The Al Franken commentary was just commentary. It was his point of view, and not required that he be an expert on it. But as far as Franken's books, they are about as accurate as anything out there. There was one problem with Fox book which had to do with how many times a paper ran a story. He inflated the number, but the point he was making wasn't inaccurate, and othe facts in the book check out. His books, unlike Hannity's, Coulter's etc. do actually pass the fact check test. I only used Franken's name because he was the one who originally came up with the concept of America is right no matter what it does, no matter what, and equating it to the way a 4 year old loves his parents. As for the people who hold America=Satan signs, I don't think they are the mainstream of Democrats or Liberals. They are their own fringe, many of whom like the idea of protesting more than they have a true deep concern or understanding about what they protest. Some of those people may not love their country. I am a liberal but I'm not a Democrat. I didn't vote for Clinton or Gore. Here is a list of things that Franken says liberals like and don't like about the U.S. Salem Withch Trials - bad Revolutionary War - Good Slavery - Bad Ending Slavery - Good but hard Massacring native Americans and breaking our treaties with them - bad Child Labor during the industrial revolution - bad Social Security - Good Rural - Electrification - Good Labor movement creating the weekend - Good Selling Saddam WMD components in the 80s - in retrospect , bad. NAtional Park System - really good Conducting horrific medical experiments on African Americans in Tuskegee - bad Makig Mistakes - bad but inevitable Correcting Mistakes - good, but not inevitable Owning up to mistakes - brave America - Home of the brave. This is an edited list, but it makes the point. I realize that all conservatives dont' feel that America is flawless, but in this thread alone you have a number of posts that get upset at the mere mention of the things in the article, and have to somehow make arguments that we really are the best, and greatest, and nothing we've done is changing that, etc. So I made the comment regarding those folks. Those of us who didn't support the war have been called unpatriotic, accused of not supporting the troops, not loving our country etc. I think most of us have spoken out about what we feel our wrongs because we do love our country, and aren't the ones that carry the America=Satan signs. The one figure I know that actually from the beginning claimed Saddam didn't have WMD, was Scott Ritter. That guy was called traitor, Saddam lover, and all kinds of things, by conservative. That kind of behavior is the 4 year old love for mommy and daddy kind of love that I am speaking of. Liberals or those protesting are voicing their opinions. They aren't the ones whining. The whining comes from groups who somehow can't seem to take it when the other side speaks up against them. Let's look who was right and who was wrong about the Iraq invasion. WMD's - almost everyone on both sides agreed they had them(except Scott Ritter). One side thought they were a threat, ignored Intel documents stating that the WMD's weren't a likely threat, and supported the ones that stated they were. Iraq was 6 months away from a nuke - Conservatives were wrong, liberals were right. Saddam was helping Al Qaeda- Conservatives were wrong liberals were right. We would be greeted as liberators not occupyers. Only some of the conservatives believed this, and they were the ones that got their way. They were wrong. Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion - Conservatives wrong, liberals right. The list goes on and on. All of these things happened and the conservatives aren't holding anybody accountable for these mistakes. If it looks like the problems were being fixed, or someone was being held accountable, maybe there wouldn't be the need to speak out about it as much. But instead of correcting the mistakes or holding anyone accountable the administration has actually broken the law in efforts to punish those who proved them wrong. The whole Valerie Plame thing is a prime example. All Wilson did was show that the administration was wrong. In payment for that somebody with top security clearence leaked the name of an intel officer who had ongoing work in the field. Would an administration really concerned about fighting terrorism do that? Then make little to no effort to hold someone accountable? The person who committed the felony still has top security clearance. They made the mistake, and then broke the law to punish the person who discovered the mistake. That kind of action, certainly deserves people to call attention to their mistakes since they don't make any effort for accountability, or rectify those mistakes.
If you'll look at my posts, I never quote any of those people. I find it devalues the worthfulness of your post when you quote one of those guys (regardless of political affiliation). The best "backup evidence" comes from the moderates out there or the somewhat partisans who don't make their living based on which side they support.
I will assume the part about Franken was again a joke as I didn't feel that Democrats thought slavery was a good idea. However your comments about the current "occupation" in Iraq show the great influence the media has had on your thought process. True: They didnt' have WMD's when we went to war and owning up to that mistake is the one big thing I feel the Bush camp should have done sooner (they just did so a week or so ago). You say that we weren't greeted as liberators and all I can say is that I'm amazed how much time you must have spent in Iraq to come to that conclusion and document it as fact. A recent study has shown that of the "freedom fighters" (as they've been called by many liberals), more than half of them aren't even from Iraq but rather from countries surrounding Iraq. You use the actions of a few militant extremists to justify your point that we weren't welcome but somehow I feel that you wouldn't agree with the many conservatives who use those same extremists to "justify" their position that Islam is a violent religion. I won't say that I know personally how the majority of Iraqis feel, because I, myself have not been to Iraq. I do know that of the many friends I have overseas right now, almost all of them say that if the typical liberal could spend one day with a platoon of troops, they would feel very welcomed by the typical Iraqi citizen, not because of their political affiliation but because of their nationality. Also, your post once again fails to mention anything good coming out of the Iraq War, thereby justifying my earlier point that you cannot see anything good done by America. What about America forgiving all debt owed by Iraq? What about America getting rid of a stern dictator? What about America attempting to give Iraqis run of their own country for once? There are countless others but it wouldn't matter if I listed them all because to most die-hard liberals America is always the problem and never the solution. Of all the things you listed as "good" how many happened in the last 10-15 years? How many of the "good things" were actually actions as opposed to ideals? How many of the "bad things" did you list that show a typical penchant for blaming America for everything? (The Native American example for one as most historians will tell you that the American role wasnt one of a bloodthirsty murderer but rather a diseased bringer of unintentional death). Another thing liberals fail to realize is that things must be viewed in context. Yea, America put Saddam in power. But what you guys fail to mention is what the alternative was and when viewed next to Saddam AT THAT TIME, Saddam was definitely a better option. America is not a psychic so we must do what we feel is right within a given context. Hindsight is always 20/20. I agree that when America makes a mistake it must be held accountable but what you fail to realize is that America also should be held accountable when it does something right.
I don't know what historians you have heard speak about the Native American Indian history. The Europeans intentionally infected the Indians with small pox, broke over 200 treaties with the Sioux Indians alone. Some disease was accidental, but that doesn't change the slaughter of them, the intentional infecting of small pox, or the breaking of treaties. As far as Iraq, I didn't think I needed to mention the good thing that Saddam is gone, nobody argued that Saddam was a good guy. We aren't greeted by liberators, by the fact that Iraqis have been fighting us while we are there. The Iraqi army ran away from engagements there because they didn't want to fight their own country men. They didn't decide not to fight in those engagements because it was foreigners. Yes there are foreigners as well, but that doesn't mean we were greeted as liberators. A small percentage did, but largely we are seen as occupiers. Even those that hate Saddam, don't like the U.S. soldiers and didn't greet us as liberators. The U.S. had to stage the pulling down of Saddam's statue to even give the appearence of that kind of greeting. Would the army have created that photo op if there was a real feeling that we were liberators? Yes are forces have done good things there, I'm not denying that, and I do recognize it. I think most liberals have said before that it was agreed that Saddam was bad. I don't think it's my belief in media coverage that is bad, but the people who continue to disbelieve what is going on there in the face of facts, testimony, death, fighting etc.
You've once again only said what you feel to be right based on what you've seen in the media. I'm relating to you first hand knowledge from many over there. I find it funny that you feel it is not necessary to mention that Saddam gone is a good thing America is done but you feel it necessary to mention ALL of the bad things. *shrugs*
It's not necessary because everyone agrees that Saddam being gone is good. I don't feel the need for a big self congratulatory pat on the back party. Plus the administration mentions that positive all the time. They ignore the negative they've done, and somebody should bring that up. If the administration was able to hold people accountable for the mistakes they've made that would be one thing. Instead they attack those that bring up mistakes(O'Neil, Wilson, Zinni, etc.) and promote those that made the mistakes (Gonzales, Rice). They have the tooting their own horn of the good covered. I'm not just relying on the media. I'm relying on first hand accounts as well. One Marine I've met has already been killed there, and my nephew who is a Marine will be headed to Iraq in less than a month. The news reports I've seen and listened to are also first hand accounts. Which of the things I mentioned that have happened in Iraq are not what really happened? I've posted positive stories about our military there, and in particular one Marine who ran a prison camp where she reported the site of others dragging and kicking a prisoner. She started a foundation to get the prisoners soccer balls, food, clothes, and has done a lot of good. She still gets letters from Iraq even though her tour of duty was over and she was able to come home. That is one of the positives. The British troops who took care to take sensitivity courses, learn the customs and respect them have had far less trouble than our troops. Like I said there is some good, but it doesn't change the bad.
