ADDED: Now, I'm actually reading the article and seeing something that is news to me, and indeed, that I find so shocking that I must strike the person who had been my favorite of the Democrats entirely off the list:
Breaking with some of his fellow candidates, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Richardson pledged to “leave no troop behind in Iraq. No airbases. No security patrols. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces.”The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely.
Posts
122 comments:
Is news you thought good news, but then thought already happened, but which really happened to be bad news even news at all?
That made my teeth hurt. I thought Richardson was different from Kucinich -- meaning reasonable or at least quasi-rational. Disappointing.
It's the deja vu that's killing me. I feels like this has all happened once before...about 22 years ago....
Well, I'd thought he was already a candidate, but this extreme position is new. They should have put that in the headline. I almost skipped the article.
I admit that I am even more disappointed than I thought with Richardson. The most qualified Democrat seems to have no plan for Iraq except to out-do the other radical Democrat ideas. He is playing politics in order to win - but that's always the way it seems to be, doesn't it?
Richardson's strategy is to win the California primary above all else - something political analysts (from USC, UCLA, and the Claremont Colleges)out here in Southern Cal say is a realistic possibility. His appeal to the legal-voting Hispanic base will be huge, and he is not unpopular among white liberals.
Then, if he does appear to seriously contest the primary win in California, everyone in the Dem party will be forced to deal with his "momentum".
Of course, as a conservative, I would genuinely love to see Richardson lose the primary and the nomination, as anyone with a brain can see that he is the most qualified and could present an almost sure-thing against most of the potential Republican nominees.
However, I know that because of his experience, he actually would have to temper much of his radical political statements and promises if he were to become President, and govern more as a centrist, like he currently does in New Mexico.
Which is why, if we have to have a Democrat for President, let it be Richardson.
Wow, he doesn't get it. And to think I was once impressed with this loser. (His arrogance about speeding didn't help his cause any.)
Democrat over-reach, especially relating to cutting and running from Iraq, will be the unearned salvation of the Republican Party.
Americans may be unhappy with the war, but they aren't quitters, and they don't want to give the enemy a victory they have not won on the battlefield like so many Democrat primary voters do.
The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely.
Classic Althouse tripe.
a) Exactly what are our responsiblities, dear professor, to a country we have destroyed? To continue ruining it, I suppose. To keep U.S. bases there forever, I suppose.
b) Not that you would have noticed, but what have ANY of the Republicans offered, other than plunging hopelessly into a contest to see who is more hawkish about "winning" the unwinnable war.
Wow, he doesn't get it. And to think I was once impressed with this loser. (His arrogance about speeding didn't help his cause any.)
Oh, he gets it. The people who don't get it are you and Ann and the rest of the apologists for this administration.
Richardson knows that through neglect and complete irrationality Bush has destroyed the ground forces of the U.S. military. Whoever is president in 2009 will have no choice but to withdraw from Iraq because of the sheer incompetence and fantasy world the president is living in. He is merely facing the facts and admitting the ugly truth. He will have to clean up the mess. Bush has so mishandled the war that the only option, and perhaps the best thing for the Iraqi people, is to let them sort things out for themselves.
I am curious to hear how Richardson plans to extricate the US from the mess over there. A plus could be that a viable Richardson candidacy might pressure Iraqis to do something about controlling themselves, if they know the end is near.
But yeah, I thought he had already announced. But yeah, I thought he had already announced.
Drudge posted an article today about Iran's summer campaign in Iraq. They are banking on the Congress pulling out.
Totalitarianism is on the rise and we are unable to confront it. Our Democratic party is the peace party, our Republican party is hoplessly divided over issues like immigration. Bummer...
Americans may be unhappy with the war, but they aren't quitters, and they don't want to give the enemy a victory they have not won on the battlefield like so many Democrat primary voters do.
The enemy? And who exactly would that be?
Do you really expect us to believe that Al Queada will take over Iraq if we leave?
Wrong.
The Shiites will take over.
But wait - the Shiites are in charge already? Except if we leave - Al Queada will leave Iraq too, or they'll get their ass kicked by the Shiites.
We have absolutely no reason to be there.
And reason #1 of why we shouldn't be there, is that people who favor the Iraq War cannot even define what victory means.
Except - "defeating the enemy".
Which is a bunch of utter nonsense, because they can't even define "enemy".
But keep up this talk - I'd love to see the Rethuglicans routed again.
Richardson knows that through neglect and complete irrationality Bush has destroyed the ground forces of the U.S. military.
Ha, ha what bull. Iraq has made veterans out of thousands. Experience and elan matters most in war. Freder is hopeless.
The Democrats are destroying American through their inability to face the enemy. The Democrats run away with their pants down, just like everyone said they would. How predictable.
Do you really expect us to believe that Al Queada will take over Iraq if we leave? Wrong.
And you seem to know? Al Qaeda has a lot more motivation than any of the Shia. They are willing to commit suicide for their goal. If we leave, Al Qaeda will take over some if not all of Iraq. The Iraqi army cannot face such a formidable enemy. No one can but the U.S. Military.
But wait - the Shiites are in charge already? Except if we leave - Al Queada will leave Iraq too, or they'll get their ass kicked by the Shiites.
Al Qaeda will crush the Shia without our support. Which is why we need to be there. We should have been in Europe when the Nazis were just a small thug army. We wern't. Why are you so bent on repeating the same mistakes?
And reason #1 of why we shouldn't be there, is that people who favor the Iraq War cannot even define what victory means.
Victory in Iraq means leaving Iraq a stable and self sustaining government. Just like we left W. Germany, Japan, and S. Korea after losing 450,000 men and women. Fortunately, smarter minds than you were in charge of policy in those countries post war. This has been repeated millions of time. But borderline traitors like yourself pretend that it hasn't to ferment opposition. A typical leftist trick.
Which is a bunch of utter nonsense, because they can't even define "enemy".
The enemy are those who want to bring down the freely elected democratic Iraqi government and create a totalitarian state. Our enemies across the globe are those who want to bring down freely elected democratic governments to create totalitarian states. Do you disagree?
into a contest to see who is more hawkish about "winning" the unwinnable war.
So you are ready to lose? Then what?
"The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely."
Well said.
Our enemies across the globe are those who want to bring down freely elected democratic governments to create totalitarian states. Do you disagree?
Oh - of course. And that's why the Saudis and the Pakistanias are considered our allies. And by your statement, we can assume that Iraq was a thriving democracy before we invaded.
I'm glad I live in a reality based world. But I'm sure it must be a trip going around life as delusional as you.
Just like we left W. Germany, Japan, and S. Korea
Of course, the US was at war with W. Germany, and Japan, and N. Korea/China/USSR. The closest parallel would be Korea, if you consider (I don't) the Korean conflict a Civil War. The US was not trying to establish Democracies in Germany, Japan and S. Korea during the middle of a Civil War. Of course, there mightn't be a Civil War in Iraq had the current Administration not initially bungled things so horribly....but that's just bloody water under the blown up bridge.
Ann is throwing Chum in the water again.
And it is so interesting to hear the conservatives say that the reason we're in Iraq is to stop Al Queada from taking over.
1) Al Queada wasn't even in Iraq until we went there.
2) What is so wrong with Al Queada taking over Iraq anyway? Let's say they (a few thousand thugs) really do take over a country of 20 million people. Fine, then let's just declare war on the terrorist country, and nuke it to bits. Problem solved. Certainly better than having American troops continue to die on a daily basis.
Oh - of course. And that's why the Saudis and the Pakistanias are considered our allies.
Maybe you believe it, but I don't believe that the Saudis and Pakistanis are actively trying to take down democratic governments across the world. In contrast, the Iranians, Hugo Chavez, Al Qaeda have that goal.
What is so wrong with Al Queada taking over Iraq anyway? Let's say they (a few thousand thugs) really do take over a country of 20 million people. Fine, then let's just declare war on the terrorist country, and nuke it to bits. Problem solved.
What you say is not funny. If we were nuked with one bomb by terrorists, it would set this country off on an unstoppable train of retribution that would kill 100 million+ in the middle east. We are in Iraq today precisely to avoid having to do this in the future... don't you people get it?
The US was not trying to establish Democracies in Germany, Japan and S. Korea during the middle of a Civil War.
No we were trying to do it in the face of a 2 million man red army. More Japanese starved in the first year of occupation than Iraqis have died in 4 years of war.
Do you seriously believe that the Democrats of today would have had the guts to do...the Berlin Airlift, or send in troops to fight the communists in Korea. You must be kidding.
So Sloanasaurus now has us invading not only Iran, but Venezuala as well.
Because yeah - Venezuala is just such a huge threat to my peaceful well being.
I really hope Bush does start a war with Chavez. Let's see his approval rating get into the teens.
Maybe you believe it, but I don't believe that the Saudis and Pakistanis are actively trying to take down democratic governments across the world.
Just love the delusion over there on the right. The Saudis are not a threat to democratic regimes. Good point! It's not like the Saudis ever funded terrorism or attacked us on 9/11!!!
What responsibility do we have in Iraq and how does a military occupation of any kind fulfill it?
"Speaking in both Spanish and English..."
Judging from his position on Iraq I'm surprised he didn't give his speech in French.
Seriously, the consequences of Iraq could very well be small beer in comparison to the long-term effects of electing a member of "La Raza" to be el Presidente.
Ann says: "The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely."
And what exactly is YOUR solution??
But please, before responding...tell us why we're there in the first place...and what it is you feel we'll accomplish by staying.
*Oh, and avoid the standard right wing talking points.
Do the people here actually believe Ann has any idea of what she's talkng about?
*I mean, except for the Bush sycophants??
Maybe it's not a good idea to withdraw from Iraq.
I mean if we did - then maybe we people would start demanding that we start looking for Bid Laden, or something silly like that.
Gotta keep the eye off the ball - don't look at that man behind the curtain . . .
Let's see how long it takes Ann to respond.
* Better yet...lets see if she even does respond.
downtown,
we want to own irag.
period.
You are wrong luckyoldson.
You are assuming that Bush has some diaboloical plan.
But that's silly. He doesn't have a plan. He's just incompetent.
We are there, because we're on auto-pilot. Which is even worse in my book.
it's not bush's plan.
it's the puppetmaster's plan.
The Puppetmaster? You mean, Hugh Hewitt?
"The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely."
This strikes me as an odd statement in light of the fact that the article (a) makes clear that Richardson is "breaking with some of his fellow candidates" and (b) specifically mentions Clinton's proposal which does not completely shirk responsibility in Iraq.
Maybe she is not part of the contest.
Too many jims,
Ann is no different than Sean or Rush.
She stays on message.
Ann,
We're still waiting for YOUR solution.
HOW do we handle Iraq?????????????
Do we stay? And for how long?
Please help us understand.
Chum.
Undoubtedly so.
The Angry, Bitter, Surrender Trolls are out, swarming the chum.
News of another Democrat candidate joining their ranks starts the snarling feeding frenzy for the Angry, Bitter, Surrender Trolls.
They should be happy. Before too many days pass, every Democrat will be an Angry, Bitter, Surrender Troll. They've set the price for the nomination. "Surrender Now in Iraq" is the new sacramental confirmation rite of any and all prospective Democrat candidates. None shall pass who do not swear allegiance to "Surrender Now in Iraq" - even as they unanimously confirm Gen. Petraeus as commander of MNF Iraq on the eve of the surge they so fear will defeat the enemy.
Some call it hypocrisy, others recognize it as a defining character trait of the Senate Democrat, or any Democrat, running for President.
Pity they can't bring themselves to dislike the enemy a tenth as much as they hate Bush.
Angry, Bitter, Surrender Trolls. America will have to win its war without them. We've done so before; we'll do so again.
And the Angry, Bitter, Surrender Trolls will tell the rest of us they were with us all the way, just like they were during the Cold War.
Just like they were during the Cold War. Read the Venona papers to learn what that was all about.
Chum.
The Democrats seem to have plunged hopelessly into a contest to see who can shirk responsibility in Iraq most quickly and completely.
And the Reps seem to have a serious competition to see who can piss off the base the most.
I can't possibly have a military plan, but I believe we have the oblgation, even if we were wrong to go in in the first place, to prevent a decline into chaos. I am picturing a genocidal bloodbath.
Just love the delusion over there on the right. The Saudis are not a threat to democratic regimes. Good point! It's not like the Saudis ever funded terrorism or attacked us on 9/11!!!
Wait, I thought you believed that 9-11 was a set up by the Bush Administration... was that a slip?
Timmy & Ann,
Can we please get off the standard...oh, my God...if we leave...like we did in Vietnam jag...look what will happen...BULLSHIT???
This is nothing more than the same right wing talking points I mentioned before...and...let's see how THIS fits into your premise:
DIC CHENEY: In a 1991 speech, Cheney delivered a rather defensive speech on the subject, noting the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad.
As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?”
Cheney also said:
“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there.
You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
If America isn't big enough to admit its mistakes...how can we lead the world??
*Oh, and, Ann...if YOU're so concerned with genocide...why no mention of Darfur??
No oil?
Sloan,
Still a frigging dolt.
15 of 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
Read more...blather less.
Why not re-name this the Sean Hannity blog?
Timmy,
I don't "hate" Bush...I just consider him to be inept.
Do you understand the difference??
I believe we have the oblgation, even if we were wrong to go in in the first place, to prevent a decline into chaos
Alhouse is right. In fact more than 1/2 of the Democratic Senators voted to go into Iraq. Iraq was a bi-partisan war. And now after suffering only 6% of the casualties as we did in Vietnam; 9% of the casualties as we did in Korea (a war not authorized by Congress) and 0.8% of the casualties that we did in World War II, we are ready to give up?
That is humiliation. It's truly a disgrace of the Democratic party.
When this is all over, and emotions have died down, the raw facts about the war will be staring back at us in the face. We will see that the Democrats wanted to withdraw after such relatively low casualties and after authorizing the war. We will see how the Democrats became pawns of the terrorist propaganda campaign. The whole party will be disgraced - just wait and see how people live with the humiliation. What citizen would ever want to fight in our military again knowing that their sacrifice will be wasted by politicians who switch their votes.
Yes. We are not in Darfur because there is no oil. We have no national interest in Darfur. Darfur could disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow and the United States would neither suffer nor benefit.
Does this surprise you? Does this make U.S. foreign policy seem evil to you? Do you feel a sense of moral superiority because you really, really care about Darfur? (By the way, genius: what's your plan for Darfur ?)
The entire U.S and world economy is utterly dependent on oil. Do you think the United States would have invaded Iraq if it did not serve our national interests? Do you think it is not in the interests of the United States to have a steady supply of oil?
As for the plan you want, has it occurred to you that Iran is surrounded by the U.S. military? Did you know that the United States moved its military virtually entirely out of Saudi Arabia? Do you really believe that the United States should not have a presence in the Middle East?
I'm sure you don't, because you are a moron, but perhaps you'll ponder it all tomorrow morning, when you drive your car (even your Hybrid) or take a bus. When you turn on your lights. When you use your computer to post snide yet strangely vapid comments on a blog. When you are in a hospital. When you turn on your faucet.
15 of 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
What is your point. Do you believe that the Saudi Government planned 9-11.... if so, why are you so eager for us to hunt for Bin Ladin. Your a friggin idiot.
There were hundreds of thousands of Americans willing to lay down their lives for Uncle Joe Stalin (maybe you are one of them). Hundreds of Americans fought for the Nazis in World War II. We have hundreds of moles in our government willing to leak secrets to the NY Times.
Like the Saudis, we have traitors in this country with their own agenda. It's a fact you need to recognize.
Everybody knows that bin Laden and the Saudi government are in cahoots with each other. Also, teh Shia will cleraly dominate Iraq, just as they did under Saddam.
Cheney also said:
Hmmm, I recall Lincoln said he was fighting to save the Union, not to free the slaves. Lincoln lied, people died.
*Oh, and, Ann...if YOU're so concerned with genocide...why no mention of Darfur??
There has never been enough support in the Congress to go into Darfur - unlike Iraq, which got 77 votes, Darfur wouldn't get more than 30 in the Senate.
Are you suggesting that Bush go into Darfur without Congressional authorization (a la Clinton in Serbia?).
No one really wants the United States to do anything about Darfur. Zany leftists just like to bring it up. They think it is like kryptonite to people who support the war. They think it is some sort of grand hypocrisy that the United States pursues only its interests.
I saw a teenager near where I live with a shirt espousing people to save Darfur. She was shopping on Chicago's Magnificent Mile. How wonderfully apt for the worldview of someone who would make such a statement.
Sloan & Seven,
I'm sorry, the two of you are way too stupid to engage.
*Stalin...Nazis??
*Darfur could disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow and the United States would neither suffer nor benefit?
Are you kidding?
I thought we were too stupid to engage. What kind of a person says that people are too stupid to engage and then makes engaging comments? It must take a high level of genius.
Sloan,
This actually what Lincoln said:
"My chief object in this struggle is to save the Union. It is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. This is how I see my official duty. It does not change my wish -- as a person -- that all men everywhere could be free."
I find it hard to believe anyone with an ounce of sense would compare this to Bush and Cheney's lies and distortions, but then again, you have proven yourself to be dense at best.
Contrast this editorial in the Journal by former Democratic Senator and vietnam vet Bob Kerry with current veteran Senators Hagel and Jim Webb. Why the difference?
Althouse should link and comment to the story as a post. Iraq really is and was a liberal war. Bush always assumed he would lose some conservatives and gain some liberals in supporting it. Except Bush lost both the conservatives and the liberals. Why don't liberals support it?
Seven,
Tell me the truth.
Did you attend high school?
Sloan,
Where did you serve?
Bush will prove to be the most inept and intellectually corrupt President in our nation's history.
Hide and watch.
Seven,
Considering your gung-ho attitude...when and where did you serve?
Sloan - Seven,
Neither of you weasels served...right?
It's easy to talk the talk...
Chickenshits.
I find it hard to believe anyone with an ounce of sense would compare this to Bush and Cheney's lies and distortions, but then again, you have proven yourself to be dense at best.
Get a friggin life. Lincoln was treading lightly in order to keep the border states with the Union. he was a master at misdirection.
Didn't Roosevelt say he would keep us out of war while at the same time illegally aiding the allies and provoking Hitler. For god sakes, 80% of Americans were opposed to intervention. FDR was perhaps the greatest liar of all time. FDR lied, people died.
Sloan,
Where did you serve?
I serve here fighting the gross lies spread by surrender monkeys and traitors like yourself.
intellectually corrupt President in our nation's
I have never heard this description before: "intellectually corrupt?" How can bush be a dumbass and be intellectually corrupt at the same time. Corruption requires a level of intelligence. Intellectual corruption describes a high level of intelligence. And you are the one calling Bush dumb? You lefties never cease to amaze me.
You may hate Bush now, but you will yearn for the good old days of no attacks and prosperity as you wait in the soup line between bus bombs in Obama's America.
Sloan,
The fact that you would even try to compare any of Bush to Lincoln or Roosevelt in any way, shape or form tells me you're a fucking dolt.
And we both know you've never served, too.
Dumb and cowardly...what a combo.
Sloan says..."Corruption requires a level of intelligence."
My, God...you can't be this dumb.
"Corruption" requires intelligence???
Corruption entails a lack of integrity and morality and has nothing to do with how intelligent one might be. There are plenty of really corrupt dummys out there...YOU should know.
Hey, Seven...we're still waiting for your military service record.
The fact that you would even try to compare any of Bush to Lincoln or Roosevelt in any way, shape or form tells me you're a fucking dolt. And we both know you've never served, too.
Is this your way of surrendering to my superior arguments. I use Lincoln and FDR as examples because I assume you hold them in high asteem. If not, please correct me. Thus, to find out that these great leaders may have made public statements that misdirected the public about their true intentions carries great weight and is a useful analogy to point out to idiots like you who argue that Cheney or Bush should be impeached for doing similar things.... Or maybe you don't get it at all... sorry.
No, I didn't serve. But there are thousands who did who repeat the same arguments that I do about the war. So if it makes you feel better, just think of me as a messenger for John McCain or for Oliver North, or Bob Kerry, or thousands of other officers and enlisted personnel in Iraq fighting against tyranny at this moment.
Sloan says: "I use Lincoln and FDR as examples because I assume you hold them in high asteem."
First of all, it's "esteem."
Second: AND YOU DON'T????
Military service is not a prerequisite to having an opinion on foreign policy, or making it, or implementing it, as Bill Clinton has ably demonstrated.
I was a United States diplomat serving at the United Nations and in Central Europe.
I must also say that this trolling is getting tiresome.
There are plenty of really corrupt dummys out there...YOU should know.
yes, but are there any intellectually corrupt dummies?
First of all, it's "esteem."
Thanks for the correction.
Second: AND YOU DON'T????
Wait, are you engaging in misdirection here?
Sloan,
Are you REALLY this stupid???
Being "intellectually" corrupt has absolutley nothing to do with being intellectual, smart, witty, sharp, bright or whatever.
It means you are "lacking" intellect or morality, etc.
*Think about investing in a dictionary.
Seven says: "Military service is not a prerequisite to having an opinion on foreign policy..."
True, but when one espouses an opinion that supports ill-advised or maybe even illegal military actions, even when the generals on the ground say it's wrong, one should also be willing to put their chickenshit lives on the line to support such a stand.
Talk is cheap.
Illegal based on what grounds? Also, generals do not make foreign policy; they implement it with lethal force. Also, voters clearly voiced support for the war in 2004. To the extent that they did not in 2006, or it is believed that they did not, the Congress has many options under the Constitution to change foreign policy.
The trope about going to fight if you support a war is silly. Even if you are right, how far is it really going to get you in terms of getting the policy objectives you seek?
Indeed, talk is cheap. You are doing far too much of it here and if you can't discuss the war rationally and without juvenile invective, I urge you to take your insults elsewhere.
Seven,
Don't you right wings assholes ever get tired of bringing Bill Clinton into these discussions?
It's G.W. Bush who actually INVADED Iraq, not Bush Sr., not Clinton....LIVE WITH IT.
*Or, in the words of the "DICK":
In a 1991 speech, Cheney delivered a rather defensive speech on the subject, noting the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad.
As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?”
Cheney also said:
“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there.
You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
Sloan & Seven,
I suggest both of you chickenhwks send your pithy comments and opinions to the families of the 3,400 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers...who HAVE actually SERVED...opposed to people like yourselves who merely blather on about how we should continue to support Bush.
*By the way...don't you wonder why you represent are only 28% of the American public?
Want a hint?
S-y-c-o-p-h-a-n-t.
What is your point? You are supporting a foreign policy authored by Dick Cheney. Is that your point?
This verbal jousting is absurd. I support the war. You don't. We are still in Iraq. No candidate who supports abandoning Iraq will win the presidency in 2008.
It's one thing to oppose the policy. Many people do. It's another thing to be an unlikeable jerk. Why come here and belittle people just because you are on the losing side of a policy argument? There are other blogs. Go to them. Please.
Ann Althouse said...
I can't possibly have a military plan, but I believe we have the oblgation, even if we were wrong to go in in the first place, to prevent a decline into chaos. I am picturing a genocidal bloodbath.
I grapple with this as well. Here are some of the questions I ask myself.
1. If we have an responsibility to prevent genocide(a derivative, I believe of the Powell doctrine), are there any limits on our obligation?
2. How should each American share in this obligation? Should efforts be made to share the burdens of this duty equally or should some Americans shoulder more of the obligation than others?
While some here want to talk about "shirk[ing] our responsibility in Iraq,' isn't it true that we've already shirked our responsibility to a future generations of Americans to whom we will pass along the bill for this disaster? Why does Bush refuse to ask all Americans to sacrifice for the Iraq war by paying the costs of the war now? IMO, this is a perfect example of responsibility shirking. If this war is vitally important to our security, as Bush claims, why shouldn't he ask Americans to pay for it now?
Moreover, it's unfair to speak about our "responsibility in Iraq" without considering our responsibilities elsewhere. Admitting that we have limited resources is a good place to start. If we put resources into Iraq and ignore growing poverty rates at home, shall we say we are shirking our responsibility to the poor? If we use resources to police Iraq instead of vigorously seeking out and fighting terrorist threats elsewhere in the world, shall we say we are shirking our responsibility to safeguard Americans?
It's laughable to talk about Democrats shirking responsibility when we have a president who specializes in never taking responsibility. Having said that, I'm inclined to let Bush pursue what he believes is the best policy in Iraq but only if he and other supporters of the policy take full responsibility for it. Among other things, that would include asking Americans to start paying now for the costs of the war. And in fairness, it should also include taking responsibility for problems not addressed because resources were directed elsewhere.
"I suggest both of you chickenhwks send your pithy comments and opinions to the families of the 3,400 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers...who HAVE actually SERVED...opposed to people like yourselves who merely blather on about how we should continue to support Bush."
And again some idiot trots out the chickenhawk fallacy and thinks it makes them look clever. Talk about "intellectually corrupt." Why don't you post to this thread about 100 more times? You're really adding so very much to the discussion.
Since I have already put my positions our there and provided my rationale, don't plan to repeat them.
Its far more interesting to see the "meta narrative" unfold here, which, nearly as I can figure runs something like this: (1) Express support for some aspect of US involvement in Iraq/and or mid east (2) reject some aspect of Iraq involvement citing what a bunch of dorks the Saudis and Paks are; (3) cite administration incompetence; (4)deploy traitor argument; (5) deploy chickenhawk riposte; (6) call each other assholes; (7) continue argument on new thread about breasts; (8) run up hit counter
Cyrus: I am not quite sure what you mean by "accept responsibility." It seems to me George Bush ran for president in 2004 and the American people voted on his behalf. At that level of politics arent elections about accepting responsibility?
I don't disagree with your point about failing to increase the cost of the war and making it more of a burden on the American people. Wars should properly be a burden. The Administration has failed in that regard.
Please tell me what you mean by "accepting responsibility." I honestly thought that is what the electoral process does, and barring that, the congress could impeach him. He passed the first hurdle re elections, and congress doesnt seem inclinced to impeach him.
Add to that the fact that impeaching him over the war would make them look like incredible hypocrites (I know, they already appear that way for a number of reasons) insofar as they voted to authorize it.
B said...
I admit that I am even more disappointed than I thought with Richardson. The most qualified Democrat seems to have no plan for Iraq except to out-do the other radical Democrat ideas.
Reading Richardson spout such ignorance really erased in my mind any image I had that he was a seasoned, qualified statesman.
**************
Seven Machos, thank you for your service as a diplomat. You were part of a difficult, highly responsible job conducted mostly by exceptional people, sometimes in high danger...to represent out country. I have sometimes thought that the diplomatic staff, Intelligence people, USAID, Customs, Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and private security company employees protecting Americans abroad have been overlooked when just the military is praised for "serving".
Bumped into a few diplomats in my service years. And spooks, and contractors, and Coast Guard. All doing work that people who have never served their country can't fathom the importance of.
Without getting into flame war about Iraq, Seven Machos does raise a very very significant issue. Rightly or wrongly, the world economy relies on petroleum. Securing a stable source of petroleum is, I would think, an issue that affects all nations. Indeed, its possible to use stable oil to explain, say, china's reluctance to permit operations against the Sudanese government.
To deny that petroleum is a significant component of our mmideast strategy strikes me as disengenous. I would also suggest that the US would stand to benefit economically should mideastern petroleum dry up--When the price per barrel gets high enough, all of our oil shale and sands will become economically feasible and the US could become a significant world supplier of petroleum at, say, 100 dollars a barrel (or whatever the breakeven cost is).
And just as a reminder, we do know that Canada and Mexico are our primary suppliers with the mid east, predominate Kuwait and KSA, kicking in the 20 percent from the mideast?
Why does Bush refuse to ask all Americans to sacrifice for the Iraq war by paying the costs of the war now?
What are you talking about? We are paying for the war now? What we are not paying for now are all of the federal buildings being built, the wasted social programs, funding for trains, and every Congressman's pork project.
Besides, why would Bush ask you to sacrifice for this war. You can't even give this country your patience. In fact your ilk are net-deficits to this war. You take out more than you put in. For every lie you make up or adopt from the terrorists and spread on the internet, the government has to spend money counter-acting the lie - money that would be better spent on extra armor for Humvees.
To deny that petroleum is a significant component of our mmideast strategy strikes me as disengenous.
It is, no doubt. Oil has made us all prosperous and has saved millions of lives. If we did not have oil, the average life span in the U.S. would be 60 rather than the 78 it is today.
Sloan--Its not just the US--China and India are far more in need of petroleum than we are and probably more dependent on it; I suspect we could adapt to a different energy basis for easier than could the chinese or indians. A stable source of petroleum is important to a global economy and security.
This has actually been Richardson's position for quite some time.
And, frankly, staying in Iraq is a more irresponsible position. We just learned over the weekend that the conflict in Iraq is a fundraising bonanza for al qaeda.
So, the Iraq occupation is helping al qaeda recruit, is helping al qaeda raise money and is providing a vast training ground for al qaeda.
You call that responsible? You call "stay the course" responsible? Your judgment is severely lacking.
I haven't been keeping up on my Althouse reading. Did she describe the rush to torture the most on display at the Republican debate last week "irresponsible?"
How about basing foreign policy on a TeeVee series (24)? No doubt that counts as "responsible" in the Althouse world.
Memo to Althouse: The US presence is not fixingf things there. It is radicalizing things and making them worse. Things keep getting worse, the Bush Command keeps doing the same thing over and over again. And Althouse only has criticism for Dems.
All the while Bush cronies loot the war effort and back home they use the DOJ to criinalize being Democrats (which Althouse raises barely a peep).
Very unattractive, Ann.
In violation of one my principles of blog interaction I am going to try to interact with AL. AL: inasmuch as al queda is not required to file donations with the SEC or FEC, and the SWIFT program has come under fire, just how sure are we that AQ is, in fact, raising all that money.
Second; were we to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow (and for the record, I didn't have a problem with first bill that was vetoed), does AQ cease to be a problem for the US? they will go away as soon as we leave Iraq?
Both of those are not meant to be snarky--I really would like your views on those two items.
Bush's occupation of Iraq is making al qaeda richer.
Iraq a "big moneymaker" for al-Qaida, says CIA
"It is very responsible to continue this bloody occupation eve if it enriches al qaeda," says Ann Althouse.
"n one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said al-Qaida's command base in Pakistan increasingly is being funded by cash from Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.
The influx of money has bolstered al-Qaida's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of al-Qaida funds, with the leadership surviving to a large extent on money from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells."
So, the Iraq occupation is helping al qaeda recruit, is helping al qaeda raise money and is providing a vast training ground for al qaeda.
This is no doubt true and it was the original intent of Bin Ladin's 9-11 attack. He wanted to lure us into Afghanistan to fight him there. The war would help him recruit all over the arab world - recruits that would come to Afghanistan just like they did in the 1980s with the Soviets. Bin Ladin himself was attracted to Afghinstan in the 1980s Afghanistan is the worst place in the world for us to wage a war against the terrorists. It is easily defended by guerillas, there is no port to supply our troops, the population is totally impoverished and is therefore unable to help us.
Bin Ladin wanted to defeat us in Afghanstan. That was his plan. Once he defeated us, his star would be at a pinnacle and an Arab state would be his for the taking. Except we went into Iraq instead. All of Bin Ladin's jihadis went to Iraq and not Afghanistan.
Iraq is a country with resources, a population willing and able to fight, where there is a port to supply our army. Where being a guerilla is much more difficult. Put simply, it is much easier to kill the enemy in Iraq than in Afghinstan. Moreover it is possible to leave Iraq, because Iraq has the potential to defend itself.
Yes, the war is creating more terrorist fighters. So do all wars. There were more Germans under arms at the end of world war II than the beginning.
Knowing that going into Afghinstan or Iraq is bound to create more jihadis, where would you rather fight them?
Alpha Liberal: so we know this from the CIA (and I am going to play this card: the same CIA who assured us of WMDs). OK--THAT was snarky.
I don't think you read quite far enough into the article, for if you had, you would have found this snippet in the next to last paragraph: "The cash is mainly U.S. currency in relatively modest sums — tens of thousands of dollars." And the overall article says it is kidnapping and extortion, NOT sympathetic donations that are supplying the money.
Now--that said, it is our "friends" in KSA and Pakistan that provide the really big bucks to AQ--raising Iraq as a fund raising bonaza is silly. One of our big failures in our foreign policy--since 1945--is to defer to the KSA in the role as oil supplier. Wont get any argument on that issue.
I am picturing a genocidal bloodbath.
That's because you still trust the idiots that got us into this war to have any idea what's going on.
They just don't want to withdraw because it would be a tacit admission that it was a mistake to go in, and because things are worse than they were before (by a lot).
It doesn't necessarily follow that we should keep troops there indefinitely. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
I was a United States diplomat serving at the United Nations and in Central Europe.
You took the foreign service exam and were a career member of the diplomatic corps or were you a "purple book" political appointee? I bet it is the latter.
Fred -- I was not a political appointee. The Foreign Service exam is not as hard as conventional wisdom has it.
Seven--I took the exam in 1967--it was a very classic "liberal arts" exam--I still remember one of the questions was "what was the country of origin of the banjo?" I understand the exam was modified in the late 1970s to get away from the classic "ivy league" model that tended to be self replicating.
And as a minor point, it is not the "Diplomatic Corps," it is the Foreign Service and the foreign service officers are ranked from FSO-8 lowest to FSO-1 Ambassador (political or career). Is that still the arrangement?
I don't know what the FS scheme is as a whole. I knew mine. It's true that FS-1 is an ambassador or a very high-ranking official.
I have found that people think "Foreign Service" is weird. But they think "diplomat" sounds really cool.
As for the test, there are two entirely different parts, and the second part is harder and more of crapshoot than the first.
So, what country did the banjo originate in?
It's 7:30 am out here in the west.
My family is getting ready to attend a funeral at 11 am this morning. It's for a young National Guard soldier who was killed in Iraq Sunday before last when the jeep he was driving hit a roadside bomb. He was married for 9 months to my middle daughter's best friend, from the family next door. She is 6 1/2 months pregnant. She was in our home so often during the high school years that we considered her family. He was his parent's only child.
After we got the news last Monday, I took flowers to our neighbor's home. The girl's parent's welcomed me in. She was seated on the couch. I took the flowers over and said "we love you" and then I lost my composure and just wept. I excused myself because I had never cried like that in the open. They kindly understood.
In conversations with many in the community who knew them, it seems that reactions to this boy's death simply harden the views that someone already had toward the war in Iraq: those that support it already want to see a victory, though it doesn't seem that anyone really is certain what all of that is - mostly I guess, just not failing. Those that oppose the war in Iraq are even madder because another American was sacrificed in something that just doesn't seem to make any sense.
I can only promise that for me - today - I will pray for and support his and her families. And tomorrow, I will begin spending time thinking more deeply about what I believe about the war.
B-
Yes, the price is awful. It always has been. I am sorry.
Seven: beats the hell out of me; I know it was africa, but didnt know any of the choices.
sloan wrote:
We are paying for the war now...
No sloan, this is a preposterous claim. No new revenue stream was created to fund the cost of the war. Americans have NOT been asked for a significant sacrifice in order to fight the war in Iraq.
You can't even give this country your patience.
sloan, you didn't read my comments carefully, did you? Here's what I said:
...I'm inclined to let Bush pursue what he believes is the best policy in Iraq...
I've shown quite a bit of patience with Bush's Iraq policy, especially as I considered the invasion a mistake from the beginning.
This is my favorite part of what you wrote:
In fact your ilk are net-deficits to this war. You take out more than you put in. For every lie you make up or adopt from the terrorists and spread on the internet, the government has to spend money counter-acting the lie - money that would be better spent on extra armor for Humvees.
Ah, now I see! My "ilk" and I are responsible for Humvees that aren't properly equipped. Presumably, my "ilk" and I are also responsible for American lives lost because those Humvees didn't have extra armor. Are you suggesting that my "ilk" and I cancel our subscriptions to Terrorist Lie Adoption Weekly?
Seriously sloan, please get a grip. I'm willing to pay NOW for the costs of the war. I have relatives fighting in Iraq NOW, so in addition to wanting to do the best for our troops in general, I have a personal interest in the safety of our soldiers.
You know, sloan, I generally like your contributions to the Althouse comments; the discussion would be poorer if you weren't here. Unfortunately your 8:15 AM comment is extraordinarily weak. I don't know what you ate for breakfast, but at 8:15 AM you were sure full of shit. To assert that somehow I am responsible for poorly equipped Humvees is completely absurd. I suggest that you concentrate on identifying your own responsibilities and those of our elected officials rather than trying to blame your fellow citizens for policy failures.
Lucky said: The fact that you would even try to compare any of Bush to Lincoln or Roosevelt in any way, shape or form tells me you're a fucking dolt.
Lucky, can you tell me whether or not you would have supported Lincoln suspending habeous corpus or FDR through executive order placing in detention over 100,000 Americans based solely on their race?
Because it seems to me if you hold these two individuals in such high esteem, you have little concern over our scared civil liberties.
Troll less read more.
Roger,
I'm not sure I understand your question. In 2004, Bush had not asked Americans to begin to pay for the war, nor had he outlined a plan for how it would be paid. He didn't make an attempt to define clearly the specific objectives in Iraq and what commitment meeting those objectives would require from the public in terms of time, money, resources, etc...
That said, my concerns about this apply to all government officials, not just Bush. As we all know, Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution; IMO, he did his best to avoid responsibility for his vote.
Bush is in a more difficult situation, however. As the situation in Iraq evolves, Bush's responsibility for the decision to invade and occupy Iraq also must evolve. This requires that he communicate honestly and accurately about the outlook in Iraq, and how our commitment there may require additional time, effort and resources. He serves the American people poorly if he constantly repeats "we're making progress" instead of describing in reasonable detail what has been accomplished and what needs to be done.
I'm particularly annoyed at those who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution (a mistake in my judgment) and who now believe that they should help manage the war by calling for troop withdrawals. I can understand that some may have changed their minds about the wisdom of an invasion and occupation, but it seems terribly convenient that this change in thinking corresponds to a change in public opinion about the war. So much for political courage (and this applies to votes at both ends of the Iraq war timeline).
I hope this comment generates some criticism from the left as well as from the right. It's really boring to be attacked by the same group of commenters all the time.
Roger, if I haven't answered your question, please tell me what I've misunderstood and I will try again.
b,
Thank you. That's one of the most thoughtful posts I've seen since I've been commmenting here.
Cyrus
Your point is a good one. Bush's biggest problem has always been his inability to communicate in such a way that can rally anyone behind Iraq, immigration or Medicare for that matter.
I think Bush has finally gotten around to trying a new strategy by allowing Pretreus to do his will but I just don't think its winnable in the sense of trying to defeat an enemy vs trying to keep them from killing each other. Bush seems to think that this change of strategy will work. I don't but my opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
To be honest, the Kurds IMHO, are the only ones worth saving and to ensure that the sacrifice of 3000+ men and women was not in vain. My solution would be to give the Kurds a security guarantee and let the Sunni/Shia chips fall where they may. That may sound horribly harsh but there just doesn't seem to be any alternative at this point short of partition and forcible relocation (Cyprus anyone?)
Its not a matter that we can't defeat an enemy but we can't keep them from killing each other and four years later, I say lets just let them get on with it. Given the opportunity for freedom they rather settle old scores so evidently the deep human desire for freedom we hear so much about doesn't seem to have evolved in that country.
Cyrus--thanks and I see your point-I was probably interchanging responsibility and accountability in my mind.
On the larger question, we (the US) have avoided inflicting the real costs of war on our populations at least starting from LBJ's guns and butter thing. That failure, imo, makes the war a TV spectacle for the public rather than a shared burden; were we to return to formal declarations of war, perhaps the next legislation immediately following the declaration should be to raise tax rates. The failure to share the burden is compounded when the President can't string together coherent sentences very well. Might get by with it with a good communicator, but not with the incumbent.
On an otherwise dismal post, here is a little ray of heroic energy as we approach Memorial Day:
Cheers on Corridor Three
I worked on Corridor Three (DAMO-FDF) during the first Gulf War. I'm pleased to see that my successors are still going strong.
A number of points.
- Ann mentioned her worry about Iraq slipping into chaos. I am not sure if I quite agree. Rather, I would suggest that the first major worry about pulling out too quickly is ethnic cleansing, the Shi'a either pushing out or killing the remaining Sunni Arabs living in or near mixed areas.
Note that this has already progressed to a significant degree. Before we intervened, the Sunni Arabs were approx. 20% of the population. Now, maybe 10%, and expected to be at maybe 5% by the end of the year - with us there.
And this, btw, is why al Qaeda cannot win. They are Sunni, primarily Arab. What their brutality has done, and is continuing to do, is to accelerate the expulusion of their Iraqi brethern.
The second worry though is that if we leave too quickly, there is a distinct possibility that the Sunni Arabs in the vicinity (notably the Saudis) would try to intervene to protect the Sunni Arabs being pushed out. But that would almost assuredly be countered by Iran to protect the Shi'a majority.
- The claim that al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our intervention is suspect. It depends on your definition of "al Qaeda". Nevertheless, the current and previous al Qaeda leaders in Iraq appear to have been there before our intervention - though possibly not operating under that umbrella.
But that really misses the point, that al Qaeda IS in Iraq right now, and is the one of the major forces for destabilization there. They and their affiliated groups claim credit for much of the Sunni terrorism.
Iraq IS the center of the war against Islamic fundamentalism, etc. Admittedly, it wasn't under Saddam Hussein - that honor probably went to Afganistan. But now? OBL has repeatedly stated that the center or key is Iraq. And all you have to do is look at a map and note its geopolitical centrality to know that he is right. The money and terrorists have been flocking to Iraq since shortly after our intervention.
Cyrus,
Thanks for your 10:48 comment - I appreciate you thoughts on that, although I don't completely agree.
I think Bush's biggest problem with Iraq goes back to his (and Rumsfeld's) initial assessment of the military, esp. the Army. Transformation was at the top of their list, and for good reason. The Army, especially, was too big to move quickly - its "performance" in Kosovo in particular demonstrated this. One of the things too few people realize is the Army (and all the services) are just as much bureaucracies as are HHS, HUD, etc., and they behave similarly. Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to change that.
But then 9/11 comes along, complicating their transformation mission. They now needed to fight a war - and all the initial success in Afghanistan suggested the principles of transformation - lighter units more rapidly deployed making greater use of distributed information for maximizing firepower and multiplying force would work.
So, instead of restoring the previous Bush/Clinton budget cuts and force reductions necessary for larger wars, they thought they could fight the existing WOT while transforming the military, esp. the Army. The initial strategy, which succeeded brilliantly (and more folks should recognize this - Frank's plan was better than Schwarzkopf’s thirteen years earlier), was dependent upon the aftermath being manageable. But, when too many assumptions proved wrong, the Army wasn't big enough to come in larger numbers to stamp it out.
So here we are.
Win, or lose?
There really are no other choices.
Hoosier,
I think history has proven that FDR's decision regarding detention camps went too far and has been roundly criticized by most...so I don't understand your point.
As for Bush and Lincoln, again, you try to compare Bush's self-made quagmire to Lincoln's American dilemma. Countries have every right to fight amongst themselves to create a new union, that's what civil wars are all about.
In the case of Iraq, we're right in the middle, trying to referee a civil war that has absolutely nothing to do with us.
And...as for how we ever extricate ourselves from that mess, with some degree of honor attached, I have absolutely no idea. I do think that if we leave today, tomorrow or in three to five years...there's going to be plenty of bloodletting, but, as I said before...it is their country and their civil war...not ours.
*Would you have agreed to England or France refereeing OUR civil war??
cyrus,
By now I would have thought you would understand exactly what your "ilk" really represents.
ANYBODY who doesn't support George W. Bush and his administration's policies, here and abroad.
sloan says: "Bin Ladin wanted to defeat us in Afghanstan."
What the hell are you smoking, Dude?
How bad is the Pentagon’s bureaucracy?
“The Marine Corps waited over a year before acting on a ‘priority 1 urgent’ request to send blast-resistant vehicles to Iraq, DANGER ROOM has learned.
According to a Marine Corps document provided to DANGER ROOM, the request for over 1,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles came in February, 2005.
A formal call to fulfill that order did not emerge until November, 2006. ‘There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area against known threats,’ the 2005 ‘universal need statement’ notes.”
Wait, I thought you believed that 9-11 was a set up by the Bush Administration... was that a slip?
You should apologize for that defamation of character.
I supported the Iraq invasion. But I was lied to by the Bush administraiton. They told us that there WMD's when there was not.
Whether it was a lie, or just pure incompetence, once we figured out there were no WMD's, or at least when we captured Saddam, we should have just left.
And frankly, I couldn't give a shit if there is genocide there now.
Please explain to me why Muslims killing Muslims is something we should care about, let alone sacrifice American lives for????
Hoosier,
I think history has proven that FDR's decision regarding detention camps went too far and has been roundly criticized by most...so I don't understand your point.
I'm asking YOUR opinion. If you don't understand that point then I can't help you.
As for Bush and Lincoln, again, you try to compare Bush's self-made quagmire to Lincoln's American dilemma.
Again, asking your opinion. You appear to hold these two presidents in high esteem yet they through executive orders, pretty much shredded the constitution. You are avoiding the question. I am asking YOU what you think of those actions.
In the case of Iraq, we're right in the middle, trying to referee a civil war that has absolutely nothing to do with us.
Won't argue with you there. I didn't think we should have been there to begin with.
Would you have agreed to England or France refereeing OUR civil war??
If they were going to fight with the North, why not? The South certainly would have welcomed redcoats at Gettysburg. We certainly didn't tell the French to butt out in the revolution.
Hoosier says, in regard to England or France taking part or refereeing OUR own civil war...(and I find this hard to believe):
"If they were going to fight with the North, why not? The South certainly would have welcomed redcoats at Gettysburg. We certainly didn't tell the French to butt out in the revolution."
Now you're comparing the revolution to America's civil war?? And saying the North & South would have welcomed outside influence from other countries???
Where the hell did you go to school??
The South believed that direct or indirect assistance from European powers would mitigate its obvious lack of industry in the event of a war. Everyone knows this.
You have really looked pretty sophomoric throughout this thread, Lucky, and you have been wrong often. There are far better lefties here, and you should graciously allow them to make the case for your side.
seven,
First of all, you can shove your self-serving "sophomoric" comment up your tight ass.
With that said, please tell me; are you actually saying you think the north or south was interested in having another country "refereeing" the eventual outcome of our own civil war...as we're doing right now in Iraq??
And if so...what exactly would they have expected in return?
And please, dropping in the term "lefties" only exposes you as what you really are; just another right wing asshole who feels that anyone who disagrees with what you feel is already so or what you want to be so...is nothing more than a liberal, with little or no say in the governance or reputation of America.
Well, the last elections certainly put that bullshit opinion to rest...and the next big one in 2008 will help shut you and your kind up for at least 4 more years.
Post a Comment