Democrats

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Republicans

house G.O.P. to dems on iraq : put up or shut up!

this all started with a statement made by rep. john murtha to reporters on thursday. this is part of what he said:

“I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted — this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times — over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free — free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you’re not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation — a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they — or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they’re worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.”

it was a direct call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from iraq. that’s a bold move, no matter what you may think of that proposed strategy. although i think that murtha’s war hawk reputation is overstated, he’s not advocating the exact same strategy as michael moore. it would be convenient for us to characterize him that way. it would also be wrong, scott mcclellan. even though mcclellan tried to make the case that it was only murtha’s argument that was being discredited, not the man himself, i don’t think he managed to sell that to anyone still listening to him.

some of what rep. murtha said made sense, at least in the previous excerpt. he’s not a raving moonbat like michael moore. i do have a serious problem with immediate withdrawal of the troops from iraq, whether that means tomorrow, or six weeks from now. the administration has made what i believe, and many others believe, to be a strong case against this approach. iraq will be left worse than we found it, should we decide to leave iraq before it can defend itself. i would also like to question this assertion by rep. murtha in the full text of his remarks to the press on thursday: “ I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agrees now that Iraq cannot be won militarily. ” i’m not buying this argument. at least in the public statements by current members of the administration and the military now in iraq, i just don’t see the general consensus for this POV in either group. there are improvements we need to make in our approach to post-war iraq. i don’t dispute that. i also think that our successes there have been woefully under-reported.

so the house republicans decided to take a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from iraq, to make the democrats go on the record on how they felt about what murtha was suggesting in his comments to the press. i like this move. did it smack of a political stunt? yes. but it accomplished something very useful, in spite of the partisan sniping that took place in the pre-vote debates on the house floor. all but three democrats voted against immediate withdrawal, which should have been expected and probably was. this was a turning point in the whole argument over the war in iraq. i think this because now that the house has decisively rejected immediate withdrawal, we can now move on to the question of what more we need to be doing to help the iraqis run their own country.

i believe that murtha’s broader point is correct– that we need to give the iraqis an incentive to kick us out of their country. while timetables for withdrawal are misguided, we do need to emphasize to them that we will be leaving, and that they will need to secure their own country. the two previous elections and the new constitution are very positive signs that the political process is starting to work. i’m sure that there are other major positive developments there that we don’t know about. there is more work yet to do, and the administration should let us know about the progress that’s being made to address rep. murtha’s concerns and those of the american people. i hope they will.

oh yeah…and ohio state beat michigan. WOOHOO! thoughts on that in the previous post. scroll down for more on that.

hosting some of sunday’s open trackbacks: cao’s blog, adam’s blog, basil’s blog, california conservative, and my vast right wing conspiracy.

Posted on Democrats, Iraq

not that it matters or anything

i have heard the argument that senator (and 2004 presidential candidate) john kerry didn’t vote for regime change in the senate resolution authorizing war with iraq. that’s simply not the case. if any of my fellow bloggers can find that senate floor speech where he puts conditions on that resolution, i would love to see it. in the meantime, we have the following quotations that suggest otherwise.

excerpt from FrontPage magazine.com :

In 1991, Kerry voted against authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf. Yet he now claims that he fully supported Operation Desert Storm, but voted against it only because he wanted the first President Bush “to take a couple more months to build the support of the nation.” At the dawn of that war, Kerry warned that the elder Bush’s “unilateral” action constituted a “rush to war” that might lead to “another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims.” “Is the liberation of Kuwait so imperative that all those risks are worthwhile at this moment?” he asked rhetorically. Eleven days later, he wrote a letter to a constituent explaining that he opposed military action and preferred to give economic sanctions “more time to work.” Nine days after that, however, he wrote to the same constituent and said that he “strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis.”

More recently, Kerry has exhibited similar shifts in his stated stance on the 2003 Iraq war. Amid his blistering criticisms of President George W. Bush?s foreign policy, Kerry has said, “We did not empower the president to do regime change.” Yet in fact, Kerry supported an October 2002 Senate resolution that specifically cited regime change as a goal. That resolution, which passed by a 77-to-23 margin, authorized President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to abide by UN mandates. Kerry had similarly voted to make regime change a U.S. objective back in 1998.

from blogicus.com:

“REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ

Jul 2002 – For: Kerry Calls Saddam A “Renegade And Outlaw.” “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq … Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

Aug 2003 – Against: Kerry Said Iraq Resolution “Did Not Empower President To Do Regime Change.” KERRY: “And the fact is, in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the President to do regime change.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03) ”

read the senate resolution authorizing both war and regime change. here’s UN security council resolution 1441 making the case against saddam. it is also worthy of note that the senate resolution points out saddam’s past use of chemical and biological weapons. the fight here should no longer be about the WMDs. let’s decide where we go from here. both sides need to consider the next steps very carefully.

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Liberals

democrats with short memories

here’s an excerpt of what president bush said in his november 11th speech:

While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate – who had access to the same intelligence – voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

let’s look at what some prominent democrats had said in the past about iraq and WMD’s, shall we? (credit to sister toldjah in this post.) any italics are my addition. ๐Ÿ™‚

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ย… He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ย… And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ย… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is realย…” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ย… We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ย… It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

what they are saying now:

Sen. Levin:(from the weekly standard blog) “The intel didn’t say that there is a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq,” he said in an appearance on Fox News on February 2, 2004. “That was not the intel. That’s what this administration exaggerated to produce.”

also: “But, as a matter of fact, when you look at the statements of the administration prior to the war, over and over and over again the basis that was used is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction – not programs, not intentions, not hopes – has weapons of mass destruction in his possession and could use them against us at any time and could hand them up to terrorists.” from the original FNC transcript from that february 2nd appearance.

interesting, but i’m confused. didn’t senator levin say something similar to what the administration said in the beginning? let’s look at it again. he says that saddam is building WMDs and the means to deliver them. that sure sounds like an allegation of a program or an intention to me.

in response to a question about why he voted to kick saddam out of kuwait when there was a known threat and why he voted to kick saddam out of iraq when there may not have been a threat, here’s what Sen. Kerry had to say:

Sen. Kerry: (interview with Chris Wallace on FNC quoted here–external link to FNC transcript n/a) “Now, I’m happy to answer that. I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country.”

“With respect to this time, I voted to give the authority to the president to use force under a set of promises by the president as to how he would do it: build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises.”

now, i don’t see anything in the previously quoted statement that puts any conditions on his vote. maybe he did put all these conditions on his vote. if he had these conditions for war before he started running for president, then i would be willing to correct the record on this and post it in this space. as to his first point, the international coalition was larger for Bush 43 than Bush 41. saddam thumbed his nose at numerous resolutions. as far as the war as a last resort? well, apparently john kerry doesn’t believe his own statements about saddam. if he did, then he could logically find a legitimate reason to go to war.

just read the above quotes and compare to current rhetoric. make up your own mind about the president is just a flame-thrower at the democrats, or whether what he says about democrats rewriting history has some ring of truth to it.

related:

chris hitchens: believe it or not (from slate)

carol platt liebau asks the question : who is lying about iraq? she comes to a different conclusion than the rest of her fellow bloggers at huffpost would.

thinking right has more, referencing the norman podhoretz post, with background on the history of iraq and WMDs.

Democrats Deny Having Pre-War Intelligence–from scrappleface

and for my progressive/liberal friend in the uk, some unrelated links: ๐Ÿ™‚
Liberal groups to step up pressure on Alito nomination–from CNN
and a poll with positive news for democrats –from huffpost.

tags: , , , , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Republicans

SCOTUS confirmation hearings and democratic hypocrisy

let’s talk about some history here. throughout the whole history of the supreme court’s nomination and confirmation process, the battles over proposed nominees drew no blood and took no captives. this continued through the confirmation hearings of justices ginsburg, breyer, and o’connor. source material for the following history comes from here. (also linked below)

what happened in ginsburg’s hearings has set a precedent for the confirmation hearings of both chief justice roberts and future associate justice alito by restricting the amount of information that nominees will reveal in their confirmation hearings. (don’t expect this to change any time soon…) justice ginsburg was president clinton’s pick for the court in march of ’93. some of the senate republicans such as william cohen of maine did have some ideological concerns with her. here’s the test cohen applied to her nomination, courtesy of HNN. “…Cohen suggested during the hearings that judicial ideology should be used only to determine if the nominee’s philosophy is ‘so extreme that it might call into question the usual confirmation prerequisites of competency and judicial temperament.'”

that’s really the important question the senators should be asking about all potential SCOTUS nominees. is the nominee qualified to sit on the court? another question would be: does he/she have the judicial temperament to apply the law impartially in all cases they may hear on the court, regardless of their ideology? that’s the kind of justice who should be on the court, and i believe that based on his past history and judicial record, judge alito can be this kind of justice.

apparently, cohen and the other republicans found that justice ginsburg’s nomination passed that test. even though she answered a limited number of questions about ideology, this didn’t seem to bother the republicans all that much. she was confirmed by the senate by a vote of 96-3 (with Sen. Hatch being one of the opposing votes) even though the republicans absolutely knew what they were voting for. so much for republican obstructionism in that hearing.

justice breyer is another good example. the republicans, for all intents and purposes, also allowed this justice to be confirmed without much of a fight. they had some concerns about him too, including a lack of commitment to private property rights, his opposition to prayer in public schools and at public schools’ graduation ceremonies, not to mention a possible conflict of interest involving lloyd’s of london investments. even under that long list of concerns, he managed to garner only 9 opposition votes.

then there is o’connor herself. she also had no problem getting confirmed to the court. the vote was 99-0…no significant opposition to her nomination was present in the final vote. even though it was pretty clear what her views were on certain issues, it didn’t keep her from sitting on the supreme court. it’s interesting to note that at the conclusion of her tenure on the court, the following comments were made about her.

from the WaPo:

“We have a living Constitution. Her name is Sandra Day O’Connor, and thank God she’s retiring,” Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the conservative Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said yesterday.

“Her support for separation of church and state was not consistent,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

here you have the predictable conservative response to o’connor and the supreme court rulings she made. may i just take issue with fellow conservatives here for complaining after the fact here? a good time to make an issue out of it would have been before she was confirmed, not after. but i digress…

so barry lynn wasn’t happy with o’connor either. i’m not sure exactly what kind of justice he would ever be totally pleased with. if he wasn’t pleased with john roberts, it’s not hard to predict what he would say about judge alito. in general, i tend to support anybody opposed by barry lynn, just on principle. but i think there are some good arguments to be made for judge alito. it may be true that he shares many of my beliefs and values, but i also believe based on his past rulings that he would apply the law based on precedent and not on ideology.here’s the point. if ideology didn’t keep ginsburg, breyer, and o’connor from being confirmed by the senate, the standard shouldn’t have changed for chief justice roberts or judge alito.

why is it only acceptable to confirm justices who mirror the views of the democrats, regardless of the nominee’s experience or qualifications? if that’s not what the democrats are arguing, perhaps they need to be more clear about what kind of justice they would accept. it doesn’t appear that they would accept someone with a strict interpretation of the constitution under any circumstances, so all this distress and disappointment with the Bush pick doesn’t mean a heck of a lot. they knew what was going to happen, and they will oppose the president in this, just the way they have been doing throughout his presidency.

if there are valid concerns about judge alito’s record, let’s put them on the table. i have no problem with examination of his record and past rulings to try to determine how he might rule on the court. that’s a fair critique to make. if there are logical reasons why judge alito wouldn’t be qualified enough or competent enough to sit on the court, then that’s a legitimate argument not to confirm him. otherwise, the senate should do what they have done in the past and judge ideology in the context of cohen’s test. if justices ginsburg, breyer, and o’connor could pass it, there shouldn’t be any problem with judge alito.

michelle malkin has more specifics on alito here.

Technorati : , , , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Iraq

guess we’ll have to cancel “fitzmas”

vice president cheney’s right-hand man scooter libby was indicted yesterday. all the pundits, bloggers, and various other news people on tv have discussed this story all week, and i don’t really have anything else to add to what has already been said. there may be more to this story than we know, so i will take a wait-and-see attitude until all of the facts come out about this case.

democrats are dismayed that this investigation has currently failed to bring down the source of evil, karl rove. i’m not sure exactly when the democrats decided to start attacking karl rove, but i don’t think it has been a very effective strategy for them. what it comes down to here is that the democrats are content to fight about this peripheral stuff and not debate the issues that are really important to us as americans. the average person in this country may not understand what’s going on with “plamegate” and why they should care about it. they have probably figured out that somebody did something wrong here, but they don’t know what it means exactly.

for the record, anyone who breaks the law should be subject to applicable penalties. it does appear that libby’s in some serious jeopardy here. i don’t minimize that. but for democrats to be celebrating this, ie. the “merry fitzmas” stuff…that’s quite silly and absolutely the wrong strategy. unless they can come up with more evidence than what exists already, there is no “culture of corruption” and that will be a hard sell to make.

i hate giving democrats advice. there’s always a slight chance they might take it. if you want to defeat republicans in elections, then you have to come up with better ideas that you can sell to the voters. if you don’t like the president’s iraq policy, then come up with a better plan and present it to us. better yet, why don’t you help the president out and share your plan with him? after all, we all benefit when iraq is secured,and the sooner the iraqis can do that, the sooner our military can come home. if you think that you could do a more credible job on domestic policy, then make that case to us. i’ve said all that to say this: quit whining about evil republicans and neo-cons, and start engaging in the battle of ideas. that would help your cause a great deal more than the attacks on the president and karl rove.

just my opinion.

Technorati : , , , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Liberals, Moonbats

the official moonbat update

now playing: adding to the noise/switchfoot

in today’s moonbat update: british MP george galloway, al franken, and cindy sheehan.
we shall start today’s update with anti-war agitator george galloway. i’ve said from the very beginning i didn’t trust this guy’s motives in his opposition to the war. there were earlier reports of his involvement in the oil-for-food program that saddam used for his own nefarious purposes. could there be a smoking gun to prove that this was true? chris hitchens seems to think so.
here’s what he said about that in slate:
now to our favorite rush limbaugh fan, otherwise known as al franken. he’s the guy who attempts to lecture republicans about honesty and ethics. it’s good to know that al franken has the same high ethical standards for his employer, air america radio. or not. anyway, al has been a participant in some interesting video footage recently. michelle malkin has the details.
cindy sheehan WILL NOT GO AWAY. she was arrested in d.c. (also from michelle malkin) again yesterday for staging a “die-in” to mourn the deaths of the 2,000 military men and women in iraq. at least that was the stated purpose of this protest. this has stopped being just another war protest a long time ago. if they want to light candles, sing kumbayah with like-minded idealists, build a big ol’ campfire, and make up really stupid anti-war protest songs, fine. this is america. we allow that kind of thing in this country, and frankly, it’s somewhat entertaining to watch the empowered idiots make fools of themselves.
if we want her to go away, we need to stop paying attention to her. in a 24-hour news cycle, it can be difficult to ignore someone like her, but we have to make the attempt. turn off the cameras. stop giving sheehan a platform to bash this country. tuning out cindy sheehan’s crowd at this point is not about silencing honest, open dissent. it is about bringing down the curtain for good on this staged publicity stunt and its band of bad actors and actresses.
i wish the press would try this approach. i have no confidence at all that they will.

Technorati : , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Iraq

the plame game

high-ranking bushies karl rove and scooter libby appear to be involved in exposing valerie plame (joe wilson’s wife) as a CIA operative. opponents of this administration are giddy over the prospect of possible indictments of karl rove and scooter libby over this. whether national security was significantly damaged by this disclosure is something we still don’t know. if any laws were broken, appropriate action should be taken.

however, i would caution those who are opposed to the war in iraq not to use joe wilson’s op-ed as credible evidence that we went to war because the adminstration intentionally lied to us. that’s what many people want to believe about this administration–that they “outed” valerie plame because they were mad that joe wilson didn’t agree with their pre-war analysis. they brought up questions about joe wilson because it was justified to do so.

here’s why. further reading below.

Bush’s “16 Words” on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying–from factcheck.org.
Joseph Wilson Speaks at S.F. State–from california conservative. must read this.
Joe Wilson’s Credibility Problem–from frontpagemag.com…background on plamegate.
Another Media Distortion: Joe Wilson Didn’t Uncover Forgeries and Didn’t “Debunk” Much of Anything –from the weekly standard blog.
The Honorable Mr. Wilson–from NRO
Anomalies— also from NRO

so if the left is hoping that indictments in plamegate will lead to the proof that bush lied about iraq, they may very well be disappointed. once again…if they have better proof that bush lied, let’s see it.

Technorati : , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Tony Blair

lessons for democrats from tony blair’s labour party

one would assume that british PM tony blair’s policies and his values are reflected by his own labour party. that’s usually how it works here, where a political party usually mirrors the ideology of its leader. not this time. labour has traditionally been a party with a deep socialistic, even marxist belief system. they were at one time the only party representing the working classes and the trade unions. labour was seen as the party caring about the little guy.

labour’s popular support evaporated when their main supporters joined the ownership class. once this happened, suddenly sharing possessions for the common good became less desirable. this socialist idea was ingrained in old labour ideology, such as clause 4. it was not a popular ideology, however, and labour was forced to disguise the roots of this ideology to win elections. it obviously worked.

how did the labour party respond to the shift in public perception of them? they tried appealing to the kook fringe element of their membership. this fell flat. (are you listening, democrats?) as they say, you could look it up.

while you could probably argue that labour still has some elements of the old guard involved in government, they didn’t win until they moved to the center (or centre, if you prefer). it has been suggested that former president clinton’s successful campaign moving him to the center was the inspiration for blair’s centrist campaign for the 1997 election –that, and the american-style spin doctors employed by labour.

there’s evidence to support this claim. labour decided that to gain their support back, they had to change their stripes and appeal to the majority of british voters by shaking up the perception of labour’s ideological base. that’s what the democrats have to do– find a way to appeal to the mainstream by advancing policies that people agree with. this could be hard to do, as the natural bent of the party is to promote unpopular policies and beliefs. so the next logical step is to hire their best spin doctors, because it will take one heck of a sales job to convince the american people that they can identify with democrats on issues important to the voters.

the fight democrats will have to have is with the two warring factions in their party. one side is represented by cindy sheehan, michael moore, moveon, and kos. the other side is represented by those who prefer to be seen as more moderate in their views, hillary for example. pandering to the first group will not win them any elections, and continuing to do it will doom them in ’06.

i’ll be honest. i really don’t want the democrats to figure this out, because it’s much more fun to watch the division and sniping happening with them right now. i am concerned that the republicans don’t seem to have any sense of urgency in getting their conservative base back on their side. they must not become complacent and forget why we sent them to d.c., because that base is the only thing keeping them in office in ’06.

friday’s fun links– coming sometime late afternoon. look for ’em.

Technorati : , ,

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

is this president bush the one we elected?

i’m reserving judgment on harriet miers, president bush’s pick to take the next seat on the supreme court. i’m not thrilled with it, because it does suggest to me that he isn’t taking on these democrats while they are this vulnerable. she may very well be the answer to conservative prayers and maybe we are all wrong. i do think that the president could have found someone better than miers, and i’m disappointed by this pick.

this is part of a broader concern with president bush. conservatives right now are feeling betrayed on some level by this guy. we voted for him because we wanted a president strong on terrorism, and we wanted someone who reflected our values on smaller government and tax cuts. most of all, we wanted someone who would appoint justices like scalia and thomas to the supreme court. while we got some of what we wanted, this president has not been the guy we expected or voted for. dare i suggest that he might end up being like bush 41 (except for raising taxes)?

bill kristol has some excellent advice for the president. i hope he takes it.

i’ve never been an apologist for the bush admin. but i’m ready to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Technorati : , ,

Posted on Liberals, Moonbats

liberals and fringe groups

responding to a comment i received to my previous post:

it’s not debatable that liberals attract fringe groups in general, and also to the anti-war cause. if you have any doubt about that, just look at the list of groups that supported cindy sheehan’s d.c. protest. i wasn’t really making this point in my previous post because it’s obvious. at no point in this post did i say that liberals are a fringe group. i find their ideas of dependence on government provision and the welfare state abhorrent, but it’s a mainstream liberal position and they are entitled to it.

as far as the argument that children hand out anti-abortion literature and Christian/Jewish literature and it’s no different from what these kids were doing…i absolutely disagree. promoting the concept that life is valuable and worth saving is a good thing. trying to sell socialism or the radical agenda of these fringe groups is not. i will concede the point that both liberals and conservatives use children in their fundraising pitch letters, and i’m not too crazy about that. but this is not what i was talking about.

what i am opposed to is the corruption of the school system by special interest groups pushing their own agendas. i also think the liberals, mostly democrats, are hurt by their associations with groups like codepink, A.N.S.W.E.R. and moveon.org. it destroys their credibility when discussing iraq and the appropriate strategy to follow there.

the majority of americans do love our military. they exist to protect american interests around the world, and for the most part, they do an outstanding job. we believe that their existence is necessary and important to our security. keeping them home would not serve this purpose.

Technorati : , ,