Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Seminole 6,

“The flying Imams are just the latest in a string of Islamic slaps of our face, which all inure to the benefit of terrorist.”

Now I have to admit I have read only one article on this “outrage”, and that at;

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2006/11/20/6-muslim-imans-removed-from-flight-300/

Call me crazy, but Muslims saying prayers at the time prescribed for prayers is an outrage?
This was worth taking them off the plane in handcuffs and making them find their own way back to Phoenix?

We might as well just quit, because the terrorists have already won.

couldn’t make it through most of this post - about the first couple paragraphs, but i think i got the gist of it.

the republicans lost - not because of corruption, incompetence, and greed - but because the american electorate is unpatriotic… worse, than that really, they have no allegiance to anything.

i really hope the republican party doesn’t adopt this verbal defecation as a campaign strategy.

i think this is the definition of ‘sore-loser.’
it’s b.s. like this that made me vote democrat (for congress) this go ‘round.

cheers.

I’m playing a sad lament on my violin with a tear in my eye.

Poor Fred Barnes, after all that crappy defense of the Bush Iraq policy, his president is going to abandon him. He will be lucky to keep from having a nervous breakdown.

Laura is a librarian, she knows what is being written in the history books and she doesn’t like it a bit. If she is half the woman Nancy was she will step in and salvage what she can of her husbands reputation. She is going to have to save him from himself.

Okay, the gist here is: Because Republicans weren’t re-elected, the world’s going to hell.

Newsflash: you’re not that indispensable, especially given the job performance your people have demonstrated.

First step: get over the fact that people have the gall to disagree with you. We couldn’t change the world complete our way, you couldn’t yours. People change on their own accord.

Second step: get over your denial on Iraq. The Republicans ARE losing the war they sought out and started. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can do something about it besides deciding who to blame for YOUR failures. Do you want to go down in history with a big failure, or keep at it and go for an even more massive fiasco? Your choice.

Third Step: Ditch the ideology. Get practical. Learn how to govern instead of figuring out new excuses why you shouldn’t have to put forward your best effort.

Fourth Step: stop pretending the liberals had anything to do with your failures. You were in the driver’s seat. You ran us off the cliff. Take the blame, learn from the mistake, or repeat it and regret it at your leisure.

Flying imams? I wonder if they passed by Sally Fields somewhere.

What I hear is genuine despair. I’ve been there before for different political reasons, but, Seminole, this country does have resiliency. The United States doesn’t have any problems that it can’t overcome; it’s been in worst shape and come through. Have faith.

perhaps, trent.

but this type of thinking will help no one… not the party, certainly not the country. it’s hard to stomach such vitriol when i have been against these policies the entire time - and was met with contempt and accusation for my dissension. now i am a turncoat (no allegiance) because i did not vote for those who refused to listen.

Yeah, that article sure brought tears to my eyes. Made me think of poor Adolph, in his bunker blaming the volk for letting him down, proving unworthy of the Nazi dream…

forgive the superfluous post - i simply had to register my amusement with that comment. hahahhahahhhaha…… ok. i’m done.

Seminole 6, I am perplexed! Your article outlines many things amiss, all occurring under the Republican leadership of this country. The Democratic majority has not even taken office yet, so it is illogical in the extreme to blame anything on the Democrats. It would appear you are exercising your parties counter-offense when Dem’s do take office. But, aren’t you prematurely revealing your hand?

Iraq. Iraq is a no-win situation for the U.S. It is a civil war, which I have been calling and writing it to be since 2004. Nice of most Republicans to catch up and call it what it is. The military brass, late and a few hundred thousand men and women short, are finally catching on too. The goal now is very simple. Find a way to prevent the Iraqi government from falling into the hands of terrorist sympathizers and prevent Iraq’s oil revenues from being delivered to terrorist organizations. Those are the goals, now.

Are they achievable? That is the 1/3 trillion dollar question which is what Iraq will cost tax payers whether we achieve those goals or not. Fact is, this may not be achievable. As Carafano said this morning, “it is up to the Iraqis”. And the Iraqis may not be up to the challenge.

Taxes. Well, given the Republican record of bankrupting our children’s and grandchildren’s earnings with spiraling debt, raising taxes makes sense to a very large number of parents who want that burden removed from their children’s work lives. Pay as you Go is a Democratic policy that makes far more sense in controlling spending than idle empty rhetoric to the public by Republicans for smaller government as they grew its size bigger and faster than Democrats used to.

PayGo and raising taxes for those who can afford to give up a modicum of luxury and investments of investment earnings, makes sense for America’s future. I personally welcome the idea of ending the deficit bribes for votes Republicans were so proud of and which backfired in their face - HUGELY!

The War against Terrorist organizations needs to be fought internationally and using Cold War tactics and strategies updated for technological advances. That international effort requires cooperative and respectful diplomatic relations with other nations, including those of our adversaries. Frankly, I think Republicans did more to aid and abet the terrorists than Democrats could even imagine doing. One thing for sure, the best improvement for advancing on the terrorists will be the seeing Bush’s backside leaving the White House for the last time.

Bolton is a good down payment on seeing Bush’s back side for the last time. America needs the U.N. and international allies and working relationships like never before, and Bolton was ABSOLUTELY the wrong person for that job.

Now, the invasion of illegal immigrants is where you and I will agree for the most part. The Republican House had it right! Stop the flow first, then decide what to do about the illegals already here. Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, and it remains to be seen whether or not they will wake up to that fact and change course.

Oh, it’s always nice to get a good dose of that 19th century logic over at NRO.

“Rich‎ is thankfully a fluid adjective in the U.S., and so long as it is, hand wringing over gaps in wealth is foolhardy and counterproductive.

Yes, just don’t worry about it. Go with the flow. Why make a fuss? And get back to work.

The marginal incentive to work and produce is reduced when each dollar of income is taxed more.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Does he actually think OCD money hoarders would abandon their endeavors simply because they lose a little more to taxes? And seriously, it’s not like their “labor” is actually worth however many millions of dollars a year they might get in salary and incentives.

It is, in fact, so ridiculous, John immediately back pedals in the very next paragraph.

The “seen‎ in any tax equation is the willingness of people to work despite penalties on their production. So while it’s fair to say higher taxes won’t totally collapse economic activity, it’s also true that workers on the margin will choose leisure over productive activity as their taxes rise.

Despite the back pedaling, he still insists the outliers would then choose leisure over productivity out of some kind of petty spite.

[…] The wealth gap might shrink if the Bush tax cuts expire, but it will do so at the expense of GDP. How the latter helps the downtrodden constituency within the Democratic party is one of life’s mysteries.

Maybe because life isn’t all about GDP. If the rich bail out of productivity no one will miss them. Vacuums are extremely transient. There are other margins that will gladly fill in for the lack of sociopathic money hoarders. Besides, there’s no sense in refuting his point since it’s nonsensical, as he admitted earlier in the paragraph.

The late columnist Warren Brookes once wrote that envy “is the single most impoverishing attitude of thought.‎Sadly, the Democratic economic agenda is rooted in envy and zero-sum thinking; it’s a philosophy that falsely suggests one man’s success is another man’s failure.

It’s not envy, it’s social equity. Believe me, I don’t think any normal person wants ten billion dollars and the burden of feeling that that isn’t enough.

And I like how he impugns the zero-sum philosophy, as if the rich don’t hold to it as well. First, denial of zero-sum assumes markets and money are infinite, which they are not. Second, if the rich believe in an open system with infinitely expanding wealth available for the picking, then why would they be so reluctant to acquiesce taxes to restock the very economy from which they profit so heartily?

Brookes also noted that “We are all blessed by the genius of relatively few.‎ Rather than use their legislative majority to harm the “rich,‎ the Democrats should embrace the genius of the pro-growth minority.

Ah, the true elitism reveals itself. The rich are rich because they are better than the poor and Dems should simply fall in line and pay fealty to them like the dupes on the Right already do. If he didn’t have a word limit or an editor, I’m sure he would’ve mentioned something about how the rich are rich because they are blessed by god or something.

While the wealth gap will surely grow, we’ll all be better off as a result.

This is just so abhorrent. I’m sure he thinks Argentina and Chile are models of how the wealth gap helps the less fortunate.

The invasion: Does anyone among us believe that Democrats, or for that matter Republicans, will stanch the flow of illegal aliens and retain control of this country? I surely do not. See this piece in the Washington Times on efforts to end this human deluge.

I find this anti-Mexican crap hilarious (face it, this isn’t about immigration, it’s about Mexican immigration). Back when I used to watch a lot of TV, I would watch a lot of shows that highlight the production of great American products and services. And though they would always interview of white person, usually a man, all the production and rendering of services was performed by hispanics - from the high end market to the low end.

We will soon apologize to Islam for even thinking these Imams could have been terrorists and pay damages for embarrassing them so.

Actually, it’s embarrassing to the morons who caused the fuss to begin with. The idea that terrorists would be so conspicuous is the epitome of American stupidity and prejudice.

I could continue on ad nauseum, but as the lead suggests, this country is besieged by the cumulative effect of many ill conceived policies, constraints and obligations.

You’ve got a point. Our nation had been shoved to the Right a few decades ago and has through inertia continued so far to the point that Bill Clinton is considered a liberal, Joe Liberman a Democrat, and John Bircher rhetoric has become mainstream. Dems fail because they have conceded this frame and try to find compromises within it. When they realize that the future is Obama and Edwards and not Biden and Clinton, they might make some progress.

Cross posted at: www.redstate.com/blogs/Seminole_6

This explains a lot. Washington Times, Michelle Malkin, NRO, Fox News, and the Weekly Standard. You are self-ghettoized.

Rocky - Thought people were more cognizant of the tale of the Imams. This was no random prayer group, their treatment was well deserved. This says it very well.

Ululations of the aggrieved
By Michelle Malkin�· December 06, 2006 08:25 AM

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006489.htm

….”Ultimately, the most despicable aspect about the imams’ behavior is that when they pierced the normally quiet hum of a passenger waiting area with shouts of “Allahu Akbar”and deliberately engaged in terrorist-associated behavior that was sure to trigger suspicion, they exploited the fear that began with the Sept. 11 attacks. The imams, experienced travelers all, counted on the security system established after 9/11 to kick in, and now they plan not only to benefit financially from the proper operation of that system but to substantially weaken it—with help from the Saudi-endowed attorneys at CAIR.”

Joseph - ghettoized? Hardly. I expect I would be credible in your eyes if quoting those on the left. We just disagree on the appropriate reference point.

I don’t see immigration as a left or right thing but a national problem, which will only get worse without some control of who enters, and stays, in this country. I have friends from Spain, Mexico, Venezuela, India; and other places which escape me now. They have one thing in common - they entered legally, within the law. That is the immigration I support.

I do not agree that the nation was shoved to the right. It has historically been conservative, but has incrementally drifted leftward. Perhaps we will get back to the middle someday.

Joseph Briggs

“John Bircher rhetoric”? Know what your talking about before you start hanging tags on situations.

You don’t even know what the JBS position is on any subject.

On immigration—the immigration you speak of is probably illegal immigration which is coming across the Mexican-US border. It consists mainly of Mexican individuals, but also includes many Central American individuals as well as a large number from the middle east. They are illegal, so why do you consider criminal behavior “crap”?

The reason we are in deep doo-doo is because we elected a mans son to be president. A son who’s daddy needed to help get his DUI’s off his record, a son who’s daddy needed to clear his record of evidence that he used cocaine, a son who’s daddy had to get him into Yale, a son who failed every corporation venture his daddy gave him to play with, a son who’s daddy kept him out of the war while others went off to die, a son who’s daddy help gloss over his AWOL time from the National Guard…a son who’s daddy now regularly cries in public over the realization of just what a screw up he and his entire family have been to this great nation.

That’s why we are in trouble.

Seminole,

Michele Malkin is hardly a neutral source for information.
You could have used Ann Coulter, or Hannity, or Rush, or Savage, or Reagan, and gotten pretty much the same take.
All of them extremely biased and extremely bigoted.

I have read more about this since my first post, most of it is the same belligerent baloney.
More than one of the comments I read was about the fact these guys had no luggage and that their tickets were single ended.
So what?
I have had the experience of flying on a single ended ticket 6 times in the last year. Every time I was pulled aside and I, and my carry-on were searched at the security entrance to the gates. I can only assume that the same happened here.
Big red flag?
Give me a break!

To deny them access to fly after being interviewed and released by the police is incomprehensible.

These men broke no laws, and if all it takes is an “Allah Akbar” to tighten everyone’s sphincters more than 5 years later, then we are in worse straits than even I thought.

Let me make a correction.

These men broke no laws other than refusing to get off the plane when requested.

muirgeo,

“…a son who’s daddy now regularly cries in public over the realization of just what a screw up he and his entire family have been to this great nation.”

you had me up to here. this is just cold, harsh, and untrue. bush sr. was a good man and a good president - you can feel free to disagree with the latter, but the two (father and son) don’t even compare. please cast your aspersions elsewhere. the man grieves for his son’s ‘mistakes’ - i certainly don’t see where you find cause to fault him for it.

Oh, and BTW, I am a 54 year old, over weight, pastey white guy, and I travel with tools that I have to check in.
For those of you that have never been security screened because of a single ended ticket, that experience alone is pretty demeaning.

“John Bircher rhetoric‎? Know what your talking about before you start hanging tags on situations. You don’t even know what the JBS position is on any subject.

Please. You assume a lot there, tomh. John Birchers are anti-left, vigorously opposed to anything that has even a hint of socialism, believe America is a Christian nation, are against globalization and the UN, and are hardline against illegal immigration. And they used to be marginalized as conspiracy nuts. Today their rhetoric infuses practically everything the radical Right proclaims as necessary to the survival of America.

So do you have a counter-argument or are you just going to continue to make baseless assumptions?

Joseph - ghettoized? Hardly. I expect I would be credible in your eyes if quoting those on the left.

I wouldn’t consider you more credible by citing these kind of sources from the Left just as I don’t consider you especially credible by citing sources from the Right almost exclusively. I really don’t count opinion pieces from the news/entertainment industry as “sources” of anything other than opinion, so credibility isn’t an issue here. I was just implying the inherent dearth of provocative input that would arise from so many “sources” of exactly the same political slant.

The Imams aren’t the only ones:

Flatulence forces plane to land

It’s a gas!!

Joseph - I try to avoid tunnel vision when looking at an issue. All of us have biases, but when I read information provided by the left, I see vitrol and an agenda which is not good for this country. To an extent that is true for the hard right also.

It would be refreshing to see a simple exposition of fact, but there is no longer any media which will provide unembellished news. I agree that we must consider both sides when arguing or deciding what is and is not.

I saw a video clip of the elder Bush breaking down and I read the stories. I think it is in extreme bad taste to make political hay out of that. Clinton choked up sometimes, too, you know.

Oops, I missed a point I wanted to address…

They are illegal, so why do you consider criminal behavior “crap‎?

That’s some very poor logic, tomh. I don’t consider criminal behavior crap, I consider the anti-immigration rhetoric from the Right crap.

That it is a “crime” is only a technical aspect of law and the insular tendencies of nation-states. There is no real victim, only indirect and speculative harm to a system. I consider it crap because all the useful aspects of the issue have been striped away and all that’s left is smelly, indigestible waste.

The Right is all about the free market right up until it gets inconvenient for them.

All of us have biases, but when I read information provided by the left, I see vitrol and an agenda which is not good for this country.

There are plenty of credible resources for data you just won’t find them in the news/entertainment industry. And there is plenty vitriol and agenda-serving on both sides. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s bad for the country. Debate and dissent make us stronger and actually demonstrate our strengths.

Seminole-

Why more of the same crap we’ve been getting for 6 years now? “Civil War”…blah blah…”Tuck tail”…blah blah…illegals taking over America…blah blah…screw the Imams’ rights…blah blah…higher taxes/socialist agenda…blah blah…Bolten’s a great ambassitor…blah blah…Bush with the “moxie” [to denounce his own practices]…blah blah…”clueless society”…blah blah blah.

Some of these are good issues. But this article is nothing but a bunch of meaningless accusations. All I can take from this is that Seminole is a die-hard neo-conservative republican. You could have saved me the trouble of reading all the other crap and just said that. And you could have saved yourself that 5 minutes it appears to have taken you to simply cite some uncredible sources and add in the occasional diatribe in between. I could have literally written the same article if I had the intention of producing a Colbert-like satire of your positions. I would only have to change my tone and inflection, add a few dramatic pauses and finger wagging, and your article becomes an instant YouTube hit with liberals all across the world. The only problem is that you are serious.

The War: The Democrats seem to be changing their tune. In the months leading up to the Congressional midterm elections, Minority Leader Pelosi along with 11 other top House Democrats sent a letter to President Bush demanding that we begin troop withdrawl by the end of this year. According to Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a smooth withdrawl would only take 6 months. All of our troops could be home by mid-2007.

Enter James Baker and Co. According to the NYT, Democrats are very happy with the findings of the Iraq Surrender Study Group. What the NYT article fails to mention is that “while the report does not set a concrete timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq, it does say that US combat forces ‘could be out of Iraq’ by the first quarter of 2008 - if steps are taken soon to allow Iraqi forces to assume combat functions in the war” (Source: Christian Science Monitor). Talk about your big “IFs.” We’ve been working feverishly to train Iraqi forces for the past 5 years. Is there some magic training method that only Baker and Co. know about?

Well, what’s a few months one way or the other, right? Could be 2008, could be 2009. What’s the difference? The important thing is that the Democrats WON and can finally begin the important work of building a Consensus for Defeat in Iraq.

Chris,

“We’ve been working feverishly to train Iraqi forces for the past 5 years. Is there some magic training method that only Baker and Co. know about?”

Wow, five whole years?

Standard boot camp for the typical American grunt is only 6 weeks, that’s 8.6 sessions per year.

Are we training these guys one at a time or what?

Chris-

What is the obsession with trying to blame the failures of this war on democrats? They were not in power, and still aren’t. Iraq is not a failure because democrats want to pull out. The whole goal is to pull out. No one ever advocated a permanent occupation. Iraq is a failure because the mission could not be accomplished, or even understood, by our military.

Nothing the democrats can do changes the simple fact that this president had full control over the military, a blank check and a rubber stamp congress for 5 years after Saddam, and that the situation has steadily deteriorated since that time. Thus, the “the important work of building a Consensus for Defeat in Iraq” has already been done, and done very well, by Bush and the crony republicans in congress.

In fact, democrats couldn’t have done it better themselves. Its just a damn shame we had to borrow almost a half-trillion dollars to learn what we already learn in elementary school…that the best, most representative, and most effective governments come from the people, by the people in a natural way…they are not forcefully imposed. Unless you WERE a “child left behind”, you should have known that too. Or were you too busy 3-5 years ago trying to convince everyone there were WMD’s and direct links to Al Quiada?

Stop acting as if the democrats have had the opportunity to impose anything but a passive influence on this war to date. Yet somehow you find the democrats’ lack of consistency on trivial matters over which they have no control anyway, like timelines, to be the most disturbing part of this debacle? What about the fact that the president himself can’t make up his mind on how to frame the conflict. He’s lowered his expectations so many times. Yet somehow his inconsistency and lack of foresight are less important than that of his powerless rivals?

As a conservative republican, I’m embarrassed that you and I share the same affiliation. I just can’t respect a poster who engages in nothing but demonizing partisan rhetoric, even at the expense of every last bit of credibility and context. Even when I completely agree with a general point you make, I find myself cringing at the ineffectiveness of your method of delivery.

The Invasion: From President Bush’s perspective, the one silver lining in the massive dark cloud that was the Midterm Elections was the possibility that a Democrat majority in Congress would approve his Alien Amnesty program, or whatever it is called. I hope not.

The Flying Imams: Some of the comments posted here paint a picture of peaceful Muslim clerics who were illegally and forcefully removed from a commercial airliner for no good reason, and suffered humiliating discrimination at the hands of racist Muslim-hating passengers and crew who terrorized them.

BALONEY. The Imams knew exactly what they were doing. Read Malikn’s article. Blogger Jim Hoft sums it up this way:

As long as Muslims are trying to explode their shoes on Trans-Atlantic flights, planning to use baby bottles as bombs from London to New York, and smashing jets into skyscrapers, we will see more instances like this one.

The six imams might as well get used to it.

And the claim that the sources cited by Seminole 6 lack credibility is BALONEY, too. They ultimately all cite the same MSM sources. Reports from the MSM conflict one another, anyway. Initial MSM reports indicated that the Imams were led off the plane in handcuffs, were kept in handcuffs during their five-hour detention, and were harassed by dogs. It turned out they were never handcuffed or harrassed by dogs.

Chris,

“And the claim that the sources cited by Seminole 6 lack credibility is BALONEY, too. They ultimately all cite the same MSM sources.”

You miss the point entirely, Malkin is not a reporter, she is an editorial writer, and as such is a source only for her OPINION, just as Coulter, Hannity, Rush, etc…..

My point is that we are so freakin scared of anything that ain’t white and ain’t Christian, we might as well just surrender right now and get it over with.
There are, after all, a hell of a lot more of them than there are of us.

People pray on street corners all the time and we all just raise an eyebrow and move on, but let a guy dressed in Middle Eastern garb start praying in an airport, and we all s**t ourselves in fear.

Chris-
Five years? I will assume that’s a slip of the fingers, since this war has only been going on for three and a half, and training of troops for maybe two and half of that.

Anyways, I would like to know what your big plan for winning Iraq is. You seem all too willing to call any exit plan “surrender”, without any sense of how we win this thing.

At this point, it is so obvious that this war is not working that Bush has fired Rumsfeld, and is willingly going to employ a guy who’s coming into the job testifying that we’re losing the war.

You’re so submerged in the rhetoric that you have had opportunity to surface and realize that your own president is leaving you behind on this issue. Blame the Democrats all you want to, histories verdict will focus on those who had command control and authority over this war. That means your party. That means your President. That means your Congress.

This isn’t about surrender. We’re surrendering to no one. This isn’t about creating defeat- if it happens, the reasons for it will lie in Bush’s policies, not some media/Democratic Party conspiracy to ruin the nation. This is about salvaging something out of this God-forsaken mess which your president got us in into with insufficient foresight, flexibility and humility to get us out of it. If we have to suffer defeat because of what your president did, then most of the country prefers we suffer it on terms that are bad rather than worse.

That in the end is the set of options your President’s policies leave us. Isn’t it time you and others like you figured out what you did wrong, rather than continue to blame the people you made sure didn’t have the power to affect this war?

Chris-

If you ever force my plane to be evacuated and delayed several hours all because you couldn’t handle a few Imams praying and talking to each other freely (last I checked it wasn’t illegal to hate America), then I will make absolutely certain that I “overhear” you talking about smuggling a bomb through customs on the next go around. And that is only if I’m nice enough to not just wait for you outside and kick the crap out of you for being such a whiny pussy.

Back to the point: you don’t know what happened on that plane. You only know what you read, and based on what you said in this thread, those sources are suspect at best.

Let me explain to you how a normal red-blooded American handles that situation. Mind your own business, let security do their job, get on the plane, then fly. IF something happens on that plane, you and 50-100 people just like you immediately subdue the small group of disorderly passengers using whatever force is necessary. The plane lands, and they are taken into police custody. Simple. There will never be another 9/11. The next attack will look very different by necessity. Americans will never again allow themselves to be flown into a building without a fight.

I think its time for many scared Americans to grow a sack and think practically. The element of surprise is vital to the terror strategy. There is just no need to ruin air travel based on impractical paranoia. And telling passengers to “keep their eyes open” does not equate to playing police. Unless you hear something that would honestly lead a reasonable person to believe a crime to be in progress or innevitable, then shut up and have some respect for the fact that you live in an open society, and for the fact that other people don’t need you to impose your ignorant fears upon them forcing them to change their schedules to accomodate your fragile sense of security.

I watched those towers fall from 12th and 5th (about a mile away), I was evacuated from my building 3 seperate times due to the anthrax scare (CNN was next door), and yet me and millions of others didn’t bitch about having to get on the subway or in big landmark buildings in the following weeks. I flew in a plane a month later. I am wiser from my experience, but I am not dumb enough to let it run my life. THAT, is exactly what OBL wanted…to become a part of the American consciousness…to have the very sight of a muslim person on a plane to illicit terror in all those around. Nice job “appeasing” them, Chris. Personally, I’ll sack up and think with the brain I have, rather than the one Bush and OBL tried to mold for me with their scare-tactics.

kevin,

you might want to tone it down a notch. i know chris can be frustrating - but he’s not worth it.

no offense; you checked me once already, i believe… just trying to return the favor; besides, there is an extreme shortage of rational conservatives on this site, as it is…

(nevertheless… very good points)

Diogenes-

Point taken. Thanks. I do stand by my sentiments 100%, but I may have been a bit excessive with the use of adjectives.

Maybe between the two of us, we can voice our many common positions with the level of class and decorum that we independently strive for, yet can sometimes fall short of when we are frustrated.

Rocky:

“Michele Malkin is hardly a neutral source for information.
You could have used Ann Coulter, or Hannity, or Rush, or Savage, or Reagan, and gotten pretty much the same take.
All of them extremely biased and extremely bigoted.”

I noticed that when you were quoting media that you said was bias. The sources you mentioned are all right-wing. That is bias. Name sources bias to both sides (CNN, New York Times). I am not partisan. I am disappointed in the Republicans in not putting MORE into fighting the war. They are not enforcing illegal immigration. No one is talking about vouchers for all. We haven’t seceded from the Useless Nations yet. But to be honest, I disagree with the Democrat Party on everything so far.

The United States can backtrack from the tipping point. Limit Govt more and give the people complete control of the market. The Govt’s job is only to protect and keep order. Having a high standard of living is a privilege. Cutting taxes limits the Govt. We have too many!

Tax his land,
> Tax his bed,
> Tax the table
> At which he’s fed.
>
> Tax his tractor,
> tax his mule,
> Teach him taxes
> are the rule
>
> Tax his cow,
> Tax his goat,
> Tax his pants,
> Tax his coat.
>
> Tax his ties,
> Tax his shirt,
> Tax his work,
> Tax his dirt.
>
> Tax his tobacco,
> Tax his drink,
> Tax him if he
> Tries to think.
>
> Tax his cigars,
> Tax his beers,
> If he cries, then
> Tax his tears.
>
> Tax his car,
> Tax his gas,
> Find other ways
> To tax his a**
>
> Tax all he has
> then let him know
> that you won’t be done
> till he has no dough.
>
> When he screams and hollers,
> Then tax him some more,
> Tax him till
> he’s good and sore.
>
> Then tax his coffin,
> Tax his grave,
> Tax the sod in
>
> Which he’s laid.
>
> Put these words
> upon his tomb,
> “Taxes drove me
> to my doom…”
>
> When he’s gone,
> Do not relax,
> Its time to apply
> The inheritance tax.
>
>
> Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax
> CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax
>
> (FUTA)
> Fishing License Tax Food License Tax,
> Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax
> Interest expense &nb sp; Inventory tax
> IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Service charge taxes Social Security Tax
> Road usage taxes Sales Tax
> Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax
> State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurri ng charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License
> Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
>
>Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world.

Get rid of them all!!! If we have more money in our pockets we spend them on goods, which means the Govt gets it all anyways.

“I do stand by my sentiments 100%”… as do i.

let’s take back the republican party.

…in the immortal words of Mr. Beamer…

Let’s Roll.

kevin23:

You claim to be a conservative Republican, so I did a little research to determine for myself just how “conservative” and “Republican” you really are.

I looked at the comments posted by ‘kevin23’ on the following topics:

Who will protect us from violent Islam?
More Bounce..Bounce..Bounce…
Al Qaeda’s desperate plea
Rummy’s the Man
October Surprise: GOP de-Foley-ation

I just started with the last topic in the archive and worked my way up. There were a number of topics that ‘kevin23’ did not comment on.

In every single case, your comment was

1. contrary to the view of the (conservative Republican) author
2. negative in tone, and/or
3. openly anti-Republican.

If you can call yourself a conservative Republican and get away with it, then I hereby declare myself to be a liberal Democrat.

What is the obsession with trying to blame the failures of this war on democrats?

Did Pelosi and 11 other top House Democrats send a letter to Bush demanding an immediate pull-out, or not? Did they just recently embrace the findings of the Iraq Study Group, or not?

The arguement that this is a “Republican” war is just plain stupid. Legislation could not have been passed without the approval of a good number of Democrats. The Republican majority in the House was a slim one (227 to 205); the majority in the Senate even slimmer (55 to 44).

But I suppose that doesn’t really matter because, although Bush is an imbecile and a moron, he was somehow clever enough to dupe most of Congress with his lies about WMDs. All those reports from intelligence agencies around the world must have been fabricated by Bush, too, I suppose.

I don’t think Iraq is a failure. Those are your words and thoughts, not mine.

I liked your “passive influence” line. Poor little Democrats with no influence over the electorate at all, no help from the MSM, no help from the Internet, or the NYT, or the LAT, or Newsweek, or Time, or Al-Jazeera, or … Boo-hoo-hoo.

You think the Democrat’s lack of consistency on this issue to be trivial. I don’t. I think it reveals that the whole Democrat strategy to “Change Direction” in Iraq was just that - a strategy. A means to an end. And the desired end result was the acquisition of political power. So, here were are, post Midterm, and it appears that the retreat from Iraq is going to take a little longer than advertised. Business as usual.

Your last quip is really beyond the pale:

As a conservative republican, I’m embarrassed that you and I share the same affiliation. I just can’t respect a poster who engages in nothing but demonizing partisan rhetoric, even at the expense of every last bit of credibility and context. Even when I completely agree with a general point you make, I find myself cringing at the ineffectiveness of your method of delivery.

Since I seriously doubt that you are a Republican, your thinly-veiled insult misses the mark by a fairly wide margin. As for the ineffectiveness of my post … well, if I was as ineffective as you claim, why did my comment merit such a lengthy retort from you?

Joseph Briggs

The JBS is opposed to anything close to socialism. That you are correct. As far as left/right, that is a point that is always moving. The governments of this country continually move leftward. Illegal immigration does have victims. Many die after crossing into the US and it is not this country’s fault. Drugs are smuggled into this country just as often as the illegal immigrants are. People on the border have their farms, livestock and homes raided by illegal immigrants. They create mayhem on the highways. Come vist the AZ border and you will see first hand of which I speak.

BTW I am not a JBS member.

Diogenes:

You cautioned kevin23 to tone it down a bit because I wasn’t worth it and added that there was a shortage of rational conservatives on this site. So, am I worthless and irrational or just worthless and rational?

This is a weak attempt at humor, Diogenes.

stubborn conservative: This country is still the most prosperous and still has the largest middle class. I am a little doubtful as to both being true in 1906 but may be so. Those taxes had absolutely nothing to do with the national debt. We can thank the Democrats and the Republicans for that, the Republicans more so.

Administration officials anounced that The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology. Bush taketh away before and giveth back after they got the bomb. Another failure of this Administration.

stubborn conservative-
Let’s see, what was our country like in 1906? Mostly Rural. It wasn’t until the twenties that the balance shifted towards the cities. Mostly industrial. Hardly any electronics that we take for granted were invented. Mostly out of touch, with nowhere near the communications capability we now have. Much poorer on average. Much less literate. Much less in the way of electrification. Pollution was simply terrible. No interstate system. Radio really wasn’t a going concern at that point. Racism was pretty thick on the ground. Sanitation was poor, as were the standards on food.

The Europeans were the major economic powers. We had our prosperity, but we were shut out of many markets due to colonialism. France and England were the big military powers…

Folks might have thought it was a wonderful time to be alive, and couldn’t imagine that things would ever shape up like this. Truth is, they would likely be shocked by the culture of nearly every American today, even the so-called (in their view) conservatives.

It’s easy to view the past as some idyllic place, but it wasn’t. It’s a nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there.

Stephen Daugherty,

Add to that the child labor laws didn’t really happen in this country until the depression, when adults would work as cheap as a child (so much for prosperity).
In 1938 FDR signed the Fair Standards Labor act that, among other things, put restrictions on child labor.

The Republicans haven’t poured out most of those taxes. The Dems did. Dems imposed the death tax and scream when there is any reference to repealing or cutting a tax

Chris-
Just what do you hope to gain? First, and I’m reminding all posters of this, the motto here is critique the message, not the messenger. In your case, you’re actually taking the opportunity to specifically attack Kevin 23. I think he should be more restrained on some of his comments, but you’re actively attacking him. Since you are a contributing editor, you have to set an example, openly attacking a commentor is outside the pale.

As for your other arguments? First, Not a single Democrat needed to vote for the resolution in the Senate for it to pass. The same goes for the House. Both could have passed on party line votes, though the margins would have been slim victories for each. Only six Republicans did not vote for the passage in the House, and only one voted against it in the Senate.

The call for this war did not originate with the Democrats. We did not have the neoconservative movement in our ranks writing letters to Clinton calling for regime change. It was Cheney, Wolfowitz and others who were chomping at the bit to go after Saddam when most of America had a different enemy in mind to take out. This was a Republican war. It wouldn’t have happened under our auspices.

As for the duping of Congress, it’s like the old saying goes: in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Bush had nearly everybody’s security clearance downgraded, such that there were maybe Eight people in all the congress who would have the real intelligence shared with them. The rest would get the Declassified NIE, and other such intelligence, which we would later learn was sanitized of a great deal of the doubts, qualifications, footnotes and other sources of potential doubt as to the information. Those who had the clearance for all this couldn’t tell the American Public or their colleagues any different. Not everything was fabricated, but a lot was disregarded, shoved back into the case for war, even with analyst weeping in frustration about how many times they’ve taken it out and told them it was B.S. Literally. Anytime you have such an inequality of access to information, it doesn’t take a genius to deceive or mislead people.

As for those Reports from around the world? Much of it was doubtful from the beginning, some of it from sources considered undependable or prone to exaggeration. Really, the more you look at the intelligence picture, the more it becomes apparent that this administration was at the very least cherrypicking for support, instead of analyzing the picture properly. They wanted to see a reason to attack, and they made it clear that was what they would accept from the intelligence community.

The Iraq Strategty is a failure. It may be partially redeemable, but it’s done the exact opposite so far of what it was intended to do. In fact, The situation is much worse than we’ve been lead to believe. The Administration has systematically been downplaying the extent of the violence.

You’re perpetually putting off the question of whether the Iraq war is succeeding. Your answer is always to wait til tomorrow, for then we could win, if everybody will let us. However, we’ve been fed that line for more than three years now, and the time has come and passed for our approach to start yielding results. So far, the results have skewed negative.

You blame this on the media, and on the political opposition and dissenters. Unfortunately for that theory, we have not had the power to subvert things. The budget and the direction of the war has been run with little interference from our side. The most we have been able to do is simply talk. That talk would have not been persuasive if the war had been productive.

Indeed, the media would lap up a success as much as a failure. It is the dramatic nature of the failure that has caused the drop in morale stateside, and the unpopularity of the war. If you had told me that we would be close to losing this war three years ago, I would have been shocked. I would have thought that any good president would have buckled down and decided to improve things, but that’s not what ended up occuring.

As for inconsistency in the retreat? Didn’t anybody ever tell you that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds? It doesn’t matter whether the positions on these issues are consistent, ultimately, it’s whether they’re done right. That’s the important thing. To be consistent without being right is to be habitually wrong.

“So, am I worthless and irrational or just worthless and rational?”

read into it what you will.

by the by, i would far sooner question the conservative credentials of a republican like yourself - who supports a neocon (read: NOT CONSERVATIVE) president such as bush - then someone such as kevin. before you call into question my own republican status; i can joyfully, proudly aver that i am *not* a republican.

i left that party when they left conservatism (that…and rational thought).

Stephen Daugherty:

Five years?

I goofed. Sorry about that.

Anyways, I would like to know what your big plan for winning Iraq is. You seem all too willing to call any exit plan “surrender”, without any sense of how we win this thing.

I don’t think any exit plan is “surrender.” But setting an arbitrary exit date is no way to win a war, Stephen. When the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves, we leave. The concept is simple, but making it happen has proven to be a lot more difficult than we thought. Difficult, yes. But impossible? No, I don’t think it’s an impossible task.

Is it worth it? Yes, I believe a friendly Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is definitely worth it.

Can we afford NOT to win? What are the consequences of defeat, short- and long-term?

At this point, it is so obvious that this war is not working that Bush has fired Rumsfeld, and is willingly going to employ a guy who’s coming into the job testifying that we’re losing the war.

Actually, he said that we were neither winning nor losing the war in Iraq. And I think Bush fired Rumsfeld in an effort to appease the new majority in Congress. Someone had to take the fall, so Bush gave Rummy a big shove. I really hated to see Rumsfeld get tossed aside in such a casual manner so soon after the midterms. Watching Rumsfeld squirm during the press announcement was like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

Blame the Democrats all you want to, histories verdict will focus on those who had command control and authority over this war. That means your party. That means your President. That means your Congress.

History belongs to the victor, or something along those lines. I agree with you. If we lose the war in Iraq, future historians will be most unkind to President Bush. One more reason to win in Iraq.

And thanks for reminding me, along with the rest of the readers here, that Bush is our President. Sometimes I wonder if Democrats realize that he is their President, too.

This isn’t about surrender. We’re surrendering to no one.

Well, it’s not a formal surrender. That’s true enough. The people we’re fighting don’t even wear uniforms. (This is supposed to be a joke. Please resist the urge to explain what you meant by “surrender.” I get it.)

This isn’t about creating defeat- if it happens, the reasons for it will lie in Bush’s policies, not some media/Democratic Party conspiracy to ruin the nation.

The fact that you are even contemplating defeat at this point in time only reinforces my belief that the whole “Change in Direction” campaign was a sham. Unless, of course, that change in direction was meant to be a full 180 degrees.

This is about salvaging something out of this God-forsaken mess which your president got us in into with insufficient foresight,

Wait a minute. Just a minute ago he was our President. Now he’s just my President? (OK, ok. I was again trying to inject a little humor into this and probably should have resisted the urge.)

flexibility and humility to get us out of it. If we have to suffer defeat because of what your president did, then most of the country prefers we suffer it on terms that are bad rather than worse.

(Just my President again…)

Seems to me that you’ve given up already. I’m not there yet, Stephen.

That in the end is the set of options your President’s policies leave us. Isn’t it time you and others like you figured out what you did wrong, rather than continue to blame the people you made sure didn’t have the power to affect this war?

You make it sound as though Democrats in Congress had no say in the matter. House and Senate Democrats had access to the same intelligence information as the Republicans. Hindsight is 20/20, Stephen. It’s easy to criticize how a war was conducted after the fact.

We made mistakes. When has there ever been a perfect military campaign? Haven’t we made a huge effort to correct those mistakes?

We should have had more troops at the beginning of the conflict. How does that realization help us win the war now?

…and so on.

Illegal immigration does have victims. Many die after crossing into the US and it is not this country’s fault.

Sure it is. They wouldn’t die if they were allowed to come over by conventional means. They die because they need to be smuggled in trucks or cross the desert on foot. In other words, they die because of the law. Your point is like saying the violence surrounding drug trafficking is why drugs must be kept illegal. Speaking of which…

Drugs are smuggled into this country just as often as the illegal immigrants are.

I’m for repealing the Controlled Substances Act so you’ve got no sympathy from me on this point. Making drugs legal would change the world “smuggled” to “imported,” transfer these transactions from the black market to the legitimate market and subject this multi-billion dollar industry to taxation, creating revenue to correctly deal with this issue as a medical problem and not a criminal one. And, as hinted above, by taking this industry away from the black market, violence associated with drug trafficking would be eliminated.

People on the border have their farms, livestock and homes raided by illegal immigrants. They create mayhem on the highways.

So are you accusing all (or a vast majority of) illegal immigrants of this? Because that’s the only way you have a point against illegal immigration. Otherwise you’re talking about the criminal element among the population of immigrants, which, like the rest of society, is a small percentage of the whole and would be dealt with accordingly.

BTW I am not a JBS member.

Yeah, I don’t make those kind of assumptions.

Everyone:

I obviously don’t have what it takes to be an Editor on WatchBlog. I thought I was just defending myself. Obviously, I was wrong.

I’m sorry if I offended anyone. You, expecially, kevin23. Stephen’s right. I’m taking this way too personally and spend more time reading and responding than I do talking with family and friends.

I’ll continue to post comments here, if allowed. But an Editor should know better than to take comments to heart.

-chris

Chris,

“Hindsight is 20/20, Stephen. It’s easy to criticize how a war was conducted after the fact.

We made mistakes. When has there ever been a perfect military campaign? Haven’t we made a huge effort to correct those mistakes?”

You’ve been ignoring me so far, and I can only assume that you will ignore this as well, but I just have to speak up here.

I’ve been posting here more than two years and Stephen and others have very consistent about their criticism of the way this conflict has been run. His comments are not hindsight, in point of fact they have been rather perceptive in the light of how things have turned out.

You guys keep saying how mistakes are made in every conflict.
Yes, but it isn’t that mistakes that have been made in Iraq, it is the lack of ready solutions to those mistakes that have doomed this adventure from after the fall of Baghdad.
The lack of focus in this administration, and “our” President has bordered on criminal when the lives of our troops are hanging in the balance here.
We have been in this theater for 3 1/2 years, and there is still no security.

Why is that?

We defeated Japan and Germany in less time than we have been in Iraq with all of our modern technology.

Realistically, can you tell me why that is.

Diogenes:

Neocon is a term for a Jew. Bush is not Jewish and Neocon doesn’t mean “New Conservative.” It is just term that his political enemies use to call him names. No one should call anyone names. Critique does keep the govt in line by the people, but it is only healthy to critique the policies.

Not that I’m defending Kevin23 or that I think he needs help against such weak debate but the following is just ridiculous…

In every single case, your comment was

1. contrary to the view of the (conservative Republican) author
2. negative in tone, and/or
3. openly anti-Republican.

I’m afraid you haven’t proved anything, Chris. Being contrary to the poster doesn’t prove Kevin23 isn’t Republican. Being negative doesn’t prove it either. And your last point is obviously a matter of opinion on what it means to be Republican, which you don’t specify. Also, I thought the Republican party had a Big Tent.

It sounds like you’re a hardliner who resents moderates.

What is the obsession with trying to blame the failures of this war on democrats?

Did Pelosi and 11 other top House Democrats send a letter to Bush demanding an immediate pull-out, or not? Did they just recently embrace the findings of the Iraq Study Group, or not?

Wait, so we’re failing in Iraq because the Dems wrote a letter to the president? We’re losing in Iraq because they embraced findings from a study? That is some top-notch delusional logic, Chris.

Rocky:

I know why. We haven’t fought hard enough since then. In Vietnam, we weren’t attacked on our land to get us. We were on 9/11. I expected it to be long because the enemy is not an official army, but I expected us to fight hard, but this political civil war is dragging us down.

Let’s finish this. When the terrorists retreat, chase them and crush them! The Civil War would have ended much sooner if the Potomac Generals follwed Lincoln’s orders and chased Lee down when he was weak.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

stubborn conservative,

“Neocon is a term for a Jew. Bush is not Jewish and Neocon doesn’t mean “New Conservative.” It is just term that his political enemies use to call him names.”

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Please go here and read;

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Perhaps it will enlighten you to read the the website top to bottom.

Neocon is a term for a Jew.

???

Neocon doesn’t mean “New Conservative.‎

??????

Sorry to be so bereft of words but… wtf? I’m afraid the prefix “neo” does in fact mean, “new.” And affixing it to “conservative” would make it mean “new conservative.” You might think it an insult, much like many liberals fell for the idea that “liberal” was an insult, but it isn’t. It’s a classification of political philosophy. If you don’t like the fact that the term is applied to Bush, then Bush will simply need to realign himself. But as it is, he is a neoconservative and has rather faithfully followed the prescriptions set forth by PNAC, the epitome of neoconservative thinking.

And what the hell does it have to do with Jews?

And thanks Rocky for providing a link.

“Neocon is a term for a Jew. Bush is not Jewish and Neocon doesn’t mean ‘New Conservative.’”

what?!?! i think you had better provide some support for this statement - because so far as i know (and i do, in fact, know), this statement is pure bunk. this administration is *chock*-*full* of neocons. and i don’t mean jews. look it up.

(honestly, how does neocon translate to jew in *any* language?)

diogenes,

read this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Also the founders of the Neo-conservative movement were indeed Jewish.

Critics:

You are half right. Neocon-according to the Webster Online Dictionary does say New Conservative, BUT look at the word “conservative”. It means “to preserve the ways of tradition.” So there can be no ‘new’ conservative. Either you are or you aren’t.

Nazis and communists called Jews neocons. Why? I do not know.

Rocky:

Thanks for doing the research for me. BTW- I didn’t find “neocon” in the site.

When that report came out a few months ago about as many a 450,000 to 600,000 Iraqi deaths it was attacked by those who have defended the Presidents policies. We now know for a fact that the administration and the Pentagon deliberately miss informed the American People about the number of deaths and the amount of violence in Iraq. The report was far more accurate than the Administrations account.

ok. so the founders of the american neocon movement were jewish. i understand your confusion (and my own), but it certainly does not follow that the term ‘neocon’ is necessarily (or ever) utilized as a derogatory slur on jews.

it is the policies to which i refer - as you well know (considering that you knew that little tidbit of archaic trivia, i think this is a safe assumption).

for your information, these days the neoconservative movement is more an extension of the neoliberal movement found in europe (notably, england)… that is, they pursue the same illogical policies. the founders of that movement were *not* jewish (again, to the best of my knowledge). there are subtle differences… but i’ve been through all this many times before.

regardless, the point is that most who hold these perverse and absurd ideas refer to themselves, by and large, as neocons… and it really wouldn’t matter if they didn’t (which they do), because the ideas would still be the same - and they would still be wrong.

i therefore reiterate; bush is a neocon.

and yes, i agree - neocon is a self-contradictory term = and bush is, therefore, no conservative.

by the way,

i appreciate the link, rocky.

I feel like we are just repeating the same things to each other. What is the difference between a neocon and a conservative?

quit playing these circuitous games. you expect me to believe that you knew the origins of the term, ‘neocon’, but don’t recognize the difference between the two? i can’t help but feel like the butt of a neocon joke…

here’s an idea - take a look at bush, then compare everything he has done to what a real conservative in his position would have done (if you are familiar with *that* term). or better yet - look it up, and quit waisting my time.

Another disappointment, Dick Cheney’s gay daughter is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years are very much looking forward to being parents. Details of the pregnancy will remain private.

Bush has everything in common with a conservative, except that he wants amnesty. The war isn’t his fault. The war is more good for us than bad. It can be better. The War on Terror won’t be finished until the party wars end and Americans become united against the radical Islamist enemy. So Bush is a conservative, or a barely a neocon. I will research Neoconism.

amnesty? yes. now what about expansive and intrusive federal government coupled with attempts at drastic reductions in the rights of states, consolidation of power in the executive, undermining of the constitution, massive debt, spreading freedom by force - among others.

(the war in afghanistan was necessary; the war in iraq was, in fact, pointless, wrongheaded, and *entirely* his fault)

these are conservative goals? since when. now, not all of these are necessarily part of a neocon agenda, but as they are not at all part of a conservative one - and do not at all conflict with the neocon agenda (indeed, they are practically prerequisites for pursuing one) - how about citing some policies he has pursued which do comply with conservative ideology.

please, research it… but again, ultimately, i don’t care what you or anyone else calls him - so long as you recognize the inherent, severe deficiencies in these policies.

The fire between us seems to be cooling.

Neocons are like conservatives in many ways. Here are the differences: They are facist. They want bigger government. They want people dependent on the government.

The list probably goes on. People everywhere are screaming “Neocon!” If a word is used too often and unnecessarily, It unofficialy gets redefined. That is why your definition was different than mine. Corrupt politicians seeking power use this tactic. “I am a new…” or “I am a moderate…” This confuses the voters. This is when we say to politicians, “you are what you are, don’t hide that.”

those are certainly some of the differences. i do not see that my definition is very, or any, different than your own - but i can appreciate that you recognize a difference.

bush has never, to my knowledge, avowed that he is a neocon. a good number in this administration have, and several others are quite suspect. i understand that the term is vague, but then so are the terms ‘liberal,’ and ‘conservative’ (though i would argue, to a lesser degree).

still - the policies of this administration, for which i must hold bush solely responsible, are not those of a conservative… this is why i was careful to clarify my use of the word (at least initially). thus, it should not have mattered too much whether are definitions did differ. regardless, i am glad that we cleared that up.

You are half right. Neocon-according to the Webster Online Dictionary does say New Conservative, BUT look at the word “conservative‎. It means “to preserve the ways of tradition.‎ So there can be no ‘new’ conservative. Either you are or you aren’t.

I don’t think you know what the word “new” means. Here’s an example using it the way you try to characterize it above: You say you own a Ford (vehicle). I say I own a new Ford. You say, that’s not possible, it’s either a Ford or it isn’t.

Like any ideology, there can be different approaches to conservativism and there isn’t anything about conservativism that excludes new approaches to preserving traditional means and ends. If you feel that the very ideology of conservativism is itself a tradition requiring preserving then… well… I don’t know what that’s called. We would need a new term for that.

My question regarding the Jews was really driving at exactly what Diegenes said:

ok. so the founders of the american neocon movement were jewish. i understand your confusion (and my own), but it certainly does not follow that the term ‘neocon’ is necessarily (or ever) utilized as a derogatory slur on jews.

Corrupt politicians seeking power use this tactic. “I am a new�‎ or “I am a moderate�‎ This confuses the voters. This is when we say to politicians, “you are what you are, don’t hide that.‎

You beleive that any politician who claims to be a moderate is corrupt and lying? That’s rather cynical, don’t you think?

Neoconservative refers not to the policies, but to the timing of the folks entering the movement, basically former liberals who crossed over when the leftist in the party took foreign policy in what they saw as a direction of appeasement- hence their obsession with confrontation.

They’re not too conservative in certain respects, and it is true that many of them are Jewish and Pro-Israel, but it’s their own rhetoric that the opposition to them and their Middle East policy is a form of anti-semitism. Folks actually are generally unaware of the ethnicity and generally don’t care abgout it.

They believe you do what it takes to slay the dragons in the world. Unfortunately, they’ve got this tendency to make dogma and theology of their positions, to use brute political force to make their positions the consensus. This happened in the 70’s and 80’s with the Soviet threat, which they greatly overestimated, and again in the 90’s and the current decade, with Iraq. They get fixated on a certain enemy and beat the shit out of everybody in order to get us to go after them.

Trouble is, they’re better at crying wolf than spotting wolves. They don’t have the discipline and reserve to sit back and analyze the position from a detached perspective. They jump the gun on figuring out what happens, on what can happen. What makes it worse is that they consider most other political positions and attitudes to be not aggressive enough, to be purposed towards appeasement and things like that. The result of this, generally, is that they won’t listen to anybody else’s advice.

They make sure that nothing and nobody gets in the way of their goals, even those trying to give them a reality check, or give greater substance to their plans. Then they bitterly fight anybody who tries to change policy after it turns out that they were wrong. This both makes it more difficult to correct the problems their policy creates, and additionally makes for a much more contentious, even divisive debate.

This is why the Neocons have replaced “liberals” as the political movement people love to hate. A bunch of people hijack the war on terror, sending us into a war they poorly plan, then start blaming us and raining insults on us for our opposition to their policies, not to mention paralyzing any change of policy.

Americans want a different direction. They want out of this war somehow. Preferably, we don’t want a disaster, but our ability to avoid that has been impaired the by stubborn resistance to reforming the plan by our Neocon friends, and their Republican enablers.

Rocky:

I’ve been posting here more than two years and Stephen and others have very consistent about their criticism of the way this conflict has been run. His comments are not hindsight, in point of fact they have been rather perceptive in the light of how things have turned out.

Interesting how perceptions differ between libs and conservatives. When I maintain consistency in my views, Stephen claims I am suffering from a “fooish consistency” and insults my intelligence in a not-so-subtle manner. However, when a liberal (like Stephen) maintains a posture that is consistently critical of this President and his Administration, he is praised for being “perceptive.” Constructive criticism is warranted. But the kind of criticism liberals have embraced since the 2000 election is not “constructive” at all. I have read hundreds of liberal rantings throughout the blogosphere (WatchBlog included) that describe our President and every single member of his Cabinet as moronic, imbecilic, warmongering, you name it. The hatred for Bush predates 9/11, and nothing has changed. It’s just a happy coincidence that the war in Iraq is not going well because it gave their seething hatred of Bush the moral authority needed to turn public opinion against him and his policies. The whole “Bush is an idiot” thing wasn’t working. But when you associate “Bush is an idiot” with “Bush is sending our brave boys to die in a senseless war based on his lies about WMDs so his neocon cronies can get rich on no-bid contracts” … Well, that’s MUCH more effective.

We have been in this theater for 3 1/2 years, and there is still no security.

Why is that?

Uhm, because there is an insurgency composed of militant Islamofanatics (Sunni, Shia, Al Quada, foreign fighters from Syria and Iran, etc.) who consider the U.S. to be nothing more than a paper tiger, and all they have to do is wait us out?

We defeated Japan and Germany in less time than we have been in Iraq with all of our modern technology.

Realistically, can you tell me why that is.

We defeated the Iraqi army in … what? Six weeks? The difference is that this has devolved into a sectarian conflict (Sunni vs. Shia) with Al Quaeda types added in for good measure who have nothing to lose but their miserable lives and everything to gain by becoming martyrs for Allah.

I meant to write “foolish consistency,” not “fooish.”

Sounds funny, though. Fooish.

Chris-

“Who will protect us from violent Islam?
More Bounce..Bounce..Bounce�
Al Qaeda’s desperate plea
Rummy’s the Man
October Surprise: GOP de-Foley-ation”

Nice cherry picking. Next time try reading articles written by true conservatives like Michael Smith. In them, you’ll find my positions on actual issues rather than my anti-fearmongering position (which I and MANY conservatives stand by whole-heartedly). You just picked the most extreme threads that were written by right wing extremists. I am not a neo-con extremist.

I don’t think your accusations hold ANY merit whatsoever, and even your researching abilities are suspect. All my posts and you only come up with the above threads? Seems suspicious to me and should be for anyone who reads my posts regularly as well. Therefore, I will simply say that I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

“If you can call yourself a conservative Republican and get away with it, then I hereby declare myself to be a liberal Democrat.”

And that will somehow prove something to me? Its a free country…you have only your dignity to lose. I’m perfectly comfortable standing by my words. Limited, accountable and responsible government, federalism and keeping government out of personal lives seems pretty conservative to me. Maybe you disagree. Fine by me…just don’t go unilaterally changing definitions on us all just to “win” an argument.

“Did Pelosi and 11 other top House Democrats send a letter to Bush demanding an immediate pull-out, or not? Did they just recently embrace the findings of the Iraq Study Group, or not?”

Who cares? They are not in power. The democrats are just punching holes in the policy by presenting alternatives that appear just as viable. Thats all they can do. And doing nothing would definately upset people more.

“The arguement that this is a “Republican‎ war is just plain stupid.”

Really? Who collected, analized, cherry picked, and then only partially reported the facts that led us to war? Republicans. Not all republicans were war-hawks, but civilian leadership of this war was overwhelmingly dominated by republicans. And since they used their political majority and authority to get things passed, that makes the actions distinctly republican. The fact that a small number of democrats jumped on board for whatever reasons does not change any of these facts. Do you really deny this? Or is the whole concept too “stupid” for you to even think about? I guarantee you that MANY voters on both sides do not feel that way.

“he was somehow clever enough to dupe most of Congress with his lies about WMDs. All those reports from intelligence agencies around the world must have been fabricated by Bush, too, I suppose.”

Its easy to do when there is no oversight and you get to select which facts to report. The fabrication was not on the documents themselves, but rather in the fact that certain information was expressly hidden.

“I don’t think Iraq is a failure. Those are your words and thoughts, not mine.”

You can’t even quote me correctly? I said the mission was doomed because no one understood it. Define success 10 different ways and your bound to find something that works for you. I’m more of a realist.

Chris to Stephen D: “And thanks for reminding me, along with the rest of the readers here, that Bush is our President.”

True. But does that mean his policies are our policies? Absolutely not! At least not in a working democracy. Dissent is a good thing. SOME people even learn from criticism.

Chris to Stephen D: “I don’t think any exit plan is “surrender.‎ But setting an arbitrary exit date is no way to win a war, Stephen.”

Since when is setting a deadline a hindrance to things getting done quickly? I impose deadline all the time on my employees. Some are arbitrary. But guess what? They WORK! No one does anything if they dont feel any sense of urgency. And if they do, what they produce is not their best effort. We need deadlines, and consequences if we are serious. Not open ended promises. That, my tunnel-visioned friend, is how the entitlement mentality starts. Any good conservative should be anti-entitlement in Iraq.

Chris to Stephen D: “The fact that you are even contemplating defeat at this point in time only reinforces my belief…”

Stop right there. If defeat is simply accounting for reality, then we lost the moment Bush changed the mission. And since when is it a good idea to have no “plan B” in war? These are distinctly white house problems. How do democrats voicing legitimate concerns about the way money is being wasted affect that?

Chris to Stephen D: “House and Senate Democrats had access to the same intelligence information as the Republicans.”

No. They had access to what the white house chose to give them access to. Often, they voted without reading it at all.

Chris to Stephen D: “We made mistakes. When has there ever been a perfect military campaign? Haven’t we made a huge effort to correct those mistakes?”

Too little too late. No one is asking for perfection. It shouldn’t take losing $300B and your congressional majority in an election-year turnover to motivate you to do your due diligence. The mere fact that real lives are on the line should have been enough. But I’m still hopeful that good changes will be made when Bush actually paying attention to his critics (now mounting up on both sides of the isle).

“I liked your “passive influence‎ line. Poor little Democrats with no influence over the electorate at all, no help from the MSM, no help from the Internet, or the NYT, or the LAT, or Newsweek, or Time, or Al-Jazeera, or â€� Boo-hoo-hoo.”

Now you are just lashing out blindly. I’m sorry you feel so oppressed. I think it is a personal problem more than anything. Boo-hoo-hoo for you too.

“You think the Democrat’s lack of consistency on this issue to be trivial.”

No, I just think it reflects the reality that there is no silver bullet. Thats a heck of a lot more honest than a unified front for more of the same.

“Since I seriously doubt that you are a Republican, your thinly-veiled insult misses the mark by a fairly wide margin. As for the ineffectiveness of my post â€� well, if I was as ineffective as you claim, why did my comment merit such a lengthy retort from you?”

Again, try doing some actual research rather than a blind baseless attack on me personally. You are a contributing editor here? Maybe Watchblog needs to make your status here dependent upon you having even a basic understanding of the rules. I can take it, but you are not setting the bar very high for others now are you?

As for the lengthy retort: you’ll forgive me if I like to be clear. I suppose you find it a weakness of mine that I like to explain my positions and criticisms. When someone posts something that is as devoid of logic as your initial post was, I feel it is best for the conservative movement and ideology as a whole to distinguish the good arguments from the crap. Your arguments, Chris, were crap. And I do not want my positions to be wrongly associated with crap. Its that simple. I’m sorry, but it did not have much to do with you personally. You are just not that important to me. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.

Stubborn Conservative-

A conservative believes in the value of local control over federal control and puts the focus on personal responsibility rather than government intervention when dealing with social issues. A Neo-conservative believes in using the federal government to promote their agenda. While they share SOME of the same ideas, the means to the end are polar opposites. Neocons have much more in common with liberals in the way they impliment policy. Bush is nowhere near a Reagan conservative. He’s more like a LBJ democrat, just with a much different agenda.

Stephen Daugherty:

Just what do you hope to gain? First, and I’m reminding all posters of this, the motto here is critique the message, not the messenger. In your case, you’re actually taking the opportunity to specifically attack Kevin 23. I think he should be more restrained on some of his comments, but you’re actively attacking him. Since you are a contributing editor, you have to set an example, openly attacking a commentor is outside the pale.

You’re absolutely right. I apologized and resigned as a WatchBlog editor. Now that I no longer have to “set an example,” I am free to articulate my position however I wish. You are under no obligation whatsoever to read my comments or reply to them.

Not a single Democrat needed to vote for the resolution in the Senate for it to pass.

But 29 Democrat Senators did vote for the Iraq Resolution. That’s the point.

The call for this war did not originate with the Democrats. We did not have the neoconservative movement in our ranks writing letters to Clinton calling for regime change. It was Cheney, Wolfowitz and others who were chomping at the bit to go after Saddam when most of America had a different enemy in mind to take out. This was a Republican war. It wouldn’t have happened under our auspices.

Hmm. Well, let’s take a look at what some prominent Democrats had to say about Saddam, WMDs, and whether an invasion of Iraq was justified. I’ll take them at their word if you will, Stephen:

General Wesley Clark
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”
September 26, 2002

Robert Byrd, (D-WV)
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
October 3, 2002

Bob Graham (D-FL)
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Carl Levin (D-MI)
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
September 19, 2002

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
“The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks — and we should not minimize the risks — we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.”
October 10, 2002

Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”
September 27, 2002

Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
October 10, 2002

John Kerry (D-MA)
“Well, it wasn’t only on that basis. … Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler and the United Nations.”
2003
CBS Face the Nation

Read more comments from beguiled and hoodwinked Democrats here and here.

As for the duping of Congress…

Amazing. All of the Democrats above were duped by Bush. Even Hillary, often touted as the Smartest Woman on the Planet.

As for those Reports from around the world? …

It is incredible to me how you can be so dismissive of those intelligence reports. At the time, it was the best information we had.

The Iraq Strategty is a failure.

I disagree. The Islamofanatics cannot beat us militarily. The Iraqi government is only in its infancy, so I’d expect them to need our help (along with the rest of the responsible free world) for a long, long time. The economic infrastructure of Iraq was in a sorry state long before our tanks rolled into downtown Baghdad.

You’re perpetually putting off the question of whether the Iraq war is succeeding.

I don’t remember anyone putting that specific question before me. Yes, our efforts in Iraq are succeeding, albeit slower than everyone anticipated. I think a more appropriate question is “Are we succeeding in Iraq fast enough?” As the Midterms and the Iraq Surrender Group have made plainly obvious, the answer is “No.”

You blame this on the media, and on the political opposition and dissenters.

And our enemies. Don’t forget them.

Unfortunately for that theory, we have not had the power to subvert things.

You grossly underestimate the power of the (overwhelmingly liberal Democrat) media on this society. The MSM are the unnamed 4th branch of government. From Day One of the conflict, you could not pick up a newspaper or watch a nightly news program without negative commentary by a Democrat celebrity or Congressman. Day in and day out, an endless litany of Bad News from Iraq.

The budget and the direction of the war has been run with little interference from our side.

That’s true enough, I suppose.

The most we have been able to do is simply talk. That talk would have not been persuasive if the war had been productive.

I think the war would have been more productive if the talk from your side had been more supportive. If our enemies had seen an uncompromising, committed, and determined United States coming at them, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

stephen,

“Neoconservative refers not to the policies, but to the timing of the folks entering the movement…”

i disagree with this statement - the neocons have come to be known for their agenda more so than anything else.
… but i agree with much of the rest of your post.

joseph,

“If you feel that the very ideology of conservativism is itself a tradition requiring preserving thenâ€� wellâ€� I don’t know what that’s called. “

i have heard the term paleoconservative thrown about in reference to this line of thinking. i’m not very familiar with the term, but it seems a bit of a redundancy. i intend to look into it a good deal more when i have an opportunity.

((in my opinon, the term ‘neocon,’ is itself a lie to distract and mislead; in this case, to distract and mislead true conservatives.))

by the way,

i recently found information suggesting there is, in fact, a neoliberal movement in america. if this pans out, then i guess i was wrong about the neolibs being exclusive to europe. this is news to me - as the neolibs and neocons share practically the same political philosophies/goals.

still, it’d be worth looking into, if you find such things fasci(st)nating. ;)

Chris-

“I think the war would have been more productive if the talk from your side had been more supportive. If our enemies had seen an uncompromising, committed, and determined United States coming at them, we wouldn