The tyrant, who in order to hold his power, suppresses every superiority, does away with good men, forbids education and light, controls every movement of the citizens and, keeping them under a perpetual servitude, wants them to grow accustomed to baseness and cowardice, has his spies everywhere to listen to what is said in the meetings, and spreads dissension and calumny among the citizens and impoverishes them, is obliged to make war in order to keep his subjects occupied and impose on them permanent need of a chief.”

They’ve stolen two elections, one by chicanery, and another by fear. The economy sucks, the patriot act is still law, and the war on terror is forever. A job well done I’d say

1 American troop is too many when it’s for the wrong reasons.

How’s that for a number?

JK

Then Oliver blithely says:

“Leave it for the guy who runs the fan site for the national security advisor whose dawdling helped lead to September 11th to be completely disconnected from reality. ”

Anybody but me feel just a little sense of irony here?

Dugger

So your premise is that he is contained? Sounds like another Arab leader, hmm, can’t think of his name, it’s right at the tip of my tongue, oh yea, Saddam Hussein!

But we HAD to go to war with him NOW, even though he had never attacked us.

On the other hand, OBL did attack us and we did go to war, but abandoned the search after he escaped from Tora Bora. Then Bush lost interest and sent troops to slaughter in a country which was no threat.

Who was more of a threat to the US? OBL or Saddam Hussein? Be honest. Remember, Saddam had no WMD, now.

Minimize casualties? You do realize that more then 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by US bombs and thousands more are homeless. Not to mention the fact that malnutrition is at it’s highest peak among children then before the war.

I’m sure the families of Iraqi’s killed by the US would find it odd that you claim our desires are to minimize causalities.

What liberals wanted to attack Afghanistan? The majority of us

You mean like MoveOn.org? ANSWER? Michael Moore?

they wanted Bush to attack Afghanistan AND GET BIN LADEN

Some of us realize that the war on terror is not the same as the pursuit and capture of bin Laden, and some of us realize that the GWOT will not be over when he is captured or found dead.

“You re a first-class coward,” types JK, behind the comfort of his keyboard.

malnutrition is at its highest peak among children than before the war

I doubt that’s true, but even if it were, you have to live long enough to be malnourished, something which might not have happened under the Hussein regime.

You’re a first-class coward.

Democrats in Congress were overwhelmingly behind Bush post 9/11. The voting record if proof positive, and you know it. Rove is, was, and will always be flat out wrong.

Then you read JD’s pablum. See, folks…if you’re a Democrat…you’re damned it you do, and damned if you don’t. If you voted FOR the war, it was out of political expediency. Against it, and you’re a commie.

So, we’re in here debating whether or not Democrats can be blamed for being too “sensitive” to the whims of terrorists. Crazy talk…but even if it were true, would it have a damn thing to do with the utter failure of the prosecution of this failed war?

You have the Congress. You have the White House. Stop blaming Democrats. Blame yourself, and blame your leadership for the following:

-1,700 Dead American Troops, countless disabled, maimed and injured.
-Failure to capture the central Figure of the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden.
-Failure to locate, find, and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction that served as the initial justification for the war in Iraq.
-Failure to defeat the Iraqi Insurgency, and failure to locate and capture the mastermind behind it.

YOU have failed. Not us. YOU.

JK

How does the 1700 figure compare to other wars? Vietnam? WW2? Or is simply trotting out a number your only way of showing your disdain for the war?

I agree that to this point, we have failed to capture Bin Laden. However, is it a touch disingenous to make that the only assessment? Is he travelling freely? Coordinating attacks? Does our failure to have him in captivity mean we are not trying, or have not yet been successful ?

WMD? Do artillery shells filled with Sarin gas count as WMD? If Saddam did not have WMD, why did he no produce the evidence that he had destroyed them, thus averting the war altogether?

Failure to defeat an insurgency? You are kidding, right? We could carpet bomb the Sunni Triangle, and end this now. Our own desires to minimize casualties are actually keeping us from simply eliminating the “insurgency”. Screw that word. They are terrorists. They come from countries all over the Middle East to fight us, and they lose. They are cowards, fighting from mosques, posing as citizens, attacking civilians, the list goes on …

That’s because liberal voters and liberal politicians agreed it was the right thing to do, including me and every other person who’s posted here. Until you have facts, cease your slurs. Anecdotal evidence won’t cut it.

Notice how all of these Democrats that normally call themselves centrists, mainstream, or moderates, are all up in arms that Rove said something about liberals?

Almost every American who saw what happened on 9/11 was angry. And if they weren’t…well, we live in a free society, don’t we? Our forefathers, grandfathers, fathers, sons and daughters have fought and died so people can voice their views, however misguided they might be.

THIS liberal has served his country. Have you? My uncle served in WWII as a pilot and was in fact shot down over the South Pacific. He survived to run as a Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor in Vt. Bob Kerrey lost a leg. Max Cleland. I could go on. Liberals and Democrats fight and die for their country every day.

So, do what you need to do. Trash liberals, trash Democrats, trash everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

In the end…you’re the one that’s weak, my friend.

JK

We SHOULD have gone after the folks behind 9/11 – we MAY have made the world a better place if we had.

Instead we get this hogwash about Iraq – and what do we do – we let the perps go, we make the world a more dangerous place…IRAQ is an amazing oppotunity for a terrorist – they can learn new ways to kill!

Where is the outrage?

Did anyone catch Cindy Sheehan on the News last night? Powerful stuff – a brave mother of a brave young man that was killed five days into his arrival in Iraq.

Oliver, you can call it a fan site if you want — I couldn’t care less. The only reason your weblog isn’t a “fan site” is because you’re not a fan of anyone or anything. You’re just anti-Bush and anti-Republican. Big deal.
The slur doesn’t work if I don’t take the bait.

You see, being opposed to something is a lot easier than proposing something.

Why do you think I enjoy posting here?

Maybe you would be willing to explain why Trent Lott’s comments were a national story for a long long long time, ultimately resulting in Republicans forcing him to apologize, repeatedly, and give up his position, but when DICK Durbin compares a detainee being bound by chains, being cold, being hot, listening to rap music, etc … to Nazi’s, the gulags, and Pol Pot, it receives scant national attention from the mainstream media, and when he kind of apologizes, even though the left thinks he had nothing to apologize for, they ignore his words, and generally applaud them.

Let us compare the column inches and TV time on the major networks, major dailies, and cable networks for this little dust up to the Durbin scenario, and see who gets hammered on harder.