Laugh at Liberals

26 Responses to “LETS CALL DEMOCRATS WHAT THEY ARE…”

1. The Other Side Says: September 11th, 2007 at 3:00 am

   i really did have to laugh at the shear partisanship of this article. so bush says in his surge speach in january that the increase in american armed forces is supposed to give breathing room to the iraqi central government to make progress. also, and this is important, the iraqi government needs to be held accountable to the benchmarks set. even the most left-leaning liberal can admit that there are military gains because of the surge. our military is the best in the world and will accomplish our goals. but at what cost?

   also, what about the top-down political solution? that hasn’t happened and will take years for the iraqi factions to reconcile. so, in bush’s mind, the original plan didn’t work, therefore lets change it all together. now the goals are a bottom-up solution starting with the sunni tribal leaders. sounds good, i guess. some reconciliation is better than nothing. but don’t people realize that arming the sunni insurgents to fight al-queda may piss off the shiite led government? just because the sunnis are aligned with america now against al-queda doesn’t mean this truce is forever. what are the sunnis going to use the weapons for in the future?

   the last paragraph is a perfect example of the bush mentality. only war can achieve victory. what a joke. how exactly does war equal a political solution? we’re going to bomb them into democracy? it hasn’t worked throughout this whole war. how can a country without any knowledge of true democracy become democratic? they think that power is the end-all and they fight to the death for it.

   the reason why liberals are so skeptical of anything that is said from anyone associated with this administration is because we’ve been lied to before by them. we saw the propaganda campaign happening in august, similar to the lead up to the invasion. we hear excerpts from bush’s book that he wants to leave this war to the next administration. there is evidence of the numbers being purposly distorted (being shot in the back of the head=sectarian, being shot in the front of the head=normal crime). we see that bush only cares about his legacy and doesn’t listen to anyone. he never listened when the generals said we need more troops to stabilize iraq, he demoted the guy. while petreus may be independent of the white house, bush is still going to make his speach and announce the plan he had all along, sustain the surge until spring and then draw down. but that still leaves 100,000 troops in iraq for the foreseeable future. bush finally found someone who agrees with sustaining the war, petreus, and is parading him around as evidence of improvment. is that cynical, yeah. but i’m not going get fooled again, especially when its obvious that the surge failed its main objective.

   and then on top of all of the mistakes that bush made, people like buck expect democrats to come up with solutions. its unfortunate that they are even put in the position to fix iraq because bush had no exit strategy. partitioning iraq into three parts is one good way to stop the violence and its not chaos, it takes pressure off of the central government and puts some power into the individual states (like our united states). but there needs to be some sort of diplomacy to help the iraqis and also accountability. why does iraq need to become independent if america is always there to save them?

   finally, the democrats could do nothing and win an even higher majority in the house, senate and win the white house. the democrats are so far ahead of republicans its not even funny. while i do agree that democrats are spineless, they have a gigantic advantage in november 2008. no republican wants to align themselves with bush and the republican candidates are pathetic. iraq is going to bring down the republicans, along with sex scandals, just like in 2006.

2. Buck Evinger Says: September 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

   The Other Side should stop getting facts from the daily kos and go to the source. I’m curious…where in my original post did I ever say that “only war could acheive victory.” I won’t wait for your response standing up because I can’t stand that long. I never said that and don’t believe that. What I said was actually paraphrasing the great 19th centrury German historian and philosipher Carl von Clausewitz who said “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” What that means is a nations policies, it’s politics, must sometimes be realized through the use of war waged by the state on other nations. It should always be a last resort and in the case of Iraq and George Bush was.

   Shot in the back, sectarian, in the front normal crime. I’m sure some idiot blogger invented that…but let’s say for a moment that it is true. What would be the reasoning behind using that methodology? Could it be that years of data and analysis indicate that to be a true and accurate calculation, or did Petraeus say…”Hey…I can say that somebody being shot in the forehead is just a regular ole crime…Yippeeee…those stupid idiots in congress will never see that one coming….Woohooo!”.

   I watched about 6 hours of testimony from Petraeus and Crocker on C-SPAN and what I heard was very sobering and very honest. The hard, legitimate questions from SOME of the Democrats were, in my opinion, answered honestly. In fact the closing question from Sen. Carl Levin specifically asked Petraeus about troop draw down. Petraeus is reccomending to Bush that troop draw downs begin and reach pre-surge levels by June of 2008 AND CONTINUE BEYOND THAT POINT STARTING IN JULY OF 2008. Petraeus said he would reccommend an appropriate pace for the July 08 and on withdrawl in March of next year.

   As for the three state idea for Iraq. If you may recall, thousands of Americans died to give Iraqi’s the a chance to live free. Millions of Iraqi’s risked death to vote for one nation and one government, not three states. Maybe you should respect that a little more than you obviously do.

   Bush has said from day one….DAY ONE….that this will be a long, hard war. Go back and do some reading. Bush has made mistakes, to be sure, but hindsight is always 20/20.

   The bottom line is since 9/11 there has not been a single terrorist attack on American soil. Al Qaeda, as an international force, is greatly weakened. Iraq is an emerging Democracy showing signs of maturing and growing in strength. Osama bin Laden is an impotent, cave-dwelling hermit who can’t show his face in public and liberals like you are still throwing your hands in the air screaming about the sky falling.

3. IdahoSenator Says: September 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

   Tap Tap……..Wanna meet in stall #3?

4. The Other Side Says: September 14th, 2007 at 1:33 am

   i get my information from many sources, unlike buck who watches fox news (i bet you don’t but your views are anti-democrat and short sided). the first line of your response attacked me, classic republican tactic.

   the thing is, correlation does not prove causation. just because there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on american soil doesn’t necessarily mean its because of americas efforts. just because the violence is down in iraq doesn’t necessarily mean its directy caused by the surge.

   bush attacked a country not associated with 9/11 and said they were. lied about wmds. disbanded the iraqi army. wolfowitz said that iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction. i know the mistakes are overstated, but bush still thinks he knows what to do is iraq.

   the question that warner asked was the most sobering, “are we safer because of iraq” (paraphrasing). petreus: “i don’t know”. america is going to be stuck in iraq until the next administration and bush will NEVER have to make a big decision. bush was not forced into iraq, it was no last resort. iraq was no direct threat to america, but bush’s propaganda made it seem that way. the sad thing is 40% of republicans think sadaam played a role in 9/11.

5. Buck Evinger Says: September 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm

   Well, to quote the greatest President of our time, Ronald Regan, “There you go again.”

   Show me a quote from George Bush or anybody in his administration saying that Iraq was directly connected with 9/11. It never happened! That’s one of the great liberal myths no accepted as fact.

   Bush did disband the Iraqi Army, which in hindsight was stupid, stupid, stupid.

   Bush never lied about WMD. Show me a quote or a document where Bush or anybody in his administration ever said anything different than Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or any number of Democrats about Iraq and WMD. That is another of the liberal lies touted as fact.

   I didn’t attack you, I questioned the source of your facts. When the facts aren’t on your side, say you’re being attached, classic liberal tactic….

   YOU GUYS CRACK ME UP!

6. The Other Side Says: September 15th, 2007 at 1:31 am

   a person doesn’t need direct quotes to show the connection.
   -http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

   bush even envoked 9-11 in his speach last night and talked about al-queda attacking our cities. except al-queda in iraq doesn’t have the capibilities to attack us, al-queda central does. thats how he ties two independent issues together.

   wmds are far more obvious. just watch colin powell’s address to the un and tell me they didn’t equate sadaam with nuclear weapons. the administration said the wmds were in iraq. they weren’t. and the clintons didn’t attack iraq, so whatever they said was only rhetoric, if they said anything on the topic.

   “the smoking gun could be in the form of a mushroom cloud”. bush and rice used that analogy while speaking. are you that blind to how america got into this war? thats the scariest part.

7. nutslikebush Says: September 15th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

   Buck,
   I noticed that you quoted von Clausewitz. Do you remember why he said that? The context that quote is crucial and instructive. Also, why is that quote so often cited and yet people seem to know so little about Clausewitz other than that quote?

8. nutslikebush Says: September 15th, 2007 at 9:21 pm

   Even if Saddam did have WMD, which he didn’t, we should not have attacked Iraq. Why? Because 1) we had both of his hands tied behind his back militarily, 2) he was not part of the war on terror - as far as al qaeda was concerned, he was just another infidel just like you and me. Bin Laden really wanted Saddam killed or overthrown and offered to take al qaeda into Iraq to fight Saddam after Saddam invaded Kuwait but the Saudis stopped him. We replaced the tyranny of Saddam with the tyranny of the Shiite militias (an even trade in some ways, except that Iran likes the Shiite militias and they hated Saddam). Yes Saddam supported Palestinian terrorists in Israel. But that has zilch to do with Al Qaeda either, or the war on terror. That is a civil war in Israel. The invasion if Iraq was a colossal setback for us in the middle east and in the war against al qaeda. I just hope that we don’t get involved in some long-term military pact with the corrupt and incompetent Iraqi government. But that would be very Bush-like because it is exactly the wrong thing to do.

9. nutslikebush Says: September 15th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

   Buck,
   Now you have me going back and reading the old interviews and speeches (circa 2003) from the Bush administration. I just found this interview that Tim Russert did with Cheney. In it you can see the now classic problems - underestimating the mission, the Iraqi response, the cost, the duration, and Cheney linking Al Qaeda with Saddam (which we knew then was bogus). Here is a sample.
   MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

   VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

   Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

   Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

   MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

   VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

   MR. RUSSERT: We have had 50,000 troops in Kosovo for several years, a country of just five million people. This is a country of 23 million people. It will take a lot in order to secure it.

   VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, but we’ve significantly drawn down our forces in Kosovo and in the Balkans. There’s no question but what we’ll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein’s regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things that are required to have Iraq up and running again. And we are well-equipped to do that. We have got a lot of effort that’s gone into that.

   But the—again, I come back to this proposition—Is it cost-free? Absolutely not. But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed. (NOTE: The cost of the Iraq invasion long ago exceeded the cost of 9/11 both in lives and money).

   MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

   NUTSLIKEBUSH: Try a $trillion, Tim

10. Emory Says: September 15th, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    Just curious nutslikebush, if we knew for certain that Saddam did have WMD and that he definitely was going to attack, should we have attacked him in your opinion?

11. nutslikebush Says: September 16th, 2007 at 3:55 am

    Hi Emory,
    Long time, no see. In my opinion, yes. If he did have WMD and was going to attack us, we should have blown him to smitherings. I would be for that. But he was in no position to be able to attack us. His military was in shambles, he had no serious weapons, the entire world was watching every move he made. Even Al Qaeda wanted him dead.

12. nutslikebush Says: September 16th, 2007 at 4:05 am

    oops. smithereens. my bad.

13. Emory Says: September 16th, 2007 at 4:14 am

    Hi nutslikebush,

    Yeah, I lurk a lot and post very little around here lately. But, I have a feeling that with the election coming, I’m going to be posting a lot more.

    I appreciate that. Just curious to know and thought I’d ask.

14. nutslikebush Says: September 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    The real problem at the center of the struggle in Iraq comes down to one thing; oil. If Iraq didn’t have huge oil reserves the factions wouldn’t be fighting for power. We mistakenly believe that the religious differences between Sunni and Shiites are driving this conflict. Both sides have a huge treasure a stake - tremendous oil wealth. Unfortunately, the Iraq government’s progress toward an oil law that would equitably split the oil wealth unraveled last week and they are back to square one.
    On that note, I read several interviews with Allen Greenspan this morning and here is a juicy quote from one of them:
    However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

    Interestingly, he also was highly critical of both Bushes and the republican congress for their fiscal recklessness (big spenders). He says about the Republicans; “too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity.” And, “House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority.”

    In contrast, he praises Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage.

    Clinton was truly far more of a conservative that Bush is. I am not joking. I think that Republicans have forgotten what conservatism actually is. Bush is NOT even close to being a conservative. He is a radical activist, big government, and big spending ultra-liberal. The meanings of lberal and conservative swapped before our very eyes and most people didn’t even notice.

    Yesterday I listened to an excellent podcast at dancarlin.com (Sept 15 podcast) that included an interview with Jonah Goldberg, the conservative columnist. Goldberg essentially makes the same point; that americans don’t even really know what Conservative means anymore. Check it out - Carlin’s Manhattan Project for energy is interesting too.

15. nutslikebush Says: September 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    Buck,
    You need to add Senator Chuck Hagel (R) to your list. I saw this earlier this morning and tracked the clip down on the internet for you to post here. Thanks.

    huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/16/hagel-calls-bushs-iraq-p_n_64595.html

16. nutlikebush Says: September 17th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    Buck (von Clausewitz),
    can you elaborate on what you meant when you said that “war is a political solution?” I am not sure that you mean what Clausewit meant when he wrote that after the Napoleonoic wars. He was using that statement as a dialectical device to make a very different point from yours. I don’t think that you really believe that liberals want us to lose a war. That is just lowball jabber. Biden has been very clear about his strategy of encouraging federalism that empowers the Iraqi provinces rather than putting all power in a single big central government. That idea resonates with real conservatives as a governmental style that conservatives push for at home.

17. Buck Evinger Says: September 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    My Dear Nuts,
    Von Clausewitz intent with that statement and his other writings is very clear and a matter of common sense should tell you that war, one country invading another, Bush invading Iraq, Clinton invading Somalia, Regan invading Grenda, Carter sending special forces into Iran…..all of those are the use of violence to extend a governments political policy. Congress overwhelmingly approved the use of force in Iraq.

    Let’s see, why did we have elected POLITICAL LEADERS vote on the use of war?

    I do, in fact, think that liberls want us to lose this war. Liberals think we deserve to lose this war because they think our POLITICAL POLICIES in the middle east caused it.

    I enjoyed the “deer in the headlights” look Biden gave Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday when asked, “But Senator Biden, how can you say a three state solution is best for the Iraqis when a recent ABC News poll showed that 68% of Iraq’s want one government.”

    Biden’s response….”duh…duh…..duh…..”

18. nutslikebush Says: September 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Buck,
    You were wondering about Biden’s plan. Here is a brief summary of the plan in his own words as it appeared in August 2006 in the Washington Post. The detailed plan can be found here: planforiraq.com/plan

    Summary:
    First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

    Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

    Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid — especially from the oil-rich Gulf states — but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

    Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

    Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

    This plan is consistent with Iraq’s constitution, which already provides for the country’s 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militias, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions instead of engaging in acts of violence. This plan is consistent with a strong central government that has clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence. This plan is not partition — in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq.

    To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region. And we would require international peacekeepers for other mixed cities to support local security forces and further protect minorities. The example of Bosnia is illustrative, if not totally analogous. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now they are strengthening their central government and disbanding their separate armies.

    At best, the course we’re on has no end in sight. At worst, it leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan offers a way to bring our troops home, protect our security interests and preserve Iraq as a unified country. Those who reject this plan out of hand must answer one simple question: What is your alternative?

19. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Buck,
    Do I detect a hint a sarcasm (the lowest, and least funny, form of humor) in your reply to me? Are you implying that components of the political process such as developing an oil revenue law that distributes the oil wealth between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds equitably is unnecessary - they should just fight it out? Are you suggesting that war is always an acceptable alternative to political processes like voting, writing laws, developing a fair justice system etc? Because that’s what it seems like you mean. I disagree with you. I don’t think we can kill every single muslim that you’d like to see dead.
    Wallace obviously hadn’t read Biden’s plan, which calls for one government. It makes me think that Wallace must not be too bright.

20. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 12:06 am

    Buck,
    Are you against states in the US too? It’s the same exact principle, by the way.

21. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 12:13 am

    Buck,
    You are aware that when von Clausewitz wrote that no politicians voted on whether the Prussians and the French were going to war? Just a couple of emperors making their decisions all on their own.

22. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 12:54 am

    A major different between you and me, Buck, is that I would like it if politicians looked smart, regardless of their party. Believe me, I long for the day when Bush appears intelligent rather than stupid during an interview. I don’t laugh at him. Instead, I feel horrible for us.

23. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 3:07 am

    So Buck,
    I went back and read that interview that you referred to in your earlier post. The statistics that Wallace cited were inaccurate, for one thing. According to the BBC, ABC poll (which I tracked down and studied pretty carefully) that he mentioned about 59% of Iraqis support a central government, down from about 90% in 2005. It is also interesting in the BBC, ABC poll that bout 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military “surge” of the past six months. Also, we learn from that poll, that the majority of Iraqis say that the US should leave Iraq immediately. Wow. The things you can learn when you actually go read the polls for yourself instead of taking Wallace’s word for it.
    By the way, Biden looked pretty good in that interview, not at all as you characterized him. Why am I not surprised?

24. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 3:15 am

    And, if you look at the demographic data in that poll, it is ONLY the shiites that support a central government at all and they are abandoning it rapidly over the past two years. The Kurds and the Sunni are strongly against a central government. What does it mean when two of the three ethnic groups refuse to participate? Do you think a strategy to force a strong central government on these people will work when two of the three ethnic groups are dead set against it? So Wallace really misinterpreted the data in his argument with Biden.

25. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 3:40 am

    The Kurds have actually already effectively formed their own state. They don’t even fly the Iraqi flag, opting for the Kurdistan flag, and they don’t refer to themselves as Iraqis either. Check out the Kurdistan REGIONAL government website where they strongly espouse the sort of federalism that Biden is talking about. One of the three major ethnic groups has already done what you claim they don’t want to do.

    krg.org/articles/kurdistan_regional_government_en.html

    and their declaration of a regional pact between members of various Kurd political parties to form a unified Kurdistan.

    krg.org/articles/detail.asp?rnr=24&lngnr=12&anr=8891&smap=

26. nutslikebush Says: September 20th, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    I’m sitting here looking at the questions and data from that poll that Wallace was referring to (see Buck’s post above). I see the question that he was talking about now and I was mistaken before. Wallace’s number was correct (my error in my earlier post). But Buck, I encourage you to download this poll and read it carefully. It is 32 pages and it is packed with fascinating, enlightening, data. The pdf file is here: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm (no www)

    The poll shows that from the perspective of Iraqis, things are getting progressively worse during the past 6 months in every single respect. And that they are, on the whole, not at all happy with the US presence there. But you LAL folks read it for yourselves and tell me what you think it means.

Leave a Reply