Democrats Disingenous in Their Rhetoric

[timmgirvan]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_in_thei.html I ran across this article, and I thought it spoke to the issues and history of current and past Congressional skirmishes. I believe it's worth reading, if only to stem the din from the left!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_in_thei.html I ran across this article, and I thought it spoke to the issues and history of current and past Congressional skirmishes. I believe it's worth reading, if only to stem the din from the left!

So the many Republicans who voted for the resolution and are also speaking out against the war are off the hook, in your book?

Here's the part in the article I found most interesting:

<<Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.">>

Sooooo... GW said he wouldn't use troops for nation-building, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to send troops into a nation that had not been involved in 9/11... to depose the leader and set up a gov't friendly to US interests. Sounds like nation-building to me. So what does that make GW?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_in_thei.html I ran across this article, and I thought it spoke to the issues and history of current and past Congressional skirmishes. I believe it's worth reading, if only to stem the din from the left!

Timm,
That's an interesting article. Seems that some Repub supported dictators' names were left out. Pinochet? Marcos? Shah? I could go on and on.
Who was president that set things up for Pol Pot?
I'll go back to watching "Faux News" to see what Hannity's take is on all this.
Maybe Billo can shed some light.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So the many Republicans who voted for the resolution and are also speaking out against the war are off the hook, in your book?

Here's the part in the article I found most interesting:

<<Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.">>

Sooooo... GW said he wouldn't use troops for nation-building, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to send troops into a nation that had not been involved in 9/11... to depose the leader and set up a gov't friendly to US interests. Sounds like nation-building to me. So what does that make GW?

That's pretty simple really....It didnt start out that way. but the Iraqis' are so lame that we poured billions into a country that wasn't ready for the 21st century!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

That's pretty simple really....It didnt start out that way. but the Iraqis' are so lame that we poured billions into a country that wasn't ready for the 21st century!

So the collapse of Iraq is the Iraqi's fault? What were we doing in 2003, then? Selling them ice cream?

Oh my God, I cannot believe the "how dare the Iraqis be ungrateful after all we've done for them" bs coming from the right-wingers. All we did was destroy their infrastructure, disband their police force and provide a breeeding ground for terrorists. How dare they be ungrateful!

[timmgirvan]

They didnt have an infrastructure,a real police force and they already were helping terrorists. When all was said and done, the people were still splintered by religious factions jockeying for power, thereby thwarting the establishment of a strong govt.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

They didnt have an infrastructure,a real police force and they already were helping terrorists. When all was said and done, the people were still splintered by religious factions jockeying for power, thereby thwarting the establishment of a strong govt.

Timm,
As you know, in the words of our furher (oops), leader, VP extraordinaire,
our wonderful vice spinner in chief declared today that "the Iraq war is a remarkable achievement".
I just hope Howard takes him on a quail hunting trip while he's in Austrailia.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3459241.html

I know that nothing I could possibly say will change your mind. Heck, we all want to believe.
I believe that impeachment should start with Darth Dick.
War crime trials later...
Lets use the same rope that was used for Saddam.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

They didnt have an infrastructure,a real police force and they already were helping terrorists. When all was said and done, the people were still splintered by religious factions jockeying for power, thereby thwarting the establishment of a strong govt.

Timm, I hate to say this, because he was a monster, but they did have a strong government, under Saddam- he kept three warring factions under control. Pull him out, and they, as you said, started jockeying for power. And now what, somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 Iraqis are dead. Was it worth it? I don't know. That's a lot of people dead. More dead in four years than in his entire regime, and the man killed a lot of people. And 3,000 Americans on top of all that, and thousands and thousands more permanently maimed. Do you think all their lives were worth what's there? Because we made that happen. Whatever awful things happened pre-2003, since then, what has happened is our fault. No one else's. We have created this. It's ours.

Yes, they did have a police force and an infrastructure- one of the major mistakes made immediately after the invasion was disbanding the force. For all the right-wing's spin, electricity is still not back to what it was in Saddam days. And it wasn't all that great in Saddam days, but in four years, we've managed to make it even worse. Of course, seeing how well we've done with New Orleans, why am I surprised? At least 300,000 to 600,000 haven't died there, too.

But it's okay, Timm; I know you have a man-crush on GW and he can do no wrong in your eyes.

[timmgirvan]

DTS/GR: Keep drinkin that moonshine...war trials...please report back to us from the Hague,DTS! Whatever happened after 2003 ...its our fault! Please ..that is so much blather....there are warring factions over there for political or religious reasons, and that situation coupled with Iraq's meager and unsteady response to our aid and leadership has resulted in what we have now. So its so convenient to jump on the bandwagon....welll if the best and brightest polititions were fooled by the Administration...then what does that tell you about them? You cant have it both ways.....oh I forgot...you can if your a demoncrat!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS/GR: Keep drinkin that moonshine...war trials...please report back to us from the Hague,DTS! Whatever happened after 2003 ...its our fault! Please ..that is so much blather....there are warring factions over there for political or religious reasons, and that situation coupled with Iraq's meager and unsteady response to our aid and leadership has resulted in what we have now. So its so convenient to jump on the bandwagon....welll if the best and brightest polititions were fooled by the Administration...then what does that tell you about them? You cant have it both ways.....oh I forgot...you can if your a demoncrat!

It tells me:
A) our "best and brightest" in Congress are actually complete morons
B) the Administration at best, massaged the information they gave Congress, and at worst, outright lied to them
C) Rove and co.'s tactics of accusing anyone who questioned the info of being "soft on terror" cowed them into voting for authorization

Look, I knew the evidence was flimsy at best, and I was just reading the damn paper in 2003. But I thought there's just no way our government, the US government, the good guys, would mislead us into war. Which made me a moron; you think Iran Contra would have permanently woken me up to government dishonesty. Well, as Bush said, "fool me once, shame on.. shame on...foolmetwicewongetfooledagin."

Timm, what has happened since 2003 IS our fault. We destablized the region, we cheerfully handed over billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Cheney's beloved Halliburton, we underfunded our own soldiers and we understaffed the area. We f*cked up and we're still f*cking up. And at some point, you have to ask yourself, is this worth it? Would things be better off if Saddam were still in power? And God forgive me for thinking it, but in terms of our long-term national security, I think yes. He was a huge thorn in the side of Iran, which kept them from gaining more power in the region. He was secular, slowing the encroachment of radical Isalm. He was a monster, yes. So are quite a few dictators of nations we call allies, even as they fund people who want to kill us (Saudi Arabia and the funding of Wahhabi schools, anyone?).

Now, four years later, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Stop and think about that, Timm- hundreds of thousands. If we go with the low figures of 300,000, that's 100 9/11s. One hundred of them. Do you really think 300,000 Iraqis would be dead in four years if we hadn't gone in? Honestly, do you think that? Is that better for the Iraqis than what they had? Three hundred thousand dead in four years?

And the nation (what's left of it) is given over to warring factions, Iran is taking over the region, and radical Islam is gaining hold over an area it didn't have one. Do you think this is better for the US than Saddam in power?

Tell me, Timm, how is all this better? How is this a success?

And here's the other thing that has kept me awake at night- is it also possible that some of these Congressmen voted for the resolution because they thought there was no way the government would willfully deceive them like this, and willfully send young men to die for a cause unnecessary to national security? And what does that say about the people in the Administration? Look at them- look at their military records (or rather, complete lack thereof). Do you think they really understood what war means to those fighting it? And do you think, in the end, they cared?

The difference between me and you, Timm (besides your striking good looks. ) is that, for all my railing against this damn idiot in the White House, it's because he's doing a horrendous job, not because he's a Republican (I think NYC's current Republican mayor is the bee's knees, except when he starts yammering about West Side stadiums). But as soon as you see a (D) next to someone's name you automatically discount anything they say or anything they do. And the current Administration is depending on people like you to continue to do that. That way they can tell you anything they want and as long as there is an (R) next to their name, you'll buy it. And that's a shame, because it stops you from really comparing their words to their actions and seeing if they match up. So you'll hide out on your right-wing boards because it makes you feel safe to read nothing but like-minded rhetoric from fellow ditto-heads. And it's also a shame, because your party is rapidly becoming the party of the absolute nutjobs (Dinesh D'Souza, anyone?) and you're not doing anything to stop it. And you should be, but you'd rather hand it over to the nutjobs than admit that maybe, just maybe, the current batch of (R)s are not the people who should be in charge of this country.

[GenuineRisk]

Though, for the record, I think choice A) in my above post is quite possible...

[brianwspencer]

GR,

You laid that out very thoughtfully, and much better than I could have.

Thank you for pointing out the connection between Iran's behavior now as opposed to their behavior before Saddam was deposed. It doesn't get talked about enough (or at all really), because if we can make Saddam the 100% bogeyman in every way, then it makes all the casualties somehow "worth it," which leads me to....

I think the thing that bothers me most, that you so succinctly stated was how many Iraqis have died...at our hands, at each other's hands since the infighting reached breaking point etc.

Many point out the terrible things that Saddam did to some of his own people.

But those are the people who are differentiating killing. They are implying that it is somehow noble and somehow worthy and somehow right to kill Iraqis in a war we started of our own volition. That those deaths are somehow more honorable or more easily written off as collateral damage because they weren't at the hands of a brutal dictator. A dead Iraqi who is dead because of violent force is a dead Iraqi who is dead because of violent force.

I don't like to parse words and try to talk around the fact that Iraqi deaths because of the United States are somehow even remotely more acceptable than a death at the hands of a dictator.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS/GR: Keep drinkin that moonshine...war trials...please report back to us from the Hague,DTS! Whatever happened after 2003 ...its our fault! Please ..that is so much blather....there are warring factions over there for political or religious reasons, and that situation coupled with Iraq's meager and unsteady response to our aid and leadership has resulted in what we have now. So its so convenient to jump on the bandwagon....welll if the best and brightest polititions were fooled by the Administration...then what does that tell you about them? You cant have it both ways.....oh I forgot...you can if your a demoncrat!

Timm,
GR and Brian pretty well summed it up.
I'll just add that UN sanctions had been in place for ten years. Many people starved during that time (children). UN inspectors were in the country prior to the US invasion. Saddam was contained.
If you agree with Cheney that "Iraq is a remarkable achievement" (see link above), maybe you're the one drinkin' the moonshine...hiccup.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It tells me:
A) our "best and brightest" in Congress are actually complete morons
B) the Administration at best, massaged the information they gave Congress, and at worst, outright lied to them
C) Rove and co.'s tactics of accusing anyone who questioned the info of being "soft on terror" cowed them into voting for authorization

Look, I knew the evidence was flimsy at best, and I was just reading the damn paper in 2003. But I thought there's just no way our government, the US government, the good guys, would mislead us into war. Which made me a moron; you think Iran Contra would have permanently woken me up to government dishonesty. Well, as Bush said, "fool me once, shame on.. shame on...foolmetwicewongetfooledagin."

Timm, what has happened since 2003 IS our fault. We destablized the region, we cheerfully handed over billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Cheney's beloved Halliburton, we underfunded our own soldiers and we understaffed the area. We f*cked up and we're still f*cking up. And at some point, you have to ask yourself, is this worth it? Would things be better off if Saddam were still in power? And God forgive me for thinking it, but in terms of our long-term national security, I think yes. He was a huge thorn in the side of Iran, which kept them from gaining more power in the region. He was secular, slowing the encroachment of radical Isalm. He was a monster, yes. So are quite a few dictators of nations we call allies, even as they fund people who want to kill us (Saudi Arabia and the funding of Wahhabi schools, anyone?).

Now, four years later, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Stop and think about that, Timm- hundreds of thousands. If we go with the low figures of 300,000, that's 100 9/11s. One hundred of them. Do you really think 300,000 Iraqis would be dead in four years if we hadn't gone in? Honestly, do you think that? Is that better for the Iraqis than what they had? Three hundred thousand dead in four years?

And the nation (what's left of it) is given over to warring factions, Iran is taking over the region, and radical Islam is gaining hold over an area it didn't have one. Do you think this is better for the US than Saddam in power?

Tell me, Timm, how is all this better? How is this a success?

And here's the other thing that has kept me awake at night- is it also possible that some of these Congressmen voted for the resolution because they thought there was no way the government would willfully deceive them like this, and willfully send young men to die for a cause unnecessary to national security? And what does that say about the people in the Administration? Look at them- look at their military records (or rather, complete lack thereof). Do you think they really understood what war means to those fighting it? And do you think, in the end, they cared?

The difference between me and you, Timm (besides your striking good looks. ) is that, for all my railing against this damn idiot in the White House, it's because he's doing a horrendous job, not because he's a Republican (I think NYC's current Republican mayor is the bee's knees, except when he starts yammering about West Side stadiums). But as soon as you see a (D) next to someone's name you automatically discount anything they say or anything they do. And the current Administration is depending on people like you to continue to do that. That way they can tell you anything they want and as long as there is an (R) next to their name, you'll buy it. And that's a shame, because it stops you from really comparing their words to their actions and seeing if they match up. So you'll hide out on your right-wing boards because it makes you feel safe to read nothing but like-minded rhetoric from fellow ditto-heads. And it's also a shame, because your party is rapidly becoming the party of the absolute nutjobs (Dinesh D'Souza, anyone?) and you're not doing anything to stop it. And you should be, but you'd rather hand it over to the nutjobs than admit that maybe, just maybe, the current batch of (R)s are not the people who should be in charge of this country.

they voted as they voted so as not to appear weak on terror and lose their next election! now that it has been going poorly, they are all saying they were lied to-no, they weren't. they voted in the way they felt they needed to in order to hold their job! the intel is the same as it was, just now that things are going poorly, it's time to repair and play the blame game.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

they voted as they voted so as not to appear weak on terror and lose their next election! now that it has been going poorly, they are all saying they were lied to-no, they weren't. they voted in the way they felt they needed to in order to hold their job! the intel is the same as it was, just now that things are going poorly, it's time to repair and play the blame game.

so you're implying that none of the intel is any different than it was then? None of the intel has been proven to be false? None of the intel has been shown as the sort that was dubious but presented as if it were fact back then?

gosh i hope you don't believe that.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

they voted as they voted so as not to appear weak on terror and lose their next election! now that it has been going poorly, they are all saying they were lied to-no, they weren't. they voted in the way they felt they needed to in order to hold their job! the intel is the same as it was, just now that things are going poorly, it's time to repair and play the blame game.

Danzig,
Your point is well made. If memory serves, was there not an attempt by the Bush administration to connect Iraq with 9-11 and the "war on terror"?
Given the way the war was sold, for many politicians votes in opposition
would have been seen as "unpatriotic".
Do you remember France bashing? Dixie Chicks?
On a side note, I don't think "repair" is currently possible.

[timmgirvan]

WOW!! People just lining up to set me straight! Well..I don't know if I can get to all those queries in one post but I'll try. The feckless,corrupt and impotent UN had inspectors and Iraq had sanctions for 10 yrs...and Saddam did nothing to ease his peoples' pain...just pointed their hatred at America. Another point you seem to fully understand about Hussein is the estimates of Saddams Murders run close to 2mill during his reign of terror. I can post a link to the 60-70 pillars of politics that were gung ho to topple Saddam, but when the crap hits the fan...We've lost our will to fight? The historical fact of his brutality demanded his removal....just as Amins' atrocities demanded his removal...and now we have a great actor playing Amin up for the Oscars? Sorry, I'll not be see'in that one. GRs' B: the entire intelligence community of world agreed with Americas' intell on reason for Saddams demise. So...the US duped the world? Wrong answer! GR C; if you or anyone else has a Congressman that was cowed into submission...PLEASE vote that sorry candy-a$$ed person OUT at the next turn...They're not the one's to lead you! Don't worry if Radical Islam settles in Iraq...Ask France and England how they're handling the Muslim hordes. I'd like to se you folks post on that subject. We already know of US compromise in dealing with our "friends" I'll not debate that here. God knows you'll be rushing to post on that. I ABSOLUTELY refuse to believe that the Adminstration(does that include Pentagon?) sent these soldiers to war to die needlessly. Its ironic,GR, that you would comment on me cavalierly discounting Democrats opinions just by their party affliliation. Au contraire...One only needs them to start talking to see the glaze form over their eyes in their pursuit of Utopia! As for hiding out on right-wing boards...I don't. This board is enough..although an occasional romp over to the dregs of the Old board isn't uncommon. Well, as you can imagine...I'm just plum tuckered out by all this thinking... I think I'll get that drink now Sweet Dreams!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

WOW!! People just lining up to set me straight! Well..I don't know if I can get to all those queries in one post but I'll try. The feckless,corrupt and impotent UN had inspectors and Iraq had sanctions for 10 yrs...and Saddam did nothing to ease his peoples' pain...just pointed their hatred at America. Another point you seem to fully understand about Hussein is the estimates of Saddams Murders run close to 2mill during his reign of terror. I can post a link to the 60-70 pillars of politics that were gung ho to topple Saddam, but when the crap hits the fan...We've lost our will to fight? The historical fact of his brutality demanded his removal....just as Amins' atrocities demanded his removal...and now we have a great actor playing Amin up for the Oscars? Sorry, I'll not be see'in that one. GRs' B: the entire intelligence community of world agreed with Americas' intell on reason for Saddams demise. So...the US duped the world? Wrong answer! GR C; if you or anyone else has a Congressman that was cowed into submission...PLEASE vote that sorry candy-a$$ed person OUT at the next turn...They're not the one's to lead you! Don't worry if Radical Islam settles in Iraq...Ask France and England how they're handling the Muslim hordes. I'd like to se you folks post on that subject. We already know of US compromise in dealing with our "friends" I'll not debate that here. God knows you'll be rushing to post on that. I ABSOLUTELY refuse to believe that the Adminstration(does that include Pentagon?) sent these soldiers to war to die needlessly. Its ironic,GR, that you would comment on me cavalierly discounting Democrats opinions just by their party affliliation. Au contraire...One only needs them to start talking to see the glaze form over their eyes in their pursuit of Utopia! As for hiding out on right-wing boards...I don't. This board is enough..although an occasional romp over to the dregs of the Old board isn't uncommon. Well, as you can imagine...I'm just plum tuckered out by all this thinking... I think I'll get that drink now Sweet Dreams!

Timm, your post could have come straight off of Rush Limbaugh, which isn't helping your credibility on world affairs, as he flatly admitted he was shilling for the Republicans in the last election. He admitted it. And your cheap shot at Dems in general only reaffirms what I said about your blind partisan loyalty so you might be leaving that out of your response next time. Look, if you want to be a marching-in-formation, down-the-line Republican fine, but be honest about it. There's a lot of you in the country and most are pretty nice people. My beloved uncle is one- he refuses to watch Ellen DeGeneres' show because she's gay, but I think, deep down inside, what he's scared of is that if he actually steps out of his right-wing box he might discover that (gasp!) she's the same as anybody else and then will have to reexamine his positions on homosexuality. So he hides out with Fox News and feels safe.

To say that the entire world agreed with us on Iraq is ridiculous. Did you see our "coalition of the willing?" Yeesh. Does "yellowcake" and "forgery" ring a bell? It should.

I'm curious as to where you got the "three million" number on deaths of Iraqis in Saddam's what, 25-year-reign. The White House website cites "hundreds of thousands" but doesn't say millions. Where are you getting your figures? Or do you think your information is better than the White House's?

I do agree with both Brian and Danzig that the vote on Iraq was a combination of false information provided by the White House and Senators trying to protect their own jobs. Which is funny, since Sen Russ Feingold voted against the resolution and still has his job.

"Don't worry if radical Islam settles in Iraq?" First of all, it already has. Second of all, I sure hope that's a joke. Radical religion, as I've said until I'm blue in the face, is bad, bad, bad. And I'd hardly look to France for how to handle it.

Timm, thinking is a muscle- it needs work to be strong. Do it a lot and it won't tucker you out. That's another thing that troubles me about America's chances for maintaining our position in the world- not only are a lot of Americans ignorant about what goes on in the world, but they take pride in their ignorance. I just don't get it. How many Americans, do you think, can name the American Idol finalists? How many do you think can name our Supreme Court justices? Sigh...

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

How many Americans, do you think, can name the American Idol finalists? How many do you think can name our Supreme Court justices? Sigh...

And how many can name both?!

Guilty.

Gosh, I'm talented.

[GenuineRisk]

Though, on the other hand, said uncle of mine, after grousing about exercise and quitting smoking in the wake of his heart attack, is sitll off the cigarettes and is now doing 20 minutes twice a day on a treadmill. So hey, maybe he'll actually watch the Oscars this year.

Oh, and Timm-- re the Oscars: Whitaker got the Oscar nod because he did a good job portraying him. Because it's acting. It's not real. Whitaker doesn't really think like Amin. But I understand getting the movies and real life confused. Ronald Reagan did it all the time.

Off this topic- did anyone else see Sir Ian's explanation of acting on "Extras?" Too hilarious. I thought that episode was pretty sub-par (compared to some of the others), but that part was awesome.