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.”
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
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.