Say Anything Blog

It’s the most intelligent thing I’ve heard any woman say. Ever.

This is actually the most intelligent thing I have heard this woman say. Ever.

I still think they are lying.  They want us to lose in Iraq, so that everyone will vote for them in ‘06 and in ‘08.

Actually, Pelosi’s explanation of what it means to be a democrat, suggests that a mascot change is in order.  I suggest the red-imported fire ant or RIFA because

1) they scurry about at will with no plan and no long-term planning,
2) they are ankle biters.

Glad to be of service.

It’s always about politics.  That’s the biggest problem with our government.  There’s too much politics!

What is wrong with what Nancy Pelosi had to say?  I agree with Dave, it is the smartest thing she or anybody in congress has ever said. 

Why can’t each individual representative or senator express his or her own opinion?  Why does the party have to have an opinion? 

Everything our senators and representatives do, should be a matter of conscience; to think and do what is in the best interest of their state and this country. 

If only that were the case.  Right now our, senators and representative are more interested in thinking and doing whatever it takes to get them re-elected for another term.

Right or wrong we are in Iraq, which George Bush initiated.  It’s up to him, his administration and the military to figure out what the best course of action is, not congress, and especially not the democrats or the republicans.

Oh! One comment I forgot. 

I don’t think it’s only the democrats who would like to see the Iraq war go away.  I think everyone, democrat, republican, libertarian and independent wants to see the war go away.

There something wrong with anyone who would like to see this linger on any longer then necessary, with continued loss of American lives.

Marc: Your mistake here is a common one.  You assume that armed combat will continue into the forseeable future.  We are headed toward a peaceful occupation with a lot of infrastructure rebuilding.  Iraq will emerge from this period as a bastion of freedom and prosperity in the heart of the Muslim world.

Marc: By your logic, then, all the credit for what has been accomplished(Saddam deposed, the first constitution in Iraq in 5000 years, ditto free elections), should only go to the President.  If he gets all the blame, he then should get all the credit.  Comfortable with that?  Of course, despite all the lying and backbiting from the Dems, we are all in this together, as Americans, IMO.

Robert,

Yes, Bush initiated the war and he deserves all the credit for the successes and/or the failures.  Did I somehow indicate otherwise?

The fact that some democrats and maybe even some republicans can express their disagreement with the war is what makes this country so great.  It’s the implication by many republicans that if you don’t think their way, then somehow you are not patriotic and are undermining this country.  I do disagree with that.

It is this type of thinking that will be the downfall of this country, and is exactly what we are fighting against in the middle east. 

And where did I ever indicate that I assume that fighting will continue into the near future.  In fact, I believe just the opposite.  I expect that we will be out in the very near future, probably 2 years at the most, maybe even before the 2006 elections.  Remember, it’s all about politics.

What I fear the most is a shiite majority taking over control of Iraq, forming a nonsecular state aligned with Iran, after we pull out.  If that should occur, IMO we will be worse off then if Saddam was permitted to remain in power. 

I just hope I am wrong on that account!

Marc: I understand your point of view, I just disagree with you.  This administration, or any US administration, isn’t a “regime”.  The President and Congress are elected by the people, and so we all share the credit and blame for decisions made by our elected officials. Personally, I thought GHW Bush should have gone into Baghdad in 1990. In 20/20 hindsight, I think we can all see that would have saved trouble and lives.  I think disagreement is a benefit of living in this country, but I don’t agree that it is “what this country is all about.” I think it’s about free people making free choices, only one of which is disagreement.  We can also cooperate in larger causes, putting aside partisan disagreement for a greater goal.  I disagree that “many republicans” imply that if you don’t agree with them, you are unpatriotic.  I think it is a matter of undermining a greater good for petty partisan political reasons that is unpatriotic.  Dissent is reasoned disagreement; running phony indictments, lying about the President lying, and generally trying to obstruct for partisan purposes constitutes intimidation, which is several degrees away from simply dissenting.  What we are fighting in the Middle East is “kill all the infidels” to quote the Koran.  It has been around for over a thousand years, but has only arrived at our doorstep since Munich, 1972. It broke down the door and invaded our “home” in 2001.  I’m sorry you confuse anything this country is about with what is happening in and from the Middle East.  I favor free people making free choices, so whatever and whomever the free Iraqis elect as a government is OK with me, and is the entire point of our being there, IMO. It may be all about politics for you, but for our President, and for most conservatives, it’s about the founding principles of America. I hope I have expressed myself clearly to you.

2hotel9, I don’t recollect anyone “smearing and belittling our military”.  “backstabbing and undermining the very government they profess to want to be in charge of”, yes, but the former no.  I for one, support the military, just not the war.  There is a distinction.

As far as the socialist agenda being rammed down our throats, well I happen to agree with at least one of those agendas i.e. universal/single payer health care, but I think it more of a capitalist agenda rather then a socialist agenda.

It’s just not reasonable to place the burden for providing health care, to US citizens, on the backs of employers, putting American business at a clear disadvantage when competing with other businesses around the world who are not burdened with that responsibility.  Finally, a plug for my website!

Marc, r108 pretty much covered it. I only wish to add that I don’t question people’s patriotism for political dissent, I do question their patriotism when they spend all their time and effort smearing and belittling our military, backstabbing and undermining the very government they profess to want to be in charge of, and fighting tooth&nail to ram their socialist nightmare crap down the throats of a population that repeatedly tells them they don’t want it. And please believe me, I include alot of Republicans in that list. Also on that list are career bureaucrats, who are unaccountable to voters and skulk about in the shadows pushing their own little agenda, contrary to the desires and wishes of we, the people. Remember? Government of,for, and by.

Robert, while I would love to continue this debate, this may not be the appropriate forum to continue this discussion, but I will add one last comment (contact me through my website if you would like to continue).

While it’s doubtful that we will ever agree completely, I don’t believe our goals and desires are mutually exclusive.

I agree that petty politics is unnecessary and does no service for this country, but republicans resort to it every bit as much as democrats.  Republicans do seem to be able to spin it better though.

I don’t agree that it is required that we all come together just because this administration, with the blessings of congress, decided it appropriate to attack a foreign regime.  We don’t need to honor those that have died already, by killing more young American soldiers.

I will admit that I initially supported the war, but now I realize that it was misquided, and not so much because the intelligence that was used to justify the war was wrong, but because we had no right to infringe on the sovereignty of a foreign nation, to impose our sense of what is right and wrong.  That is exactly what we are fighting against in the middle east.  I also believe that the eventual outcome will be far worse (see previous post) then had we done nothing at all.

If we use your line of thinking, what was the justification for attacking Iraq, and not Iran and North Korea, when the threats from those two countries were equally severe and likely more so?  And let’s not forget about the numerous other dictatorships around the world.

In this day and age everything is about politics, and until the people realize that and rise up to change it, we will continue to be divided into red and blue states. 

Damn! That turned out longer then I expected!

Oh well, such is life! Best wishes!

I was not accussing you of those actions, I am accussing many on the left and on the right as well. As for Nationalized healthcare, you think medical care is expensive now? Wait till the government is paying, it will become exponentially more expensive and the quality/quantity will plunge. As for your site, already checked it out. Nice, I don’t agree with most you say, you do say it well. Hope you hang around, we always like well written comments, even when I am at my trollbashing worst.

Marc, I’m going to respond to somethings you said here because I didn’t see an appropriate thread on your site at a quick glance. Besides, what I have to say is fairly germane to the discussion at hand.

You state that you rethought your support for the war because we invaded a sovereign country. Yet I think you ought to rethink that position--hear me out! Have you ever pondered the nature of sovereignty? Where does it come from? Is it something that simply exists because there is a government in place, or is it appropriately derived from the will and consent of the governed? I’d make the argument that we need a concept of legitimate sovereignty, the idea that the only legitimate government is one that is created by the consent of those who are governed.

Illegitimate governments base their rule on force or fraud--such as Saddam’s. When we acted to overthrow that brutal tyrant, our actions had the effect of enabling the people of Iraq to create a truly sovereign body in the place of Saddam’s illegitmate and criminal regime. So while wondering what right we had to invade Iraq, spare a moment to wonder what right Saddam had to rule Iraq.

As for your wondering why we don’t attack other brutal regimes, there are a couple of responses. The first, and best, is that you’re engaging in fallacious thinking if you want to advance the notion that our not attacking other illegitimate regimes somehow lessens the case for invading Iraq. The other good response is that we cannot possibly attack every regime--our military is good, but not so good as to take on every bad regime at the same time.

Also, an attack is not always the best agent for change--it depends on the regime in power, and the events in the country. In the case of Saddam, there was little chance that he would change his ways, and our attack almost certainly saved lives overall.

So in closing, I’d like encourage you to give a little less weight to the pervasive defeatism that is currently in vouge, and use your obviously able mind to consider the implications of your change of heart. You’ve made the perfect the enemy of the good, and in following your logic to its extreme conclusion would hobble our country’s ability to act in a humanitarian fashion in the future. That’s not a country I could be proud of, nor a world I would want to live in.

Marc, robert, H2, Seth, you all seem to be on the same side just with different points of view.  Seth, I think you summarized it beautifully.  There is so much wrong in the world but one has to carefully pick their fights since you can’t be righting every wrong and victories can never be considered more that temporizing actions as the battle for righteousness is endless.  I think that one can easily forget that we were dramatically pushed into this war on terror on 9/11/2001 while prior to that other means (diplomatic, sanctions, etc.) had been use mostly ineffectively to change adverse conditions.  In recent times, Americans have usually been reluctant to do battle. Perhaps the blood shed during the Civil War created that tendancy.  But when one is attack, the attack itself is a declaration of war and I believe that one has no choice but to engage militarially with the enemy.  I’m certain that was the view that President Bush had and if you go back and read his speeches at that time, he did not promise an easy victory or an easy end to the conflict.  The war against terror is at least in part a war against Islamic domination and until the Moslems are content to live and let others live (including Jews!!) the war will go on.

Dave, I do agree that we really are mostly on the same side here.

Seth you’re right our military can’t fight every oppressive regime, we have to pick and choose.  I just feel that George Bush picked the wrong target to fight. 

I don’t believe he did it for some sinister motive, nor do I believe he deliberately misinterpreted the intelligence.  After 9/11, we all wanted to do something, and George Bush was likely the best man to accomplish that.  I just think he, actually everyone, over reacted.  That happens.  Remember, I did say I supported the war initially. 

Maybe, in the future, we’ll find that attacking Iraq (the weakest target) was actually the appropriate course.  Hopefully what will be established there, will be a model which will spread to the rest of the middle east and around the globe.

Only time will tell.

Oh yeah, and 2Hotel9, I’ll respond to your post on the cost of health care on my blog after the Steeler game.  Some things in life just have a higher priority.

Marc--perhaps in hindsight it may seem that Iraq was the wrong target (I disagree with this proposition, but understand how one can come to this conclusion). But that in no way changes that, as an American, it weakens us going forward from here to stop supporting the war. If we cut out before our stated objectives, then our ability to act in the future is greatly harmed--while at the same time our enemies are emboldened. Our cutting and running in Somalia emboldened Al Qaeda to strike at us more, they felt we were a paper tiger. Leaving Iraq to a cruel fate will only increase this perception--making us less safe.

Besides, what target would have been better and more doable? Overthrowing the house of Saud might have been satisfying, but it was not--still is not--doable in many ways. We had forces in the right places, strategic interest, and casus belli in Iraq--it was a unique combination of factors.

Marc: Iraq has been the most appropriate target since 1990. My only complaint is that we waited too long to act. 
Not only should we all support our elected representatives in time of war, but it is the definition of patriotism to do so.  Those that put their partisan politics above supporting their country in time of war are by definition unpatriotic.  It’s simply true, not political spin. 
You might have the impression that Republicans are better at spinning, but I think it’s just that our positions contain more truth than those of the left.  It’s a natural advantage we have, which makes the hate-filled left so desperate, since they consistently choose the side of untruth.  They need to exert a lot more force, in terms of playing partisan political games, then, to try to push their agenda.  These days, the agenda of the Republican Party is generally more in line with the founding principles of this country, whereas the agenda of the Democrat Party is much more in line with French Socialism.  We know how well that works.

Well Robert I was going to let this topic rest, thinking that enough was said, but your last comment just hit a nerve. 

To be considered not to be patriotic because you don’t support the majority of elected representatives is not the principles this country was founded on.  And I take particular offense to that.  If we have to toe the party line, no matter our opinions, then we are no better then the Soviets or the Taliban were, and certainly no better then the Islamic Fundamentalists that we are in conflict with now.

As far as the conservative right being better at spin, that is a fact.  It has nothing to do with the statement “our positions contain more truth than those of the left”.

Take for example the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who painted John Kerry as unpatriotic.  Regardless of whether you think John Kerry was justified in getting the Purple Heart, here was a man that enlisted in the military, and went to Viet Nam putting his life in harms way.  He didn’t have to do that.  He could have easily gotten out of serving, especially in Viet Nam, had he chosen. In my opinion he earned the right to say whatever he felt was appropriate. 

Then there was George Bush who chose to run to Georgia to serve in the Air National Guard. 

It’s unfortunate, that so many Americans chose to think of John Kerry as unpatriotic, a man who put his life in harms way, serving in Viet Nam, while thinking of George Bush as being a super patriot by evading the draft and serving in the Gerogia Air National Guard.

How easy it is to send young soldiers to war and die for their country, when you know that you, members of your family or others you may care about will never have to jeopardize their lives.

Marc: I certainly did hit a sensitive place in you!
You are just wrong about majority rule.  In the founding of the US, majority rule by vote of the citizens replaced monarchial rule, where the people had no voice in the selection of their ruler, so my point remains, your feelings aside.  To compare a people ruled by popularly elected officials to the Soviets, the Taliban or Islamic fundamentalists is to be exactly wrong.  I am flabbergasted by your ignorance on this subject.
If you tell the truth, spin is unnecessary, that was my point.
The Swift Boaters reported John Kerry as the liar he was.  They claimed he faked his medals, and was not the hero he claimed to be.  One of them has been after him ever since his lying, unpatriotic utterances in 1970. Kerry enlisted in the Navy specifically to avoid ground combat in Vietnam, after seeking deferment 5 times. He enlisted to avoid the draft, which would have placed him in the Army. He only volunteered for Swift Boat duty because he was told it was patrol only, and no combat would be involved.  There’s a lot more, but that’s enough for now. 
The future President came along as the war was winding down.  He joined the Air National Guard to become a pilot, thinking it was the best way to serve his country at the time.  His service is not directly comparable to Kerry’s, because he is younger, and the war was at a different stage for him.
I guess being convinced by anti-war propaganda disqualifies you to speak about military matters for the rest of your life, according to the anti-war left.  Interesting.  Your perfect recitation of Dem talking points is remarkable.

Marc said:

How easy it is to send young soldiers to war and die for their country, when you know that you, members of your family or others you may care about will never have to jeopardize their lives.

Tell me you’ve got a better argument than a version of the chickenhawk trope, because that’s just weak.

1. Bush evaded the draft by going to Texas and volunteering to be a pilot in a very dangerous aircraft. Texas ANG supplied a large number of pilots for combat in Viet Nam. 2.J. Kerry’s fellow Officers and crewmen put forward the supposition that he was a walking clusterfuck while he was still in country, and he lost any stature he may have gained from his service by participating in Winter Soldier. 3. My 6 years, US Army, as an Artilleryman, put my ass in the fire a stack of times. 4. My son, who is 10, will in 7 years enlist US Army, or if he turns traitor, United States Marine Corps. An idea he has put forward on his own that I will not try to dissuade him from. So, mister socialized medicine, do you think I have the right to be pissed at people who keep shitting on my country and my military? And save your time and don’t bother typing that"I support the troops but not the war” crap. Because that is exactly what it is, a large, steaming pile of crap. You have a good evening now.

Ok Robert, last post on this subject. I promise.  If you want to continue contact me through my blog.

I understand about majority rule.  I was just making the point that if you can’t disagree with your government, then we are no better off then totalitarian regimes.

The Viet Nam War didn’t end until mid 1972.  I know that because I was in the military then, and fortunately got a reprieve from going to Viet Nam.  Went to Okinawa instead.

Bush served in the Air Nat’l Guard starting in 1968.  I don’t think many of us (including myself) considered the war was winding down then.  College rioting was still at it’s peak.  I know, because I was in college at the time. 

Remember Kent State May 1970.  I remember that also. I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh that same year.

Best wishes,

Marc: No one is maintaining you can’t disagree with your govt.  If you do it, though, you get the consequences, one of which is to be regarded as unpatriotic.  I think it might be totalitarian to label those who disagree with you as totalitarian.  George Bush is about six years younger than John Kerry.  Our will to win the war was winding down in 1968, ultimately leading to our national political decision to cut and run from Vietnam.
This blog is fine with me.

Marc, “Take for example the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who painted John Kerry as unpatriotic. Regardless of whether you think John Kerry was justified in getting the Purple Heart, here was a man that enlisted in the military, and went to Viet Nam putting his life in harms way. He didn’t have to do that. He could have easily gotten out of serving, especially in Viet Nam, had he chosen. In my opinion he earned the right to say whatever he felt was appropriate”

Just when I thought you were sensible, you have to say the above.  In my view, many others and certainly the view of the Swift boat vets which were the majority of the men that served with Kerry, Kerry was an outright traitor when he came home, retiring early from his enlistment, joined the leftist anti-war movement, made the false accusations of military atrocities to Congress and then frequented with the enemy.  Even today he with his cohorts in the Senate make negative statements concerning the Iraqi war.  No, Kerry is not a nice person and I am amazed that you think otherwise. 

Your other misstatement concern Bush and the guard. As should be obvious, the guard is no place to be secure from
front line action but is merely a reserve from which replacements can be called as needed.  As proof, look at how many guardsmen were called up to Iraq.  Our involvement in Vietnam was ramping down so the need for new pilots was minimal at best.  But I am confident that Bush would have served in Vietnam if selected and to suggest otherwise is without merit or facts.

[...] Sure ya will, Rahm. Luckily, Bush has always had a plan, and a dedication to victory, and we are seeing the positive results of that now as Iraq has officially become a constitutional democracy with improving economic and security conditions. No thanks to the Democrats. “There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. [...]

Sorry Dave, life’s full of little disappointments!

I can’t help it.  Sometimes I get a little emotional and say things that may be better left unsaid. 

I should have payed a little closer attention to Rob’s preface to posting.  Oh well, such is life.  Next time!

Best wishes,

Marc said, ...but because we had no right to infringe on the sovereignty of a foreign nation, to impose our sense of what is right and wrong.

Was the average Iraqi “sovereign” or did the “sovereignty” resided with Saddam and Saddam alone? Just what are you arguing for with your “sovereignty of a foreign nation” claim?

In other words, sovereignty resides within the people and therefore Iraq had no “sovereignty” to claim. Unless, of course, you were arguing in support of Saddam’s sovereignty.

It’s just not reasonable to place the burden for providing health care, to US citizens, on the backs of employers, putting American business at a clear disadvantage when competing with other businesses around the world who are not burdened with that responsibility. Finally, a plug for my website!

No, the rest of the world is just burdened with higher taxes and more regulations.

As far as the conservative right being better at spin, that is a fact.

It if is a “fact”, then I’d like to see the proof.

It’s unfortunate, that so many Americans chose to think of John Kerry as unpatriotic, a man who put his life in harms way, serving in Viet Nam, while thinking of George Bush as being a super patriot by evading the draft and serving in the Gerogia Air National Guard.

George Bush evaded the draft? Prove it. A question - why do you downplay serving in the National Guard? What an ugly position. If I have to tell you: Bush flew a plane nicknamed the “widowmaker” because it was known for blowing up in mid-air. Are you going to downplay that now?

Oh,..and John Kerry is unpatriotic for what comes out of the guy’s mouth. Some people recognize it even if you don’t.

[...] Diversified Positions By Rob on December 16, 2005 at 4:51 pm [...]