| Author | Message | ||
     birdbrain Citizen Username: Birdbrain Post Number: 69 Registered: 2-2003  |
Straw, why is it liberal to demand accountability? I read a great editorial this week, where the writer takes Bush to task on this issue. He opens with a quote from Rumsfeld: "U.S. leadership must be brutally honest with itself, the Congress, the public and coalition partners. It is a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it!" Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Early 2001, as quoted in Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack And continues with the point that WMD's were the reason that the public supported the invasion of Iraq; the administration was quite strong in their wording, and dare I say, fearmongering. The writer lays out some quotes from the Pres and Condi: <quote> "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." That echoed previous comments by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who's about to become Secretary of State. Just a month before, she told Wolf Blitzer of CNN: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." They don't say this administration is "on message" for nothing: Note the repeated use of the terrifying image of nuclear destruction (so familiar to the millions of us who lived through the Cold War) to sow fear and anxiety among a public still traumatized by the September 11th attacks, and thereby build support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq to protect us all from this dire threat. <end> This is the problem; the main reason why we are there turned out not to be true. The adminstration needs to face this, if for no other reason to figure out how our intelligence got so screwed up. We took a huge risk based on this intelligence. Now how can we trust our intelligence on a situation like Iran? How can the world? I agree that Saddam needed dealing with, but as I sit and write this in what _should_ be the shadows of the WTC, was Iraq really the place we should have committed our forces for this long and used up so much political capital? I happen to agree that Iran is a threat, and probably a bigger threat than Saddam was. They have a more recent history of supporting terrorism, and a more active nuclear program. But we find ourselves in a much worse position for dealing with them militarily if we have to. I would much rather have left more troops in Afganistan: we could have continued to hunt Osama, continued to stabilize that country, and we still would have had a hundred thousand+ troops camped on Iran's borders as a spur to disarm. It's not just that we didn't find WMDs, we didn't even find the _abilities_ that had been pumped up. Oh, the editorial? By Howard R. Gold, an editor at Barrons. But I guess that's just another "liberal" rag. (Full URL is: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB110626473795732026.html?mod=b_online_exclusi ves_left but I think you need a subscription). -David "Shows how sneaky that Saddam was, he told the truth!" Wren-Hardin -Show Them the Door. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4305 Registered: 10-1999  |
For more original put-downs, you can always use Mr. Rogers' "Insult Creator": http://www.duncanmrogers.com/insult_creator.htm How about "You artless, full-gorged boar-pig"? | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 81 Registered: 8-2001  |
Oh, I get you now, Strawberry. Love it or leave it, huh? Nice. I just think reducing people to labels is, generally, stupid, when you can call them on their ideas and positions. That said, I personally don't mind being called a liberal because I take it as meaning I'm enlightened, intelligent, and understanding. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4450 Registered: 10-2001  |
"enlightened, intelligent, and understanding." says who? you? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 77 Registered: 2-2004 |
Joel, Good try with your sports analogy except you missed one point. The coach was recently re-hired. Oh yeah, you conveniently got around that little happening by proclaiming that the rest of the country is "self-blinded by religion, arrogance, ignorance, selfishness, and bigotry to know better". You must constantly be on the road to know everyone's views so well. The next time your down my way taking the pulse of this area please let me know and I'll fire up the grill and you can explain to me how the rest of the country should mirror Essex county. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 809 Registered: 7-2004 |
Southerner: C'mon. There's New York (and the surrounding Blue States) and then there's every where else where, face it, the people are really just kidding themselves. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2001 |
Yeah, says me. Who else speaks for YOU? For the record, I've lived 2 years in California, 2 years in PA, and 7 years in TEXAS, but I needn't have ever left my home to be entitled to an opinion about anything or anyone (see Strawberry for better and stronger examples of opining about others' perspectives). I have many friends still in Texas, one of whom is a minister, who have been extremely embarrassed and repulsed by Bush as Governor and even more as President. By the way, Southerner, nice to know you still view the country electorally. There are blue and red states, but roughly half the PEOPLE in this country thought Bush didn't deserve another term and I'd suggest 75% felt that way but didn't like the alternative. I wasn't crazy about the alternative myself. McCain would have won in a total landslide, and it would have been a victory for integrity. That's coming from me, the pigeon-holed liberal. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4451 Registered: 10-2001 |
Most libbys for some reason have this love affair with McCain. Meanwhile all he's done is spit in the eye of the Dem party each and everytime they've wined and dined him. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1523 Registered: 1-2003  |
Dave, You know, those "extremists" who think that war should be a last resort. Not at all, I mean the extremists that believe that war is NEVER an option unless we're attacked first... and then, its only to get our attackers, and only with the UN's blessing. The extremists who believe that the US is to blame for everything from the temperature to the terrorists. The extremists that believe that there can be world peace if we just all talk to each other, and maybe fly a kite or two. They need medication, therapy, and real world experiences. Dave, you've been to China, seen communism firsthand, and your posts reflect it. Others get their worldview from the Times and then try to have an aire of superiority over those of us who have actually seen the world. They worship at the altar of Krugman and its pitiful. Most have never even seen the real US. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4306 Registered: 10-1999 |
"I mean the extremists that believe that war is NEVER an option unless we're attacked first... and then, its only to get our attackers, and only with the UN's blessing. The extremists who believe that the US is to blame for everything from the temperature to the terrorists. The extremists that believe that there can be world peace if we just all talk to each other, and maybe fly a kite or two." Oh, good, at least you're not refering to anyone who posts here. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1524 Registered: 1-2003 |
Like I said... they refuse to even acknowledge their problem. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1027 Registered: 8-2003  |
I'd like to see you find examples of any of those sentiments expressed by anyone outside of a Quaker meeting hall. Virtually everyone (including the UN) acknowledges that there are times when preemptive use of military force is justified. When there's credible evidence that our country is going to be attacked, preemptive action is certainly called for. But conditional, heavily-caveated evidence that another country might have hostile intentions, even if they don't have any means of attacking us, but if they did, maybe they would, sometime far in the future (possibly) - that's not credible evidence on which to base a full-scale military invasion, followed by an open-ended occupation. but if it makes you feel better, go ahead and continue believing that people who disagree with you are all spaced-out pacifists. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1528 Registered: 1-2003 |
See post 1524 above. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1028 Registered: 8-2003 |
gee, I thought you were actually interested in an exchange. but if you just want to taunt, forget about it. have fun posting with yourself. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4307 Registered: 10-1999 |
It's your own fault, Dr. O'Boogie. If you insist that facts should intrude on somebody's worldview*, you're going to get that kind of a reaction. *Another problem with liberals. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5157 Registered: 4-1998  |
It's easier to debate with fictions because they're predictable and you always win. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1530 Registered: 1-2003 |
Doc, This has been debated, redebated, and reredebated. Most of the liberal extremists on this board were against the war long before we knew the WMD weren't there. In fact someone said that we shouldn't invade because Saddam might use WMD on our troops. Here's a question... If we found stockpiles of WMD or a nuclear program, would you then support the war and the President? Maybe you would, but most of the extreme liberals here still wouldn't. Me, I don't care if we found WMD or not, it makes no difference at all. Saddam had to be shown he cannot hold the world hostage, even if he was lying. He (and no country) can play cat and mouse with us and expect to get away with it. Tyrannical dictators need to be stopped. By any means neccessary. You can console yourself with the false canard that sometime, under the right circumstances, and if the right people approve, a pre-emptive war is OK. Maybe you actually believe it. Good for you. The fact is that there is NEVER the right circumstances, not that will satisfy the extremists here. There were plenty of protests on MOL about us invading Afghanistan... cries of racism, etc. Conditioning force on the probability of attack is wrong, force should be used in many situations; Self defense, pre-emptive self defense, stopping genocide, deposing tyrants, freeing peoples, and also and possibly most importantly so that the threat of force (now or in the future) is not empty. You don't seem to get that. Just curious, if we did let the inspections go forward, and never followed through on an attack, even with all of Saddams games- how do you think Iran will view a threat of force should we need to make one? How do you think they will view our threat of force now? And for what its worth, I don't know where you got the idea I wanted an "exchange" on this thread... I started my posts here saying a good lot of you need therapy, medication, and real world experiences... Have any of my posts where I've offered serious discussion EVER been like that? | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4308 Registered: 10-1999 |
"I don't know where you got the idea I wanted an 'exchange' on this thread... I started my posts here saying a good lot of you need therapy, medication, and real world experiences... Have any of my posts where I've offered serious discussion EVER been like that?" So, in other words, Dr. O'Boogie, you should have realized that you were simply doing a version of Monty Python's "Argument Sketch" - Dr. O'Boogie: Yes, but I came here for an argument!! | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5345 Registered: 1-2003  |
Good rewording, nohero. On the one hand, I feel duped for having dialogues with you, Michael, now that you have stated that you don't want to learn, only to disseminate, or some other polite word for spewing your opinions and keeping a closed mind. On the other hand, you've saved me the trouble of going any further. My preference is for dialogues where I can learn and also be of use to others. But it's not my place to tell you that you should prefer the same thing. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 78 Registered: 2-2004 |
Joel, Obviously our philosophies of government are polar from each other (which is just fine), however, I don't come on this board and disparage entire parts of the country. As you said you know people in Texas who don't like Bush. That is not surprising as that is the case all over the country just like there are people all over the country who like him. I've lived in red and blue states and the people are all basically the same. Good and hardworking. As far as my perceived view of red and blue I try to come as a dispassionate objective person. This is an "All Politics" message board however. Since everything seems to be either centered on Strawberry or the Repub vs. Dem dialogue then why wouldn't I view it this way. The Presidency is not won by a popular vote. It's all about getting to 270 electoral votes. Those are the current rules of the game. I don't care if the guy I'm supporting gets 60% or 40% of the popular vote. It doesn't matter to me. I want my guy to get 270 and take over the Executive Branch. All this talk about poll numbers is worthless at this point. Bush is the President regardless of what his approval numbers are. He is setting the agenda and the Democrats are having to respond to him which I happen to enjoy. Why do you think the Prez is running around the country this week? He's trying to turn some blue Senators to red in the mid-term elections in order to boost his chance at SS reform in 2007. It's a game and one team is wearing blue and the other red. |
