Trent said, Robert, Hussein never was and never has been an Islamic Fundamentalist. He was a secularist…

 

Secularist – One who theoretically rejects every form of religious faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the facts and influences which are derived from the present life; also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious element.

Saddam Hussien wrote the entire Koran using his own blood. Tell me again how he is a "secularist"?

But what do we win?

Our military policy should be set by principle, and then limited by our might; it should not simply be limited by our might.

However, that is the case today to too large an extent: any policy can be justified, until the point we have too many casualties. The rightness of the policy, the impact on anyone else, are not relevant, or are easily spun.

Having said that, the number of US casualties can be reduced, without it having any indication of how well the policy or war are working.

Find foreign troops for some roles, pulll back and let the local casualties skyrocket, put Iraqis at the front line, casualties go down.

But that doesn’t mean it’s working.

Say we brought all the troops home, and that Iraq went into total chaos with enormous casualties.

But zero American troops would be killed, so by the reasoning of the author of this thread, the war would be going great!

Nonsense. US casualties are only one small factor of how the war is going. While high casualties are a negative, low casualties are only possibly a positive in terms of how the war is going. The poor logic of the right wing seems inexhaustible, but quite exhausting.

Trent:  I would like to believe you, but when you make something out of nothing, it’s difficult.  You don’t wait for proof, you go on supposition.  You also repeat the national Dem talking points, word for word, which is why I consider you a partisan.

Clinton was convicted in court of perjury and suborning perjury.  Fact.  Nothing made up.  His law license was pulled by a judge for exactly that reason.  He just recently got it back.  Fact.

I can’t imagine the damage that would have been done to this country by either a Gore or a Kerry presidency.  Clinton was bad enough. 

"Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn’t talk and the Tar-Baby kept on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and blip–he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn’t pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"If you don’t let me loose, I’m going to hit you again," says Brer Rabbit, says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap–he hit the Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too.

Tar-Baby she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"Turn me loose, before I kick the natural stuffing out of you," says Brer Rabbit, says he, but the Tar-Baby just sat there.

She just held on and then Brer Rabbit jumped her with both his feet. Brer Fox, he lay low. Then Brer Rabbit yelled out that if that Tar-Baby didn’t turn him loose, he was going to butt her crank-sided. Then he butted her and his head got stuck."

ClothMaker: But you seem to be overly offended by spelling.

Well, spelling and complete sentences allow a thought to be communicated.  Poor spelling and grammar coalesce to ambiguity. 

But hey, why muddle an unclear debate with opaque reasoning useless drivel in an complex world of fictional subtext and random iterations of tireless meanings and transparent obfuscation –  was that clear? 

Oh, I know…  let’s all use IM shorthand instead of real words and see how well we communicate. 

Well..we can see that "clothmaker" is a joker not to be taken seriously.

I’ve been chastised way more than a few times for spelling on this blog. Almost each time this chastisation was used as disqualifaction of my argument.

Of course casualties are down, we have reduced ground actions and ramped up bombings from the air. To see whether we are winning you’d look to see how our political goals are doing and whether there’s actual security in the country, not look for trends in the incomplete casualty stats. That is, if one were trying to do real analysis instead of political spin.

I’ve been chastised way more than a few times for spelling on this blog. Almost each time this [SIC]chastisation was used as [SIC]disqualifaction of my argument.

From what I have seen, your arguments disqualify themselves through lack of fact, spelling or no.  But blame what you will on what you want.

Clothmaker says, Almost each time this chastisation was used as disqualifaction of my argument.

Huh. I’m thinking your argument might have a little more merit if you didn’t change your name so often, made coherent thoughts, and actually focused on what is said in the thread.

But that’s just me.

What do you think hawthorne, HAWTHORN, tuxedoDon, jebb, hawthorne baker, frank tha dank, sorry, manly p jones, this is mike, gotta go, b4 i go, your right and wrong, my mom sent me here, MEDIAoner, dear seth, PEJASOYSAUCE, Clothmaker?

Btw – what a ridiculous amount of nicknames in the past three days.

American lives are nolonger being risked to the extent that they once were, and all should be thankful for that, but disgusted by the fact that more will be sacrificed in the coming years (nobody’s getting out of there for the next three years, Bush said so). Peace through democracy was not the reason this war started and was never mentioned in its lead up for one very good reason- the American people would not have allowed their sons and daughters to die for something so obviously impossible.

Gene : George W Bush will be seen in history as one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had.

I can’t give him that much credit Gene, he’s got some pretty strong competition.  He’s implemented some amazingly bad domestic policies, IMHO…   I just can’t think of him in that light.  I will give him credit for a lot of political positioning and his handling of Saddam.

He does a terrible job of communicating.  He’s got ethics, morals, and values that he stands by…  but, he’s not the greatest.

Since History is of the records and the current records are in news papers, history is not likely to be as kind as I am being.

But you seem to be overly offended by spelling.

Oh, I doubt that anybody here is offended by spelling. Most here make plenty of spelling errors.

Why would you say it to begin with?

Really, guys, those are pathetic attempts to rewrite what is going on.

zen_less’s "less casualties REALLY means we are losing" spin is particularly laughable.

And cian, please, do not insult my intelligence.

The entire goddam operation was called "Iraqi Freedom" so you are completely dishonest when you say "Peace through democracy was not the reason this war started and was never mentioned in its lead up."

General Grant was a meatgrinder, eh?

Stunning admission right there – President Bush is Mahatma Gandhi by comparion then, judged by the low rates of casualties in Iraq.

We lost more casualties in the Tet Offensive than all of the casualties in Iraq.

We lost more casualties in one day of the Battle of the Bulge.

We lost 700 in a single training accident during World War II!

Liberals, for all their supposed nuance, sure do lack historical understanding (which is why they pander to the dead-enders and doomed movements like Communism).

I guess when we are down to single-digit casualties, and then no casualties, that will still somehow be a quagmire and a defeat I suppose. 

Look how so many in this thread pathetically cling to the hope that we are losing, and how they twist and turn to try and convince us it is so.

They have invested their entire ideology in our defeat.

and everyone knows we don’t win anything over there anyway. A stable democracy in the middle east is a really worthless, pointless goal that will do nothing for anybody.

 

It’s funny;  when you talk ideas to the lefties, they ask for the numbers;  when you give them the numbers, they go into denial.  Quite comical.

"Winning?"

 Tell that to the families of each of those 25 who died — Do they care that it’s the "lowest month of casualties?"  No.

So in order to be winning, we must have zero casualties?

Oh, I’m sure I speak for most liberals in acknowledging that it is great news that fewer Americans are dying. It actually gives me a shred of hope. But what I take issue with is someone saying we are "winning" becasue there is any good news. I’ll even admit it is good news if the same number of people are dying, but just fewer Amercians.  But to cast this conflict as something that can be "won" is pure ignorance. I think the ONLY way we could have "won" would have been for the war to unfold as the Bush administration said it would: That we would walk into Iraq, be greeted with open arms by the Iraqis and to have uncovered the WMD, which was the reason Bush was granted war powers.

Any attempt at casting the firstgood news in a long time is either really dumb or really disingenuous.

MikeA:  I’m actually glad to hear that I’m not nuanced enough for you.  I take that as a sign of manliness.  I should have said:  In war, if you don’t win, you lose.

jeff:  If the numbers of casualties were increasing, wouldn’t you take that as a sign we were losing?  Nice try at spin, though. 

It’s going even better than you think!  The numbers are actually:

135, 80, 42…

Oh wait, that was April to June 2004

 

My bad, it’s actually 107, 58, 35…

Damn it, that’s actually January – March 2005

 

Those numbers showing that we’re winning are somewhere.

 

16 dead in April?  I thought it was only the 6th?

 

You’re right.  We are winning.  What do we win?

We lost 3,000 in one day:  It was 9/11/01.  There is great potential to loose thousands or millions in one day, and that is just from WMD, let alone undermining our troops, our country and way of life.

http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/enemies-within.html

Even more leftie twisting of the good news.

lazerlou said, Again, yuo conservatives have a complete inability to think in any nuanced way. All you can seem to do is think and speak in black and white.

Ten to one when a liberal says this, they are describing themselves. It has become a part of their lexicon to say "nuanced" and "black and white".

Will we have won if Iraq suffers from continuing sectarian violence for years and years to come even if we withraw completely? Of course not.

Why not? There was violence in Germany and Japan for years after World War II. Did we lose there?

Don’t be so simplistic in your analysis, it makes you conservatives look like simpletons.

You’re describing yourself again.

MikeAdamson,

Who exactly won the U.S. Civil War?  By 1877 all the "redeemer" governments of the South had created a nearly quasi-slave regime (less and more successful depending on geographic locale) that made a mockery of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

Who won the Iran-Iraq war?  Both sides were left bloodied, in possession of the land they started with, and severely weakened in the process. 

You are very much right; wars are generally not binary affairs (in general they do not resemble the Third Punic War/Genocide).

lik said

Ten to one when a liberal says this, they are describing themselves. It has become a part of their lexicon to say "nuanced" and "black and white".

That’s because so many defenders of the current Administration think in terms of black and white…I don’t ascribe it to all conservatives by any stretch. 

Taoists…I hate to waste a space corecting spelling (though D for tao is as valid a translation from chinese as T) But you seem to be overly offended by spelling.

I gotta say, it’s hilarious how all of Robert’s responses refer to "hate-filled lefties" and likwidshoe responds to every point with an insult.

Expected response: Point out that not ALL of Robert’s responses refer to "hate-filled lefties" and likwidshoe doesn’t use an insult in EVERY response. 

Likwidshoe, i’ll respond to the one point that doesn’t include the words "garbage, diatribe, self-serving, backwards, unserious, ignorant and ridiculous"

You talk about the three votes that the Iraqi people voted in. I admit, that’s a great start, but it’s just a start. Democray is far, far more than a (bi)annual vote. At it’s core is respect for the underlying value of law, one that doesn’t result in taking up arms if you don’t like the negotiated result.

That’s what defines Western democracies. And i just don’t see Iraq coming to that point in the next 20 years. It’s a long, slow slog and it requires the majority of the population to come to that point that law overrides individual passions and the willingness to resort to violence to get their way.

Here are some connections with lefties and jihadists; from Jihad Watch:

Italy: Muslims Told To Vote Communist

I discuss the Left’s alliance with the jihad in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers. The affinity that Marxists would feel for the jihad is quite clear, despite the atheism of the former and the religious content of the latter. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia has this quite wrong; in its entry on Islam, it says it is just another expression of the religious impulse to transfer justice to the next world and make people content with injustice on earth. But in fact Islam is not this way at all: the jihad aims to establish an earthly polity in which justice is established by force, with draconian punishments for those who do not fall into line. The resemblance to the earthly utopia of the Marxists is unmistakeable, and I do not doubt that this is an important reason why — but not the only reason why — so many Leftists see kindred spirits in the mujahedin.

 

Name one.

That’s the spirit r108…we all need a good chuckle now and then.

Trent:  It’s not what Saddam says he is, it’s what he does:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006687.php 

r108…upon reflection our positions aren’t that far apart. I believe that America should have chased down the perpetrators of the 911 attack and used its economic power,moral standing and military might to stamp out the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. You,on the other hand,prefer to cut a wider swath by declaring war,figuratively and actually,on anyone who fits a vague description of the perpetrators,anyone who knows the perpetrators or knows someone who knows someone who knows the perpetrators and anyone who questions your approach to apprehending the perpetrators and mitigating or eliminating the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism.

My understanding is that your declining casualty numbers may merely indicate that US troops are spending less and less time exposed to hostiles and more and more time on protected bases, resulting is larger and larger portions of Iraq being essentially out of "coalition control".

MikeA:  Here’s another vague description:

http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/04/vital_perspecti.html 

Trent: He funded the families of suicide bombers, in Palestine, for one.  I’ll link to some more, later.  The connections are coming out of the woodwork these days. 

More nonsense from the hate-filled lefties.

Its called Spin the failed Daoist strapped to the wheel of idiocy and win a prize!

MikeA: No, if the numbers were increasing I would say we were losing faster. This war was lost the moment we rolled across the border without a realistic endgame plan and the committment of resources that the generals told the administration they would need to sieze, hold and stabilize the country. The speed at which we were losing increased with disasterous political decisions/miscalculations and the waste of billions of dollars. I just retired from 28 years of service and, hating to sound all Weimar and post-Vietnam, it isn’t the US military which lost this war…it’s the guys in the suits.

Don’t forget Nixon.

likwidshoe, no offense, but at what point did we start feeling bullied by a bunch of nomadic, fundamental Wahhabists living in the desert like it’s 800 A.D.?

And of course the world respected and admired the US.  We fought back the Nazi’s, we fought back Communism, we landed on the Moon, we lead the world’s economy.  And generally the US has been a force for freedom in the world.

Why wouldn’t the world love America?

Maybe it’s you who hates America!

Or maybe it’s you who doesn’t like the rest of the world.

I’m betting it’s some mix of the two. 

Wait a minute! Isn’t that the MAIN reason that bin Laden had a beef with the US? The base in Saudi Arabia?

Right…we should always listen and do what the bullies say so they won’t bother us anymore.

…and every last shred of goodwill that the world has ever felt towards us.

Like the world liked us or respected us to begin with. Your differing opinions aside, don’t feed us this bullshit.

Egh. It’s worked before. I don’t write the idea off out of hat.

When has it worked before? 

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx compiles all the so called "confirmed" reports and it has the most civilian deaths occuring last month

The problem is in the definition of "civilian". I’d like to see them break out the insurgent deaths (young adult males) from the general population.  Part of the problem all along is that the insurgents dress like ordinary civilians. Also, I think the 10,000 number is probably too low.  I would hazard a guess that iraqbodycount.org is closer with its 35,000 total deaths.

First of all, Saddam/Palestinian bombers do not equal Islamic Fundamentalism.  You said you’re against Islamic Fundies.  Great.  But those are in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  Let’s head over there.

Second of all, as far as that article goes, the blog even couches its veracity a few times (further scrutiny, if the translation holds up…)  From what i hear of those documents that took THREE whole years to dig up, they’re all bunk.  We own that country and the majority of the Baath party and we’re only uncovering this stuff now?

But let’s assume the docs are legit.  As you said, it’s not what Saddam says, it’s what he does.  He might have wanted to attack but he never managed to do anything to to American interests.

But a lot of people want to hurt American interests and we don’t attack them. People like the UAE and Saudi Arabia who assisted, funded, visited and supported bin Laden.  People like the ISI in Pakistan that supported the Taliban and helped bin Laden escape.

But i digress.  We shouldn’t let a dangerous madman like Saddam plan and plot to hurt America because it’s only a matter of time, right?

But that’s right!  We DID take military action for ten years, enforcing enbargoes and no-fly zones in order to prevent him from becoming a threat to the US and the region.  And maybe THAT’S why he never managed to do anything against American interests.

But  embargoes and the like are for pussies.  And they’re expensive!  Wasn’t it a billion dollars a month to enforce it!?!?  That’s impractical and unrealistic, and just plain dumb.

It makes much more sense to do a full on invasion of a country and occupy it for over 6 years (since Bush said it’s up to the next president to pull them out) and to set up permanent bases in the Middle East.

Wait a minute!  Isn’t that the MAIN reason that bin Laden had a beef with the US?  The base in Saudi Arabia?

And the cost?  Hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of American injured and every last shred of goodwill that the world has ever felt towards us.

But at least we’re not pussies.  Or spending all that money on the no-fly zone. Such a waste of taxpayers money.

And I’m the unpatriotic one??!?!  I’m the one that doesn’t love my country?

I’ve never loved it more. 

So, either way, we are losing.  Nice logic.  Iraq has a constitution for the first time in 5000 years, but we are losing;  Saddam is no longer killing an average of over 60 Iraqis a day, but we are losing.  Nice spin.

Maybe I shouldn’t have included Ireland and Yugoslavia on that list…but the point was that our civil war was the exception, not the rule.

 

I don’t get it.

Obviously.

So the master plan is to thrust them into democracy when they’ve never known it?

Egh. It’s worked before. I don’t write the idea off out of hat.

Shingles:

So Civil Wars have to resemble OUR Civil War in order to be considered a Civil War?

Actually, it would have to resemble a civil war to be classified as one.

You need two or more opposing poitical organizations with their own armies vying for control of all or part of the territory.  That’s clearly not the case in Iraq.  You still have a central but fragmented government that currently is unable to get its act together, and numerous runaway militias that are playing "tit for tat".

The most likely long-term consequence of a continued failure of governance on the part of the Iraqis is not civil war, but a "Balkinization" of Iraq.  Not necessarily  better, but picking the right words to describe the situtation at least focusses in on the real issues that we are facing.

Trent: What would you do with them, let them run their agenda unopposed?

Shingles:

Though, I would think that the days of mass pitched battles are probably over.  Except on movie sets.  And as such, the "civil wars" of the future will resemble this type of messy amorphous conflict.

I wish that were the case, but there are plenty of counter examples from Africa, where millions of people have been killed. 

Fundamentally, we may be approaching the "end of history" point, where major conflicts like e.g.. the Chinese Civil War don’t  errupt.  I think this is your point, and after the various factions come to terms, war as we have known it in the last four centuries may become a thing of the past.

As you point out, balkan-like warfare is generally a result of the creation of new nations, and this is often done with the intent to keep its citizens divided.   This includes Yugoslavia, Iraq, as well as many former colonies in Africa.  Instituting "bipartate or even "tripartate" system is very sick, and quite evil.  And it takes a very long time to ammeleroate the effects of it.

The problem regionally with allowing Iraq to splinter is the combined issues with Syria, Turkey and Iran.  It doesn’t necessarily get any easier if we simply allow them to split up.  Of course if our real intention is to invade Iran all along, then we need to get Iraq to split up.

As for why we invaded… well I never was in favor of that to start with, mostly from the "war is chaos" angle and the unpredictability of the outcome, even assuming quick and immediate victory.

Ultimately we invaded, primarily, because people regarded the Sunni Iraq dominated governmetn a security treat.  Right or wrong, for better or worse, this was the overarching reason.

Our role in Iraq is one of "yes you can learn to take care of yourselves, but we recognize that you will need help reconstructing all of the infrastructure that Saddam allowed to rust away, and the US bombed away".

Me:

You need two or more opposing poitical organizations with their own armies vying for control of all or part of the territory.

Trent:

So the Shia and Sunni don’t fit this definition?  (Probably because the Kurds make the number three, so it TECHNICALLY can’t be a civil war, eh?)

Seems to me the problem is that you aren’t really paying any attention what I am saying.

People on the left are much more likely to call it like it is.

Actually, you’re a lot more likely to cling to language that inadequately describes the real situation but gets the "gut punch" emotional impact you’re looking for.  That’s how I see it anyway.

if it is a civil war, with more than one regional government, and with more than one army, where are the regional capitals for the opposing interests?  When was the last pitched battle between the two opposing armies?  Any civil war I can think of has these characteristics, including the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Chinese Civil War and so on.  Not all intercine conflict is necessarily a "civil war".

In any case, just because it’s not a civil war (and it really isn’t), doesn’t mean that the situation isn’t grave there. And I said as much, so you can’t accuse me of trying to hide from the facts.  I make the distinction between the words because "picking the right words to describe the situtation at least focusses in on the real issues that we are facing."

We may be experiencing the "Balkinization" of Iraq, with the disintegration into seperate non-overlapping states, ethnic cleansing and all of the other inherent problems with that.

When this happened in the former Yugoslavia, however, nobody quesitoned whether the Croats and Serbs could self-govern.  The problem was very obviously that they had too little in common and too much to gain by being independent. 

When the same thing appears to be happening in Iraq, all of a sudden they are incapable of self-governance.  This is another common theme on the left.  Nobody can take care of themselves, so we have to do it for them. 

I’ll put the real problems, as I see them, in Iraq on the table:

1. Weak central government with too much factionalization
2. Regional militias that are out of control.

In order to stave off the collapse of the central government in Iraq, the parties will have to come to an understandiung of common interest, and equally importantly the various mililtias will need to be moved under the control of the central government.  Until that happens, expect continued instability. 

For me, I’ll continue to stay on the side of logic and reason, whichever side decides to lay claim to them.

Prove it.  Show me the facts.  And I couldn’t give a flip about what WFB has to say about the war. 

I am not a big fan of guns. AND, I think gay people should be allowed to get married. IF they are two consenting adult human beings. No animals or children! That seems to trigger some rather interesting debate at my house…

Trent…as one who has a little experience butting heads with the local conservatives,I feel your pain. OTOH,if you go to some of the liberal sites you will often see the same attitude except in reverse of course. This leads me to believe that the variable is not left/right but the degree of partisanship involved. Those that are wedded to political positions can’t see any logic in opposing views while those whose positions are informed or tempered by pragmatism will at least allow the possibility that there is more than one way to look at an issue.

Folks who are more partisan tend to be more interested in political blogs than folks who are less so its not surprising that you run into the situation that you describe. I have seen conservative opinions adjusted here just as my own views have changed as a result of discussions at SA so it does happen. If nothing else,you should stay for the door prizes and free snacks.

I do not want to speak for rob however, I think he has said that he considers himself more in line with the right and I have seen him do it, and I think he can provide a ton of examples of others here who have

 

Yeah that shit really gets under my skin. I am so in the middle it is not even funny. Maybe it is just that I am too much of a wuss. I have met very few people that a truly all right or all left. Unfortunately I have met many that feel they have to put somebody in that box to "make" their points though. Trent’s post was just another example of that just coming the other way. 

You’re not agreeing with anything I wrote.  As far as "curves and potholes" are concerned, the desperate lefties in the Dem Party and the MSM have ratcheted up the level of lying to a very high degree, but the truth will always come out, even if it has to be declassified.

Shungles & Carrick

Nice conversation and excahnge of ideas. Sounds to me like smart comments.

Iraq is indeed very much like the old Yugoeslavia with one major diference … Oil……

It was fullish in my opinion to risk a war in this region. Wars tend to bring the "law of unintended concequences", and we are witnessing a classic example of such law. Bush Sr could have invaded Iraq in no time at all. The old Bush did not do it simply because he would not risk the well being of our nation in some trow of the dice. Jr. on the other hand turned out to be a gambler… with our money, and the lives of our man in uniform… And he is loosing the bet…. And we will pay the price.

Iraq will split up indeed. The only question is if the split will turn from civil war into a regional war with catastrophic economic consecuences for the entire world. 

The Kurds in the North will not go back to Iraq. They have lived independently from Iraq for over a decade. Their schools do not even teach in Arabic any longer. The Kurds will never give up their massive militia (The Pashmerga). The only way they will agree to take part in a "Coalition Government" is if they are given Regional Authonomy, control of Kirkuk, and the oil revenues that their region produces.

The Shiite will want to take control of Iraq, but will find it impossible with the Sunni minority feeling threatened and fighting a war of attrition with them. They will increasingly turn to Iran for help. This is whay I say it can turn into a Regional war.

The coalition government even if it is finally formed will not last very long. Iraq is to divided.

As for our troops, they are being pull out quietly. Today we have 30,000 less soldiers than last year. The startegy of this administration is to PR the war until they run out the term.  

robert108 said:

The American lefties are so completely frightened that GW will get credit for any of his many accomplishments, the foremost being his success in Iraq.  They are so frightened that they keep up this steady barrage of lies about what is going on there, like a child holding his ears and shouting "la la la la la" to keep from hearing the truth.  It’s actually funny to watch.

——————————

 Any and all of GW’s successes are negated when a soldier comes home in a body bag.  Why?  It’s because GW started a war based on faulty intelligence with the prodding of men, such as Dick Cheney, who promoted a war in Iraq even before he took office.

 Your infallible GW led us into a war based on premises that have since been proven to be false.  No WMDs, no imminent attack on the US.

 Now he justifies the war because we are fighting terrorists there…as if the terrorists were there before we showed up.  They weren’t….not any more than the terrorists are HERE.  The terrorists are in Iraq because WE are in Iraq.  We didn’t kill THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqis because the country harboured terroists.

 The actions of your GW have resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.  Those people have as much a right to life and the pursuit of happiness as you or I.  Explain to them how we went in for phantom WMDs and stay now to fight terrorists who weren’t there before we were.

 Dupre

It provides a modicum of balance, that’s why.  Can’t you figure that out?  On your side: CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC and PBS.  On our side, part of Fox.  Any questions?  BTW, your side is equivalent to "Pravda", in the sense of representing the Soviet point of view, not in its meaning, which is "truth".  That would be our side.

I never said "infallible";  that’s your invention. 

Trent: If you have been reading the leftie blogs, you would see that they are starting to advocate violent action to further their leftie agenda.  What do you make of that?

Trent:  One by one:

 "i’m a fierce moderate."  Please explain.

 "So you think we’re all batshit crazy and we all think you’re batshit crazy."  Your words, not mine.

"But Robert, it’s a false premise to assume that you’re side if right and we’re all wacko un-Americans, something i strongly resent."  I said specifically that I considered the national Dems to be anti-American, but individual dems were another matter.  Didn’t you read that?

 "First off, we call it warrantless wiretapping."  It’s not wiretapping, it’s monitoring of microwave frequencies.  Not as good for a soundbite, but true.  That was my exact point.  In the lust for a "Get the President" soundbite, the MSM lies.  In time of war, and partisan security leaks, oversight can be fatal.  That is why the President has executive powers in time of war.  The national Dems can’t be trusted when it comes to security.  They would rather have a juicy soundbite for their political agenda.  They have proved this time and time again.

 "cannot rule out the possibility", "apparantly", "intimation";  there you go again.  Nothing solid, but since it agrees with your agenda, you convict the President out of your lust for control and power.  This is the essence of partisanship.

" the guise of "war on terror"".  The war on terror is real.  Another partisan giveaway.  You would deny what is painfully obvious just to have something else with which to Get the President.  That’s the anti-American agenda showing itself again.

I don’t believe in the values that lead your side to declare a jihad against our President.  I hold that to be anti-American, especially in time of war.  You people seem to hate our President more than you hate Saddam Hussein, and that is very revealing. 

MikeA:  Thought you would enjoy that.  I meant somewhere in the middle between extreme left(anarchy) and extreme right(dictatorship/monarchy), of course.  I do think the founding principles of America are rather moderate, though.  Not in the leftward-distorted political discourse of the day, but over the sweep of history. 

 

 

I know that is your view, since you are a leftie partisan.  Their reporting is heavily biased to the left.  Check our NewsBusters.com sometime.  They use the words of the MSM plus videos to make their points.

The partisanship.  I didn’t mean it as criticism, just stating a fact.  You don’t see the bias in the MSM because you agree with their point of view.  One example:  Calling the monitoring of the frequencies used to place calls to and from know Al Qaeda telephones is called "domestic spying", "wiretapping" and "eavesdropping" in the MSM.  That is lying to serve their agenda of "Get the President".  If you want to get the President, you don’t notice the bias, because you agree that the President is bad, so the nicetie that the labels are untrue just doesn’t matter.  The end justifies any means.  I call you a leftie partisan because you don’t see the bias of the MSM. 

As a conservative, I am a moderate.  Righties are those who advocate military dictatorship or theocratic dictatorship.  There are very few of them in this country.  I advocate the founding principles of this country.  It is only from the leftie partisan point of view that you consider me a "rightie partisan".

The Republicans and Democrats used to have conservative, liberal and moderate elements within their parties.  IMO, the national Dems have been veering sharply to the left since Carter.  There are almost no real conservative or moderate Dems left in the national party structure anymore.  From the leftie perspective now, Republicans are all "right-wing extremists", but that is another lie.  Their going left(centralized govt, higher taxes, anti-business regulations-the general embracing of European socialism) does not automatically make those who disagree with them "right-wing".  I’m not wild about the Republican Party, but it is at least somewhat in line with basic American values.   I consider the Dems to be anti-American, at least on the national level.  Individuals are another matter.

If you have been reading the leftie blogs, you would see that they are starting to advocate violent action to further their leftie agenda.

First of all, it would take 5 minutes of the Free Republic site to find someone advocating violence.  But i don’t use that to paint all conservatives as violence prone.  They’re just nutjobs and they exist on both sides.

Having said that, my point is that Americans do not resort to violence to resolve political disputes. It just doesn’t happen.

Second of all, why do you call me a leftie partisan, as if it is a criticism, when you’re undeniably a rightie partisan?

What’s the difference between being a leftie partisan and a simple liberal or conservative or simple Democrat or Republican?

People on the left don’t view CNN, NBC or any of the others as particularly left-leaning.  (PBS being an exception.) If anything, they are viewed as mouthpieces of the corporate interests, which is essentially the conservative viewpoint.

Come on, CNBC is liberal??? 

What exactly do you see as being the liberal aspects of all of those networks? Because i just don’t see it.

 "cannot rule out the possibility", "apparantly", "intimation";  there you go again.  Nothing solid, but since it agrees with your agenda, you convict the President out of your lust for control and power.

Wrong. It’s not because these thing fit with my agenda, it’s because they offend my sensibilities as an American. I’m not out to get the President with any concocted issue because I don’t like him or because he’s a Republican. It’s starts with my serious objections with his policies and the damage that they are doing to this country.

This didn’t start with me not liking him. It started when he exhibited his incompetence. 

And going by the polls that went from 80% approval after 9/11 to 35% now, most of America have gone through the same thing. 

And by the way, it’s your party that makes shit completely out of nothing to take down a President to further their own partisan goals. That’s what we witnessed in the 90′s.

Thomas  Paine wrote "common sense" –   Joined the army and argued for a Republican form of Government under a constitution.

What basis do you type that American troops are "hunkering down".  Those words are demeaning to our warriors. 

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-full-picture.htm

 http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/enemies-within.html

Spreading words like that are not helpful to our Global War on Terrorism.

Charles Krauthhammer addresses the term civil war

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2006/03/24/191137.html

MikeA:  If the number of casualties were going up, that would be a bad sign;  since the numbers are going down(in all categories) that is now considered a bad sign by the lefties.  Doesn’t that seem a little bit odd to you?  Sounds like the lefties are interpreting any news according to a preset scenario.  Just a thought.

I do agree that today’s conservatives have difficulty adapting to changing circumstances. Things were fine during Bush’s first term but the second has featured so many curves and potholes that conservatives don’t seem to know if they’re coming or going.

It is much easier getting to the top than staying there. 

While the numbers are good, is this due to the Terrorists/Insurgents/Saddamists getting killed or quitting or is this due to a shift in method on their part. I guess killing Americans are fullfilling to these scum, but are they able to accomplish more by killing a schoolteacher than 5 or 10 US Soldiers?

docdave…I read the information here although the site is password protected. If I can’t find it free somewhere then perhaps I can mail email the report to you.

Richard, I haven’t read this whole thread… what do I consider myself?

Trent, is this the point at which, having failed to make an convincing argument, you take your ball and go home?