terrorists. We say that the invasion of Iraq and the inept handling of the war have made us less safe. One (ours) is analysis of reality. The other is false accusations made to distract from failed policies. Here (in pdf form) are our plans to provide real security. We are more than ready to discuss who will actually make us safer and who has made us less safe and only offers more of the same.
elections this fall will probably turn on perception of the war in Iraq. The people will decide whether Democrats will make us less safe or whether Bush and his enablers have already made so much less safe that his enablers in Congress need to be removed. And all over the nation Republican incumbents and other Republicans are running away from Bush because they see the handwriting on the wall.
Why should it be that suggesting that one policy encourages the terrorists is "reprehensible,
Is just plain inaccurate. The VP did not suggest the effects of any policy. What he did was attack the voters as giving aid to our enemies. There is no policy argument in Cheney's highlighted comment. Generally speaking, it is frowned upon for a politician to attack the voters, particularly a majority, for simply exercising their rights. Attacking the policies that Ned Lamont supported would be closer to acceptable, though still a bit iffy on the logic.
In the second case, you have people attacking the policies of the government. Attacking policy that you disagree with, particularly when you include widely available metrics (increased number of terrorist attacks since the inception of said policies for example)
Finally, much of the abuse of Cheney came from his timing his political discussion around news of which he was aware and others were not. Making this type of comment just before release of the law enforcement-related information was considered very inappropriate by many.
I'm saying that your call for civility is inappropriate in this political context. We're playing political hardball now. That's what it will take to regain control of congress. From here on out, there will be no apologies for calling a spade a spade. Your team has been calling our team wimps for a long while now. We're tired of it and we're fighting back.
resolve a paraphrase you made up into the original quote? Impressive.
And I guess I didn't need to use Google to find an inexact quote in one of the ten links you gave on the chance that such a search might give me some clue as to WTF you were trying to argue. Silly me. Sorry for wasting your time.
The first quote is really:
Go. Read all of Froomkin’s White House Briefing today. And tell me that we shouldn’t rename the whole mess "the war to create more terrorists."
A sarcastic play on the ineffectiveness of the War on Terror that links to an article which makes a serious effort to substantiate that claim.
The second was almost certainly over the line. As were the many, many other prominent people who made very similar statements about bin Laden's intent in the presidential election. I won't remind you who the vast majority of them were.
In either case I really don't see your point. To call this comparing apples to oranges would be putting it kindly.
You really don't have a fleshed-out argument here. What exactly are the parallels and differences between, say, what Cheney said and (take your pick)?
The Vice President of the United States of America came out from behind the doors of the White House, the Capital of the United States, and used his power, authority and the weight of his office to accuse voters of aiding and abetting the "enemy" for voting.
I thought the Vice President had more dignity than that.
If the Vice President disagrees with the public's decision, he should certainly hold himself to a higher standard than the bloggers and not resort to ugly name calling.
I would certainly hope that I can have a voice in our foreign policy by voting for the candidae of my choice, without being accused of Dolchstosslegende .
There is a backlash to implying voting citizens are unpatriotic traitors.
They might get even more angry and turn out in droves to vote against his party's policies if for no other reason than to change the tone, so that the challanges we face are met from the poisition of strength through unity, as opposed to the position of weakness that comes with division.
The gloves are off. We're tired of all the $hit and we're not gonna take it anymore. "Civility" is not what is called for. We have to be partisan to win this thing.
Since 9/11 this administration has gone hog-wild pushing policies which it claims is making us safer from terrorist. Numerous intelligence agencies - whose job it is to measure such things - from numerous countries have repeatedly said that we're actually getting the opposite effect. Terrorist organizations are thriving, recruitment is growing and the hydra's heads are multiplying. (Remember how this adminstration has stopped publishing the annual State Department terror report because it kept getting worse each year? Now that's a successful policy!)
Now, when "wacked out liberals" are critical of the adminstrations policies because they appear (according to measurable analysis) to actually be enabling our enemies you guys claim its unacceptable and just the same as Cheney criticizing voters who can actually tell when somethings working and when its not.
I used to respect conservatives. Not so much anymore.
One partisan point to emphasize is these people have brought us nothing BUT partisan division, which in the end makes us weaker. And they have even managed to bring their ugly partisan division to Iraq now in a civil war!
The Party of Death
The Party of al Queda
And we are supposed to say, "oh isn't that sweet what he said. I think I will just roll over and let them walk all over my values."
How can we possibly take a strong stand and present a united front if our country is so divided. And they always make it personal.
The man makes the clear case that the lefty slime-machine has been non-stop spewing venom of every imaginable color, temperature and viscosity at Bush et. al. for over five years now, and when Cheney gives them a little back, the left goes all virginal on us.
It is the same on National Defense. The dems things to help our enemies, things that are inexplicable to us pubs, and then you get offended when we complain that some of you might benefit from some patriotism training...if you get my drift.
You want somebody who can make the points clear to you...I'm your huckleberry :-)
Anyone who supports the Bush agenda endangers our national security and is thus a traitor to his country who only pretends to support our troops but is in reality stabbing them in the back by insisting on giving them less than the necessary equipment and manpower.
with the misuse of the term salafi and the insistence on making this a war between the west and Islam. Focus on the real enemy, violent extremists within Islam. Not all salafi are of the violent sort and your use of the term is wrong and misleading.
They consider the troops to be nothing more than human subjects in their geopolitical experiment with oft fatal results. An experiment which, to data, continues to fail. They are the modern Dr Mengeles if you will.
I am being critical of the conservative position because it deserves criticism at this time. I may be slightly snarky but I am not roundly condemning them of being traitors or spewing the venom and anger you often hear from the right wing pundits (and yes some on the left as well). In fact, compared to the VP's words, I am actually taking a very measured tone.
And I did say I used to respect the conservative standpoint. Back when they actually represented the "rule of law" and their policies had some basis in reality.
your wounds? Say that you are fair in your heinous dictates?
Oh poor misundersood Dick Cheney? He is on the right side of justice and history? I think not. He is a man filled with fear.
It is you that takes the knife and twists, blood flowing freely from the heart of the constitution as you defile the democratic process defined in our constitution.
Nay! It is you that are full of fear! The bully you are. The world knows it. The common man knows it. You whine at the truth of babies born with the no crime other than being born in a country you say must be filled with traitors to freedom.
The Middle East does not belong to America. And the entitlement you feel that the land is yours is false.
The left has been spewing venom at him for years and the very first time he "gives them a little back" he is unfairly maligned in the vicious leftist press.
And your party isn't exactly virginal...if you get my drift.
Politics is, however, the only game for grownups, and I have all the team and player hats and t-shirts of the true fan. Be honest, would you have been for the revolution in '76 or against it?
Feel free to take your best shot. Just don't whine so loud when the pubs take their best shot. And be honest, if you had the good sense or the good fortune to be a pub, you would be attacking the dem's for being the cheese-eating surrender-monkeys that they are.
Take your shots like a man. You guys are likely to take the house this term, and think how much fun the MSM coverage of the impeachments will be :-)
First, pubs are way bigger whiners than anyone else on the planet when things don't go their way. Second, I am a proud descendant of men who fought in the Revolutionary war. Patriotism goes way back in my family.
It may be that we have reached the nub of our disagrement about the nature of the threat.
Would you like to do a diary tomorrow about "Our friends the Salafi". Or perhaps, "There are only six of them who hate us, and there would only be two if it wasn't for Bush."
Again, you constantly complain about the pubs concepts and never defend the dems concepts. I posted a link that said the Salafi don't believe in modern civilization and were all for jahad. W/o even a blink you claim the opposite and give no cite, nor do you think you should.
Are you claiming the ethos of "Judge of All Things?"
This is about as good an explanation as you will find:
In the United States, Salafism has been equated by some with radicalism and terrorism in some newspaper articles, books, and public discourse. However, “Salafism†is not inherently synonymous with violence, terrorism, or radicalism. Many Salafis throughout the world are doctrinally rigid, but peaceful.
It is important to distinguish between the following groups, thought of (perhaps) as concentric circles:
1. "Jihadist Salafis" - such as the followers of al-Qaeda and like-minded local groups; 2. "Salafis" - those who believe that the imitation of the behavior of the Prophet’s closest companions should be the basis of the social order; 3. "Islamists" - a still broader category,which includes anyone who thinks that the precepts of Islam - however interpreted - should be fundamental to the political and social order; and, 4. "Discontented Muslims" - people who identify themselves as Muslims,and who are unhappy with their life prospects, with the justice of their societies,and/or with the state of the wider world.
Well, they'd allign themselves with the radical Islamic goal of creating a theocracy where sexual morality and gender roles was considered the legitimate and overriding business of the government, but I suppose that particular political territory has already been claimed
You have to stretch a little hard to equate these two, when the difference between debating a reality and debating a hypothetical should be pretty clear.
We can talk about whether or not Bush's policies towards terror have been successful. If the left claims that Bush has created more terrorists, that's a claim that stands or falls on evidence. Likewise, if the right claims that Bush is making the world safer (and they are), then that's a claim that stands or falls on evidence as well. These are equitable.
If the right claims that the left "would" encourage more terrorism, there's nothing to be discussed pro or con. It's a dishonest argument because it's based purely on a hypothetical. Granted, this happens all the time in politics: a more fair comparison would be leftist claims that a particular policy "would" do damage to America. Then you could play your hypocrisy card. But not here, and not how you're playing it.
See, the political situation right now is such that the Republicans have a much harder job - they have a record that stands or falls, while Democrats have to be criticized purely on what we think "might" happen or "would have" happened were they in charge of anything. But without a single branch of government under Democratic control, there are no claims the Republicans can make out side of "We think this would be a bad idea." The Democrats, meanwhile, can point to anything bad that's happened in the last couple years and say, "Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate - if you're angry about something, you know who to blame."
That's the price of power, man.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Right now, I don't think we're helping. I think we're an impediment to Iraq becoming a stable country.
I don't expect agreement from many. I'm thinking that the US could play a more positive roll from afar. They could pull out of everything but the green zone, and probably out into Kurdish Iraq. Maintain the bases in Qatar, and keep a low profile elsewhere.
Will some groups use this to kill more Iraqi's? Yes. But they'll work it out. More quickly if they don't have the US around. It's better than our GI's serving as target practice.
No "lefty slime-machine" venom can possibly match what Bill Clinton was subjected to for 8 years. Very prominent Republicans called him a murderer, drug-dealer, and a rapist and spent hundreds of millions of dollars searching every aspect of his private life. When they couldn't find anything, they made it up. When all they could find was an addair, they published all the graphic details in order to embarass him. Read "The Hunting of the President" for a good rundown.
You just said, "dems [do] things to help our enemies". You just accused Democrats of treason. I am still not clear about what we do that is treasonous, it must be either calling for an exit strategy from Iraq or not having enough ribbons on our cars.
Democrats accuse Republicans of supporting policies that are ineffective and may make terrorism worse. We support our arguments with facts such as the CIA assessments that say terrorist recruitment is higher as a result of the Iraq war.
I think there is a big difference between calling a large segment of the population traitors because they oppose failed strategies and opposing failed strategies because they aren't working.
half the country is women that don't want their sons and daughters to die in a war in the Middle East to export the American Revolution overseas. I believe the traditional holiday "'mothers day" honors that very sentiment.
Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys like Pat Tillmans parents, whose son was killed by friendly fire? Yeah Tillmans parents might enjoy watching the impeachment of Donald Rumsfeld.
Or maybe cheese eating surrender monkey's like Jessica Lynch's parents who saw their daughters kidnapping twisted to a pro repub propaganda story. They must be very proud of their daughter for having the courage to stand up and speak out against war mongering fools like yourself.
That you conflate the Middle East with the American Revolution shows a complete lack of respect and understanding of the arab culture and American history. Your inability to have a sense of empathy or respect for the plight of the people whose homeland the US wants to occupy is your biggest weakness.
Too bad you are not as strong as the women that have to endure your manfoolish arrogance and your insults to women's reproductive rigihts, by promoting the death of their offspring with your call for a clash of civilizations pretending you are on the old frontier in 1776.
So, rather than get into the pointless debate in detail I'll just make one short remark.
The difference between the Bushies claiming that, let's say, Ned Lamont or his supporters, is aiding the enemy and the left saying that the Bush policies have made things worse is simply this:
The Bushies are in control and have been for six to fourteen years (depending on your definition of control) while Ned Lamont and followers control nothing.
I think there may some realization that things are not as they seem, this can be seen in the upswing in conspiracy theories floating around.
I discuss this in this diary, if you are interested:
were with General Washington, a couple serving as drummer boys at a very young age. Others were neighbors of General Francis Marion, and on the US side in the war. (link ) My grandfather had an uncle who was actually named after General Marion.
Comments :
So I guess it's all right with you
that Chuck Roberts on CNN Headline News referred to Lamont as the "al Qaeda candidate."
qui tacet consentire
I don't care about CNN
CNN should be objective, and that pretty clearly crosses the line, but the media are not the folks under consideration in this post.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
You don't see the difference between
This policy/politician is effective/counter-productive because...
and
This policy/politician helps al Qaeda types. Period.
Perhaps you missed
"Let's call this the war to create more terrorists" and "George Bush is the most effectiver recruiter Osama Bin Laden ever had."
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Cheney says we are helping the
terrorists. We say that the invasion of Iraq and the inept handling of the war have made us less safe. One (ours) is analysis of reality. The other is false accusations made to distract from failed policies. Here
(in pdf form) are our plans to provide real security. We are more than ready to discuss who will actually make us safer and who has made us less safe 
and only offers more of the same.
As did Google
Link?
Like it or not,
elections this fall will probably turn on perception of the war in Iraq. The people will decide whether Democrats will make us less safe or whether Bush and his enablers have already made so much less safe that his enablers in Congress need to be removed. And all over the nation Republican incumbents and other Republicans are running away from Bush because they see the handwriting on the wall.
Your Google is busted
Because mine found the first, courtesy of PA Governor Eddie Rendell (and former DNC chair) here
.
The other, you don't need google for, as it was linked in my post - it's the one that points to Firedoglake (see the last sentence).
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I really appreciate
You illustrating one of the main points of my post - very helpful.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Policy and their makers vs the voters.
Is just plain inaccurate. The VP did not suggest the effects of any policy. What he did was attack the voters as giving aid to our enemies. There is no policy argument in Cheney's highlighted comment. Generally speaking, it is frowned upon for a politician to attack the voters, particularly a majority, for simply exercising their rights. Attacking the policies that Ned Lamont supported would be closer to acceptable, though still a bit iffy on the logic.
In the second case, you have people attacking the policies of the government. Attacking policy that you disagree with, particularly when you include widely available metrics (increased number of terrorist attacks since the inception of said policies for example)
Finally, much of the abuse of Cheney came from his timing his political discussion around news of which he was aware and others were not. Making this type of comment just before release of the law enforcement-related information was considered very inappropriate by many.
What are you talking about?
The media are not the folks under consideration? Then why are you whining about a column in the Philadelphia paper?
qui tacet consentire
You absolutely misunderstand.
I'm saying that your call for civility is inappropriate in this political context. We're playing political hardball now. That's what it will take to regain control of congress. From here on out, there will be no apologies for calling a spade a spade. Your team has been calling our team wimps for a long while now. We're tired of it and we're fighting back.
Your Google knows how to
resolve a paraphrase you made up into the original quote? Impressive.
And I guess I didn't need to use Google to find an inexact quote in one of the ten links you gave on the chance that such a search might give me some clue as to WTF you were trying to argue. Silly me. Sorry for wasting your time.
The first quote is really:
A sarcastic play on the ineffectiveness of the War on Terror that links to an article which makes a serious effort to substantiate that claim.
The second was almost certainly over the line. As were the many, many other prominent people who made very similar statements about bin Laden's intent in the presidential election. I won't remind you who the vast majority of them were.
In either case I really don't see your point. To call this comparing apples to oranges would be putting it kindly.
You really don't have a fleshed-out argument here. What exactly are the parallels and differences between, say, what Cheney said and (take your pick)?
Excuse me just a minute if you please
The Vice President of the United States of America came out from behind the doors of the White House, the Capital of the United States, and used his power, authority and the weight of his office to accuse voters of aiding and abetting the "enemy" for voting.
I thought the Vice President had more dignity than that.
If the Vice President disagrees with the public's decision, he should certainly hold himself to a higher standard than the bloggers and not resort to ugly name calling.
I would certainly hope that I can have a voice in our foreign policy by voting for the candidae of my choice,
.
without being accused of Dolchstosslegende
There is a backlash to implying voting citizens are unpatriotic traitors.
They might get even more angry and turn out in droves to vote against his party's policies if for no other reason than to change the tone, so that the challanges we face are met from the poisition of strength through unity, as opposed to the position of weakness that comes with division.
I'm only half stupid
He is misunderstanding on purpose
the Vice Presidents statement stands on its own.
Blaming others for what the VP says, then focuses on defending the "others", when really it is the VP who has been most offensive.
There is no defense of the atrocious comments of the Vice President.
I'm only half stupid
I sum it up this way:
The gloves are off. We're tired of all the $hit and we're not gonna take it anymore. "Civility" is not what is called for. We have to be partisan to win this thing.
How about evaluating the policy instead of attacking the voters?
Since 9/11 this administration has gone hog-wild pushing policies which it claims is making us safer from terrorist. Numerous intelligence agencies - whose job it is to measure such things - from numerous countries have repeatedly said that we're actually getting the opposite effect. Terrorist organizations are thriving, recruitment is growing and the hydra's heads are multiplying. (Remember how this adminstration has stopped publishing the annual State Department terror report because it kept getting worse each year? Now that's a successful policy!)
Now, when "wacked out liberals" are critical of the adminstrations policies because they appear (according to measurable analysis) to actually be enabling our enemies you guys claim its unacceptable and just the same as Cheney criticizing voters who can actually tell when somethings working and when its not.
I used to respect conservatives. Not so much anymore.
Roger that!
One partisan point to emphasize is these people have brought us nothing BUT partisan division, which in the end makes us weaker. And they have even managed to bring their ugly partisan division to Iraq now in a civil war!
The Party of Death
The Party of al Queda
And we are supposed to say, "oh isn't that sweet what he said. I think I will just roll over and let them walk all over my values."
How can we possibly take a strong stand and present a united front if our country is so divided. And they always make it personal.
I'm only half stupid
Cause they will never win that way.
They need that mushroom cloud.
I'm only half stupid
Speaking of fleshless arguments,
yours is one.
The man makes the clear case that the lefty slime-machine has been non-stop spewing venom of every imaginable color, temperature and viscosity at Bush et. al. for over five years now, and when Cheney gives them a little back, the left goes all virginal on us.
It is the same on National Defense. The dems things to help our enemies, things that are inexplicable to us pubs, and then you get offended when we complain that some of you might benefit from some patriotism training...if you get my drift.
You want somebody who can make the points clear to you...I'm your huckleberry :-)
No apologies for calling a spade a spade?
How about for calling a traitor a traitor?
Don't appoligize, just be more patriotic.
Is truth a defense
If the Salafi are counting on us to lose heart and pull out, in what way would the dems act different if they were on the side of the terrorists?
I agree
Dems are a party of traitors. Tell it like it is.
What, do you think you are the guy in the room who can talk tough?
Respect
If the way you talk about pubs is what you call respect, we can do w/o it.
OK, if you insist.
Anyone who supports the Bush agenda endangers our national security and is thus a traitor to his country who only pretends to support our troops but is in reality stabbing them in the back by insisting on giving them less than the necessary equipment and manpower.
Nope. Repubs have been doing
that tough talk for years now. I'm just calling BS and standing up to your party's lies and bullying.
Stop already
with the misuse of the term salafi and the insistence on making this a war between the west and Islam. Focus on the real enemy, violent extremists within Islam. Not all salafi are of the violent sort and your use of the term is wrong and misleading.
pot meet kettle.
How's this?
They consider the troops to be nothing more than human subjects in their geopolitical experiment with oft fatal results. An experiment which, to data, continues to fail. They are the modern Dr Mengeles if you will.
Did I say anything wrong?
I am being critical of the conservative position because it deserves criticism at this time. I may be slightly snarky but I am not roundly condemning them of being traitors or spewing the venom and anger you often hear from the right wing pundits (and yes some on the left as well). In fact, compared to the VP's words, I am actually taking a very measured tone.
And I did say I used to respect the conservative standpoint. Back when they actually represented the "rule of law" and their policies had some basis in reality.
You expect us to apply salve to
your wounds? Say that you are fair in your heinous dictates?
Oh poor misundersood Dick Cheney? He is on the right side of justice and history? I think not. He is a man filled with fear.
It is you that takes the knife and twists, blood flowing freely from the heart of the constitution as you defile the democratic process defined in our constitution.
Nay! It is you that are full of fear! The bully you are. The world knows it. The common man knows it. You whine at the truth of babies born with the no crime other than being born in a country you say must be filled with traitors to freedom.
The Middle East does not belong to America. And the entitlement you feel that the land is yours is false.
I'm only half stupid
moral equivalence
and calling all that debate traitors. There is no respect there sir.
I'm only half stupid
Good response (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Poor Dick
The left has been spewing venom at him for years and the very first time he "gives them a little back" he is unfairly maligned in the vicious leftist press.
Breaking out the crying violins.
I guess he'll just have to go fuck himself.
qui tacet consentire
surpressions has its costs
I'm only half stupid
Patriotism
in its highest form is dissent.
I'm only half stupid
Snarky indeed
I used to respect liberals. Then LBJ had JFK shot, and I lost faith in them.
Politics ain't beanbag
And your party isn't exactly virginal...if you get my drift.
Politics is, however, the only game for grownups, and I have all the team and player hats and t-shirts of the true fan. Be honest, would you have been for the revolution in '76 or against it?
Feel free to take your best shot. Just don't whine so loud when the pubs take their best shot. And be honest, if you had the good sense or the good fortune to be a pub, you would be attacking the dem's for being the cheese-eating surrender-monkeys that they are.
Take your shots like a man. You guys are likely to take the house this term, and think how much fun the MSM coverage of the impeachments will be :-)
Everybody knows
that Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante had Kennedy killed.
qui tacet consentire
The reason is that nobody likes
Darth Cheney.
Two things.
First, pubs are way bigger whiners than anyone else on the planet when things don't go their way. Second, I am a proud descendant of men who fought in the Revolutionary war. Patriotism goes way back in my family.
Re: Two things
First: Are not, dems are bigger whiners.
Second: And Franklin's son was a Torry. I asked which side you would have been on.
If Bush had been around in 1781
he'd be Cornwallis.
qui tacet consentire
My misuse of the term Salafi
It may be that we have reached the nub of our disagrement about the nature of the threat.
Would you like to do a diary tomorrow about "Our friends the Salafi". Or perhaps, "There are only six of them who hate us, and there would only be two if it wasn't for Bush."
Again, you constantly complain about the pubs concepts and never defend the dems concepts. I posted a link that said the Salafi don't believe in modern civilization and were all for jahad. W/o even a blink you claim the opposite and give no cite, nor do you think you should.
Are you claiming the ethos of "Judge of All Things?"
How...pedantic of you.
maybe this will help...
This
is about as good an explanation as you will find:
Where to start
Well, they'd allign themselves with the radical Islamic goal of creating a theocracy where sexual morality and gender roles was considered the legitimate and overriding business of the government, but I suppose that particular political territory has already been claimed
A little intellectually dishonest, no?
You have to stretch a little hard to equate these two, when the difference between debating a reality and debating a hypothetical should be pretty clear.
We can talk about whether or not Bush's policies towards terror have been successful. If the left claims that Bush has created more terrorists, that's a claim that stands or falls on evidence. Likewise, if the right claims that Bush is making the world safer (and they are), then that's a claim that stands or falls on evidence as well. These are equitable.
If the right claims that the left "would" encourage more terrorism, there's nothing to be discussed pro or con. It's a dishonest argument because it's based purely on a hypothetical. Granted, this happens all the time in politics: a more fair comparison would be leftist claims that a particular policy "would" do damage to America. Then you could play your hypocrisy card. But not here, and not how you're playing it.
See, the political situation right now is such that the Republicans have a much harder job - they have a record that stands or falls, while Democrats have to be criticized purely on what we think "might" happen or "would have" happened were they in charge of anything. But without a single branch of government under Democratic control, there are no claims the Republicans can make out side of "We think this would be a bad idea." The Democrats, meanwhile, can point to anything bad that's happened in the last couple years and say, "Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate - if you're angry about something, you know who to blame."
That's the price of power, man.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Both the Sunni & Shia leaders have stated that
They want the US to leave Iraq.
Right now, I don't think we're helping. I think we're an impediment to Iraq becoming a stable country.
I don't expect agreement from many. I'm thinking that the US could play a more positive roll from afar. They could pull out of everything but the green zone, and probably out into Kurdish Iraq. Maintain the bases in Qatar, and keep a low profile elsewhere.
Will some groups use this to kill more Iraqi's? Yes. But they'll work it out. More quickly if they don't have the US around. It's better than our GI's serving as target practice.
no lefty slime-machine
No "lefty slime-machine" venom can possibly match what Bill Clinton was subjected to for 8 years. Very prominent Republicans called him a murderer, drug-dealer, and a rapist and spent hundreds of millions of dollars searching every aspect of his private life. When they couldn't find anything, they made it up. When all they could find was an addair, they published all the graphic details in order to embarass him. Read "The Hunting of the President" for a good rundown.
Thanks for the example
You just said, "dems [do] things to help our enemies". You just accused Democrats of treason. I am still not clear about what we do that is treasonous, it must be either calling for an exit strategy from Iraq or not having enough ribbons on our cars.
Democrats accuse Republicans of supporting policies that are ineffective and may make terrorism worse. We support our arguments with facts such as the CIA assessments that say terrorist recruitment is higher as a result of the Iraq war.
I think there is a big difference between calling a large segment of the population traitors because they oppose failed strategies and opposing failed strategies because they aren't working.
Problem: take your shots like a man?
half the country is women that don't want their sons and daughters to die in a war in the Middle East to export the American Revolution overseas. I believe the traditional holiday "'mothers day" honors that very sentiment.
Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys like Pat Tillmans parents, whose son was killed by friendly fire? Yeah Tillmans parents might enjoy watching the impeachment of Donald Rumsfeld.
Or maybe cheese eating surrender monkey's like Jessica Lynch's parents who saw their daughters kidnapping twisted to a pro repub propaganda story. They must be very proud of their daughter for having the courage to stand up and speak out against war mongering fools like yourself.
That you conflate the Middle East with the American Revolution shows a complete lack of respect and understanding of the arab culture and American history. Your inability to have a sense of empathy or respect for the plight of the people whose homeland the US wants to occupy is your biggest weakness.
Too bad you are not as strong as the women that have to endure your manfoolish arrogance and your insults to women's reproductive rigihts, by promoting the death of their offspring with your call for a clash of civilizations pretending you are on the old frontier in 1776.
I'm only half stupid
Stupid
Another stupid topic by a Bush apologist.
So, rather than get into the pointless debate in detail I'll just make one short remark.
The difference between the Bushies claiming that, let's say, Ned Lamont or his supporters, is aiding the enemy and the left saying that the Bush policies have made things worse is simply this:
The Bushies are in control and have been for six to fourteen years (depending on your definition of control) while Ned Lamont and followers control nothing.
I think there may some realization that things are not as they seem, this can be seen in the upswing in conspiracy theories floating around.
I discuss this in this diary, if you are interested:
European Tribune
--- Policies not Politics
At SC
we strive for higher standards than Mr. Cheney.
Even when quoting his lapses.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thank you for your enlightening post
I followed your link and learned much. I am always grateful to those who reduce my ignorance. Thanks.
I have continued this discusion in a diary I shall hopefully finish today.
Thanks again.
You're welcome!!!
Some of my ancestors
were with General Washington, a couple serving as drummer boys at a very young age. Others were neighbors of General Francis Marion, and on the US side in the war. (link
) My grandfather had an uncle who was actually named after General Marion.