Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Well which of the heads would I be, mmm I guess I would be pull the troops out of the middle of a civil war that bush help create.
As far as a head, at least the Democrats have one that is out, and not up where the sun doesn’t shine…

The answer is - none of them - they all speak for themselves and their benefit - Just like Billy Bob - the interest is NOT in serving the country - the interest is in extending their fame and fortune, keeping control over the masses by increasing taxes on certain sectors, then taking that money and redidstributing to other sectors - thus allowing them to appear magnanimous - while not giving away a nickle of their own money.

Just remember the terroirst mess is a result of 8 years of Clinton policies where the CIA and military were gutted and we spent most of our time on vital issues - such as ” if you dont show me yours I wont show you mine” - while the rest of the world plotted to destroy us. Put another Democrat in the white house and I suspect terrorists will jump for joy!

Mike

The only head that really matters is the one that is the “oops, I screwed everything up and stole from you. Now vote for me” Republican liars and their supporters.

It is time to behead this traitor. Any option is better than this.

It seems that 4 of the 5 democrat heads “speak with fork tongue”:

“peace and love”—get real—we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs and there would be any thing but peace and love. It would make our Viet Nam discrace look pretty.

“cut and run”—see above

“more boots on the ground”—can you imagine a democrat actually wanting this? If Bush did this, he’d by crucified by the left.

Lieberman(and Lieberman alone)—what, a democrat with integrity? And he is cast aside like a leper from this poisonous party.

“No gamer-planners”—Fully 90% of the democrat party. And they voted for the war. They all said exactly the same thing about Saddam and Iraq. They are the biggest hypocrits and liars of all.

Not. Fit. To. Govern.

Mike, three words: read some history.

Hell, Brownie would do a better job than Bush or the Republican Congress.

Eagle,

Marching in Lockstep and following a disasterous administration off a cliff like mindless sheep is not the Dems. or Independents strength. Free will and diverse thinking might be confusing concepts for you because the singular, narrow minded, tunnel vision thought process of the Republican party blocks out independent thought and only allows partisan rhetoric and catchy talking points to filter through.
Only a Republican would criticize a party that has members that don’t just grasp desperately at the party line. “Critical of free and independent thought” should be the battle cry of the Republicans in 06 and 08.

Are you suggesting that the republican party speaks with one voice on these matters? The bottom line is that we are in a huge mess and it is hard to say what the best course is in Iraq. What most americans do know now is that 1)Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 2) Sadam was the strongest check to Iran’s regional ambitions 3) There were no WMD’s and the intelligence was at the least cherry picked to make a case for war 4) Most of the violence in Iraq is tribal warfare that has regional implications and quite possibly supporters among those we consider allies - i.e. Saudi Arabia

The real reason for going to war was to install a friendly democracy in the middle of that region - a goal brewed by the neocons and slurpped up by the deep thinker in the White House. What that ignores is that none our allies in the region are democracies (Jordan, SA, Eygpt, Pakistan) and where democratic votes have been held we often didn’t care for the results (hamas in Palestine & Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even in Iraq one wonders what they expected would happen when a shitie majority went to the polls - were they surprised that Iran - overnight - went from having a hostile neighbor to a having a friendly neighbor? That was a big help to us wasn’t it? - and it was completely predictable. Also worth noting that the largest pro hezbolah protest in the region was in Bagdad.

I could go on - the incompetence and arrogance of this administration knows no bounds - but at the end of the day there is a profoundly dangerous mess in Iraq with no clear answer as to what is the best course. In this instance i trust more the party with multiple views than one which has only one - and that one expressed in the same old tired patriotic & emotional phrases rather than anything that recognizes the complexity of the problem.

One thing i hope is that the american people will not trust the people whose ignorance and arrogance got us into this mess to get us to the best end to it.

Sorry, but since when is the Right this monolith of unity? Libertarians, Christianists, right-to-lifers, neocons, the NRA, I could go on and on. The only difference between the Right and Left on unity is that the GOP faithful are able to follow marching orders, while the Dems tend to think for themselves.

Notice also that the third head of Eagle’s hydra is oddly without a name. Is there anyone on the Left that actually thinks a draft is a good idea? C’mon, that’s the electoral equivalent of putting the shotgun in your mouth and you toe on the trigger.

Let’s be dead honest here. The GOP is in a win-win situation. If they get re-elected, great, if not, they hand this basket of snakes that THEY created over to the Democrats with a snigger, then sit back and watch the fun. Sad but true.

L

SE -

I thought you would understand by now that the Democrats and Republicans are both being motivated and activated by grassroots movements. The morons in DC speak for themselves and the people who support them, but as far as speaking for the party - they only speak for the party if the party members accept that. I, for one, do not.

IMO - it seems that the REPs have been far more willing to allow DC to dictate what the party represents… I think allowing that on either side only allows for accepted stupidity and incompetence.

Cindy Sheehan speaks to those who agree with her, but she only speaks for herself. I think this is typical of Ann Coulter and others… a few really hang on every word, but most people simply accept this as the noise surrounding national politics. One question: Do you see both parties this way or only the DEMs?

KT
Well, you’re a cut an runner then. Glad I was able to give you some guidance labeling yourself.

Gergle
Keep at it friend. With reflection, you may be able to pigedon hole youreslf into one of the heads. Look in the mirror and stand up and tell us where you stand instead of throwing bombs. Methink you’re a Murtha guy.

Andre

Threw a bomb you you didn’t pick a head either. Time to declare yourself. Which way do you blow?

Terlken

No I do not. I do know that the vast majority of my party would be in the Lieberman crowd if they were Democrats, and tiny percentages everywhere else.

Leather
Your didn’t declare either…thrwe a bom instead. It all about self-identification today.

Eagle, I will have to disagree with you. The Dems do have unity: Anyone but Bush/Everything is horrible. This is how they will miss their shot at power, again! Bush is not running and in reality everything is better and getting better. No matter where you look at any issue, it is better than it was before. Economy: better, Iraq: better, Terror Plots: better. The only thing left is Border security (which, if the Dems had any brains, is the top issue that may actually cost Republican elections). Seriously, the leftist poster on this blog do prove your point. From “lets chop his head off”, to Bush created civil war, to Bush hasn’t done anything right. The message is hatred, closed-mindeness (it is a closed mind when that mind beleives nothing right. Surely by chance something was done correctly in six years), guilt and pessimism. Is this the attitude that assures a Democratic win? How many times will the message be doom and gloom and still be effective? You guys on the left think this year’s election is in the bag. Ha!

“You guys on the left think this year’s election is in the bag.”

You don’t know many Democrats, do you…? Do you know any Red Sox fans? (I’m both, and we never expect anything but gut-retching last minute defeat is in the bag.)

Put another Democrat in the white house and I suspect terrorists will jump for joy!

Then why, Mike, Al Quaida endorced Bush 2004 re-election instead of Kerry?

Plus, I hope you realized that US government will no stay *forever* republican, one day or other. Or are you for a uniparty democracy??? Such thing have another name.

Oooh! A Hydra! Bring in the special effects!

Real world parties are coalitions of interests, many-headed by nature. They come to consensus based on internal debate. What’s unnatural is a party where such things are not considered, where there is only one head.

The question is not how many different factions exist within the framework of the party, it’s how well they can come together to make policy.

Looking at your party, we can see major disagreements, major points of contention. Your Hydra is tearing itself apart, having tried to unfailingly act as if it had one head, and one alone. Without negotiation or flexibility on issues, your party members have found it difficult to square the differences between their ideology, the party leadership, and their constituents.

I think most Democrats at this point want to get things done right. The lower-level commanders have been trying, despite higher level-interference by brass cowed by Rumsfeld and Bush, to tell the American people they need more soldiers. I don’t like the idea of a draft anymore than the average person of my age should, but I recognize that short of one, we have very little recourse for getting the reinforcement our troops need to stop Iraq from degenerating further. You recall my “Changing the tire” metaphor? Well, we’re not getting this flat tire off the war in Iraq until we can get the resources to prop things up.

We could have avoided a draft if Bush had been compelled by his party to confront the reality of the war, but unfortunately everybody had to be on the same page, and that was a liability since nearly everything on that page was wrong.

SE,

So in November election it will be 5 heads against only one (who said none!?!) ?
Republicans can thanks God (obviously it’s Him, who else!?) elections are not IQ tests, then.

Maybe SE prefers to have the one head do his thinking for him. Ever heard of the phrase bird brain? :)

(Sorry)

Anyway, I still hope that recent anti-incumbent sentiment has also encouraged the party faithful to at least examine their own party and thoughts of how to boost performance up to at least the “non-suck” level.

I, for one, plan to use the ballot box like a blunt instrument this Nov. Think of the ballot marker as an idiot stick: you are either voting out the idiots or accepting the title of idiot.

SE, at least, I’m not a bird brained head!!!

If being a Murtha one means being a supporter of our troops instead of supporing lying, moronic leadership that leads our troops into quagmires and no win situations, then, I sure am.

I realize you wish to support muderers and rapists based solely on their nationality, but that’s you.

My stand is clear, it is yours that I wonder about. I think six months ago you said things would be resolved and flowers blooming. Oops.

I think this pigeon would gut you if you swooped down on him. Shakespeare wants his Methink back.

“The Commerce Department reported that the trade gap reached $68 billion in July, up from $64.8 billion reported in June. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast the gap to rise to $65.5 billion.

The previous record was $66.6 billion in October, when high oil prices and a jump in gasoline imports in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita swelled the gap.”

OK, so 1 year ago, it took a Cat 5 Hurricane to push the trade deficit this wide. Now, it’s business as usual…???

1 - Create new forms of energy so that America owns the next generation of energy technology - that alone would reverse this deficit into a positive.

2 - Put people in DC who can actually understand a P&L sheet and grasp what makes for a solid economy as oppose to what’s possible to spin politically.

There are so many idiots elected in DC right now, I’m pretty sure everyone here could pick at least 2 from their own area to hit in November. ???

SicilianEagle,

I have to choose from the 5 Republican spin word labels that you place in your piece. No thanks.

The United States military and it’s past and present leaders - minus Rumsfeld, who would be fired the first day, would re-plan a strategy not based on greed and high hopes from the inexperienced war dodging idiots who tricked us into this mess. The Generals would resume control of this war. It would have the full support of the United States because the American people would be told the truth. The Republicans have screwed up. I would then detail those screw ups. I would let the American people know in detail what our military and diplomats intend to do to fix it. We reach out to allies. We fight ther war with an aggressive, yet sensitive to the people of Iraq, manner that involves more U.S. troops and International forces.
We cut off the greedy and wasteful contractors such as Haliburton KBR. We reopen contracts with companies who are willing to deal openly and honestly with American tax dollars. We open dialogue w/ Iran and Syria. We use the “soft” power of being an example of decency in the world. We fix the U.S. image that has been trashed by this administration w/ the backing of the Republican party.
We allow the military to do it’s job w/out the 3 stooges Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. We let the Generals suggestions and criticisms be heard. We fight to win not to prove a theory that was cooked up 10 years ago by a room full of draft-dodging underachievers led by Rumsfeld and Cheney.
We find Osama bi Laden now. We focus on that goal.
We bring the Middle East together to live, not in peace but in grudging respect of each other and Isreal.
We become oil independent ASAP to lower the absolute power of Middle Eastern leaders to wage war and terror. We fix our environmental impact on the world and lead other nations to follow our lead.
We need to fix relationships with South America.
We need to meet with Canada,Mexico and all South American leaders to solidify our “soft” power in our corner of the world. We need to immediately address our trade imbalances. We need to strengthen unions and force large corporations to remain in the U.S. through incentives that do not amount to welfare for the rich but to strengthen the U.S. economy not just their bottom lines.
Have a Nice Day

what, a democrat with integrity? And he is cast aside like a leper from this poisonous party.

Not only is Joe the only Democrat with “integrity”, he is Bush’s most valuable Democratic ally in Congress. What an amazing coincidence!

Mike-
We’re twirling our mustaches here, laughing our gleeful, evil laugh. Nyah ha HA!

It’s funny that you blame Clinton for making such a big deal about the scandals. I recall it was your party that supported this scandal, and on nearly every level. Your foundations supported the lawsuits, including the Paula Jones lawsuit that was otherwise on its last legs. Your folks supported a continuous dumping of conspiracy theory, sordid details, and moral high dudgeon. And lets not forget that all this evolved out of some years-in-the-past questionable land deal that your folks had investigations on even though it occured more than twelve years before Clinton got into office.

As for CIA and the Military, ask yourself what your Vice President was doing at that time. Ask yourself why we have KBR cooking food and doing other logistical support for soldiers when it used to be that other soldiers did this duty. The cuts were first done under the Bush administration. We had just won the Cold War, and people demobilize armies in those situations. It wasn’t a wise decision, ultimately, but it was OUR decision as a country.

Nikkolai-
Piling error upon error, I see. SE generalizes and categorizes needlessly. Most Democrats fall under this banner: We do what we need to do to secure things, and we withdraw slowly, given Iraqis the opportunity to stand up as we stand down.

Bush, though can be accurately described through all these stages, except one. You see, he tried peace and love. He believed the Iraqis would just stand up instantly, after nearly three decades of Saddam’s tyranny, and welcome the troops with open arms. Spontaneous Democracy. Wonderful!

Didn’t happen. His plan though, that relied on this unrealistic vision of Iraq, was exactly what you accused us of trying: Cut and Run. His intent was to hand off the problem the Chalabi, installing him as the leader, and then withdraw immediately. There was no plan to stick it out. That only has evolved as he’s tried to salvage his political reputation on the matter by claiming the other side simply was too wimpy to carry on the war.

Ironically, the criticism of wimpiness better describes Bush. What is his game plan, wait until the enemy gives up? The terrorists he’s talking about have free reign. All they have to do is wait, and simple economics will take care of us.

It is your side that lacks the gameplan, which discourages people from coming up with one. You say that we would crucify somebody who would say we need more troops in the ground. Well, we didn’t crucify Kerry, or any of the Democrats who said that during th 2004 campaign. It was our main position, for crying out loud. It’s what we’ve been telling you all along.

Who’s not fit to govern? Those who simply wing policies that should be fully planned out. Those who associate the defeat of their policies with the defeat of the country. The hypocrites are those who tell us we must fight this war to the end, but who don’t devote the resources necessary to bring that end about.

frankxcid-
You guys were saying things were getting better when things were better. And you’ve continued saying such as it’s gotten worse. There’s a word for that: denial.

You folks think that if you clap enough, this tinkerbell of a war policy will come back to life. It’s not going to happen.

Our message is: get real and start doing things right or we’re going to take over. Your stubbornness has already cost this country greatly. Now it’s your turn to measure the cost as America turns to new leadership.

Philippe H.

Maybe you should actually read an article before linking to it. The reason terrorist groups like it that Pres. Bush won is because of the fact that Kerry would have been soft on terror which in turn would lower the levels of hatred among the uneducated male youth of the region. Thus affecting the recruitment techniques that are used by these extremist organizations.

This doesn’t mean that if Kerry happened to get elected that we would not have to worry about terrorist, it means that these groups realise that in order to be effective hitting us, they need more resources with a republican in office than if a democrat was in office.

Does anyone remember the Iranian hostage crises? What happened when the election was over? Were not the hostages released within a day or 2 of Pres Reagan’s inauguration? The reason? Not afraid to make a stand and Iran knew it.

You leftist socialist never stop crowing the same old story that was wrong when you started.
1. Other than what you have heard out there, what specific deriliction of duty has Rumsfeld done that he deserves to be fired. All I hear is: He had a bad plan. What should he have done? surrendered?
2. Lieberman is a card carrying liberal that is for all the things a good socialist want. He has voted against conservative Ideas his whole career. He has integrity because he one of the few that beleive politics end at the borders. Oh but I forgot, you liberals do not beleive that mother earth has any borders.
It is a waste of time to argue with people who have no sense of reality! Being for all sides of an issue is not open mindeness, it is failure of core values. It is the inability to be a leader. It is the fear of making any decision. That is what scares you libs the most. None of the five heads of the “hydra” can make a decision because it is afraid of what any of the other head will think. It is voting for it before voting against it. It is what will further erode the democrat’s powers. Joe is the first sign: If you do not want America to surrender, you are a Jew Bastard. Have fun crying after Lamont looses. It is just 1 fewer democrat seat.

Quite funny that Bush put his speech last night “in the middle” of the fictional program on 9/11…of course, out here, it was on a good hour before the fictionalized version of 9/11 was even on!! Guess these people are so wrapped in the Washington DC mystique that they are unaware that different parts of the country are in different time zones…

And about hydras? We dissected many during high school and college biology & zoology classes…no matter what appendage you cut off, it always grows a new one to take its place…

Moral of that story: You can’t get rid of the loyal opposition. We’ll always be here.

You leftist socialist never stop crowing the same old story that was wrong when you started. 1. Other than what you have heard out there, what specific deriliction of duty has Rumsfeld done that he deserves to be fired. All I hear is: He had a bad plan. What should he have done? surrendered?

When a plan has proved unworkable and ineffective after 3 years, the prudent (and how Bush Daddy loved that word!) thing to do would be to change the plan or come up with a new plan…the worst thing one can do with an unworkable and ineffective plan is to keep it in place and keep defending it in the face of its failure.

You accuse the “leftists” of crowing about the same “wrong story”, yet you defend Rumsfeld who is defending his wrong policies & nonexistent military prowess in the face of its complete & absolute failure.

Liberal logic
being a supporter of our troops…support muderers and rapists

Lynne, Your statements have no basis in reality. What failure are you refering to?
Sadam out of power…Check
New Government..Check
People voting in Iraq…Check
Iraqi troops doing most of the fighting…Check
No successful Attacks on America…Check

What part hasn’t worked?… Oh, I get it, No Kerry in the White House was the part that failed. No Congressional majority in 2000, 2002, 2004. What plan is it that is un-workable? hmmm?

The fictional program last night was brought into this discussion. Democrats, it is you only hope that is untrue. Just the fact that Lynne is crowing about how fictional it is tells more about her state of mind and the chances of democratic victory. Either she beleives that people are too stupid to know that Entertainment is not the same as reality (a common liberal axiom) or it is too close to the thruth. Someone call Clinton and tell him it is fictional because he thinks it is a documentary.

Gergle,
“Mike, three words: read some history.”

Is that the only retort you have to his comments? Mike certainly read his history, he had good points that were facts.

Yet, if it’s a history lesson you want then look no further than last week; Clinton and his lawyers went ape sh*t over the ABC mini series! They tried (and partly succeeded) to stop that movie to cover his own a$$ (by going against the first Amendment); that’s what he did throughout his two terms in office, which the movie adequately portrayed.

Just the fact that Lynne is crowing about how fictional it is tells more about her state of mind and the chances of democratic victory.

frank…you certainly love attributing things to people’s thought processes…in this case, you might want to actually read a little more widely and see that some fictional portions of the 9/11 program were actually removed or changed…there are listings elsewhere on the internet, in newspapers, in blogs, in magazines that enumerate the false passages of the 9/11 propaganda program.

What need is there to produce a fictionalized version of 9/11 and the events leading up to it (which were hardly examined in full!) when probably 99% of us experienced it first hand??? It certainly should’ve been labeled “historical fiction”, as docudrama is a word that leads viewers to think that it is NOT a fictionalized version of events.

What we need most right now is the money trail…who suggested this fictionalization, who pushed for it, who saw it through…and most of all, who paid for this commercial-free fiction?? The money trail is the best evidence for ascertaining the true purpose of this fictional production.

And yes, people do NOT understand that this was to be “entertainment” … just like people have not understood to this point that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some things need to be made perfectly clear to ALL people, not just the sophisticated and educated few who knew that this was not a true portrayal of events.

And why didn’t the program go back to Reagan or Bush I if it was attempting to show what lead up to 9/11??? If 9/11 was totally Clinton’s “fault” over 8 months after he left office, then the first WTC bombing on February 26, 1993 was most certainly Bush Daddy’s “fault” since it occurred a month and 6 days after Clinton took office…this was completely overlooked!

Got any facts? Got any proof that the 9/11 program wasn’t fictionalized? Got any proof that everyone who was watching absolutely knew that this was a fictionalized version of events???

Sicilian,

From a Calabrese piason, I think you give the peace crowd of Sheehan too much credit. They don´t really care about peace, they´re political hacks. Where were they when we went into Somolia? How about Haiti? What about when Clinton was bombing Serbia? They don´t care about war except when a Republican is waging it.

Stephen,

I think you´re assessment of parties as coalitions of diverse interests is correct, but the problem with Democrats is that if you´re the minority party it helps to have discipline. The Democrats have party discipline like they have a realistic plan for Iraq. Oh wait, I forgot; obstruct everything, blame Bush, then continue to do so if things don´t improve in Iraq or try to take credit if they improve.

Lynne,

To paraphrase Tom Clancy, to call the Democrats loyal is to call gang rape a mild social deviation. To start, Howard Dean went on record as saying the Democrats policy was obstruction. This has come to full effect under the hand of that psycho unrepentant liberal Pelosi who won´t let her Congressmen go in on any bill from the Republicans and to hell with the consequences for the country. Then you have Harry Reid who brags about “killing the Patriot Act.” I guess he doesn´t want to hear that those same tactics are what prevented the terror plot in London, nor that Clinton proposed the same thing back in the 90s.

If its not an election year, its ok to not have a plan if you´re not the majority party. But the power the Democrats want is too important to be wielded without any direction whatsoever. I can already see what will happen if the Democrats get back either the Senate and the House or both. We´ll have a rehash of the Monica Lewinsky fiasco and once again, no business will get done. On the positive side, the Democrats in power can probably do what 3 years of frustration in Iraq couldn´t, make Republicans look good.

frank:

What WMDs have the US troops found and destroyed?

What democratic government is in full power in Iraq?

Why is there increasing violence and why does the US not control Anbar Provice and Al Qaeda (which wasn’t in Iraq before the US invasion) does??

You call this success???

Lynne,
“What need is there to produce a fictionalized version of 9/11 and the events leading up to it (which were hardly examined in full!) when probably 99% of us experienced it first hand???”

Do you feel the same for the Farenheit 9/11 movie? Was that movie “a fictionalized version of 9/11 and the events leading up to it”?!!

Maybe you should actually read an article before linking to it. The reason terrorist groups like it that Pres. Bush won is because of the fact that Kerry would have been soft on terror which in turn would lower the levels of hatred among the uneducated male youth of the region. Thus affecting the recruitment techniques that are used by these extremist organizations.

Well, english not being my native language I may have missed something. Still, I failed to see how your logic proves that “terrorists will jump in joy” (sic Mike) when a democrat returns to white house. Quite the contrary IMHO, as an high levels of hatred toward US help terrorists recruitment. As you said.

This doesn’t mean that if Kerry happened to get elected that we would not have to worry about terrorist,

Where did I claim that???

it means that these groups realise that in order to be effective hitting us, they need more resources with a republican in office than if a democrat was in office.

“Resources” they recruit way more easily with a republican in office, indeed.
At worst, your logic ends to a balance between republican in office = more but easier recruitment needs vs democrat in office = less but harder recruitment needs.

And, so far, one side of your logic is hypothetical, as AFAIK no democrat is in office since 5+ years. On the other side, reality could be checked. Go to your own conclusion, I will keep mine.

Does anyone remember the Iranian hostage crises? What happened when the election was over? Were not the hostages released within a day or 2 of Pres Reagan’s inauguration? The reason? Not afraid to make a stand and Iran knew it.

How many american hostages were released free and alive by terrorists since 2001? Don’t they know that Bush is not afraid to make a stand?
How dare they don’t care???

See, there is an issue with non-state enemy: they don’t care about retaliation against hosting nations people but, in fact, count on it to raise their recruitment level. Why are we playing by their tactic?
Heck, they don’t even care about their own lives but martyrdom. Dying for their cause is not a failure for them. That’s success the next generation of terrorists will honors as heroes for years.

We should focus on making the next generation of terrorists smaller before killing the current one, don’t you think?

SE

I supported going into Afganistan, not to mention staying there and finishing the job. I was against invading Iraq as I did not see it as much of a threat(didn’t buy the WMD bull) and believed we would create more problems than needed to solved. How would you label me? Which of your boxes do I fit into.

In a country as diverse as ours and with only two political parties to represent us it is very easy to make an arguement that the Dems(or Repubs) are multi-headed. We have been hearing this song about the Dems for some time now. Can’t you come up with something more original.

Frankxcid,

Thanks for pointing out that nice attack against the troops, I missed it. The fact of the matter is the Democrats don´t like the troops and hope that we fail. Bad news from Iraq is good for their chances at regaining power, and God forbid that something so plebian as soldiers lives get in their way. More to the topic of the multi-headed Democrats, I remember with some amusement how some where saying that Zarqawi´s death was our time to pull out of Iraq while others said it won´t matter.

Lynne,

Very nice, and I´ll bet you wonder why the military votes disproportionately Republican. I doubt we´ll ever meet, but if we do, I hope I´m wearing my dress uniform. I imagine the fact that I´ll have to pay to get it cleaned will make it all the more satisfying after you spit on it.

Silicondoc,

You rock man, way to sum up the party of defeat.

Marc,
“I supported going into Afganistan, not to mention staying there and finishing the job. I was against invading Iraq as I did not see it as much of a threat (didn’t buy the WMD bull) and believed we would create more problems than needed to solved. How would you label me? “

You would be labelled as hindsight

Care to make a prediction on Iran?!

1 LT B:

Lynne,

Very nice, and I´ll bet you wonder why the military votes disproportionately Republican. I doubt we´ll ever meet, but if we do, I hope I´m wearing my dress uniform. I imagine the fact that I´ll have to pay to get it cleaned will make it all the more satisfying after you spit on it.

First of all, I’m a lady and I don’t spit…I certainly didn’t spit on the coffins of my 3 classmates who were killed in Vietnam, either. I would love to hear the logic of why this was your answer to anything that I posted???

I don’t have any respect for people who blindly answer “Yes, sir”, “No, sir”, “No excuse, sir”, as that shows there is no thought put into whatever the person is affirming or denying…I have respect for people who actually think. It is merely a requisite knee jerk reaction, just as is your “answer” to my post.

frankxcid,

What failure are you refering to? Sadam out of power…Check New Government..Check People voting in Iraq…Check Iraqi troops doing most of the fighting…Check No successful Attacks on America…Check

What part hasn’t worked?…

How about the fighting terrorism part? Because, while Saddam (a secular leader said to fund terrorism) is out of power, we’ve allowed Nouri (formerly Jawad) al-Maliki to assume power as the new Prime Minister of Iraq. In case you don’t know, al-Maliki was head of the al-Dawa Party’s jihad office, specifically directing the use of guerillas (aka insurgents or terrorists) against the former secular government, in an effort to establish an Islamic republic in its place. Al-Dawa is the group which bombed the US and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983, and is considered to have strong associations with both Iran and Hezbollah. So we’ve just put a jihadist member of a known terrorist group in charge of a country where we were afraid the former leader might possibly give WMDs to jihadist terrorists… oh, and we just handed over command of armed forces that we trained to him, as well. Feeling safer yet?

(PS, for anyone who feels that I’ve been hammering this point in various threads, I can only respond that apparently I need to because so many people don’t get the implications of what we have really done in Iraq as it pertains to the War on Terror.)

“TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Iran’s president — hosting a visit from Iraq’s prime minister and expressing support for his country’s beleaguered war-torn neighbor — says the Islamic republic supports a “united” Iraq and will help the nation “establish full security,” an Iranian news agency reported.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at a news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki after private talks were held on Tuesday, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported. It is al-Maliki’s first visit to Iran since he became prime minister earlier this year.

“Iran will provide assistance to the Iraqi government to establish full security. We believe strengthening the Iraqi government is tantamount to promoting security, peace and friendship in that country,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/12/iraq.iran/index.html

Ain’t Democracy a bitch!?!

Now, how can we pressure Iran (who might be helping secure Iraq) to give up it’s neclear ambitions? What if Iran gets to the point of military intervention? Who’s side do you think Iraq would be on?

Funny that there was such a brouhaha about fictional portions appearing in The Da Vinci Code (which actually was a work of fiction!) but somehow it’s not important in a portrayal of an actual, historical, and very recent event?

Following the money trail on who prompted, maintained interest in, and produced the 9/11 “entertainment” last night should be very telling…

Lynne, I see you’re still making a fuss over the 9/11 movie. The movie was based on the 9/11 commission report; do you think the commission was a work of fiction?

And, I’ve posed this question earlier, do you believe that Farenheit 9/11 was fictional? Did you support that movie or did you deny it like you’re doing with this movie?

Oooh! Don’t these Democrats know about the value of ideological purity? They need an enforcer like SE.

Dwayne-
How many joints did you sprain tying yourself in those logical knots? Kerry would have had the mandate to repair our relationships in the region, and to change course on the war. The UN would have been more likely to cooperate with him, and that would have helped. Kerry could raise the numbers of soldiers in there without having to risk the political fallout from having said things were sufficient all that time before.

As for the effectiveness of domestic anti-terror efforts, they’ve basically gone nowhere under Bush. His people looked at this immense problem, gave up, and then essentially used it as the justification for a wishlist of irrelevant military actions, and a whole bunch of terror-baiting election tactics.

Bush had nearly total support from the country when 9/11’s dust had settled. Unfortunately, he failed to take that near total support, and implement solutions to our problem that Americans in general could agree on. Instead, he tried to make the War on Terrorism his party’s war, and cast opposition to the terrorists as something only his people were fully capable of.

Bush and the Republicans and those on the right wing who buy this rhetoric fail to understand something crucially important about the response from the Democrats and Liberals. They think the hatred of Bush is largely personal. What they fail to realize is that Bush is hated because he is in the way.

We see Bush’s terrible policies unfold, we see this country get weaker, not stronger under his leadership, and we wonder whether Bush is going to do a better job of destroying this country, than the true object of our hatred, the terrorists who struck us, and Bin Laden in particular.

Why else do the words diversion, distraction and unnecessary come up? Why do we almost unanimously support efforts in Afghanistan, and criticize him for drawing our attention and resources away from that area?

Why else are we so furious that Bush’s actions have allowed a new terrorist threat to grow in Iraq? Why else have many of us called for an end to our inflammatory presence, while others amongst us call for increases of resources and manpower to finish off the fight? Why else do most Democrat support a gradual withdrawal, with the Iraqi’s set up to take over the burdens gradually?

It galls us to no end to hear this partisan drivel thrown at us about how we’ve forgotten, about how we’re soft on terrorists, about how we would just surrender to them. We may be a many-headed hydra on many issues, but we are one in our opposition to those who brought the towers down. Those looking for the unify force in Liberal Politics should not look for it among the pacifists or the partisan. They should look for it among those who believe that this president policies are a dangerous failure on many levels.

Ironically enough, it is this sense of dangerous failure that unites people from the other side of the aisle with us, both in Washington, and among the fifty states of the Union. You can only apologize for a bad leader so long before you become sick to your stomach, before you despair of their leadership.

Any good or great leader could have united this country, and solidified a political mandate built on that unity. That is the chance a crisis gives a leader, but woe be to that leader who thinks that his party and his own legacy can long survive incompetences, and the excuses made for it.

America is sick of leadership that merely concerns itself about appearances. More than anything it was appearances and the deceptions thereof that killed people that fateful morning. I look on in disbelief as one Republican after another trots out that five years and no attacks line. What complacency! What negligence! What arrogance could lead somebody to believe that we are any safer now than we were before? All the years we spent unattacked on the homeland by al-Qaeda did not save one life on Sept. 11th. They did not stop one passenger jet, they did not hold up even one of the collapsing floors. That complacency was a casualty along with all the thousands of Americans that died.

According to the book The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind, we are not being attacked because al-Qaeda is busy using our war as a means to reduce our prestige and influence overseas. Iraq is helping them win, whether their people die, or live to attack elsewhere using their on-the-job training in Iraq.

The question of how long they will pursue this angle is not certain. The question each right-winger should ask themselves right now, is what defenses America has to get in the way of these people should they decide to take the war to us once more. If you take the 9/11 at their word, the answer is not very much at all.

You folks hope that they will keep fighting us in Iraq, so we won/t have to fight them at home, but the fact is, they are fighting there at their own iniative and convenience. We are obligated, they are interested.

The Democrats would have us fulfill our obligations, and start preparing to fight the enemy whereever they may choose to surface.

To that end, we would improve our defenses at home, we would improve relations and intelligence networks abroad, and we would redeploy our forces to aid in truly effective wars and engagements against the terrorists. No more sitting in Iraq like sitting ducks, unable to protect ourselves or anybody else from attack. No, instead we take the initiative, and we make it so difficult for them to operate as they please that their organization becomes little more than a loud-mouthed nuisance, if that. We can’t defeat terrorism, terrorism being a tactic, but we can sure make it a difficult tactic to use well, a difficult sell for those wishing to recruit new terrorists.

Frankxcid-
Victory is not a checklist. It’s a state of affairs. You can have all those things, yet not have the reality of triumph.

As for the docu-drama, we don’t hope parts are untrue, we know for a fact, a documented fact, that it is untrue.

You market a “true story”, and people are going to assume that at least the broad outline of the story is true. They may even treat parts of the story as facts. It’s not because they are stupid. It’s only natural to entertain the thought that a fact-based drama might represent the truth in some way.

What my post on the other side reveals though, is that the drama’s grasp on the facts was not all that solid. Fiction that purports to portray the facts may conflate and ficitonalize for dramatic purposes, but it must represent the most important facts and events truthfully.

When I went to college to study for my telecommunication degree (Radio-TV-Film), one of the courses they required me to take was called Telecommunications Policy. One of the subjects was privacy and defamation laws. The law that applies here is libel.

Both the show’s claim that we had men on the ground with Bin Laden in their sights and that we had Sandy Berger falling apart on the other end of the line combine to create a fictional scene that represents nothing that ever happened in reality. The scene is complete fiction.

People will think it really happened. Docu-dramas are supposed to represent reality at least in the broad outlines. Even in the broad outlines, this is untrue.

It’s irresponsible to portray the events of 9/11 with such a deceptive piece of work.

I honestly believe that the Democrats DO NOT want to win the White House. Sure, they’d like the Senate and/or House, but not the Presidency.

The reason is simple: Conservative hatred is their focal point. Without a Republican in the White House, they’d have to DO SOMETHING…and we all know it’s easier to find fault than lead.

S.E.:

Let’s take a closer look at your hydra. First, the doves: can you name a single dove in power? Yes, Cindy Sheehan speaks a great deal about peace, but can you name prominent democratic officials supporting this plan? If so, I haven’t heard it. It would appear the democratic party does not support that idea. One less head to the hydra.

Then there are the people who believe this war cannot be won as it is currently being fought. You call them “cut and runners”, but the fact is they are the realists. We have already reached the point where mandatory recalls are being instituted to keep things in Iraq going. How do you see maintaining an occupation for years longer without a draft? It is clear we either need to institute a draft and get more feet on the ground, or withdraw. There is no option that allows us to keep the occupation going without a new source of troops. This is the majority position of Democrats.

The third group is not functionally different from the second. The “more boots on the ground” set agrees with the cut and run set that the war cannot be won as it is being fought. They recognize the same two options if we wish victory in any sense: withdraw, or increase the boots on the ground. Yes, there is some disagreement over which course to take, but enough common ground is present to allow these groups to work together and solve the problem, because they both actually see the same problem. As you point out, both groups are united in saying that a draft will be necessary to continue this war.

The fourth group, as you have already pointed out yourself, has been eviscerated by the electorate in the primaries. It has functionally lost all support within the party. Thus, this head has already been cut off.

Finally, you put forth the Kerry-Pelosi branch of the Democratic party, whom you call “no game planners”. You suggest that it has failed to put forth any alternative plan to the war in Iraq, despite its criticism of Bush.

In fact, Kerry was quite specific about his plan:

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. […] Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that — claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. This is the public statement to America.

Well, guess what, America? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth.

For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one — not one has completed a 24-week field training program.

Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can’t stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces’ training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.

[…]

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America’s commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards. But they didn’t plan.

[…]

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

[…]

In fact, he should stop paying companies under fraud investigation or corruption investigation. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon who are responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

[…]

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.
[…]

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

[…]

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do if I were president today. But we can’t afford to wait until January and I can’t tell you what I will find in Iraq on January 20th.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

Looks like a pretty specific, point by point plan of what we would need to do to get in a position to withdraw. Which, by the way, would put him in the second head.

Oh, wait, look at that… the second and third heads are the only heads left, and they’re pretty much in agreement with each other… looks like the Democratic party isn’t as much of a hydra as you thought. In fact, they’re fairly united behind the idea of putting enough boots on the ground to win this war or (if the nation is not willing to institute a draft to do that) getting out in order to cut our losses since we cannot achieve our goals with the smaller force. Kerry’s even put together a nice point-by-point plan for what would be necessary to pull out and still consider it a “win” for us.

Stephen,
“It’s irresponsible to portray the events of 9/11 with such a deceptive piece of work.”

Do you feel that the Farenheit 9/11 movie was fictional? Do you believe the 9/11 Commission Report is fictional?

people who blindly answer “Yes, sir”, “No, sir”, “No excuse, sir”,…

Translation: The components of the American Military are a bunch of dupped children who can not decide for themselves.

This is true of the liberal beleifs that everyone is equally worthless except those who are not. Every problem is someone else’s responsibility. I am an English as a second language, foreign born naturelized citizen, with 12 years in the Marine Corps. I know that programs on TV that say “this is a dramatization” are dramatizations. On your original point Lynne, the program was entertainment, everyone knows it is entertainment. But, so what? The real Bill Clinton did not like it. The real Sandy Burger wrote a letter to the Head of Disney. Real Congressmen threathenned the broacast license of NBC owned station. That is the point of that.

You (Lynne) and I both know about the chemical weapons found. You know that even though Zarqawi and Sadam were not in-cahoots, Zarqawi was in country, had training camps, and was unmolested by Sadam before the invasion. What group did Zarqawi said he belong to? Was it Al-Queada? Another thing on that, you actually beleive that Terrorist exists in every Muslim country except Iraq. Why? Was Iraq magical? Just a magical as the reason people join the jihad. It really makes me wonder how a woman can even find any reason to empathize with these group of people. These are the same people that think women are sub human, should not be seen, and are a walking sin against the purity of God.

Jarin, you hit the nail on the head. Afghanistan, and even Iraq pale in importance to Iran. If Bush is guilty of anything it is not unilaterally deposing the government in Iran. Being a politician, as he is, he chose the safer route of surrounding Iran.

Asking facetiously what the Dems stand for when you made up your mind how your vote will be cast ages ago is a pointless excercise. Your party is your religion, and no amount of logic or fact could ever sway you from being a loyal follower. You’ve imbibed so heavily of the Kool-Aid that there is no thought, just a glassy-eyed smile as you hungrily “pull the lever” every other November and return to your nest, awaiting further instruction.

frank:

You have not taken the time to actually read nor understand anything I have posted and your replies bear that out.

“Yes, sir”, etc. is taught at West Point…they are the ONLY acceptable answers…it has nothing to do with children of military personnel. That is your interpretation and it is incorrect.

Saddam did not support Al Qaeda…if we were attacking the people who fomented 9/11, why did the government attempt to make a case against WMDs and Saddam…why not work with Saddam to get the Al Qaeda “camps” out of Iraq…and why not take the plank out of your eye and get the Al Qaeda training camps out of the US…we know that sleeper cells exist, right? Or should France invade us to get rid of the Al Qaeda camps in our midst???

Chemical weapons are not necessarily WMDs…only certain weapons are so classified. The few evidences of chemical weapons were old and outdated.

1LT B-
A realistic plan for Iraq? What a great idea. Too bad we Democrats thought of it first, instead of the folks running it.

I think it Grover Norquist, a Republican consultant who said that bipartisanship between the Democrats and the Republicans is essentially date rape. You get your way, or you don’t play ball. Well, you know what? We have this crazy idea that bipartisanship is meant to go both ways. I mean, how the hell do we justify to our voters that we’re getting nothing in terms of cooperation from the right? It’s ludicrous.

I find it galling to hear sad words about our support for the troops. The only support you’ve gotten out of this administration is lip service. You ask for more men, it stops before it ever gets to the top because they know neither Bush or Rumsfeld want to hear it. You ask for more armor, and they don’t move until and embarrassing question by a National Guardsman forces their hand. You ask for a better plan, and they tell you it’s going to be more of the same, even as the streets flow with Blood from civil strife.

We’re getting told here in the states that a military commander has written a report that gives up the Anbar Province for lost. I’m hearing some guy on CNN saying we maybe have a few hundred American soldiers in that area, with al-Qaeda’s real stronghold in place there, and nobody can get a handle on it.

Yet we Democrats have been pushing for something better from the start. We weren’t rationalizing riots and looting as a sign of people enjoying their freedom. We didn’t rationalize the growing discontent until whole cities broke out of our control People like myself have always supported the troops, even when those merely paying you lip service opposed our proposals by calling us defeatists, traitors, and worse.

You’re hostages to bad policy and worse politics, and people like me hate that. We can understand why you support this president, but we ourselves cannot tolerate his misbehavior.

As for that whole spitting thing? With all due respect, wake up. This isn’t the Sixties. Hell, the Sixties wasn’t the Sixties. What we have here is mostly a disgreement of how to engage an enemy, not a disagreement about whether American needs to fight its enemies. People aren’t opposing this war for peace and love. They’re opposing it because it a debacle, and it’s expense, its foreign policy fallout, and its damage to our readiness is leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. It’s the Republican party that’s re-living the sixties, trying to jumpstart a war with willpower and resolve that they haven’t cared to properly support with manpower, material support, and good strategy. The time has come to stop trying to refight Vietnam, stop trying to refight the gulf war, and start trying to fight the fights this country needs to fight to keep safe.

radighly:

The Da Vinci Code was also “based” on facts…and it was a work of fiction…or don’t you remember the rounds and rounds of discussions on this very message board???

se, yes I guess I am a cut and run, to save American Service Members unnecessarily lost of lives, in a war that should have never happend, based on bs intel, bs’d to the american public by a bs administration.

All bush did was destablize the area more, and there is no way in the next 100yrs that a true democratic country where different sects that have found for centuries will get along.

se you did was spout the same bs as we hear from the republican party each and every day. Stay the course, problem is the captain of the ship doesn’t know what course he wants, or goes with whatever wat the winds blow,

Jarin

Howard Dean, the DNC head, clearly is the lead dove. He built his last presidential bid around that very message.

Kerry’s message is full of malarky. Iraq is on the cusp of success. The president was right last night. The streets of Baghdad will decide America’s fate. I have know Kerry a long,long time. He has been, since his teenage years, a fraud and charleton. Ted Kennedy kept him around because in this manner, Kenneny would have two votes, not one.

Stephen
The artful dodger. You are a more boots on the ground guy,so say it. You are not a dove, nor are you a cut and runner, nor are you a Murtha guy. You are more republican than demopcratic,come to think of it. You havee zero in common with Cindy Sheehan. She’s a whack job, and you know it.

On the tv show last night: One thing that came to life,especially in the scene of the “hit man” denied entry by immigration, is the absolute hatred these people have for us, and also the fanatical brainwashing they have been subjected to. Very similar to the kamizakazi of WWII…these people,pure and simple,have to be killed off. They are a form of incurable cancer.

Lynne, I (specifically) asked you if you believe that Farenheit 9/11 was ficitonal?! Do you believe the 9/11 commission report is fictional?

frankxcid:

You (Lynne) and I both know about the chemical weapons found. You know that even though Zarqawi and Sadam were not in-cahoots, Zarqawi was in country, had training camps, and was unmolested by Sadam before the invasion.

Your information on Zarqawi being unmolested by Sadam is both dated, and inaccurate, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee in a report they released Friday:

WASHINGTON - Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15474492.htm

SE:

Howard Dean, the DNC head, clearly is the lead dove. He built his last presidential bid around that very message.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/24/Dems.radio/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/

You should try listening to what he’s saying now. He is in full agreement with Kerry and Murtha.

Kerry’s message is full of malarky. Iraq is on the cusp of success. The president was right last night. The streets of Baghdad will decide America’s fate. I have know Kerry a long,long time. He has been, since his teenage years, a fraud and charleton. Ted Kennedy kept him around because in this manner, Kenneny would have two votes, not one.

Iraq is on the cusp of success? Are you not paying attention, or what? The Prime Minister in Iraq, that we just handed armed forces over to, is a member of a known terrorist organization which has attacked US installations in the past. What’s more, he was the head of that organization’s JIHAD office, directing guerilla fighters (aka terrorists) to bring down a secular government and install an islamic theocracy in its place. How is that in any sense a success?

There is more to this election and to the democratic party agenda than the occupation of Iraq. Although I think the reason it keeps coming up is because it is foremost on America’s mind. Why is that? It’s obviously not because the (so called) war is going well…I think we can all agree on that.

I happen to consider myself moderate. However, over the last six years I find myself aligning more with the left. Because of the areas where I have expressed my agreement with the left I have been labeled “Anti-American”, “Liberal”, “baby killer” (ironically I disagree with abortion), and many other things.

It seems to me the right has lost their “big tent” philosophy where one can be considered part of the party with disagreements. The new mantra seems to be you are either with us or against us. Many Americans don’t operate that way.

There are certain things the right needs to start focusing on for me to even begin to consider them seriously. Namely; spending, the federal debt, state rights, and many domestic issues. I helped elect some of the GOP. Why? Because they were the party of state rights, smaller government, fiscal conservatives…blah, blah, blah. True colors show when power is obtained.

“the GOP faithful are able to follow marching orders, while the Dems tend to think for themselves.”

You mean like when they regurgitate the talking points spoon feeding they get everyday from the media?

Yeah…

JamesD:

“the GOP faithful are able to follow marching orders, while the Dems tend to think for themselves.”

You mean like when they regurgitate the talking points spoon feeding they get everyday from the media?

No, that would be the GOP.

Joe is the first sign: If you do not want America to surrender, you are a Jew Bastard.

Frank,

Did you vote for Lieberman in 2000? Nope? By your logic, you must be a Jew-hating bigot.

“No, that would be the GOP.”

Nice comeback, Jarin. I heard comebacks like that before; of course, it was from 6 years olds. Nice.

Eagle:

You’re flying away with yourself.

People are going to vote for the Democratic ticket because the Republicans have messed everything up. You got us bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush is promising more war. At home, he is taking away our civil liberties. He encourages torture and spying on Americans without a warrant. All the legislation Republicans produced favors the rich only.

There’s more. But why bother. This is the worst presidential administration and the worst Congress that I can remember.

This is why I and many other Americans are going to vote for non-Republicans in November.

I’m not sure why they would vote Democratic if you are concerned about civil liberties, Clinton’s administration was just as bad as Bush’s in that area and the current group are calling for more and more curtailing these days.

If you are concerned about civil liberties, voting Libertarian is the only real solution.

rahdigly

By ABC’s own admission, “The Path to 9/11” was a work of fiction. I guess there just wasn’t enough drama in the actual events.

rahdigly:

Considering I’ve been repeatedly having to counter the Republican talking that we are on the verge of success in Iraq in multiple threads on multiple forums by pointing out that inconvenient little fact that the person in charge of Iraq is in fact a terrorist, to the point of having to state it twice in this thread alone, I think maybe there’s a bit more substance to my response than just a quick comeback. Particularly since the link in my response goes to official (and oft-repeated) RNC talking points, while JamesD (whom I was replying to) was trying to paint Dems as the party relying overmuch on talking points rather than thinking for themselves.

I’m sorry if my point was unclear to you. What I was saying to JamesD really comes down to an old adage that I’m sure you are familiar with: men who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Rhinegold:

I’m not sure why they would vote Democratic if you are concerned about civil liberties, Clinton’s administration was just as bad as Bush’s in that area and the current group are calling for more and more curtailing these days.

Could you please post specific examples of each of your points, so that it is possible to respond? The vague nature of your comment makes it extremely difficult to debate.

rahdigly

Thanks for the 20/20 but actually I was against the Iraqi invasion from the moment GWB first started making noise about it. I was wrong about how hard the actual invasion would be(I thought it would take longer and be more costly in human lives) but everything else I was pretty much on target with. I didn’t believe the WMD bull crap because all the scources were so suspect. I realize you may not believe me but know what? I don’t care. Few listened then and we are today where we are.

Rahdigly-
If you want to know how much of Farenheit 9/11 is fictional, Look through Moore’s documentations for his film yourself.

As for the 9/11 report, it has my full faith and trust. Hell, that was the issue to begin with. The 9/11 report put blame at the feet of Clinton’s Administration as well as the Bush administration. Unfortunately, it seems like shared responsibility is too much blame for some on the Right to admit. Some on the right are more mature than that, like Chairman Kean on the 9/11 committee was. When asked, he said that to the degree that the movie might try to blame the whole thing on the Clinton administration, the movie failed.

I believe emphatically that The Path to 9/11 makes up facts that as a work of fact-based fiction, with comprehensive sourcing available to it, it should not have. There’s plenty of blame to be placed on the Clinton Administration. There’s no need to make up things to blame it for, much less to blame the whole thing on that administration.

rahdigly

By a prediction on Iran do you mean will we go to war or will we win if we do.

To the first question I’m really not sure. I would not be surprised to see GWB try something before November. If the republicans hold the Senate and the house it increases the chances of going in.

To the second question, the only way we would win is by going nuclear on them. That won’t happen. What would happen will be worse than Iraq.

Rhinehold, not only were the Clinton admins policies just as bad, they were (completely) ineffective. The wire tapping and surveillance, which they took part in, didn’t even get accurate information nor prevent attacks as this admins is doing. The complaints about Bush’s policies are that he’s “taking away civil liberties”. Ok, one no he’s not, and two, those tactics are successful; at least, up until the NY “Treasonous” Times “outs” them, once again.

Jarin,
“by pointing out that inconvenient little fact that the person in charge of Iraq is in fact a terrorist”

Can you name a place in the middle east that doesn’t have terrorists in their government?

Mark,
“I didn’t believe the WMD bull crap because all the scources were so suspect. I realize you may not believe me but know what? I don’t care. Few listened then and we are today where we are.”

Since you were so “accurate” with Iraq, what do you think about Iran and their WMD situation?!! Is this false intelligence about their nuke program? Do you think it’s worth going to Iran? Are you on “target” with Iran?

Stephen,

you didn’t answer the question of whether you (YOU) believe the Farenheit 9/11 movie is fictional. Well, do you or not?!

I am still predicting a republican consolidation of power this November. Moonbat heads by the tens of millions will simultaneously explode….should be fun to watch.

Jarin,

It’s Rhinehold (with an h) and I didn’t notice you demanding Paul give detailed examples of his accusations against Bush but demand it from me? Typical…

However…

DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)

Wiretapping and attempted expansion of laws (http://crimelynx.com/partpol.html)

Illegal aquiring of IRS files (http://www.judicialwatch.org/filegate.shtml)

The violation of privacy laws by the Clinton White House (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/
04/03/clinton.willey/index.html)

Attempts to curtail ‘fair use’ by Diane Feinstein (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr006=6ddy6gz961.app8a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=221)

Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Max Baucus (D-MT) trying to curtail free speech (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=219)

John Conyers (D-MI) Attempting to mandate secret technology (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=207)

Democrats support criminalizing through (http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=106)

Then there is the simple truth that violating personal property rights of an individual, no matter who is in the majority, is an accepted practice by both parties these days…

Well, I guess I could go on, but the question is will you even see the point?

Sorry, that last accusation should have read:

Democrats support criminalizing thought.

Back to your regularly scheduled programs now…

Paul
The only Democrat I see worth voting for is in a different state the I am in. So far be it you see me voting democratic. To be honest I hope some decent independent runs.

Can you name a place in the middle east that doesn’t have terrorists in their government?

Nope…it even applies to Israel, which is supported by the U.S.

If, indeed, the 9/11 “docudrama” was totally “true”, why, under threat of libel suits, did the producers remove many of the contested scenes??? If they were true, a libel suit would’ve been tossed out. Seems to me that their removing said scenes shows that portions of the program were fictional.

I’ve got a medium part in a play about a German Jewish family that takes place during Hitler’s reign and is told mostly thru letters sent among the various family members. This morning I got around to reading the prologue (which isn’t my part)…although the prologue was written years ago, it has a paragraph that reads as follows:

“On January 30th, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and a month later Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President of the United States. Both men held office for 12 years and both died in April 1945. Roosevelt told Americans they had ‘nothing to fear but fear itself’ while Hitler used fear to gain and then retain power [Emphasis mine]

Which way of life do you choose???

rad:

Whether my opinion is that the movie or the report were fictional has no bearing on the question at hand…truth, in case you haven’t learned, is not the same as “opinion”…

The report does not go nearly far enough…the president didn’t even testify under oath…he prevented Condie from testifying for quite some time…Bush couldn’t even testify without Cheney along to hold his hand…what does this tell you about “truth”????

Haven’t seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I know it’s quite well documented and the research is well-referenced…would love to see the 9/11 “entertainment” that well documented…

Remember, historical fiction is “based on” historical events, but it’s still fiction!

rahdigly

“what do you think about Iran and their WMD situation?!!”

I think they would love to have nuclear weapons. I also think we(USA) are incapable of doing anything about it militarily at this point in time other than, as I previously said, drop nuclear bombs on them, which we will not do. However just because we do not have the resources doesn’t mean GWB won’t go for it anyway.

Funny how you can cut off one head of a hydra and it’ll grow a new one right back; you can split the head into two and you’ll have two full heads…all this on a completely unified organism…

Guess a hydra isn’t such a good example to show disunification afterall, hey?

SE

You forgot one of the heads, the one that believes in holding a party accountable for the mistakes of the people they chose to lead it. I did it with the Democrats under Clinton and will do it again with the Republicans under Bush. What does accountability mean to you?

SE-
The streets of Baghdad are flowing with more blood each week than is shed in our largest cities each year. If the the streets of Baghdad decide America’s fate, then we are well and truly screwed if things don’t improve!

I favor withdrawal. Some would use that fact to say I cut and run. It’s a false distinction, though. I would not leave Iraq in the lurch, but make the final effort necessary to let them stand on their own.

Some would call me a dove for simply disagreeing with Bush’s policy. I’m not, but some identify us strongly, regardless of our real position, with the pacifists of the 60s and 70s on account of our dissent.

As for Murtha, you should know enough by now to know that I believe his positions to be justified, and not motivated by cowardice. You might see him as a coward, but here’s a guy who fought in two wars, and whose constituency are decidedly not left-coast liberals. He’s a Reagan Democrat. The Right loves to pounce on him and call him names, but they seem to do so on many folks without distinction. You can even serve in theatre and get called a coward for opposing the war. The one defining element to many on the right of who has courage and who does not is the support of Bush and his policies.

This is the distinction that has done more harm to this war than anything else.

People can support the successful conclusion of a war that they believe was ill-advised. The supporters of the war can offer constructive criticism in hopes of acheiving the objective desired.

But if your bastion of defense is built on not accepting either form of disagreement, and vitriolically trying to surpress, you will deny yourself both a way out of your problems, and the people who could help you build support for that change in policy.

I’m not an artful dodger, but a careful stepper. I say what I mean and mean what I say, but I recognize that the shape of words can be treacherous ground to walk on. Some people get trapped in their own words, the logic of what they said overwhelming what they were trying to say, sometimes even blotting out memory of what originally motivated their positions in the first place.

How many Republicans, caught up in all the debates and the defenses of the president have left behind a trail of defenses and apologies and positions that seen over time might not be consistent with what they truly believe in principle.

I post under my name because it is helpful to remember that I’ve got a long history of things I’ve said to that point. I don’t want to look back over the history of what I’ve said and merely see myself mirror imaging what the other side said.

I’m trying to remain consistent to principles, to practicalities. In todays world of prepared talking points and mirror-reflection pundits, the kind of careful phrasing and composition required to express such views might seem artful dodging. True and full expression of one’s views, true freedom and non-conformity, though, require such care.

On the subject of the terrorists, I think quite a few reviewers observed that the terrorists were hammed up quite a bit.

The truth was, these people made great efforts to conform to our society, even drinking and attending strip clubs. If they had stuck out, they would have never gotten the job done.

Some of these people are terminators in flesh, remorselessly, fanatically devoted to killing folks. This kind of devotion, though, is not necessarily the entire story.

I’m found of quote Henry Czerny’s great line from Mission Impossible: Everybody has pressure points. You find something that’s personally important to them and you squeeze.

In the book The One Percent Doctrine a number of examples are given of al-Qaeda members whose cooperation or successful interogation came from acts of kindness, appeals to certain attitudes both religious and personal. Some we influenced by money or even pornography. These aren’t droids, these are men, and few men can be absolutely perfect in their devotion to anything.

Over time, we’ve discovered that these kind of efforts are actually more successful than torture at getting useful information. This should indicate two things: first, breaking and destroying these men through torture doesn’t get us anywhere for its significant downside to our reputation. Second, there’s hope for rolling back al-Qaeda’s influence.

If we deny the humanity of our enemy, in the case of the terrorists, we miss golden opportunities to hinder them, and give them a more fearful reputation than they deserve. The first step to taking down any enemy is to let go of whatever hold of intimidation they have on you. These guys aren’t an incurable cancer. They are fanatics, but fanatics can have their intense belief either used against them, or moderated by the kind of baggage we human beings carry around or pick up.

Moreover, we can figure out, by close study of the population, how to keep people from becoming devoted fanatics in the first place. Humiliate the right people, break up the right plots, get footsoldiers to betray the right leaders, and you can end the fight in years rather than generations.

But also, we can support the kind of aid and kind of positions in the middle east that undermine their recruiting, or in cases where our presence might be disturbing, work through our proxies. We need to make peace not merely through bludgeoning violence, but also through calming influence and settlement of issues

I have no problem with taking out the hardline terrorists or the unlucky shitheads who try and attack our country Let’s just recall though, that not all the weapons of war and statecraft revolve around the production of corpses. Let’s recall the teachings of Von Clausewitz, who said that in destroying forces, attrition of armies was only one way to acheive this goal. Anything that takes away the ability or willingness to fight qualifies as a means of destroying forces.

I’m not sure why they would vote Democratic if you are concerned about civil liberties, Clinton’s administration was just as bad as Bush’s in that area and the current group are calling for more and more curtailing these days.

The crucial difference, Rhinehold, is that the Clinton administration sought FISA approval for their programs. You many disagree with that law, but it has passed SCOTUS muster and provides some protection (e.g., it would be difficult to use the info to persecute a citizen or blackmail a legistlator).

Rahdigly-
I gave you and everybody else the link to say that anybody who wants to check and see whether Moore used facts or fiction to make his point is welcome to look. There’s another aspect here, though, which is part of what makes Moore’s subjective treatment reasonable, and the maker’s of Path to 9/11 not so much.

Namely, it’s easy to recognize that Moore’s documentary aims to be an expression of his opinion. His work, where it deals with facts, has facts to back up what he says. The interpretation might not be favorable or neutral, but then that’s not the measure of what’s fiction or not. He can bring out evidence to support his view, and that is what I’ve directed you to.

As for wiretapping and surveillance, the data mining operation was actually something of a bust. Additionally, he went for these things without getting congressional approval, and the courts so far have ruled along the lines of our arguments. Bush has stretched the CINC clause the way some Democrats stretched the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Nikkolai-
Consolidation of power? Unlikely. You’re likely to lose quite a few seats here and there. If you’re lucky you might keep bare majorities. If not, you may very well end up losing one or more.

Silicon Doc-
JFK could have let things remain at a low simmer, but then your side would have pulled the same shit on him that you are pulling on us now. Your party would have bombarded him with claims of Vietnam being the next China, and would have accused him of being soft on Communism. Vietnam was what your people wanted. Your party’s problem with LBJ is that he didn’t escalate the war enough!

Nixon got us out, but only after letting the other half off all the soldiers that would die int he conflict get killed. He could pull out because nobody was going to call Nixon a commie bastard for making deals with China, pitting the communist powers against each other, seeking detente, and pulling us out of Vietnam. But he pulled us out with excessive slowness and great denial of how pointless the war remained,and how much it was costing us.

The thing to understand about the Vietnamese was that they were never fully brought behind the notion of a South Vietnam. They never really had the will or drive to defend it as a people. You can’t hand off a country to folks like that and expect the nation to work.

As for Cambodia, you should ask what Nixon’s bombing and invasion of this neutral country did to the stability of the nation’s government, and how Pol Pot and his monsters took advantage of that. Cambodia was blowback from Nixon’s policies, not ours.

In terms of the “slaughter” in Somalia, we lost 18 troops while they lost hundreds, and thousands of Somalians died. The Battle of Mogadishu was actualy no worse than a botched raid. It’s a black mark on the Clinton administration, but it’s a policy inherited from the Bush administration. It was also a Humanitarian Mission, which made retaliation a bad idea.

The African Embassies were a failure of security, as were the other attacks. Clinton, though, is not the first President to have such an attack made on an embassy.

On the subject of Katrina, the delay in getting help to the survivors was significant, to the point where even conservative commentators were raising hell about it. Some of the worse atrocities were untrue, but all the same, the fact that our government’s response failed New Orleans residents, and that disaster recovery efforts have been severely curtailed by bureaucracy, cronyism and incompetence introduced by the Bush Administration are only too factually supportable.

On the subject of the WMDs, I distinctly recall the constant calls from the president to disarm Saddam Hussein, and all the times where they implied and stated that Iraq and al-Qaeda were in cahoots. I recall being told by my president that the next smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.

So, when we find nothing more than rusty, non-functional relics of times long past, we naturally questioned just what threat was worth the time, the money and the lives of our soldiers. We also get somewhat perturbed that our President neglected to plan for the off chance that things might not go perfectly.

On the subject of Fitzmas, the fact remain: Rove leaked the information, which was classified, to Matt Cooper, having stated that the information had just been declassified. He was the confirming source for Novak, who we learned originally got it from Armitage, who appears simply to have slipped. Even without a Merry Fitzmas, we now know for a fact that this president declassified information for political gain without consulting the CIA on the subject of the sensitivity of that information, and that Cheney and his people did in fact purposefully seek out information to discredit the Wilsons with. We also know that the Vice President’s chief of Staff peddled this information, too. The shape of the Plame affair was not quite what we thought, but the facts of it are far closer to what the Democrats believed than what the Republicans loudly claimed.

On the subject of Social Security, Bush has admitted that his two trillion dollar alterations to Social Security would not do shit to resolve the problems of solvency. So, we would spend hundreds of billions of dollars, further threatening the system solvency, just so we could invest in the stock market, which as anybody knows is risky. You could get more money, but you could also lose it, too. Social Security is insurance. You want something more, you go get it. Why we need the government to get into the stockbroking business is beyond me.

As for Truman, yes he dropped the Nuclear Bombs. I don’t see why, though, in an age where we’re trying to prevent nuclear proliferation, that Bush is seeking to build new nuclear weapons. We might want to lead by example here.

As for wanting to allow Iran to get nukes? Don’t get me started. If you want to settle into some fantasy world and believe such things, go ahead. But the reality is, we’ve had very little ability to intimidate folks since our army got stuck in Iraq chasing around insurgents without the manpower to simply take and control the land.

As for the Geneva convention? there too we should lead by example. Fact is, we get more information out of people by humane methods anyways. Torture victims simply go along with your wishes, perceived or given. Unfortunately, not everybody speaks carefully or knows if they’re asking for the right information, so often, torturers end up taking a ride with their victims to fantasy land, where the victim lays out and even begins to believe Bullshit he comes up with to avoid pain.

But also, being adherents to the treaties gives other powers little excuse to break their codes, and us the moral authority to crack down on powers who fail to adhere themselves.

The real shame here is that you could not argue things in a more civil manner.

rahdigly:

“by pointing out that inconvenient little fact that the person in charge of Iraq is in fact a terrorist”

Can you name a place in the middle east that doesn’t have terrorists in their government?

That is a misleading question. Success in Iraq has always been defined as reducing the potential for Iraq to support terrorism. Our basis for invasion was that Iraq was a threat to US security because they could provide a weapon of mass destruction, possibly nuclear, to a terrorist organization; and that they were known for providing monetary support to terrorist organizations. Success in Iraq hinges upon removing the state’s connection to terrorism. Instead, we have removed a secular dictator who provided money to terrorists with a man who not only supports islamic terrorism but has himself headed the jihad office of a known terrorist organization. This not only does not support US interests in the region, but goes directly against them.

Rhinehold:

Sorry about the mixup with your name. As for asking you to clarify and not Paul, while Paul did not cite his accusations he did provide examples which could be debated (which was all I asked from you, though the citation is appreciated): “[Bush] encourages torture and spying on Americans without a warrant.”

To respond to your points:

1. I’m very much in agreement with you about the DMCA. Frankly, I have been for years. The DMCA is a travesty. I’m not sure how much blame for it should properly be lain at the feet of Clinton or Democrats, however. I understand the bill passed unanamously. Even if Clinton had vetoed it, there would have been more than enough votes to overrule him, and his political capital was running low.

2. With regard to wiretapping and the expansion of laws, I can only point out that Clinton followed the letter of the law with regard to wiretapping, and worked with our legislative process to expand wiretapping legally where he felt he did not have the necessary tools to perform his job. In contrast we have a sitting president who has worked outside the law to wiretap without oversight. I think the true comparison speaks for itself.

3. Illegal aquiring of IRS files is a bit of an outdated charge. This is from the wikipedia entry on filegate:

“In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity. Ray’s report further stated “there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved” in seeking the files.”

4. The violation of privacy laws by the Clinton White House:

I think you did not follow this case to its conclusion:

Today, the appellate judges — Harry T. Edwards, Douglas H. Ginsburg and David S. Tatel — said Judge Lamberth’s “sweeping pronouncements” about supposed criminal activity were inappropriate and “entirely superfluous.”
New York Times 5/27/00 David Stout
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20614FF3A590C748EDDAC0894D8404482

5. Attempts to curtail ‘fair use’: This is definitely a problem bill. No doubt about it. However, once again I’m not sure it’s fair to attribute it broadly to all Democrats.

6. Curtail free speech: Exactly how does having to move to an xxx domain name curtail free speech, or produce a chilling effect as the article suggests? It seems a very reasonable restriction to me.

7. Mandating secret technology: Again, this looks to be a problem bill. However, once again it is a bipartisan bill, and I do not know how representative it is of overall Democratic positions.

8. Thought-crime? Alright, let’s make no distinction between crimes based on the intent of the criminal. Treason would of course no longer apply to US citizens, since that determination is based on the intent behind the action of murder. See, waging “war” without a judgement of intent, is simply mass murder.

True “thought crime” would be to punish someone for crime he only committed in his mind, never in reality. What hate crime legislation does is take into account the rationale for a crime that was actually committed in assigning an appropriate sentence for it. This has a strong basis in the law, such as the difference between manslaughter and murder.

In summary, it appears to me that the main right actually under attack by a unspecified number of democrats has been fair use, in the form of the DMCA, the PERFORM act, and the DCSA. Certainly I will join you in opposing these bills and those Democrats who have supported them. However, I do not think that opposing them means having to vote out all Democrats and choose a third party, nor do I think Democratic actions in this area even come close to the violations committed by the present administration.

And I forgot about Keith and Ken Strong

Rahdingly, if fiction is your history book, well that may explain lots about your position. Care to enlighten me with your vision of history? I suspect it will be quite creative.

Despite the fact that the 9-11 film was clearly a propoganda piece, that the producers have acknowledged was only loosely based on fact. So, what the hell are you taliking about?

Would one of you righties help “somebody” into his helmet? The “special” kind mind you, not the war kind. Shame really, since Bushco needs volunteers for their war, but of course, we really don’t need anyone giving the country even more of a bad reputation than it’s been acquiring lately, do we now?

You know, from the moment I came into Watchblog just now and saw the title of this thread, I knew it would bring out the very worst sorts of rightwing trolling and flamebaiting, and of course, it did.
I refuse to feed all trolls these days — whether they come in the threads OR write the articles. Nothing but a waste of precious time. Life is far too short to be so angry and filled with su