CNN's Zahn: "[Y]ou've got a lot of people out there saying ... if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed"
SUMMARY: CNN's Paula Zahn claimed that "a lot of people out there" are saying that "if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed."
During CNN's live coverage preceding President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address, co-host Paula Zahn claimed "a lot of people out there" are saying that "if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed." Zahn also purported to identify a "perception" that Democrats are "reactive, not proactive, that they have no agenda of their own, and ... that basically the only thing they're good at is blasting the president."
From Zahn's exchange with Democratic strategist Paul Begala during a special edition of The Situation Room:
ZAHN: Paul, let's talk about some of the challenges Democrats have to challenge tonight. And one is the perception that they're reactive, not proactive, that they have no agenda of their own, and we heard it in a briefing today, that basically the only thing they're good at is blasting the president.
BEGALA: Well, I wish they were better at that. I'd be happy if that's all that they did. But -- well, they're getting better. I think they're doing a smart thing, though. [CNN congressional correspondent] Ed Henry just said that they had a whole week of what they call "pre-buttals," and I was talking to them up on the Hill, and they understand that they can't beat the president on the night of the State of the Union. They said "We're going to win the State of the Union before he ever gets up on the podium." So now they've had a week where they've said, "Here's our plan on energy independence, here's our plan on cleaning up corruption." And they know that the president will command the stage tonight. But I suspect after the speech, in addition to [Virginia Gov.] Tim Kaine doing his -- whatever he's going to say [in the Democratic response], they're going to go at the president's credibility. The new Washington Post poll says 53 percent of Americans say the president is not honest and trustworthy. OK, last midterm election, 71 [percent] said he was. Now, the majority of country doesn't think he tells the truth. That could be deadly.
ZAHN: But security is still going to be a huge issue in this country, and whether you like it or not, you've got a lot of people out there saying, if you're Republican, we're going to keep the country safe, you know, if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed.
Just add Paula Zahn to the list of right wing media whores. CNN is becoming Faux Lite.
That is EXACTLY the perception, that Democrats are weak on security.
How many polls do you need to read to figure that out?
Leatherhelmet,
Spare me your tripe about DEMS being soft on security.
Dare to take a looksie: [link to www.awolbush.com]
Propaganda parrots like YOU may have that perception but that doesnt mean it is mainstream thinking or that a majority of Americans beleive that. You just WISH that were the perception as apparantly does Paula
This is the #1 reason Bush won the last election and the reason why the Republicans own Congress.
You can add the Murtha and Sheehan embarrassments to being on the wrong side of the NSA issue.
Real or not, Democrats are perceived as being untrustworthy to keep the people secure. You are on the wrong side of every single security issue.
Leatherhelmet quotes: "You can add the Murtha and Sheehan embarrassments to being on the wrong side of the NSA issue."
As for Congressman Murtha being on the wrong side of the Security Issue.......... Do you think for one moment that this burly, former Marine Colonel who earned his right to speak courageously in the rice paddies of Viet Nam, decorated and wounded twice AND was known as a Pentagon insider with the ears of the BRASS.............. WAS not given the GREEN LIGHT by the Military Chiefs to sound the alarm that THIS war was essentially breaking the ARMY in addition to unleashing potential military-judicial consequencesWHICH are a direct result of this ill-fated and illegal war into Iraq?????????????
The Pentagon has spent the last 25 years rebuilding the Army and Marine Corps in the wake of the Viet Nam boondoggle ONLY to have Iraq handed to them by the Bush administration and their NeoCon henchman with disastrous consequences in terms of morale, leadership and retention.
The fact that the BRASS were not in evidence at the SOTU speech tonight confirms this. Murtha was used as a conduit or spokespersom for levying the charges that they cannot publicly express!!!! This is also evidenced in a recent poll of the military expressing 53% approval of the PREZ, down significantly from its Pre-WAR standing of 70%.
Very well said Navy Guy. While the administration and its apologists talk tough, it is others like Murtha and that have to back up their foolish jabber. My guess is that Murtha had seen and heard enough from solders and officers dying because of a poorly planned exercise and had to speak out. That is what true heroism is all about.
watch a news conference where a marine dressed Murtha down for his lies.
I also watched Bush's numbers jump after Murtha announced his cut and run strategy.
Like anyone who chooses a side in an argument, Murtha probably does represent a minority of generals. But the polls show that Murtha is hurting the democrats and your chickenhawk propoganda doesn't make the left look any less weak on protecting our citizens.
Leatherhelmet quotes: " But the polls show that Murtha is hurting the democrats and your chickenhawk propoganda doesn't make the left look any less weak on protecting our citizens.
Your banal and vacuous statement as stipulated above must have been taken from the latest 'ChickenHawk' utterances of Sean Hannity OR maybe, 'Been to War' Bill O'Reilly, "ChickenHawks a la 'supreme'.
Murtha chose to make his statement concerning the futility of this war and its effect on the morale of 'boots on the ground' AFTER hearing first-hand of a returning Iraq-War 20 year-old VET whose father had died AND who had been blinded in combat. The unfortunate soul was living alone and receiving medical bills from bill collectors for wounds related to his injuries. No wonder, the VA has been gutted while the PREZ offers simple-sounding platitudes for our soldiers sacrifice while American Companies reap in unimaginable profits either through Republican-style cronyism, as in Halliburton or JUST plain-old thievery.
Meanwhile, our soldiers have to sift through rubbish piles in order to up-arm their ill-equipped HumVees which any soldier in a moments' notice will tell you is a coffin on wheels. As for your assertion that 'My ChickenHawk Propaganda' only strengthens the belief that the DEMS are weak on defense, it appears you have misconstrued the term, ChickeHawk. So in a spirit of enlightenment:
" Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Ya know, just like the Republicans in Congress and the Fox-News talking heads who falsely embellish their suppport for OUR TROOPS .......... And then by their very actions refuse to support wounded VETS when they return home............. And if the DEMS speak to these issues....... Well, Their 'cut and run cowards, and cannot secure the people.
Seems to me a simple Gallilean carpenter once said:
" Forgive them Father for they know not what they do".
Until these worms start taking care of those who have already served, they should keep this RNC crap to themselves. This administration has cut benefits for all veterans. Right now, the number of male and female Vietnam era veterans who are homeless is greater than the number of people killed in the war. One in three homeless adults in this country are veterans. On any given day about 250,000 veterans are living on the streets or in shelters. (Info from the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs)
[link to www.floridavets.org]
Murtha never said cut and run and, as far as I know, most Democrats haven't said cut and run either. Some democrats have even suggested that we went to Iraq with not enough troops. The only thing you can say about most democrats is that they don't approve of the way this war has been managed. If we don't get a handle on this soon, it will just get a lot worse.
As long as the media spreads misinformation about how dissent invites bombings, things will never change. We will then have a new crop of veterans who we can watch die on our streets.
You mean it was democrats telling LIES about Iraq? No, that was Bush, and a majority of Americans understand this. Was invading Iraq worth it? YOU think so, a majority of Americans disagree. No, we are NOT on the wrong side, we just dont LIE as well as your side. Americans are catching on to this, notice a majority want Bush IMPEACHED if he authorized warrantless wiretaps, which YOU speak of as an embarrassement. YOU guys are on the wrong side of every freedom issue. YOU want a dicatator. Americans dont. Keep telling yourself those polls showing Americans by a HUGE margin think the US is headed in the wrong direction dont mean anything. Bush has been a walking catastrophe, his numbers are the real embarrassment, that and your propaganda parrot talking points that only you diehard hate reality morons believe. Try some reality with that koolaid, it will make a nice change for you
You ask, "Was invading Iraq worth it?"
This depends entirely on the COST, and what value is placed on a variety of things.
First off, what have we GAINED? What have we "bought" that is worth anything?
Iraq is no longer a "threat" to the USA. But, we now know Iraq was NEVER a threat to the USA, so this gains us nothing.
We are killing SOME terrorists, who have gone to Iraq because that's where our soldiers can be shot at and blown up. Yet, there are MORE terrorists NOW than when we started this war. Breeding MORE terrorists is certainly not "worth it". There have been MANY MORE and more deadly terrorist attacks world-wide SINCE we invaded. The world does not thank us for this.
We are killing some insurgents, which adds to the instability of the region, and we've killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, which has poisoned our image with the people of that nation.
So, what have we really GAINED? "DEMOCRACY" in Iraq? Like the democracy in Iran? Or Palestine? Free elections do not work to our advantage like Bush assured us would be the case. Nothing gained THERE.
Where is democracy blooming in the MidEast? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Libya? Try NOWHERE! Nothing gained there either.
Iraq IS pumping at least 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day, and at $68.35 a barrel, this is almost $140 MILLION DOLLARS that SOMEONE is gaining. EVERY SINGLE DAY. Who IS it? Looks like EXXON is doing great, as is Amoco, as is Halliburton (which has contracts for much more than oil services). BIG MONEY is being made, by SOME. So that's a gain, right?
And the guys who make guns and tanks and ammo and things ... being depleted at a grand rate, good business there as well.
So, let's summarize: Somebody friendly with Bush is making obscene amounts of money. Other than that, no gains (if we have gained anything, why can't our soldiers LEAVE?)
Now, COST. It's cost us well over $300 BILLION so far. Those claims that Iraq's OIL would pay for taxpayer funding? Nope. Not happening, not GONNA happen. You want to see Iraqi Oil Dollars, get ahold of an Exxon quarterly report.
It's cost us world status; the world's supposed greatest superpower is mired in a VietNam type civil war, and cannot stamp out insurgents. Plus, we haven't caught Bin Laden, and Bush doesn't even CARE any more.
Then there's the 2240+ LIVES of our brave American soldiers, sacrificed in the hopes that somehow, this thing might be "worth it". Then there are the 18,000+ who are maimed and dismembered, who will never be the same, because Bush sent them to war to find Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn't exist. Oh, and without the proper armor, either.
So, Solon, Some will say it's been "WORTH IT". These are the folks who place NO value on America's soldiers, NO value on our lost treasure which could have been used CONSTRUCTIVELY, NO value on America's place in world esteem, and see NO problem with the perniciousness of cronyism. It's all good, baby!
Those who approve the war do not recognize that they have lost much. They also place no value on Constitutional RIGHTS, which are another dire casualty of this war.
If you value our soldiers, our esteem, our rights, and ETHICS in general, you cannot see how this war has been anywhere NEAR "worth" the cost, and it shows no signs of ever getting better.
So it depends. If you can shrug off massive deaths of our soldiers and innocent "collaterals", then you have nothing invested. OF COURSE it seems "worth it", because we're at WAR, and that's so MACHO. It's a real ego-booster. Plus, it's such a great PARTISAN thing, having one of your own "in charge", and swinging the big bat. It's a finger in the eye of those cowardly wussies like Kerry, Murtha, and Max Clelland.
That should have been the democratic response to the State of the Union BS of last night. Consider becoming a speech writer!
If more dems could articulate like you Tex the country wouldn't be in such a mess!
You are so right, it is the old game public cost, private profit. This time the cost is in blood as well as money
Bush was losing on Iraq -- by his own declaration part of the "war on terror". And in the "war on terror" he is only 7 points up down from 23 in October according to CNN. So, I say there is little difference in perception of security except for Neo-Cons who want to keep the White House and Congress. And not because they are interested in protecting the citzens of the US -- check that Katrina response and the last bipartisain 9-11 Commission report (grade failing).
P.S. -- Before you spout try wearing a real helmet when you play football. It will help protect that there thinking cap.
"A LOT OF PEOPLE" are saying, and HAVE been saying since just after 9/11, that Democrats are "WITH the terrorists".
What Zahn should have elaborated about is that "LOT" of people are Republican operatives, Karl Rove-fed partisans, the President and Vice President, and the Rightwing Mainstream Media.
So, YES, a "lot" of people wish to equate supporting a Democrat with "wanting to get bombed".
Dick Cheney in fact ADMITTED that Bush is "the WRONG man" to be in the White House. He said in Des Moines prior to the 2004 election, "If we make the WRONG choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
Think about that. America's citizens made the RIGHT choice in the year 2000, but were overruled by the Supreme Court, who made the WRONG choice. And Cheney was RIGHT: Making the WRONG choice helped ensured a devastating HIT on 9/11. How can we argue, with such evidence, that the choice that is made for our leadership will have devastating results?
In 2004, if you believe the Diebold machine counts, America indeed made the WRONG choice ... again. Another disaster ensued, this time a natural disaster, and again, the Presidential response to Katrina was "Heck'uva'job" Brownie, who was virtually worthless.
Again, the consequences of making the WRONG choices had disasterous consequences for Americans.
To make a statement that inflames without even a stat to back it up is unintelligent and partisan. Sad that either of those are coming from a supposed unbiased "news" person.
Kind of makes you long for the pre honor and integrity days that journalists once had. CNN is selling out to be the Faux News lite of cable news networks.
Journalists believe that if they couch the point being made phrasing it as "A lot of people say..." that this makes the point valid. Of course a lot of people say one thing or another, but to promulgate the idea that one or another party would cause terrorists to act is silly. They don't CARE. It's the very definition of terrorist.
As I recall, Paula, the Democrat got 500,000 more votes than the Republican in 2000, and we got "bombed". And that Terror Color Alert ain't down to blue or green yet, last time I checked.
we had a democrat who paid constant attention to the problem of terrorism, bill clinton. we have a republican who did less than nothing and ignored every warning, george bush. these media flacks don't seem to want to remember who had been president for eight months when 9-11 happened, and who sat in a classroom reading a children's book while we were under attack. it's really a strange world we live in when the guy who completely failed to keep us safe gets the credit for doing so. and ms. zahn might want to remember the five republicans on the 9-11 commission, which recently gave the bush administration a failing grade on post 9-11 counterterrorism planning.
To all of those who contribute to this website, as well as those who avidly skim through its pages, when will you stop participating in the bipartisan battle that cripples the United States of America more and more every single day? When will you realize that there are far more than two schools of political thought, and that subscribing to any one as blindly as you is tearing the fabric of this country apart at its seams? Please, for America's sake, stop taking sides in this futile and endless battle the media has waged on the American people for decades. The battle you're fighting is only hurting yourself.
Zahn was saying what others are saying (mainly republicans)-not her personal opinion- that you have the headline to suggest
Paula's quote used as the heading of this topic is correct. This has been the Republican message for the past 4 years. Democrats are soft and Republicans are strong. It doesn't make it true or correct, but it is the perception Republicans have placed in the minds of the American people. If you vote Democrat you will die. When Al-Qaeda spreads this nonsense, we call it terrorism. When Republican's do it, we call it politics.
Leatherhelmet wrote: "This is the #1 reason Bush won the last election and the reason why the Republicans own Congress."
I typically don't agree with Leatherhelmet, but his is 100% correct. The #1 reason Bush won the last election was by scaring the American people to death. They continue to try and convince the American people they would die if they voted Democrat. The President couldn't win the election on sham policy issues like saving social security through investing in the stock market and irresponsible tax cuts during a time of war. First and foremost he had to keep fear in the hearts and minds of the American people.
Now he has us so shook up, people are rationalizing his lawbreaking as long as he makes them feel safe. He is protecting us by spying on us without first obtaining warrants.
Notice who the loudest voices are speaking out against the President? Those "cowardly" Democrats. Those "cowardly" Democrats are the ones trying to protect our way of life. They are putting their lives and reputations on the line defending the very principles our nation was founded on even though it may not be "popular".
It is the cowardly Republicans who would give up our liberty for a false sense of security. It is the administration cutting and running from disclosing the nature of the meetings between Jack Abramoff and the White House. It is the President cutting and running from Cindy Sheehan. It is the administration yanking reference to HSAs from the SOTU speech to avoid criticism of another sham policy proposal.
Republicans calling Democrats cowards is the biggest joke of the century.
Sorry, but Bush and the Republicans didn't hijack the country in 2004 because they were strong on terrorism. It was the "gay marriage scare" and more bluster about abortion and declarations about how "that other guy WILL BE weak on terrorism". None of it had to do with Bush's record. They couldn't even talk about it! They debate was mis-framed to deflect from #43's obviously incompetent execution of the office of President. Bush's reelection will go down in history as the greatest marketing campaign ever, how Rove and company sold the American people a turd sandwich that they happily ate. And to those who devoured with zeal I say: WAKE UP to reality. Bush has RUINED the country. Neutralize his myopic unilateralism for 2 years, vote Democratic, or in 2 years there won't be a USA, not after China forecloses on all the US debt they own.
You guys are giving these Air Heads on your television too much credibility. Journalism is not a profession. It's not like law or medicine or teaching. You don't have to pass any state mandated test to be in the media. There isn't any basic set of skills you have to prove that you know and understand to get on TV to pontificate, bloviate or otherwise blather lies and misinformation, whether your boss wrote it or you wrote it. The air heads on your TV (and your radio) are not journalists, they're entertainers. The last real journalist to leave TV was Bill Moyers. What you need to do is turn off the stupid television and stop listening to their propaganda and BS. Stop buying their programs, stop buying their papers full of lies and stop buying their soap, cars, toothpaste and feminine hygeine products. Stop feeding the beast.
I kept hoping that the Democrats would have grown some balls and would have walked out on Bush last night, but alas, nothing there either.
Real journalists graduate from college. Talking heads just show up on TV.
This question should concern you more: What qualifications are required of the people running our country (politicians)? Answer: zero qualifications. Jeez, you have to get a liscense to cut hair, but not to be a career politician.
Zahn's comment was that "people are saying.....". That is true. Republicans are spreading that message, and scared Americans are buying it. I don't believe that message for an instant, but I'm not an idiot.
Dear Ms. Zahn,
With that statement, on CNN's SOTU coverage, you have demonstrated that you don't get out enough.
I suggest, with measured diplomacy, that you need to meet new people. People not directly connected to politics, and more specifically the GOP, its lobbyists, and anyone who you work with. I think once these 'insiders', for lack of a better term, are excluded from your sphere you'll be more likely to meet genuine, more honest people who can see a larger picture.
How can you sincerely tar an entire mainstream political party with that statement? "Democrats want to be bombed"? Are you for real? The fact that you did it on the air, to the only Democrat on the panel, can be taken as clear evidence that your bias towards the RNC is favorable.
The larger picture I hope you seek out I will describe with a metaphor - Inbreeding.
I think your view is limited by a lack of contact with a more diverse group of people. How else can one explain your statement unless the qualifier "a lot of people" is read as "a lot of people [I talk to]"? You seem very detached from the reality on the ground in your country, Ms. Zahn, and that sad fact was broadcast last night.
It's a proven fact that Politicians use CNN/Fox to spread lies to the American People. The only course of action is to stop watching both. Watch your local news and stay away from cable news outlets that call themselves "The most trusted" or "fair & balanced" . There is so much evidence to the contrary it's hard to believe people still watch these people.
Or variants of it, as Paula used, have been a Fox News staple for years. People who accuse CNN of being blatantly left wing simply don't have a leg to stand on anymore.
Watch the film 'Outfoxed' and you'll see that they are absolutely notorious for using this little phrase over and over again.
"People are saying..." allows a journalist prop up the supposed popularity of a political position or opinion on a given issue without the use of any names, statistics, poll results or sceintific data of any kind.
This is nothing more than the irresponsible tactic of using journalism to push an agenda.
no better than a tabloid version of the events as they happen. turing a once-decent news station into Entertainment Tonight or Hollywood Insider. Not even comparable to Regis and Kathy Lee.
Will someone please challenge these pundits when they make these "some people say" type attacks on Dems?
Begala could have said, "We'll there are 11 Iraq veterans running for office this year and 9 of them are Dems. There is a much greater percentage of Dem Senators and Representatives who have served in the military then there are Republicans Sens and Reps who have. So why would anyone in their right mind think that the US is more likely to be bombed if Democrats get into power?"
How about this retort, "If Al Gore had been elected, chances are he would have been in Washington paying close attention to that memo indicating that Bin Laden planned an attack in the U.S. and chances are we would not have been bombed."
Try this. We'll we just had two reporters get bombed and over 2,200 soldiers killed, so what makes you think we aren't getting bombed?
I mean really, why do people like Paula always get away with making those irresponsible statements based on no facts, polls, or data other than 'some people say' without being challenged?
This is a follow up to my last comment. When I was working with Pastors who often got these comments from church council members, I taught them a strategy to deal with this underhanded tactic. I would tell them that if someone says, "Some people say...." your first response should be, "Well, tell me, exactly who said this. List their names for me please." Then if the person said, "Well, I'm not at liberty to say," you're next question is, "Well, then tell me. Do you agree with them? Does this reflect your actual opinion?" If they say, "no," you say, "Well then tell me, what do you think? Is what they're saying true or not." If they say "yes," then you respond is, "So what you're saying is that, you believe that if the Dems get in power we will get bombed. You're actually speaking for yourself."
This is called holding people accountable. Paul Begala and all Democratic pundits need to learn these tactics if they're going to go on these shows.
Scanning the posts here I see a certain theme re-appearing. Lets see if I have it right... Dems are the smart ones who are the patriots and defending the country and the Republicans are the dummies and traitors.
Also anytime anyone in the media or elsewhere contradicts the above self image of said Dems, they either have been bought by Republicans or the talking head has been secretly brainwashed by the criminal mastermind Rove into their "wrong headed" position. Is that correct?
I don't know.. Sounds a bit like group paranoia to me.
I think the point of this thread is that Paula Zahn echoed the familiar refrain that voting for Democrats means you are weak on "the war on terror" and this will cost American lives. This assertion is pretty remarkable considering: 1. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, 2. Bin Laden has not been captured under Bush, 3. The Iraq invasion has cost over 2400 soldiers' lives although it had nothing to do with 9/11.
To recap: Bush dropped the ball on 9/11 (Gore may have also, but he couldn't have done any worse in preventing it), has failed to capture the mastermind of 9/11, and has led us into an unwinnable conflict where thousands of U.S. lives have been lost with de minimus gains for our country. So yes, I do find it pretty amazing that repubs can keep parroting this tired concept that has no basis in reality.
cantseefade wrote: "To recap: Bush dropped the ball on 9/11 (Gore may have also, but he couldn't have done any worse in preventing it), has failed to capture the mastermind of 9/11, and has led us into an unwinnable conflict where thousands of U.S. lives have been lost with de minimus gains for our country. So yes, I do find it pretty amazing that repubs can keep parroting this tired concept that has no basis in reality."
What you fail to see is that your conclusions are based on your predetermined attitude. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but many people disagree.
First of all to state categorically that the war in Iraq is unwinnable, may be your opinion. It is only that. Many of believe it is winnable.
Second, while Bin Laden hasn't yet been caught, his terror ogranization is being sytematically hunted down and the top leaders killed or captured. Bin Laden hasn't shown his face in how long? Rome wasn't built in a day, and Al Queda won't be eliminated in one.. but the trend is there. Why do you think he wanted a truce?
Thirdly, many of believe there are many strategic and tactical gains by freeing Iraq from Saddam, setting up a democratic government in the Middle East, and defeating the islamofacist terrorists. To say there are only de minimus gains is just ideological wishful thinking.
By discounting some very plausible benefits in order to make your point show that you are so attached to your position that you seem not to recognize there are benefits to winning seems to me to be the denial of reality.
Zahn is reapeating the GOP dream talking point that " if you vote for a dem you basically want to get bombed'. Do you agree with that statement? If you do, it shows a huge disconnect with reality, and we can talk about it. If you DONT, then explain to me why dems shouldnt be a bit upset about it.
Solon,
Obviously nobody, including Democrats, want to be bombed. Zahn is speaking metaphorically.
The plain fact is, that by cutting and running in Iraq, as proposed by Murtha and the Dems will be a defeat for the U.S. Now you can say something like "immediate redeployment over the horizon" but everyone knows exactly what that means. Islamofacism will be emboldened and Iraq could very well again become a terrorist state.
The undeniable fact is that the liberal Democratic postion regarding Iraq, advocated by Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Dean, Gore, and Kerry has the same goal as Bin Laden, to get the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Your first post I answered, so you dont think those voting for dems want to be bombed so exactly why do you have a problem with dems being upset and counterattacking for that spin?
Your argument was a loser during Vietnam. We cant leave, our credibility is at stake, if we leave the communists will be emboldened and take over all of Asia. Recycled Vietnam arguments only show the weakness of your position. Either we were RIGHT to invade or we were WRONG. I think we had NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION for the invasion for that reason alone we should leave. The Iraqis want us gone, another good reason to leave. Didnt the invasion embolden the Muslim extremists? I mean there had NEVER been a single suicide bombing in Iraq before we came. We are killing people some of whom are doing nothing more than fighting foriegn invaders exactly as WE would do if a foriegn power invaded the US it is morally unsupportable. We will eventually leave, unless you are suggesting we stay there for decades any argument you make about what will happen if we leave will eventually happen. We are NOT going to kill all the terrorists in the world by staying in Iraq the idea that we should stay there for that reason defies logic. Bottom line the invasion was morally wrong, so staying there is compounding the morally unjustifyable.
As always, an interesting discussion.
As for your Vietnam analogy, many now believe, bolstered by evidence from the Communists, that the U.S. was winning in Viet Nam and would have won, had not "Uncle Cronkite" told us the war in Vietnam was unwinnable. At the time I was definitely anti-war. Now I see the bigger picture.
Some put the resulting death toll in Vietnam alone to be around 430,000 killed as a result of the U.S. leaving and the Communist takeover. That doesn't include the 1,650,000 in Cambodia from 1975 to 1978, or the 225,000 in Cambodia between 1978-91.
So I believe your Vietnam analogy is very flawed.
I also believe we were as morally justified in removing Saddam as we were in removing Musselini and Hitler. (We might have prevented 20 million deaths if we had continued and defeated Stalin. )
I would like the U.S. out of Iraq like anyone else. I know the pain of losing a child. I understand very well the sacrifice made on our behalf. I believe islamofacism is an evil and left unchecked they are intent on destroying civilization. We are still in Europe 40 years after the WWII, maybe we'll have to do the same in Iraq. I don't know. I think to pull out now will only lead to greater threats against us and the civilized world.
Okay.. I've had my two cents worth.. Gotta run. I'll enjoy reading your replies.
In a prior post you failed to mention just who said the war on terror was unwinnable. Surprise! It was also George W.
The media is leading the charge in this war and Paula Zahn is doing her part. Sure, blame Cronkite for Vietnam ending badly for us. If it weren't for Uncle Walter, we might not have just lost friends and brothers, but also our sons and daughters. How much longer were you willing for the Vietnam war to rage? Oh... that's right.. you were against the war back then, now you know the error of your ways. And now to boot, you thought we should have gone in after WWII ended and taken Stalin out. Do you realize how many more Americans would have died in WWII? A lot of us would not be here bickering over this war because it would have been our fathers and grandfathers being slaughtered fighting in the Soviet Union. And yes, we still have troops in Europe, but they are not targets for religious lunatics. The only difference between Saddam, Hitler and Mussolini is that WE helped create him.
At about 2 million. IF you seriously believe the Vietnamese were just about to give up in 1971 you have clearly lost all touch with reality. IF you had told me we needed to take out Saddam in 83 or 88 WHILE he was commiting his worst attrocities I most likely could have been convinced but we continued to strongly support him. In fact he used US targetting intelligence to use mustard gas against Iran. When we not only DIDNT cut diplomatic relations rather sold him MORE WMD precursers and gave him another billion dollar loan then we absolutly lost any moral suasion that we had a moral justification to take him out. Human Rights watch said there was no humanitarian justification for invading Iraq at the time of the invasion and there is no reasonable argument there was. Now in the Congo about 4 million people had been killed in the previous five years. Iraq was doing about 30 political killings a year. That makes him a butcher but at that time its a pretty low level butchery. Something like our allies Guatemala or Columbia. Since we are the country that supported Pol Pot AFTER his genocide it doesnt pass the laugh test to tell us we invaded Iraq because Bush suddenly found compassion for the poor suffering Iraqi people. No way any of this passes for a moral justification. It is an EXCUSE, and NOT the excuse Bush was selling at the time. It was all WMDs all the time which was a fantasy IF Bush really believed we had to take out Saddam for humanitarian reasons and let the American people decide if it were worth ONE AMERICAN LIFE. ALSO IF we were there for humanitarian reasons since 82% of Iraqis strongly oppose our presence isnt it time we leave? Or do we decide how much we get to help the Iraqis no matter WHAT they think?
Not only that but it's not based on reality but sounds more like a GOP fantasy than anything else.
The perception that Democrats are weak on defense can be traced back to Vietnam and especially since '72. The congressional Dems have regularly voted against military spending and against money for intelligence spending. Former Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara wrote basically an apology book for the missed opportunities of the Nam era.
During the Cold War, Russia had positioned nukes threatening Western Europe. What was the Dems response? Remember "Nuclear Freeze"? While Reagan countered the ruskies with mutually assured destruction, congressional Dems wanted to give the reds an advantage.
Then we get to our buddy Clinton. Military pay decreased an average of 2% per year relative to consumer price index over the same time. This is according to the Congressional Quarterly Almanac; 2000 pp. 2-29 & 2-46. Clinton also overturned the ASAT program in '96. This was a program started by the Eisenhower administration and first successful tests were done under the Kennedy admin. Project Mud Flap was the initial test and it was continued under different names until Clinton.
Clinton was especially opposed to the Army's Kinetic Energy Anti-Sat program (KE-ASAT). Even though this was pushed by the JCOS, Clinton was opposed. Congress appropriated $30 mil for it in '96, but Clinton tried to rescind the money.
The Democrats are Doves. Paula just voiced it in a metiphorical phrase. When the Dems can honestly look in the mirror and agree on who they are and what direction the party is going to go (not just support the troops, but support the military machine) then don't act so shocked that people inherently understand that they will be better protected under the Republicans watch.
Hogprint concludes: " When the Dems can honestly look in the mirror and agree on who they are and what direction the party is going to go (not just support the troops, but support the military machine) then don't act so shocked that people inherently understand that they will be better protected under the Republicans watch.
So, by MILTARY MACHINE, you are referring to what the last REAL REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, 5 STAR ARMY GENERAL and SUPREME COMMANDER ALLIED FORCES, Dwight Eisenhower admonished US to be on guard against in his 1960 farewell speech to the NATION to wit:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the 'military-industrial complex'. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Ike knew full well what such a pernicious and odious placement of such a complex labyrinthe would have on the American mind-set. AND why not? He had witnessed modern-day industrial societies geared to full mobilization of their industrial capacities which had resulted in over 100 million deaths, primarily civilian in the short span of some six years. However, today we can accomplish that feat in a mere matter of minutes. America has lost her moorings by failing to reign in the genie of its own undoing ... AND by doing so is looking for enemies in order to continue the unfettered quest today for EMPIRE. This collosus of misplaced allegiance and loyalty wherby the citizens treasury is sapped to the tune of half a TRILLION DOLLARS..... NOW EXCEEEDS the combined defense outlays of the next ten industrialized nations on earth. SO, has this support made US any safer, any wiser OR has it caused emerging nations with poulations that exceed OURS by amagnitude of 10 to look upon US with fear, trepidation and scorn??
In the end, WAR is a ZERO SUM GAME. We are simply upping the ante and have brought a loaded gun to the card table.
"Keep up the denial . . . This is the #1 reason Bush won the last election and the Republicans own Congress. Real or not, Democrats are perceived as being untrustworthy to keep the people secure. You are on the wrong side of every single security issue." - Leatherhelmet
Actually, I think the #1 reason Bush stole the last election had something to do with those funny Diebold machines, you know, the ones some people said counted a vote for Kerry as one for Bush . . . but I digress . . . democrats on the "wrong side" of every security issue?
Was FDR on the wrong side during WWII? Was Kennedy on the wrong side during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Was Carter on the wrong side when he negotiated a treaty between Rabin and Sadat in 1979?
"First of all, to state categorically that the war in Iraq is unwinnable, may be your opinion. It is only that. Many of believe it is winnable." - AnotherAmerican
Too bad one of those people isn't Bush: "I don't think you can win it." - President Bush's reply to Matt Lauer in an interview on the war on terror, 30 April 2004
"Second, while bin Laden hasn't yet been caught, his terror organization is being systematically hunted down and the top leaders killed or captured. bin Laden hasn't shown his face in how long? . . ." - AnotherAmerican
Well, he hasn't shown his face, but we've heard his voice {again} just over a week ago . . . funny how that always seems to happen whenever GWB takes a dip in the polls . . . and which "top leaders" are you referring to? Can't be al-Zaqwari; we just caught him on video a couple of days ago basically taunting us after we "missed" him in strikes in Pakistan.
As for Paula, Katie, Andrea, and the other life-sized Cabbage Patch Dolls who pass for female network news anchors these days, all they are doing is repeating the Rove-fed rightwing talking point on demonizing and marginalizing any opposition that emanates from the WH and is disseminated via Faux News and the Conservative News Network, with plenty of spin by usual shills O'Reilly, Matthews, Carlson, Coulter, et. al.
"if you vote Democratic, you basically want to be bombed . . ." What BS. Leatherhelmet and AA, if you think the Dems/left is so weak on national security or are "doves," please read the following:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. Its not that important. Its not our priority." - GWB, 13 March 2002
Now, what was that on Dems being "weak on national security?"
Sheesh!
The proof that Bush stole the election is that there is no proof he stole the election.
Hahaha.. The Diebold machine theory ranks right up there with aliens crashing in Roswell.
Checking. One. Two. Three.. Reality Check...
...because on both points, I think she states the truth, and there is support from the Democrat on one of them. She is not personally ascribing to these positions, but rather stating correctly that they are perceptions, and inquiring about them with a Democratic election strategist. That's what she should do.
Taking the statement that "you've got a lot of people out there saying, if you're Republican, we're going to keep the country safe, you know, if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed" first.. That statement is unquestionably true. I live in an area that is relatively liberal, and I know at least a dozen people, all sane and reasonably well employed, who would agree 100% with that statement at the Federal election level. It also was Zahn's point -- also accurate -- that this is exactly the Republican strategy, to reinforce and spread that belief.
As to the statement that "perception that they're reactive, not proactive...", not only does Begala seem to agree, many Democrats agree that such perception is an issue for the Democratic party. A quick Yahoo search found several Democrats so stating, including an Alabama congressman and Senator Stabenow of Michigan.