9
Jan

2008 Election Resonance

Posted by: Scott @ 8:48 pm in Dem eats Dem

Visited 871 times, 3 so far today

The overwhelming lessons of Iowa and New Hampshire are ones that shouldn’t be a surprise to any American, but clearly are to the political power elitists and their old media symbiotes: Americans are tired of the angry political partisan divide.

  • We saw it in 1998 after the impeachment
  • We saw it in 2000 during the election tie
  • We saw it in 2002 when H. Dean deliberately divided the nation and the world by opposing US action in Iraq for his own political power grab.
  • We saw it in 2004 when John Kerry lost the popular vote and the electoral vote to a President with less than 50% approval ratings!
  • We saw it in 2005 with President Bush’s uber low approval numbers which continue today.
  • We saw it in 2006 with a change of Congressional power wrapped around a message of “A New Direction” of this, that, and the other
  • We saw it in 2007 with the almost immediate plummet of Congressional approval ratings to the lowest in recorded history!
  • We saw it in Iowa where the two candidates who ran almost exclusively as “nice guys” promising “hope” and “change” and bi-partisanship ran away with it.
  • We saw it in New Hampshire where an inexperienced new guy almost blew away the Democratic Party’s most partisan player, and he did it on a message of “Yes we can.”

The point is that the American people have been deliberately divided by political partisanship. Republicans are not innocent, and only fools don’t try to identify and accept the Democrats’ sins as well. Average Americans are people who normally don’t care, aren’t interested, or just don’t have the time to pay attention to politics. They are RINOs, DINOs, independents, centrists, or some other labeled demographic. When they see political reporting, they see name-calling, spin, half truths, and misleading statements; politics. As this has steadily increased over the past 10yrs, more and more Americans have become apathetic in disgust and despair.

But Obama and Huckabee are right. There IS something happening here. In addition to the apathy, there’s a new generation taking power. The “Me Generation” (ie “Baby Boomer” generation) has failed. They failed to meet or surpass the patriotic contribution of their parents; members of “The Greatest Generation.” Now, those children of the 50’s, youth of the 60’s, young disco dancing adults of the 1970’s, and the junk bond investors of the 1980’s are about to retire. As they do, their children are taking power, and this generation (people in their 20’s and 30’s) has never known a JFK, a Martin Luther King, a Bobby Kennedy, or for that matter a truly great American President. Some would argue that President Clinton or President Reagan should be on Mount Rushmore, but those are partisan calls not the voice of Americans as a whole.

While the men and women of this new generation take power, they not only have their own lives to shape, but in the past few years they’ve started having children, and now they’re also concerned about more than just themselves. As adults they no longer have the luxury of apathy and despair that they were kids. They see today’s threats and problems and concerns, and they see the legacy of debt, dishonor, disgrace, and divide; an inheritance of political problems are too big, too numerous, and too dangerous to shrug off and pass on to another generation as the “Me Generation” has done.

Democrats and Republicans alike grow more and more desperate for a change in the American political climate. Americans as a whole-regardless of their own individual or group ignorance-cannot fail to see that politics as usual means business as usual; i.e. no business, no accomplishment, no greater United States of America. The impotence of Washington D.C. has just grown too limp to ignore anymore. Viagra and Lipitor sales are just too big inside The Beltway.

The example has been set, seen, can no longer be accepted. People really do want change.

All men may be created equal with certain inalienable rights, but some are born with more than that. Some people are born with unequal skills, abilities, gifts, and particularly resources. Americans are those people. The world knows it, we know it, and politicians know it, but the latter has no problem repressing or dismissing the abilities of a person or this entire nation for their own personal political gain.

It’s been said that, “Words are not action–and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.” That’s not entirely true though. Words are in fact action. Words are the lifeblood of a free nation. It’s why freedom of speech is the key to everything in the United States. Words are an action in and of themselves-an action that can divide a nation and stall it, or unite, inspire, and propel a nation forward through even the gravest of times. Whether it’s JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, FDR, or Lincoln, or our founding fathers…words do matter.

The United States of America is at war, on the edge of economic crisis-even disaster, and bogged down in a quagmire of challenges left behind by a generation that claims to have been “changing” things for 35yrs. Well, that generation has failed. Baby Boomer Presidents have failed. Baby Boomer politicians have failed. Baby Boomer advocates and activists have failed. Now, they want to grab power yet again, try yet again, and at the same time most of their generation is retiring-retiring on a financial gift from their children and grandchildren. That generation’s time has come, and passed.

A new generation is taking responsibility for America. That generation wants this to be a United States of America - not the Democratic Republic of North America, or the Republican States of the Western Hemisphere. No. This is the United States of America. When the American people are united, this new generation knows that the world trembles in awe. People who are oppressed by economic, religious, cultural, or political circumstances look with respect and hope while oppressors and tyrants flee in fear to live for years in caves. This generation, and the world, knows that when united, this country can put men on the moon and make the most incredible endeavor in all of mankind’s history actually look boring.

This generation also knows that it cannot follow in its parents’ footsteps and pass on burdens to yet another generation. The past promise of Americans has always been to pass on from one generation to another a better nation has simply been ignored by the “Me Generation.” Their children want that to change.

Democrats and Republicans are trying to find ways to market the idea of “change” because most of all, the American people are finally standing up and telling aging leaders that it’s time to either pay up or get out. It’s time to either really change things, or retire like the rest of the “Me generation.”


Print This Post Print This Post

Tags: , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm and is filed under Dem eats Dem. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. 2008 Election Resonance - at Flopping Aces at Traction Control

180 comments so far

 1Reply to this comment  

I found deep truth and inspiration in your words here.

A sincere “Thank you” for writing them.

January 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
 2Reply to this comment  

I believe that the “mood of the nation” is indeed one of “change”; a desire for unification after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush, which has seen deep partisan divides.

That’s, in part, why potential voters see Obama’s charisma and eloquence, and seek no further, for the substance beneath the polish and veneer. They do not see that he is no centrist, when it comes to policy issues. Obama, for them, represents what they all ache for: something different. Something other than the Washington career “status quo” incumbents- the aging baby boomers and Washington establishment. Obama represents the exuberance of youth, and the excitement of change.

The country suffers Bush-fatigue and partisanship-fatigue, after 16 years of it. Bush-Clinton-Bush…???…..I think it may be the end of the dynasty. I could be wrong. I just think Hillary’s time may have passed. In a sense, she’s been campaigned, by the media, for the last 8 years. Obama is fresh. Hillary, stale. It’s not just media hype, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, and driving the mood. I truly sense this desire for “new and different”, in my everyday experience with people. Perhaps this is a media-driven and fabricated fascination, as the people I encounter are mostly casual headline readers and tv news soundbyte absorbers. So they may only be catching Obama fever, because he’s the media darling, with Hillary thrown away like yesterday’s NYTimes. But I’m telling you, people I encounter are buzzing about Obama like he’s the anointed one, who will pull the sword from the stone.

I consider myself a radical center-right extremist. Yet, although I find Obama impressive and “likable” and presidentially eloquent, each time he opens his mouth and speaks ill of the Bush Administration and “the War”, I find myself unable to swallow the notion of living under an Obama presidency. If he truly wished to unite the country, don’t campaign by slamming President Bush, who is not running for re-election. Just don’t bring up the past 8 years. Don’t drum up negativity to make your message sound positive. Not all of us voters think the last 8 years were all bad. Just tell us how you are going to do things these next 4-8 years.

January 10th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Scott
 3Reply to this comment  

I’m amazed at how much Senator Obama sounds like this blast from the past:

“if the war is not ended when the people choose in November, the choice will be clear. Here it is: For four years this Administration has had at its disposal the greatest military and economic advantage that one nation has ever had over another in a war in history. For four years America’s fighting men have set a record for courage and sacrifice unsurpassed in our history. For four years this Administration has had the support of the loyal opposition for the objective of seeking an honorable end to the struggle.

Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively. And if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past. That is what we offer to America.

And I pledge to you tonight that the first priority foreign policy objective of our next Administration will be to bring an honorable end to the war in Vietnam.”

President Nixon
1968
RNC nomination acceptance speech

January 10th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Philadelphia Steve
 4Reply to this comment  

I liked Scott’s original post.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:07 am
 5Reply to this comment  

That’s a passionate post. I do see some kind of groundswell. But I’m skeptical 2008’s going to be a realigning election, shifting party coalitions in the direction of a new-party hegemony. We saw that really only two times in American history: 1860 and 1932.

The last time we had a big, earthquake presidential election was in 1992, when Bill Clinton ended 12 years of GOP rule. The feeling in the electorate was similar: economic dislocation, especially, but also a foreign war no longer proping up an incumbent presdent, demands for change on immigration and health care, etc. We’re seeing some similarities.

I do think Bush Derangement Syndrome has twisted left forces more intensely than the past, and I agree with Wordsmith about the man-on-the-street buzz for change.

We’ll see, in any case. Keep it up!

January 10th, 2008 at 6:26 am
jainphx
 6Reply to this comment  

I’m a little confused, change is fine, but what are we advocating changing. Obama isn’t change, he’s samo samo. I want change also, change from Teddy Kennedy, change in the state department, change in the pentagon. I want the shadow government weeded out. I want American politicians to be American, its just that simple.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Mike
 7Reply to this comment  

Man, I am in center left field in my political views and accidentally pulled up this web site. That is one of the best posts i have ever read. It hit the nail right on the head. I will forward this and print it out as it expresses my views better than anything i have ever read. I believe that you are right, we want true change, not just words and a quick fix.
Mike

January 10th, 2008 at 6:32 am
John Ryan
 8Reply to this comment  

As you can see plainly not all are quite ready to give up on partisanship. BDS ???
Most Americans STRONGLY disapprove of his leadership. Some still insist that this is indicative of an illness.
The Republicans are the minority party now. Will the minority party help to achieve the goals of the majority of Americans ?
As for the left being worse than the right ?? In 1998 all of the Republicans in the House voted to impeach, the Democrats chose NOT to go down that route. In 1998 when Clinton was impeached his approval rating among all Americans was at 68%.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Scott
 9Reply to this comment  

John, thank you for demonstrating my point about partisanship.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:56 am
bbartlog
 10Reply to this comment  

I share your dislike of the Boomer generation (oddly both my wife and I were born of parents a little too old to be boomers, so no boomers in our family tree). But it’s a little early to write them off - they’ll have electoral clout enough to make sure they get a slice of the pie for many years to come. It’s no coincidence that universal health care is suddenly everyone’s big project at exactly the same time that the boomers are starting to retire - that is, at the point in time when their contributions into the system are dwindling and their claims on the benefits increasing…
Anyway, promoting change just for change’s sake is vacuous - you need to specify what change(s) you have in mind. Paul would probably bring more change than any other candidate, but obviously the nature of the change might not be what a lot of people want.

January 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Curt
 11Reply to this comment  

Rofl….John just feel right into that one huh?

January 10th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Banjo
 12Reply to this comment  

What a load of crap. People are people regardless of their generation. Human nature is unchanging. We’re not getting better but staying the same. Lift someone from the Middle Ages, fix his teeth and give him a new suit of clothes, briing him up to date on developments since the plague, and you have modern man.

January 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am
CentFla
 13Reply to this comment  

This is a nice post Scott, well written indeed. But perhaps you missed the news that Clinton won New Hampshire and McCain won as well. Where is the change here?

The fact is that the only reason we see in this post to believe that Americans are ready to unite and require change of its leaders are a few thousand votes in Iowa for crying out loud. The papers in New York and Boston and sites like Drudge will still look for the ugliest picture of Hillary they can find and they will sell more papers that way. The screamers at Fox will throw up the picture of McCain holding a Canadian Naturalist organization every 15 minutes.

If people really wanted Change Kucinich and Gravel would be in double digits and Ron Paul would have won in New Hampshire.

I hope you are right and simply can read things that are not there right now but unfortunately, all evidence runs contrary to your finely worded but ultimately empty-promised post.

January 10th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Philadelphia Steve
 14Reply to this comment  

Bush Derangement Syndrome

When a Conservative can say the name “Hillary Clinton” without frothing at the mouth, THEN speak of mental illness among Liberals who state plainlyy that George W. Bush is incompetent.

“BDS” is another FoxNews invented term used to pump up the Republican party Faithful and divert attention on the actual bungling of the Bush Administration.

I do not hate George W. Bush. I’m sure, as Chris Mathews fawningly said, he is a man I’d “like to have a beer with”.

However President Bush has been so singularly inept that an invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in about a month was folowed by so incompetently managed an occupation that American soldiers are now dying in Iraq NOT to bring a “Shining Example of Democracy” to the Middle East, but to undo the blunders of the NeoConservatives in the Bush Administration. The loyal soldiers who died in Iraq this week gave their lievs for nothing more than that.

And that is a disgrace that Conservatives paper over with “mistakes were made” or “we did have our criticism” as though the incompetence of Geroge W. Bush had no real consequences on peoples’ lives.

As long as “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is used as a label by Conservatives to avoid holding George W. Bush accountable for the costs of his laziness, we will not “get past” the rabid partisianship that the original post decried and with which I concurred.

January 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Wordsmith
 15Reply to this comment  

^
Yup. No rabid partisanship nor signs of BDS there.

Thanks for coming to the center, Philly Steve.

[/sarcasm]

January 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Wordsmith
 16Reply to this comment  

Sen. Obama’s Calls for Unity Are Not What They Seem
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, January 8, 2008

We are repeatedly told by the news media that there is a deep, almost palpable, yearning among Americans for unity. And Sen. Barack Obama’s repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party’s nomination for president of the United States.

I do not doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.

First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity — whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) — do not tell the whole truth.

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: “I want everyone to unite — behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine.”

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side’s values.

Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes that American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world’s center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq?

Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.

And what is the “unity” position on same-sex marriage? Either one supports it or one supports keeping marriage defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. The only way to unite Americans on this issue — and I don’t know what is more seminal to civilization than its definition of marriage — is to convince all, or at least most, Americans to embrace one of the two positions.

It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama’s “unity” supporters engage in — they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country’s national language.

Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1. A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2. A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3. A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as “divisive.”

In case the reader should dismiss these observations about calls for unity as political partisanship, let me make clear that they are equally applicable to calls for religious unity. For example, one regularly hears calls by many Christians for Christian unity. But how exactly will this be achieved? Will Catholics stop believing in their catechism and embrace Protestant theology, or will Protestants begin to regard the pope Christ’s vicar on earth?

Ironically, one reason America became the freest country in the world was thanks to its being founded by disunited Christians — all those Protestant denominations had to figure out a way to live together and make a nation.

Given what Sen. Obama’s calls for unity really mean — let’s all go left — it is no wonder he and his calls for unity are enthusiastically embraced by the liberal media.

For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush’s policies “divisive” simply because they don’t agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama’s positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama’s left-wing political positions any less “divisive” than President Bush’s right-wing positions?

Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.

The next time Sen. Obama speaks with his usual passion and eloquence about his desire to unite Americans, someone must ask him two questions: Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush’s right-wing positions? And if you are so committed to uniting Americans, why did you vote against declaring English our national, i.e., our unifying, language? Without compelling answers, Sen. Obama’s calls for American unity are no more than calls to unite around his politics and him.

January 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Philadelphia Steve
 17Reply to this comment  

Re: “Yup. No rabid partisanship nor signs of BDS there.
Thanks for coming to the center, Philly Steve.
[/sarcasm]”

My comments were absolutely partisian. And, if even one Conservative were to acknowledge the degree to which Americans are now dying to undo the depth of Bush’s incompetence, my criticism would be excessive.

But not one single Conservative will admit that Bush Administration incompetence has cost hundreds (thousands?) of lives. The most they can say is “mistakes were made”, as though the mistakes fell from the sky and had no consequences.

remember who is the self-proclaimed “Decider” for American involvement in Iraq. As long as he demands that mantle, George W. Bush shold shoulder the accountability.

But neither you, nor one single other Conservative will say that President bush is ultimately accountable for the costs of Bush Administration incompetence in Iraq’s occupation.

And as long as you insist on irrationally shielding him from that accountability, I will continue to point it out.

January 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Philadelphia Steve
 18Reply to this comment  

Re: “Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush’s right-wing positions?”

Why are Liberal comments on the need for change considered rabidly partisian, while Conservative tossing around the word “treason” (a crime that carries the death penalty) considered OK?

Change your friend Ann Coulter on the Conservative side, then tell us Liberals how mean we are.

January 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Philadelphia Steve
 19Reply to this comment  

Re: “For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush’s policies “divisive” simply because they don’t agree with them.”

No.

We say that the Bush Administration is divisive when they have this to say about our comments about solutions to their incompetent occupation of Iraq:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/11/cheney-terrorists/

And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.

Being told that my belief that continued occupation of Iraq by American troops is the greates recruiting poster Osama bin laden cold have prayed for “helps the terrorists” is divisive.

January 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Philadelphia Steve
 20Reply to this comment  

Re: “Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.”

Drop “aiding the terrorists” and “treason” from your lexicon every time you disagree with me. Then tell me how evil my comments are.

January 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Scott
 21Reply to this comment  

incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq…

I refuse to call the actions of our military forces incompetent. Your interest in Iraq is purely as a catalyst for your partisan hate, and if it were not, then you’d equally be ranting about the Democrats who promoted the war, saw the same or more intel, authorized it, supported it, funded it, called for more troops, and who will still get your vote while escaping anything close to condemnation from you….in fact, rather than condemnation you choose to support them.

January 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 22Reply to this comment  

Re: “incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq…”

not invasion. Occupation. Bad phrasing.

And the occupation has been incompetently managed. The responsiblity resides directly with the White House that appointed the administrators.

And, to the extent that our military chiefs of staff did not jump up and down with their hair on fire as Donald Rumsfeld presided over this debacle, they are accountable too.

January 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 23Reply to this comment  

And, yes, the Democrats who kept their mouths shut as Republicans in Congress gave theBush Administration a series of blank checks and refused all attempts at accountability, Democrats are not off the hook. They are just not as guilty as Republicans, who ran Congress through the Rumsfeld mess.

January 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 24Reply to this comment  

But you still can’t say that the Bush Administration was incompetent, can you?

January 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Bill C
 25Reply to this comment  

I have to agree that Bush was incompetent during the Iraqi occupation. Otherwise he would have Arrested and charged those traitous piece of crap Democrats that went running around undermining our efforts and lending hope and encouragment to the enemy.

The problem wiht Bush isn’t that he went to far, it’s that he didn’t go far enough. This is a war for the survival of secular government and society. At risk are the very principles that the left abuse to undermine our efforts. This isn’t checkers for boasting rights or the next election by the ignorant masses who only knw of the world that which is force fed to them by the MSM and their ranting liberal college agedactivist with the life and world experience of a house cat.

January 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Scott
 26Reply to this comment  

Nah, I can’t say the Admin is incompetent when it comes to Iraq because I don’t believe they were…I see the problems there differently, with less of an aim at blame, and more of an aim at correction, improvement, etc. Militarily, since the invasion this war has been of absolute unparalleled military success. HOWEVER, if you read my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, you can see that I was among the first people in 2003 to call the intelligence failures that led to 911 and Iraq wmd intel shortcomings as inexcusable; ie worse than incompetent imo.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no love of GWB. I just refuse to put on blinders at search for a political scapegoat for anything and everything that people don’t like about a war. There’s plenty to not like about ANY war.

Moreover, I tend to look at the war in Iraq as a long, uninterrupted war from 1990-today. The timeline supports this quite clearly, and history books report the timeline. So when we look at the timeline of the US war with Iraq, we can find lots of problems, lots of bigger problems.

Oh, but I would LOVE to stand at the head of a line to sign my name and say that President Bush’s domestic leadership regarding support for the war has been incompetent, and that his speaking abilities are incompetent, or that his grasp of 30-50% of Americans’ sense of political alienation and frustration is incompetent.

January 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 27Reply to this comment  

As I predicted. The unconditional protection of George W. Bush by those who claim to “have no love for the man” continues.

The invasion of Iraq did NOTHING to protect America from further attacks by al Qaeda, which had NO presence in the country prior to the invasion.

America was attacked by an organization, al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan. President Bush broke off the chase for this group to prepare for his invasion of Iraq.

Since Conservatives like to compare the war in Iraq to WW II, that is like halting the US military’s advance toward Japan in the Pacific to invade Argentina.

No matter how often Conservatives try to link the US occupation of Iraq to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the facts state otherwise.

As a result of George W. Bush’s decision to redeploy US assets away from Afghanistan, to invade Iraq, Osama bin Laden and most of his henchmen got away: Initially at Tora Bora and later in the Pakistani Airlift that was permitted by the Bush Administration to allow Pakistani members of al Qaeda get away so as not to embarrass the government of Pakistan.

Those decisions have led to the current situation where the Bush Administration is patting itself on the back simply because “al Qaeda in Iraq” has lost influence: Meanwhile pretending that the rebuilding of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is not significant.

And I see that “Bill C” is tossing around the “treason” word again. I received a reprimand from Wordsmith for being too “partisan”. Will Wordsmith apply a similar standard to Bill C? Of course not! Bill C is a CONSERVATIVE and therefore not subject to the same standards to which I am subjected.

Scott’s hope, expressed at the beginning of this thread is dead. And, of course, Conservatives here will say is is all my fault, including Wordsmith.

As long as accountability only goes “one way”, do not expect me to lie down and take it.

Too bad.

January 10th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 28Reply to this comment  

Re: “HOWEVER, if you read my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, you can see that I was among the first people in 2003 to call the intelligence failures that led to 911 and Iraq wmd intel shortcomings as inexcusable; ie worse than incompetent imo.”

But they were excused. In fact didn’t George W. Bush hand out a round of Medals of freedom over them?

January 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 29Reply to this comment  

And they were not “intelligence failures” That lets George W. Bush off the hook.

The Bush team had plenty of information that discredited their premise of WMD’s: Including the Iranian Foreign minister who told them in 2004 that the WMD program was a sham.

The Bush team deliberately chose to ignore that information and invade anyway.

Saying it was “intelligence failures” is just another cover excuse for George W. Bush after he allowed Osama bin laden to get away in order to launch an invasion over weapons that he had good reason to know were not there.

And, in preemptive answer to the standard Conservative response that “Democrats had the same information that Bush had”: No, they did not. The information provided to the Bush Administration from the Iraqi Foreign Minister was NOT shared with Congressional Intelligence Committees.

Until Conservatives can acknowledge that George W. Bush, “The Decider” is accountable for both the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq, where there were no WMD’s, AND that he is accountable for the incompetent occupation of Iraq afterward, we cannot talk about “moving forward”. That is because Conservatives will continue to expend their time and energy pretending that Bush’s allowing al Qaeda to get away was a great idea in order to never use the words “accountable” and “George W. Bush” in the same sentence.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 30Reply to this comment  

There is a typo above. The iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, not 2004. Please do not take the usual Conservative tactic of using that as indication of success.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 31Reply to this comment  

A bit long. But I do not post items I cannot back up. The story of the ignored (not “incorrect”) intelligence about WMD’s i Iraq that no Conservative is permitted to acknowledge exists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an “active”  program for “R&D, production and weaponization” for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.
Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in “several months to a year.” Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Salon_Former_CIA_officers_report_Bush_0906.html

Reporting in Salon, Blumenthal writes that according to his sources, two former CIA officers,”Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
Blumenthal also adds that the intelligence from that day was left out of the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which definitively stated that Iraq had WMD.
“The president had no interest in the intelligence,” a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
“No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Blumenthal writes. “The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.”
Blumenthal’s sources confirm a 2006 interview with the CIA’s chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who told CBS’s 60 Minutes that his agency had received intelligence from Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, indicating Iraq possessed no WMD.
“[The two former CIA officers] have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it,” Blumenthal reports. “They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
Powell would later present US evidence justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq to the United Nations–without knowledge of the Sabri information.
The former officials instead say that the information was “distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.” That information was in turn passed to British intelligence, who used it in briefing Prime Minister Tony Blair as to validation for going to war.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
ChrisG
 32Reply to this comment  

Steve’s ignorance and blind, spoon-fed partisanship is only outpaced by his rabid hatred and ability at projection.

Having been to Iraq, yes there were failures, shortcomings, and missed opportunities in our VERY sharp learning curve. The military has been going over this at every level and learning, as has the Administration. I do not like that they are poor communicators and cannot get a message out to save our lives. I do not like that Bush caves to Democrats on expanding government and amnesty for Illegals. I like that he will stand up for us, but it is poor leadership skills not to stand up for oneself as he refuses to do.

“The invasion of Iraq did NOTHING to protect America from further attacks by al Qaeda, which had NO presence in the country prior to the invasion.”

Wrong on every level. AQ was there before the invasion and had access to the WMDs Saddam sent to Syria. The failed chem attack on Amman, Jordan in 2004 proved this. One does not just “show up” and get their hands one VX and GB nerve gas without A LOT of prior association. Iraqis themselves have stated AQ was in Iraq under Saddam. Even Iraqi Generals stated it. Hell, Taliban thugs were in Baghdad west of the IZ from 2002 till this year. And HOW many times has AQ successfully attacked America since our long overdue invasion?

“Being told that my belief that continued occupation of Iraq by American troops is the greates recruiting poster Osama bin laden cold have prayed for “helps the terrorists” is divisive.”

Some “recruiting poster”: “Join AQ or die and die even if you join”. Unlike you, the Iraqis have realized AQ is a backward, cowardly, losing death cult and even the Saudis are attacking it. So wrong again.

Though, no, YOU saying that is not treason as you have no political power. Democratic leaders saying that is “aiding the enemy” as it is picked up word for word by the islamofascists. Code Pink sending funds to terrorists in Fallujia is treason. We saw this DAILY in Iraq and as soon as some leftist moron would spout it out, the terrorists would scream it across their media. As YOU associate with, spew shouting points and lies of, and adhere to these leftists, that is why you feel slighted when we call the leftists doing this traitors.

Though I think you also missed the part where we speak out against the treason of Stormfront (sometime leftist ally and sometime Libertarian ally), but, as you, incorrectly associate their beliefs with conservatism, you ignore those criticisms.

I met a REAL traitor from the DOS in Iraq as I stated before. I reported him, but nothing will ever be done as he is DOS. Your arrogant manor, moronic spoon-fed leftist hack lies and shouting points, and psychotic projectionism are the exact same.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
ChrisG
 33Reply to this comment  

Wow… Spam comments….

January 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 34Reply to this comment  

re: ” AQ was there before the invasion and had access to the WMDs Saddam sent to Syria”

I can back up my statement. Can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
ChrisG
 35Reply to this comment  

Absolutely. I also heard the same from other Army Officers I serve with. I will back up ALL my support for the GWOT with my life and my future.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/10/26/why-iraq/

January 10th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 36Reply to this comment  

Hey Wordsmith: Remember your comments to me about “rabid partisanship”.

What about Chris G?

Or des he get the automatic Conservative Free Pass!

January 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
ChrisG
 37Reply to this comment  

Rabid partisanship? Wow…. do your lies know no end? You come here and spew leftist hack talking point after talking point (they are actually shouting points). Many of your posts are projectionist with moronic and untrue statements about conservatives hating and having to hate everything. You then often go into some paranoid diatribe about how conservatives will silence or only want dictatorship. BTW, Howard Dean, who stated that he wanted to use government agencies against the likes of Fox News is WHOSE party leader and the “Fairness Doctrine” (banning of free speech) is supported by who?

IF a Dem is elected President, I will continue to serve in the US Army. I will follow every LAWFUL order I am given, just as I have since President Bush took office and President Clinton before him and I will refuse to follow unlawful orders or to give them. However, until that time, I will NOT support the Democrats, their beliefs, and party platform which I believe is detrimental for America, Freedom, and the World. That is not partisan. I am an American first, conservative second. I cannot say you, or very many on the left, share priorities akin to that.

And until President Bush leaves office, I will not make any personal attacks in public against him, just like I made no personal attacks against President Clinton when he was in office. I have issues, which I stated above and in other threads about disagreements with President Bush, but I know from officers who served at the White House why Bush does not go into personal attacks make against him and I applaud him for his character, even if I think he should respond to them.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 38Reply to this comment  

Re: “Absolutely.”

You links were:
Circular links to yourself.
References to activities AFTER Bush’s invasion
Unsubstantiated comments from the likes of The Washington Times.
References to shells found in the desert that were not usable as WMD’s (the ones that Rick Santorum once referred to as “Proof” and was rebutted the same day by the Pentagon itself.)

An independent study, the September 11 commission, concluded that there was no substantial relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Had one existed, don’t you believe they would have found it? Or is NewsMax more reliable since it confirms your political preference?

January 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Scott
 39Reply to this comment  

“There is a typo above. The iraqi Foreign Minister turned in 2002, not 2004. Please do not take the usual Conservative tactic of using that as indication of success.”

You’re cutting/pasting your arguments. LOL

Tariq Aziz did not turn in 2002.

Your articles from 4 years ago do not reflect intelligence or investigations that have happened since, and are dramatically influenced by political spin and agenda.

Lastly, you said people were given medals (Medals of Freedom) as a means of excusing failures. No. I do not accept those medals as excuses, neither do I accept your failure to read my entire post before replying excusable. I find it incompetent.

btw, the 911 Commission did not say there was no substantial relationship-they said there was not enough evidence had been gathered, they called for an investigation into the matter, and years later the evidence shows that yes, there was a close relationship.

No, I do not believe that Commondreams, Truthout, Buzzflash, Daily Kos, NYT, NBC, or any other outlet targeting a political demographic that opposes the war would find evidence for it is not in their interests to look let alone report it.

January 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
ChrisG
 40Reply to this comment  

“Circular links to yourself.”

So I should retype the entire thing for you benefit? I think not. You asked my to back up my statements and I did. Excuse me please if I am not backing down from for what I believe in and have actively defended (you did read the last part of my response, yes).

So you did not fully read the article I wrote while IN Iraq and posted originally on SodliersMind.com? Not surprised. Within that post are dozens of links to the outside sources. I suggest you also click on the ones from Indybay and see what your fellow travelers are up to.

“Unsubstantiated comments from the likes of The Washington Times.”

But The Washington Post is ok for you. I guess the BBC is “unsubstantiated” also about Jordan? Your hate blinds you and you are worthless to debate.

Why bother?

January 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Scott
 41Reply to this comment  

Washington Post…ok
Washington Times…partisan hack source

BBC…ok
FOX…partisan hack source

Commondreams…ok
Newsmax…partisan hack source

Anyone see a trend?

“Why bother?”
-Because unchecked lies never lead to good things

January 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
ChrisG
 42Reply to this comment  

If you want more outside links, comment #14 of “Why Iraq” has them. The second one to the USMA anti-terrorism site is REALLY good and it is a HUGE site.

January 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 43Reply to this comment  

Re: “there was a close relationship. ”

Sources?

January 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
ChrisG
 44Reply to this comment  

Already answered that in #43.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 45Reply to this comment  

Re: “But The Washington Post is ok for you. I guess the BBC is “unsubstantiated” also about Jordan?”

The BBC link was referring to an indicent after the invasion. You were using it as a source for existance of WMD’s (the “Mushroom Clouds”) before the invasion.

There were no effective WMD’s or WMD programs in Iraq in 2003, prior to Bush’s invasion. It has not been proven, ever. Only Right wing fanatics keep declaring it to be true, but not contradicting the conslusion of the quthoritative studies that have been conducted.

Those are the facts. The rest is Right-wing noise and lies, in order to protect Bush Administration deceit (along with incompetence).

January 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 46Reply to this comment  

Re: “Anyone see a trend?”

Yes.

Conservatives will believe everything they are told by The Washington Times, NewsMax and FoxNews. No matter what.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 47Reply to this comment  

And, as I have seen that not one single Conservative, including Scott who decried incivility, had the integrity to say that accusing those who disagree with them of Treason (a crime carrying the death penalty), constitutes “political partisanship”. No Conservative REALLY believes in taking the hate out of politics. Only attempting to pretend that THEY want civility, while they abet those of their friends who believe that political opposition deserve to die.

And that includes you too, Scott.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
ChrisG
 48Reply to this comment  

My God Steve YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!! How can you be so dense? WHERE DID the terrorists say the VX and GB came from??? It came FROM IRAQ as the invasion started!!!!!!!!!! VX does not last long, even stored and Syria had no VX production program.

Therefore, it HAD to be IN Iraq BEFORE the invasion started. Also, WHO gave these terrorists medical treatment after they fled from Afghanistan?

And R400 bombs and spray tanks are ready made for what? Sarin in the WTC 1993 blast came from where?

“Only Right wing fanatics keep declaring it to be true” Yeah, “fanatics” in your projectionist, paranoid fantasy. Fanatics are the ones blowing themselves up for “Allah” or marching “naked for peace” and screaming in Berkeley.

Conservatives have another group saying the same things about Iraq: US Soldiers. You did notice that one of the books cited was written by a USAF Major who was in Iraq recovering these things? I do not know if you have seen the USMA database, also cited in a reply as I mentioned above did you?

There are a lot of links, with links and references themselves from varied sources. Go bother them if you are so assured you are correct in both your assertions and your view that conservatives are out to get you.

One more thing, most every prominent leftist was stating the exact same thing about Iraqi’s WMD program until THEY did a 180 and started making political hay on it in 2004. These included President Clinton when he was in office, and Nanci Pelosi. Were they lying also? If so, were they lying in the 1990s-2003 or afterwards?

January 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
ChrisG
 49Reply to this comment  

Projecting again Steve… Please seek help.

And, unlike the USSR, there is no wall keeping you here. You can go to DU or Kos and be among fellow travelers.

January 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
ChrisG
 50Reply to this comment  

And more links. Also, I didn’t see that I linked to Newsmax in Why Iraq. I saw CNN, the UN, the CIA, and others, but no Newsmax or even Fox but do not let that stop your rabid hatred Steve.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/09/3star_general_reveals_addition/

January 10th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
ChrisG
 51Reply to this comment  

Not to spam post, but too many links in one response may trigger the actual spam guard in this system.

Just in case you did not see the very next post on that site.

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/12/what_does_congressman_elect_ch/

Let’s see…

Sources used: NYT, LAT, NYSUN, NeyYorker, State Dept…. Nope, No FOX News or Newsmax there either.

But wait, why can they not be used Steve? Why do you insist on censoring them yet come here posting links to leftist sources? No, you come here, spew hate and lies; project that hate as desires and actions of conservatives; cut and paste your arguments over and over but call any reference to the archives of this site “circular links”; and then take it very personally when the groups within the ideology you adhere to are called out for their actions and words but have no problems falsely accusing anyone else of “hating the military” and “hating America”.

As I said, I am an American first, (I’ll amend the above response to Soldier second) and political ideology third. You have proven that you are first and foremost a leftist and little else.

January 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 52Reply to this comment  

I respond in kind when told that my belief that George W. Bush is incompetent is treasonous.

January 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Philadelphia Steve
 53Reply to this comment  

The September 11 commission, with the full backing of George W. Bush (the man with the most ot gain from a contrary opinion) declared there was not proof of no substantative link between saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. I accept that conclusion.

January 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Kyle
 54Reply to this comment  

[quote]As they do, their children are taking power, and this generation (people in their 20’s and 30’s) has never known … a truly great American President[/quote]

HORSESHAT! I miss Ronald Wilson Reagan

January 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
ChrisG
 55Reply to this comment  

Then I disagree with him on that issue and think his passivity in trying to “make nice” with the left is a mistake, but it is his policy. The left has stabbed him in the back every time he has done it as compromise to a leftist means the opponent gives up everything they want and the leftist nothing.

Knowing how many other countries violated the arms embargo in the 90s though, I can see a reason why he did not make an issue of it for their sakes also. However I SAW much of this with my own eyes and THOSE I trust.

I assume you have links to his speech on that? No, wait, of course you do. I can come back with more links and personal experience countering it.

Though it seems generals on the ground and US Military research centers in the US are not enough to convince you. Hell, even admissions by the terrorists and Saddam’s former generals are not enough for you.

An no Steve, calling President Bush incompetent is a fallacy, not treason. I also stated that you were not personally committing treason. The Leftists who ally with the islamofascists, however, ARE treasonous, but will never be punished. That is the reality of the left who are not held to any standards. When in power, however, leftists are a whole different animal. You ally with the leftists and spout their “two-minutes hate”. You also sound just like the true traitor I mentioned above as I mentioned before. This may be why you take it personally when I call the leftists how I see them (again as I stated before).

So again, with the sole exception of countering you lies and projectionsim, why bother with you and why are you here if you feel so threatened? No one here will convince you of the truth, and you will never convince me to stop actively fighting in the Armed Forces for what I believe in. Nor will you convince Curt, Scott or anyone else to stop believing in what they know is true.

January 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Curt
 56Reply to this comment  

Ignore Steve Chris. He’s a naive simpleton. Not worth your time.

January 10th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Mike
 57Reply to this comment  

The lines of division run deep. Some of you are reinforcing the point that this article pointed out. Tit for Tat on and on. We are sick of it. I am sick of the word “liberal” tossed around to dismiss any REP counterpoints. It’s about the US not about individualistic positions anymore. We have to fix this mess and in order to do so. We must find common ground such as our very existence for starters. Why do we always have to focus on what divides us instead of what unites us? I pose this question to all parties involved?

January 10th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Wordsmith
 58Reply to this comment  

Mike,

Please read the Prager article.

Philly Steve wrote:

The September 11 commission, with the full backing of George W. Bush (the man with the most ot gain from a contrary opinion) declared there was not proof of no substantative link between saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. I accept that conclusion.

Scott wrote:

btw, the 911 Commission did not say there was no substantial relationship-they said there was not enough evidence had been gathered, they called for an investigation into the matter, and years later the evidence shows that yes, there was a close relationship.

Steve,
I doubt you’ll take your BDS lenses off for even 3 minutes to read this, but it’s here for the benefit of those who might be “eavesdropping” in on this comment stream.

No Conservative REALLY believes in taking the hate out of politics. Only attempting to pretend that THEY want civility, while they abet those of their friends who believe that political opposition deserve to die.

And that includes you too, Scott.

Steve, please quit projecting “conservative hate” onto all conservatives. You do yourself a disservice. Can you not see your own hatred and incivility reflected in your language? In your tone? In your insistence that your opinions are facts that we should all acknowledge and accept?

Conservatives will believe everything they are told by The Washington Times, NewsMax and FoxNews. No matter what.

Fact and not opinion, right?

The story of the ignored (not “incorrect”) intelligence about WMD’s i Iraq that no Conservative is permitted to acknowledge exists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

The non-lefty in me feels the need to point out this part from your link:
Tenet said that the source — meaning Sabri — had said Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides, under the oil-for-food program, had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production.

As for Drumheller, he’s a lying partisan sack of shit.

His media spin garnered the attention of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, which rebuked Drumheller’s misrepresentations.

Read: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, with Additional Views, pg 141-144

Hey Wordsmith: Remember your comments to me about “rabid partisanship”.

What about Chris G?

Or des he get the automatic Conservative Free Pass!

Way to frame the reality. If I say, “Chris is merely setting you straight on your partisan ‘facts’”, you’d say I’m being partisan; if I say Chris is being rabidly partisan, I’d be lying. ;)

January 10th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Scott
 59Reply to this comment  

“The September 11 commission, with the full backing of George W. Bush (the man with the most ot gain from a contrary opinion) declared there was not proof of no substantative link between saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. I accept that conclusion.”

Classic half truth and deliberate misinformation from Steve as a means of defending his partisanship rather than searching for the truth regardless of what it means to his political crux issue. The WHOLE TRUTH is that the 911 Commission reiterated the findings of two other bi-partisan investigations which said not enough evidence had been gathered (ie, there was an intelligence failure), but what Steve deliberately ignores, where he deliberately tries mislead, where he tries to promote a fact which is not true, where he tries to lie, comes from his ignoring the fact that the same commission he cites called for the matter to remain OPEN-not closed or dismissed, and asked for investigation into the depth of AQ ties to Saddam’s regime because almost no investigation had been done prior to the commission’s investigation. More specifically, this indicates a gross LACK of intelligence gathering by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Nah, rather than point that out, Steve prefers to live in a fantasy world of cherry picking information-yes, cutting/pasting half of a quote to make a misleading and incorrect statement.

Back OT, I find it absolutely amazing that after voting for Bill Clinton twice, after almost always voting for Democrats, and in response to an article where I effectively sing praises of Democrat Barack Obama…I’m labeled a conservative that totes a party line. By such standards, anyone who is not DNC lemming is a “conservative.” I’m not sure Steve even knows what a conservative is.

January 11th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Philadelphia Steve
 60Reply to this comment  

Re: “The Leftists who ally with the islamofascists, however, ARE treasonous, but will never be punished. That is the reality of the left who are not held to any standards. When in power, however, leftists are a whole different animal. You ally with the leftists and spout their “two-minutes hate”. You also sound just like the true traitor I mentioned above as I mentioned before.”

Can you supply thier names? Or is this the calss broad generalization that requires no documentation?

January 11th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Philadelphia Steve
 61Reply to this comment  

Re: “I’m not sure Steve even knows what a conservative is.”

I am personally very conservative.

I believe the federal government should not “borrow and spend” its way to re-election.

I beleive the government should not insinuate itself into personal family decisions.

I believe the US should not be engaged in worldwide nation building.

I believe the government should obtain search warrents (either prior or, in high security situations, after the fact) before monitoring its citizens.

I belive that, when the government siezes a US citizen on US soil, it should bring charges against that person quickly, and provide that US citizen opportunity to defend himself.

Unfortunately those beliefs are the antethesis of modern conservatism.

January 11th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Philadelphia Steve
 62Reply to this comment  

Re: “Steve, please quit projecting “conservative hate” onto all conservatives. You do yourself a disservice. Can you not see your own hatred and incivility reflected in your language? In your tone? In your insistence that your opinions are facts that we should all acknowledge and accept? ”

I asked multiple times if you considered tossing around the Treason charge, a word Conservatives use so often against those who disagree with them on anything that the term is completely devalued, was an incendiary comment. At no time did you, or anyone else here, admit that Conservative overuse of that term has both debased public discourse and cheapened the word when it actually might apply.

It is analogous to Liberals who toss the “bigot” word against Conservatives every chance they get. And Conservatives are quick to take umbrage at being labeled a bigot simply because they disagree with an African-American, they are completely obtuse to the similar effect of the “Treason” word when their allies use the term.

But you refused to see that, and therefore I called you on it, repeatedly. And still you refuse to see the term and refuse to hold one of your own accountable. That is why I spoke of the “one-way” accountability of Conservatives.

And that is why I still maintain that a Conservative will never hold one of his/her own accountable to the standards set for others.

Which makes Conservatives as hypocritical as Liberals.

But then remember, Conservatives consider their political opinions as originating from God, and therefore Holy Writ. In which case hypocricy is a much greater sin for Conservatives than for Liberals.

January 11th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Philadelphia Steve
 63Reply to this comment  

Re: “The lines of division run deep. Some of you are reinforcing the point that this article pointed out. Tit for Tat on and on. We are sick of it. I am sick of the word “liberal” tossed around to dismiss any REP counterpoints. It’s about the US not about individualistic positions anymore. We have to fix this mess and in order to do so. We must find common ground such as our very existence for starters. Why do we always have to focus on what divides us instead of what unites us? I pose this question to all parties involved?”

I agree with your point completely.

I apologize to those here who I have offended by my comments.