Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > July > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USYour war, not mine
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Throughout the war on terrorism and the most recent phase of Israel’s fight for survival, I’ve been struck by how difficult it is to develop national consensus — or even understanding — of what threats are so grave, or actions so reprehensible, that liberals would consider taking up arms.
It’s evident that liberals and conservatives don’t talk the same language. We see the same events differently. To conservatives, 9/11 was an act of war. To liberals, 9/11 was a criminal offense. We see Guantanamo detainees as terrorists who should be treated humanely but held until they no longer pose us danger. Liberals see them as suspects awaiting trial for ill-defined offenses that may be criminal. So it goes.
My sense of why liberals see the whole war on terrorism differently is that 1) it diverts resources and attention from the domestic issues they think more important, like global warming and auto gas mileage standards and universal health care and 2) it seems to be near impossible for liberals to frame any threat or circumstance, short of an invading army at the Port of Savannah, that would induce them to take up arms. They simply can’t.
In yesterday’s discussion, a few made half-hearted attempts to define that line-in-the-sand. One, rarringt, took a productive stab: peacekeeping actions for humanitarian reasons, defensive actions if an ally were threatened, offensive action if the U.S. came under direct assault or was threatened “by clear and convincing action.”
The majority of Americans have lived with peace so long, or unlike the Israelis have been able to sit out conflicts that didn’t fit with their lifestyles or value-judgments, that different languages and cultures have evolved, nurturing complacency, relativism and a remoteness that renders us incapable ot assessing threats. It’s no wonder that port security and container inspections, for example, are judged by some to be equally important and less threatening than, say, monitoring domestic calls from overseas terrorists.
For me, though, the quest goes on. It’s an important starting point in closing the gap between liberals and conservatives on the use of national power: What, precisely and clearly, other than a invasion of this country — all agree we’d fight back — would cause a liberal to take up arms? It’s not a test of patriotism. It’s not a trick question or one framed to provoke. And the answer, to be useful, can’t be historical. Give this nation something we can apply in the future.
Comments
By Mid-South Philosopher
July 27, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
War is an awful thing. It is as near to being in Hell as anyone can come without entering the Infernal Regions. The great irony of war is that those who engage in its acts, both up close and personal or from the planning table, commit evil, even if their purposes and objectives are right and virtuous. The troops, who on the ground, at sea, or in the air are engaged in the conflict, are in the midst of and often times the deliverers of death and destruction. The field commanders, the generals in their headquarters, and the politicians at their desks, who direct the conflict and are compelled by the exigencies of the situations to send men (and women) into combat are “killers” not only of the forces of the enemy, but of their own troops as well, not to mention the collateral damage of dead civilians who may have had the misfortune to be in the way. While the motive for this expenditure of human life may be very justified, the individuals who, by duty, are bound to order or exact its payment must often reflect, in the dark hours of the soul, upon the terrible costs of their actions. Such is the great price paid by the military and civilian leaders who must do this detestable work to keep us free. What a weight this is to bear. No honor, no salary, no recompense of nation is sufficient to compensate for this terrible responsibility. We owe these people our respect and, may I venture, our prayers.
All of that being true, we realize that war is sometimes necessary. Jim’s question to the liberals is under what circumstances, short of an actual invasion of our country, would they “take up arms” or, in actuality, support the use of national military power.
While I cannot speak for the liberals, I feel that the use of military force should be invoked only when there is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States or to the security of one of our allies that, short of our intervention, would result, ultimately, in a danger to us. This is my rationale for war.
We know that on September 11, 2001 we were attacked by a new type of enemy. Al-Qaeda is not a nation. Rather, it is an organization. However, our leaders have told us that we are in a “war” against “terrorism.” Strangely, they can point to no “declaration” of war by the Congress, just a series of “resolutions” authorizing the use of military power.
Where are my conservative “authentic constitutionalist” friends?
I am convinced that the elements of war do not change, whether one is at war with a nation or an organization. The only way to prevail in a war is to inflict a sufficient number of casualties and a sufficient amount of damage to the enemy to convince them that their continue participation in the war is not in their interest or to totally destroy their ability to exist as a nation (i.e., Nazi Germany) or as an organization. I am not sure that we have fought any of our “undeclared wars” since 1945 in that fashion and the results speak for themselves.
By Paul
July 27, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
How we will respond in the future can be debated all people want, but [debate] should not be done in a way that comforts our current enemies. The point some are missing is that we are now at war, like or not. Agree with it or not. Agree with how it is pursued or not. This war on terror was not brought on by our “doing,“ although we might be in a better position today, if action had been taken before 911. Our men and women are in foreign lands risking and giving their lives so that we here at home are not faced with what Israel is now faced with. [Fighting] will probably go on for a long time and in many “lands.“ We will have losses. We will make mistakes. War is hell. Personally, I thank God that we do not have a “liberal” as President right now. We would still be “negotiating” how to respond to 911, if we did. But whomever is the President, he/she is the Commander-in-Chief and not the likes of a Susan Sarandon or a Barbra Streisand, whom liberals like to parade out to do their risible caterwauling.
Our allegiance is to this Country. “One Nation Under God, indivisible….” Do any of those who think we are divided on this issue recall where those words come from? Hanoi Jane’s free ride may have caused many to misconstrue their responsibilities, but the Constitution is clear on giving comfort to the enemy. Orphan Ann learned this the hard (time) way.
God bless America!
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
You’re really reaching now, Wooten. You’re seriously questioning the patriotism of people based on their willingness to kill on command? As if warlike tendencies are the only measure of service to our society?
Preferring peace to war is now “un-American”? That’s a bit of a stretch, even for you.
By Dan
July 27, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this
This point is further proven by the left’s desire to have an immediate cease fire in Lebanon. Why? So Heabollah can regenerate and launch more attacks against Israel in the future. Israel has the chance right now to do severe damage to Hezbollah, maybe putting them back five or six years as far as number of members and weaponry. But no, the left doesn’t want Israel to succeed in this war. Instead they talk incessently about the civilian casaulties in Lebannon, but never mention the innocent women and children being killed by the indiscriminate Katyshua rockets.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, you are misunderstanding Jim’s point. He isn’t calling anyone “un-American”. He is asking those in the anti-war crowd when they think war is okay. What is a just war to you guys? Instead of immediately jumping to the standard rhetoric of you are calling me un-American why not try and answer the question.
By holdingAJC"accountable"
July 27, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Hypothetically speaking, if Al Gore had won, and Iraq had been fought in the EXACT same way, what would neo-cons be saying about his performance?
My guess is that they’d be howling in the win about this “weak kneed president who has NO idea how to wage a war”.
Is there a neo-con out there who can honestly say if Gore prosecuted the way in the EXACT same way, they’d praise him the same way they do Bush?
My point is, (to follow up with MidSouth) if you are going to wage war, then WIN damnit! Whatever happened to the Powell Doctrine?
Hell, I hate to say it, but I might vote for Hillary, not because she’s “liberal” but because she seems cold-blooded enough to tear North Korea, Iran, and their ilk a new a-hole if they don’t play right. (And Bill would be working the back channels saying “she REALLY means it…she tore me one AND made me sleep on the couch” :)
By Paul
July 27, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
To: The Moderate Voice
That is what liberals do.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
holding the AJCaccountable, obvious you don’t remember the “neo-cons” were some of Pres Clintons biggest supporters when it came to Bosnia and Kosovo. When most of the right was howling about “nation-building”, the neo-cons were out supporting him. And obviously you haven’t read any of the commentary from people like Bill Kristol who have been openly critical of the handling of the war.
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice: This is a combined response to both today’s blog and yesterday’s, where he more openly declared any anti-war discussion as treasonous.
As for the conditions of a just war, we already know them. Heck, we’ve signed treaties that spell them out explicitly! Rarringt’s criteria are a pretty good approximation of those conditions: When we’re directly attacked (and then only against the people who actually attacked us, duh), when an ally is attacked, or for humanitarian peacekeeping.
You’ll note that “pre-emptive war based on faulty and cooked intelligence” isn’t on that list. Neither is “holy war against a tactic or religion.”
9/11 WAS a criminal act, and one that could have been dealt with intelligently, with international police and intelligence operations; instead, we threw a military solution at it, with obviously failed results. Fighting terrorists with an army is like fixing your computer with a sledgehammer—wrong tool for the job, with predictable results.
By Craig
July 27, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
holding AJC accountable is right.
Jim I know you are honestly asking the question. At the risk of getting slammed by the neocons on here, here’s my answer. Do it only when there is a clear and present danger. If you as president see such a danger, make your case to the American public - don’t just run around calling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor. And finally, go in with massive firepower and win the thing and then get out. Don’t leave our kids in the middle of factions that have been warring with each other for centuries.
By Mark
July 27, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
To answer your question Jim, Lib/Dems have been taking up arms for this country for years. I retired from the military 2 years ago after over 21 years of service so don’t say liberals won’t fight for the country. Check the track record of those conservatives in Congress and on the airwaves and see who’s really willing to fight for the country.
By jbmlaw
July 27, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
Well, let’s inflame everyone. Ann says that the liberals never saw an actual war they would fight, but only cite theoretical wars they would fight rather than the one immediately before us. Thus, four years ago, rather than go after the locus of anti-American terrorist organizations massing then in Iraq and Syria, they want to threaten war against North Korea. Or chase the now-nearly-meaningless Osama. Or rein in the highly-effective Israeli action against the “party of God.”
I, too, would like to hear the circumstances Brian would urge a call to arms.
As for me, any threat to freedom - whether life, liberty, or property, whether domestic or foreign - deserves a harsh response.
By Willx
July 27, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
The War on Terror has come down to the War in Iraq, a country torn apart by flawed U.S. visions of “spreading democracy and freedom.” I am for war when our country is directly attacked as we were on 9/11. I just want us to go to war with the right enemy. Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11 yet we were fed daily large servings of hype to justify the invasion. The lesses we learned in Vietnam are having to be re-learned.
If believing the above makes me a liberal, then I’m a liberal.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, 9/11 was an act of war. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990’s. Look at the various different terrorists acts we treated as criminal investigations. The first WTC bombings, the embassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole bombing. We didn’t stop terrorism by treating them as criminal acts. And you can fight insurgencies and terrorists with the military. The British were successful doing it in Malaya and we were successful doing it in the Phillipines.
By Dan
July 27, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Willx, comparing Vietnam and the war in Iraq is a faulty comparison for many reasons. One Vietnam was fought mostly in the countryside, Iraq is mostly urban environment. Second in Vietnam we were fighting regular Army units as well. We are not facing that in Iraq. Thrid, Vietnam was a full flegded war between the North and South. Iraq is an insurgency aimed at getting American out.
By jbmlaw
July 27, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Acknowledgement, my younger son is a Naval officer. We discussed these matters this past weekend. He, much better than I, knows what it means to defend freedom. His complainy with Bush is that Bush is not aggressive enough defending American interests. His complaint with Democrats is that they callously tolerate lack of freedom elsewhere.
By holdingAJC"accountable"
July 27, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
To Moderate Voice: Point well taken. But the thing that strikes me isn’t that some neo-cons are speaking out against Bush’s performance, it’s that ANYONE is complimentary about it.
I’m no military strategist by any means, but our man in the White House has resources for God’s sake. It seems he just COMPLETELY ignored the military’s advice.
This is an oversimplification, but why not just go win? Secure an area with overwhelming numbers. Once you make it SAFE, then go about the process of regaining the trust of the Iraqis by investing in infrastructure, roads, schools, passing out candy bars to kids, whatever it takes.
Seems common sense that when people feel SAFE, they will co-operate with the soldiers more (and as a consequence, it will take less to maintain the area)
Once you do the process in one area…REPEAT as necessary. But Rumsfeld wanted “light” and we got it…military lite. Once again our soldiers suffer, because we played politics with their lives, instead of making winning the first priority. Sad, whether you are liberal or consevative.
By Willx
July 27, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Oh, I forgot to mention that I am a Veteran, having served in Korea.
If the Wootenites of this country had their way, the Congress and Supreme Court would simply be dissolved and the White House would control the media. That way, the Bush monarchy would reign unimpeded. We mere subjects would march stiff-legged in the streets behind our vehicles of military might, wave Old Glory, and then “eyes right” as we pass by the King’s viewing stand. His Royal Highness would kindly grin and wink and applaud his subjects as we pay proper homage.
By John W.
July 27, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
I think many, including Jim, over-exaggerate the size and influence of the anti-war crowd. True they’re very vocal but I don’t think they represent most of the democratic party. The conservative media has done a great job at making the terms liberal and democrat one and the same, however they’re are many conservative democrats who don’t believe Michael Moore’s propaganda, or like Howard Dean, and would glady cast a vote for a moderate republican like John McCain. Many forgot that most Northern democrats were raised at a time when unions did more good than harm, we’re blue collar (like many mid-west and southern republicans) served in the military and believed in the conservative principles like the second amendment, and small government. These are the blue-collar folks from Michigan and Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, etc. I’ve said it before, my whole family (males) have served in one of the branches of the military and both grandfathers were WW2 vets.
I myself, support Israel, and think we should militarily support them, if necessary. I do, however, resent that the current administration sticks with civilian leadership (mostly Rumsfield) who will not admit mistakes and adapt to circumstances on the ground - such as the current lack of troop levels.
For me to go back into the service, I’d need more faith in the administration running the war. I do believe Iraq was a detour away from Afghanistan and the Saudi’s who were most of the 911 terrorists, and that an invasion of Iraq was always on the agenda of this administration - I think militarliy and politically the administration knew it was the easiest target, and I think their end goal was to have a strong military presence in the mid-east. I would have probably supported the war if the admin was more upfront with their agenda instead of wrapping in WMD’s and liberation of people.
By Willx
July 27, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
Oh, I forgot to mention that I am a Veteran, having served in Korea.
If the Wootenites of this country had their way, the Congress and Supreme Court would simply be dissolved and the White House would control the media. That way, the Bush monarchy would reign unimpeded. We mere subjects would march stiff-legged in the streets behind our vehicles of military might, wave Old Glory, and then “eyes right” as we pass by the King’s viewing stand. His Royal Highness would kindly grin and wink and applaud his subjects as we pay proper homage.
By Mark
July 27, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice, have we stopped terrorism with this war as opposed to what we did in the ’90s? I think not. We can never stop terrorism. We can fight in Iraq for 100 years and terrorist will still commit acts against us on our soil. They really are unstoppable with our current methods of detection. The only surefire way to prevent attacks against us is to deport everyone of Middle Eastern decent out of the country and close the doors permanately. Extreme but true.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
holding the AJC accountable, that is much easier said than done. We have secure large swaths of Iraq, most of the south and the north. Obviously the area around Baghdad is the trouble spot. The military is doing what you are saying. It is just difficult going. We have invested huge sums of money into rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq. Defeating an insurgency is not a short or easy task. Most successful counterinsurgencies take years.
By Mid-South Philosopher
July 27, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
It may have been out for a while, but I just noticed online that Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Usama bin-Laden, has called for a ”jihad for the sake of God …(to) last until our religion prevails…from Spain to Iraq.”
Seems that I remember early on President Bush used the word “crusade” to describe the American response to Al-Qaeda and 9-11. As I recall, the liberals and the world community found that word offensive because it smacked of a “religious” connotation.
The use of the word “jihad” by this Ayman al-Zasahri offends me. His notion that Islam should rule from Spain to Iraq is also insulting.
Wonder how the world media would react if a western leader called for the capture of Jerusalem, Mecca, and Teheran and the establishment of Christianity from Morocco to India, from Arabia to Turkey?
Do I smell a double standard here?
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
Mark, has there been a terrorist attack on our soil since we invaded Iraq? No there hasn’t. Have we stopped several attacks since then? Yes we have. You can stop terrorism. And we are. Willx, its good to see you have put a lot of thought into your post.
By Political Foreskin
July 27, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
A better question: what wouldn’t a conservative go to war for?
Iraq War is like FDR declaring war on Israel because he thought the pilots were yelling “Torah, Torah, Torah” as they bombed Pearl Harbor.
“But sir, there is no Israel yet”.
“Then give ‘em a gotdang homeland and invade that!”
There was/is no geo-political justication for war in Iraq whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zero.
The war on terror should be the war against the 911 terrorists, but Bush “doesn’t spend alot of time wondering where OBL is”.
The only conclusion liberals can make about Republicans is that 911 stupified them to the point where they will attack any country for any reason (except the countries that were involved in 911).
Liberals should only feel sorry for the damage done to conservative brains by that day. War is hell.
Ask a conservative to define and differentiate these terms and watch the smoke come out of his ears: Mullah, Imam, Emir, Caliph, Sahib, Sheik, Cleric
Why trust the mind of a man who would invade a country and not be able to even form the language that could construct a geo-political justification.
The war in Iraq is nonsense and now we’ve the devil to pay.
By Willx
July 27, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Dan, the US went into war because we were told that democracy must be preserved in South Vietnam and that if it wasn’t, all of Southeast Asia would become communist. Not true.
The US went into war because we were told that Saddamn Hussein was a direct threat to the the US and that we would be greeted as libertors in the streets of Baghdad. Not true.
Vietnam and Iraq are similar because both wars were started for false reasons. It is not a matter of topography or north vs. south or lack of military power. I fear the end result in Iraq will be the same as Vietnam - we lose.
By Terry
July 27, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
After reading todays paper and after watching the news shows, I have return to the conclusion that there is no end in sight for the Iraqi conflict. No I do not have a crystal ball, nor is this a DEM vs REP argument, and certainly it is not about cowardice, patriotism, ect……, my idea arrived after hearing the address of the Iraqi pm. What is playing over and over in my mind is, “more money, more troops”. I have a feeling my grandkids(6 yr olds) will have graduataed from college before this thing ends.
By Topher
July 27, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
We’re all being given an opportunity to get on the right side of this issue. The evidence that 911 was an inside job, to justify everything that has happened since is overwhelming. If you’re waiting for Al Franken, or Rush Limbaugh to tell you, it might be a while. But in the meantime, take it upon yourself to see the errors, omissions, and outright lies contained in the comissions report.Remember that we were given the official story on 914, the administration fought to keep us from having an investigation, and when we did, the commission omitted every detail that would have contridicted the official story.The situation was written of as incompetence, and breakdown at almost every management level, however, nobody was punished for anything.Think about that. What’s most disturbing is that it’s the elephant in the room that everyone ignores.We prosecuted Clinton for being untruthful about his sexual relations, but we completely overlook the fact that the Kean Comission told us the black boxes can’t be analized, because we never found them.Rumsfeld said we found them, Tennet said we found them, we know the families of flight 93 and the jury at the Moussaoui trial were allowed to hear them, but are not allowed to talk about what they heard. So did we find them?Depends on if you actually want to listen to them. There’s absolutely no explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, but most people don’t even know that on the afternoon of 911,a third steel frame building that wasn’t hit by planes, damaged by falling debris, or damaged by any extensive fires collapsed in the most perfectly executed controlled demolition that you will ever see, period. Go back, look at the video, and ask yourself if you really believe that fires brought that building down. If you need expert opinion, there’s dozens of scientist from around the country who have disproven the official story numerous times, but the media ignores them. Right now, the only question we’re asking is how much more we should give to this effort.We’d like to see some more questions answered.Also take note, that whenever people in the Truth Movement are mentioned in the media, we’re basically written off as crazy, but they never address our questions.Think about that when the attack dogs are turned loose. Yes. This is not my war. We will most likely have to see it through, but it will never be our war.
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
ModVoice, and were those attacks stopped with miliary action? No; they were stopped with intelligence gathering and good police work, the only way to fight terrorist organizations.
You’re arguing against yourself here.
By Mark
July 27, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice, do you think what we’re doing in Iraq has stopped terrorism on our soil? You really believe the “fighting them there” rhetoric. It’s going to happen again Mod. It’s inevitable. They’re probably planning something right now and I hope we can catch them before it’s launched. But when it happens I wonder what excuse cons are going to use. They’ll probably blame Clinton (Bill).
By John W.
July 27, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice
That’s a specious argument - there was no foreign terrorist attack on American soil from the 1992 wtc bombing to 9/11 - that’s 9 years. And we weren’t engaged in a large-scale war fighting terrorists anywhere. Historically speaking, terrorist attacks on the US tend to occur at lengthy intervals, so one cannot presume that our current war is the sole reason no other attacks have occurred.
Also, what do you think about JBMLwas statement, that Osama is now “meaningless”? This is the man that planned and instructed the mass killing of 3000 Americans, the man who you point out, declared war on the US is now to some conservatives meaningless!
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Topher: Carriage returns. Learn them; love them.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
No one in their right mind wants war. Its easy to be very glib about war and that glibness is invariably at the expense of those brave poor sods who will be doing the fighting.
However we all know there is a point beyond which virtually everyone except a genuine good faith pacifist type will support some kind of (limited) action against a specific enemy.
Often its a visceral demand for perhaps revenge, or justice or just a blatant pressing need for self defence. Sanctioning war shouldn’t ever be based purely on race or creed - even if its the French or Belgians - although the natural temptation there is to just say lets start the carpet bombing please.
Nowadays liberal hypocrisy and the craven appeasement crowd have truly begun to dominate the Democrat party. If they approve of military action under a Dem president its fine - with little screeching. Clinton had several wag the dog moments and the dems even in the senate overwhelmingly voted to remove Saddam in the late 1990’s - but it never happened.
But if a GOP President goes to war the left screech, depending on the given scenario the screeching can be unremitting and deafening. No longer is there any implicit acceptance of the right of the president to make hard tough decisions and to broadly support him when US troops are in harms way. Every decision is opposed, or at best second guessed with a growing treasonous streak in the media literally vying to undermine everything the US does — when the media arrogates to itself the right to ‘veto’ or doggedly challenge the president’s decision, with sullen media micro management of a conflict.
Iraq is undeniably a huge factor in the war on terror which is really now WW3 - or whatever number you ascribe to it. Its a struggle against good and evil - the evil being fanatical mohammedanism. There have been mistakes and miscalculations, as occurs in all wars, but broadly the US/UK alliance is winning the war. But essentially now its the age old sectarian schism in Mesopotamia that’s creating the killing fields in Iraq, rather than the earlier anti-US insurgency which is slowly abating, although will likely persist at some level for a few more years yet.
Thus the craven liberal appeasers and mindless Bush hate crowd pounce on every opportunity to undermine the national and international effort to destroy mohammedan fascism. Because of their irrational hatred for Bush and his administration and their robotic, arrogant refusal to allow anyone else to make political and military decisions they, the all knowing ultra partisan left dont approve of.
By Mark
July 27, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Topher, 911 was in inside job? What for? By whom? Who set up the controlled demolition? You mean to tell me someone hid the fact that there was an explosives all over the base of WTC 7, the normal method of controlled demolitions? No engineer or plumber or electrician working in that building ever saw these exlosives? Wooten, has Oliver Stone become a contributer to your blog?
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
John W, I personally don’t think OBL is meaningless and I am not a Republian just for the record. I tend to vote based on the candidate not the party. If you want to say that some conservatives now think he is meaningless, you could say the same about Dems who thought he was meaningless despite all the attacks and warnings during the late 1990’s. My main goal is to wade throught all the worhtless rhetoric that comes from the leaders of both parties and try to find the truth. The truth is the world is in a very turbulent time period right now. Probably the most turbulent since WWII. Instead of actually trying to solve the major problems, most politicians are more intent on making political gain out of the situation.
By James
July 27, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
Mid-South…
Are you comparing Osama’s second in command to an elected leader of a nation? Who care what he calls for…if he declares a jihad, armegeddon, or another Big Bang why would the media report it the same way they would report if our Idiot in Chief declares a “crusade”.
By John W.
July 27, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice -
I agree with the sentiments of your last post, as I believe most Americans do, but we are a silent majority that are not “shocking” or “angry” enough to generate air time to express our views.
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice, was the name ‘Bush Lover’ already taken?
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
John W, you are correct. There is a vocal minority of both sides of the political spectrum that dominate the political discourse. From Limbaugh to Air America to editros from the Nation magazine to the extreme websites on both sides the average American is losing out.
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
My last day in civilization begins today, tomorrow evening finds me back amongst the bloodthirsty warmongering rednecks of the Klandom of Georgia. The Independent today has a cover picture of two little Lebanese kids in their white burial shrouds, little blotches of pink and red had seeped through. You armchair soldiers back in the Land of the Klan would love the picture.
Like the Jihadists, you KKKrusaders are a plague on humanity. You should be hunted down and killed or incarcerated for a lifetime like the criminals you are. You are not soldiers - or patriots - or even terrorists - you are criminals.
By Mark
July 27, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
TFTT, Iraq was not a part of the terror war until we invaded. There was no terror war until we rightfully invaded Afghanistan. I say “rightfully invaded” with tongue-in-cheek since the terrorist came from Saudi. I do believe we had to destroy the camps in Afghanistan but where has that gotten us? The Taliban are back in Afghanistan 3 years later and most of the country is under the control of maniacs. BTW, this is not WW3, not even close.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
LMAO, good to see you put a lot of thought into that post. I have been critical of many things Bush has done. Was the name “Bush hater” already taken for you. Posts like yours just show how poor the political discourse is in our country right now.
By Joe
July 27, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
The nutcases are coming out of their boxes, case in point Topher. Topher go back downstairs to your basement apartment/room in your your eighty-year old parents home and write some more on your conspiracy theories. Liberals will never take up arms, they will always sit in the corner and whine and enjoy all the freedoms real men have died and fought for. It’s a waste of breath to argue with them. Let the ACLU heads have their say; let them have Dean and Hillary and Pelosi. You can’t reason with the irratiotnal mindset most liberals have. I am convinced most live in an altered state of reality and not in the world I live in. So, short of forced medications, what can you really do?
By Political Foreskin
July 27, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
When the Iraq war started, the myth was that there was no diffs between a Sunni or a Shia. Lately, the myth is that the Persians would never align with the Arabs.
The ignorance that got us into Iraq is as stifling as the ignorance that keeps us there.
What ignorance? The neo-con’s ignorance of the difference between sectarian alliances and ethnic rivalries. (stand back, more smoke)
These conservatives only wave little flags and chant, “support the troops”, and have no idea what that even means, except that at Miller Time, it keeps you from getting your a*s kicked. (liberal tip: always keep a mini-flag in your pocket as a “phaser on stun, wide beam” last resort if you ever voice your opinion in a bar)
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Time for the Toilet you had a big hissy fit a couple of days ago at me, are you OK now, girlfriend?
I’d say it must be that time of the month, but it seems that it’s all the time. Menopause?
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Political Foreskin, thanks for reverting back to the old liberals are smarter than conservatives posting. Once again, people on both sides would rather poke fun and call names than genuinely debate the issues. What a waste.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
I agree it wasn’t then part of WW3 - but the case for liberating Iraq was/is overwhelming, which we will doubtless disagree on.
Afghanistan will likely never be a stable democracy in the western sense, its mohammedan and tribal culture/backwardness dictates that - but the taleban no longer rule, they are on the run because they aren’t the govt any more and there is NO “state terrorism” being launched at the US from the country. The Brits/NATO are killing loads of taleban in the south which is a good thing. The US has also killed many taleban. Keeping them at arms length is way better than having them run the country again.
By justmeagain
July 27, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
It’s very simple - it doesn’t take rocket science. All you need to ask your self is “When did God ever say killing is okay?”
So many conservatives claim to be Christians. I’m not sure why they don’t get it.
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Well, conservative used to mean that you were cold and heartless, but you at least had a brain in your head, or some education at least.
Now look at the GOP - mostly red state trash, the most poorly educated dumbest inbred people in North America, if not the world. Violent incompetent Neanderthal trash that thinks every problem should be handled by either raping it or killing it.
By Ricky
July 27, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
redneck, at least you are showing the true colors of the Dem party. People like you and Howard Dean do nothing more than hurt your party. You must lead a sad life to have to use such hateful language on a posting site. I feel sorry for you man and hope you find some help.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Hey Joe!
Did you bring your musket with you for the pending civil war versus the liberals? Or will you be pulling KP duty in the rear, cooking Johnny Cakes for the real men up front.
Wait a second….Johnny Cakes….that was a character on Sopranos. Are you Johhny Cakes, Joe?
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
REdnecks inbred mutant
WE dont want you back in GA … please stay in Ole MIss after your release from prison. I’m hoping your parole arrangements will be held up a little but if not you’ve supposedly paid your debt to society and are free to reoffend.
Hopefully the FBI will catch you redhanded in person on line next time and the sentence wont be plea bargained down again!!
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice, sometimes the truth hurts, buddy. Foreskin is not trying to be cruel, just truthful.
Let’s face it - the GOP is full of superstitious poorly educated trash. Saying it ain’t so is just lying.
By Mark
July 27, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
The case for “liberating” Iraq was terribly flawed at best. Like you said, we’ll never agree on that one.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
incompetent Neanderthal trash that thinks every problem should be handled by either raping it or killing it.
How come “we” missed YOU then rednecks mutant!!
By Camille
July 27, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Jim, I think a large part of liberal dissatisfaction with the current situation is not being against war in general, but a certainty that this war was completely unnecessary. 9/11 was certainly an attack, and the resulting action in Afghanistan seemed justified to me. We were attacked, and it was the right thing to do. However, the actions in Iraq had very little if anything to do with 9/11. Instead, it seemed then like it seems now: the administration has a beautiful vision of a peaceful, democratic Middle East, and refuses to let facts cloud its fantasy.
The events in Iraq have destabilized that region for the foreseeable future. Sure, we took down an evil dictator…one that was no threat to us, no matter how much propaganda he fed his neighbors and his people. Sure, we rescued some Iraqis from his evil torture chambers…only to result in others dying from random bombings in marketplaces. I’m seeing no net gain here, for us or for the Iraqis.
There will always be some on the far edge of the liberal spectrum who will protest any war. Such is politics. But I think what most liberals would like to see is a military-force policy based on logic and results, not rhetoric and assumptions.
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
I know a lot of you rednecks get upset when my posts remind you of just how violent, stupid, and uneducated you are. I don’t mean for you to take it personally, some of it is not your fault - after all, most of you come from a long long line of trash that drinks too much, rapes too much, fights too much, reads too little, and bathes too infrequently.
But - you have an opportunity to break the chain of your ignorance and stupidity and HATE but you cling to it like Ugotta clings to TFTT after a swig of ‘shine.
That is not our fault. That is your fault. Stop doing it - you don’t have to be a redneck another day longer.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
REdnecks …
STOP WASTING valuable US oxygen!!
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
TFTT, you know the answer to that one - I outsmarted you.
All of you.
By Mid-South Philosopher
July 27, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
James,
If, indeed, we are in a war against “terrorism” and if Al-Qaeda is the premiere terrorist organization, then, the pronouncements of their leaders should be afforded the same scrutiny as those of our “elected” leaders.
I happen to believe that Ayman al-Zasahri is a “reprobate” Muslim. That means that he is NOT a true follower of the Prophet. He has a form of Islam, but denies the power thereof.
Nevertheless, many in the Muslim world give heed to his words. Others of the non-Muslim world (not strictly allied to the west) pay attention to what he says. Consequently, the media, in my judgment, should hold him accountable for his prejudices and bigotry, just as it would a western leader.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Camille, I agree with you that most liberals are supportive of the military and most agreed with the action in Afghanistan. Iraq has obviously turned out a little different. However, the problem for the Democratic party is that honest, principled democrats like Joe Libermann are being thrown under the bus for single issue candidates like Ned Lamont. The Dems could easily win back the house in the fall if they appear reasonable and having a plan. Instead the vocal minority on the far left is dominating the discussion giving the Republicans a chance to hold onto control of the house.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
REdnecks …
you are the finest excuse I’ve EVER encountered for euthanasia … you have utterly convinced me of the need for it!!
FOR THAT I THANK YOU BUBBATURD!!
Please present yourself AT the reptile house at Zoo Atlanta for GA’s first ever televised euthanizing when/if you get out of prison tomorrow!!
By Van
July 27, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Interesting conversations, real radicals on both side, but since the left is more vocal than action oriented, they seem shriller.
Mid-South Philosopher, you ask about no formal declaration of war. Usually, the decaration is a congressional resolution, but that it is not needed.
If you look back at Jefferson’s war against the Barbary pirates, they declared war on us, like UBL, and Congress authorized our Navy to take action against any of their ships or goods.
We are in a war on terrorism, as authorized by our Congress, giving the President the authority to pursue terrorism where ever it is.
Someone here said we went to war because Saddam was a direct threat against the US. That person is flat wrong, go back and read the speech, he said, we should attack before he becomes a direct threat - and Congress said Yes.
People tend to forget that the President can move troops anywhere he wants, but Congress controls that movement by the purse strings.
So like Teddy Roosevelt and the Great White Fleet, Congress must fund any military event. Congress, therefore should be the peace-niks target instead of the President, after all we do have checks and balances.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
REDNECKS - YOU COULDN’T OUTSMART A DEAD SQUASHED POSSUM!!
Hope that slightly indirect reference to your on file prison service last meal request didn’t get your juices going!!
By My Family
July 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
There is no one on this planet I am willing to kill nor die for EXCEPT: My Mother, My Father, My Brother, My Sister, My Partner, Our Children. I would not take a bullet for anyone else, I don’t care how important they believe themselves to be. My Family is all I am responsible for. The rest of you need to take care of yourselves.
By Play that funky music whiteboy
July 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Jim, I am going to answer for myself, a progressive (liberal in comparison to most of my Georgia kin) and a veteran of the armed forces. I believe that all Americans would be willing to take up arms against a “Clear and Present Danger” to the United States or US interests. It’s in the definition of that term, where people diverge. Would one take up arms to keep gas at $3 a gallon instead of $6 a gallon? Now in the case of North Korea, would one take up arms in an action against a nation developing nuclear capability that would threaten our close allies? Although those two postulations assume a “set target” of a sovereign nation-state or bloc of nations (OPEC anyone) to go after. What we face now is not a superpower (in the form of the Soviet Union), we face super-empowered individuals (Osama bin Laden and others - from Thom Friedman’s Lexus and Olive Tree). The fight against the two is not the same and no matter how many times you invade Iraq, you aren’t going to get rid of Al Qaeda - agreed?
I would take up arms and ask my fellow Americans to do it based solely on one question - “is this a fight I would send my sons into, is there a Clear and Present Danger enough for me to ask them to risk their lives.” North Korea, absolutely (the people of North and South want to reunite, the only thing standing in the way is Kim Jong Il). Iraq, no way (I never believed they had WMD’s, if they did, Iran would have been hit with them many times over). Israel and Hezbollah, not yet - if the entire Arab world wanted in on the fight, we should definitely get involved. But for diplomacy to have any chance, the other (perceived) “Great Satan” needs to stay on the sidelines for now. As for dealing with Al Qaeda and their ilk, police type tactics along with a sophisticated human intelligence gathering network are our best weapons (humint). Intercept all the phone traffic you want and emails, etc… It will take a “Donnie Brasco” to bring Al Qaeda down - we got it right with the mob, apply the same tactics.
By Ed
July 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Redneck, I have never seen such a pitiful cry for attention. Did your mother ever hold you?
By justmeagain
July 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
“Time for truth” - you seem a little uptight bro. Maybe you should go get laid or something.
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Van, don’t you think Bush has stretched the authority of that resolution about as far as it will go—if not farther? He’s claiming it gives him free rein to ignore all laws, do whatever he wants, and answer to nobody… surely not what our founders intended with their checks-and-balances structure.
By JK
July 27, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Not taking the bait anymore Mr. Wooten. You don’t want to better understand anyone else’s thinking. Rather, you think it makes you appear smart to ask someone a question and then ridicule their answer by saying, “SEE! They have no answer! They’re stupid and we’re smarter-er! Nyah Nyah!”
YAWWWWWN See ya. ZZZZZ zzzzz ZZZZZZ zzzzz
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Camile,
Thank you for clarifying most liberals’ view on the use of forc! Excellent point.
Van,
Good argument from a conservative viewpoint. However, as a liberal, I was and still am upset at both Congress and the Presidenet for authorizing the war so hastily without a plan. Both branches are controlled by the same party, so in effect there aren’t any effective checks and balances as of yet in the past 5 years. Although, this may be changing as the GOP’s different wings has been fracturing recently.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
justmoronagain
just gently winding up rednecks … he’s not very good at this biting humour thang though.
you seem to be very uptight about my alleged uptightness!! chill bubba
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
justmoronagain
just gently winding up rednecks … he’s not very good at this biting humour thang though.
you seem to be very uptight about my alleged uptightness!! chill bubba
By retusmc1990
July 27, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
no matter how it got started, our troops are over there now, facing an insurgency. I don’t really believe in that whole idea of terrorists — this is a battle against irregular forces, or insurgents, and needs to be handled as such
this is not WWIII. Traditional wars like WWI and WWII are actually pretty rare and we are far more likely to fight “small wars” which are more “irregular”, with more poorly defined opposition. Because the opposition is more poorly defined, it natually leads to more poorly defined circumstance in which war is an acceptable option. Our enemies have the fluidity of existance on their side, we must have a fluidity of imagination to be successful.
The paradox of battling insurgents: 1. the more force you deploy, the less safe you become.
By Play that funky music whiteboy
July 27, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Jim, was Oklahoma city an act of war or a criminal action? Just because they don’t have a wealthy Saudi prince backing them, it doesn’t mean that supremacist and anarchist groups in the US don’t want the destruction of our government and way of life…. are size and scope the only determinents in a criminal action or an act of war? Remember, only a handful perished in the Boston Massacre.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Mr Family …
but surely anyone/any army who came after your neighbours or folks who lived in the same state(s) you and yours live in might well also get to you and yours.
And if collectively you and yours couldn’t deal with - say the Chinese Red ARmy - wouldn’t you need to avail yourself of the collective protection that the US offers ALL its citizens??!!
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
retusmc1990, you bring up some good points. Most of the wars the US has entered into and will enter into will be small wars. Counterinsurgnecies are extremly difficult and take years not months to win. The problem is that most Americans are not well versed in insurgencies and they want wars to be quick and bloodless. I don’t think the average American has the political will to engage in counterinsurgent warfare.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
@Play,
Your argument reflects the different approaches that Europe and the US use in fighting terrorism. In Europe, if you notice after the attacks in Madrid and London, they approached terrorism from a police perspective due to the fact that they both have experienced terrorism constantly over the past 40 years from ETA, IRA, and past European Red organizations.
However, here in the US, we take more of a military standpoint, as shown by Guantanamo and more explicitly by our declaration of war on “terror”.
In terms of Al Queda, police and investigative tactics may help. Everybody should remember that our own investigative agency, the FBI, was instrumental in dismantling the terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s.
By retusmc1990
July 27, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
The moderate voice:
among the principles of fighting an insurgency, which most Americans (right and left) do not understand:
Unity of purpose to coordinate the actions of participating agencies.
Patience, persistence, and presence with no sanctuary. Normalize where possible. Do not conduct large operations unless prepared to suffocate the insurgent with the swift introduction of police and a political bureaucracy.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Liberal, while both the CIA and FBI play a prominent role in defeating terrorists, they can’t do it alone. The KKK was located within America, making it a much easier target for the FBI. Since most terrorist organizations are based overseas, the military is need also.
By Joe
July 27, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Hey Redneck, Andrea yates has a big bottle of Mr. Bubble, it’s bath time.
By Larry
July 27, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Hey Redneck! My challenge still stands - meet me at the Atlanta airport, we’ll go to the Georgia Belle Championship Wrestling Ring and I’ll teach you some common sense the old-fashioned way, you pencil-neck geek!
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
retusmc1980, there are many principles to fighting a counterinsurgency and most Americans don’t understand them. The Army and Marines are doing a great job adapting on the ground in Iraq, but it takes time. The main point is that the American people don’t have the political will to be involved in a long protracted war. And the main goal of the insurgents is too break the political will of the government of the occupying force. Right now they are succeeding.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
@Moderate,
The military is needed to fight countries who support terrorist organizations, as in our invasion of Afghanistan. However, on the domestic front, investigative and intelligence agencies are needed to dismantle cells that live among civilians.
That said, there needes to be more cooperation between the police and investigative bureaus of the US and Europe.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Now Now Joe …
you know that redneck’s has a massive phobia about water and personal hygeine!!
By Van
July 27, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Liberal,
Both the COngress and the Executive Brance may be controlled by the republicans, but you forget that We The People can exert control or force over our representatives and senators. When Bill Clinton went into Bosnia without the UN mandate everyone seems to think is important, Congress was controlled by a different party. Was it a partisan fight, no, because the people actually supported the effort.
By Play that funky music whiteboy
July 27, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice and Liberal: I just want to see the tactics applied and resources given to whoever can best get some of our people in or turn some of theirs. The problem is the “turf wars” that occur between agencies and branches - overarching goals and true leadership could overcome those however. It would have been nice to see Mr. Bush appoint someone versed in sting operations/clandestine operations in catching criminals to the CIA director instead of a four star general. Wrong direction in my opinion.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
@Play,
I totally agree with you.
@Van,
I understand. I’m just clarifying my own personal opinion about Iraq. I don’t single out the president, but rather include Congressman, both Democrat and GOP, who voted for the war.
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Joe and Larry are here - where’s Curly?
Just kidding, I know you two are too stupid for the real Stooges. And Larry, I’m just not in to the whole man-man thing - but I’m sure there are plenty of Mr. Wooten’s posters that would like to see your moves, bubba.
After all, the state love song for Georgia is Duelling Banjos.
By Mid-South Philosopher
July 27, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Van,
Your point about the Congress not issuing a “declaration of war” in the two Barbary experiences is correct.
I am still not sure that it is constitutional, but it was done, has been done, and is being done anyway.
On a more important note:
Eureka! You may have found it!
Perhaps no better blueprint for dealing with global Islamist terrorism exists than that which was affected during the Barbary affair. In both instances, the success of American forces was achieved by using the pirates own “tactics” against them. Is there a way to turn the terrorists’ own tactics against them? Seems as though Stephen Decatur, Jr. and William Bainbridge, both U.S. Naval Commodores (a rank we don’t use anymore) used some pretty effective strategies to end the Barbary misconduct.
By getalife
July 27, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Two days in a row talking about liberals and war. I can remember a time, we would trust our government to take care of complex problems. Not this administration. They takes this oppurtunity for a money and power grab with pathetic results. The Iraq war is not a war on terror. Still wondering where that $8 billion went.
Al-Qaida calls for holy war against IsraelThere is your answer Jim. All Christians go fight and be done with this holy war. Leave out the innocent civilians and the two relgious groups kill each other so the rest of us can leave in peace.
By clarkslawga
July 27, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
TFTT,
I took a good long look at your first post of the day and guess what……
Can you guess?
Can you smell it?
Not one syllable of fake Brit-speak. No wankers, no niggles, no sod offs, no tw@ts, nothing. Do I have to get on here everyday and remind you that you have a pathetically fake character to play?
For those new here I’ll let you in on something. The poser using the nom de plume Time For the Truth wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked him/her upside their silly head. This person sadly, feebly and continually attempts to pass themselves off as the “wise Conservative Tory from the UK here to set up idiot liberal Yanks straight.”
The problem is that TFTT is a pathetic loser with a compulsive need for attention and to be seen as important. Oh, and also, TFTT is a Fake. The closest he/she has ever gotten to England is buying a bottle of Mr. Boston Gin at the liquor store.
So tread lightly and agree with every word out of TFTT’s mouth or the slings, arrows and abuse will flow from this Fake like the mighty Mississippi.
And remember, TFTT is at their very basic level a…………….
Fake.
By deegee
July 27, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
I saw an interesting story this morning where a young Jewish man that was raised in suburban New York and holds dual American-Israeli citizenship has postponed his college career and is now in Israel fighting with the Israeli Defense League. He is joined in his ranks by a number of Jewish Americans. What prompted them to join the Israeli military and not the US military? Perhaps it’s about ideology and a committment to their belief in the right of Israel to survive.
There are no liberals or conservatives nor democrats or republicans in a bomb shelter. The divide occurs when we are not immediately threatened and we have the luxury of speculating and pontificating on the subject of who gets killed, where we fight, and how long it might take to win. If you are gauging the perceived pacifism of liberal or democratic party affiliated Americans by their representatives in congress your vision is clouded by party politics just as it is when gauging the perceived hawkishness of conservative or republican party affiliated Americans. There is plenty of middle ground among Americans and polling suggests that the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their representation by both parties.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
WOW …
now a really lame stooges insult, Redneck’s bile must be all but exhausted now!!
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if you had two duelling banjos ALTERNATELY smacking you around your thick bigoted head Rednecks …
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Philosopher, another thing Decatur and Bainbrige had going for them was that they were total on their own. There was no media to report mistakes etc. Not saying that the media is biased or hates the military, just saying it makes the militarys job harder.
By retusmc1990
July 27, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
@ Moderate:
I chose those two because I felt they are good examples of the failure of both the right and the left to understand what our troops face.
Unity of purpose: The left lacks the vision to see through to the end while the right choses to believe a military solution is the way to win. Clearly, there must be agencies outside of the military involved to successfully win a “small war”.
Patience, persistence, and presence with no sanctuary: the right missed out on the “no large operations unless you are prepared with political and police support. and again the left misses the patience and persistance part.
By Van
July 27, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Going back to Jim’s opening article, when we say a “War on Terror”, I take that to mean any type of terrorism. Whenther it is radical Islamic jihadist that want to rid the world of “non-believers” or crazy marxists trying to bully the world and suppress their own people. It all comes down to trying to repress people. Taking away the fundamental rights of people not to be afraid. Some “fear” databases with all their personal data, fear practicing or changing religion, what manner of dress or whether or not you can protest against your “elected” government.
This country should be against all that. Let people have their freedom, if they screw it up, too bad, the next wacko to rule them will reawaken that original desire to be free.
Is there anyone that is opposed to letting people have their Freedom or Liberty without some form of Big Brother trying to make all the decisions for you?
By Mid-South Philosopher
July 27, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice,
I can’t argue with that.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
deegee, you post some good and thoughtful points. The majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their government as a whole. Only 33% of people are happy with Reps in Congress and only 32% with Dems. Pretty sad statement for both parties.
By clarkslawga
July 27, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
TFTT, Oops, Sorry. Missed the spelling of humour.
But if you’re going to convince us you need to rachet it up a little.
Let’s go. You have a character to play.
Fake.
By Play that funky music whiteboy
July 27, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Moderate Voice, another thing Decatur and Bainbridge had going for them were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as President during the Barbary years. Anyone, ANYONE want to put “Dubya” in that rarified air? I dare you.
By CCJ
July 27, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Willx and Mark,
Please be careful about admitting to military service here. As soon as your opinion deviates slightly from the accpeted Dogma your service will be questioned, ridiculed, and ultimately dismissed.
Just ask MClark. He was here and always had something really insightful to say. Even prompted JW to think one time. Then he made the mistake of admitting that he served in VietNam and was subsequently ridiculed to the point that he hasn’t been seen since. And it was out losss, too.
I’m usually just a lurker here, but this warning must be given. So take heed.
By Thanks Jim
July 27, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
Jim, Your observations of the liberal left and their desire to keep resources here at home is something that I, too have seen. I think liberals are really isolationists when they claim to be worldly. Their fears and frustrations overwhelm their rational thought.
For me, the justification is clear. The world has an enemy. Islamic Jihad has declared their intentions. In the minds of the Jihadists, this is a holy war against immorality, capitalism (that’s one for each party.) I have been convinced that Jihadists are nothing more than pawns used by Syria and Iran in a struggle for geopolitical power, but they are an enemy all the same. They are not restricted to Afghanistan or fall under the leadership of OBL only. They are real and they have spread out around the globe. If the source of their funding could be eliminated through diplomacy, it wouldn’t destroy the mindset, just leave it dormant and available until the power brokers choose to use them again.
We must discourage their desires to pursue such radical extremism. Prove to them that their efforts are futile. It will be a long difficult process and I don’t think the liberals have the fortitude or patience for the endeavor.
Liberals have to accept the fact that global access has become easier than it was in the past with the internet, transportation, international banking. We live in a different time and this is a different enemy.
Now is the time, and the place that some deem as “The Cradle of Humanity” is where it must be done. Odd, isn’t it?
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
Play that music, Rusmfeld is the major problem in my opinion. Yes Bush is the head honcho, so ultimately he gets all the blame but Rummy has been ineffective. Probably the worst SecDef since McNamara.
By steppedonapoptop
July 27, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
I believe that Mr. Wooten’s question can ONLY be answered from the historical perspective because it is based on conventional warfare, which is unlikely to be the type of war the US will face soon or in the future.
Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC, a senior military fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University uses the term 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) to characterize this evolution of warfare, a concept that has been around since 1989.
Basically, the general idea is that nation-states do not have exclusive control of war anymore. Armies, uniforms and expensive weapons are not required if an organization or a culture chooses to wage war.
Indeed, we have seen old cars as well as hijacked airplanes made into deadly weapons. The list of possible IEDs (improvised explosive devices) is endless.
Nor does a ‘soldier’ have to have a high school education, crew-cut hair or even attend boot camp before joining up with others who share the same goals.
Probably the best part for the organization or culture that finds itself fighting an enemy of surperior strength, but perhaps not wisdom, is the realization that they only have to not lose, in order to win.
<The fundamental precept is that superior political will, when properly employed, can defeat greater economic and military power. Because it is organized to ensure political rather than military success, this type of warfare is difficult to defeat.
It is recognized by every nation in the world that the US cannot be beaten in conventional warfare. As Col. Nagl, author of “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam,” (the book General Casey has given to every member of his staff and Donald Rumsfeld) notes: “The lesson of the Gulf War was: Don’t fight the U.S. conventionally. The way to defeat the U.S. Army is to use guerrilla warfare and exhaust the will of the U.S. At least you have a chance to win.”
As a side note: For those who wonder where the Powell doctrine went, the current occupants of the Pentagon consider it too slow and cumbersome.
For those who think raising the troop levels in Iraq will make a difference, please read Why the Strong Lose from the Army War College to understand why that strategy won’t work.
And for Mr. Wooten, do you have a better question for us liberals?
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
getabrain
the brainlessness of that post was even for you - awesome!!
Even assuming that ALL the christian right head off for a 21st century crusade and leave us secularists here (which includes me - I aint religious at all - ask Barbara about that :) The mohammedan fascists would still actively seek to attack US interests/targets. Its NOT a religious war in the old crusade sense of medieval christian vs mohammedan - its mohammedan fascist vs the rest of the world. They seek a world wide caliphate, they seek sharia law imposed everywhere, they seek the imposition of the ‘house of islam’ on all of us.
There would/will be NO peace until these scum are not just defeated but eradicated as any kind of organised group that can harm their chosen enemies, which includes ALL liberals, ALL conservatives and ALL moderates in the kafir infested west, as well as any arab/mohammedan that opposes them.
I realise you were just railing against christians - but please try and inject a little more intelligence/maturity into your argument, other than your endless parroting of “I hate Bush” and the now petulant let christians go kill themselves!!
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
@Thanks Jim,
“Liberals have to accept the fact that global access has become easier than it was in the past with the internet, transportation, international banking. We live in a different time and this is a different enemy.”
Actually, liberals have been saying that all along. That’s why trying to fight Jihadists as if they were a conventional army won’t work. It works with regimes like Afghanistan, but not for individual organizations. Fighting these fundamentalists requires sound intelligence, smarter decisions and measures that will prevent others from joining their ranks—i.e. instituting a system that fosters economic development so a young Muslim kid will have opportunity instead of feeling desperate and humiliated.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
@TFTT,
“Kafir”?
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Liberal, the major problem with the islamic fundamentalists is that they distort the Koran to fit their ideological needs. And the reason they can survive in the countries they do is because of theocratic governments. Islam needs to go through an elightenment much like Christianity did. Until then the madrasas will continue to churn out young me prepared to strap bombs to their body and kill innocent civilians.
By rarringt
July 27, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Wow.
Thanks to Thanks Jim, I think I finally get Jim’s TFTT, and Ugotta’s position.
To your thinking, Islamic Jihadism/ Shia Militism is so prevalent in the middle east as to constitute a quasi-majority of agreement/ratification/tolerance. This confluence of shared ideology creates a de facto superstate (Iran/Iraq/Syria/South Lebanon/Saudi Arabia), and it is this ideological superstate that you believe we have declared war on.
It’s “soldiers” of this superstate who attacked the WTC twice, the Cole, the Marine barracks, and has engaged in other acts which, as a state, constitute true acts of war.
Therefore, fighting in Iraq is like fighting in Germany. Just like we had nothing against the Germans layperson, but could only get rid of the Nazis by destroying whole cities, so it goes with the middle east.
None of the above is an attempt to be flip, glib or snide. Just let me know if I understand your thinking. If not, please correct me (like I needed to ask that).
By Political Foreskin
July 27, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
I think Time4truth has identified a new enemy: The “petulant caliphate”. (you cant say that without spitting)
George Bush is a facile fool for fossil fuels!! (didn’t anyone hear him use “facile” in a sentence on tuesday to describe military manuevers to Baghdad?)
Neocon syntactical choices are not pretty.
By George
July 27, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
All you people get busy and make America stronger by getting back to work. I’ll bet that over half of those who have responded to this article have done so on company time. By the way, I’m retired.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
@Moderate,
Very true about how Islamic fundamentalism exploits. However, if most of these kids have any sort of hope or a country that didn’t exploit them, then they would be less likely to join a Jihadist movement. This is how gangs in the US recruit children, how Neo-Nazis in Europe recruit jobless and disaffected youths, how violent militias recruit in parts of Africa, etc.
And yes, Islam does need to go through a period of enlightenment. A lot of Muslims have a view of the world in which the have no control—the status quo will always remain the same. I asked an Egyptian friend what he thought about Mubarak and he said that “the president will always be the president. It’s the way things are.” There can be no large-scale democratic movement in the Middle East if this type of thought prevails.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Kafir is the arabic word for unbeliever/ infidel, its actually such a hateful concept for mohammedans that the racist Afrikaaners adopted its usage for blacks.
Rarrington … once again your patronising community college geo politics misfires mate :)
.. clearly there is NO defacto arab “super power state”. NOT YET anyway. Nor is it likely that this will meaningfully occur with the historical schism between sunni and shiite and the often very fractious tribalism within the mohammedan factions. The various strands of mohammedanism are often at least as antipathetic to one another as they are to the west.
Whilst the umma are compelled to strive by the mohammedan Koranic teachings to (forcibly) convert the rest of us some consider this to be merely a symbolic jihad, others consider it to be a compulsive life long quest.
Happily so far there is no Saladin figure that’s emerged to unite the camel cavalries to bear down on us poor kafirs. However the Iranian nutters look like they could trigger a major conflagration, but very likely fail to elicit the support of the whole region.
It was a motley assortment of deranged towel head terorists if you like that perpetrated the acts you cited, not “soldiers” of any kind of putative state. Whilst such acts are acts of war, the issue is clearly obfuscated by the lack of a clear specific enemy to batter senseless. This in part is what the liberation of Iraq was intended to address, albeit perhaps a wee bit indirectly. Saddam was astutely in my view percieved as more of a (long term) threat than bin Laden, despite Bin laden’s 9/11 “success”. Clearly trashing the taleban and al quaeda in Afghanistan was the first part of a tricky military and political puzzle … hopefully Iran, if not Syria will be next - but that’s hardly my decision.
Your German analogy isn’t a bad one though. although destroying whole cities is bit emotive and inaccurate, as no one is suggesting obliterating Baghdad, Damascus or Tehran etc.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
should read “supposedly compelled to strive”
By Thanks Jim
July 27, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
rarringt, At what point did you or I become responsible for the radical extremism in the Middle East? Did you miss the comment regarding geopolitical power struggles between Syria & Iran and the use of radical pawns to achieve their goals.
There are states within the Middle East which strive to progress beyond the Sharia law. They strive to progress beyond the limits of such religious fanaticism. The Jihadists hate them as well for that very reason. Within those progressive states Jihadists exist. They’re the ones that allow themselves to be victimized, I don’t see where you or I can help them with that.
Liberal, When did instituting a system that fosters economic development so a young Muslim kid will have opportunity instead of feeling desperate and humiliated become this country’s responsibility? Wouldn’t that be forcing democracy? Something that liberals don’t agree with?
That’s always been something that confuses me about liberals. You’re arguments contradict themselves.
At some point, individuals have to accept responsibility for their own actions. If they don’t, consequences follow. The radicals among them have threatened the world and acted on those threats. It’s unfortunate that non-participants are put in harm’s way, but individually or collectively they can fight against their situation if they take control of their future. I’m hoping that is what they will do. It’s what they need to do, not you or I. We aren’t the threat. It lives amongst them.
By Joe
July 27, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Isreal should stop the bombing of Beruit when they fail to detect a pulse inside the entire city. Let us not foregt our 200 plus Marines that died in that city and how the ‘innocent’ civilans paraded their joy in the streets. Some of the same people who rejoiced at the deaths of our Marines are now living in this country, crying for their families caught in the crossfire. Oh…boo hoo, like I care. Another thing, if you can afford one your Jihadist five week Arab vacations back to the homeland, you can pay for you and your little Mohammeds to get here, DO NOT use my tax dollars to bring this trash back into the US, they’re not REAL American citizens.
By justmeagain
July 27, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
time for truth- what are you, 12? You’re mom needs to get you into summer camp.
By rarringt
July 27, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Thanks Jim and TFTT,
Good. It’s encouraging to see that you at least recognize that we’re dealing with layers of socio-political struggle reinforced by religious dogma. You get the fact that nuanced manipulation is what separates those who vote with words and social progressivism and strength of character vs. those who cast their votes with Kalisnikovs.
What’s interesting is that your 1) recognizing that we’re dealing with various factions of a highly complex number of societies and 2) championing the efforts of those would would effect social and political change and usher in a modern, equitable society is the same an american social activist (also known as a liberal).
I know you’re going to flame me and break out your conservative credentials to prove you’re no “pinko commie america-hater” like me or whatever, but it is kinda cool that it appears we can agree on something.
By seeing through the smoke
July 27, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Jim — I don’t believe for a moment when you say “It’s not a test of patriotism. It’s not a trick question or one framed to provoke”.
while we jabber at one another: Israel announced it has decided not to expand it’s offensive. Russia announced arms deals with Venzeula and Iraq is having trouble keeping it’s pipelines safe enough to ensure it’s own economy.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
@ Thanks Jim,
Liberal, When did instituting a system that fosters economic development so a young Muslim kid will have opportunity instead of feeling desperate and humiliated become this country’s responsibility?
What was the Marshall Plan? Besides rebuilding Western Europe, the Allies wanted to rebuild the German and Japanese economies in order to prevent the same dismal conditions that caused many Germans to revert Nazism.
Wouldn’t that be forcing democracy? Something that liberals don’t agree with?
Encouraging countries to develop economically is not the same as “forcing democracy”. Getting off the dependency of oil may cause oil exporting countries in the Middle East to diversify their economies and advance, as well as creating trade relations. Democracy, on the other hand has to come from the people.
@TFTT,
Very interesting etymology on the word “kafir”. You learn something new everyday.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
@Joe,
Evidentally our tax dollars were wasted on trying to educate you.
By getalife
July 27, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Iraq is having trouble keeping it’s pipelines safe enough to ensure it’s own economy.
Wolfowitz said their oil will pay for the war. They finished repairing the pipeline so lets see if the insurgents blow it up again. He also said, we were not concerned with North Korea because they do not have oil.
This leads me to believe Iraq is all about oil. Check out big oil profits for this quarter. Mission accomplished.
By Joe
July 27, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Hey fat boy Liberal, the gay bar bouncer that benches eight pounds over his body weight, you really scare me. I had a cold Bud last night and watched the bombing in my favorite chair, good entertainment now that theres no football. Give war a chance.
By rarringt
July 27, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Joe, for that insightful comment. We appreciate the way you add value to the discussion and manage to stay above the petty namecalling.
By Kiddie Korner
July 27, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Yes Joe, us adults want to bomb the smithereens out of Lebanon. That should teach all them Christians a lesson!
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
@Joe,
I’m not fat Joe, but I will be if that’s what you want. Gay bar bouncer…wow Joe. I never said anything about being gay, but I guess I will be if that’s what you like.
Johnny Cakes on the Sopranos liked fat gay men also. I’ll ask you again as I did in my 9:53 post…Are you Johnny Cakes, Joe?
Mighty brave of you to watch bombing going on thousands of miles away while drinking a Bud. Big-talking chickenhawks usually do that. But I have a hard time believing you were drinking Bud. Are you sure it wasn’t a wine cooler…or maybe for a tough guy for you it was Mike’s HARD Lemonade.
By James
July 27, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Joe: 96 Rock Regular Guys off the air this morning?
By Markus
July 27, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
The mainstream media has a lot to do with how Americans perceive “war” as well.
Let’s look at Israel. What the media will tell you is that Hezbollah islamofascit terrorists (although they won’t call them that) crossed Israel’s border and kidnapped two soldiers. It was a RAID, not some isolated run across three feet of land and hurry back scenario.
What the media will NOT tell you is that eight Israeli soldiers were KILLED by Hezbollah in said raid. I have searched high and low from CNN to MSNBC to the New York Slimes to the Washington comPost to NPR, and not ONE WORD is ever mentioned about those eight slain Israeli soldiers. FoxNews is the only mainstream media outlet that REMINDS viewers of how this battle started. The liberal appeasement cowards at CNN and elsewhee
The media has always shown an anti-Israeli bias, and now it appears towards Hezbollah fighters. Every time Israel got attacked, the media didn’t make a big deal out of it. But when Israel retaliated, it was SCREAMING FRONT PAGE HEADLINES!!! Anyone keeping up with Anderson Cooper’s 360 blog titled “Faces of Hezbollah”?? Talk about a nausiating attempt to “humanize” terrorists (whatever the hell that liberal catch-all phrase means).
In any event, for you liberal ladies and pot smoking pony tailed punk hippies that STILL don’t believe terrorism is “our” problem eventually, take a look at what Qaeda #2 said today:
“It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq,”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14054482/
FROM SPAIN TO IRAQ! These goons want to take over Europe, and they are WELL on their way. The appeasers over there are letting it happen. Just look at Spain’s election after their bombing. They went peacenik.
Liberalism is not just an insanity plea… it’s a death sentence.
By ckt
July 27, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
jim - your inabillity to see 2 sides of an issue is baffling. you, like many conservatives in power, see everything as black and white. that is what hurts americans, and the world. stating that the war in iraq is a “war on terrorism” is silly. iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. STOP TRYING TO TIE THE TWO TOGETHER. It makes for week arguments, and ill-conceived conclusions.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
@Markus,
Actually, in between bong-hits, I read on the “liberal” BBC website that 8 Israeli soldiers were killed in an unprovoked raid. I also read about the threat of possibly destabilizing the region.
As far as Spain’s elections, the terrorist group ETA disarmed during the current administration of their peacenik government. They have also been very effective in hunting down the March 11th suspects.
Peace and love Markus.
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Markus, is the Jewish controlled, liberal media hiding under your bed, you better go check.
By Joe
July 27, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
I think most Christians left Lebanon a long time ago. How naive can you people be? Do you really think these people like us? They cry when the cameras are on them and they know passive liberals like you all are buying it all… lock, stock and barrell. Alos, you ACLU loving pansies, isn’t this my First Admendment right…to say what I want? Anyway….after losing eight isreal soldiers, you bet Isreal has lots of soft tissue targets they’re about to send packing. Again, Israel should stop when Beruit has NO PULSE, not a bomb before.
By deegee
July 27, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
How come when women disagree they don’t call each other dikes and lesbos yet when men disagree with women they call them dikes and lesbos and when men disagree with each other they call each other sissies? I am wondering if this observation may have relevance to the topic in some obtuse way.
By Markus
July 27, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Howard Screamin’ Chicken Dean shows his jackass again. But this time TWICE, not once.
See Scream Exhibit A:
Scream called the Iraqi PM an “anti-Semite.” Yeah, SO? What’s your point, kook man Dean? He probably is being an Arab. But since when did your pathetic agnostic self give a FLIP about religion and who are YOU to criticize what others think with regards to religion? You pathetic man.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_DEAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-26-19-19-42
See Scream Exhibit B:
The Scream compared Katherine Harris to Stalin. Now THAT is calling the kettle black. His liberal socialist dogma ideology has a LOT more in common with Stalin and communism than ANYTHING even REMOTELY middle ground like Lieberman. What a fool. To think Americans wanted him to be president. IDIOTS.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-0726howarddean,0,4923632.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
@Joe,
Well Joe, 39% of the population in Lebanon is Christian. And in Beirut, Christians and Muslims live side-by-side. Hardly a diaspora. Do you kill Christians too, Joe?
Excuse me, I should rephrase the question…Do you like WATCHING Christians killed on TV too, Joe?
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Stop with the distraction Markus, how is it that the Jewish liberal media is out to destroy Israel?
Oh and to Joe, the Lebanese Baptist Convention alone has 28 churches.
By E. T.
July 27, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
I think that liberals probably expect that war should be begun and completed in about four hours, which is the approximate length of the war epics produced by Hollywood. These films about World War I and World War II didn’t highlight the guerilla war that gave us so much trouble beginning with VietNam. However, the terrorist nations studied VietNam, saw the troubles we had fighting guerillas, and learned from it. A good example is the Soviet problems when they tried to conquer Afghanistan, as well as our own problems there and in Iraq. Now, Israel is having problems with the same type of hit-and-run fighter in Lebanon. Our first war with Iraq was successful because we had a limited objective, which was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. As soon as the objective was met, we ended hostilities. Now I will not debate whether the objective was broad enough or not, the fact is that we achieved our goal. Fighting these terrorist guerillas is going to take longer than the four-hour Hollywood movie, and our liberal segment of society just doesn’t have the patience for a long, drawn out campaign, which is the only way to achieve success.
By Lola
July 27, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
You rock on, Markus!!!
By joboo
July 27, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Topher,
Come back to reality
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
@ET
Actually, the Hollywood version was sold to us by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Remember the whole “we’ll be greeted as liberators”, “rebuilding won’t cost a dime due to oil revenues”, the “war won’t be drawn out”. And don’t forget the stupid slogans “freedom fries” and “liberty toast”. Or how we’ll “shock and awe” the enemy.
This whole thing was dressed up like a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
@ET,
And don’t forget the president landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight-suit. It looked like a scene out of Independence Day…another corny Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
By seeing through the smoke
July 27, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
10.3 billion in profits for Exxon. I’d say “mission accomplished”!! You’re doing a heck of job, Georgie!
By Lola
July 27, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
@seeing through the smoke -
Actually, Exxon’s profit MARGIN (the real indicator of increased profit amounts) is about the same as it’s always been, regardless of the amount of profit that the press loves to trumpet. If their margin increases, then yes, jump on your high horse. In the meantime, take a class in economics and spare us the anti-“big oil” drabble, okay?
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
ET, who are you trying to kid? One month into the Yugoslavia war, ONE MONTH, Republican leaders like Trent Lott and Tom Delay were screaming for an end to that conflict. Here are a few Delay quotes, there are plenty more where that came from, from Lott too.
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.”
“There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.”
By getalife
July 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
If you keep up with politics and read the enormous amount of data on the internet, you should be asking WTF is happening to our country?
Where is the accountability for this failed administration?
The world is waiting.
By rarringt
July 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Actually, E.T., it was Rumsfeld who tried mightily to convince Americans that his lite-war concept (few soldiers necessary due to the lack of will of Iraqi soldiers and the welcoming throngs of the citizenry) would result in a quick and relatively painless war.
Conservatives bought into the notion of video game warfare, where you kill the “boss monster,” collect your bonus points and move on to the next level.
Liberals and moderates remembered Vietnam. And the Russian’s experience in Afghanistan. It’s never cut and dry. There’s always an insurgency. The only way to beat that is to have the will to suffocate the enemy by overwhelming numbers while winning the hearts and minds of moderates. The only way to do that was via the Powell Doctrine, with overwhelming numbers. Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap. You see the results.
The day Bush declared victory was the day the true war in Iraq began. Everyone not waving a flag in front of their face so much that they couldn’t see or singing “Proud to be a ‘Murican” so loud they couldn’t hear realized that.
Oh yeah, all this has come to pass, and of course we should once again revisit the fact that 1) Iraq wasn’t responsible for 9/11, and 2) Bush & co. were either too dense or too corrupt to recognize that fact and that after 12 years of sanctions, Iraq really was in no position to pose a threat to the US.
By joboo
July 27, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
I consider myself firmly in the middle, yet take issue with Wooten’s reasoning. The country, liberals & conservatives were firmly behind the war after 9/11 when we invaded Afghanistan where Al Queda was based. The enemy was known to be there and supported by the Taliban government. The fatal error in our “war on terrorism” was focusing on Iraq without finishing the war in Afghanistan and focusing on the real enemy. There will always be a fringe on the left & THE RIGHT against all wars, but look at Bush’s approval rating at the time, the entire country was firmly behind him.
Where Bush & the war-hawks lost most “liberals” and a bulk of the country was the invasion of Iraq. Long the apple of neocon eyes, Iraq had at best very little ties to Al-Queda yet we invaded thinking we could convert the region, a neocon pipe-dream. We went in with blinders on, trying to connect dots that weren’t there. There was no plan be, just a grand belief that by toppling Saddam that the Iraqi people will welcome us with open arms and create a democracy that will resemble ours and sweep through the region, thus helping our own interests in the region.
No one wants to see what is happening in Iraq and the Middle East, but those of us who saw the perils were labeled as being soft and aiding the terrorists, not dissenters who were cautious and trying to avoid the incompetence that has plagued our war on terror. It’s one thing for the anti-every war crowd not to be committed, but when those for the war and running it are not committed to winning, then it creates our situation today. If you go to war, you have a plan A and a plan B in case things go wrong. We had no plan A after invasion and definitely no Plan B. I would like to think any other president, liberal or conservative would have at least understood that rather than the blind faith from a higher power telling you everything will go according to plan. Wars are complex and require strategy and the ability to adapt quickly. So far, the powers running the war have shown the inability to do either.
The easy part of war when you have air superiority is defeating the enemies organized forces, but invasion creates guerrillas, insurgency and militias. Any one who’s familiar with history knows military occupation is difficult and requires the forces, diplomacy commitment to win as well as aid the people. The way we’ve been waging the war, we have none of those. What we have is Rumsfelds hard headed belief in light forces and lack of desire to nation build. Iraq’s the size of California with large cities yet the forces we sent in can’t police it. When you destroy a nations infrastructure and government you create a vacuum. Without the proper commitment to filling that vacuum yourself, the residents of the country occupied will fill it for you, which unfortunately is what is happening. The resistance first came from Sunnis who lost their political dominance, gained traction when we failed to secure the borders and the cities were flooded with Islamic extremists. We are now looking at an all out civil war in the southern cities, with the Shiit majority looking to extract revenge for decades under Baathist/Sunni rule. 90% of Iraq geographically may be stable, but if 90% of the population is in the 10% that is unstable and teetering on civil war. We don’t have the forces to contain it so we’ve withdrawn further into the green zones and the current Iraqi government is powerless to do anything.
. I was against a war in Iraq from the start because Iraq was not an immanent threat, was one of the more stable countries in the middle east and everything I saw out of our president and leaders showed a lack of understanding of what we were about to get into. Being a realist and understanding best made intentions don’t always work, for all the evil that Saddam wrought, Iraq was stable and contained. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and focused on Al-Qaeda. Should Saddam have become more involved with terrorist groups, we should have taken the steps to ensure victory. By invading with no occupation plan, we have destabilized the whole region, empowering the dangerous Iranian leader and pushing Iraq closer to a civil war on a daily basis. We “broke it, but refuse to buy it.” We’ve created a huge terrorist training ground in Iraq and because so much of our military resources are tied up in Iraq, we cannot act on Iran or North Korea. The “bomb anyone who opposes us” (aka nuke em all) crowd needs to understand that diplomacy works hand in hand with military action, but by failing to use diplomacy until our hands our tied militarily, you loose all leverage. North Korea and Iran understand what a mess Iraq is, that’s why they continue to defy us.
By Larry M
July 27, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Most of you who have listed “clear and present” danger as the only reason for going to war also say that we should go in with overwhelming force to win. I wish that you had been in a position of power while I was in Viet Nam. We were not allowed to win, there was too many possibilities of collateral damage when you go for the out righht win. My father flew a bomber ( B-26 for aviation buffs) during WW II. They had targets to destroy, but they didn’t wring their hands and worry that some civilions might get killed. They KNEW that civilians would be killed. They weren’t happy about it, but they accepted it as a consequence of war. Ever since Viet Nam, this country has lost the will to win in armed combat. Soldiers are trained to destroy the enemy first and foremost. If they have to tip toe and dance around civilians in pusuit of their goal, they will only be less effective. I am certain that there were thousands of civilian casualties while I was in Viet Nam, but they weren’t all another Mai Lai, they just had the misfortune of being in tyhe wrong place at the wrong time. However, we as a country don’t seem able to stomach that reality anymore. I guess watching war on the six o’clock news in the sixties changed a whole generations perspective. The “clear and present danger” people can have that opinion and voice it whenever they want because of people like my father and me and those brave men currently serving, who are willing to step up and take one for the team when necessary, have kept this country free for them.
By Thanks Jim
July 27, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
rarringt, I hung around for your response, but I’ll have to leave after this post. I predicted that you would make the connection between promoting social activism in the Middle East to that of the liberal activism in this country. Sorry to disappoint you. I don’t flame, but you sure did in your original post to me.
I have no problem with activism. It’s what has brought about change for the better in our own country. We still have a ways to go, but patience and determination has proven beneficial. And guess what. They were changes against a mindset, racism, women’s rights to mention two.
What it will take to win this war against the enemy that has declared itself as such, is a collective determination to defeat them. The liberals are fighting against that and fueling the insurgency. Sorry if you disagree, but I believe it to be true. If you take pride in your activist approach, I’d like to see it applied to the “declared enemy,” not the country that is trying to protect you from them.
I took a quick look at “steppedonapoptop” link. “Why the Strong Lose.” I’m pretty sure I read that they lose, because the new enemy is like no other. That their determination and unwillingness to lose gives them the upper hand. Time is on their side. The strong are no longer strong in this type of warfare because we lack the perseverance. Now that is something that liberals lack, not conservatives. Our motives are not oriented towards self-interest, but towards security of our nation as a whole.
Liberal, I have no problem with helping a nation rebuild after devastation. There are a lot of liberals who want no part of that either. They want the money spent here at home instead of Iraq. For the time being, their resources are their oil. We need to help them protect it. The insurgents are robbing their own people of their main source of income. Let’s finish what we started and help rebuild later. It can’t be done in the midst of war. There is, however, rebuilding going on in the more stable areas of Iraq.
It’s interesting to me that the muslim people support Hammas & Hezbollah because those groups utilize funds given to them by other countries to provide assistance to the people, but at the same time, they bring destruction to those same people through their radical extremism.
By Joe
July 27, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Hey Libs, once you’re done with your three dollar cups of Starbucks, throw on those McKinney tee-shirts (if you really want to impress, come dressed in her older campaign shirts)and run down to Paulding County and make sure the guy they’re about to arrest for the Silver Comet Trail murder is not denied any of his rights, perhaps bring him a cup of coffee too. Meanwhile I am going to the firing range and teach my grandson how to shoot a pistol. I just printed a nice colored picture of Hillary to use as a target.
By Bella
July 27, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
To Wooten and any self-proclaimed Christian conservative:
Would Would Jesus Do? When would Jesus consider taking up arms?
Is Jesus your true model for living or a Sunday-only convenience?
By seeing through the smoke
July 27, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Lola — you miss my point, which is that this administration is in the pocket of corporations like Halliburton and Exxon. I don’t mind them making profits, in fact, I applaud them for it. I do mind a government that is focused with a laser like intensity on benefitting big business to the harm of the majority of this country who is harmed irreparably by their actions. Exxon does not now nor have they ever needed huge tariffs on agra-fuels from south america… Halliburton does not now nor have they ever needed billions in no-bid contracts to be competitive. These things undermine the marketplace and make it harder for honest business people (who don’t hire lobbyist like Abrahmov (sp?)) to succeed.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
@Thanks Jim,
Yeah, it’s a problem that Hamas and Hezbollah have support because of the reasons you stated. More has to be done to makes sure that the secular leaders in the Middle East are more accountabile in order to prevnet fundamentalist groups from gaining more power.
@Joe,
Wow. Raising your grandson to be the next Lee Harvey Oswald. Why not just do the real thing like the DC Sniper. John Lee Malvo should be a good shot by now. Talk about family values.
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Bella, my guess is that if Christians keep telling themselves that its about “freedom and Democracy” and “Good vs Evil”, they can pretend its not about oil. Because when its all about oil and keeping our affluent society thriving our actions in Iraq could be considered murder, and of course thats a sin.
By Len
July 27, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Jim, I often think you are witty. I rarely agree with you but still read your columns. Today is a good example. You continue to call out liberals who do not support the Iraq Mistake to explain what war they would fight. Please explain from today’s column what you mean when you say “fight back.” Iraq is not linked to the 9/11 attack, Iraq did not have WMDs poised to attack us. Are we fighting back because they have our oil?
Today the best reason to fight in Iraq is to try to fix the problem we created and prevent full scale civil war. That’s not among the reasons the administration originally gave for the war. But that’s all we have left.
Are you giving a pass to conservatives who choose not to fight in a war? The Army is hurting so desperately for troops they recently raised the enlistment age to 42. If there are so many folks supporting the war why are they not rushing to the recruiter? You cannot pin this on liberals. What about conservatives supporting this war who sat out a previous war? “Patriots” such as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and Saxby Chambliss? Will you heap some scorn on them?
By Len
July 27, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Jim, I often think you are witty. I rarely agree with you but still read your columns. Today is a good example. You continue to call out liberals who do not support the Iraq Mistake to explain what war they would fight. Please explain from today’s column what you mean when you say “fight back.” Iraq is not linked to the 9/11 attack, Iraq did not have WMDs poised to attack us. Are we fighting back because they have our oil?
Today the best reason to fight in Iraq is to try to fix the problem we created and prevent full scale civil war. That’s not among the reasons the administration originally gave for the war. But that’s all we have left.
Are you giving a pass to conservatives who choose not to fight in a war? The Army is hurting so desperately for troops they recently raised the enlistment age to 42. If there are so many folks supporting the war why are they not rushing to the recruiter? You cannot pin this on liberals. What about conservatives supporting this war who sat out a previous war? “Patriots” such as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and Saxby Chambliss? Will you heap some scorn on them?
By Jim's a Dummy
July 27, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Jim, if you don’t mind, compare/contrast the takedown of Saddam by US forces with Nato’s involvement in breaking up the Serb’s aggression in the Balkans during Clinton’s term.
I seem to remember Republicans howling at the thought of US forces being involved in such an effort, even though Slobodan was conducting an active campaign of genocide at that time. Everything Clinton did to encourage peace in that region was met with intense political grandstanding by the GOP.
Why is Iraq different? Why is this war, given the fact that there were no weapons of mass distruction or any ties to the Taliban?
By MrLiberty
July 27, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
Once again moron you oversimplify the position of your opponents so that you can pidgeonhole them and make your patheic immoral position seem ok.
Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. all oppose this war. They don’t oppose it because it diverts monies away from stupid social programs, they oppose it becase first, 9-11 was a criminal act by 19 men and a small, specific conspiracy of individuals; second, terrorism is a tactic that cannot be “fought” with a military; third, all of the hatred of the US that generated this and every other attack of terrorism is the direct result of US meddling in the middle east, our unilateral support ofr Israel and their war crimes and attrocities, and our presence with military bases on holy arab soil.
What we - and I am a libertarian (you know, what conservatives used to be before they sold their souls to satan), oppose most about the war is that you clowns are in the driver seat, you are ignoring history, and you are just too damn stupid to admit the reality of the situation. You are so wrapped in the flag trying to keep the blood of the innocents from staining your suits that you won’t even admit that the people of the middle east are far worse off because of the past attrocities this country has committed.
Worse, you completely lack the empathy to every be able to see why these horrible actions we have engaged in would EVER justify anyone getting upset with the holier than thou US of A.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
rarrington,
beyond the obvious flaws in your decidedly rosy characterisation of the need for transference of liberal activism to the oppressive, socially reactionary middle eastern bazaar, which you amusingly attempted to innoculate yourself against any criticism of, you failed (in my reading of your response) to both address the urgency of the need and to even generally cite the methods required to crush the mohammedan fascists.
Do you agree we need to hammer them mercilessly, not until they bleat for a ceasefire, but until they are no more - or real close to no more? I am talking intent here, rather than a literal evisceration.
Its all very well proffering Ward Churchill speak, but the real world requires way more pragmatism than gushing Joan Baez type liberalism. Unless and until lefties like yourself bite the bullet (pun intended) and at the very least (collectively) desist from your nowrobotic, shrill opposition to the rather more subtle John Wayne methodology evinced by Bush et al conservatives will rightly (no pun here) be viscerally contemptuous of attempts to seemingly arbitrarily impose fatuous Gandhi like appeasement on those who literally will kill us. Regardless of how ‘reasonable’ and dogmatically anti-racist/anti-imperialist etc the regimented anti-Bush pongids are.
By Susan
July 27, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Unless you have served in the military, please stay out of the argument.
There’s nothing more ridiculous than all the chest puffing going on around here.
I asked every conservative on this blog two days ago what plan they had to ‘fight’ the current deepening crisis.
Not one of you Armchair Warriors had a plan, or a clue, I might add.
So again, as Jim is talking about who would fight for what, I’m still waiting for the smack talking right wing nut jobs to come up with some action. Jackson.
Over and out.
By the way, the real men are out there as paramedics on ambulances, firefighters and policemen in this town. One look at the empty words you write and you’d have the lot of them laughing until tears ran down their faces.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Jobo
Where Bush & the war-hawks lost most “liberals” and a bulk of the country was the invasion of Iraq. Long the apple of neocon eyes, Iraq had at best very little ties to Al-Queda yet we invaded thinking we could convert the region, a neocon pipe-dream. We went in with blinders on, trying to connect dots that weren’t there. There was no plan be, just a grand belief that by toppling Saddam that the Iraqi people will welcome us with open arms and create a democracy that will resemble ours and sweep through the region, thus helping our own interests in the region.
During the lead up to the Iraq war, a huge majority of Americans were in support. American on both side of the political spectrum jumped off the bandwagon when the war got difficult. War is pure hell and we should avoid when possible. Granted, the leaders were naive and have totally botched the execution of this war. Also, there is documented evidence of Saddham’s connection with Al-Quaida, he just wasn’t involved in 911. With that said, we were all behind the fight against all Terrorists. Saddham was a huge supporter of Hamas and supported the families of suicide bombers in Israel. I do believe our strategy going forward needs to change. We need to leave the UN to nation building and we should just go full force and destroy our enemies. If the UN is unable to do its job, then the US needs to withdrawl it’s support.
By holdingAJC"accountable"
July 27, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
How ‘bout this for a working theory: Americans will support a war to the extent they feel their political leader are being honest, forthright, and transparent with them…maybe THAT explains why this war has lost support over time.
By holdingAJC"accountable"
July 27, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
How ‘bout this for a working theory: Americans will support a war to the extent they feel their political leaders are being honest, forthright, and transparent with them…maybe THAT explains why this war has lost support over time.
By seeing through the smoke
July 27, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Ghandi was, in fact, an adherent of the philosphy of non-violence; however, to suggest that he believed in “appeasement” is misleading and demonstrates how little you know about his work. Ghandi’s revolution in India was in no way an appeasement, instead it was non-violence in action. Ghandi and his followers were beaten, shot, tortured, murdered and otherwise abused by the colonial power who ruled their country. Ghandi never once backed down from threats or violence upon his person or his fellow countrymen. He never sought to appease the British government or bargain for peace instead of the independence of India. He may not be a “John Wayne type”, he is a patriot and fundalmentally changed the idea of freedom and how it can be won.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I see your Eva Braun (Mrs Hitler) persona is on the back burner today love … and you have ludicrously morphed into some rabid little feminazi.
Make up your mind love - are you an anti-semitic Israel hating nazi or just a man- hating leftist nutter?
Obviously as you provide such an easy and wide variety of soft targets I dont want to frighten you off with too much top heavy logic … but do please let me know though which it is love!!
Then I can greet you with either a brisk SIEG HEIL or a cheery Hi again you snivelling d**e!
By harold
July 27, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
If them damn liberals had got their way we wouldnt be so dependent on oil by now and none of this war would have happened because the USA would give as much of a sheet about the Middle East as it does “no oil” Lower Middle Africa. Damn liberals.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
holdingAJC”accountable”
honest political leaders are honest, forthright, and transparent” is an oxy-moron in itself. You are naive if you believe that one party has a monopoly on these traits.
By On the other hand:
July 27, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
The president of Iran is “turning his head while the “freedom fighters for Hezbollah” leave to go to Lebanon. First their were sixty (we know of) and then sixty more etc. To Craig, the question was and is what do you consider clear and present danger? When you have five minutes to make a life saving decision? Too late.Kaboom!!!!
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Hello my fellow “neo-cons”! I’m baaaaaaack! I felt mighty lonesome today. No one had called me a “nasty christian”, racist, bigoted, homophobic, war-mongering, piece of conservative garbage today and I’m hurt!!! So I’m back to feel the “love” from my little liberal buddies. But first let me say that liberals can’t go to war, they can’t throw hand-grenades ‘cause they throw like a girl! (Sorry Barbara, I know you’re a REAL woman, and besides you cook gooooood cornbread). Hell, they don’t know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. They don’t think that any of us need to own one. They didn’t like dressing out for P.E. so I know they ain’t gonna like boot camp. They’re non-conformists, Hell they’ll be on KP duty all the time. You’d never be able to teach them WHO THE ENEMY IS!!! And I don’t think our troops would really want to be in the foxhole with a “few” of them.(wink-wink) So we might just be better off with them “supporting our troops, but NOT THE WAR!!(wink-wink)!!!
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
I knew someone would bite on the Ghandi jibe - but he refused to physically stand up and fight as many lefties advocate today. Ghandi was a bigot, given the many years he spent with mohammedans in Cape Town he refused to condemn them and their violent actions aginst Hindus. Also Ghandi was something of a pervert. he constantlyb used to sleep naked with naked girls, “to test himself” … yeah right!!
http://mithin.wordpress.com/2006/05/08/the-gandhi-nobody-knows-%E2%80%93-part-i/
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Harold,
If them damn liberals had got their way we wouldnt be so dependent on oil by now and none of this war would have happened because the USA would give as much of a sheet about the Middle East as it does “no oil” Lower Middle Africa. Damn liberals.
The Clinton administration had eight years to lead us away from middle eastern oil and not much progress wasn’t made. The environmentalist have blocked the exploration of oil in the US as well as nuclear power and coal. Ted Kennedy is blocking a wind-power farm off the coast of Nantucket because he loves to sail his boat there. I’m not knocking the Democrats on this issue, because all politicians are selling us up the river on this issue. But for the Democrats to claim moral superiority in this area is laughable.
By seeing through the smoke
July 27, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Sir, I would suggest that Ghandi believed differently than you do. Not everyone thinks a fight is what makes a man. Perhaps clarkslaw is correct — you are just a little man, trying to feel big by belittling others online and pretending to be something you are clearly not.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
STTS: I’m sure that clarkslawga is a nice guy, but damn, he keeps handing TFTT a shovel and apparently wants him to keep hitting him in the head with it! He might be really intelligent but I bet his head is getting mighty sore.
By Political Foreskin
July 27, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Stewart has the new world record for contradicting himself. His grammatical violations include tense, person, mood, gender, voice, number, aspect, case, and inflection.
If this had been a spelling bee, he would have gotten his a*s kicked.
The only thing he didn’t say was, “No backs, no vice versas, no changies”.
By Harold
July 27, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Democrats are useless middle of the road sacks o garbage.
Harold said LIBERALS.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
WHAT????
Bollocks … Ghandi was a giant hypocrite, do a google search for articles telling the truth about him - written by Indians not me. His anti-HIndu stance was infamous at the time. What do you say about his naked thing about naked little girls??
I note you ignore the actual facts and just attempt to smear me - you’re a typical liberal wanker bubba!! (big smirk)
There is HUGE difference between fighting for your literal life against mohammedan fascists as the Israelis, Iraqis and Allies are right now and say some moronic aggresive alcohol fuelled bar fight over some siily insult or whatever.
You cant CREDIBLY belittle others unless there is something to belittle - and I Have factually provided enough TO DO SO HERE.
Amusingly enough I also see you are another of these sad little cyber morons who has to bring in others to help make his point in the playground!!
By seeing through the smoke
July 27, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Ugotta — I’ve yet to see tftt successfully hit anyone (metaphorically speaking), let alone clarkslaw. but clarkslaw certainly appears to annoy tftt.
I didn’t read Luckovich’s blog because of the venom spewed forth. Wooten’s blog is degenerating quickly (at least on some days). I’m done with this for the day.
By Nick
July 27, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
My sense of why liberals see the whole war on terrorism differently is that 1) it diverts resources and attention from the domestic issues they think more important, like global warming and auto gas mileage standards and universal health care
Saying liberals put global warming as a higher priority than fighting terrorism is a stretch and simply untrue. I don’t know any liberal that would say such a thing (far extremists posting on your blog aside).
Regardless, you’ve framed liberals in a way that can’t be refuted. One can’t present facts to support an ideology, especially considering liberals aren’t in power to show how things would be run under them. Congratulations on continuing today’s liberal stereotype.
What about the conservatives pushing gay marriage and flag burning amendments? Like those issues aren’t brought up at opportune times to divert national attention?
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
KIdding … why are you sure this plonker is a nice guy? He was obsessively talking about his anus yesterday … I guess that’s why STTS is so attracted to him (smirk).
BUt you’re right, its almost like he wants to be crucified and is handing over the hammer and nails and then getting up on his own ‘virtual’ cross!!
By deegee
July 27, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Stewart believes that environmentalists have impededed oil exploration in the US. That’s easier to understand than the law of diminishing returns with respect to the price at the pump and the cost of exploration. He also believes that Ted Kennedy loves his sailboat more than he loves campaign donations. Let it go.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
so after seeing the awkward factual points raised STTS heads for the preverbial Ghandi loving hills … and wont answer the actual points about Ghandi!!
WHOOPPED EM AGAIN JOSIE!!
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
What we see here is the kindergarten-level style of “masculinity” and “courage”—that is, willingness and eagerness to use violence to solve all problems. Lots of swagger, lots of insecure bragging… and no brains. Some of us, thankfully, have outgrown that, and would like to see our nation’s leaders held to a little higher standard too.
The funny part about their “Kumbaya” complaints is that it’s the neocons themselves who are the naïve dreamers. They’re hoping that “enough bombs” will somehow solve the problem of terrorism… that “not stopping until they’re all destroyed’ is a tactic that could actually WORK in the real world. They’re dumb enough to insist that the only reason we have problems is because we haven’t used enough bullets, and that more bullets is the solution.
It would be laughable if these playground bullies weren’t such a danger to the entire civilized world.
(You lose again, Andy.)
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
STTS: I’m sure you mean “CONSERVATIVE venom being spewed forth”, right? Quoting one of YOUR DemoNcrat Presidents Harry Truman, “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”!!!
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Those wacky environmentalists like the governor of Florida?
By moderate republican
July 27, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
To Jim Wooten:
Nice try. First YOU define what “liberals” think, then pretend to ask them for their views. This completely illogical. How can you claim to want to know what they think if you’ve already defined it for them from the start?
Second, there is no such thing as a “liberal” - just as there is no such thing as a “conservative” - we are all Americans, with varying views on all sorts of topics. With the exception of the ubiquitous nitwits that flood this blog with vitriol each day, most people tend to have much more thoughtful and nuanced views on the world around them.
This blog is enough to make any self-respecting thinker sick; it epitomizes the lack of civility in modern discourse today. You’re continuing to polarize instead of presenting an intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the issues. It’s people like you who will turn me into a Democrat. Shame on you.
By Political Foreskin
July 27, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Seeing through smoke makes the point of the day: Iraq War displays the limits of US power. The invasion of Lebanon shows Israel the limits of it’s power.
You cant fight a popular uprising. You can only destroy infrastructure, and kill bystanders.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis: I know I’m just a lowly conservative “redneck”. Tell me, from your “obvious superior intelligence”, how would you handle the situation in the Middle East? TALK THEM TO DEATH???
By Play that funky music whiteboy
July 27, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
I appreciate Larry M and his father for their service.
By AM
July 27, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
The war on terrorism has been made into a lot more than it really is. If a terrorist group wanted to harm our country they could have easily have done so. Ask the millions of illegals how easy it was to get across our pourous borders! If they can - Terrorist easly can! BUT they have not!
By getalife
July 27, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Okay, Jim cut and ran from the holy war argument so let’s try this one.
According to the 9/11 report, the attack could have been stopped. There were warning signs that were not taken seriously. DHS was formed, Tenent resigned and they spy on Americans.
We need competent leadership to listen to the intelligence reports and act upon them accordingly. The intelligence community will be the ones to stop a terror attack.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Small Brain Curtis …
I note your own brainless swaggering mate … it has nothing to do with the number of bombs or bullets used. Its simply about confronting them militarily and politically and the rest! They actually started it … try and remember that. You sound like a true kool aid drinking appeasing jerk!!
The political confrontation has to be done through an arab/mohammedan lens which makes it infinitely harder given the very obvious tensions that creates. Also remember that many local arabs/mohammedans are also out for their own ends politically, culturally, econimically, religiously as well militarily - so your stupid, childlike attempt at just blaming neocons analysis clearly goes nowhere, unless you factor in many other variables other than just the military.
By Paul
July 27, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
This is off the subject, but I think warrants comment. We are extremely fortunate that Jim has given us a forum to express our opinion and get both acknowledgement and feed back of our thoughts. You may write a hundred letters to the editor without not only not being printed, but you have no idea what other letter writers think beyond the few that are printed.
That said, I thoroughly enjoy the exchange of opinions and points of view, even those that do not coincide with mine. I do not, however, like nor see the point in unfounded character assassinations, especially those directed at Jim Wooten. In many instances the [character assassin] poster has nothing to contribute beyond vituperative tautology. For what it is worth I have decided to ignore reading the balance of any post that has unsupported invidious comments about Jim or any other poster.
I would submit to Jim that he block postings of individuals whose only contributions are to revile individuals trying to participate in an informative exchange of ideas. If possible postings should be screened and deleted, when they merely attack other posters. 1st Amendment be damned.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
getalife, the report also stated that the planning was going on for two years at the least meaning that it was started under Clinton. So like in the book Imperial Hubris, the blame lays on both admin heads. And get over the spying thing. You have seriously overreacted to that.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
My God, no wonder why Glen Beck wants to wrap his head with duct tape sometimes so his head won’t explode. I’m breaking it out now after reading some of these childish comments. Dear God people, GROW UP and realize these people also WANT TO KILL YOU!!! Remember Hitler, Stalin, and the boys? Intellectuals then were some of the first to be killed and with these guys today, you would be the FIRST to have your throats cut. I don’t understand why you can’t see that. Take off those red colored glasses!
By getalife
July 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
The Moderate Voice,
Ah Clinton. The fact remains it happened under W’s watch. Period.
As far as the spying thing goes, the enemy said they hate our freedom. Why let them win?
I take it that you trust this administration to do the right thing. I don’t.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Moderate Republican
This blog is enough to make any self-respecting thinker sick; it epitomizes the lack of civility in modern discourse today. You’re continuing to polarize instead of presenting an intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the issues. It’s people like you who will turn me into a Democrat. Shame on you.
Read Cynthia Tucker’s column for a few weeks. That should cure you of your Democratic tendencies.
By LMAO
July 27, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
And get over the spying thing. You have seriously overreacted to that.
Thats the first time i have heard a “moderate” say such a thing. Moderates like Specter wouldn’t make a stament like that.
By The Moderate Voice
July 27, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
getalife, the point is there is plenty of blame to go around for the terrorist attacks. I want the government to do whatever they need to do to protect my family. Them spying on terrorist making phone calls from overseas doesn’t bother me.
By Larry
July 27, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
Hey redneck, I had a feeling you were CHICKEN! Do you londoners still pick handkerchiefs out of your sleeves? (Sorry, Jim, can’t leave it alone with this pencil-neck geek!)
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
By deegee
July 27, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Stewart believes that environmentalists have impededed oil exploration in the US. That’s easier to understand than the law of diminishing returns with respect to the price at the pump and the cost of exploration. He also believes that Ted Kennedy loves his sailboat more than he loves campaign donations. Let it go.
Deegee, I totally understand the law of diminishing returns. However, if the oil companies did not think they could turn a profit through US exploration, then why are they spending millions each year on lobbying efforts to do just that. Futhermore, my post was in reference to relieving our dependence on middle eastern oil. Would we not be willing to pay a little more at the pump to theoretically untangle ourselves from this mess? Currently the price of ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. Of course Ted loves his campaign contributions, but his constituents and many other liberals are more than willing to give him plenty of money despite his obvious hypocrisy.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Now Now Larry, the self appointed cyber police cadet Paul will report you to the teacher for being a beastly rotter and not making with any political discourse.
I do hope Paul has me on his dirty laundry list too … smirk
Funny how the moral fascist Paul wants to arrogantly and arbitrarily to abrogate the 1st amendment just to suit his molly coddled, sheltered whimsy!!
However I know how I can save myself from Paul’s high and mighty opprobium:
A detailed discussion on Ghandi and his role as a dirty old man - anyone?
By moderate republican
July 27, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
@ Paul: or perhaps Mr. Wooten could block all posters who are nasty, offensive ideologues who keep repeating the same points over and over under the theory that if you shout long and loudly enough someone might actually hear you.
Oops, guess that might leave a pretty blank page …
By JW
July 27, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
I assume most of you, especically the great-need-for-attention multiple posters surely have jobs? Do you also have benefits with these jobs? Most insurances today cover therapy. I have never witnessed such a sad cry for attention. You’re so embedded in your megalomania your cries for help are falling on deaf ears, your own.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Moderate Republican: Please take John McCain, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagle, Arlen Specter, and a few more with you when you “go DemoNcrat”!
Paul: Your underwear must be a little tight today. I bet you put your head thru one of the leg holes. I did that one time and it gave me one of the damndest headaches. Some of us like to banter a little, if you don’t want to read it, please don’t! You might just be the reason we have the 1st Amendment.
Deegee: Right, “environmentalists haven’t impeded oil explorations!, RIGHT!!! I really hope that you don’t seriously believe that ‘cause you’ve got some serious problems if you do.
By harshtruth
July 27, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
We need to go to War with Iran now before they finish their nuclear missles and attack Israel. Not a pittdly little nation building, UN papper shuffling war where every snot nosed rug rat is a victum but an all out fire bombing of Tokyo type, wipe every major city in Iran from face of the earth war. Totally destroy thier military, transportation, power genaration, food production and basic infrastructure. In essence we reintroduce them back to the stone age. For you liberals just think of it as creating a really big park. If we do this a lot of Iranians are gonna die if we don’t a lot of us and a large majority of the people in the middle east are gonna die.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
JW - this is my GENUINE FIRST POST OF THE DAY LOVE … all the others have been done my someone copying my id … and cynically impersonating me … so naturally I am not one of those naughty multi-posters!!
Even if one has more than a handful of posts, what possible nosy, control freak business is it of yours love?
How many posts will you allow us before we cross that magical, arbitrary “great-need-for-attention multiple posts” threshold?
Please can I have more than REdnecks? NA NA NA NA !!
You must be Paul instantly backing himself up?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
JK: It must be my OCD kickin’ in again. I just had an urge to post AGAIN! I promise I’m fightin’ it. Occasionally I actually get an urge to work. lol I have a very cush job, not many hours per day, work 3-4 days per week, and might just make more than you! Call me at BR-549 and I’ll tell you how to “beat the rush”.
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
harshtruth …
PREACH ON BROTHER … THAT’S MUSIC TO MY WARMONGERING attention seeking, personal abuse peddling, megaposting ears!!
By TC
July 27, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
I don’t have time to read the whole blog so sorry if I am repeating. Obviously, this is a very hot subject for debate.
I take offense that the term “Liberal” has somehow become an derogatory word. And also that it is insinuated that “Liberals” are cowardly and would back down at every agression.
I am all for this country defending itself, but if any of you honestly believe that the war in Iraq is about the USA defending itself, I think that you have had your head in the sand for way too long.
Liberals are not angry that we are at war. We are angry that we are engaged in a war that is totally and completely based on false information and lies. We are angry because the oil companies can report a 10 BILLION dollar profit in ONE quarter (aka 3 months) while our soldiers are dying, countless families have become refugees in a dozen different countries (including ours) and children across the world are literally starving to death. We are angry because our politicians become richer and richer while the rest of us (not to mention above-referenced refugees) try to eek out an acceptable existence.
Can anyone that has responded to this post honestly with a straight face tell me that they believe that the war in Iraq has made America safer? If you were a young, religious, Arab male and your country was invaded for no apparent reason and your livelyhood destroyed, who would you turn to? Do any of you believe that the numbers of these said males looking to join militant groups has DECLINED since we invaded Iraq? Please. I am quite sure that their numbers have doubled, dare I say tripled, since this war began.
I don’t pretend to have a solution, but I do know that if we follow the path that we are on it will only fuel their hatred and disdain for us spoiled and greedy Americans.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
TC: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and of course blah, blah! Same ole Liberal line. IT’S ALL OUR FAULT Blame America FIRST!!!
By Interested Observer
July 27, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Wow, I’m sure there have already been way too many comments posted for me to expect you to read this, but it’s an interesting question so I wanted to respond.
I’m tempted to take issue with the question itself (one could see it as overly broad, not taking into account the complexities of any individual situation in which the nation has to decide whether or not to go to war), but I’ll stay within the confines of the question nonetheless.
Finding myself falling more on the liberal side of our current political divide, I’d argue that the decision to use force lies in whether it is pre-emptive vs. preventive. I would argue that the war in Iraq we’re currently embroiled in could be considered preventive war; we wanted to avoid a larger confronatation that could have happened later down the road if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to fully develop his WMD programs. That was a potential future that could have taken place 5 years out or 25 years out. Now, of course, the world will never know, but that’s how I would classify this Iraq war.
A much stronger argument for using U.S. military force, and one that would be supported by large majority here, is to pre-empt threats that are much likelier to occur, or are in fact imminent — as in, to go to war with North Korea in the event it was about to attack South Korea, any other of our allies, or us.
The problem with waging preventive war is that it’s too much of a judgment call, and the threats may be too distant to justify action in the short term. Now that we know what we know about Saddam, would we have chosen to act with North Korea first instead? NK has acted much more provocatively toward the U.S. and our allies than Iraq, and certainly has a greater capability to harm us and our interests.
So, to my mind the U.S. should concentrate on defending itself from actual attacks and pre-empting true, unmistakable imminent threats. Dealing with potential trouble countries that may pose a threat a decade or more from now — and whose cultures we all too often dimly understand — involves a world of complexities that we can’t possibly predict when setting out on that path. Who knows how the actions we have taken in Iraq will impact the U.S. negatively? Not just in terms of our image abroad, but in leaving the country in a state of chaos in which terrorists and their ilk can thrive, train and spread their ideas?
Okay, that’s enough for now.
By Lola
July 27, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
@TC -
The word “liberal” is a derogatory word because it describes someone who is more socialist than American, and who prefers to steal from those who produce to give to those who are non-productive. Someone who would rather appease the terrorists rather than fight them on their own turf. Someone who, despite the fact that WMDs HAVE been found in Iraq (500+ of them to be exact), still insists on screaming the “BUSH LIED” mantra. Someone who feels that somehow it’s America’s fault that there is an entire civilization of uncivilized people whose only desire is to kill us and anyone else who does not subscribe to their version of religion. Someone who would rather find out “why the muslims are so angry at us” rather than addressing the hostility and danger they present to our way of life. Someone who loves to quote the “10 billion dollar profit in three months” without clarifying that it’s actually along the exact same profit margin that Exxon has had for the past five years. Someone who thinks that we “spoiled and greedy Americans” probably deserve what we’re getting because we’re a capitalist society who believes that anyone can accomplish anything they want with hard work and dedication.
Derogatory? You bet. And “liberal” is the nicest word I can come up with to describe those who would rather see America changed into a weaker nation, with socialist values and Marxist laws.
By Topher
July 27, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Perhaps there is some confusion. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m just saying that I don’t believe that if you say 19 hijackers did this, but we found that at least 6 are still alive, and that the head of the FBI says that the identities of all these guys can never be truly known, you haven’t met your burden of proof. If you believe that 2 guys with plastic knives took the planes from 2 185 lb ex Air Force pilots, turned off the transponder on the plane, navigated all around the eastern seaboard, all the while NORAD didn’t dispatch planes for over an hour. Then they flew all the way from Cincinati to Washington, unassisted by any flight controllers, and pulled off what many experienced pilots doubt could be executed in a Boeing 737. Not that Hani Hanjour, couldn’t do it, but that a 737 couldn’t do it. They pulled off a 330 degree turn, flying just feet above the ground to crash into the one section of the Penatagon that was not only empty, but had been reinforced to protect against just such an attack. So what I’m trying to say is that I don’t believe that. It’s an outrageous conspiracy theory. Call me what you will. I don’t care. But once you know the facts of what actually happened on that day, you can’t really believe the official story. War is the biggest racket of all. Eisenhower warned us about this in his farewell speech. Please, come with me to reality.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
A-men Lola!
By Lola
July 27, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Topher, I’m just curious…
What color is the sky in your world?
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
@Lola,
Liberal…derogatory? Nah, not really. The WMDs were old cannisters and munitions of poisonous gas instead of long range nuclear weapons.
Thinking why fundamentalists are mad at us? Not really so much. Instead it’s more of trying to find the root of the problem. Nothing wrong with knowing your enemy. Most of history’s greatest leaders were apt at that.
Our fault? Long story. But it will be our fault if our children’s children are still threatened by Islamic fundamentalism because of our current Quixotic foreign policy.
Exxon’s large profits? Thank you China and India.
Marxism and socialism? Never dabbled in it really. Just like anybody else, I would like to work hard and live comfortably.
Anti-American? I was born and raised here. My family has been here for over 300 years. This is home. If I didn’t care about America, I’d be pretty apathetic.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Topher,
I’m just curious what the motivation would be for the Defense department to pull off this charade. I’ve heard many conspiracy theorists imply the Defense Indusrial Complex initiated this effort in order to ramp up US military spending. However that theory doesn’t make sense because we have plenty of theoretical enemies (China, Russia, North Korea, etc.) and powerful congressmen in California, Washington,Georgia, Florida and Illinois to insure a strong defense budget. Military spending today (minus Iraq of course) is only a few percentage points higher than during the Clinton years.
By SamX
July 27, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Lola, the biggest act of socialism of the past 25 years is Medicare Part D, brought to you by Bush and CO.
In the mean-time Iraq is a mess, the Taliban have captured 2 towns in So. Afghanistan and Osama is still missing.
Sounds to me like the liberals are the least of your worries.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Topher,
Who can blatantly and easily kill 3,000 innocent people in their own country? Why would someone try to sabotage the US economy as a result? What about Flight 93?
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Liberal
Liberal…derogatory? Nah, not really. The WMDs were old cannisters and munitions of poisonous gas instead of long range nuclear weapons.
When did you ever hear the President say that Iraq had long range nuclear weapons? WMD’s include nuclear warheads (not neccessarily on missiles), nerve and chemical weapons. The administration never expressed fear of a long-range missle hitting us from Iraq. Our government (yes most Democratic congressmen also believed he had wmd’s) feared that Saddham would give or sell a WMD to a terrorist who would then deploy it here in the US by many different delivery vehicles (boat, suicide bomber, airplane, etc.)
By Neal
July 27, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Lola and Stewart, thank you so much for being such loyal listeners. You are doing a wonderful job of cutting and pasting my Nuze articles on this blog that I would love to invite you for a long weekend at my beach house in Naples. Please call me tomorrow on the show and I’ll tell Belinda to put you straight through to me.
Love ya long time!
By TC
July 27, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Lola, I just have to laugh at your ugly comments. You just keep the blinders on.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
You’re right. He didn’t say that. But in my opinion, that is an example of what constitutes a clear and present danger. Saddam was a madman, but he wasn’t stupid. Attacking the US would give us reason to invade. The only political belief the man had was to stay in power. North Korea has been way more of a threat than Saddam had been.
However, we invaded anyway. A poorly-planned invasion. I do like the fact that he is gone. But I just wish that we would have planned it better.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Neal,
Thanks for the invite..It’s been so refreshing to hear someone who actually speaks the truth. I was getting so tired of watching my Michael Moore flicks, listening to Air America and kissing Dan Rather’s b-hole.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Stewart,
If you were going to kiss any journalist’s b-hole, why not Soledad O’Brien’s, Elizabeth Vargas’s or Nancy Dhue’s. Dan Rather? I’m horrified.
By LOW-la
July 27, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
The word “neo-con” is a derogatory word because it describes someone who is more fascist than American, and who prefers to steal from those who produce to give to those who are inherited a station in the upper 2% of the socio-economic ladder, with no real accomplishments of their own. Someone who would rather appease the corporate interests rather than deal with real issue of working Americans on own turf. Someone who, despite the fact that WMDs HAVE NEVER been found in Iraq (a few chemical weapons so old that they would not have been effective if launched), still insists on screaming the “IT’S ALL CLINTON’S FAULT” mantra. Someone who feels that somehow it’s the average citizen’s fault that there is people who want to kill us because religion, instead of hating us because our government keeps meddling in their affairs and their oil. Someone who would rather find out “why can’t liberals just agree with everything we tell them and then shut up” rather than addressing the hostility and danger they, as screeching, non-traditiona, NEO, racist, fake Christian conservatiaves present to our way of life. Someone who loves to quote the “nine-eleven nine-eleven nine-eleven” without even looking at the facts of what really happened that day, and what they’re NOT telling us. Someone who thinks that we “hold your hand out wanting a free ride” blue-collar folks probably deserve to die in the next hurricane flood because they weren’t bright enough to have the foresight to go to college, get promoted, and buy and SUV with which to evacuate their family before the storm hit.
Derogatory? You bet. And “NEO CON” is the nicest word I can come up with to describe those who would rather see America changed into corporate nation, controlled by CEOs and spoiled rich kids than to give regular working people a chance at the American dream, or the truth about what their government is doing.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
you GO Lola, you’re MY kind of girl!!! You beautiful conversative babe!
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Liberal,
Don’t you think that Saddham attacking Israel is pretty stupid? Israel could easily destroy Iraq or kill Saddham for that matter. Yet Saddham supported Hamas in their suicide attacks in Israel. Saddham could very easily inflict pain upon the US without ever going to war with us.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Stewart,
Saddam could not have inflicted pain on us. Yes supported Hamas and offered to pay the families of suicide bombers. But he didn’t launch any WMDs into Israel.
We were constantly bombing that man since the end of the first Gulf War. He was pretty isolated and contained, as well as the rest of the country.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Liberal,
If you were going to kiss any journalist’s b-hole, why not Soledad O’Brien’s, Elizabeth Vargas’s or Nancy Dhue’s. Dan Rather? I’m horrified.
LOL, obviously I was speaking in regards to mental act of sucking up rather than the actual physical act.
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Liberal,
If saddham did have wmd’s, he could very easily have given or sold them to other terrorists groups and they could blow themselves up at the local mall, etc. There are 30,000 Hezbollah sympathising Lebanese in city of Detroit alone. One is on our most wanted list for funneling $20 million to the organization.
By Larry
July 27, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Hey, time-for-the-truth how are ya’? I have put plenty of political discourse on Mr. Wooten’s blogs, mostly trying to get people to be AMERICANS first and party (“cartel”) loyalists second. My leanings are subject-specific (“right” on abortion and minority set-asides, “left” on legalizing marijuana for adults, “right” on patriotism, “left” on government surveillance like the so-called ‘patriot act’”, etc.). But Mr. Redneck excites my desire to fight again (quit when my neck was injured in an auto accident) but would still be willing to take that pencil-neck geek to the woodshed, along with “Paul” the cyber-narc. As for redneck’s insinuations about my “man-on-man” stuff, he’s right - when it comes to skull-pounding! The Constitution and Bill of Rights forever!
By Stewart
July 27, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Larry,
An interesting point, prior to 911 and the Patriot act. Your leanings would be to the right on government surveilance. How times have changed.
By getalife
July 27, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Yes, most real Americans want to keep their rights protected under the constitution and will never let a few bad guys scare them out of their freedom.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
BRAVO! BRAVO! I’m standing the applauding those insightful words from that gutless low-life posing at LOW-la. Re-read that bit of psychotic BullS. Now wonder why we conservatives call SOME OF YOU *MORONS? Hey, if you don’t like the way things are going in this country, Delta’s ready when you are!!! There’s a plane leaving every few seconds from Hartsfield. Just put your A** on one. I’ll even pay your fare. (for a one-way ticket) They’ll love you in France. Au Revoir!!!
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this
Greetings from Leicester Square, London UK to the few decent folks and the many redneck morons that post here from rednecks - America’s Al Qaeda. Many of you have absolutely no idea how to pronounce Leicester - here’s a hint - if your babbling idiot redneck hero, Lester Maddox would spell his name Leicester Maddox, folks in London would say his name just like you do in Georgia.
Anyhow, given the love of war and blood and the murder of innocents so many of you voted for, I hope that Jim will allow 24 hour posting on his blog, so all of you will have a chance to get on line from Fallujah when all you chickenhawk chickensheets join the military.
So peckerwoods, don’t forget to leave the trailer porchlight on in case the Iraqis decide to attack your mobile home parks.
I return to the Klandom of Georgia tomorrow, so I’ll be offline all day tomorrow.
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this
Stewart,
LOL, I was just having a go at the Dan Rather thing.
In regards to Saddam, we would have known if the man was going to give any WMDs he had to another group. As far as the Lebanese in Detroit…I’m not so sure that they are all Hezbollah-loving. Besides, Saddam would never negotiate with Hezbollah as they were Shia and tools of Iran, his sworn enemy. Also, Hezbollah would probably have nothing to do with Saddam. As far as links with Al Queda, Osama hated Saddam and vice versa. Both represented opposite ends of the spectrum.
Saddam only cared about power and he wanted to be the next Nasser of the Middle East. He was not of fan of Islamic fundamentalists.
By rarringt
July 27, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this
Wow,
I really miss the good old days when neocons thought a stain on a dress really was this country’s most pressing issue….
Since they took power, thank God things have vastly improved since then. We have a balanced budget, a roaring economy being enjoyed by the vast majority of Americans, less government interference, minimal government corruption, a stronger and widely feared and respected military, relative peace, a progressive energy policy, solid inroads to better education and thus better jobs, stabilized social security and, of course, sensible improvements in providing health care. In addition, we are still perceived as being the guiding light of freedom and liberty, all accomplished by the GOP despite the pervasive perniciousness of preening pantywaste progressives.
By Kidding aside
July 27, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
BRAVO! BRAVO! I’m standing and applauding the insightful words from that gutless low-life posing at You Are Totally Kidding Me. Re-read your innumerable bits of deluded BullS—. Now wonder why we liberals call MOST OF YOU IDIOTS? Hey, if you don’t like that we still have free speech and the right to dissent in this country, Delta’s ready when you are!!! There’s a plane leaving every few seconds from Hartsfield. Just put your A** on one. I’ll even pay your fare. (for a one-way ticket) They’ll love you in North Korea, or better yet, Saudi Arabia. Our president plays kissy face with their Prince!!! They hate women there, but they’ll LOVE your cute butt!
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this
alright Larry?
I was just having a joke at that idiot’s expense. No one should control who says what on here except the ajc. Dont quite share all your world view of course, but thats really of no consequence. I dont care at all about controlling folks on here, but its damn good fun winding some of them up - mostly the more easily pissed off liberals of course.
But of course liberals have been placed on earth by Allah to entertain us conservatives - Allah be praised!!
I’m just wondering if rednecks is actually “coming home” to GA tomorrow - what kind of extradition is it - a federal one or a state one?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
July 27, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this
That was cute, but gutless you POS. Why don’t you “COME OUT” and play. I’m Ugotta B. (by God) Kidding. Why do you hide? Are you afraid? Come on out sissy boy. I don’t think you have the ballz!!!
By getalife
July 27, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this
Yes, and they solved the immigration issue. LOL.
By rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 27, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this
Ugotta’s love for Lola reminds of an old Kinks’ song about a man “glad I am a man and so’s Lola…”
Time for the Toilet knows the song well I bet…
Good night all, back on Saturday, perhaps…
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this
Rednecks … dont get mugged again outside that MARTA station tonite!!
I heard last time they got both of your wooden legs and your weeks supply of crystal meth floavoured moonpies!!
By time for the truth
July 27, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this
have a safe extradition home rednecks - hopefully the handcuffs wont be too tight for ya!!
I lied - I hope they are really tight!!
By Liberal
July 27, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this
The trash-talking on here is killing me. The only thing missing from this forum are cigars and beer.
By Slim Wootie
July 27, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
“My sense of why neo-cons see the whole war on terrorism as the defining high-point of their lives and the only thing that matters is that 1) it diverts resources and attention from the domestic issues, on which they have failed so miserably they can’t even begin to make rational excuses anymore, like the shrinking middle class, loss of good jobs overseas, lack of viable energy technology developed or produced here, billions borrowed from foreign countries, a failing educational system, millions of uninsured working Americans, and despite the biggest government and biggest debt in the history of the world, the inability to effectively manage any problem, let alone disaster, whatsoever and 2) it seems to be near impossible for neo-cons to frame any issue, problem, situation, or threat, that should not be solved by lobbing bombs and bullets at someone with brown skin. They simply can’t.”
By rarringt
July 27, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this
Jim,
There’s an idea. You can do a future blog on Slim’s 5:24 post of how neocons are viewed, why (presumably) his comments are wrong, and what neocons (a.k.a common sense conservatives” stand for. Or don’t.
Needless to say, it’ll be interesting to see how you and others define yourselves beyond simply saying “conservative.”
By Cletus Snow
July 27, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this
WOW!! They say an idle mind is the devils workshop,they didn’t read this blog,did they?
By Political Foreskin
July 27, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
MySpace.com called. They want their sassy back.
By Markus
July 27, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
@Susan:
“Unless you have served in the military, please stay out of the argument. There’s nothing more ridiculous than all the chest puffing going on around here.”
I thought I got the point through you think pointed tin hat head.. obviously no, witch.
First of all, you have no foundation to tell anyone on this forum to stay out of an argument if there has been no military service. This isn’t YOUR LIBERAL FORUM!
Second, what are YOUR military service credentials?
Third, what would YOU do to protect your land or person if attacked by a threat (like the RIP cyclist on the Silver Comet Trail).
Fourth, what we will/could do is none of your damned business.
Finally, go find a boyfriend. You need one. BAD.
By Topher
July 27, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this
The information is there. Just go look. Don’t have such a strong opinion about things if you don’t know the facts.It makes you kind of come off ignorant. Say what you like, but terrorism is the excuse for everyting now. From the price of gas, to the price of eggs.If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorist.That sounds like a threat to me. Remember the good old days when they could make us worry by just ramping up the terror alert level? Now we bust a terror ring every other week.Do you actually believe we’re batting 1000? How about the port security issue? Funny how you’ve got to give up your nail clippers, but we don’t screen anything that comes into the country via cargo ship. There’s a pattern here. We want the best security you can pay for.The don’t pay for anything.If it’s going to be a burden on big business, it’s not that important. How can we be surrounded by imminent threats all the time, but none of them have ever been able to pull anything off? Do you ever question the timing of any of this? This is not a liberal or conservative question.It’s about your media telling you the truth, plain and simple.I consider myself to be fairly liberal, but I’ve found a new respect for many conservatives because THEY are the ones who are more informed on this issue, and are more reluctant to give up their freedoms.
A conservative think tank called the Partnership for a New American Century said,in their own documents, google it, that we need to be doing what we’re doing right now. But it was going to take a catalyzing event to get the people behind it.Like a new Pearl Harbor.Their words, not mine. The vice president, who advocated our military action, just happened to be the Secretary of Defense, spent his 8 years out of the White House running the company who got the contract to rebuild the country we’re flattening for no reason.Nope,nothing shifty going on here. How bad the economy is ruined depends on who you ask. KBR had a pretty good year. BP did OK.Your mileage may vary.
By ConservativeDem
July 28, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Answering Jim’s question without blaming Bush, consevatives, or rednecks from Ga. is a privilege. The answer is simple. The only way the liberals will support a war is: they must be in power, it’s their idea, it will not cause global warming, it will not destroy the environment, it gurantees their succession in power, negotiations must take place after every battle, if there will be no civilian casualties, the liberal media must make the battle plans. and no one can make a profit from the war effort. I can think of many more reasons Jim when liberals will go to war but I do not want to overblog.
By funny ringtones
August 9, 2006 07:51 PM | Link to this
http://www.la-ringtones.com/mp3/ ringtones site. Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. from website .