According to David Broder:Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."
He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.
The Broder column is getting a lot of
blog response. Some of it is generic babble, like
this from Josh Marshall:
I really don't know whether I find it more painful or amusing to watch David Broder's quickening decline. But I'm going to go with amusing. Because clearly there's some deep streak of evil within me that gets a kick out of watching one man struggle so desperately for relevance and even coherence.
Yeah, Broder's old and you're sick of him. If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.
পোস্টগুলি
৯৯টি মন্তব্য:
It's why Christopher Hitchens is never happier than when politlcal opponents call him a drunk; when you resort to the ad hominem, you admit your inability to defend your position.
Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.
If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.
That's the beginning of Broder's column.
Josh Marshall only proves what a hypocrite he is by attacking Broder and lacking the guts to say what everyone knows which is what I posted yesterday:
"I wish I could approach the wit and humor of the posters above, but Harry Reid is so morally and financially corrupt and such a hypocrite on so many issues that I can't see the humor in such a sad excuse for a human being. A lot of his fellow Mormons absolutely hate him, and you've got to be really corrupt for that to happen."
Reid's financial hocus-pocus in Nevada with his family should be enough to disqualify him from the Senate, much less leadership. I could care less how many Republicans you find corrupt - go for it. But anyone seeking to defend the pathetic Harry Reid has to do so by using the "oh yea, well what about . . ." school of argument.
And that is execrable.
Ann,
Josh attacks his arguement in the very next paragraph:
"So, Gonzales, almost universally judged a liar and an incompetent who has dragged the administration into one of its most politically perilous scandals yet.
Reid, frequently makes off-the-cuff remarks that are anathema to Broderite Beltway insiders.
Sounds about even, I guess. But I think I'll take Reid."
I don't really see how that is generic babble, nor do I see how that is some sort of ad hominem attack on Broder. The comparison between Gonzales, someone who is pathologically dishonest, and Reid, is ludicrous. Pointing that out isn't generic. . .it's effing obvious.
I am longing for a Senate majority leader that peels the skin off this administration with a dull knife. Reid got the dull part right.
The only good part about him is that when the Bush team turns on the flamethrowers he just shruggs it off. Further as he has no real personal stake in the 08 elections and a beyond safe Senate seat, he is one to take the heat short term.
Although I must say to the GOP, beware of going after him too hard or you may get a Schumer and if that happens you need to have a lifeboat because that guy will sink every last one of you and throw you an iron chain for a lifeline.
Gee, just a few weeks back, there were people posting here who still maintained that the Democrats weren't for defeat, and bristled at the thought.
Yet here the Democrats declare absolute surrender. What is the world supposed to think?
Thanks for supporting the troops, Harry. Alot.
There are a few Senators -- Coburn, McConnell and Lieberman come to mind -- who are not lightweight gas-bags.
Reid (and for that matter Pelosi) are dithering lightweights, completely entangled in whatever ad hoc position seems right at the moment.
Most of the Republicans are appallingly bad, in both Senate and House. Fortunately for them, but very unfortunately for all of us, the Donks are even worse.
We are led by mice ... and tittering sparrows, of which Harry Reid is most certainly the poster-child.
Pitiful, immature, self-centred, self-serving, and most depressingly far, FAR from alone.
However, it's what I expect at this point in the cycles of American life. If you haven't read Strauss & Howe's 'Fourth Turning,'(1997) I strongly suggest suggest you get your hands on a copy and read it carefully.
One taste thereof: In the 'Unravelling' period (1984 to circa 2005) any wars will be fought with great moral fervor, but without consensus or follow-through.
Harry Reid is playing his role. So is George Bush. As we await the trigger that will (finally) initiate the 'Crisis' era and bring with it a return of the American Spirit.
We've reached the point where people on the other side of the debate aren't just wrong or stupid, they're mentally ill or senile.
Next we'll have Senators caning each other on the Senate floor....
It is disheartening that partisan political passion is so clearly directed against the "other side" that partisans are generally unwilling to police their own, or even speak truth. This is endemic to media and academia as well, and it causes me to wonder if we have the integrity, or even the wisdom necessary for democracy to work.
Regarding Broder specifically, Marshall is not only wrong, First Amendment notwithstanding, he hardly has the standing to criticize Broder. Broder's forgotten more politics, politicians and history than Marshall will ever know.
T,
Well don't worry . . . Gonzalez didn't get rid of the U.S. Attorney still working on this one: Abramoff Reports to Prison; Officials Focus on Reid, Others
I am longing for a Senate majority leader that peels the skin off this administration with a dull knife. Reid got the dull part right.
You'll be longing a long time. Or not at all. Take your choice. Because with this administration, what you see is what you get: A centrist and moderate Republican, patriotic, honest, but inept in several key ways, and all in about that order.
Broder's forgotten more politics, politicians and history than Marshall will ever know.
Is this supporting Broder or condemning him? I can't tell.
It seems like Broder is trying to out-vortex Prof. A.
Personally, I'm longing for a Senate that doesn't want the United States to lose.
I think it's a good point to examine Reid's strategy of vitriol. Reid plays a dangerous game. It could be that he wants the Administration to feel the pain of getting funding. Maybe that will work and Bush will start to wrap up the war and Reid will claim credit.
But, if we retreat and Iraq turns into disaster, the American public may find itself more disgusted with the humiliation of defeat than the war itself. A humiliation that will have no end. The public is fickle. It will forget about why it was upset with the war and will blame the democrats for the humiliation and all the losses that come after the war.
We have not been attacked in 5 1/2 years. If we are attacked after withdrawl, it will be perceived to be the Dems fault.
The same thing happened to the Federalist party in 1815 when they opposed the war of 1812. At the time a lot of the public was with them in opposing the war. Ten years later people wondered why the Federalists had been so unpatriotic and the party ceased to exist.
Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.
The same thing happened to the Federalist party in 1815 when they opposed the war of 1812. At the time a lot of the public was with them in opposing the war. Ten years later people wondered why the Federalists had been so unpatriotic and the party ceased to exist.
Madison's opponent in the 1812 election attempted simultaneously to attack the administration for getting involved in the war at all ... and for not fighting it correctly or hard enough.
That would be Clinton. DeWitt Clinton, to date the last mayor of New York City ever to go on to higher office of any sort.
Let's not forget Reid's racist attack on Justice Thomas a couple of years ago, and his recent pandering that he was appalled the court upheld as constitutional a ban on partial-birth abortion that he voted for.
Ann, you're the one who brought up age, not Josh. Josh simply said the man is losing his relevance. That's a completely valid observation for any pundit.
Or are you saying older pundits shouldn't be criticized? Which position is really agist? (Hint: yours)
Broder is one of Bush's enablers who has yet to own up for his own uncriticial approach to the Admin. And, he never attacks a Republican the way he lights into Democrats.
Worse, he can't back up his (false) allegations that Reid has had to apologize every six weeks. HE hasn't Broder's remarks in today's column refer to events from 16 months ago.
Reid's returning fire on a White House that has called anyone who questions them unpatriotic and unAmerican. Give `em hell, Harry!
Pogo repeats talking points as if we haven't heard them:
"Yet here the Democrats declare absolute surrender. "
Dude, the situation in Iraq is not a war. It's an occupation during a civil war. This is not the Allies vs the Axis powers or some push back and forth betwen different states.
First, start with a grasp on reality. Then, realize that your macho self-image is not at stake here. We are becoming weaker with each passing month due to Bush's Vietnam. Militarily, diplomatically, prestigewise, the USA global influence has been greatly diminshed under Bush.
And, yet, you cover Bush's sorry ass. How ugly for you.
And, the rest of the vitriolic right calling Reid vitriolic is a hoot. Project much?
"I knew Harry Truman; Harry Truman was a friend of mine; and you, Senator Harry Reid, are no Harry Truman...." Somehow this paraphrase seems relevant in the case of Harry Reid.
Atrios provides to us a glimpse into Broder's tight and chummy relationship with the Rove White House:
"Let me disclose my own bias in this matter. I like Karl Rove. In the days when he was operating from Austin, we had many long and rewarding conversations. I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of the historic cabin Karl and his wife Darby found miles away and had carted to its present site on their land."
Or is it ad hominem to point out a pundit has left big smooch marks all over the hind quarters of the President's top handler?
Speaking of Karl Rove, here's an example of why Bush backers like Ann may not like Josh Marshall and his intrepid band of muckrakers. A must read!
At this point, I have almost lost all confidence in our political leaders on both sides of the aisle to deal effectively with Iraq. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for Reid to make his remark (although entirely appropriate for him to think it). However, Bush has not demonstrated skill in evaluating talent and as a result has stocked his administration and the cabinet with incompetents.
Going into Iraq was a tremendous risk. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt against my own instincts because I assumed he knew things I didn't, knew what he was doing, and surrounded himself with the best and brightest. My own instinct about Iraq, before we invaded it, was that, as a country, it was an incredibly dysfunctional system. Any time someone tries to intervene into a dysfunctional system there are chances of making the situation worse...the more dysfunctional the system, the easier it is to screw it up in one's efforts to make it better. When dealing with human systems, especially dysfunctional one's, interventions can produce disasterous results, even if you basically know what you are doing....and if you do not know what you are doing, are sloppy, are not careful, deliberate, thoughtful, etc. chances increase that you will make matters in a dysfunctional system even worse. Given the severe impairments in the Iraqi national system, if we chose to intervene, we needed to have absolutely the best knowledge of as many variables as possible and how they interact and how these elements respond to challenges to the status quo. We needed to have people who had an incredible grasp of these elements and how they work. We need these incredibly knowledgeable people to develop a plan and then we need folks talented enough to execute the plan.
The severity of the dysfunction in Iraq and the middle east demanded that we had our sh.. together, demanded that we had a high level of understanding of their system and ours. Because, if we did not, then it was almost inevitable that we would take a terrible situation and make it even worse.
I assumed that the wealthiest most powerful country in the world had the capacity to take on this enormously risky venture. I assumed we had the resources to amass the best and the brightest to help make this work. I assumed that our President, his administration, the Congress, and our military knew better than I, what was going on and how to deal with it. I hope I am not wrong.
I do agree that Ann's attempt to characterize Josh's post as ad hominem is intellectually dishonest and just more partisan jousting.
The cry goes forth from the wingnuttia: "Defend the king and all his enablers!"
There's no need for personal attacks, I agree. Josh's point was that there is no proportionality in comparing the AG to Reid.
But in the very next thread everyone seems to want to dump on Olbermann personally.
Re; "Dude, the situation in Iraq is not a war. It's an occupation ..."
Again, the left declares surrender.
Say uncle, Harry!
But, if we retreat and Iraq turns into disaster, the American public may find itself more disgusted with the humiliation of defeat than the war itself.
Turns into a disaster. Right. Keep on waiting for an Andrew Jackson.
Anyway, what would the defeat be? That the Iraq government we supported did not continue after we left? Why is it humiliating that people in Iraq would choose another government?
At some point the government that's been established in Iraq has to be released to fend for itself. Propping up a weak government in Iraq (I'm not sure if that's what we're doing) serves the interest of no one.
Broder is a liberal, he is just not a fool. Like Lieberman he has the convictions of a progressive democrat but maintains both a set of personal and professional principles that prevent him from not telling the truth as he sees it.
Pogo (or should I say "Broken Record"), is that all you have? Oh, for worthy opponents!
Explain to us how this is a war. Explain to us how more weaponry and firepower helps us "win" this thing. What's the conservative version of "winning" anyway but the peace of the graveyard?
Withdrawing the troops is not surrender. The troops did their job. The Adminstration, with their subcontractors screwing up reconstruction and bringing in foreign labor while Iraqis face massive unemployment, has undercut the troops.
Bringing and end to civil strife in a nation is not done with overwhelming firepower. That was Saddam's approach and it just coiled the spring tighter and laid the groundwork for the situation today.
Lesson for you to learn: Blowing up societies does not create good will, social harmony or a civil society. See "As yea reap so shall yea sow."
Oops. "As you sow, so shall you reap."
-Not a Farmer (or Gardiner)
Bringing and end to civil strife in a nation is not done with overwhelming firepower
Of course not. And if thats what you think we are doing, then you really are ignorant re all things Iraqi and should be ignored as a mere partisan snipe.
The problem is that the Democrats wanted a fighter for this position and got one. But they also got someone who is fairly feckless and amazing corrupt. Of course, part of the problem there is that many, if not most, of his Democratic colleages came into office already rich, and he wanted to be, or at least to make his four sons rich. So, you find one of the most overtly corrupt Senators leading the party that presumably gained their majority in order to clean up Congress.
What's the conservative version of "winning" anyway but the peace of the graveyard?
You are right. We have already won in Iraq. We ent into Iraq because Saddam refused to allow us to fully inspect his WMD programs. We threated to take him out if he did not comply. He didn't and we took him out.
Then Al Qaeda came to Iraq. We are fighting the war against the terrorists that we would have been fighting in Afghanistan. Except the terrorists came to Iraq insted. Now we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq along with 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.
That war against Al Qaeda in Iraq is still on going. There has been some blowback sectarian violance and meddling from Iran that has resulted from the war that we must manage, but, in the end, its the terrorists that we need to defeat. We should not pull out and leave the population and the region to the mercy of the terrorists.
The Democrats strategy is to give up the war, come home, build a wall and hope that the terrorists don't come get us.
What a dumb strategy.
Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.
Re: "Withdrawing the troops is not surrender."
Of course not. And the Islamofascists in Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia won't see it as surrender, either. Nope. Nosiree bob.
You can call surrender anything you want, Alphaliberal. It still stinks of defeat.
"Blowing up societies does not create good will, social harmony or a civil society."
And damn to hell the Americans of Revolution, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2 and Korea.
They should have just rolled over and quit like the modern Democrats and Alphaliberal. Screw the Jews in Germany. Screw the French and English. Let them deal with the Krauts. Screw the Iraqis. Screw the early Americans yearning for freedom. Screw the blacks, and split the US in two! South and North! Screw those suffering under the Communists.
Lefty copperheads everywhere say Uncle!
At some point the government that's been established in Iraq has to be released to fend for itself. Propping up a weak government in Iraq (I'm not sure if that's what we're doing) serves the interest of no one.
Thank goodness, that you were not in charge when the Democratic party of the 1940s and 1950s was deciding whether or not to militarily support the govenments of South Korea, Japan, West Germany, Austria, Finland, Greece, Turkey. Maybe we should have pulled out in 1947. We should have let those governments fend for themeselves.
Oh how we long for the Democrats of yester-year. At least then the party was willing to defend the country.
Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.
Pogo, you seem to think we're facing a monolithic enemy in Islam extremism. We're not.
You and Bush seem to want the US to stay in Iraq for years to come. Bush won't considser withdrawal during hid Presidency and the fig leaf argument over deadline dates is really about occupation-in-perpetuity.
We will be stronger if we stop wasting blood, treasure and prestige in Bush's quagmire.
And do you get the irony of right-wingers caring more about ther thoughts of militant Muslims overseas than the effect on our nation? You guys swallow every line they spew!
Alpha: Josh says: "People think of Broder as the 'Dean' of the Washington press corps because of things he did in the 60s and 70s." That justifies my translation about age. The word "dean" as used here means the senior member.
Gee, Sloan--remind AL who that post WWII president was. Thats right: Harry S. Truman
From a geostrategic point, it makes great sense to maintain some kind of forward base in Iraq. Whether that happens or not is, of course, problematic.
Anyway, what would the defeat be? That the Iraq government we supported did not continue after we left? Why is it humiliating that people in Iraq would choose another government?
I don't think that anyone really would mind if the Iraqis chose another government. That is not the issue, since chosing implies some level of democracy. Rather the issue is having such a government chosen for them.
But the better issue is whether we allow some group or another to impose the group's idea of what they want as a government over the rest of the people. Obviously, in the case of al Qaeda, this means a Sunni run caliphate with strict Sharia law, and for the Sadarites, an Iranian style Shiite controlled theocracy. Unfortunately, for the chosing, neither is anywhere acceptable to the majority of Iraqis.
The other small problem is called ethnic cleansing, which is a nice way of saying that the Shiites will butcher the remaining Sunni Arabs living in mixed areas. Not that the Sunni Arabs don't deserve it - almost all those car and truck bombs we hear about in Iraq are the result of Sunni Arabs blowing up mostly Shiite innocents, including a lot of women and children. (The Kurds are mostly keeping themselves safe by ruthlessly keeping almost all Arab Iraqis out of their part of Iraq).
At some point the government that's been established in Iraq has to be released to fend for itself. Propping up a weak government in Iraq (I'm not sure if that's what we're doing) serves the interest of no one.
I don't disagree. But I think the idea is to get the security situation better under control first. And, despite all the naysaying, at least the Iraqi army is progressing about as well as could be realistically expected. The police are a different matter, given the history of government corruption there.
Sloan;
Unfortunately you go to war with the Democratic party you have (1860) and not the Democratic party you want (1960).
Pogo: Lefty copperheads everywhere say Uncle!
Copperheads, Then and Now
"In the long run, the Democratic Party was badly hurt by the Copperheads. Their actions radically politicized Union soldiers, turning into stalwart Republicans many who had strongly supported the Democratic Party’s opposition to emancipation as a goal of the war. As the Democrats were reminded for many years after the war, the Copperheads had made a powerful enemy of the Union veterans.
The fact is that many Union soldiers came to despise the Copperheads more than they disdained the Rebels. In the words of an assistant surgeon of an Iowa regiment, it is a common saying here that if we are whipped, it will be by Northern votes, not by Southern bullets. The army regard the result of the late [fall 1862] elections as at least prolonging the war.
Weber quotes the response of a group of Indiana soldiers to letters from Copperhead friends back home:
Your letter shows you to be a cowardly traitor. No traitor can be my friend; if you cannot renounce your allegiance to the Copperhead scoundrels and own your allegiance to the Government which has always protected you, you are my enemy, and I wish you were in the ranks of my open, avowed, and manly enemies, that I might put a ball through your black heart, and send your soul to the Arch Rebel himself."
Well, Ann, I interpreted Josh's referral to Broder's "Dean" status to be a question of relevance. Broder doesn't deserve his perch because the deeds that brought him there are so long ago.
Josh didn't say "Look, this dude's too old to be taken seriously." (Caveat: Me= big Josh Marshall fan).
Meanwhile, Broder has been a case study in what's wrong with modern media when they abdicate the press' role to criticize and question government and, instead, function simply as repeating stations for Admin lies.
(See Pat Tillman and Jessice Lynch as prime examples of the media playing PRAVDA for the Bush Admin, rather than the Fifth Estate).
Pogo, you seem to think we're facing a monolithic enemy in Islam extremism. We're not.
I don't know about Pogo, but the Administration clearly understands this.
You and Bush seem to want the US to stay in Iraq for years to come. Bush won't considser withdrawal during hid Presidency and the fig leaf argument over deadline dates is really about occupation-in-perpetuity.
No, it is necessary in order to fight a counter insurgency. It is plain silly to suggest that we want to stay in Iraq in perpetuity.
We will be stronger if we stop wasting blood, treasure and prestige in Bush's quagmire.
You may believe this. I don't. Rather, I think that your attitude is wishful thinking and intentionally ignores the repeated statements of such notables as Osama bin Laden. He believed before 9/11 that we would run when bloodied. He was initially surprised as we first went into Afganistan, and then into Iraq. But lately, his pronouncements have made clear his belief that we are weak because we can't stand casualties.
And do you get the irony of right-wingers caring more about ther thoughts of militant Muslims overseas than the effect on our nation? You guys swallow every line they spew!
I think that you need to be a bit more precise here. On the one hand, I think a lot of people have some interest in what militant Islam is saying, as it is responsible for any number of attacks on us, up to and including those on 9/11.
Yeah, Broder's old and you're sick of him. If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.
This is SOP for the left when one of their own goes off script. They eat their own when they go apostate.
Re: "Pogo, you seem to think we're facing a monolithic enemy in Islam extremism. We're not."
Monolithic? No. But when I stop reading about terror plans, attempts, and bombings, then I'll agree the threat has passed. But not until then.
Really, alphaliberal, just admit that you don't really believe we are in fact fighting against Islamofascists at all. Even though amazingly the terrorism is -entirely coincidentally- all perpetrated by guys named Mohammed (and man, what are the chances of that!?), and egged on by the cradle of Islam. Nope. Just local stuff. Nothing to do with us.
Its those "French Youths" again...
Pogo, I supported the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. It would have been smart to have poured our treasure into rebuilding that coutnry rather than blowing up Iraq ("Shock and Awe").
No, I don't think "Islamofascism" is a monlithic threat or anything like mid-20th century fascism. These guys are realtively weak and you guys keep inflating their power.
Firther, the term "Islamofascism" is deeply offensive to one of the world's largest religions. If you think insulting that community and driving them into the arms of the extremists is smart, well, we just don't have much more to talk about.
(Hey, Ann. I suspect you don't agree that Harry Reid is comparable to the lying and bumbling Gonzales. How about if you address the substance of that charge?)
(See Pat Tillman and Jessice Lynch as prime examples of the media playing PRAVDA for the Bush Admin, rather than the Fifth Estate).
Nice try, Monkeyboy. (weird handle, I dig).
But my point was that the news media uncritically, and in some cases breathlessly, repeated the lies about Tillman and Lynch. Your links don't address that.
It was only after people raised hell that they backed off the Official Lie and then they didn't give the correction anywhere near the coverage they gave to the lies.
And this has been repeated hundereds of time under the Bush Adminisration.
-------------
I'm just glad Ann has never subjected us to a video like this. One is enough!
We should be grateful for the little things.
"If you can't attack the argument, attack the man"...
Wow! And this is coming from Ann Althouse who habitually avoids discussing arguments by focusing on style or on real or imaginary "attacks". What gall!
On the substance, of course Broder is full of it. He should be ashamed to compare Reid, a popular and effective Democratic leader in the Senate to lying incompetent man who the nation is unfortunate to have as Attorney General Gonzales. Broder's examples of Reid's "gaffes" are a joke: most of them are either not gaffes at all or are very old. And why is Reid attacked for Schumer's words?
Complete absence of logic.
Here's a post from Glenn Greenwald addressing the PRAVDAization of the American news media under Bush's reign.
Broder has been a big part of this shilling for the Adminstration in power. He was saying as recently as a couple months back that Bush was poised for a big comeback.
Keep dreaming, David.
Sloanasaurus bleated...
"But, if we retreat and Iraq turns into disaster, the American public may find itself more disgusted ..."
Just when you think discourse can't sink any lower...up pops old Sloanie...what don't you understand about 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the American people think that this war is a disaster now..
What do you mean by "turns into.."...
ohmygod....get a grip. take a glimpse at reality...day's still young, reach in - grab your ears - pull you head right out of your ass.
Re: What do you mean by "turns into.."...
He means, I think, something akin to what happened the last time the Democrats surrendered.
Pol Pot. 3 million dead.
No big deal.
But any US or Iraqi dead fighting to prevent that?
No way, man. Too costly.
The Copperhead left surrenders again.
Raise the white flag and say uncle!
Quite a motto the Democrats have this year.
Pogo,
I thought it was Nixon who withdrew from Vietnam. Or was he a Democrat?
Yes, it's very very sad that so many people died after Americans withdrew, but it was unavoidable.
The US public as a whole was sick and tired of the Vietnam war; US could not have won that war. You can never impose democracy on a nation that is not ready to it.
AL,
"Firther, the term 'Islamofascism' is deeply offensive to one of the world's largest religions."
If that's really the case--i.e. the Muslim masses really are more offended by the term "Islamofascism" then by the fact that the extremists are presenting themselves as the True Islam--then all I can say is it sucks to be us! We're going to have a lot more enemies before all this is over, in that case.
Re; "I thought it was Nixon who withdrew from Vietnam."
Nope.
Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.” Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.”
Pogo,
Is the best that you can do is to cite fringe historians?
Analysis
Democrats Signal a Wider Battle Lasting the Rest of President's Term
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 17, 2007;
"Many Democratic strategists remain allergic to repeating the finale of the Vietnam War, when Congress voted to cut funds for the South Vietnamese government and the nation fell to the North in 1975. For years afterward, Democrats have struggled to shed the image of being soft on defense,..."
From the lefty site Truthout:
" Historically, Congress has used this constitutional power to restrict funds to end US Military actions in Somalia in 1993 and Vietnam in 1973.
From Foriegn Affairs
"Peace talks continued between the North and the South until the day in 1975 when Congress cut off U.S. funding. The Communists walked out of the talks and never returned. Without U.S. funding, South Vietnam was quickly overrun. We saved a mere $297 million a year and in the process doomed South Vietnam, which had been ably fighting the war without our troops since 1973.
I believed then and still believe today that given enough outside resources, South Vietnam was capable of defending itself, just as I believe Iraq can do the same now. From the Tet offensive in 1968 up to the fall of Saigon in 1975, South Vietnam never lost a major battle. The Tet offensive itself was a victory for South Vietnam and devastated the North Vietnamese army, which lost 289,000 men in 1968 alone. Yet the overriding media portrayal of the Tet offensive and the war thereafter was that of defeat for the United States and the Saigon government. Just so, the overriding media portrayal of the Iraq war is one of failure and futility.
Vietnam gave the United States the reputation for not supporting its allies. The shame of Vietnam is not that we were there in the first place, but that we betrayed our ally in the end. It was Congress that turned its back on the promises of the Paris accord. The president, the secretary of state, and the secretary of defense must share the blame. In the end, they did not stand up for the commitments our nation had made to South Vietnam."
I believe that the North Vietnam communists actually signed a peace treaty with the South, which they obviously broke.
The North Communists were heavily supported by the Soviets. The democrats in Congress abandoned the South Vietnamese in 1975. Today the whole country lives under Communist dictatorship - unlike South Korea, which the Democrats of the 1950s decided to defend and is now a great contributor to the world society and economy.
Pol Pot. 3 million dead.
You realize, of course, that it was the Vietnamese that got rid of the Khmer Rouge, while US Presidents from both parties were supporting them?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june05/cambodia_5-09.html
Kirk, I don't think, but don't really know for a fact any more than you do, that the world's muslims have no problem with the violent extremists hijacking their religion.
I think they are offended both by the slur against Islam that is "Islamofascist" as well as the wankers tarnishing their faith. You propose a false choice.
Look at the vitriolo that use of the term "Christofascist" has spawned. When you put the shoe on the other foot, perhaps it's udnerstanble how pathetically stupid and counter-productive "Islamofascist" is.
But then many Christian wolves in sheep's clothing prefer war to peace. And, I am angry at them for tarnishing the faith.
Bringing and end to civil strife in a nation is not done with overwhelming firepower. That was Saddam's approach and it just coiled the spring tighter and laid the groundwork for the situation today.
Actually if you listen to many on the left and elsewhere, the argument goes that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Considering there weren’t daily mass bombings under his rule, I suppose there is some merit to that argument, the mass graves notwithstanding. I may not go so far as to say that they were better off with him but considering how they are squandering their best opportunity for a free and stable society, I’ll say that they deserve him.
Lesson for you to learn: Blowing up societies does not create good will, social harmony or a civil society.
Except for Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy. Jury is still out on Bosnia.
About the only ones in that Frankenstein of a nation that deserve our support are the Kurds. Offer them a security guarantee. Partition the rest of the country and seriously consider forcible relocation of the Arab Sunnis and Shiittes. Drastic? No more than say, Cyprus or even most of Europe after WW2. Considering they have aptly demonstrated that ethno-religious hatred far surpasses any actual ‘Iraqi’ identity I’m not seeing any other viable options that don’t result in genocide.
Anyway, I came here to note Paul Begala's post that reminded me of an Althouse post:
Broder is a gasbag.
Okay. You guys keep comparing the continuing vioience from the occupation of Iraq to WWII and other conflicts between nation states.
This is like comparing apples and Volkswagens.
1. We're not at war with Iraq.
2. We're not at war with any nation state.
3. The occupation of Japan and Germany followed the defeat of their fascist governments and the end of years of war in response to their own aggression. The USA chose to invade and occupy Iraq with no aggression from Iraq. (Unless your reach back over ten years).
4. The reconstruction of the defeated nations was handled competently, and without the corruption shown by the Bush-Cheney Administraiton. People weer chosen on merit to carry this out, not partisan loyalties.
The right wing is hostage to this bizarre thinking and false analogies. You're all tangled up in your own spin.
Always nice to have our moderate, independent bloggess bitch about the awful liberals but say crap about the incompetent Bush Admin
No disust from our moderate indepedent "conservative diva" regarding Bill O'Reilly's constant lies; the entire AG scandal (isn't law her thing) or the most recent awful performance of Michelle Malkin where she is cheerleading saying the democrats are losers with chicken squawks-classy, how far have the conservativerepresentatives strayed from William Buckley. But Keith Olberman and that Clinton cutie with breasts and that Arriana Huffington-those are the types that really get her moderate blood boiling.
It is comforting to know that our moderate, independent, (please vote for me as conversative diva), woman envy diva continues to go off on all of the horrible democrats and the women who support them.
Stop playing the moderate card. Embrace your inner right wing nut we have observed in the past. Now go all crazy and really start hating on the democrats.
You know you want to. Give us a big Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin performance to prove yourself.
Come on, put it on video.
But for the love of God stop with the moderate schtick. It's almost as insincere as Fake News and Bill Orally being fair and balanced.
No, I don't think "Islamofascism" is a monlithic threat or anything like mid-20th century fascism. These guys are realtively weak and you guys keep inflating their power.
Well it was 19 relatively weak guys who were able to topple the Twin Towers and blast a big hole in the Pentagon. Heck, that hack Hitler 60 years ago couldn’t top that on us.
Firther, the term "Islamofascism" is deeply offensive to one of the world's largest religions. If you think insulting that community and driving them into the arms of the extremists is smart, well, we just don't have much more to talk about.
Doesn’t that go both ways when they in turn refer to non-Muslims as infidels or ‘monkeys and pigs’ in reference to Jews? Would you agree or not that Islamic theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia are not governed like fascist regimes? Would you agree or not that the language of the Islamic terrorists calling for a new Caliphate and the killing of non-believers mirrors the Nazi rhetoric of an Aryan Race?
If one of the largest religions finds this language offensive then perhaps they need to scrounge up their version of Martin Luther and reform it because it would seem that the loudest voices in Islam sound eerily like Hitler/Goebbles/Himmler.
Okay. You guys keep comparing the continuing vioience from the occupation of Iraq to WWII and other conflicts between nation states.
Actually I was responding to your comment in which you stated:
Lesson for you to learn: Blowing up societies does not create good will, social harmony or a civil society.
Simply pointing out that a bumper sticker statement like that is easily refuted. Next time be more specific.
Am I the only person LMAOROTFL at this:
The cry goes forth from the wingnuttia: "Defend the king and all his enablers!"
FFS, Alphaliberal, do you have any sense of irony or are you just a 'wingnut' plant? I don't recall anyone holding a gun to Harry Reid's head and forcing him into a senior leadership position on the Hill, and you've got to accept the occasional critical column as part of the price of climbing the greasy pole.
Then again, I guess we can just marvel at Alphaliberal (and his chums on the rabid right) as another in the gallery of sad losers who have reduced politics to a secular religion: There is the holy writ that must not be questioned, a full pantheon of saints and devils, and an auto da fe always ready for heretics, apostates and various blasphemous backsliders.
Firther, the term "Islamofascism" is deeply offensive to one of the world's largest religions. If you think insulting that community and driving them into the arms of the extremists is smart, well, we just don't have much more to talk about.
If all it takes is an insult to cause a "moderate Muslim" to start beheading infidels or wearing suicide vests, then Islam is the problem then, isn't it. If words cause alleged moderates to want to join those who kill the critics, you might want to rethink your ideas of what Islam is about.
If you been to any Middle Eastern country for longer than one month, (if you have ever been) you would not be so worried about offending the sensibilities of those whose religion has shaped their rather backwards societies into the mysoginistic, xenophobic hellholes that they are.
The politically dominant power movements in the ME are based in various strains of the worst of Western ideologies (National Socialism, Communism) and welded to a rabidly fundamentalist Islamic movement and created what we are fighting today; a Theocratic movement with an expansionist revolutionary ideology. It competes with the relatively secularist Baath party, which descneds directly from the German Nazi party. Syria is the remaining Baathist State after the overthrow of Saddam. They are supporting Hizballah directly and allow Iran to support them as well.
Arafatistan is the natural state of those who espouse radical Islam. We have been dealing with attacks from all of the radical Islamic groups at one time or another since the 70s.
It's no monolithic movement for sure; they kill each other all the time, but their common goals are what binds them and causes Fundies like Bin Laden to reach out to Saddam, or any other thug who shares his grudges, if not religion. How else do you get Syrian Baathists supporting Hizballah and Hamas?
Prominent Islamic clerics the world over are constantly quoted giving speeches openly calling for the destruction of Israel or for killing Jews and westerners.
Their infighting doesn't make them less of a threat to us. Iran is trying to build a nuke and Al Quaeda is using chemical bombs on troops and Iraqi civilians.
What part of this being a war don't you get?
But, if we retreat and Iraq turns into disaster, the American public may find itself more disgusted with the humiliation of defeat than the war itself. A humiliation that will have no end. The public is fickle. It will forget about why it was upset with the war and will blame the democrats for the humiliation and all the losses that come after the war.
Broder doesn't say this exactly, but I suspect that's why he is not swallowing the netroots' Kool-Ade about the political benefits of advocating withdrawal from Iraq. The netroots see it in almost Homer Simpson-simple terms. Duh, the polls say the public doesn't like the war. Duh, let's be on the same side as the majority of the public, and then, duh, we win!
This is where Broder's age and "dean" status help him. He's got a memory. The Kossites don't. Broder knows that the Democrats' current approach will help the Republicans restore themselves to power.
Smart Democrats should want Bush to win this "who blinks first" war with Reid and Pelosi. Smart Democrats should, in fact, be rooting for the surge to be a wild success. The public doesn't vote for a party based on recent success in winning a war, as Bush's father learned in 1992, and as Churchill learned in 1945. But if the Democrats manage to tie Bush's hands, and the resulting defeat is seen as Democratic Party-inspired, then they are deeply f****d for another generation.
Broder knows this. That's why they can't stand him.
AL,
"Look at the vitriolo that use of the term 'Christofascist' has spawned."
I'm looking, but I don't see any. Part of the problem is that there isn't a significant movement where the followers of, say, Rushdoony have taken over the government of actual countries, committed mass atrocities in some of the world's largest cities, etc. When that starts happening, please get back to me.
At most, what we've currently got is an occasional, rare, assassination of an abortion doctor, which occurances are loudly condemned by leading Christians (and by me, though I don't claim to be a leading or prominent anything), along with lame attempts to pin Christian motives on people like McVeigh.
Kirk, you must have missed all the debate a few months back when the term "Christofascist" was put into play. Ann Althouse and others got pretty angry saying it's an outrageous term to use.
Which proved the point of how deeply offensive and disrespectful "Islamofascist" is.
As far as the Christianist movement (see also Dominionists), I think you're missing a big part of the picture. They're pretty clear that they wan to eradicate the wall between church and state.
They want their religious doctrine to be the civic law of the land. As an exmaple, see the phony "gay marriage" issue where, in true fascist tradition, they've picked out a tiny and vulnerable minority to attack to build up their political power.
Plus, we have five Catholic Supreme Court Justices ruling based on their faith not on the Constitution and giving doctors religious edicts for performing medical procedures.
So, "Christofascist" is, sadly, an increasingly appropriate term.
johnstodder said"
"duh"
Hey, John. We were right that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the security of the USA.
We were right that the occupation of Iraq would be far bloodier and costlier.
We were right that invading and occupying Iraq would detract from finding bin Laden.
You were wroing, wrong, wrong.
For four years Bush has had a chance to show how his plan will work. For four years things have gotten worse while bin Laden has run free and al Qaeda has grown, terrorist attacks have increaesed and our security has diminished.
It's time to grow up and stop playing like this is a football game. It's not. Bush's bloody invasion has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
To continue to make excuses for such a bloody failed policy is reprehensible.
Craig Ranapia:
You posted one of my comments and then went off on an unrelated tangent.
My point: You guys behave like Good Germans and close ranks behind Bush with your blinders on. You defend him no matter how corrupt and vicious he turns out to be.
the modern conservative movement has degarded into an authoritarian personality cult. Very un-American and very un-appealing to American voters.
But I hear there's a market for that sort of thing in the former Soviet Union
sgt ted makes a clumsy attempt at a straw man argument:
If all it takes is an insult to cause a "moderate Muslim" to start beheading infidels or wearing suicide vests, then Islam is the problem then, isn't it.
That's not what I said. Not even close.
Clearly, you hate Muslims. Sorry about that.
And, yhou did a lousy job of proving that we're in a war in Iraq instead of a bloody occupation.
We've been doing evrything you guys want for four years. Bush has had free reign. Hellooooo, McFly... It's. not. working.
---------
Not mentioned in this is the heavy censorship (internal and external) of the news from Iraq. We can't even see coffins of the fallen because their sacrifice is censored.
Hey, John. We were right that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the security of the USA.
We were right that the occupation of Iraq would be far bloodier and costlier.
We were right that invading and occupying Iraq would detract from finding bin Laden.
AL,
Who's this "we" you're talking about? As I recall, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, and dozens of other leading Democrats voted for the war. They weren't making any of the Monday-morning quarterback arguments you're taking credit for now. Like Bush's predecessor, they had long been convinced that Hussein was still developing and storing WMDs, and supported the UN resolutions that Hussein was violating with impunity.
That we didn't find WMDs came as much of a surprise to Clinton, Reid, Edwards, Kerry, et. al. as it was to Bush/Cheney. There were no leaders who believed Hussein's denials of having them. Leaders in both parties expressed mistrust of Hussein.
True, not everyone supported invasion as the answer to the problems of Hussein, but it wasn't a primarily partisan divide. Sorry, I know you wish now that this was the case, but it wasn't. History doesn't change to suit this month's talking points.
The statements of these and other leading Democrats did not correctly forecast the outcome of the war -- either what went right or what went wrong. As I recall, most Democrats thought dislodging Hussein would be much, much harder than it turned out to be. But there were very few who warned about the insurgency that developed.
On the other hand, I recall Bush saying from the very beginning that this war would not be easy. (Of course, his own administration's incompetence made it even harder, but that's another subject.)
As for "distracting us from finding Bin Laden..." Oh, come on. Really. This is stupid. We should've found Bin Laden, but our failure to do so has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq war. You are being disingenuous and patronizing to suggest this. We're going to put 120,000 troops in Tora Bora instead of in Iraq? Like that was a choice?
Lame comebacks like this prove only your lack of seriousness. I'm a Democrat. But I prefer serious Democrats to these pandering fluffballs who lead the party now, and who you are following like sheep into the political wilderness.
Hoosier Daddy:
Thanks for your point. nice and civil, unlike some others I could name.
My point is that the first reaction from your typical American conservative when something goes wrong in foreign policy is to bomb.
People don't like to be bombed. We got rightly angry on 9/11. Well, we have visited many more times 9/11 on Iraq.
So why on Earth would any reasonable thinking person think the Iraqi's would welcome us after we bomb them? That bombing them makes their society more civil. (Let alone our corrupt contractors who have failed to return iraqi society to pre-invasion standards of civilization). Maybe someone can defend this thinking?
If the situation was reversed and Iraqi's had bombed and occupied us, I'd be out killing me some occupiers. Or dead by now for having done so.
The statement may have struck you as "bumper sticker" because it was short but I really think it's a simple concept and doesn't need a lot of elaboration: People don't like to be bombed. It's a poor way to make friends or imnprove a society.
Why are conservbative sso eager to bomb and invade other nations?
John:
My ride is here. But here's a fact: a majority of Democratys in Congress voted against the war.
But you were, if I recall correctly, ripping on the netroots. I'm one of them and I opposed the war early and often and pointed out how Bush was lying back then. That's the we.
Because the Republicans are the party of war and death. They love wars. They love killing. Some historians think that Republicans get sexually aroused at the thought of an invasion and the dead bodies.
They won't admit it though. They are so in denial they just lie about it and pretend that they don't like the killing. But they do. The GOP slogan should be "we are killers and we are proud of it" or "elect a republican - we know how to kill".
Like that? Offensive? Think about that next time you slander democrats about being the party of surrender.
hd,
I won't slander you.
But I do know numerous Democrats - or I should perhaps say liberals who voted Democratic - who have talked gleefully, sometimes in my presence, of seeing the US leaving Iraq with it's tail tucked between it's legs.
They believe that we should all be humiliated for the embarrassment we have caused ourselves in front of "the world".
I read similar things almost daily on such left wing sites as "Huffington Post" and "Skippy the Bush Kangaroo".
So, unless these people do not represent the true thinking of the "Democrats", then yes, I would say they are in favor of surrender.
What do you call it?
What today does everyone call Nixon's "Peace with Honor" exit of Vietnam?
Some historians think that Republicans get sexually aroused at the thought of an invasion and the dead bodies.
That hdhouse (a) reads these historians and (b) takes them seriously really says everything you need to know about his political and historical education, don't you think?
Its like saying "some historians think Jews were to blame for Germany's defeat in WW1". Yes indeed -- some do.
So why on Earth would any reasonable thinking person think the Iraqi's would welcome us after we bomb them?
Because, as has been explained to you every time you raise that silly and ignorant objection, many of the people we've bombed in the past have later welcomed us -- e.g., the Germans, Italians, and Japanese.
The reason for this is that those societies contained elements which made peace with us impossible. It was necessary to kill those people before we could make peace with those who remained.
Ms. Althouse,
You're a must read every morning. We'll never agree on 90% of the issues rolling about but it's always refreshing to hear out the other opinion. I suspected we find Reid and Pelosi to be politically inept, but they've exceeded even my low expectations. \
Keep up the good fight.
Todd
My point is that the first reaction from your typical American conservative when something goes wrong in foreign policy is to bomb.
That's not exactly true is it? North Korea hasn't been bombed. No smoldering ruins in Iran.
People don't like to be bombed. We got rightly angry on 9/11. Well, we have visited many more times 9/11 on Iraq.
I won't argue with you there. Personally I thought Iraq was a FUBAR from day one but now that we're committed, I think we need to see it through. I believe in the Powell doctrine.
So why on Earth would any reasonable thinking person think the Iraqi's would welcome us after we bomb them?
I think the thought process was that Saddam was so bad, the Iraqis would accept the tradeoff. We killed a whole lot of French in liberating France but they felt the tradeoff was worth the price of liberation.
That bombing them makes their society more civil.
You're oversimplifying it. No one things bombing people makes society civil but rather its a necessary evil to create a free one in place of a despotic one.
If the situation was reversed and Iraqi's had bombed and occupied us, I'd be out killing me some occupiers. Or dead by now for having done so.
Would you if the nation's leader was like Saddam or would you welcome an army that granted freedom and the opportunity to create a stable society? I think you need to take a look at who is doing all the killing over there. It isn't the US army sending out suicide bombers in street markets.
People don't like to be bombed. It's a poor way to make friends or imnprove a society.
But it sure is effective in deposing tyrants which is what it was intended to do. Personally, I think the big mistake was letting Saddam hang. At this stage, I was all for restoring him to power since the Iraqis (excluding the Kurds) have demonstrated they can't play nice with each other.
Why are conservbative sso eager to bomb and invade other nations?
Was Clinton suddenly a conservative when he launched the air war against Serbia? What about Operation Desert Fox?
hdhouse said: Because the Republicans are the party of war and death. They love wars. They love killing. Some historians think that Republicans get sexually aroused at the thought of an invasion and the dead bodies.
Wow. You know, I must have missed that point in the 90s when Clintion switched to become a Republican so he could bomb Serbia and the Chinese embassy. Hey do you think he just got tired of Monica and launched Operation Desert Fox just to pop a nut? Was Bill kicking back with a nice Cuban (cigar) watching gun cams of bombing runs in Iraq while listening to the Top Gun soundtrack?
Man you are one piece of work. I hope they broke the mold with you.
Because the Republicans are the party of war and death.
So who do you want defending you. Someone into "war and death" or someone into peace and love.
The American people will have to decide in 2008.
sgt ted makes a clumsy attempt at a straw man argument:
If all it takes is an insult to cause a "moderate Muslim" to start beheading infidels or wearing suicide vests, then Islam is the problem then, isn't it.
That's not what I said. Not even close.
You said Firther, the term "Islamofascism" is deeply offensive to one of the world's largest religions. If you think insulting that community and driving them into the arms of the extremists is smart, well,...
What the hell else does it mean, then?
Clearly, you hate Muslims. Sorry about that.
Painting me as a bigot doesn't change the truth. I don't hate Muslims, but I will not excuse a culture that grossly violates every classical liberal idea about fundamental human rights. The way Islam is practiced in the lands where it is dominant tells alot about where the "mainstream" of the religion is. So spare me the PC lecture about "hate". Tell it to those who call Jews "monkeys and pigs".
And, you did a lousy job of proving that we're in a war in Iraq instead of a bloody occupation.
This is how a counter-insurgency is faught. I don't expect you to know that, but there it is.
We've been doing evrything you guys want for four years. Bush has had free reign. Hellooooo, McFly... It's. not. working.
Fights like this take about 10 years to fight. If we have the stomach for it, we can win it. But, again its not something that I would expect you to know about.
AL,
Nope, I didn't miss anything.
The outrage wasn't that the term "Christofascist" was per se offensive, it was that it was applied to people who weren't remotely "fascist". Not that I have any problem calling the more extreme folks on the Reconstructionist/Dominionist side that when it fits--but once again, please note that they are a pimple on a gnat's a** when it comes to influence or importance in either (a) world Christianity or (b) US politics.
This is not the position that today's Salafists find themselves in vis-a-vis the Muslim world, though, not at all.
AlphaLiberal: My point is that the first reaction from your typical American conservative when something goes wrong in foreign policy is to bomb.
Not a good point, as we dickered with the UN security council for 6 months before bombing. How many UN resolutions were there re Iraq? Twelve?
AlphaLiberal: I opposed the war early and often and pointed out how Bush was lying back then.
How was Bush lying back then? Another lie from you.
Kirk sez:
that they are a pimple on a gnat's a** when it comes to influence or importance in either (a) world Christianity or (b) US politics.
When 150 graduates of the 4th-tier (un)Christian fundamentalist university land top jobs in the Bush Adminstration, that's far more than a pimple.
When gay and lesbian Americans are stripped of equal rights by a mnisguided (un)Christian fundamentalist movement, that's more than a pimple.
When the Supreme Court substitutes their religious doctrine for medical judgment in medical treatment, not even allowing procedures to save the life of the mother, that's far more than a pimple.
When elections are swayed by the theocratic movement, that's far more than a pimple.
When billions in federal dollars are handed out in patronage payments to the Religious Right, that's more than a pimple.
I could go on for quite some time but I've made my point you're overlooking, or holding a blind eye, to a lot of un-American theocratic tendencies that are shaping out nation -- for the worse.
fen:
You duck my point to distract.
a) Yes, the first insitnct was to bomb. To carry out the bmobing of Iraq and susbsequent invasion, they pretended to take their case to the UN. The outcome, though, was set.
(Should we invade every nation that violates UN resolutions even when the UN says not to invade?)
b) How was Bush lying? You must be part of the 28% support he has in the country. Bush lied about Saddam ties to al Qaeda, uranium from Africa (based on a forged document floated in Europe), attack drones that could reach the US, and much more.
I could post citations, evidence and quotes from esteemed Americans. But it probably wouldn't make any difference. You've got your worldview and your belief system and it is impervous to facts or logic.
sgt ted says:
What the hell else does it mean, then?
It sure as hell doesn't mean that the muslims are going to run out and behead people because the American Right insists on insulting muslims.
That's just stupid.
It means they will be (are now) more sympathetic to al qaeda et al, that they are more likely to buy al qaeda's bull, that more will send money to al qaeda, etc.
Talking to conservatives is so strange. You guys must have 16-color - or binary - vision. Very little or no romo from shades of grey.
And, your words against muslims were racist. Reality's a bitch.
Hossier Daddy:
That's not exactly true is it? North Korea hasn't been bombed. No smoldering ruins in Iran.
You make my point. There's a loud American conservatrive chorus in favor of bombing these nations. Hell, the US has moved many warships into the Persian Gulf in recent months.
The tendency to see everything as analgous to WWII is ridiculous. The conquered nations knew their governemnts had been belligerent powers.
Saddam, while an evil wanker of historical proportion, didn't bomb us and was tied down. Plus, we'd al
ready been bombing and starving them for years.
"What about Clinton" is so overplayed.
Have a good wekeend.
Alphaliberal write:
You posted one of my comments and then went off on an unrelated tangent.
My point: You guys behave like Good Germans and close ranks behind Bush with your blinders on. You defend him no matter how corrupt and vicious he turns out to be.
*yawn* First, wingnut, I don't talk about myself in the third person plural. I've long been critical of this administration and the current GOP on explicitly conservative grounds. Oh, and while I supported the Iraq War - and still do - I think you have to be delusional if you think its execution was anything less than incompetent. (Having said that, I can't say I'm over impressed by the Democrats on the Hill.)
If if you can't, or can't be bothered, getting your facts right that's your look out. But if you're going to write fiction, leave my name out of it.
BTW, how illuminating you didn't bother addressing my point. If Democrats can't stand the heat of media scrutiny and criticism, they're quite welcome to retire to private life.
People who thinks that either Republicans OR conservatives have "closed ranks" behind Bush just haven't been paying attention. They are confusing "universal disdain for the Left" with "universal praise for Bush". Idiotic ideas do not magically cease to become idiotic just because a bad President disagrees with them. Just because Bush wants to stay in Iraq doesn't mean that leaving is the smart play -- it happens to be the smart play in spite of the fact that the person who'll be running the show for the next two years is doing a craptacular job of it. Our hope is that the NEXT guy will do a GOOD job.
Calling Harry Reid incompetent is like saying rain is wet. The man is an ignorant fool and he has no idea of the damage he's wrought. The people I am talking to lately that are parroting his phraseology is testament to his blithering. The man is a shill and makes me actually yearn for the days of Tom Daschel.
And, your words against muslims were racist.
Islam is a religion and therefor it is an ideology, not a race.
Maybe you should apply your condemnation of my attitudes towards Islam to your own attitudes towards Christianity.
Idiot.
But, that is the sort of parrot-talk I expect from libs. Can't address the point so, call someone a name to shut them up.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন