Iraq War and the Instant Gratification Society
It’s a rare thing for the L.A. Times to ever criticize anything the Democrats do, but here’s an interesting look at the Senate votes last week.
The Dems’ Iraq gap
IT’S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT DEMOCRATS in the U.S. Senate would use the war in Iraq to send a political message to the party faithful, as some did last week in voting for doomed resolutions to fast-track the withdrawal (or “redeployment”) of U.S. forces from that country. Trouble is, the message sent to the rest of the country may be that Democrats who are more liberal can’t be trusted when it comes to national security.
That’s what we’ve been saying all along. You cannot trust them. They don’t have the resolve to see something through. And this war is just too hard. Ours is the instant gratification society and this war doesn’t fit the mold. We got spoiled during the first Iraq war and we expect it to always be that easy. Even driving the Taliban out of power from Afghanistan was duck soup compared to Iraq.
But life isn’t always easy. Results come with hard work. Ask anyone who is now financially self-sufficient after starting out with nothing. No wonder they get upset when the Democrats wants to come in and tax their hard earned money, even after they die! It’s part of the instant gratification thing — you work, they take, they waste your money. It’s far too easy to do that rather than figure out how to cut back on spending. After all, it could mean they lose votes if people were actually held accountable for their choices and had to do things to make a better life for themselves rather than rely on government handouts. Actions have consequences.
So the votes last week on cutting and running in Iraq showed what Democrats are really made of. If they can’t win easily, they don’t have the stomach to see it through. They want to paint the GOP position as being in support of an open-ended war. I think the Dems are arrogant. They think they know more than our generals do. Here’s the conclusion of the L.A. Times editorial.
Posted by COgirlIf the president does discernibly diminish the U.S. role — citing military advice, not congressional pressure — Republicans, not Democrats, are likely to get the credit. In that event, the Democratic proposals defeated last week will look like bad politics as well as bad policy.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:33 am
The Pinocchio Press is trying to give them cover - it’s hilarious. Check out this article in the WaPoo today:
here
Interestingly enough this was debated on MTP - Russert asked Feingold about it - and Feingold was all over the map.
They want to be everywhere on the issue so they can say they were there first… LOL
June 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Well, that’s one way to look at it.
Another would be to acknowledge that: 1) many Americans opposed the war from the beginning and 2) many of those who didn’t only supported it because of beliefs about the threat Iraq posed that those same Americans now understand were incorrect (eg, Iraq’s lack of an active nuke program).
How would you suggest an elected representative represent their constituents in those two categories (which now make up a majority of the American people) especially since it’s unclear that anyone has a realistic vision of what kind of successful resolution is acheivable by following the present course?
June 26th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Let me guess…you can’t define victory in iraq and now afghanistan is falling apart as well…it must hurt to know all us crybaby liberals were right in our prewar assessments and all your neo con heroes were wrong…thats just got to sting…
Come on throw an argument at me that doesn’t have liberals are weak at its base!
June 26th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
If we had not gone into Iraq, we would have never known what we know now. And now, with new information coming out about the real existence of WMD’s, “Cómo te quedó el ojo?”
People who oppose the war may have disagreements. Unfortunately, there are too many who would rather not fight and cower in a corner than to confront evil face to face. Some just want for it to finish in the alloted hour, just like The Sopranos.
War has never been like that, and it will never be.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Liberals are weaklings! They’d rather sit on a corner like cowards than to face evil, no matter the consequences.
I’m so sick and tired of them! I, frankly, don’t want to listen to their childish whines anymore.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Liberalism definitely IS a mental disorder.
Skip away from me! Forget to ever call yourselves my countrymen! You’ve shown yourselves that you’re not.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Prime example.
Iraq is a functioning democracy that poses no threat of terrorism - and has a murder rate less than major US cities. Guess they are quagmires, too, you can talk to their liberal mayors…
Are these fledgling democracies - yes - does your post prove COgirl’s point that you liberals are short on attention and long on whining? Yes.
Thanks for playing.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Right on - the liberals should just shut the hell up. Since when did they start listening to the people who elected them?!?! This is Bush/Cheney’s war and THEY should decide when to end it. In the meantime we should just keep rotating the same troops in and out of there until they’re all either dead, injured or institutionalized for post traumatic stress disorder. Who needs “cut and run” when you can have “lie and die”!
June 26th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
1) please don’t go on with this new WMD thing. it has been debunked by the DOD itself. come on, people!
2) You can’t be serious about the “democrsts take everyon’e money and waste it.” have you actually been paying attentio n to what the republican congress has been doing in the past several years? if you want to argue about WHERE the money goes, that’s one thing, but to say the republicsn are the party of “fiscal conservatism” is simply a joke at this point.
3) some times choosing not to fight, thus maintaining a strong threat for more effective negotiation is a lot smarter and effective than starting an ill advised war that no one thinks we are winning, or can win. Does Iran look more afraid of us now? North Korea? Some people are starting to think we seem like a paper tiger. seeing something through to the end makes sense if it is something with a clear end. what is the clear end now- stabilization of iraq? a new governemnt? democracy? - is this what the armed forces are trained to do? acting macho feels good, but we need to start thinking with our brains.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
madmatt,
Does “liberal leaders are treasonous monsters who are not capable of genuinely giving a damn about anything pro-American, who never stand firm on any issue, but merely try to play all sides and exploit the shifting feelings of the American people for the sole purpose of consolidating their own political power, regardless of how damaging their universally acknowledged (by anyone worth anything) stupidity is to their country” imply liberals are weak at its base?
Probably. So sorry, I can’t help you out.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
“you work, they take, they waste your money.”
Being an apoligist is one thing, but to say the above with a straight face is to be stupid. The only one taking any of my hard earned money is the Republicans who control the whole government.
I got more bad news for you too; it isn’t just ‘liberals’ who are against this war…it is the majority of the public and many of them are conservative. And, as a Reagan Repulican, this administration is the worst since Carter and for you to shill for them is disgraceful.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
3reddogs: Who needs “cut and run†when you can have “lie and dieâ€!
And who needs a real policy when you have stupid catchphrases? I swear, the worst aspect of American politics today is the inability of our leaders to competently advocate anything without lame five-words-or-less rhymes that fit on bumperstickers. I guess the only positive is that our “cut and run” is a lot more accurate and powerful than the nonsensical “lie and die” Democrats are trying to peddle.
PNice: please don’t go on with this new WMD thing. it has been debunked by the DOD itself. come on, people!
If by debunked, you mean it was proven that Saddam did not destroy his chemical weapons as he said he did, yes — absolutely debunked.
Pnice: You can’t be serious about the “democrsts take everyon’e money and waste it.†have you actually been paying attentio n to what the republican congress has been doing in the past several years? if you want to argue about WHERE the money goes, that’s one thing, but to say the republicsn are the party of “fiscal conservatism†is simply a joke at this point.
You should try arguing something we probably don’t all agree on. The spending is out of control. Nonetheless, I’ll take Republican waste over Democrat waste any day of the year. I suppose it’s a matter of tastes?
Pnice: some times choosing not to fight, thus maintaining a strong threat for more effective negotiation is a lot smarter and effective than starting an ill advised war that no one thinks we are winning, or can win.
Whose opinion, exactly, are you peddling? THE DEMOCRATS overwhelmingly voted with Republicans to authorize the Iraq war. Why are you so desperate to act like your side was against it all along? Oh, right, that would involve admitting that you were wrong, and we know how poorly Democrats respond to anything demanding personal responsibility. It was all somebody else’s fault! The man! Yeah!
Also, we can win, and we are winning. Ask Zarqawi. For lack of any other more accurate ad hominem attack, you are a total sissy. Analogies to your current behavior damning the entirety of Operation Overlord in WWII are perfectly accurate. You would have tucked tail and ran from Hitler if it looked like he was winning for heaven’s sake. Why am I not surprised you don’t understand the point of fighting in Iraq?
PNice: Does Iran look more afraid of us now? North Korea? Some people are starting to think we seem like a paper tiger.
Did Iran act afraid of us during the Clinton administration? Did North Korea? No. Both were in fact lying to your “Go Diplomacy!” cheerleaders and working to obtain WMD technology behind their backs. Great going there, Chief. Do your best in trying to cover that up and make it all about Bush! Please!
Ask Lebanon, Al Qaeda, Hussein, and the Taliban about America being a paper tiger. The only idiots that buy that are people who have been ingrained with anti-American propaganda for their entire LIVES [as in the middle east] and, curiously enough, the American left. Doesn’t say a lot positive about you folks, does it?
PNice: seeing something through to the end makes sense if it is something with a clear end. what is the clear end now- stabilization of iraq? a new governemnt? democracy? - is this what the armed forces are trained to do? acting macho feels good, but we need to start thinking with our brains.
The clear end in Iraq has always been the same. You’re simply too thick-headed to acknowledge it. What’s this about the armed forces not being capable of helping a new government and its necessary defensive forces secure themselves? Is your opinion of our military that low? And thinking with our brains (a brilliant statement if I’ve ever heard one), gee. Running away in Iraq, leaving the new government there to fend for themselves, and permitting the possibility that they will be overrun by terrorists — that’s what you call using your brain?
I won’t pretend to act surprised.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I don’t give a rat’s behind about what the liberals think. They’re acting like stupid, arrogant cowards. I hold them all in pure derision.
They do not deserve to be called “countrymen”. “Deranged”, absolutely.
I want nothing to do with them. Consider this as my declaration of war on them all.
There libs. I want nothing to do with you. Period. You’re not welcome.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
“Lie and die” worked for those Libs so well.
It was more like “Ignore it: it will go away.” You know, Khobar towers, Embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, U.S.S. Cole…
June 26th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Adam: Being an apoligist is one thing, but to say the above with a straight face is to be stupid. The only one taking any of my hard earned money is the Republicans who control the whole government.
So it is your contention, then, that a Democrat majority would not be taking any of your “hard earned money”? Excuse me while I call that position just as stupid as any “statement above.”
Adam: I got more bad news for you too; it isn’t just ‘liberals’ who are against this war…it is the majority of the public and many of them are conservative.
Don’t ignore the obvious to suit your own personal non-realities, Adam. The majority is wishy-washy about the Iraq war, and the majority does not believe that it was worth it. However, neither does the majority believe it would be a proper course now to advocate, as you seem to be, abandoning what our troops and the Iraqis have sacrificed for. It’s disingenuous to pretend they agree with Kerry, Murtha, or any of the Democrat plans (or lack thereof).
I guarantee you one thing. “Conservatives,” broad though they may be, are not as weak as you and your new fellows on the left presume. They’re not on your side, regardless of what you think polls are telling you.
Adam: And, as a Reagan Repulican, this administration is the worst since Carter and for you to shill for them is disgraceful.
I laughed when I read this statement. I really did.
Now if you’ll excuse me, it has been fun, but you and your droogs are a bit monotonous. I need to have some lunch.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Newt & Rory-
Did you guys forget to take your meds? take a deep breath. repeat after me: “we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. we know wehere the weapons of mass destruction are.” ok, i’m sure we all feel better now. i actually learned that mantra from kim jong-il. we hang out, you know, me, kim and the rest of the treasonaous liberals who hate america. (it’s really time for some new material- that record is SO old and broken.)
yes, the idea of reserving some firepower for negotiation is really stupid, exactly analogous to WWII. i totally agree. no one knows that our forces are overstretched. it’s a complete secret. we shouldn;t even bring this up because then the terrorists might find out and invade america. i heard they know where you guys live. ooga booga- they’re hiding in your closet!
btw- i represent my own views, not those of a political party, because i’m not a partisan hack and shill like yourselves.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Before I break,
PNice: “we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. we know wehere the weapons of mass destruction are.â€
The left certainly did believe so when they voted to authorize the war in Iraq, didn’t they!
PNice: i actually learned that mantra from kim jong-il. we hang out, you know, me, kim and the rest of the treasonaous liberals who hate america. (it’s really time for some new material- that record is SO old and broken.)
You’re blaming us for pointing out the obvious? That your party acts only to grow or secure its power, rather than doing so in the best interest of their country? I apologize if that bothers you so, as “old and broken” as that record apparently is. Nevertheless, some of those idiots in “Jesusland” seem to agree with us (a majority, actually), since they haven’t trusted your party with foreign policy for decades. Should you really be taking that out on us?
PNice: yes, the idea of reserving some firepower for negotiation is really stupid, exactly analogous to WWII.
Um. Your weakness in staying the course on anything difficult is what makes this perfectly analogous to WWII. I delt with your idiotic theory of “reserving power” for the sake of diplomacy in a later point. Try to grow those reading comprehension skills, yeah?
PNice: i totally agree. no one knows that our forces are overstretched. it’s a complete secret. we shouldn;t even bring this up because then the terrorists might find out and invade america. i heard they know where you guys live. ooga booga- they’re hiding in your closet!
You’re dangerous close to sounding like you don’t think terrorists are a threat, PNice. There’s a reason the American people don’t trust you folks with the War on Terror, and it’s plainly clear between the lines of that statement. While I do not agree that our forces are stretched far at all (this is another example of backdoor anti-Americanism, in believing we are much weaker than we actually are because you are in fact guilty that we are so much more powerful than any of your heroes in Europe or Cuba), trust me, if they were, we could always count on your party to let them know.
PNice: btw- i represent my own views, not those of a political party, because i’m not a partisan hack and shill like yourselves.
I believe you. Really. I do.
Now, lunch!
June 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
“So it is your contention, then, that a Democrat majority would not be taking any of your “hard earned moneyâ€?”
What kind of argument is that? The comment specifically said that the Democrats were wasting your money. They are not. And saying that everyone does it doesn’t make your statement suddenly not ’stupid’.
“. However, neither does the majority believe it would be a proper course now to advocate, as you seem to be, abandoning what our troops and the Iraqis have sacrificed for.”
What the hell HAVE they sacrificed their lives for? I never said cut and run…I said from the beginning that the reason and strategy for this war were very flawed and reality proves me right. Someone has to clean up this god-awful mess that the neo-cons have made. Leaving all at once isn’t the right strategy and is just a straw man that the true believers like you put up instead of a reasoned argument.
“I guarantee you one thing. “Conservatives,†broad though they may be, are not as weak as you and your new fellows on the left presume. They’re not on your side, regardless of what you think polls are telling you.”
This is the most pathetic thing I have read from you yet. Bubba, I am a conservative and a vet. Being willing to send the military to die for flawed reasons isn’t ’strength’. It was wrong in Vietnam and it is wrong now. Being strong means admitting a mistake and fixing it, not chest beating and ‘I’m never backing down because I am a man’ reasoning. Once again, the argument has never been about ‘cutting and running’. It is about the fact that this administration totally screwed this whole war up and now it needs fixed. Most Americans are aligned with that…not ’stay the course’.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
No, fella. We don’t take meds. Especially pregnant me.
However, I bet that five truck-fulls of Valium would do a terrific job on you and your ilk.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
pimf: was too hungry, not thinking clearly.
First: You’re dangerously close…
Second: …believing we are much weaker than we actually are because you in fact feel guilty that we are so much more powerful than any of your heroes in Europe or Cuba…
Sheesh. Now, lunch!
June 26th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Jeeze, Adam. I’m trying to have lunch here.
I’ll be sure to respond around 4 or 5 EST.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
PNice
Thank you for the instruction on mantras. We on the right don’t need to repeat something over and over to convince ourselves of reality - that cognitive dissonance you are trying to drown out with liberal mantras won’t go away.
You’re arguments are fascinating in a car wreck sort of way - ugly but somehow you still have to look at it:
yes, the idea of reserving some firepower for negotiation is really stupid, exactly analogous to WWII. i totally agree. no one knows that our forces are overstretched. it’s a complete secret. we shouldn;t even bring this up because then the terrorists might find out and invade america. i heard they know where you guys live. ooga booga- they’re hiding in your closet!
I’ve searched and searched and really there should be some cogency there…. but alas, I give up.
You obviously believe we are overstretched???
Let me guess - sending the troops to Okinawa, your idea? If you are going to make a bald faced lie like that stand on a conservative site, I would recommend a DOD link verifying your statement. Lacking that, all I can say is - thanks for playing.
As for the terrorists invading America - guy - have you forgotten 9/11?
That’s the problem distilled. Not only do liberals betray us at every turn, they want us to submit to the leadership of their herd of ostriches with no attention span and no memory.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Kathy,
They don’t realize that they are just as much of a target for terrorists as we are.
Libs just want to help them along, so we’re hit first.
But don’t worry. Their time to pay is coming.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
R & N, buddies:
I’m so roneree, so so roneree!!
Again, i represent my own views, ok, not “my party’s.” I am liberal and democrat on a lot of issues, but the democrat sort of leadership does not fully represent me.
can you really say
“That your party acts only to grow or secure its power, rather than doing so in the best interest of their country?”
and imply that ONLY the democrats do this with a straight face? do you actually live in america under the bush administration republicans, and a former leader of the house whose nickname was “The Hammer”??!! you can’t be serious. i take back what i said earlier- you guys MUST be on drugs.
i know, i’m a cowardly, moronic appeaser. that’s why my point of view is so stupid. i hate america, i’m gay, i love terrorists, fidel castro is my hero. i even watch the world cup. obviously i’m anti-american. do us all a favor: please define “strong” and “pro-american,” so that we can know how to be both of those things. i’m a stupid liberal- i am just trying to learn. surely you have some sympathy for us poor, slow learning, weak liberals. i want to be strong and love my country. please help me. should i do some push ups or something, to start with? are two flags in front of my house better than one? are three better than two?
June 26th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
The reason democrats are so roundly rejected at the ballot box is they are an unserious party.
Statements like we’ve seen on this thread are a parody of human thought. They think the government is the enemy and yet they are the party of big government. They think the military is weak, and what do they do with power - weaken the military.
It is a mental disorder.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
And don’t forget how that wily Saddam hid thousands of bottles of WMD, also known as cleaning supplies (or bleach and ammonia), hidden in thousands of storage facilities, also known as janitorial closets, all across Iraq.
Oooh, the evil.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
shingles,
What do you suppose all those fertilizer factories were for? Agriculture? Really - nobody is that dense - well maybe democrats.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Wow-this diatribe is getting too vicious for me. I have to remind myself I’m a Christian and therefore I have nothing to add that doesn’t violate my faith. Besides, I have a real WMD to deal with in my county–an out of control forest fire. Turn your attention to prayers for the Western United States. We are burning now folks.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
So sorry to hear it david! Sending prayers now.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I don’t give a darn which party you represent.
If you speak like someone who would give away the store to the terrorists at any given opportunity, you deserve to be called on it, and strongly.
I don’t even care if such-and-such is gay or not. I bet you that there are some gay men out there who have their sets well-placed, who would seriously kick some terrorists’ butt when the situation arrives.
But if you speak and act like a coward, it’s your right. I just let you know that you are making fools of yourselves.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Kathy, as much as I like R & N, I think you are my favorite poster. do you mind if I call you K (i like to give my friends nicknames)?
Last I checked, it was the conservatives who claim to think the government is the problem, not democrats or liberals. Democrats and liberals just think the Bush Administration is a serious problem. as for big government, again, it appears that you are not paying very close attention to the country in which you live. it appears that under Bush, the Republicans are not only the party of big government, but increasingly, Big Brother.
if we’re not overstretched, why do we keep sending the same guys? Honestly, I didn’t think that was a controversial statement. if it isn;t, can you lend some support (links, news reports) that we’re not overstretced? I am open to changing my mind, given some evidence. as for okinawa, i have no idea. sounds dumb to me, but what do i know? i don’t know why you assume i agree with murtha on everything. i haven’t indicated that i agree with him on anything.
ah, evidence. I have not forgotten about 9/11. i also happen to not have forgotten that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE linking saddam and the 9/11 hijackers. or was there some that i didn’t know about? even dick “bald faced liar” cheney agrees with that (although he has lied on tv about this issue). but i’m “dangerously close” to thinking terrorists aren’t a threat, so why listen to me?
sweet, sweet n:
what do you mean liberals’ time to pay is coming-are you plotting something, you mischievous devil?
seriously- pushups? i heard core strength training is the way to really improve overall body strength. and is it 2 flags or 3?
you guys really need to get out more. i am telling you, there are people out there with opposing, but valid viewpoints. people way smarter than me. see what they have to say! it might surprise you. but you have to turn rush and sean off first. i know you can do it.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Adam: What kind of argument is that? The comment specifically said that the Democrats were wasting your money. They are not. And saying that everyone does it doesn’t make your statement suddenly not ’stupid’.
(Stupid shouldn’t be any sort of quotation marks, since you used the adjective first, and are effectively quoting yourself. But on to the flesh!) In a separate comment before my response to you, I pointed out that the Republicans were being wasteful — that their spending was a serious problem. I agree with your opinion. My point was that while you headstrongly deride the Republicans wasting money, you are ignoring the alternative. I was only hoping to point out the obvious. Are you really eager to trade up for a Democrat majority? Or would you rather have better Republicans, who more ideally reflect your conservatism? To quote Jeanette, vote right, and vote Republican. Just choose more carefully.
Adam: What the hell HAVE they sacrificed their lives for? I never said cut and run…I said from the beginning that the reason and strategy for this war were very flawed and reality proves me right. Someone has to clean up this god-awful mess that the neo-cons have made. Leaving all at once isn’t the right strategy and is just a straw man that the true believers like you put up instead of a reasoned argument.
They have sacrificed their lives for the future of the Iraqi people, and indirectly for the continued safety of the American people. Excuse me for being a “true believer” (which, you should be aware, is an attack of kids at the Daily Kos, and will not help you convince any of us that you are any sort of Republican) in the power of Democracy. I believe it is the only answer to changing the Middle East, and preventing the sort of closeted ignorance that led to the 9/11 attacks.
I apologize for assuming you were advocating the cut and run strategy. In all fairness to me, however, you seemed to be jumping into the fray in defense of Democrats, so you can’t really blame me, or anyone else, for assuming you shared a majority of their leaders’ position.
You said from the very beginning that the reason for this war was flawed? The reasoning which was widely accepted at the time was that every major government on the planet believed Saddam Hussein was trying to reconstitute his WMD program, and that his history of instability left the door open to the possibility he might sell any developed WMDs to Al Qaeda or any number of other shady blackmarket groups with interest in harming the American people. THAT isn’t reason enough? If all of that turned out to be true, would you STILL have not approved of going to war? By your own admission, when everyone was in agreement over the danger of the Hussein regime with WMDs, you didn’t think that was enough of a threat, directly and indirectly, to the American people. Sounds pretty misguided, Bubba.
Neo-cons caused this mess? Really? You sound like a conservative now. You really do. Nevermind the fact that a majority of the American people, and a majority of the government — right and left — supported the war, when we all thought the pre-war intelligence was accurate. No! Neo-cons did it! Just the neo-cons! (Twitch, twitch!) In case my point is unclear, unless you’re proposing the idea that neo-cons intentionally warped the intelligence to get us into the war (for oil, I’m sure), in which case you’d be drifting into real conspiracy theorist territory, I’m saying that statement made no sense.
Adam: This is the most pathetic thing I have read from you yet. Bubba, I am a conservative and a vet.
Thank you for your service. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, however, that those two facts do not make you right about anything.
Adam: Being willing to send the military to die for flawed reasons isn’t ’strength’.
In the context of this response, I hope I’ve already made it clear that nobody believes it is, and that the above statement applies not at all to the opinions of anyone here.
Adam: It was wrong in Vietnam and it is wrong now.
Iraq is Vietnam! Iraq is Vietnam! We lost in Vietnam because of weak politicians at home. Sound similar? Maybe Iraq is like Vietnam!
Adam: Being strong means admitting a mistake and fixing it, not chest beating and ‘I’m never backing down because I am a man’ reasoning. Once again, the argument has never been about ‘cutting and running’. It is about the fact that this administration totally screwed this whole war up and now it needs fixed.
I don’t share your perspective. I believe we are winning in Iraq. We made many errors during the course of the war (as any sensible person would admit has happened in EVERY war), but we are winning. The Iraqis have their own government, and their security forces are more integrated in the fight against the terrorists than ever before. We are still there, but there is word now that we’ll be drawing back significantly over the next year — which our Generals would not recommend unless they thought the Iraqis could handle more. That does not sound like we’re losing to me.
You can make as many arguments as you like against the way the war was carried out to this point. I’ll probably agree with some of them. But in the end, hindsight is 20/20, and I don’t give a damn if you think your brilliant plan would have led to this point much quicker, and with a greater degree of success. We are where we are now whether we like it or not, and all that separates us from the left is not “chest-beating,” but perseverance, patience, and trust in the fact that we know we will win. This has been the norm in America for hundreds of years. Why are you so horrified by faith in a cause we believe is worth fighting for? Why does disagreeing with you immediately make us “true believers” and “disgraceful” people?
Something is wrong with you, Bubba.
PNice: can you really say “That your party acts only to grow or secure its power, rather than doing so in the best interest of their country?â€
and imply that ONLY the democrats do this with a straight face?
Yes.
PNice: i know, i’m a cowardly, moronic appeaser. that’s why my point of view is so stupid. i hate america, i’m gay, i love terrorists, fidel castro is my hero. i even watch the world cup. obviously i’m anti-american. do us all a favor: please define “strong†and “pro-american,†so that we can know how to be both of those things. i’m a stupid liberal- i am just trying to learn. surely you have some sympathy for us poor, slow learning, weak liberals. i want to be strong and love my country. please help me. should i do some push ups or something, to start with? are two flags in front of my house better than one? are three better than two?
This paragraph convinced me not to put any effort into my response to you this time around. You make yourself look foolish, pal. I don’t need to help you out.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
What do you suppose all those fertilizer factories were for? Agriculture?
Not the unspeakable “poo bomb”?!!?
June 26th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
PNice: ah, evidence. I have not forgotten about 9/11. i also happen to not have forgotten that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE linking saddam and the 9/11 hijackers. or was there some that i didn’t know about? even dick “bald faced liar†cheney agrees with that (although he has lied on tv about this issue).
There was plenty of evidence supporting the possibility that an Iraq with WMDs was too dangerous a possibility, in conjunction with the realities we faced after the 9/11 attacks, to permit. You goofballs on the left can bring up “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!” as often as you like. It’s to the point now that people are laughing at how desperate you sound when you say it. Nobody claims he did, though there is plenty of evidence for his ties to Al Qaeda in general. For the record, building up this same strawman over and over again so we can just knock it down one more time makes you all seem deranged.
PNice: but i’m “dangerously close†to thinking terrorists aren’t a threat, so why listen to me?
Why indeed?
June 26th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
pimf: I got ahead of myself. I meant, there was plenty of evidence supporting the reality that an Iraq with WMDs was too dangerous a possibility…
June 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
No, fella. We don’t take meds. Especially pregnant me.
Comment by newton — June 26, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Aw, heck! Just my luck to miss the troll patrol by a few minutes.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
It was an exciting little wave they had going there for a bit, Jeanette. Weird that they all showed up at once.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
R:
As for post #34, all I can say is, umm, that’s not true. I know what you think is the evidence, but it turns out that was generally distorted or not true. Your line of reasoning is, if i follow correctly, saddam has wmd, saddam could give wmd to al-qaeda, al-qaeda could use saddam’s wmd to blow us up. several problems, known to all at this point. saddam did not have wmd. everyone knows this. apparently, a lot of the analysts thought this at the time, but the Bush admin wanted war so bad, they took whatever they could get to make this seem true. if it seems like i’m rehashing an old story, it’s because i am. how much debunking do you need? because now we’re fighting a war to free iraqis, apparently , and not now to find wmd. i coulda sworn we went in there for the no wmd. i know i’m not alone here. you can ignore these facts, but it doesn;t make them not true.
saying saddam hussein had no connection to 9/11 is not deranged or desperate or a strawman. it’s simply a fact. what can i say?
i want to understand you guys, really, i do. is it that you need an enemy, no matter how loosely connected? is that you miss the commies, now they’re gone? is this like the hour of hate thing in 1984? I don’t deny terrorism is a threat to western countries, no doubt, but that doesn;t mean the solution is to bomb the nearest and most hated arab country, even though they did not seem to eb posing that much of a threat. i know, you’ll just shout me down now- grave and gathering danger, liberals are weak cowards (however you define that), blah, blah, blah. bring it on.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
The bottom line is that we’re in Iraq now and got there with a bipartisan vote. We are having successes but it’s not being publicized by the media so how would you know?
I think we would all like to get out of there, but we have to do it from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. We can see how terrorists have used our withdrawals from Viet Nam and Somalia to tell their wannabes that we are weak and vulnerable. Why do we want to give them any more ammo to be used to recruit more terrorists? In the papers found with Zarqawi, there were statements made that implied that our efforts were having an (unfavorable) impact on their insurgency. What message does it send if we pull out suddenly? That will only inspire them to come here for the next attack. We have to be seen as having strength and will power.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I definitely agree, COgirl.
This vote in Congress did not help the Dems at all. They took off their masks. Now everybody knows what they’re made of. How are they going to hide any longer?
June 26th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
PNice,
I’ve come to the conclusion that you are a troll. Unlike Adam, who has genuine points, and a sort of valid logic to back them up, you’re saying ridiculous things simply to get a rise or response out of us. I won’t waste time “debating” with someone stupid enough to say “the Bush admin wanted war so bad, they took whatever they could get to make this seem true.”
I won’t be responding to any of your further comments on this or any other thread. But please, keep making them, if it makes you feel more secure in your own insanity. Glad we could help.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
PNice,
Go back and read your recent history. The president wanted to free Iraq of the dictator Saddam to give peace and democracy to those people who had been abandoned by us a decade earlier. He saw the threat Saddam posed but did not make WMD his strong point in going to war. It was the U.N. with its innumerable last chances to Saddam that made the president shift to saying it was due to WMD. And some WMD have been found.
Not many, you say? Too old, you say? Well he had a long time to get them over the Syrian border and if they’re too old they are exactly the same weapons he was under an agreement to get rid of after the first Gulf War.
Check speeches of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and numerous other liberal Democrats who said what they had seen indicated WMD programs still going on in Iraq. Even the Bill Clinton Administration leftover CIA director said it was a slam dunk.
Now, if you’re the president (and I hope you never are) and you’re sworn to protect the people in your country and know a country hates you and will annihilate you if possible, what are you going to do with this information available?
And then, once you get there are you going to abandon those people to this murderer again?
June 26th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
As for the paper tiger comment way up in the thread, remember Osama bin Laden attacked us because he thought we were a paper tiger after what happened to our forces during the Clinton administration. Instead he found a sleeping giant and he awakened us.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Lest anyone come in here with the “imminent threat” lie, let me refer you to the president’s speech in which he actually said he didn’t want to wait until they were an “imminent threat” and Congress applauded. Or have you forgotten? It was either right after 9/11 in his speech to Congress or it was his next SOTU address. Check it out. I’m sure there are resources available to you, and since we aren’t the ones making the accusation it would be up to those who are to prove us wrong.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? Right, but he was the only leader of a country that did not send condolences for the deaths. He harbored Al Qaeda cells in Iraq. He had the plane where they practiced hijacking. No, his hand cannot be definitely found in the murders that day, but indirectly it was there.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Hmmm….
A lot of you seem to subscribe to the “fight them there, so we don’t fight them here,” argument. not sure I buy that one. “They” weren’t “there,” and basically still aren’t. We have to fight now because we stirred up a hornet’s nest. The insurgency, and the terroristrs who attacked us are not the same. we know this. you know this.
i’m gonna have to disagree- the president made removing wmd a pretty big point, i would say the main point. if you don’t believe that, i think you can be accused of revising history. when you make a major speech to the UN, televised to the whole world, and trot out colin powell to talk about some non-existent mobile labs, i think that’s your main point. as for your syrian border theory, possible, but no substantiating evidence whatsoever.
speeches notwithstanding, it appears that it has come out that a lot of the info they relied on to take su to war was far from air tight. it also appears that information disproving their hypothesis was ignored. they saw what they wanted to see. i am sorry that my buddy R does not like this point of view, but it does not make it factually incorrect. it’s hard to believe otherwise, unless, of course, you see what you want to see.
COGirl-
I agree with you to a large extent, but I am not sure that simply by staying there we seem strong. do we end up simpl;y becoming a whipping boy. you are putting a lot of faith in the efficacy of this operation, which i am not sure is warranted. i think rational people can disagree on this point- i happen to not see it your way. like i have said, staying the course is a good idea if it’s a good course, but not if it means we hope that staying shows our resolve and our strength- how long can we keep it up this way? when do we leave (i think we all know that the american people have not signed on for an indeifnite presence in iraq- if you believe that, be prepared to support some unemployed politicians in the future)? how many people will die? i don’t suggest withdrwing all of a sudden, but we need to come up with some new ideas, because this is kind of a debacle. i’m not sure what good news i don’t know about, but if you can give me something substantial, and not some garbage like a new school opening, i am willing to listen. i do know that baghdad is in a state of emergency, and the green zone embassy workers fear for their lives. this is according to our own ambassador. ??
June 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
PNice, I think the only way to get out and show strength is to do it when our military says the Iraqis are ready to take over. No one can truly believe that we want to stay in Iraq because we love war. For God’s sake, many of the soldiers are just kids. But like it or not, we’re there.
I hate the politicizing of this. When we have a vote on the Senate floor, we look like cowards to the terrorists. If you’re buying a car and you’re haggling over the price, what happens when you blink? You can be darn sure that you’re not going to get a lower price for it. And the war in Iraq is not unlike that. We have to show our resolve.
I also happen to think that having an Arab democracy in the middle east and an ally over there is not such a bad thing.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
COgirl-
I respect your line of thinking, because there is reasoning behind it, but I will have to respectfully disagree. I agree with the need to show resolve, but I am not sure this is the way to do it. I am just not sure this is working. i am not convinced that as soon as we leave there is not going to be civil war, no matter what. as for the iraqis being ready, do you honestly think the american people have the patience to wait that long? do we have th troops for that? I am extremely skeptical of that.
having more democracy in the middle east is good, but i am not sure it comes from the barrel of an american gun. and as for assuming they will be our ally, i would not be getting too ahead of myself. we are not a popular country these days, and iraq is going to have its own problems/interests to think about, if and when we ever leave.
as far as war for war’s sake, it may seem crazy to you, but a lot of people both in america, and defiitely world wide, actually think we do like war for war’s sake. you may find this crazy, but to a lot of people it makes a lot of sense.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
PNice,
I’m soon to be 59 years old and ever since I can remember I have been told people in the “world” hate Americans.
We didn’t start this war. We were attacked on our own soil. We went after Al Qaeda, and if they are not in Iraq what organization did Zarqawi head up? Al Qaeda in Iraq, and he pledged his loyalty to bin Laden.
I don’t want a war anywhere, but if we have to beat back terrorists I’d rather do it in the Mid-East than on the streets of my city or any other city in the United States.
I feel sorry that we have so many who have forgotten what these animals did to our country on 9/11. Even now we have 7 idiots in Florida ready to join them and kill Americans.
I assume you’re an American. Maybe you have children and a spouse. Do you want them subjected to all-out war on our streets? The guys and girls in the military today signed up knowing full well they could be called to war. Still they are signing up and re-enlisting.
If we walk away from this one you might as well put a target on your back because the fact you opposed this war is not going to save you. They hate all non-Muslims. What’s so hard to understand about that?
June 26th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
PNice,
Do you work at a Federal Energy Regulatory facility? Your IP address shows that and also shows you’re using gov’t computers to type your opposition to the war. Maybe you should wait until you get home and give us tax payers an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
PNice, I understand that you disagree with me, but please tell me what your ideas are to get us out of Iraq while showing strength and saving face in the world. You’ve been fair and read and considered my thoughts on the subject. I’d like to get your ideas for balance.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Jeanette,
Good catch!
But again, let’s give it to the bureaucrats. At least, they have job security… unfortunately.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Reagan pulled the Marines out of Beirut, the current Republican congress was in favor of pulling American GIs out of Bosnia. Bush pulled inspectors from North Korea. Bush ignored the Cole bombing that had been proved to be the work of OBL only during the very end of the Clinton administration and being told that terrorism was the big immediate problem for him. Who isn’t capable of seeing things through?
If you look at the cold war through glasses undistorted by right-wing propaganda, you will see that America made a decision to wage war by other means after WWII. The choice was to use diplomacy, economic power, military power and the truth to bring down communism without a hot war. This is accurately seen as a liberal decision rather than a conservative one. The conservatives wanted to invade Russia - some are arguing now that we should have taken that route before.
The basic cold war strategy was resisted by the right wing for its entire 40+ year execution. Periodically, conservative pro-war thinking would win out for one conflict or another. Inevitably, this would result in deaths, dictators and so-forth and be resisted by liberals. Liberals in the meantime were holding to the initial strategy.
Luckily for conservatives, one of their own was president and rattling expensive sabers (the still-not-working ABM) when the aging politburo finally died out; copiers, faxes and the internet made it harder to for propaganda to drown out the truth; and the immanent economic collapse of the Soviet system became obvious even to them.
Conservatives want to shoot first and ask questions later (or if they are police they want to shoot first and announce themselves later). When the cost of this stupidity becomes obvious to even the most casual observer, conservative start shouting that “liberals can’t see anything through.†You conservative started the mess in Iraq, the cost is falling on me and my children, I see no reason to throw good lives and good money after bad.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Am I the only one confused by why all these liberals showed up, all at once, to the same post? Think we were linked on some lib blog?
Awfully suspicious.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
We were linked at Salon.com, Rory.
Now on to Lindata, and I’ll quote a part. I’m not going to respond to all of it because what she says makes no sense to me.
Here we go again. The Cole bombing took place in October 2000. Clinton was president until January 20, 2001, at high noon. Why didn’t he do something about Cole since AlGore made sure we didn’t even know who our president was until December? Hmmm?
We chose to use other means during the cold war. Diplomacy. Yeah, that worked for us at the U.N., didn’t it? I mean all those resolutions really made Saddam scared.
Economic sanctions were in place, my friend, or don’t you remember that far back?
Military as a last resort. Well, we tried diplomacy and economic sanctions and got nowhere. What about Saddam shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone while your president was in office?
We left Bosnia because we had no mandate to be there. It was a U.N. operation and they made the mess so let them clean it up. It’s not exactly like we were fighting a war with airplanes and no boots on the ground. And remember it was your president who said he loathes the military.
The “non-working ABM” were put on high alert the other day to intercept any Korean missile that might be launched. It has perfomed well in tests and hopefully we won’t have to see how it performs in the real world.
We took our observers out of N. Korea because after your president negotiated something (not sure what) we were double-crossed and kicked out of the country. Not exactly like leaving because we were afraid.
Yes, Reagan took us out of Beirut and it was a mistake but because of namby pambies such as yourself the country wanted them home.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
We chose to use other means during the cold war. Diplomacy. Yeah, that worked for us at the U.N., didn’t it? I mean all those resolutions really made Saddam scared.
Economic sanctions were in place, my friend, or don’t you remember that far back?
As far back as twelve years. Count ‘em: twelve!
June 26th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
shingles - “dreaded poo bomb”
Ask Oklahoma City how they feel about bombs made from fertilizer or didn’t you know that was the formula Tim McVeigh used. Triple nitrogen bonds are the foundations of a whole slew of powerful explosives including nitroglycerin and it is the N in TNT. Are you so ill-informed that you do not realize fertilizer is nitrogen rich?
I seriously suspect that you yourself are the dreaded poo bomb.
Thanks for playing.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Kathy,
June 27th, 2006 at 12:49 am
What a load of hooey!! This war is all about instant gratification. Bush and his yahoo cabinet and wahoo supporters can’t take the difficult work entailed in negotiations, the periods of waiting, results that may not be seen in your tenure, etc. It requires, intelligence, patience, and more guts than simply pulling a trigger…of course, many of those who have pulled the trigger in ‘defense’ of this nation know that war is a fool’s game if it is not a necessity and, therefore, are mostly democrats now.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:04 am
I’ve never seen so much cow dung coming out of someone’s keystrokes as the previous post! Those are keystrokes that stink!
June 27th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Of course this war was about instant gratification. “Shock and Awe”, the war will last”weeks, not months” (cheney, rumsfeld)
for a laugh see this article from 2003
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
and now we’re being lectured on patience? 3+ years later? Give me a break.
And yes, we are bogged down in Iraq. NOBODY has a plan, least of all the president, we do look like a paper tiger because the war is going much worse than the MSM lets on. Bush opened pandoras box and it can’t be closed. So if you are going to criticize the democrats, criticise them for allowing this idiocy to happen in the first place.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Patience, like in 12 years of UN resolutions? A corrupt oil for food program that allowed Saddam to send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and build palaces for himself. Time allowed his sadistic sons to brutalize, torture and rape.
Sorry, in my book, 12 years is plenty of time. I don’t consider that trigger happy.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:39 am
But COgirl - democrats consider failed diplomacy a far better course. If you choose to runaway - live to fight another day… should be their motto - although that’s with the understanding they will never ever fight.
The only thing democrats can do is stand in the path of better men, under their auspices and courage, and criticize.
Three plus years???? is a long time???? for a war???? jan van flac is not a reader of history.
Just read over this thread. The democrat commenters have proven the point made in the original post.
Thanks guys - and come back. We’d like to know how you feel about Bill Keller feeding Al Jazeera its headlines.
I fully expect you to say that you fear GWB more than the terrorists…
so here’s a question, you are on an island with three people: your child, you and
a)GWB
b)any islamic jihadist in a suicide belt
you decide. Then rethink your priorities, bub.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Your patriotism is misplaced. You have been duped again, unless you are one of the billionaire elites. The Bush Crime Family doesn’t care about you. They laugh at you, they despise you.
They have no intention of EVER leaving Iraq. Don’t bother talking troop levels and withdrawals, cut & run, stay & pay. Remember the PNAC, and the fourteen PERMENANT bases we’re building there. Everything The Bush Crime Family says and does is smoke and mirrors. They plan to keep us all distracted for another three-and-a-half years, and steal ‘06 and ‘08 like they did 2000 and ‘04, so they can keep troops there forever.
Shrub plans to give Iraq’s oil to Exxon-Mobil, cell phone monopoly to Verizon, etc. He thinks that will be his legacy and make up for all the dead.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Wow tommo - you get the award!! Let me guess, you are fresh from the conspiracy theory conference?
I’ve always wanted to know, do you guys wear that tin foil to pick up the signal, or to keep out the voices?
June 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Shall we talk about the Clinton crime family? Is Bill allowed to practice law yet?
June 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Kathy, it took more than 20 comments for someone to finally comment on my dopey “poo bomb” comment - bless you.
And FYI, I know all about the OKC bombing - my cousin and her baby just missed getting blown up that day. However, I don’t let that get in the way of me making bad jokes.
So, yes, in a ways I AM the poo bomb!
June 27th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Tommo, you’re not doing anyone any favors here.
Why don’t you throw in the Trilateral Commission, the drug smuggling contra operation, balck helicopters, the Illuminati, Opus Dei and 9/11 US government plot to steal gold, for good measure.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
shingles, I’m sorry it took so long for me to get back to you yesterday - I have a business to run sometimes - you know, payin’ the bills.
I’m grateful that your young cousins escaped harm in Oklahoma City. It’s a shame so many died on that day. It was a rudimentary bomb using fertilizer in the composition.
And you are welcome to comment here even if you insist on being the ‘poo bomb’.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Thank you.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Funny, I always thought that slavishly following an incompetent, lying, idiot into war was a dumb thing, not a patriotic thing. And if (after 3 years of stubbornly and repeatedly proving his incompetence) some Liberal Democrats are finally getting the guts to say “ENOUGH!” to Bush, I think they are going to be rewarded. After all, the public has been there for a long time.
You can spin Iraq until you’ve created a tornado that will take you to Oz, but it will forever be a stain upon America’s soul. Lies about WMDs, torture and murder at our hands, $Billions stolen by corruption, more terrorist who hate us than ever, and our complete loss of the moral high ground we had after 9/11 - These are not the fault of Liberals. These are the fault of the man in charge - George W Bush. The WORST President EVER!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
liberalpercy,
I’m going to be generous and assume your entire comment was sarcastic, because I have faith — I really do — that no one could be galactically stupid enough to believe all of that.
Thank you for the laugh, and do come again.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Liberalpercy,
I guess you’re right. The radical Islamofascists hate us more today than they did before. How could I have been so stupid not to have seen this?
And you’re also right about our torturing and murdering those kind people who want nothing but peace in this world. Why, putting women’s panties on a man’s head is the ultimate in torture. They can’t even match us in our barbarity even though they try hard by slicing off heads of innocents the way you’d slice a piece of bologna.
Yes, you’re right. I have now seen the error of my ways and I wish we had a smart president in office. One who is sexually serviced while on the phone talking to important people. I certainly was proud of that superior intellectual. /sarcasm off
June 27th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
“Worst President Ever” will not be in the mouths of historians thirty or forty years from now.
History will vindicate this man… and people like you will rot green with envy…
… and I will enjoy the show.
So, troll, take that and stick it where the sun don’t shine! If anything, the ones being proven liars and lunatics are your own people!
June 27th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Ladies and gents, let’s leave the trolls alone.
I bet you that killing the President, for them, is one of their favorite sexual fantasies. Now, I call that “instant gratification”.
I just don’t envy their laundry detergents!
June 27th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
June 28th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Baghdad has 20-40 murders per day, MINIMUM. Now take out your calculator, and multiply that by 365 days.
Now look at the idiotic statement you made, and imagine if any US city had in the area of ten THOUSAND murders per year.
Kinda makes you look like a feeble-minded math-challenged brainwashed moron, doesn’t it.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:18 am
tubino - that is a ridiculous number you posted. Really! What is your source Cindy SheHam?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:20 am
By occupying Iraq, the US has handed bin Laden a gift that will keep on giving (to Islamic terrorists) for decades. By tying their cause to an occupation, Bush has made an otherwise unsustainable movement something as viable as Palestinian resistance (decade after decade), as dangerous as Lebanon’s civil war (after Israeli occupation), and already exporting techniques to Afghanistan.
With Abu Gharaib, the occupation (notice Bush never says we are NOT building bases in Iraq), Bush has done more for Islamic terrorism as a global movement than I thought any one person could do.
Well but then there’s the economy, right? OOPS, facts are available!
The economy and deficit under Bush
June 28th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Source are the numbers reported by the morgues in Baghdad, as reported by every news agency in the world. These numbers are acknowledged to be very low, underreporting actual bodies.
What numbers are you using? Source?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:22 am
I have to say, Salon.com has an impressive little army of moonbat readers, don’t they? I feel like I’ve tripped and fallen into the Daily Kos.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am
You made the challenge tubino - it’s your assertion to prove or don’t they teach you that “naynayneebooboo” doesn’t work in the real world?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Murder rate in Baghdad — actual numbers, comparison with US cities.
EXCERPT: The bodies of 6,000 people, most of whom died violently, have been received by Baghdad’s main mortuary so far this year, health ministry figures show.
The number has risen every month, to 1,400 in May. The majority are believed to be victims of sectarian killings.
But observers say the real death toll could be much higher.
A sidebar gives monthly totals:
MORTUARY’S MONTHLY TOLL
January: 1068
February: 1110
March: 1294
April: 1155
May: 1398
—————–
Over to you, Kathy.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:30 am
False. YOU mde the claim about the murder rate compared to US cities, which I cited.
Gawd you ARE stupid, aren’t you. If that is what you want to prove, you’re there already.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Thank you tubino - you simply cannot prove it, eh? You know how you have won an argument with a liberal? Ad hominems. Your calling me stupid took a lot of soul searching thought - deep thinker aren’t you? Maybe you should go back to nananybooboo.
Look there are bogus articles about the death rate out there in the left sphere everywhere.
Here’s a thought - read something reliable, and that doesn’t include the Koran flushing experts at Newsweak.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:43 am
The bodies of 6,000 people, most of whom died violently, have been received by Baghdad’s main mortuary so far this year, health ministry figures show.
So I’m citing the figures of Iraq’s health ministry, based only on Baghdad’s MAIN mortuary. Where’s the proof for YOUR claim, which you made first?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:46 am
However, just for you tubino - here’s a source you can rely upon, and one that blows apart NYT and Newsweak distorted numbers:
Link here.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:49 am
MORE FROM ARTICLE ABOVE:
The 2006 death toll at the Baghdad mortuary appeared in two local newspapers and was confirmed to the BBC by officials who asked to remain anonymous because the issue is so sensitive.
One reason for the sensitivity is that government officials fear more detailed information on these killings could further enflame sectarian tensions, the BBC’s Andrew North in Baghdad says.
But no-one believes these are the true figures from the violence in and around Baghdad as many bodies are not taken to the morgue, or are never found, he adds.
—————–
As an example, 9 heads were found in a box, and those bodies were not in the morgue count.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Kathy, you are citing a discredited writer (Lott), but even if you had a serious journalist with real numbers, the article is from December 2003.
The civil war started in 2006.
See the difference?
How determined are you to look even dumber? I’m impressed.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Kathy, I’ve cited the morgue numbers from Iraq’s Ministry of Health. To refute that, you need something more than outdated hack stuff.
Do you realize how many journalists ALONE have been killed there?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am
“The civil war started in 2006.”
Lol! Kathy, I suggest you ignore the simpleton. He’s willingly looking past oceans of contradicting facts in order to portray himself as correct. And you can tell by his rhetoric that nothing you say will change his mind. He likely has hundreds of equally unbalanced young people agreeing with him at the DU and DK every single day, so he has the false notion that he represents a majority opinion — despite his side losing three elections straight.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:57 am
And the BBC - do they include deaths by illnesses, auto accidents, etc? All morgue entries are not murders. Civil war? LOL.
Look - the antiwar press that is pushing an agenda is not reliable. I know you lefties don’t trust Rumsfeld, so I’m not surprised you don’t take his word. But look at the distortions - 28 fold.
The numbers are inflated for political reasons. But it is interesting that you are concerned about the lives of Iraqis now, and you weren’t when Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands he never bothered to send to a morgue - he dug a hole in the desert. But that does not adhere to the PC concern you NOW have, eh?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:59 am
And as to the security of American cities - here’s New Orleans:
The national guard in in NOLA! Where’s your outrage?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
tubino - do you still contend that the morque statistics are a reliable reflection of the murder rate?
You keep talking about intelligence as if it were an attribute of political opinion.
That’s a common failing. People of your persuasion are rarely challenged to go beyond the most shallow presentations in the media, and when you are the first thing you haul out are the epithets.
It’s a throwback to grade school, the last time you had to defend a position.
Try being a conservative in school - then you learn how to discuss politics without assuming the other person is ignorant because they disagree with you.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
The numbers were published IN IRAQ by the Iraq Ministry of Health. REMEDIAL READING???
What evidence do you have that the Health Ministry is inflating numbers? The article says the Iraqi officials do NOT want high numbers out there, for fear of worsening sectarian violence. In other words, the evidence and common sense indicate that the political pressure would be to deflate the numbers.
So where’s your evidence for your claim about inflated numbers etc?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
tubino -
simple words so even you can grasp them
morgue numbers are the TOTAL DEATHS
Are all deaths in Baghdad murders? Really?
Nobody gets sick or has an auto accident?
Puhlease, I’m not all that patient - but for a person who throws around the word stupid, you shouldn’t strain yourself with reading comprehension.
The numbers in the morque are not inflated per se, but to use them to reflect murder rates is intellectually dishonest and a gross exaggeration. (Exaggeration is a big word, sorry)
June 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
That’s numerical inflation by the BBC conflating death totals with crime statistics.
How much more evidence do you need?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I was on the side of the leftists who tried to bring in pro-democracy Iraqis back in the early 80s — and visas were denied by the State Dept. The concern then by the US admin was NOT about human rights in Saddam’s regime.
Nice try. I would guess your concerns were closer to Rumsfeld’s at the time?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
And here’s the actual quote:
“And the BBC - do they include deaths by illnesses, auto accidents, etc? All morgue entries are not murders. Civil war? LOL.”
June 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
So you were for the toppling of Saddam, or your concerns changed for political expedience?
As to the 80’s - your president carter abandoned the Shah and started this mess - so don’t be selective in your history, buddy.
Nice change of topics… LOL
June 28th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Okay, very slowly for you: Figure that illness and accidents do not change that much. Then look at the INCREASE over that constant for illness, accident, natural death.
Now notice that the death rate INCREASE is greater than the baseline.
Your explanation? Or why don’t you come up with other figures?
Or why don’t you notice that the article I cited says, “The bodies of 6,000 people, most of whom died violently, have been received by Baghdad’s main mortuary so far this year, health ministry figures show.”
Honest, accurate, and accounting for your concerns.
Jeez, you’re flailing now. Do you have ANY evidence at ALL from the last 6 months?
Anything???
June 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I’m using the evidence you provide tubino - and you still contend that your numbers are a reflection of crime and not the total death rate -
If you aren’t going to be intellectually honest there is no point discussing this with you.
You are making a dishonest assumption and you know it.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Additionally, you have given nothing to prove civil war….
but it would be convenient if you could, eh?
And you were for the toppling of Saddam - because you agree he killed more when he was the head of Iraq than are dying today? That would require some intellectual honesty.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
You might ask yourself, why give totals, why don’t they release the actual murder rate, I’m sure the bureau of statistics has that number.
OOOOOhhh - but that would accurately reflect the crime rate, and it wouldn’t be nearly so inflamatory….
June 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Tubino,
If you make one more comment questioning Kathy’s intelligence by calling her a moron, stupid, dumb etc. I will personally see to it you are permanently banned from this site from the computer you are now using. Read the comment rules.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Our friend Tubino from The University of Toledo doesn’t seem to know how to read our comment rules and is using foul language as well as calling people stupid, moron and dumb. I have put him into moderation queue. This is only because others in that IP range might not be so liberal in name-calling or profanity.