| Author |
Message |
    
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1971
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:23 am: | 
|
Yet another perspective on the matter from the OPinionJournal:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid yesterday lashed out at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:
Secretary Rumsfeld's reckless comments show why America is not as safe as it can or should be five years after 9/11. The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the War on Terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq.
If there's one person who has failed to learn the lessons of history it's Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld ignored military experts when he rushed to war without enough troops, without sufficient body armor, and without a plan to succeed. Under this Administration's watch, terror attacks have increased, Iraq has fallen into civil war, and our military has been stretched thin.
We have a choice to make today. Do we trust Secretary Rumsfeld to make the right decisions to keep us safe after he has been so consistently wrong since the start of the Iraq War? Or, do we change course in Iraq and put in place new leadership that will put the safety of the American people ahead of partisan games? For the sake of the safety of this country, it is time to make a change.
The obvious point to make is that Reid is being partisan too, but it turns out that isn't quite right. If you look at Rumsfeld's speech, it turns out that the secretary isn't being partisan at all:
In the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated--or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace--even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator's reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed: "Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
Think of that!
I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today, another enemy--a different kind of enemy--has also made clear its intentions--in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons.
We need to face the following questions:
With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America--not the enemy--is the real source of the world's trouble?
These are central questions of our time. And we must face them. . . .
But this is still--even in 2006--not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.
We find ourselves in a strange time:
When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who were punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our Armed Forces as a "mercenary army";
When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq[*]; and
It is a time when Amnesty International disgracefully refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare, as "the gulag of our times."
Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths, and distortions being told about our troops and about our country.
The struggle we are in is too important--the consequences too severe--to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of "Blame America First."
Rumsfeld says nothing about the administration's "political enemies." He does not mention the Democrats, and the only American politician to whom he so much as alludes is a long-dead Republican, Sen. William Borah. He does criticize the media (specifically Newsweek and CNN) and Amnesty International for anti-American calumnies, and he takes vigorous issue with the mindset that, as he puts it, "somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
Tellingly, Reid raises no objections to the substance of Rumsfeld's speech. It may be that he agrees with everything the secretary says and is merely playing politics with terrorism. That is the charitable interpretation of his comments. The uncharitable one is that the man who hopes to lead a legislative majority actually disagrees with what Rumsfeld says--in other words, that Harry Reid believes terrorists can be appeased.
* Note: Rumsfeld errs in attributing this admission to "the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief"; in fact, it was Eason Jordan, then CNN's chief news executive, as we noted in April 2003. Jane Arraf, CNN's former Baghdad bureau chief, has told us emphatically that she was not a party to Jordan's suppression of news.
-SLK
|
Maprules
Citizen
Username: Maplefan
Post Number: 58
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
Every time I enter one of these arguments, I feel the need to put qualifications on the table. I'm a veteran, liberal and the proud uncle of Iraq war veteran who won a bronze star, who also happens to be a liberal.
So, please stop the name calling. It's tired and can no longer obfusciate the heinous mishandling of Iraq by the Bush administration.
For instance, I favored Israel's response to Hezbollah. I think they should have stayed at it for at least two more weeks.
I favored the invasion of Afghanistan. I think they should have finished the job or at least stayed on task (something 4-year-olds need constant reminding of.)
I didn't favor the Iraq invasion from the beginning. And now that Rumsfeld and his cohorts have managed to put our treasure (our soldiers) in the middle of a civil war (including members of my own family for a time,) I say it's time for a change.
And pulling out the boogey man routine is tried and old. I appreciate that there has not been an attack in the U.S. for five years. And I applaud our gov't in that regard. Yet, that does not negate the horrendous handling of our treasure overseas.
Just watch the smug Iranian leader as he prances around the world media poking us and getting stronger and stronger.
Just watch as the impotent UN pulls out every stop courtesy of our gov't's mishandling of our international image (along with their own despicable cowardice) to dig us further in the hole.
Clearly, if Bush were to make changes (like Reagan did,) I would listen. But the same old crap is unacceptable and insulting.
|
Costanza
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
Maprules, what would you suggest we do? I'm the first to admit that Bush Admin squandered the advantage in Iraq. The original plan of a stable Iraq as an ally with 150k American troops on Iran's doorstep hasn't gone smoothly. Again what would you suggest. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2414
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
I just dropped a raw egg on the floor. what it your suggestion for putting it back together? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5780
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
"The original plan ... hasn't gone smoothly".
Now there's a nominee for understatement of the year.  |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 2054
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
|
Costanza: Don't you know you're not allowed to admit that anything might have gone wrong? Everything has gone right. This is exactly what they wanted to happen. Another comment like that and they might kick you out.
One of the most interesting points in the Olbermann piece, for me, and something that unfortunately doesn't get discussed much, is that all the architects of the Iraq War are making out financially. It's almost as if they are fueling the fires of confusion, and stoking their opponents sense of outrage, to keep the cameras pointed in the other direction while millions (billions, even) go unaccounted for and while companies people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Bushes all have associations with are making (stealing?) money hands over fist without much fanfare. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 993
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Analysis: Olbermann vs. Rumsfeld
The Left's demonization of Donald Rumsfeld has always mystified me. I can understand the liberal elite's annoyance at Bush -- Texas accent, "Fortunate Son," etc. -- but Rumsfeld? Just an old Republican; professional operative from the Gerald Ford era, not notably ideological at all. It's as if, during the Clinton years, the Right had made Lloyd Bentsen a scapegoat for their rage.
Now comes Keith Olbermann, ranting about Rumsfeld's American Legion speech. (Video here). Olbermann says the speech "demands the deep analysis -- and the sober contemplation -- of every American":
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
This is poppycock, of course. It is not true, or perhaps, not relevant that "the majority of Americans ... oppose the transient occupants," as Olbermann styles them. True, in telephone polls, Bush's approval rating is something like 40%, but we don't run the country by opinion surveys.
When voters had a straight-up choice in November 2004, they chose Bush; indeed, 2004 was the first time since 1988 that a president had been elected by a majority of the popular vote (Clinton 43% in '92, 49% in '96; Bush and Gore split 48% each in 2000). And there is no reason to believe that, if the same straight-up choice were offered again tomorrow, that the result would be any different: Democrats picked their favorite candidate, made their best case, and lost. So much, then, for Olbermann's "majority."
Olbermann says Rumsfeld claims "a total omniscience" for the administration. Having read the actual speech, I see no such claim. Olbermann cites no passage of the speech as evidence for his assertion. Reckon he wanted to show off a fancy word: Look how smart I am! I used 'omniscience' in a sentence!
"Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom," Olbermann says, wearing out a favorite '60s cliche, which actually goes back to the McCarthy era and those "anti-anti-communists" who opposed the suppression of the CPUSA. The problem with Olbermann's heroic defense of this "life's blood of human freedom" is that no one is being persecuted or imprisoned for their "dissent." Olbermann -- like a lot of lefties who fetishize the '60s -- is just dressing himself in martyr's drag and posing in front of his own mental mirror, a narcissist preening for an audience of one.
Rumsfeld, in his speech, made a commonplace allusion to the era of appeasement in the 1930s. In a bizarre twist, Olbermann tries to reverse Rumsfeld's analogy, comparing the Bush administration to Neville Chamberlain. This rhetorical gambit is too difficult to describe, so I'll just give you Olbermann's words:
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril -- with a growing evil -- powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions -- its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all -- it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
Well, I warned you it was bizarre. To Olbermann, what is important about Chamberlain is not his naive belief that Hitler could be treated like any other statesman; rather it was that Chamberlain was "demonizing disagreement." So the content and accuracy of belief is less important than one's treatment of those who disagree.
More poppycock! Churchill himself was quite arrogant and high-handed toward his own critics. Indeed, one of the reasons Churchill found himself ostracized during the '30s was that he was so contemptuous of those who disagreed with him. Churchill was stubborn, and could not be dissuaded from a course of action, once he had set his mind. Churchill's fascination with the "soft underbelly" of Europe had led to the Gallipolli disaster in WWI, and was repeated in the bloody Italian campaigns of 1943-45, which tied up entire armies, cost thousands of lives, and produced little strategic gain.
So Olbermann's "clever" idea that an intolerance of dissent was the Chamberlain regime's unique fault utterly misconstrues the lessons of history. He rants some more:
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have -- inadvertently or intentionally -- profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
Olbermann is chasing a will o'the wisp through cloudcuckooland. There is no argument here, no attempt to analyze what Rumsfeld actually said and to voice a rational disagreement. What Olbermann offers instead is an emotion-laden reaction to his perception that Rumsfeld has "question[ed] the morality and intellect" of his critics.
Why is Olbermann so distraught and hysterical? Let me point to two passages of Mr. Rumfeld's speech, starting here:
We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:
With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?
These are central questions of our time, and we must face them and face them honestly.
Here Rumsfeld has described four opinions with which he clearly disagrees. Rumsfeld obviously thinks the extremists cannot be appeased, that negotiating for a "separate peace" with the terrorists is futile, that terrorism is not merely a criminal problem, and that we cannot afford a "blame America first" mentality.
Somewhere in there, I suspect, Rumsfeld touched a sore point with Olbermann. And I think Olbermann squirmed, too, when Rumsfeld said:
It's a strange time:
When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces -- the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard -- as a "mercenary army;"
When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in charge there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;
And it's a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay -- which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare -- "the gulag of our times." It’s inexcusable.
Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what's wrong with the world.
See? Rumsfeld believes that America is a good country, that our troops are good troops, and that our enemies are bad people. Rumsfeld doesn't like it when the media ignores these things and instead offers "myths and distortions."
In other words, Rumsfeld doesn't like TV smart-asses like Keith Olbermann whose chief qualification to judge matters of national security is ... well, I'm sure Olbermann has some qualification. But Olbermann thinks he's smarter than Rumsfeld, and that anyone who shares Rumfeld's view of "America the Good" is a chump.
To a smart-••• like Olbermann, flag-waving patriotism is for children and fools, and the very fact that Rumsfeld still seems to have that kind patriotism is, to Olbermann, an indictment of Rumsfeld's judgment.
It is here, perhaps, most useful to point out an important psychological fact: Paranoia is closely related to narcissism. You have to be pretty important, after all, if so many powerful forces are "out to get you."
And so Olbermann rants and raves about non-existent claims of "omniscience," twists the Chamberlain-Churchill analogy out of frame, and talks about a "fog of fear" enveloping the entire nation -- as if Olbermann himself were about to be shipped to Guantanamo.
Relax, Keith: You're just not that important.
More discussion at Hot Air, Riehl World View, Sister Toldjah, Olbermann Watch, The Political Pit Bull and Blue Star Chronicles.
posted by Ali Bubba at 3:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Rumsfeld got it right
And that's why his critics, like Olbermann and certain Democratic Senators, are flaming mad. Here's the LA Times write up on Rummy's blistering Tuesday speech. Here's the transcript of Rummy's speech. Highlights: ...
posted by Sister Toldjah @ 9:24 AM
Create a Link
<< Home
Previous Posts
* Ham, Sausage, Pork
* Salute to a warrior
* What not to worry about
* The secret holder -- revealed?
* Shorter "Nation" on Allen
* Why courage and honesty matter
* Media bias? You're kidding!
* Tuesday headlines
* Unfrozen Caveman Blogger
* Monday menu
Powered by Blogger
Search this blog:
» Blogs that link here
» View my profile
Powered by Technorati
http://freealabamastan.blogspot.com/2006/08/analysis-olbermann-vs-rumsfeld.html |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 2056
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
"Relax, Keith: You're just not that important."
The writers says after spending a few hundred words on him, most of which only called Keith names.
That was a terrible analysis. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Quote:The Left's demonization of Donald Rumsfeld has always mystified me. I can understand the liberal elite's annoyance at Bush -- Texas accent, "Fortunate Son," etc. -- but Rumsfeld? Just an old Republican; professional operative from the Gerald Ford era, not notably ideological at all. It's as if, during the Clinton years, the Right had made Lloyd Bentsen a scapegoat for their rage.
Well if he cant tell who is an ideologue and who isnt how can anyone trust the rest of his thesis? Why is Rumsfeld demonized? Theres plenty of reasons.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/donald_rumsfeld.htm
he's also the guy who in response to the question about why our troops were not outfitted with body armor and not outfitted with proper equipment
Quote:As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Demonize him? He earned it.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2361
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Costanza writes:
"I'm the first to admit that Bush Admin squandered the advantage in Iraq."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
The Bush administration squandered its advantage in Afghanistan and among the American people, to say nothing of the support of just about every democratically ruled country on the planet.
The Bush administration squandered our resources in Iraq and has yet to offer a plausible, consistent reason for the invasion, much less a strategy for it, and has yet to offer any reason for fumbling the real war on terrorism. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5704
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Just a few points of imbecility to point to here:
Quote:When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our Armed Forces as a "mercenary army"
The choice of the word "mercenary" may have been ill-advised, but look at the context in which he speaks:
Quote:"But I think what we're coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army. And it doesn't have a nice ring to it. We call it 'volunteers,' but we're basically paying people to serve their country. And if you're going to pay people and have a mercenary Army, you're going to have to pay the market rate. And so the bounties are going up -- more money for tuition, higher enlistment bonuses -- and I think it's appropriate."
Emphasis added. How convenient that the right has the word "mercenary" to point to here, so that they can dismiss the whole notion of taking better care of our servicement and their families.
If you were a soldier, who would you rather have on your side? The guy who calls you a mercenary but urges higher salaries and benefits for you; or the guy that calls you a brave freedom-fighter but will let your family suffer?
And I'm emphasizing that because slogans are cheap.
Point 2: Joel, stop being so f***ing lazy and edit your cut-and-paste jobs. We don't care that it was powered by Blogger or Technorati, and we don't care that there was an earlier post about charcuterie.
Point 3: From the aforementioned undigested blog post,
Quote:For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve
...
This is poppycock, of course. It is not true, or perhaps, not relevant that "the majority of Americans ... oppose the transient occupants," as Olbermann styles them. True, in telephone polls, Bush's approval rating is something like 40%, but we don't run the country by opinion surveys.
Again, here is the trick of taking a minor point of verbiage and using that to dismiss the main point of the argument. That point being, the Administration is saying "trust us," but they've been wrong far too many times in the past to deserve that trust.
But here even the verbiage is solid. Unless you guys have other plans for 2008, the occupants of the White House are indeed transient. If we follow the rules found the Constitution they are out of there in January 2009. Even if we don't, Bush and Cheney are not immortal. So they are transient.
It's a fact that a majority disapproves of the President's job performance. Olberman's point is that Rumsfeld insulted a majority of Americans; not that we should be running our country by opinion surveys, and not that a majority of those polled should decide the policy. What's poppycock is saying otherwise.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2363
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:48 pm: |
|
I believe that the "mercenary" reference in Newsweek may be at least partially apropos.
This is the first major US conflict in which the government has made extensive use of such private firms as Blackwater USA, as armed security details, escorts of convoys and of military personnel, and for other military uses in Iraq that may call for "specialties." In other wars of the last century, they would have been called "mercenaries." They fight for pay, not necessarily for cause.
Go to Blackwater's website and view the recruitment section to see what skills they're recruiting, at salary levels many times what we pay our military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I do not for one moment dispute that people fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan deserve compensation and benefits far above what we give our soldiers. However, I do draw the line before I get to fighting for pay only.
Isn't that what the Hessians did for King George III?
"King George commands and we obey
Over the hills and far away..." |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5705
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Yes, and the Hessians got their asses kicked. Another historical lesson. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Reingold,
I must have struck a nerve with you. Are you telling me that you don't use the word "strawman" about once a week? Why is it so hard for libs to take criticism? Where is your sense of humor? Besides, you bring up strawmen so often I thought this was part of your MOL persona.
I must really get you going with my "winning" mentality. Why has it been so hard for you to understand that we disagree. Where you see incompetence, I see competence. Where you see no ethics, I see ethics. Why do you attack when there is no need? We simply disagree politically.
I'm sure during the Clinton years when us neo-cons were calling for his head, you probably thought we were just overblowing the issues of the day. Guess what? We probably were, just like you guys are now. It's called pandering for votes. Both sides do it so to expect us not to is laughable. If you want to say I want to win at any cost then that is fine by me. I don't base my reasoning on what your perceptions are. I just want my philosophy to continue to be in charge. Why is that wrong? Don't you want your philosophy to prevail? You libs are salivating so badly that it is fun to read. I just can't wait until you come up one seat short. That will be fun. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 188
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Donald Rumsfield’s speech was right on the mark. As I have written in other posts, every time the so-called peace movement has a protest, every time the president is attacked and called a liar, when our leaders say that Iraq was a mistake or that we can’t win, when the NYT exposes classified programs in a transparent effort to bring down the president, our enemy is encouraged and emboldened and handed a victory on a silver platter that they could never score in the field. They are kept alive by two things. First, continued support from the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran (Admittedly, the administration’s response to them has been weak. However, the knowledge that whatever they do, it will be immediately used by the Democrats to score political points before the election surly dampens their zeal). The second is simple hope. Hope that the American left will win the day as they did in 1974 and we will abandon Iraq to its fate. I personally believe that our enemies sit around their safe houses and caves and are told by their leaders that all they have to do is hang on a little longer, blow up a few more people, cut off a few more heads, and America will go running for cover just as we did in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.
The president failed to stop 9-11 by not taking action on a memo stating that Bin Laden is determined to attack the U.S. Talk about a straw man. Particularly when you consider that one thing that may have stopped 9-11 was a search of Zacharias Moussawi’s computer. Of course this was not be done in large part to self-imposed Clinton Justice Department barriers to intelligence sharing between criminal investigators and intelligence agents constructed by people who think the U.S. Government is the greatest threat to national security. What makes this memo assertion even more absurd is that it typically comes from the same people who believe that the Bush administration acted too precipitously when they decided to invade Iraq after suffering the 9-11 attacks, 10 years of ignoring the UN and ten years worth of detailed intelligence from every corner of the world indicating that Saddam Hussein’s regime was in possession of and/or developing WMD and was closely connected to terrorist organizations.
These same people are surprised when the president doesn’t seem to listen to anyone. Why should he when it’s not his policies that the opposition is against – it’s his existence. No matter what George Bush does, short of morphing into Russ Feingold, it will be the wrong thing to do. So why shouldn’t he just do whatever he feels he should and the opposition be dammed? What does it really matter? He’ll be despised just the same. The opposition is offering nothing more than political attacks aimed not at winning the war but at destroying the president, bringing down his administration, and regaining power.
This is why I suspect that if we had not gone into Iraq and we instead had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan looking for bin Laden, while Saddam Hussein was still flaunting UN resolutions, threatening his neighbors, and harboring and financing terrorists, most of these same Bush haters would be screaming that we are bogged down in a manhunt instead of fighting a broader war against international terrorism and its enablers. With regard to bin Laden, I think the president meant that he personally did not spend much time thinking about bin Laden, not that we have abandoned efforts to locate him. Furthermore, with the possible exception of the Amazonian Jungle, the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is arguably the most difficult terrain in which to conduct military operations. We could pour hundreds of thousands of troops into that region and only marginally increase our chances of finding one person. In fact, an argument can be made that it would actually decrease our chances due to the time it takes to move such large forces and that they can be seen and heard coming from miles away. This would give the person they were looking for ample time to hide or escape. The way to find bin Laden is by doing exactly what we are doing. Small groups of elite forces, that acting on real time intelligence, can quickly and surreptitiously, penetrate difficult to reach terrain. When bin Laden is caught, it will be because someone dropped a dime on him, not because we have 500,000 troops in Afghanistan. Regardless, while we have some personal business to settle with him, victory does not hinge on his elimination.
I have repeatedly asked for people to propose alternatives to what we are currently doing to destroy terrorists. I have yet to read any reasonable alternative proposal from the Bush haters to our current efforts. I have read proposals ranging from making more of an effort to understand the root causes of what motivates our enemies (American arrogance, hegemony, narcissism, imperialism, bigotry, etc, etc) and asking them what we can do to make the world a better place, to a belief that somehow the UN or increased multilateralism will work (a la Lebanon), to outright appeasement. Although none dare call it that – calling someone an appeaser has become almost as verboten as insinuating that a person who wipes his butt with the American Flag may be just a little less patriotic than your typical American Legion hall manager.
At any rate, liberals frequently seem to pay lip service to wiping out terrorists but these tend to be the same people who want to close GITMO and give the terrorists there due process rights. (That’s right – terrorists. People captured on the battlefield carrying arms against us or planting IED’s and not wearing a uniforms – terrorists. They don’t get lawyers and PX privileges). The same people who bemoan multilateralism regarding North Korea worship at its alter in every other instance. They are also the same people who opposed withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and dismiss missile defense as a fantasy. They eviscerate the president’s efforts to protect the country but have fought tooth and nail against efforts to streamline intelligence gathering and sharing and bring it in line with 21st Century realities. They assail the president because of his failure to capture bin Laden but they want to give a lawyer to the operational mastermind of 9-11, Kalid Sheik Mohammed, who has been locked up in GITMO for several years and have him arraigned in federal district court (no doubt the Northern District of California that is conviently colocated with the 9th Circuit in San Francisco). They cite obscure retired general officers’ opinions (talk about cherry picking information) to lend credence to their opinions but ignore or dismiss the opinions of the great majority of officers who support our efforts. Never mind that if not for these professional soldiers’ opposition to our efforts in Iraq, most member of the left would consider their existence incomprehensible and grotesque. At the very least not worthy of an invitation to a MOMA cocktail party.
One unfortunate consequence of Iraq is that by insisting that it is not part of the Global War Against Terrorism (because the people we are fighting there are actually Bulgarians in disguise) it has enabled the anti-war crowd to be anti-war without actually being anti-war. They are able to say, “I’m not against the GWOT, I’m just against the war in Iraq”. It’s kind of like saying, “I oppose with every fiber of my being the accomplishment of the troops’ mission in Iraq but I support the troops”. Very convienent.
The left has been desperate since September 12, 2001, for this war to go poorly so that they could pile on the president who they see as the root of all evil in the world. Just days after going into Afghanistan, NYT headlines were screaming quagmire. When it didn’t materialize their disappointment was palatable. When the columns advancing towards Baghdad stopped just short of the city to top off their gas tanks and bring up more supplies while a sand storm hit, the left’s excitement could barley be contained. Now that we are in a difficult fight in Iraq, the left, dreaming of their 1960’s burn baby burn glory days, are positively glowing.
Make no mistake about it, we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. But it’s not a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. It’s a civil war between the 70 percent of Iraqis who at our behest, risked life and limb to vote for a better future for their country, and a minority of a minority, who want to turn Iraq into a terrorist state. In this face of these thugs, the “loyal” opposition wants to run up the white flag and hand the enemies of civilization a victory just as they handed their ideological cousins a victory in Vietnam. This would condemn the vast majority of the Iraqi people, who have sacrificed more than most Americans could ever dream of to a living nightmare and eliminate any hope that freedom loving people in the Middle East may harbor that America may assist them or can be relied on in any way.
All this so that the left can validate their unhinged hatred of the president. A man who they would rather see defeated and destroyed, than achieve victory over our enemies.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10665
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Quote:
I have repeatedly asked for people to propose alternatives to what we are currently doing to destroy terrorists.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 4:02 pm: |
|
"A man who they would rather see defeated and destroyed, than achieve victory over our enemies."
Try this: A man who IF we see defeated and destroyed, THEN we would achieve victory over our enemies. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Quote:Donald Rumsfield’s speech was right on the mark. As I have written in other posts, every time the so-called peace movement has a protest, every time the president is attacked and called a liar, when our leaders say that Iraq was a mistake or that we can’t win, when the NYT exposes classified programs in a transparent effort to bring down the president, our enemy is encouraged and emboldened and handed a victory on a silver platter that they could never score in the field.
You lost me as soon as I read this first paragraph. Please show me who our 'enemy' is, then show me the 'victory' that said enemy has. It seems to me that with all the talk over and over again about how the 'islamosomething or others' hate our freedom that they need no emboldening.
Of course if you could actually point to an enemy, that enemy would probably quickly be eliminated - unless of course his name was Bin Laden. |
Maprules
Citizen
Username: Maplefan
Post Number: 59
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Wow! The hyper-hyperbole that flows on this site is extraordinary. Mr. Tap your diatribe about liberals is ridiculous. I'm a liberal and have served our nation, as did my father, grandfather and great-grandfather. My mother worked for the nation during WWII. My brother was in Vietnam. My nephew just came from Iraq last year. And he's facing a return now as well. And they are/were all liberals too. What am I missing?
Rumsfeld needs to be fired (just as John McCain has suggested.) Cheney needs to resign. Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel need to fill those positons.
These are just two things that need to happen, Costanza. And, of course, admitting your mistakes would be good step as well. If only all republicans were willing to admit the error of the Iraq debacle.
And making comparisons to WWII just doesn't flush. We all want to fight terrorism. We just want the best plan possible. How is it possible that I come from a family of Chamberlains when we have answered the call so many times? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
I see Dave, post # 10665, has not banned himself for his intemperate remark about my college ed. Want to compare C.V.s Dave? Any MOL double-standard for banning, BTW?
In any event, those who are attempting to present a cogent and thoughtful analysis of the situation we find ourselves in, underlying Rumsfeld's remarks, are wasting their time here, I think, given the outpouring of emotionalized argument and presentations.
None of the "emos" have addressed exactly how they can impose their perceptions on how we can obtain peace on our enemies who instead view their actions and perceptions as a sign of weakness that will lead them to victory.
Many here refuse to see the vast divide in values, morality, and goals with those opposing us.
I think we are witnessing a historical repeat of the pacifist/isolationist outcry of the late '30s, which was swept away by the subsequent reality of WWII.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap:
I believe that that Spine has been tapped at least one time too many.
The fluids remaining are insufficient to sustain a free flow of thought.
You accept bullying, threatening talk from Rumsfeld and Cheney about "the damage from protesters" but you seem incapable of seeing through the ruse.
The president who has been reading about Lincoln (among others) could take a lesson from him. Our 16th President never hesitated to fire those commanders who weren't getting the job done in the Civil War.
Bush43 has yet to fire anyone, except Michael Brown who was unqualified but may also have been the convenient fall guy for the administration's lack of performance, and Paul O'Neill, whose frank comments about 43's fiscal policies got 43's shorts twisted no end.
I quote the Spine:
"The president failed to stop 9-11 by not taking action on a memo stating that Bin Laden is determined to attack the U.S."
Wrong. The president failed to take action on a PDB stating that a Bin Laden attack was probable and imminent! There's a big difference.
I quote the Spine:
"I have repeatedly asked for people to propose alternatives to what we are currently doing to destroy terrorists."
The people do not have to propose the plans. The government does. That's why we elect a chief executive, and that's what he and his administration are supposed to do. A competent chief executive assesses reality and changes or restructures a plan when it is not working.
"Stay the course" is not a plan. It is an intention. I maintain that there is NO real plan behind the intention. The president has bogged himself down, and there's nobody outside the quicksand to throw him a rope.
I quote the Spine:
"The left has been desperate since September 12, 2001, for this war to go poorly so that they could pile on the president who they see as the root of all evil in the world."
That is the most unconscionable lie in your whole piece above. It is the sum of stupid, stultifying exaggeration and numb-skull, numb-nuts thinking, and you should be ashamed of it.
No one who has experienced 9/11 close up could ever have that point of view, and I remind you that 9/11 occurred in a "blue state and region."
Your entire credibility just went down the crapper with that statement. If this were not a free country, and if I didn't believe in the Bill of Rights, I would love to see you banned for life from expressing any opinion, so stupid was that one.
Your sole accurate statement is:
"Make no mistake about it, we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq." But not in the form which you state.
Your post has received way more attention than it merited, but some things needed a response. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap-
Congrats !
A weak, leftist-specious, and puerile Innisowen personal attack is proof of your intellectual prowess and un-assailable wisdom! Enjoy the moment.  |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2371
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Fiction:
As Reagan used to say: there you go again...
Your statements, like Spinal Tap's, are based on some weird faith that 43 will make things all right again, and on some weird belief that 43 is somehow infallibly anointed to do the job. Is God speaking to you as much as to 43? That can be the only reason for your ridiculous and repetitive postings.
And like Spinal Tap's, your misrepresentations, besides their usually jejune nature, are transparent.
I did attack Spinal Tap's statements. That's my right. I called one of his statements an unconscionable lie.
I did not call him an unconscionable liar.
In English, which you might attempt to master some day, there is a difference.
There is also a difference between the two as regards conduct on this board.
Opinions are fine. Outright untruths, like the pronouncements of the current administration and the quoted sentences in the post above by Spinal Tapped Out, well, we've all had enough of those.
Which of my objections to Tapped Out's statements would you care to refute and how? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 9:32 pm: |
|
The intellectual weight of your comments is the equivalent of belly-button lint.
But at least there are no latin quotes.
"The people do not propose plans. The government does" is one of the crappiest comebacks I have ever heard or read.
Don't we have a representative form of government that includes democrats? Can't you guys get Pelosi, Reid, and the crew off their as#es to present a clear, cogent, and real alternative plan to fight terrorism, instead of mouthing pure bullcrap? I mean its in THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
As for "government plans" what the hell did Bill Clinton ever do after the Cole and the embassy attacks, which was preceeded by the first WTC attack? Why was good old Sandy Berger smuggling papers out in his socks?
Come on innisowen, you have an unhealthy obsession with the failings of Bush and not the overall failings of all our elected representatives, past and present, on terrorism. Enough already with Bush. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Of course Dave won't ban himself for his personal attack. Banning is in the eye of the beholder and I assume Dave, like every human on the planet, thinks only his opinion and discretion count. I call a poster I like a nut and get banned, yet Dave can take pot shots at anyone. Nice moderation. I'll probably get banned now, but at least I have a few other usernames in the bank now. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15510
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Southerner, are you implying that you're enjoying this discussion more than I am? Hahahaha! How can you know that?
Look, when you use a cheap shot, yeah, I'll point it out. That's the groove my needle is stuck in. You have yours, of course.
And of course, you seem not to understand why a strawman argument is worse than useless. Look, if you want to sway the American public, why don't you want to sway the people who are too smart to fall for strawman arguments? I mean, sure, I understand why you want to dupe the dumb folks, but why do you skip us by? Are there just too few of us? That's one theory I might buy.
If the strawman arguments dupe you, I'm sorry.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5709
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 9:48 pm: |
|
As for the Cole, it happened just three weeks before the 2000 election. Clinton felt it wasn't appropriate for him to commit an incoming administration to a fait accompli war, and that the new administration could take its own course of action after the inauguration. This seems fair, particularly considering the delay there was attacking Afghanistan after 9/11. For that matter, it took us six months after Pearl Harbor to mount any kind of significant offense.
By late January 2001, the Cole attack was still fresh, just three months old, and the Bush administration could have acted at that time had it felt it was important. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2374
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 10:17 pm: |
|
fiction:
Okay. A little tit for tat. Let's do the insults first.
I figured I would avoid a foreign language quote or reference out of respect for your ignorance of foreign languages. I get your point: it must be frustrating to see things you don't understand.
Now to substance:
I have no more tolerance for the failings of previous administrations than you do, and there were many failings of the Clinton one (beside the fact that he wasted a lot of his presidency on cheap sex), and of the Bush41 admin. But I am not living in the past.
I am concerned with the present administration, which has no plans, only intentions to "stay the course."
Saying that you're looking for a plan from someone else (whether Democrats, Brits, the UN, Israel, the NRA, or the Knights of Columbus) is at best disingenuous, especially coming from the self-proclaimed MBA president and his business-like team who told us from day one they have all the plans neatly nailed down.
There aren't any successful CEOs that I know (and I have worked closely with several dozen, in five different countries), who want others to do their strategizing and planning for them. So that comment of yours is, I believe, gratuitous and baseless, with all due respect.
You and I absolutely agree that fighting terrorism is in the NATIONAL INTEREST, as you put it.
I would object that while our troops are bogged down in Iraq on a wild goose chase (and there were no geese in the first place), the administration has lost the initiative in Afghanistan and in pressuring Pakistan, lost any support from other democratically governed countries, and has underperformed to a point of criminal neglect in its job of safeguarding this country's borders, its key facilities, its chemical and nuclear plants, ports, and railroads.
It can't make up its mind on how to safeguard airplanes, passengers, and freight in any consistent way. And all this, 1,800 days after 9/11.
Those failures HARM THE NATIONAL INTEREST. And since the failures are happening on Bush43's watch, who else is accountable?
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2375
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 12:20 am: |
|
Fiction:
I guess in sum I would have to say that your vicious and irrational defense of the Bush team and your weepy antics on MOL stem from the fact that you voted for 43.
I think you're pissed at yourself for wasting your vote.
You voted not for the A team, not even for the B team, but for the F team.
If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting any real performance from those guys.
They can't deliver.
You know it.
It frustrates the hell out of you. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 8:18 am: |
|
Reingold,
I'm not talking about the substance of any argument. You are probably right with your analysis. I know what a strawman is and secondly, I am not trying to convince the American public one way or the other, unless MOL is the American public. I simply pointed out that you are the only one who constantly brings up strawmen and you seemed to lose it. Don't you agree that we could probably read these threads without the usernames and still know who wrote each post. You'd identify mine by my looking for the terms "winning" and I'd identify yours by never going out on a limb and the term "strawman".
As for convincing people, your side has been doing a piss poor job the last 20 or so years so don't get mad at me because you guys have lost support. If you guys take back Congress, I won't be screaming at you for bringing people to your side, I'll be screaming at my own side for not doing enough convincing. |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 539
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
People sure are upset about Rumsfeld's speech. I bet the best refutation would be to show that the current situation has nothing in common with the 1930s -- you know, the current enemy has natural limits on their ambitions and their ability to harm us, their politics aren't fundamentally violent, they will properly calculate our ultimate resolve and stop short of catastrophe -- that sort of thing. Strange that we haven't seen anything like that. Well, maybe once people calm down a bit.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 8:53 am: |
|
Quote:I bet the best refutation would be to show that the current situation has nothing in common with the 1930s -- you know, the current enemy has natural limits on their ambitions and their ability to harm us, their politics aren't fundamentally violent, they will properly calculate our ultimate resolve and stop short of catastrophe -- that sort of thing. Strange that we haven't seen anything like that. Well, maybe once people calm down a bit.
The first thing I would love to see defined is exactly who the enemy is. This nebulous fighting the terrorist rhetoric makes no sense at all.
No one wants to let any terrorist attack anyone without penalty, without retribution so who exactly is being appeased and how? |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 189
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
You want the president to be more like Lincoln and fire our current senior leadership? I have no problem with that so long as you would agree to replace them with officers like Grant and Sherman who engaged in a scorched Earth campaign like Lincoln did. Maybe we could suspend Habeas Corpus while we are at it.
Here is the “PDB”, which is nothing more than a classified intel memo:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
Maybe you’re reading something different from me but I don’t see the words probable or imminent in there. It appears to me to be a bunch of boilerplate.
Here is the plan that doesn’t exist:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf
Maybe you don't like it and that's fine but don't say there is no plan.
So you don’t think the left hasn’t wanted things to go badly from day one? This is the petition titled “Justice not Terror” from moveon.org days after 9-11:
"Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."
Remember, this the organization that said:
“In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”
International ANSWER, a neo-Marxist organization was formed in the days immediately following 9-11 in anticipation of the war.
The left believed that Bush stole the election in 2000 (a claim that has not been substantiated by any recount done by any organization) and the president is therefore illegitimate and worth of destruction. They haven’t looked back since.
Maprules – why do you feel the need to lead every post with you and your family’s military resume? I am a veteran also as were two uncles (one of whom is a flaming liberal) and my late grandfather (WWII) a lifelong FDR Democrat. So what? That’s not germane to the discussion. As one of my NCO’s once told me, all your decorations plus 85 cents gets you a cup of coffee.
And by the way, MOL can ban me without violating my constitutional rights. The first amendment bars congress from infringing freedom of speech, not MOL.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2416
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 9:54 am: |
|
Let's see, what do you find in that PDB:
Quote:Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Oh yeah, nothing there except boilerplate.
 |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
The Bush Policy in the Middle East foments opposition/radicalism/terrorism.
The Bush Administration is incapable of running the war on terror, let alone winning. You dont win the war on terror by maintaining a policy that creates more terrorists, by giving them a demon to hate.
Paying Iraqis to rebuild their country, sort of creates an instant middle class. Good jobs would have meant little time to fight some silly insurgency. Good jobs, means buying your son a new computer because he starts college next month. But as commented earlier, If I drop an egg..........
The Bush Tax Policy is regressive. My Parents, and their generation got thru the Depression, won WW2, and made the best educated, economically vigorous middle class in the history of the Earth. All of that happened with a progressive tax policy.
The Bush Administration has a
-failed Tax Policy
-failed Iraq Policy
-failed Middle East Policy
-failed Korean Policy
-failed response to Katrina
-failed medicare part "D" Policy
-failed jobs policy-outsourcing
I have a feeling that the next big problem this country faces, the Bush Administration ... , just might screw it up, too. They do have a good track record of not getting things right, repeatedly. Having Powell and Hagel step in & run things.. I hate to admit, would be an improvement. Sec. State and Sec Def. |
Maprules
Citizen
Username: Maplefan
Post Number: 61
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:19 am: |
|
Having a military background is germane to any disscussion about the military. It's also germane in answering the constant barrage on this board that all liberals are some how appeasers and less committed to the defense and well-being of our nation. I gave and give my experience and that of my family to point out that those of us from both sides of the political isle have sacrificed much to make our country great.
And while your NCO may be correct in most cases, my military background also gets me a pretty good discount @ the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15517
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 10:26 am: |
|
Southerner, I see your point. Many of us have buzzwords or phrases which make our posts recognizable. I'm not sure if that's good, bad or indifferent. Some curse, some say "boring" etc.
Thank you for weighing in. I see you don't really have a point to defeend Rumsfeld's weak and meaningless arguments, so you instead comment on my style.
I'm not talking about the substance of any argument.
Right. You rarely do. 
You are probably right with your analysis.
Why, thank you.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2417
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
the reason some of us refer to the word "strawman" over and over is not because we have some weird fascination with it. it's because members of the Bush Administration use it as a main weapon in their rhetorical aresenal. virtually every time Bush or Cheney open their mouths, they set up some kind of strawman.
anyone who's tired of people who continually point out strawman arguments should put the blame where it belongs - on the dishonest politicians who consistently use it as a tool. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:44 am: |
|
Dr.
I don't believe you. 
-SLK |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2418
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
you should have saved that comeback for an occasion when it wouldn't have been a non sequitur. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15519
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:57 am: |
|
Thank you for saying that, Doctor. Well put!
SLK, what's not to believe?
|
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Tom-
Just teasing the Dr., he knows...
-SLK |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3232
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
 |
|
