The overwhelming lessons of Iowa and New Hampshire are ones that shouldn’t be a surprise to any American, but clearly are to the political power elitists and their old media symbiotes: Americans are tired of the angry political partisan divide.
- We saw it in 1998 after the impeachment
- We saw it in 2000 during the election tie
- We saw it in 2002 when H. Dean deliberately divided the nation and the world by opposing US action in Iraq for his own political power grab.
- We saw it in 2004 when John Kerry lost the popular vote and the electoral vote to a President with less than 50% approval ratings!
- We saw it in 2005 with President Bush’s uber low approval numbers which continue today.
- We saw it in 2006 with a change of Congressional power wrapped around a message of “A New Direction” of this, that, and the other
- We saw it in 2007 with the almost immediate plummet of Congressional approval ratings to the lowest in recorded history!
- We saw it in Iowa where the two candidates who ran almost exclusively as “nice guys” promising “hope” and “change” and bi-partisanship ran away with it.
- We saw it in New Hampshire where an inexperienced new guy almost blew away the Democratic Party’s most partisan player, and he did it on a message of “Yes we can.”
The point is that the American people have been deliberately divided by political partisanship. Republicans are not innocent, and only fools don’t try to identify and accept the Democrats’ sins as well. Average Americans are people who normally don’t care, aren’t interested, or just don’t have the time to pay attention to politics. They are RINOs, DINOs, independents, centrists, or some other labeled demographic. When they see political reporting, they see name-calling, spin, half truths, and misleading statements; politics. As this has steadily increased over the past 10yrs, more and more Americans have become apathetic in disgust and despair.
But Obama and Huckabee are right. There IS something happening here. In addition to the apathy, there’s a new generation taking power. The “Me Generation” (ie “Baby Boomer” generation) has failed. They failed to meet or surpass the patriotic contribution of their parents; members of “The Greatest Generation.” Now, those children of the 50’s, youth of the 60’s, young disco dancing adults of the 1970’s, and the junk bond investors of the 1980’s are about to retire. As they do, their children are taking power, and this generation (people in their 20’s and 30’s) has never known a JFK, a Martin Luther King, a Bobby Kennedy, or for that matter a truly great American President. Some would argue that President Clinton or President Reagan should be on Mount Rushmore, but those are partisan calls not the voice of Americans as a whole.
While the men and women of this new generation take power, they not only have their own lives to shape, but in the past few years they’ve started having children, and now they’re also concerned about more than just themselves. As adults they no longer have the luxury of apathy and despair that they were kids. They see today’s threats and problems and concerns, and they see the legacy of debt, dishonor, disgrace, and divide; an inheritance of political problems are too big, too numerous, and too dangerous to shrug off and pass on to another generation as the “Me Generation” has done.
Democrats and Republicans alike grow more and more desperate for a change in the American political climate. Americans as a whole-regardless of their own individual or group ignorance-cannot fail to see that politics as usual means business as usual; i.e. no business, no accomplishment, no greater United States of America. The impotence of Washington D.C. has just grown too limp to ignore anymore. Viagra and Lipitor sales are just too big inside The Beltway.
The example has been set, seen, can no longer be accepted. People really do want change.
All men may be created equal with certain inalienable rights, but some are born with more than that. Some people are born with unequal skills, abilities, gifts, and particularly resources. Americans are those people. The world knows it, we know it, and politicians know it, but the latter has no problem repressing or dismissing the abilities of a person or this entire nation for their own personal political gain.
It’s been said that, “Words are not action–and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.” That’s not entirely true though. Words are in fact action. Words are the lifeblood of a free nation. It’s why freedom of speech is the key to everything in the United States. Words are an action in and of themselves-an action that can divide a nation and stall it, or unite, inspire, and propel a nation forward through even the gravest of times. Whether it’s JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, FDR, or Lincoln, or our founding fathers…words do matter.
The United States of America is at war, on the edge of economic crisis-even disaster, and bogged down in a quagmire of challenges left behind by a generation that claims to have been “changing” things for 35yrs. Well, that generation has failed. Baby Boomer Presidents have failed. Baby Boomer politicians have failed. Baby Boomer advocates and activists have failed. Now, they want to grab power yet again, try yet again, and at the same time most of their generation is retiring-retiring on a financial gift from their children and grandchildren. That generation’s time has come, and passed.
A new generation is taking responsibility for America. That generation wants this to be a United States of America – not the Democratic Republic of North America, or the Republican States of the Western Hemisphere. No. This is the United States of America. When the American people are united, this new generation knows that the world trembles in awe. People who are oppressed by economic, religious, cultural, or political circumstances look with respect and hope while oppressors and tyrants flee in fear to live for years in caves. This generation, and the world, knows that when united, this country can put men on the moon and make the most incredible endeavor in all of mankind’s history actually look boring.
This generation also knows that it cannot follow in its parents’ footsteps and pass on burdens to yet another generation. The past promise of Americans has always been to pass on from one generation to another a better nation has simply been ignored by the “Me Generation.” Their children want that to change.
Democrats and Republicans are trying to find ways to market the idea of “change” because most of all, the American people are finally standing up and telling aging leaders that it’s time to either pay up or get out. It’s time to either really change things, or retire like the rest of the “Me generation.”
I found deep truth and inspiration in your words here.
A sincere “Thank you” for writing them.
Pingback: 2008 Election Resonance - at Flopping Aces at Traction Control
I believe that the “mood of the nation” is indeed one of “change”; a desire for unification after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush, which has seen deep partisan divides.
That’s, in part, why potential voters see Obama’s charisma and eloquence, and seek no further, for the substance beneath the polish and veneer. They do not see that he is no centrist, when it comes to policy issues. Obama, for them, represents what they all ache for: something different. Something other than the Washington career “status quo” incumbents- the aging baby boomers and Washington establishment. Obama represents the exuberance of youth, and the excitement of change.
The country suffers Bush-fatigue and partisanship-fatigue, after 16 years of it. Bush-Clinton-Bush…???…..I think it may be the end of the dynasty. I could be wrong. I just think Hillary’s time may have passed. In a sense, she’s been campaigned, by the media, for the last 8 years. Obama is fresh. Hillary, stale. It’s not just media hype, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, and driving the mood. I truly sense this desire for “new and different”, in my everyday experience with people. Perhaps this is a media-driven and fabricated fascination, as the people I encounter are mostly casual headline readers and tv news soundbyte absorbers. So they may only be catching Obama fever, because he’s the media darling, with Hillary thrown away like yesterday’s NYTimes. But I’m telling you, people I encounter are buzzing about Obama like he’s the anointed one, who will pull the sword from the stone.
I consider myself a radical center-right extremist. Yet, although I find Obama impressive and “likable” and presidentially eloquent, each time he opens his mouth and speaks ill of the Bush Administration and “the War”, I find myself unable to swallow the notion of living under an Obama presidency. If he truly wished to unite the country, don’t campaign by slamming President Bush, who is not running for re-election. Just don’t bring up the past 8 years. Don’t drum up negativity to make your message sound positive. Not all of us voters think the last 8 years were all bad. Just tell us how you are going to do things these next 4-8 years.
I’m amazed at how much Senator Obama sounds like this blast from the past:
“if the war is not ended when the people choose in November, the choice will be clear. Here it is: For four years this Administration has had at its disposal the greatest military and economic advantage that one nation has ever had over another in a war in history. For four years America’s fighting men have set a record for courage and sacrifice unsurpassed in our history. For four years this Administration has had the support of the loyal opposition for the objective of seeking an honorable end to the struggle.
Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively. And if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past. That is what we offer to America.
And I pledge to you tonight that the first priority foreign policy objective of our next Administration will be to bring an honorable end to the war in Vietnam.”
President Nixon
1968
RNC nomination acceptance speech
I liked Scott’s original post.
That’s a passionate post. I do see some kind of groundswell. But I’m skeptical 2008′s going to be a realigning election, shifting party coalitions in the direction of a new-party hegemony. We saw that really only two times in American history: 1860 and 1932.
The last time we had a big, earthquake presidential election was in 1992, when Bill Clinton ended 12 years of GOP rule. The feeling in the electorate was similar: economic dislocation, especially, but also a foreign war no longer proping up an incumbent presdent, demands for change on immigration and health care, etc. We’re seeing some similarities.
I do think Bush Derangement Syndrome has twisted left forces more intensely than the past, and I agree with Wordsmith about the man-on-the-street buzz for change.
We’ll see, in any case. Keep it up!
I’m a little confused, change is fine, but what are we advocating changing. Obama isn’t change, he’s samo samo. I want change also, change from Teddy Kennedy, change in the state department, change in the pentagon. I want the shadow government weeded out. I want American politicians to be American, its just that simple.
Man, I am in center left field in my political views and accidentally pulled up this web site. That is one of the best posts i have ever read. It hit the nail right on the head. I will forward this and print it out as it expresses my views better than anything i have ever read. I believe that you are right, we want true change, not just words and a quick fix.
Mike
As you can see plainly not all are quite ready to give up on partisanship. BDS ???
Most Americans STRONGLY disapprove of his leadership. Some still insist that this is indicative of an illness.
The Republicans are the minority party now. Will the minority party help to achieve the goals of the majority of Americans ?
As for the left being worse than the right ?? In 1998 all of the Republicans in the House voted to impeach, the Democrats chose NOT to go down that route. In 1998 when Clinton was impeached his approval rating among all Americans was at 68%.
John, thank you for demonstrating my point about partisanship.
I share your dislike of the Boomer generation (oddly both my wife and I were born of parents a little too old to be boomers, so no boomers in our family tree). But it’s a little early to write them off – they’ll have electoral clout enough to make sure they get a slice of the pie for many years to come. It’s no coincidence that universal health care is suddenly everyone’s big project at exactly the same time that the boomers are starting to retire – that is, at the point in time when their contributions into the system are dwindling and their claims on the benefits increasing…
Anyway, promoting change just for change’s sake is vacuous – you need to specify what change(s) you have in mind. Paul would probably bring more change than any other candidate, but obviously the nature of the change might not be what a lot of people want.
Rofl….John just feel right into that one huh?
What a load of crap. People are people regardless of their generation. Human nature is unchanging. We’re not getting better but staying the same. Lift someone from the Middle Ages, fix his teeth and give him a new suit of clothes, briing him up to date on developments since the plague, and you have modern man.
This is a nice post Scott, well written indeed. But perhaps you missed the news that Clinton won New Hampshire and McCain won as well. Where is the change here?
The fact is that the only reason we see in this post to believe that Americans are ready to unite and require change of its leaders are a few thousand votes in Iowa for crying out loud. The papers in New York and Boston and sites like Drudge will still look for the ugliest picture of Hillary they can find and they will sell more papers that way. The screamers at Fox will throw up the picture of McCain holding a Canadian Naturalist organization every 15 minutes.
If people really wanted Change Kucinich and Gravel would be in double digits and Ron Paul would have won in New Hampshire.
I hope you are right and simply can read things that are not there right now but unfortunately, all evidence runs contrary to your finely worded but ultimately empty-promised post.
Bush Derangement Syndrome
When a Conservative can say the name “Hillary Clinton” without frothing at the mouth, THEN speak of mental illness among Liberals who state plainlyy that George W. Bush is incompetent.
“BDS” is another FoxNews invented term used to pump up the Republican party Faithful and divert attention on the actual bungling of the Bush Administration.
I do not hate George W. Bush. I’m sure, as Chris Mathews fawningly said, he is a man I’d “like to have a beer with”.
However President Bush has been so singularly inept that an invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in about a month was folowed by so incompetently managed an occupation that American soldiers are now dying in Iraq NOT to bring a “Shining Example of Democracy” to the Middle East, but to undo the blunders of the NeoConservatives in the Bush Administration. The loyal soldiers who died in Iraq this week gave their lievs for nothing more than that.
And that is a disgrace that Conservatives paper over with “mistakes were made” or “we did have our criticism” as though the incompetence of Geroge W. Bush had no real consequences on peoples’ lives.
As long as “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is used as a label by Conservatives to avoid holding George W. Bush accountable for the costs of his laziness, we will not “get past” the rabid partisianship that the original post decried and with which I concurred.
^
Yup. No rabid partisanship nor signs of BDS there.
Thanks for coming to the center, Philly Steve.
[/sarcasm]
Re: “Yup. No rabid partisanship nor signs of BDS there.
Thanks for coming to the center, Philly Steve.
[/sarcasm]”
My comments were absolutely partisian. And, if even one Conservative were to acknowledge the degree to which Americans are now dying to undo the depth of Bush’s incompetence, my criticism would be excessive.
But not one single Conservative will admit that Bush Administration incompetence has cost hundreds (thousands?) of lives. The most they can say is “mistakes were made”, as though the mistakes fell from the sky and had no consequences.
remember who is the self-proclaimed “Decider” for American involvement in Iraq. As long as he demands that mantle, George W. Bush shold shoulder the accountability.
But neither you, nor one single other Conservative will say that President bush is ultimately accountable for the costs of Bush Administration incompetence in Iraq’s occupation.
And as long as you insist on irrationally shielding him from that accountability, I will continue to point it out.
Re: “Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush’s right-wing positions?”
Why are Liberal comments on the need for change considered rabidly partisian, while Conservative tossing around the word “treason” (a crime that carries the death penalty) considered OK?
Change your friend Ann Coulter on the Conservative side, then tell us Liberals how mean we are.
Re: “For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush’s policies “divisive” simply because they don’t agree with them.”
No.
We say that the Bush Administration is divisive when they have this to say about our comments about solutions to their incompetent occupation of Iraq:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/11/cheney-terrorists/
And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.
Being told that my belief that continued occupation of Iraq by American troops is the greates recruiting poster Osama bin laden cold have prayed for “helps the terrorists” is divisive.
Re: “Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.”
Drop “aiding the terrorists” and “treason” from your lexicon every time you disagree with me. Then tell me how evil my comments are.
incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq…
I refuse to call the actions of our military forces incompetent. Your interest in Iraq is purely as a catalyst for your partisan hate, and if it were not, then you’d equally be ranting about the Democrats who promoted the war, saw the same or more intel, authorized it, supported it, funded it, called for more troops, and who will still get your vote while escaping anything close to condemnation from you….in fact, rather than condemnation you choose to support them.
Re: “incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq…”
not invasion. Occupation. Bad phrasing.
And the occupation has been incompetently managed. The responsiblity resides directly with the White House that appointed the administrators.
And, to the extent that our military chiefs of staff did not jump up and down with their hair on fire as Donald Rumsfeld presided over this debacle, they are accountable too.
And, yes, the Democrats who kept their mouths shut as Republicans in Congress gave theBush Administration a series of blank checks and refused all attempts at accountability, Democrats are not off the hook. They are just not as guilty as Republicans, who ran Congress through the Rumsfeld mess.
But you still can’t say that the Bush Administration was incompetent, can you?
I have to agree that Bush was incompetent during the Iraqi occupation. Otherwise he would have Arrested and charged those traitous piece of crap Democrats that went running around undermining our efforts and lending hope and encouragment to the enemy.
The problem wiht Bush isn’t that he went to far, it’s that he didn’t go far enough. This is a war for the survival of secular government and society. At risk are the very principles that the left abuse to undermine our efforts. This isn’t checkers for boasting rights or the next election by the ignorant masses who only knw of the world that which is force fed to them by the MSM and their ranting liberal college agedactivist with the life and world experience of a house cat.
Nah, I can’t say the Admin is incompetent when it comes to Iraq because I don’t believe they were…I see the problems there differently, with less of an aim at blame, and more of an aim at correction, improvement, etc. Militarily, since the invasion this war has been of absolute unparalleled military success. HOWEVER, if you read my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, you can see that I was among the first people in 2003 to call the intelligence failures that led to 911 and Iraq wmd intel shortcomings as inexcusable; ie worse than incompetent imo.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no love of GWB. I just refuse to put on blinders at search for a political scapegoat for anything and everything that people don’t like about a war. There’s plenty to not like about ANY war.
Moreover, I tend to look at the war in Iraq as a long, uninterrupted war from 1990-today. The timeline supports this quite clearly, and history books report the timeline. So when we look at the timeline of the US war with Iraq, we can find lots of problems, lots of bigger problems.
Oh, but I would LOVE to stand at the head of a line to sign my name and say that President Bush’s domestic leadership regarding support for the war has been incompetent, and that his speaking abilities are incompetent, or that his grasp of 30-50% of Americans’ sense of political alienation and frustration is incompetent.
As I predicted. The unconditional protection of George W. Bush by those who claim to “have no love for the man” continues.
The invasion of Iraq did NOTHING to protect America from further attacks by al Qaeda, which had NO presence in the country prior to the invasion.
America was attacked by an organization, al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan. President Bush broke off the chase for this group to prepare for his invasion of Iraq.
Since Conservatives like to compare the war in Iraq to WW II, that is like halting the US military’s advance toward Japan in the Pacific to invade Argentina.
No matter how often Conservatives try to link the US occupation of Iraq to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the facts state otherwise.
As a result of George W. Bush’s decision to redeploy US assets away from Afghanistan, to invade Iraq, Osama bin Laden and most of his henchmen got away: Initially at Tora Bora and later in the Pakistani Airlift that was permitted by the Bush Administration to allow Pakistani members of al Qaeda get away so as not to embarrass the government of Pakistan.
Those decisions have led to the current situation where the Bush Administration is patting itself on the back simply because “al Qaeda in Iraq” has lost influence: Meanwhile pretending that the rebuilding of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is not significant.
And I see that “Bill C” is tossing around the “treason” word again. I received a reprimand from Wordsmith for being too “partisan”. Will Wordsmith apply a similar standard to Bill C? Of course not! Bill C is a CONSERVATIVE and therefore not subject to the same standards to which I am subjected.
Scott’s hope, expressed at the beginning of this thread is dead. And, of course, Conservatives here will say is is all my fault, including Wordsmith.
As long as accountability only goes “one way”, do not expect me to lie down and take it.
Too bad.
Re: “HOWEVER, if you read my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, you can see that I was among the first people in 2003 to call the intelligence failures that led to 911 and Iraq wmd intel shortcomings as inexcusable; ie worse than incompetent imo.”
But they were excused. In fact didn’t George W. Bush hand out a round of Medals of freedom over them?
And they were not “intelligence failures” That lets George W. Bush off the hook.
The Bush team had plenty of information that discredited their premise of WMD’s: Including the Iranian Foreign minister who told them in 2004 that the WMD program was a sham.
The Bush team deliberately chose to ignore that information and invade anyway.
Saying it was “intelligence failures” is just another cover excuse for George W. Bush after he allowed Osama bin laden to get away in order to launch an invasion over weapons that he had good reason to know were not there.
And, in preemptive answer to the standard Conservative response that “Democrats had the same information that Bush had”: No, they did not. The information provided to the Bush Administration from the Iraqi Foreign Minister was NOT shared with Congressional Intelligence Committees.
Until Conservatives can acknowledge that George W. Bush, “The Decider” is accountable for both the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq, where there were no WMD’s, AND that he is accountable for the incompetent occupation of Iraq afterward, we cannot talk about “moving forward”. That is because Conservatives will continue to expend their time and energy pretending that Bush’s allowing al Qaeda to get away was a great idea in order to never use the words “accountable” and “George W. Bush” in the same sentence.
There is a typo above. The iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, not 2004. Please do not take the usual Conservative tactic of using that as indication of success.
A bit long. But I do not post items I cannot back up. The story of the ignored (not “incorrect”) intelligence about WMD’s i Iraq that no Conservative is permitted to acknowledge exists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/
For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an “active” program for “R&D, production and weaponization” for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.
Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in “several months to a year.” Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Salon_Former_CIA_officers_report_Bush_0906.html
Reporting in Salon, Blumenthal writes that according to his sources, two former CIA officers,”Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
Blumenthal also adds that the intelligence from that day was left out of the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which definitively stated that Iraq had WMD.
“The president had no interest in the intelligence,” a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
“No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Blumenthal writes. “The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
Blumenthal’s sources confirm a 2006 interview with the CIA’s chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who told CBS’s 60 Minutes that his agency had received intelligence from Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, indicating Iraq possessed no WMD.
“[The two former CIA officers] have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it,” Blumenthal reports. “They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
Powell would later present US evidence justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq to the United Nations–without knowledge of the Sabri information.
The former officials instead say that the information was “distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.” That information was in turn passed to British intelligence, who used it in briefing Prime Minister Tony Blair as to validation for going to war.
Steve’s ignorance and blind, spoon-fed partisanship is only outpaced by his rabid hatred and ability at projection.
Having been to Iraq, yes there were failures, shortcomings, and missed opportunities in our VERY sharp learning curve. The military has been going over this at every level and learning, as has the Administration. I do not like that they are poor communicators and cannot get a message out to save our lives. I do not like that Bush caves to Democrats on expanding government and amnesty for Illegals. I like that he will stand up for us, but it is poor leadership skills not to stand up for oneself as he refuses to do.
“The invasion of Iraq did NOTHING to protect America from further attacks by al Qaeda, which had NO presence in the country prior to the invasion.”
Wrong on every level. AQ was there before the invasion and had access to the WMDs Saddam sent to Syria. The failed chem attack on Amman, Jordan in 2004 proved this. One does not just “show up” and get their hands one VX and GB nerve gas without A LOT of prior association. Iraqis themselves have stated AQ was in Iraq under Saddam. Even Iraqi Generals stated it. Hell, Taliban thugs were in Baghdad west of the IZ from 2002 till this year. And HOW many times has AQ successfully attacked America since our long overdue invasion?
“Being told that my belief that continued occupation of Iraq by American troops is the greates recruiting poster Osama bin laden cold have prayed for “helps the terrorists” is divisive.”
Some “recruiting poster”: “Join AQ or die and die even if you join”. Unlike you, the Iraqis have realized AQ is a backward, cowardly, losing death cult and even the Saudis are attacking it. So wrong again.
Though, no, YOU saying that is not treason as you have no political power. Democratic leaders saying that is “aiding the enemy” as it is picked up word for word by the islamofascists. Code Pink sending funds to terrorists in Fallujia is treason. We saw this DAILY in Iraq and as soon as some leftist moron would spout it out, the terrorists would scream it across their media. As YOU associate with, spew shouting points and lies of, and adhere to these leftists, that is why you feel slighted when we call the leftists doing this traitors.
Though I think you also missed the part where we speak out against the treason of Stormfront (sometime leftist ally and sometime Libertarian ally), but, as you, incorrectly associate their beliefs with conservatism, you ignore those criticisms.
I met a REAL traitor from the DOS in Iraq as I stated before. I reported him, but nothing will ever be done as he is DOS. Your arrogant manor, moronic spoon-fed leftist hack lies and shouting points, and psychotic projectionism are the exact same.
Wow… Spam comments….
re: ” AQ was there before the invasion and had access to the WMDs Saddam sent to Syria”
I can back up my statement. Can you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Absolutely. I also heard the same from other Army Officers I serve with. I will back up ALL my support for the GWOT with my life and my future.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/10/26/why-iraq/
Hey Wordsmith: Remember your comments to me about “rabid partisanship”.
What about Chris G?
Or des he get the automatic Conservative Free Pass!
Reply
Rabid partisanship? Wow…. do your lies know no end? You come here and spew leftist hack talking point after talking point (they are actually shouting points). Many of your posts are projectionist with moronic and untrue statements about conservatives hating and having to hate everything. You then often go into some paranoid diatribe about how conservatives will silence or only want dictatorship. BTW, Howard Dean, who stated that he wanted to use government agencies against the likes of Fox News is WHOSE party leader and the “Fairness Doctrine” (banning of free speech) is supported by who?
IF a Dem is elected President, I will continue to serve in the US Army. I will follow every LAWFUL order I am given, just as I have since President Bush took office and President Clinton before him and I will refuse to follow unlawful orders or to give them. However, until that time, I will NOT support the Democrats, their beliefs, and party platform which I believe is detrimental for America, Freedom, and the World. That is not partisan. I am an American first, conservative second. I cannot say you, or very many on the left, share priorities akin to that.
And until President Bush leaves office, I will not make any personal attacks in public against him, just like I made no personal attacks against President Clinton when he was in office. I have issues, which I stated above and in other threads about disagreements with President Bush, but I know from officers who served at the White House why Bush does not go into personal attacks make against him and I applaud him for his character, even if I think he should respond to them.
Re: “Absolutely.”
You links were:
Circular links to yourself.
References to activities AFTER Bush’s invasion
Unsubstantiated comments from the likes of The Washington Times.
References to shells found in the desert that were not usable as WMD’s (the ones that Rick Santorum once referred to as “Proof” and was rebutted the same day by the Pentagon itself.)
An independent study, the September 11 commission, concluded that there was no substantial relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Had one existed, don’t you believe they would have found it? Or is NewsMax more reliable since it confirms your political preference?
“There is a typo above. The iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, not 2004. Please do not take the usual Conservative tactic of using that as indication of success.”
You’re cutting/pasting your arguments. LOL
Tariq Aziz did not turn in 2002.
Your articles from 4 years ago do not reflect intelligence or investigations that have happened since, and are dramatically influenced by political spin and agenda.
Lastly, you said people were given medals (Medals of Freedom) as a means of excusing failures. No. I do not accept those medals as excuses, neither do I accept your failure to read my entire post before replying excusable. I find it incompetent.
btw, the 911 Commission did not say there was no substantial relationship-they said there was not enough evidence had been gathered, they called for an investigation into the matter, and years later the evidence shows that yes, there was a close relationship.
No, I do not believe that Commondreams, Truthout, Buzzflash, Daily Kos, NYT, NBC, or any other outlet targeting a political demographic that opposes the war would find evidence for it is not in their interests to look let alone report it.
“Circular links to yourself.”
So I should retype the entire thing for you benefit? I think not. You asked my to back up my statements and I did. Excuse me please if I am not backing down from for what I believe in and have actively defended (you did read the last part of my response, yes).
So you did not fully read the article I wrote while IN Iraq and posted originally on SodliersMind.com? Not surprised. Within that post are dozens of links to the outside sources. I suggest you also click on the ones from Indybay and see what your fellow travelers are up to.
“Unsubstantiated comments from the likes of The Washington Times.”
But The Washington Post is ok for you. I guess the BBC is “unsubstantiated” also about Jordan? Your hate blinds you and you are worthless to debate.
Why bother?
Washington Post…ok
Washington Times…partisan hack source
BBC…ok
FOX…partisan hack source
Commondreams…ok
Newsmax…partisan hack source
Anyone see a trend?
“Why bother?”
-Because unchecked lies never lead to good things
If you want more outside links, comment #14 of “Why Iraq” has them. The second one to the USMA anti-terrorism site is REALLY good and it is a HUGE site.
Re: “there was a close relationship. ”
Sources?
Already answered that in #43.
Re: “But The Washington Post is ok for you. I guess the BBC is “unsubstantiated” also about Jordan?”
The BBC link was referring to an indicent after the invasion. You were using it as a source for existance of WMD’s (the “Mushroom Clouds”) before the invasion.
There were no effective WMD’s or WMD programs in Iraq in 2003, prior to Bush’s invasion. It has not been proven, ever. Only Right wing fanatics keep declaring it to be true, but not contradicting the conslusion of the quthoritative studies that have been conducted.
Those are the facts. The rest is Right-wing noise and lies, in order to protect Bush Administration deceit (along with incompetence).
Re: “Anyone see a trend?”
Yes.
Conservatives will believe everything they are told by The Washington Times, NewsMax and FoxNews. No matter what.
And, as I have seen that not one single Conservative, including Scott who decried incivility, had the integrity to say that accusing those who disagree with them of Treason (a crime carrying the death penalty), constitutes “political partisanship”. No Conservative REALLY believes in taking the hate out of politics. Only attempting to pretend that THEY want civility, while they abet those of their friends who believe that political opposition deserve to die.
And that includes you too, Scott.
My God Steve YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!! How can you be so dense? WHERE DID the terrorists say the VX and GB came from??? It came FROM IRAQ as the invasion started!!!!!!!!!! VX does not last long, even stored and Syria had no VX production program.
Therefore, it HAD to be IN Iraq BEFORE the invasion started. Also, WHO gave these terrorists medical treatment after they fled from Afghanistan?
And R400 bombs and spray tanks are ready made for what? Sarin in the WTC 1993 blast came from where?
“Only Right wing fanatics keep declaring it to be true” Yeah, “fanatics” in your projectionist, paranoid fantasy. Fanatics are the ones blowing themselves up for “Allah” or marching “naked for peace” and screaming in Berkeley.
Conservatives have another group saying the same things about Iraq: US Soldiers. You did notice that one of the books cited was written by a USAF Major who was in Iraq recovering these things? I do not know if you have seen the USMA database, also cited in a reply as I mentioned above did you?
There are a lot of links, with links and references themselves from varied sources. Go bother them if you are so assured you are correct in both your assertions and your view that conservatives are out to get you.
One more thing, most every prominent leftist was stating the exact same thing about Iraqi’s WMD program until THEY did a 180 and started making political hay on it in 2004. These included President Clinton when he was in office, and Nanci Pelosi. Were they lying also? If so, were they lying in the 1990s-2003 or afterwards?
Projecting again Steve… Please seek help.
And, unlike the USSR, there is no wall keeping you here. You can go to DU or Kos and be among fellow travelers.
And more links. Also, I didn’t see that I linked to Newsmax in Why Iraq. I saw CNN, the UN, the CIA, and others, but no Newsmax or even Fox but do not let that stop your rabid hatred Steve.
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/09/3star_general_reveals_addition/
Not to spam post, but too many links in one response may trigger the actual spam guard in this system.
Just in case you did not see the very next post on that site.
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/12/what_does_congressman_elect_ch/
Let’s see…
Sources used: NYT, LAT, NYSUN, NeyYorker, State Dept…. Nope, No FOX News or Newsmax there either.
But wait, why can they not be used Steve? Why do you insist on censoring them yet come here posting links to leftist sources? No, you come here, spew hate and lies; project that hate as desires and actions of conservatives; cut and paste your arguments over and over but call any reference to the archives of this site “circular links”; and then take it very personally when the groups within the ideology you adhere to are called out for their actions and words but have no problems falsely accusing anyone else of “hating the military” and “hating America”.
As I said, I am an American first, (I’ll amend the above response to Soldier second) and political ideology third. You have proven that you are first and foremost a leftist and little else.
I respond in kind when told that my belief that George W. Bush is incompetent is treasonous.
The September 11 commission, with the full backing of George W. Bush (the man with the most ot gain from a contrary opinion) declared there was not proof of no substantative link between saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. I accept that conclusion.
[quote]As they do, their children are taking power, and this generation (people in their 20’s and 30’s) has never known … a truly great American President[/quote]
HORSESHAT! I miss Ronald Wilson Reagan
Then I disagree with him on that issue and think his passivity in trying to “make nice” with the left is a mistake, but it is his policy. The left has stabbed him in the back every time he has done it as compromise to a leftist means the opponent gives up everything they want and the leftist nothing.
Knowing how many other countries violated the arms embargo in the 90s though, I can see a reason why he did not make an issue of it for their sakes also. However I SAW much of this with my own eyes and THOSE I trust.
I assume you have links to his speech on that? No, wait, of course you do. I can come back with more links and personal experience countering it.
Though it seems generals on the ground and US Military research centers in the US are not enough to convince you. Hell, even admissions by the terrorists and Saddam’s former generals are not enough for you.
An no Steve, calling President Bush incompetent is a fallacy, not treason. I also stated that you were not personally committing treason. The Leftists who ally with the islamofascists, however, ARE treasonous, but will never be punished. That is the reality of the left who are not held to any standards. When in power, however, leftists are a whole different animal. You ally with the leftists and spout their “two-minutes hate”. You also sound just like the true traitor I mentioned above as I mentioned before. This may be why you take it personally when I call the leftists how I see them (again as I stated before).
So again, with the sole exception of countering you lies and projectionsim, why bother with you and why are you here if you feel so threatened? No one here will convince you of the truth, and you will never convince me to stop actively fighting in the Armed Forces for what I believe in. Nor will you convince Curt, Scott or anyone else to stop believing in what they know is true.
Ignore Steve Chris. He’s a naive simpleton. Not worth your time.
The lines of division run deep. Some of you are reinforcing the point that this article pointed out. Tit for Tat on and on. We are sick of it. I am sick of the word “liberal” tossed around to dismiss any REP counterpoints. It’s about the US not about individualistic positions anymore. We have to fix this mess and in order to do so. We must find common ground such as our very existence for starters. Why do we always have to focus on what divides us instead of what unites us? I pose this question to all parties involved?
Mike,
Please read the Prager article.
Philly Steve wrote:
Scott wrote:
Steve,
I doubt you’ll take your BDS lenses off for even 3 minutes to read this, but it’s here for the benefit of those who might be “eavesdropping” in on this comment stream.
Steve, please quit projecting “conservative hate” onto all conservatives. You do yourself a disservice. Can you not see your own hatred and incivility reflected in your language? In your tone? In your insistence that your opinions are facts that we should all acknowledge and accept?
Fact and not opinion, right?
The non-lefty in me feels the need to point out this part from your link:
Tenet said that the source — meaning Sabri — had said Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides, under the oil-for-food program, had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production.
As for Drumheller, he’s a lying partisan sack of shit.
His media spin garnered the attention of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, which rebuked Drumheller’s misrepresentations.
Read: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, with Additional Views, pg 141-144
Way to frame the reality. If I say, “Chris is merely setting you straight on your partisan ‘facts’”, you’d say I’m being partisan; if I say Chris is being rabidly partisan, I’d be lying.
“The September 11 commission, with the full backing of George W. Bush (the man with the most ot gain from a contrary opinion) declared there was not proof of no substantative link between saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. I accept that conclusion.”
Classic half truth and deliberate misinformation from Steve as a means of defending his partisanship rather than searching for the truth regardless of what it means to his political crux issue. The WHOLE TRUTH is that the 911 Commission reiterated the findings of two other bi-partisan investigations which said not enough evidence had been gathered (ie, there was an intelligence failure), but what Steve deliberately ignores, where he deliberately tries mislead, where he tries to promote a fact which is not true, where he tries to lie, comes from his ignoring the fact that the same commission he cites called for the matter to remain OPEN-not closed or dismissed, and asked for investigation into the depth of AQ ties to Saddam’s regime because almost no investigation had been done prior to the commission’s investigation. More specifically, this indicates a gross LACK of intelligence gathering by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Nah, rather than point that out, Steve prefers to live in a fantasy world of cherry picking information-yes, cutting/pasting half of a quote to make a misleading and incorrect statement.
Back OT, I find it absolutely amazing that after voting for Bill Clinton twice, after almost always voting for Democrats, and in response to an article where I effectively sing praises of Democrat Barack Obama…I’m labeled a conservative that totes a party line. By such standards, anyone who is not DNC lemming is a “conservative.” I’m not sure Steve even knows what a conservative is.
Re: “The Leftists who ally with the islamofascists, however, ARE treasonous, but will never be punished. That is the reality of the left who are not held to any standards. When in power, however, leftists are a whole different animal. You ally with the leftists and spout their “two-minutes hate”. You also sound just like the true traitor I mentioned above as I mentioned before.”
Can you supply thier names? Or is this the calss broad generalization that requires no documentation?
Re: “I’m not sure Steve even knows what a conservative is.”
I am personally very conservative.
I believe the federal government should not “borrow and spend” its way to re-election.
I beleive the government should not insinuate itself into personal family decisions.
I believe the US should not be engaged in worldwide nation building.
I believe the government should obtain search warrents (either prior or, in high security situations, after the fact) before monitoring its citizens.
I belive that, when the government siezes a US citizen on US soil, it should bring charges against that person quickly, and provide that US citizen opportunity to defend himself.
Unfortunately those beliefs are the antethesis of modern conservatism.
Re: “Steve, please quit projecting “conservative hate” onto all conservatives. You do yourself a disservice. Can you not see your own hatred and incivility reflected in your language? In your tone? In your insistence that your opinions are facts that we should all acknowledge and accept? ”
I asked multiple times if you considered tossing around the Treason charge, a word Conservatives use so often against those who disagree with them on anything that the term is completely devalued, was an incendiary comment. At no time did you, or anyone else here, admit that Conservative overuse of that term has both debased public discourse and cheapened the word when it actually might apply.
It is analogous to Liberals who toss the “bigot” word against Conservatives every chance they get. And Conservatives are quick to take umbrage at being labeled a bigot simply because they disagree with an African-American, they are completely obtuse to the similar effect of the “Treason” word when their allies use the term.
But you refused to see that, and therefore I called you on it, repeatedly. And still you refuse to see the term and refuse to hold one of your own accountable. That is why I spoke of the “one-way” accountability of Conservatives.
And that is why I still maintain that a Conservative will never hold one of his/her own accountable to the standards set for others.
Which makes Conservatives as hypocritical as Liberals.
But then remember, Conservatives consider their political opinions as originating from God, and therefore Holy Writ. In which case hypocricy is a much greater sin for Conservatives than for Liberals.
Re: “The lines of division run deep. Some of you are reinforcing the point that this article pointed out. Tit for Tat on and on. We are sick of it. I am sick of the word “liberal” tossed around to dismiss any REP counterpoints. It’s about the US not about individualistic positions anymore. We have to fix this mess and in order to do so. We must find common ground such as our very existence for starters. Why do we always have to focus on what divides us instead of what unites us? I pose this question to all parties involved?”
I agree with your point completely.
I apologize to those here who I have offended by my comments.
I agree with all those things you just said Steve, but I don’t think they’re solely conservative. No one WANTS:
the federal government should “borrow and spend” its way to re-election-Democrats ran successfully on this culture of corruption in 2006.
Democrats definitely don’t support worldwide nation building.
Democrats and Republicans have worked in a bi-partisan manner to revise the FISA laws
Democrats and Republicans both oppose grabbing a US citizen on US soi and not giving a speedy trial.
It seems you’ve got a confused perspective of what “modern conservatism” is, and have instead embraced the anti-Republican hype from the left as if it were substantive.
Where in the world does this kind of crap come from? How in the world does it compare with #64?
Re: “It seems you’ve got a confused perspective of what “modern conservatism” is, and have instead embraced the anti-Republican hype from the left as if it were substantive.”
No. I recited the agenda of the Bush Administration. While I do not hate George W. Bush, nor do I suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I am very alarmed at the degree to which this person has ruined the standards for which America once stood, all in the name of a “War on Terror” that is a catchphase and not an actual war (you cannot fight a war against a tactic, only a personal enemy, group or nation).
However “Conservatives” in the United States, in the name of unconditional support of this man, have protected him from accountability for all of the actions: Both by giving blank checks to the Bush Administration when Republicans ran Congress and fillibustering any action when in the minority.
And, while Conservatives will decry such actions generically on sites such as this, when it comes to actual political actions, they will fall into lockstep with the White House and pretend that the Bush Administration has done none of the above, or that “Democrats are much worse”, and therefore the Bush Administration gets an automatic Free pass.
It is that Free Pass that Conservatives insist on giving to George W. Bush that annyos me to no end. This is especially interesting in that these same Conservatives appear to like Ron Paul, who is much harsher on George W. bush over these topics than I ever am.
While there are plenty of areas in which I part company with Ron Paul, my assesment of the behavior of the Bush Administration pretty much coincides with his.
My comment regarding Republican Party pronouncements being portrayed as coming directly from God orininates in any commentary from Pat Robertson, who declared in 2004 that God told him Bush was gong to win, on to James Dobson’s actions regarding Terri Schiavo: Wherein he demanded action and, immediately, the Republicans called Congress back into session, George W. Bush flew back from vacation (!), all to pass a law intervening the federal government into a personal family matter.
And Conservatives loved it!
that is how I assert that Conservatives have publicly aligned themselves as the “Party of God” in the United States.
Add to that Mike Huckabee openly campaigning as the “Christian Candidate” for President, and winning Iowa Republicans handily.
He will likely get the national nomination using that same moniker.
You’ve comfortably labeled me a “conservative” and described such a label as as someone who gives George Bush blind allegiance and obedience as well as someone who apparently believes that Republicans are God’s party. This not only demonstrates your paranoia about religious support for the Republicans while ignoring the far more prevalent religious involvement and control of the Democratic Party, but it also shows again that you’re completely out of touch with what it means to be a conservative as well as what President Bush’s policies are and have been (recall that each of the policies you listed as being “conservative” are as much promoted by Democrats than by President Bush and Republicans).
Three things are very clear Steve.
1) you’re not at all a “conservative” today, yesterday or at any time since you have no idea what it means to be “conservative.” It’s just a name you call people you disagree with.
2) you’re not at all interested in seeking unity or progress through seeking and sharing the truth about debated issues (see also your half truths, misquotes, and cherry-picked statements regarding the Iraq War or Bush Admin policies)
3) You’re a liar; a person who deliberately speaks false facts. If your apology in post #64 had one iota of sincerity and honesty…you’d have been able to go a full 100 words before making a clear and deliberate effort to offend anyone and everyone that you disagree with (who you arbitrarily call “conservative”) by describing conservatives as some sort of Pat Robertson Bible thumpers.
I have responded to Philly Steve’s lies, half truths and distortions countless times already. We have even documented in previous posts how factually incorrect his thinking is.
I won’t bother with him here. He’s just trying to distract people from the content of the post.
Scott, I disagree with some of what you have said.
I would assert that partisanship is not a problem requiring a solution. It is the sole means of advancing a political agenda for any kind of change.
It’s the near even division in this country between the reds and the blues that prevents change.
And frankly, whenever I see anyone talking about ending partisanship, but most of them mean, is that I should give up my principled opposition to their flawed ideology and stop promoting my own solutions.
Oh, and I couldn’t let this from Wordsmith go un-noted: “I consider myself a radical center-right extremist.”
If you are “center” on anything how can you be radical or extreme?
I could teach you lessons about radicalism (not that I am myself).
By not being a moderate center-righty.
I’m a center right radical extremist. What more can I say?
Ugh! You’ve been spending too much time with the Paulians….
Re: “Oh, and I couldn’t let this from Wordsmith go un-noted: “I consider myself a radical center-right extremist.””
Regarding the two comments noted.
I also cannot decry partisianship itself, I am after all partisian as well.
I do, as you will note, abhore lies (or undocumented “facts” presented as true. If I cannot document something I presents as a fact, then I deserve to be challenged. And I do not hesitate to challenge others.
Also I do not like the easy way Conservatives toss the word “treason”a round. This is, after all, a crime that carries the death penalty. So I find it difficult to have a reasonable discourse with those who declare I deserve to die for my political opinions (either directly or by inference).
“Also I do not like the easy way Conservatives toss the word “treason”a round. This is, after all, a crime that carries the death penalty. So I find it difficult to have a reasonable discourse with those who declare I deserve to die for my political opinions (either directly or by inference).”
1) it doesn’t ALWAYS carry some sort of automatic firing squad…there ARE other penalties
2) No one has advocated your death. Other penalties absolutely, but not death. My favorite remains making you vote for a Democrat who:
promoted the invasion of Iraq
authorized the invasion of Iraq
supported the invasion of Iraq
funded the war in Iraq
called for more troops to Iraq
Supported reinstating FISA’s so-called illegal wire-tapping
and so much more.
She’s taken Bush’s position in action re the war on terror since 911, and while you and others support the same objective of the enemy, now…you’re gonna have to either vote for
Hillary or Obama
then
Hillary or Fred
Hillary or Huckabe
Hillary or McCain
Hillary or Mitt
TWICE….TWICE you’re gonna have to support the same actions that President Bush has taken, oh, but at least it will be some has been boomer with a D next to her name.
THAT”s the punishment for “treason” that I seek.
Hillary Clinton has supported efforts and did vote to authorize force on the part of the Bush Administration.
I checked back, and perhaps you could find a reference for me, did she ever include in those votes (some sort of “Signing Statement, like the ones George W. Bush uses to declare he intends to ignore the law) that the occupation of Iraq should be so incompetently managed, with $ billions in pallet loads of cash disappearing and cronies landing in charge of more $ billions and a Secretary of State that refused to secure Iraqi weapons sites?
Because it is that incompetence for which American soldiers are now dying and being maimed.
As I have said repeatedly, had the occupation been competently completed, in anywhere near the six-to-twelve months that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (the “greatest Secretary of Defense in History, according to Vice President Dick Cheney) and Secretary of State Colin Powel promised, then the decision to invade would not be contentious.
But the occupation was botched. And all Conservatives want to do is divert attention to who said what in speeches in the 90′s. And who voted to support the troops with funds.
As though that gives George W. Bush another Conservative FREE PASS for his incompetence: And incompetence for which Americans are not dying to undo.
Once again, I do not dispute that many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton voted to authorize force, and voted to support the troops.
I do assert that Conservatives, who failed to use their inside leverage (of which Ms. Clinton had none) with the White House are more accountable for the deaths now being reported from Iraq.
Conservatives could have marched to the White House and demanded that President Bush DO SOMETHING about the incompetent running the pentagon (and the occupation): They did nothing to change the management of the occupation.
Remember, President Bush would not even meet with Democratic Congressional leaders during that time.
It took the election of a Democratic Congress to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and the change in tactics (arming the Sunnis, the “Surge” for which republicans are now patting themselves on the back.
What about those three years, while Iraq crumbled, and Donald Rumsfeld “stayed the course”?
Conservatives, with their influence on the President, might have done something.
They did not. And thousands of Americans have died, and hundreds more will die, to undo the damage Conservatives alone might have averted, or at lease shortened.
And not one single Conservative here will hold his/her fellow Republicans/Conservatives accountable for those lost/ruined lives, due to incompetence in the occupation of Iraq.
So go ahead: shame on Hillary for voting as she did.
But double shame on you (Conservatives). You could have done something about the incompetent occupation. You did not because you were more loyal to the Republican Party and George W. Bush than you were to the soldiers dying (then and in the future) for an incompetent Administration.
And not one single Conservative among you will admit to this accountability. You are too busy remaining loyal to the Republican Party and George W. Bush to ever admit your own responsibility: You can only make those accusations against others.
Shame!
Nice deflection Steve. Almost completely ignored and shifted the focus from the woman you’ll support as well as her actions; voting for her is supporting her, and supporting her is supporting her actions.
You keep talking about this incompetent occupation as if it’s undebatable, undeniable, or somehow a clear cut fact. It’s not. In terms of military history, the invasion and occupation of Iraq have gone smoother and far more effective than any other operation of similar scale. No military moved as fast and hard and completely as did the US 3rd ID and USMC during the invasion. No military force has taken so few casualties in such a highly debated and publicized war while imposing casualties on the enemy (Al Queda) several times higher. This is particularly true of urban operations.
Could things have been done better? I’m not sure militarily, but definitely politically, and I’ve repeatedly said that aspect of the war has been incompetent.
On the flipside, you still can’t seem to excuse your inevitable support for a candidate who had the same policy positions as the President and who vows-if you elect her-to continue the war until the Bush Admin objectives are met…even if it means another 5 years.
Re: “You keep talking about this incompetent occupation as if it’s undebatable, undeniable, or somehow a clear cut fact.”
That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Read “Enemy at the Gates” or “Fiasco” and try to deny it. (Of course, if your source is The Weekly Standard, then you are marveling at the wondrously competent machine that is George W. Bush’s White house).
That is my point exactly. George W. Bush’s Administration’s incompetence has costs thousands of lives, including Americans. And the “success” of the “Surge” in the past year has been a “success” of backing out harm introduced by that same Administration’s incompetence.
And the Bush Administration will certainly give out another round of medals of Freedom for that undoing. Just as it did to the gang of incompetence that botched the occupation to begin with.
And Conservatives will never say that George W. Bush, “The Decider” is accountable for keeping Donald Rumsfeld in power long beyond the time when his incompetence was evidence. And that delay has cost American lives.
I will say that. But Conservatives, in the name of Party Loyalty, will not.
Re: “On the flipside, you still can’t seem to excuse your inevitable support for a candidate who had the same policy positions as the President and who vows-if you elect her-to continue the war until the Bush Admin objectives are met…even if it means another 5 years.”
Because I believe that not ALL the incompetents have been purged from the political decision making. We still see the same gang form The Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute setting policy for the White House, and a President who declares publicly that he has never made a mistake.
We need, in my opinion, to completely remove all of the policy makers who thought Iraq would be a “cakewalk” or that “Iraqi oil world pay for the occupation”. We need a fresh start on policy making because, when Republican Administrations transition to other Republican Administrations (just like Democratic ones) 90% of the political office holders keep their jobs (the number of such positions has increased by 50% during Bush’s tenure).
Until then, too much of our solders’ time and lives will be spent defending the policies of George W. Bush, and not enough in finding new solutions.
Again: Donald Rumsfeld was not fired until Democrats took over Congress. Had republicans retained control of Congress, I guarantee that it would STILL be “Secretary Rumsfeld” and we would be “staying” the course he set with victory “just around the corner”. And, had that happened, every Conservative here would STILL be defending Mr. Rumsfeld against those charges and nothing would be different, except that many more Americans would have died.
That is why I want change. Can you name one of the Republicans who would remove ALL of those responsible for the botched occupation (not “mistakes were made”, as though they fell from the sky, with no one accountable)? (Other than Ron Paul, whom the Republican establishment will NEVER permit to be nominated).
From what I have seen, every Republican candidate, in every debate, is busy defending the Republican Administration (again, other than the amorphous “mistakes were made, no one is to blame” comments).
You want to prove to me what “gods” your Republican candidates are” Demonstrate to me that he will march into the pentagon and fire every single member of the Defense Advisory Board (Rumsfeld’s hand-picked team of advisors, including such military warriors as Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle and Richard Perle).
I don’t see that. I see another Republican president as “staying the course” of George W. Bush, with only cosmetic changes at the very top.
..and yet AGAIN, you distract from the question of how you’ll support and put into office a Dem that has basically taken the same position as GWB on Iraq from the start, and who has vowed to continue the war until GWB’s objectives are met…even if it means another 5 yrs of war. Rather than address that major conundrum, you’ve ranted away about “conservatives” and “Republicans.” The question is not about them anymore. It’s about candidates in general. It’s about ranting away against Republicans for allegedly doing X while giving a free pass and actively supporting the election of Democrats who do the same thing.
As to fiasco, and enemy at the gates, I can list a bunch of books that you’d blow off. American Soldier by Tommy Franks, The March Up, A General Speaks Out, and literally dozens more. It’s amusing and amazing that you’d dismiss The Weekly Standard and embrace/promote it’s political opposites. It’s like you see absolutley NO bias or spin from the left at all. You just buy it hook line and sinker.
C’mon man, unless you’re a blind partisan bent on party not patriotism, how will you vote for a Democrat who:
promoted the invasion of Iraq
saw better pre-war intel than anyone else
authorized the invasion of Iraq
supported the invasion of Iraq
funded the war in Iraq
called for more troops to Iraq
Supported reinstating FISA’s so-called illegal wire-tapping
and so much more?
Re: “saw better pre-war intel than anyone else”
Flat out lie.
The Bush Administration, in 2002, had direct information from the Iraqi Foreign Minister who had “turned”. That information, revealed in 2004, was that the Iraqi WMD program was a sham, meant to deceive the Iranians.
This was known to the Bush Administration, but not shared with Congress.
And I have documented this elsewhere in this site.
I would vote for Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama for the reasons I listed above. (competence and sufficient distance from NeoConservative fanatics to not blunder in actions that are authorized)
The fact that my vote for them does not meet the standards you Conservatives impose on me for my vote is not revelant to me. just as the fact that you will vote for whomever the Republican party nominates, no matter who, is not something that I can change by imposing my values on you (as a point of fact, imposing ones vales on others is a uniquely Conservative trait, believing themselves imued with the authority of God in all their beliefs, as communicated to them through Pat Robertson and James Dobson)
You Conservatives absolutely REFUSE to hold any Republican accountable, no matter how incompetent they are. You demonstrated this when not one of you (generically) went to George W. Bush and let him know that Secretary Rumsfeld’s incompetence, arrogance and stubborness was killing our troops. You kept your counsel until the 2006 election results forced president Bush’s hands: Then you said “we wanted him out all along, therefore we are absolved of all acountability”.
I repeat: Had Republicans kept control of Congfress in 2006, Donald Rumsfeld would STILL be staying the course and Iraq 2007 wold have been WORSE 9meaning more Americans dead) than 2006. And you would still, at the cost of American lives, not “stormed” the Oval Office to demand a change from President Bush because you are more loyal to him than to the lives of American soldiers.
I cannot make it any plainer than that. I am not “distracting” I am saying my reasons, clearly and specifically, with direct challenges to Conservatives to explain WHY they allowed President Bush to keep a man who was plainly costing American’s their lives in place long beyond doubt that he was the wrong person for the job.
“The Bush Administration, in 2002, had direct information from the Iraqi Foreign Minister who had “turned”. That information, revealed in 2004, was that the Iraqi WMD program was a sham, meant to deceive the Iranians. This was known to the Bush Administration, but not shared with Congress.”
It’s a foreign minister’s JOB to try and maintain peace via diplomacy, politics, ie lies. Besides, he had no way of knowing where any of the illegal stuff was (pics avail in Duelfer Report show it very clearly). Foreign ministers don’t get inside links to the deepest secrets of a govt. MORE IMPORTANTLY, unbeknownst to the CIA guy from Europe that you cite, the Bush Admin did have access to an inner circle source who said that there WAS WMD out the wazzoo. Couple that with the multiple intl sources, and you’ve got a choice between the massive pile of multi-sourced intel OR the report from guy who’s job it was to lie for Saddam. But even showing you the pictures hasn’t convinced you (you’re so “conservative” that the only sources you believe are far left ones).
“I cannot make it any plainer than that. I am not “distracting” I am saying my reasons, clearly and specifically, with direct challenges to Conservatives to explain WHY they allowed President Bush to keep a man who was plainly costing American’s their lives in place long beyond doubt that he was the wrong person for the job.”
Which was not the question at all.
I REALLY liked the part about getting away from “neoconservatives” too btw. Ya know where the PNAC got it’s mideast strategy? From the Clinton’s DLC. Check out their site, and you’ll notice it right away. The Clinton’s DLC foreign policy people were the ones behind the PNAC “neocon” mideast strategy…
…oh, but you’ll still vote for her because she’s far from the people who formed the strategy. And you’ll still vote for her even though she’s going to continue the same strategy with the same objectives, and she’ll take until 2013 if she has to, right? Yeah, real big difference there.
Nah, Hillary saw the same and better intel than GWB. Why? Because she could roll over and ask Bill if the threat was real. That’s the best advice a Dem could get.
The fact is though…none of the Dems did their job and even bothered to read the classified NIE-including the woman you’ll elect President. She neglected her duties and there was a war, but she’s not incompetent. Nah. She’s a Democrat.
Steve,
What is it with you? You’re like a bullfrog lost in a well, giving long-winded diatribes, demanding answers in “yesterday’s” thread, after all the party guests have left. You’re stuck in this well, shouting to hear your own echos.
Why don’t you open your own blog, so I can go there and hold you hostage in any number of threads, demanding answers to my 100 questions for you? You certainly seem to have the time on your hands, to do so.
This is the problem with you. I gave you a response, and a link to a pdf from a Select Senate Committee on Postwar Findings, regarding the need to correct Drumheller’s blatherings. Yet, you willfully ignore what doesn’t fit your narrative.
And then you bullheadedly repeat your version of reality. Not just on this, but on everything. People do you the courtesy of a response, and you no-sell what you don’t like to hear, framing the debate around your premises, as if they are a proven given, already.
Frankly, you’re a waste and a drain on time. You could easily click on any number of categories in the sidebar, and do your own research of our answers. Yet, you insist on wasting our time, indulging you in this circle-chase. I hope you’ve been leaving something in the tip jar, on your way out of this blog each day. Scott should be charging you a tuition fee. Because time is money, and you’ve been burning both, bigtime. Burn your own time and money, but don’t waste our time anymore with endless repeating of the same old melody. Play a different tune. Quit being so gosh-darn lost in the well, and come out of the darkness and into the light.
Re: “This is the problem with you. I gave you a response, and a link to a pdf from a Select Senate Committee on Postwar Findings, regarding the need to correct Drumheller’s blatherings. Yet, you willfully ignore what doesn’t fit your narrative.”
Your link was back to your assertions that Saddam was behind the September 11 attacks: A theory that Conservatives keep insisting must be true, despite the conclusions of all study groups because…. they don’t believe the studies completed by the Bush Administration.
I was referring to the fact that the Iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, passing information back to the Bush Administration that Saddam’s WMD program was non-existant. And that the Bush Administration both ignored this informatio and did not share it with Congressional Intelligence Committees. Making the Conservative insistance that “they had the same information Bush had” a lie. Which it is.
Here is the story, from two sources:
ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856
In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.
What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam’s inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles.
In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. “The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism,” he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country’s oil.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Salon_Former_CIA_officers_report_Bush_0906.html
Reporting in Salon, Blumenthal writes that according to his sources, two former CIA officers,”Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
Blumenthal also adds that the intelligence from that day was left out of the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which definitively stated that Iraq had WMD.
“The president had no interest in the intelligence,” a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
“No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Blumenthal writes. “The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
Blumenthal’s sources confirm a 2006 interview with the CIA’s chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who told CBS’s 60 Minutes that his agency had received intelligence from Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, indicating Iraq possessed no WMD.
“[The two former CIA officers] have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it,” Blumenthal reports. “They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
Powell would later present US evidence justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq to the United Nations–without knowledge of the Sabri information.
The former officials instead say that the information was “distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.” That information was in turn passed to British intelligence, who used it in briefing Prime Minister Tony Blair as to validation for going to war.
Re: “Nah, Hillary saw the same and better intel than GWB. Why? Because she could roll over and ask Bill if the threat was real. That’s the best advice a Dem could get. ”
Your well of hate is obvious. And, as I demonstrated above, again, the “she saw the same intelligence as Bush” story is a lie.
And, yes, I would vote for her because she would not sacrifice American lives solely for the purpose of not admitting a mistake, which is what Conservatives andRepublicans want to do to protect the delicate ego of George W. Bush.
Wow, Salon. That’s a really good intelligence source-not.
You still haven’t addressed the two things I asked about your ad nauseum Iraqi Foreign Minister cut and paste.
Isn’t it a foreign minister’s JOB to try and use diplomacy, politics, lies to serve their country’s interests?
And what about the source inside Saddam’s inner circle who outranked your foreign minister who was doing his job? Just blow that guy off? Just blow off the preponderance of all the other intel that said there was a threat, that was corroborated, because some guy who’s job it was to tell us there was no threat told us there was no threat? (let’s just continue to ignore the Duelfer Report’s pics that clearly show Iraq WAS a threat and that inspections couldn’t protect us).
re the Hillary bit…classic man. CLASSIC!
“I would vote for her because she would not sacrifice American lives solely for the purpose of not admitting a mistake, which is what Conservatives and Republicans want to do to protect the delicate ego of George W. Bush.”
I’m searching all over and haven’t found a quote of her apologizing for her vote on the war, her promotion of it, her support of it, etc., and if she “she would not sacrifice American lives solely for the purpose of not admitting a mistake” then where’s the apology, and why does she want to continue the war until 2013 to accomplish the Bush Admin objectives?
Why should Hillary apologize for her vote to authorize force?
The fact is she did not vote for George W. Bush to be an incompetent president. leading to a botched occupation of Iraq that has costs thousands of American lives and for which Americans are dying now to undo.
Unlike Republicans, I do not need higher approval to vote for the candidate of my choice. I do not have to justify my vote to FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson: That is the province of Conservatives.
I have reviewed the performance of the Bush Administration and found it to be both deceitful and incompetent. And I have found that the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, do not believe in holding George W. Bush responsible for the blunders he has committed on our country and the world.
Therefore I will vote for the candidate from the Democratic Party who will, I believe, remove all of the NeoConservative incompetents (“Loyal Bushies”) that have been sprinkled throughout the federal govenment as political appointees and appoint their own set of political appointees. Some will also be proven incompetent, and unlike Conservatives I will hold my president accountable for the results of his/her appointments.
That is sufficient reason to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama for president. The fact that this does not meet the criteria you Conservatives have declared I must meet for your standards of a Democratic candidate is immaterial.
After all, I do not hear one single Conservative saying that he/she believes a Republican President should be cometent at his job. do you?
“Why should Hillary apologize for her vote to authorize force?”
If it was a mistake (ie an example of incompetence) as you claim, then she should apologize.
“Unlike Republicans, I do not need higher approval to vote for the candidate of my choice.”
No one-Republican or otherwise-needs approval for their vote. To claim so is fully unsubstantiated and nothing more than anti-Republican or anti-conservative partisan rhetoric.
“Therefore I will vote for the candidate from the Democratic Party who will, I believe, remove all of the NeoConservative incompetents”
The so-called neoconservatives that developed the Bush doctrine re the MidEast stem not from the right, but from Hillary Clinton’s DLC…a fact which you continue to ignore.
“Some will also be proven incompetent, and unlike Conservatives I will hold my president accountable for the results of his/her appointments.”
Yeah, right, you’ll hold them accountable for their actions as President, but not accountable for their (choose one) lies or incompetence in
authorizing
promoting
funding
continuing
the war in Iraq
?
Nah, if you don’t have the stones to hold them accountable for their deeds and words as Senators, then you’re surely not going to hold them accountable as President. That’d be like seeing CODE PINK or ANSWER go protest at every Hillary and Edwards event. It doesn’t happen. The left doesn’t hold their people to account now, and the only way they can vote them into the Presidency is to continue to not hold them to account.
“After all, I do not hear one single Conservative saying that he/she believes a Republican President should be cometent at his job. do you?”
That’s obvious. We all want competent leaders. Claiming there is no standard requiring competence is assuming your opinion as fact and closing your mind (ie to be liberal is to be open-minded) to others’ opinions. Nah, we (not just conservatives, but everyone) want competent leadership, but to get it we (everyone) need to hold our leaders accountable. Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. Let it be done even if it means NOT voting for a D (oh the horror of the idea!).
I’m curious, were Hillary and Edwards incompetent when they
authorized
promoted
funded
and vowed to continue the war until the Bush Admin goals are reached
OR
is are they lying and pandering time and time again?
In either event…why would people who oppose the war in Iraq so strongly vote for a candidate who vows to continue it? By doing so they are in effect voting to continue the war themselves. They are voting to authorize the continuance of the war. They are supporting the war that they oppose.
If you can find one quote from me, anywhere on the internet where I assert Saddam had a hand in orchestrating 9/11, I’ll give you a blank check for credibility.
You completely missed the point of my link, where I even offered you the relevant pages (the addendum also asserts that this second round of pre-war intell investigations is driven by political witch-hunting partisanship- not a desire to improve our ability to combat terrorism in the future, by learning from the rear-view mirror of the past).
Your MSNBC link to Lisa Myers’ leakage was actually too “balanced” in its reportage, which drove the CIA leakers to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post.
This whole media circus-jerk around leaked intelligence, with Drumheller making his rounds of the usual willing suspects, is directly referred to in the link I provided to you (pg 143):
Steve’s Salon quote:
George Tenet, in his “tell-all” memoir, devotes 7 pages to debunking Drumheller, who
Records show that Drumheller paid Tenet’s office 22 visits during this time period.
“The former Director of Central Intelligence testified before the Committee in July 2006 that the former Chief/EUR “has mischaracterized [the source's] information” and said the former Chief/EUR never expressed a view to him, as the former Chief/EUR has claimed publicly, that the source’s information meant Iraq did not have WMD programs. ”
outstanding Word. Think Steve will add it to his cut/paste in the future?
Steve’s so unpredictable, I have no idea what he’ll type next.
[/sarcasm]
Sure you do. It’ll be a cut/paste reply using a heavily biased source followed by a completely different topic centered on Bush hate and calling people “conservative” while having no idea at all what conservative or liberal even means. Toss in some “incompetent”s etc., and BAM, instant Philly Steve post.
My favorites are where he moves the goal posts for himself, then putts with the nine iron: “I scored a goal in one!!!”
And projects us as your generic lefty stereotype of a conservative bible-thumping FOX news-watcher, when he’s been around here long enough to see we cite from a variety of news sources. It’s like he’s talking past us, projecting what he wants us to be (conservative punching dummies for liberal talking points), rather than who we are, based upon what we write and post.
Philly Steve wrote previously:
You don’t think that Democratic leaders haven’t been falling all over themselves, trying to “align themselves” to the religious base and get in their good graces? At the same time that they embrace secular militant groups, like the ACLU, which actively impoverishes our society by eradicating religious expression in the public square? I could have sworn I saw a newsclip this morning, of Hillary Clinton speaking before a Church congregation; and I know I’ve seen Obama recently do it, as well.
By the way, this should drive you batty: Guess what the President said on December 24th?
Re: “If it was a mistake (ie an example of incompetence) as you claim, then she should apologize.”
Can you document where I said that such a vote was “incompetence”.
The fact is I never said that.
I DID say that George W. Bush’s Administration incompetently managed the occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and for which Americans are dying right now to counter act.
There is a difference, although Conservatives are not permitted to recognize that difference.
“If it was a mistake (ie an example of incompetence) as you claim, then she should apologize.”
I wasn’t quoting you. I was stating a fact-she was either incompetent and was somehow tricked by a vast right wing conspiracy of neocons that manipulated intel OR she was part of that very same conspiracy.
How can we believe you’d hold Pres Edwards or Pres H Clinton accountable for their actions if you won’t hold them accountable for their actions as Senators?
Re: “By the way, this should drive you batty: Guess what the President said on December 24th?”
Can you document where I ever said that a reference to any diety by the president was wrong?
My point, throughout most of this thread has been on the cost in American lives that has been paid, and will continue to be paid, to compensate for the incompetent occupation of Iraq by Bush Administration appointees.
In return I have seen nothing but digressions, venomous tirades, hateful comments about Hillary Clinton (but then it is physically impossible for a Conservative to say even one sentence about Senator Clinton without frothing at the mouth and descending into blind-rage hate), and posts on everything but the price that has been, and will be paid for George W. Bush’s incompetence.
The “assumption” that Conservatives are required to make that any Republican office holder is automatically the most competent, wonderful, directly-chosen-by-God has been on full display here for quite a while.
I just disagree, and cite the botched occupation of Iraq as evidence that not only will Conservatives not use competence in their vote for Republicans, they will actively attack anyone who dares to say that a Republican is not competent: Regardless of evidence.
Re: “How can we believe you’d hold Pres Edwards or Pres H Clinton accountable for their actions if you won’t hold them accountable for their actions as Senators?”
Because I value competence over blind fanatic ideology. Conservatives, on the other hand, put no value in competence, and base everything on fanatical adherence to every litmust test presented by Radical Fundamentalist Christianity and the Club for Growth.
You have demonstrated as much in every post here, despite the initial claim about “extremism” in the post that started this thread.
Re: “How can we believe you’d hold Pres Edwards or Pres H Clinton accountable for their actions if you won’t hold them accountable for their actions as Senators?”
“Because I value competence over blind fanatic ideology. ”
Well then…was Sen Clinton or Sen Edwards competent enough to authorize a war? That’s a pretty important question given that you’re gonna support their pledge to continue the war.
Yes, and that is your OPINION. To demand everyone here recognize your OPINION as a proven fact to be renounced by us, in order to create a bridge of unity and one nation, is as preposterous as if I were to demand of you and all BDSers to admit that Bush was right.
There ya go again, petting yourself to make yourself feel better about said self.
The rest of the point in my post, is in the notion that you insinuated in a couple of comments that the “religious right” and George Bush are out of control, in religious “extremism”.
There ya go again!
How stupid does it make me sound if I make broad, sweeping generalities about “all liberals this”, “all liberals that”? I know our side does it, including myself on occasion. But I don’t think I’ve done anything of the sort in this comment thread. I’ve only addressed you, Steve. You as a unique, specific individual, with your own specific bds affliction. Your problem is you have the proverbial chip on your shoulder, and are projecting all of your hate onto FA, as if we are your generic FOX-watching, Rush-listening, Hannity-worshipping, Coulter-loving, conservative shills. Address us as specific individuals, Steve. None of us speaks for anyone else, let alone ALL conservatives, as if we are one big group-think. We’re not your inflatable doll toy. Don’t project and assume. You’ve been here too long, and to continue to do so demonstrates a willful suspension of having a brain.
Nothing anyone has said compares to your “frothing at the mouth”, “venomous tirade”, and “blind-rage hate” of George W. Bush.
Back it up with proof please.
You really need to take a step back and climb out of your partisan skin….read through all of your comments without your bds bifocals on.
Then take a hard long stare at yourself in the mirror. What is it that you see, staring back at ya?
I actually wouldn’t use those descriptions for the manner in which you’ve expressed yourself here. Just pointing out how “over-the-top” ridiculous and hyperbolic your responses are in describing and pigeon-holing our opinions back at you.
Re: “Well then…was Sen Clinton or Sen Edwards competent enough to authorize a war? That’s a pretty important question given that you’re gonna support their pledge to continue the war.”
Why do you keep asking the same question? What has the vote to authorize force have to do with the Bush Administration’s incompetent occupation of Iraq?
Except, of course, as a diversion.
Re: “The rest of the point in my post, is in the notion that you insinuated in a couple of comments that the “religious right” and George Bush are out of control, in religious “extremism”. ”
Can you point to any post of mine speaking about “out of control”?
My point has consistently been:
1. George W. Bush incopetently managed the occupation of Iraq. Given the deterioration in an occupation that was promised by theBush Administration to be about six months.
2. Radically rightwing fundamentalist Christians have a veto power over the Republican Party and the White House Agenda.
That is considerably different from the premise upon which you attacked me.
Re: “as if we are your generic FOX-watching, Rush-listening, Hannity-worshipping, Coulter-loving, conservative shills. Address us as specific individuals, Steve. None of us speaks for anyone else, let alone ALL conservatives, as if we are one big group-think. We’re not your inflatable doll toy. Don’t project and assume. You’ve been here too long, and to continue to do so demonstrates a willful suspension of having a brain.”
The entire tenor of this site is to generalize Liberals and attack Democratic politicians with broad brush strokes.
I post based on what is the S.O.P. of this site. When I see a Conservative willing to discuss policies with comments that do not start with “Liberals believe…” (which, by the way is also a standard lead in on FoxNews, rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, which is why I reference them as the source of yoru comments, since I can pretty much map Conservative beliefs and opinons based on the latest broadcast from one of those three.
I cite the Right-wing Christian fundamentalists because that group has veto power and control of the Republican Party. This was amply demonstrated when James Dobson wrote one demanding column, and the Republicans immediately called Congress into session and President Bush flew back from vacation (!) to intervene the federal government into a family decision about life support in Florida.
“a family decision” or murder by an husband in name only, with the approval of a judge who declares that it is legal to with hold even water from a woman for 13 days to cause her death. For the crime of being inconvenient.
Meanwhile, convicted hardened criminals sit on death row for years, because liberals claim that putting them to death is cruel and unusual punishment.
Re: “How can we believe you’d hold Pres Edwards or Pres H Clinton accountable for their actions if you won’t hold them accountable for their actions as Senators?”
“Because I value competence over blind fanatic ideology. ”
Well then…was Sen Clinton or Sen Edwards competent enough to authorize a war? That’s a pretty important question given that you’re gonna support their pledge to continue the war. This is no more a diversion than anything you’ve posted in this thread about “conservatives”, Republicans, etc. as none of those have to do with the original article. You deviated and distracted…not me (remember, I wrote the original article). I noticed you claimed I distracted rather than answer a simple question-an interesting distraction in and of itself.
Re: ““a family decision” or murder by an husband in name only, with the approval of a judge who declares that it is legal to with hold even water from a woman for 13 days to cause her death. For the crime of being inconvenient.”
The autopsy proved that her husband was right and James Dobson and the Republicans in Congress and theWhite House were wrong.
Re: “Well then…was Sen Clinton or Sen Edwards competent enough to authorize a war? ”
Yes, they were, and are competent. What was not known fully was that Geroge W. Bush was NOT competent enough to manage the occupation of Iraq afterward.
Stott: Since you have asked this question about six times in a row, you obviously have some sort of word trap that you will now spring on me for that “yes”. So go ahead, post your canned reply to my “yes” about Clinton’s competency, and crow about it as much as you wish.
It still does not compensate one bit for the American lives that have been lost, and will be lost to make up for George W. Bush’s INcompetence in managing the occupation of Iraq.
LOL! I had to ask it “six times” because you never answered until the last time, and I have to admit, I’m impressed. I’m impressed that you support their decision to authorize the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That’s amazing to me. At least you’ve come to acknowledge that the intelligence wasn’t manipulated or twisted or created now (for if you still hold that position, then clearly Senators Clinton and Edwards didn’t make competent decisions, AND you’re not holding them accountable. Lack of accountability as Senators would make your claim to hold them accountable as President a flat out lie.)
re the incompent management of the occupation, I’ll ask again (and again and again until you answer as you’ve seen), can you show me in military history where an operation of similar scale and condition was conducted better? Lacking that, you’re incompetence claim is actually COUNTER to historical fact, and that fact is: while the price in blood and treasure in Iraq has been high, it has been historically LOW by comparison. More importantly, there is no other place on the planet where this many Jihadis could have been engaged and killed this effectively.
“The autopsy proved that her husband was right and James Dobson and the Republicans in Congress and theWhite House were wrong.”
What is it you think was proven right? No one in the US would dare treat any criminal like that woman was treated. No trial-Not guilty of any crime except being inconvenient means one should be starved to death over a period
of days; How does that make any sense at all?
Re: “That’s amazing to me. At least you’ve come to acknowledge that the intelligence wasn’t manipulated or twisted or created now (for if you still hold that position, then clearly Senators Clinton and Edwards didn’t make competent decisions, AND you’re not holding them accountable. Lack of accountability as Senators would make your claim to hold them accountable as President a flat out lie.)”
I knew you had a trap in there. It was to provide an alibi that Senator Clinton had the same information that the Bush Administration.
That is not correct.
As I have demonstrated earlier, the Bush Administration cooked the books and witheld information from Congress (meaning Senator Clinton) that might (not necessarilly would, unlike your hero Bill O’Rielly, I do not have “body language” experts to help me read people’s minds) have changed their vote.
However they were competent for the vote they made, with the information that the Bush Administration DID provide.
But I knew you were asking that same question, over and over, in order to try to provide another alibi for George W. Bush, the man you appear to believe is the second-greates president of the twentieth century (behind only saint Ronald reagan, of course).
And, again, regardless of how Congress voted, George W. Bush so incompetently managed the occupation of Iraq that Americans have been, and will continue to die to make up for it for years to come.
So, with full hindsight, shame on Senator Clinton for voting to allow an incompetent president the power to launch an invasion, whose aftermath he wold botch so thoroughly that his blunders are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.
But double shame on Conservatives who will never hold George W. Bush accountable for the botched occupation of Iraq. Never. They are more loyal to that one man than they are to the soldiers now dying for his incompetence.
Actually my comment above, instead of saying, “greates president of the twentieth century”, should have read “second greatest president of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries”.
Re: “What is it you think was proven right? No one in the US would dare treat any criminal like that woman was treated. No trial-Not guilty of any crime except being inconvenient means one should be starved to death over a period of days; How does that make any sense at all?”
This comment makes no sense at all. My point was the degree of control James Dobson, on behalf of radical fundamentalists Christians in the US, has over the Republican Party, and how he demonstrated that power in the case of Terry Schiavo’s vegetative state.
What has your tirade about “criminals” have to do with that point?
Then we have the complaint of incompetence in Iraq. An operation put into effect after the ranking liberal on the Senate Intelligence Committee stated “SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” Article
When did it be come the responsibility of the liberals in Congress to make sure that the enemy got all of our intelligence reports as soon as they were developed? Why do American soldiers have to fight against an enemy that has the advantage of getting our intelligence fed to them as soon as it is developed? An enemy that has been told for years that if they just hold on, the Anti-Americans back in the States will insure that America is not allowed to win in Iraq.
Re: “I’ll ask again (and again and again until you answer as you’ve seen), can you show me in military history where an operation of similar scale and condition was conducted better?”
The occupation of Germany, after WW II. This was planned for years prior to their surrender. The “Werewolves” who fought after the surrender lasted all of about a month, even though Conservatives have trotted out that excuse for years.
We still have troops in Germany, but they are not in full scale combat. A point Conservative conveniemtlt forget.
It wasn’t a tirade. It simply stated facts; no one in America could get by with staving a criminal to death for 13 days, yet liberals think it is acceptable for a woman who committed no crime to be treated that way. How does it make any sense?
Oh Steve, #110 was GREAT! I loved how you tried to excuse Sen Clinton and Sen Edwards for their authorization of the invasion of Iraq by sticking to your talking points. Wonderful! but when you turned right around and said “shame on”X…yeah, real accountability.
I also liked the part about the Werewolves in post-war Germany. Condolezza Rice and Rumsfeld said the same thing. You’re in good company, but I thought you said Rummy was incompetent…which would make your claim/his claim…hmmm, what?
Re: “It wasn’t a tirade. It simply stated facts; no one in America could get by with staving a criminal to death for 13 days, yet liberals think it is acceptable for a woman who committed no crime to be treated that way. How does it make any sense?”
The body had no brain function, and the higher brain (above the reptilian brain and brain stem) were less than half normal size and had no function. She was dead.
And that item STILL has nothing to do with the demonstrated control the Radical Fundamentalist Christians have over the Republican Party, as demonstrated by james Dobson when, on his orders alone, the Republican party called Congress into session and President Bush cut short a vbacation (gasp!).
“And that item STILL has nothing to do with the demonstrated control the Radical Fundamentalist Christians have over the Republican Party, as demonstrated by james Dobson when, on his orders alone, the Republican party called Congress into session and President Bush cut short a vbacation (gasp!).”
Which contrasts so much to the influence and control that Rev King has even today on the Democratic Party or Rev Sharpton or Reverend Jesse Jackson. Foolish-and MOOT since the Republican Congress in question was largely voted out of office, and since Bush bashing rantings against a lame duck President are as impotent as a lame duck is fast.
“she was dead.”
Why did she have be surrounded by armed guard to prevent her being given food and water
for 13 days if she was dead? What was the fear that she was going to get up and leave? That she was going to continue to be inconvenient?
Scott: I see you are still feeding that hatemonger.
Not sure what he’s talking about with “Radical Fundamentalist Christians” controlling the GOP.
I haven’t seen any and I go to the meetings and rallies. Not a bible in sight.
Poor Steve prefers his hate filled delusions to painful and intelletcually challenging task of actually coming up with any practical, rational or mature solutions to the truly life and death issues this nation faces.
It’s sad really. That someone could be so poisoned by hate and willfully so.
Too bad Bush hasn’t built those internment camps nuts like Steve are always blathering about. I would say Steve should be placed in one of those facilities for his own good.
Re: ““she was dead.” Why did she have be surrounded by armed guard to prevent her being given food and water for 13 days if she was dead? What was the fear that she was going to get up and leave? That she was going to continue to be inconvenient?”
Launching off into this digression does demonstrrate one of my other contentions: That Conservatives, while their rhetoric is always about getting rid of the “Nanny State” are actually all for the government intervening and making decisions on behalf of all Americans for all their decisions… as long as the intervening is to impose their personal agenda on everyone else. The vehemence with which Pager defends that intervention, along with the total absence of any disagreement from any other “Conservative” proves that Conservatives are as much about state control of every aspect of our lives as any “Liberal” is portrayed as being… Just as long as Conservatives are the ones doing the interventions.
And those Conservatives who will be doing that intervention in our personal lives are named James Dobson, Pat Robertson, …
“I haven’t seen any and I go to the meetings and rallies. Not a bible in sight.”
You have to go to Rev Sharpton’s meetings or Rainbow Coalition meetings to see those.
No need to put Steve in a camp. Making him support the occupation of Iraq until 2013 and making him vote for people he’s admitted were incompetent is bad enough. Just look at how hard he’s wrestling with it. It is sad, but I think it’s a microcosm of the problem described in the original article. People need to come together. People want the divisiveness to end. People want to find common ground and are tired of the politically alienated who seek to divide and play gotcha politics. This nation was united (albeit only skin deep) on 911. Then it was deliberately divided by the likes of Steve-people who just arbitrarily name call, label, and seek to oppose rather than support, who are against rather than for, who care more about being able to say, “gotcha” somehow, someday, on some message board or blogsite rather than use those sources of communication to research and find truth. Efforts have been made to point out truths to people who have been misled-deliberately misled, but Steve and others don’t care. The irony here is that by closing his mind to the discussion, by averting questions, by deliberately distracting and topic shifting, by constantly name-calling and stereotyping others…Steve has demonstrated that he is not an open-minded liberal, but more akin to a closed-minded Rush Limbaugh yet even more extremist.
By keeping Steve posting on this thread (and it i so easy because he never answers questions and instead tries to topic shift or distract each time) I’ve demonstrated in real time and in great detail the kind of change that I described in the article. Let’s not forget that the CHANGE theme is not exclusively Sen Obama’s, but he is very clearly the most associated with it. We need to bear in mind that most of his support comes from independents, RINOs, centrists, and even Republicans, rather than lockstep lemming DNC parrots or the so-called liberal netroots (nutroots if you’re not one of em).
What I have done here-again, by keeping Steve posting/dancing/spinning/and flatout lying is to show that whether it’s a radical right wing nutjob or their polar opposite…these extremists are not what people want. People don’t want gotcha politics. They don’t want the spin and the misleading. They don’t want the polarization of “conservative” vs the Stevos of America. Nah. Just as readers grow weary of his posts here, Americans in general are weary of such lies, innuendo, half truths, and distortion. They’re tired of the repetitive refusal to face facts, and that’s why I think,
“The overwhelming lessons of Iowa and New Hampshire are ones that shouldn’t be a surprise to any American, but clearly are to the political power elitists and their old media symbiotes: Americans are tired of the angry political partisan divide.”
…a political partisan divide stemming in large part to people such as Steve who go around avidly labeling, stereotyping, inciting, misleading, and ignoring facts rather than accepting them (let alone seeking them) in lieu of encouraging and promoting that partisan divide. Put simply, ya can’t label people this or that, and then say you’re against the idea of dividing people into this and that.
Thanks for your help in demonstrating the extremism that I wrote about, and that Americans are seeking to CHANGE and move away from.
Re: “Too bad Bush hasn’t built those internment camps nuts like Steve are always blathering about. I would say Steve should be placed in one of those facilities for his own good.”
I’m sure you would have me imprisoned for disagreing with you. I take solace you are more merciful than you hero, Ann Coulter, who would have me put to death for that same “crime”.
Re: “Making him support the occupation of Iraq until 2013 and making him vote for people he’s admitted were incompetent is bad enough.”
Can you document those words coming from any of my posts? or is that Conservative logic?
Re: “Thanks for your help in demonstrating the extremism that I wrote about, and that Americans are seeking to CHANGE and move away from.”
Your comment ending with this statement actually does reflect my personal opinion of extremism. However, while I can admit that Al Sharpton is an extremist, and shame on Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and other Democrats for pandering to him, Conservatives will not hold their own extremists to a similar level of accountability: Note the parallel discussion regarding James Dobson’s control of a Republican Congress and President and a complete defense of that action or absence of any disagreement with that control.
My point being that I acknowledge that there are horses a**’s in the Democratic party, hypocrits and even those who are incompetent.
John Kerry is an example of the first.
Hillary Clinton is an example of the second and jimmy Carter is an example of the third.
And they are all Democratic past (or possibly future) presidential nominees.
Conservatives, as I have been consistently asserting, give Republicans of the same stripe a free pass: Particularly the most egrigious of them: George W. Bush, whos occupation of Iraq has been botched and continues to cost Americans and Iraqis their lives. but Conservatives gloss over blunders that they wold demand impeachment for had they been committed by a Democratic President.
That is, and has been, my point.
And, knowing that it is absolutely impossible for any Conservative, anywhere, any time to admit that Geroge W. Bush botched the occupation, I recommend you close the thread: After, of course, another round of name-calling against me, wishing me ill, and hoping that I die a lingering, painful death with much family suffering.
Hillary or Sen Edwards win the nomination, you will have to vote one of the two people who demonstrated incompetence by authorizing the war in Iraq, and both people have said they’d keep the war going until 2013. By voting for either one of them, you will vote to continue the war until 2013 under the leadership of people who demonstrated incompetence.
Keep that labeling coming. It makes the thread article’s point all that more proven/demonstrated.
“Your comment ending with this statement actually does reflect my personal opinion of extremism. However, while I can admit that Al Sharpton is an extremist, and shame on Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and other Democrats for pandering to him, Conservatives will not hold their own extremists to a similar level of accountability: Note the parallel discussion regarding James Dobson’s control of a Republican Congress and President and a complete defense of that action or absence of any disagreement with that control.”
Lack of disagreement? They were voted out. Republicans lost the Congress after that. That’s accountability. When Republicans disagree with the extremists in their party, they vote em out or kick em out.
Democrats?
“John Kerry is an example of the first.
Hillary Clinton is an example of the second and jimmy Carter is an example of the third.”
Apparently Democrats don’t kick em out. They nominate them for President-even elect em. See also your inevitable vote for Sen Clinton if she wins the nomination as well as the failure to hold her to account for authorizing the war invasion of Iraq.
Re: “you will have to vote one of the two people who demonstrated incompetence by authorizing the war in Iraq”
Please explain. How have they demonstrated incompetence from that vote?
Re: “See also your inevitable vote for Sen Clinton if she wins the nomination as well as the failure to hold her to account for authorizing the war invasion of Iraq.”
I will hold her accountable for that vote.
Will you hold Geroge W. Bush accountable for the botched occupation?
What a filibustering fool! Don’t you know how you have damaged the credibility of any rational opposing argument to conservativism?
The discussion started with: “I cite the Right-wing Christian fundamentalists because that group has veto power and control of the Republican Party. This was amply demonstrated when James Dobson wrote one demanding column, and the Republicans immediately called Congress into session and President Bush flew back from vacation (!) to intervene the federal government into a family decision about life support in Florida.”
Any one who had a real interest in justice would have realized the “husband” had a serious conflict of interest beginning years before the woman was starved to death.
Had her parents be given custody, when they should have, no other intervention would have been needed. The “husband” could have been granted a divorce and gotten on with his life with his new family. Everyone would have been happy, but no; for some reason she had to DIE. Starved to death for 13 days, with armed guards to make sure she did not escape her fate.
Meanwhile we are told “I’m sure you would have me imprisoned for disagreing with you. I take solace you are more merciful than you hero, Ann Coulter, who would have me put to death for that same “crime”.
Terri Schiavo was put to death, not for a crime, just because she was inconvenient. She was a real human life and death situation, not some joke.
Re: “See also your inevitable vote for Sen Clinton if she wins the nomination as well as the failure to hold her to account for authorizing the war invasion of Iraq.” resp:”I will hold her accountable for that vote. Will you hold Geroge W. Bush accountable for the botched occupation?”
1) How can you hold her accountable for her vote AND support her
2) if you’re not holding her accountable now, how can anyone believe you would in the future
3) re the incompent management of the occupation, I’ll ask again (and again and again until you answer as you’ve seen), can you show me in military history where an operation of similar scale and condition was conducted better? Lacking that, you’re incompetence claim is actually COUNTER to historical fact, and that fact is: while the price in blood and treasure in Iraq has been high, it has been historically LOW by comparison. More importantly, there is no other place on the planet where this many Jihadis could have been engaged and killed this effectively. The werewolves thing was cited by Rumsfeld-someone you’ve tried to say is incompetent, so his claim (your werewolves idea) must be incompetent. History supports you here. The werewolves were nothing at all in size, tactic, orientation, or dedication compared to the Jihadis in Iraq. So find a comparable military operation in scale and condition that was handled better, and your case for incompetence will be strengthened. Vietnam and Afghanistan are the typicals, but in both cases the costs in blood and treasure were several fold worse.
And, on my parallel track of Rightwing Christian Control of the Republican party, here is why Mike Huckabee is one of the leaders of the pack right now and why I beleive he will get the nomination for President from the Republican Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onHkywYc_1M
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential Candidate.
Monday, January 14, 2008
“And those Conservatives who will be doing that intervention in our personal lives are named James Dobson, Pat Robertson, …”
A quick search of Google reveals no reports of anyone’s life being ruined or ended by anyone named James Dobson, or Pat Robertson.
Type in numbers killed by John Kerry’s aid to North Vietnam and get 352,000 articles. That’s not the numbers killed. The number’s killed are much higher.
There is no way to know how many American
names are on the Vietnam Wall because Walter Cronkite, Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry, and other Americans encouraged the North Vietnamese to keep fighting until America gave up. How many Vietnamese and others in SE Asia are dead because the American left was able to do what the North Vietnamese could not do, defeat America.
There is no way of knowing how many Americans, Afghanistanis, or Iraqis have been killed and will be killed in Afghanistan/Iraq because Democrat political leaders and anti war demonstrators have encouraged the terrorists to keep fighting.
James Dobson, and Pat Robertson don’t cause
the deaths of American Service members who are killed by the enemy. Americans who help the enemy do.
James Dobson and Pat Robertson don’t cause wives to grow old and alone as widows. Americans who help the enemy do.
James Dobson and Pat Robertson don’t cause children to grow up never knowing their fathers or mothers who were killed by enemies the US is fighting. Americans who aid these enemies do.
Re: “How can you hold her accountable for her vote AND support her”
Because, despite her vote on the authorization, I belive that she could take the necessary actions to get our troops out in an orderly fashion.
Unlike Republicans, she does not have to justify Bush’s botched occupation, which Donald Rumsfeld predicted at six months. And, the Iraqi government, knowing that they will not have Republican openn-ended commitments to provide thier “policing” for them, will have to settle their civil war themselves. As long as Republicans are running the war from the White house, the three sides of the Iraqi civil war know that they can continue to fight and the US will provide a blank check to do all the work for them. I’m sure at this point you will provide fifteen links declaring what a “heckuva job” the Iraqi military is doing and that “more than 100,000″ have been trained (something we’ve heard fro the White House every six months since 2004).
As I’ve said before, The Bush White House has sprinkled too many “Loyal Bushies” in all branches of the executive government, as documented in “Enemy at the Gates”. Of course, no Conservative was permitted to read that book, so I assume you have not even heard of it, or if you have,you learned of it from the FoxNews “rebuttal”.
The occupation of Germany after WW II was a LARGER scale than Iraq, but accomplished much more efficiently.
The occupatin of Japan was accomplished much better. Of course, McAuthor did not disband the military and police forces, then send them home with their weapons and fail to secure a single one of the military supply depost. But then, no Conservative can hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable for those decisions, can they?
The post-US Civil War occupation of the Confederacy ws not accompanied by a “ten-year” war or civil war among the various Confederate States. (not really a good analogy, since there were differences).
But there are three. I’m sure your White House operatives will quickly supply you with lots of nit-picking “differences” that you can post back in defence of George W. Bush. I work alone and have to do my own research, so I apologize for not having paid white House staffers to assist my blogs, as Conservative bloggers do.
regarding killling al Qaeda in Iraq:
As we have read from military analysis, the occupation of Iraq has provided a recruiting poster that has gained more al Qaeda recruits than have been killed in Iraq (the “we’ll lure 100% of the terrorists in the world into iraq and kill them all” excuse that Conservatives trot out every few months).
Of course al Qaeda wold not exist much at all had George W. Bush not let him go at Tora Bora in order to prep for (authorized) invasion of Iraq. Perhaps had he completed the job in Afghanistan, we would not be watching the government of Pakistan teeter on the edge right now.
But then, Conservatives, with their “perfect Bush” requirement, cannot admit that happened either, can they?
Finally, Afghanistan is not a good analogy to use for your ideal results in Ifraq: Considering how the Soviet Union’s ten year occupation of Afghanistan turned out for that the Soviet Union itself. But then, as we heard from your hero Rush Limbaugh, the losses in Iraq are “not material” (unless your are a family member of somone who has died to counter Bush’s failings).
I consider $3 billion a week to be too high a cost in $’s.
I consider 1,000+ American dead a year too high a cost in lives.
I consider 16,000 (and counting) maimed too high a cost on an underfunded VA system (apparently the Bush Administration was “caught unawares” that a war would mean wounded veterans would come back).
You, like all Conservatives, would be just fine if this war went on for 100 years.
Re: “Type in numbers killed by John Kerry’s aid to North Vietnam and get 352,000 articles. That’s not the numbers killed. The number’s killed are much higher.”
Can you document that from someting other than “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth”, or its clones?