish it. They ended up taking a strategy that had negative results for the company.

Many of those with whom I disagree also disagree with me, of course. They think I’m the one who is misguided. In short, they think the same of me as I think of them.

But your comment about calling them “enemies” is simply wrong. I understand the feeling, and I recognize the sentiment. But it leads to an attitude of polarization, and that’s not good for the country. Despite all the differences we hold, we all still need to be Americans first and foremost, and even the most misguided American will never be an enemy of our country. They might do things that are bad for us, but not out of intent to harm us. If they do intend to harm us, I’d make the argument that they really are not a true American.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 21, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #160107

tree hugger, your comments are no longer welcome here due to your name calling above.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 21, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #160109

More than 70% of our troops polled said they want out of Iraq in 2006. Unite around that, DR Politico. (Link in my article published today in the Center column.)

Great leaders are those whose fate has them already in leadership positions when inordinate demands are laid upon them by unforeseen circumstances, and their performance is widely publicized and their abilities meet the challenge.

Part fate, part luck, and part ability. That is what great leaders are made of. Haven’t seen one in a long time in the White House.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #160111

P.S. Bush had the fate and luck part. Just lacked the ability.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #160123

“While the Democratic Party and the American people may question our soldiers’ mission, the soldiers do not:”

Well, the reason they soldiers believe they’re in Iraq for “payback” for 9/11 is because they’re manipulated by the neocons just like the civilian population. I heard on the radio how the military is now Republican and not non-partisan like it used to be. I mean like the actual soldiers are supposed to be Republican.

It’s disgusting how the Republicans manipulate and exploit the people who serve our country in this way.

“The Democratic Party has jumped shamelessly at the opportunity to manipulate the American people in their most vulnerable of moments. They have leveled unfounded accusations at our President and have derided the war effort as criminal and unjustified.”

Everyone except a few loyal republicans knows Bush lied about Iraq. There were no WMDs, Saddam was not planning to attack the US, no 9/11 connection like Bush said. Hardly “unfounded” accusations.

” All this while our troops remain in harm’s way.”

It’s the republicans who are the reason they are in Iraq in the first place, and it’s the republicans who want them to stay and continue to die.

Posted by: john at June 21, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #160128

The Republicans lack of any form of logic might be funny if it wasn’t destroying the country.

Posted by: john at June 21, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #160132

Dr. Politico,
I am sorry but not this time…

Great leadership, also has the ability to accept the council of those with differing opinion, not in evidence here.
The only thing I am witnessing is the use of this as a means to villify the opposition. Have we become so bereft of standards that this is how we define good politics and “Great leadership”? I am saddened that something I did support in the begining, get rid of saddam, has been made a hash of and devolved into a campaign cudgel.

Posted by: Ted at June 21, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #160135

John…be careful when calling someone a liar as you have written about President Bush. To be a liar one must knowingly say something false. Where is the proof that our President has lied about anything?
Now, let’s take a careful look at President Clinton. He was acused of lying, convicted of it and suffered the resulting loss. Actually, in Clinton’s case, the lying was also perjury. He lost his license to practice law and certainly lost the trust of many Americans. When you can prove that President Bush has lied I will become a believer. Until then…please stifle. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at June 21, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #160142

Jim Martin:

You gonna tell me to stifle too? Because I believe the President lied. Did he? We’ll probably never know, but that’s what I believe.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 21, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #160147

Jim Martin, Bush said the Medicare Rx drug program would only cost Americans 400 billion, contradicting CBO estimates far higher. Cost: over 1 trillion. He lied.

Bush said on the Mission Accomplished ship, major combat operations are over. Truth: they were still ahead of us. He lied.

He promised to stand for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Truth: never found a spending program he could veto and has allowed debt to double to an unprecedented 11 trillion dollars by the end of his term IF his budgets are zero deficit from this point forward. He lied.

There are more. Then their are all the implicit lies. Like his saying if someone in his administration is leaking classified information he wants to know about it. Fact: As he spoke those words he already knew about it. Well, you get the picture I hope.

Clinton, YEP! He lied big time and directly to the people on camera. Ancient history. More important is the Republican Party who has lied to the American people about national security. If national security were their priority, we would have secure borders. 5 years after 9/11 not enough time? I don’t think so.

Republicans have created a bigger government and far greater debt that Clinton and Democrats did. More lies.

Republicans campaigned on bringing the nation together and bi-partisanship. More lies. Couldn’t be more partisan with Republicans. Democrats are no better on this however.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #160148

Unfortunately, people see Bush’s tendency to fumble with words and inability to make good speeches as proof that he’s a sincere, honest person, just like them. Well, Bush is a liar. Remember Katrina? He said no one could have though this would happen, then it turns out he was warned about it well in advance. This article explain some of the lying:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/alterman

Even if he honestly believed Iraq was behind 9/11 and had WMDs, would that be so much better? That he makes policy decisions on whatever he feels like without any actual evidence?

I know it’s a cliche now, but at least when Clinton lied no one died.

Posted by: john at June 21, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #160152
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.” Bill Clinton, 1998

Was that a lie? Or is it only a lie when a Republican President uses a Democrat’s intelligence?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #160155

How many different ways does it need to be spelled out that Bush lied? How many top-level people need to go to the press and say “We knew”? He was not “mistaken”. He did not “receive faulty intell”. He demanded faulty intell. He misled, conned, hoodwinked, bamboozled and lied to all of us.

Posted by: David S at June 21, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #160158

Dr.
The reps. then made a comentary about how it was meerly done to coverup that days monica story.
These are just the tactics I’m talking about.
Was it then unpatriotic and treasonous to point this up? Were the reps that spoke out not supporting the troops?
Do our Brave men and women serve just to justify everyones political rancor????????

Posted by: Ted at June 21, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #160161

Dr Politico, Bill Clinton erred in striking targets that didn’t exist. He didn’t compound the error by invading the nation and creating a nation building quagmire for which there is no victorious exit plan.

Bush had other intel Bill didn’t. Like Plame’s husband’s report about Niger yellow cake. And a great deal more resulting from the inspectors repeated reports of not finding anything.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #160163
Dr Politico, Bill Clinton erred in striking targets that didn’t exist. He didn’t compound the error by invading the nation and creating a nation building quagmire for which there is no victorious exit plan.

Bush had other intel Bill didn’t. Like Plame’s husband’s report about Niger yellow cake. And a great deal more resulting from the inspectors repeated reports of not finding anything.


Good point, but you can’t reason with a republican. There are exceptions, but they’ll just turn it around into some way to attack Clinton/”liberals.” Posted by: john at June 21, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #160164

This article is nauseating.

Jim Martin:
“Where is the proof that our President has lied about anything?”

I’ll mention a few that others have so far left out:
Physical evidence exists in the Downing Street Memos that Bush lied.
And we have both Paul O’Neil and Richard Clarke who formerly worked for the Bush administration who have claimed that the administration was planning to invade Iraq from the very first days after taking office — and that they were eager to use 9/11 as their excuse.
And, while it’s disturbing to even bring this up, it has just come out that the alleged pedophile who worked at the the Dept. of Homeland Security told the cop who he believed was a 14 year old girl that Bush is a: “nice guy but not a good president …he is not very bright and it is evident … bush is a liar … there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. total lie to go to war.”

Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #160168
This article is nauseating.

Jim Martin:
“Where is the proof that our President has lied about anything?”

I’ll mention a few that others have so far left out:
Physical evidence exists in the Downing Street Memos that Bush lied.
And we have both Paul O’Neil and Richard Clarke who formerly worked for the Bush administration who have claimed that the administration was planning to invade Iraq from the very first days after taking office — and that they were eager to use 9/11 as their excuse.
And, while it’s disturbing to even bring this up, it has just come out that the alleged pedophile who worked at the the Dept. of Homeland Security told the cop who he believed was a 14 year old girl that Bush is a: “nice guy but not a good president …he is not very bright and it is evident … bush is a liar … there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. total lie to go to war.”

Now the only question is, do the republicans have the intellectual integrity to admit that Bush isn’t as good as they say he is, or will they just keep spreading lies and disinformation about democrats?

Posted by: john at June 21, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #160170

BREAKING NEWS:

WMD FOUND IN IRAQ

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #160174

-Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”-

…not nearly as “breaking” as I was led to believe.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #160175
“The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction is in fact false,” Santorum said. “We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction and in fact have found that there are additional chemical weapons still in the country.”

Not breaking, Kevin23? Would you have preferred news of terrorists locating it instead of US forces?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #160176

PFC Tucker was a martyr, as were others killed in Iraq.

They gave their lives for something they believed in. They did not put a republican or democratic or liberal or conservative label on it. They did apply an American label.

The report of PFC Tucker’s message to his family is gut wrenching, heart rendering and tearful.

And all I hear above is rep or dem and liars. Get it together folks. Both political parties are responsible for us being in Iraq. Forget the labels and support a victory in Iraq.

Posted by: tomh at June 21, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #160177

Full transcript of Santorum’s WMD press conference can be read here.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #160182

They had those weapons and USED those weapons well before the first gulf war. How is that breaking news? Because we dug them up?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we dug ‘em up…but now people are trying to act like this is what they’ve been searching for all along with all that false intelligence? That’s just wrong. They just happenned to find some old crap they burried. I’m glad they found it, but where are the WMD’s Iraqw was trying to acquire? Oh wait, they weren’t, and everyone in the intelligence community knew it. Hell he couldn’t even use the WMD’s he already had. Pretty pathetic really.

Surprising to me that if there are still all these stockpiles, why haven’t the Saddam loyalists dug them up yet and used them on us? Lets hope that’s not foreshadowing though.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #160184

And when I called the dilapidated 25 year old crap they dug up “WMD’s”…I was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #160185

Iraq Survey Group, 2004:

“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.”
“There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.”

President Bush, October of 2004:
“The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”

Looks to me like they’re trying to put a new spin on an old story.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #160190

Okay, let me stomp on this particular Santorum spiel before it gets too popular. Let me also repeat myself excessively so that nobody misses the point:

Oh, and I’m going to put this in bold, too.

All the shells found were pre-gulf war. All the shells found were pre-gulf war. All the shells found were pre-gulf war.All the shells found were pre-gulf war.

All the shells found were pre-gulf war. All the shells found were pre-gulf war.All the shells found were pre-gulf war. All the shells found were pre-gulf war.

All the shells found were pre-gulf war.All the shells found were pre-gulf war. All the shells found were pre-gulf war. All the shells found were pre-gulf war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #160202

Stephen,

Degraded weapons are just as deadly should a terrorist get hold of them, and that’s the point.

Hussein said he destroyed all WMD, which we know was a lie.

500 shells were found; Hussein used 15 to kill 5,000 Iraqi Kurds.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #160211

Dr. Politico-
Where is all that wonderful leadership on the deficit? Were they truly leaders, they could make the spending cuts and/or the tax hikes, and they could get away with it. Instead, they spend more and they tax less, which any second greater could tell you is a recipe for greater debt. It never works. The smart leaders, like Reagan and this President’s father finally relented and raised taxes to cover costs. Reagan in fact did so three times

Where was all this wonderful leadership on the WMD issue, when the president’s advisers were giving the “thin” case for war “the trial lawyers treatment” (from Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack), and ended up making a ham sandwich indictment instead of a Patrick Fitzgerald conviction of Iraq on the issue?

Speaking of that, where was the president’s leadership on the discipline handling of classified information?

On the Disaster relief for Katrina?

On maintaining constitutional freedoms and protections, while working for the defense of our country-

Speaking of that, where has his leadership been on combatting illegal immigration- Clinton did better!

How about securing our country’s vulnerable spots? Scanning cargo at ports, keeping vulnerable chemical plants safe from sabotage, etc.

I dissent on Bush’s policy and actions in Iraq because I have never seen a worse failure of leadership in a war. I saw America’s rapid fire victory turn into a bloody slow motion collapse into chaos. And why? If you read George Packer’s fairly evenhanded The Assassins’ Gate, you would learn that the President never expected to have to occupy Iraq. He was going to just stick some Iraqi exiles in where Saddam use to be, and let Iraq’s reconstruction be their problem. As such, at a critical period following the war, there was no plan for occupation, no plan for reconstruction, and Bush had basically kicked anybody who had expertise in the plan off the team.

Iraq also became the testing ground for Rumsfeld’s version of transformational doctrine, an experiment performed with no safety net with our subjects, an experiment this administration refuses to believe has failed, despite America’s overwhelming consensus that it has.

In short, these people committed the worst failure of leadership in risky ventures: having no plan for easily predictable contingencies. They were told they needed to take care of certain things with Iraq. They ignored that advice. They were told that certain things could go wrong. But for them, making plans for such problems was being defeatist.

It’s not for nothing that people speak of faith-based governing. I have faith in God, but that doesn’t mean I don’t bring an umbrella when I think it might rain. It will be the height of irony if we head for defeat in this war because this administration thought being prepared for things to go wrong was defeatist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #160225

Dr. Politico-
You need only look at Colin Powell’s report to the UN to see that our claim was not merely that Saddam had some shells stuffed away, but that he had stockpiles of new stuff that he was producing; all this in addition to a nuclear program aimed making a bomb. That was the importance of the Yellowcake Deal. Or it would have been had that document not been a forgery.

These buried stockpiles were not of much use to Saddam at this point. A degraded Chemical weapon is like bullets whose powder has gotten soaked, or a rusty sword. We weren’t making pre-emptive war on Saddam because he had some spoiled munitions, buried in the desert, unmarked, relics of war long over.

As for the Terrorists, al-Qaeda wasn’t particularly welcome in Iraq. Saddam tended to have such trouble makers tortured and executed.

These were too old to be useful, and the terrorists were too unpopular with the leader to get the access needed to find them. Saddam never got back on his feet in WMD production, and though we didn’t get it all, Saddam never had use of these things again, if he remembered them at all.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #160247

Dr. P
W does not have good judgement. W does not have the best interest of the American people in mind. W does not have the vision to lead. The Country is divided because of this.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #160261

j2t2,

I am not of the opinion that President Bush and the Republican Party are good leaders. Nevertheless, they have offered leadership in terms of the Iraq War which has been grossly lacking among Democrats. At this point, Americans and our soldiers abroad are starving for leadership and, given the choices available, they will continue to receive it from the Republican Party.

Of course, there’s a good possibility that I am wrong. When the midterm elections take place, we’ll both know for sure. If the Democrats retake control, then I’ll be the first to admit my mistake. However, if they don’t, will you understand where I’m coming from?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #160316


The American people have enemy’s right here at home and they are called neocons.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #160347

Sometimes it takes a Republican to get the Democrat’s message across.

Quicktime Video

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #160357

DR.P. Your United Front sounds more like polical intimidation. You give only demand and no benefit. Try! Write it out…..where will liberals fall along your thought patterns.

Please.

Thrill Us!

Posted by: DOC at June 22, 2006 3:44 AM
Comment #160358

The corps, God and country, is that it. Now a cynical bloke like me believes that when one joins up, the decision is then made to do the bidding of his master. This means, he is usually always lied to and the casus belli is rarely , if ever , pure and altruistic. And once in the thick of it , survival is all that matters. Living from second to second….There is no inner conflict , or , pondering why isn’t the entire country behind the military. The entire country is never completely united behind military campaigns or adventure…Fact of life. These boys know this , or quickly realise it. Despite the attempts made by their master , they are not robots and don’t live in a bubble. Do you think the Roman Senate was united behind every military campaign . Do you think the Mongol – Golden Horde court was united behind every campaign. Both, at the time , were every bit as powerful of a nation and civilisation as ours . I mean…Do you really think Hitler invaded Russia primarily because he hated Stalin….No. He really wanted the oil fields of Baku . There is always a true underlying raison d etre. One just has to manipulate those base motivations and emotions to achieve that endgame…..Lies are half way around the world whilst the truth is still strapping on its boots.

Support the troops , but of course , but support any rationale for a cause to war. Regardless of it being built on mud…Now who is the robot ? If you don’t unsheathe the sword, it will turn to rust and no one will believe you have the will to use it….Just a fact of life about power and hegemony .

Posted by: Eisai at June 22, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #160517

“I am not of the opinion that President Bush and the Republican Party are good leaders. Nevertheless, they have offered leadership in terms of the Iraq War which has been grossly lacking among Democrats. At this point, Americans and our soldiers abroad are starving for leadership and, given the choices available, they will continue to receive it from the Republican Party.

Of course, there’s a good possibility that I am wrong. When the midterm elections take place, we’ll both know for sure. If the Democrats retake control, then I’ll be the first to admit my mistake. However, if they don’t, will you understand where I’m coming from?”

The democrats are the ones actually debating and discussing what to do about Iraq. A problem caused by the republicans in the first place. I can’t believe more people don’t see this “cut and run” BS for what it really is

Posted by: john at June 22, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #160530

Acutally the country is not divided like is being portrayed here. You see you have Americans and patriots on issues pretaining to National Security and defeating an enemy that has no moral compass. They claim to be doing the work of God but the tree is known by its fruit.

Tree being known by its fruit brings me to my next point. Americans who love family and country realize that we are in this to the end. If we do not fight it abroad we fight it at home in our cities, malls, movie theathers, and yes our homes. We have citizens of the USA who support our troops and send sons and daughters off to fight our fight of freedom. we have Citizens of the World who live here and even hold office who use yaking points speech that no matter what the question or point you only get their canned yak. yaking point, yaking point. Now that yaking point is never what is good for America but what is agianst Democracy and usually Capitalism, apple pie and mama. They are ironically call Democrats as they certainly do not uphold democracy.

In case they do not remember, we did not ask for this fight but had it thrust upon us. We cannot quit because this heartless enemy will not let us stop until one or the other is destroyed.

We as Americans have more than one enemy and as hard as it is for them to admit they are one of them. We cannot present a unified front as long as they yak on peace when it is not an option as long as the extremist draw a breath.

I hope one day they get passed the pop and wakeup before it takes a mushroom cloud over a city before they realize they are not helping but hurting our country.

Now continue your yaking points that have nothing to do with why we need to destory the enemy.

yak yak yak yak


Posted by: lm at June 22, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #160533

Acutally the country is not divided like is being portrayed here. You see you have Americans and patriots on issues pretaining to National Security and defeating an enemy that has no moral compass.

Americans who love family and country realize that we are in this to the end. If we do not fight it abroad we fight it at home in our cities, malls, movie theathers, and yes our homes. We have citizens of the USA who support our troops and send sons and daughters off to fight our fight of freedom. we have Citizens of the World who live here and even hold office who use yaking points speech that no matter what the question or point you only get their canned yak. yaking point, yaking point. Now that yaking point is never what is good for America but what is agianst Democracy and usually Capitalism, apple pie and mama.

In case they do not remember, we did not ask for this fight but had it thrust upon us. We cannot quit because this heartless enemy will not let us stop until one or the other is destroyed.

We as Americans have more than one enemy and as hard as it is for them to admit they are one of them. We cannot present a unified front as long as they yak on peace when it is not an option as long as the extremist draw a breath.

I hope one day they get passed the pop and wakeup before it takes a mushroom cloud over a city before they realize they are not helping but hurting our country.

Now continue your yaking points that have nothing to do with why we need to destory the enemy.

yak yak yak yak


Posted by: lm at June 22, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #160566

IM-

Your post was rather eloquent. I agree with most of it. But doesn’t the threat of military force usually provocate nations to do things they wouldn’t normally do? Like the US building a nuclear weapon during WWII?

If this is true, then we cannot say that the things nations do now are exactly what they would have done. Now I’d love to debate the likelihood of attacks on US soil without an Iraq war, but NOBODY knows for sure.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #160590

What is to debate, remember 9-11. We lost 3000 people in the opening shot. Right here in America.

As far as what a nation will or will not do depends on the circumstances. America developed the bomb and used it to save lives if that makes sense. Depends on which side of the plane you were on but the rational behind it was to save American lives. We have the high ground on this one.

We should always fight our enemies on their home ground and use overwhelming force to insure a victory.

as far as a united front I remember a quote, that that I heard it, a great man once said ” we shall all hang together or we shall surely hang seperately.”

It has been a pleasure visiting with you Mr. Kevin23. God bless America and our cause.

Posted by: lm at June 22, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #160673

How do you get around the fact that it wasn’t Iraq that attacked us?

I think we’re ALL united against the Taliban and Osama. No question there. But it seems that you’re advocating going to every country they reside in and attacking them. Sounds VERY ambitious and VERY costly.

And did I mention that WE are not paying for it, our future generations are.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #160710

Kevin23:

Who has WMD after promising to disarm?

Who is allied with Al Qaida and gave them anthrax to use against us?

Who creates mass graves and stuffs innocent people in shredders?

Who is fat while the rest of his nation is starving?

Whose sons choose a woman to rape and kill almost every night?

Who is the man that is hated by his people and they thank George Bush for desposing him?

The answer……

SADDAM HUSSEIN

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at June 22, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #160762

ok…but now try responding to my point SC.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #160764

Hint: It was not “Saddam was a great guy!”

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #160825

Before we get to the 2008 elections we will see what the benifits of being the comander in chief are. I bet we see proof positive that sadam trained terrorist that contributed to 9-11 and much more. Notice how when a Senator needs a leg up some very interesting info becomes declassified.

No no mentions a very important fact about Sadam that if Russia, China, or Another nation fired daily at our planes it would be considered an act of war. Well not counting when China captured a Clinton gift spy plane. Any other time it would be considered an act of war.

There have been lawsuits in NY finding Sadam guilty of 911 involvement.

I still bet in 2008 we get all the proof we need unless the DNC wins in 06 and we will be fighting them in the USA.


Posted by: lm at June 23, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #160846

“There have been lawsuits in NY finding Sadam guilty of 911 involvement.”

Those are called default judgements…he didn’t show up to court.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-13-911-families-cover-usat_x.htm

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 3:22 AM
Comment #160879

he might show up now, he seems to be busy at the moment in Iragi court.


We are paying the price now for what our last Generation left undone whether monitary or actully fighting for our very lives. We should have overwhelmingly won both Korea and Viet Nam and put a stop to their spread.

This war we are in now is not for the fast food crowd. I can assure you we need to start classes on resolve and not how fast we can heat a bowl of soup.

some history of what happens when a communist country takes control of a whole people.

Posted by: lm at June 23, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #160890

maybe a madatory reading of the killing fields?

Posted by: lm at June 23, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #160891

mandatory, sorry my spell check did not work.

it really is not my fault I did not learn to spell after all it is not really up to me to learn to spell, is it?

Posted by: lm at June 23, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #160995

poli-
I am surprised. I usually see a call for slavish adherence to a particular agenda from ultra right wing conservatives,religious zealots and others of that ilk.

How dare anyone say that by speaking your mind or voicing your concerns,you are not supportive of the troops. It is the height of arrogance to question anyones loyalty or empathy simply because they disagree with your position.

It is however,a tried and true Republican tactic to tear down and attempt reducto ad absurdem .

Inflammatory rhetoric is great if your trying to create a firestorm,but if you want real discussion,try producing a blog that coerces instead of complains.

Posted by: jblym at June 23, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #161103

I don’t know, reminds me of me,

thats latin darling apparently he is ad educated man.

nope, i’m sure of it, i hate him.

name that movie.

Posted by: lm at June 23, 2006 8:33 PM
Post a comment