Democratic Hydra: Which Head Speaks Today?

Which head of the five-headed Democratic Party speaks for its constituents? Five separate and distinct philosophies are running for Congress and the Senate this November and each claim that it speaks for the party.

It time now to give a little therapy to each one of these heads and try to see (finally) which philosophy voters should consider before pulling that Republican-rigged lever in November

In reading the posts and responses from my friends over on the left column, black and white differences envelop that party to such an extent that sheer hatred of the president seems to be the glue holding it together. Thus hatred and not a "unity of philosophy" is the single motivating factor in this election. Consider:

First we have the doves, the anti-war crowd. They want peace. Spokesmen like Cindy Sheehan travel the world demanding a stop to all the fighting. If this were 1968, this would be called the Peace Movement...and paisley would be the party color. Thus one head of the hydra consists of the "peace and love" set.

Second, we have the "cut and runners". This group feels that we have already lost, that we should retreat "over the horizon" to as far away as Okinawa if necessary and that our troops there are "under pressure" and also that a draft is necessary to continue operations. This is the "Murtha head" of the hydra.

Third, we have the "more boots on the ground" set. This group has crucified the president and defense secretary by claiming the battle plan of 150,000 troops was inadequate, that we should pour in more troops into Iraq if necessary and if a draft is necessary to accomplish this objective, so be it. This is the "He didn't get it right" head of the hydra.

Fourth, we have the group that supports current ground operations. This group has been eviscerated. Its spokesman, a former senator who twice ran against Bush (as a vice-presidential candidate and then as a presidential candidate) is now running for his political life as an independent, shunned by the very people whose banner he carried into political war. This is the "Lieberman" head of the hydra.

Fifth,we have the "no game planners". This group castigates the president on every single decision that is made in Iraq, and Monday morning quarterbacks everything, yet has failed until this very moment to put fourth an alternative plan. This is the Kerry-Pelosi" head of the hydra.

Thus the five-headed hydra comprises the opposition...five diametrically opposed view points simultaneously claiming that they speak for their party.

So, before I pull the lever this November, I'd like to ask: Which one of these hydra-heads actually speaks for the Democratic Party?

Does anyone know? Should not the American people know before they pull that Republican-rigged lever?

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at September 12, 2006 7:52 AM
Comments
Comment #180707

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…

Posted by: KT at September 12, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #180708

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

Posted by: mike at September 12, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #180710

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.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #180711

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.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 12, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #180713

Mike, three words: read some history.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #180715

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

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #180718

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.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 12, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #180719

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.

Posted by: Terlen at September 12, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #180721

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

Posted by: leatherankh at September 12, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #180722

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?

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #180725

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.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 12, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #180727

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!

Posted by: frankxcid at September 12, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #180730

“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.)

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #180733
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.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #180735

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #180736

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.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #180739

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.

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #180740

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.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #180741

“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. ???

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #180746

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

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 12, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #180748
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!

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 12, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #180750

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #180751

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.

Posted by: Dwayne at September 12, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #180752

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.

Posted by: frankxcid at September 12, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #180755

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.

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #180757
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.

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #180758

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

Posted by: frankxcid at September 12, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #180759

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?

Posted by: frankxcid at September 12, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #180761

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.

Posted by: frankxcid at September 12, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #180765

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.


Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #180766
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???

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #180767

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.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 12, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #180768

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???

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #180769

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”?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #180770
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?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #180771

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.

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #180775

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.

Posted by: 1LT B at September 12, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #180776

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?!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #180777

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.

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #180779

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.)

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #180780

“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?

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #180783

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…

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #180784

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?

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #180788

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

Posted by: mental wimp at September 12, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #180791

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #180794

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.

Posted by: mac6115cd at September 12, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #180795

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.

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #180796

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?

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #180798

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.

Posted by: frankxcid at September 12, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #180799

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.

Posted by: David S at September 12, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #180802

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.

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #180803

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #180804

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???

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #180805

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,

Posted by: KT at September 12, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #180808

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.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at September 12, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #180810

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

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #180811

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
Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #180813

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?

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #180816

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.

Posted by: Tom L at September 12, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #180821

“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…

Posted by: JamesD at September 12, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #180822

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.

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #180823
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.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 12, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #180826

“No, that would be the GOP.”

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

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #180829

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.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 12, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #180834

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.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #180835

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.

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #180837

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.

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #180838

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.

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #180842

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.

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #180843

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #180844

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.

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #180847

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?!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #180849

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.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 12, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #180850

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?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #180851

Sorry, that last accusation should have read:

Democrats support criminalizing thought.

Back to your regularly scheduled programs now…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 12, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #180852

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.

Posted by: KAP at September 12, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #180855
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.

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #180856

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.

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #180858

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???

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #180861

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!

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #180875

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.

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #180880

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?

Posted by: Lynne at September 12, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #180888

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?

Posted by: 037 at September 12, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #180892

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #180900

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).

Posted by: mental wimp at September 12, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #180902

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.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #180904

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.

Posted by: Jarin at September 12, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #180934

And I forgot about Keith and Ken Strong

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #180941

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?

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #180962

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 such hatred.
I think I’ll be taking a short break from this blog — too much rage coming from the right here these days, and it’s no fun at all to read or reply to.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 13, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #180966

Interesting! I expected a little debate on the hydra question.

What I have seen here is confirmation of SE’s thesis. The dems have, one by one, dissolved into one of the hydra heads after another.

There is no unity in the dem party. There is no consensus in the dem party. Therefore, the dem party has no plan, because there is NO LEADERSHIP in the Dem party.

That was the point of this thread.

Posted by: Don at September 13, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #180974

EveryOne, I have removed Silicomdoc’s comments as they violated many of our Rules For Participation (see link at bottom of Comment Entry box below.)

Many who responded to him objecting to his behavior ALSO violated our Rules For Participation. However, rather than spend 90 minutes going through all the thread here and cutting folks access, in light of Silicomdoc’s instigation of these flame fests, I have just removed the comments to a file for future reference.

Please consider yourself warned if you returned comments to Silicomdoc which violated our Rules.

Rather than respond to these flame-baiters and trolls, email me at the link in the Rules For Participation, and I will act as promptly as I can. Even I must sleep and spend time with the family however, so, please allow for that in your expectation of immediate action.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 13, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #180975
There is no unity in the dem party.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Here’s the Dems one-and-only plan for Iraq: The Real Security Act of 2006. Read it and weep.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 13, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #180977

Americans love a fight, it need not be a good fight or a bad fight - give ‘em a fight and they will!

Democrats are only interested in amassing wealth; they do it in the name of the poor people.

Republicans too, are only interested in amassing wealth; they do it in the name of the rich, and in some cases in the name of their God who could either be a Catholic, Methodist or the God who represents any of the million denominations.

As for the marginal parties, they are the wannabe democrats and republicans.

Ladies and gentlemen, don’t stop fighting each other. Fight like mad dogs and finish off each other. Then there is a chance, maybe one day our children will learn the good lesson from it - really try to understand the values of equality, freedom and social responsibility.

When people get turned on by visions and words of hatred and violence, what chance do love and peace have in this world?

Democracy is a gift from God.

We had a chance to arrest Saddam and put him on trial at the end of the first Gulf War. We didn’t.

It is a crime against American people that Bush administration with the active support of Democrats — used a fictitious intelligence report that Saddam had links with Al Qaeda to launch the second Iraq war.

CIA has recently admitted there were no connections.

So my trustworthy citizens working in CIA tells the state, Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Then why did we go in there and kill so many of our young boys and girls in uniform, we blew a great deal of money up in smoke and we still are as I write. Sure, it was not to fight terrorism - it was for a regime change we sent our troops to Iraq.

Our politicians have failed us badly. America needs a real leader. Not an Al Gore who couldn’t beat Bush in a debate! Not another Bush or Kerry. Not another democrat who wants to be a republican, like a Joe Lieberman.

Not a John McCain who recruits young men to the Armed forces by talking about “leadership” .

We need a leader who is closer to God; a man of high moral values and integrity. A man who is well-educated and wise. A man who will get all his facts right before he decides to send his troops t o the foreign land (to kill and die). A Man who will restore America’s prestige and respect in the eyes of the world.

God Bless America.


Posted by: Rev. Abraham at September 13, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #180996

None of the bickering is going to help… elections are not that far away and there would need to be either a HUGE victory (ie: Bin Laden is captured), or a HUGE scandel (ie: all dems killed little babies before age 12, or something equally as vial), in order to sway the public. If elections were today… republicans would loose seats in both houses.

Instead of trying to pit one against another… why don’t you go do something… make a difference, and stop the whole ‘republicans do this… democrats do that’ bs.

Americans are sick of people arguing. Americans are sick of being afraid. Americans are sick of politics.

But hell what do I know… I’m just an American.

Posted by: einghf at September 13, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #180997

Gergle - ‘read some history’ - hell of a comeback - man did you go to college or something??

Posted by: m at September 13, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #181009

Rev, a few comments.

We had a chance to arrest Saddam and put him on trial at the end of the first Gulf War. We didn’t.

Yes we did. It was done in the name of ‘appeasing our new allies’ in the middle east, something I see wanting repeated by the left these days. Learning from history you say?

What is worse, we hinted and supported Iraqis to rise up against Saddam after the war and when they did, just as we did in the Bay of Pigs, we folded and ran, leaving them to fend for themselves.

This is why when we went into Iraq I said that we would be LUCKY if they welcomed us and didn’t turn on us for our past sins. Well, we don’t appear to have gotten lucky. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have not gone in, it was the right thing to do for a variety of reasons which I have discussed here many times in the past…

It is a crime against American people that Bush administration with the active support of Democrats — used a fictitious intelligence report that Saddam had links with Al Qaeda to launch the second Iraq war.

A few things wrong here.

1) This is not a new ‘Iraq war’, it is an extension of the first one. Iraq was in violation of several resolutions stemming from his surrender (and being left to rule). These were very serious ones and while we may have been willing to accept containment of Iraq before 9/11, afterwards many just didn’t want to leave them be, continuing to support terrorism at home and around the world, through monitary support and actual operational means.

2) Even the members of the 9/11 commission admit that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which ‘ficticious’ document are you referring to? If you mean the term paper you are going to have to do better than that… This is one point of contention that I will debate because I get tired of hearing absolutes from both sides that are filled with innacurate assumptions and partisan blinders. Are you also upset with Clinton for asserting the Iraq -> Al Qaeda link when he bombed Sudan?

Ah, well having something to do with 9/11 (that we can prove) and having ties at all are two different things, aren’t they? Why the fascination with 9/11 anyway? Is Al Qaeda the only terrorist organization that we should be fighting or should we be going after any and all terrorist groups AND their state sponsors?

Then why did we go in there and kill so many of our young boys and girls in uniform, we blew a great deal of money up in smoke and we still are as I write. Sure, it was not to fight terrorism - it was for a regime change we sent our troops to Iraq.

Not fight terrorism? Where do you get that rubbish? Iraq was one of the top 5 state sponsors of terrorism when we ‘went in there’, between using their own ‘secret police’ to terrorize their own citizens, occasional operations with international terrorist groups, attempts to assassinate a former US president, plans to attack the US in a post 9/11 feeding frenzy and financial support to terrorist groups around the world, they were deeply involved with and a supporter of terrorism.

That you can sit there and suggest that they had nothing to do with terrorism scares me, to be honest. That people are willing to overlook so much in the name of partisan politics makes me ill…

Our politicians have failed us badly. America needs a real leader. Not an Al Gore who couldn’t beat Bush in a debate! Not another Bush or Kerry. Not another democrat who wants to be a republican, like a Joe Lieberman.

Not a John McCain who recruits young men to the Armed forces by talking about “leadership” .

I’m right up with you until this point…

We need a leader who is closer to God

That’s the last thing we need. I think it’s about time we had a leader that was closer to intelligence and forethought.

We don’t need or want someone who is willing to take his orders from a book written 2000 years ago by men and who is willing to do what he is told by the unwashed masses in a senseless mob rule.

We need a man who is willing to take his orders from the document that founded our country a couple short centuries ago and is continued to be upgraded with time that protects our rights as only a government can and lead the people instead of following them. To show us a better way, inspire us, move forward and not keep us back in the same mind-numb mentality that comes with god.

God Bless America.

Screw god, how about we do it ourselves and quit waiting around for invisible imaginary people to do things for us?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #181012

Ok, which head am I? I’m the “bush was a moron to get us into this, and we’re gonna be screwed no matter what we do” head. You know, the realist head? Oh yeah, forgot, you don’t think Progressives can be realistic, do you?

Posted by: leatherankh at September 13, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #181013
On the subject of WMDs, tell me: were the documents not forgeries? Were Joseph Wilson’s findings about the impossibility of getting Yellowcake out of Niger not in agreement with known facts? The seeking itself is only implied in an Iraqi minister telling the Nigerien that he wanted to look into doing more trade with them.

Now Stephen, two things.

1) The Nigerian official related what he took from the meeting, that Iraq, under the guise of ‘doing more trade’, when their chief export was yellowcake, was interested in finding a way to purchase the material but couldn’t say so directly since they were under sanctions. When they made it clear that they wouldn’t violate the sanctions the Iraqi official walked away from the meeting. This report from Wilson actually bolstered the belief at the time. In fact, no one has ever said that they weren’t trying to aquire the material, we just don’t have evidentiary documentation to prove it.

2) The assertion was that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material from several African states, not just Niger. And it was from more than one source, not just the falsified ‘term paper’. We have never been given the full account of what is meant by that distinction (and will probably never get it) but I personally can’t assume that this was the extent of the intel.

Of course, since I didn’t base my opinion on the war on this intel it is more of an exercise in history for me, not an attempt to bolster my view or tear down my opponent’s. So I don’t really have any irrational ties to it as many do…

It’s much like the division between the Iraqi link to 9/11 through Mohammad Atta. I can see both sides as having their views and can’t say one way or the other that either side has proven anything. On one hand you have the Prague intelligence agency that still assert that the meeting took place and stand behind the ID, on the other you have the US Intelligence department that believe that since Atta’s cell phone was used in the US during those days that he couldn’t have possibly been there. Both are suspect, though trained intelligence gatherers are better at identifying people than the average person, it is still a fallable form of proof, however it is equally silly to base your counter intel on that use of a cell phone owned by a guy who was working in a group of several others. Perhaps it was Atta who called the cell phone who he left with his compatriats?

I’m not egotistical enough to be able to say one way or the other for sure on this ‘link’, to me it remains unproven, but it is intriguing and I would like to see more investigation not only into this but other unproven or unknown issues (like where did the WMD go, does anyone really believe that Hussein had none? No, no proof, but…) before stating things as factual.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #181016
Oh yeah, forgot, you don’t think Progressives can be realistic, do you?

Well, they’ve never proven themselves to be in the past…

There’s just something about violating a person’s rights as a means of general progressive theory that smacks of being unconcerned with civil liberties, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #181018

This post is classic conservative sophistry whereby the author can construct an argument from excerpts taken completely out of context and reduce a complex issue then attach some big word to it like ‘diametrically’ (a la William F. Buckley). Rather than being diametrically opposed (being at opposite extremes), this five-headed hydra represents pieces of the MAJORITY opinion in this country that the decision to invade Iraq was based on deception, inadequte planning, failed execution, and no real long term strategy - all this at the cost of untold billions of dollars spent for what? Placing another known terrorist in power.

Posted by: Mark K at September 13, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #181019

SE,

Shall we talk about the republican omni-tipus and its multiple heads? It is on point and I won’t waste the time with it, especially since I take issue with the same tactic employed so frequently by your side.

But, consider this, All these “Heads” have one thing in common: They are pointing out frustrations arising from the mishandling of the war on terror by Bush and the republicans. We are enmeshed in what is increasingly becoming a civil war in Iraq. The Taliban are ctually coming back stronger and with new soldiers and supplies from the islam-school cells in the “allied” nation of Pakistan. North Korea and Iran are still threats and from there point of view, the U.S invades…unless the country to be invaded ACTUALLY has the capacity to be a threat (nuclear weapons, WMD’s). The logic is simple: Bush’s handling of the war on terror is CREATING and FUELING proliferation of WMD’s, not the reverse.

The quagmire of Iraq we are trapped in and the realization that we are in the process of making the world LESS safe are yielding energetic opposition from those you have quoted above as “heads” of the hydra. How is that surprising or even a bad thing? Would you prefer to continue as we have been and see where it gets us? I dread to imagine.

Posted by: RGF at September 13, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #181021
the MAJORITY opinion in this country that the decision to invade Iraq was based on deception

Care you share with us the proof that the MAJORITY opinion is that we were decieved? Yes, many feel that the war was handled badly, but I don’t remember seeing anything to suggest that the majority believe that the decision was based on deception…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #181030

Rhinehold,
You spin my brain sometimes. Other than discussing minutia what is the point of the two posts above. It sounds like counting the angels on the head of a pin. Differentiating between links and ties????

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the US that anyone can demonstrate. Iraq was not a threat to the US. Oil interests were the only feasible reason to invade Iraq and of course our liar in chief said that wasn’t why we were invading.

The idealogical freedom dominos theory, which I admit to even espousing as a reasonable objective, now seems not only far fetched but absurd.

I don’t understand why you wish to give any credence to the notion that Sadam was a major terrorist threat to the US. That’s pure Republican gobbledy goop. He was a regional threat, Israel threat and all around sadist, but not a major exporter of terror. How about some focus here?

I’m with ya on the Constitution, sort of. I still think it’s impracticle to go back to 1786 and reform the government in that image. Me nor Mr. Peabody can get the way back machine to go there.

I’m not sure what a progressive as opposed to a regressive is…. but all kinds of idealogy has realists.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #181033

Rhinehold,

Is this proof enough as to what Americans now believe?

I know personally, that I have Repulicans friends who, though they still support Bush, can at least admit he lied about Iraq, is lying about progress,and screwed it up.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #181035

Rhinehold-
Iraq’s support was for small, minor outfits with only regional reach. When the matter in Sudan came up, Clinton’s justification was not that they believed an association between Saddam and al-Qaeda existed, but that there was a link between the plant in the Sudan and al-Qaeda. You’ll note that other cruise missile attacks were made in that time frame on Afghanistan, not on Iraq. As the later attacks in Operation Desert Fox prove, Clinton was not shy about mounting such attacks on Iraq.

The link between al-Qaeda and Iraq has been definitively debunked by several sources. Mission creeping our War Against Terrorism to include Iraq for its use of minor groups is not justified in the light of al-Qaeda’s more severe threat and greater reach.

The 9/11 commission definitively stated that there was no active collaboration with al-Qaeda. Any ties you speak of are at best tenuous.

Moreover, I find your spin on the subject to be most disagreeable. Our fascination with 9/11 was what al-Qaeda killed three thousand of our fellow citizens. Al-Qaeda may not be the only terrorist group worth fighting, but damn it, it should be high on the list, for obvious reasons.

It scares me that you would have us go for the lesser threat while the greater still exists, that you would occupy our attention on a defeated tyrant rather than train our attentions on an unbowed enemy.

On the subject of the Nigerien official, again you confuse the issue. The implication of the document Bush based his statement on was not merely that Saddam wanted WMDs, but that he had it within his power to get them. The implication of what he said was that he was capable of getting around the sanctions.

The forged aspect of the document, and the truth as found out by Wilson and others indicated quite plainly that Saddam had no power to get what he wanted. Containment was working. As for multiple sources, subsequent investigations have uncovered that the sources all trace back to a single source, amplified incestously across the intelligence community.

As for Mohammed Atta? The consensus of investigators was that he was here in America, taking flight training in Florida. The man who the Bush administration claims met with him says he never saw the guy. The cellphone just confirms what other evidence indicates.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 13, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #181044

Why was Atta here in America? Wasn’t he in an Israeli jail for a bomb attack or something? How did he get out to do what he did?

Or was that a different Atta? Names are starting to run together and I can’t remember so well in my old age I guess, sorry.
Just curious and I thank anyone for any additional info.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #181047

Rhinehold, polls show 30% of Republicans are considering voting against their Republican incumbent. Does that count?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #181050

Stephen Daugherty:

Good points, all - except for two things.

#1. Seventeen Resolutions

#2. Congress voted for the Iraq war.

No buts, no spin, no Monday Quarterbacking. When an elected official votes for war, they better KNOW what their voting for. They can’t claim they were misled when they are supposed to be leading.

Posted by: Chris at September 13, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #181055

Jarin,
“That is a misleading question. Success in Iraq has always been defined as reducing the potential for Iraq to support terrorism.”


Terrorism is definitely reduced, since we crushed Saddam and his sons from power. This new Iraqi leader is not sending $25,000 to suicide bombers families; he’s not shooting at our planes in the “no fly zone”; he’s not making weapons or “hiding” and “lying” about WMD’s; no mass graves or genocide on his own people; he’s not starving his own people and making secret deals with UN council countries just to keep him in power. That’s a far cry from Saddam and his psychopathic sons ruling that country.


The reason I asked “what country, in the middle east, doesn’t have terrorists in their gov’t” is to show you that your premise is wrong; the middle east is riddled with terrorism in all areas (political, religion, local, etc.) of Middle East life. ALL!! Having them vote (democratically) and then holding them accountable for the terrorists they elect (see Palestinian election) is the only way to (eventually) rid that region of that sick and disgusting tradition of breeding terrorists.


Posted by: rahdigly at September 13, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #181056

Chris—you nailed it!

Are we to believe that Bush is so super crafty as to outsmart all the dems on this? They all had the same intelligence. They all said they same things about Saddam and Iraq. Do they not have any integrity or courage?

Posted by: nikkolai at September 13, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #181066
Having them vote (democratically) and then holding them accountable for the terrorists they elect (see Palestinian election) is the only way to (eventually) rid that region of that sick and disgusting tradition of breeding terrorists.

And we do that by letting them elect a religious terrorist, then training a military and giving them to him?

Terrorism is definitely reduced, since we crushed Saddam and his sons from power. This new Iraqi leader is not sending $25,000 to suicide bombers families; he’s not shooting at our planes in the “no fly zone”; he’s not making weapons or “hiding” and “lying” about WMD’s; no mass graves or genocide on his own people; he’s not starving his own people and making secret deals with UN council countries just to keep him in power. That’s a far cry from Saddam and his psychopathic sons ruling that country.

You really haven’t paid any attention to the information I’ve presented on who this new Iraqi leader is, have you? He may not have sent money to the family of suicide bombers, but he trained and directed the bombers. He may not be shooting at our planes yet, but he’s part of an organization that blew up our embassy. He’s not making or hiding or lying about WMDs, but he is the very person we were afraid might get them, and now he’s in charge of a country which has scientists with the technical knowledge to do so. As for mass graves and starving his own people, you may wish to look into the present persecution of the Sunnis by Shia militias, including secret detention centers within the Interior Ministry, which falls under his direct control. The recent execution of 27 people at Abu Ghraib was preceded by massive transfers of prisoners from this prison to Abu Ghraib, and renewed reports of torture and fresh reports of starvation.

Posted by: Jarin at September 13, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #181067

nikkolai,

now you’ve got it. Apply it to the cockroaches in the Republican party with equal vigor and you begin to get the picture.

The question is: when are we going to stop just blaming the scum in D.C. and start voting them out?

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #181070

Stephen,
“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.”


You know, for as much as you write (per comment), you have (absolutely) no comment when it comes to answering the question on whether you (YOU) think Farenheit 9/11 was fiction or not?

DOES STEPHEN DAUGHERTY THINK “FARENHIET 9/11” IS A “FICTIONAL” MOVIE OR NOT?!! Now, don’t even think of giving me a link on what someone else thinks; I want to know what Stephen Daugherty’s belief is on this question.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 13, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #181073

Jarin, I think you understand the situation in Iraq, clearly. We are now supporting Shiite thugs. Abu Ghraib is once again torture central. The millitary has acknowledged that we cannot win with the current strategy. We are unlikely to win without a draft and years of involvment. We are in the middle of the Iraqi civil war, killing more Arabs. We’re fomenting more terror.

We bought the broken pottery, and will take the broken pieces home. This will come back to haunt us.

We need to redeploy, go after Bin Laden, even in Pakistan (I personally think that Pakistan would’ve been a better target for Bush. India would have supported us. and this is where terrorists will most likely obtain Nukes), and stop supporting regimes that repress their masses, including Israel. Let China and India deal with the middle east, they need the oil worse than us. We have the means to change our energy sources.

Even if that means building Nuclear plants, drilling in Alaska or Florida and developing solar, wind and biofuels.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #181078

gergle:

We really can’t go into Pakistan. They already have nukes, and risking nuclear war for the sake of the war on terror, when terror attacks really don’t kill that many Americans compared even with drunk driving, would be extremely foolish. Terrorism is a problem that really needs to be dealt with as an international law enforcement matter, not a military one. That is why terrorists appear on the FBI’s most wanted list, dealing with terrorists is part of their mandate. (And has recently been given top priority.)

Posted by: Jarin at September 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #181079

Rahdingly,

The answer from me is that it is neither.

It is a perspective essay. The ABC story was promoted as based on fact. It was funded and produced by Neocon hacks, and was broadcast on Publicly owned air waves as opposed to viewed on privately funded theater screens. My questions are: why is this not seen as a political contribution in kind? Can Disney Corp. make such a sizeable contribution legally? Does this constitute lobbying? Should they be given a pass on it, or relagated to FauxNews status?

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #181080

You spin my brain sometimes.

Yeah, not thinking in lockstep with one of the two major parties will do that to people… they expect one thing and are often confused.

Other than discussing minutia what is the point of the two posts above. It sounds like counting the angels on the head of a pin. Differentiating between links and ties????

No, differentiating between proven fact and plausable, between operational ties and occasional links…

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the US that anyone can demonstrate.

Really? http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html

First, this is the list of wounded and killed by groups supported by Iraq:

� Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) � Killed 407 (10 Americans) and Wounded 788 (58 Americans)
� Ansar Al-Islam � Killed 114 (1 American) and Wounded 16
� Arab Liberation Front � Killed 4 and Wounded 6
� Hamas � Killed 224 (17 Americans) and Wounded 1,445 (30 Americans)
� Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) � Killed 44 and Wounded 327 (2 Americans)
� Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) � Killed 17 (7 Americans) and Wounded 43 (1 American)
� Palestine Liberation Front � Killed 1 (1 American) and Wounded 42

For a total of 811 people killed (36 American) and 2,667 people wounded (91 American). The source was the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, �1968 - 2003: Total Persons Killed/Wounded�International and Accepted Incidents.� Figures. It was prepared for National Review author Deroy Murdock.

Hussein�s hospitality toward these mass murderers directly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from granting safe haven to or otherwise sponsoring terrorists. We also know from the 9/11 report that there was a connection to al Qaeda, though we are unsure (no smoking gun) of what level that relationship may have developed into. However, their communications that continued to exist up to and beyond 2001 are troublesome to many. When looking at the amount of terror that they did support over the years, in both the 80�s and 90�s, it is not hard for many to suspect there was more than just a passing relationship.

Some of the high ranking terrorists that Iraq had links to are:

� Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the October 7�9, 1985, Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in which Abbas�s men shot passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year old Manhattan retiree, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Abbas briefly was in Italian custody at the time, but was released that October 12 because he possessed an Iraqi diplomatic passport. After 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam Hussein�s protection.

� Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of the ANO. Al Salahat and Nidal furnished Libyan agents the Semtex bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

� Abu Nidal. As the Associated Press�s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the ANO said that he entered Iraq �with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.� Nidal�s attacks in 20 countries killed 407 people and wounded 788 more, the U.S. State Department calculates. Among other atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people on board.

� Abdul Yasin. �U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, which shows Iraq gave Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a monthly salary. The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042 individuals. Indicted by federal prosecutors as a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin was on the FBI’s Most-Wanted Terrorists list. ABC News confirmed, on July 27, 1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled freely and visited his father’s home almost daily.

Yeah, no reall terror going on there…

Iraq was not a threat to the US.

Except that it had tried attacking the US several times, was shooting at our airplanes on a daily basis and was planning on attacking the US after 9/11 according to Soviet intelligence…

Nope, no threat at all. Oh and the stream of money coming from the UN through Iraq to terrorists groups that were attacking our allies and plotting against the US…. But I’m sure that doesn’t count, the UN was involved, so it was probably going to never work….

Oil interests were the only feasible reason to invade Iraq and of course our liar in chief said that wasn’t why we were invading.

*sigh* I always hear this, it’s not only NOT accurate but takes someone not wanting to think to accept this argument.

The country had invaded another country, we stopped them and repelled them and the only reason we didn’t take them over then was because we wanted to show a good face to the world. One of the agreements that Hussein agreed to was to allow the UN to verify the destruction of all of his WMD, which he prevented from happening for 12 years and 17 different UN resolutions.

We could have A) continued sanctioning him, at the cost of death and destruction to his citizens, with no end in sight and telling the world that even in a post 9/11 environment we will allow dictators to continue defying the UN in this way B) lifted the sanctions that were there because they continued to thwart UN investigation of their WMD stockpiles. After all, if they didn’t have any why were we sanctioning them or C) forcibly removed Hussein from power and allow the UN to come in and do the investigation they needed.

Now, from what you are saying you would have supported A or B, both of which I think were untenable. Which one did you support Gergle?

I don’t understand why you wish to give any credence to the notion that Sadam was a major terrorist threat to the US. That’s pure Republican gobbledy goop. He was a regional threat, Israel threat and all around sadist, but not a major exporter of terror. How about some focus here?

Sorry, I was just following in the footsteps of President Clinton, who I agreed with, when HE said that they were a major terrorist threat and the State Department who had Iraq listed on the top 5 state sponsors of terror for the past decade or so…

We should have just had you in charge then…

I’m with ya on the Constitution, sort of. I still think it’s impracticle to go back to 1786 and reform the government in that image. Me nor Mr. Peabody can get the way back machine to go there.

‘reform the government’? I just want the existing constitution to be enforced. If we want it to say something different we can enact amendments, but if we just ignore parts of the contitution that are ‘cumbersome’ as the Democrats want to do, why good is any of it?

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #181083

Jarin,

If we cannot go into Pakistan, then we have already lost. They have safe haven. It’s just a matter of time.

I am not suggesting a massive invasion, tomorrow. Clearly Musharif cannot control Waziristan. I don’t think Pakistan has ICBM’s (I haven’t checked that). They can reach Israel and India. I think we should simply go after Bin Laden with both feet. Screw Musharif. I suspect we could disable their missile systems. India would gladly Nuke ‘Em for us. If Bush wants to stir up some real terrorists, that’s where he needs to go.

I have a Pakistani friend who is a very decent guy. I know that they are probably mostly decent folk. But if you ask me, this is a rat’s nest that needs cleaning.

I am reminded that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the regions in the fiction of Rudyard Kipling’s “The Man who would be KIng”. Accomplish the goal and leave them to their own devices.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #181086
Iraq’s support was for small, minor outfits with only regional reach.

Stephen, we’ve had this arguement before. We just disagree, you characterize it as no big deal and I say that at a time when we were very angry at terrorists and one was not only planning to attack the US, had attempted to before and was thumbing his nose at the UN we took the obvious solution to deal with him. Now, instead of just dealing with the problem we invented a new problem and are continuing in a mess that should never have happened, Bush and Cheney are completely and totally wrong in their prosecution of the war but IMO the war was not only justified but necessary. And Clinton, at the time, agreed. As did many others. And not just based on WMD, but because they knew what kind of monster Hussein was.

The issue that I’m dealing with now, though, is the argument that there was NO terrorism performed or supported by Iraq AT ALL. We both agree that that is wrong, right? Because you’ve just stated that they were state sponsors of terror, just not troublesome enough to deal with. In other words, a little terrorism is acceptable, just don’t hurt too many Americans or be too good at it, that’s when we’ll get upset.

The link between al-Qaeda and Iraq has been definitively debunked by several sources. Mission creeping our War Against Terrorism to include Iraq for its use of minor groups is not justified in the light of al-Qaeda’s more severe threat and greater reach.And we were dealing with Al Qaeda. It isn’t like we stopped looking for and capturing Al Qaeda since 2003. And you can’t provide any evidence that if we hadn’t went into Iraq when we did that we would have capture OBL now. It’s just a matter of the fact that we were able to knock them down to a point and the remaining remnants are getting harder and harder to find.

yeah, I would love to see us catch OBL, but getting KSM is more important to me since OBL is more of a political leader, the operational leaders are the ones we’ve caught, the ones truly responsible for 9/11. Don’t stop, keep going, but I don’t buy that the US isn’t capable of doing two things at once.

Though I am NOT at all happy with how the war has occured since we deposed Hussein, and I don’t think we should still be there, resulting effect is not a reason to reverse a decision made properly at the time.

The 9/11 commission definitively stated that there was no active collaboration with al-Qaeda. Any ties you speak of are at best tenuous.

Then why did the members of the 9/11 commission say that they couldn’t understand why people were saying there were no operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq? They did say that there was on current operational ties and that no evidence existed linking Iraq to 9/11 but those are not the same thing as saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda never operated together. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp

Nevertheless, top U.S. officials were so worried about the possibility of an Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration that they took care not to provoke bin Laden into a closer relationship with Saddam. In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan. The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere where it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.
National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan’s intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad,” Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that “Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.”

Moreover, I find your spin on the subject to be most disagreeable. Our fascination with 9/11 was what al-Qaeda killed three thousand of our fellow citizens. Al-Qaeda may not be the only terrorist group worth fighting, but damn it, it should be high on the list, for obvious reasons.

And I think that they are. But again, that doesn’t mean we allow Hussein to keep dodging and ducking the UN and it’s responsibilities as well, all the while sanctioning them into starving people in the process…

It scares me that you would have us go for the lesser threat while the greater still exists, that you would occupy our attention on a defeated tyrant rather than train our attentions on an unbowed enemy.

Be scared that I think more of the US’s capabilities than that. In fact, my anger at our failure is more to do with knowing that we COULD have done both but have completely failed to do so than to think we bit off more than we could chew.

On the subject of the Nigerien official, again you confuse the issue. The implication of the document Bush based his statement on was not merely that Saddam wanted WMDs, but that he had it within his power to get them. The implication of what he said was that he was capable of getting around the sanctions.

Yes, all it would take is one country to say ‘ok’ under the table. And I think we saw from the Oil for Food scandal that many were very willing…

The forged aspect of the document, and the truth as found out by Wilson and others indicated quite plainly that Saddam had no power to get what he wanted.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how anything that Wilson found or the forged document tells us anything about his inability. It just shows that Niger said no.

Containment was working. As for multiple sources, subsequent investigations have uncovered that the sources all trace back to a single source, amplified incestously across the intelligence community.

At what cost was Containment working? And why should we allow it to continue working at those costs when all it takes is one misstep and we are in a much more precarious position than we are now.

As for the document, I tend to think that the 9/11 and Butler reports disagree with your assessment, but perhaps we are just reading things diffrently…

As for Mohammed Atta? The consensus of investigators was that he was here in America, taking flight training in Florida. The man who the Bush administration claims met with him says he never saw the guy. The cellphone just confirms what other evidence indicates.

I would say that the evidnece is stil out. 1) Being in the US doesn’t mean he couldn’t leave for a meeting in Prague, he had several forged passports that could have gotten him in and out without any issue and we know that he did travel from time to tim, 2) It wasn’t the Bush administration that made the claim, it was the Prague police who had an eye-witness account and 3) The use of a cell phone without anything to show who was using it means nothing.

That’s my point, we have a very serious potential bit of evidence that may or may not be true, and I for one would like to see more investigation into it. We are likely not to get it I imagine, but that doesn’t quell my curiosity.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #181087

It is interesting that you consider Iraq supporting terror and therefore responsible for every terrorists attack since the 50’s and 60’s. Imaginative. The only problem with that list, is you failed to note that we supported Sadam during some of that period. So we are implicated in terror against ourselves? That’s why my head is spinning.

I would have chosen A. Clinton and Bush 1 did just fine at that. As history tells us, Sadam was a toothless tiger. Sanctions worked. There weren’t 2700 American soldiers dead. Would have more Iraqis died? Sure. Just like they are dying at fantastic rates today. If you see an end in sight for this mess, please let the marines in Anbar know, they don’t. Oh yeah, we still could’ve investigated the UN without killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans couldn’t we?

You sound a bit in lock step with the Republicans on this one ,Rhinehold, you idealogy is interfering with your view of reality. If you squint your eyes a little more you can see us approaching victory and freedom just around the corner…

If abolishing the Department of Education, the IRS, HHS and the SSA isn’t re-forming the government and just enforcing the Constitution, perhaps you should be in charge. You’re better at spin than Rove.
No activism there.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #181090

Attention all non Anti-Bushites:

If you tried to argue for the movie “The Path to 9/11”, be advised that you’re NOT going to get an intellectual argument out of the anti-Bush crowd b/c the movie was effective in showing how pathetic our country was in fighting terrorism; 8 years of it was Clinton’s ineffectiveness and 7 1/2 months of Bush’s. This movie was effective b/c it brought to our attention just how determined these jihadists are (and for how long they’ve hated us) and that we need to be tougher, and less politically correct, when fighting terrorists.


Yet, the only reply you’re going to get from the anti-Bush people is “the movie is fictional”. They don’t want you to believe anything about this movie b/c it makes Clinton look bad more than Bush; to them, partisan politics is more important than National Defense. This movie (clearly) debunks the “PC” approach to handling terrorism and it (also) debunks the “law and order” tactic in fighting them; and worse, it was clear that you have to get on the offensive and wage war against them.


The anti-Bush crowd will have no part in that. Now, when it comes to farenheit 9/11 or this new film “Assasination of Bush”; you won’t hear the same resistance to it as you do with the “path to 9/11”. Won’t be close.


Just want to give some of you a heads up on that. Don’t waste your time, the anti-Bush crowd (clearly) debunks themselves, making easy for us to spot them. So argue at your own risk…

Posted by: rahdigly at September 13, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #181091

Rhinehold,
In reading your response to Stephen, I agree that Sadam was some threat and that the attack on Iraq may have had some justification via the Sanctions issue.

I disagree that Sadam was a major(key word) source of terror against the US. We should have been pursuing OBL. Were we at risk for continuing the sanctions? Yes.

My point is that the decision to invade Iraq may well have been a strategic error.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #181093

Rahdingly,
I did not see the movie the path to 9-11. I know that it had inaccuracies with regards to Clinton’s pursuit of terror.

You are right both administrations failed to give adequate importance to fighting terror. Hindsight is 20-20. The part that bothers me most is that Bush has failed in pursuing Bin Laden post 9-11.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #181100

Attention Juveniles:


If you mispell names (purposely), you are not “attacking the message”. Just a friendly FYI from the rahdigster…

Posted by: rahdigly at September 13, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #181102

Gergle
Bush has failed in capturing bin Laden. We have no idea if we are pursuing him or not, we are not privy to that intel.
I would hope that our govt has learned from its inactions of the past and that our special forces are hunting for him as we speak.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #181111

Gergle,

If abolishing the Department of Education, the IRS, HHS and the SSA isn’t re-forming the government and just enforcing the Constitution, perhaps you should be in charge.

You see, the Department of Education is not constitutional. The IRS unfortunately is, but I would like to see us go to the fair tax plan. The SSA and HHS are not.

BUT, they COULD be. All it would take is a constitutional amendment. I say we make a moritorium to be fair, we allow these institutions to stay as they are for 10 years. If by the end of that time the constitution isn’t amended to support them, they are abolished.

See, if we ignore the bits in the constitution to allow for us to have these organizations, what’s to stop us from ignoring the bits in the constitution to allow for wiretapping, spying on americans, broad use of war powers, patriot act… Hey… wait a second!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #181112

nikkolai said: “Are we to believe that Bush is so super crafty as to outsmart all the dems on this? They all had the same intelligence. They all said they same things about Saddam and Iraq. Do they not have any integrity or courage?”

Where do you get these falsehoods? The whole of Congress is never entrusted with classified information. Only a select few on the intelligence committees, and guess what? They are prevented by law from sharing that intel with the rest of their collegues. Therefore, nikkolai, Bush did have intelligence the Congress did not when they voted.

Truth and facts, they are good for democracy and other living things.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #181117

Rhinehold:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

I think it clear that the general welfare of the United States and its defense as well in this era is predicated on education, particularly in nation such as ours where we rely so heavily upon an educated electorate.

Social Security, and Housing and Human Services, both also quite obviously provide for general welfare. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Posted by: Jarin at September 13, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #181118

David,
“Therefore, nikkolai, Bush did have intelligence the Congress did not when they voted. Truth and facts, they are good for democracy and other living things.”

You darn right he has the intel that all the congress don’t; that’s the way the constitution intended in regards to the legislative and the executive branch. There’s no way that all of congress were entrusted with foreign policy with this country. No Way! Not only that, Congress gave Bush the Authorization of War power (twice).

Besides, only a select number of congressman knowing keeps them from “politicizing” the issue; that is until the NY “Treasonous” Times “outs” (yet again) the story. Also,

Bottom line, if you don’t want Bush to have the intel, then vote him out of office… Oh yeah, you can’t b/c our “democratic” progress, the people already decided and they decided after they knew Bush had more intel than all of the congress.


Posted by: rahdigly at September 13, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #181120
Social Security, and Housing and Human Services, both also quite obviously provide for general welfare. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Sorry, it’s not my bubble that is burst…

The only way your assertion to be correct is if we ignore the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States. Of course, we do, but that doesn’t mean we should.

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then one can peruse the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders, in particular James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and find that he wrote that any other statements in the Constitution, particularly that mentioning “general welfare,” were limited by the original enumeration of powers and did not extend to other such powers not expressly mentioned. That is, if the power to do something is not given to congress by the Constitution, congress can’t do it!

The Department of Education is unconstitutional. The power to establish such was not given to the federal government. Since it was not, the power to establish or regulate education were reserved to the States or to the people. That is, the states could, if their citizens and their constitutions allow, regulate education, or the people could establish private schools. BUT THE FEDS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO!

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #181121

Does the senate intelligence committee not have all relevant intel?

Posted by: nikkolai at September 13, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #181125

Bravo to all posters on this thread! There has been excellent debate on this subject and I tip my cap to all.

The Mighty Eagle is readying an even more insightful post, so stay tuned!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 13, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #181132

Rhinehold-
Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, etc. There were at least a dozen countries that more strongly supported terrorism before we parked our asses in Iraq and threw the country into chaos.

We knew what kind of monster Saddam was. Was he the only monster, or even the most threatening? No. We had somebody free who fit that bill, somebody this president promised to get dead or alive. It’s a promise many would like to see him keep, if he can be bothered.

If you want to be overly literal about it, fine, people’s arguments about terrorism and Iraq aren’t strictly true.

But in the colloquial interpretation, that is:

a)that we didn’t find big old training camps or collections of terrorists;

and

b)we didn’t find WMD programs manufacturing and maintaining militarily useable stockpiles;

it’s reasonable to say there were no terrorists, no WMDs. It’s a short hand for a more involved statement that basically says the same thing: we didn’t find the threat we were looking for.

If you want to play rhetorical games, and ignore the important semantic context of what Bush was saying, the history and shades of meaning that Americans accepted as his message and made their decision on, go ahead. You’re just not going to convince anybody that your literalism changes much.

When dealing with any threat, it’s important to tackle the more immediate problems first, to take care of the stronger threats before the weaker. That is the failure of going into Iraq.

The failure of the argument about al-Qaeda is you’re essentially asking us to disprove a negative. They clearly stated that Iraq and al-Qaeda never collaborated. They just weren’t suited for one another.

There are worst things that could happen to us than Hussein playing games with the UN. Despite all your arguments, Bin Laden’s worse dealings seem to concern the oil. He knew he was under too much scrutiny, and a number of attacks had shown that America would take infractions seriously.

As far as Niger goes, what Wilson found out and the CIA already knew is that Saddam could not possibly get a deal on that much yellowcake without being noticed. It was already presold, and the mines were under the strict control of a UN Security council member. It just wasn’t possible there.

Atta could have travelled to Prague, but no one saw him there, and no record exists that he left the US in that period. He usually travelled under his own name and documents, so its unlikely he went anywhere special. The Cellphone usage confirms that he really didn’t go anywhere.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 13, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #181143

Rhinehold:

By your logic, then, the Air Force is not spelled out in the constitution so it too is unconstitutional. Shall we seek a constitutional amendment for that?

Furthermore, Congress IS explicitly granted the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”, the foregoing powers including to “[…] provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.

Moreover, the amendment you point to was ratified in 1791. Less than seven years later, John Adams established a federal “Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. As this clearly can only be justified by the general welfare clause, I think it is quite clear how the powers of the government were viewed at that time. You point to Madison’s view of the enumerated powers as the definitive one, but in his own time there was great debate over the creation of a national bank. He objected on the grounds of enumerated powers but one of the coauthors of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, triumphed in that debate and established the First Bank of the United States. Clearly, even at our nation’s birth, Madison’s view was not the consensus of the founding fathers. It should also be noted that he himself said “[The Constitution] was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands”. He also came, after the war of 1812, to side with Hamilton on the subject of a national bank, a strong navy and a standing army, and even went so far as to support the federal government building a system of roads. (Though on this last, he did try again for a constitutional amendment, and when an internal improvements bill was passed instead he made the veto his last official act.) But don’t take my word for it: http://www.cchs165.jacksn.k12.il.us/Social_Studies/Classes/psychology/WEB%20PAGE/Presidents%20Madison%20and%20Monroe/Presidents%20Madison%20and%20Monroe.html#Presidential%20policies%20after%20the%20War%20of%201812
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0256610-00
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/biography/biomenu/war.htm

Posted by: Jarin at September 13, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #181152

This is so simple. The Dems don’t say anything or speak with one voice because they don’t have to. The Republicans are doing a fine job of imploding without any outside assistance. The American public is now realizing that the wrong wing has all the governing capability of a tube of toothpaste. And that’s not fair to the toothpaste.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 13, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #181162

Rhinehold,

Sorry, i wasn’t sure about your IRS position. I agree that the FAIR tax idea is a good one.

Jarin,
I agree that education coordination is an important role for our federal government. People forget that our population was largely illiterate prior to WWII. We were also largely a rural/ agricultural society then. Unfortunately, today the average joe needs a much higher education to survive.

While I agree with Rhinehold that government has become far too intrusive and overreaching in our lives, I believe often it’s states, county and city governments that are the most guilty. I don’t agree with his stance on abolition of welfare, social security and education. A moritorium allowing us time to debate the issue sounds fair enough. I think a constitutional convention would be a healthy thing for our country.

Rhadigly,
Sorry about mispelling your name, it’s not about being juvenile…I broke my bifocals.

KCtim,

I agree we don’t know what is happening there, but I believe the several books by ex CIA and Military personal that we dropped the ball. Frankly, Bush hasn’t shown me a reason to have confidence in his assurances that things are going swimmingly.

To all,

Thanks for the discussion, and reasoned debate.

Posted by: gergle at September 13, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #181167

Gergle
“I agree we don’t know what is happening there, but I believe the several books by ex CIA and Military personal that we dropped the ball.”

As do I. I also hope that we are learning as we go and that maybe we won’t drop that ball the next time.

“Frankly, Bush hasn’t shown me a reason to have confidence in his assurances that things are going swimmingly”

Me either.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #181184

SE,

I’d previously respected you, but you asked a question on the “blue” side the other day just along these lines and I told you just what I thought. Still no answer and yet you come up with this crap.

If you bothered to read what I said then, you’d know I’m in the “get it right” crowd and the first step to getting it right is to get rid of old Rummy. Yeah, we Democrats have different solutions, and jeeze luueez, we listen to each other! Something unheard of among Republicant’s!

It seems that what’s left of you Bush supporters are truly just stuck in some “fantasy” where NO facts even get heard. It doesn’t matter if it’s a CIA agent telling you the bad news, or a former military commander, if they disagree with Bush and his bunch of “followers” they must be wrong.

Have you ever heard of the “Pied Piper”?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 14, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #181189

Yep, some people think it’s over; some think we need more troops. Most of us agree there’s been a major failure, and most agree Bush has made multiple mistakes.

And then there’s people like you who just think everything is peachy, Bush is perfect, and if only everyone else saw it that way the world would be a perfect place.

Point out the war is taking longer than said, or that not much is being done in areas we consider real security threats, and we’re labelled traitors.

You believe the issues exist only because we recognize them. If we all shut up and had nothing to say but great things we don’t believe about how things are going than that would be the reality.

I guess it really gets your goat that anyone disagrees or wants improvements for the way things are being done or even has their own opinions. Isn’t that what this post is about? Some people have opinions, but really everyone should just be a drone and agree with everything the president does.

How undemocratic. How unAmerican.

Posted by: Max at September 14, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #181195

Kansas Dem

Sorry you feel that way. I like Rumsfield….always have. Bob Woodward’s book gives an excellent insight on his character in the run up to the war. He constantly grilled Tommy Franks on troop levels, ect. Recall that a battle plan to invade Iraq hadn’t been done since after the ‘91 war, so what they did they did from scratch. PLUS. Rumsfield and Tommy’s plan was based on the intel that they has at the time. The intel, which was dead wrong, said that if they seize Baghdad quickly, both the Iraqi troops would melt away (which they did) AND that that the Iraqi people would welcome them with open arms, which they did not.

My view is that the Bremmer’s decision to disband the army ranks right up there as one of the biggest mistakes…if not the biggest. Those guys lost their jobs and went to work for the insurgents. The emerging Iraq army then had no mid-level officer corps (course it had no army either) and it it isn’t until this year that things are beginning to stabilize ther. (Yes they are stabilizing…the new governmet is only 4 months old, for Pete’s sake…it needs time.

Max
I have disagreed with the president many times. I see Iraq as a crucial battlefield. You don’t. When I say that, then I am using a “talking” point. Study history a bit and yoiu will find that how Iraq goes, so goes the penninsula. It is as important to the Arabian penninsula as Sicily is to Europe.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 6:54 AM
Comment #181199

SE-
They had been told repeatedly that they needed a certain number of troops. What Rumsfeld wanted was the vindicating test case for transformational doctrine. He didn’t allow planning for contingencies, though.

I’m sure left to himself, Franks would have planned for such, or accepted such plans from subordinates. The decision to only put together supplies and manpower for that particular plan, taking for granted the success of it, was Rumsfeld’s and ultimately the president’s.

It’s not merely that they were wrong. It’s that they left America with no alternative course of action available if they turned out to be wrong. This isn’t hindsight. They were told of the problem. Worse than not believing that things could turn out against ideals, they wouldn’t allow anybody who would consider the idea work out a way to get out of the mess, and they still won’t.

The real trouble is, we can’t take back the consequences of their jealous micromanagement and narrowmindedness. We can’t undo the death and destruction that’s resulted.

As long as they remain in office, they will vainly seek to protect their legacy, and that means sticking to their plans as much as they can. Their stubbornness, and refusal to deal with the problem without letting their ego get in the way has led us down a dark path.

The President and this Congress have done little to change things for the better. That is why the Republican Party, for the first time in some time, stands to lose its majorities. America can tolerate all kinds of things in their candidates. Incompetence and prima donna behavior of this magnitude are not among them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #181202

Stephen

The alternative of sending additional troops was always there.

The plan was to have as few casualities as possible…to try to capture Iraq intact.

Repeately, Franks was asked by Rumsfield…not ordered to do so as you imply..if the military could tailor a plan to achieve this goal.

Franks complied. Recall also that prior to the start of the war, it was Democrats who were critizing the president for delaying the invasion…not Republicans.

No need to re-write history, Stephen.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #181208

SE,

The intel, which was dead wrong, said that if they seize Baghdad quickly, both the Iraqi troops would melt away (which they did) AND that that the Iraqi people would welcome them with open arms, which they did not.

Yep. Instead Iraqui people keep to welcome them with, well, arm.

Study history a bit and yoiu will find that how Iraq goes, so goes the penninsula. It is as important to the Arabian penninsula as Sicily is to Europe.

Sorry to disapoint you, but most europeans don’t care a bit about Sicily. Except for its mafia roots and Etna occasional erruptions, I mean. She deserve better sure, but it’s not the reality.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #181215

Rhinehold:

I had written a longer response to you, but due to the links within it to supporting material it has once again been caught and held by the spam-filter until someone approves it. (As an aside to the Watchblog Manager - is there ANY way you could make it so that the spam filter did not apply to established commenters here? I can understand needing to filter out the newbies, but for those of us who have been here for a while it’s kind of frustrating when we’re trying to provide sources to give our arguments substance.)

The gist of what I said in the longer reply was this: even in Madison’s day, his view on enumerated powers was not the majority view of the founders. He fought and lost a battle over establishing a national bank with fellow author of the federalist papers Alexander Hamilton on those grounds. Additionally, he moderated his stance on enumerated powers greatly after the War of 1812, wherein he became a supporter of the rechartering of the very national bank he had fought against and also a proponent of a new federally sponsored system of roads (though on the latter of the two I will concede that he did wish a constitutional amendment concerning the roads, and when an internal improvement bill was passed instead he made its veto his last official act in office.)

Posted by: Jarin at September 14, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #181220

SE, o.k. I’ll bite. Enlighten me. I have no idea what you are talking about when you said,

“Study history a bit and yoiu(sic)will find that how Iraq goes, so goes the penninsula. It is as important to the Arabian penninsula as Sicily is to Europe.”

Somehow I missed that history lecture.

Posted by: gergle at September 14, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #181239

SE:

Gee, no, Rumsfeld didn’t disregard those who called for more troops to secure the country after invading… he only fired one and threatened to fire the rest:

FORT EUSTIS, Va. - Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/15473180.htm

Posted by: Jarin at September 14, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #181269

SE-
You can’t just instantly get a bunch of soldiers in a place without a plan. You have arranged to take them from some other duty, arrange to ship them there, then arrange to put them in their respective posts. Then you have to arrange to relieve them, just like you arrange such for all the other soldiers. In short, by cutting off the planning, Rumsfeld cut off the option.

That is why we have Reserves and National Guards fighting in Iraq. They wouldn’t be there unless they were needed, and they’re needed because we never had a plan to maintain troops from the Army and Marines at levels any higher than the original numbers.

As for whether Franks was asked or ordered, I think you fail to realize that often being asked in the military is a polite way of being ordered. Rumsfeld is Frank’s superior, so “no I’d rather not”, especially after Eric Shinseki’s hamstringing, was not an appropriate answer.

As for your claim that Democrats were criticizing the delay of the invasion, I’d like to see your evidence.

Lastly, let me tell you something: If our plan was to capture Iraq intact and with as few casualties as possible, then we failed miserably. The original plan wasn’t up to it, and because Rumsfeld had to have his way, doctrinally speaking, there wasn’t another plan to catch the fumble.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #181276

gergle

The first Islamic Calaphite,which swept thru Syria,Egypt, Tunisia,and then into Spain started from Iraq.

I will send you the chapter in my history book. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #181285

Boy oh boy, the misrepresentation of Murtha’s ideas of redeploying and taking are men and women out of the crossfire is getting well worn.
I can remember a few other places he suggested we garrison other than Okinawa.
Intellectual honesty is not a lot to ask when lives are at stake.

Posted by: Justin Anderson at September 14, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #181310

S.E.,
O.K., I’ll take that on faith, now do you mind explaining how that tidbit of history has anything to do with the current situation in Iraq?

Posted by: gergle at September 14, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #181317

SE, Ok, I looked into the origins of the Caliphate. Seems that Mohammed started the rise of Islam. He started those conquests in Mecca, which is is Saudi Arabia. The Caliphates were simply the territories either expanded or held by the rulers that came after Mohamme. So it seems that as goes the penninsula, so goes Iraq. Oh well. Perhaps you still have some theorum as to how your statement applies to Iraq today. Somehow I believe that you are mouthing something from some right wing nut group. I know there is a talking points memo on the Al Qaeda Caliphate originating in Iraq…is that what you were babbling about?

Other than reminding people that Osama is not Hitler and he is not amassing tanks and blitzkrieg storm troopers,I must remind all that the fight is for hearts and minds of the moderate Arabs, not the already nutty cases. The other fight is in Afghanistan and Pakistan…you know, Osama’s hideout.

Getting in the middle of Iraq’s ethnic and religious war, torturing and killing masses of Iraqi’a, being so bound by political constraints that you cannot provide necessary troops to do the job, thus opening power vacuums for Al Qaeda to move into is probably kind of stupid and completely vain. Osama has Bush pegged for the slightly slow opportunist he is.

Posted by: gergle at September 14, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #181341

Gergle

Bravo on the reasearch!

Here’s the analogy:Both the Wahabbi and Salafist views, as well as the Iranian view are one of idealogial expansion…..very similar to what took place in the 9th thru 11th centuries.

Both the Sunni extreme and the Shia extreme teach this.

Thus,now…as then…either convert…or die.

See?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 14, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #181347

SE,

What took place in the 9-11 centuries was not an ideological expansion of Islam but also a geographical one, thru conquests during middle age. Today it’s ideological.

Thus,now…as then…either convert…or die.

You’re talking about inquisition, right?
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #181421

SE,
And what are we teaching by torturing Iraqi’s and being at the center of a conflict that is killing more Iraqi’s than Sadam?

WE are playing into the hand’s of the extremists.

Posted by: gergle at September 15, 2006 5:07 AM
Comment #181429

gergle

We are becoming the extremists.

Posted by: mark at September 15, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #181506

Mark,
I don’t think middle America is extremist. I don’t think the average Muslim is extremist. Both societies have political leaders and opportunists who play on the fears and pride to garner support.

I suspect this election, assuming it isn’t stolen, will demonstrate this to the far right wing.

Posted by: gergle at September 15, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #181668

The democrats are power whores.

Anyone with a cause (any cause) with money and a voting block can get backing by the democrats. This is why the democrats have no real values.

The past 6+ years all we got from democrats is rage and hate, and this is what we need to remember them for. Bush made a major mistake trying to work with them. No legislative victory is worth cooperating with the democrat enemy.

Terrorists are the enemy abroad. Democrats are the enemy within. The only difference is that democrats have citizenship.

If the democrats won 100% of congress and presidency, and had a perfectly successful record for 8 years, I would never support them.

I do not read democrat comments on blogs, op eds, magazines/newspapers, or anywhere else. I do not listen to democrat politicians or pundits. I tune them out, and will always tune them out.

And I wish the democrats would get off a blog called “Republicans and Conservatives,” because I do not want to hear what they have to say: NEVER!

Posted by: No More Libs at September 15, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #181689

No More Libs-
The very people you fear and loathe are the people you have to appeal to in order to keep your power.

Not the most convenient position. The Republican party, by making fear and hatred of their own fellow Americans integral to keeping political power, have introduced a corrosive element to our politics at a time when we needed it the least.

Democrats and Liberals like myself have long posted on this side. The reverse is true of the Red Column here. We’re not allowed to bubble ourselves off. The pressure is constantly on to defend one’s ideas.

I like that. The consequence of being bubbled off, surrounded by sychophants is that you get soft, and you get stuck in an ivory-tower sensibility. You stop paying attention to practicalities and facts.

It’s hell to be trapped in your own ideology, to have all the right answers, but nobody giving you much credence. Truth is, arguing politics is less about throwing mud against the wall to make it stick, and more about being able to get more people to support what you believe. That’s an active task, not passive.

You can express yourself til you’re blue in the face, but its a different game to get people to agree to, or at least concede about your points.

The key here is to understand motivation. You may think of Democrats as traitors, but that’s just what you think. Most Democrats view themselves as loyal citizens, as do most Republicans. And you know what? They’re right.

The key here is not argue yourself into a safe corner, but to risk the disillusionment and fallibility which comes with actually having to go off-script from the talking points.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #181843

Hate to break it to you, No More Libs, but this is the republican and conservative COLUMN of a blog called “Watchblog: Political News, Opinion, and Commentary”. It has columns expressing views by Democrats and Liberals, Third Parties and Independence, and Republicans and Conservatives. In each column, the article is written by someone of that political affiliation, but all users of the site of any political affiliation are able to comment on it. It’s this radical concept called a free and open exchange of ideas. We’ve had it in this country since at least 1776, though at times we’ve had to fight for it. Sorry it disagrees with your sensibilities.

By the way, you just read a liberal.

Posted by: Jarin at September 16, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #182330

BULLETIN:

A point needs desparately to be made here for tha sake of civilization, decency, law and order and a free and open society for us all to live in together!

I call on all the inteligent and capable on the red side of the coin to come and say it loud and clear. I call on Jack, Sicilian Eagle and those with their capacity for dialogue to answer this one question for the sake of us all:

Do you have any affinity whatsoever for the tired and offensive *messege* of “No More Libs” above?

Just post it. Let this person know.

Let’s get back to some semblence of discourse and prevent further unthinking, pointless and poisonous vitriol like this.

Posted by: RGF at September 18, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #182511

…how completely disheartening.

A day has gone by.

Please tell me the more regular and reputable bloggers on the red side of the coin are not willing to ‘use’ the venemous ignorance of messeges like the ones from ‘No More Libs’ without any thought to what’s right? Is it truely to be considered a republican mainstream idea that the Democrats are the “enemy from within?”

We may be closer to political violence in this country than I had thought or hoped. This is very disheartening.

Posted by: RGF at September 19, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #234104

Osama-bi-laden is evil devlish

Posted by: Delynn at September 23, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #234103

Osama-bi-laden is evil devlish

Posted by: Delynn at September 23, 2007 9:50 PM
Post a comment