Wash. Post's Murray, Weisman echoed media suggestion that pro-war = "pro-military"
A July 8 Washington Post article by Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman on Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) and Rep. Dan Boren's (D-OK) views on the Iraq war reported that President Bush "needs the support of pro-military lawmakers such as Boren." The Post's characterization of Boren fits into the media's common practice of labeling those who supported the Iraq invasion or oppose withdrawal of U.S. forces as "pro-military" or supportive of the troops. As Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, here, and here), such characterizations suggest that those who opposed the war or now support withdrawal are somehow "anti-military" or not supportive of the troops.
This is not the first time the Post has conflated war support with support for the military. For instance, since Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) -- who had previously supported the war -- called for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq in November 2005, the Post has repeatedly referred to him as "pro-military" in news articles and on the paper's website, suggesting that his current advocacy for withdrawal is inconsistent with his "pro-military" views. Similarly, a November 29, 2006, Post article described Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) as a "strong-on-defense" Democrat. Further, Post columnist David Broder asserted in a June 6 column that Democrats have little "sympathy for" the military.
From the July 8 Washington Post article, headlined "On Iraq, No Simple Stands":
Can Sen. Olympia J. Snowe wait until September? Can Rep. Dan Boren?
In the congressional battle over the war, these two moderates represent the Iraq debate's fragile center, a confluence of conscience and political calculation where the fate of U.S. policy may be determined over the next three months.
[...]
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) is wary about the Iraqi government but invokes the smell of jet fuel from the Pentagon fire on Sept. 11, 2001, when he warns of the consequences if the United States leaves Iraq precipitously. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), an antiwar activist, is torn between her desire to bring about the quickest possible end and new pressures, as a member of the House leadership, to be a team player for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Snowe gave up on the war a year ago but has so far rejected Democratic deadlines for troop withdrawals. In Boren's mind, he isn't qualified to dictate war policy to the commander in chief. So far, Isakson is willing to wait for the September report. But like most Republicans, he expects the Iraqi government to deliver on at least some of the benchmarks for progress that Congress established in May.
Bush so needs the support of pro-military lawmakers such as Boren that the White House has established a dedicated liaison for the Oklahoma Democrat, complete with a private phone number. Whatever Isakson's concerns, he thinks Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) gravely miscalculated when they targeted war funding legislation for fights over troop withdrawal. He recounted one e-mail from a soldier during the heat of the debate: "Please tell the Democrats, I am the damn war."
BTW!! Autosidekick... My definition of 'holy' is YOU after being buck-shot by logic and facts yesterday and today...
'.. I am the damn war...'- yep- and you are fighting the wrong people, unfortunately... the dems know this, the republicant's don't...
Remember, Mr. L, this alleged email may have been from a young soldier who gets nothing but several hours of Rush Limbaugh every day.
Not sure if you're alluding to AFN, but Rush gets only ONE hour every day. If the soldier is stateside then you made the point.
I stand corrected, Hogprint. It may just seem like several hours.
Regardless, had we only known that "he IS the war", we could end it right now by just bringing him home. Hoodathawt it was that simple?
And who might the "right people" be?
The Democrats don't have the starch to fight anyone of consequence, as we saw during the entire duration of the Clinton Presidency. The notion that this lot of hand-wringing wimps can somehow mount the resolve to use military force in any situiation in which vital American National interests are actually at stake is ludicrous. THEY couldn't even get the job done in Mogadishu, where NO significant American interests were at stake.
And Republicans dont have the sense to fight a war correctly yet are committed to getting as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq.
Staements such as this are evidence that you are delusional. In case you don't know what delusional means, it is a symptom of mental illness.
Its not a mental disorder its called logic it is the exact same kind of mischaracterizations YOU are using. It isnt my fault you are incapable of higher brain function so you SEE it as a mental disorder. Hopefully the day will come that you can RECOGNIZE higher brain function sadly actually performing it is probably far beyond your abilities.
Mischaracterizations .... let me see. You are the cowar ... err man that says that Republicans want to send our young men off to war to see them die. that statement speaks for itself. Q.E.D.
And you are the ignoramus who said this
The Democrats don't have the starch to fight anyone of consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>
My statement has at least as much reality as this bilge. Then againg you are SOOOO stupid you perhaps think that we are obligated to just take your lies and stupidity without returning serve. Not going to happen. If you are going to do these kind of mischaracterizations, I will absolutly return with the same thing. We all know that bereft of any ability to actually think spouting insulting BS is the best you can do and that GOD gave you the exclusive franchise on the practice. Well its easy, and he didnt, so I will just return it. The fact you squirm like the moron you are when I do so just makes it that much sweeter.
The people of consequence -like Bin Laden and al Qaeda- were in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. Iraq is a tremendous distraction from the real job-at-hand, thanks to this incompetent, corrupt and lyiing administration.
America's "vital interests" were NOT at stake in the least with regard to Iraq. Iraq had no weapons, no al Qaeda, and they didn't attack us or our allies.
I feel sorry for you dead-enders, the 26% who still delude themselves. But my real sorrow is for the thousands who have died for Bush and his enablers' mistakes.
The people of consequence? You mean Al Qaeda? According to Al Qaeda, there are 12,000 of their people in Iraq.
Whatever the state of affairs might have been 2003, there is no question that Al Qaeda is heavily invested in Iraq at the present.
If you truly believe that Zawahiri and bin Laden are in Afghanistan, then you are not too bright. It should be plainly obvbious to anyone that teh Al Qaeda leadership cross international boundaries at will and have safe houses in several countries, possibly including Iran.
Tell be dead ender, which of America's vital interests is at stake in Afghanistan? Zero, nada, nil, not one.
Iraq, on the other hand, was a haven for an assortment of terrorists who had killed Americans prior to 2003, among them, Abu Nidal [murder of Peter Kilburn, attack on Pan Am flight 73], Abu Abbas [murder of Leon Klinghoffer abord the Achille Lauro], Zarqawi [fought in Afghanistan obn behalf of the Taliban 2002] and Abdul Rahman Yasin [1993 WTC bombing]. It is in the center of the Middle East oil belt, both geographically and politically and its population is easily the most westernized of the major oil states.
You NEVER know what you are talking about. Repitition of long debunked talking points is all you are capable of. So Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists? Like Abu Nidal who was killed by Iraqi security forces and Abbas of course the Senate comittee that looked into this said they had no evidence Saddam even knew he was there. We DO know that the 9/11 hijackers were in Florida by your logic that means we ought to invade Florida. I dont think even most warmongers would think THAT was a good idea. You have no idea where Ben Laden is, just like you have no idea about, well, virtually anything. If he WERE in Iraq it would be a good reason to get him, if he were in Florida it would be a good reason to get him NOT to launch further attacks on Iraq OR Florida. We can keep forces in the area and write an agreement WITH the Iraqi government that allows us to attack any terrorist camps in Iraq. That doesnt take an ongoing invasion. Your ability to record and regurgitate rightwing talking points is pretty good, your logic however, not so much. In fact it seems non-existant
---"According to Al Qaeda, there are 12,000 of their people in Iraq."---
2001: zero al Qaeda
2007: 12,000 al Qaeda
The value of George Bush's failed Iraq policy to al Qaeda's recruitment drive: priceless.
---"If you truly believe that Zawahiri and bin Laden are in Afghanistan, then you are not too bright."---
No one said they ARE in Afghanistan. But right-wingers with minimal mental capacities frequently consider themselves capable of judging the intelligence of others, so don't feel singled-out.
According to our own military, they WERE in Afghanistan. And then George Bush launched his neocon-driven Ultimate Struggle for Good in Iraq to make the world safe from Saddam and his horrible caches of mushroom-cloud WMDs.
Now here we are four years later and tens of thousands dead. No bin Laden. No WMD. No end in sight. Dead-enders who actually want *others* to fight in Iraq indefinitely so that more and more are killed. To those sad, delusioned people, not enough have died in Iraq.
bush couldn't get the job done at tora bora. we had bin ladin pinned down to pretty much a small area. all we had to do was cut off the border into pakistan, but they sent mercenaries to do the job. who either probably did not mind seeing osama escape, or accepting a large bride to let him. but after all, bush did tell us he wasn't too concerned about bin ladin. you bush worshippers believe everything the man tells you. why do you refuse to listen to the very words out of his own mouth.
So you are much more clever than military intelligence and you know exactly where bin Laden is hiding? Produce some evidence of this beyond the opinions of your fellow ignoramuses. This report says he is in Pakistan. This has some credibility because the ultimate source, Schroen, has put his name to this opinion. This is not the commentary of MMFA's favorite source, Mr. Anonymous or his brother, Mr. Unnamed.
Personally, I think you would be significantly less effective than Bush has been in leading a campaign against bin Laden since it is clear you know far less about where he actually might be than Bush does.
hello, are you replying to my post? because you did not reply to what i said. i did not claim to know where he was. i said we knew where he was at tora bora, and let him get away because the border with pakistan was not secured. [in other words, genius, he went from afghanistan into pakistan] i also said that bush has made the statement that he was not that concerned about bin ladin. he did make that statement. next time reply to what i said, not your strawman points.
You said we could have captured OBL in Tora Bora. You have offered no supporting evidence of the truth of this statement whatsoever.
I think you are full of donkey dung and have provided a reference to demonstrate this point.
==> you lose.
Maybe he doesnt know you like the rest of us and didnt realize you were so incredibly ignorant you didnt know this well established fact. Do you need corroboration the sky is blue while I am at it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16
The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.
Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.
The title of this article, as well as it's entire context, is the Iraq War. Anyone reading this piece would hardly be confused as to what "pro-military" is referring too. To parse or nitpick over this is a little silly.
I agree. The Post is clearly talking about members of Congress who are normally hawkish on military issues but now support withdrawing from Iraq. The two Congress people who the post were talking about now support withdrawing from Iraq. If Media Matters were correct in their claim that the media calls supporters of the Iraq War "pro military" and opponents of the Iraq War "anti-military, then the Post would be labeling the two Congress people "anti-military."
So if "hawkish" clears up the discussion, why not just use that term in the first place?
It might be a little loaded, but it is more accurate, and I can't think of another unloaded term for "pro-use-force-to-promote-our-diplomatic-goals."
Yeah, I see what you mean. It probably would have been more accurate for the Post to say a couple of "hawkish" Congress people now want to get out of Iraq. Republicans in Congress are actually coming out in droves against the war now. I think that if Bush keeps his current policy going it will be another bad year for the Republicans in 2008. Pulling troops out of Iraq may not be good policy but it's certainly good politics. It may be the only way a Republican can win the White House in 2008. I think Bush realizes this, and that's probably why even he's been talking about troop withdrawals after September.
Good, clear-headed analysis, RH. I know that may seem like it was intended as sarcasm considering our history of animosity, but I mean that sincerely.
: )
Thanks. I think you might have a little disagreement with my post on the next page, however.
I'll get to it soon enough...maybe. Just sharpening my elbows.
; )
I agree with Open mind that was honest. I think it is the beggining of good policy too but that is for another thread
uh rino, why is pulling troops out of iraq not good policy?
Because if we simply withdrew all of our troops at once from Iraq, it would embolden Al-Quaeda, and the country of Iraq would descend into chaos. Al-Quaeda would have a safe have there much like they did in Afghanistan before 9-11. They would get a lot of money from the oil there to conduct their terrorist operations. We're obviously going to have to get out of Iraq eventually, but I just don't think it can be all at once. It's going to have to be a phased withdrawal over MANY YEARS. Otherwise, Iraq will descend into chaos and Al-Quaeda will have free reign in that country. I hope that we start withdrawing troops sooner rather than later and force the Iraqi army to stand up, but I think that it needs to be a PHASED withdrawal over several years.
You make a lot of assertions there that you cannot possibly back up. First al Queda was not active at ALL in Iraq before the invasion. Iraq was a pretty modern country for the middle east. They had women doctors, women college profesors, the first woman judge was sworn in 1959. They had nightclubs. The Iraqi people are the best educated in the Islamic middle east. We could easily make agreements to allow us to attack any terrorist bases IN Iraq in the future. The government would be happy to make such an agreement as it is in THEIR best interest. Perhaps Iraq will have a time of chaos as they shake out their internal problems that was a monster we let out of the box as soon as we invaded but the Iraqi people WANT US GONE. The polls show this is true. We are killing them now. The sooner we leave the sooner they can settle their differences and you have NO way of knowing how bad that will be. Do I need to remind you how BAD a record you rightwingers have on predictions about Iraq? Even if the killings increase (and hey its not like things are all hunky dory there NOW) but it lasts less time the toll can still be less for them in the longrun. The thing is YOU DONT KNOW. What we DO know is that as long as we stay we ADD to the equation of violence AND. THEY. WANT. US. GONE. The argument that we dont care what the Iraqis think we are staying there for their own good is arrogant and frankly stupid. Its not UP to us to decide for THEM what is best for THEM. It is a disengenuous argument. I am sure it sounded good to you, but it makes no sense when really considered.
"First al Queda was not active at ALL in Iraq before the invasion"
I never said that they were. I'm just saying that they are NOW. And I'm not saying that we should stay in Iraq indefinetely. My position differs from Bush's. I just don't think that we can pull our troops out all at once. Do you honestly believe that it would be wise to pull all of our troops out all at once?
Yeah I do. I think bringing them home tomorrow is best for the US and Iraq. I think when you are beating a hornets nest its best to stop not slow down the tempo.
Again, the thinking that "we should bring the troops home tomorrow" is too black and white.
Consider redeploying some to Kuwait. Perhaps Saudi Arabia would allow more troops there. A couple of carrier task forces are in the area, too. Perhaps the Kurds in the north would welcome some troops there where things are more stable (at least for the moment until Turkey decides that an independent Kurdistan is too dangerous to Turkish stability.)
It's not necessary to bring everyone home. But for God's sake, get 'em out of the line of fire. They don't need to be right in the middle of a civil war. They can remain on the fringes and perform more surgical-like strikes at al Qaeda when intelligence makes it possible.
Right now, though, our troops are suffering more at the hands of Sunnis than anyone else.
thanks rino, i knew you would come up with the standard bush propaganda line. the same nonsense that's been proven wrong since the day we invaded. they don't want al qaeda there. they don't want the chaos that's going on now. it will be a mess for awhile when we withdraw, but that is inevitable. now or ten years from now.
We have repeatedly demonstarted that Al Qaeda is NOW in Iraq in force. Yet you, and the rest of nitwits here, continue to insist there will be no negative consequences to unilateral withdrawal from Iraq because there was "no AQ in Iraq before the Sept. 2003 invasion". Even if this obviously false proposition were true, it is irrelevant. All that maters today is the state of Iraq TODAY. i.e.: AQ is in Iraq in force. The state of Iraq 4 or even 40 years ago is no longer relevant. The best future course of action is dependent on the state of affairs today, not on what you wish it were or think it should be.
and the rest of nitwits here
How about acting like an adult?
My goodness you are stupid. Do we have to lead you by the hand and explain every little detail of a point to you? The reason we keep saying Iraq wasnt there until we got there is that it shows there is no evidence to suggest they will stay there after we leave or that the Iraqis want anything to do with them beyond getting rid of us. That is pretty simple to understand. Even al Queda was afraid of this a captured internal al Queda letter said so
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/100306.html
Atiyah told Zarqawi that “the most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.”
The “Zawahiri letter,” which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home
So keep pounding the propaganda. It doesnt make any sense but hey a propganda parrot like you has gotta do what a propaganda parrot does.
"The reason we keep saying Iraq wasnt there until we got there"
Wow, Iraq wasn't there until we got there? Man, we created an entire new country. I new that the U.S. is a great country, but I never kenw that we were capable of creating an entire country.
Sorry. Meant "knew."
Wow, you are right. I sure screwed that one up. Of course I meant the reason we keep saying al Queda wasnt in Iraq before we got there. I type so badly it is an embarassment. I am thinking three sentences ahead of what I write. I need to stop being lazy and start using the preview option
The fact remains, 'pro-military' in itself is ambiguous. I think it's irresponsible for any journalist to use it, especially during a war.
Wow, lazy journalists resorting to the use of subjective labels. This is probably not a first for journalism?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The title of this article, as well as it's entire context, is the Iraq War. Anyone reading this piece would hardly be confused as to what "pro-military" is referring too. To parse or nitpick over this is a little silly. / Tommy
I understand how you would see it that way Tommy, since you were fanning the flames when they were burning our Bill of Rights, dumping our standing with the world, and crapping on our honor as a whole by turning government into a tool for corporate profits, and perpetuated Republican One Party Rule!
I understand how changing the history, making up their own facts would not be an issue with you since it seems to fit nicely through that conservative filter in your head!
See the above-mentioned title to this post as in all of my posts until America's democracy is restored to her greatness for your path to redemption!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So, to use the term "pro-military" means I advocate burning our Bill of Rights? Wow, even for a democrat out to save our democracy - that is one absurd statement.
Perhaps you're the one whose been burning something you've been smoking a little too long........
No it isnt. I am sure the right loves the idea that their frames designed to make the opposition look weak or like Ghandian pacifists are used by the press but they are dishonest. I am sure you wouldnt be so cavilier if those who supported raising the minimum wage were called pro working man or those who supported increased welfare benifits were referred to as pro-children.
Tommy and Rhino, you have a point, but the framing of this is problematic... it's lazy and suggestive. I don't know that the press does it consciously.
It's ironic, too, since to really be pro-military you would work to get them out of the hell hole over there and fully fund veterans' benefits.
Without regard to the merits or lack thereof of any particular war, I do agree with your comment that "pro-military" should be applied to those who support veterans benefits and medical coverage in a far more significant way than the Republicans have to this point to my knowledge.
'Pro-military' shouldn't be used at all, whether it's to describe the warmongers or the peaceniks.
Maybe an act of Congress could decide who gets to use it, once and for all.
Good point those programs are indisputable advantageous for the people in the military.
Anti or pro war, or anti or pro military isn't necessarily directly correlated with specific regards to "get them out of the hell hole over there". That would have to be based on a variety of factors taken into consideration.
Perhaps you define terms differently. I cannot understand how pro military would mean leaving our troops in harm's way with no exit strategy.
I can see using the term "pro military industrial complex", which would treat the troops as if they were cannon fodder and unimportant.
For the record, being pro-military does not automatically mean removing them from harm's way, that was my point. You seem to be making that blanket assertion, I was merely suggesting otherwise.
I agree that it should be pointed out that politically when the term is used it does most often mean pro-military industrial complex just as when they use the term American interests it should be pointed out that it actually means corporate interests and not the interests of the overall population of the nation.
Letting the public know the true meaning and usage of words pulled out for the media is important to cut through the smoke and mirrors.
Maybe "pro military" refers to someone who wants to increase the size of the military, build up arms, increase military and defense spending, and ensure that we remain the #1 super power in the world. Many liberals support cutting funds from the military budget and doing away with our nukes and other weapons systems. They don't believe we have the right to be the #1 super power in the world. Most conservatives support increasing spending for the military, building up arms, and having a strong national defense. They believe that we should remain the #1 super power in the world. It isn't just about the Iraq War.
Then the media ought to say "proponents of increased military spending", or "those in favor of new weapons systems", or "those who support making the U.S. -not just a super-power- but a Mega-Ultra Biggest Boss of the Whole Giant Universe."
Not "pro-military".
Because I really don't know anyone at all who is anti, or against, a military. But I do know there are lots of different opinions and ideas about HOW and WHEN to use the military.
There was a liberal from San Francisco who was on Hannity & Colmes a few years ago who said that we should get completely rid of the military. He said that we should only have police and no military. I can't remember the guy's name, but I remember the episode. Obviously he's only one person and most liberals probably don't hold that view, but some on the far left do believe that we shouldn't have a military at all.
>>>"some on the far left do believe that we shouldn't have a military at all."<<<
I'm not surprised you can dig-up ONE guy who is anti-military.
If your standard is just ONE person to represent the left or right, I'm positive I can find ONE guy on the right who wants us to annihilate every Iranian in Iran. He's VERY pro-military.
As I said, I don't believe that most liberals hold that view. But there are SOME on the extreme far left who want to do away with the military completely. And even the more mainstream liberals want to cut spending for the military, do away with our nukes, and basically have us lose our status as the world's #1 super power.
We are the worlds ONLY superpower. We could cut a lot of military spending and still maintain that status. I dont believe it is a liberal position in anyway to say we need to make sure some other country is stronger than us. THAT is your mischaracterization
"there are SOME on the extreme far left who want to do away with the military completely."
They (actually, that ONE guy) can be called "anti-military".
The rest of us are all "pro-military", whether we want to stay in Iraq indefinitely or start leaving now.
Yeah, but what about being the #1 super power in the world?
Then you get a coupon for 10% off at Jiffy Lube.
The number#1 military superpower in the world, is another vauge phase. By who's metric, and whats included in that metric. Our military keeps preparing for the last war. The political leadership puts it positions it is not able to suceed in. To much mythology and romance in both the military and the civilian leader's minds.
Our military is being broken. With proper maning and training we could stabilize Iraq. Neither is going to happen. The end game seems to involve the profits of the oil and who gets them and how to keep control of those profits. No sacrifice by the "little" people is to big for this gole.
Eweston, the coupon sounds good, but I thought there might be a trophy at least for being #1.
Or is the Grand Prize being the laughing stock of the world, as we let our hard earned dollars be stolen to pay defense contractors for more weapons than could ever possibly be used?.
All because enough of are fellow voters are such insecure bedwetters that they don't know they're wasting our money, lives and reputations in a childish battle to be "#1"
The trophy contract was a no bidder to Bechtel, who have out sourced it. Last heard there are parts on back order. Ah yes puts a cherry on the top of our laughing stock. Be a good thing if the bed wetters could get some counseling as opposed to working out their fears with lives that arn't theirs.
RH,
I think you made some good points there, but I will have to disagree with you on a few things. As a liberal, I have no problem with us being the top power in the world. However, I believe in defense, but not offense. I believe we should only use our precious military resources when there is no other solution (I think this is where some part ways with me on Iraq). I believe our military resources should be focused on other problems (OBL) and that our exposure in Iraq has diminished our military might which I think is very important.
To get to the point of the article by MMFA, the term "pro-military" almost necessitates the opposite definition for those who do not agree with the person called "pro-military" which would make him or her "anti-military" which I don't believe a single person in government is.
To your point about spending, I believe this country spends a lot on the military, but tends to do a poorer job on taking care of those brave men and women who served after their service is done. I would like to see those who are pro-military spending step up efforts to take care of our injured and maimed soldiers.
This website is very interesting: http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
If you type in your zip code, you can see how your elected officials support taking care of those who serve. They provide links to bills voted on by representatives as well as the full bills themselves.
"However, I believe in defense, but not offense. I believe we should only use our precious military resources when there is no other solution"
I see. I respect your opinion. Some isolationist conservatives like Pat Buchanan feel the same way. But the fact remains that when Bill Clinton was President, he cut funding for the military and got rid of many of our weapons systems. I don't really see what that accomplished. I don't have a problem with us having nuclear weapons. I believe that we need them to have leverage against other nations. I believe that we need to build up arms and have a strong national defense.
Did you check on the website I linked? I don't believe its a horrible thing that we have weapons that others don't. I just think that the power that comes with having that capability holds us to an even higher standard when it comes to war.
Yeah, I read the link. I agree with you that we need to spend more on our veterans.
RH,
I looked up members of Congress from Colorado and wrote members of both parties who (though the Dems did grade higher) asking them why their grades were not A+ all around. To me, more can be done and if people truly favor war, we need to increase the funding ASAP for those wounded. In Colorado, the big war hawks (Musgrave, Tancredo, Allard) graded out at C-, C, and Drespectively, UNACCEPTABLE!
"But the fact remains that when Bill Clinton was President, he cut funding for the military and got rid of many of our weapons systems. I don't really see what that accomplished."--rino hunter
Just whose weapons systems praytell do you think were used for the invasion of Iraq? Do you think George W. Bush was miraculously able to reconstitute our military in 2 years to the point we could invade another country when we haven't even been able to adequately rebuild the Iraqi army in 3-4 years?
If you look at defense budget expenditures, Clinton indeed approved reductions in line with reductions under his predecessor for two years until 1994. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, expenditures went back up.
Your view of Clinton's presidency is simply too partisan and not realistic. It ignores the effect of Republicans in Congress to largely increase military budgets for 6 of Clinton's 8 years.
It really doesn't work to make partisan generalizations about the Clinton Presidency as the end result was usually a form of compromise between Republican and Democratic ideas.
The same cannot be said for most of President Bush's administration with regards to Congress, which was entirely controled by Republicans for 5 years.
Also it reflects the end of the Coldwar. The most common military blunder is to fight the last war. A different type of spending is called for to fight a huge superpower than to fight, for instance the kind of battles we are fighting now.
"when Bill Clinton was President, he cut funding for the military"
Cutbacks began under George H.W. Bush.
If you want an example of gross irresponsibility, look no further than Bush Jr., who hands-out tax cuts to the rich, during what's purportedly the Ultimate Struggle for Civilization, and simultaneously neglects to equip our troops with proper equipment.
Not to mention that he sent 3,600 American troops to their needless deaths in Iraq.
I agree with you about the equipment, but I disagree with you that the tax cuts were only for the rich. But I guess that's a topic for another thread.
But the fact remains that when Bill Clinton was President, he cut funding for the military and got rid of many of our weapons systems.
You might wanna review the Constitution and see which part of our gubmint actually controls the purse strings. Then have a look at who was in control of that part of the gubmint for most of the Clinton years.
But as others above have pointed out, that scaled down military sure did whoop up good on a couple of countries under GWBush.
I dont think that is a quite accurate take on the liberal position. We spend approximatly as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. We could do a lot of cutting and still be the number one military in the world. For instance no other country in the entire world is building a new generation of fighter jets ours are still by far the finest in the world it is hardly callin on us to unilaterally disarm to suggest maybe we can continue to build F-16's and 22's and not spend the incredible amounts it will take for the new generation. Also I think most liberals would be more circumspect in our use of force, that is set the bar for state violence higher but that hardly means the positions is inherently pacifistic. Most liberals I know supported going into Iraq. As Shakespear said, Oh it is excellent to have a giants strength but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. We dont want to be bullies. We want to tone down some of the misadventures we have historically and undeniably done. We all like being the big guy on the beach I think we ought to kick sand in other peoples faces a little less often
You have a good point, but I just remember that in a debate during the 04 election, John Kerry stated that we didn't have the right to have nuclear weapons if we were going to tell countries like Iran and North Korea that they couldn't have nuclear weapons. He was in effect drawing a moral equivalency between the U.S. and countries like Iran and North Korea. I think that many liberals believe that we are morally equivalent to these other countries and shouldn't have the right to have nuclear weapons when we tell these other countries they can't have them.
You completely misunderstand. It is saying nothing about the moral equivelency between us and anyone else to aknowlege the elementary moral principle that the only morally consistancy, the only truly moral standard is to hold yourself, your allies and yourself to the same standards. That is pretty easy to understand. It is sheer arrogance to simply assert that you will not accept for yourself the standards you expect others to accept.
OOOPs that should have read yourself, your allies and your enemies to the same standards
"It is sheer arrogance to simply assert that you will not accept for yourself the standards you expect others to accept"
We shouldn't have the same standards as these countries I've mentioned, because we have moral superiority over them. And yes, it does matter. We're a peaceful, democratic nation that has nuclear weapons for self defense. Nations like Iran and North Korea are totalitarian nations that support terrorism and brutalize their own people. There is no moral equivalency between us and them, and there should be completely different standards. North Korea and Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons, because as supporters of terrorism they would likely develop nuclear weapons and then sell them to terrorists. We, on the other hand, simply have nuclear weapons for our own self defense and for leverage. The dictator in Iran has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and someone like that simply can't be trusted.
Isnt that convienient. Can I use that logic too? Let me just ASSERT that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans so WE shouldnt be bound by their spending limits or the rules that are supposed to apply to both parties. NO. It is morally unacceptable to just ASSERT we are better so WE get to do whatever WE want and YOU dont get to do the things we do. Its arrogant and cannot withstand one seconds moral scrutiny. Explain to the Guatemalans who had family members killed by the military dictatorship WE installed after ovethrowing their democracy how pure our motives are and how much WE deserve to be exempt from the standards we demand of others. Explain to the Iranians, Brazilians, Chileans, and Dominicans who ALL lost their democracies to our machinations and were subjected to brutal dictatorships how WE are so pure that WE can decide for the whole world what standards THEY must comply with that we must never accept for ourselves. It is absolutely arrogant. IT is absolutly immoral. It has nothing to do with whether we are actually more pure morally which we certainly cannot show by our history. I dont want to see North Korea or Iran with Nuclear Weapons but you show you are nothing but a brainwashed zealot when you claim that we have some RIGHT to demand others comply to standards we wont accept for ourselves.
Would WE have accepted that argument from the Soviet Union? From ANYBODY else? We cannot expect the world to just accept US as the arbiters of who deserves to be exempt from standards we demand other countries to abide by. The very assertion is both arrogant AND morally unsupportable.
"It has nothing to do with whether we are actually more pure morally which we certainly cannot show by our history"
That's an absolutely outragous statement, and it tells me a lot about you. The fact that you claim that we are no better than the brutal and theocratic nations of Iran and North Korea is quite startling. The United States is a GREAT country which has done endless good for the world. If you really despise this country that much then you should probably just leave, and I'm not even joking. The statement that you made is breath taking and shows utter contempt for the United States of America.
We are a peaceful democratic country which has nuclear weapons for self defense. Countries like Iran and North Korea are evil countries which support terrorism. They CANNOT be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It amazes me that anyone can actually equate our country with these evil countries. And it amazes me that you actually want us to get rid of our nuclear weapons and be completely defenseless. Talk about having a weak national defense.
No it isnt. It is simple fact deny it all you want and it is NOT saying that we are as bad as ANYBODY else. That is your simplistic Manichean thinking AGAIN. Pointing out we have done things wrong and these are indisputable historical FACTS, is not saying we are the worst country in the world. It is a function of power that we do such things if France or England were the most powerful nations in the world I have no doubt they would have been doing the same things. It is also NOT saying we are as bad as North Korea. Point out where I said that. STOP filtering my words through your simplistic worldview. The simple fact is we cannot claim purity of motive. Our history clearly belies that. Explain how peaceful we are to Iraq, to all those countries we, UNDENIABLY, took democracies from and installed brutal dictatorships. THESE THINGS HAPPENED. And they are not our dirty little secret. This shows what a zealot and propagandist you are. I present absolute facts, NOT IN DISPUTE. They make you mad, but do they make you mad at those who carried out those policies? NO they make you mad at ME, like I ought to pretend indisputable FACTS dont exist because YOU DONT LIKE THEM. I am going nowhere. I love my country and it is MY country, I think black hearted fascists like YOU ought to get out of my good country so we can more easily keep doing the good things we do and stop doing the bad things. It is so easy for moral cowards like you to demand these things be ignored so we can make CLAIMS like the one you are making now that we ought to demand the world accept standards on themselves we publicly refuse to accept for ourselves. It is telling the world. I say we are the best so shut up and do what I tell you, while I do as I please. Even IF we were perfect, which we obviously arent, this is still a morally unsupportable claim. You are reduced to the argument how dare you bother me with FACTS, my ideology says we can do whatever we want. YOU dont even WANT to make our country comply to the standards we associate with it. You only want to demand everyone PRETEND we do. That is why you need to leave America. If you love our country get out. It will be a far better place when appologists for the misuse of power are gone and people with some idea what a moral standard is can demand our country comply with it ALL the time not just when it doesnt conflict with what THEY say is our best interest.
"Explain how peaceful we are to Iraq, to all those countries we, UNDENIABLY, took democracies from and installed brutal dictatorships"
Except in Iraq where we got rid of a brutal dictator and installed a democracy. And no, the United States isn't perfect, but there's no doubt that we're morally superior to Iran and North Korea. We have the right to have nuclear weapons. We don't aide terrorists and we are a peaceful nation that has nukes for defensive purposes. There's absolutely no reason why we should cut down on our nuclear capabilities. If Iran stops supporting terrorism, recognizes that Israel has a right to exist, and becomes a democratic nation, then they should have the right to have a nuclear weapon. Until then they are still part of the axis of evil and aren't morally equal to the United States, Israel, Great Britain, or any other peaceful democratic country. And also, I apologize for suggesting that you should leave the country. It just makes me angry when people claim that the U.S. is responsible for evil in the world. But I went too far when I said that you should leave.
OK. All of that is a rationale WHY we ought to be able to tell other countries that THEY must do what WE refuse to do. That THEY must accept standards we refuse to accept for ourselves. Now an American exceptionalism argument may convince YOU but it is morally unsupportable, and there is NO reason to expect any other country to buy this argument. It isnt about how good we are or how bad they are the only MORAL standards are those you equally apply to yourself, your allies AND your enemies any argument otherwise is simply self serving, unconvincing and cannot withstand one seconds moral scrutiny
"It isnt about how good we are or how bad they are the only MORAL standards are those you equally apply to yourself, your allies AND your enemies any argument otherwise is simply self serving, unconvincing and cannot withstand one seconds moral scrutiny"
So do you think we need to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons simply because we're telling Iran that they can't have any nuclear weapons?
I would love to see all the worlds nuclear weapons gone. I am not advocating we unilaterally disarm. With respect to Iran we need to deal with them in accordance with the Non proliferation treaty but we arent living up to our end of that treaty until we begin serious disarmament discussions with other nuclear nations. What is clearly hypocritical is Bush denouncing Iran trying to build nuclear weapons and a week later anouncing that WE are building a whole new generation of MORE USABLE nuclear weapons which is without a doubt adding fuel to the nuclear arms race fire. Which of course he DID DO. I dont think the Iranian problem would be a hard fix IF this administration had any commitment to diplomacy beyond telling other nations just shut up and do what you are told. Irans president is a nutbag but he has NO executive power and Rafsanjani who DOES hold the executive power is a moderate we have long supported. He has twice made overatures to end this nuclear problem that were dismissed out of hand. We could fix this problem by saying ok we understand your need of nuclear power. Iran uses a lot of their own oil and will be out in less than 20 years and need to increase the amount they export. So we will help with the expertise to build a lightwater reactor which doesnt create useful material, in return for intrusive IAEA inspections. They have shown they are good at their job. AND we will sign a non aggression pact. IF you leave Israel alone, leave off your nuclear weapons ambitions, and dont invade your nieghbors we will normalize relations and promise NOT to invade you. Iran is not Afghanistan, they are not Arabs and never had the tribal mentality we find so foriegn. They have a youthful demographic and we could easily find them to be a stable, democratizing influence in the middle east IF we can gain some influence and help that democratizing effect that had been happening in Iran before our invasion. We dont need to make the enemies by DEFINING them as enemies.
By just introducing such a proposal we either get their co-operation OR we show the entire world that they are unreasonable and set the stage for international sanctions. Again Iran is NOT Afghanistan and such sanctions would hurt them badly.
Oh I forgot about Iraq yes we got rid of ONE of the worlds most brutal dictators, you know as well as I do we have consorted with worse and WERE consorting with Saddam when he committed his worst attrocities, we also killed tens of thousands of Iraqis so they MIGHT be excused for NOT accepting your argument That America is SO demonstrably pure that WE can demand the right to deny for ourselves the standards we demand others accept
"we also killed tens of thousands of Iraqis"
No. The terrorists killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. We tried to liberate thousands of Iraqis. The Iraq War certainly hasn't gone very well and it ended up being a disaster, but we certainly had good intentions when we went in there. Trying to liberate people from a brutal dictator is always a noble goal.
No that is simply WRONG. I dont care whether or not you accept we had such pure motives. I dont believe it but it is irrelevant to this point. WE KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS. Now such things happen in modern war. I am not saying it was the point of the invasion but it was an inevitable part of the equation and again ignoring basic facts doesnt make them go away.
Why would anyone accept that our rationale was to liberate the Iraqi people? Bush's stated reason was NOT to liberate Iraq but to protect us from the WMDs and the al Queda connection both of which we now know were non-existant. It was only after the other excuses dissappeared into the fairy dust from whence they came that it became about liberating the Iraqis. IF that were the real reason why didnt Bush try to make that argument all along and let the American people decide if that were worth one American life. You seem to accept the role of American as the worlds policeman. Fine, in fact I am willing to accept it too understanding that it will come with a great price but we cant be the judge and jury too. I dont know why you would be willing to go to Orwells memory hole and just chuck all the original rationales for invading away and then accept the new one as if it were the only one that existed. Its like the famous scene from 1984 when in mid speech the alliances changed and Big Brothes says we have always been at war with Oceana, then switches to we have always been at war with Eastasia, which had been an ally only minutes before and everyone just accepts the new reality that we HAD always been at war with Eastasia. This isnt rational. Its pretty easy to see that if an administration has to change its excuse for an invasion four or five times THEY ARE LYING. The ONLY reason to lie about the reason for going to war is you dont believe your REAL reason will be accepted
Rino,
Pro-Military SHOULD mean using your military ONLY when our security is threaten. Pro- Military SHOULD mean spending the money to send said military into war with the BEST equipment, the BEST Generals and the BEST strategy. Pro Military SHOULD mean that when sending soldiers into war we are prepared to SPEND the money necessary to insure that what harm comes to those we’ve sent to fight are available. The BEST medical trement, the BEST after war care and insure that the BEST care will be available in their futures. Pro- Military SHOULD mean that there will NEVER be a homeless veteran EVER (did we not learn from Viet Nam). There are many other things that being Pro-Military means but Republicans have FAILED on all I’ve listed. This does NOT come down to Republican or a Democratic issue. It comes down to when we ask people to do a job that very few are willing to do they deserve the BEST. This administration HAS NOT provided anywhere near the BEST and pretending that they have is a lie and a “campaign” slogan..
I agree. I'm about as fiscally conservative as you can possibly get, but I still think we need to spend money on our veterans and make sure that they have the best care available. It doesn't make any sense to me how our politicians can spend $400 billion on a war but then refuse to simply spend a few million on our veterans. That's pocket change compared to what we've been spending on the war.
I absolutly support top quality medical care and better benifits for our military. Does that make me pro-military?
At this point being pro military is saving the troops - not supporting a war with no end:
The war in Iraq is in shambles
No one "pro military" would gamble
The lives of our troops
Or make us all dupes
Or make our military scramble
This hair-splitting's unnecessary
We've defined "Pro-Military"
Our troops, sad to say
Receive amateur pay
Compared to Contract Mercenaries
If I'm against our war in Baghdad, And the surgin' makes me quite mad, I'm in for a roast From the Washington Post 'Cuz I'm not 'pro-military' --egad!
And next time I'll be pro-paragraph returns.
Dave, get that PDS (paragraph derangement syndrome) looked at by a professional.
I'll use Firefox next time. No prescription needed.
Our troops, sad to say
Receive amateur pay
Compared to Contract Mercenaries
That IS shocking to me. I'd say downright unpatriotic or maybe not pro military.
Facing pressure from antiwar liberals - Washington Post
Interesting way of putting it isn't it WaPo?
The article announced plans to follow four lawmakers of the four only one is okay with withdrawl and that one was lable as a anti-war activist by the post article. The other four has been portrayed as stay the course.
At close examination WaPo puts it this way: Struggling for the right answers, Boren (D-Okla.) listens carefully to his conservative constituents. - WaPo
Gee struggling for the right answers by listening to conservative constituents. Then we follow that up with this from the WaPo article:
Bush so needs the support of pro-military lawmakers such as Boren... - WaPo
So we have right answers from conservatives and pro-military. Golly imagine that.
Conservatism is synonymous with putrefaction and ugliness and this is what right answers are going to come from. Let's not even mention pro which implies con which translates to anti-military which is a new fancy version of if you don't support the war then you don't support the troops bulloney.
In the last six years language has been mangled beyond recognition thanks to Conservatives. In plain speak it comes down to this: Follow the stupid moron in office no matter what.
It's the "no matter what" part that makes me cringe.
Conservatives converges day by day upon the utter emptiness of their soul - to filled with bulloney to sense their own corruption. They are ultimate conformist which causes them to march behind the stupid moron in office no matter what. Waste deep in the big muddy and the stupid Conservatives says push on.
It's very simple. Pro Iraq-War (or pro-Surge, pro-escalation, etc.) should be identified as exactly that, not as "pro-military".
I think that's pretty fair. We could split hairs endlessly though (well, I'm "pro-surge" IF the Iraq gov. meets the benchmarks, etc), so it might be best for the media to just stop using those terms all together.
Agreed.
I attribute tired jargon like "pro-military" as much to the media's laziness and susceptibility to catch phrases as anything else. I feel they don't even think about what terms like that really convey, they just very used to pulling it out of their repertoire. Articles like this one might help to wake them up.
Instead of using the term PRO-military, which is too often interpreted by many as being PRO-war, the media should use the term: PRO-military Force. That would define what the so called PRO-war crowd means to a tee.
Being PRO-military is supporting our troops...this includes bringing them home from Iraq.
Pro-military means getting our troops home is not what WaPo was getting at when they wrote the word. Look at this statement from WaPo:
Bush so needs the support of pro-military lawmakers such as Boren... - WaPo
Notice where is says, "such as Boren"? That is the clue as to what pro-military means. In order to find out what Boren is we need to look at what WaPo says about Boren ealier in the article which is this:
Struggling for the right answers, Boren (D-Okla.) listens carefully to his conservative constituents. - WaPo
So we can say in WaPo language pro-military is the right answer from conservative constituents.
It's no secret that conservatives favors illegal wars in the name of bankrupting this country into 5 trillion dollar debts so they can with their dark hearts say to the poor, the elderly and needy, "oh look here no money to spend we have to cut off all programs which doesn't fit our ideology."
It should be obvious in WaPo speak that pro-military means conservative ideology and what is conservative ideology? It is being superficial and irresponsible.
Doesn't writing or reading "illegal war" just put a confounding look on your face?
When is war "legal"? Is there a court that truly has the authority and power to say when and when not a war can take place? Is there an extent to a punitive award for a war, i.e. "Ok, they took out your embassy, so you may make 3 attempts to bomb their pacific fleet."
Since you mentioned courts. The Nuremberg trials. Would it be a double standard to try Hitler and not Bush?
The indictments were for:
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace War crimes Crimes against humanity
The Conclusions of the Nuremberg trials served to help draft: The Genocide Convention, 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968. The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.
One can debate the validity of the trial But one cannot debate the fact that we signed onto the United Nations and according to our Constitution the United Nations is as binding as our own Constitution, Bush never got the green light to go to war from the United Nations.
The Constitution also states "only Congress can declare war". Congress did not declare war. Giving Bush authority is an act of a thoughtless Congress because the gave it via rubber stamping without asking themselves this question, "how do you give man power without tempting to abuse it?" The answer is you don't. It was a pure act of lunacy to have given Bush power to wage a war at his whim. Bush has a God complex he thinks he is God.
Pro-military means getting our troops home is not what WaPo was getting at when they wrote the word
Hey big guy did I say it was? I was suggesting the media use the term Pro Military Force instead of Pro-Military. Missed that did ya?
Harlequin, do you even read posts here or do you just like to endlessly pontificate about the evil Conservatives without actually addressing the post you're allegedly replying to?
Jeter2 look again at your original post. The last line in its own paragraph reads:
Being PRO-military is supporting our troops...this includes bringing them home from Iraq.
It is that statement I was responding to. It should be clear to you and anyone else that your definition of Pro-military includes bringing them home.
As for observation I haven't seen any Conservatives standing on street corners holding up signs reading : end the troops bring the war home.
It is that statement I was responding to. It should be clear to you and anyone else that your definition of Pro-military includes bringing them home.
Yes it does.
But your post to me began: Pro-military means getting our troops home is not what WaPo was getting at when they wrote the word
And I never said it was. It seemed to me you weren't addressing my post at all-- just going off on one of your tangents again.
Never mind, I don't think you & I are ever on the same wavelength...
"As for observation I haven't seen any "Conservatives standing on street corners holding up signs reading : end the troops bring the war home"
I haven't seen any conservatives with those signs either. That would be a pretty strange sign. I don't think that very many people want to bring the war home. That would kind of defeat the purpose of fighting them over there.
I wrote it that way to show absurdity.
You are familiar with the sign, "end the war bring the troops home."
I thought that you wrote it that way on accident. The way it was written sounded pretty funny and I just couldn't help commenting on it.
How 'bout this:
How about if they get off their lazy behinds and describe the reps history on the subject rather than just applying a catch-all label, so there's no doubt about what they're trying to say?
I know, it sounds crazy. But it just might work!
But then again, with all the extra research...and extra typing... they might miss happy hour. Or be late teeing off. So, on the old "diminishing returns" balance sheet, "output" is still a comfortable margin ahead of "effort", and that justifies subjective labels.
To even–more simplify the statement of “Chicago’s Dave”, one might easily construe:
“Pro Iraq-War (or pro-Surge, pro-escalation, etc.) should be identified as exactly…” as the “littyle whining Bushies’ faux-grimace,” which has always camouflaged that wee-shrub’s true & honest veracity…“Gobble–gobble.” Has not anyone noticed the obviously telltale head motionings?
Someone should steal your keyboard.
Thanks for all the submissions by the "cut-and-run" Dems. I'd say they are as pro-defeat as they come.
Actually, Barney, your post is the one that really reeks of "giving up".
AA, so many talking points, so little time.
Please Paw don't be mad at Barney :-(
Are you gonna take away his bullet again?
You are a little more fiesty than usual. Got something in your craw, half-pint?
You know Barney is emotionally high maitenance - high strung you might say. Give the little guy a break.
Open. Awww... I think I hurt your feelings by labeling you as suffering from BDS in the other thread? Don't take it personally. There is no need to get snarky. ;-)
Julia, I fail to see your point. I am simply pointing out alternative descriptors to those who think they are still pro-military but want the U.S. out of Iraq no matter what the consequences.
As for Gomer, your "oh yeah, well you too" comeback is a little too little. I give it about a 2.2 But thanks for playing.
Lame even by your low standards, AA.
Are you going to use the phrase "cut-and-run Repubicans" to refer to all those GOP senators who are abandoning your president's Titanic of a war?
Why yes I would.
Cut and run is cut and run.
Do I get any points for consistency?
I do not agree that it is a 'Titanic' of a war. It is a war that can be won. However it can't be won by cutting and running.
Please define victory, AA. I think that concept has been about as elusive as anything in this conflict. There is no definite goal, at least that I can see, in Iraq. The goalposts keep moving.
It is a war that can be won. However it can't be won by cutting and running.
AA,
We already won the so called war when we disposed of Saddam & defeated his army. What our troops are embroiled in now is not a conventional type war...unless you consider being target practice for someone else's Civil war, conventional.
I just don't see how we can win another county's Civil War.
Can it be "won" by staying?
And what is the measuring stick for victory?
A stable Iraq? Good luck with that.
And getting as many Americans killed as possible is getting as many Americans killed as possible. I am not sure the definition of winning is all about your policy of getting Americans slaughtered but hey you are entitled to YOUR opinion
Barn, that was not an "oh well. you too", it was pointing out that the only "quitter" here was you, as far as trying to stay in the battle of wits.You probably don't want to "rate" posts that you don't understand.
Cut & Run?? Come on, Deputy, we need some serious conservative posters here, at least stay in the game.
And remember, as your mentor and protector, I am Sheriff Andy Taylor. If you're looking for a Gomer or Goober, that would be somebody more your equal.I'd nominate Duncan, Sueeeeeeld, or possibly a damp tube sock. ;0)
And we all know why that tube sock is damp--don't we?
Our little Opie is growing up...
Hahaha.. Nice try, thinking you can impersonate Andy. But you are Gomer through and through and have been from the start.
Thanks for clearing up what you meant by your original post. I'll now give it a 3.3. ;-)
Assuming that your rating system is based on your comprehension, you're one-third of the way to understanding it.
About where a 30 per-center should be.
Julia, I fail to see your point.
Using beaten to death talking points that have no merit. What's so hard to discern about that? At least you could be original.
Julia, when the thread fits, pull on it... ;-)
Yes AA, you are right. I am completely devastated and shattered by you calling me BDS. How will I ever survive the ridicule? Um...boo...uh...hoo...er...boo...hoo...sob.
But seriously. It was actually an honest question. I don't remember you being so dogmatic before. I guess you are entitled to your own kind of fun.
: )
Open,
As am I when you referred to me as half pint. I prefer two pints or perhaps a whole pitcher. :-)
I am actually in a very good mood. I didn't think I was being particularly dogmatic. Contrarian to the core, yes, but dogmatic? Maybe it was the use of those phrases. It seemed to hit a nerve with many of my friends here.
Oh well, life would be boring if we all agreed on everything.
Time for me to go paint my laundry room. See ya.
Have a good day painting your laundry room, Barney. I hope you are victorious . ;0)
"Time for me to go paint my laundry room."
Cutting and running?
Its ok I just chalked it up to your BIS Bush Idolotry syndrome. Your descriptors I think go well with mine. You being pro slaughter Americans troops and your love of getting as many Americans killed as we possibly can.
Late to the party, no clue, brought nothin'.
"Thanks for all the submissions by the "cut-and-run" Dems. I'd say they are as pro-defeat as they come." - anotheramerican
This means so much coming from someone who supports an administration that invaded the wrong country. All you've got are dishonest slogans and one liners. You should learn to recognize when you should be embarrassed.
[off bold] sorry
apology accepted. :-)
Are you saying those of you who want to 'cut and run' don't want to be labeled as such? Why is that? Didn't Harry just say the time is now to leave Iraq?
Do you not agree if the U.S. does leave Iraq it is a defeat for the U.S.?
Please explain what is so dishonest.
Now you're just being boorish and thick. And yes, fundamentally dishonest. We lost the war once the people saw we did not have their interests at heart, when all the national treasures were stolen and we didn't provide security. We could be there for 100 years and not win this idiot war that we had no business being in in the first place.
Now now. Just because we disagree is no need to get snarky.
Julia, that's what I love about so many of you here. There can be hundreds of 'boorish' and 'dishonest' posts by all sorts of Bush haters and yet you let those go and/or support them but feel the need to write disparaging comments toward only because I post my disagreement in the same manner as the thread.
You have to admit, your comments are really only your perception seen through your own personal filter.
But that is okay. You are entitled. I am simply posting my disagreement. I enjoy the discourse.
It seems only natural to me that those of you who suffer from Bush Idolotry syndrome come out in support of your pro slaughter of American troops policy. No reason for you to hide your passion for getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can. Why hide your zeal for the death of Americans?
Just because we disagree is no need to get snarky.
You know, you insult people left and right and bring nothing substantive to the discussion, and toss around (and misuse, by the way) labels like "cut and run" and you accuse OTHERS of being snarky? You're just a pathetic troll.
AA, quit being boorish and thick and I won't have to call you on it. And you are fundamentally dishonest as well. I don't blame you for trying to throw it off. It's not very complimentary. But I do hope you are victorious in the battle with your laundry room. Think about the troops being killed on a daily basis while you're committing others to fight the war without end. Oh, but introspection is not a quality of yours I suspect.
"Cut and run" is dishonest, and you know it is. Republicans love to brand the opposition with this because it makes them sound like cowards. Obviousely, all the while hiding their own screw-ups.
The truth is that doing anything less than leaving Iraq as soon as possible will result in more deaths. And these deaths are on YOUR hands for following the dumb blindly. We needed people on the other side of the isle to join us in stopping this invasion. We told you how this would turn out. But politics was more important to you guys.
Call it cut and run if it strokes you just right. Call Democrats losers if you want. We (I) want our troops to live. This is not defeat, it's common sense. Perhaps I should also explain that to you.
No matter what your lofty goal is, and no matter how you justify it, your approach is one of defeat.
I am of the opinion that less will die by us staying than by cutting and running. I think we can win.
So are you prepared to accept on your head all those deaths that will occur from us leaving before defeating these barbaric killers?
As an aside, that is what I don't get. Our history has been one of protecting other peoples from fascists and killers. There are no worse villains today than those Islamofacists who purposely target innocents for mass murder. Why do you want to abandon them? Do you not care that many more will likely dieif we leave? Do you not care that our departure will only inflame the radicals? Do you not know that they will then be emboldened even further to strike anyplace they feel does not conform to their ideology?
I don't doubt your motives, but do you even think about what will happen if we do leave?
I'll answer you, even though you switched gears and avoided answering me.
DIPLOMACY. As soon as we start using it, people will begin to stop killing each other. Bush might have tried this if he, in fact, had a basic grasp of language. But, no. It's more fun playing cowboy.
Your party sold this huge blunder to our public by selling them 'WMD.' Then when there were no wmd--your side said; "It was never just about WMD."
How does it feel to know that the party you detest were far superior when predicting the outcome of an Iraq invasion and the absence of thos darned WMD? It's time to step aside, and let the adults run this country again.
I will ask you this, AA: What is victory? What does it look like? How close, in your opinion, are we?
If we pull out, it won't be a 24-hour thing. We have so many troops that it will be gradual.
"Our history has been one of protecting other peoples from fascists and killers."
That's selectively protecting other peoples.
"Why do you want to abandon them?"
Because they want us to.
No matter how you justify it your policy is one of continuing the slaughter of American troops.
As for your newest foray into crystal ball prophesy about what will happen in Iraq when we leave why would anyone with the sense God gave a gerbil take ANY prediction about Iraq from the right seriously or greet it with anything except derisive laughter. You guys have been wrong about every prediction you have made about Iraq. You guys make lousy prophets put your I Ching away it isnt working
Great meme now about how we have to stay to help the poor Iraqis. It doesnt matter that they want us gone. The last major poll showing that more than 80% of them want us gone. I mean they are just children right? Who cares what THEY think? We are going to stay to help them no matter WHAT they think. You must be like that cub scout that took so long to get his merit badge helping a little old lady across the street because SHE DIDNT WANT TO GO.
There is no reason to give up the fight against Islamic terrorists because we leave Iraq in fact it will free up resources to actually DO that. Do you even CARE that this unjustifyable invasion is enflaming both Islamic radicals AND Islamic moderates, pushing some of the latter into the camp of the former. I guess you dont care that the longer we are there and the more innocents we kill, which happens in the course of this kind of warfare, the more moderates we make into extremists. How many brothers who lost their mother and sister to a bomb are going to become terrorists an American General said for every terrorist we kill we are creating three
Oh and as to this statement
Our history has been one of protecting other peoples from fascists and killers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That has been part of our history. I dont remember us protecting anyone in Rwanda, or the Congo as millions were killed or in Timor against our ALLY Suhuarto, or Guatemala against our ally Rios Montt as he slaughtered his people wholesale. We were allied with Pol Pot AFTER the Cambodian genocide. I also remember another part of our history the overthrow of democratic governments in Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Iran and the Dominican Republic and installing brutal military dictatorships so that is a VERY selective reading of our history. Again protecting people that want us gone is the heigth of arrogance.
Well do you guys that are all for getting as many Americans killed as possible dont mind us calling your policy what it is do you?
I mean being objectivly pro slaughtering American troops doesnt embarass you does it?
I think you ought to put it on your bumper sticker, that you support the slaughter of American troops.
AA,
We invaded the wrong country (not responsible for 9/11). We have created a civil war by invading the wrong country. Bush Sr. refused to invade Iraq after liberating Kuwait because he knew what would happen and how long a commitment America would have to make. We have lost over 3,600 American lives by invading the wrong country. We have left too many men and women permanently disabled from the same invasion of the wrong country. Sending more soldiers into the civil war, from invading the wrong country we have lost in just the first 6 month of 2007 over 600 American lives. We have no allies who will believe us when there actually is an “imminent” threat based on the invasion of the wrong country. What would you call defeat?
Glass half full? There are 1000's more humans living today because of the US presents in Iraq. As Turkey amasses its army to the north threating the Kurds a pull out by the US would sign the death warrant for 100's of thousands of humans. Tell me what is a US soldier's life worth on the open market, what is the ratio, 1 US for 2 Iraqi...1 US for 5 Kurds? If you are going to move troops in or out of war a price will be paid in human life. You need to determine the cost of your decision.
If you are going to move troops in or out of war a price will be paid in human life. You need to determine the cost of your decision-Tweek
As we speak, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are internally displaced or have fled their country, leaving a home, a job, a plot of land, or even close relatives behind. The precarious situation of the internally displaced must be understood in the context of heightened insecurity and decaying infrastructures. Food insecurity and the vastly inadequate water, sewage and electrical power infrastructure exacerbate the hardship of the population and represent a public health hazard -Angelo Gnaedinger, ICRC Director-General at the International Conference on Addressing the Humanitarian Needs of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Iraq and in Neighbouring Countries, Geneva, 17-18 April, 2007
The Iraqis have been PAYING the cost of this war since the invasion. We opened pandora's box and we cannot close it. This cannot be fixed and there is no win in sight. When you can accept reality there is no need for any additional loss of American lives. Unfortunately for Iraq the death toll will continue. That is a fact. The largest population in Iraq will be supported by Iran. That is a fact. The invasion has caused instability in the north and a possible confrontation with Turkey. That is another fact. All of these facts Junior DID NOT take into account when he and Dick invaded Iraq. With reality staring us in the face to continue with the "stay the course" is criminal.
Cough up some evidence that there are MORE people alive because of the invasion of Iraq. That baseless assertion is ludicrous. You guys think things become true because you say them. This isnt planet Wingnut and your wishes dont define reality
The recent example would be the Vietnam war...if you will remember when the US pulled out the North took over and slaughtered somewhere between 2 and 3 million in the South and Cambodia....if you don't remember that is you history assignment for today.
Tweak,
Are you saying if we leave the present government of Iraq will kill the same amount of people that were killed by the North Vietnamese or are you saying that because we got rid of Saddam we saved that amount of people. I am not sure I follow you here.
No... if we leave Iraq the place will be a blood bath. How many will die...dont know. I see Turkey is poised and ready to invade Iraq from the north and start the killing of the Kurds IF the US pulls out. Iran, who has a presents in Iraq now will surly move in full force. Syria will get there part of the oil fields in west Iraq. My question is how in the hell can we, the United States Of America, who's entire economy is based on OIL leave Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey in charge of 1/2 of the worlds oil. The US does not receive but a few barrels from these country's but it is still a world market and the effect could be disastrous. Here is a secert.....the point is mute. Next president, Dem OR Rep, the US military will be in Iraq for decades in some fashion......watch and see.
Define bloodbath. Thousands lose their lives in Iraq every month right now. Why not try something else?
Wow your delusions are impressive first Vietnam cannot possibly prove your point about Iraq. Second you are flat out WRONG. The two million killed were in Cambodia by Pol Pot, we became his ally and he kept slaughtering them UNTIL Vietnam invaded and deposed him. There was no mass slaughter in Vietnam, nothing beyond what happens after most civli wars or what happened to the Vichy French after WW2. So far you show that you dont know what you are talking about and havent come within a MILE of showing any evidence WHATSOEVER that the invasion of Iraq saved any lives an assertion ludicrous on the face of it.
"Do you not agree if the U.S. does leave Iraq it is a defeat for the U.S.? "--AA
Of course it is a defeat, but I also believe it was a defeat when we entered the country to begin with. That was just the start of Bush's predictable trademark lose-lose situation.
And thank YOU for letting us hear from the lets get as many Americans killed as possible crowd. I would say you were objectively pro slaughter Americans
I believe that it was the liberal Democrats in Congress who voted to cut off funds for the troops. If they would've succeeded our troops wouldn't have the equipment that they need to survive. Talk about a vote that could endanger the lives of our soldiers!
RH,
That is a talking point. If the funding was cut off, Bush would have a decision to make: He could keep the troops in Iraq or he could re-deploy them. Their fate would be in his hands.
I still can't believe how many bought that BS, that cutting funding would result in a bunch of repo men flying over and tearing the armor and weapons off of our troops.
It must be so relaxing to see things that simply.
Disengenuous. Cutting of funding for the war forces redeployment HOME. Keeping them in Iraq endangers their lives, bringing them home doesnt and you KNOW that was the motive behind the cutting off of funds.
It's amazing that the Washington Post would allow blatant hack journalism like this within its pages. That tells you something right there.
Any columnist who would use a pathetically dishonest line such as "pro-military" is nothing but a spineless, right-wing chicken hawk.
The media is infested with right wing jargon, talking points and narratives. It would be nice to see someone write an article using real words with real meaning. As it is, this is just propaganda media. Corporate, military industrial complex sponsored media.
Yeah, bully for all those "pro-military" folks who sent our troops into battle without the equipment they needed or sufficiently armored vehicles.
I'm not about to link to the Washington Post article being cited here, but just from the excerpts...
"Can Sen. Snowe wait until September? Can Rep. Boren?"
In case you didn't already know it, that's one of the Bush team's counter-charges to those who are trying to spare any further loss of life in the Bush administration's scheme of lies and greed and death in Iraq:
"You're too impatient! You don't have the resolve to wait indefinitely for... well, who knows what it is we're waiting for to happen, but whatever it is, you're too impatient! You just can't wait, can you Sen. Snowe and Rep. Boren?"
"Sen. Isakson (R-Ga.) is wary about the Iraqi government but invokes the smell of jet fuel from the Pentagon fire on Sept. 11, 2001"
Gee, I haven't heard that one... it sounds awful important, I hope somebody's looking into it...
Iraq has something to do with 9/11?
Gee, sounds like something worth investigating, Sen. Isakson... where there's smoke, there's probably fire, from jet fuel or otherwise... I hope somebody finds the time to follow up on this apparent Iraq-9/11 link that Sen. Isakson alludes to.
"Snowe gave up on the war a year ago..."
Coward.
I wonder what took her so long... most of the rest of us joined the ranks of 'coward' a lot sooner than just a year ago.
"In Boren's mind, he isn't qualified to dictate war policy to the commander in chief."
Unqualified.
I wonder just what the qualifications are, to equal the expertise in these matters, that George W. Bush has.
"So far, Isakson is willing to wait for the September report."
He's not impatient... I'll bet he's also not a coward, or unqualified (like Sen. Snowe and Rep. Boren are).
"...one e-mail from a soldier during the heat of the debate: "Please tell the Democrats, I am the damn war."
That's a perfect way to wrap up the excerpt, with an anonymous statement supposedly from one of our Sons or Daughters in the Armed Forces, in Iraq...
...a statement that makes no sense whatsoever, no matter how hard you try to figure out what it means: "I am the damn war"...
Sounds like something meant to pull at your heartstrings, right when you were actually using your head... sounds like something, that were you to see it engraved on a memorial, or a statue depicting a soldier, it'd make you scratch your head:
"I am the damn war...
...what is that supposed to mean?"
I love some Democrats, I hate some Republicans, I love some soldiers, I hate others, I love peace, I hate war, I can parse, cache, extrapolate, interpolate, semanticsise and ostracize even pasteurize but I prefer to categorize. I am comfortable with my assumptions. Most who post are well aware of "labels" and "connotations" used by MSM, no need to add or subtract from the lexicon.
And where will your tent be located for the next revival, preacher?
Because I would enjoy hearing you sermonize, patronize, categorize, and ostracize. Life broken down into black or white, dark or light, day or night, depth or height, and die or fight. Testify how we should cast off any tendencies to INform, lest it lead to REform! And how anybody who doesn't wear your UNIform is condemned to CONform!!
CAN I GET A WITNESS?!? SOMEBODY GIMME A AMEN!!!
I'm not really church-folk neon, but...amen.
Very nice Neo......I like.
Has anyone read this in the NYT.
Rummy had a weak moment back in 2005 to get some of the big boys of Al Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I have no particular thougths about this but just wanted to throw it into the debate. Someone earlier said that Clinton wimped out in Solmolia. Going into tribal areas in the Islamic world is not a very smart military move as has been proved in this Civil War in Iraq. Has this administration ever done anything right, NO.