We’ll lookie lookie. It appears some white supremacists love them some Ron Paul. This comes from Lone Star Times:
A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading
figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided
financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of
Stormfront, a “white
power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier
English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.~~~
– Black proudly and openly identifies himself as Stormfront’s guiding hand,
and publishes a contact address on the Internet— PO Box 6637, West Palm Beach, FL, 33405
– A search by LST of public databases indicates that there is only one “Don
Black” residing in West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33405– A 7/16/01 USA Today article identifies Black’s wife as being named “Chloe”
– That same article identifies Chloe as being the ex-wife of close Black
associate and former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke– Minutes of a 9/7/07 City of West Palm Beach code-compliance
hearing identify “Chloe H. Duke” as owning a residential property located at 203
Lakeland Drive– According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07
the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don
Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation
as “self-employed/website manager”
Not only that but it appears his website, Stormfront, has widgets on the page that lead to donation pages for Ron Paul.
Shocker? I think not. You have the twoofers and militia nuts who love the man, not a stretch to have some big time racists mixed in.
What a candidate.
See author page
I’m still waiting to find out if and why President Ron Paul would have a US Navy if he’s a non-interventionist, OR if he thinks that genocide in Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, etc is a casus belli for President Ron Paul. Best of all, can a doctor order men into battle or would that violate one of his oaths?
Isn’t it amazing that not only is Ron Paul popular amongst the white power crowd, but he is also the most popular Republican amongst blacks too? Not only that, but he also seems to be really popular amongst people between the ages of 30 and 50, and is the only Republican that polls higher than Hillary in this key demographic.
I guess as Ron Paul says, “Freedom is Popular.”
Man, it took 31 minutes for a PaulBot to visit and leave a comment. You guys are falling down on the job.
I guess he and the Brain (midget) from Ohio will divide up the 34% of Americans that believe in Ghost and UFO’s. Honestly the American people are scaring me. It may be time for a nuclear cleaning.
“It may be time for a nuclear cleaning.”
what is a nuclear cleaning?
“Man, it took 31 minutes for a PaulBot to visit and leave a comment. You guys are falling down on the job.” -Curt-
I’m not gonna flame you dude, but is that really the best you can do? You can’t respond to Johnnyb’s comment about RP’s support from black voters… so you label him a “paulbot”.
The reality is, all politicians have some unsavory support in their fringe. That’s fine, that’s healthy, dare I say, that’s what America is all about. These whacko-skinhead-nazi types support Ron Paul for the same reason that black people do… they want the government off their back. Think about it.
I understand that you aren’t down with Dr. Paul, and that’s cool. Lots of people aren’t. I can dig it… but how about some substance, rather than cheap name calling.
Cedric
Ahhh, the Paulbots. I ask three important and interesting questions about the Dr, and instead of DARING to answer they popup and rant about how great he is in digital polling.
This is fascinating. The Authoritarians vs. the Libertarians in the Fight for the Soul of Modern Conservatism.
Cool.
Cedric, there have been many many many posts and comments left , of substance, on this blog about this man. Check it out. But the PaulBots refuse to answer, all they spout is that he is the next messiah or some other kind of foolishness. Your smitten with the man, good for you. But he is a joke, his followers are a joke, and as such they will all be treated as a joke.
We should get many more of these kind of comments from Ron Paul’s fans soon since Salon (that conservative bastion of thought) has linked to this post.
Only REAL conservatives read Salon…
Sigh…..
I’ve always found names intriguing…we had a dentist in the military (no doubt he’s still out there dentisting somewhere) by the name of Phil Molar. Really. I can’t remember others off hand, but I’ve run across them and have no doubt others have as well – where the person’s name “matches” or at least links in some way to their life’s work.
So here we have a man named “Black” who is a white supremacist. Wouldn’t you think that the first thing he’s do would be to change his name? And why are do many blacks have names that are colors? (Green, White, Brown) It’s not really relevant to anything – I just find it interesting….
Curt I think there is more to it than the candidate. Speaking as an unapologetic liberal, I was once afflicted with the same feeling of euphoria and hope about Howard Dean. It was less about the charisma of Dean and more about me finally being able to hitch my unabashedly left-leaning wagon to someone who I thought shared my views or at least respected them.
I think Paul represents that same type of hope for these hardcore Ayn Rand-ish types of conservatives. They have hitched their hopes (and vanities) to this candidate, for better or worse. I would not dismiss them as cultish idiots. Yeah, there is a laughable element of selfish, greedy, geeky, childish silliness to libertarianism. And yes, he also attracts the Randy Weavers, Timothy McVeighs, and the David Dukes – all of the assholes that feel it is their constitutional right to practice their freakishness with complete autonomy.
Not that it won’t be amusing to see you guys rip each others jugulars out over this guy, but learn from OUR mistakes: If you try to crush them, they will fetishize their “oppression” and use it to cause all manner of trouble. If you let them come to the table and yammer until everyone sees them for the brats they are, then they sniffle a bit and then either join the grown-ups or go back to their corner.
I ask three important and interesting questions about the Dr
Your questions seemed a little offbeat to me, so I hadn’t really considered answering. But since you insist:
if and why President Ron Paul would have a US Navy if he’s a non-interventionist
A functioning Navy is part of having effective armed forces of any kind, and Paul isn’t calling for the abolition of the military. Of course, he does plan to pay for the abolition of the income tax by steep reductions in military spending, among other things. And I expect that those cuts would result in a steep reduction in the size of the Navy, as well. A good concrete question for Paul might be ‘how many carrier groups should we maintain’, though I expect that even he is enough of a politician to avoid giving a straight answer to that.
if he thinks that genocide in Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, etc is a casus belli
Based on his voting record I think the answer is clearly no.
can a doctor order men into battle or would that violate one of his oaths?
Without knowing which version of the Hippocratic oath he took it would be hard to say with absolute certainty what grounds there would be for supposing this (the classical version seems to present no obstacle). But given his service in the Air Force and his stated willingness to prosecute declared wars, I think there is no problem, or at least that he doesn’t see one.
I understand your point Lisa, but when you were pulling for Dean did you do constant searches via Technorati for Howard Dean and then post to EVERY SINGLE blog that mentioned the name? Did you bombard the digital polls with votes and votes and more votes? I’m telling you, this Ron Paul thing has indeed turned into a cultist phenomenon.
This blog has had posts on the man where the comments reach to over 100 from these guys coming to the table and yammering (reaching 100 on a blog that gets 3-4k in traffic a day is a little over the top), after awhile it looks like lunatic ravings.
In the end, his followers and the man himself is nothing but a blip in the race. Dean, meanwhile, had a real chance there for awhile. Big difference.
Great comments Lisa!
bbartlog (popping my aspirin now…), the reason I asked about the Navy is because unless it was scrapped and replaced by Bassmaster Assault craft, it would still be the most powerful navy in the history of man designed almost entirely for use BEYOND the nation’s 12mile limit; ie, designed for intervention…the core of Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
I do appreciate-sincerely appreciate-your comments re genocide and Dr Paul. I find it ironic that a Dr with the ability to save lives by ordering in military forces (with or without intl support) would refuse to do so. “Let em die-they’re not Americans” ought to be the name of his foreign policy platform.
But again, I sincerely appreciate your taking the effort to spin for him. Well done. Ignored the signifigance of a Navy in #1, falt out admitted it’d be ok to let millions die in #2, and in #3 I think you did a good job of distracting by asking another question rather than looking it up and answering the core question: Would Pres Paul be able to send men and women to die in war?
I understand your point Lisa, but when you were pulling for Dean did you do constant searches via Technorati for Howard Dean and then post to EVERY SINGLE blog that mentioned the name? Did you bombard the digital polls with votes and votes and more votes?
LOL. WOW!!! Now that is some serious devotion. It is almost religous in nature. Well, you have to do what you have to do to keep everyone focused – I know from painful experience that if you get just enough people running off after some jackass (like Nader) the results can be devastating. And this is going to be a very intense election. Good luck. May the best(Democratic)candidate win!
But just in case Paul and his supporters do not evaporate as quickly as you hope they will, I will leave you with this: We have been trying to get rid of Jesse Jackson for 3 decades. He is unspeakably annoying. He knew we were trying to get rid of him and he used that to nearly get the nomination once or twice. It was Clinton who neutralized him for good by listening politely and “giving him a place at the table” and showing everyone that Jackson is a moron and has no fucking idea how to make anything happen. He slithered away into heel-nipping obscurity.
Scott –
I can’t easily expand on my answer about the Navy without potentially substituting my own position for Paul’s. I think we clearly need to maintain the Navy so that we have the (deterrent) capability to project forces across the globe, even if I think that capability should be rarely used. Paul on the other hand has said (off the cuff) at some point that we could defend this country with a few nuclear submarines (I assume he was talking in the context of deterring attacks from other nation-states). So it seems likely that I disagree with him, and I’m not going to try to establish or defend his position in detail. But since both he and I are far more dovish than the Republican mainstream I think you can see why I would still find him more agreeable than other candidates on this issue.
As for item two, yes, we will just have to disagree. Millions of people die every year on Earth who could have been saved if only our government had acted. Not just from dictatorships, genocide, and war, but also from lack of clean water, malaria, tuberculosis, AIDs, and malnutrition. I don’t think trying to save them is a legitimate function of our government. But if you think that our government *should* be in the business of improving the welfare of non-US citizens, I should point out that opening our southern border is one of the easiest ways to do that. Being opposed to increased Mexican immigration, while supporting the idea of our government spending money to improve the lot of foreigners abroad, seems inconsistent to me.
Of course, it is possible to argue for exceptions on the basis of national security. The Marshall Plan would be one example (strengthening our allies against Communism). You could argue for Iraq as another. But this is not the same as arguing for intervention on purely humanitarian grounds.
On the Hippocratic Oath – I did look up a couple of versions and saw no problem. Figuring out whether Duke medical school circa 1960 administered some flaky variant of the oath that might pose semantic issues, when Paul has already indicated a willingness to go to war under the right circumstances, seems like a waste of time to me.
Look the reason that most Republicans hate Ron Paul is not that he is a kook, it is because he is the only Republican candidate that wants to end the war in Iraq. Republicans can tolerate kooks, but it is anathema to be against the war that a sitting Republican President started.
And Bushbots know that trying to win a debate on the war is rather difficult in any arena so their attacks end up more as just name calling which really isn’t very effective with adults
Winning a “debate” on the War in Iraq is difficult? Having been there and fougt the islamofascists, I find that a woefully ignorant thing to say.
Well, now I have the makings for the next post. Thanks.
The decision on who wins the debate is not made by either of the debaters
John Ryan wrote:
“Adults”? You mean like Pete Stark?
bbartlog wrote:
In general, I would agree; much of it having to do with lack of resources to “save the world”. But the reason why “winning” in Iraq is important is because a perceived U.S. defeat will harm America’s credibility far greater than our removal of Saddam from power. And consequently, that will have serious consequences on our national security.
Al-Qaeda deemed Iraq to be the central front on “the war”. The “jihad” movement would be emboldened by a perceived U.S. defeat, similar to how Osama proclaimed victory at the Lion’s Den in Afghanistan against the Soviets. There is nothing more effective at recruitment than the appearance of victory, and that you are joining a “winning team”.
If Iraq succeeds as a free nation, it can have great ripples throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. And in the long run, that makes America safer and it makes the world at large, safer.
Of course it is always easier to attack the worst examples or mistakes of any political group. Did you think that what Stark said was going to actually effect the course of the debate ?
Pete Stark !!! he said something bad
Cindy Sheehan !!!! stupid and ugly
Ted Kennedy !!! he is fat and drinks too much
Everyone who does not support the war is a terrorist loving,treasonous,defeatocrat !!!
In spite the flaws of the “leaders” of the anti war movement a very strong majority of Americans can no longer support the war.
As for recruitment being determined by the sense of winning many are motivated by other factors. I don’t think that many join al Qaeda think that they have much of a chance of iving long enough to see “victory”
My response was to take one recent, high-profile example to reprimand your condescension of “Bushbots” with “namecalling”, implying that you are the adult with whom to carry an argument with.
Why is this?
Of course not. Al-Qaeda is a death cult, and these cultists seek martyrdom.
MOM HE STARTED CALLING ME NAMES FIRST !!!!
Paulbots=Bushbots
So then I guess al Qaeda isn’ really motivated by being on the “winning” side.
I have no problem with either terms.
But when Cedric writes,
He’s obviously commenting in ignorance of a history of comments on previous FA posts, with Johnnyb being a regular ArPee defender.
Your original comment added nothing, other than to feign adult maturity while denigrating one-side as exclusive namecallers.
I consider neither “paulbots” nor “bushbots” as offensive insults, in and of themselves. Just labels used to identify.
Their idea of winning is, on a personal level, to meet their Maker and 72 virgins.
As a movement, they seek to create a new Islamic super-caliphate.
No, Al Qaeda is motivated by having Islam (as they practice it) being the ONLY religion and political system on Earth and all others converted or slaughtered. They will not stop until they are either dead or this is achieved. ANY retreat strenghens them. Any lack of resolve emboldens them.
It does not matter to islamofascists if they die as they will become worshipped and earn their place with their moon-god. However, notice that AQ’s leaders and their contemporaries, like Arafat, Ackmenajad, and other Muslim “leaders”, are not rushing to embrace death while we are killing their followers much faster and effectivly than the media and our critics will ever give us credit for. Maybe the mon-god’s “paradise” is not as nice as the benefits of being a Earth-bound dicator.
And this is the bottom line. It does not matter WHAT the US foreign policy is or is not. It does not matter WHAT aid we give or where it goes. It does not matter if we pull our forces back to the US borders or nuke Mecca. It does not matter if we become a green-socialist nightmare “paradise” or a conservative nation of rugged individualists. All that matters to our enemies is that we either convert, surrender (pay jiza and live as disarmed slaves), or preferably die. Anything else is just obvuscation meant to deceive us.
Don’t worry, when Ron Paul is out of the race the white supremacists will align themselves with whatever Republican is nominated. You guys can allways depend on the white supremacist vote.
Randy,
Actually, Stormfront is a socialist group who is alligned with Code Pink and participated in several Code Pink events.
Sorry, your pathetic lies end here.
Somehow I don’t think so this time Randy. The White Sheet Contingent is split between Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Neither will get the nomination so the repubs can rest assured that that particular strain of freaks will stay on the fringes. Bush is not nearly militant enough about illegal aliens for them. Nor does he subscribe to the “let them damn a-rabs blow each uther up, the ugly sumbitches” doctrine.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/24/0320/2227
Looks like the cowards at Kos are ready to convert.
And Lisa, Robert Byrd is in what political party?
I thought he disavowed his racism 30 years ago? Not that he is my favorite person. He talks like Foghorn Leghorn – that makes me nervous.
Is that the same Don Black that endorsed George W. Bush when he was running for office?
Randy wrote:
Yes, because we all know that Republicans are the party of racism and Democrats are not the Party of soft bigotry and low expectation race-profiteers:
linked here at FA:
Chris back a long time ago, probably before you learned to read each of the 2 major political parties each had a wide view on all matters. Certainly the yellow dog dixiecrats were believed to be on the extreme right wing of the Demoratic Party.
However for the last 30 years or so the right wing side of American politics has been claimed by the Republican Party. The left side by the Democrats. However since each party only has 1/3 of the population elections are controlled by the independents and since 2006 they have chosen to vote with the Democrats.
So, yes Byrd was a KKK memnber and was undoubtably a racist then, and yes Lincoln was a Republican but I am not sure how important either of these things are to current American politics. Certainly Lincoln was not thought of by his contempoaries asa social conservative, he would have been thought of as a radical liberal upsetting the established social order.
Ok, my mom raised me with the knowledge that once upon a time, it was the Repbulican party that was the champion of the black American. However, you cannot deny that there has been fundamental racism in the soul of the Republican party for the last 30ish years. I am not saying Republicans are all racists or anything close to that. But many of your own conservative fellows have written about the damage done by the exploitation of race. Some have even apologized for the “Southern Strategy”.
As each party has had its nasty history with race, it is pointless to try to say one is worse than the other. There are a whole lot of Democrats that are racist jerks too. Both parties fetishize the asshole sitting on his porch talking about how “the blacks” and “the mexicans” are a bunch of welfare-recipient criminals. This is referred to as “common sense straight talk” coming from “the heart and soul of America”. Everyone rushes to hear what the “heartland” voter has to say, because you know the only REAL Americans live in the South or Midwest. The rest of us were imported from France just to annoy “real Americans”.
Actually, Stormfront is a socialist group who is alligned with Code Pink and participated in several Code Pink events.
True enough (surprisingly), at least for some sense of ‘aligned’. The unifying factor seems to be anti-semitism. Of course it’s still entirely possible that the white supremacist vote will skew Republican; if they perceive both major party candidates as being ‘pawns of the ZOG’ or what have you I’d guess that they’d tend Republican just for the gun rights, stance on immigration, and the lack of racial pandering. But in a democracy with two major parties rather than a hundred tiny ones you’re always going to end up with some real weirdos casting ballots for your side.
According tro the CNN Exit polls for 2006 the 2 blocks of voters with the highest percentage of votes for one particular party were
Blacks they voted for the Democrats 87% of the time
Jewish voters who voted for the Democrats 87% of the time.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
It is a little hard to believe that Stormfront would be aligned with either of these groups.
bbartlog, Why “surprisingly”?
And yes, both parties have their racists in them. Maybe a third or 4th real party would help break the cycle. Maybe scrapping the party system would work (any idea how?). I take issue with Lisa’s “last 30 years” comment. Working for total equality is not racism. I believe someone once stated he had a dream that a person would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.
THAT is my position and one I have used my entire life. My family history is of abolitionism and the costs associated with it. To be called a racist because I oppose the leftist nightmare of socialism and “reverse” discriminatiuon is upsetting and a lie. And actually, please look at the individual issues voted in 2006. The republicans lost because they abandoned small government and would not stand against the left or their idiotic base (though they did not lose by a landslide even then). State ballot issues supporting conservative ideas, however, won in many areas.
Funny thing is, Stormfront supported Bush back in 2004.
I wonder if the writer over at LoneStar Times thinks that the white power groups can buy presidential influence with a mere $500 campaign donation?
I wonder who we would see investing in Guiliani or Hillary? Insurance companies, investment banks, HMOs, Big Pharma etc. I wonder who is more dangerous to the prosperiety of the American people, corrupt financial interests or a few nuts playing army and screaming white power in the back woods?
I support Ron Paul because he’s the first guy since Reagan who’s actually reflected my own views. I thought that Bush was a guy that I agreed with too, but I was painfully let down and so were a lot of other people, which is why the party base has shrunk from 34% to 30%.
I look at the politicians out there campaigning for the Republican Nomination and all I see is a bunch of slick liars, some of them are not even that slick, and they all seem to be running to lose the general election, and right now they will lose the general election because everyone is sick of what Bush gave to the Party Brand.
Poeple hate Hillary. She’s the most hated person running for President, but she will win simply because people want to punish the Republicans. What the party needs to do is distance itself from Bush, and the only candidate that is promising anything different is Ron Paul. If we run Ron Paul not only will we have the best chance of winning the general election, but we also get a chance to redefine the party brand to something more appealing than Hilary Clinton Socialism so when Hillary does run this country into the ground the people can look back to a memory of capitalist solutions and we might be able to win back the house in 2010.
If Republicans are backing Ron Paul because he wants to end the war (which all candidates have said they want to do), and he wants it ended immediately, then…what’s he gonna do in Nov 09? I mean, according to the DoD, the first troops in the already, long since declared Iraq withdrawal start coming home in 5-6 weeks. After that, we have a steady stream of withdrawing units until June when more withdrawals are hoped to be scheduled. If that happens-as expected-then there’s hardly gonna be any troops at all in Iraq in Nov 08 let alone 3 months later in Jan 09.
Oppose the war, demand withdraw…
NEWSFLASH!
It was announced months ago. The troops are coming home. Why oppose it or demand a rout? Nah, he’s pandering to people who don’t understand the war, who think there was no WMD threat, no direct threat to the US, and no AQ in Iraq.
btw, bbart, happy to see that the carriers will be scrapped. After all, there’s no need for intervention-err, “force protection”, right?
Chris I am going to ask this question and I am not being facetious: What has Bush done that has been out of line with your core beliefs? To acheive the level of security and safety that you feel is necessary, you have to spend some serious cash (which he did). You have to expand the government to get the kind of personel and resources you would need to respond to another 9/11 (which he did). You have to do some serious encroaching on civil liberties to prevent another 9/11 or at least try. Bush has done all of those things, which you (and most loyal republicans) don’t seem to have a problem with. So where did he go wrong? He seems to have done exactly what you wanted him to do.
If I were him, I would kick all of your asses. After all, he worked hard to be what you wanted him to be.
Chris the most important issue in the 2006 race was the war in Iraq.
The second most important was the incopetence/corruption oin the Republican Party
As for not being a landslide the Democrats in the House won 30 seats from the Republicans. The Democrats lost none of their seats to Republicans 30-0
In fact no Democrat Senator OR Govenor was defeated in 2006
2008 elections are now just over a year away and the Democrats look even stronger than they did a year ago.
Btw, this is a good blog. Very lively discussion without a ton of namecalling (not that I have a problem with name calling. Name calling is totally underrated). It appears that people are actually READING each others posts before responding, which is really novel (most people scan for key words and then go from 0 – Incandescent With Rage in .006 seconds).
I think I might start checking you out even when you are not on the Blog Report at Salon.
Scott of course some troops are coming home. But also more are going over to Iraq the Army just recently announced the next 6 National Guard brigades.
I have yet to see any solid date when the troop level will be below the pre surge level. Most Americans by about a 60-40 % spread want a firm timetable set for withdrawal regardless of the situation in Iraq.
aren’t these the same people who voted for bush?
If the war is going to be all but over by this time next year then why not back Ron Paul?
Bush deviated from my core beliefs back in 2001 when the economy was hinting at a recession, and he applied both Keynsian and Laffer economic theories at the same time by reducing taxes and increasing government spending while the fed was lowering interest rates. Of course this beats a recession, but its a little bit of over kill and now the consequences are people losing their homes that they could not have afforded if it had not been for Bush, and we have all this extra big government that is not needed.
The correct course of action would have been to lower interest rates, reduce wasteful spending and lower(eliminate) taxes.
Next, they made a serious miscalculation when invading Iraq. Bush said it would cost about $50 Billion bucks, but now its way over $600 billion, current projections have the war cost around $2 Trillion. Now I ask you, if they had told us that it would cost that freaking much, who would have said that we should go into Iraq? After all we could have just paid Saddam off with $1 Billion.
In addition to the continuing easy money policy of the fed, the political instability created the middle east and the on going hostilities with Iran is causing the price of oil to skyrocket as everyone is speculating on it and no one is shorting it. It used to be that an easy fed policy created jobs and funded technology, but now its all going straight to the commodities market which is rapidly driving our economy towards stagflation, and the dollar is going a lot lower before its all through.
With a steeply sagging dollar, there is less motivation for foriegn investment banks to hold dollars or dollar denominated debt as its a losing investment. When they reduce their supply the amount of dollars in the market will increase driving down demand, while foriegners run up the cost of all commodities which are denominated in dollars.
If you’re smart and wealthy you can get out in front of this coming problem, and make alot of money, but if you are an average working stiff you are about to feel the pain. Already Americans are working their asses off and now they are about to get their wages cut and they are not even going to know it.
John, the timetable was presented to Congress on or around Sept 10. The first units started going home then, and while new units come in, the numbers coming in are less than those going out. More will go out in December, and continue steadily to June. In June, if things go well (it is a war, and the enemy DOES get 50% of the vote), then more reductions will be announced. Given that it takes 6 months to get units out, we should see US forces far belove surge levels 5 months later (around election time).
🙂
Don’t think they like Bush much:
And highly doubt they would have liked him even in 2000. Everyone knew his stance on immigration which is why I was a bit amused with all the “outrage” over his “new” stance on immigration. Only thing is it wasn’t new.
Either way, the racists love them some Ron Paul. Along with the twoofers and the militia anti-government nuts.
Like I said…some candidate you have there.
Lisa,
Oh, I deny it because that is a complete and utter falsehood. Sure the left has spun it so it looks that way. Against illegal immigrants and we’re racists. Pro-law enforcement and we’re anti-minority. Against affirmative action and victocrats, racism again.
When in fact the opposite is true, and history bears that out. We are for less government restrictions and the individual. We are for getting people off (or forced off if they refuse to help themselves) welfare and actually help themselves.
Just as the Democrats tried to paint us as against poor kids with the SCHIP story(which brought FA alot of Salon traffic also), they spun it way out of control. We are against helping those who can obviously help themselves, as the Frost family could have PRIOR to the accident. We are against spending tax dollars to help families making 80 grand a year. We were for the keeping the original program as is, which means actually helping the poor…not the middle class.
A party that does its best to keeping people dependent on Government is way more racist imo.
“If things go well……”
You mean if like the Iraqis stand up then we will stand down ? Because I heard that in June of 2005.
As for those being the same people who voted for Bush well the first time he got less than 48% and in 2004 he got 50% so NO, those are not the same people. Some are the same but not all. Now they are a strong and clear majority.
Well it certainly would be good newsd to see the number of troops come down that is what so many have wanted for such a long time. But since we have not seen any sign of the main objective of the surge, political reconciliation, taking place I remain skeptical. Also has anyone else noticed that along with the good news about fewer casualties in Iraq that there has also been BAD news in that the total number of insurgent casualties has also dropped by 30% ? in the last month ?
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm
John,
Good comments, and I appreciate them. Yeah, sadly I do think the “they stand up/we stand down” bit is one of the many things that can still go wrong, but TIME magazine-specifically even fervent anti-war critic Joe Klein is reporting that more and more are in fact standing up:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1675623,00.html
as to the lack of political progress, I take Gen Sanchez’ view that the US military can only do so much, and the rest of the US govt that’s been tasked in Iraq with reconstruction etc has grossly failed (interestingly enough, I don’t see a lot of anti-war protests against the US DoS which has dropped the ball more than anyone else). However, having said that, I think it’s important to say re political progress two things:
1) the Iraqi Parliament has passed more laws than the Democrats’ Congress and thus has made more political progress than the American govt, that’s noteworthy, and it shows huge hypocrisy on the part of Congressional Democrats to demand results when they themselves can’t manage to cut a $500000 virtual herbarium from a bill (see also pork spending worse than Republican Congress)
2) The political reconciliation in Iraq has in fact been taking place since January, but the reason that it doesn’t get press isn’t because it’s unimportant. It’s because the Democrats’ Congress put together a list of benchmarks that were near impossible for the Iraqis to accomplish, and they did this specifically so that if the Surge succeeded militarily (which it has beyond anyone’s dreams), then the Democrats could still oppose the war they support through sins of omission. Specific details of that political success can be found more here:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/10/18/i-dont-have-the-link/
Oh, btw Lisa. A Salon reader saying that they plan to stick around because this isn’t a half bad blog is quite a compliment….I mean that sincerely, and appreciate it. We have many many differences, and I have been known to throw some jabs, but getting a discussion going like this one is a great thing to witness and take part in.
btw John,
I wonder if you could be a bit more clear on what you meant by a “specific date”? Perhaps a historical example would help me. Are there any examples in history where a military force engaged in combat and succeeding in defeating the enemy (in this case Al Queda) said that they’d be done in X month and/or on Y day? Or is it a bit more responsible and practical to say, we hope to have X forces out around Y month and then order more forces out after that as long as success continue?
Thanks sincerely
-Scott
🙂
Ron Paul is bringing everyone together. That’s the way freedom is. Under Ron Paul’s vision we can all live in freedom, voluntary cooperation and peaceful co-existence. He is only candidate of either party who isn’t about some groups using the government to control, exploit, oppress or live off other of their fellow Americans. GO RON!!!
Thanks for posting article and bringing this out!!
Declare vicory and get out ???
I just hope those pesky defeatocrats don’t try and take credit for it.
Perhaps Dr Paul’s grand plan for rule is to hand out more cialis, lipitor, and prozac…
;p
Scott between June and September the percentage of Bagdad that is under the control of Iraqi security forces (with US oversight) rose 25 %……… from 6% to 8% .http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN2132269820070921
Yeah, the surge forces seem to move around a lot, first in Baghdad a little, then off to Anbar, then Diyala, then all around again, and now back into Baghdad possibly with a shift from focusing on the devastated AQ to the anti-govt militias. you might also have seen that in Sadr City, there’s a huge movement coming out against the Sadr militias.
There’s still a lotta fighting, and there could be more, but the withdrawal is underway. Besides that, the time to put a politically motivated withdrawal on the calender is gone. Forces can be out (mostly) by the 08 election, but for it to be politically motivated, there must be political capital to be gained, and if it happens around the election and/or before the inauguration as planned, then there’s no political gain. No political gain=no politically motivated withdrawal.
Sadr is the most popular Shia politican. Has been and probably will continue to be no doubt at least partially becuse of his firm stance against foreign occupation.
As for political capital since hte waqr is soooo unpopular and since it was/is backed by the Republicans it may be seen by soem to keep ita hot issue for the next 12 months. The clock is ticking on the election.
Lisa,
First, I am an officer in the Active US Army. I voted for Bush twice along with a vast majority of the rest of the military. I figured you should know that so you understand my point of view. And yes, please read other entries on the blog.
THERE ARE NO LOSSES OF CIVIL RIGHTS FOR US CITIZENS since 9-11-01. I would like you to cite ANY proof that there were.
Government HAS expanded and I do not like that fact. However, most of the expansion has been “compromises” with the left (education, prescription drugs being two examples). This I do not support Bush on. “Compromise” to the left means everyone else abandons their positions and the left gets what it wants.
Departments should have been re-aligned and many eliminated as redundant, but get that past congress and the career bureaucrat fiefdoms. It is the lower and mid level unelected agencies in government I dislike. Of course, I would desire to reduce government by 25% across the board (as a start), eliminate the income tax, opt out of Social Security (which I will never see), end congressional retirements totally, institute term limits for congress, and several other aspects.
So yes, there are some things Bush has done I do not like. There is NOTHING democrats have done that I like.
John, the war was backed by Democrats as well-they controlled the Senate in 02, and overwhelmingly supported the war in the House as well. Even today, most of the Democratic Party leadership supports the war at least until 2013, and the Democratic Congress supports the war too by continuing it. It’s a bi-partisan war despite the claims from Dems that they don’t support it-their deeds (which are infinitely more important than a politician’s words) prove otherwise.
as to Sadr, he’s actually lost a lot of support
John,
The war is “sooooo unpopular” but for some reason the Democrats can’t get a cut n run bill past Congress.
Give me a break.
Stop reading KOS, the NYT’s and other MSM outfits and expand your horizons a bit. You may just learn that your preconceived notion that the war is “soooooo unpopular” is not true. No one likes war, but many understand why this war is important. Everyone wants the troops home, but many understand that to cut and run like cowards would only make things worse rather then better.
Curt if you don’t believe the polls then believe the last election. The republicnas lost 30 house seats and 6 senate seats. If you don’t believe the last election then bet the farm on Intrades.com you can get GREAT odds !!
Oh yes, that last election which won your party a bare majority. Some mandate. All this time and no cut n run bill either….wonder why that is?
Just keep drinking the koolaid John, someday it may all work out for you.
Many people were for the war. Many people now realize thatit was a mistake. I myself believed the scares about biological and chemical weapons. BUT they were simply not true. I will say I never believed the hype about the Iraqi atomic program, there was never any proofs of the necessary infrastucture.
Well 30 seats in the house was a pretty harsd hit for the Republicans to take. And 6 senate ?? not to bad especially seeing as how the Republicans failed to win any seats held by Democrats. It was like a shut out.
Incumbents have a large advantage, in a year I expect to see even more seats go Democratic. 3 of the 4 top Republicans in the House have announced their intention not to seek re-election. There are 22 Republicans in the senate that are coming up for re-election probably 1/2 will have tough campaigns I think that there will be a good chance to win 5 or 6 of those races.
Curt you gotta stop pretending that things haven’t changed on the political landscape. It is the end of 2007 not 2001 wake up and smelll the coffee the Republicans have become a minority party.
True
False.
If this were true your Democrat majority would be able to bring the troops home months ago. But alas, they couldn’t because there is no “many” people as you like to say.
False again.
Much of that is covered in many blog posts on this blog but a good couple to read is this one and this one.
Or the series done by Scott Malensek here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Another great take on this was written by Tom Nichols at the Naval War College:
Also, a fact should be noted which many lefties seem to leave out. The OTHER reasons we went to war, for which there are many. The fact that he refused to abide by the cease fire (covered in detail in the first few links above). The fact that he attacked our planes. The fact that he supported terrorists AND evidence that he had WMDs and refused to give them up.
Taken all together, and after 9/11, it would have been criminal if Bush had not gotten rid of Saddam.
Puhlease.
I seem to recall the same statements in late 2004, instead you lefties were holding “im sorry” signs and crying on each other shoulders.
You guys are too funny.
Chris, thanks for clarifying. I too hate it when I think I have someone who is going to kick ass and take names and then they go in there and start trading and wheeling and dealing with the opposition. However, the people who are real hardasses and are so deeply attractive to us end up getting tarred, feathered run out of town. Voters like hardcore until unpleasant government shutdowns and icky budget battles drag on too long. Newt Gingrich was willing to play hardcore, but the people who demanded he go to Washington and knock some folks around ended up losing their nerve when they faced possible inconvenience due to the budget battle. The same thing has happened for people on my side of the political spectrum: We send them there to fight, but if the fight might affect us and cause us any discomfort we abandon the person faster than Lindsay Lohan leaving rehab.
I can’t believe I am kind of defending Bush, who I loathe. But the guy HAD to make some concessions. It is unrealistic to think that either party can just do what it wants without considering the other 50% of its fellow citizens. And it was not just Democrats he was compromising with. There are lots of different kinds of Republicans, many who support a more progressive approach to prescription drugs, healthcare, and immigration.
And yes, our civil liberties have been encroached upon. No I am not a terrorist nor do I make calls to or take calls from terrorists. But the idea that someone is ALLOWED to listen to my phone calls and rifle through my records without any clear reason (except that I might be creepy or funny looking or dated some hairy Iranian back in my college days) is not good. I am not an enemy combatant, but if someone decided that I was dangerous, they could ship my ass off to some secret place in Asskickistan and I would have no legal recourse. I don’t like opening those kinds of doors. This president may or may not be the kind of guy who would seriously abuse those kinds of powers, but eventually someone will get into office who will. And we will all be screwed.
I always think it’s a bit funny when people start saying “you lefties”
Look the war never had the support of “the left’. what has changed is that now the war has no support from the center. And I don’t even see any real support from the right. I mean with 100 million people (1/3 of the US population) “supporting” the war you would think that there would be long lines at all of the recruiting stations. During this war we have historically high numbers of West Point grads opting out of the army at their first chance about 50% http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/11/west_point_grads_exit_service_at_high_rate/
I mean, really, if these guys can’t support the war by staying in, how can you expect treasonous,hippie,deafotocrats to do so ?
Cough…
But hey, the majority don’t support the war so the Democrats should be passing a cut and run bill any second right?
Heh…
The war is over. There’s still fighting going on, but the effort to force a politically-motivated end is long past. Why oppose it anymore? Why demand withdrawal when it’s started?
Nah, take the war and ABB off the table, and Democrats lose the slim 80-90,000 votes that got them Congress. Put Hillary on the ticket (with the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidate in American history), and Republicans could run anyone. Why is all this happening? Not because Republicans are good, but because the Democratic Party’s leaders are so bad.
They lied about Iraq
They lied about supporting it
They lied about fixing earmarks, lobbying gone mad, partisan shut-out votes, balancing budgets, and have accomplished NOTHING.
All a Republican Congressional candidate has to do in 08 is list out the promises/failures of the Dem holding the seat, and bingo-the fresh face goes in. In 2002, 2004, 2006 and now 2008 Democrats are depending on Anybody But Bush mentality and the war over the war, but Bush isn’t running, and neither are his cronies, and the war is off the table since troops are coming home, there’s success on the ground, and even Dems are willing to continue it till 2013.
No ABB
No War
No crux/draw issue for Dems.
Hillary on the ticket
rampant, habitual, moot opposition to war in Iraq
gross list of failures in Congress
promises to raise taxes
=lots of reasons for Republican base to go nuts in 08.
If the war was popular, even with the 100 million who SAY they support it The Army would be flooded with recruits. They would not have to waive about 20% of the recruits that fall below standard. They would be able to cherry pick from more than they need if the war was popular.
I agree with both of you: Things HAVE changed since 2001. But, support for the war has never been more than iffy. We were not asked (nor did we volunteer) to interrupt our lives in anyway. We did not sacrifice ourselves, sons, or daughters. We did not open our pocket books for a war surtax nor were we willing to let go of our farm subsidies, medicaid, or other entitlements to pay for this war. It was a war we tuned in to for a half hour a day while waiting for American Idol to come on. I don’t know that we have turned against it so much as become bored with it.
I never supported it. However, most people did. But they supported it with the unspoken condition that it not take too or become overly bothersome. Unfortunately, it has done both. So people have turned the channel. I was angry at the president and the GOP for getting us into this mess, but really he can’t take all the flak. We are his boss and we LET him. We even encouraged him to go find someone to pay for 9/11 and he did. We don’t like the long, difficult, protracted results of overthrowing some dictator in violent, crazy country, now we want to point fingers. But we should all take a long look in the mirror.
Well Scott that is of course an opinion. But it is not held by most. On Intrades, the largest political futures marketplace, the odds look might slim for the Republicans to take back either Congress OR the White House. If more people held views like yours (AND were willing to put their money up) maybe the odds would be dropping down a bit
https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false
These price quotes are really not that much different than the current Vegas odds
We could really use some more people putting money down on the Republicans; to win a hundred dollar pay off on control of the senate remaining in Democratic control you have to put up 90 dollars !! IT IS JUST NOT FAIR
It is an opinion John. So true, but I wonder how the odds will shift when people realize that there’s no point in campaigning against GWB since he’s not running, and both sides can argue for change? Similarly, as demonstrated on this very thread, most people don’t realize that the withdrawals have begun, there’s more political reconciliation in Iraq than in DC, and there’s no difference between most Republican and most Democratic Party Presidential candidates re the war.
Seriously, take Ron Paul, Kucinich, and maybe Dodd out, and ask what the difference is? Maybe one or two second tier candidates (Richardson) will say they’re gonna advocate a complete immediate withdrawal, but they’re not gonna get the nom, not when they’re 80% behind Hillary in the polls.
What trophies of accomplishment can Democrats run on in 08? Nothing. ZERO In fact, they’re screwing up more than they fix (see also Rangel’s tax increase, and infinitely more examples). They caved on the war, impeachment, SCHIP, FISA, judges, funding, earmarks, and more.
Republicans are the minority, and have the advantage of not having to run on a record of failure. They can boast to their base that they held the line-an opposition/minority requirement, and well proven by the Democrats failures.
Without the war, without GWB, what will energize the base? Will millions of KOSsacks take to the streets in protest of socialized medicine or perhaps in support for Sen Specter’s $500000 earmark for a virtual herbarium or the other 165 earmarks he had in that same bill alone? Nah, Dems are blowing it, and the party base is in a state of shock, awe, and apathy. They don’t like Republicans because of the years of propaganda, but they realize the Dems have pwnd em now.
Lisa,
You are mistaken about the international monitoring system (what the left calls “domestic spying”). Please see the FBI’s own terrorism research section FAQs and understand how the system works (or was working) and what safeguards are in place. Americans are NOT hauled off outside the USA UNLESS they are caught outside the USA fighting us. Even then they are brought back to the US courts system.
Here is how the system used to work.
A US Soldier kills/captures a terrorist who has a cell phone and a computer. He gives them to his S2 (intel officer) who ships it to Division HQ for decryption/translation/analysis. IF for some reason your phone number, email address, or home address appears on the phone or computer, then permission was sought to find out why. If nothing was discovered (most computer IPs are actually ‘zombie terminals’ hacked into) then the info was dumped.
Now we can shoot a terrorist, but not look at his phone.
In 2008 the most important issue will be the war in Iraq. Probably the second most important will be health care.
The withdrawals have begun ?? show me that link please and also does this withdrawal mean less than before the current “surge” ? or just a reduction iof the surge ?
The last figure I have seen puts the number of military in Iraq at 168,000 so when we pull out 38,000 we will be down to the “pre surge ” amount.
And the “base” of the Democratic Party is not and never has been Kos or net roots. Maybe they are 2 million (?) but hardly the base. Certainly vocal but numerically dwarfed by MANY other blocks within the Democratic Party. And of course it will not be the Democrats nor the Republicans that will determine the outcome of 2008. It will be the Independents, and I have seen nothing that indicates that they are going to back the Republicans. Well not “nothing” wishfull thinking : I have seen that.
As for the “base” the Republicans have in the past tied that to the Evangelical Christians and they might have some problems backing ANY o the Republican nominees except for pehaps Huckabee. Hillary’s unfavorables ?? better take a look and see how much higher than the unfavorables are for the Republican nominees. Show me a poll that says any Republican can beat her. Show me.
well that is the perception held by many people and certainly the Republican Party is not the favorite of Black Americans.
John: It must really gall you that even Democrats now concede we are winning in Iraq.
What a shame your side can’t do more to enable and encourage the terrorists. Even bin Laden came out this week and had to apologize for making mistakes.
Oh, Curt: One of the moonbats that Wordsmith keeps feeding at my blog is a white supremacist. We call him KKK Ken. He’s also a big fan of David Duke and the American Nazi Party. Guess who he supports in 2008?
You guess it! RON PAUL!
Mike,
We may disagree vehemently about how to make this country a safer and better place. But I think it is dangerous talk to accuse those who disagree with you of being terrorists or in sympathy with terrorists. That is eliminationist talk. Look back at any genocide, or major “purge” in history and the first thing people did to justify what they were about to do is accuse those they were about to purge of being in sympathy with the enemy. Now don’t get me wrong, I find it stimulating to insert a little heated rhetoric into an argument. However, I think going as far as casually accusing people you don’t agree with of being terrorists or “the enemy” taking us down a road that we will all eventually regret (some of us more than others).
John, I appreciate your post; a well-presented question.
“In 2008 the most important issue will be the war in Iraq. Probably the second most important will be health care.
The withdrawals have begun ?? show me that link please and also does this withdrawal mean less than before the current “surge” ? or just a reduction iof the surge ?
The last figure I have seen puts the number of military in Iraq at 168,000 so when we pull out 38,000 we will be down to the “pre surge ” amount.”
The orders went out back in September. The first withdrawal of a brigade (as I said) will have troops home for Christmas. After that, the withdrawal will continue with more brigades until the surge of forces is withdrawn around June, and then General Petraeus says that if the success continues (per the quote earlier) more withdrawals to below surge levels will continue. Desert Sheild took 6-9 months. During the 4 threatened invasions of Iraq under President Clinton, each buildup for invasion too 6-9 months. It will take a while to get all the forces out and do so “responsibly” as Gov Dean said, “…if you pull your troops out immediately, you do get chaos.” So really, it’s a question of whether or not the success continues, but since AQin Iraq’s been decimated, since UBL openly declared that he’s shifting the central front to Sudan, and since ISF forces are in fact getting very good lately, since there’s been far more political reconcilliation in Baghdad than in DC, things look good. The orders are out. Some will be home for Chrismas, others for Fouth of July, and the majority of the rest should be home around election time making it hard to demand a withdrawal when a withdawal’s been taking place for the 14months before the election).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_es.htm
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/09/statement-by-general-petraeus-text.html
Mike there are many Democrats that are currently serving honotably in Iraq. When you call Democrats traitors you are also calling membes of our Armed Forces traitors.As for “winning” in Iraq that remains to be seen. But of course the first thing is a definition of “winning” There iare fewer casualties. But exactly who is our enemy in Iraq ? Al Qaeda ?? They were not there until after we came, and even today are less than 5% of the people killing Americans. The ebemy originally were the Sunnis who had been the oppressors of the majotity Shia whom we sought to liberate. Now the Shia are the bad guys and we are arming the Sunnis.
However if it takes saying “victory” before we can leace than I am all for it and will cheer “victory” as loud as anyone.
UPDATE
John,
I forgot to say, I just don’t see Iraq being the driving issue in Nov 08 after 14 months of withdrawals and (hopefully) 22 months of successes there. What will Democrats on the ballot rave about? Demand a withdrawal that’s been taking place for over a year (brings up all kinds of fun “17-month rush to war” analogies)? Maybe they’ll complain that there’s no success in Iraq despite even msm reporters like Couric, Williams, and more who have gone there repeatedly this year, seen the progress (even at the start of the surge) and marveled at it? Nah, I don’t think that dog’s gonna hunt. Maybe the Democrats can run on the idea that the war never should’ve been fought if they run anyone other than Hillary, but for her to stand at a debate podium and rant about how it never should’ve been fought after she:
promoted it
got better intel than the President
authorized it
supported it
opposed it
supported it by demanding more troops
then opposed it
well….let’s just say, I might start making my flip flop video now
Nah, that six pack of positions lacks a plastic thingy to hold it together. Maybe they can rant about Iraq and say…what?
Healthcare? Nah, healthcare’s a dead duck. Reform’s needed, but not socialized medicine. Besides, if you go for socialized medicine you lose NY, Florida, and Ohio where private healthcare orgs are massive-especially in Ohio. You MUST have 2/4 of the big states to win:
California (alwasys Dem)
Texas (almost always Rep)
Florida (leaning heavily Rep)
NY (in play if its Rudy)
Carry 3, you win.
Also, I think if Democrats try to make Iraq an issue in 08 re Congress, then they’ve got real trouble. The anti-war far left is already seething mad and furious at the Democrats Congress.
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/971
All a Republican running for Congress has to do is say, “I want to do X, he wants to do Y, but he got into office promising the sun, the moon, and the stars, and we didn’t even get dirt.” How can a Democrat run for re-election on Iraq and say (again), “Vote for me, and I’ll provide a New Direction in Iraq even though I promised to do so last time and didn’t because (fill in the excuse)”?
Good luck with that one.
Scott please post a link saying that the eithdrawal began 14 months before the 2008 election. The last figure I saw listed 168,000 in Iraq. At what time do you see the troop level being les than the pre surge figure of 130,000 ?
Progress ?? you mean that the surge has resulted in political reconciliation in Iraq ? Please provide a link to that as well as any links to any more of the 18 benchmarks that were identified by Bush.
Healthcare ? Most Americans want a change. They know that during the time the Republicans held both the Congress and the White House they never got it. As far as “socialized” medicine, well if it is good enough for our vets, good enough for all government employees, good enough for the elderly, well I say it is good enough for me the American Taxpayer.
Vegas certaintly doesn’t agree with your analysis aboutr the chances of the Democrats winning: people willing to put up money pn political futures, no they don’t agree either.
Most Americans agreed with the decision to invade Iraq. MOst Americans now think that was the wrong decision to make. Although the war may have been backed by Democrats the American people know who the prime mover was and which political party he belongs to.
“Scott please post a link saying that the eithdrawal began 14 months before the 2008 election. ”
I did. General Petraeus’ own words say that he was starting a withdrawal back in Sept. I included a link to that, and I included a link to the globalsecurity.org site that described how the withdrawal orders were issued by Pres Bush in Sept (14months before the 08 election if my math is correct). As to the “pre-surge” injection, that’s misleading. It’s pushing the goalpost for recognizing success back to next June when pre-surge level forces will begin to be withdrawn. I contend that a withdrawal is a withdrawal, and that Gov Dean is correct in that you can’t just pop a champagne cork, tell everyone to drive to the border, and call that a responsible withdrawal. It’s not. Sure, that would give the left success since their objective isn’t success in Iraq or withdrawing troops or withdrawing pre-surge level troops, but rather abandoning Iraq and then being able to blame President Bush and Republicans for the consequences.
“You mean that the surge has resulted in political reconciliation in Iraq ? Please provide a link to that as well as any links to any more of the 18 benchmarks that were identified by Bush.”
I said earlier that the benchmarks set by Congress and given a “yeah, whatever” from President Bush are not examples of reconciliation. For that, I gave a link to a post at FA which showed there is reconciliation happening in Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Basra, and all around Iraq. I even gave a link to a TIME Magazine rpt confirming the others. The 18 benchmarks (imo) are better described as things to be complete before a complete withdrawal happens. Kinda starting to sound like you want to play gotcha politics with the intent of arguing that we should withdraw now even though the orders were cut in September, the rotation adjusted, and the withdrawal is starting. To that end, I suggest ranting against Democrats since they’re the ones who promised a NEW DIRECTION IN IRAQ and lied about it, and since they’re the ones willing to continue the war until 2013 (though today is a day that ends in the letter “Y” so it might be a different position by now).
The first step in a withdrawal, is the orders. Then there’s a time of adjustment, shifting of responsibilities and forces, then packing, then leaving. It took 17 months to RUSH into Iraq, it might take 17 month to rush out.
“Healthcare ? Most Americans want a change. They know that during the time the Republicans held both the Congress and the White House they never got it. As far as “socialized” medicine, well if it is good enough for our vets, good enough for all government employees, good enough for the elderly, well I say it is good enough for me the American Taxpayer.”
I agree, people want a change, but not socialize medicine. As to the vets, I seem to remember something about Walter Reed and poor conditions? Besides, if you look closely, in most cases a lot of govt employees (Congress) get to use whatever healthcare provider they want, and are not limited to govt paid docs at govt run hospitals.
As to Vegas….we shall see. I don’t think Republicans have started playing yet, and Democrats are playing hard since even though they won Congress in 06 they didn’t get ANYTHING for it, and they’ve gotta try again. But when I talk to my friends who are Dems, and I ask them how they’re gonna vote for Hillary…they say they won’t. If Hillary pushes a socialized medicine program here in Ohio where healthcare is the biggest employer…she will not carry Ohio. Vegas can be wrong ya know. Didn’t they have Kerry in 04 throughout 03? And, if I recall, they had Republicans holding the Senate in 06. Nah, poll picking is a fun game, but reality is different.
The reality is that a Democrat running for Congress in 08 cannot run on Iraq.
“I DEMAND a withdrawal (even though it was ordered 14 months ago, and 30-80,000 have already come home).”
-not very inspiring
“Vote for X for Congress, and I’ll back the Democratic Party’s NEW New Direction in Iraq.”
-mmmm, uh, no. That’s not gonna get a lotta inspiration
“Re-elect X for Congress because he’s done nothing in 2 years.”
-ouch.
No wonder Democrats are spending more on earmarks than the Republican Congress did. They’ve gotta start buying some votes asap.
It bears remembering….Congress went Dem because of less than 100,000 votes, and 2/3 of the military absentee ballots were never counted. Democrats would’ve been protesting in the streets, screaming about fixed voting machines, chads, etc. Republicans took it, recognized that the R Congress had drifted from its anti-earmark policies that got it elected, and are making the change as 08 gets closer.
You can’t possibly think that the RNCC won’t be providing ads for each Republican candidate that merely list out each of the earmarks for Democrats running for re-election?
RNCC could take Congress by running 3 ads for each candidate:
“Democrat so-and-so promised XYZ, and failed. In fact, he/she accomplished nothing.”
“Democrat so-and-so promised to fight earmarks and political kickbacks to special interest groups, but he made sure that $500000 of the childrens medical coverage bill went to a virtual herbarium in Montana along with these other 165 special interest pet projects….”
“Democrat so-and-so promised a new direction in Iraq in 2006, and he/she’s doing it again, but the orders for a withdrawal were given 14 months ago, and since then 30-80,000 American troops have victoriously come home from Iraq. But so-and-so didn’t support that victory, he made non-binding resolutions opposing it, and on X number of occasions tried to cut off food, fuel, bullets, body armor, and supplies for those soldiers.”
Believe me, the NRCC hasn’t even started yet. Same with the national effort to elect a Republican President. They’re not gonna hit high gear until Hillary gets the nomination, then 08’s gonna be a political circus with her defending infinite accusations (entire libraries of accusations have been published in prep for this) as well as nuiancing her positions, distracting from her previous positions, and pandering to anything anyone wants. Wanna $1000 for each kid? She’s for that. $5000 bond for each kid? Sure, she’s for that. 40 acres and a mule? Yeah, that sounds good.
Well thaat sure settles the question about “withdrawal” You see I thought that meant when the troops leave, not just when someone started thinking about withdrawal. I didn’t understand that even if the troop numbers are the same Because you see most Americans don’t understand the nuances we think that when the withdrawal begins that means that there will be less troops, not (maybe depending on conditions) less at a later time.
Yeah sometimes Vegas is wrong, but of course the odds were you pick’em in 2004 not 3-1 like now
Since the war started the mean and average number of US casualties has been about 66 per month. 2007 will have a higher US toll than other year. So far it looks like this month October will be the only month with less than the average.
Your scenario of “all the Republicans have to do….” sure seems easyn and do able !! Sort of what we thought Iraq was going to be like. Republicans this year amongst other problems don’t have the money that they did in 2006.And I don’t just mean in thje presidential race. Republicans in Congress ( well those that choose to run again, many are opting out) face a real short fall in campaign funding.
The funding thing will come. Like I said, Republicans aren’t really interest yet. Democrats on the other hand are, and I suspect that’s because they bought a bad bag of goods in 06 and are feverishly hoping to buy a better one. How can one deny that the Democratic Party Base isn’t grossly dissatisfied with their elected Congress? Approval’s barely 20%. List of passed laws and accomplishments fits on one hand with fingers to spare. The New Direction in Iraq that Pelosi said on election night was the reason they won? That was a lie, Dean admitted it election night-they never even formed a committee to brainstorm a plan (once elected, they did go to Syria for advice though).
btw, I think when you look at the 168,000 number…it might be a few months old. Still the real effect in numbers will start in a few weeks. Prior to that, you’re right, most of the withdrawal is prep etc. Moving an army isn’t like going on a roadtrip where you pack the car and drive. It’s a little more complex, time-consuming, etc.
Now, John, you’ve argued nicely that the withdrawal isn’t happening, won’t happen, whatever…now what if I’m right and everything that’s scheduled to happen does? If so, then most of the troops will be out of Iraq in Nov08, and the withdrawal will be substantive and clear enough for even Joe Schmoes to see that it’s been happening. If that’s the case, and if reconciliation continues, then Iraq is off the table, and couple that with the Democratic Party’s UNDISGUISABLE failure to stop the war…how do Democrats profit from an American success there? It’s not like they’ve helped bring about success by arguing FOR the enemy’s objectives.
Now add in the huge realization that GWB is not running, and the Republicans who are are not his lackeys. Once a Republican has the nomination (as is the case whenever there’s an incumbent) he will take the spotlight from the President. Clinton did it with Gore, Reagan with Bush, and always throughout history.
I still say that without Iraq (and just the Dems’ failures on Iraq really takes them off the table as the ‘we can do something’ party’), and without GWB to run against ala ABB…Democrats will have a tough time finding a crux, or driving issue. I know all my Democrat friends aren’t happy at ALL about Hillary being ordained. They might vote for her as “the lesser of two evils” as I was told by one of them, but…is she really? All those infinite number of accusations could really drag on her. Most of all…she IS still awaiting sentencing from the 3 judge panel at the FEC for her role in the Peter Paul campaign finance scandal (the biggest campaign financing fraud in the history of the US, and don’t think that’s not coming up at a debate). I wonder what Democrats will do if she gets the nomination and then the judges say she’s got to do 100hrs of community service for campaign finance fraud-Clinton appointee judges?
Gonna be interesting.
Why are you wasting time trying to explain this to John Ryan. He’s obviously willfully ignoring everything said. And he’s also brought out the chickenhawk argument. Is he really worth trying to explain anything to?
Buzz I never use that word.
If you are refering to the historically low retention rates of West Point grads, well that is not how I see their actions
Hi Buzz!
Ya know, I have a great deal of respect, love, admiration, and more for many of the people who oppose the war in Iraq and GWB. Many-scratch that-MOST of my family and friends are in that category. This list includes Green Berets from Vietnam, history professors, lots of IT professionals, and very caring and loving people across the board. I’ve found that most of their opposition is really anti-Bush first with the war just a catalyst for expressing it. Then that catalyst is fed by Democratic Party leaders with lies. Not even misleading propaganda, but straightup, open, lies. A Senator will go to an intel briefing with David Kay. Kay comes out, says to the press, we didn’t find stockpiles of WMD, but we found a WMD threat in various other forms. Then the Dem senator comes out, says Bush lied-no WMD. I have the luxury of time to research for the truth. When W’s wrong, I flat out say it. I did so as early as mid 03 in my book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun (pen name Sam Pender). As is the case with my family and friends, as long as someone wants to talk about the complexities of the political war over the war, and if they can do so nicely and/or with the intent of finding the truth or even better common ground, then I’m there. I’ll discuss. As soon as it gets heated, as soon as I get name-called, etc. I step aside for the Flopping Aces crew. A few of these guys have the ability to draw fast and split a card with a sideshot before the other guy’s even reached for his piece. My feeling is that the war was a bi-partisan issue, should be a bi-partisan issue, and that it is a UNITED States issue. It’s not Bush’s War. When I hear that, I immediately recognize that the person is shirking their responsibility for the UNITED States’ actions, and thus not interested in the welfare of the UNITED States’ as much as the welfare of their political orientation or too often their political career.
Someday this war’s gonna end. I think it’s started to, and is already scheduled to (How Rovian would it be to have US forces come home on election day to vote in uniform with Iraqi dust on their feet?). When the war is over, that’s when I’m gonna feel really sorry for Cindy Sheehan for she and the rest of the people who worked so hard to oppose the reconstruction and restoration of security in Iraq (see also UN1483sec1-4)…those people will look to complain to Bush, and have nothing. They’ll demand a withdrawal of troops who are already home or coming home, and I worry about what those individuals will do when there’s no longer anyone and anything to hate as vehemently as they have.
You don’t have to use “chickenhawk” to make the argument. A rose is still a rose even if you don’t call it that. And this: “I mean with 100 million people (1/3 of the US population) “supporting” the war you would think that there would be long lines at all of the recruiting stations.” Is a chickenhawk argument. It is no different than saying “if you support the war then why aren’t you signing up?” You’re exactly as I have pegged you. You’ve also had the withdraw explained to you multiple times, and yet you’ve repeatedly stated “there is no withdraw/when is the withdraw going to happen” where if you could actually you know, read, you’d see it explained to you multiple times.
Lisa: The aforementioned KKK Ken in my comments pages cheerleads every setback of our efforts in Iraq, ignores every U.S. triump and actively propagates enemy propaganda for every enemy and adversary of the United States.
Nowhere do I suggest that every supporter of Ron Paul is that deranged, but I have seen hundreds of examples of where Ron Paul and his supporters have swallowed enemy propaganda whole and adopted it as their own ideology.
This idiotic notion of our withdrawing entirely from the Middle East is the best example.
I don’t know if you are a supporter of Dr. Paul but if you are, you certainly have my sympathy being in such company with kooks and fools.
But please don’t suggest that my disgust at the their behvior is somehow a justification for a “purge.” Believe me, if all the nonsense Ron Paul and others have put out about the neocons trampelling on the Constituion you all would be at Guantanamo Bay already.
But you’re not are you?
Ya know Buzz, I dunno if that’s so much a chickenhawk statement (though I can see how someone would see that), but I think it opens the door to recruitment myths etc. So often we hear that recruitment is down or that the military is scraping the bottom of the barrel to find the greatest of Americans (irony?). I don’t buy the idea that there’s a shortage of manpower. If it were the case, then I follow Gen Petraeus’ statement that incentives, more commensurate pay, etc would solve that problem. HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE RECRUITMENT PROBLEMS, I submit that it stems from 3 things:
1) the left’s lie that the war in Iraq is a lie (“no wmd” “no ties to AQ” “war of choice”). It’s simple thought reform practice: breakdown, then rebuild. They breakdown the casus belli and then rebuild a new one aimed at a Republican govt rather than a terrorist regime
2) the military is grossly underpaid in my opinion, and those people deserve better pay, better benefits, and INFINITELY more respect for who they are and what they do; one cannot “support the troops” if they do not honor, respect, and support what they do
3) Oh yeah…it’s a war! It’s not easy to find people who have seen 6 years of war (since they were 12yrs old) and stand up and say, “DAMN! I sooooooo want to go climb mts in Afghanistan while being mortared by Taliban!” Or “Wow, Ramadi looks like a real party town! I have GOT to go there” Or most importantly, “Ya know, I want to be a soldier because people will admire that. Well, 200 million people won’t admire what I do, but they’ll admire me.”
Obviously “withdrawal” means different things to different people. Fotr me it means a reduction in troop level.
It does not mean making preliminary steps. It means an actual reduction in troop levels.
America simply no longer supports the war. Rightly or wrongly the Republican Party will have to shoulder this. And this is the feeling of most Americans this is the reason that the retention rates of West Point grads are historically low. It is not because they are cowards or traitors. It is because they no longer believe in the war. The reason that the recruiting stations are not flooded with potential recruits is not because they are chickenhwaks it is because most Americans do noy believe the war in Iraq is worthy.
Buzz I have no idea whether you are currently in the military or once were. That makes no difference as to why the 100 million who support the war have not flooded the recruitment stations. Well of course some individuals may have physical problems that would preclude it. Others may have moral issues for which waivers could not be granted. Some may not be of high enough standards for the armed forces. Certainly I would not call them traitors for not fully supportuing the war, nor would i call them chickenhawks
Mike:
No I am not a Ron Paul supporter by any stretch of the imagination. I am one of those big-city liberals. I wandered onto this blog by way of Salon after reading this very intriguing post written by Curt. The fact that Paul attracts separatists, skinheads, and other racist boneheads is also well known by those of us on the other side of the political spectrum. David Neiwert at Orincus has been writing about the same thing recently. I have known for a while that Ron Paul has not exactly been welcomed into the mainstream of the GOP but I have been curious about what the average Republican thinks of him, if at all. I find the whole conversation going on between conservatives about Ron Paul and libertarians quite fascinating. I have said how much I believe this conversation mirrors the conflict liberals have had about Howard Dean (whether he was TOO liberal/crazy/etc.) and Ralph Nader and the Green Party (whether he and his supporters were just attention whoring pains in the ass or perhaps truly represented the pure and true liberal).
I find libertarianism to be generally selfish, petty, and immature. Most of their platform is downright laughable. Our country is great because of our sense of community. Most libertarians have the fevered Ayn Rand inspired fantasy that they are so special and important that they must be separated from the unwashed masses who would drain them of their intellectual and physical gifts. Remember, they not only want lower taxes, but they also seem to believe that they are much cleverer than the average citizen of this planet and should not really even have to share in what you or I consider a free market capital system (it is far too democratic and it gives otherwise untalented and stupid people the means to rub elbows with special people like themselves). If you have ever read anything by Rand, you know what I am talking about. At the core of every libertarian lies a foul, petulant elitist with delusions of grandeur.
Oh, and I was not implying that you are some fascist eliminationist. However, I believe that it was not just our approach to domestic security and international policy that had changed on 9/11. I believe that the way we talk to each other has to change too. Calling someone a traitor and a bloodthirsty terrorist was just hot air on 9/10/01. Now it means a whole lot more. We dont just have to worry about Islamic terrorists who hate our guts and want to wipe us all out. We have to worry about getting so paranoid that we start hating each other’s guts wiping each other out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402.html?hpid=artslot
Of course this is just more propoganda fromSoros/MSM
And the quotes must have been taken entirely out of context because everything is going great in Iraq
I have to leave for work in less than 5 minutes and have only skimmed through the last 3rd of the comments section. Just a quick item:
I think I can attest that it is not as easy as one may think, to join our military.
Last February, I tried to join the California National Guard. I wanted to be able to balance a civilian life with providing military service for my country, during these times. Maybe take some of the stress and workload off of my fellow Americans serving in wartime. I took the ASVAB without a hitch; when I took my physical/medical, the doctor (who is not a part of the military and does everything he can to find something wrong with you) refused to clear me, even though my counselors tried a few “tricks”. I needed a medical waiver for poor eyesight, that fell .5 below the refractory limitation, set. The doctor said I would probably get it. My recruiter said I would probably get it. This was back in February, and it never came. My recruiter kept telling me to just be patient. The last two emails I sent her, have gone unanswered. I don’t know if I just got lost in bureaucracy, or what.
This past Monday, I visited a Marine recruiter office. Even though I’ll probably run into the same problem with my physical, perhaps this time I could have more success at obtaining a waiver. I believe the cut-off is now age 31; but that on a case-by-case basis, I thought, they could find a way to make exceptions. I’m 39 years old, and the recruiters in the office politely would not even give me a second look. They just flat-out said they couldn’t accept me, but made a call on my behalf, referring me back to the Army.
So, I may be looking into Army Reserve, or possibly even regular Army.
It’s not as easy to get in as some might think.
And really, that’s a good thing. I’d hate to be accepted into the military, knowing that I got in through some sort of “affirmative action” for the physically near-sighted. I want our military to keep the quality standards high.
That being said, a former Marine coworker of mine who served in OEF, and who advised me to look into the Marines because he thought that they were needing bodies, was surprised I didn’t get in. He said he’s seen Marine recruits get in, with Turrets, and that it might depend upon the recruiters, and what time of the month you go in (needing to fulfill quotas, by the end of the month).
Ok, Now I’m going to be 6 minutes late to work. Dammit!
At least they can’t make me do push-ups…
take me off of your e-mail notification system you jackass
John keeps pulling out the recruitment thing when I have shown the military has no problems with recruitment in this comment. His response?
This is why its a waste of time to argue with the man, as Buzz said. After that silly response in which he states well, yeah, recruitment is doing ok but its because they are accepting below standard recruits (what an insult to those serving) he then goes back to his initial argument that recruitment is suffering.
Its a waste of time, he acknowledges no points you make Scott instead he ignores those he cant refute or demands links to things already linked.
Waste of time.
Problems in military recruitment ??
Well I guess just keeping lowering the standards and increaing the incentives. That will “cure” it
That’s fine. I can see that, respect it, and understand it. Me, I understand that the military is not a video game, and you don’t just snap your fingers and make an orderly withdrawal while still maintaining an offensive. HOWEVER, the fact remains that the orders have been issued, the process has begun, and most importantly if the orders are carried out as expected, then American troops will be largely withdrawn from Iraq before the 2008 election, and that’s the time when it will mean the most as it’s the time when the most will be withdrawn (per your reasoning). btw, the only figures I’ve seen re numbers are almost 4 months old. I suspect that the next time you see more current numbers, they will be smaller-unless the entire brigade is leaving at once in 5wks.
Oooo, I gotta differ there. Democrats are in power. Democrats authorized the war (Sen Clinton had better intel than even the President), Democrats PROMOTED the war, and then opposed it, lengthened it by emboldening the enemy’s objective (to force a premature evacuation via political means not battlefield prowess), Democrats were elected to END the war, and since they have the power, they have not used it. When Democrats took Congress, they took the ball. Now, Republicans running for office will be attacking a failed Democratic Party majority, a majority that flat out lied to their voters, accomplished NOTHING, and promised everything. Take a look back at Speaker Pelosi’s acceptance speech, and please see if any of the things she promised have been passed into law or if any of the procedures she promised are being done? Almost nothing. Democrats have the power/Democrats must defend that power. On 11/06/06 the Democratic Party took responsibility for ending the war. They failed, and will be held accountable (ARE being held accountable). I’m not sure how Joe Schmoe newcomer who pops up, runs for Congress in 08 against a Democratic incumbent is more responsible for the war than the Democrat who promised to end it, didn’t (repeatedly), and didn’t accomplish anything because he was more focused on party agenda than national agenda?
Hmm, that’s the ONLY reason retention from WP grads is down? One reason and one reason only? Or is it the favorite reason to point to for those demanding a withdrawal that’s already been ordered?
I gave three reasons why people aren’t flocking to the recruiter, all valid, none addressed, all avoided, and none dealing with opposition to the war.
Lisa: I pulled a couple of threads together from your comment. There’s a common theme here I’d like to discuss with you:
I was doing a television interview following Fred Thompson’s visit to my area this Wednesday. Off air she complained about being called “unpatriotic” and the “polarizing” of our political discourse. She refused to say who it was who called her “unpatriotic” but I pointed out that Senator Harry Reid used those very words on the floor of the U.S. Senate in a recent smear directed at Rush Limbaugh. Not one elected GOP official or party leader has ever used that word to describe a Democrat that I am aware of.
You also mention Howard Dean. You may recall that he said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” He’s also said that Democrats were in a “battle of good and evil and we’re [Democrats] the good.”
And again, you won’t hear anything approaching that level of vitriol from an elected Republican. BOTH SIDES DO NOT DO IT.
You may be aware of the attacks on troops who have come home from Iraq including one who was shot on the 4th of July. You may also have heard about the violence directed at Republicans during the 2004 campaign. Shots were fired into GOP Headquarters and union thugs invaded some offices. I have a photo of a group of Union Thugs tormenting a small child who was sitting on top of her father’s shoulders holding a Bush-Cheney sign:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/233018598_3e5111d0e5_o.jpg
It strikes me as somewhat odd that Democrats would pour so much poison in the well of our political discourse then complain about how bad the water tastes. If there is to be any change for the better your side will have to held accountable for what they say. But this reporter wouldn’t budge off the “both sides do it” crapola so of course there will not be any change in the political discourse as long as you people constantly blame someone else.
Anyway, to answer your other point, most Republicans and REAL conservatives (I’ve known, worked for or met most of them from Reagan, Goldwater, Buckley on down) think Ron Paul is a NUT!
John: You win the tin star award for the day! You managed to find ONE dark lining in the silver cloud of good news. That must make you feel great. It really must pain you to find yourself and your defeatist outlook increasingly isolated by reality!
Mike:
I am NOT someone who thinks we should all play nice and never disagree vehemently or call each other colorful and deeply profane names. I suppose it is just alarming to see people pass “GO” and head straight for “you hate America and love the terrorists!!” That is now the first response rather than the thing people say after a few hours and a few beers into an overheated debate.
I pointed out that Senator Harry Reid used those very words on the floor of the U.S. Senate in a recent smear directed at Rush Limbaugh. Not one elected GOP official or party leader has ever used that word to describe a Democrat that I am aware of.
Well, lets just flash back to the idiot Rush Limbaugh for one moment: “Well, I think we — it’s time to stop dancing around this issue, folks, to tell you the truth. It’s time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you’re damn right we’re questioning your patriotism.” Rush Limbaugh, August 23, 2005.
I seriously doubt that Limbaugh gives a crap that anyone is questioning his patriotism. Mainly because he unabashedly does it all the time. He is a creepy hack who reminds me of Lewis Prothero from “V is for Vendetta”.
I am not sure where you were when Rep. Robert Dornan NIGHTLY questioned the patriotism of President Clinton, the first lady and anyone else he could think of on the house floor. Or when that crazy and ugly Jean Schmidt used some passive/aggressive bullshit to question the “authenticity” of Murtha. I would avoid going down the road if I were you. Republicans DO do it and they do it well. And it is patently childish to even respond to my observation with “well, you STARTED it”. There is so much wrong with that, that I can’t even begin to address it. But it will try anyway:
It was not said as a challenge to decide whose fault it is. It is a challenge for us all to take this shit down a notch before we end up so pissed off that we start doing crazy shit to our fellow citizens. And believing that is right and just to baselessly tell someone that they are a terrorist sympathizer with the excuse that it was really bad when Senator Reid verbally gave the smackdown to Limbaugh is just weird. Oh and yeah Howard Dean said he hated Republicans and all they stand for. But so what. I mean, what the hell does that have to do with you? When I was a kid my neighbor told me that he hated black people (and me in particular) all the time. Sometimes in life people say they hate you. And a lot of times they really fucking mean it. Whatever, right?
As for the incidents of violence and intimidation that were done during the 2004 election campaign: I am sure you heard about the incidents of Democrats getting their asses kicked by low level knuckledragging campaign operatives. I heard about the shooting into a GOP campaign office but I always figured some republican staged it. But even if it was an authentic attack on their office, you and I both know that that is not the rule. Democrats don’t shoot at Republicans and you know it. And you know that they don’t harass little kids as a rule either. We can go back and forth for weeks posting incidents of intimidation, slander, violence, and other chicanery if you want. But that was not my point. You know what my point was but you chose to dismiss it.
Whatever, I had fun mixing it up with the Other Side!
I am out for now, I will be back to harass you all soon (I have you on my favorites list now, next to Shakesville and Pandagon! OMG!). I have to go and consort with Those Who Hate Freedom and Our Way of Life over a few beers now.
Lisa: I never pass GO without first stopping to collect my $200. After that I might just roll double six and land on “you hate America and love terrorists.”
If you want to see what I am talking about, drop by Mike’s America and check out some of the threads that KKK Ken is active on. You really have to wonder about someone who takes such relish everytime a major attack kills our soldiers or Iraqi civilians.
You want to call it something else fine. If that’s how you avoid dealing with it. I’m not going to let it pass. Everyone of these loons is enabling and encouraging the enemy. What signal did it send when Code Pink was raising money to send to insurgents in Fallujah who were killing Americans?
Patriotic? I don’t think so.
And what about the “peace” activist that became so enraged over the war that he shot one of our soldiers on the 4th of July shortly after he had returned home? We could cite more examples like the pack of “peace” activists that beat up a soldier in uniform in Seattle. The list is endless.
And nice how you totally ducked any accountability for even the senior leaders of your party when they smear patriots like Rush Limbaugh. I doubt you’ve ever listened to Rush Limbaugh in anything longer than the five second soundbites Media Matters takes out of context.
Do me a favor and turn on his program for the entire three hours some day. You might learn a thing or two about how badly misled you are.
And again, you seem perfectly willing to duck accountability with another false round of “both sides do it.” It wasn’t just one campaign office that had shots fired, it was several. And how you blithely ignore union thuggery directed at even small children is amusing.
You can keep harping all you want on the lack of civility in politics all you want. But it strikes me as funny that you folks poisoned the well and are now complaining about the foul taste in the water.
Mike’s America:
I used to be a conservative. I read two of Rush Limbaugh’s books in high school and listened to him regularly for years. Then I went to college, paid attention and learned what’s really going on in our world. Let me just say, IT IS MOST CERTAINLY YOU WHO IS BEING MISLED. Right and left is just a distraction, entertainment, a show. Hillary Clinton has already been elected President 2008 by the Illuminati, she attended the Bilderberg conference in 2006. If you don’t know what those words mean LOOK THEM UP. Bill Clinton attended Bilderberg in 1991 2 years before he became President. The Bushes all have Illuminati bloodlines so the Bilderberg conference is like a children’s sandbox for them. We have now had almost 16 years of a Bush/Clinton Regime and we are about to go for 20. Neo-cons are currently pushing an agenda that is destroying us and the rest of the world.
If you want to know the truth, watch The Money Masters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947
Read the above comment while listening to the The Twilight Zone music, makes it even spookier.
Geez….
Oh…that is just toooo rich. Thank you, Dan! I think your comment speaks for itself.
“I went to college, paid attention and learned what’s really going on in our world.”
Thanks Dan! I laughed so hard when I read that I almost feel out of my chair!
Your comment reminds of of episode 902 from South Park: “Die Hippie Die”
http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=6316
Ok I’m off for now. I’m late for my meeting of the Knight’s Templar and I have to go to the bank and cash my checks from Blackwater and Halliburton.
Keep up the comedy Dan! We can all use another good laugh!
“Right and left is just a distraction, entertainment, a show. Hillary Clinton has already been elected President 2008 by the Illuminati, she attended the Bilderberg conference in 2006. If you don’t know what those words mean LOOK THEM UP. Bill Clinton attended Bilderberg in 1991 2 years before he became President. The Bushes all have Illuminati bloodlines so the Bilderberg conference is like a children’s sandbox for them. We have now had almost 16 years of a Bush/Clinton Regime and we are about to go for 20. Neo-cons are currently pushing an agenda that is destroying us and the rest of the world.
If you want to know the truth, watch The Money Masters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947
Posted by dan | October 29, 2007 9:23 AM
wow…and here I thought X-FILES was just fiction. Is it true the greys ambassador runs the conference, or do the members of the supersecret cabal do things on their own in the hopes of paving the way for the recolonization of Earth like in the movie? I always get that confused: movie Bilderbergs, or TV series Bilderbergs?
Mike:
I made it perfectly clear that I was not talking about the nebulous “civility” thing. And you know that. I said over and over that I could care less about being civil. I was talking about eliminationist rhetoric. There is a difference between “you are a stupid liberal asshole and I hate you” and “you are a traitorous, terrorist loving enemy of freedom and democracy”. Furthermore, you are citing some dubious incidents to excuse your own behavior. Way to take personal responsibility for YOUR OWN ACTIONS. It is also a nice dodge of the issue (which you also nicely projected onto me – great job).
Thankfully most people do not conduct their interpersonal relations that way. We may not like each other’s politics, but for the most part, Americans get along quite nicely without fervently hoping for civil wars, internment camps, and mass demise of our political opposites. I hope you move past that soon. I don’t see anything productive coming from that kind of murderous rage (perhaps a few guns, a pipe bomb, a cabin in the woods and a whole lot of federal agents looking for you).
Dan:
Who in the HELL are the Bilderbergs, exactly? And how, prithee, do they manage to influence the ENTIRE WORLD’S economy? I truly adore a conspiracy theory. Especially if it is theory about some creepy Republican (Karl Rove masterminded _____________, because he is a fat evil bastard). But I just never got the Bilderbergs, the Skull and Bones, and the Illuminati thing. They sound like characters from a Lemony Snicket book.
Scott:
Do you remember how crazy everyone got just before the 1992 election with all that Trilateral Commission stuff? Remember the Patriot Movement’s freaky Red Dawn fantasies of UN troops marching down the Golden Streets of America because Pappy Bush and the had already Put the Directives Into Motion and by 1995 the United States would be dissolved. But they kept wavering between how the U.N. blue berets were going to come over and kick our asses to how they were a bunch of Pinot Noir sipping pansies. that was pretty funny and a whole lotta crazy.
Oh Dan,
Look son, I’m as much of a Ronulan Paultard troll as anyone on the internet, but seriously you have to consider your audience when posting all of that extremist propaganda. That type of crap only sells at UFO conventions, even if every word of it is true no one is going to believe it, and you are giving them every reason to paint you and your candidate as a kook.
It has been said many times on the internet that Ron Paul’s worst enemies are his supporters, and its posts like yours that validate that point. I too am suspicious of the all too cozy relationship between government and global financial power brokers, but when you lead into a thread with that sort of shit people are going to think that you are crazy.
In the future try sticking with a message that conservatives can relate too like limited government.
Yes Lisa. When you and your party take responsiblity for “YOUR OWN ACTIONS” instead of following the Clinton model which is to attack your fellow American then complain about the “politics of personal destruction” come and talk to me.
Until you folks apply the same standards of civil discourse to yourselves that you daily demand of others nothing will change.
P.S. While you are here take a look at my photo journal on Laura Bush’s trip to the Middle East. I hope you can say without equivocation that what she did in that trip and the way she conducted herself was exemplary.
Johnnyb: I don’t envy you having to share space on the mother ship with raving loons like Dan.
Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists vote Republican.
Congratulations Robert, not only is what you said a blatant, ugly lie (so easy to refute, but why bother with you?), but you have quite possibly won the award for most ignorant post on this thread and Dan gave you quite a lot of competition.
Lisa,
There are so many conspiracy/end of the world/aliens are coming/the Illuminati rules all “theories” that few can keep up. I saw a website devoted to all the end of times prophesies that have come and passed since the author could find. There were several pages worth. The only one that holds promise is that in roughly 4.5 billion years the Sun will expand into a Red Giant and destroy the inner planets, probably just as we make the final payment on the loan.
As it is, I have been in the Armed Forces for almost 14 years and have yet to see a black helicopter.
Though Lisa, the shooting of a US Airman on July 4th was a real event as were several assaults by leftists against Soldiers. They are not dubious incidents and they scare the Hell out of me since I have a wife and two boys under 3 years old. Because of multiple attacks by “peace activists” many military are concerned for our families when we deploy. Yet nothing happens to the people who threaten and attack us.