Left’s desire for U.S. to lose war ominous
In every lasting, healthy relationship there are times of disagreement. Whether on an interpersonal or broader basis, these times strengthen the relationship, forging a deeper bond through meaningful discussion with a fair amount of give-and-take and deference for one another.
Lacking meaningful discourse and a sincere desire for betterment of others as well as themselves (wanting one’s own way regardless of the consequences) might lead merely to disassociation with the other party or entity. Carried to an extreme it has the potential for being very destructive.
On a national level it can in fact mean the difference between victory and defeat in the Iraq war. Since initially voting in favor of the war, most Democrats/progressives/leftists in Congress have done their utmost to discredit President Bush in every way possible, including nonsupport of the war. During the recent confirmation hearing for Lt. Gen. David rPetraeus to lead the Iraq war effort, the general stated, “That’s correct, sir,” in response to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s question whether the Senate’s resolutions condemning the president’s proposed new policy “would give the enemy some comfort.”
It is truly unfortunate — no, ominous — that a segment of our great nation, the left, has evidenced its desire for America’s defeat in Iraq.
Larry Harrison, Lakewood
BUSH...the great divider. We should just hang him now and save ourselves another year of trouble. All Republicans are idiots who got themsleves elected through deception and corruption of the government.
If John Kerry had been elected, the US would be entirely free of the problems it is in now. BUSH must be impeached now, anything else is sheer folly.
Posted by on February 3, 2007 03:03 AMWin in Iraq or be defeated? When Bush started this mess he had Condeleeza Rice tell the UN we were going to fight it without their help or permission. So to me it is HIS war to win or lose, and obviously he's LOST. Four years later we are still killing innocent women and children and for what????????????????? But all he wants to do is risk the lives of even more US soldiers. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Janis Houston on February 3, 2007 06:48 AMWell, Larry, we can see you are another Bush-apologist. You're another one that throws out the "Democrats voted in favor of this war". Lets review the facts about that. Just about ALL of Congress voted in favor of the war based on FAULTY & CHERRY-PICKED intelligence reports. Cheney has already come out and stated flatly that they would have gone to war in Iraq REGARDLESS of the intell reports. You make the statement "wanting one’s own way regardless of the consequences", hmmmm, sounds just like the President, doesn't it. "We're gonna fight this war how I say, I'm the DECIDER." There was a reason Bush the 1st didn't go into Baghdad during Gulf War 1. George did the Iranians the biggest favor EVER by taking out Saddam. As bad as Saddam was, he kept the Iranians in check. Now George is using the same pre-Iraq war speeches in regards to Iran, the only difference is one letter, replacing a "Q" with an "N". How many more Americans are going to die for this administration's follies???? The only reason I'm not screaming for impeachment is look at what's standing in the wings, President Dick Cheney???? I don't think so.
Posted by Wyoming reader on February 3, 2007 07:10 AMWhat's ominous Mr. Harrison is that you continue to drink the Kool-Aid of partisan hatred for the left. The Post ran a very disturbing article on the Petraeus confirmation hearing in which General Petraeus spoke about how certain he was we could "win" this occupation but when pinned down to specifics repeatedly said he didn't have an understanding of the situation.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5089265
I liked Joe Biden's comments that the inept policies of the Bush Administration are emboldening the terrorists. Nothing like a war started by fraud in the inducement and a botched reconstruction that lined the pockets of war profiteers and corrupt Iraqi officials to encourage "terrists". The war was lost before Bush met with Blair in the Azores. It was a fraud from the get go and no amount of trying to shift the blame is going to change the outcome. You reap what you sow and George Bush sowed fraud and lies from the very beginning.
Posted by Wes on February 3, 2007 08:34 AMIt's much easier to use a broad brush, and paint every one who disagrees with this disastrous war as a member of this mythical "left-wing conspiracy", branding us all as America-haters and defeatist, when nothing could be further from the truth. It takes guts to admit you've made a mistake, and George & Co., and all his cronies and right-wing apologists, simply don't have those guts. It's much easier to blame others for a colossal mistake, than to shoulder the blame, and begin to find a way to fix this incredible blunder our country has embarked on.
I get so tired of being told I'm "unpatriotic" and that I don't "support the troops". I love my country, and I'm heartbroken to see how we've harmed ourselves and our standing in the world with this war. I support the troops in the most fervent way possible: I WANT THEM HOME, NOW!
I want our best and brightest to stop being squandered in this senseless slaughter. I don't want to see another parent or family member's tears on being told they'll never see their precious son/daughter/brother/sister again.
So don't you people question my patriotism, or accuse me of being un-American, because you're flat, dead WRONG.
Posted by Shane on February 3, 2007 08:40 AMWhat is crazy is when the few (30% and dropping fast) of Americans who still support Bush and his overseas, illegal adventurism try to argue with a straight face that the 60% (and rapidly increasing) of Americans who disagree that this war has made us any safer, is just or morally sound, are somehow unAmerican. The right to dissent, of course, is fundamental to any free society, indeed is the very cornerstone. So I support your right to continue being deluded in support of this failed president and his reckless policies. But you are wrong.
Posted by Oliver on February 3, 2007 09:00 AMYes Shane, it takes guts to admit a mistake, (not saying Iraq was, history will judge that)but it takes more guts to see a bad situation through.
Don't you lefties give a damn about the carnage that will follow if we pull out now?
Yes, faulty intelligence played a big part in justifying the war. But you have to realize this is real life and mistakes are made, This is not a star wars game or a movie where things all come out perfect within a couple of hours.
Thank God you jelly fishes weren't born in the 1920's. We'd be speaking German with a slight Japanese accent.
Posted by Dave C. on February 3, 2007 11:04 AMOh and there is no carnage now. If the best reason you can give for remaining in Iraq is to prevent a civil war between anti-American Sunnis and anti-American Shias then the US should get out. You know what be nice, a definition of victory.
And remember it was Al-Queda that caused 9-11, Iraq had nothing to do with it. This has been such an ill-planned, ill-advised war that anyone who has any sense can say that the invasion of Iraq is a mistake.
Mistakes? Have you been following the Libby trial? How about purposefully lying to the American people?
Yes, carnage will follow if we pull out. But guess what? Carnage will follow if we stay too. And in the latter case, it will be American soldiers dying. Dying to support a failed mission, a failed presidency.
Posted by Oliver on February 3, 2007 12:32 PMI just read that 121 killed and 373 were wounded from a sucide bomber that detonated in a crowded market. But according to Dave C. that is not carnage, the carnage only happen if the US pulls out.
Dave C. uses the classic argument that we will cause carnage if we leave all the while neglecting to mention we have caused an unbelievable amount of carnage since we came.
Every single prediction this Administration and Bush supporters like Dave have given about Iraq have turned out to be false so why should we believe for a second that they will be correct about the consequences of our departure. There will be blood in the streets the day after we leave regardless of when we leave and make no mistake we will leave. We did not annex this country. It will not be the 51st state and our departure is a matter of time. We can leave sooner and shorten the chaos or stay until we have exhausted our military and economy but we will leave.
If this group of humans would be transported back to the 20's, Dave would be the kind of "good" German to enlist in the SS. "My Führer right or wrong" is that your motto Dave?
Posted by Wes on February 3, 2007 12:39 PMIf I recall my history, it was two Democratic presidents that successfully won the war in Europe (and Japan), primarily that stalwart lefty, FDR.
On the other hand, many prominent conservatives of the time SUPPORTED Nazi Germany, including Grandpa (Prescott) Bush. (Similar to Reagan supporting Saddam, but I digress).
Other prominent conservatives supporting the facist regimes in those times included:
William Randolph Hearst, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles, Prescott Bush, National City Bank, and General Electric.
I know, I know. Facts have no place in debates with knee-jerk rightwingers.
Posted by Oliver on February 3, 2007 12:43 PMIs there anything at all the sniverals would stand up and fight for? Anything? Some how I don't think so. They'd just as soon turn the country over to our enemies than fight . I challenge everyone to watch carefully what the left does now that they have some power. Watch again as our military is downsized, and defunded with money they want to push into more intitlement programs. Watch and learn people. Hard truth will set in and maybe they'll be out of power by 08 again. One can only hope. We are watching you people.Know that.
Posted by Dan on February 3, 2007 01:04 PMHey Wes: If I thought my president was wrong, I would not join the service. That is the privilege we have in the US. Look at the hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women all who joined. An alarming majority of them apparently think you are wrong.
Thank God for those who enlist to serve their country. They follow orders, they don't vote on which conflict they believe in. They trust their leaders to do the best they can and act for the best reasons. Without that trust, we have nothing. When Muhammed breaks down your door you be sure and tell him you were on his side.
He hates you regardless of your ideas. You aren't on your knees praying everyday with your butt in the air.
Posted by Dave C. on February 3, 2007 01:05 PMYeah, yeah. Same old S---. My country right or wrong? The real quote continues... 'to love it when it's right and change it when it's wrong." Dissent--when one disagrees--is our patriotic duty. Otherwise we may as well live in China. Fact is: I do not support the Terrorists. I agree with the nation's intelligence agencies that the Iraq debacle has made us LESS safe and LESS able to fight the War on Terrorism. I accept the President (in this case) at his word, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. BTW, I love my country, which is precisely why I exercise my right and duty to participate and to dissent.
Your threat ("We are watching") frightens me. Not for my safety, but for the utter lack of American values it represents. People making these charges--that to disagree with an administration's policies, and to vocalize that, is truly, fundamentally unAmerican.
Posted by Oliver on February 3, 2007 01:37 PMWell Oliver...if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. I didn't say you couldn't disagree. I don't want you and your ilk to fix it so America has weak knees like you. We need our military strong because if you think by leaving the ME that we will be safe...you are sadly misinformed about this enemy. Anyone who has any brains at all would be able to see that.
Posted by Dan on February 3, 2007 01:49 PMDid I say we should leave the Middle East? No. You are making that up. Did I say we should have a weak military. No.
The brainless are those who can only argue by fallacy--such as using made up (i.e. straw man) arguments.
Maybe you have read this before:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
As Thomas Jefferson said, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Posted by Oliver on February 3, 2007 02:01 PMThomas Jefferson also had slaves too.
I do believe he had religion right though. "My religion is between myself and my creator" All in the name of religion do we have all these wars and conflicts and inhumanity to man.
If we all subscribed to his religious philosophy we might not all be here at each others throats.
Posted by Dave C. on February 3, 2007 02:34 PMDave you're the one hiding under your bed afraid that the big bad brown skins are knocking at your door. I agree with your comments regarding the trust of our leaders: "They trust their leaders to do the best they can and act for the best reasons. Without that trust, we have nothing" but I prefer Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union
"On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right ... We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly."
The true cowards are the ones who fail to hold our elected leaders accountable for their failures. This war was started with lies and is a betrayal of our troops. You can't hide from that Dave.
Posted by Wes on February 3, 2007 04:04 PMI find it interesting that Democrats and liberals are accused of being weak, chicken, cowards, don't have the stomach to win, yada yada yada but if you look at the records of the politicians who are against the escalation and want diplomatic dialog in the region you find that the some of the most passionate ones have stellar military records but if you look at the politicians who are adamant that more war is the only answer, you find that they are the ones who consistently sought deferments when it was their time to serve. Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, John Murtha and Joe Sestak are all decorated veterans who believe our country needs an honorable conclusion to the occupation of Iraq and a new direction in reducing political terrorism around the world. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are all missing any actual combat experience to temper their lust for more war. It is another hollow right wing talking point to accuse liberals and Democrats of cowardice when the reality is that George Bush and Dick Cheney were the ones who never faced mortal combat.
Here is Jim Webb's Navy Cross citation award for bravery as a First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps serving in Vietnam
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113303&ran=33810
When did the standard for a credible Web source chasnge from ending in a .gov or .org?
Posted by on February 3, 2007 06:31 PMI didn't say it was the official government web site. It is a newspaper in Virginia that reprinted the exact citation. Obviously you didn't bother to look.
Here is what you didn't see:
"Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.
Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade.
Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body.
Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker.
By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service."
Now show where George Bush has been cited for bravery on the battlefield.
Posted by Wes on February 3, 2007 08:38 PMLarry, this war was lost the moment we invaded Iraq. All the secretarian violence, lack of vision, etc? It was all predicted by anyone with a brain before the occupation began. You would have to be an ignorant hick from Texas to think the US could actually set up a democracy in the Middle East.
Posted by hikingartist on February 3, 2007 11:00 PMHey Wes: I'm not hiding from anyone. I am a Viet Nam vet and I know what it means to serve one's country while some folks at home protest.
Sitting here, I can't say I am the most informed person in the world but also I'm quite sure you are not any better informed than I am. My instinct is to trust my elected president. Yours is not to trust.
I would rather my tombstone read " he was wrong but he trusted." than "he didn't trust and he was wrong."
Posted by Dave C. on February 3, 2007 11:49 PMDave C., well said,Ifeel as you do.Too many people have no respect for our highest elected official.....Some people don't understand that there are terrorists who want to kill all americans..It is more than cultural,or idealogical,it is a hate for us that has no quench,they will stop at nothing..Thank god we have a president who chooses to fight them in the middle east before we have to fight them here....I think the far left of this country will come around only when they are forced to convert to islam,might be a little too late though.
Posted by Ron on February 4, 2007 12:32 AMDave and Ron
I wish you guys were as loyal to our country as you are to George Bush. It is obvious to me that you worship George Bush as the Incas worshiped their kings as a Sun God. "All hail George Bush even though he failed to show up for a physical in a time of war that included a drug test and was suspended from flying and serving his country".
It is irrelevant to me whether you served or not Dave. In the blogosphere people like you whose record can't be verified are called Centurions. Stating things that can't be proved and then moving to a conclusions that your unprovable facts justify your position and can't be challenged. What is relevant is that honorable veterans in Congress like Jim Webb who have a public record of valor and service to their country and have children serving in Iraq oppose this administration and it's conduct of the occupation. To say that there is only one person in this country who gets to decide the critical issues of war and peace for this nation and anyone who disagrees is a traitor to their country is to reveal a profound hatred for our democracy. Dissent is not treason. Dissent is at the core of our liberties. George Bus is not a king and you folks don't get to decide who is a patriot based on their allegiance to Bush.
Posted by Wes on February 4, 2007 07:33 AMWell said Ron!!! Couldn't agree with you more!!!
Posted by Arlene on February 4, 2007 08:17 AMHawks, just wait until our war expands to Iraq's neighboring countries. Iran's days are numbered, as are Syria's. Saudi Arabia will also need some of our forced American democratization, as well as every other oil producing Islamic country where public floggings and beheadings take place in the name of the prophet.
The incredibly rich oil fields of the Caspian region are vital to our industrial complex and our lust for the newest, biggest vehicles, so Azerbaijan will have to submit to our military demands or be invaded. Will Russia and its pal China stand by and allow that?
Speaking of the almighty oil business, Venezuela has alientated itself from the USA, so intervention in that nation will have to take place. After all, we will not tolerate a leftist country in our hemisphere. We would have bombed the crap out of Cuba already if it had oil deposits.
Where are we going to round up enough young soldiers to be cannon fodder in the upcoming military campaigns? Will we reinstate the draft? Will we conscript prisoners, illegal immigrants, "guest" workers, gang bangers, and students?
Posted by Judge Joe on February 4, 2007 09:33 AMThe question is how you criticize a government you disagree with.
Those who point out everything that is being done wrong and demand that our leaders change are doing fine.
Those who say that it is "Bush's war" are disassociating themselves from our elected government. Congress has funded the war since 2003. Democrats on Congressional Intelligence Oversight commitees have access to any classified information they want from the CIA and NSA. If faulty data have been provided to the public, blame both committees. The Democrats who have been on the committess include Fienstein, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Rockefeller, Hastings, Harman, Reyes, Boswell, Cramer, Eshoo, Holt, Tierney, Pelosi and Ruppersberger. They had all the information that the President had.
Bush was legally elected. The Supreme Court said so. (If you disagree about whether the Supreme Court has the authority to declare something legal, let's talk about Roe Vs. Wade) Congress authoriized the war and could unauthorize it tomorrow.
These jerks in Washington are OUR jerks. Together WE elected them. They are OUR fault. Washington belongs to US. It is OUR mess.
My question to you is: "Are you one of US?" If your answer is negative, then I respectfully request that you leave OUR country or just shut up.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on February 4, 2007 09:39 AM"Your either with us or against us"
Come on Watkins. What a ridiculous statement. The same can be said about Congress having access to the same intelligence as the White House.
Here is a comment from a Pro-Bush Washington Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html
"A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq."
The idea that we're fighting them over there so that they don't overrun the local 7-11 here is equally disingenuous. Even if there are countless Muslims who wish to harm us, Iraq was never the proper target for dealing with them. There were no Iraqi's among the 9/11 hijackers. Fighting political terrorism involves more than trying to kill every would be "terrorist" in the world. It took a Democratic congress to enact the 9/11 commission recommendations and we still don't have the proper level of inspections of cargo coming into our country. To state that staying in Iraq is the only way to deal with political terrorism is not only a joke but based on numerous intelligent reports over the last several years counter productive.
The fact is George Bush and his cabal of neocons started a war for political and ideological reasons and compromised our ability to form needed alliances to combat the anti-American sentiment that has been fanned by our occupation of Iraq. Staying in Iraq merely compounds the problem. Only 30% of the country agree with Mr. Watkins and Dave C. that George Bush needs a blank check to stay the course until his term of office over. The rest of the country wants a change and they want a conclusion to the occupation.
Posted by Wes on February 4, 2007 10:19 AMWith respect to all your points of view;
This war is not about any of the things you have been discussing. Its about MONEY, its about the IMF. And yes its about our money too, which is why all of us feel like we lost the war the minute we went over there.
It is about international banking, and how much you can take out from under other nations. GET A CLUE WAKE UP!
"And with Saddam, the diplomacy and the politics certainly had failed."
Michael
You must live on a different planet than I do. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and your retro justification that we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a bad guy is just more right wing CYA. Wars are fought when national survival is at stake and all other attempts at conflict resolution have been exhausted. America does not fight wars of liberation like the communists did in the 20th century. This occupation has not made our country more secure and the ensuing cost in lives, treasure and credibility has been enormous and is unsustainable. If your point of view is accepted that the goal was to remove Hussein and his sons then mission accomplished. Bring em home. If your goal is endless war then you are part of the problem and should reconsider what it means to be an American. The goal is a more secure and peaceful world not endless war that is endlessly supported by right wing nutjobs.
Posted by Wes on February 4, 2007 03:26 PMThe morning of 9-11-2001 in less than 2 hours 2973 people, majority of them Americans, was killed by 19 terrorist. Bush sworn that this will not be repeated under his watch. So far he succeeded. The war on terror netted free elections in Afghanistan (with first female voter) and Iraq. Saddam’s resume includes using WMD on his own people (yes WMD!), invading a neighboring country without provocation, having thousands openly tortured and killed, a feat no other modern day dictator achieved. He sought nuclear weapons technology and materials, got caught constructing a supergun (project Babylon), violated 17 UN resolutions and refused weapons inspections for years, financed terrorist organizations and provided for terrorist training grounds. With the Democratic party’s support and wish to lose the war, terrorist are emboldened to continue massacring innocent people at crowded market places, and kidnapping and executing our troops. I don’t care if the disapproval rate is 99%, or what the do-nothing Clintons, John Kerrys, Al Gores and Pelosis of this wold claim ( with the help of a biased mass media with over 80% Democrat journalists with an ax to grind), invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Hang Bush? The hell with you Democrats, I never going to vote for you as long as I live.
A Mental Midget checks in and repeats ever Republican talking point known to mankind. It is the idiot Republican who wish to lose the war on terrorism by wasting all our men and money in Iraq. If the Republicans are so intent on "winning" the war on terrorism then why haven't they captured Osama Bin Laden by now. It has been four years and he is acknowledged as the perpetrators of the 9/11 murders.
WHY HASN'T OSAMA BEN LADEN BEEN CAPTURED AND TRIED FOR THE MURDERS OF 9/11? OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT IN IRAQ. REPEAT OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT IN IRAQ.
What a disgusting display of shifting the blame when we all know that George Bush is friend with the Bin Laden family and will never apprehend this murderere while he is in office. What total hypocrites the right wing nutjobs are complaining about the Democrats when it is George Bush who is protecting Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by Bubba on February 4, 2007 09:20 PMRead what I said. The intelligence committees have access to classified information that they are not allowed to share with the rest of congress.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on February 4, 2007 10:08 PMWow, Bubba, I’m impressed, Bush protecting Osama. May be in your infinite wisdom you going to claim also that it was Bush ordering the 9/11 attacks just so he can go to war. And oh, mighty brainy one, what does this mean –“ repeats ever Republican talking point”, you mean every, because I hardly started yet! There is no winning the war on terror retard, there always will be some wackjob out there far left (like your self) and right who thinks that blowing up people for the cause is the right thing to do. But it doesn’t mean that nothing should be done. May be you should ask your God Bill Clinton why he hasn’t done anything after the numerous terrorist attacks on Americans under his term? I suggest you get off the drugs and get your life back together, punk. “nutjobs”-LOL look who’s talking
Posted by MM on February 4, 2007 10:19 PMthere always will be some wackjob out there far left (like your self) and right who thinks that blowing up people for the cause is the right thing to do.
Just like you right?. It is nutjobs like you who think you can bomb your way to heaven by killing all the dirty brown skins.
More war! More war! more war!
Kill the dirty brown skins so we can be safe in our SUV's. Your point of view is perfectly understood.
Why don't you explain why after four years and a half a trillion dollars spent we not only haven't captured Osama Bin Laden, we don't even know where he is. Probably in one of the Saudi palaces drawing paychecks from Halliburton.
Posted by Bubba on February 5, 2007 05:43 AM" he was wrong but he tried."
Posted by Oliver on February 5, 2007 07:42 AM"Some people don't understand that there are terrorists who want to kill all americans..It is more than cultural,or idealogical,it is a hate for us that has no quench,they will stop at nothing..Thank god we have a president who chooses to fight them in the middle east before we have to fight them here....I think the far left of this country will come around only when they are forced to convert to islam,might be a little too late though."
well said, Ron. You have managed to condense all the knee-jerk, right-wing pundit-speak into a single, fairly coherent, bunch of nonsense. extra points!
Posted by Oliver on February 5, 2007 07:45 AMMM, you can never win people to your point of view by slinging venomous insults toward someone with whom you disagree. Sure, Bubba insulted a group of anonymous people, but you zeroed in on him, personally. Please, let's keep this forum dignified. It's not a confrontational tabloid show.
Posted by Judge Joe on February 5, 2007 07:46 AMLiberals = children
Everyone Else = adults
Very simple really.
~30% = Americans who still believe that President Bush is a great leader.
Everyone Else = reality-based
Posted by Oliver on February 5, 2007 08:21 AMAs with one poster above. I'm a combat vet of the vietnam war who watched people at home exercise the freedoms I thought I was fighting for.I take my view of the military from one former Marine Corps general Smedley D. Butler two-time medal of honor winner who believed that the military had only two missions; defend our borders and the constitution.To those who point out that we have enemies who desire certain outcomes I say there's a considerable difference between having the desire and having the capability.Do you all so lack confidence in this country, and in "western civilization" as to believe that we cannot weather the depredations of small scattered groups of violent people who lack military infrastructure, organization, and an industrial base.Seems you have less confidence in this country than I do.
Posted by patrick on February 5, 2007 09:06 AMWhy do so many of the Bush supporters on here make claims about surrendering our country to Islam or turning over our country to the enemy? When in the last 100 years have we really had to fear we might be invaded?
This kind of pathological fear seems dangerous to me.
Posted by flimflam on February 5, 2007 09:24 AMthis is the kind of rhetoric that got us into this mess in the first place.
Posted by joey on February 5, 2007 09:30 AMJudge, if someone takes an aim at me, I will do the same and react. Please read all the posts before making accusations, my first post had nothing to do with Bubba, but if wishes to hurdle insults at me personally, I’ll give it right back, that’s between us, this is a free country last time I checked.
Posted by MM on February 5, 2007 10:03 AMBubba, if the goal was to simply “kill the dirty brown skins so we can be safe in our SUV's” we could nuke them long time ago. This is not the answer, bringing democracy to these countries is. Once they get a taste of freedom things gonna change, but it’s a long hard road, because of cultural, political and religious differences, these things don’t change overnight.
“Why don't you explain why after four years and a half a trillion dollars spent we not only haven't captured Osama Bin Laden, we don't even know where he is. Probably in one of the Saudi palaces drawing paychecks from Halliburton.”
Bomb my way to haven? –no thanks, this style of warfare to just blow up as many innocent people as they can is the style of your brown skinned friends. Here lies one of the differences between the two sides, terrorist wants to maximize causalities while US forces minimize it.
The best thing I've ever heard of:
"If we stop killing the Muslims, they're going to want to kill us! You don't want them to kills us, do you? They're bloodthirsty evildoers that will stop at nothing! We have to kill them all in order to ensure that bloodthirsty evildoers who will stop at nothing can't kill people, and we must stop at nothing to kill them."
Hell yeah. Go team America. By the way, Wes, do you ever post at Salon?
Posted by on February 5, 2007 10:52 AMIt is continually being proven true that the most ignorant and stupid are the only ones to exercise free speech.
I am a Marine Vet of operation Desert Storm and a republican. While I feel that mistakes were made the actions that were taken were appropriate. Not because of 9-11 but because Iraq refused to abide by the cease fire agreement the ended our operations in 1991.
A previous post said that if john kerry were President America would be free of these problems. Since when did running away from a problem solve it. I question the loyaly of John Kerry. It is my opinion the only one that John Kery is loyal to is John Kerry not this nation his comments about our military and our nation prove that. Thank God he lost.
Like Presisdent Bush or not he has done exactly what he said he would do as it ertains to the Iraq policy. He has stayed the course and is making corrections as needed He has sent the world a message that says America will no longer run when we get our nose bloodied.
War is never plesent and anyone who says that they like war is either an idiot or never has faught in one but war in this case is a necessary evil and while the result has been dfferent than we expected the result actually is working terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight Americans. But they are not fighting civilians they are fighting those that are capable of defending themselves.
One Americn death is a heavy loss but those that enlist in the military do so knowing that they could be killed in action. When I enlisted I understood that risk and while my familiy was concerned about me they understood the possibility of me dying in Operation Desert Storm.
Agree with the war or don't I do not care but the lame liberal message about the action in Iraq is old.
Hillary changing her tune about her support of the war because it isnt popular or most democrats changing their support from the beginning to now denouncing the war shows their true intent. Say whatever s popular at the time to get into power and have no real convictions of our own. Is this what we want running this country? And I hate to say it but saying we voted for the war initially based on flawed intel is perposterous. It is the responsibility of elected officials to check into that BEFORE voting to approve an action like that not wait until to popularity drops and say it was bad intel. No it is simply you trying to pass the blame to anyone but yourself, but i hate to say that seems to be the liberal way of thinking.
Posted by Sean on February 5, 2007 11:39 AMSean, I would take it by your first sentence that you are including yourself?
A clear majority of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not international terrorists. The are Iraqis battling an occupation by a powerful group of foreigners. If we didnt have a personal stake in the battle we would call them freedom fighters.
If not for 9/11 we would have never invaded Iraq. It was only our fear that allowed us to be led into a war on false pretenses. My question for you is why you continue to support an administration that has been so clearly wrong about everything they said about this war?
Posted by flimflam on February 5, 2007 12:02 PM"While I feel that mistakes were made the actions that were taken were appropriate. Not because of 9-11 but because Iraq refused to abide by the cease fire agreement the ended our operations in 1991."
You're rewriting history Sean. Iraq was repeatedly linked to al-Queda by Dick Cheney. The American people were told that one of the hijackers Mohammad Atta met an Iraqi diplomat in Prague. The Niger Uranium story was also circulated to give the impression of a "grave and gathering" danger. Iraq allowed AIEA inspectors in and gave them free access to all facilities but that wasn't good enough for George Bush. He basically accused the UN of incompetence and said he couldn't wait for a thorough inspection. You are the one who is retroactively trying to justify this fiasco as the consequence of a broken agreement.
As far as a lame liberal message about the war, the best you can do is drag out Hillary and do the but but Clinton defense. There has been extensive coverage of the fact that the White House had access to information that was not accessible to Congress. Dick Armey the former House Majority leader and an ardent Republican this weekend admitted that he shouldn't have voted for the authorization.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16622722.htm
" Q: Your views on the Iraq war?
A: I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had in no way declared any war on us?
Q: You voted for the resolution to go to war.
A: I did, and I'm not happy about it. The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so."
If you got your information from sources other than GOP/Fox News you would find out that a lot of people believed that George Bush, Dick Cheney & Don Rumsfield would be honest about the threat of Iraq. They were wrong and the Howard Deans, Jim Webbs and Al Gores were the ones who got it right. The same people who got it right in 2002 are saying that an escalation today is not the correct way forward but we know who you are going to listen to don't we?
Posted by Wes on February 5, 2007 01:04 PMIraq is a mess plain and simple. FYI, the reason why so many people are against the war so passionately is that nothing this administration has said about the war has turned out to be true. There are about five years of speeches, interviews, and Sunday talk show appearences to go through if you do not believe me, and even if you have a half a brain yod do. You know what, war does suck, so does being misinformed at best, lied to at worst as why the US went to Iraq in the first place. This war will drag on for years whether the US stays or not, the mission is far from accomplished. When I hire someone to do a job and they keep screwing it up and then have the nerve to , I fire the S.O.B and find someone else. Too bad in this case this country has to wait until 08.
Posted by The other Sean on February 5, 2007 01:24 PMP.S.
To say that President Bush is the sole reason as to why the US has not been atacked since 9-11 is to do a real diservice to the thousands if not millions of men and women whose job it is to protect the US from just those sort of attacks.
From today's headline "President Bush sent a $2.9 trillion spending plan to a Democratic-controlled Congress on Monday". So it is now blantely official, the party of fiscal and personal responsibility is neither. Even the Weekly Standard thinks this administration is a disaster. Finally something we can all agree on.
The way I look at the situation in Iraq and George W. Bush is that W. is a little boy who acts like he is playing a video game where there is an unlimited amount of money, troops, & no human toll whatsoever.
George has no concept of what it means to live in the real world, because he's always had daddy to bail him out. That's what happens when you've had a silver spoon stuck up your ass for your entire life.
If George really wanted to prevent terrorist attacks, he would have spent all the war money on protecting our borders, including our ports, and sent troops to stop our international embassies from being bombed. What do we have instead? 3,000 U.S. troops dead, thousands more Iraqis dead, a civil war with no end in sight, and trillions of dollars in American debt. Fantastic!
Oh, and for any of you Republicans out there who think that Democrats/liberals are a bunch of surrender monkeys, the only thing that I can say to you is remember the World War One battle of Passchendale? Victory at any cost is the most foolish thing of all.
Yaakov's dogged loyalty is touching, though naive. It IS hard to believe that someone posing as "President" could be as incompetent and dishonest as Bush is, and our love of country makes us want to trust that our leaders have our best interests at heart. Sadly, this time, that's not the case.
The failed Presidency of the Bush administration is an illigitimate Presidency; he was crowbarred into the White House on the slimmest margin in the history of U.S. elections, and by fiat of a cowed Supreme Court. The Republican "platform" is a raft of phony partisanship and trumped-up wedge issues designed to appeal to wingnuts and win elections.
The fiasco in Iraq has Bush's fingerprints all over it; even now he continues to ignore advice of the adults who surround him, seasoned experts with viable alternatives to his childish Messianic delusions. Bush used dishonest scare tactics to start his War for Oil, and all of the hastily cobbled-together afterthought excuses about why we are there are as phony as everything else the Republicans have to say.
There is no "winning" in Iraq for the United States. Silly Republican protests that we have to stay the course are ignoring the fact that the course we are on is a short trip to disaster. We can't even identify the enemy. Bush has NO strategy, except to further compromise our military.
Watkins is right about one thing. The Democrats are not being forceful enough. They need to follow the advice of Pat Buchanan, and put a stop to this mess NOW. Bush and his cronies should be arrested for war crimes. We need to admit as a country that we have made a terrible mistake, that we've allowed a madman to take the reins of power, and that we have now come to our senses.
The Iraq Study Group has presented a comprehensive list of suggestions that the grownups in our goverment need to follow. Bush's approach is that of a drunken, cynical, spoiled frat boy, and is making a bad situation much worse.
There is no military solution in the Middle East. We need adults, people with negotiation skills, to bring the region to it's senses. The only ones who want the current anarchy are Bush and Al Qaida, both with their equally idiotic apocalyptic delusions.
Posted by Dan on February 5, 2007 09:47 PMFunny how all the sights referenced from the Bush haters club are nothing more than liberal editorials disguised as news reports. Funny, but not surprising.
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 08:13 AMActually i am not rewritting history. Whst i did do was present a justifiable reason for the actions that were taken in Iraq. While I believe that the actions that were taken were justified I did not agree with the al-quada links that were presented.
"I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had in no way declared any war on us?"
Iraq did not have to declare war on us. The repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreement opened the door for renewed combat actions. America could have started shooting in the moment anti aircraft radar was locked onto a coalition plane patroling the no-fly zone. Get real Saddm delayed and delayed weapons inspections, why because he didnt want things to be found. We know Saddam had wmd's because he used them on his own people. And by waiting for the UN to act look what we got. Nothing! If one has nothing to hide why delay? And to put our faith in the UN to protect us is asinine! The UN could care less about America! How hard is that to comprehend?
As for the democrats getting it right the record shows they voted for this action. Then when it becomes unpopular they ran damage control. If they had issues in the beginning they should have said no. It comes down to consistancy. If opinion polls showed high levels of support for the war every liberal that has come out against it would be touting their support for the war. So did they get it right? Nope. They have tried to fix the damage they percieve. The point is still this: Democrats and Republicans had the same information presented to them and they voted to authorize the action in Iraq. It is the responsibility of an elected official to ask questions and verify information given to them BEFORE they vote and vote accordingly. If those that are now saying their vote was made as it was due to flawed information want to stick with that story fine but it shows a total lack of responsibility on their part. So either way it does not look good for Democratic leadership.
I do however find it quite funny that I am being told to get information from other sources than GOP/Fox news. when basically all I see is liberal propaganda coming from the left.
Why do I respect and support President Bush? Simply because he has stood firm in his convictions and has not done what so many others have done and listened to the polls. I could care less what polls say but the polls are the liberals answer to every problem. Sometimes doing what is required to make this nation safe is not popular pools should not dictate national security or war policies people with much more information than we as the public have should.
Why are liberals so fixated on polls? Their leadership is swayed one way or another by them and then they point to the Iraq study group as the all inclusive answer to the problems faced in Iraq.
Cutting and running is not a viable solution. Do I have a viable solution? No but running is never the answer. It sends the wrong message to those that oppose us in that region. Basically a cut and run policy says hold out long enough and America loses the stomach for a fight and backs down and we can go on doing what we want to.
"P.S.
To say that President Bush is the sole reason as to why the US has not been atacked since 9-11 is to do a real diservice to the thousands if not millions of men and women whose job it is to protect the US from just those sort of attacks"
I have yet to hear anyone say the President is the sole reason that the US has not been attacked again since 9-11 and if some have they are wrong. The military has done an amazing job confronting terror and they deserve the credit for our defense but the Presidents firm policy and not owing to polls has kept the military in the fight. Remember Somalia? had the military been left in the fight the outcome would have been different but what did Clinton do he ran. You take the troops out of the fight as liberals want to do and we will be attacked again! Let terrorist fiight trained troops on the gound in their own region.
"There is no military solution in the Middle East. We need adults, people with negotiation skills, to bring the region to it's senses." Negotiation skills? These people want to kill us listen to the rhetoric out of Iran. They do not want to talk to us. They do want to kill us! The idea that we can talk to people that are religiously motivated and convince them to leave us alone is isane. They see the Destruction of America and Israel as a mandate from allah. They will not give up until America is destroyed do you not get that? While we are "negotiating" with them they are plotting to destroy us! It seems so elementary to me but I guess not.
Democrats need to stop being led by polls and wake up. The problem of extrmeism and terror will not go away because we leave or talk we must continue in a forceful confrontation of terrorism wherever it rears its head and countries that support terro or do not live up to cease fire treaies need to be put on notice that America is done shying away and we will defend ourselves
United we stand divided we fall.
Posted by Me on February 7, 2007 12:06 PM