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.”
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
I found deep truth and inspiration in your words here.
A sincere “Thank you” for writing them.
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.
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
I liked Scott’s original post.
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!
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.
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
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%.
John, thank you for demonstrating my point about partisanship.
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.
Rofl….John just feel right into that one huh?
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.
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.
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.
^
Yup. No rabid partisanship nor signs of BDS there.
Thanks for coming to the center, Philly Steve.
[/sarcasm]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But you still can’t say that the Bush Administration was incompetent, can you?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow… Spam comments….
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.
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.
Hey Wordsmith: Remember your comments to me about “rabid partisanship”.
What about Chris G?
Or des he get the automatic Conservative Free Pass!
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.
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?
“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.
“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?
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
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.
Re: “there was a close relationship. ”
Sources?
Already answered that in #43.
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).
Re: “Anyone see a trend?”
Yes.
Conservatives will believe everything they are told by The Washington Times, NewsMax and FoxNews. No matter what.
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.
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?
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.
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/