Skip to main content

I have come to believe JJ is simply a paid shrill for the Dumocrats.
someone said something about George Bush have a 26% approval rating...well! that is better than the 9% rating of the Democratic led Congress...in fact 3x better...
Nancy Pelosi is still spending now she wants to tack on another 500 billion dollars of yo money...
Hey! don't blame me...I didn't vote for the idiots...
I just get a IRS letter that says I am being audited...
Barney "the lips" Franks must have thought I was one of those rich folks...
Hey Mean, I am getting very close to being 50. I was here during the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq. I DO believe we were justified in our attack and yes, I believe there were connections to Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia in 9/11. I was already a parent during these wars and voted for the Bushes....both of them. I was proud to have someone with a backbone in the White House. All the dems put there are cowards, the new one is a prime example. Clinton wins the coward award though. Too busy with "other" things to care what happens to our country. It is a shame the clintons will still have a part in running this country.
As Interventor stated, several other national intelliegenc services agreed with the CIA's assessment of the threat. I would include Germany, which wasn't mentioned. They certainly sold him a great deal of the means to make WMD.

Lady Snake,

I keep reading the quote "Bush lied," but have yet to see anyone defend the particulars of the statement. Quoting something over and over, doesn't make it so.

Zip,

The daughter or adopted daughter killed in the raid against Qadaffi, was an agitprop hoax. The Egyptian intelligence service surfaced that early on.
quote:
Originally posted by DEENALYNNE:
Hey Mean, I am getting very close to being 50. I was here during the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq. I DO believe we were justified in our attack and yes, I believe there were connections to Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia in 9/11. I was already a parent during these wars and voted for the Bushes....both of them. I was proud to have someone with a backbone in the White House. All the dems put there are cowards, the new one is a prime example. Clinton wins the coward award though. Too busy with "other" things to care what happens to our country. It is a shame the clintons will still have a part in running this country.


A perfect example of the fact that wisdom does not necessarily come with age. Sending troops into battle does not require courage - it requires power. Please offer proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Just strongly believing something does not make it true. Bush has been a disaster and can be credited to a large degree with Obama's victory.
Here we go again with the old "prove Iraq had anything to do with 9/11". Back at you...prove that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq invaded Kuwait, slaughtered thousands of Kurds, and repeatedly violated UN sanctions. Beyond that, the world is a better place without Saddam. Iraq is well on its way to stability, and thousands of AQ fighters have been shown the gates to paradise.

In the last six months, more Americans have been killed in Chicago than have been killed in Iraq. Maybe Obama should send peacekeepers to the windy city...
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Here we go again with the old "prove Iraq had anything to do with 9/11". Back at you...prove that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq invaded Kuwait, slaughtered thousands of Kurds, and repeatedly violated UN sanctions. Beyond that, the world is a better place without Saddam. Iraq is well on its way to stability, and thousands of AQ fighters have been shown the gates to paradise.

In the last six months, more Americans have been killed in Chicago than have been killed in Iraq. Maybe Obama should send peacekeepers to the windy city...


Rambling, tortured rationalizations about the reason we went to war again I see. Pathetic - absolutely pathetic. It is all about supporting a failed Presidency and a political party. That is it. It is so sad to see people placing bush and his disastrous 8 years before America and truth.

Link

Perhaps this will help a bit:

Bush: ' We've Had No Evidence' of link to 9-11
Sep. 17, 2003George W. Bush

Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.

White House: No Indication Iraq Connected to 9|11. We Sever Said That.
Sep. 17, 2003Scott McClellan, Press Secretary to President Bush

Q: Earlier today you said that the President made no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. You said that there was no indication that there was a linkage at all.
MR. McCLELLAN: You're right, if you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim.

Q: Can you rule out at this point that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, with the attacks on this country on September 11th?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim and I'm not saying that now.

There is NO evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That is NOT why we went to war in Iraq - it was a war of choice, plain and simple.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
And by saying we weren`t you have denegrated(sic) every man and woman who gave up their life for that cause.


See, and I think that by lying about the reasons we went to war, then rotating these reasons in and out to suit the political climate of the day - and come on, that HAS been done numerous times in this fiasco - is the true dishonor to the men and women who have perished in this conflict. They (and their families) have paid the ultimate price for a series of lies. Their honor is above reproach. The "honor" of those (on both sides of the political fence) who created this mess is beneath contempt


Again, how nicely put and so true. To use the troops as a tool for justification is reprehensible.
Mean your side has used the troops for far worse than I could ever think of.By the way I`m one of those troops.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
And by saying we weren`t you have denegrated(sic) every man and woman who gave up their life for that cause.


See, and I think that by lying about the reasons we went to war, then rotating these reasons in and out to suit the political climate of the day - and come on, that HAS been done numerous times in this fiasco - is the true dishonor to the men and women who have perished in this conflict. They (and their families) have paid the ultimate price for a series of lies. Their honor is above reproach. The "honor" of those (on both sides of the political fence) who created this mess is beneath contempt


Again, how nicely put and so true. To use the troops as a tool for justification is reprehensible.
Mean your side has used the troops for far worse than I could ever think of.By the way I`m one of those troops.



Please give me an example of how "my side" has used a myriad of reasons to justify the Iraq war. I don't care if you are a 4 star general sitting in the green zone - the military does not make policy. I owe you thanks for serving this nation, but your opinion about policy means no more than anyone elses.
Your side has tried to destroy the morale of the troops since the war began.How would you feel(and this has happened to me several times)if your at a store.You are in uniform and your checking out.You are about to leave and someone comes up to you and says "Thank you for what you do....BUT...This war is bad and this president and this blah, blah, blah".What are you thinking?Do you think I`m gonna be built up because you took the opportunity to tell me that everything I`ve done is for nothing?This is what I mean when I say that you guys run us down.It seems that you take every opportunity to destroy our morale.And by the way the little "I appreciate what you do"Just seems like a disclaimer to me......Sorry for the rant.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
You are about to leave and someone comes up to you and says "Thank you for what you do....BUT...This war is bad and this president and this blah, blah, blah".What are you thinking?Do you think I`m gonna be built up because you took the opportunity to tell me that everything I`ve done is for nothing?This is what I mean when I say that you guys run us down.It seems that you take every opportunity to destroy our morale.And by the way the little "I appreciate what you do"Just seems like a disclaimer to me......Sorry for the rant.


If someone telling the truth destroys your morale, then it would seem your morale is based on a lie. Does that not follow? It may sound harsh or disrespectful for me to say so, but the truth isn't always easy to swallow.

If people blindly follow flawed leaders without questioning their motives, they disrespect the sacrifices you and every other serviceman and servicewoman has ever made for this country. I am not now, nor will I ever, intentionally insult a soldier or veteran by denigrating what THEY are doing in service to this country. But it my obligation as a citizen to question the motives of those who would lead us into war without a solid reason. The fact is, was, and shall always remain that our "reasons" for going to war have changed frequently and with much haste whenever it became painfully obvious that the previous reason was no longer expedient or believable. THAT is what I perceive to be disrespect to those who serve.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Your side has tried to destroy the morale of the troops since the war began.How would you feel(and this has happened to me several times)if your at a store.You are in uniform and your checking out.You are about to leave and someone comes up to you and says "Thank you for what you do....BUT...This war is bad and this president and this blah, blah, blah".What are you thinking?Do you think I`m gonna be built up because you took the opportunity to tell me that everything I`ve done is for nothing?This is what I mean when I say that you guys run us down.It seems that you take every opportunity to destroy our morale.And by the way the little "I appreciate what you do"Just seems like a disclaimer to me......Sorry for the rant.


More than 60% of the American people have some serious questions about the war in Iraq, Afganistan, and W's weak leadership. We are well within our rights and responsibilities to voice our concerns and disgust with, what has turned out to be, a disastrous policy and a lousy Commander-in-chief. Bush has placed us in a war of choice which has been badly executed and based on flawed policy. That is no more the fault of the military than it is mine. A democratic republic is dependent on dissent - in fact that is essential to our survival. The military does not make policy, does not influence elections and works to protect the leadership AND the loyal opposition. If I am not mistaken, your job is to follow orders. Clearly, at times, you may disagree with those orders, yet you still do your job. Surely you must understand that civilians have a right to voice our opinion, question policy and at the same time be good Americans. That is the way it works. When civilians tell you that "We appreciate your service, but we disagree with the policy", your response could be - "Thank you. We are doing the best we can". Then, as we all know, you will go right back to doing your job.

P.S. - You can rant anytime you want. I actually sort of like you - ya little monkey.
We now have a mess in Iraq. No justification or lack of thereof can change the fact we have a quagmire to muddle through. Bush is going home (thank goodness) and we will soon have a new President. Hopefully we can learn from the past, but for now we have a mess no matter what one says.

If we are so better off without Saddam then why did President Reagan support him? It is a fact that our government’s policy was to support Hussein so he could offset Iran. That plan goes back to how we planned on punishing Iran after they took the hostages. Of course Iran was being run by extremists after we supported the removal of the Shah. Along comes Osama Bin Laden whose group we trained to fight Russia in Afghanistan. He was supported by the Taliban after we helped Bin Laden’s people chase Russia out of Afghanistan. Osama gets the idea he wants us out of the Middle East and turns his hatred towards us. Anybody see a pattern here? When meddling in the Middle East we create havoc. We meddle in the Middle East because we want their oil. That problem dates back to Imperial Oil (predecessor to BP) digging around in present day Iran. Britain drew up lines to create nations. These lines didn’t match areas between rival nomads who didn’t know how much they were worth (strike up the Beverly Hillbillies theme song). Even if we drilled and pulled every bit of oil we could in the United States we would only reduce our dependence, not remove it.

Yes, we can pull oil here. I know. I’ve heard it over and over. But we must also reduce our demand. And the United States has already started doing just that. Notice demand has dropped (of course the economy tanked and helped reduce demand) and prices dropped. Now OPEC wants to bring the price up again and is planning to reduce production. We can try to offset it by pulling more oil here, but the price will go up again. Remember, oil has not risen in price at the rate of inflation. We have enjoyed a bargain for many years.

At some point in the future, after my life on Earth, we will cease primary usage of oil. I wonder if the Middle Eastern countries will be ready for that day. If we don’t destroy ourselves first (Armageddon) then these people will return to being desert nomads.
AlabamaSon,

Reagan supported Saddam for the same reason FDR supported the second worst mass murdering tyrant in history against the third worst mass murdering tyrant. Because, Hitler was at war with the US and its allies, and Stalin wasn't! The mullahs and ayatollahs were, and are, at war with the US and the West.

The US sent millions of tons of equipment to the USSR. In comparison, less than 5 percent of the munitions and equipment supplied to Saddam was from the US -- mainly, some helicopters originally ordered for the Shah.

Bin Laden was a bush league player against the USSR in Afghanistan. There is only one documented fight between his men and the Soviets (during the Soviet withdrawal). Bin Laden was mainly a Saudi money man at that time. The US gave his men no supplies or training. US reporters were steered away from him by our Afghan allies because of his known hatred for the US, even then.

Really shouldn't quote old leftist agitprop, it's stale.
Last edited by Howard Roark
I love the doublespeak. You support the troops, but hate the war and if the truth hurts your morale, then that's just too bad. Well, it's YOUR truth, not the whole truth. The soldiers who have been there know The Truth. There are many "truths" associated with this war; as there are many deceptions. Everyone twists the truth...Bush, Obama, Congress, Al Franken, Michelle Malkin...they twist the truth because knowledge of what The Real Truth is would be too frightening to most Americans.

Our foreign policy is based on guesses. Sometimes the guesses are good, sometimes not so good. We get spotty intelligence that can be interpreted any number of ways. If, for example, we get intel that AQ is going to set off a nuclear weapon against the Wilson Dam, we may be reasonably sure it won't happen. However, we have to act on it, just in case our guess is wrong. We had intel about 9/11, but we guessed it wouldn't happen because it was unprecedented. Anyone who ever read Tom Clancy would know different.

It's a dangerous world and we're engaging an intractable enemy who wants us dead, converted, or dhimmi. Not the Iraqi people, maybe not even Saddam. But there's a cancerous ideology of Jihad that plans in terms of decades and centuries. Their immediate goal is to restore the middle east to Arabic people...not Persians or other semitic people; Islamic Arabs. After that their plan is to spread Jihad worldwide, and they're thinking in terms of years, rather than election cycles. Right now, they're breeding Europe into an Islamic culture. Look at what's happening in France and England...in England, they're recognizing Sharia courts. Western culture is being erased.

The war in Iraq is really an ideology war, a generational war, and an intelligence war. It is, as Huntington writes, a clash of cultures. These cultures cannot coexist, regardless of what the cute bumper stickers say. Ours can coexist with theirs, but theirs cannot coexist with ours, except temporarily to gain an advantage until the real jihad can resume. That's in the q'ran.

So this war is NOT about WMDs, though the intel that Iraq was either developing or attempting to acquire them from the former Soviet Union was compelling. Even Saddam admitted he was running a nuke program. And other things constitute WMDs...chemical weapons, for example, that Saddam actually employed. And it doesn't take much to set up a bioweapons lab, mostly money. And Saddam trucked four tractor-trailer loads of cash out of Iraq until it was captured. The war is not strictly about 9/11, although the same ideology that drove the 9/11 pilots to fly into the WTC drives the AQ fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My suggestion for you: Continue to stick your heads into the sand until the US is completely isolated. When Europe has reverted to the 13th century culture the radical islamics desire, and Russia is completely encircled with Islamic states...countries ending in "stan". The PRC will likely be the last holdout, and their dedication to their revolution is deeply entrenched. And they have nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and the will to employ them.

The excuses and whines continually spewing from the left are not even original...they were heard about seventy years ago, when Hitler started making his expansion east and west, and when Japan started the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". It's all about sovereignty, access to natural resources, and cultural ideology. But your typical American, with his or her five-minute attention span, can't comprehend the generational danger inherent in the global situation. It's sound-bite politics.
I support the troops: true.

I hate the war: true, to some extent. I hate the fact that we are at war, but I believe that it is sometimes necessary. I'm not a blind, partisan idealist, despite what you believe.

What I truly hate are the continual lies, from the left AND the right, as to why we went to war. What I hate are the political posturings that continually try to redefine what the reasons are that we are there fighting. It is politically inconvenient for any politician to stand up and say what you have said, zip. And that is precisely why I am disgusted by the evasions, the lack of accountability, and the partisan finger-pointing. I would respect, and completely support, any leader that would have the testicular fortitude to lay it out as you have done. It may surprise you that I agree with you, but most people who try to pigeonhole me as a partisan hack (and which side they think I'm on is sometimes comical) end up surprised at some point.

None of our leaders will tell the truth, because it would end their career. And that, my friend, is what I hate.
Face it boys, this is all about politics. Some of you will support bush into hell. What you really want is for everyone to agree with you and your view. Aint gonna happen, as we clearly see from the last election. Your view, no matter how strongly held, is not supported by the majority of Americans. The dire warnings of the end of the world because we all don't adhere to your view is what is tired and shop worn. It makes you look like hysterical, partisan hacks on full whine mode. Find yourselves a new tact. bush was a disaster for America and for his party. Instead of blaming the loyal opposition, blame bush and yourselves for supporting a failed policy and betting on the wrong horse. If your guy had done a better job this would be a different conversation.

Just for Howard,

agitprop \AJ-it-prop\, noun:
Propaganda, especially pro-communist political propaganda disseminated through literature, drama, music, or art.

None of us here are any more Communist than we are Socialist. Or any more so than some of you are ultra-nationalist fascists. The term "agitprop" should be used in its true context. It refers to something quite different than what would be printed on this forum. It sounds really impressive only if you dont know better or expect those who are reading it to be dumber than you are. The attempt to villify your fellow Americans with such mid 20th century terms is sort of, well, silly. McCarthy was a fraud, and died a drunk in disgrace. America survived him and the American Left AND Right continue to function as intended without the threat of dissolution or falling prey to the, now rare, "Commies". The use of such tactics only serves to make you appear reactionary and sour.
Last edited by meanasasnake
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
The US send millions of tons of equipment to the USSR.


Please elaborate. It might be a spelling error No disrespect intended. I mistype all the time. Did you mean we "sent" millions of tons of equipment to the USSR? If so, I will admit I am confused. Again, no disrespect. Just want to fully comprehend.
Lady snake,

From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: agitprop -- "Political strategy in which techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence public opinion. Originally described by the Marxist theorist Georgy Plekhanov and then by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, it called for both emotional and reasoned arguments."

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

Mussolini, father of fascism, considered himself amongst the parties of the left. Adolf, also, although a different more evil varient. Both advocated a break with past traditions and religion, and the overwhelming power of the state -- major tenets of the extreme left.

I will accept, reluctantly, that Franco was a conservative, as he was an advocate for tradition and religion.

I'm not accusing those of this forum of being members of the extreme left, but, of quoting old leftist propaganda, without proper research.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
In essence the left get their daily talking points from the great keith olbermann.

You got to love the Holier than thou attitude of libitards, narcissist hardly describes some, still trying to find a word that truely represents them.


Well I guess I'm not "left" since I don't know Keith Olbermann. I did vote Democrat this time.

I just don't get into all these various names and such: "left, right, liberal, conservative, etc." I took all those wonderful civics and government classes, but people abuse the use of the names. I tend to look at the ideas of the individual in the race and the party, if it is involved. So many of those politician types blow around like the wind so you can call them "left right middle liberal conservative." Yeah, that label fits.

But it doesn't matter. I'll get off my soap box now. I understand. You don't like the policies of the Democratic Party and wish they were not in control.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
In essence the left get their daily talking points from the great keith olbermann.

You got to love the Holier than thou attitude of libitards, narcissist hardly describes some, still trying to find a word that truely represents them.


And the right from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Really.

I have a perfect description for the Rightwing-nuts, but I fear I would be banned for using it. "Losers" will suffice.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Lady snake,

From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: agitprop -- "Political strategy in which techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence public opinion. Originally described by the Marxist theorist Georgy Plekhanov and then by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, it called for both emotional and reasoned arguments."

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

Mussolini, father of fascism, considered himself amongst the parties of the left. Adolf, also, although a different more evil varient. Both advocated a break with past traditions and religion, and the overwhelming power of the state -- major tenets of the extreme left.

I will accept, reluctantly, that Franco was a conservative, as he was an advocate for tradition and religion.

I'm not accusing those of this forum of being members of the extreme left, but, of quoting old leftist propaganda, without proper research.


It still generally refers to the propaganda practiced by the arts community. To follow up with Britannica:

The term agitprop originated as a shortened form of the Agitation and Propaganda Section of the Central Committee Secretariat of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. This department of the Central Committee was established in the early 1920s and was responsible for determining the content of all official information, overseeing political education in schools, watching over all forms of mass communication, and mobilizing public support for party programs. Every unit of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, from the republic to the local-party level, had an agitprop section; at the local level, agitators (party-trained spokesmen) were the chief points of contact between the party and the public.

The word agitprop is used in English to describe such departments and, by extension, any work, especially in the theatre, that aims to educate and indoctrinate the public. It typically has a negative connotation, reflecting Western distaste for the overt use of drama and other art forms to achieve political goals.

Link

I think you taking liberties with the definition, its original meaning and usage.

Fascists were generally Socialists, but were ultra-national, anti minority (of every kind),and anti-immigration, militaristic, and did not tolerate dissent. In fact Mousillini's grandaughter stated that the American right closely resembled European Fascists.

Link

Nonetheless, don't be fooled by perennial rightist attempts to depict fascism as left-wing. Fascists played with some socialist ideas early on, but these were some of the baggage tossed out as the parties took power. In both countries the fascists' allies were conservatives, who hoped to use their energy, ballot appeal, and violence for their own ends. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler seized power; both were handed it, quite legally, by conservatives terrified of leftist alternatives.

Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence. – Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology[27]
Link

While I personally do not view even the radical American Right as "Fascist" in social policy, it would be equally as realistic to suggest that if the Left is a bunch of "Commies", or "Socialists", then the right could be Fascistic. One would be as factual as the other.
“At the heart of this process of 'convergence' between scholars is growing agreement on the centrality to the definition and understanding of fascism of its bid to inaugurate a national or ethnic rebirth (palingenesis). The ultimate aim of this process of renewal would be to bring about a revolution in the entire ethos and culture of society which would have an impact on every sphere of social life, a transformation embodied in the project of the 'new man'.”
Link

As fascism attempted to uproot a traditional society, deny religion, and attempt a transformational “new man,” I see very little difference between it and the other variants of the left. Communism attempted to uproot society, deny religion and transform their subjects into the “new soviet man.”

Brooks’ analysis circles upon itself rather like the Ouroboros, the snake devouring its tail, only to arrive back at the point at which it started. Sounds like too many nights at raves, too much trance and too many pints.
If you can find a crime that the current President of the United States may be guilty of, then Congress has the right to impeach. However, given the current Democratic Majority in the Congress, if there was any chance of President Bush being guilty of a crime, they would have asked for a special prosecutor. Heaven knows the government certainly leaarned how to used the special prosecutors during the Clinton Administration.
Yes, the Iraq war a war of choice. We were already engaged in Afghanistan, but the Bush administration knew that in order to protect the American people in a world where airplanes can be hijacked and crashed into buildings, the effort would have to reach beyond any specific geography or Al Qaeda itself. Remove Al Qaeda and another group would rise up to take its place. They decided on an overall strategy which included attempting to deny terrorist networks anywhere the financial means and arsenal they needed to perpetrate their craft.

When CIA and foreign intelligence began to build that the regime in Iraq was in the business of producing biological and checmical weapons (weapons they were known to have used in the past against the Kurds), and when Iraq continually rebelled against resolution after resolution from an obviously complacent United Nations, Iraq was chosen as a target in the larger campaign the administration was attempting to wage. The administration continued diplomatic efforts, urged Iraq to compy with the U.N., and, ultimately, asked Congress for approval of military action in the face of Iraq's continued lack of cooperation.

Congress voted to affirm that approval.

Had the intelligence been correct, had we captured large troves of WMDs, then critics would have been silenced over the "justification" for this war. The administration publicly postulated that weapons had existed in Iraq and had been moved into neighboring countries. A claim for which there exists no concrete evidence.

So the Bush administration decided to create an exercise in "regime change". It built public support for the invasion and eventually it was decided that military action could be followed by complete "liberation" of the Iraqi people, thereby creating a new and shining bastion of democracy in the middle of a volatile region. It was this short-sighted arrogance and ignorance of the politics and culture of the Middle East that created the "quagmire" we now find ourselves in.

We were like a flounder happily tossing itself to the pirrahnas hoping to lead them by example. The audacity of Americans attempting to show the Middle East how governement should be done rightfully incited the local population, giving fertile soil to the birth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the insurgency that has cost so many American troops their lives.

The Iraq war was justified by bad intelligence, hijacked by a growing desire to provide a base of operations for future operations in the Middle East to spread a new birth of democratic ideals in a geographic area long dominated by theocratic totalitarianism, and horribly mismanaged once it was evident that we would not have the quick and resounding victory that Americans expect from war.

The conspiracy theories abound. We're only there for oil. The war was a purposeful deception. The people, Congress itself, was deliberately lied to in order to satisfy Junior's cowboy crusade to get him in good with dear old Dad by finishing off Hussein.

The people that espouse those theories have no more proof of their claims than the administration has that the weapons it once claimed lay in Iraq were smuggled across borders.

The Bush presidency has had its failures, the biggest of them straddilng itself with a war that has produced nothing much beyond deeper national debt and Shia-dominated coalition government that will just as likely vote to return to an Islamic theocracy in the coming decades.

It has flirted with the very edges of Constitutionality, just as various other Presidencies have when the need suited them.

One can prove ignorance and ineptitude, but without physical evidence to prove criminal intent, Mr. Hirschhorn should leave the demagoguery to the history books.

I'm sure the man he more than likely voted for would tell him the same thing.
From a recent Bush interview:

"Everyone says, Our alliances are in terrible shape, America has a terrible image, George W. has pissed away the good name of the United States. Our alliances, our image, and our name have to be restored. “Restored” is the big buzzword.

Bush: “All I ask is that people analyze our alliances around the world before they come to” any conclusions. “One, it is hard for any president to say that he and his country have had strong relations with Japan, Korea, and China at the same time” — but Bush can say it. “Two, we have changed our relationship with India from one of suspicion to one of partnership, while being able to keep influence in Pakistan. Three, I articulated a two-state solution, at the same time vowing to defend Israel and keeping strong relations with Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt and the U.A.E.”

In Latin America, “we have relations with two key countries that are very strong: one, Mexico; and two, Brazil. The relationship between the United States and Brazil has been one of suspicion at times. Today, it is one of dealing with common interests.

“I’ll never forget my first meeting with Lula in here. I’m a pretty frank guy with these people. [I loved that: “these people.” One of my favorite moments of the interview.] And I said, ‘You know, it’s hard for you to believe, isn’t it, that you’re sitting here talking with a’ — I don’t think I called myself a right-wing fanatic, but . . . I said, ‘I know that you probably think that you and I can't get along. After all, you are, you know, coming out of the leftist labor movement, bashing America when you could.’ And I said, ‘But you know something? You and I do care about a couple of things: We care about the plight of the downtrodden; we want to defeat ignorance. What I found interesting about you, Mr. President, is you believe in faith-based programs to help lift people’s lives in your country.’

“And it was like, ‘Oh, maybe I can deal with this guy.’ And we have got a very strong relationship. Does that translate to people’s respect for America? In some cases, it does. You know, I don’t follow these opinion polls. But I will tell you, people want to come to America. I will tell you, America is respected. Our values are cherished — because they’re not our values; they’re universal values.”

What should be watched “over these coming decades is the prevalence of moral relativism, which is manifested during my presidency, saying, ‘Bush is imposing his values.’ [He fairly shouts this.] Well, if you believe these are Bush’s values or American values, then you don’t believe in the universality of certain values. And so I firmly believe that our respect is strong in the world. I’d rather be respected than liked. And we are respected, and our values are cherished, and the lines are long to come to America.”

A word about popularity: You can be popular, but “at what price”? “You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them.

“You know, popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation [sing it, brother]. But principles are enduring.”

Link
The reason the defacrats gained control is because goobers like you believe what the media (who admittedly is 91% defacrat)tells you. Like this financial disaster was Bush's fault when it was people like chris dud and bonnie fwank. That this was the worst ecomomy in history. I wasn't around for The Depression but I can remember the jimmy (keep on smiling) carter days when he INVENTED the Triple Double( sorry Magic Johnson) of double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and almost 20% interest rates! That we were damaging the self-respect of terrorists by being tough on them. But what should we expect from people who vote defacrat. They have supported a boy for 40 years who got drunk, ran off a bridge, left a woman to die int the car while he ran off and hid. The poster boy for the modern defacrat party. At least when a Republican veers off the path, we kick their butts out.

So now you have what you want: a liberal president to go along with a liberal congress, exactly what we had in the jimmy carter days. May God help us.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×