You are correct.  I lumped you in with the other conservatives who were wallowing in hate (while, of course denying it completely).  You did not deserve to be included in that group and I apologize.

.

Re: “I was wrong”
Apparently Conservatives, who are never wrong about anything, ever, consider a willingness to admit a mistake to be a sure sign of weakness. That certainly explains why they worship George W. Bush so much.

Don’t worry. I will not, in the future ever expect similar treatment from Conservatives. Being perfect human beings, Conservatives have no need to admit an error, ever (unless it is the usual sarcasm of “being to nice” to lesser human beings such as me).

It is part of Conservative arrogance, as exemplified so well by Conservative heros such as Donald Rumsfeld (“The greatest Secretary of Defense in History” – Dick Cheney), while Americaqns were dying due to his arrogant dismissal of good advice from his Military Chiefs of Staff.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

huh? "Hand me my broom"

Please show me a quote of mine to back up you claim…or apologize again. It’s almost Friday, and you’re about due for your weekly “I was wrong”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: "See Steve, you still consider me “a conservative.” I’m a registered Democrat with a history of voting Democrat. By your definition, anyone who disagrees with the party line on the war, or holds their party accountable is a “conservative.” Ironic, using the with us or against us mantra."

Your "disagreements" with the Democratic Party take the form of defendig the Bush Administration.  You also indulge int he Republican hate machine, as observed in the "Hand me my broom" thread, which was nothing but a stream of puire hate against her personally.  On that thread I decried similar smears against George W. Bush, but not one single Conservative would admit to their own levels of hatred. 

Like or Dislike: 0  0

See Steve, you still consider me “a conservative.” I’m a registered Democrat with a history of voting Democrat. By your definition, anyone who disagrees with the party line on the war, or holds their party accountable is a “conservative.” Ironic, using the with us or against us mantra.

I think President Clinton did a good job nailing Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters with cruise missiles in 1993. I could probably think of other things, but that’s the one on my mind right now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Fleeing”?

I thought the idea that Conservatives kept telling us was that all the Jihadists in the world were going to fly into Iraq so thery could die on our “swords” there. You mean that now those Jihadists are taking everything they have learned from Iraq and are heading into the rest of the world to apply that eductation?

Isn’t that going to mean that the Bush Occupation of Iraq will make America LESS safe?

Re: “As before, I don’t care if it’s a D or an R that brings about success in Iraq. I just want success.”

I spent all of the 1990′s hearing from Conservatives that the prosperity of that era was 100% due to Saint Ronald Reagan. Not one single conservative ever gave a Democratic President any positive credit for any positive outcome that occurred duringhis watch. And no Conservative ever will.

What I am saying is that I do not believe you would live up to your “D or R” comment should any positive outcome in Iraq happen on a “D’s” watch. No more than you held George W.Bush in any way accountable for the negative event of the September 11, 2001 attacks, joining with every other Conservative in declaring it was “all Bill Clinton’s fault”.

Proof.
I can demonstrate that statement right here and now. I will make a positive, unconditional positive statement about George W. Bush, with no conditions or “but’s”. Nor will it be a “positive” that is really a “left-handed” compliment. Conservatives will not be able to make s similar comment about Bill Clinton because their fingers would drop off their hands before something like that could be typed.

President Bush has received far too little credit and attention for the efforts he has speerheaded in addressing the HIV epidemic in Africa. In an effort for which he has, and will likely never, receive his full due, George W. Bush has pushed, and funded, extensive programs that is getting drugs to people who need them and implementing preventive programs. All this effort has, and will, save thousands of lives.

Thank you, George W. Bush, for this great humanitarian effort.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I thought about that (believe me), but I don’t believe it’s an option. If the US were to withdraw in the first two years, then in yr3 the carnage would be akin to Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., but this time a large portion of the American people would be finger-pointing hard, “This is your fault! You cut and run! You didn’t finish the job! You promised blah blah blah.” That’s hard for a poll-driven waffler to roll with, and it’s even harder now that Presidential campaigns start in yr3. I don’t think a Dem Pres could bear that popular pressure, the poll pressure, the political pressure, and certainly not the economic and diplomatic pressures. They can blame Bush all they want, but the “it happened on X’s watch” bit is gonna haunt hard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Or option 3, Scott. American withdraws, and a DNC POTUS refuses to go back in because they pass it off as a “civil war” to the electorate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That’s the catch 22. History and “conditions on the ground” will force 1 of 2 things:
1) a Dem Pres orders withdrawal, and there’s peace=American wins, and I don’t care about the D next to his/her name as my interest is American success first, foremost, and only
2) a Dem Pres orders a withdrawal, and as predicted the place collapses=the Dem Pres has to send US troops back in, AND he has to sell it to the American people; by “it” I mean the idea that withdrawal somehow would just magically make things better. Such a scenario would be awful militarily, but politically it’s a deathblow to any and all opposition to the war. They’re “plan” to withdraw and hope that everything magically gets better would have been proven wrong. That leaves no other plan that a 3rd invasion and a repeat of the Bush strategies. Most of all, America cannot win without the will, and to have the anti-war movement’s mantra destroyed destroys the anti-war movement=American will to succeed is slammed down hard, and America would finally be unstoppable in its objectives. As before, I don’t care if it’s a D or an R that brings about success in Iraq. I just want success.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott said:

There’s no need to complain about Obama or Clinton bringing troops home faster (as you would like). They can’t and won’t do it.

I’d sure like to takek that as gospel, Scott. But I’m less sure than you. Certainly their campaign promises during midterm elections preyed on voter’s ignorance of the power of Congress. But a DNC commander in chief can actually accomplish the withdrawal at whatever pace they deem feasible.

Whether the DNC withdrawal is bigger and faster than what’s already in the plan is hard to predict. Events on the ground, and the Iraq govt attitude towards our presence, is what will dictate the actual pace under this admin. Under a DNC admin, events on the ground be damned, they are leaving ASAP just to appease a media indoctrinated constituency.

Withdrawal will be difficult, for the last boots have very few to watch their backs. And the jihad movement will make every attempt to take advantage of their isolation from support brigades.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I agree. There’s no need to complain about Obama or Clinton bringing troops home faster (as you would like). They can’t and won’t do it. Democrats have been sold the “vote for me and I’ll end the war” BS for years now, and like lemmings, as soon as a Democratic Party candidate says something like “I’m gonna end the war when I take office”…those wide-eyed DNC supporters believe em. Democrats are the ones with dreams of just driving out and somehow everything will be better or even ok. Republicans have plans and goals, and they work towards them. Think about it, Hillary and Obama say they’ll “end the war” well then why haven’t they? If they don’t have the political will to do it now, they won’t have the political will in the future when there’s accountability and responsibility.

No sir, the transparent rhetoric is the belief that Sen Obama or Sen Clinton will really take office and begin a withdrawal that’s faster and bigger than already planned and started and expected for the future.

Like or Dislike: 0  0