I think you mean to say "There has been zero evidence that I believe with respect to terrorist alligations. All that has been presented is false. I trust no one." If that is not what you meant to say, then two names for you: Salman Pak. Ansar Al Islam. More: Cash for the families of suicide bombers. Assassination attempt on Bush Sr. Ramsi Youssef, Iraqi Intelligence agent. Do your friggen homework before you post. You know, you're about the only person I've heard who assumes that Saddam's regime has no links to terrorism. Even the f*ing Frenchies don't dispute that.
I hope you'll forgive me for overreacting as we've both done several times in the past with each other. And forgive me for taking issue with the suggestion that anti-war sentiment was largely political. I'm sorry. I do take issue with that, but it wasn't intended personally.
I am for the end of Saddam's reign, even if by violence. I did not want Bush to take office (would have voted for Nader but just moved to NY and didn't register in time.) and hope for his exit in the next election. I'm torn by my utter disgust and hatred for the (former?) regime of Iraq, and my disapproval with how our administration has handled this.
I don't think you'll find too many Republicans dancing in the streets holding signs that say "We support our troops who kill their commanders" (a reference to the Sgt who fragged his commanders in Kuwait), "No blood for oil", "Bush is a war criminal", "America is the real terrorist", or "Not in my name". Of course this is partisan. To think otherwise is to totally deny all reality.
I think it is fair to call you a "muscular liberal", the wing of the Democratic Party that believed justice and human rights (the objective of idealist foreign policy) sometimes have to be backed by American might. This wing was prominent in the days of FDR and Truman, but suffered a violent death in Chicago, 1968. It is very unfortunate that the "Democratic wing" (to borrow Howard Dean's term) has dominated Democratic foreign policy for so long.
Until this war was inevitable, many of Bush I's administration were against going ahead without UN support. And you know that. Each of them was, guess what, a Republican. One of them ran the Gulf War. Opposition to the war has, at various times, included people of all ideologies. And you know that. You know, some of the arguments for war are pretty solid. I'd stick to those instead of trying to paint all protesters with the same dismissive brush.
Who are you talking about? Powell is the only one in the administration that I can think of, and he converted months ago. There were a few Republican Congressmen and women who were against it, but they could best be described as a 'handful'. So exactly who are these antiwar Republicans you speak of? Names. That is true. But we are talking about weight here. If you are trying to argue that just as many Republicans/conservatives (or even moderates) are against this war as are Democrats, then you are greatly mistaken. There is absolutely no denying that the large majority of antiwar folks are Democrats or their even more liberal cousins, the tree-huggers and communists. And you know that.
Names? Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Schwarzkopf. And, yeah, Powell. There were more in Congress, including Dick Armey. And of course there are more Dems than Republicans against the war. When aren't there? There are more pro-life Republicans than pro-life Democrats. Should I infer that pro-lifers are acting out of partisan loyalty and not conviction? Should I infer that about every other issue of conscience when invoked by any Republican? That they're just being partisan? Calling the anti-this war movement purely partisan is insulting as it is stupid.
Aside from Powell (who converted), which one of those is in the administration? Eagleburger is not antiwar, BTW. Scowcroft is a partner in a company that has oil contracts with Iraq. Schwarzkopf would have to admit error, and is not antiwar at this moment. Armey was grandstanding, and has been quiet for months. Powell, as I said, changed his mind. And how can you say in two paragraphs that A) of course most of them are democrats, and then turn around and say that B) it is insulting and stupid to say it is partisan? That doesn't wash. If they're mostly Democrats, then it is a partisan affair. If there is an even mix, then it is not. What exactly do you mean when you say "partisan"? If you mean, a coordinated, conspiratorial effort on the part of Democrats, then I would agree - no it is not "partisan". If you mean what everyone else means by "partisan", meaning largely a one-sided affair, then you are wrong. Obviously, if most of the antiwar crowd are democrats, then it is a mostly partisan affair.
Hey, this war is gonna cost $75 billion. If I say we should rescind tax cuts to pay for the war, am I being partisan???
edit: ignore first sentence in my last post. Didn't see the "I" in the "Bush I" in your post. Thought you were saying that Republicans in this administration were against it... My bad.
The budget request sent to congress was for $62.5 million, but still expensive. Personally, I'm not sure the tax cuts were a good idea in the first place, but... Much of that is scheduled for reconstruction. We will probably get outside help for that. But actually, that is not that bad a price to pay. Far lower than some of the weapons systems we're paying for. I can think of worse things to spend our money on than our security.
No problem. As for the meaning of partisan, when it's said that people oppose the war due to partisan politics the clear meaning is that they do so BECAUSE of their political affiliation. That's not true and that's what's insulting. It clearly infers that they do so cynically, especially to harm a president of a party they do not like. Please see my previous post for clarification. And by the way, it is not common for Republicans to publically criticize a Republican foreign policy, especially in advance of a war. Several did so (including each of the ones I listed except Powell), whatever your reasons for dismissing them. Whether you support or oppose this war you have to admit that there has been an unusual level of criticism as to the way it's been handled from both sides of the aisle as well as overseas. The suggestion that only Democrats have opposed it is the height of denial. The suggestion that they do so purely because they are Democrats is insulting.
Nice post, Batman, But I wanna play devil's advocate. I agree with what you're saying for myself, as a mostly-lefty. However, I believe there are plenty of card-carrying political party members who actually just let affiliations do their thinking for them. I would hope this isn't true, but the evidence is overwhelming, from both sides of the equation. And, yes, sometimes these stances can be taken purely to "hurt" the other political party. I do believe there is plenty of non-partisan questioning of the war and especially the diplomacy that led up to war. However, to say that none of it is partisan would be as naive as saying that it is all partisan, wouldn't it?
There's a good article in TIME about how we got here... http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html Here's the first paragraph... nice hook... "F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.
I just read this post. I believe I have beaten my point acrss. I am tolerant blah blah blah whatever. I also just saw the executed soldiers in a different thread and now have a newer, fresher opinoin of the war and those that oppose it. I will keep it to myself beause the language that my feeble right winged mind will use to describe what I think of anyone that saw the gunshot wound in the forehead of an American kid, and at 24 he's still a kid, and still is posting anti-war horsesh!t would be inappropriate for a french focking whorehouse. So from the bottom of my heart...whatever.
Dude, Chance, get all pissy with Americans who did not shoot that kid if you want. We're all praying for his family and all the other soldiers over there. The anti-war faction will tell you, rightly so, I guess, that the poor 24 year old kid, bless his soul, would be alive today if we hadn't pushed for the first pre-emptive war in our nation's history. Anger and group think still aren't the answer for our country, no matter how many curse words you want to sling around. Me, I've decided to put my full support behind this war now. Let's get the job done, and then stay there and fix the place up proper like, get an Iraqi government for Iraqis and, after all that hard work, get out of there.
