And yes, affirmative, I was repetitively redundant.

Dugger Dugger

This is, appropriately, what the Bush administration did in the run up to Iraqi Freedom. They told us it would be easy, that we’d be greeted as liberators, and that once Saddam was forced to flee that the mission was accomplished.

Later, they tell us “well, it’s still going to be hard to stabilize a country and deal with the insurgents.”

Off topic: “hard, difficult decision”? Dept of Redundancy Department?

No conflict at all. IF something is difficult, I want a leader who will say its difficult, that we must do the hard thing. My fictional Ms Rice would be saying we must do a very difficult thing. There are no shortcuts. IMO its much easier to throw money or hot air at a problem (and not fix it) than ask young men and women to risk their lives – for, hopefully a true fix. Rs and Ds have all recognized this necesity at certain times and made the hard, difficult decison to send soldiers in harms way.

frame,

“It s easy enough to find and kill terrorists. ”

This is an asinine remark. You just caveated a similar statement earlier twith the startling revelation that Ts are biolically similar to all of us. OK. But then this. Please tell us exactly where these easy to find Ts are.

Dugger

Really? Seems to me all we had to do was invade Iraq. Shit, radical Islamists are booking package deals to Baghdad to come kill Americans. A fat lot of good that’s done for reducing global terrorism. It’s easy enough to find and kill terrorists. Stopping terrorism by doing so? Not so easy as our two year war in Iraq would seem to prove.

I meant biologically. Biologically, terrorists die as easily as any of us.

And you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth now–if it’s so difficult for us to kill terrorists, then why would you applaud a Condi Rice “I plan to kill the terrorists” platform as if it were anything more than empty rhetoric?

I find it far too optimistic to think that we can find and kill *every* terrorist, especially when those other conditions, the ones you don’t care about, foster more recruits all the time.

You’re trying to cut off the hands of the beast. I’m asking for somebody who can cut off the head.

Yes. I’m saying Demorats should follow your advice.

Dugger

Dugger;

Are you kidding me?

Normally, I would cut and paste the portion of your post that I disagree with. In this case, the whole thing is wet.

First, the “conviction” and passion is what was missing in 2000 and 2004.

Second; being driven by the Republican base has worked for this President, but won’t work for Dems?

Third; I think the conservatives are salivating over Hillary. Imagine, if they could cold-cock McCain, what will be the limits of their principles
on Hillary?

If they could make Bush look like a war-hero and Kerry an anti-war child killer who believes in war, what will they do to HC?

No, Dugger. I don’t think Dems should ask conservatives who has the best chance in 2008.

Killing is very hard for ordinary moral men and women. Finding and killing Ts is extremely difficult. You may think its easy, but I think the military would disagree.
And the only ‘condition’ I care about regarding Ts is that one where he decides he has any reason in the world to murder me, my family and my countrymen. Thats all I need. And until I hear a D say something similar and not how we must understand same said SOB, I’m voting R.

Semant,
I agree Dems should decide for themselves. Thats their right. Equally it is mine to comment on the wisdom or lack thereof in their decison making process. And you must have observed a different election than I. Bush never, never ballyhooed his military record, which was decent (He flew a fairly dangerous fighter. A lot more than Clinton did, less than Kerry). Kerry bragged at every opportunity about his ervice, something you never hear other heros do. And by all means, don’t run Hillary. I’m sure a centrist mainstream, common sense Democratic politiican would be an easy mark versus men of conviction like Kucinich or Edwards. Please, not those two!

Dugger

b.) Dems should take conservative advice on who to run

So you agree with my post except for ;

a) Bush (to his credit) did not brag about his military service, a point I was
not making, and;

b) Dems hould not take conservative advice.

It’s the exact same boneheaded strategy that has left us deadlocked in the War on Drugs…fighting the supply side without also attacking the demand.

Killing terrorists is not a difficult thing to do. They die just as easily as any of us do. Killing the conditions that create terrorism is much harder, unless you’re willing to advocate the genocide of all Muslims who might possibly one day maybe perhaps get a little more fundamentalist.

And maybe you can do that. Maybe it is that easy for you.

“vast majority of the left doesn t talk about empathizing with terrorists, but they think that winning the war on terror is about eliminating the root causes,”

And I truly, truly hope your nominee, who will have to placate the extremist money men, runs on this platform.

For tonight’s debate, first up is Democratic contender Senator Albert Kucedwards:”My fellow, Americans, as your (Democratic) President, I will look at worldwide terrorism, the attacks of 9-11, the Russian schoolchildren massacre, the beheading of Christian schoolchildren and I will say to these terrorists, we need to understand what makes you do this, the root causes!! Talk to us and we’ll try to stop doing those things which drive you to this.”

And now Ms. Rice: “We plan on killing the terrorist SOBs.”

I doubt the American people will “buy” surrender, but our ultimate withdrawal from Iraq, whenever that occurs, should be based on the situation in Iraq instead of the tenor here at home.

Americans have been turning against the Bush tax cuts for some time now, since they understand that fighting a war on multiple fronts (and other services) requires the government to have enough money to do so. If you told the average American that their choices are (a) lower taxes or (b) a functional FEMA, most of us would rather have (b).

And go shove your “understanding” talking point back in Karl Rove’s facehole. The vast majority of the left doesn’t talk about empathizing with terrorists, but they think that winning the war on terror is about eliminating the root causes, not just the limitless supply of recruits.

“Understand the root causes”? “Run from Iraq”? Don’t claim to have honestly weighed the decision when you begin with bullshit spin like this.

Semant,

Lets say this then: You and I would be quite happy to see the Dems go back to their ‘conviction’ base. Again, in an election between an “understand the root causes” , “run from Iraq” Democrat’ versus Rudy or Condi or McCain – I’ll go with the Repubs. A moderate, centrist positioned Hillary who wants to fight terrorism by killing terrorists would be harder for Rs. What great pleasure to read this site in 2009 and see Jadegold et al whimpering out three stolen presidential elections.

Dugger

One thing I’m sure of — absolutely sure of — is that Secretary Rice accepts a draft, she will run and win.

It would be the biggest mistake in Democratic strategy and tactics since the nomination of McGovern in 1972, for Dems to believe that “the Republican base” won’t go for Condi.

Check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/7c9to

McCain’s out, too.. I and Dick Morris agree on that, too..

Guess who his money’s on?

Me, too…

Go, Condi,Go!

I have to say you were doing fine, until you got to the unbeatable Giuliani.

Let’s leave that sleeping dog in a prone position for now.

I would agree with your analysis to a point, but divert on the

radical meltdown you seem to forsee should Centrist Democrats go to their

base. I have maintained, for some time, the american people want to see

conviction. They really don’t want to be bothered with the mess. That’s

why they hire Senators and Presidents.

They want you to get the job done. Do it right. If you get caught cheating

on your watch, they are pretty forgiving unless you start lying to them.

So, the Dems could win even with your inaccurate assessment of them as

a burden. They are an asset. They keep folks honest about what they say

versus what they do. They are driving the normally pacifist D’s into the

passionate conviction necessary to capture the hearts and minds of the

voter.