The Dems have this annoying habit of tucking in their little tails and running when the Republicans say “boo!”. But while I don’t expect the Republican advantage on national security to disappear over night, clearly just running away from the issue is not a winning strategy. Simply hanging around and calling “macaca” on the other side does a good job of nullifying the issue, especially when no matter what they do – Bush is one of the most consistently unpopular presidents in the last 30 years.
I don’t mean to be an apologist here, because I am no big fan of Bush, but you complain when he goes down in the polls and then you complain when he goes up? Are you ever happy?
He hasn’t gone up in almost two years, what the hell are you talking about?
This so called bounce that you’re writing about, that’s what.
A bounce is a positive direction in the polls. Bush has had statistical noise, but been below 50% for just about 2 years straight.
Whatever you want to call it, I was just calling it what Atrios did.
My point still stands, whenever he goes down, you whine, whenever he moves up, you whine.
By whine, do you mean I actually say something about it? You guys need a dictionary or something, if you think me saying that Dems shouldn’t back down to Bush constitutes whining. Grow a pair.
I don’t understand your post. Are you saying the Dems need to address national security better or that they have nullified the issue somewhat by yelling “macaca”?
I think they/you need to address the issue head on – positively – no flinching. If your position is ‘withdraw from Iraq right away’ – say it. Say why. And ‘why’ is not Bush lied etc. ‘Why’ is the country will be better because …
Seems to me you believe we should withdraw now but when confronted, liberals shy away from arguing their point – on its true merits/demerits. I suppose you believe the American people won’t buy it – so you camouflage it with anti-Bush rhetoric. I don’t think you can win that way.
We shoudl seta timetable for withdrawal in conjunction with the Iraqi government and its armed/security forces because America can better use the resources elsewhere to fight terrorism than playing traffic cops caught up in an Iraqi civil war.
I’m not hiding anything Dugger, is your comprehension so low you can’t see? Democrats have shied away from articulating their position – any position – on national security. I, and most Americans, happen to favor a strategic redployment from Iraq – in my case, one where those troops and more forces are directed towards eliminating the Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The Dems have been too poll-scared to say what they believe (even if its no timetable, like Sen. Clinton) – when they do say it, it negates the Republican advantage considerably and essentially makes it a wash.
“is your comprehension so low you can’t see?”
If my comprehension is so low, how would I even know if my comprehension was low? And why would you ask a person with low comprehension if he has low comprehension? Would you ask acrazy amn if he was crazy and trust the answer?
Anyway. And the problem is not with bloggers like you stating your position – you guys are pretty much gung-ho for pulling out of Iraq immediately – regardless of consequences. Its your political leadership that shys away from the issue – trying at once to please you but also trying to please those who think it folly to pull out of Iraq all at once.
I hope this is comprehensible.
Haha, O’Dub made a funny.
The question was rhetorical, Dugger. You know exactly what you’re saying, you’re just being intentionally stupid. The progressive base has been way ahead of Democratic pols and especially Republicans on the issue of Iraq. They don’t listen because they’ve been cowed by an environment with 24-7 talk radio and cable news that rewards outspoken Dems by labeling them terrorists. They listen to the insular consultants in DC and think that we still live in the era of incremental politics that dominated the 1990s. Its a mindset that has led to electoral losses in ‘02 and ‘04.
And don’t fool yourself. The Republicans want out of Iraq ASAP, they just know that without the bloody shirt they really have nothing left.
“… you guys are pretty much gung-ho for pulling out of Iraq immediately – regardless of consequences.”
That’s pretty fucking laughable coming from an idiot who wants to “stay the course” in the face of rapidly deteriorating circumstances and then declare victory anyway and pull out in the dead of night.
It’s also laughable since that is neither the position of most people commenting here nor the position of the democratic leadership who have called for a timetable set to conditions on the ground.
Typical that the only thing you;ve got dugger is a series ofmassive distortions and bullshit. Idiot.
Hey OW. You truly don’t get it. I and every soldier I know truly wants out of Iraq ASAP. Its just that we have hugely different standards as to what is “possible”. Surrender to terrorists isn’t on most of our lists of the ‘possible’.
Hey, you understand them. I want them dead.
If you wanted the terrorists dead, you wouldn’t support sitting in Iraq forever. The right has waved the white flag to Al Qaeda once too many, and as a result they’re more powerful than ever. They love having us in Iraq.
I want them dead.
Then sign up and kill somebody. I’m a vet, and I think anyone who wants the military to kill people as long as they don’t personally have to, is a coward and unworthy of American citizenship. But that’s just me, a patriot and a veteran, and you are just a chickenhawk, all talk and no guts, so who cares what you think?
One can safely assume then that Dugger despises the Bush administration for its routine appeasement of terrorists of all stripes, and not just those that are, or purport to be, a part of al Qaeda.
Wasn’t it Bush who swore to hunt down the perpetrators and planners of 9/11 and bring them to justice?
This would be the same Bush, who after diverting critical resources away from the pursuit of Bin Laden at Tora Bora, went on to say he doesn’t see Bin Laden as a problem. So much for dead or alive, I guess, but since Bush wasn’t concerned about Bin Laden after the notorious August 6 PDB, I suppose it’s just a return to form.
Oh, but the goodness doesn’t stop there. Just this month we have seen Bush waving the Bin Laden boogeyman in American’s faces, proclaiming him the successor to such legendary (and all to often invoked) figures as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. It must enrage Dugger to hear such words while watching a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda gradually retake Afghanistan, all while operating under the cover of a new Pakistani “truce” that essentially creates a permanent safe haven for those who are, according to Bush, putting the modern world in a “struggle for civilization.”
Then, of course, there is the centerpiece to all this, Iraq. No WMDs, no al Qaeda connection (sorry Dick, but keep on catapulting that propaganda since there seem to be a lot of idiots in this country who lap it up), no valuable resources…wait, strike that, well, no intention of actually carrying on any reconstruction, anyway. Just secure the oil, build the bases, and bleed the rest. Remember Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N., the one were he produced a tiny vial to illustrate the degree of danger posed by Saddam’s bio weapons program? It sure was a relief when we found those labs and destroyed them. Except we didn’t, since you can’t destroy what doesn’t already exist. So what did happen to that whole Anthrax scare thing? We caught those guys, right? Surely we looked into the clear indicators that the whole plot was a product of domestic terrorists (ala Oklahoma City)? No way did we simply leverage the whole thing to provide more cover for an illegal invasion of a sovereign country without actually catching anyone.
Oops.
Just stay the course and damn the consequences, eh? Except we can see the consequences of staying the course, can’t we. The collapse of U.S. prestige and influence, a runaway deficit being piled on the backs of the middle and lower class, and, of course, too many scenes like this.(warning, these pictures are graphic).
Still, we can’t just hand Iraq over to the terrorists. That’s going to be pretty tough considering every group in Iraq has been labeled “terrorist” at one time or another. Particularly the Shia, which is just buckets of fun when you consider they are a major force in the current government, are aligned with Iran (or Iraq part deux, if you prefer to take a more forward looking perspective), and essentially comprise all of Hezbollah. At least we can rely on the Sunnis, just not those in Hamas, right? Hey, I know, we’ll go get the Kurds, assuming they aren’t provoking Turkey or harboring more al-Qaeda types like they apparently were before we invaded. I mean Saddam…that Saddam harbored.
Crap.
It’s easy to discount Dugger since he clearly comes here to validate himself. Why else go to a blog where no one, no one who isn’t a troll, appears to respect your arguments.
As for me, yeah, I want to understand terrorists, and not because I hold even a flicker of hope for winning the hearts and minds of those who have already surrendered to the allure of violence. Rather I would hope that we can find a way to treat the problems that spawn these threats, whether that means addressing economic exploitation or re-evaluating our support for oppressive autocratic regimes like, say, Saudi Arabia (who, like Pakistan, has clear terrorism ties and against whom George Bush will never raise a finger). I see terrorism as a symptom (or tool, if you prefer), not the disease. Simply proclaiming a desire to see all terrorists dead doesn’t remotely help in the slightest. Try looking into how the British finally stopped the IRA. Here’s a hint, they didn’t bomb anyone and they didn’t invade France. Maybe we can save more lives by preventing the next outbeak of violence rather than bloodily avenging the last.
Whew. That was a lot longer then I intended.
Hey, you understand them. I want them dead.
For one thing, everyone here wants the true terrorists elimated. The problem is when innocent people, who happen to be of the same religious faith or happen to be in the same location get killed by our actions and dismissed as “collateral damage”. Blatently killing innocent people by acts of unnecessary war, such as has occurred many times in Iraq, cannot be justified.
BW,
The core problem is that (IMO) conservatives say we have to fight terrorism from a position of strength, take the battle to them, and in doing so – as is the case any time you fight a war- there or take any significant military action, there will be ‘undeserved casualties’. Liberals seem to believe that the principal of avoiding any ‘undeserved casualties’ is paramount and therefore we should do very very little, because any thing we do to fight back, may hurt an innocent. Differing philosophies.
So you support a policy of “fuck ‘em all”
Wouldn’t it be better and less deadly if we could avert fighting altogether instead of the reaction of “fighting back”?
Well, not for you Dug
duros,
Of course you can avert fighting – by surrendering your freedom and rights and the welfare of the ones you love. Maybe you understand the Israeli psyche – after WWII?
But if uo are one of the ones who think that having something worthwhile might mena you need to defend it, then you have to determine (a) how to win the fight and (b) how to win with the least suffering (note the word ‘least’ – which presiumes if thre is fighting, there will be some pain).
Dugger (and if our/your parents and grandparents hadn’t fought, you wouldn’t be here – vertsanden sie, mein herr??
Bill L said,
“I would hope that we can find a way to treat the problems that spawn these threats, whether that means addressing economic exploitation or re-evaluating our support for oppressive autocratic regimes like, say, Saudi Arabia (who, like Pakistan, has clear terrorism ties and against whom George Bush will never raise a finger).”
Isn’t that nice. We brought it on ourselves – by supporting autocratic regimes. I bet all those poor souls jumping out of the towers didn’t know that they were ultimately at fault. Silly me. I thought the terrorists caused their own terrorist acts. And economic conditions cause terrorism also, you say? Terrorism committed by middle class students and professionals????
Think about that one much? Why not research the background on terrorists before making such fatuous statements. http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0507a/madrassasterrorlink.html
“Of course you can avert fighting – by surrendering your freedom and rights and the welfare of the ones you love.”
PLease, Dugger, present us with the scenario in which we will be forced to surrender our freedom and rights to Osama bin Laden if we don’t bomb the fuck out of Muslim countries.
Man, Dugger just can’t make an honest point at all, can he?
His link supports the contention that Pakistan is a major terrorist haven and yet he argues consistently against any intervention by the U.S.
He argues that all terrorists are middle class, yet chooses to only focus on those involved in overseas operations and ignores the economic climate across the Middle East that allows terrorism to flourish.
He relentlessly obsesses on 9-11 and refuses to acknowledge any transgressions by the U.S. in its foreign and economic policies that might have contributed to the attack. Much easier for him to take the cowardly way out and invoke the image of those who died and try to twist the debate into an attack on the victims.
What a sad, sorry lot Bush humpers are. So content to run into the arms of authoritarianism, to piss away their (and our) civil rights and liberties for a chance to bludgeon the world with their self righteousness, yet so desperate for attention that they will troll the forums of the opposition for a moment of validation, even if it means being repeatedly verbally derided at every turn.