In Speech Bush Returns to Fear Mongering as Polls Drop

The problem with your liberal thinking is that you think you are better at solving other people's problems than those people themselves.

 

Calling those who disagree with you islamist jihadist sympatheizers certainly isn't better than that. You are correct.

 

The irony.

 

Bull, meet sh*t.

New ideas will make America think seriously about the Democratic party again, not falling in lock-goosestep with the most inept administration in American history.

 

Is that directed at me, or basso.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

What is most mind boggling is the lack of foresight and complete and total ignorance regarding the Arab and Islamic world demonstrated by this administration. No good can possibly come from any outcome. Obviously if we lose, we've lost, but if we win and elections are carried out, you are looking at the reunification of Iraq and Iran - a budding Shi'ite Caliphate which would emerge as the greatest threat to the United States since the fall of the Soviets.

 

where'd you get this?

 

What? People to advocate military withdrawal on message boards, or for you to resort to childish namecalling on message boards?

Does anyone remember what happened after we bailed on Vietnam? Anyone remember that whole getting the hell out of Afghanistan thing and how it sparked bin Laden in the first place? Look, I'll be first in line to criticize the decision to go to war, the way it's been conducted, and the price it's cost people around the world. But Jesus H. Christ, we cannot just bail on that country without insuring some stable governance for the people and a reasonable level of security. We aassassinated the leader of Iran in the 50s and the power vaccuum eventually allowed the Ayatollah to come to power. Leaving Afghanist to its own devices meant the Taliban was able to harbor terrorist networks and conduct strikes around the world. If we bail on Iraq we are going to regret it 10, 20, 30 years down the line. It may be in the form of ethnic and civil strife in the country, it may be in the form of a "rogue nation" that threatens us (for real this time).

Bush is without a doubt the worst President of this century, if not of all time. Anyone that contests this has no concept of politics, history, or morality. But, no matter we may disagree with the tragedy he's caused, we cannot simply throw up our hands and walk away from it.

 

I see that as a real threat as well, created by Bush. Where I disagree is that having the elections is a "win." I really don't see anyway that we can "win." And you can depend on Hayes to use your thought as a new reason for "staying the course."

Prepare for the hair-splitting microscope.

I will say that if your scenario were to occur, that you will find us supporting many of the insurgents we're fighting today, to create havoc for the nascent Islamist "Shia" superstate. Hell, we would end up fighting another war with it. It's no wonder that Iran is pushing so hard for the bomb. If they don't get it, then they know we won't allow exactly that to occur.

I doubt that Iraq's Shias will want to submerge Iraq into Iran. Of course, that might not prevent it from happening. What a bloody mess! Created by that fool in the White House.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

my common sense

 

Agreed. The only real pragmatic way of combatting that inevitable Shi'ite superpower would be to turn around and prop up these sunni insurgents similar to our policy against the Soviets. It's like a never ending cycle of madness.

 

I couldn't help but think of this article after reading the latest posts in this thread. Not necessarily my opinion, but I have to admit it sounds appealing...

===============================================
TED RALL 11/4/03

NEW YORK--Republicans weren't just out to line the pockets of the wealthiest Americans when they cut federal income taxes. They created the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world--$6 trillion projected over the next decade--in order to starve the federal government.

Don't take my word for it. Here's Milton Friedman, the founding father of the supply-side economic theory espoused by Reagan and both Bushes: "History suggests," argues Friedman, "that Washington spends whatever it receives in taxes plus as much more as it can get away with...how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature." Bush and other supply-siders parrot Friedman's starve-the-government philosophy even more frequently than their bromides about rising tides lifting all boats.

When a Democrat moves into the White House--which may be sooner rather than later--he'll face a deficit crisis. Reversing the Bush tax cuts won't be an attractive option, since Republicans can always convince an ahistorical citizenry that he's "raising taxes." He'll probably do what Clinton did when he inherited the $1 trillion Reagan-Bush deficit in 1993--slash the budget. One thing's for sure: there won't be any money for the big new spending programs that Democrats use to build loyalty among working-class voters. Even if the economy has begun to recover from the current recession by then, it will be impossible to fund big ideas like national health care and high-speed rail.

Republicans don't waste time. Throughout their tenure they set things up so that their policies are enforced by judges and other political appointees who outlive their rule.

Put yourself in the role of an incoming Democratic president in, say, January 2005. You probably have a very different view of the world from George W. Bush, but you won't get much chance to act on it. You'll inherit Bush's occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, his Department of Homeland Security and the concentration camp at Guantánamo. Even if you, like most of the main Democratic contenders, spoke out against invading Iraq, you'll think twice before pulling out our troops yourself. Sure, you'd save the two or three guys we're losing daily, but Iraq would surely fragment into a Kurdish state opposed by Turkey and an Arab region rent by a Sunni-Shia civil war. You'll probably be tempted to lay off the 120,000 do-nothing federal employees of HomeSec--and because the GOP insisted that they not be represented by unions, you'll be able to do it. And common decency will certainly prompt you to send the Afghan teenagers rotting in Gitmo dog cages back to south Asia. But how will you respond to the inevitable charge that you're soft on terrorism?

At the Oct. 10 presidential debate, Howard Dean--who parlayed opposition to the Iraq war into frontrunner status--conceded that he'd be stuck to the Bushies' Iraqi tar baby: "Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly, because if we do, there are more Al Qaeda in Iraq than before the president went in. If they establish a foothold in Iraq, or if a fundamentalist Shiite regime comes in, allied with Iran, that is a real security danger to the United States when one did not exist before."

It's high time that victorious Democrats stop being suckered by reckless Republicans into cleaning up their messes. Walking behind the elephant with a pail and a smelly broom might be the right thing to do, but it doesn't earn you any respect after the parade. All Democrats worthy of the name ought to sign a pledge to ignore problems caused by Republican administrations and leave them to their Republican successors. Let the GOP deficit ride, and pass socialized medicine while you're at it. Keep the bloated HomeSec bureaucracy on the payroll, and change its mission to something useful, like making a serious attempt to guard our borders. Run up the deficit like there's no tomorrow. Withdraw our troops; when the Iraqi civil war spreads throughout the region, some smart future Republican president will figure it out.

I can hear you grumbling: but that's irresponsible! Yes. It. Is. But playing the sap to Republican fait accomplis is like paying off your drunken kid's gambling debts. It makes you an enabler of destructive behavior--and that's even worse than throwing your hands up in the air and walking away. Let's give the GOP some tough love.
==========================

Deckard, thecabbage - thoughts?

 

You guys have been saying Bush started this illegal war for so long that you believe it. You seriously believe it.

 

No wait, that's not good enough....


WTF??!?!!?!!?

 

Illegal is your word, Chance, not mine. And yes, he started the war in Iraq. I don't recall Iraq invading itself, although Saddam convinced himself that he was doing just that, which touched off the Gulf War.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

What about Vietnam?


President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Phan Van Khai of Vietnam deliver statements
to the media in the Oval Office Tuesday, June 21, 2005. "We discussed our economic relations.
And I noted that the Vietnamese economy is growing quite substantially. We talked about our
desire for Vietnam to join the WTO," said the President. "We talked about security issues and
a mutual desire to coordinate in the war on terror." [related story]

U.S. military exited Vietnam in 1975 without much fanfare. Look what happened: Vietnam restablished diplomatic relationship with U.S., is opening its market to U.S. capitalists, and trying to befriend with U.S.

People, if you think believe Jesus can transform Bush, why do you not think Jesus can do wonders to Iraq?

The current century is still young, how can he be worse than himself?

 

could you please forward me a copy of the peace treaty ending the Gulf War? i recall some UN resolutions, but i alse seem to recall mr hussein wasn't so good at complying with them.

 

Put the coffee DOWN!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Both.

 

Are you serious? This was published in the WSJ:
"Finally, the aftermath of Saigon's fall is rarely dealt with at all. A gruesome holocaust took place in Cambodia, the likes of which had not been seen since World War II. Two million Vietnamese fled their country -- usually by boat -- with untold thousands losing their lives in the process. This was the first such Diaspora in Vietnam's long and frequently tragic history. Inside Vietnam a million of the South's best young leaders were sent to re-education camps; more than 50,000 perished while imprisoned, and others remained captives for as long as 18 years. An apartheid system was put into place that punished those who had been loyal to the U.S., as well as their families, in matters of education, employment and housing. The Soviet Union made Vietnam a client state until its own demise, pumping billions of dollars into the country and keeping extensive naval and air bases at Cam Ranh Bay."
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/vietvictors.htm

I wouldn't exactly take Bush's word as to how things are going. And even if they eventually come around, that doesn't mean we should leave them with no recourse but to fight their own civil war after we leave them with no system of governance or civility.

D'oh. Add the last century to that as well.