Democrats Aiding Insurgents !!!

Osama Bin Laden, and the entire insurgency in Iraq are rooting for the Democrats in next week’s election. Why? Because by increasing the level of violence as they did in October, they answered the call of the Democrats who in turn continue to create discord here. Osama, the Democrats, and the insurgents all have one thing in common: hatred for the President and his tough, bare knuckle Iraq policy.

If you vote Democratic next week, you help the enemy. That simple.

I am not saying that Democrats are un-American. I am saying that they have been played like a guitar by the terrorists....that every single stupid thing said by guys like Murtha, Kerry and Dean gets plastered all over the Islamic internet.

We are getting the Democratic words shoved right back at us, and you can blame the entire liberal crew...starting right at the top and working its way down...

Yup, Osama is a happy guy today. His toughest enemy...the President and his policies...may be eliminated for him by wussies from the left who have no plan at all.

Thus, they are allies....not an Axis of Evil thing to be sure...but a case of the tail wagging the dog for propaganda purposes...and the dog not even realizing it is being wagged.

Nice. Very nice.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at November 2, 2006 12:04 PM
Comments
Comment #192693

Your party is the very charicature of a joke. Anyone who disagrees with fearless leader is aiding the terrorists? No wonder you’re about to get voted out.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #192695

SE,

“Osama, the Democrats, and the insurgents all have one thing in common: hatred for the President and his tough, bare knuckle Iraq policy.”

What “tough, bare knuckle” Iraq policy would that be?

We’ve been pussy footing around in Iraq since the fall of Bahgdad.
If we can’t secure America, just how do you propose to secure Iraq?

Give it a rest.

Posted by: Rocky at November 2, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #192697

Your party is the very charicature of a joke. Anyone who disagrees with fearless leader is aiding the terrorists? No wonder you’re about to get voted out.

Besides, as I recall, the onnly party running ads with Bin Laden in them is the Republican party. Oh, and why, exactly, isn’t he in jail yet?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #192698
If you vote Democratic next week, you help the enemy. That simple.

If you consider common sense to be the enemy, you are correct.

As usual, SE, your comments are a complete 180 degrees from reality.

Enjoy the election returns on Tuesday.

Posted by: Burt at November 2, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #192702

What a despicable post.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 2, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #192708

SE, if the title of your piece had only two exclamation points, i probably wouldn’t have given your comments a second thought. But when you used that third exclamation point everything changed.

Because that third exclamation point drove home the point that the Democrats are the forth point in the axis of evil. That third exclamation point proved, without the need for any noisy, wonkish facts or figures, that the Republicans are the ones that are true Americans. Who needs facts and figures when pure, unadulterated, rhetoric will suffice?

Thanks, SE. It’s all so very clear now.

Posted by: john trevisani at November 2, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #192712

SE-

Proof? None?

Thought so.

This was the stupidest post in a long time. And that is saying something.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #192714

“simple.”

This article is geared to the Simple. Shamelessly so.

“Yup, Osama is a happy guy today. His toughest enemy…the President and his policies”

Tora Bora.
“I truly am not that concerned about him.”

“wussies”

Morons. Losers.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #192718

Wow! S.E. I would ask you to consider the comparative effects of the Democrats and the invasion of Iraq on strengthening the terrorists.

Is the Democrat calls for responsible execution of this farce, now that we are there, responsible for increased jihadi recruitment? No. The invasion in Iraq is.
Is this invasion also responsible for adding credence to muslim fundamentalist arguments [from the p.o.v. of muslims], thus increasing enrollment at madrasas? Yes. How do calls for strategic redeployment increase enrollment? I fail to see a connection.

Thus, this botched invasion and occupation is helping our enemy to recruit people to fight against us. Now, I don’t purport to read the minds of terrorists, but I’ll bet they appreciate Republicans helping their recruiting and conversion efforts. Yet, somehow you still blame the Democrats.

Truly irresponsible and sickening, sir.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #192719

“answered the call of the Democrats”

There is no way to reply decently to this repugnant and despicable post. That attitude is exactly why I hate Bush, his politics, and his anti-savants.

It becomes clearer every day why the Repugs must go.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #192721

Personally, if I were Osama, I’d route for the party of the guy who let me get away…and allowed me to come back with a rebuilt army to fight another day.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #192725

You’ve insulted me, you’ve insulted my family, and you’ve insulted this website. I hope for our sake we never meet and I hope you’ve finished editing.

Posted by: darren159 at November 2, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #192727

Mighty Eagle
While I don’t like the Paul Siegel form of post you used, “My party is the only one that can save us, no proof of that, but just take my word for it” I do think there are legit questions to be answered in there.

Do the terrorists want the Republicans out of power because they are tired of dying?
Are the terrorists ready to start talking and they believe the Dems would be better for that?
Do they believe a Democrat led US would return to the 90’s and give them free reign again?
IF this is a war of religions to them, wouldn’t they wish for the Reps to win?

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #192728

Oh boy, the Democrats are aiding terrorists, that explains everything. Can we start some advanced interrogation techniques on those evil Dems. And those terrorists aiders that vote for them.

Lets bring them in for “questioning” next Monday night. I have some new torture interrogation techniques to try, who do I contact? This is going to be fun!

Great Post, truly intellectual!

//SARCASM OFF//

Posted by: mem beth at November 2, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #192730

SE,

The book the “Looming Towers”, says that Osama specifically engineered the WTC attack to goad the U.S. into a prolonged conflict.

So, who did Osama’s bidding? Bush did. He took the bait and in the process has done more damage to this country than Osama ever dreamed possible. A vote for democrats is vote to stop doing Osama’s bidding, and fight against terrorism the smart way.

Posted by: Max at November 2, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #192731

Adrienne

So, you don’t think that the nit wit Kerry’s comments weren’t blasted all over the Arab world? Right, sure

How do you think an insurgent feels when a sitting US senator calls members of his military the rough equivalent of being dumb to volunteer?

How about Murtha’s statements all year? Or Kennedy’s? You don’t think that empowers the enemy? Right,sure


Woman Marine

If I hit a nerve with you, so be it. Truth is an absolute defense. The left has empowered the insurgency, no ifs,ands or buts. They can read and they can watch CNN too.

Kevin23

It’s called common sense…good enough proof for me.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at November 2, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #192740

No SE-

It’s called lack thereof. Common sense and nonsense are not the same. And I’m well aware that it is good enough for you. Some of us actually aspire.

This post was PATHETIC!

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #192743

SE:

Truth may be a defense, too bad you haven’t posted any.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 2, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #192745

Kevin 23

What guys like AP, Paul Seigal, plus the rest of the crew on the other side is no different….they have bashed everything the president has done ad nausuem. Well, guess what? This is the endgame of a viscious politicial battle, and guys like me go down swinging. Don’t think for one minute that you and your crew have an exclusive on putting a finger on a nerve. The brass knuckles have come out this week, and the Eagle is mighty good at what he does.Sorry.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at November 2, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #192746

womanmarine

Do you disagree that the insurgents don’t know what’s going on here politically? They tailor their attacks specifically for the American audience. They kill for political purposes, and this election is the biggest political event since ‘04. Of course, hatred for this president clouds that judgement, doesn’t it?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 2, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #192749
Do you disagree that the insurgents don’t know what’s going on here politically?

No, I don’t. That in and of itself MAY be a truth, but the rest is bogus speculation at it’s worst.

You’ve lost any credibility you had with me.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 2, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #192751

Gather ‘round all and witness “the reflex.” It can’t be that the war was a horrible, ill-thought out, mendacious exercise in stupidity. It can’t be that we’re losing because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the adminstration are incompetent idealogues. It can’t be that the left is correct in its critique of the whole thing…

It must be: SOMEONE ELSE’S FAULT!

We can’t let facts get in the way:

It’s called common sense…good enough proof for me.

Our bombs and mines and depleted uranium ammunition are no match against … statements.

How do you think an insurgent feels when a sitting US senator calls members of his military the rough equivalent of being dumb to volunteer?

I don’t know. How does an insurgent feel with a batallion of infantry bearing down on his ass with heavy weaponry? I don’t know that either. I know which one I’d be more concerned about though…

The left has empowered the insurgency, no ifs,ands or buts.

Yep. We’ve been sold down the river by those elements within this country…

Sounds familiar… where have I heard this kind of rhetoric before? … Oh Yeah! Nazi Germany, circa 1930’s.

Be prepared everyone. The party of personal responsibility is going to make sure you know who’s responsible for their mistakes.

YOU.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #192752

SE

“the Eagle is mighty good at what he does.”

And what it appears he does is avoid responding to assertions which he cannot dispute.

How do you think an insurgent feels when a sitting US senator calls members of his military the rough equivalent of being dumb to volunteer?

I think they probably have more to worry about than some purely political BS—they don’t pay attention. Want proof? Look at any muslim news site; can you even find this story? If so, where is it? Read the coverage; how is it presented? Exactly.

They can read and they can watch CNN too.

Yes. They can. But, usually, they don’t watch CNN, FOX, etc … they watch al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, al-Hurra, Dubai TV, etc …

So, again what are they saying about this non-news story?

Again, I wish you would respond to my earlier post in which I asked you to consider the comparative effects of the Democrats and the invasion of Iraq on strengthening the terrorists.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #192762

SE-

That’s cute. You are just such a macho man, aren’t you? I’m sure we’re all very impressed.

Guess what? I am a member of YOUR party. Your polarizing tactics backed up by nothing even remotely resembling sound reasoning has turned people like me off. And the worst part for you is that right this moment is when you most desperately need people like me. But because I also take issue with this administration policies, or lack thereof, I have been effectively ousted from my own party, which I’ve watched be hijacked by irresponsible and under-educated fear-mongerers like yourself.

Call me what you will, and blame all your fallacious arguments on pride, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that your party will lose congress in less than a week. And instead of helping your cause by reaching out to so many disenfranchised republican voters like me, you alienate them with a smirk.

You may very well be a smart guy, but your posts reflect ONLY otherwise.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #192769

Dave1-20-09,

That made the juice I was drinking spray all over my monitor.

Thank you. I don’t mind the clean up.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #192770

From Aaron Klein’s article at WND

“Of course Americans should vote Democrat,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND. “This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,” said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

And


Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats’ talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel “proud.”

Posted by: George in SC at November 2, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #192774

George, why are you listeing to what they say? If it corresponds to a just course of action for US, what does it matter what THEY say? Should we continue to do something stupid because someone we don’t like says we shouldn’t?

(There’s something about that being the definition of “teh stupid.”)

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #192775

I don’t think so. I think they want the Republicans to win. The Iraq War has God knows how many new terrorists, as least according to our own intelligence. I’m awaiting the release of a new bin Laden video timed to help Republicans, just as occurred days before the 2004 Presidential elections. It’s hard to imagine he didn’t know such a release would help the Republicans.

However, we should elect our leaders based on their beliefs, their statements, their accomplishmens or lack of the same. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t let terrorists determine our leaders, as they did in 2004. Bush received, don’t forget, a six point jump in the polls thanks to bin Laden.

Have you no shame, Sicilian Eagle? Is there no depth to which you will not plummet? Is fear-mongering suddenly a respectable tactic? I haven’t read the comments here yet, but I hope some Republicans have the character to take you to task.

Posted by: Trent at November 2, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #192776

SE:

I take offense at what you said about me. I criticize Republicans and Bush. But I never lump Republicans with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. I assume they want to get rid of terrorists just as much as I do. However, I think they are going about it the wrong way.

You’d better think about what you are doing. You can’t win a war by dividing people on your side! Democrats and Republicans are in this together, and we must work together to get rid of terrorists.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 2, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #192777

Womanmarine

Read George in SC’s post above. Probably not good enough for you though. You can’t stand the truth…and the truth is the insurgents have exploited the left and the left is now a pawn. Sad.

Kevin 23

So what part of the platform on the right do you endorse? Nothing? Then you are not a idealogical member of the party.Sorry. I am. You’re not.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 2, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #192779

jrb,

I’m glad you enjoyed it. The ad has actually been broadcast on TV here in MA, I might vote for the shmcuk just because.
Since Sic is from MA, I know he’ll really love it!!!
(I think I’m going to keep using the three !s from now on, as well as the 3.)

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #192782

exploited? Simply ignorant to think that, especially when Geos post is copied from World Net Daily (stupidest rag on earth, not even worth the eectricity used to send it). But at least you admit you’re an idealogue, however scary it is to think you believe your own shit: “To hell with truth, justice, and the American Way. Vote my way, think my way, or else”!!!

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #192784

I want to know, all you who support this president and his memos and laws trying to legitimize torture, do you really think you’re not hurting us and supporting the terrorists? One more brick in the wall of evidence that this stuff filtered down to the troops quickly and did immediate harm to them is here. Add to this the reams of testimony from experts about the moral and legal sanctions against it, the ineffectiveness, and the likelihood of retaliation, and ask yourself, who is hurting the troops and aiding the insurgents?

Posted by: mental wimp at November 2, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #192787

Jeff-

I really don’t listen much to any of it to tell you the truth. I was just giving SE some ammo for his argument with Womanmarine (which it looks like he used).

Actually there is another article in the Gardian somewhere that basically says the Jihadi’s will be disappointed in a Democratic victory next week. That’s probably true too…

Posted by: George in SC at November 2, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #192788

Sic Eagle:
“So, you don’t think that the nit wit Kerry’s comments weren’t blasted all over the Arab world? “

Actions speak louder than words. The Arab world already knows that Bush, Rummy, et al are idiots, because of the way they waged both of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, I don’t for a moment believe that Kerry’s joke is very noteworthy. Although, if they do take note of it, it may make them realize that soldiers who previously fought and were wounded in Vietnam are all too painfully aware of how history has been repeated by these Neocon Numbskulls.

“How do you think an insurgent feels when a sitting US senator calls members of his military the rough equivalent of being dumb to volunteer?”

No Senator has. It is the Republicans in their desperate attempt to hold onto power who are broadcasting this false assertion everywhere.

“How about Murtha’s statements all year?”

Murtha was right. Your party was just too stupid to listen to him. Now look at where we are.
The people in your party should be hanging your heads in shame, but instead, you’re still lying, and fearmongering, and bullying, and desperately trying to blow yet more smoke up America’s collective ass. This doesn’t seem to be working as well for you at the moment, unlike it did in the past.

“You don’t think that empowers the enemy?”

It is dismally obvious that your party still doesn’t even try to understand the first thing about our enemies or about terrorism.
This is exactly why you should lose on election day.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #192793

Adrienne,

They can’t “Hang their head in shame”. Everyone knows their head is already shoved up their arse.


Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #192794

Osama is a happy guy today. His toughest enemy…the President and his policies…may be eliminated for him

Five years and he still has not been caught. Doesn’t sound like a tough enemy to me.

Posted by: Steve K at November 2, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #192795

Paul

Take a gander at AP’s piece below the fold….nice huh? I am not lumping anything…I chose my words carefully…I said that the Dems are being exploited…As far as hurting you feelings and taking offense..well..have you read the comments from people on the left here today? When I point out the obvious, the personal attacks fly. Geez

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 2, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #192796

SE et al.

The problem with George’s post is that it implies that these quotes are from “insurgents” fighting against us. That is hardly the case. These are quotes from Palestinians resisting what is, in their view, an occupation by Israel. They are saying they will see hope for resistance against Israel.

What you have done is try to lump two distict groups together as one to support your argument. There is no difference between what you have said here and saying, “Chinese and Koreans are the same; they’re both Asian.”

This argument is a fallacy.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #192801

no, sic, you said “Because by increasing the level of violence as they did in October, they answered the call of the Democrats who in turn continue to create discord here.”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #192803

SE-

As far as hurting you feelings and taking offense..well..have you read the comments from people on the left here today? When I point out the obvious, the personal attacks fly. Geez

I have yet to attack you personally, sir. You still have been unable to muster any response. Please, offer more than excuses, false evidence, and partisan talking points.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #192809

Simple and stupid. How descriptive of this post.

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #192813

Eagle,

You’re going into “sore loser” mode a week early, aren’t you? Or is this post nothing more than a pathetic attempt to make everyone forget your confident predictions months ago about this election? If I remember correctly, you predicted that the Republicans would actually pick up seats.

You were wrong then, and you’re wrong now. But there’s a difference between the two kinds of wrongs. Then, your prediction were merely factually incorrect.

But this despicable post is wrong on a whole different level. This is hatemongering, pure and simple. It’s the worst possible combination of McCarthy, Atwater, and Rove. It has only one aim - to inflame hatred and to divide us. It’s YOU, Eagle, who are helping the enemy.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 2, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #192814

SE-

“So what part of the platform on the right do you endorse?”

Keeping government out of regulating behavoir. Minimizing government’s role to only necessary regulation and stop subsidizing goods. Securing the borders. Promoting education on a state level with an emphasis on choice for parents and competition among schools. Securing our ports, airports and infrastructure and requiring GOOD contingency planning on a local and federal level. Simplifying the tax code and making it universally fair (consumption tax is best). Reforming and limiting all social welfare. Reforming social security to account for personal retirement accounts, and ending spendthrift provisions in Medicare. Capping punitive damages in the medical field. etc. etc. etc.

I hold to a classic conservative view of small government SE. What the hell do you stand for? “Winning” in Iraq? Great job so far.

“Nothing? Then you are not a idealogical member of the party.Sorry. I am. You’re not.”

I think you’ve only shown yourself to be an unoriginal parrot of whatever member of your party who happens to be on TV that day. I can hold my own if you want to legitimately question my beliefs. But that is not your style is it? You are much more the type to throw rock and run away. I could care less if your label fits me or not, because you have proven with you idiotic logic that you are utterly incapable of making any good distinction between conservatism and Bushism. And that is enough to make any REAL conservative sick.

Your posts are crap SE. And everyone knows it. Sorry.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #192815

SE and George in SC:

So terrorists endorse the Democrats? Maybe you’ve forgotten this little blast from the past originally written by AP two years ago:

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, the group that claimed credit for the Madrid bombings, is backing Bush because they feel it’s not possible to find an adversary, “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

And al Qaeda itself issued an endorsement for Bush’s re-election “because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

Posted by: Jarin at November 2, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #192833

Jarin-

Actually I do remember those glowing endorsements (hence my comment about not believing any of it).

Here is the Gardian article (U.K.) I mentioned. It’s an interesting read.

Posted by: George in SC at November 2, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #192835

The best recruiter the Taliban has is George Bush. He is HATED in the Islamic world. Any event that keeps Bush front and center in the news is a positive for terrorism.
Some bush quotes
“wanted dead or alive”
“we’re going on a crusade”
“bring it on”

The last thing terrorist elements want is a government that offers any conciliation toward the Arab/Islamic world. Does anyone really believe that hundreds of suicide bombers (and the thousands more waiting in the wings) are the least bit scared by “no show” george?

Posted by: charles Ross at November 2, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #192840

This was a moronic post, but it really warmed my heart to see just about everyone, right and left included come in and thrash it. The right would have embraced this post shortly after 9/11. Maybe there’s hope for our nation to come together yet.

Posted by: Max at November 2, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #192845

This article is precisely the crying of Wolf, one too many times, which is the GOP’s going to be the GOP’s undoing.

You say respect our troops. (But not the one’s who call for changing course and establishing a short term plan to halt American deaths and our spiraling national debt. No as your article points out S.E., these troops you call enemy sympathizers and traitors). The GOP is so two-faced on this, it has ceased to be amusing at all. The Janus party is what we should call the GOP as we boot them from the seats of power in this country.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #192848

“And that is enough to make any REAL conservative sick.”

Whoa there Kevin23…you mean you are a classic/fiscal conservative registered as a Republican??? You mean i am not the only one?

SE, Pay attention to Kevin23’s post to you. He speaks for many of us who were abandoned by the current crop of “republicans”, and there are more of us than you think. Don’t you agree that it is a shame that you accuse Kevin of not being an ideological member of the party, when the actions of the current republican leadership have totally foregone their “roots”? Get with the program SE, Republicans of today do not represent traditional conservatives, only the Neo-Cons.

Posted by: Dizzle at November 2, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #192853

Speaking of the election…
A documentary film entitled ‘Hacking Democracy’ is supposed to be shown on HBO tonight at nine. Not surprisingly, Diebold has been trying to get it cancelled.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #192861

I am not a Dem or a Rep. SE, your article was true, but not very helpful (because you hurt the sensitive feelings of some Dems). The Dem leadership have failed our troops and our war on terror. Some of the Dems even opposed going into Afghanistan (if you remember). They have spotlighted every goof and failure of our military while often totally ignoring the successes. They have said things that the terrorists have used in their own statements of condemnation against America. They have supported and contributed to leaks about secret programs. And they have insisted that entire secret national security programs be made public (as if that wouldn’t aid the enemy). They have focused on hating and hindering Bush rather than defeating the enemy.

SO, WHAT IS THE DEMOCRAT PLAN? From what their leaders have been saying and doing we know their plan. Withdrawal from Iraq. That surely will aid the enemy, giving them an entire country from which to export terror. I don’t like that plan. (And since this is not a thread about Republicans, I won’t deal here with their plan.)

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #192863

The only plan the Dims have is redeploy. After they redeploy they will gather in the great circle jerk and say “Okay, Now what do we do? Didn’t anybody think of anything before we did this? Bring in the ketchup bottle and spin it once and that person will be the spokesperson and we will all agree to what he says, except if it is Mr. Kerry. Since we use a ketchup bottle it would be conflict of interest to be the spokesperson.”

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #192867

Don:

Would that be the “stay the course plan”, or the “it was never stay the course” plan?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 2, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #192874

SE

There are over 50 responses above. No rebuttals. That appears to be a Kerryesque approach to I agree with you.

So with that in mind, what shall I toast you with about midnight next tuesday and begin the celebration.

Maybe I should put all that aside and volunteer to go to DC and teach Pelosi how to measure drapes.

Or, maybe mentor Mr. Kerry in the skills and art of communication.

Or, Dr. Dean in how to properly do a cheer for the team.

I have other ideas if you care to hear them.

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #192892

Don, your party has the stage, the performance goes badly, and you blame the audience in the Peanut Gallery? Sheesh! That is the lamest argument I have ever heard!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #192895

There are so many inaccuracies in the original post, it is hard to know where to begin. You cannot make an argument if you do not understand the situation.

First, the Al Qaida of Osama bin Laden is not the same as the Al Qaida in Iraq organization. The terrorism of Al Qaida targets America and its allies; or at least it would, if Al Qaida had a functioning organization. The terrorism of Al Qaida in Iraq targets Shias. It is a relatively small player, one of many in the various conflicts now occurring.

There are four separate conflicts in Iraq: 1) Sunni v Shia (this one includes Al Qaida in Iraq), 2) Shia v Shia, 3) Arabs v Kurds, & 4) Sunni insurgents v US troops.

Presumably the last conflict is the one you refer to, when you say Democrats are aiding the insurgents.

Fighting the insurgents in the first place is foolish. Iraq is- or was- a battle for hearts and minds. Winning hearts and minds by reducing the number of hearts and minds is a heartless solution. Worse than that, really.

Face it. With hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, thousands of Americans dead & tens of thousands wounded, with trends tending negative, and with the US spending over $250 million per day, this is not going well at all.

It is not going to end well, either.

We are past the point of recovery, and this is due to Republican incompetence and corruption at the highest levels. No one wants to say it, but the military generals also deserve considerable criticism for ignoring things like the hard-won lessons of the Powell Doctrine, and caving to Rumsfeld & Cheney.

Bush supporters are like bad gamblers using a bad “system.” They make bad bets, and instead of limiting losses, they keep using the same system and making bigger & bigger bets. Like the classic loser, they think they will win it all back.

This debacle is the fault of Republicans, pure and simple. They will be held responsible.

By the way, the recent spike in violence coincided with Ramadan. Since then, according to White House spokesman Tony Snow, the violence has decreased. Odd course of action for an enemy seeking to influence the US midterm elections!

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #192898

I’m fairly new to this blog, but have noticed a trend in Sicilian Eagles’ posts. He doesn’t seem to spend a lot of time talking about what the GOP is doing right, which isn’t much (agreeing with Andre’s last post). Instead, he seems to get stuck on picayune mistakes the Dems are making and/or throwing bizarre accusations at them that have no basis in fact as a way to prop up a failed party I haven’t seen him logically or factually defend.

Maybe it’s just me, as I am new here.

Posted by: Darth Independent at November 2, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #192904

Darth, your observations are accurate. SE’s posts are pretty silly. There are some conservative bloggers here worth reading and debating with, but SE isn’t one of them.

Posted by: Trent at November 2, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #192907

“If you vote Democratic next week, you help the enemy. That simple.”

Where are your facts? Your entire post is hyperbolic drivel, and not worthy of being posted.

Who gave this idiot permissiont to advertise his sub-par IQ on this site? I thought this was a forum for reasoned debate, not a clearing house for the intellectually atrophied.

Posted by: Darth Independent at November 2, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #192910

Phx8
A non-General giving advice to war time Generals. Go figure. You are not in Iraq on a day to day basis, the Generals are. Why do you think your plan is better than their plan?

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #192913

tomh,

Funny, you just described the President’s plan, too.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 2, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #192915

Tomh,
Because I have better judgment. Because I remember the First Gulf War, and Bush #41, and I thought he did it exactly right. Because building a real coalition and leaving Saddam Hussein in power was better than unleashing ethnic violence in a country which was being held together only by brute force.

I have been right about Iraq, Tomh, I have posted my comments here, in writing, and my predicitons about where this is heading have usually been correct. Paul Wolfowitz thought ethnic strife would not be a factor. I did. And I could go on and on. The Neocons were wrong, wrong wrong, again and again and again.

We are all, you and me both, the worse off for it.

So there you go.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #192920

“You are not in Iraq on a day to day basis, the Generals are. Why do you think your plan is better than their plan?”

That’s a good point, tomh. Unfortunately, the people on the ground, Generals included, are clearly not employing a plan that’s working.

The question is, what will work? I don’t think anyone knows, myself included. I wrestle with this issue daily. And I know most everyone here - most everyone, period - does, too. But I honestly don’t know what the answer is. Every option carries the possibility to deepen the disaster. At least the options I’ve thought about or read about.

You gotta figure…Bush has the brightest military minds in the world at his beck and call. If they can’t come up with a solution, who will? Who can?

It breaks my heart when I think about what’s happening in Iraq. But it breaks my heart more to be incapable of changing the situation - which seems to be the situation.

I apologize if I seem to be veering away from Eagle’s Vicadin-induced Disneyland ride…but if it brings more reasoned debate to this forum, I can live with that.

Posted by: Darth Independent at November 2, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #192922

Adrienne-

Nice point about it being the republicans who took a one line blunder from a small insignificant speech made on a college campus made by a senator not even involved in a current campaign, and they put it on every US TV and talk radio station in the country within hours. Yet here comes SE talking about how Kerry’s being heard by terrorists is at the heart of the issue. Then don’t put it out there…before they even asked for an explaination it was written in a distributed presidential speech. Isn’t THAT the act that harms the troops under SE’s crappy “logic”?

Dave1-20-09-

Sorry, I didn’t see your link until just now. Freaking hilarious!

Max-

It warms my heart too!

Dizzle-

Thanks…it is nice to know that there are other conservatives posting here who are willing to fight in response to the perversion of our political ideology. It is time for to step back from the current republican party leadership and try and work with democrats. The time will soon enough come when democrats get too big for their pants and we can send in the new, re-focused republican party to reign in some government spending and focus on what they used to be good at: keeping government’s nose out of where it doesn’t belong.

I don’t foresee any reasonably intelligent politician coming out in the near future against any good security spending bill. That might be the one good thing to come from all this fear mongering. Dems are scared to look weak. It doesn’t make them strong necessarily, but it has emphasized the dire importance of actively fighting terrorists and being more careful at home. I believe everyone, both parties, have gotten that message. I just hope we can avoid crappy security legislation made solely for the sake of doing “something”.

At this point, though, I’m just looking for new blood, no matter where it comes from. So sad that it has to come to that.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #192926

Written with the logic of a middle-schooler once again, AE.

By the way, this dog won’t hunt anymore: the old Rovian “Democrats love the terrorists” rant just didn’t snag ‘em this election.

Posted by: pianofan at November 2, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #192931

and the Eagle is mighty good at what he does.Sorry.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at November 2, 2006 01:19 PM
f I hit a nerve with you, so be it. Truth is an absolute defense. The left has empowered the insurgency, no ifs,ands or buts. They can read and they can watch CNN too.

SE, you say you are a lawyer. Well if so, I hope you don’t go into court with that attitude. Truth may well be a defence, but you have to establish the truth first. And that usually requires even at least a smidgen of evidence, which I assume you know must be presented to the court. As for common sense, well, as a good friend of mine says, ” Common sense is a wonderful thing, pity it’s so umcommon”

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 2, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #192935

Max,

I was just about to write the same thing as you…..how nice it was to see virtually no one on the right defend this piece of trash article.

Alas, below your comment was a couple of cheers for Fredo’s article from two of the usual suspects.

What a shame.

Posted by: Burt at November 2, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #192937

Iraq and the White House remind me of an old punch drunk fighter standing in the ring taking the beating of his life, knowing victory is not an option, but in his brain damaged fashion, preserving his dignity by standing there and being killed by his opponent. Too proud and brain damaged to leave the ring to preserve himself.

The only victory to be found in Iraq will be the Iraqi’s victory over their own civil war in 10 or 20 years. There is no victory for Americans in Iraq save for the one of removing Saddam. Everything after that has been punch drunk in the extreme.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #192938

colourful image David. Tho’ in this case, what I see is the image of a dry drunk whose limited brain cells have been further depleted by the demon drink. I just cannot understand how the American people could have put such a feeble minded simpleton into the White House. I just can’t. What did he ever achieve in his life of any significance which even hinted that he could be a good president?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 2, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #192941

Too true, Paul in Euroland, too true.

But at least someone in America is fighting back. Take a look:

http://www.lepow.com/tag/

Posted by: Darth Independent at November 2, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #192948

Bush is not feeble minded. He could have studied history and learned, he could have taken in the advice of those who knew better, he could have changed course. He chose instead to sleep through Yale, read the sports page instead of the CIA Fact Books from 2000 on, to stay in the ring despite knowing he was killing our troops without purpose.

But, he was a reformed born again Christian, and that had currency with the American public. We have the President we, the voters deserved. Governance in America will not change without the American voters changing first. That is the bottom line.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #192963

The CIA, when it got Osama’s 2004 October Surprise, came to the conclusion that it was the terrorist leader’s intention to throw the election to Bush.

Bush is predictable. He has no qualms about pissing people off. He doesn’t watch what he says. He doesn’t devote attention to homeland defense. He uses means and strategies that alienate allies and turns the people of the Middle East against him. Why wouldn’t the terrorist want Bush in charge? His persistence has the added benefit of continuing the advantageous strategic situation.

The Democrats have no intention of maintaining that strategic advantage for our enemy. We also do not want to simply abandon Iraq. Ours is a plan to extricate ourselves, but also build up a suitable substitute. The question is, after years of Bush’s persistence in his policies, is whether anybody can do much of anything to redeem the situation from our end. Time is and was of the essence. While many decisions are reversable, there are some situations where the genie simply does not go back in the bottle, once enough time has lapsed.

I’m sorry to say, but there are number of problems in Iraq that will require entirely novel solutions, rather than the mere restoration of the missing elements that allowed the problems to come to pass. And I can’t say that anybody knows exactly what those solutions will be. We do, at this point, need aggressive creativity in dealing with these problems.

This administration, though, is a bottleneck for creative thinking. Rumsfeld has been particularly guilty of a style of management which the term micromanager doesn’t even begin to describe. He doesn’t lightly allow others to take control of policy. He doesn’t like cooperating with other departments. He’s dismissive of any authority short of the president. He’s neutered the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are supposed to be the top military advisers to the president. He’s choked the system with his absolutely hated snowflakes.

And on and on. Bush has let any number of people go, and yet Rumsfeld remains.

Again, a persistence in mistakes.

You want to know what the military really thinks?

According to Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, General Abizaid, in a private consersation with Rep. John Murtha told him that “We’re that far apart,” and gestured with his fingers a quarter inch apart.

Because of the position of the President and the Secretary of Defense in the chain of command, the military can do little to publically complain. The gripes leak out the edges. People like you, SE, take the absence of a great deal of comment from current military officers as evidence of the President’s correctness. However, because of their relationship in the chain of command, there are serious limits to what somebody in the military can actually say without being accused of insubordination, or ending their career altogether. Informally, though, my impression is that the people in there are really pissed off about the policy, and especially hacked at Rumsfeld and his civilian leadership.

The Right has bubbled itself off from the hard reality of the war, and of military affairs in general. The reality is, their position is tough in its talk, but terribly weak in its execution and organization, and along such lines of weakness, our aspirations in Iraq have been breaking down.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #192972

Sorry if someone alreay caught this, but per Drudge right now:

NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site — Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal — to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research; a ‘basic guide to building an atom bomb’… Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms… contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums…

Yeah, Democrats aiding insurgents… idiots. Just what the f*%! is wrong with you?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #192977

David Remer -
“Don, your party has the stage…”

Since you didn’t read my post before answering, let me repeat that I don’t belong to a party. You, however, do. Your party has failed America and there has been no good reason advanced why anyone should vote FOR Dems.

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #192978

Don-
If you constantly back the administration’s play, what reason do people have to assume you’re an independent?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #192979

Stephen D-

Thanks for making my point that the Dems have no plan.

“The Democrats have no intention of maintaining that strategic advantage for our enemy. We also do not want to simply abandon Iraq. Ours is a plan to extricate ourselves, but also build up a suitable substitute.”

READ: No difference here from the Bush plan.

“I’m sorry to say, but there are number of problems in Iraq that will require entirely novel solutions, rather than the mere restoration of the missing elements that allowed the problems to come to pass. And I can’t say that anybody knows exactly what those solutions will be.”

READ: The Dems don’t know what to do.

Thank you for the enlightenment.

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #192982

Stephen D -

“If you constantly back the administration’s play, what reason do people have to assume you’re an independent?”

1) I’ve referenced the fact that I have no party many times over the past few months.

2) I don’t back the administration’s play (RE: Iraq or deficits, etc.) In fact in several posts I have been critical of the President.

3) But, being fair-minded, I call something stupid when I see it as stupid. And I call something smart when I see it as smart.

The Dems (for all their bellyaching) have been incredibly stupid for the last 6 years. They have created more problems than they can solve. They ensured that Bush would be elected for a second term by nominating a worthless candidate. They have made it clear that they are anti-war and anti-troop and anti-security. And they have given the voting public no good reasons to vote FOR them. I never vote AGAINST anyone. I vote FOR.

In these last few months I have seen nothing positive about the Dems posted here by the Dems or anyone else. No real plans. No real purpose. No real agenda. No real candidates. All the Dems who post here can say is “We’re not as bad as Bush.” Well, so are the Independent candidates, so are the Green Party candidates, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now it’s too late to change the voter’s opinions. Many voters will be voting AGAINST, not FOR. And when they see (in two years) that the Dems are no better than what they had, they’ll vote AGAINST again. Don’t you Dems wish you had used your time and writing skills better?

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #192984

From where I sit, all of you make me sick! No matter what happens in this universe, its Bush’s fault. The only thing any of you want is to put YOUR party in power. Have we forgot that the Democratic presidents are no better than anyone else? Dont you think it is about time to start thinking in a way that excludes party affiliation and takes into consideration the needs of our people and our country? Ive seen Republican and Democratic adminstrations come and go and NONE OF THEM PERFORM ANY BETTER THAN ANY OTHERS! If the Rep-Dem party factor was eliminated from this whole equation, NONE OF YOU WOULD EVEN BE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING! So get off your self rightous asses and get out and do something that makes a difference and quit complaining about what everyone else does that you dont like.

Posted by: DrKing at November 2, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #192988

Don-
Bush Plan? Read State of Denial. That’s all he’s got: plans. They put them together, and nobody gets them done right, done together.

Now you can Bash the Democrats, but we’ve been presenting and advocating the alternatives, and the people you support haven’t. They’ve been the anchor on the chain.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #192993

*taken from a news article i found on google*

WASHINGTON-Re-enlistments for the Army in fiscal 2005 were the highest they’ve been in five years, nearly enough to make up for a shortfall of about 7,000 new recruits last year, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday.

More than 69,500 soldiers re-enlisted in the 12 months ending in September, Harvey said. But last year also was the Army’s worst for recruiting since 1999, the last time it failed to meet its annual goal. A study produced for the service in 2004 indicated that a high chance of being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan was keeping many young people away who might have signed up.

ok just a thought, rip it apart if u will, but im curious…..does the re-enlist vs raw recruit stats mean the soldiers understand what they are fighting for and the recruits only know what the media tells them?….or are our troops…that mis-informed?(mind u they have a better concept of the real war then the arm chair generals{dispite there lower edumacation})…just a question to throw around or away…

Posted by: fish at November 3, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #192994

“Now you can Bash the Democrats, but we’ve been presenting and advocating the alternatives…”

I don’t need to bash the Dems, they do a fine job of bashing themselves. The alternatives you mention usually sound like …

1) a variation of the present plan (use the Kerry intonation here) “We are going to do the same thing Bush is doing, only better”, or
2) cut and run (use Dean intonation here) “We cannot win.”
3) cut and run far away (use Murtha intonation here) “We will re-deploy our troops to some undisclosed location half-way around the world.”
4) cut, run, and fail (use Palosi, Reid, or Saddam intonation here) “Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission.” (actually that last was a quote from Saddam but it sounds like Reid)

Posted by: Don at November 3, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #193002

I think Reps should rig the elections to keep the conrol on both houses, that will give them time to make the people understand that they were wrong to vote for the Dems.
/sarcasm/

those who vote decide of nothing, those who count the votes decide of everything
“Joseph Staline”

Posted by: goby at November 3, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #193006

fish, if I could offer $45,000 sign up bonuses, I too would have no problem recruiting the same number of folks to clean septic tanks. No problema. Never underestimate the power of money in a capitalist society. You can buy all the death, limbs, and suffering you want if you just offer a large enough sign up bonus. Getting kind of hard to tell the difference between the U.S. government and Al Capone or the Mafia these days.

Yeah, yeah, you can call it patriotism while signing those $45,000 checks all you want. But, in the past, patriotism never had to be bought. That says a lot about the current administration and the popularity of this Iraq war. And that doesn’t take into account the $150,000 a year truck drivers hired by Bechtel and Haliburton on the public dole.

Yep, the best war future generations of tax payers can buy. That is what we have here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2006 4:11 AM
Comment #193007

Don, that is funny. Ask anyone here who knows my writing. Me! A Democrat? Good one!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #193015

Summary of Democratic Comments to my post thus far: Bursting with substance against a hypothesis that the enemy listens to what happens here politically:

1.”Your party is the very charicature of a joke”
2.”As usual, SE, your comments are a complete 180 degrees from reality”
3.”What a despicable post.”
4.”Great Post, truly intellectual!”
5.”Simple and stupid. How descriptive of this post”
6.”SE’s posts are pretty silly. There are some conservative bloggers here worth reading and debating with, but SE isn’t one of them.”
7.”Yep. We’ve been sold down the river by those elements within this country…Sounds familiar… where have I heard this kind of rhetoric before? … Oh Yeah! Nazi Germany, circa 1930’s.”
8.”Written with the logic of a middle-schooler once again, AE. “
9.”Your posts are crap SE. And everyone knows it. Sorry.

All, by the way, have been nominated for next month’s Eagle awards, of which there will be many, I think!


Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 3, 2006 6:28 AM
Comment #193018

SE,

It’s amazing how you can fly so close to the truth, then turn away at the last second…

Do you disagree that the insurgents don’t know what’s going on here politically? They tailor their attacks specifically for the American audience. They kill for political purposes, and this election is the biggest political event since ‘04.

In this statement, you’re absolutely right. Terrorists watch the news, and follow our politics. They know, more or less, what effects their attacks will bring, and they tailor them accordingly. But what you’re missing is that 9/11 WAS NO EXCEPTION. They knew that, if they hit the U.S. hard enough, we would lash out recklessly upon the Arab/Muslim world, giving them fuel to unite “their people” against us. AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID!

Do you really think that Bush took the terrorists by surprise when he invaded Iraq? Of course not! But then, Bin Laden has been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein for years, and the return to Sharia law in Iraq. Anybody who bothered to read a newspaper would know that we were playing right into his hands.

And now comes the other part. We’ve destroyed any semblance of order in Iraq. Now Al Queda needs Iraq to remain in disarray. They applaud the rise of anti-war sentiment because it helps their cause. But then, I’m sure they knew that pre-9/11. I certainly did. I realized that Americans no longer have the stomach for prolonged, drawn out conflicts. I’m sure the terrorists realized that, too. Unfortunately, Bush didn’t seem to realize it. He seemed to think (or hope) that the American people would just forget about Vietnam and Korea, turn off their television sets, and go back to the good old patriotism of World War II. He ignored the CNN generation, and the effects that would have on the outcome of this endeavor.

Well, to paraphrase a certain Secretary of Defense — you go to war with the citizens you have, not with the citizens you want.

The American people will not accept a sustained presence in Iraq. That’s the unavoidable Truth. And that’s the Truth that Bush should have realized before launching this invasion.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at November 3, 2006 6:54 AM
Comment #193020

Dizzle

I too am a classical fiscal conservative…that is why I endorsed the tax cuts. That said, the missles fly on Iraq and it’s cost. The two are not mutually exclusive they say. I think not. I have studied Islam for a long time,and there is no such thing as “peace” with them. It is against the Koran to be at “peace” with the infidel.. At best, a “truce” with the infidel is possible, but that’s it.

Thus, as I have written for a long time, we are in a war. Actually we are caught in the middle of the Islamic Reformation, pitting a whole bunch of idealogies against one another.

Rest assured that if we leave Iraq prematurely, in a decade or so a bigger catastrophe will happen..and this time, I fear on our soil.

Thus, because I believe that this threat is real, I am labeled a neo-con. So be it.

I often ask posters on the left, if you understand Islam, can you name for me the five pillars of Islam without resorting to a Google search? Most can’t. Thus, their initial thinking is fatally flawed. They don’t understand the enemy, instead they are influenced by “experts” so called talking heads, who likewise don’t understand the enemy.

Bush is the flashpoint now. Those who want to stand firm and oppose the enemy are now labed Nazi (like me above) are called many names, and posters who support the president are likewise vilified. That’s too bad.

Kevin 23
Sorry you feel that way. You may not like my posts, but really I write for myself. Plus, usually there are 100 comments or so every time I put something up, so someone must like my stuff. Sorry if you don’t. The message, not the messanger is the important thing, and I carry the message of most of my party.

As a Republican, you should know that despite the “neocons” pissing you off, they are far better than what’s in store for us by the liberal democrats: Higher taxes, open borders,and appeasement of the enemy to name three.

Thus the line is drawn I guess.

if the Repubs lose the House next week, it isn’t the end of the world..Bush is still the president,Cheney the vice-president, Rice the Secretary of Stae and Rummy the Sec. Of Defense….and it will be that way for 2 more years. At best, gridlock will occur in Congress, but not a dramatic change in policy. Those are the facts.

David R. Reemer

Exactly where in my post did I call anyone a traitor? Those are your words,not mine. You twisted the thrust of the article completely.

Max
Yes, it will come together…but not until the ideological fight in this nation is over. There are big difference in thought…and remember MOST of America holds conservative,not liberal vews.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 3, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #193022

Fish-
These people re-enlist out of loyalty to their fellow soldier and loyalty to their cause. They aren’t misinformed. They are tragically all too well-informed, and they are shocked getting home the extent to which their putative supporters simply have their heads stuck in the sand.

General John Abizaid, in talking to John Murtha indicate that they were “this far apart” on their thinking- holding up his thumb and index finger a quarter inch a part.

The truth is, people working in Iraq have been telling people back in Washington what they’ve needed, but Washington hasn’t delivered, and has no real plans to deal with the things going on. This Maliki guy is their last hope, basically for getting the country back together.

The Generals are telling us that the number of Iraqi soldiers they need is about 100,000 above what they’ve got. They’ve also indicated that Iraq has no means for paying for all this itself, and that we’re going to get more advisors in to train these people.

Tell me, fish: how does all this rhetorical nonsense add up to victory? You can press Democrats as to how much damage the media has done, but maybe you should consider that the media damage is a secondary consequence of the damage America should have had its leaders dealing with three years ago.

Don-
There are some things we agree upon, but the fact is, Bush is making it very easy for the Iraqis to continue to refuse to stand up. Worse, the people standing up, are often standing up just for their own tribe, their own sect, their own vested interest. It’s the ARVN all over again.

The question is, how do we ensure that Iraq is a unified country when we leave? If its not, then its a failed state, no matter what your intentions are. Now we can ape these broad rhetorical “plans”, but the real policy challenge here is in the details, which the Bush administration has failed.

If we have no plan to shape things in Iraq to where they operate with some kind of unity and national character, if the place has no real operating economy or system of law, then we have lost, regardless of how stalwart we are in not cutting and running.

Again and again, you have assumed that the criticism is aimed at cutting the war short due to some lack of will. No, the truth is, we want all parties involved, whether its this administration or the Iraqis themselves to get up off their asses and start pulling Iraq out of the swamp. If we can’t do that, if we’re not showing progress after all the rigamarole, then we do leave, and we leave things to sort themselves out, because at that point remaining in that country is just going to make things worse.

We’re not God here. Not everything will turn to our will if we keep focused on it. It goes north, or it goes south. We salvage this situation, or we extract ourselves from it before we make their problem and ours much worse.

SE-
You start off with an insult. Why do you imagine the response will be reasoned dialogue?

The record shows that Bush’s military adventure has had the opposite effect on terrorism as intended. We were supposed to kick al-Qaeda out of Iraq. They weren’t even there. Now they’ve got a base in Anbar Province.

We were supposed to destroy the terrorist presence. Instead, we created the security situation that let them flood in. Our Flypaper Strategy hasn’t worked they’ve more than doubled their numbers. So, we’ve created a terrorist presence and are proceeding to make it even worse!

So what do I think about the charge that Democrats are helping the terrorists? Well, I think nobody is really trying to help the terrorist, but the strategical error of this President’s Iraq policy is being exploited by the enemy, and one way or another, we need to deal with that in a productive way.

If that means cutting our losses, then sadly that’s what we’re going to have to do. What my fellow Democrats and I largely hope is that through a system of goals and schedules, we might be able to focus our efforts into one last fight for the future of Iraq. At some point, we do have to leave to succeed. The Bush administration has no working policy for how to bring the first steps of that process to life. They are mired in internal rivalries, with an out-of-control Secretary of Defense micromanaging our Defense Department into the ground and getting into bitter rivalries with everybody else on the team. Worse yet, nobody is willing to stand up to Rumsfeld or to give the president much in the way of bad news. Everything is about being a teamplayer, being loyal to the cause, not being a counterrevolutionary, to put it in the terms of many dictatorships.

Ultimately, this post of yours is just one more brick in a wall of denial between the Republican party core and the realities of what its done, of what’s going on.

You don’t want to listen to people who haven’t enlisted in your cause, and you judge those who have joined your cause but have parted ways on an opinion to be no longer team players. So how does anybody bluntly tell you the truth when it’s unpleasant, when its counter to your dogma? There’s no way to get through to you people!

And that, more than anything is why the Republican Party has fallen out of favor. Americans can tolerate a lot of political eccentricity. What they can’t tolerate is people in bubbles botching important issues one right after the other. If we can’t get through to you, we’re simply going to kick you out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #193023

I think SE has it backwards. It is the Bush administration that has aided the insurgents and insulted the milatary. How?

* By going to war with Iraq without understanding the ethnic and religous divide in the country that is driving it towards civil war

* By letting Rumsfield design the war plan instead of the uniformed military.

* By sending half the troops that where needed to provide true post war security and stabilization.

* By disbanding the Iraqi army thus creating hundreds of thousands of armed unemployed, disgruntled men who could have been used for stabilization. They became the insurgency.

* By complete de-bathification.

* By sending our soldiers to war without body armor or armored vehicles

* By sending our soldiers to war with no postwar plan and expecting our troops to be responsible for security, building a political process and reconstruction.


This election is about incompetence, especialy that of Bush. What a telling decision it was when he allowed Rumsfield to stay and let Powell go. Bush has provided no leadership to this country since the few months following 9/11. The failures in Iraq and on the response to Katrina are the most glaring examples of his incompetence.

It is also interesting how Bush has railed against Kerry about his remarks, Kerry is also an emberassment to the country, yet he did nothing when Rumsfield said, “you go to war with the army you have, not he army you wished you had”.

How is it the Kerry’s remark was more of an outrage the Rumsfield’s? Kerry is a inept senator with no responsibilty in the chain of command. Rumsfield is the SecDef who wrote the war plan, and clearly did not write a post-war plan. Why is the outrage from the Republican’s and Bush on Rumsfields remarks?

I was a republican, I am no longer. Be a republican once stood for smaller goverment, personal responsibility, conservation, and personal freedom. It has become the party of hate, fear, incompetence and the religouse right. I only wish there where candidates to vote for who where not blow-hard puppets of either party.

Posted by: dcc at November 3, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #193024
I often ask posters on the left, if you understand Islam, can you name for me the five pillars of Islam without resorting to a Google search?

Yes, we’ve often seen you prefer this trivia question to actual debate.

It’s not something to be proud of.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #193025

Lawnboy:

Having a general understanding of Islam doesn’t shouldn’t be considered a “trivia question”. While Islam is not our enemy, the majority of the terrorists are Islamic; therefore it is essential to understand and know the enemy’s beliefs.

Western civilizations have had a tough time understanding the idea of suicide bombers, be there terrorists or kamikaze pilots. In WWII, once we began to understand the Japanese culture and mindset, we were better able to plan our strategies. So too it is with Islam.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 3, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #193026

SE,

OH MY GOD!
I can’t even believe I waste one minute reading this post. Thanks. Not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 3, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #193033

SE,

I’m sorry to say, but your awards, like your posts, are self-serving and meaningless. You are more interested in stirring the hornet’s nest than actually debating or presenting facts. So maybe you should give yourself an award. A statuette with blinders on would be a good place to start.

Mr. Daugherty was correct in the ways he took you to task in his last post. And when you reply to Kevin 23, “You may not like my posts, but really I write for myself,” I have to wonder why are you posting here. If you’re writing for yourself, perhaps you should keep it to yourself. It may be wiser to remain intelligent in your own mind instead of proving the opposite in a public forum.

Posted by: Darth Independent at November 3, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #193036

You’re right, joe, that understanding Islam really helps us understand the issues at hand, but that’s not how SE uses that question. He uses it as a way to stop debates that he’s losing.

There are lots of questions I could ask him before granting him the right to debate with me. Does he understand the difference between Shiite and Sunni? Who is the Mahdi? Why are Iranian Shiites called Twelvers? etc.

However, putting up a requirement like that before someone is “qualified” to debate with me is a condescending and arbitrary hindrance to debate.

If we know what we’re talking about, it’ll be clear through our ideas and statement. SE has no reason or right to claim to be a gatekeeper to debate.

If I could, I’d prohibit SE from writing any more “Bounce, Bounce” posts about Bush’s performance in the polls that don’t reference or reflect any actual polling data. However, I don’t have the ability or the right to stop him from debating, and I have to rely on the debate itself to demonstrate that SE is making stuff up.

And he has to do the same.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #193041

Sicilianeagle,

This is your funniest post to date.
It’s amazingly funny, in a sad state of denial sort of way.
Your post is very desperate.
Instead of “bounce bounce” how about “blub blub”(sinking, drowning)desperation.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 3, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #193046

This piece was posted on Spencer’s Jihad Watch site last week. Probably the most insiteful piece available on the subject.

You remember Spencer…he and Daniel Pipes were named by Bin Laden’s crew a few weeks ago. I suggest a careful reading…very careful reading…


Fitzgerald: The Necessity of Understanding Islam

In the weeks just after 9.11.2001, the American government still did not understand Islam. It had spent the past fifty years not understanding Islam. It had spent the past fifty years thinking of Islam only as a “bulwark against Communism” and attempting to curry favor with such “staunch allies” as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while taking an indignant stand against its main allies at Suez (when Nasser might have been, and should have been, knocked right down). It constantly pressured Israel after 1967 to give up the Sinai for worthless guarantees. Later, in the post-1967 world, with all that Kissinger “shuttle diplomacy” and then the Rogers Plan, and then a dozen other plans and schemes, not a single thing was done about the menace of OPEC. Nothing, or close to nothing, has been done to diminish these monstrous revenues in the one-third of a century since 1973.

Nothing has been done to prevent, or even to study or wonder about or question aloud, the policy of permitting the mass settlement of Muslims within the Western countries, a policy of criminal negligence toward all Infidel peoples by all Infidel governments. This policy has been based on sheer laziness and sheer unwillingness to learn enough about Islam, or to listen to the diminishing number of real scholars — as opposed to Muslim and non-Muslim apologists carefully infiltrating and rising in the ranks of academic and government “experts” and “advisers” on Islam: John Esposito was consulted by the Clinton Administration; Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy by the French government; Tariq Ramadan was appointed to all sorts of E.U. commissions and is even now, in his pseudo-academic post at St. Antony’s, “advising” the Blair regime that does not know where to put its feet and hands — but its opponents promise no better.

Successive Administrations, and therefore the fates of the Americans whom they presume to protect and instruct, relied on all sorts of people of both parties who were equally ignorant of Islam or unwilling to consider the evidence of the their senses or of their minds. (And how many people who have risen to the top of the Washington anthill have the time and the leisure for reading and taking in, and beginning to comprehend, entirely new subjects?) They relied on all those who never understood Islam — such people as Brzezinski with Carter (not to mention that “Iran” specialist Gary Sick), who masterminded the disaster of abandoning the Shah when he might have been saved. Or they relied on such people as Scowcroft the chocolate soldier and Baker the fixer, or Dennis Ross, merely the most earnestly comical, or comically earnest, of all those in Washington who spent their entire professional lives in the “peace process.” What a phrase, what an idea whose time never came, and never could come! With all their absurd and exhausting and frenetic “peace-making,” these peacemakers never figured out that the Lesser Jihad against Israel had no solution based on “negotiations” and “treaties.”

And of course, the latest avatar of silliness and ignorance is that “two-state solution” that Condoleeza Rice thinks would be a wonderful achievement for the United States, as her remarkable, or rather incredible, speech to some American group “for Palestine” a few weeks ago demonstrated for all who possessed minds that could still be properly horrified. There is still not a hint that anyone in official Washington has ever read a thing about the Law of War and Peace in Islam. There is no evidence that anyone there has read Majid Khadduri or Robert Spencer or a hundred others who could explain, carefully, the essential role of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya in Islamic law and practice, and why all treaties between Muslims and Infidels are meant on the Muslim side purely as “truces” and never to be permanent “peace treaties” — because that would go against all of Islam, implying that some parts of the world could forever remain free from Islam, free to remain Infidel. Such an idea goes against everything in Islam, a belief-system that springs from a desire by the already-conquering Arabs to possess their own faith, one that would both justify and promote their conquest of Christians and Jews (and then Zoroastrians, and then still later Buddhists and Hindus) — non-Muslim peoples far more advanced, wealthy, and settled peoples than the primitive Arabs who by force seized their lands in the Middle East and North Africa. Islamic theology has not changed in this essential division, so obviously reflected in the terms Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.

No, one doubts that anyone in Washington has pondered or even heard of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. and broken deliberately by him 18 months later. (His breaking of it, by the way, was later held to be an act of magnificent cleverness by Muslims, as Muhammad — who said that “war is deception” — proved a master at defeating, by any means, his enemies.) “Pacta Sunt Servanda” is the basis of Western treaty-making, but not of treaty-making in Islam. Every “peace treaty” signed by Muslims with Infidels is meant only as a “truce treaty.” But why should Dennis Ross, or Condoleeza Rice, be expected to know about that, any more than they should be expected to know about the concept and definition of the “dhimmi,” much less to have read Antoine Fattal’s full treatment of the status of non-Muslims according to the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam? Why take Islam seriously, when Prince Bandar, and now Prince Al-Turki, offer such generous hospitality at their lavish receptions, and speak so well, so “forthrightly”? Why study ancient treaties when, after all, all kinds of Arab and Muslim leaders keep assuring us that all this business of Islam is just so much nonsense? Rice and the rest can look deep into their eyes, grasp their souls the way Bush grasped the soul of Vladimir Putin — and see that what they say must be true.

Had the American government been properly prepared on 9.11.2001, it would have contained a sufficient number of people well versed in Islam, who therefore would have remained serenely and calmly comprehending of what had past, was passing, and was to come. Had such people been much in evidence on 9.12.2001, then the American government might have been thinking clearly. It might then have reacted not merely with anger, but with anger that had behind it well-prepared minds lucidly planning. These might have made the government of Pakistan an offer it couldn’t refuse — not about helping to find Osama Bin Laden, but rather on handing over those nuclear weapons it managed to acquire through the thefts and ISI funding of A. Q. Khan, lest its entire economy and country be destroyed (and the Americans, together with India, could do that). Instead, about Khan’s nuclear aid to North Korea and Iran, the Pakistani government announced this past week that it is “truly sorry” and it won’t happen again, and by the way, why shouldn’t Pakistan now get the same nuclear deal as India? I’ll tell you why: because Pakistan is a Muslim state, with Muslim people in control. That’s why. One might as well ask why we would not object if Australia acquired nuclear weapons but do object when North Korea does, or why it is necessary and proper for Israel to acquire such weaponry, which is the only thing that will ensure its survival and threatens no Infidel state, but on the other hand, neither “our ally” Egypt, nor “our ally” Saudi Arabia, nor any other Muslim state, can be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Might as well make that clear, if not say it quite so directly to those who complain. They can be given, rather, to understand.

There is, instead of rational analysis, a sensational aspect to the whole Bin Laden business: the caves, the Saudi plutocrat who becomes a kind of J. Worthwington Foulfellow with his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all those solemn “terrorism experts” who, like Peter Bergen, still keep far away from the larger and more important questions but apparently can dine out in the American media and even elsewhere on the fact that they “met Bin Laden” or “travelled in Afghanistan” or “have studied Al Qaeda for years.” That should be seen as part of the sensational, quasi-yellow press, and the lowering of standards all way round. Suppose someone knew every detail of Bin Laden’s life? Or suppose the American government kills Bin Laden? So what? What does this have to do with the menace of islamization in Western Europe? How does this stop the Saudi-financed campaigns of Da’wa everywhere in the world, even among those who are Muslims (as in Niger, where the syncretistic local version of Islam, with its marabouts and unhijabbed women, has with Saudi money and influence been completely transformed, as has the practice of Islam in many sub-Saharan states)? That Da’wa proceeds, of course, also among Infidels who, out of their economic or psychic unsteadiness, have been correctly identified as ready (the readiness is all) for efforts to convert them. All this helps acquire more recruits, deep behind Infidel — i.e., enemy — lines, for the Army of Islam.

The “Hunt for Bin Laden” business (and all those books, and book-tours, by those “experts” who once saw Bin Laden plain) involves the perceived need to obtain the cooperation of the government of Pakistan by cancelling billions of dollars in debts and offering new billions in aid of all kinds. It involves not reading Pakistan the riot act about A. Q. Khan (he should be in American custody, subject to American grilling) and in not threatening complete economic destruction unless those nuclear weapons are given to the Americans “for safe-keeping.” (The Pakistani government would not have had to announce this; it might have simply pretended that it still had them, to keep the primitive Muslim masses calm, or as calm as they can be.) All this has been a disaster. It has allowed Musharraf to present himself as something he is not, and Pakistan as something it is not. That misrepresentation continues to play on long-established innocences and dreams about “Islam” as essentially okay and unworrisome, if only the “moderates” can keep control.

And thus we have the fiascos we see all around us, including the fiasco of Iraq, where Bush, who once had an idea, and now that idea has him, still will not relent on his foolish squandering of men’s lives, of money, of war materiel. He will not exploit, and certainly is incapable of welcoming, the ethnic and sectarian divisions that sooner or later will explode, and for our sake should explode. What’s more, these divisions will have consequences for Shi’a-Sunni relations outside of Iraq, and possibly, if the Kurds get their state, for the relations between non-Arab and Arab Muslims (as with the Berbers in Algeria and in France). All this internecine warfare can only weaken the Camp of Islam. It would be useful for Europeans to observe this warfare, and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

Within the Bilad al-Kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, there are still very few who comprehend the permanent menace of Islam to most forms of art, to the free and skeptical inquiry necessary for the enterprise of science, to individual rights and to mental freedom, and to all the legal and political institutions and social arrangements and understandings and assumptions upon which the advanced West is based. There is no sense of the peril to that which so many in that Western world, over several millennia of thought and effort, managed to achieve, and to all the artifacts they produced. Those who today call themselves “English” or “French” or “Italians” or “Americans” hold these achievements and artifacts merely in trust, as a legacy in which they have but a life estate. They have a duty to learn about them, and then having learned about to appreciate them, to defend them intelligently — especially now, when it can be done at very little human cost, because the most effective weapons of the Jihad are the “wealth weapon,” campaigns of Da’wa, and demographic conquest.

As has been steadily insisted here for nearly three years, the “wealth weapon” can be countered by taxes on gasoline in the United States that rise in steady increments to far higher, possibly European levels, in taxes on all uses of oil, on subsidies to mass transit, on subsidies and all kinds of encouragement for solar, wind, and other forms of energy, including new ways to burn or to transform coal, and of course nuclear energy — which should be seen, following the French example, as one of the best ways to diminish reliance on oil. Everything conceivable should be done. Because of the costs involved (and insurance for nuclear plants) governments, including the American government, should participate fully and eagerly. Nonsense about “letting the marketplace” decide will not do. No one said during World War II that the government should not fund the Manhattan Project. The diminishment of the Muslim “oil weapon” is essential. So too is the ending of all the transfers of hundreds of billions of dollars from Infidel peoples (unwillingly) by their governments (all too willing), to Muslim states and groups such as Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the ineffable “Palestinians” — about whom a veritable cult of aid has developed, not because the “Palestinians” themselves are worthy, but because of an unexpungable animus toward Israel, an animus that has been carefully cultivated by the Islamintern International and its supporters in the world press. It is used to encourage aid for the “Palestinians” and their quite unnecessary, and utterly phony, “plight.”

As for campaigns of Da’wa, they can be constrained at every step, beginning with careful monitoring in prisons, aid to Christian missionary efforts, and the segregating of Muslim prisoners in separate buildings (for “security and administrative — i.e., halal food and other observances — purposes). Since black prisoners are a special target, why not employ black African refugees such as Sudanese “lost boys” to speak frequently in prisons about their experiences? Why not introduce the subject of the Arab slave trade and the use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism (the most successful imperialism in history, as yet not fully comprehended save, so far, by a few)? Why not discuss how the inshallah-fatalism of Islam encourages economic paralysis, and that only the false manna of oil managed to provide any prosperity for Muslims once they no longer had large numbers of non-Muslims within their lands upon which to batten?

As for demographic conquest, that can be halted. As the Infidel peoples wake up, they can not only halt, but reverse the immigration of the past three or four heedless decades, and undo much of what they stupidly permitted to be done. Just as the parents of young children try to “child-proof” their house, by all sorts of measures, so the Lands of the Infidels can be made, not welcoming, but unwelcoming, for the continued practice of Islam and calls for introduction of Sharia provisions in the West. We need not make allowances. We need not yield in the slightest to Muslim demands. We can be quick to detect the campaigns in the press that are designed to render us more susceptible to Islam, to focus only on the most inoffensive of the rituals (i.e., Ramadan) and not on what is written in Qur’an and hadith. Certainly the press has failed completely to deal with the figure of Muhammad and what he did, and what Muslims revere him for — which is everything he said, and everything he did.

There has as yet been as little action over all this by the American government, paralyzed by Iraq, as there has been in dealing with its false allies — such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and of course Pakistan.

But it will change. It will change because whatever Bush clings to, in 2008 a new President will have to promise, as Eisenhower promised to “go to Korea” and to end that war, to end promptly the now clearly misguided and wasteful effort in Iraq. It was misguided by March 2004, when the country had been thoroughly scoured for weapons of mass destruction. It is misguided if the goal is to weaken the Camp of Islamic Jihad (i.e., the Camp of Islam). And that should be the goal, whatever vague description of “victory” is in vogue today in Washington. That “victory” has actually never been clearly defined by our confused and confusing President, who cannot allow himself even the possibility of speaking clearly and lucidly on this subject — for if he did, then his whole edifice built to date would come tumbling down, and in public.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at November 3, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #193049

And joe, there’s another little piece of evidence in SE’s claim that his question is a barrier to debate instead of a tool to improve knowledge:

I often ask posters on the left

He only asked those of us on the left. Why is that? It’s pretty obvious what the answer is. He uses the question as a way to filter out and intimidate those that disagree with him.

Remember, if you disagree with him, you have to prove to him that you are worthy of his thread. However, if you agree with him, he doesn’t care at all if your agreement is based on a knowledgable foundation.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #193050

Hey SE,

Don’t post complete copyrighted text here without permission. There’s a reason that the internet has tags for links and blockquote (for excerpts only).

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #193053

SE,

On Sunday, the New York Times magazine had an article called Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age that covered much of the same ground that your copyright-infringement piece covers, the nature of Islamic Law in regards to war, the dangers posed by an Islamic nuclear power, etc.

Of course, it comes to some different conclusions.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #193056

Lawnboy:

You’ll have to forgive me—I didn’t read much of the previous posts so I was taking yours out of context. Perhaps SE was doing what you claim.

I didn;t really like the nature of his original post, but I do generally like SE’s posts. I know he likes to tweak people, and it seems to be effective, and I kinda like tweaking people myself. But I understand its a bit different if you are the one being tweaked.

I think we agree that understanding Islam helps us understand our enemy. To be clear, Islam is not the enemy, but some radicals who practice it radically are our enemy. Glad we can find some common ground.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 3, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #193059

No problem, joe. I fully acknowledge that my comment would appear mean-spirited out of context.

I imagine that you like SE’s articles; I like Paul Siegel’s :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #193061

lawnboy

I am well aware of the copywrite rules. However, in this case (for the first timeever), Fitzgerald’s piece is so profoundly important that all those who skewered me above should read it.

Originally, I was going to include excerpts in my piece above, but I decided to save it until the thread developed a bit.

As I got hit with all the vitriol abobe, this morning was an appropriate time to insert it in its entirety.

A lawyer thing. The velvet hammer.

Anyway, I agree with the piece,virtually word for word.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 3, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #193063

So, as a lawyer, you not only don’t know that the legal term is copyright (not copywrite), but you think that the law doesn’t apply to you if you feel strongly enough about something.

Please let me know what your real name is so I can make sure that I never, ever hire you for legal advice.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #193064

Republican’s Aiding War Profiteers!

Somebody’s going to have to tell me how running an inefficient graft-filled operation constitutes supporting the troops.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #193070

Lawnboy,

I believe Sic has decided he made an error with his foolish insults and ignorant accusations. Not that he was wrong, just that he was wrong to say it out loud given the much deserved “vitriol adobe” he has received.
We have to remember he is old world Europe and, as such, highly prejudiced against dark skinned non-Christbelievers. Therefore, instead of attacking islamist empirists, he quotes xenophobic concepts as if “Muslims” are a homogeneous group to be broadstroked into holding pens. But, at least, finally, although I think it’s perhaps too late to be better than never, he admitted that Bush is a screwup and has completely botched this attempt at increasing our security.
I think it’s most interesting that jbod suddenly sounds so reasonable :-) Is this how paradigms shift?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 3, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #193072

lawnboy

Hold on there.I have said many many many times that Spencer’s web site is the sine non qua of terrorism web site…countless times, as a matter of fact.

Sorry about the typo and if it makes any difference, I like you so much that if you ever did retain me, I’d waive the fee! :)

However, the silence from others is astounding.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 3, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #193073

David 1-20-09

Without a doubt, Bush is a screw up. No doubt. HOWEVER, his view of fighting them THERE instead of HERE makes him closer to being right than anything coming from the left.

Thus, I support the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 3, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #193075
I have said many many many times that Spencer’s web site is the sine non qua of terrorism web site

And how is that relevant? Copyright laws don’t apply if you respect the source from which you are stealing? This that your legal opinion?

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 3, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #193076

SE-
I much prefer to argue against a person’s logic and their grasp of the facts than try to paint them as one thing or another. If you’re right about a point, the facts will do the painting for you, and your opponent will have to paint themselves out of the corner.

You use this argument because you don’t have the facts available to slam the Democrats on their attitudes implicitly. You have to resort to an explicit claim, and then shove that massive article into the discussion as if another Right-Wing demonization of Islam will shame us into agreeing with you.

You underestimate our spirit, the backbone with which we hold our opinion. You also fail to understand that our intentions have nothing to do with the negative “Blame America crowd” you see in every corner of our party.

There are many people who disagree with this war who have no desire to see America diminished. Their protest against this President’s foreign policy centers on the harm it exposes this country to. It is a strong, deeply felt patriotism that powers the movement against the Republican Party, a movement that will be just as quick to backlash against those who would get in the way of effective foreign policy against our adversary is it has been to confront Bush.

This is why the Republicans are failing to stop the change. To put it quite plainly, their efforts are devoted to fighting an enemy that no longer takes the form they rose to power exploiting.

We are not the Democratic party you once knew. We are the Democratic Party you created by destroying the room you had for moderates in your ranks, and questions towards your dogma. We have taken over where your party has ceded its moral authority, and it will do you well not to underestimate us.

Don-
The only way you could come to the conclusion you have about our attitudes towards security, war, and the troops is by buying the Republican rhetoric on us, which seems awful non-independent of you.

Do you even read what we right? Do you even try to take a look? My own writing has never shrunk away from fighting the war to its completion, nor have I ever made the troops the target of my rhetoric. I most certainly have never opposed securing this country; as a matter of fact one of my main motivations for my oppposition to Bush is my opinion that his policies have set us back.

You say we have no real this, that, or the other, but again that’s just more uncritical acceptance of the talking points on the right. We told them, more soldiers, more armor, and that we needed to get security in the country. We’ve been vocal about opposing waste, inefficiency and corruption in the reconstruction effort. We’ve suggested multiple plans in multiple venues.

But you know what? You uncritically accept their rhetoric on us, and repeat that damned lie.

You say you find fault with the Iraq war. How much of that, though, is not something we already brought up? We brought up the deficit of troops back when something could have been done. We brought up armor before Rumsfeld cared, corruption issues before we spent months seeing Iraq war money go down the hole.

Maybe you have problems with the Iraq war, but you certainly have no problem believing the folks who put us in that war, and that is the ultimate irony and weakness of your position.

We used our voices when it mattered. We spoke our peace, and history records our objections as largely prophetic. That is why people are going to elect us: We weren’t wrong, and we fought to get things changed, despite our minority status. We stood up for what was right before it became fashionable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #193078

“sine non qua”?

“fighting them THERE instead of HERE”?
Do you really believe, I mean really, really, REALLY believe, that starting the bilateral war in Iraq on idealogical grounds (remember Sadaam had NOTHING to do with 9/11) has improved our security better by creating more terrorists to fight us “THERE” rather than aligning our allies from a morally superior perspective, then addressing the root causes in the most effective multilateral non-ideological manner EVERYWHERE?

(that CAPS thingy is fun, isn’t it?)

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 3, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #193081

I often ask posters on the left, if you understand Islam, can you name for me the five pillars of Islam without resorting to a Google search? Most cannot.

Really? I find the same holds true when I ask many self-described Christians what the “Ten Commandments” are. And if they are lucky enough to get close to correct, they cannot tell you if it is the Jewish version, Protestant version, or Catholic-Lutheran version. Often, they do not even know that there are different versions.

Posted by: Steve K at November 3, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #193088

Stephen D-

“The only way you could come to the conclusion you have about our attitudes towards security, war, and the troops is by buying the Republican rhetoric on us…”

Not true! I listened intently to the words of your glorious leaders. They don’t sound at all like you picture them in your posts. The spin you put on them makes them sound sooooo reasonable, but they are not. (The spin the Reps put on their leaders, BTW, makes them sound soooo reasonable, too.) The problem is that it looks like the Dems may win this election by spin and by being AGAINST things.

“My own writing has never shrunk away from fighting the war to its completion, nor have I ever made the troops the target of my rhetoric.”

True. But your writing does not reflect the nature of your party’s leadership.

“You say we have no real this, that, or the other, but again that’s just more uncritical acceptance of the talking points on the right.”

Not true. I don’t take talking points from either side. I just call it as I see it.

“We told them, more soldiers, more armor, and that we needed to get security in the country. We’ve been vocal about opposing waste, inefficiency and corruption in the reconstruction effort.”

Several problems here.
“More soldiers” - Bush allowed the generals in command in the field to make the decisions about strength. There is some evidence that more troops might have made a difference, but there is also evidence that they were not needed. It’s a 50-50 argument.

“More armor” The U.S. was not prepared to send the number of troops we sent (one of the problems with your “more troops” argument) because Clinton had de-funded the military. Some of the troops didn’t even have desert gear in the first few weeks. The Bush administration was already working on getting more armor BEFORE the Dems called for it. [You may counter this argument, as you will, as evidence that Bush shouldn’t have gone in to Iraq when he did. And I won’t argue against you. I agree.]

“security in Iraq” - Bush has been working on this from the beginning. But when you have to start with nothing (no trained Iraq security forces, no equipment, etc) it takes a long time to get a workable force. The Dems in his shoes could have accomplished it no faster.

“waste” - In Viet Nam, with the Dems in charge, the waste and corruption was rampant. I don’t think politics has anything to do with this issue. It is human nature. It always shows up when there is a war.

Your arguments are worthless on these accounts. Mere rhetoric.

“Maybe you have problems with the Iraq war, but you certainly have no problem believing the folks who put us in that war, and that is the ultimate irony and weakness of your position.”

Point is, you certainly have no problem believing the opponents of that war. That is the weakness of your position.
The truth is Dems and Reps believed there was a need to do SOMETHING about Saddam BEFORE THE WAR. Both believed he had very bad weapons that could fall into the hands of terrorists. Your party’s leaders ALL made statements that Saddam should be dealt with BECAUSE of his terrible weapons (some said these things long before Bush was elected), but none of the Dems took any action to solve the “perceived problem”. [Let’s not re-fight this whole argument.] Bush did something based upon the evidence that he had (and which the Dems had access to, but most didn’t take the time to read). AFTER starting the war the truth became evident. Bush didn’t lie (unless the Dems who said the same thing lied, too). But he made a mistake. The perception of Saddam’s strength and weapons was wrong.

But the Dems have made a worse mistake by comparing American troops to Hitler’s, by saying we should run as far and as fast from this war as possible, by declaring that every effort of this president to protect Americans is illegal or worse. Their “plan” has been to hurt Bush, not help America. If the Dems weren’t so darned AGAINST everything they might have some credibility.

I certainly am not for Bush, but I am even MORE not for these ANGRY, DO-NOTHING, and ANTAGONISTIC Dems. The HATE that rules the Democrat party does not appeal to me.

Then I started to read the Dem “plans” from their own web-sites. NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE THERE. They are not truly interested in national security, or restricting the illegals, etc. The truth is that the Democrat party has STOOD for NOTHING for 6 years, and they still are standing for nothing.

Posted by: Don at November 3, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #193095

Kevin:
“Adrienne-
Nice point about it being the republicans who took a one line blunder from a small insignificant speech made on a college campus made by a senator not even involved in a current campaign, and they put it on every US TV and talk radio station in the country within hours. Yet here comes SE talking about how Kerry’s being heard by terrorists is at the heart of the issue. Then don’t put it out there…before they even asked for an explaination it was written in a distributed presidential speech. Isn’t THAT the act that harms the troops under SE’s crappy “logic”?”

Thanks, Kevin. Glad you grasped the point I was trying to make, and that you agree with me.
Did you know that until I read this thread, I didn’t even realize that you’re actually a Republican? Since I’ve agreed with your comments fairly often, I now think that you must be a lot like the Republican friends that I have (outside of the blogosphere). I’ve never had a problem getting along with true conservatives, even though I will often disagree and argue with them — in fact, that’s part of the fun of having them as friends!
This is because true conservatives are reasonable people who come by their views honestly, believe in them deeply, know that the Neocons aren’t conservative, don’t use GOP talking points, don’t listen to the likes of Rush, Ann, Bill O’ or Shaun, and thus, don’t hate me or demonize me simply because I’m a true liberal.
I can’t tell you how much I wish that your party could be taken back by true conservatives like yourself. Because if it was, we could get this country back on the right track in no time. (And by the way, I feel the same way about my own party — that it needs to be taken back by true liberals.)
They way I see it, the ideas of true conservatives and true liberals are what built this country and made it strong in the past. We actually need each other, because the back and forth tug of our ideals and beliefs, often leading to compromises, along with the checks and balances (now being removed) that were designed right into our government are what made America a place we could all be very proud of. It also made this a place that other countries could respect — or even wish to emulate.
That isn’t how it has been for at least the past twenty years, but how I think it could be again — if only the people who give their vote to either of our parties would start demanding honest government, and begin voting out the greedy, morally bankrupt crooks and thieves who have infilitrated on both sides, and taken this country over for their own gain.
Just my opinions.

PS. And of course, We the People can’t even begin to do that if we can’t even trust that our elections are as accurate and accountable as possible.

PSS. Lawnboy and Stephen, excellent posts!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #193107

Don said: “The problem is that it looks like the Dems may win this election by spin and by being AGAINST things.”

No, if they win, it is because the public is against the Republican’s history in office. Short, sweet, and logical. Only a spin artist would try to blame the opposition which has no platform or unified stand on the issues for their party’s losing at the polls.

Republican leadership did this to themselves. They talked one tune, but danced to another. Karl Rove tried mightily to cover the difference up, but, in the end, you can fool most of the people only some of the time. And Republican’s time has run out.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #193110

Corruption in Iraq? The Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have solved that by inserting a provision in the final version of a bill. What are they going to do?

They are closing the Auditor Office in Iraq.

Adrienne,
Well said about conservatives & liberals.

Ever notice how Bush supporters refuse to address my comments? They dismiss it playing the armchair general, as if being modestly well informed and having experience as a military officer somehow disqualifies my comments.

For some strange reason, many members of the Bush administration and many Bush supporters have absolutely no recollection of the First Gulf War, or the lessons learned back then. Some people are too young, of course. Ignorance of geography & world history is common, I understand that too. But there is an almost willful disregard of the situation in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein did not create Iraq. Iraq created Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #193114

Dave:

I think it’s most interesting that jbod suddenly sounds so reasonable :-) Is this how paradigms shift?

I’m glad you’ve finally opened your eyes enough to recognize how eminently reasonable I am. Had you been looking, you’d have noticed that Lawnboy and I had areas of agreement right from the start, so I’d suggest that any changing paradigms are yours. And I’m happy for you that yours are changing…none too soon.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 3, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #193125

Steve K,

So true. Most don’t that in some places the “10” commandments are fewer in number, or that parts of one got split.

Posted by: Trent at November 3, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #193126

Don-
I have debated the Republicans for quite some time now. Give me credit for knowing their arguments and their nuances. The talking points have fingerprints that couldn’t be more obvious than if the pundits dipped their fingers in ink.

You’re saying the same things they are. You’re saying we’re just against stuff. What about the 9/11 commission recommendations? What about internationalizing the war? What about all the calls for greater security? We’re for an awful lot. If you just want to rant about how much we disagree with the Republicans, go ahead. The truth is, though, a person who is against nothing is for nothing either.

As for my points:
More soldiers- Why do you trust Bush on this? He gets his information from Rumsfeld, who has made damn sure he’s the only one telling the president what the generals are saying. The generals are telling Rumsfeld what Rumsfeld wants to hear. The people underneath that are the ones screaming for more reinforcements. But Rumsfeld, who felt we could go in with just 65,000 troops, stomps on that before it ever gets to the president. What do you think happened to Eric Shinseki, whose judgement was publicly questioned by civilian pencil-pushers who had never fought a war.

There is not some evidence troops would have made a difference. There’s a consensus. The looting and disorder would have never gotten out of hand if we had invaded with at 260,000 soldiers. That was the number estimated by the military for what would be necessary to clamp down control on all of the major towns and cities of Iraq. The looting and pillaging that followed the fall of Saddam’s regime is unmistakeable evidence of our shortfall on manpower. Without such a shortfall, we would have been able to simply stomp on that before it got out of hand.

More armor- You answer with another talking point, and a rather loathesome one at that. Who the hell do you think was in charge of things after 9/11? Who the hell do you think could have sent legislation through in a heartbeat to increase the number of troops and the number of armored vehicles to fight the new wars? If you want to know why we didn’t expand the military and the heavy armor, why don’t you ask Donald “Mr. Transformation” Rumsfeld? Why don’t you ask him about his doctrine of fighting wars with fewer soldiers and more technology?

Americans were willing to serve if Bush asked. Bush never asked. He didn’t ask, even after it became obvious to everybody that we didn’t have enough manpower to occupy the country.

Security in Iraq- He had to start from nothing because he let his man in Iraq fire the police forces and the Army. Jay Garner, the Administrator that Paul Bremer replaced said that these two acts, along with the wholesale de-baathification of the government constituted the three tragic mistakes of Bremers first days in charge. Instead of merely carving out the party loyalists, they resorted to an act which put some of the most capable administrators out on the street, and put hundreds of thousands of disgruntled soldiers on the street without jobs. Most of the people we’re hiring back into the army we’re forming now are those same people.

We would have never had such a security problem, because we wouldn’t have been so committed to big ideological gestures. We also wouldn’t have waited for so damn long before admitting we screwed up.

Waste- Cute argument. Too bad its irrelevant. The waste is happening here and now, and the Republicans have just voted in a measure to remove the office responsible for overseeing the proper use of military dollars in war. If you can tell me how this makes sense, or how human nature relieves our government of the obligation to spend money in a war effort wisely and legally, then you have your argument. Otherwise, it’s bull.

The intelligence was bull, and the Bush administration knew it. They were advised constantly that the information they were pumping out was wrong, and they just kept on doing it, to the point where they had CIA employees in tears. They were pushing for a war before they even had a coherent reason for it. It only gets amplified when you get to congress. Congress and the public were handed a sanitized version of the NIE document which basically edited out all the qualifications, dissents and other doubts that filled the original. The Bush administration said that a threat was certain and that we had confirmed WMDs when we had none, and all this was used to justify a pre-emptive war- meaning that it was critical to the legitimacy of the war that we prove that we were faced with an imminent threat. We couldn’t, like Adlai Stevenson, take out a bunch of U2 spy photos and show the world unimpeachable evidence of our enemy’s threat to us. All we had was suspicioned hyped into a marketing campaign for a war.

On the subject of the hitler comparison, you likely have the source wrong. the congressman in question quoted from a report by an FBI agent who said that conditions in the Gitmo prison were reminiscent of what one would expect to see in a Nazi or Soviet prison. Of course, that man was promptly excoriated by the right for insulting the troops, even though the quote concerned the way this administration was running the prison.

Please don’t speak about credibility. all the following reasons above provide good cause for believing the credibility of the Bush administration and its supporters is null and void, not for doubting us. You have yet do anything but declare my arguments to be the work of a disgruntled ideologue, and I’d just as soon get some factual arguments from you on that, rather than stand here and get accused of lying or misrepresenting the truth for political benefit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #193129

Some interesting and telling news today.
-The Pentagon has posted online information advising how to make weapons of mass destruction.
- The military, having convicted one of their own in the Abu Ghrab scandal, is sending him back to serve another tour in Irag.
- Laura Bush, the wife of george “let’s go on a crusade, bring ‘em on, mission accomplished, wanted dead or alive” bush, is warning Americans to be careful of what we say, ‘cause “the terrorists are listening”. (ha!)
Also, if you go to the website of the “national association of evangalists” (sp), headed by the guy who buys meth, but throws it away and gets massages from queers, but only, it will tell you that the website is being “updated”. The only part of it that is open is the section where one can give them a credit card number.
Can conservatism really sink any lower????????

Posted by: Charles Ross at November 3, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #193131

SE-

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware I really had to respond to that copied and pasted article that embraced overgeneralization as the best way to understand a complex problem. I’ll tell you, I feel dumber for having read it. I know and work with many muslims, and they live almost exactly like any christian I know. They do everything I do, but they take time out for religion. If you want to say that a particular group of radical muslims have all settled together and are living relatively reclusive or exclusive lifestyles, I agree that we should investigate or at least ask questions. But to put that scenario on the same level as families who settle in western countries to work is quite contrary to any reasonable and unprejudiced mindset.

Also, SE wrote: As a Republican, you should know that despite the “neocons” pissing you off, they are far better than what’s in store for us by the liberal democrats: Higher taxes, open borders,and appeasement of the enemy to name three.

Again, a straw man. Exactly what I think is breaking our party apart. It isn’t even a good straw man…its the same old song and dance with no results to show for it despite years of opportunity. First, I’d take higher taxes over higher debt any day of the week. It makes for more targetted and carefully crafted spending bills. I also want secured borders…I’ve been waiting since 9/11/2001. You’d think that would have been a priority. And appeasement? So now Americans are supposed to vote based on what the terrorists don’t want rather than what is best for America? Both sides want to fight terrorism. That backwards logic is crap.

Same goes for fight here v. there. Are you really telling me that you don’t want to consider other options? Like cooperating with people who know them and can get to them without pissing regular people off or causing civilians to get caught in the middle unnecessarily? Usually an unpopular invasion hinders that ability.

Anyway, back to responding to people with real ideas.

Adrienne-

I’m surprised you didn’t know we were on opposite sides of the fence. Truth is, I might have more liberal friends than conservative friends, and we all talk politics. The pre-resquisite to having a constructive conversation is two thing: genuine interest in learning the person’s views (as opposed to immediately distorting it into what can help you “win”), and that people have based their views on real life concerns and you know they have a reason to feel strongly. When a 16 year old virgin male tells you how strongly they feel about abortion, it just isn’t from a genuine place. Knowing when NOT to speak is often just as important as knowing that what you are saying is “right”.

I feel this way about you. I think that we have fundementla differences in the way we would want to attack a problem, but all in all, we seem to both share a genuine desire to get it solved. We care about the same things…you and I, and most all Americans. Sometimes people just get carried away and take their eyes off the true prize. I could much easier work with you than I could someone ideologically closer to me who is stubborn and deceptive. I’m sure you share that critisism of some of your fellow liberal.

Respect is earned, not a reward for similarity. You have mine. I’m glad to have yours.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 3, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #193135

phx8,
Yes, I have noticed that Bush supporters often refuse to address your comments regarding Iraq — no doubt this is because you actually know what the hell you’re talking about, while they prefer, as you said, to cling to an “almost willful disregard” of the reality of this war.
And let me admit something to you: often I’ll be reading news stories about Iraq and sometimes find it hard to keep all the many threads of this disastrous situtation straight in my mind — and then it’ll occur to me that I’ll be looking forward to seeing your comments (and those of a few others) in this blog. Among all of the people who contribute here, you really do seem to grasp very clearly exactly what’s been happening over there, and more importantly WHY. (Perhaps this due to your military background.)
So, despite the replies, or lack of replies you receive from the right, you should know that I for one, appreciate and feel I benefit by reading the viewpoints and opinions you come here to express.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #193137

Kevin, well said, and thanks!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #193140

Don,
You said

All the Dems who post here can say is “We’re not as bad as Bush.” Well, so are the Independent candidates, so are the Green Party candidates, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Thanks for proving the point that ANYBODY would be better than the Bush League.

Eagle,
You said

Those who want to stand firm and oppose the enemy are now labed Nazi (like me above) are called many names, and posters who support the president are likewise vilified.
Oh, you mean just because all the other kids are doing it (calling people names), that makes it OK for you? C’mon. That is so lame I quit letting my kid get away with it when he was eight years old. Grow up.

If you remember, I actually answered your stupid “5 pillars” question. And your response was, if I remember correctly, the lame excuse that you only came to this site to blow off some aggressive steam. How mature of you.

So, since you’re fond of demanding that others answer your questions, I challenge you to answer this one, without resorting to google:

Identify the differences between the scat of Ursus arctos and Taricha granulosa
C’mon, Eagle. Prove that you’re worthy of having a real discussion. Answer the question.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 3, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #193145
Can conservatism really sink any lower?

Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. Tune in tomorrow.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 3, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #193150

I agree with you almost all the way. Not all Dems support the enemy; some understand the risks involved and the consequences of pulling out.

Osama thinks that this war will result in a second Vietnam. He said, “Keep fighting. It is only a matter of time before the US loses the will to fight and retreats.” Let’s not make that happen. If we retreat, the world learns something. They will learn that we have softened up and showed weakness. Our enemy will have a stronghold and will get stronger and strike us again harder than ever.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at November 3, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #193161

“the President and his policies…may be eliminated for him by wussies from the left who have no plan at all.”

If this is what your issue is, discuss that. Do not try to drag in the irrelevant topic of who OBL may or may not want elected.

Posted by: Zeek at November 3, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #193164

Stephen D-

Thanks for the Democrat talking points. You repeat them often enough and maybe someone will believe them. I don’t. They are pure spin.

I’ve read both sides, I’ve listened to the leaders from both sides. I report my findings and then you whine that I’m calling you a liar. Go ahead and whine! Your side has lost the intellectual battle for the minds of the people. The Republicans lost their hearts. Oh, boy! You win?

The truth is that the Democrats would have no chance at all this election cycle if the Republicans hadn’t blown it. That means that people are NOT voting FOR Democrats, they are voting AGAINST Republicans. And you claim it as victory! That’s not victory, that’s being second worst! But being a spin-meister you’ll find a way to spin that, too.

“On the subject of the hitler comparison, you likely have the source wrong. the congressman in question quoted from a report by an FBI agent who said that conditions in the Gitmo prison were reminiscent of what one would expect to see in a Nazi or Soviet prison. Of course, that man was promptly excoriated by the right for insulting the troops, even though the quote concerned the way this administration was running the prison.”

Democrat spin. A report, by the way, that proved to be largely false, made up, untrue. That congressman should not have read it before he confirmed its accuracy. That was stupidity. He made the statements his own by reading them into the congressional record. Then he refused to apologize or backtrack for days. That made it HIS VERY OWN. (He didn’t even excuse it by saying he got the punch-line wrong).

My comments about waste are VERY relevant. It happened under your own president in another war. What’s irrelevant about that? What? I can’t refer to history because I’m not a Democrat? It’s not a cute argument, it’s the truth (you don’t like any truth but your own). The other tidbits you included, however, are irrelevant. Yes, it’s good to try to reduce the waste, but it will happen. It always does, no matter who’s in charge.

“We would have never had such a security problem, because we wouldn’t have been so committed to big ideological gestures. We also wouldn’t have waited for so damn long before admitting we screwed up.”

What utter idiocy! You sound just like Kerry! “I will do the same thing, only better!” No proof! Just bluster. And when was the last time the Dem party admitted any mistake? Carter still hasn’t admitted most of his big flubs.

I have more, but I have to go to an appointment.

Posted by: Don at November 3, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #193167

Stubborn,
Actions speak louder than words. We talk about spreading democracy & freedom, but when Israel bombed Lebanon- a democracy- & Israel destroyed their infrastructure, we rushed shipments of missiles and cluster bombs to Israel.

Somalia is under the rule of a Sheikh who was on the terrorist watch list. It is a failed state with no effective government, & the Islamic Council Union has taken control of most of the country. If you are worried about an enemy stronghold, I am sorry to tell you it is way too late already.

The government of Pakistan- you know, the country where we keep capturing/killing Al Qaida terrorists- that government negotiated to withdraw from the northwestern tribal regions. If you are worried about an enemy stronghold, once again I am sorry to tell you it is way too late already.

Afghanistan? It is a huge country, and we have insufficient resources to stop the Taliban.

Terrorists from Iraq? It was not a significant problem before we invaded.

Blame Bush. He introduced instability to Iraq, and abetted Israel in its campaign.

One thing everyone agrees on- the situation in Iraq will end badly, regardless of domestic politics here at home.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #193178

SE,

Which enemy are the democrats empowering? You mix words like terrorists and insurgents as if they are the same thing. Are you talking about Al-Qaeda? Didn’t Bin Laden indicate it was better for Bush to be in office for his purposes? Are you talking about Sunni insurgents or Shia insurgents? Which exactly? The Sunnie insurgents are shooting the Shia insurgents. Are they the enemy. Oh and the Shia insurgents are shooting the Sunni insurgents. Are they the enemy? If not, who is please?

This is political grandstanding of the worst type and beneath someone of your erudition. You know first of all that John Kerry was not making fun of any US Soldier, he was making a joke about how much of a moron the Chimp in chief is. This is well known, and even conservative mouthpieces like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens said so last night on CNN.

Come on, this is the last gasp of a desperate Republican seeing your party slowly sink below the surface kinda like the Titanic. Bon Voyage!

Posted by: Dennis at November 3, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #193179

If I were a terrorist or insurgent, and wanted the United States to leave, I’d just stop fighting. True, the military bases being built would stay, but most U.S. forces would be gone.

Opps, did I just help the bad guys?

Posted by: Trent at November 3, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #193180

Yes, Don, and by your logic, white people living today are responsible for slavery before the Civil War. History instructs, but, it is not the present. The decision before us on Nov. 7 is about whether to keep this one Party Republican dominated government intact, or, teach them some humility and demand some solutions to real problems, not policies that prolong the problems and exacerbate them. (Iraq, national debt, and national security for example at our borders and within our import containers).

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #193183

Don-
People show indications that they will vote more for Democrats when the elections come around. The polls show that enough races have yielded to the advantage of the Democrats to tip the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate into Democrat control.

Those are the facts. The rest is opinion, including your triumphant opening paragraphs. Whether the intention is to voted FOR a Democrat, or AGAINST a Republican, the result is the same: A vote tallied up in the Democrat column, instead of the Republican. And yes, that will be a victory, if it adds up enough at the polls.

Your language about not winning but being second worst is textbook spin. It redefines a leading position with loaded terms that are intended to minimize the plain fact: the other guy is defeated. The claim that your party has won the minds, even as we have won the hearts of the American people is also spin. A similar argument might have been used by Democrats in 2000 or 2004.

As for the Report, This is what I found as the basis for the claim that Dick Durbin made. What I would like to know is what your source is for the discrediting of this claim, and how it deals with the fact that this was not an isolated incident. As for Durbin’s mea culpa? Not all apologies are made from the strength of one’s character.

On the subject of waste, the last war is irrelevant to this one. While you could easily argue that both parties can waste money, I can easily admit that the waste that occured under Democrats was unconscionable, and should have been better curtailed like the rest of that War’s bad policies. Fact is, this war is ongoing, and the waste has been a major obstacle to rebuilding Iraq, a critical goal in our strategic aims in the war. Human nature or not, it’s getting Americans killed and it needs to be cut short.

When’s the last time a Democrat apologized? Clinton, for one. He practically made it a weekly occurence. He’s apologized for Rwanda, he’s admitted that he failed in his part to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

Oh, and yes, Kerry apologized just the other day for his comment.

Who’s spinning here? If we define spin as the emotional loading of words and phrasing, coupled with writing aimed at minimizing or concealing the truth, your words define spin better than mine. I can at least back my interpretations on evidence. What’s your backing?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #193186

Right on, Stephen. And to have some cheap little shyster refer to a decorated Vietnam veteran with a long, distinguished Senatorial career as a “dolt” boils my blood. Arrogance in pipsqueaks always is unattractive.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 3, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #193195

Dennis

Kerry, you, a copule of people on this site, Sullivan, Hitchens, maybe a couple of other folk are the only ones who knew when Kerry spoke the insulting words that they were actually a joke. I will have to give you credit for your strong ESP skills. Tell me what was the tip off that gave it away as a joke, since I am one of the 99.9% that did not get the joke or see it as a joke.

Posted by: tomh at November 3, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #193198

Stephen D-
Always spin with you isn’t it…

I said, “Your side has lost the intellectual battle for the minds of the people. The Republicans lost their hearts.”

You spun, “The claim that your party has won the minds, even as we have won the hearts of the American people..”

Truth is, no one has won their hearts or minds. The Reps and the Dems both lose!

———

Durbin said (not reading from the FBI agent memo): “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings.”

You spun, “On the subject of the hitler comparison, you likely have the source wrong. the congressman in question quoted from a report by an FBI agent who said that conditions in the Gitmo prison were reminiscent of what one would expect to see in a Nazi or Soviet prison.”

My sources…mostly U.S. Army reports like “Executive Summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba.” This report in particular is specifically about abuses found, not about general prison conditions. Most of the reports about general prison conditions detail how the prisoners have been treated well. (Well fed with appropriate foods, respect for their religion, etc. etc.) Very boring stuff for Democrats, I know.


Posted by: Don at November 3, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #193206

Dennis

Kerry, you, a copule of people on this site, Sullivan, Hitchens, maybe a couple of other folk are the only ones who knew when Kerry spoke the insulting words that they were actually a joke. I will have to give you credit for your strong ESP skills. Tell me what was the tip off that gave it away as a joke, since I am one of the 99.9% that did not get the joke or see it as a joke.

Posted by: tomh at November 3, 2006 07:40 PM

——————————-
Seemed pretty obvious to me. Kerry wouldn’t knowingly insult a group of people that he would need their votes for if he ran for president again. Which, obviously, he still has ambitions in that regard.

Kerry’s been pretty consistent in his accolades for the troops. If you really think he was trying to take a shot at the soldiers, then it’s the worst political tactic in history. More likely, he was attempting humor, which he should leave to Jon Stewart.

Posted by: Dennis at November 3, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #193226

I don’t know what makes Kerry look stupider.

Insulting the troops or insulting the intellect of those—including him—who voted to go to war in the first place.

Kerry paraphrased: “My decisions are stupid!”

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 3, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #193227

Don-
If you wanted to say “Each side has lost the battle for both the intellect and the heart of the nation” Then that was what you should have said. You never excluded Republicans from having a hold on people’s minds, nor Democrats from having won the hearts of America. Without such exclusions spelled out, you can hardly expect people to follow through to your desired conclusion.

On the Durbin matter, it’s as I suspected. You’re counting on reports of good conditions to automatically discredit any reports of mistreatment. It doesn’t work that way. You don’t have the facts to contradict what the FBI agents reportedly witnessed. The Army Report confirms, according to this article many of the same techniques that Durbin’s statement and the NYT article described at Gitmo as having originated at that base.

Gitmo may have been cleaned up since then, but that isn’t exactly water under the bridge because of the virulent strain of its policies that showed up at Abu Ghraib(which is by the way the main subject of it).

The truth about all this is I don’t look to this stuff as proof of American inherent corruption. I don’t believe this represents America. I could, however, end up becoming the picture of America that gets peddled by its enemies looking to make elbow room for their atrocities, and which ends up alienating America’s closest partners in the world from both cooperation and collaboration.

I think America benefits most from an attitude that neither shrinks from confronting behavior like this, nor lets it overwhelm our pride in our country. If anything, it should be precisely because we take pride in our country that we don’t betray it looking for unreliable shortcuts in interrogations. America should be able to reflect its greatness in its actions here and abroad. America should have symmetry between its foreign policy and its domestic, in its humaneness here, and its humaneness overseas.

America can choose to mimic its enemies in their viciousness, and thereby undercut its mission to confront and roll back their tyranny, or it can chose to be just and humane in its treatment of prisoners, and provide no such chink in the armor for our enemies to exploit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #193354

what liberals always forget to remember with the whole iraq situation is didnt sodomywhoisinsane break 17 u.n. resolutions. isnt it a heck of a coincidence that russia china and france who vetoed in the u.n. to go into iraq all had billions of dollars to lose from illegal oil purchases with iraq. didnt it come out that russia gave iraq sattlelite pictures of our troop positions. didnt saddam have the option to comply? but didnt? didnt france thanks to chiraq work on building a nuclear reator in the 80’s but Israel blew it up. liberals are dumb hippies who dont realize there is good and evil in the world no matter how nice you are to them . or how much you try to unnnderrstaaand them. its like talking to a drug dealer in the neighborhood about not spreading their crap around . they arent going to listen . saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people. funny we could of ended this in the first iraq war but noooo france and all the white flag wavers (which like all other u.n. wusses never have taken the brunt like the u.s. always does ) didnt want us to continue. saddam made a joke out of the u.n. , while he built more palaces with oil for food money instead of on his people. but hey lets listen to dumb hazzy brained hippies . oh no the world hates us. big deal their countries suck , we are the youngest country on the block and far ahead of them and their jealous . who cares about them . lets pull out of the u.n. and tell the whole world to kiss our red white and blue butts. they can take care of the whole world . like the u.n. really does any good. I say we tell the world like Jesus said “ye who isnt a sinner cast the first stone ” . Yah we’ll see the whole world who is so perfect drop their rocks and walk away.

Posted by: John B at November 4, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #193359

I must add to this, what exactly is this plan the democraps exactly want to hear from our Government? Should we have General Casey have a nice 8 hour long , fancy presentation with computer graphics intense speech with a bit by bit explanations (laymen’s term) answer to what our battle strategy is to win in Iraq? and then when he’s done we should send this out to the insurgents so they have a copy of it . I served my country during the first Gulf War ( even though My Division didnt get deployed , we definetly got processed for it ) and it cracks me up to see how morons try their best to give it the vietnam spin. The only similarities I see is How the liberals and its backbone the media dont report the good going on over there or any type of support for its troops. Kerry obviously tried with his joke to make them the same wars. one problem. JFK. a democrat sent troops(observers) to vietnam . and in vietnam troops (again democraps started the draft) were sent and college students were exempt. Our troops arent over there now because of a draft. They volunteered. But its a quagmire like vietnam. hello hippies. we lost 10,000 on d-day and not playing down any of MY FALLEN BROTHERS is not even 3000 (YOU crackheads and your buddies the media combined iraq and afghanistan to reach 3000 quicker, which by the way not being dis-respectFul ( i dont count the non combat ones because in reality troops die in peacetime from accidents). its been 3 years in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

Posted by: John B at November 4, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #193368

Don said,

They have supported and contributed to leaks about secret programs. And they have insisted that entire secret national security programs be made public (as if that wouldn’t aid the enemy). They have focused on hating and hindering Bush rather than defeating the enemy.

You must be referring to this

Last March, the U.S. government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war.

The Bush administration did so under pressure from congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say present a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

On Thursday night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials.

-New York Times Posted by: chris2x at November 5, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #193369

Apologies Mr Seltzer, I see you alreay posted the story I did. Damn that New York Times! How un-American of them to point out Republicans are showing terrorists how to build an A-bomb.

Posted by: chris2x at November 5, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #193372

SE,

Are you and Hannity brothers because you spout the same illogic.

Please tell me how your supposition is at all patriotic? “If anyone criticizes our leader we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” That is your position and it is the essence of fascism. You can’t speak truth to power by that standard at all.

You should read a conservative who is thoughtful about this war, George Will. I suppose though he is just giving aid and comfort to the enemy instead of trying to keep our brave men and women in uniform continuously thrown away senselessly.

The terrorists will never take over Iraq and get their oil, unless you mean the Iranian regime who now has much more power in Iraq than before fearless leader invaded. The Shiites hate Al Qaeda. What was Sadr before fearless leader? A minor cleric with a famous father.

Your brass knuckles are an illusion that predictably gets Americans killed.

Posted by: chris2x at November 5, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #193385

I love it.
The Democrats feel they might FINALLY win an election and now they are the source of all that is right and intellingent, and they haven’t won yet. It’s one election and it’s been awhile since you have won one of importance, trust me, you’re still not nearly mainstream. The country has never been comfortable about war.
It’s kind of cute actually.

Posted by: andy at November 5, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #193450

Eagle,

Your arguments discust me. Your “logical” deductions are flawed and worthless. Democrats who do not support the government’s “tough” policies are not allies of terrorists. Just because terrort leaders would like to see a change in America’s government does not mean that the democrats are friends with them. This is mearly one sided, you cannot base a claim on a relationship this way.
If you stiull haven’t realized, the terrorists aren’t the only ones who want to see democrats in power. So does the rest of the world, and America itself. Democrats oppose terrorism, but they also oppose the ridiculous ways of stopping them, let’s say for example, spying on innocent American citizens.
I’m tired of hearing that if one doesn’t support our president then they are against freedom and insead friends of terrorism. Can’t you open your eyes and see how you’ve been duped by the president into beleiving this? Please.

Posted by: Galileo at November 5, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #193588

chrischris

There is a fairly convincing argument that wasn’t the congress applying pressure to prove WMDs.

What is alarmingly clear is that the internal power struggles inside of the administration have all been decisively resolved in favor of the extremists who are, in every way, indistinguishable from the right-wing bloggers and pundits whose views are so radical and unhinged that they never cease to shock or disgust. As Digby put it: “the nation is being led by Limbaugh, Powerline and Michele Malkin.” And it’s no coincidence that the President spends time with Rush Limbaugh, the Vice President appears almost exclusively on rabid right-wing talk radio, and they have expended great efforts to pull closer to them the most extreme right-wing pundits, “journalists,” and bloggers. That’s their element. It is now what they are. One sees this all the time now. Arguments that one reads in The Weekly Standard or National Review or hears from Sean Hannity come out of Tony Snow’s mouth — and even the President’s — a day or two later. And this coordination is not just confined to rhetoric. It isn’t about mollifying the base with energizing speeches. As the posting of those Iraqi documents reflect, the actions of the Bush administration at the highest levels now mirror the desires of the most extremist elements of the Bush movement because they are one and the same.
One can listen to Sean Hannity, or read John Hinderaker or Michelle Malkin or David Horowitz, and mock the derangement and dishonesty. But that isn’t how Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld or the President react, and it’s certainly not how their top-tier of aides in the various power centers in the administration react. If Dick Cheney had a blog, it would look like Powerline. If Don Rumsfeld had a blog, it would read like LGF. And any of their most influential aides and advisors could post at the Corner or write regularly for The Weekly Standard and nothing would be different.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 6, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #193630

SE,

You’ve gone too far. Accusing Democrats of aiding insurgents is not on. It is not acceptable and you should know better! A lawyer no less! Have you no shame?

You say “tough” and “bare knuckle”
…we know better. We say TREASONOUS!
And that can be backed up with a modicum of legal analysis regarding 1441 and our subsequent actions, so however muc you may not like it, I am on far better footing to call Bush a traitor to our country than you are to accuse Democrats of aiding insurgents.

Posted by: RGF at November 6, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #193766

I agree with this posting, its just too bad that majority of Democrats ignore UN resolutions, forget about the votes for military actions by the US Congress, forget about the inaction of Carter and Clinton that encouraged Terrorism againest many, many countries. They want to send all our troops home to defend our borders. If we surrender to terrorism, as the democrats want, more people will die in this country, and all the left will do is complain about why they weren’t arrested. If the Democrats do pull this election out, it will be the last victory they will ever get. The real war will come back to our shores just like 9-11, or worse. The people will see this and know what a betrayal to America Liberal Democrats will become. I also see the Democrats failing and Blaming everyone else accept themselves for every bad thing that happens. Democrat failure will be as sure as terrorists attacking over and over again. Why wasn’t anything done when Carter let it happen, or Clinton encouraged terrorists by running. We will see more failure then anyone can imagine should the Democrats win, they’re invested in American failure, they need it to happen. I’ve seen it since Carter. Stock up on kevlar and protect your families, just in case.

Posted by: George at November 7, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #193799

It must really suck to live ones life in fear and in ignorance of the reality of the present. But they do say ignorance is bliss. And so long as you can find someone else to blame all is nice, eh?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 7, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #194246

How do we win the war on Terror?

People will always use Fear to get elected or to get whatever they want. Motivating fear may be here to stay as an attention getting method- because it works. 9/11 worked because we reacted just the way Al Qaeda wanted us to. The Terrorists got what they wanted: our attention and the worlds focus. We not only granted them the majority of our undivided attention but we went as far as to legitimize their efforts by agreeing with them that we are in a “war” raising the lowest of criminals to the ranks of professional soldiers. They are not soldiers- they are criminals.

How do we win the so-called war on Terror? Stop calling it a War and start defining it for what it is- illegitimate acts of criminals trying to get attention for their extremist cause. Once we start calling them criminals and once we anticipate and minimize the attention or notoriety they receive we will start ‘winning’. After the attacks on 9/11 the whole world (except a few thousand extremists) were ‘with us’. Now most of the world is against us. The ignorance and bravado that lead us here is regrettable- but focusing on it and learning from it is necessary so that the rest of the world understands that we will stop legitimizing the terrorists’ extremist cause.

How will we know when we are winning or have won? We will know we are winning when our people as well as the majority of the people of the world blame the extremists and not the United States for the world’s un-rest. The USA has the power to enhance understanding through the power of the media. However we are not just talking about meaningless words- we are talking about un-solicited words that are inspired by our peace keeping and peace promoting actions. We need to hold meetings with the people in power all over the world, and they need to understand that the money we previously spent on a ground war will keep flowing (for a few years) for not a war- but to promote the peace and to catch international criminals. We will support legitimate governments- but we will no longer occupy any foreign lands as an army. Instead we will use tactical appropriations, the media, meetings with peace-makers, and special forces (police actions used quietly and behind the scenes) to help keep and promote the peace. We will champion the cause of the good people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc- and help them based on their terms and not ours.

Our presence in Iraq has become a distraction and has had the opposite effect that we wanted- it has inspired extremists. We need to turn-around the way people everywhere think about us so that the average person on the street in Baghdad or Kabul or Tokyo is mad at the extremists and feels that the infrastructure, the Schools, Government and Hospitals (or whatever the good people need our dollars to help build or re-build) is being ruined by extremists. We need to pull all profiteers and contractors from Iraq (etc). Any building should be done by Nationals- although the dollars should come from us (for a few more years).

Once the people of the world blame extremists and not the U.S. for the unrest in the world (like they did on 9/11) we will be ‘winning’ the very regrettably named ‘war on terror’.

Posted by: john at November 9, 2006 10:43 AM
Post a comment