Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Imagine some Republicans blaming 9/11 on Clinton after ignoring black and white evidence that it was coming on Bush’s watch. Republicans are quite a piece of work too, aren’t they?

Our government is broken. That is the issue. The New Orleans levees which, were the responsibility of Congress and the White House’s Army Corps of Engineers to maintain, and upgrade if necessary, killed a great many Americans and caused unnecessary widespread devastation. And that unnecessary devastation will continue to cost the American people immense tax dollars to restore for years to come.

Republicans and Democrats alike share responsibility for 9/11 and the levee’s failure, and the death, loss, and shaken confidence of the American people in the aftermath.

Yet, partisan warfare supercedes securing our borders 5 years after foreigners attacked our nation. Political greed for campaign dollars consumes Senators and Representative’s time to the exclusion of saving Social Security, reforming the health care industry which is going to bankrupt our government in less than 20 years, ending deficit spending which is going to bankrupt our children as tax payers.

When the politicians who run government so egregiously fail their first and primary duties of office in protecting and defending the Constitution and the soverign land and inhabitants of this nation, there is only one rational response for voters!

Vote out the incumbents and vote in challengers, putting them on notice RIGHT UP FRONT, that they too will not be a successful incumbent if they ignore their first and primary duties to the nation and the people who elect them. This is the power our democracy grants to the people if only they will exercise it for their own benefit.

So the religion of Islam is violent eh, Eric. Trying to drum up a religious crusade are you? The vast majority of Muslims are not violent, and want only to work, provide for their families and children, and live a life of peace with their religion.

Violent Islam? I should think, having the respect for you which I do as a writer, that you may have better expressed it as Islamic terrrorists. There are non Islamic terrorists too, you know. Kashmir has a fair share which are Hindu. Then there were our own Abortion Clinic bombers, Christian they were. Chechnyans have a sect of terrorists. Catholic I believe. You wouldn’t refer to Violent Hinduism, or Violent Catholicism, or Violent Southern Baptist Christianity, would you? Then why Violent Islam?

Aren’t you finger pointing when you point out that someone else is finger pointing but, you are above that? Bush is full of these convoluted actions which beg voters to listen to what he says and ignore what he does.

Ah, the twisted machinations of our dear President. Government is too big and costly Bush says as he initiates and passes the largest and most costly social program in a decade - Medicare Rx Drug plan.

I listen to my generals on the ground, Bush says of Iraq after removing so many who wouldn’t tell him what he wanted to hear.

We are saving lives in Iraq, Bush said of Iraqis shortly after invasion, as the numbers of Iraqi dead resulting from the invasion surpassing the numbers to Saddam Hussein’s credit.

I will cut the deficit in half he said in his first year. Then it changed to, I will cut the deficit in half in my last year of office. That is of course after he doubles the national debt to unprecedented levels by any measure after 7 years of record deficits.

We are creating jobs he said. As we permit more than a million illegal immigrants each year into our country to fill them at substandard wages.

No Child will be left behind, as he cuts and underfunds the program leaving huge numbers behind.

I will give our troops whatever they need he said, as many of our soldiers to this very day lack the armor and protective gear needed to protect them.

The list goes on, but you get the drift.

Eric,

So yes, the war(s) in Iraq is and was a ‘cause celebre’ for extremists, even while Clinton was President! Iraq as a ‘cause celebre’ also apparently led to 9-11 — conceived and planned while Clinton was President, I might add.

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

Are Democrats trying to say that Clinton’s bombing of Iraq caused 9-11? Surely not.

No, but you do. Back such claim.

Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Japan would only anger the Japanese and bring more attacks?

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

PLEASE.

Or stop linking 9/11 with Iraq every time you breath. You’re parroting Sick Cheney too much, beware of his kool-aid drink.

Who will protect us from violent Islam?

Brains. As soon as we stop allowing fear and political agenda to control them, no doubt they will start working to find more effective way to do counter-terrorism.
Other nations faced and are still facing international terrorism since decades, and so far they’re not defeated. US will, no doubt, join the club.

The reason I bring up the 1999 economy and congress is because it fits the specific case. This is a CONGRESSIONAL election. The president will remain constant, so that is not part of what we can change. When something happens, you need to look at what has changed. In Reagan�s case, we kept the Dem congress and the economy improved when we had the Republican president.

There were two presidential elections in the 1990’s, both of which were won by a Democrat. Republicans had been in the White House since 1980. The other big change that happened was the GOP took over the House. Which of these changes helped the economy is a matter of interpretation.

Saying that the “economy improved when we had the Republican president [Reagan]” ignores the fact that the economy was lousy under Nixon and Ford. Republicans like to say that Bush hasn’t had time to fix all the things Clinton screwed up. By simple chronology, Carter is off the hook too.

The point is, you can spin these facts how you like for different partisan purposes. The President tends to get more credit or blame than Congress, fairly or not.

Not the Republicans.

They are the party of denial. 110% denial.
They refuse accountability, and once the DEMs take over we will get our Constitution back.

It’s eveident right here…change the subject, No Child, Reagan, economy, Carter…..HEY STUPIDS, STAY ON SUBJECT.
The GOP failed at every single effort since 2001.
We are not safer, richer, happier and our freedoms are abused.

Today’s deficits and debt become tomorrow’s hardening of economic arteries. The one thing all recent Republican presidents have in common, is deficit spending and national debt growth. Which is a contradiction over time with Republicans platform of fiscal responsibility. Reagan left a huge national debt for its day. It was partly Reagan’s debt Clinton was reducing in the latter part of his 2nd term with his veto pen threat to Congress.

A veto pen Bush still hasn’t managed to find. Guess Clinton took it with him limiting Bush’s power to manage spending or deficits.

Joe, but if Democrats come back, will we ever get fiscal responsibility? It was never a Democrat’s strong suit until Clinton.

I guess, given 1) the reality and 2) the blind partisanship of the article writer, that 3) spin like this naturally follows.

Country before party, folks.

Eric-
More terrorists. More dispersed. The Administration is not even trying to dispute these facts.

We are not missing the fact that Bin Laden used our previous commitments in Iraq for propaganda purposes. What you miss is that the difference we’re talking about is between pre-invasion and post. We’re talking about a cause celebre coming out of nowhere, we’re talking about one made considerably worse.

Iraq was not the haven for terrorists that Bush and company made it out to be. If it had been, your points about Pearl Harbor would apply better. As it is now, it applies not at all.

It is the endless bloodshed, unchecked by by a bad strategy that makes it the provocation to the Middle East that it is. It is that endless bloodshed, that chaos Democrats in the main have been asking this president to put to an end.

The Republicans want to look like the only tough bastards around. They’ve been doing little but scrambling to reinforce this image. Meanwhile, the terrorists have taken advantage of their true weakness to more than double their numbers.

The Republican talking points allege that Democrats are waving the white flag. This is a way to loudly and obnoxiously redefine the debate so that nobody notices that they are failing miserably at their promised duties, and so they can continue failing miserably without having their precious power taken from them.

The Republicans are lost in a world of convenient political fictions, cut off from reality. We must resolve, not procrastinate on the War in Iraq. Most Americans want a happy resolution to this, most Democrats, too. Americans want what’s best for America.

The Bush administration, though, wants a perfect defense from any harm to their reputation. Unfortunately the Republicans want what they can’t have, not with the reality of the situation bearing down on us. We don’t want surrender. We want an end to this presidents delay on getting this war done, and getting our soldiers home. We need to make it harder not easier to blame America for the world’s problems. We need to make it easier, not harder, to blame the terrorists for the harm they do. We need to make it easier, not harder for Americans to go to the Middle East and drum up support against Islamic extremism.

As for that memo? Your president told the briefer that he covered his ass. How serious does that indicate he took the memo? You guys are so big on claiming the defense of hindsight, why don’t you claim it here? You folks weren’t the only ones caught by surprise by 9/11. Just admit it, and stop being such cowards in the face of the truth of your own mistakes.

David
In your listing of non-Islamic Terrorists
Do not forget the Protestants and the Catholics on both sides of the “troubles” in Northern Ireland.

Russ

Why does it not surprise me that you would start ‘Christian bashing’? It’s becoming the next best thing to ‘Bush bashing’ as the Dems favorite pasttime. You guys/gals are so predictable and so boring.

It’s easier for you to believe the entire intelligence community and all news outlets are doing Democrats bidding than to listen isn’t it? You’re the real piece of work. Your party was a pain in the ass while Clinton tried to get Bin Laden , a pain while Bush didn’t try, and will be a pain for the rest of my life. You’ll always claim Bush was a great success, and that it was all Clinton’s fault. You neocons are like spoiled kids who constantly brag about the successes handed to them while contributing nothing.

Russ, before you start talking about Northern Ireland, it might help a little, if you knew even a little about it. Your comments reveal that you know nothing about it. FYI, the conflict in Northern Ireland was not a religious one.

Imagine blaming Bush for 9-11?

Okay. So why didn’t Bush do anything about the USS Cole? Why didn’t Bush do something when he received a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to attack within the US?”, which described the use of planes as bombs? Why did Bush, when he got in office, stop meeting having meetings regarding terrorism altogether, despite Dick Clark’s warnings? Now…. WHY HASN’T BUSH BEEN GRILLED ON THIS STUFF STARTING FIVE YEARS AGO???? You believe the MSM is doing Democrat’s work, and we need a former president of the U.S. to go on Fox News and be baited into asking these questions? Come on! This happened on Bush’s watch for Christ’s sake!

I was in New York on 9/11 and believe me plenty of people there blame Bush, at least partly, for 9/11. Hardly anyone there felt the war in Iraq was the way to address the attack. Having the attack bolster this creep and give him the support he needs to do whatever he wants just added insult to injury. By turning 9/11 into his political football he demeaned it.

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

Philippe,

Wow, Eric didn’t say that Iraq ‘did’ 9/11. Where on earth do you get that from what he wrote?

It is irresponsible, however, not to understand the motivations behind 9/11. So many times we are told we must understand ‘why they hate us’, OBL has stated many times the initiating instance that turned him so violently against the US. It was when we placed our ‘unholy’ warmachines in Mecca. Why were we in Mecca? We were there to help support the no-fly zone containment of Iraq.

Does this mean that Hussein ordered or participated in 9/11? Not that I’m aware of (but I always keep an open mind to new evidence). But if we ignore history and the events that occured before 2001 how are we ever expected to learn from our mistakes during that time?

That’s what it seems like many on the ‘left’ want us to do, forget the failures of anyone other than Bush and go right back to making to same mistakes, never bothering to re-examine them and learn from them.

So why didn’t Bush do anything about the USS Cole? Why didn’t Bush do something when he received a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to attack within the US?‎, which described the use of planes as bombs? This happened on Bush’s watch…

Ok, Max, You’re president and you get a memo that tells you that Hugo Chavez wants to attack the US. It also says that it is possible that he might use ‘86 Hondas to do it. But there is no specific date/time/person to attach to the intelligence and no hint of any acutal plan in place. You also get reports like this every day.

What do you do? I look forward to your insightful answer and planning.

As for it happening under Bush’s watch, yes it did. It also happened under Clinton’s watch (the planning and reasons for the attack happened while he did nothing about it). So, can we agree that both failed to stop it? Or do you want to continue trying to defend one while blaming the other?

I prefer Guliani’s response to the question the other day. “Who do I blame for 9/11? I blame the guys who planned and executed it.” That’s really the real issue at hand.

Yes, why didn’t GWB do more in 8 months than Clinton did in 96 months? … I ask that sincerely because Clinton did pretty much nothing so, even as a Republican, I think both Presidents should’ve done more pre-9/11.

But now that we’ve had 9/11 I’m quite happy that we stuck it to “Death to America” Saddam. 9/11 lost my patience for guys like that knucklehead and his rape room sons. Even if they didn’t do anything directly I’ve yet to be contradicted when I say “I’m quite sure Hussein and family never swore off funding a massive attack on us.” Of course France & Germany were just as concerned as us about Iraqi WMD, but their bank accounts got in the way of action. Let’s just be thankful our kids don’t have to deal with a senile Hussein or one of his rape room sons and all of their stolen national money in charge of Iraq. Let’s also be glad Iraq has attracted most of the terrorist nut jobs in one place. I’m glad Al Qaeda is calling it their main battleground. It’s about time they announced one.

Let’s ramp it up in Afghanistan, let’s require more national participation in the war on terror. Let’s finish the job in Iraq. Life lost and treasure lost in Iraq is large, but if we’re stupid and leave it’ll look like a drop in the bucket in 10 years.

Rhinehold,

Wow, Eric didn’t say that Iraq ‘did’ 9/11. Where on earth do you get that from what he wrote?

He’s a too good spinmaster to write “did”. Instead, he just try as much as possible to put Iraq and 9/11 in the same phrase. As did the Bush government before 2003.
Check his Pearl Harbor (flawed) analogy. Pearl Harbor = 9/11 and japan = attacker. Except that Iraq didn’t commit the 9/11 attack. Flawed analogy. A better one could have been:

“Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Korea would only anger the asians and bring more attacks?”

But, no, he choose to stick with applying attack/attackers analogy to 9/11 and Iraq. Don’t tell me it’s not trying, at least unconsciously, to build a causality link.

OBL has stated many times the initiating instance that turned him so violently against the US. It was when we placed our ‘unholy’ warmachines in Mecca. Why were we in Mecca? We were there to help support the no-fly zone containment of Iraq.

Does this mean that Hussein ordered or participated in 9/11? Not that I’m aware of (but I always keep an open mind to new evidence). But if we ignore history and the events that occured before 2001 how are we ever expected to learn from our mistakes during that time?

Yep, putting US forces in Mecca during Gulf War was a mistake. Leaving them after the war was a bigger one even.
So why US forces didn’t leave Iraq after having removed Saddam from power forever? Does it mean Bush himself didn’t learn anything from previous government(s)’s mistakes?

That’s what it seems like many on the ‘left’ want us to do, forget the failures of anyone other than Bush and go right back to making to same mistakes, never bothering to re-examine them and learn from them.

But still, this government don’t show he has learned from previous mistakes and just, in its own word motto, “stay the course”. Still no implementation of 9/11 commission advices. Still no OBL captured dead or alive. Still US troops not leaving a muslim land, fueling civil war and the now called “cause celebre” anger.
Even if the “left” were wanted to go right back to making the same mistakes over and over, what matter today is the mistake(s) the guys in power are eventuelly doing. Over and over.

Oh, nevermind, I forgot: this government make no mistake. Ever. Again and again.

I’m a Dem and find the premise of ES’s first statement laughable. ‘Imagine blaming Bush?’ How can we even IMAGINE it? Um…he was the President that had intel on the potential attack.

Willy is a wise politician though, and his response did just what he hoped it would - got people questioning whether Bush did enough or not. Willy knows the comparison will put him in favorable light. If enough people question this, it has to be good news for the Dems. The more people that are informed in general, the better for the Dems. Heck, we have almost half of the population still believing Saddam had WMDs in 2003 and was responsible for 9/11! The incumbency media machine is powerful. And Willy stuck a stick in the wheels of it.

But at the end of the day, the partisan blame game and finger pointing does little good. Is there any Dem reading here that will review these posts and say, “Yep, Bush is not responsible for 9/11?” Is there and Republican that will say, “Willy had no responsibility for 9/11?” Of course not.

I agree with Rhinehold’s quote of Guiliani, ‘it’s the terrorist’s fault.”

So, that said, does it really matter, other than for partisan reasons who is blame? Isn’t the bigger question what is being done to catch bin Laden? Why are we more than five years after the 9/11 attacks not focusing on him, especially after the recent intel reports confirm Iraq is increasing the terror threat? Why as Willy asked, are we spending 1/7 of our resources in Iraq, not linked to 9/11, instead of getting bin Laden?

Who will protect us from violent Islam?Posted by Eric Simonson at September 27, 2006 02:40 AM

Stephen -
“More terrorists. More dispersed.”

This basis of your statements is seriously flawed. Therefore, your whole argument is flawed. The “leaked document” from which this statement came apparently doesn’t use these statements as it’s conclusion. This is one of the points that brings it to it’s conclusion. In context, it appears from what I’ve heard and read, that this is not as negative a statement as it first appears. In context, it appears, the document states that we (the U.S.) is winning, because although there are more terrorists, they are less organized and less centralized and more splintered than they would be if we weren’t disrupting their cash flow, destroying their training grounds, disrupting their communications, and killing their leaders. In that respect, at least, Iraq is working.

Linda-
Christian bashing? Should we call mention of the Hundred Years War Christian Bashing? Christians have fought each other over religious differences. We’ve fought other religions over the same. If religious squabbling is a sign of human imperfection, then I’m afraid everybody’s guilty.

Paul in Euroland-
Would it not be accurate to say that religion plays a role, even if British colonialism was the main beef?

Rhinehold-
Let the left speak for itself. We’ve been very adamant about fixing the problems that led to 9/11.

We were not in Mecca. We were off in some other section of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, though, did not distinguish, treating all of Saudi Arabia as if it were sacred ground.

On the subject of the ‘86 Hondas, what you do is you start investigating. You start putting up safeguards with ‘86 Hondas in mind. You tell the pilots and crew not to cooperate with Hijackers. You do something else than just dismiss the briefer telling you those things. Bush could have at least asked somebody to get on it. This is not about blaming Bush alone, this is about getting him to humble himself on the subject and take somebody else’s advice.

Ken Strong-
I doubt you could come up with evidence that France and Germany thought a terrorist threat existed in Iraq. I doubt you have any evidence that Saddam was planning a major spectacular.

You only think that Iraq has attracted most of the terrorist nutjobs. In fact, they’re mostly situated around the world. Iraq is not eating them up, its training them, at our expense.

It’s also making it difficult to ramp up much of anything in Afghanistan. I’m glad you want to finish the job, but you fail to understand that this president is doing anything but that.

Most Democrats do not want to just jerk our forces out. Most simply want this president to start planning with some kind of end to this war in mind. I say we need that kind of motivation. As long as we just screw around, waiting for the insurgents and the terrorists to get tired of their jihad, this crap will merely continue. But if we have a goal, and the willingness to apply resources to make that goal happen, we’re in a better position to win the war.

What we got to do is say “we’re going to do what it takes to take back this place, to train this army, to do this, etc.” and then do it. The current plan is just wishful thinking that things will turn out right. we need better than that.

Dave 1-20-09
“I say let’s give the to the people who have learned lessons from the past.”

Aside from the fact that one cannot tell what you’re trying to say… you should take a lesson from the past. You have shown light on no wisdom, merely your own wimpy opinion. I know many good and faithful Republicans and some good and faithful Democrats. To whitewash an entire party as evil or wrong is just plain partisan, and smart or open-minded.

I meant to say —-
NOT smart or open-minded.

Bill Clinton is a micro-manager. He made enemies as a result.

Bush is a no-manager who is so in over his head. He can’t think without the input of his close circle of ‘advisors.’

Notice - when big things happen, there is a stutter from the White House just long enough for a conflab with Rove, Rumi, Cheney etc.
We don’t know for certain that is what is happening, but whenever Bush is questioned on anything he likes to return with the comment “WE are considering…” or “We” this or “We” that.

Seems to me there is ample grounds for KEEPING the ball in Bush’s court and not pretending it is Clinton’s.

After all, Bush had 8-9 months! Did he not?

You know, on my home page, this blog pops up under “Republicans and Conservatives.” I know for a fact that the left-wing Libs have their own blogosphere out there, yet it astounds me that I see more and more liberal posting under “Republicans and Conservatives” sites. Could this be, perhaps, due to the fact that other liberal venues such as Air America are facing bankruptcy, and financial ruin? Or perhaps it angers you liberal so that while you were busy taking over the main-stream drive-by media on TV, Conservatives turned to radio, and captured a much more credible and believeable demographic. Say what you want about the likes og Limbaugh and Hannity, but they get more listeners weekly than any liberal TV shows get viewers. So tell me; Who is better represented. Conservatives have only recently acquired FOX News as a “conservative” TV viewing channel, and liberals whine that they are too bias. The Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton was primo. Wallace tried to do a simple interview, and ask simple, straight-forward questions, and Clinton became combative. Why is that? I think that ultimately, Libs want Conservatives without a venue or voice to express their opinions. For a group that preaches “Free Speech”, and “open-mindedness”, the Libs sure seem to want to stifle any voice of dissent. When Lieberman disagreed with them, he was basically kicked out of the party. Why is that? Keep it up Libs. There’s a reason great Democrats like Zell Miller say they no longer recognize the Democratic party anymore. Can you tell me why?

Philippe-

Bin Laden put Iraq and 9/11 together back in 1998 when Bush was a Governor.

And it wasn’t just our bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; he blames the U.S. for 1 million Muslim deaths as a result of the economic sanctions. That number, I’m sure, excludes Shia deaths given Wahhabi belief that it is o.k. to kill Shia because they were dar al-harb.

Max,
“Why didn’t Bush do something when he received a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to attack within the US?”, which described the use of planes as bombs?”

We didn’t have the “Patriot Act” in place then, so even with the information given that our planes were going to be “used as bombs”, our laws would have prevented them from doing anything about it. The terrorists knew this and that’s how come they could plot and plan without much interference from the US.

Don,

I see you are able to reply only with insult, a typical “repuglican” tactic. I should probably have clarified, however. When I refer to “repuglican” I do not refer to members of the party, I refer to it’s leaders and, to some extent, it’s activist proponents and (p)sycophants.
The current GOP is not the party I was once an adherent of. It is a perversion of an American view. It is “protofascist” in that it is a proponent of a untiary presidency with nearly unfettered authority to ignore the constitution and treaties to which we as a nation are signatories to. It supports corporations at the expense of free enterprise. It encourages the use of religion as a controlling political force rather than a force for personal enlightenment. Basically, they suck. They deserve disapprobation, not accolade; they are worse than anything the Democrats might be able to do; they must go.

I say let’s give the to the people who have learned lessons from the past. Smart open minded people. Let’s say, ummm, anyone other than the Repuglicans.

Ryan,

The parties have shifted considerably over the decades. I’m unsure what good old fashioned fiscal conservatives would think about the GOP today.

As far as posts go and seeing a lot of different opions (opions you obviouisly disagree with)that may be more a result of GW than anything else. I lean slightly left overall but tend to agree with several issues of the right. When I post differing opinions on any conservative site I am labeled “liberal” and called names. I’m sure the same thing happens to strong converservative when they post on liberal sites.

I guess what I’m saying is the GOP tent just doesn’t seem as big as it once was. I used to could respectfully disagree with many on the right and they could appreciate where we did see eye to eye. Now, well…it’s all or nothing.

GW may create as many democrats as Reagan created republicans. That, of course, is just my opinion. I’m sure you will certainly label me a “liberal” or a “closet liberal” or something. I voted for Reagan and Bush, Sr. and have voted both red and blue for senators and representatives of my state. I feel like folks like me are being pushed aside….

“You either take the whole ball of wax or we don’t want you…” that’s kinda how I feel.

Try to remember this is America. Opinions of both sides should be heard and debated. I respect many folks that post on this site as well as some of the folks on FOX. I may not agree with them 100%, but I appreciate anyone who is willing to listen and consider the other side without dismissing them as “traitors”, “crazy liberals”, etc.

Regards,

“It encourages the use of religion as a controlling political force rather than a force for personal enlightenment”

Controlling political force? Could you please give some examples of this Dave1? I must be missing something.

George in SC,

Bin Laden put Iraq and 9/11 together back in 1998 when Bush was a Governor.

And it wasn’t just our bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; he blames the U.S. for 1 million Muslim deaths as a result of the economic sanctions. That number, I’m sure, excludes Shia deaths given Wahhabi belief that it is o.k. to kill Shia because they were dar al-harb.

And that’s *your* proof Saddam was behind or even remotely participated to 9/11: OBL pronouced “Iraq”?!?
Even Bush don’t use such weak reasoning. I’m really glad OBL never put “americans tourists” with “visiting Paris”…

Is it just me or does it seem that the left does not recognize that Islamic terrorists are evil people? I never sense that they even dislike these jerks. There always seems to be a hint of “we are getting what we deserve for being Imperialistic pigs”.
I suspect that if the democrats do regain the white house we will indeed have peace in our time. Iran will simply cut the same deal that N. Korea cut with Clinton so they can develope their weapons without interference.

Carnak,

You forgot about gutting the millitary. Then waiting for a Repub president to blame all the failures on.

Philippe-

Please cite me the quotation where I said that Saddam was behind 9/11.

History will show that as we have a “coalition of the willing” so too does the terrorists have their own “coalition of the willing”.
History will show that:
1. Saddamm had WMD’s that were initially shipped to Syria.
2. Iraq had ties to Al-Queda. There were financial arrangements between them as well as training.
3. The terrorists have a basic goal of wanting Israel utterly destroyed and no Jew left behind.

Of course history will show much, much more that is different than what is perceived today that is believed to be truth.

Rhinehold and Rahdigly,

Ok, Max, You’re president and you get a memo that tells you that Hugo Chavez wants to attack the US. It also says that it is possible that he might use ‘86 Hondas to do it. But there is no specific date/time/person to attach to the intelligence and no hint of any acutal plan in place. You also get reports like this every day.

You’re both wrong on every count. There was a date assigned to the memo (within the next year). All that would have had to be done was for the FBI and the CIA to seriously coordinate and put a priority on finding the terrorists, some of whom the FBI already had dirt on and the CIA knew were in the country. All of this, as well as passenger screening, could have been done within existing law, which certainly allowed for screening for known individuals planning to do the United States harm. Finally, Clinton did provide Bush with a recommended plan (a 13 page report) for how to rooting out terrorism and responding to the Cole attack. Sure both presidents failed to stop the attack, but Bush put nowhere near the priority on rooting out terrorism Clinton did. The whole “both presidents were equally at fault” premise is wrong. So is the premise that the attacks could not and should not have been stopped. Your assertion that Condaleeza was receiving memos like this everyday is flat out not true.

Ryan,

I’ve listened to enough Rush to know that when people start using phrases such as “drive-by media” that all critical thought has ceased.

Can you think of other reasons why someone who is not a devotee may listen, view, and read opinions they do not automatically agree with?

TOM L

I appreciate your candor, as well as your well-thought-out argument and presentation. Let me say, compared to my views, yes, you are a liberal. What I like most though, is that you are a “common-sense”. I too do not always agree w/ the conservatives. For instance, I believe that W is to soft on illegal immigration. I respect your right to disagree with me. That’s what makes this America, after all. But would you agree with the statement that most of the better-known libs in position right now are doing more to try and divide this country, at a time when it most critical for us to me united? We were brutally attacked! We should be united against a common enemy, not obssessed with getting power back, or keeping power at any cost. The W.W. II generation showed us what it means to be united. All I meant in response to the amount of lib postings was that it seems they are trying their darndest to snuff out our voice as conservatives, even on sites speciffically for those that share the same political philosophy. The postings almost seem openly hostile. How tragic. I’m only 27, but I am extensively read. I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity for entertainment, not so I will know how to think. I realize you never said that I did, but many on the left accuse us of being mindless puppets for the above-mentioned hosts. I appreciate and respect a Dem/Lib, although the two terms are not mutually exclusive, that can thoughtfully articulate a response without degenerating into personal attacks. Thank you for spurring intellectual conversation. We may disagree, but we are both AMERICANS, correct? Good day, my friend.

kctim;

How about K Harris’ little speech about how “if you’re not electing christians then you’re voting in sinners”
How about the influence of Dobson and the other evangelical leaders? And their concerted efforts on behalf of Bush in ‘04. Do you remember the sacrifical lamb in the campaign staff who took the fall for coordinating with churches?
How about the rally cry of “The US is a Christian nation” and the denial of the church/state boundary and the Churches who tell their voters who to vote for?

Am I waiting for excuse and deny?

George,

Then what did you mean by “Bin Laden put Iraq and 9/11 together”

Dave1-20-09
“I see you are able to reply only with insult, a typical “repuglican‎ tactic.”

Obviously you haven’t read my other postings. And, by the way, your response fits your own accusation better than my post. Democraps should not be so glib.

“The current GOP…must go.”

Again, you paint with broad unthinking brush. To whitewash an entire party as evil or wrong is just plain partisan, and NOT smart or open-minded.

You have not shown yourself to be open-minded, which is what I was looking for. You also have not shown yourself to be more than a slanderer. Many of your statements are patently false…mere talking points for Democraps (you’re not the only one who can come up with “cute” nicknames). They are statements almost entirely without merit. For instance, your statement: “It encourages the use of religion as a controlling political force rather than a force for personal enlightenment” is laughable. Bush has his own beliefs (all presidents have given at least lip-service to belief in God), but has made it clear on several occasions that he takes his job as president of ALL Americans seriously (no matter their faith). He seeks God’s direction (as have many past presidents) but also listens to and seeks the advice of others. You, obviously, haven’t thought this one through. Maybe you should pray more to your Democrap god.

i do so love to watch cons blame an EX-president for problems. did clinton do all he could, no he didnt and he admitted that, has bush done all he could do, no he hasnt and he has admitted that, more can be done and the blame game doesnt make anything better. cons have been bitching from the start that all the dinkeys are dong is blaming, that they arent coming up with solutions, and now the cons are playing the very game they have lambasted the left for playing. FIX THE PROBLEM! dont bitch about how it wasnt fixed by a man who left office 6 YEARS AGO!

“How about K Harris’ little speech about how “if you’re not electing christians then you’re voting in sinners‎”

First, the statement is true.

Second, the statement was taken 100% out of context by the media and, obviously, you.

Third, what problem do you have with this? If you are a sinner, why aren’t you proud of it? If you’re anti-Christian take a clear stand and say that you are.

“How about the influence of Dobson and the other evangelical leaders?”

They don’t have a right to exert influence because…they are Christians? What about George Sorros (misspelled)…should he be allowed to have influence because he’s…rich?

Dobson and other evangelical leaders have influence only in the Republican party because the Democrat party refuses to have anything to do with them. The Democrat party has done everything possible to demean Christians and highly moral people. If the Democrat party would reach out to the evangelicals it might be different. It is, therefore, the fault of the Democrats that they have little influence among evangelical Christians.

DON

Couldn’t have said it better. Whole-heartedly agree. Sounds like you are conversing with another sel-loathing, hate-America-first lib.

David,

So the religion of Islam is violent eh, Eric. Trying to drum up a religious crusade are you? The vast majority of Muslims are not violent

The irony is that on my personalized google home page here are two stories one below the other:

Report sees war fueling jihadists
Fearing Islamic reaction, Germans silence an opera

I think that the reality is a little different from the multicultural world-peace fantasy. 

Max,
“All that would have had to be done was for the FBI and the CIA to seriously coordinate and put a priority on finding the terrorists, some of whom the FBI already had dirt on and the CIA knew were in the country.

What would they “coordinate”?! You could not use any of that information (couldn’t get a warrant) with the laws we had set up. Now, with the Patriot Act, you can get that info and it would be useful. Also, there’s a simple (stone cold) fact that the FBI and the CIA weren’t sharing information; due to the “wall” that was created by the Deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick).

“Finally, Clinton did provide Bush with a recommended plan (a 13 page report) for how to rooting out terrorism and responding to the Cole attack.”

No, Richard Clark provided the 13 page report and, he himself, said in his book, that even if they followed that report it still wouldn’t of prevented the attack. Why?! B/c of what I said earlier about not having the Patriot Act or other “tools” to fighting terrorism.

“Sure both presidents failed to stop the attack, but Bush put nowhere near the priority on rooting out terrorism Clinton did. The whole “both presidents were equally at fault” premise is wrong.”

You’re right. It’s not equally, Clinton definitely bears most of the burden b/c he’d been at the helm for 8 years; whereas, Bush was there 8 months. And, Clinton knows this (as well as most Americans), that’s why he snapped in that interview over the weekend.

Philip,

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

I think you are reading something into my post which isn’t there at all. 

Are Democrats trying to say that Clinton’s bombing of Iraq caused 9-11? Surely not.

No, but you do. Back such claim.

Same as above. I am merely comparing and contrasting what democrats are saying in order to understand it. The contrast is that Democrats are saying that removing a mid-east dictator who they say Al-Qaeda would never have worked with and who Osama supposedly despised- is fueling terrorism.

Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Japan would only anger the Japanese and bring more attacks?

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

PLEASE.

Again. You infer too much. It. Is. An. Analogy. A, “Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.”

Or stop linking 9/11 with Iraq every time you breath. You’re parroting Sick Cheney too much, beware of his kool-aid drink.

Who will protect us from violent Islam?

Brains. As soon as we stop allowing fear and political agenda to control them, no doubt they will start working to find more effective way to do counter-terrorism.
Other nations faced and are still facing international terrorism since decades, and so far they’re not defeated. US will, no doubt, join the club.

But this is the point Philip. How exactly have those other nations dealt with terrorism for DECADES? And if this is the position of the left, then how can they possibly criticize Bush for not having defeated terrorism in just a few short years?

In effect your position amounts to “Live with it.” Is this in fact your position? 

Don1-20-09
Dr. Dobson knows the law. Dr. Dobson is a man of integrity. He would never tell anybody how to vote. On issues, that is a different thing. Churches can talk about issues and recommend how to vote and this is not in violation of IRS rules and regulations.

My challenge to you is who and when did Dr. Dobson recommend for churches to vote for?
There was endorsement of a variety of Democrat candidates from church pulpits that were widely reported in the news. But, you are in error for saying Dr. Dobson endorses candidates froma church pulpit.

Dave1
“How about K Harris’ little speech about how “if you’re not electing christians then you’re voting in sinners‎”

A persons opinion now equates to trying to using religion as a “controlling political force?”
Does that mean obama wants to use race as a “controlling political force?”

“How about the influence of Dobson and the other evangelical leaders? And their concerted efforts on behalf of Bush in ‘04.”

And their support has resulted in what religious based legislation being successful?

“How about the rally cry of “The US is a Christian nation‎”

Here’s a secret, the majority of Americans ARE Christians and religion has always been a big part of our country.

“and the denial of the church/state boundary”

Most people don’t deny the imaginary church/state boundary you mention. It is the lefts interpretation of it that people have a problem with.
The 1st Amendment is about freedom OF religion, NOT freedom from religion.

“and the Churches who tell their voters who to vote for?”

jesse jackson tells his congregation and supporters who they should vote for. greenpeace whackos mail out fliers telling their followers who to vote for.
On and on it goes.
Who somebody votes for is no business of yours or mine. Voting is still one of our freedoms and talking about politics is free speech.

“Am I waiting for excuse and deny?”

Excuse? Not from me. I’m an atheist and have no reason to make excuses for anything dealing with religion.

Deny? Whats there to deny? You gave me your opinions on how you THINK some type of “theocracy” or whatever, is being pushed onto the American people.

Fact #1: Radical muslims attacked our country and killed thousands of our fellow Americans based on their religious views.

Fact #2: “Radical” Christians, Republicans in the lefts view, have not AND no evil Christian Republican legislation, based on the bible, has been passed.

So why is it that the left FEARS #2 (a political theory) and not #1 (an actual truth)?

KC TIM

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Kudos, and ditto.

Who will protect us, well we know for sure it isn’t Bush and cronies. As far as Iraq, Bush the first and the first gulf war, I don’t see any thing about it, in the article and how the first left saddam in power, and the invasion/no fly zone/oil for money(opps that is the UN), seems other then talk saddam wasn’t doing anything. Bush the worse(GW) lied to the UN, lied to the world and worse lied to the American public about how bad saddam was, No WMD found. He said also that he doesn’t care about Osama. Sometimes I wonder who will protect us against a self-serving, dicator like Bush the Worse, and cronies

If Bush were a dictator, you wouldn’t freely be criticizing him right now, without fear of reprisal. And I never recall having heard Bush say he didn’t care about Osama bin Laden.

wow, if those replies are indicative of todays education system, we really are screwed. The logical holes are big enough for an aircraft carrier to fit through, the assumptions and conclusions are grotesquely flawed, the mistruths are just sad, and the name calling is just typical.
I do give kc credit for an actual reply, maybe I’ll have time tonight to go point-by-point. Ryan can just go -you know-.

Ryan, who said the following “I don’t know where bin Laden is, I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important it’s not our priority”

Bush the worse said that so I guess he doesn’t care about the guy who ordered and backed 9/11. He is more worried about the oil and civil war he started in Iraq.

DAVE1-20-09

No. Tell me. Where can I go? And why is it that you want me so badly to go there? And where did you receive your economics degree from? Am I not entitled, all of a sudden, to my right of free speech? Have I ever called names, or personally attcked anyone, ever, or indicated in anyway whatsoever, that your intellect level was less than anyone else’s? You disagree with what I said, so now I’m supposed to go…somewhere. Who knows? You disagree, so you would basically like me to leave, and not post here anymore, is that it? Where would you like me to go? Elaborate. Your behavior in your post is consistent with self-loathing, hate-America-first liberals. This doesn’t mean I hate you, or that I want you to “…go…”, it just means we disagree. Notice how I have not degenerated into personal attacks and name calling. Take note.

KT
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished?

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, who promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished?

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, who promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished?

WHO warned America in his radio address that we should not overreact to the 1993 WTC bombing. “I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this.”

The blame game is too easy KT and playing it is a waste of time.
There is plenty of blame for BOTH party’s, lets just hope they have learned from those mistakes.

Ryan,

Yup, I hate myself. Regardless, when one speculates why other than fans listen to right-wing media, it is a mistake to make all your speculations self serving. Sometimes people, believe it or not, listen to the other side to 1) learn something, 2) learn the arguments that will be repeated ad naseum, and 3) possibly find points of consensus.

Hey Don, I read your comments about Harris and voting in sinners if they are not Christians. Well I guess that is partial correct. I am a Christian, and I am a sinner, and I will always be a sinner until I die or Jesus comes back before I do. Any Christian who says they are not a sinner is lying so I guess that makes them a sinner.
In this human flesh I am imperfect and do sin. So I guess Harris is right vote in a Christian, and you vote in a sinner also.

Ryan Daugherty,

The reason a lot of liberals comment on this blog is that it’s just one part of WatchBlog. There’s also a Liberal/Democrat section here and a Third Party/Independent section. Because of the unique nature of the site, you get people from all sides of the spectrum debating issues and posts. You as a conservative are welcome on the Liberals threads. It’s not like most political blogs in which only one side is presented and debated.

So, it has nothing to do with your ideas about Air America, etc.

What home page links you to this?

LAWN BOY

Thanks for your response, and enlightening me. Sincerely, honestly and without malice, I appreciate it. My homepage is my web browser, through SBC. I find it disturbing, however, how hostile and sometimes violent the postings become. It’s disheartening. Mostly from Libs, but conservatives play their fair share as well.

Lawnboy, I have to agree with your comments to Ryan. I am a independent but read all three areas.
I have also noticed that the name calling lately has been going up.

Eric, in your reality then, to be consistent, when the Irish were bombing innocents in the streets, Christians and Catholics the world round were a violent people of a violent religion.

That’s not reality, Eric. That is sophistry.

KT
“I have also noticed that the name calling lately has been going up”

Elections are coming up my friend and we haven’t seen anything yet.

And I never recall having heard Bush say he didn’t care about Osama bin Laden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

He said “I don’t know where he is… I don’t care… I’m truly not that concerned about him.”

David Remer -
“Eric, in your reality then, to be consistent, when the Irish were bombing innocents in the streets, Christians and Catholics the world round were a violent people of a violent religion.”

Stupid argument.

The Irish were not out to kill non-Irish. It was a regional problem. It was not really a religious issue either. It was an ancestry/governance issue. The only similarities are 1) Religion was involved (at a minor level) and 2) Terrorism was the main weapon.

Ryan,

Yes, the tempers and insults do flare up here. The site managers try to keep the debate from getting too personal, but they can’t be everywhere at once.

I think there are obnoxious people on each side (including me, at times). You think there are more hostile liberals; I think there are more hostile conservatives. I would suspect it’s that we notice more the hostility that is directed towards us.

It’s interesting that the default page for SBC points you here. Did you register your interest as a conservative somewhere?

I also connect through SBC, but I replaced the home page.

KT -
“Any Christian who says they are not a sinner is lying…”

This isn’t (and wasn’t) the issue. The issue was about Christian vs non-Christian (sinner)perspective on legislation. The Christian perspective, according to Harris (I heard an interview with her after her statements), is one of concern for people and the moral responsibilities of government. The “sinner” perspective can be from a wide variety of interests or angles, but rarely from the perspective of the moral responsibilities of government.

“Who will protect us from violent Islam?”

I thought it was your turn, Eric?

I’m going to rotate the tires and water the vegetable garden.

rahdigly wrote
We didn’t have the “Patriot Act‎ in place then, so even with the information given that our planes were going to be “used as bombs‎, our laws would have prevented them from doing anything about it. The terrorists knew this and that’s how come they could plot and plan without much interference from the US.

Rah what a weird reading of the historical record!!

interesting the Patriot Act is touted as NECESSARY to obtain the exact type of information that had already been obtained WITHOUT the patriot act
and contrary to the comment — not acting on it has nothing to do with the existance, or lack thereof of the Patriot Act

Has no one bothered to notice that
we had all this info on Osama, 9/11 etc — but were just unable to connect the dots
and we got the info WITHOUT torture
WITHOUT Domestic, illegal wiretapping(I Refuse to use the misslabel of “terrorist survellience”)and without the intrusion of the Patriot Act
so does that say this administration is not as capable as the previous one? that they NEED the crutches of all these illegal activities in order to obtain the same info as the previous administration???
the 9/11 commission indicated that the info was there, we just weren’t sharing it and were unable to put the pieces together
just how do all the illegal activities mentioned above improve the ability of our intelligence services to connect the dots??

OH, I’m sorry, I have dared to question his highness and his adminstration so I must be one of those “Hate america” liberals!!!
my o my!!

LAWNBOY

Yes, I registered my interest as Republican / Conservative, and I use the SBC browser. I think you are entirely correct when you say that we probably notice more, because it seems directed at us. I only started using this site 1-2 weeks ago, and it’s appalling at how frequent and cheap the shots can be from both sides. I suspect that the unreasonableness on both sides arises from something that is common on both sides; a feelin of helplessness. I feel it as well. My friend, I believe that this country is ripe for another revolution of sorts. You see, the problem is that the elected officials, both Democrat and Republicans, forget who they are SUPPOSED to be representing until an election year comes around. Then it’s back to the home district for a bit, get the vote, and back to the promise land for 2 more years. Am I the only person, regardless of political persuasion, that feels this way? Let’s see what kiind of debate we can have on this topic without name-calling, finger-pointing, or blame-shifting. If you must criticize officials specifically, use inly their name. Leave out Demos/Conser. Let’s see what happens when we’re all on the SAME side of an issue for once! Good Day my Friends!

That clip sure look “Cut and Paste‎ish, Max. Do you think some things might be taken out of context?

In what context would it be okay for the president to say he is not concerned about Bin Laden? Anyway, it’s not the best clip, but it was a press conference 6 months after 9/11 after a reporter asked Bush if he was still looking for him.

Ryan,

Here’s the full context to make you feel better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Rahdigly,

Here’s how Clark feels about Bush’s first eight months:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE&mode=related&search=

MAX

You know, youtube.com sounds and reads like a suspiciously, and un-abashedly liberally biased site. Not exactly an impartial source. In addition, the audio quality is crappy, and clip sounds spliced together. Comments are totally and blatantly taken out of context. Bush was meaning he was not solely focused in on bin Laden. I addition, the comments are about 5 years old. Please give me up-to-date information if you want to appear credible. I feel that the site like you listed is not. Have a Great Day!

David,

Eric, in your reality then, to be consistent, when the Irish were bombing innocents in the streets, Christians and Catholics the world round were a violent people of a violent religion.

That’s not reality, Eric. That is sophistry.

In our reality we look at things as they are. Not as we wish they would be. The fact remains that the issue of the day is violent muslim terrorists. Why are they attacking us and are our efforts to defeat them in Iraq and Afghanistan actually creating more terrorists?

This is the question that is posed by asking “Who will protect us from violent Islam.”

I have no problem calling Irish terrorists “violent christians” at all as a matter of fact. The ‘sectarian violence’ of Ireland does mirror some aspects of the middle east and muslim terrorism. As an analogy it could work in several instances and in several senses.

But as you may recall the christians of the world were not cheering the bombings done by ‘violent irish christians’. They were in fact repudiated. It is the opposite in our reality with violent Islam.

Another point you may not be aware of is that Christianity has a strong thread of non-violence embedded in it’s theology. However, Islam has specific references to lying to enemies and chopping their heads off in the name of allah.

True, there are many Muslims in the west who say that jihad is all about an ‘inner struggle’ and not about killing infidels, but I am becoming increasingly doubtful of the validity of this. I am perfectly willing to allow that both are present in Muslim communities. Our struggle however is with those who choose a violent path. Thus the title.

One should not understand everything in terms of absolutes David. As you may be aware, sometimes taking a position invites opposition. This is an interesting concept politically today.

When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.

When people see things as good,
evil is created.
~tao te ching

Sometime we should talk about the tao in Christianity (or vice versa).

The question is not “who will protect us against the islam” but “who will protect our constitution”

George in SC,

Where are you in SC? And how do you like it? My wife and I have been considering a move to SC.

The difference between violent Christianity and violent Islam is that the Koran sanctions, nay, COMMANDS violence against unbelievers. The Bible does not.

“Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter.” (Sura 5.33-34)

“Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah.” (Sura 8.12-13)

“In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost.” (Sura 8.37)

“Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah.” (Sura 8.60)

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” (Sura 9.73)

“When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.” (Sura 17.16-17)

“We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: ‘Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.’ ‘Woe betide us, we have done wrong’ was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light.” (Sura 21.11-15)

“When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended.” (Sura 47.4)

“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Sura 48.29)

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush” (Sura 9.5)

What does this look like? They are all quotes from the Quran. There is nothing in the New Testament even remotely resembling this. Therein lies the difference between violent Islam and violent Christianity.

Jihad does mean “struggle.” So does Mein Kampf.

Europe has rejected its heritage and is now being taken over by muslims. In 75-100 years all the major European nations will be muslim. France, Germany, England…how many think they will be our allies then? When they are dominated by muslims. These muslims are not assimilating. They are bringing their culture and laws with them. In Holland a local elected official had to get PERMISSION from a local imam to visit a muslim neighborhood. Theo van Gogh was assassinated. If Europe continues to do nothing it will fall. The Ottoman Empire’s long war to conquer Europe will finally be complete. And America will stand alone. ALONE…ALONE…ALONE…If the West does not protect its culture and heritage now it will fall.

Ryan,

You tube is not a political site, but I’m not suprised a Republican would think it is. You guys are paranoid. Republicans recently claimed the entire intelligence community, not to mention all news outlets other than Fox, are doing the bidding of the Democrats. You are all in denial.

Ryan Daugherty-
First a conservative named Stephen, and now one who’s a Daugherty. Coincidence?

Probably.

You sing the praises of the conservative media, but I’d tell you it’s been the Republican party’s downfall. It’s easy to get encased in a bubble and start playing to demographics rather than govern, when you have that ideological equivalent of a captive audience. Chris Wallace’s interview was supposed to cover a different subject than 9/11 and all that, and the question was a thinly disguised ambush on Clinton. Why did he get combative? Because we’re sick of having this all-important issue being politicized by folks who have so far made the problem worse.

That anger shows up, and some don’t manage it as well as others. I regret that some can’t keep their temper, but I understand the difficulty they face.

You praise Zell Miller and Lieberman for precisely what got them kicked out: a willingness to slime their fellow Democrats in concert with the other political party, and a fatal lack of imagination that any other plan than Bush’s could protect America.

This is the arrogance that’s generated so much frustration among Democrats. There are other, better ways to win Iraq, and to protect the American people. It’s Bush and the Republicans unceasing effort to disclaim responsibility for what has come to pass, and their jealous guarding of the power needed to bring change from those policies that has turned the nation against them.

The Question you have to ask in terms of uniting is why people should so, after the 2002 elections. Democrats did not appreciate being made the scapegoats, nor did we appreciate that he did so for the sake of this war he made such a mess of. You should be aware that few wars in this century have gone well when the side in power has used it as a wedge issue.

We are not united because this war was built on false pretenses, and fought on lousy strategy, all the while being used as a political wedge issue. That’s not how you inspire confidence and unity about a war.

You inspire it by recognizing that you can’t cut people out, or be dismissive about views that disagree with yours. Discussion is the fabric of unity. If people aren’t talking with each other, they’ll be shouting at one another. Making the issue a wedge issue may seem like necessity from a partisan viewpoint, but the truth is, it’s the most foolish way to ensure support for a war imaginable. You can’t call someone traitor one moment and then exhort them to unity the next.

Doubtlessly, the truth is another ally you don’t want to alienate. More than anything else, the failure to find the WMDs we were looking for was the breaking point for many. Any why not? Our justification for war was the need to pre-empt a WMD oriented terrorist threat, the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over one of our cities. America’s reason for supporting the war was to prevent a greater disaster than 9/11. Deprived of such a threat to justify our unprovoked invasion, many soured on the war, especially those who had been dragged through the mud by conservatives looking to get elected.

The incompetence of the leadership of the war, though, has been the most divisive element, the most problematic for those who want the war successfully finished.

It’s the nail in the coffin. We could understand a mistake like this to some degree, given the opponent, given our times, but other mistakes would be bad even if we did find WMDs and Terrorists waiting for us. The failure to halt, and since then, to pacify the insurgency has aggravated every other frustration that Americans have had with the Administration over this war.

We are told we are winning, without evidence to vindicate that claim. We are told things are under control, only to see more violence every day. We are promised victory around the corner so often that we begin to feel that we’re just going around in circles. Is it naysaying, or is there just so much bad news that a realistic viewpoint has to be negative?

One can address the negative with more than just defeat in mind, but there’s only so much bad news that we can hear for so long before Americans despair of success.

Some would find this opportunity to start bashing the media for being constantly negative, but again one has to ask the question: is the negativity an organic summing up of the situation? If its not, there should be a positive response that can be made, one that can hold back the pessimism, cheer up the despairing. But if it is, we have to deal with that one way or the other. I would prefer, as would many Americans, that we win this thing, or at break even.

Those council withdrawal, arbitrary to what happens afterwards, though, will only gain more support the longer the ugly reality is not faced. The Bush administration must change course and do so for the better, or this war is lost. People cannot keep faith in a war effort when the main approach is not working, and all other options are cut out of the running by the politicians.

As for Rush and Hannity? People like them have been the death of your party. With folks like Rush and Hannity to pump out the GOP talking points almost straight from the source, it’s been easy to have folks like you believe all kinds of spin, rhetoric, and outright lies, all wrapped in attractive, evocative words.

Words can have the ring of authenticity, without possessing the quality itself. Put out enough, you can guard people from all kinds of unpleasant truths.

The people who form the electorate for the Republican party have been shielded from knowledge of their party’s spending, porkbarrel and otherwise. They’ve been shielded from its incompetency, its poor leadership, its betrayal of their principles. In fact, they’ve become inured to it to the degree that they themselves are no longer the conservatives that the older party would recognize.

The Republicans have become the very authoritarian, undisciplined, incompetent government that they’ve criticized in Democrats for ages, and not the least of it stems from a conservative media arrayed and ready to pump out apology for Conservative actions, and reassurances to the Republican party that their leaders are keeping the faith, that they’re good conservatives.

The trouble for a guy like me is that your party is catching vital American interests in the collateral damage of your political collapse- indeed, that they’re part of the same feedback cycle. People like me want to put a stick in the spokes and stop the wheel dead. The Republican party should lose power sooner rather than later, and should be reborn as something less wrapped up in layers of illusion and self-deception.

Ryan,

Are you not familiar with youtube.com? It’s a big video-sharing site. It’s not biased towards anything, because anyone can put up whatever they want. You probably got referred to similar videos that liberals like, but that’s just because youtube connects videos according to interest. If you look at a conservative video there (and there are many), the connected videos will largely be conservative, too.

It’s not a wholly reliable site because anyone can post anything, but bias is not a concern.

Stephen, since when does a public political figure get to dictate to the press what questions are asked? Even as a die-hard partisan Democrat, do you hold the White House press corps to the same standard?

Why celebrate the freedom of the press when a reporter asks a Republican a hard question, but suddenly demand totalitarian censorship when a Democrat is being questioned?

Unlike some of the others here, your positions are highly enigmatic—this is because many of those positions are well-articulated but at their core so fatally self-contradictory, hypocritical and counter-facutal that it makes one despair for the power of facts, reality and fairness to actually enter into honest debate.

Just a thought: As the good book says, each of us must pluck the plank from our own eye before we deign to remove the sliver from our neighbor’s.

KC Tim,
what about the Scheivo case, didnt Frist and/or Delay call a midnight session for legislation that one could agrue was “evil republican legislation based on the ..well their belief of the bible”. Way I remember it Frist even diagnosed the case from DC.

Stephen Daugherty -

Wrong again!

“Chris Wallace’s interview was supposed to cover a different subject than 9/11 and all that, and the question was a thinly disguised ambush on Clinton.”

I actually heard an interview with Chris Wallace after Clinton lost his head. The arrangement was that half of the interview was to be about Clinton’s program (for the poor, or something) and half was to be about current events. Wallace used this as a leading question to get into the current events portion. It was not an attack (no one could accuse Chris Wallace of being nice to persons of either party), it was a question. In fact, Wallace attempted several times to stop Clinton’s rant by offering to shorten the current events segment and get right to Clinton’s program. However, Clinton was out of control and wouldn’t let it go. NO ATTACK, NO FOUL, CLINTON SHOWED HIS TRUE NATURE.

But, thanks for the spin!

Just to put my two cents in here, the reduction of debt under Clinton was actually because of Congress (who actually control’s the purse strings). It was Newt Gingerich pushing the “Contract with America” that actually turned the ecconomy around. Under Reagan, Congress was majority Democrat. Neither Bush nor Clinton should be credited nor blamed… but our Congress men and women should be held responsible for fiscal spending and policies.

Good point, djm. And any economist who isn’t on the Democratic party payroll will also tell you that the recession ended a year and half before Clinton came into office.

Well djm if what you say is true that it was the reps that turned things around WHAT HAPPEND.

If the Bush League was so concerned with terrorism in the months leading up to 9/11, as Condi Rice insisted, you’d think that Bush would have mentioned it at sometime before 9/11. But he didn’t. In his first inaugural and first State of the Union messages, he used the words “terror”, “terrorist”, and “terrorism” one time - in total - in both speeches, and THAT was a pitch for another ABM system.

Richard Clarke was right. Bush II didn’t do squat about the growing terrorist threat.

He didn’t even try.

Have I ever called names, or personally attcked anyone, ever, … Your behavior in your post is consistent with self-loathing, hate-America-first liberals… Notice how I have not degenerated into personal attacks and name calling.
Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 04:09 PM

Ummm, I guess you don’t consider call me “self loathing hate america first liberal” as “name calling”? With that logic saying your behavior is consistent with a typically self-righteous, hateful, closed minded, ignorant, biggoted, anti-freedom, anti-american neofascist conservative is just pleasant chatter.

Ryan -

Don’t worry about Dave1-20-09. All he ever says is “Ummm.” In fact, that’s probably the most intelligent thing you’ll ever get out of him. I’ve tried to engage him in open-minded dialogue several times, but his responses are always in some form of hate-mongering rhetoric.

Eric said: “The fact remains that the issue of the day is violent muslim terrorists.”

Thank you Eric. Adding the word ‘terrorists’ makes a huge difference in our ability to discuss a common problem. When you say violent Islam, however, we don’t have a common language or perception of reality, for Islam is not a violent religion anymore than the Judeo Christian religion which has “an eye for an eye, and tooth for tooth” revenge based belief system at its core and observed and revered by millions of Christians.

One only need read thousands upon thousands of Christian blog comments who say we have every right to torture suspected terrorists. Of course they are prefering to observe the Judeo Bible over the New Testament on this issue. Just as the al-Queda chooses to observe the passages in the Quran which appeal to violence as means. al_Queda no more makes Islam a violent religion or Muslims a violent people than the Old Testament makes Christianity or Christians a violent religion or people.

I trust we have common ground of understanding from which to proceed now. (Though, I wouldn’t bet my paycheck on it.)

Don, your comment’s ignorance on the subject is overwhelming. The Irish conflict was Catholic vs Protestant which divided Ireland for decades. It most certainly was religiously based with a whole lot of other substrates thrown in like the British.

Don,

When did you try to engage me in “intelligent” conversation? Was it here?

You have shown light on no wisdom, merely your own wimpy opinion. …Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 11:26 AM

You also have not shown yourself to be more than a slanderer. Many of your statements are patently false…mere talking points for Democraps

Yeah, that was the phrase that riled me. I don’t hate America; I don’t personally know anyone who does. I don’t hate myself either, though I don’t do the Jack Handey routine in the mirror. It’s a bit tiring to constantly be characterized in ways you know are not true.

David, Don does have a point there that can’t be so easily dismissed with charges of ignorance.

The Irish conflict wasn’t just a matter of open war between Catholics and Protestants.

It was in fact a war over real estate and it just happened, for cultural reasons, that one side was predominantly Catholic and the other Protestant. Neither side was trying to convert the other side to their religion though, so it would be completely false to say that conflict was fought for religion.

Catholics living in southern Ireland, in particular, have no or very little trouble with their Protestant neighbors unless they’re also advocating for the aims of the IRA.

Dave1-20-09
No. Did you read the following?

“You have not shown yourself to be open-minded, which is what I was looking for.”

Of course not!

I am looking for someone who knows and speaks wisdom. Have you ever met a person like that?

Pisner said: “The Irish conflict wasn’t just a matter of open war between Catholics and Protestants.”

What part of my quote ” It most certainly was religiously based with a whole lot of other substrates thrown in like the British” do you need for me to spell out to you, since you obviously did not understand the words “with a whole lot of other substrates thrown in like the British.”

Then you too make the completely erroneous and false statement “so it would be completely false to say that conflict was fought for religion.”

Completely? Absurd on its face. Talk to some folks who live there or with relatives there, your comments could use a little education on this matter. The religious component was huge and was one of the components that kept resolution at bay for so damn long.

We have some American Muslims and Christians hating each other right here in America and they aren’t fighting over land. Visit an American Christian madrassas brainwashing little kids to love Jesus and Bush and hate Muslims and Democrats. Its in the news, so, you shouldn’t have any trouble finding one.

Think how much more violent their words would become if they were fighting over the same land to occupy here in the states. The religious conflict could sustain their war long after the land issue was resolved.

David -

The struggle in Northern Ireland was regional, not national or worldwide. Catholics and Protestants in the United States did not fight here. To say, then, that it was based mainly upon religion would be patently false. Religion played a part in it (obviously), but it was more regional. What is so ignorant about that?

More importantly, it is a stupid argument to equate what happened there to what is happening with Islamic jihadists now. What possible point could you be making? (That Catholics and Protestants are just as bad because they fought in a regional struggle?) Further, through dialogue those two sides are now fairly reconciled (although tensions still exist). But where is the possibility of dialogue with the jihadists?

Even Clinton, in his interview with Wallace admitted that he contracted for Bin Laden’s killing. He wasn’t trying to reconcile with Bin Laden, he was trying to kill him. And not for religious reasons.

David Remer -

Shame on you! Why would you use such hate-talk?

“Visit an American Christian madrassas”

This is a base attempt to equate Christian schools with the brainwashing hate teaching that is done in some Islamic schools abroad.

So you are anti-Christian. You hate Christians. And you KNOW that IF there are Christian schools that teach hatred they are few and not connected with mainstream Christianity.

Your biggotry is unbecoming.

David, anybody who thinks that religion was the main point of conflict in Ireland while the issue of British rule was only “substrata” is in no position to accuse ANYBODY else of ignorance.

Don acknowledged quite clearly that religion was an element in the conflict (if not the main factor) before you attacked him for “overwhelming ignorance” and assumed this lofty posture of all-knowing wisdom about something you are simply wrong about.

Imagine blaming Bush for 9-11 and claiming that you would have done a better job.

Yes. Someone telling the truth for a change. Imagine that…

Democrats say we must surrender the field of battle to Al-Qaeda.

What horse poop! Do you really believe al Qaeda is going to take over the Iraqi government and start collecting garbage and running the Baghdad City Dog Pound?

“A military solution is not possible [in Iraq]. This has been vigorously debated and resolved among Marine and Army senior leadership. We have never thought this would end with a military solution and that is why the need for diplomats is just as important as expeditionary military forces.” — Gen. James N. Mattis, Commander 1st MEU.

David,

the Judeo Christian religion which has “an eye for an eye, and tooth
for tooth‎ revenge based belief system at its core and observed and
revered by millions of Christians.

We all have something to learn about other’s religions don’t we?

But back to the point. Muslims worldwide are showing themselves to be more violent every day. Where are the peaceful muslims? Probably scared for their lives. What we need to do is stand up for them. To stand up to the bullies rather than allow them to intimidate the world.

Why do you tip-toe around the Muslim fanatics who now call for attacks and assasination of the Pope for his ‘inciteful comments’? Instead of reveling in a philosophy of non-violence, you feel the need to denigrate and insult christians? Where does this come from David?