Some reflections on letters in Saturday’s paper.
First, there was the one headlined, Grand Old Party is losing its way. My thoughts on it:
A person whose identity as a Republican reaches back to 1932 is bound to feel a bit lost, for a number of reasons. It is now the majority — or perhaps I should say, the plurality, party. (There are enough of us independents to keep either from being a majority, but I suppose you could say the Republicans are the majority among partisans, certainly here in South Carolina.) That means it has had to expand its membership beyond what it once encompassed. The letter mentions Glenn McConnell (unfavorably) and Mark Sanford (favorably). The two men are very different from each other, but united in two facts: They are both very libertarian, and it’s hard to imagine either of them fitting in with, say, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon. Actually, it’s a bit hard to imagine Ike and Nixon being in the same administration. Anyway, my point is that people looking for consistency and reassurance in a party large enough to win elections are almost certain to be disappointed.
Here-and-now issues should determine vote:
This letter is related to the first, in that it illustrates the way that many Democrats are determined to keep their party the minority among partisans by rejecting certain lines of thought. Take for instance the writer’s dismissal the idea that ideals, or faith, might outweigh material considerations. Or at least, that they should not do so among practical, right-thinking individuals. But that’s not the really telling bit. What really points to the main fallacy among many (but not all) Democrats is the suggestion that right-thinking (i.e., socially concerned or liberal people) cannot choose the "moral path" of their fathers. Why on earth would concern about the direction of the country or current events be inconsistent with faith or a "belief system." Why can’t a person who is concerned about the future still embrace the faith of his fathers? This writer seems to assume that traditional morality is utterly inconsistent with moving forward. Why so closed-minded? As long as supposed liberals think this way, they are doomed to failure.
Townsend did what he thought was right:
This writer says "Ronny Townsend worked tirelessly for the people he represented, for conservative values and for bettering public education." Exactly. A person who embraces conservative values would certainly be committed to serving and improving public education. It is a fundamental institution of our society, and one that is essential to building the kind of future that those who went before us envisioned. Anyone who would dismantle it, rather than protecting, strengthening and improving it, is a radical, leaning toward anarchy — anything but conservative.
Liberators not always what they seem:
Why would this writer believe that the idea that "there has always been a thin line between ‘invader/occupier’ and ‘liberator’ … was not considered three years ago?" It was and is to be expected that there is a delicate balance to be struck between such concepts. I certainly considered it, worried about it — still do. This is a short missive. Is the writer suggesting that those of us who favored the invasion must not have seen the inherent risks? Is he suggesting further that if anyone had seen the risks, the endeavor would not/should not have been undertaken? If so, I couldn’t disagree more. Those are merely reasons to proceed wisely — which certainly hasn’t always been done in this enterprise. I believe concern over that fact underlies this letter. But if leads the writer to conclude that it should not have been undertaken to begin with, or should be abandoned now, I have to disagree.
Feting Bernanke may be premature:
Why? So we don’t know whether he is a Greenspan or not? Why wouldn’t homefolks celebrate the fact that one of their own is the Fed Chairman. Seems sort of like a big deal in and of itself to me.
Accepting differences leads to better world:
One would be puzzled why someone would be compelled to write that "I am of the belief that God doesn’t hate." I mean, who isn’t? One would be further puzzled to read, "One day, I hope to find a community of faith that believes in love,
tolerance and acceptance. Maybe that is too much to hope for…" All true communities of faith believe in those things. They welcome sinners, and invite them to be penitent. The problem is that some do not wish to be penitent, and choose to characterize any suggestion that they should be as "hate." This is an obvious fallacy for anyone seeking a community of faith. It’s astounding how many people fail — or refuse — to see that.
Finally, Tests give teachers too little to go on:
OK, if you’re going to insist on standards being taught, why would you let teachers know what questions will be on the test that will measure whether they are teaching the standards. If you let them know the test, they would be able to — as many claim they already do — "teach to the test." It’s not about you improving test scores. It’s about teaching the standards. If test scores do improve, we’ll know how successfully you’re doing that. The letter presents one real reason for concern, when it suggests that students have seen "subject matter on tests that was not included in the standards." If so, something should be done about it. Of course, if the standard were not taught properly, the student would find the measuring test unfamiliar. So it’s difficult to tell from this missive where the fault lies.
Related Posts
Brad, Glenn McConnell a libertarian?????? Do you even read your own paper? With all the government funding he’s weaseled out of the South Carolina taxpayer for the Hunley museum that claim is simply unsupportable based on facts. A true libertarian would fight to PREVENT government funding for a project of that type.
Bud, I don’t think it matters if one is a Libertarian, Communist, Anarchist, or moderate. Greed and the ego can sometimes blind people to their values.
Yes. He is very much for limiting governmental power. He has shown very little interest in limiting his own.
It’s a mistake to assume that people who are obsessed with and seem to long for the Confederacy are racist. Some are. But most are simply indifferent to what the Confederacy intended for black people. What concerns folks who stick up for the Lost Cause, is their own ancestors’ concept of liberty. They focus on what their white forebears (particularly the ones without slaves) told themselves: That they were fighting for their own “rights.” They didn’t want folks elsewhere — and especially not an overly powerful federal government — telling them what they could and couldn’t do. South Carolina had joined the United States of its free and sovereign will, and it would pull out if it felt like it, and no number of Yankee soldiers would tell it otherwise.
The Confederacy was a very libertarian, very anti-big-government entity. And it lost to a suddenly much-bigger, much-stronger federal government, which still sticks in the craw of many of its descendants.
It doesn’t stick in mine, even though I probably have as many ancestors who fought for the Confederacy as Mr. McConnell, and more than most of his fellow nostalgists.
But I’m not a libertarian, and they are.
The problem with the overall accountability and evaluation system for our schools goes beyond how the PACT scores are broken down.
Contrary to the theory that the “Invisible Hand” will push our schools into a level of universal success, the system is too complicated to evaluated with a single indicator. There is no one measureable bottom line, not PACT, not a balance on a financial sheet, not SAT, and not a customer satisfaction rating.
The debate on this blog reflects the general debate; discourse on using private schools as the panacea for all the problems of public schools. Paralleling this is a venomous disregard for the ENTIRE schools system, which is a gross mischaracterization.
If those that disparage our shools truely want change, the criticism has to be more specific and less stereotypical. The private school plan needs to be fleshed out with details.
On the other side, there are blind supporters of the status quo who offer half measures or divert their attention to the private school debate. There are schools that are failing terribly. There are students that are cheated out of opportunities a quality education affords them.
If we truely care about improving our schools, we need a meaningful exchange of ideas.
The Hunley is selective scandalizing of persons hated by editors of The State, and provides a smokescreen for many other scandals by their favorite sons.
How about some investigative reporting on
* the way the Richland County Library was built on deception about its true projected costs
* the other watery boondoggle in Charleston, its aquarium
* the real spending, plans and waste on Riverwalk
* all the taxpayer subsidies to real estate cronies of Bob Coble
* where all the money went that is missing from the special taxes on downtown Columbia
…the list of is almost endless
If you want to actally fix “schools that are failing terribly”, then the media, politicians, administrators, and teachers need to have the integrity to identify those schools, identify all the modes of failure, lay blame, and make personnel changes…BEFORE putting one more penny into any of them.
Don’t forget uninformed critics there LEE! Especially ones that dismiss single black parents as parents who “don’t care about their kids” as you stated.
How about the children abandoned not just by the often unknown fathers, but by both biological parents? Rational observers would conclude they don’t care very much.
Caring and remorse by a single teen mother are no substitute for food, clothing and heat. Being there and drunk or passed out on dope doesn’t show much caring, either.
What is your solution to this major cause of poor educational outcomes, Huh?
How about we start with attaching stigma to such misbehavior?
“Rational observers” don’t draw nor offer conclusions like “single black parents don’t care about their kids.” “Rational observers” understand that you can’t draw a subjective, value based conclusion based on such data.
Atleast you admit to being a racist. That’s the first step to recovery.
Why don’t you ask a rational observer what they think about the sorry treatment of children, which you want to defend?
People of this blog, Lee wants to know if his statement “single black parents don’t care about their kids” is a statement in defense of kids.
Single parents of any color care about their children…
* except for the unknown other single parent
* except for the other single parent who skipped out on child support
* except for the single parent who is in jail
* except for the single parent who is drunk or high on drugs instead of working a job
* except when both single parents abandon their children
Liberalism needs to stop promoting this mistreatment of children by making excuses for the perpetrators.
Just writing to say thanks for your post, Brad. I for one appreciate your extra effort in giving us a bit of analysis in what people are thinking.
Herb, I don’t know if you’re being ironic or not, but if you are, your point is well taken.
Warthen’s writing of this column demonstrates once again his failure as a human being, showing that he is a coward who won’t let views that differ from his own stand by themselves. He has a forum in which he can hold forth endlessly (and inanely) on any subject he chooses, yet he can’t allow us to simply read other viewpoints; he has to attempt to smother them in his own (worthless) analysis.
In addition to demonstrating once again his failure as a human being, Warthen demonstrates his failure as a writer in his “analysis” of Dennis Smith’s letter. Smith’s letter, which is, in total:
********************************************
There has always been a thin line between “invader/occupier” and “liberator.” Why this was not considered three years ago is beyond me.
********************************************
is a masterpiece of brevity, shining a laser on the constant (false) claims of more than three years ago that “we will be greeted as liberators”. It is an efficient and deeply resonant piece of writing, depending on the reader’s ability to draw a contrast between what was said 3.5 years ago and what is happening now.
Warthen’s “analysis,” fails to address the central point of Mr. Smith’s letter, which is that we were not in fact greeted as liberators, and instead avoids the issue with a long, obfuscatory ramble. Warthen counts on the reader not to remember what was said 3.5 years ago, and not to pay attention to what is going on today.
Warthen uses vague terms like “risks”, “endeavor” and “enterprise,” even though there are much more specific terms available to describe what is going on in Iraq. Warthen attempts to avoid his own responsibility for the debacle by using “proceed wisely” as a code word for “succeed.” He blames the failure of the “enterprise” (and disclaims his own complicity in the failure) by blaming it on the failure to “proceed wisely”; that is, by blaming it on the failure to succeed.
Warthen’s analysis is, “I wanted the Iraq was, but I wanted only good things to arise from it, so I have no moral responsibility for the disastrous results that inevitably arose from the course of action I advocated.”
Well, I wanted the “enterprise” to succeed, Dennis Smith wanted it to succeed, every American wanted it to succeed. I wanted every Iraqi to live in peace and freedom and to have a pony.
But there’s a desperate shortage of ponies in Iraq, and this pony shortage was foreseen from the beginning by Dennis Smith, by me, and by many others.
The failure to provide ponies for the people of Iraq isn’t the fault of those of us who knew there were no ponies to be had.
Soldiers in Iraq constantly relate stories about how the Iraqis welcome them as liberators.
Air America and the liberal networks don’t report good news like that, but it’s there in the news. A lot of leftists don’t know or want to know any soldiers, so they remain out of the loop for first hand good news.
I’ll forgo Mary Rosh’s evaluation of Brad’s character.
I will agree that Brad is writhing like one of our government’s waterboarding victims in his effort to evade responsibility for the disasterous Iraqi quagmire.
Is he suggesting further that if anyone had seen the risks, the endeavor would not/should not have been undertaken?
I have no idea if Smith was implying this but knowledgeable people ranging from Brent Scowcroft to most of our major allies specifically warned of such.
Of course, no one could have foreseen the absolute incompetence and murderous arrogance that Donald Rumsfeld brought to the invasion.
Nearly four years into the bloodbath and Brad refuses to recognize that Iraq has been a recruiting and propaganda bonanza for radical Muslims. Osama bin Ladin must thank Allah daily for George W. Bush.
Let me draw a parallel. It would be as if Brad espoused a single, nearly unattainable goal in state government which was generally the only redeeming goal of an absolutely inpotent governor. Yet, after four years of repeated failure at governance, Brad chose to endorse that same incapable governor.
Of course, with this governor we “only” risk the destruction of our public education system. And, there are counter-balancing forces.
With the Iraq debacle Brad is so deep in denial that he’s willing to write an unlimited check using the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American service people.
It must have been with Brad’s braindead hubris in mind that Santayana said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Didn’t Brad promise to be a uniter not a divider back in 2000?
No one, including Brad, ever claimed that the birth of a democracy in Iraq would be without pain. Even our own history and experience in the US is proof of that. Not all Americans wanted “freedom” from England and there was domestic violence. But the liberal products of our public school history non-classes believe that Washington et. al. waged battle with bb guns and spitballs with the Brits, and after a couple of Disney choreographed battles, where none died, the revolutionaries and Brits had a nifty afternoon tea and the democracy was born. That took from 1776 to 1789 when we had our first president, also a W. You can bet the liberal surrender monkeys were alive and well in 1776 just like they are now. Unable to fight or defend themselves, they acceed to whomever is in power, wimpishly tsk tsking anything unpleasant like the use of “real” guns by “real” men and women. Well, liberal weaklings, you do have Murtha, Kerry, Feingold, and other spokespersons who have never been right about anything yet. So keep on ignoring actual progress and success in Iraq as you are on the wrong side of history once again.
Brad, you opine over the writer who suggested “Liberators are not always what they seem”. You touched on all the reasons we should leave Iraq then inexplicably reach the conclusion that we should stay. You really do not make any coherent argument for staying the course (with the current troop strength), nor can one be made. It is simply not possible to craft an argument that makes any sense for us to stay in Iraq with the current troop level. If you believe we need to stay, then argue for an INCREASE in troops AND a tax increase to pay for it. Otherwise any “stay the course” arguments ring hollow.
I don’t buy all the scare tactics used to promote the war. Iraq was never a real threat to us, nor will it be one once we leave. I simply think the administration is using the war for the purpose of profiteering. It’s that simple.
Dave,
you lose credibility when you make FANATICAL statements like “But the liberal products of our public school history non-classes”
Dave, what classes did the freakin conservatives take in school since they apparently didn’t take these “history non-classes?”
That’s another ignorant overly simplistic characterization of education.
By the way, another asinine comment is that Murtha was never right about anything. He’s pro-life which is consistent with your position. That’s just one example.
Again, these broad simplistic characterizations are meaningless.
“So keep on ignoring actual progress and success in Iraq”
“Do you believe in fairies? Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!”
–J.M. Barrie
Randy, you’re obviously not familiar with Rove’s Rule:
Service people and vets are ALL HEROES unless they oppose administration policy. Then, no matter how many years of distinguished service (Generals Shinseki, Riggs, Swannack, Newbold, Eaton and Zinni), no matter how many medals for bravery or heroism (Kerry, Cleland), no matter how well-founded their criticisms (Murtha), they automatically become ignorant, deluded, idiots– probably traitors– unworthy of continuing to breath American air.
Corollary to Rove’s Rule: if you’re incompetent (Bremer, Tenet) or corrupt (missing millions in Iraq and hijacked arms shipment) but LOYAL to the Bush line then you’re rewarded with medals and promotions.
Say, Dave, can you spot the single inconsistency in your parallel between the American Revolution and the American Invasion of Iraq?
It’s pretty obvious but since you obviously let the wingnuts do your thinking for you I’ll give you a free clue: who was fighting the American Revolution.
That’s right, Dave! American colonists were fighting for the freedom of American colonists.
Now, if the French had invaded the colonies and set up a government for the colonists then you might be able to comprehend why Iraqi insurgents outnumber foreign fighters 5 to 1.
That’s just one of the inconsistencies that turn your argument into a pile of steaming, irrelevant manure.
Randy, I will agree with you on my broadbrush statement that condemns all public education. That was unnecessary. But I will say that when you listen to some man in the street interviews, you find that many high school grads cannot name our first president, don’t know what the Declaration of Independence was or who wrote it, let alone the Articles of Confederation. As for Murtha, I should have clarified he has never been right about this Iraq war and he was against the first Gulf war too. Thanks for the blog admonishments though, they were in order.
Mary, Not only do I believe in fairies, I even know some fairies, but I never go out with them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RTH – I am not surprised that you are one of the liberals who didnt pay attention to your teachers in junior high and high school. Go buy a Cliff’s Notes guide on the American revolution and learn about Marquis de Lafayette, Gen. Casimir Pulaski, and Canadians and other Europeans who fought for the birth of our nation.
In 1777, Lafayette purchased a ship, and with a crew of adventurers set sail for America to fight in the revolution against the British. Lafayette joined the ranks as a major general and was assigned to the staff of George Washington. He served with distinction, leading America forces to several victories. On a return visit to France in 1779 Lafayette persuaded the French government to send aid to the Americans. After the British surrender at Yorktown, Lafayette returned home to Paris. He had become a hero to the new nation. At home he cooperated closely with Ambassadors Benjamin Franklin, and then Thomas Jefferson in behalf of American interests.
Dave, a big freakin tip of my hat to you. Thanks for the post.
Unfortunately, there are alot worse examples of the ills of our education system. I believe that such criticisms, without that broad brush, are what we need to discuss.
I propose that we don’t need an entire overhaul of the system, but to overhaul parts of the system. For example, the accountability of our students . The politicians that oversee education and the administration need the cajones to enforce the standards. If a student can’t read at a high school level, don’t get a high school diploma.
BTW, why do students take the exit exam their sophomore year, before they’ve even taken half their high school courses!?
One Frenchman helping out the colonists means nothing except that he wanted to fuck over the British.
What a pathetic, insane, and utterly pointless attempt to justify it. The American militia – trained and equipped by Britain, of course – did the fighting. France basically funded the entire affair from behind closed doors, while the Netherlands and Spain messed around with the British navy on that side of the Atlantic.
The Revolution, which was undemocratic at best (it did not take into account what roughly two-thirds of people want), was fought by colonists and Europeans intervened only to mess Britain around. France had plans to annex America because they saw the democracy as an expedition doomed to fail.
According to the DAR records of everyone who can prove to have fought or given aid to the American Revolution, only 10 percent of the population at that time was actively participating.
As always, the moderates sat around and watched history happened.
France had plans to annex America because they saw the democracy as an expedition doomed to fail.
Posted by: Aaron | Jun 19, 2006 4:50:29 PM
And just a few years later, TJ annexed their holdings in the US. While not firing a shot (at least in the acquiring).
What a crazy moderate he was…
Ah, back when we had the best of the best running the country… We are surely through the looking glass now.
Strange days have found us…
Ok, let me get this straight. We should continue to fight in Iraq because Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler; American patriots fought a noble cause for independence, with the help of the French (I guess that was before they lost their spine); to create a western style democracy in Iraq; to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians; to find and eliminate the threat from weapons of mass destruction; to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks against American soil. Wow, this must be the most noble cause in the history of mankind.
OK folks on the right. I’m going to take a different approach at blog diplomacy. On June, 18th I was 100% opposed to ANY continued occupation of Iraq, for the various reasons I’ve expressed repeatidly. Today, June 19th I’m officially neutral on the issue. Without any critical comment from me, I want everyone to spell out the reasons we, the United States of America, should continue as we’ve done for the past 3 years. I’m not interested in reasons for putting additional troops into Iraq, raising taxes and bringing back the draft. I fully understand that position. If this really is a serious war against a legitimate threat that’s exactly what we should do. No, what I want to know is why we should continue with the exact same policy we’ve been on for the last 3 years. This is not some kind of trap, or trick question, I just want this question articulated in a meaningful way. I really want to know where everyone believes this effort will land us in 10 years.
signed
Neutral Bud
Weak, Dave, really weak but what can you do when you’re arguing the losing side, eh?
You forgot to mention the French fleet at Yorktown but maybe you didn’t finish the Wingnut’s Guide to the American Revolution.
How many colonies did the French take over, Dave? How long were French land forces on American soil? Did the French impose their own model of government on the colonists? Did the French take over former British prisons and torture American prisoners?
I’ll grant you that the colonists received help from a number of sources. The crucial difference is that the rebellious colonists begged the French for help, not to be invaded. (Please don’t make yourself any more ridiculous by comparing Chalabi, con artist and neo-con darling, to Ben Franklin.)
IOW, Dave, AMERICANS were pretty much in charge of the AMERICAN Revolution. I wonder what Franklin’s reply to the French would have been if they proposed to help by invading and staying an indeterminate length of time until they decided to leave.
FNC may not have noted that both the Iraqi President and Vice-President asked Bush during his Green Zone photo-op to set a schedule for American pull out. I imagine that Mr. Decider told them to mind their own business.
Key rule, Dave: when you find yourself in a hole– stop digging.
Bud, there are several valid reasons to finish the noble quest undertaken in Iraq. First and foremost, the world’s superpower cannot, must not, will not LOSE any conflict because we don’t have the guts to stick it out and prevail, no matter the costs. Brad has pointed out numerous times that Mogadishu was a signal to Bin Laden that America did not have the stomach to take losses for any cause. Second, Iraq has served an excellent purpose to be the magnet or the light for the Al Qaeda moths. We are slaughtering these useless, hateful, barbaric, tenth century morons by the hundreds and thousands. Every one killed is one less Mohammed Atta to come here. Third, the decent people of Iraq (the vast majority of the nation) deserve the chance to live in a free nation where they can vote and set their own directions. That is called giving hope, and we are giving not a guarantee of hope, but at least a golden opportunity. What nation would ever be so generous to spend $9billion a month to help a fledgling democracy? Fourth, Those who oppose our way of life, our Judeo-Christian religions, and seek to destroy us, as they did on 9-11, deserve nothing short of death. As I love to quote Gen. Patton, May God have mercy on my enemies, because I sure as hell won’t. Let Iraq be a lesson to the Iranians, the N.Koreans, and even the little goof in Venezuela, Chavez. Their day will come. Fifth, who said Peace through Strength? They were correct. The more technologically advanced, powerful, and effective our military is the more peace we will know in the world. I could name many other corollary reasons, such as protecting the Israelis, but I will stop for now.
The next 3 years will not be the same as the last three. We will incrementally turn over all security to Iraqis and exist there with a few permanent military bases. This will be a huge victory for the free world and history will prove that. Remember we still have bases in Japan and Germany, see a pattern there? This sounds cynical but the war has been great for the American economy also. The billions being spent there are not going for French bullet trains, but American bullets. The costs are somewhat artificial anyway when you consider that we still pay salaries to Marines and other soldiers when they are sitting at Bragg or Pendleton. We still feed them, clothe them, and house them. Yes, there are extra costs, but the costs have been horribly exaggerated overall. That is for a whole different discussion on economics.
Final point, in ten years, as the world’s superpower, we may be fighting Muslims in Africa, or commies in S. America. The envious enemies we have in the world will not be content to sit back and observe as Americans enjoy Super Bowls and American Idol. We can never drop our guard, ever, forever. With conservatives leading this nation, we will prevail. With pacifists and appeasers leading this nation, the American dream will be gone within 10 years.
I agree and disagree with Dave.
Disagree: while we are killing alot of the terrorists, I think alot of new ones are being spawned. This situation reminds me of the second terminator that gets blown to bits but these bits regenerate.
I also think that we were promised in 2000 not be in the business of nation building. If we are, I think there are many other nations with terrible situations in which the citizens deserve freedom.
Agree: If we simply bolt, I think we risk another pre-911 Afghanistan training ground for bad guys.
We can not let our gaurd down. It’s a matter of time before we get a JC Penny’s or an Applebee’s blown to hell by a suicide bomber.
I do think there is a different way other than the hardline conservative or pacifist approach. Teddy R’s big stick diplomacy is maybe a kind of model. Again, the terrorists keep coming. They’ve been blowing themselves up for a long time and they aren’t even close to extinction. I think there’s no way we win a “war” against them simply by trying to kill them off.
“First and foremost, the world’s superpower cannot, must not, will not LOSE any conflict because we don’t have the guts to stick it out and prevail, no matter the costs.”
You mean that once the U.S. starts a conflict, even if starting the conflict was a mistake and damaging to America, even if continuing the conflict is a mistake and damaging to America, we have to continue, because we have to show that we will stick with anything we’ve started, no matter what it costs, even if the cost is the total annihilation of America and the death of every American citizen.
I’m not surprised that you don’t care about the costs because you don’t pay them. You aren’t in Iraq risking your life like the 2500 U.S. soldiers that have died, and you don’t make any net financial contribution to the war or any other American enterprise. It’s easy for you to talk about “sticking it out and prevailing, no matter what the costs,” when the only “cost” you have ever borne has been to collect handouts.
“Second, Iraq has served an excellent purpose to be the magnet or the light for the Al Qaeda moths.”
No it hasn’t. Most of the insurgency is homegrown and has nothing to do with al Qaeda.
“Let Iraq be a lesson to the Iranians, the N.Koreans”
They’ve learned the lesson pretty well, all right, namely, that America is so bogged down in Iraq that Iran, North Korea, and others can do anything they please and we can’t do anything to stop them.
Iraq started the conflict when they provided training camps and WMD assistance to Al Qaeada.
Democrats in the Senate so voted unanimously in 1998, and almost unanimously again in 2002.
In nearly all past conflicts throughout the world, both sides actually had a desire to live which is human nature. Muslim fanatics have glorified the concept of death to the point that they claim to welcome it. The closest thing to that was the Japanese Kamikaze. Like the Kamikaze, the Muslim terrorists drug themselves heavily before suicidal missions. The only defense against that is to kill them first, no matter where they are.
Jefferson only took advantage of a collapsing French governmental system and its horrendous tax policies (they were taxing the poor too heavily and letting the rich get away with it) to give it some money. Not exactly stunning politics.
However, I still don’t see the Revolution/Iraq comparison. Unless Bush gets on the ground and gets on with losing an arse-ton of battles and is trained by the British, he can’t do bugger all.
The Revolution has some vague reasons for happening; I’ve not even seen that for Iraq beyond deposing a dictator. And that has been done already.
Iraq started the conflict when they provided training camps and WMD assistance to Al Qaeada.
Any references to support these statements, Lee? This is just more neo-con propaganda.
al-Zarqawi’s base was in northern Iraq beyond Saddam’s reach or control. Do you really think that a paranoid dictator like Saddam would willingly allow another armed power base within territory under his control? Same question for the alleged “WMD assistance.”
Here’s an interesting article especially for the Murtha “We Can’t Win This Thing” blogger crowd. You know who you are. I guess these terrorists heard Murtha talk about redeploying so they are listening to him..
Visit Insurgents Fleeing Iraq!
The only defense against that is to kill them first, no matter where they are.
Your tactic is stupid and impossible without replicating Saddams throughout the Muslim world or simply incinerating Muslim countries totally.
What we’re fighting is a war of ideas but you’re so clueless that killing literally millions of Muslims seems reasonable.
Jefferson only took advantage of a collapsing French governmental system and its horrendous tax policies (they were taxing the poor too heavily and letting the rich get away with it) to give it some money. Not exactly stunning politics.
Posted by: Aaron | Jun 20, 2006 8:16:54 AM
I think you might want to reinvestigate how TJ and John Addams, the Batman and Robin of American politics pulled this off. It IS stunning politics.
Jefferson convinced the diminished despot, the so-called world beater, that he was mentally unbalanced, and the tiny totalitarian buckled. We almost doubled out territory due to a well-planned ruse.
That’s why I prefer the Odyssean-type leader to the Achillean-type.
Bush runs into battle, killing thousands. Substitute a leader of more nuance, and Iraq would already be the 51st state.
RTH – Are you stuck on stupid now? It isn’t up to only the US to exterminate terrorists, it falls on the Iraqis, and other members of the free civilized world. This is a world wide WOT and it includes nearly every country in the world. Think big for a change.
Capital A – ditto what I just posted for RTH to you. Iraq 51st state??????
Dave, it’s actually a world wide war on the stupid. The right wing agenda is nothing but a scam. A few rich profiteers fooling a large portion of the American electorate in order to steal the nation’s wealth. There really isn’t a big threat from the terrorists. You and all the other right-wing idiots have simply been fooled.
Bud, you are comical I will say that. No threat from terrorists even though a plot to use poison gas on the NY subway was just discovered recently. The Canadians just arrested a terrorist cell planning to blow their Peace Tower and their parliament. N.Korea is led by a terrorist and he is nuts enough to launch a nuclear warhead on the USA. Rest assured that “us right-wing idiots” are in charge so you can sleep soundly, for the most part, at night. We plan to stay in charge also. Check back with me after the fall elections when we still have the House and Senate, and on from there. Get over it, get used to it.
Dave, that’s exactly my point. Even though there is no REAL threat from terrorists (both your examples resulted in zero deaths, zero injuries and zero property damage), these things get trotted out by the hapless media on queue from the administration in order to scare the public.
You are right about the election though; it’s possible that many working class Americans will buy into these scare tactics and vote, again, against their interests. Meanwhile, our health care system continues to decline, people get murdered (15,000+/year), die in traffic crashes (42,000+/year) and from other causes that are ignored while we pursue a failed policy to (ineffectively) chase after a few hapless terrorists.
Have you read about Afghanistan lately? That was supposed to be a success story, but it’s deteriorated into an Iraq style quagmire. It’s also the poorest country outside of sub-Saharan Africa. So in the area where the administration claims to be focusing their attention and resources, failure reigns supreme.
Report: Al Qaeda planned N.Y. subway attack
WASHINGTON (CNN Sunday, June 18, 2006) — Osama bin Laden’s top deputy halted a plot to release a poison gas in New York’s subway system “only 45 days from zero hour,” according to a new book excerpted Saturday on Time magazine’s Web site.
Two former U.S. officials with knowledge of the terror plan confirmed to CNN on Saturday night some details from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine,” but disagreed with others.
One former official agreed that bin Laden’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off the al Qaeda attack. The reason for his doing so was not made clear.
Both former officials said the United States was familiar with the design of the gas-dispersal device and had passed the information to state and local officials.
They disagreed with Suskind that the terrorists were thwarted within 45 days of the planned attack; the officials said the proposed timing was not that precise.
“We were aware of the plot and took appropriate precautions,” Paul Browne, New York City Police Department.
Bud, ask Capt. Yanity if Aghan is now a failure and quagmire. She fought there. I advise to stop listening to the NY Times and find out from people on the ground. The military coalition in Afghan is doing a cleanup operation there. Annually when the spring thaw occurs, the local rats decide its time to make war again. When it gets cold the rats go back into their caves. It has gone on forever there.
The liberal media has a blackout on good news from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since we killed Zarquawi, we gathered enough intelligence to have, with 72 hours,
* launched 138 assaults on terrorist hideouts
* killed over 250 terrorists
* captured 450 terrorists
* captured more cell phones, laptop computers, maps, personal weapons, explosives and chemical weapons.
Dave, Here’s what I could find about Captain Lisa Yanity. It was written in January, before the most recent Taliban offensive. She’s hopeful, yes, but this is hardly a resounding endorsement after 5 years.
On the future of Afghanistan:
I hope down the line things will change. We see schools opening. Women are slowly getting rights. It will just take a long time.
I hope I have made a difference in some small child’s life. I’ve taught lots of high-fives. I’ve even taught a few kids to yell, “Go, Gamecocks!”
Maybe it’s the educator in me coming out, but for me, working with the young people, that’s where we’re truly going to effect change. Maybe they’ll remember those crazy Americans – “They gave me candy and vitamins. Maybe they’re not so bad.”
Bud, you’re right. Knowing the foreign aid scene there to some extent, there is definite deposit of good will towards the U.S., especially in certain parts of the country. As usual, the key is unobtrusive, sincere work at the grass roots level, especially among the young people.
I should qualify that last statement by saying that a lot more than candy and vitamins is needed. People who learn the local language and understand how the Eastern mind thinks are essential, as is the awareness of the importance of the extended family network. Ultimately, older adults have to be won; young people have little clout or respect in that society. It is a long, hard job.
Now that extensive WMD have been found in Iraq, it will be interesting to watch the leftists weasel out of their past statements about “Bush lied about WMD.” Many on the left now need to apologize and beg forgiveness for their hateful shameful attacks on our President. Mary, you can be the first to apologize and eat some humble pie.
It’s only 3,000 rounds of “old Sarin and mustard gas”….
… like Al Qaeda might have used in the New York subway, contrary to Democrat claims of no threats to America.
I’m going to take a wait and see policy on this new WMD “find”. It sound fishy to me. First it came from a very partisan source, Rick “man-on-dog” Santorum who’s trailing badly in his re-election bid. Second, the report has only been partially de-classified. There could be some very important details left out. Third, the administration is distancing itself from this revelation. Why? Fourth, we’ve had countless “vindication” stories about this war. All have fallen flat eventually. Fifth, the weapons are pre-1991. That means we still have no support for the claim than Saddam was actively builing up his WMD stash.
Appologize? You’ve got to be kidding. This president and his minions lied about the reasons for the war and continue to do so. Saddam was supposed to be this huge threat which he clearly wasn’t.
Is Al Qaeda a threat? Yes, but only a small threat. Let’s treat them as we would any other criminal venture by rounding up the bad guys through good intelligence and diplomatic efforts with other nations. This so-called “war” is nothing but a profiteering scam.
This is not a new find of WMD. It is an announcement about disposing of the 3,000 canisters of poison gas found stashed all over Iraq since 2003.
We captured Saddam’s training camps for Al Qaeda on hijacking, bomb making, and the deployment of nerve gas, nuclear material and poisons, including the videotapes of Saddam telling the terrorists to , “Destroy Israel, but attack America first!”
Here are few quotes from early 2003. All the conservative writers have been proven WRONG by subsequent events. So who owes whom an apology?
“Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom
that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively
bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly
shattered skeptics’ complaints.” (Fox News Channel’s Tony Snow,
4/27/03)
“The only people who think this wasn’t a victory are Upper Westside
liberals, and a few people here in Washington.” (Charles Krauthammer,
Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)
“I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego
that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to
take that wager?” (Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, 1/29/03)
“What’s he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war
went too well and it’s over? I mean, don’t these things sort of lose
their–Isn’t there a fresh date on some of these debate points?”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean–4/9/03)
“It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the
broadest context….. And the silence, I think, is that it’s clear that
nobody can do anything about it. There isn’t anybody who can stop him.
The Democrats can’t oppose–cannot oppose him politically.”
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum– Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)
“I’m waiting to hear the words ‘I was wrong’ from some of the world’s
most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types…. I just
wonder, who’s going to be the first elitist to show the character to
say: ‘Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong’? Maybe the White House
will get an apology, first, from the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Now,
Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war….
“Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N.
weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr.
Ritter actually told a French radio network that — quote, “The United
States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs,
defeated.” Sorry, Scott. I think you’ve been chasing the wrong tail,
again.
“Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this
guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and
so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is
going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.”
(Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris, 4/9/03)
“This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To
hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory
meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at
least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend.
Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and
for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a
defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened.
Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront
an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might
can set the world right.”
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)
“Well, the hot story of the week is victory…. The Tommy Franks-Don
Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war
with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths…. There
is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated
so far…. The final word on this is, hooray.”(Fox News Channel’s Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)
“Shouldn’t the prime minister and all of us who thought the
war was hasty and dangerous and wrongheaded admit that we were wrong? I
mean, with the pictures of those Iraqis dancing in the streets, hauling
down statues of Saddam Hussein and gushing their thanks to the
Americans, isn’t it clear that President Bush and Britain’s Tony Blair
were right all along? If we believe it’s a good thing that Hussein’s
regime has been dismantled, aren’t we hypocritical not to acknowledge
Bush’s superior judgment?… Why can’t those of us who thought the war
was a bad idea (or, at any rate, a premature one) let it go now and
just join in celebrating the victory wrought by our magnificent
military forces?”
(Washington Post’s William Raspberry, 4/14/03)
“This will be no war — there will be a fairly brief and ruthless
military intervention…. The president will give an order. attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling…. It will be greeted by
the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring
it on.”
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate– cited in the Observer,
3/30/03)
“Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State
Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb
and the desperate could ignore it.”
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)
Bud, The best thing you can do is stay out of the way of those who are protecting the national security of America. You don’t recognize any threat or hardly any so just be happy in your private world. Saddam, not Bush, lied to the whole world when he said he had disposed of ALL poison gas and chemicals. I bet the left wont be on TV calling Saddam a liar, no, to the contrary, the left would put the guy back into power so they could kill the new fledgling democracy. The left in this country is a sad bunch of America is wrong about everything crowd. At least the only thing they are running is San Francisco and a few other socially weird areas of the nation.
You’re right Dave, I feel safer already knowing our war hero president and vice president are on watch protecting us for the threat of death wherever we turn. Here are three stories that show just how safe we are:
You’re right Dave, I feel safer already knowing our war hero president and vice president are on watch protecting us for the threat of death wherever we turn. Here are three stories that show just how safe we are:
From the FBI Preliminary Crime Statistics for 2005
Violent Crime
The violent crime category includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. Nationally, preliminary data for 2005 showed increases in three of the four violent crimes from the previous year’s data. The number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters rose 4.8 percent. Robbery offenses increased 4.5 percent, and the number of aggravated assaults was up 1.9 percent.
Or this from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is projected to increase. This would be the first increase since 1986.
Or this from the State Department:
In a report to be released next week, US government figures will show that the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 — 3,194. Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau reports that counterterrorism experts say that there are two reasons for the dramatic increase: a broader definition of what consitutes a terrorist attack, and the war in Iraq.
Of course the WMD story is now officially nonsense. This from Fox News:
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.
Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum.
Transcript:
COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.
Dave, you owe us liberal an apology.
Is there a more complete moran in all of America than Rick “man on dog” Santorum. For all you conservatives out there take note, this guy is gone. He’s now down a whopping 23 points to Bob Casey. With this bogus WMD story on top of his legal problems with his official residence status ole Rick MOD appears to be a hopelessly a lost cause. Too bad.
Casey is pro-life so for that reason he may take the Santorum seat. That is going to be one more vote against partial birth abortion and the Dem interest groups arent going to like that now will they. But back to the WMD. This is hilarious, sarin gas that is still dangerous is disregarded because of a date stamp on it. Do you think this is like a quart of milk that you throw away when it expires. Typical liberals, once the WMDs are found, they poo-poo the facts with the nonsense of the date. Who the heck cares when they were produced. Iraq HAD WMD. Case closed. Bush was right all along.
Don’t hold your breath, bud.
These guys are truly faith-based. You’ve got to understand why: Dear Leader and Dead-eye Dick have scared them pissless. Only Big Daddy Bush can protect them.
If they admitted to themselves that they’ve been conned then not only will they feel foolish but they’ll lose all sense of security.
They’ll cling to the fantasy of WMD in Iraq despite any and all proof to the contrary. They’ll absolutely believe the most transparent lies until they’re six-feet-under. Just like the Vietnam War revisionists.
Dave, if you can’t understand this article then I’m sure that someone at your local public school can help you read it.
——-
From the Washington Post:
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
Dave writes: “Typical liberals, once the WMDs are found, they poo-poo the facts with the nonsense of the date. Who the heck cares when they were produced. Iraq HAD WMD. Case closed. Bush was right all along.”
Dave, it wasn’t some liberal democrat poo-pooing the Santorum spectacle, it was an official from the pentagon. Yes, the case IS closed but it’s closed on account of the fact that the dangerous WMD touted by the administration in early 2003, have not been found. Iraq was flat-out NOT the dangerous nation they were portrayed as. We went to war based on a LIE. END OF STORY.
RTH, I’m not naive about the power of the fear tactics the neocons are so ruthless at using. But in blue Pennsylvania Rick Santorum is just too extreme. It will get close but I think Mr. Casey will prevail. But sadly I think the Repugs will probably hold on to the Senate. The House could be very close. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
Bud, another terror cell arrested out of Miami, planning to blow the Sears tower in Chicago and other things. Once again, you can sit there and pretend that terrorism is a minor problem. Just be grateful the Bush administration is catching these bad guys. Give credit where credit is due.
RTH – now you quote from the Wash. Compost, how about taking a step up and quoting Mad Magazine?
“Another terror cell arrested out of Miami.” You said it Dave, not me. That’s Miami, FLORIDA in the good ole USA. Not Miami, Iraq. Not Miami, Iran. Miami, USA. This story supports the liberal position of re-deployment, not the conservative fight-them-over there approach to counter terrorism. Good police work and sound intelligence is what we need to fight the terrorists, not a 1/2 trillion dollar war 10,000 miles from home.
Dave, it’s good that someone in the government practiced the same kind of vigilance that Clinton practiced, and that prevented al Qaeda from being able to strike in the U.S. from the time of the WTC bombing until 8 months after Clinton left the White House. What it takes to combat terrorism is vigilance, not starting and losing wars.
All of the liberal wimps who are now saying that the shells found with mustard gas and sarin are no longer dangerous should be allowed to take one home and open it in front of their own families. Right, we would see how brave they are at that point. The same yo-yos who are still claiming that WW2 mustard gas canisters are still dangerous are trying to depict the Iraq canisters as harmless. Will they stop at nothing to discredit the President on WMD?
“All of the liberal wimps who are now saying that the shells found with mustard gas and sarin are no longer dangerous”
You mean, the guys at the Pentagon who said they weren’t?
No one is saying they aren’t dangerous at all. If you opened one up and rubbed its contents directly on your skin, it would give you a rash.
What we are saying, is that discovering those shells that had been buried near the Iranian border 15 or more years ago wasn’t worth the loss of 2500 of our soldiers.
Mary, to the right-wingers the cause of death is what’s important, not the fact that a death has occurred. If you die in a car crash, that’s just part of the cost we pay to have free access to the highways. If you’re accidently shot by your 5 year old child by a gun you left on the coffee table, that’s off limits to regulation because of the 2nd ammendment. If you die in a hospital because of malpractice, it’s ok because we need to keep the cost of medical care low and any expensive law suit would drive health care costs up. Tort reform you know. If you’re a soldier killed in Iraq, that’s an acceptable cost because the war is a noble cause. If you’re an Iraqi civilian killed in your bed from a coolation bomb, that’s just colateral damage and is just another cost of war. But if you die at the hands of a terrorist, well, that’s something really, really awful. Whatever it takes, we need to prevent that type of death. No cost is too high. 1,000 soldiers killed to prevent one terrorist incident, no matter how minor, is ok in the minds of the right-wingnut conservative.
Conservatives are despartely trying to justify the quagmire in Iraq. These ancient weapons from the 1980s (probably manufactured with the consent of Ronald Reagan and Don Rumsfeld), are yet another incident of clutching at straws. Any real reason for remaining in Iraq has long-ago dissolved into the abyss of car-bombings, inter-tribal killings and the loss of any quality of life the poor Iraqi people are suffering through. Electric use is down to about 1 hour every 6. Hospitals suffer from a lack of medicine. It really is sad to see a large minority of Americans continuing this endless justification game in a vain attempt to continue with a failed cause.
Death by denial of care and euthanasia is the extra cost you pay for socialized medicine.
How about the new chemical weapons we captured the first few weeks into Iraq?
How about the hijacker training camps we captured intact in Iraq?
How about the biological weapons that Saddam loaded onto more than 100 SCUD missiles in the first Gulf War, which the UN inspectors later never found?
To the liberal, September 11 is just the price the rest of us have to pay so they don’t have to take time off from shopping and MTV.
The Iraqi government realizes that pussy-footing around with terrorists so that the NY Times wont cry on their front page means nothing. So, the crackdown is on. The leaders of that govt. know that if the terrorists now get the upper hand, every one of the leaders will be beheaded with Al Jazeera film rolling happily along, as well as celebrations at the NY Times, CNN, and the DNC HQ. I hope they kill every suspected terrorist quickly and get this done. That is the only solution now.
BTW, The Afghan govt. is doing the same thing. American liberals would truly prefer surrender, cut and run, as they say. To Okinawa.
So, Dave, what you’re saying is we’ve been in Agghanistan for over 4-1/2 years and in Iraq for over 3 years, and both countries are spiraling into chaos and their governments are implementing desperate, last-ditch efforts to try to stem the tide?
Hmmmm, doesn’t sound EXACTLY like what the Bush administration predicted would happen, and doesn’t sound like very many of your Tinkerbell predictions are being borne out, either.
No, Mary, what is happening is that the Iraq govt. can and will do what the coalition could not do, which is to sort out and kill/imprison terrorists. Now the people, instead of not wanting to snitch to the coalition, are snitching to their own Iraq govt. It has taken some time but that is what had to happen. That is why the AQ folks are running real scared now. Do I have to draw you a picture? We are winning!!!!!
Dave, you are one sick cookie. All we’re doing is killing people. If your definition of winning is the number of persons killed, yes, we’re winning. By any other reasonable definition we’re in a disasterous quagmire. This is from the LA Times:
War’s Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000
Higher than the U.S. estimate but thought to be undercounted, the tally is equivalent to 570,000 Americans killed in three years.
By Louise Roug and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers
June 25, 2006
BAGHDAD — At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.
Yeah, Dave, the insurgents are certainly acting scared.
Do you believe in fairies? Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!
–J.M. Barrie
30,000 of the Iraqis killed are terrorists and Saddamists.
20,000 of the Iraqis killed are innocent civilian victims of the terrorists.
Just to help you leftists distinguish between the good guys and bad guys.
Lee, we’ve caused (directly or indirectly) the deaths of 20,000 innocent civilians. Wasn’t one of the reasons for this war to eliminate the deaths of civilians at the hand of the Saddam? We can strike that one off the list accomplishments.
How did America cause the terrorists to kill 20,000 civilians? What seditious bilge!
Islamic terrorists have killed far more than that in Muslim countries where there are no U.S. forces.
Saddam killed over 1,000,000 people before we stopped him.
The UN theft of Oil-for-Food money under Clinton is estimated to have killed over 1,000,000 Iraqi children and elderly. Bush put a stop to that. The UN is still witholding $6.5 BILLION cash it has in French banks.
Dave, you defy common sense.
If Dear Leader and his brain, Rove, thought for a millisecond that the mighty wingnut propaganda machine could pass-off those old artillery shells as WMDs then they would be trumpeting the discovery every news cycle from now until 2008. FNC, the wingnut blogosphere, and the craven DC stenographer corps. stand ready to transcribe every administration talking point.
They most certainly wouldn’t leave the announcement to Man-on-Dog Santorum. There would be a dramatic announcement by Bush with a suitable back drop (a la the photo op in New Orleans and the “Mission Accomplished” banner after the “Top Gun” landing).
The spokespeople at the Pentagon and the White House explicitly deny that these mouldy munitions are the vaunted WMD that would leave a mushroom cloud as the “smoking gun” proof. Meanwhile, Dear Leader and Rove are implicitly confirming the denial by their inaction.
Holy crapola! You know that when this gang of liars, cheats, word-parsers and weasels can’t spin the situation then it must be absolutely of no use to them.
I guess the hijacker training camps we captured intact, with videotapes and financial records of the meetings with Al Qaeada just aren’t enough reason for liberals to invade Iraq.
Why didn’t they protest when the Democrats demanded “regime change in Iraq, by any means possible”, and Clinton was dropping 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq?
More right-wing hysteria:
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, 6/26:
Murtha has lost all perspective and did months ago, but his message is firmly entrenched in America’s far-left precincts. … [T]hat kind of extreme thinking, based on little evidence, by the way, is putting all Americans in danger.
Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 6/26:
What is really going on here, and you know it as well as I, is that Jack Murtha has been intoxicated by the amount of publicity that he has gotten from his anti-war crusade, and he has become progressively more unreasonable, progressively more left-wing as the days go on, and he is in the thrall of people who, I think, have hostility towards the United States.
Newt Gingrich, Fox News, 6/26:
For an American congressman to say that is beyond any acceptable behavior, and I would hope the Congress would move to censure him.
These are quotes attacking Murtha for something he NEVER ACTUALLY SAID.
Murtha accuses Marines of murder
“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” John Murtha told reporters. The November 19 incident occurred in Haditha, Iraq. “There was no firefight” that led to the shootings at close range, the Vietnam war veteran said, denying early official accounts, which said that a roadside bomb had killed the Iraqis. “There were no (roadside bombs) that killed these innocent people,” he said.
– Washington Post May 27, 2006
Lee, let’s wait and see what the facts are in this matter. I’ve supported Murtha in his efforts to redeploy troops but if he’s wrong I’ll be the first to criticize. On the other hand, if it turns out that he’s correct, you should be the one appologizing. For now I’ll just wait and see.
I am the one waiting on the facts. Murtha and others in the Seditious Left never wait on the facts. They already have trumpeted several others incidents they hoped would let them relive Mi Lai, but they all turned out to be bogus.
Democrats want to believe the worst about America, and the Islamofascists feed them propaganda.
U.S. Troops Cleared in Ishaqi Raid Probe
Investigation Into Civilian Killings by Marines in Haditha Remains Open – KIM GAMEL, AP
BAGHDAD, Iraq (June 3) – A military investigation into allegations that American troops intentionally killed civilians in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad, has cleared them of misconduct, the U.S. said – even though it acknowledged the deaths of up to 13 Iraqis in the March raid.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060601032209990008&_ccc=1&cid=842
I guess the hijacker training camps we captured intact, with videotapes and financial records of the meetings with Al Qaeada just aren’t enough reason for liberals to invade Iraq.
Lee, just any time that you wanna provide support for these supposed “finds,” I’m all ears (eyes). BTW, you ought to cc Man-on-Dog Santorum, too. He could use some help.
Again, I’ll repeat: if the Bushites could definitively connect AQ with Saddam in an operational relationship then Bush’s troubles about justifying the war would be over.
If you haven’t noticed, the justification for attacking Iraq has gone through, shall we say, some changes.
Contrary to your maniacal beliefs about liberals being traitors, fifth columnists and Islamofacist henchmen, they are actually at least as patriotic as any given facist wingnut like yourself.
As I suspected, RTH, you are not up to speed on the basic facts about Saddam’s role in training terrorists, supplying them with chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, and cash and support overseas.
Blame the media. They fed you disinformation.
You might start by reading up on the Salman Pak training camp, with its CBM WMD classes, bombmaking classes, and hijacker training, complete with an airliner for practice. Read Saddam’s speech to the Al Qaeda graduates.
Lee, you’re just rehashing some old Rush Limbaugh spin points. The training camps were in Kurdish controlled sections of Iraq, far from Saddam’s control. I think you and millions of others have been fooled by a fantastic propaganda machine. The terrorist threat is simply not that dire. More people have died from fire-ant bites over the past 4 years than from domestic terrorist attacks.
As expected, “bud” refuses to address the very real evidence. That would first require becoming familiar with the basic facts about Iraq’s terrorist training camps and WMD programs.
It is so much easier to deny it out of hand, and maybe claim that “it came from” Rush Limbaugh or some other boogeyman – which is a sneaky way of not actually denying the facts.
Lee, bud and I are still waiting for some supporting evidence.
I’ll tell ya, the mainstream media is really fickle.
Why there was hardly a peep of MSM opposition to the Bush progaganda campaign leading up to the invasion. Judith Miller of the hated NYT faithfully printed all of Curveball’s BS without even noting any questions about his questionable provenance and doubtful bona fides.
Few of the MSM would press Dear Leader for verifiable evidence. Afterall, we were “at war” and just had to “trust” our leaders because “all the proof was secret.”
The latest report that I’ve heard on Curveball is that he was an Iraqi taxi driver, not an engineer with access to the WMD development.
Anyway, I guess that, in Lee’sWorld, the NYT has now viciously turned on Dear Leader. They just won’t report all the “good news” including evidence that would clear Dear Leader of fraudulently leading the country into a disasterous invasion.
Like I say, we’re waiting for that evidence.