We all know that the irrational loathing for the President preceded the Iraq invasion. He was despised, derided, and the target of a campaign of hatred from the moment he was nominated.
Now the Dems are backtracking and trying to convince us that the only reason they hate him is his "failed policies". But here on this blog, we constantly see comments about his so-called AWOL history and his National Guard service, as well as attacks on his religious beliefs and his employment history before he ran for governor.
But all the screaming and hollering in the world does not change the fact that the man is not running for anything. So now the Dems are in a quandry they created. I've seen it coming and wondered how they were going to handle it.
Certainly if they try to mount an equivalent All Hate All The Time campaign against the GOP nominee in '08, it will be totally transparent. They can't keep running AGAINST people forever. Their anti campaign has already turned a lot of Dems off, Dems who would like their party to be FOR something for a change. They've managed to carry it off for a while, accusing Bush of every crime under the sun and even getting a Bush supporter indicted for something that was not a crime. But they can't keep this up forever.
And Bush is willing to be the lightning rod for the party, the human sacrifice. He doesn't care. He'll take the heat. And what do the Dems have left when he is gone? Nothing. They still don't have a plan, they still don't have a platform, and they still don't have an idea. They'll keep digging Bush up to be able to keep attacking him, and will keep looking like one-note wonders.
And I'll bet Bush is encouraging Republicans to step away from him, willing to take fire himself. After all, if Bush is the problem, then all any Republican has to do is say he isn't Bush.
If you want to see how weak their position is, Sue, look at S W Anderson's idea of an argument. He simply presents statements that are obviously false and ridiculous, but wihout admitting that the statments came from him and not from the Administration.
"Republicans knew Iraq was so stuffed with weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was running out of places to put them."
A typical Liberal ploy---inventing a position that was supposedly taken by a conservative and then exaggerating it to a level of total riduculousness. This is supposed to 'prove' that the point was false. But it conveniently overlooks the fact that the point was never made in the first place, much less in such a grandiose manner. This is supposed be clever. It is just silly.
"Republicans knew Saddam was in thick with al Qaeda and had somethingorother to do, somehoworother, with 9-11."
Except the President repeated in speech after speech that we did not think Sadaam was involved in 9/11, and that no one should think that our invasion of Iraq was an implication of such involvement. (It was not till we invaded and gained access to Iraqi intelligence papers that we learned of the long-term ties between Iraq and Al-Queda.)
"Republicans knew our troops would be greeted as liberators."
OK,he's right here. We were pretty sure we would be welcomed by the populace, and we were, and we are.
"Republicans knew we'd be outta there in six months, tops."
Well, the Republican President cautioned the entire country, not just Republicans, that this was a war that would not end quickly, that would take decades or even generations. These wild claims of "six months, tops" and that it would be a "cakewalk" came directly from the Dems, not from a single claim by any Republican.
"Republicans knew 130,000 troops would be plenty."
A Secretary of Defense, who happened to be appointed by a Republican, listened to the advice of generals, and chose the advice he thought was best. He, and the President, have said over and over again that when the generals want more troops, they will get more troops. Anderson is just making this stuff up---or regurgitating what his minders have made up.
Bascially, if they had an argument, or a position, or anything, they would present it. All they have is warmed-over griping, based on invented "facts" that never existed outside their fevered little brains. It's supposedly a clever debate tactic, but it is so overused and so transparent that now all it does is hignlight the inadequacy of the entire Dem position---which can be summed up in in four words: Bush Is Always Wrong.
Quite a campaign platform, isn't it? Especially since no one is running against Bush.
The best thing that could happen to the Democrats is for the Conservatives to run as themselves. As they only represent about 1/3 of voters, the rest of us would realize how out of step with mainstream America they really are and vote them out. BTW, in Maryland, Republican candidate Michael Steele took money from a fundraiser headed by Bush, but managed to be elsewhere, so that he would not be associated with the administration's failed policies. Guess he's smart enough to realize that voters in Maryland won't send any candidate to the U.S. Senate that appears with Bush.
That's right up there with Baghdad's alleged violent-crime problem New Orleans' alleged rundown-neighborhoods problem.
Straw man alert. That's a broad assertion and it's telling you don't attempt to back it up. It certainly doesn't appeal to logic.
Under current circumstances that include several years of a Republican-controlled Congress marching in lockstep with the Bush White House, giving the administration 99 percent of what it has wanted, while exercising almost no oversight in the face of abuses of power and privilege that make Bill Clinton's indiscretion look penny ante and Nixon's lying and criminality look quaint, most Americans know exactly who's to blame for the long list of things that have gone wrong — and it's not Reid and Pelosi.
Nor will Reid and Pelosi be running in the various states and districts, any more than Tom Foley ran in different states and districts a dozen years ago.
Sorry, Noonan, but the only test your post passes is the one concerned with wishful thinking.
WHEN IS “CUT AND RUN” NOT “CUT AND RUN” ???”
"Hagel: U.S. public losing patience
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, warned that the Bush administration was losing support for the conflict at home and in Iraq.
"I had a man who, three years ago, was a very strong supporter of the war in Iraq, come up to me yesterday and say to me, 'Senator, we have National Guard troops from Nebraska going back to Iraq for the third and fourth time. How can that be? What's going on? We were not told that was going to be it,' " Hagel told CNN.
"The Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, want the United States out of Iraq," Hagel said. "They see us as oppressors, rather than liberators. That's just a fact of life."" - CNN
So when is “cut –and- run” not “cut -and -run”? Lets take a look and see.
"Some Democratic lawmakers who've been calling on Bush to bring U.S. troops home said Sunday that Casey's reported pullout plan indicates military leaders might agree with them.
"Here we have a situation where Democrats, 80 percent of us, voted to say we ought to start reducing our troop presence there -- and again, we got pummeled," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California Democrat, said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "And now, it turns out, we're in sync with Gen. Casey."
Republicans in Congress have criticized Democratic proposals for getting out of Iraq, accusing the opposition party of plans to "cut and run" from the war."- CNN
Get that? A Democrat calls for it , it’s “CUT AND RUN”. A Republican calls for it, then it’s a “PHASED WITHDRAWL”
"Get that? A Democrat calls for it , it’s “CUT AND RUN”. A Republican calls for it, then it’s a “PHASED WITHDRAWL”"
That's right. Democrats want to "cut and run" because they say we are not and can not win. It's not true, but that is what they need and want the US and the world to believe.
The republicans know we are winning and the Iraqi forces are taking over the security of Iraq, so they know that at some point in the future we can have a phased withdrawl of some of our troops.
Democrats and liberals don't like it and won't admit it but there is a world of difference in what they suggust we do and what President Bush, his administration, and the armed forces are planning to do.
Liberals can scream about this and spin it all they like but they can't cover up what they mean when they say we need to leave Iraq, nor will it work to try to say that the Republicans are doing just what the Democrats are suggesting. The public isn't that dumb, although the Democrats-especially the far left-would like to believe that they are.
SW,
If anything, a nationalised election means for the Democrat that they'll be tying marginal GOPers - ie, GOPers who repersent districts with no inherent GOP majority - to President Bush in an attempt to get swing voters to vote against the GOPer...but the other side of that is GOPers tying marginal Democrats to Nancy Pelosi...it'll be "had enough" from the Donks and "is this what you want" from the GOP...my bet is that this will work to the GOP advantage.
As far as alleged unpopularity - I'm not buying the polling...they are almost all polls of "adults" rather than registered or likely voters, and all of them have samples heavily overweighted with Democrats. Taking one thing with another, I'm doubtful that President Bush's real approval rating dropped any lower than 45% among likely voters...and it is the likely voters who will determine who wins this November.
Time will tell, won't it? But I do recall my being absolutely confident of GOP victory in June of 2004, and I was right back then...I believe I am right again today.
Sue wrote:
What objective evidence can you offer to back that up, Sue? Number of attacks against Iraqi and coalition troops, and against innocent civilians? Deadliness of those attacks and resultant body count of coalition troops and Iraqi security officers? Safety of diplomatic personnel like the Russians kidnapped and murdered?
How about the economy, Sue? Do you have figures on barrels of Iraqi oil sold and shipped? Megawatts of electicity flowing to customers? Gallons of potable water circulating to homes and busiensses? Safety of streets and highways, such as the one President Bush flew over from Baghdad's airport to the Green Zone because going by car would've been suicide?
Tell you what, Sue. Somebody's blowing smoke here, and it's not Democrats. It's you.
Republicans knew Iraq was so stuffed with weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was running out of places to put them. Republicans knew Saddam was in thick with al Qaeda and had somethingorother to do, somehoworother, with 9-11. Republicans knew our troops would be greeted as liberators. Republicans knew we'd be outta there in six months, tops. Republicans knew 130,000 troops would be plenty. Republicans knew the war would cost $60 billion or $70 billion. Republicans knew we didn't need no help training Iraqi security troops from France, Germany and Egypt. Republicans knew they could pass the hat and other countries would chip in at least $13 billion to offset the war's horrendous cost.
Trouble is, Sue, time and events have shown that the farther you get from trash-and-bash election campaigns, and wrapping themselves in the flag, the less Republicans really do know. By the time you get to wars of aggression, they know just enough to create a self-inflicted disaster on our country and military, and on the poor people of another country, and don't begin to know how to make it a success or extricate our troops.
Final note, Sue. Don't you dare try to tell me it's all worthwhile because Iraqis are free. They are not free. They are caught between a crackpot crusader too feckless to send in the 350,000 troops necessary to do the job right and the murderous insurgents U.S. intervention spawned in their midst. Iraqis are trapped in a slaughterhouse of our making, and we'll be generations trying to live down what we've done to them.
The Republican Party will keep the House and Senate. Watch and learn....
Mark Noonan, I understand where you're coming from. I'll stand by my contention. As you say, time will tell.
Mr. Anderson....
It must be fun to be a pompous tool. You're wrong on tons of issues.
"Republicans knew Iraq was so stuffed with weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was running out of places to put them."
THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVED THIS... of course you'll quote a French politician who had billions of dollars riding on Saddam staying in power... nice try.
"Republicans knew Saddam was in thick with al Qaeda..."
INDEED he did meet with members of Al Qaeda and indeed he offered money to suicide bombers... and indeed he tried to kill a president of the United States... I'll wait for the illinformed reply.
"Republicans knew our troops would be greeted as liberators."
INDEED they were. I remember seeing our troops greeted with cheering as the Iraqis celebrated the removal of Saddam. I'll wait for the "thoughtful reply."
"Republicans knew we'd be outta there in six months, tops. Republicans knew 130,000 troops would be plenty."
WHAT REPUBLICAN SAID THAT? The President even said it would take a long time and the President said that however many troops the generals wanted they'd get. (NOW I'll wait for the lame aircraft carrier bullet point that isn't even accurate.)
"Republicans knew we didn't need no help training Iraqi security troops from France, Germany and Egypt."
THE REST of the world was well informed and WERE asked to be involved. France and Germany lost a lot of economic aid (France with telecommunications, and Germany with their own financial dealings with Saddam and I could go on about Russia and China, and perhaps the son of the Secretary General of the United Nations).
There's being thoughtful...and there's thinking. Perhaps you can do a bit of both. Report back.
We all know that the irrational loathing for the President preceded the Iraq invasion. He was despised, derided, and the target of a campaign of hatred from the moment he was nominated.
Now the Dems are backtracking and trying to convince us that the only reason they hate him is his "failed policies". But here on this blog, we constantly see comments about his so-called AWOL history and his National Guard service, as well as attacks on his religious beliefs and his employment history before he ran for governor.
But all the screaming and hollering in the world does not change the fact that the man is not running for anything. So now the Dems are in a quandry they created. I've seen it coming and wondered how they were going to handle it.
Certainly if they try to mount an equivalent All Hate All The Time campaign against the GOP nominee in '08, it will be totally transparent. They can't keep running AGAINST people forever. Their anti campaign has already turned a lot of Dems off, Dems who would like their party to be FOR something for a change. They've managed to carry it off for a while, accusing Bush of every crime under the sun and even getting a Bush supporter indicted for something that was not a crime. But they can't keep this up forever.
And Bush is willing to be the lightning rod for the party, the human sacrifice. He doesn't care. He'll take the heat. And what do the Dems have left when he is gone? Nothing. They still don't have a plan, they still don't have a platform, and they still don't have an idea. They'll keep digging Bush up to be able to keep attacking him, and will keep looking like one-note wonders.
And I'll bet Bush is encouraging Republicans to step away from him, willing to take fire himself. After all, if Bush is the problem, then all any Republican has to do is say he isn't Bush.
If you want to see how weak their position is, Sue, look at S W Anderson's idea of an argument. He simply presents statements that are obviously false and ridiculous, but wihout admitting that the statments came from him and not from the Administration.
"Republicans knew Iraq was so stuffed with weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was running out of places to put them."
A typical Liberal ploy---inventing a position that was supposedly taken by a conservative and then exaggerating it to a level of total riduculousness. This is supposed to 'prove' that the point was false. But it conveniently overlooks the fact that the point was never made in the first place, much less in such a grandiose manner. This is supposed be clever. It is just silly.
"Republicans knew Saddam was in thick with al Qaeda and had somethingorother to do, somehoworother, with 9-11."
Except the President repeated in speech after speech that we did not think Sadaam was involved in 9/11, and that no one should think that our invasion of Iraq was an implication of such involvement. (It was not till we invaded and gained access to Iraqi intelligence papers that we learned of the long-term ties between Iraq and Al-Queda.)
"Republicans knew our troops would be greeted as liberators."
OK,he's right here. We were pretty sure we would be welcomed by the populace, and we were, and we are.
"Republicans knew we'd be outta there in six months, tops."
Well, the Republican President cautioned the entire country, not just Republicans, that this was a war that would not end quickly, that would take decades or even generations. These wild claims of "six months, tops" and that it would be a "cakewalk" came directly from the Dems, not from a single claim by any Republican.
"Republicans knew 130,000 troops would be plenty."
A Secretary of Defense, who happened to be appointed by a Republican, listened to the advice of generals, and chose the advice he thought was best. He, and the President, have said over and over again that when the generals want more troops, they will get more troops. Anderson is just making this stuff up---or regurgitating what his minders have made up.
Bascially, if they had an argument, or a position, or anything, they would present it. All they have is warmed-over griping, based on invented "facts" that never existed outside their fevered little brains. It's supposedly a clever debate tactic, but it is so overused and so transparent that now all it does is hignlight the inadequacy of the entire Dem position---which can be summed up in in four words: Bush Is Always Wrong.
Quite a campaign platform, isn't it? Especially since no one is running against Bush.
wawilliyo wrote:
Not exactly. U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq at the time Bush ordered them to get out of the way of his invasion weren't exactly tripping over WMD. Had the weapons been as numerous and omnipresent as billed, inspectors would likely have found at least some evidence of them. What's more, there were those within our own intelligence community who had reservations about the plentitude and makeup of Saddam's alleged stockpiles.
You'd do well to read the January 2004 report by the nonpartisan Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, titled WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications.
The alleged meeting with an al Qaeda representative, some have said Mohammed Atta, in the Czech Republic, has been refuted by a Czech government investigation. And former CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress his agency had no information about such a meeting.
Saddam provided money to a "charitable" fund for the families of suicide bombers. If that's sufficient basis for making war, the U.S. would more logically have invaded and toppled the regime of Saudi Arabia, far and away the major source of funding for suicidal jihadists and terrorists — and oh, by the way, the homeland of 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorist attackers.
As for Saddam's attempt to kill George H.W. Bush, if that was supposed to be grounds for waging war on Iraq, George W. Bush should've said so. However, using that would inevitably invite some unwelcome questions about past U.S. mischief, including that which resulted in the killing of Salvador Allende.
If you'll recall, all that cheering was quickly drowned out by the noise made by unchecked looters, street criminals and revenge killers. Gratitude was short lived. By early 2004, a pollster found a strong majority of Iraqis saying they had no problem with their countrymen killing U.S. troops.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
As a matter of fact, of public record, France, Germany and Egypt offered to train Iraqi security troops in their respective countries. The Bush administration said if those countries wanted to train security forces within Iraq, the administration would talk to them about it. No reason was given publicly for why sending Iraqi trainees abroad was unacceptable to the administration. Probably feeling insulted, the other countries dropped the matter.
Almiranta wrote:
"We all know that the irrational loathing for the President preceded the Iraq invasion. He was despised, derided, and the target of a campaign of hatred from the moment he was nominated."
Substitute "Lewinky scandal" for "Iraq invasion" and join me in marveling at how perfectly this statement applies to Bill Clinton.
Touché.
There is no chance the Democrats will take the Senate in November.
Almiranta,
You and your handlers need to get your lies straight:
"Except the President repeated in speech after speech that we did not think Sadaam was involved in 9/11, and that no one should think that our invasion of Iraq was an implication of such involvement."
now, lets dissect this logically. AQ dropped our buildings, to invade a sovereign nation, we would have to make the case that they were connected with AQ, connected to the point that invasion would be the only way to continue the WOT, since AQ are terrorists, right? Well Bush made his point very clear in the run-up to war, that AQ and Saddam were sharing CW and BW expertise, and therefore those connections between a hated enemy, and our mandate to eradicate AQ was enough of a link to invade Iraq.
Bush: “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.” [2/8/03]
Bush: “Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” [10/7/02]
Cheney: “[Saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.” [10/10/03]
Cheney: “[Saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda — providing training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs.” [10/17/03]
Cheney: “It’s clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth…” [CNBC’s “Kudlow & Kramer,” 6/4/04]
so, it is quite disingenous to say that the Bush-team wasn't trying to make the point that Saddam had iron-clad links to terrorism, then come to find out, WOW, those links were bogus, there were no WMDs there, he didn't have links to AQ, and in three very extensive reports, the congress said the EXACT SAME THING, wow, wonders will never cease.
Can you provide some proof, Hun, as to where we were welcomed with flowers and cheering, atleast one that wasn't setup by military PsyOps?
You can live in fantasyland all you want, but even in your blurry little world of parsed symantics, Bush will be associated with every republican this year, '08, and beyond. When anyone goes into the booth to cast their vote, the failure of his administrations Iraq policy, and the failure to bring the one man we know was involved with 9/11 to justice will stink to high heaven; we don't need any republican to vote democrat, just having them vote for second tier candidates, and reform parties ensures us victory, so start jumping ship, and prepare for the impeachment proceedings LOL!
Third Eye Open, bravo for the specifics.