in november, we will have an opportunity to vote on the direction of the iraq war. we have a chance to choose between two parties with what (i believe) are two totally different views on the prosecution of the iraq war and on the overall war on terror. while i think that it’s an unfair characterization to paint candidates such as ned lamont and democratic leaders like howard dean as closet sympathizers with al qaeda, it is important to point out that their proposals aren’t necessarily the best way to deal with iraq.
this is the point where our faith in the current course is tested. it’s a legitimate argument to point out that we are struggling in iraq right now. i’m tired of trying to defend the president on his iraq policy, because it seems to go against what we are all seeing on the evening news. i’m sure that many other republicans and especially those in congress have that same inner struggle, especially when their defense of the president may cost them their jobs.
there’s more at stake here than choosing to support the war in iraq or to oppose it. what we will be deciding in november is how aggressively we want to deal with the terrorist threat we face in this country. i can’t say this enough…karl rove didn’t invent this threat just to scare the country into voting for republicans. IT’S REAL. when we go to the polls this november, that’s the question we will have to answer. can the democrats prove that they will use any means available to them to catch the terrorists who want to kill us? whether you agree with everything bush has done, or whether you question the legality of some of those programs, there should be no doubt that he will do whatever he feels is necessary to protect us.
the future of iraq and the direction of the war on terror has now being placed into our hands. it’s up to us to decide what happens next. consider this decision carefully. choose wisely.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself” — John Stuart Mill
Technorati Tags: war on terror, iraq, ’06 election
While I agree with you that Carl Rove didn’t invent the terror threat, I hope you will agree with me in realizing that he has ‘used’ it and the American people to maneauver the people and get the Republican agenda pushed through.
Also, we should not forget that the war in Iraq was begun based on known lies. The administration (the same one that tries to hide behind religion and make us believe they are the party of integrity) had lied to us over and over again. The original supposed reason for engaging in war (which most Americans agreed with) was to avenge 9/11 but that never happened. The agenda for the Iraq War was discussed in meetings BEFORE 9/11 and during the 2000 campaign. It was an
‘agenda’. Before we ever even attempted to avenge for 9/11, he forgot who attacked us and decided to attack Iraq. There are many hidden reasons for this ‘bait and switch’ routine, but one was to avenge ‘Daddy’s mistake’ of not taking Bagdad in the first Iraq War. So, let’s not put Bush on a pedastal. It would crumble beneath him. Additionally, Carl Rove isn’t suppose to be the decision maker. Supposedly, (that is a big question mark too) the American People elected Bush to the office. So, he is the one that should be making the decisions unless he is inept or incapable (both of which are correct). This administration is the biggest disaster ever happen to the US. It will take us years to get over the fake Christian and his disgusting abuse of power.
Visit oneamericacommittee.com and help John Edwards become the next President and you’ll see real integrity in the White House.
I agree with you that Karl Rove has used the terror threat to suggest that Republicans have a better strategy of fighting the war on terrorism than the Democrats. But that’s probably not what you meant by your statement, is it?
I disagree that Bush lied. I think he got bad information. There’s a difference. I do think the objective of the Iraq war has changed from what it was at the beginning. If it’s true that Bush totally forgot about the people who attacked us, explain why we went into Afghanistan.
For the record, I think we should have made sure the mission in Afghanistan was finished before we went into Iraq, but I think Iraq was a legitimate target. Many people disagree with me on that.
I would be the last one to put Bush on a pedestal. While I agree with him on many social issues, he’s been reckless on spending and timid on dealing with illegal immigration. I’m not a huge Bush fan.
I don’t know if I would call Bush the biggest disaster in the history of the United States. He has made some mistakes, but I’m not ready to give him that distinction.
John Edwards is just another pretty face. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure the women of America really like looking at him. I know I do. But when it comes down to serious policy issues, he just doesn’t have enough experience. He doesn’t have the gravity that I see in other contenders like Bayh, Biden, etc. I think those are important qualities that a presidential candidate should have, and I think Edwards doesn’t have those qualities.
Facts will never work with people like “Bugsy,” they have their own version of reality and nothing but something like another event on the scale of 9/11 will even begin to clear the haze over their eyes.
The problem is, as you stated in your last post, these people don’t believe that there is a terrorist threat. Actually, that’s just part of the problem — the rest of the problem is George Bush. 2008 can’t come fast enough, we can only hope that whoever replaces him in the White House knows how to think and act Presidential (two traits “W” lacks) and, at the same time takes our country’s defense very seriously — starting with the “bleeding” unchecked, illegal immigration has caused.
You have a very good blog and a very realistic outlook on American life.
Whymrhymer
First, Bush has been proved to have lied. So, to even try to smooth that one over is useless. He has been a total disaster for this country and he is basically a retard. The majority of the terrorist of 9/11 were from Saudia Arabia, not Iraq. Bush baby was trying, among other things, to vendicated ‘Daddy’ and prevent him from going down as having screwed up the first Iraq War. Other reasons are the oil and let’s not forget that it also (among many other things) made it easier for him to push through the Alaska oil deal and do one more screw up of the environmnet.
As for John Edwards, the only men (I’m assuming you are male) who call him a ‘pretty face’ are those who are jealous that he is handsome. We really don’t have to have a president that looks like an ape (have you seen Bush’s photo beside that of an ape?). So, Edwards is a very handsome man and he should not have to compensate for that. He is also a very competent and intelligent man. Intelligence in the White House! Isn’t that a novel idea. We haven’t seen that since Clinton. Yes, men were jealous of him too. So, get over the male jealousy bit and assess the man’s credentials. Go to oneamericacommittee.com where you might learn the truth if you aren’t afraid of it. He was my Senator and I can tell you that he was the best Senator or Representative that has ever represented this state and it had nothing to do with his looks.
this grassroots movement in every state.
http://www.southcarolinaforedwards.com
http://www.northcarolinaforedwards.com
There are 50 of them already and they are totally volunteer and things are hopping.
Whymrhymer,
I hate to agree with you on this point, but it’s true that Bush is part of the problem. The guy we saw after 9/11 is not the same guy we are seeing now. Whether we agree with his policies or not, he doesn’t seem to have the ability to sell them. That’s a significant weakness he has which is easily exploited by the Democrats and by their accomplices in the media.
Thanks for the compliment and for the link. 🙂
There’s more than enough evidence that Bush didn’t lie, if you really wanted to see it. But you don’t, because your mind is made up about George W. Bush. It would be easy to make the case that you are susceptible to conspiracy theories. I don’t know 100% what Bush’s motives were, and neither do you.
In relation to getting cheap oil, how’s that working out for us? We should be drilling in ANWR. It’s less foreign oil we have to depend on. In fact, I think we need to increase oil drilling here in the States. While we are waiting for all these alternative fuels, we should at least be tapping the oil resources that we already have.
The more serious indictment against John Edwards is not that he is handsome (and just so you know…your assumption about me is wrong). The problem with him is his inexperience and lack of depth when it comes to the serious issues we now face with terrorism. I don’t doubt that he is competent and intelligent. You have to have those qualities to be a great trial lawyer. I’m also sure that he’s got a good ground game working, which you need for a serious presidential bid. I just don’t think that he is the right guy for the job.
You say my mind is made up and it is. At least I’m honest enough to admit that I am absolutely convinced with any doubt whatsoever that Bush has lied not once, not twice but constantly since he ‘took’ the office of president. You are simply a running scared Republican trying to smooth talk the voters because you know they are going to be facing the music in the upcoming elections. As for your comment about me being ‘wrong’ about you. One thing that I have learned is that people aren’t necessarily who they say on the internet. So, just because you have a feminine ID doesn’t mean anything. I have learned from the neo-con right wing Bushies that the insecure males are the ones who make low class comments about Edwards appearance. That was a low class ‘running scared’ Republican comment and you have to live with it.
As for what experience Edwards has, you haven’t a clue. You are about as shallow as anyone who would believe your superficial apple polishing for the Repbublicans. Where was FEMA during the Hurricane disaster? Please don’t try to razzle dazzle me with the ‘Bush isn’t responsible for everything’ routine. Bush IS RESPONSIBLE for those whom he put in power positions and Michael Brown was one of his kissup boys. Remember ‘Good job, Brownie’? He simply appoint incompetent political payoffs because he never should have been in office himeself. The voters didn’t put him there either. John Edwards took hundreds of college students to New Orleans and worked (not the PR ‘Mission accomplished’ BS but ‘real work’) to help get them out of that mess and he wasn’t responsible for doing anything. But all the Presidential Dummie could do was fly over in a plane and look out the window and say ‘good job Brownie’! The amazing thing is that a few people are still crazy enough to support him (what are they gaining?). Notice I didn’t say believe him, because there are none of them left unless they have been in a cave. Edwards has done far more in the last four years as a private citizen than Bush has as President and it is obvious that you don’t have a clue.
Why don’t you try reading a posting by by William Hessell. He says it far more eloquently than I. Bush’s Legacy: Unmitigated, Relentless Failure
Then, you can say one of the fake ‘Praise the Lord’s’ that the Bushies say. What an abuse of religion! He’ll outline a few of Bush’s lies for you as well.
Patriotic Moderate-Liberal American
You hate Bush. I get it. If you think that I’m an apologist for the Bush administration, you haven’t been reading this blog for very long. I don’t think Bush lied. It doesn’t have anything to do with “spin” or any attempt by me to convince voters that I’m right. Voters can make up their own minds based on the evidence they have. That was the whole point of this post. Saying Edwards is just a pretty face is a cheap shot. I buy that. But as I’ve said, that’s not the reason I consider him unqualified to be President.
FEMA screwed up. Bush screwed up. Good for John Edwards to help out in New Orleans. If you want to say that the private sector was more effective in dealing with Katrina than government was, you will get no argument from me on that. But how about handing out some accountability to Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco? They deserve some of the blame as well.
Again, I’m not a Bush apologist. I just don’t see Bush as negatively as you do.
When neo-cons can’t think of anything else to say, they always scream ‘you hate Bush’ or ‘you’re unpatriotic’. What a bunch of crap! I don’t hate Bush but I hate what he has done to this country. I hate the shape this country is in over your incompetent and inept incumbant. You can put whatever spin on it you want, but you are campaigning for the Republican party with this blog. Something that really doesn’t seem to have occurred to you is that we are NOT campaigning against Bush next election…. well, maybe Jebby will be stupid enough to run, but I don’t think so. At any rate we aren’t running against Georgie. What you are doing is trying to save the behinds of the incumbant Republicans and you were trying to softsoap it and got caught.
I can tell that you care about this country. That’s obvious. That doesn’t exclude the possibility that you dislike Bush in addition to disagreeing with his policies. I agreed with you about Bush’s response to Katrina. Just because I don’t agree that his entire presidency has been a massive failure, that doesn’t make me a neocon or a mindless puppet controlled by Karl Rove. There is no way to convince you that I’m not a tool of the Republican party, so I will quit making the attempt.
The Democratic party is running against George W. Bush in THIS election. That’s how Lamont got his victory, and that’s how the Democrats expect to coast to a majority in November. If only it were that simple.
I think there are Republicans who deserve to lose their Congressional seats because they are complicit on the excessive spending and because they are clueless on the right way to deal with illegal immigration. In that case, I have no problem with Republicans losing their jobs. However, I’m not convinced that either situation would improve under the Democrats.
It’s true that ’08 will not be about Bush, and that’s actually bad for Democrats, since Bush makes a terrific boogeyman.
I can’t save the Republicans. It’s up to them to save themselves.
Lisa. Why is is a big deal to you neo-cons to try to spin everything in to whether anyone else does or doesn’t like Bush! Every one does or doesn’t like every other individual in the world. The real ploy is that you are trying to sidetrack the issues and make it into a spin on who likes whom. The real issue is Bush’s incompetence and utter disregard for the truth.
Lamont got his victory through hard work AND a bit of help from John Edwards. I don’t know any Democrats who expect to ‘coast’ into election victory. What they do expect (an I am an Independent BTW) is to watch the ballot box with all eyes. You know the old fox in the hen house routine. With Diabold insisting no back up is needed and with Bush’s known connections there, it would be foolish not to do so.
Make sense. You are trying to agree about the Republicans now so you can continue your ‘peaceful’ chat and then say the Dems couldn’t do better. Let’s go back to Clinton. Sure he fooled around in the bedroom so let’s get that out up front. BUT, he was intelligent enough to understand math and to know you can’t give the silly little vote getting tax cuts that most people agreed they didn’t want (even then) if it was going to cause us to run into deficit spending. But, NOT, the ‘Do it my way’ administration was going to have their tax cuts….and their wars….and their increased oil prices and on and on. Now, thanks to the incompetence of Bush and the boys (and Condelezza) we have the biggest mess in the history of this country. Students can’t afford college, old people (even those who saved) can’t afford to get old with oil at 3.00 a gallon and everything increasing rapidly. Bush is just ‘praying’ that the economy will hold together long enough for him to get out of Dodge so they can blame it on the next administration. (Well, maybe that’s giving him too much credit, but his handlers are hoping that anyway.)
I hope the voters of this country are fed up enought to vote their conviction and not listen to some brainwashed preacher telling them who to vote for. It was absolutely shameful what the Republicans did and are doing with regard to using the American people and their religion.
I don’t care whether you like Bush or whether you don’t. Bush will be judged on his record, and he should be. If the American people agree with you, then you have nothing to worry about, because the Democrats will regain all the power in Washington.
I do acknowledge that Lamont’s volunteers were extremely motivated and well-organized, and that they did a better job of selling their candidate than Lieberman’s people did. Read my previous posts on this if you believe this is a new position for me to take. What motivated the netroots about Lamont? It certainly wasn’t his fiscal conservatism, although he has that going for him as well.
Let’s put the cards on the table here. You are alleging that Bush will do something to rig the November elections, right? That would be one way to explain what happened if the Democrats blow their opportunity here and actually lose in November. It just doesn’t have much basis in reality.
Who controlled Congress when Clinton was getting all this credit for the economy? Republicans. I can’t argue with your statement that this current group of Republicans have been very wasteful on spending. That’s their record, and there’s no way to justify it.
Let me ask you this: do social programs work? Does Social Security on its best day provide the best retirement possible for senior citizens? Of course we need to encourage college enrollment by tax credits and similar incentives. But government intervention is hardly ever the most effective way of addressing the challenges we have. We better hope for the future of this country that the answer to all those problems doesn’t lie in government subsidies or dependence on a federal program.
You are underestimating conservatives. It’s easy to put us all in some convenient box and sell the idea that we are being brainwashed. It’s just not the truth.
LetÂ’s put the cards on the table here. You are alleging that Bush will do something to rig the November elections, right? That would be one way to explain what happened if the Democrats blow their opportunity here and actually lose in November. It just doesnÂ’t have much basis in reality.
Where did you come up with that crap? Bush won’t be involved in the November election, but you don’t have to be a mental giant to realize that election tampering has been a problem in the past.
Let me ask you this: do social programs work? Does Social Security on its best day provide the best retirement possible for senior citizens?
It’s a hellava lot better than nothing and many people don’t have the ability to do their own investing and to allow others to do it for them is simply encouraging more theft.
Election machines have malfunctioned in the past. That’s clear. We should be concerned about that, and should want every vote to be counted. I just wanted to be sure that your “fox guarding the henhouse” comment wasn’t suggesting that the fox would do something intentionally to disrupt the voting process. What you wrote sounded like a accusation of future election fraud. I’m glad that’s not what you meant by that.
Government programs are better than nothing. The opposite position would be quite difficult to argue. But is it the best we can do for our citizens? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for seniors to get more of a return on the money they have paid in to Social Security? The method by which this could happen is a subject worthy of debate, but we shouldn’t settle for the status quo if it is inefficient and ineffective in meeting the financial needs of senior citizens.
I just wanted to be sure that your “fox guarding the henhouse” comment wasnÂ’t suggesting that the fox would do something intentionally to disrupt the voting process. And why are you so concerned that YOU have to be sure? Who do you think you are?What you wrote sounded like a accusation of future election fraud. IÂ’m glad thatÂ’s not what you meant by that. Why would you bother being ‘glad’. What you’re doing is making an effort at intimidation through twisting words and it isn’t working.
This is what you said:
I don’t know any Democrats who expect to ‘coast’ into election victory. What they do expect (an I am an Independent BTW) is to watch the ballot box with all eyes. You know the old fox in the hen house routine. With Diabold insisting no back up is needed and with Bush’s known connections there, it would be foolish not to do so.
There are only a few ways to interpret that statement. I misjudged your motives for writing that, and I apologize. You are a tough opponent and even if I wanted to intimidate you (which I don’t), I just don’t think that it’s possible. 🙂