WOW! that's correct- the war is NOT about left VS. right. Matter of fact we now see 12 republicans as of late that have realized this very fact in their stance against Bush and the *maniacal* plan to further take us down the drain. Absolutely- good opening topic! but i know the partisan air in here REFUSES to realize it is in fact not about left vs. right.

Now as far as defeating terrorism world wide. Just explain to everyone here (something Bush can not do) just how will you DEFEAT terrorism worldwide? Tell us just exactly how the plan goes for the CESSATION of worldwide terrorism?

thanks

it appears Bill didn't read anything beyond the title of your post.

Uh oh, the scare quotes are here, the Bush plan is "maniacal". Cue scary music. Bush gains yet another nickname from the eminently stable-headed and clear thinking left: "maniac".

How many of those twelve...wow, twelve...republicans are up for re-election next year? I know of one, Senator Coleman of Minnesota who I am ashamed to say I voted for; he was once a democrat, now is a republican and seems ready to become a dem again. Politics, what a game, huh?

Now, as far as dealing with terrorism against this nation and our people, please explain to everyone here how you plan on dealing with it, because its not going away. Do we just accept the hits we have been taking for decades or do we pursue the miscreants and destroy them wherever they are found?

Thanks.

Lose, you got me there. Bush has a clear cut strategy for the cessation of terrorism right?

--

any way, exaclty how was

The IRA dealt with?

--sorry about the pause there.

You are correct this war is not about left Vs right. It is about nation building, revenge for an assassination attempt on Bush 41 and oil.

I don’t want to hear that neocon rhetoric that the Democrats voted for the war and now they are against it. We were lied too. We were lied to by Colin Powell and he knows it, because he also was lied to and used by the Neocons and that is why he resigned.

A lowly congressman from Ames Iowa is not dealing with the same intelligence information as the Secretary of State. If your third grade teacher, who you respect, says the sun is 90 million miles away, but your friends say no it is 93 million miles away which answer are you going to put on the teacher’s test. Many of us were fooled by 911 America is invincible speeches that blinded us about the truth and we were shielded from the facts as described by Ambassador Wilson. Now, with correct information we have a chance to change our answer.

Therein lies the problem with liberal strategy in regards to terrorism and war; treat them all the same and things will always work out.

Look at the two glaring differences between the IRA and Al-Queda:
1) The IRA was regional in their desire and their field of operations, AQ is global.
2) The AQ terrorists not only are willing to die for the cause, they often actively seek it. IRA bombers werent strapping explosives to themselves.

We could go on and on, talk about the religious aspects and the end-goal for both organizations, the number of copycats they have etc., but the point is well-made in the previous examples. Different tactics for different enemies.

The liberals want to treat everyone the same, as if all the little points that differentiate them are inconsequential. Meanwhile they scream and rant about Gitmo detainees not having their muslim sensitivities properly respected...shouldnt we be treating them generically as all other POW's are? Liberal logic at its finest.

OK Lose- again you got me. so while i can reason and acknowledge your point of fact. My intentions was showing force alone doesn't cut it.

Any way, since i am capable of offering a light concession, how about it from you guys? I have laid out 6 issues- that the right can not address so i answered the issues myself. I posted them in another thread but none on the right have the chahonies or the ability to intelligibly or plausibly address them. But here they are once more:

1) Why is public support waning?

because in November of 2006 (prior to the midterms) we were "winning the war" as of 3 weeks later we "not winning, but not losing".

I do not think the American people just can adjust that fast to such a drastic turn of events- in three weeks! It's almost sureal.
--

2) Why are we not winning the war?

Because we have no idea what "success in Iraq" means nor do we even know what "the mission" is. even though it was accomplished once.
--

3) Rummie's replacement won't tell us what the "National Interest" is.

Why is that? I mean i am an American. You guys (except Canuck) are Americans, Congress is American. Why are we NOT privy to the "national Interest" ???????????????????
--

4) On that mission it is perpetually in flux.

The enitre charade has changed from WMD's, to liberating Iraq/ousting Saddam, to building a government, to fighting the war on Terror, to preventing a civil war, to slowing a civil war, to keeping Iranians and other terroist from embarking on the wide open Iraq, to ending the civil war that formerly was being slowed- that was formerly being prevented, to now adding more troops to protect the one's that are dying. And this is the mouse that lived in the house that.... get the point?

5) The Iraqi people do not and WILL NOT comply with Bush. Any one wonder why?

Well let me tell you why- BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT W TAKING THEIR OIL!
--

6) The civil war is another **SMOKE SCREEN** by W.

Yes kiddos. Stealing Iraqs Oil and using out troops to protect it is about as criminal and un-patriotic attempt to destoy America that i have ever seen. In the LEAST and impeachable neccesity.

-----

can any one on the right address this with any reasonable stance? i doubt it. spin a way.

WOW! that's correct- the war is NOT about left VS. right.

WOW, Bill, I guess even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. It's becoming pretty clear that it's about foresight vs. no foresight and common sense vs. no common sense, both of which you and your party (and 12 Republicans) lack in spades.

Sooner or later the public is going to have to come to the conclusion that our two major political parties do not represent the majority of Americans. In the last 4-6 years I've often been embarrassed to call myself a Republican, but the alternative is 10 times worse. The time is long past due for a strong third party that encompasses the 60-65% in the middle. As a reader over at the Strata Sphere said recently, we could call it "The Common Sense Party", although personally, I like "The No Kooks Allowed Party". (sorry Bill) I've been thinking ever since Reagan left office that something like that would develop, but alas, I guess too many people are either satisfied with the status quo or simply don't care.

just how will you DEFEAT terrorism worldwide? Tell us just exactly how the plan goes for the CESSATION of worldwide terrorism?

Bill, there's a limit on this blog. You can't ask the same question more than 10 times, and I believe you're past the limit -- sorry. Besides, as they say in the spook world, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you", heh.

It's not rocket science, it's partisan politics. The Iraq war should not be about left vs. right... It should be about victory vs. defeat.

Matt, as long as we have one political party that finds defeat acceptable, it's not going to change. The only possible event or series of events that I see as possibly changing that involve a whole lot of people dying. I got into it with a Lib on another blog recently. He was not concerned about bailing out of Iraq because Al Qaeda doesn't have an army, navy or air force, and, to use his words, "can't follow us home". Of course, he's also one of those kooks who believe Bush blew up the Pentagon and WTC.

Hi guys,
Anybody catch that new Rassmussen Poll yesterday (you know, the one Mark likes to cite).
Seems like about 61 percent of Americans are ready to "accept defeat" rather than dig ourselves in deeper.
And the 35 percent who approve of the president's job performance(the lowest Bush approval number that poll has ever reported)?
Well, I recommend they join all those returning vets who "can't wait to get back in action" and visit the local recruiting office -- if the "surge" is to work it's up to you to carry Bush's oil, er, water.

Yes, yes we get it: we're either with Bush or we're against America and freedom and sugar and spice.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

"What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base. [ha ha ha - everyone laughs]" GW Bush

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." - PNAC

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Rumsfeld

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." - PNAC

"And at 2:40 p.m. [9/11/01], the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted 'best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.' – meaning Saddam Hussein – 'at same time. Not only UBL. Go massive,' the notes quote him as saying. 'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'" - CBS news

Who cares whether it's left or right issue. It's a partisan Republican and a Democrat issue, which is basically the same. Bowers's point was that McCain tries to portray himself as pragmatic and nonpartisan, when in fact he's toed the GOP line on Iraq (among so many other important issues) since day one.

Gar Wood

Alright BS, I too will give a light concession; I agree with you on #4. Bush should have stayed on message and continually reminded the American people that the entire world believed Saddam had WMD (including scads of high ranking dems), and today the question could be asked, what would Saddam be doing as his arch-enemy embarked on a fast-track nuke program?

An addendum to that regular reminder could be that in this coming age of nuclear terrorism, what options do we really have when dealing with nuke-nations run by dictators and religious psychopaths?

Not that I would expect the left to accept ANY message that Bush would give, they would still hate him just as much no matter what he says.

mark...amazing you can still link the word 'victory' with the word "iraq:. i'm worried about you. the list is scary....mccain, buchanan, holbrooke, duberstein, perle, frum, adelman. these are the guys....and they are all saying it's not about victory anymore. we screwed the pooch on this one. either roll in there with a couple o hundred thousand troops or draw up some serious strategies for dealing with the reality of a withdrawal. at least a withdrawal plan for all to see might scare the heck out of the maliki govt to get it together........mark....wake up and smell the napalm on this one

I don’t want to hear that neocon rhetoric that the Democrats voted for the war and now they are against it. We were lied too.
with correct information we have a chance to change our answer.

Fine, then change your answer. Defund operations, you dont have to defund money to protect the troops and make sure theyre fed, just defund the war itself and get the soldiers home. Seems simple...why arent the dems pursuing this ASAP, dont they care about the troops? They are taking a SYMBOLIC vote, why not a REAL vote, wtf is that? If you feel strongly enough, why have just a fake vote?

A lowly congressman from Ames Iowa is not dealing with the same intelligence information as the Secretary of State

That lowly congressman was elected to do a job, not to be a shill for whatever party yells the loudest. Mr. Iowa is constitutionally required to do his level-best to be informed about the issues on which he will vote as a duly elected member of the U.S. government. He can request all the information he thinks he needs before casting a single vote, he can engage the media to voice his concerns, he can lobby for various committees or individuals to provide more data.

The checks and balances are built into the system for precisely this type of event, its why things like the senate's Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee exist. If Mr. Ames Iowa had concerns, he should have pursued them with more vigor, its his duty as a congressman, not whine that he was lied to and needs to be forgiven for his earlier vote.

Absolutely, Matt!!

This is an issue of good vs. evil!

The only ones who have politicized the issue, are democrats!!

If it's ok, Let's look at it this way, taking it from a spiritual viewpoint!!

The terrorists applauds the actions of democrats, the democrats want us out, and at the same time, democrats do not realize that the terrorists, are after any and all, it does'nt matter what party you are affiliated with.

Now, this can be applied to the spiritual sense.

Satan, wants to destroy peoples souls, If one person can persuade you to do something bad, something that will hurt you (like pulling out of war) then Satan has already won the battle and will continually attack you, from all sides.

Now, For those of us on the right side of the issue, we fully realize that good can only triumph, by fighting the terrorists over seas in order to keep them from destroying us all, and through God's help, in fighting this battle, we can be victorious, and without waver through the guidance of a well led conscience, of which democrats have NONE, especially the idiot bill stensin who posts here, who has his head firmly planted in the sand.

It's NOT a political issue as democrats would have it--It is GOOD VS. EVIL!!!

GOOD WILL PREVAIL!!!!!!!!

Jeremiah

I don't think you can use Wilson and facts in the same sentence unless you put discredited before Wilson and facts. He is nothing more than a liberal hack with a hot wife.

Jeremiah, you are correct. Bush has already won the battle.You, I, other Christians, Muslems, Americans, JEws, you name it, we all have lost by supporting this evil tyrant.

And i thought i'd never agree with you Jeremiah.

Jeremiah, you see the Iraqian people do NOT want Jehovah's Witnesses knowing on their door. They do NOT want Mormans knowcking on their door. They do not WANT a drunk to by them a drink so as to have a drinking buddy.

No, Jeremiah, believe it or NOT they do NOT want W forcing HIS beleif system down their throats. Ramming his god at them is fatal. It's not only wrong as it has been for ages, but it is a terrible reason to be killing out kids in Iraq.

knocking

Your attributed “reason” that Democrats “flip flopped” from supporting military intervention in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and many other unspecified “issue nonmilitary” misses a vital step in the process.

Did some Democrats (and I point out not all) vote for action in Iraq, greater intelligence cooperation and capabilities to combat terrorism, etc? Yes.

Did they then, a few years later make their disagreement with Bush on those issues (which can be summed up under “national security”) part of their campaign strategy? Yes.

But you miss the most crucial step between those two actions; HOW they saw Bush use their endorsement.

See, it wasn’t about partisanship, it was about practice. The reason Kerry and many “voted for, before they voted against” was because lawmaking is a complicated and deeply institutionalized process.

A brief civics lesson for those who see the world as so black and white; between committee and floor vote, a piece of legislation goes through a TON of changes. People slap amendments on like crazy, especially when dealing with issues regarding national security.

Imagine if you gave a starving man $5 to go buy a meal. When you see him next, all he has is a pack of cigarettes and a yoo-hoo. You’d want your money back, right?

Now imagine if you are the legislative branch of the most powerful government in the world and you want your commander in chief to be able to make the world a better place. You give him billions of dollars and unprecedented powers only to see him squander that opportunity by rushing into a conflict without a plan, without properly training or arming much of the fighting force, and going above and beyond the legal limits of those power you gave.

You’d wish he hadn’t have done that.

There is a huge difference in advocating military or political action and agreeing with the process by which someone chooses to prosecute such acts. It isn’t about opposing one man, it is about opposing an entire ideology. You could have put the most flaming left-wing feminazi in the Oval Office and if she’d have done the same thing Bush had, Democrats would be opposing her too.

Stop trying to make the left look petty and snide. Rocks, glass houses, et al.

Liberals remind me of the women that fall in love with men that are incarcerated like say, a Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy for examples.

There is something emotionally disturbing about a person that will side with evil in order to gain attention, power or to prove their political point of view. It's sick.

Therefore, if you take a close look at what Mark has outlined, and he has done it so elequently and directly, anyone will notice how absurd it sounds when the left side implies that the Bush administration invaded Iraq for oil, or to advance their neocon agenda, or that Cheney just likes to kill people. How absurd is this that the left can't refrain from politics long enough to allow those soldiers that they say they favor from doing their job...that is to break shi* and kill people.

So in short, this really isn't a right or left issue, it is simply an issue of the mentally stable vs. the non-stable, with the non-stable being the left wing of the Dem party.

I believe this makes total sense.

I heard an interesting twist on death this morning and it goes like this; "Death begins within the colon". So I'd have to say that until the Dem party cleans up their digestive track
(the bowels of the party) and gets rid of the excrement on the far left (liberal waste products), they'll ceratinly go down the shi*er in 2008.

Pardon the typos or spelling...posting from home without reading glasses. It's a bitch gettin old.

navydad, excellent words, I myself prefer kook fringe to describe them but your words (and Mark's)are crystal clear.

You can tell the trolls here are deranged by the words they choose, or how they attack. Take BS's remarks to Jeremiah. It is totally unhinged, but good entertainment value.

Yes navydad, todays DFL is no longer the party of JFK or Truman, it has become something almost malevolent towards the nation. Current dems would never accept something like the blockade of Cuba to stop Russian missile shipments or military intervention on the scale of the Korean war, they just dont have it in them any longer.

The rare exceptions aside, such as Liebermann or some of the new blue-dogs, this DFL is chock full of cowardice, appeasement and surrender. Its become more important to the dems to be liked rather than to be respected.

The fact is that the left has been lied to about the war.

But its not the lie the left thinks it is. President Bush didnt lie to them.The Democrats lied to them and they are going to keep lying until 2008.

Heres the truth for all you liberals that havent figured it out yet. The Dem's have no interest in stopping this war.

I can think of at least two occasions last year where the Dems had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a vote where almost all of them voted in favor of the war. Why didnt not vote thier opinions then? They didnt have the balls.

HIllary, the assumed presidential candidate for the dems in the next election has raised *not* taking a position on the war to an art form. Funny how the woman who presumes to be the first female president doesnt want to talk about the most pressing issue of our time. Whose opinion is she worried about? Mine? she knows most conservative wont vote for her anyway - its you that shes keeping in the dark. Wonder why?

I read that Queen Pelosi has scheduled a "non-binding" vote to oppose the war. Why non-binding? Dont the dems have the majority? Didnt they promise you libs that they were gonna stop bushitlers illegal war? Why not now? Cut the funding already.

What about the recent elections? I heard Don Imus claim this morning that the last election was a clear declaration against the war, but the one thing no one heard about during the election was that war. I know more about Mark Foleys sexual habits after the Fla race than I know about Hillarys position on the war in Iraq. Sounds more like the anti-gay-page party than the anti war party to me.

The left has been screaming for this war since the late 90'. Most of them actually voted for it in the first place. Do you honestly think that "My Pet Goat" Bush fooled them into voting their approval for the war?

The left has been hi-jacked by a political party that views the war as "A Good Thing" for their political needs.

The democratic party will blame everyone they can. They will investigate and dig and make embarrasing qoutes for the next two years. But they arent going to stop the war. They need it too badly. Nice job lefties.

After reading all of the above comments, I have a question and an observation.

Why have we not been able to destroy Al-Quada in the last four years?

Al-Quada is like the early american revolutionaries back in the 1770s, They hit and run. North Vietnam used the same tactic against us 1965-1972 and won. It seems that we have still not learned the lesson today. You can talk all you want about right vs. left and good vs. evil, but the fact is just like our forefathers, these terrorists believe God(allah) is on there side and wont quit. In their mind, they are driving out the "British" from their land.

It's not about left and right. It's about right and wrong. It's about oil.

Chester = kool aid drinker

J. Torrey,

To compare al-Qaeda to the American revolutionaries is both disgusting and ignorant. Hit and run tactics were only used by the Americans during the British retreat from Lexington and Concord and then only because there were no organized American military forces to oppose them.

Through the whole course of the war it was Washington's design to build up an American army able to fight the British on their own terms in decisive, stand up battle which would determine victory or defeat...Washington didn't send suicide bombers to London to kill British children, nor did he have captured British soldiers beheaded while American soldiers shouted "God is great".

The Vietnam allusion also doesn't work - while ambuscade was used often by the North Vietnamese, the real fighting - and the final North Vietnamese victory - was achieved by the regular forces of the North Vietnamese army. To compare the North Vietnamese army to the terrorists we fight today is to also insult the North Vietnamese troops who, while fighting for an equally wrong ideology, never lacked the courage to engage in a stand up fight with the American army.

The War in Iraq

A lot of people believe that the war in Iraq is no longer winnable and that we must leave the country, cut our losses and run. What has happened to the American people’s heart? What has happened to the attitude that this is the greatest country in the world and that nothing can stop us? The attitude that built this country, led it to twice defeat a world superpower while ourselves barely even a country. The attitude that spread us across a continent and held us together during a long and bloody civil world. The attitude that defeated the Germans in World War I and the Axis powers in World War II. The attitude that created the strongest nation the world has ever seen and defeated the evils of communism over a 50 year cold war. I will tell you what happened. Americans stopped believing that we are the greatest nation on earth, believing that we CAN do anything as long as we put our minds to it and work hard. But worst of all Americans stopped believing in themselves, they have lost their heart. The heart that will let nothing stop them in pursuit of victory.
This loss of heart is the most dangerous obstacle that America has ever faced. Americans are actually yielding to an enemy that stands for everything we are against, harsh restrictions on liberties that we have fought and died to earn and protect for 230 years. Liberties like freedom of speech and religion, such everyday conveniences like free press and the right to work hard and succeed in life. The freedom for woman to be equal to men in every aspect of life, the believe that no matter what color your skin is or who your parents are, you can work hard and make something of yourself. The freedom to not live in fear of your government and to know that you have a say in the way your country is run. We don’t stand to just lose some war in a far off country, the cost of defeat is much more than that. America stands to lose its national identity, the very identity that has built this country to become what it is today. That’s why we must not allow defeat in this war we should all be dedicated to nothing short of victory to do whatever it takes to assure that victory. We must not fight about whether or not we should send 20,000 more troops we should say this is exactly what we must do to achieve victory and we should stand behind it whole heartedly. America did not give up after a harsh winter at Valley Forge or the burning of Washington D.C, we did not give up after the eruption of Civil War, we did not give up after Pearl Harbor or the Battle of the Bulge, we didn’t give up after September 11th 2001. America stood up and said we will persevere we will fight the hard fight and we will win. Allowing defeat was the furthest thing from our minds then and it should be now.
The politicians say that we should stop sending our sons and daughters to fight and die there, but I must ask how many of them are really sending there sons and daughters there? I am one of the soldiers who will likely be one of the 20,000 troops to be send over there in the next few months as part of this plan, I have a sister who is over there now and a step-brother who has already been. And I know one thing about myself, my siblings and all my brothers and sisters in arms, we believe in this great country, we have proven that by raising our right hands and swearing to protect this awesome nation. We all know that the words defeat and retreat are not in a soldiers vocabulary and that we, if necessary must pay the ultimate sacrifice to ensure victory, and I would be ashamed that the members of congress or normal Americans would give up on this country that they would stop believing that victory is always achievable. America can, must and will win this war all we have to do is believe in our country and ourselves.

It seems that we have still not learned the lesson today.

What is the lesson? This should be interesting.

It's not about left and right. It's about right and wrong. It's about oil.

I heard ominous rumbling background music as I read this...is that normal? But I agree, there is at least a background interest in oil that assists in guiding our middle-east policy. For example, if Iran didnt have oil they would be glowing by now, same for Iraq under Hussein.

Simple way to obviate the necessity for ME influence is to ease restrictions on domestic energy exploration and production. I know, I know, thats heresy, we just need to learn to walk everywhere or develop cars powered by roof-mounted windmills. Simple.

Mark,

Stout hearts!

Only a third of Americans fought for our liberty in the Revolutionary War....Lincoln had the Copperheads to deal with...had it not been for massive censorship and suppression, there likely would have been a massive anti-war movement during WWI...

It is you who stand and fight who will be remembered long after the cowards who will neither fight nor surrender dead and forgotten.

Let the majority party tell us THEIR plan. We are the poor stupid minority. Stop picking on us. Whats your plan oh giant brained liberals?

Hey Kahn, go ask the republicans that disagree with W. I bet they have a god plan, huh?

So, the Lefties are lame. I'd reather be stupid then jump into a fire pit with no way to get out. you know better smart than dead.

It's a bitch gettin old.

Boy, navydad, ain't that the truth.

I will tell you the liberals plan, they will put up a big fuss about this new plan,letting everyone know they are against it but they will not block it. They already have said they will continue to support the troops, in a congressional terms that means money.After they have whined and moaned about it and funded it, they will pray that it goes horribly wrong. That more soldiers and marines will die, that the tv will be filled with horrorible scenes of death and destruction. That way when election time comes around, everyone will know they were against it and the democratic candidate will win by a landslide. Its simple yet frightening politics being played with the my life and the live's of my friends and it's disgusting.

BS: You need to slow down your typing, your posts look like my cat typed them. This ain't a race to see who can post a reply the fastest.

Besides those R's you refer to are probably RINO's anyway.

You've yet to tell us your plan in at least three strings on the subject Bill. You are just here to amuse yourself. But, with no actual position there's nothing to talk to you about.

Here's that link you were looking for Bill:

http://TinyURL.com/yneq2z

Pardon the typos or spelling...posting from home without reading glasses. It's a bitch gettin old.

an i thugt yew wuz tryen ta tipe lak beal.

As for your second statement--yes, it is.

navydad, did you see Bill correct one of his/her/it (circle at least one) misspelled words? Unbelievable, this kook makes more errors in one post than the average moron troll, and then goes and corrects one misspelled word! wtf!!!

B4B has the following up in the upper lef corner of the web page:

"Mitt Romney knows we must return to
common sense Reagan Republican ideals "

--

is that becase W is doing a great job or a *other* job?

The Democrats need to make as much noise about Iraq as they can. Why? Because they're not actually going to do anything about it.

They got elected on this wave of anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war hysteria fueled by their propagandists in the press. The only thing any of them know is the daily and cumulative casualty counts coming out of Iraq. The embedded reporters are long gone. They'd only be needed if the press was interested in reporting what’s actually going on. Their not.

If I was liberal, I’d be kind of angry at the Democrats. I had my problems with the Republican Congress, but it took them years to stray from what I considered to be the core principles that swept them into office. The Democrats have abandoned their “public” principles in under a week.

There are serious issues and questions with several Democrats under EXISTING Federal laws. They will do nothing about Iraq, yet their statements will be translated into Arabic and Farsi and used to bolster our enemy. At least our enemies press is patriotic enough to not try to so openly undermine their countries military in the field.

But what will the Democrats do? NOT what they ran on. Taxes. They still love them. They don’t believe that lower rates as a stimulus work, even though the one of the most successful instances was under JFK. Partly, they have to do it even if they do believe. That’s because their agenda is built on racial hatred, dependence of the black community on their largesse, and class warfare. With these pillars maintaining their power base – they MUST attack corporations and “rich” individuals as a matter of course. Not, this is absurd as Democrats in Congress in the Senate are themselves richer by far than thei Republican counter parts. Note also that they carefully structure the laws to protect their own companies as they structure their own finances to shield them from these laws.

Their solution to Social Security will be similar. Well, we have to suppose because I’ve yet to see an actual Social Security Bill be proposed. But I’d look for raising the age, the rate, and maximum amount taxable. Great.

Their proposed law to force Medicare to negotiate drug prices is a symbolic gesture – again to satisfy their base with the idea they are against the big evil drug companies. Never mind that the big evil drug companies developed the drugs these people want at their own expense and that the array of drugs available is bewildering. First, the current plan got way better results than anyone expected and even the GAO doesn’t expect the government to get a better deal. Look to the VA deal as a guide. The VA drug plan does negotiate. Their ham handed negotiating skill got them the same to higher prices – but with HALF of the drugs available under the privatized Medicare plan currently in place. Good job VA, hopefully no one needs any of those drugs. They were such jerks, and so convinced of the power of their position that they were shocked when HALF the drug companies told them to go to hell! Note – the drug companies aren’t even fighting this law because they know its symbolic, and hey they might even get to charge more than they do now!

Are Democrats so desperate to oppose President Bush that they'll adopt the position of defeat in their platform just to please their extremist base?

Matt,

I'd say that they are desperate to appease the extremists, but I'd like to interject something into the mix...

The Dems are treating front-running issues sort of like a commercial ad. They keep spewing this stuff that the middle and lower class are hurting because they aren't making enough. So, they propose legislation to raise the minimum wage.

They play it out to where first they make people feel like they're being cheated. So as to make Americans think that it's a necessity to get minimum wage up so that they can all be more prosperous.

Once they've succeeded in the 'desperation tactics' they then slither their way into making to where taxes can be raised through a simple majority. More money in their pockets, right? They slander the Bush tax cuts and propose 'their alternative solutions' so as to where they can come out on top any way they go about it.

Now we get down to the war issue...

They've used the same tactics in the war. They make many people who are in the middle ground feel the desperation to pull out because 'we're being led by people who have no experience in making decisions, because they don't have children involved in the fighting.' Barbra Boxer showed herself in this, and my what a scoundrel she is. She should be disbarred from the Senate, or atleast impeached, for making such dastardly statements as she did directed towards Condoleeza Rice.

So, more than trying to appease the extremist base, I think they're trying to round up as many votes as they can for '08 by using the commercial ad technique.

I dunno, what say you?

Lucas yes. It's a never-ending political campaign. They knew they couldn't end the war. Usually it's not so easy to catch them in a obvious lie so early. But next will come the "we can't end it without being in the White House" argument. It works for whoever ends up on the ballot.

Meanwhile, they'll have to be sure that problems fester there no matter how many Americans and Iraqis are killed or maimed. Pretty damn cynical. Remember this: “Democrats lied and PEOPLE ARE DIEING.”

Kahn,

Sort of like back during the Vietnam War I guess, when John Kerry and the like protested and ranted at 'how bad things were' and told blatant lies on troops. It's truly a sickening shame. Of course now we have people like Cindy Sheehan who is clearly off the deep end and isn't going to stop throwing her tirades until Congress stops all military action period.

Personally I think it's all a big setup, a conspiracy if you will. That whole big fling she threw on the democratic press conference, I believe, was staged. Who knows, I might be going a bit off the deep end myself making such an assumption myself. But nothing would surprise me when it comes to Democrat tactics.

I guess people like her are the ones Matt is eluding to. The big time extremists.

It was people like John Kerry who helped along the military defeat in Vietnam. It's people like Cindy Sheehan who are going to do everything they can to cause us to lose this war, and further endanger the homeland soil.

You're absolutely right Kahn. Democrats lie, and people die because of it. And they could give a crap less whether it's here or over-seas. So long as their twisted, personal 'needs' are met. They're blind people.

is that becase W is doing a great job or a *other* job?

BS is a moron--could someone decipher the above for me?

BS, yew our funy- y caint ewe tip?

I agree -- it is vitally important that we succeed in Iraq. A stable, democratic government would be a resounding victory for America.

Too bad that the Bush administration have proven time and again (and again, and again, and again...) that they ain't up to the task.

Dear God... the blunders, the miscalculations, the outright screwups, the refusal to acknowledge unpleasant facts that didn't fit preconceived notions, the unjustified optimism, the wholesale mockery and dismissal of any who dared question the wisdom of this war, the use of discredited intelligence, the reliance on obvious liars like Ahmed Chalabi and his INC for "facts," the dozens (hundreds!) of bad decisions made at every juncture of this monumental folly.

Yet here comes Bush once again, asking us to trust him once more with the lives of our men and women, the tax dollars of our citizens and the credibility of this great nation...

...and for WHAT? Another escalation of troops -- the sixth one thus far, if memory serves. And a new bout of redeployment. Well, those ideas have worked wondrous well all the other times they were tried...

I've never voted Republican, but it's beyond partisan for me at this point. I wouldn't tolerate incompetence like this from ANY point of the political spectrum. And I wouldn't trust the Bush administration to trim my hedges without cutting through the extension cord, much less wage a war.

Bush will prove to be one of the worst presidents in this country's history. He is stubborn and does not listen to anyone, not even his generals. When generals disagree with him, he replaces them. Using a heavy-hand against Iran is one of his worst ideas as it entails the use of possible military force. The US needs to use diplomacy before arresting Iranians in Iraq. This may spark a large-scale war.

What has happened to the attitude that this is the greatest country in the world and that nothing can stop us?

Posted by: Mark at January 13, 2007 05:47 PM

Have you ever stopped to think that this sort of arrogant BS may be the reason why the US is universally despised. Possessing material wealth or military might DOES NOT equal greatness.

CO is probably too young and that socialist Canadian education probably left it out anyway, that the US has always been universally despised.

Most people who favor socialism and other forms of tyranny despise those who love freedom and will say and do anything to put it down, its evident in his/her/its comments and the other trolls that defecate here.

America as a nation does not really care that others hate us and if our leaders are smart they won't make decisions based on whether it make somebody mad or they won't like us anymore.

CO is probably too young and that socialist Canadian education probably left it out anyway, that the US has always been universally despised.

Porter Jervis

Sadly, CO, is not a young'un anymore. If I can remember that far back, I don't think our 'socialist education' has ever glossed over the fact that the US has always been universally despised.

And the last time I looked, Porter Jervis, Canada was a free and democratic country. The US, contrary to what you may believe, does not hold the patent on freedom. If you would open your eyes and take a good look around, you will find there are many other nations who espouse a free & happy life for its citizens.

America is not only great because of its material wealth or military might. America is great because it is a land of endless oppurtunity for everyone, this is proven by the fact that people from all over the world flood this country both legally and illegally they come for the endless oppurtunities for happy families, safe neighborhoods and yes material wealth all of which are protected by our great military might. from those who wish to kill us simply because we don't believe what they believe. Oh and by the way your great nation of Canada relied heavily on this military might during the Cold War to protect them from the Soviet nuclear and convential threat. Just because Canada isn't threatened by terrorism so our military might isn't exactly convenient for them so they can complain about it now.

Democrats lie, and people die because of it.

Yeah right. Who was it hyped the prewar intelligence to trick people to go along with the invasion, again? Who was it who lied about the purpose of the AUMF, saying it was to give teeth to the negotiations when war was a foregone conclusion all along? Those lies cost us 3000+ dead and tens of thousands of maimed Americans, along with God knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts and civillians. Give me a break. You own this debacle, and these Americans' blood is on your head.

CO also conveniently forgets to mention how the US is the largest contributor of aid at every level (ten times that of Canada, who ranks a sorry ninth...how pethetic) and if I'm not mistaken up until 2001 Japan was the largest contributor of aid and the good ole USA reclaimed that position that same year. Hmmm, we defeated Japan in WWII and now they are a contributing factor not only in the WOT, but aid also.

What's this say about Canada since even France and Germany contribute more?

We also fight everyones wars for them so they can be free and maintain a level of civility in their countries which costs billions of dollars and doesn't show up on the aid graphs.

Yeah, we're arrogant, rich and powerful..so what's Canada's excuse..eh?

Can anyone imagine what the world would be like without the USA there to keep the peace and hunt down the bad guys....the entire planet would look like Mogadishu.

Could anyone imagine what it would be liek if the USA decided to step back and let Canada or France take the lead? OMG save us all.

"The US, contrary to what you may believe, does not hold the patent on freedom."

Maybe not CO, but we're the ONLY ones that will engage our and your enemies to protect it....period and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

CO also conveniently forgets to mention how the US is the largest contributor of aid at every level (ten times that of Canada, who ranks a sorry ninth...how pethetic)

Posted by: navydad at January 14, 2007 02:29 PM

Are you taking into consideration that the U.S. has ten times the population of Canada?

USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of your GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, your dollar amount has been the highest. It's only since 2004 have you moved up from last place to second last.

Recent US aid has taken on militaristic angles following similar patterns to aid during the cold war. The war on terrorism is also having an effect as to what aid goes where and how much is spent. There seems to be political considerations to your generosity.

"Maybe not CO, but we're the ONLY ones that will engage our and your enemies to protect it....period and I challenge you to prove otherwise"

So, navydad, those countries who joined forces with you in Iraq are to be totally discounted as having no importance?? I would like to be there when you tell that to the Mom & Dad of a British soldier who gave his life in combat.

CO: You should probably not get me started on the discussion of rights afforded to individuals.

I believe in Canada one can be imprisoned for possessing a firearm;

I believe in Canada, one can be imprisoned for speaking their mind when it involves a protected population;

With regards to political considerations when giving to charity, do you personally donate money to charities whose missions you do not agree with?

Your commentary's sound so much like DNS talking points, are your sure you are just an observer and not some donk troll in some rent controlled apartment in New York City?

"So, navydad, those countries who joined forces with you in Iraq are to be totally discounted as having no importance??

Way to spin it CO...but Yeeeaaahhh!!! Some may have lost lives and we sincerely appreciate the help in the WOT, but then you go on to say
"I would like to be there when you tell that to the Mom & Dad of a British soldier who gave his life in combat." Which is a pethetic way of supporting your losing analysis of why the USA is so despised...lame to say the least.

BTW, yes America has ten times the population, but since Canada is a socialist government that has a per capita gdp not far behind ours and that not only do you NOT fund a military...cause you ain't got one fool, you would expect that the fifty odd billion dollars or so a year at least that Canada doesn't spend on a military could go to more disater or other relief...but it won't, because Canada relies heavily on the USA for its defense.

Here's what your wonderful Lorne Gunter thinks of the US and one would have to believe that most Canadians feel the same way...I would hope.

He states:
“Canada has become ... a cheque-writer in international affairs, not a sleeve-roller,” as Gunter writes, then all is well. We have the capability and the compassion to write such cheques—huge ones at that—and whining about what we didn’t do with the additional resources we don’t have won’t save any lives. After all, pundits talk, but so does money, and which would a victim of the tsunami prefer right now?"

Porter

CO is one of those libs that just can't bring himself to believe that the US is the big brother that protects Canada from gettin their ars whooped.

He also doesn't believe that our reputation in the world is as highly regarded as Canada's, but only a fool would think this way, especially when Canada typically has NO military envolvement in most conflicts and if they do, they try to keep it under the radar to prevent their preceious little reputation from being damaged...puke!

We spend $450 billion at least on our military every year and Canada knows this very well, therefore, they firmly believe that there is no reason to "build up" their military when they have the mighty USA right next door...what cowards...yes...cowards!!

My comment stands about Canada being hit with a 911! You'll need to read back in the string to see what I meant.

At this point CO..it's put up or shut up...ya think?

Navydad

Why do you think having the biggest, baddest military in the world demands respect? I suppose some of you may think fear equals respect and perhaps in some sick way it does if you want to be perceived as a bully. There was some feeling after the Soviet Union disolved, that the US, without restraint, would become an armed aggressor. Looks as if that prediction might have some validity after all. In world opinion (which you don't care about) the US is considered the biggest threat to world peace.

The billions of dollars that you would like to see Canada pump into its military is better spent on the care & welfare of its citizens. In today's world there are too many armed & dangerous yahoos running around as it is. Our military is doing a great job in whatever capacity they serve and when the need arises, they will do us proud, as they have always done.

Modified Ooster4 post

"(Lincoln) will prove to be one of the worst presidents in this country's history. He is stubborn and does not listen to anyone, not even his generals. When generals disagree with him, he replaces them. Using a heavy-hand against (The Confederacy) is one of his worst ideas as it entails the use of possible military force. The (Confederates) in (Kansas). This may spark a large-scale war."

These people (The Iranians) are ALREADY at war with us you stupid idiot. I mean really... they arrest these guys for smuggling bombs and guns. Bomb and guns! What does it take to get throught to you?

CO "whatever" is my point. What does the Canadian military do that could even compare to what the US military does...nothing is the correct answer!

What if the USA were to completely, 100% back away from any foreign conflicts such as the Palestinian /Israeli conflict or the genocidal conflict in the Sudan or Serbia or, or......?
Who would be there to rescue those poor souls that have no one to turn to when genocide occurs or when Iran attacks Israel? Who will it be? Surely not Canada, nor will it be Russia, China, France or Germany.

You libs crack me up when you condemn our nobel actions to free people.

You claim to be compassionate and humanistic, but the minute we conservatives take care of your light work for you, you condemn us as warmongers.

It seems that the only time we get any credit, what little we get, is when we give aid to tsunami victims or earthquake victims via our military, and then you still bitch like whiny little girls.

You should hear yourselves..it's pethetic and inconsistant.

navydad - it's hard to speak with Candians about this because of their incredible inferiority complex. I've tried for years with people I've known from work. They are a little bit crazy on this subject.

Who fishes like crazy maniacs?
Who took away everones guns (with no resultant drop in crime)?
Who cuts down more trees than anyone?
Who provides oil to fuel global warming?
Who kills baby seals?
Who is their french minorities bitches?
Who suffers socialized medecine?

Canadians, that's who. (Shouldn't it be called Canadia?)

Navydad

It is very commendable that you want to rescue poor souls. It is the aftermath that worries me.
Seems there is a trail of death & destruction left in the wake of that action. Is there any way to lessen the carnage of your rescue missions or is it just an unavoidable side effect you feel is of little consequence?

CO - lets see, we paid to rebuild most of Europe and Japan. Looks like Korea is doing pretty well. I hear no complaits from Grenada, and Panama is planning on building a huge canal parallel to the first one.

Liberals hounded us out of Somalia, and yes it's still messed up. We're still in the Balkans - seems they have calmed down.

Oustide Iraq, where exactly were you talking about?

Oustide Iraq, where exactly were you talking about?

Posted by: Kahn at January 14, 2007 08:35 PM

Since this thread is titled "The Iraq War: It's Not About Left vs. Right" my comments refer to Iraq.

Oh, well thats not the way I read your anti-American comment. We're not done there yet. To leave now or to lose would be disaster. Victory would mean an Iraq for all. It's real hard to do. Witness your own nation which is suffering a separatist movement based upon language and history several hundred years removed.

We can leave.
We can stay as we are.
Or we can adapt (right now that means more troops) and win.

The ONLY places we've failed are places where we have lost the will to fight, tied our troops hands, and let the liberals hound us out before the job was done. That would be Viet Nam and Soamlia. So, we have a pretty good track record where we win. Those places end up MUCH better off. The track record when we do it your way is awful. Bloodbaths.

Or we could just do nothing. Look how that worked in Cambodia, Rawanda, and Dafur. I didn't see Canadian paratroopers jumping into Rawanda did I? No-one helped. No one helps, if we don't.

Look what a botched job the Europeans did in the Balkans. They were incapable of stopping genocide - where they could drive there. They had highways leading right from the great western democracies into the Balkans. No help, nada, none at all. Finally NATO (with 90% of the horsepower coming from the US) had to get involved.

So historically, your way, the "Canadian" way means men, women, and children are starved, burned, shot, and hacked to death. Great plan Canada. The world loves you - but with it's dieing breath.

I guess I need not say more CO.

My fellow conservatives have spoken..thanks guys!

I was watching our Bolts lose...again. Damn Tom Brady is good!

Give me a break. You own this debacle, and these Americans' blood is on your head.

Posted by: tb at January 14, 2007 02:25 PM

And it's a self-centered attitude like this, tb, that puts the blood of thousands of innocents killed under communist regimes everyday on your head.

True American's fight for freedom every day because we know the importance and we see what is at stake. Innocent blood is shed everyday (Iraqi blood) for no good reason by mad-men, and it's the responsibility of people with sensical minds to try and defend those who are not equipped to do it themselves.

Do you honestly think that it doesn't bother me, or other American's who are for the war, that our boys are dying every day? I have utmost respect for them, and to try to lay blame for the deaths of our troops on people who support what is going on, is outrageous. The Taliban are the ones who are shooting them, remember? That right there ought to tell you something, bonehead.

You try and phrase it in a way as to make Republicans out to be mindless butchers, but I'm just here to tell you that we are not. We only seek to defend those who are weaker than us. To help stabilize unstabilized countries, just so that they can have a fair chance at living in peace.

Sure it's not gonna be a bed of roses, and yes war gets ugly. Everyone knows this. But just because people die does that give us an excuse to say 'welp, time to pack up and go home, we suffered a boo-boo, those people will just have to die at the hands of ruthless dictators. Let's just go home, who cares if they want to obliterate us and their own people.' does that give us an excuse? That kind of attitude is stupid. Wake up tb.

Please don't feel that I'm trying to under-mine the price that our troops have paid, because that's the furthest thing from my mind. But I'm just trying to put it into perspective that, when you try to liberate people who are controlled by mad-men, there is going to be a toll to pay.

It has been this way throughout history, if it had not been for the selfless sacrifice of our fore-fathers, our country wouldn't be where it's at today. Many people died, but because of their sacrifice we stand as a free-nation today. We seek to try and accomplish the same thing across the waters for the Iraqi people in our era today.

If you could see that, and try and give some support, it would help. Just a little more support for a good cause is all we're asking, is that too much? ... Oh that's right, you don't see defending innocent people as a good cause, forgive me.

You have a right to voice your opinion, but if you have your way you might not have that right much longer. Weigh both sides and think about it. And remember that 9/11 was just a little over 5 years ago. A relent in pressure might end up in a repeat of those tragic events right here in America, and keep in mind that it has been going on almost every week/month in other countries.