Advertisement

Archive for Friday, July 29, 2005

Proud opposition

July 29, 2005

Advertisement

To the editor:

I write in response to the "Liberal Rants" letter, written by Robert M. Tyler, in which he states, "Democrats have been carping, whining : about nothing." I think this depends upon what your definition of "nothing" is (a wink toward President Clinton).

As a card-carrying, Carping and Whining Progressive Democrat (CWPD), I don't consider lying to Congress and the American people about why we needed to invade Iraq, "nothing." You might remember statements such as, "We know exactly where the WMD are." As a CWPD I don't consider the Downing Street memo "nothing." Britain's highest leaders knew that Bush was lying about Iraq being a threat to anyone.

Let's quickly lump other CWPD illusions together: Similar torture techniques developed and implemented in at least three countries, (far from being a "few bad-apples"); massive Halliburton corruption in Iraq (V.P. Cheney's old pals); journalists bought and paid for; changing reasons for Iraq's invasion, (9-11, WMD, Saddam, democracy); a majority of the world seeing us as the biggest threat to world peace; massive federal debt; little to no job growth; deregulation of big business; ignoring of global warming and the environment because it would cut into profits, (which are of course the bottom line).

Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Our country was started by carpers and whiners. I stand directly opposed to where Bush is taking our country, Mr. Tyler, and reading your letter has but strengthened me in this conviction. I thank you.

Daniel Patrick Schamle,

Lawrence

Comments

Richard Heckler 9 years, 6 months ago

This letter is written with fine clarification.

Kansas Republicans need to keep Kansas in mind. Likewise Kansas republicans need to quit the GW Bush wannnabe game. In fact a lot of Kansas republicans need to be replaced with moderates or democrats who want to be Kansans instead of a Bush/Rove groupie. Bush and Rove are dishonest people.

I love it when president's and their staff treat taxpayers like they are idiots. Taxpayers love to be able to trust such important celebrities only to find out that is very naive.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/01/news-i...

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/0505orr.h...

craigers 9 years, 6 months ago

Since the democrats don't mind telling the story over and over again, I guess I don't either. It was not one man that sent our troops into conduct, but our own representatives. Not one man that is in charge of the economy, which by the way is progressing and moving well, now that the tax cuts have had a chance to actually change our economy. We all know from econ that it doesn't change things overnight. I am not saying a large federal debt is good, but it has provided many americans the opportunity to invest and save for the future. Or do we need to remind everybody that when the government is in debt, that means they are selling treasury notes, bills, and bonds. Savings is another portion of our GDP labeled as investment. Bush has done a number of things good for our country. Since hindsight is the only vision that the democrats want to look at our present situation then yeah I am sure they can tell you of everything the president has done wrong. However, the democrats were participants in this as well. Global warming seems to me as bunch of garbage anyway. I am trying to do what I can by using fuel that burns cleaner, but fuel that drastically cuts the pollution that causes this global warming is too expensive and neither republicans or democrats would be able to buy it and live. And Merrill, I would like for you to point out a politician that isn't dishonest and doens't treat the taxpayers like they don't have a clue. This is the whining that Mr. Tyler is referring to. Rants about everything somebody else has done but never taking responsibility for their share.

Speakout 9 years, 6 months ago

Let me understand it correctly. You think that cutting polution is expensive, Craigers? We have had the technology to cut pollution for years but the oil industry would be left out in the cold. so lets keep that and milk that as far as we can. Oh, I forgot that some major Republicans are in the oil business! Since they want to move up the ladder, no Republican will stand against a sitting Republican President. And this is exactly why congress "ok'd" the move to war.

This war is wrong and it is illegal because ALL OF THE Rebublicans agreed with Bush and therefore lied along with him. We need to take him to task on this lie. It is worse than the lies of Watergate. Americans are dying because the President LIED. Nixon killed no one, just ruined a lot of careers, nor did Clinton.

We must get rid of BUSH NOW!

craigers 9 years, 6 months ago

Thank you Arminius for your well-informed input.

bisky1 9 years, 6 months ago

Mr. Schamle; when democrats.com sent you these talking points did they also ask you to write a letter to the editor or is this something you decided to do on your own? letters virtually identical to yours are being sent to newspapers everyday. again, we see carping an whining but no solutions.

erichaar 9 years, 6 months ago

Not only are the writer's points canned, tired and easy to refute, but he uses that recently-coined and incredibly pathetic term "progressive" to describe himself and his views. Anyone, anywhere who uses the term "progressive" to describe an ideology or worldview is merely someone who's embarrassed and ashamed of the appropriate term "liberal."

In fact, it's only because being a liberal is so embarrassing that the Far Left had to come up with a brand new phrase under which to market themselves. You'll never hear a moderate or a conservative shy away from using those terms to describe themselves, but you'll always find a liberal running for cover under the term "progressive" when they want to mask their out-of-touch ideology from mainstream America.

David Ryan 9 years, 6 months ago

The term "progressive" has been in use for a long, long time -- sometimes referring to Republicans and sometimes to Democrats.

For instance, in 1911, some Republicans who didn't like the conservative Taft administration formed the National Progressive Republican League.

The new Progressive party, later, was also known as the Bull Moose party.

(Familiarity with history goes a long way to helping understand the present.)

Bruce Bertsch 9 years, 6 months ago

First off...the budget left by Clinton was not only balanced but would have showed a surplus had someone not decided that reducing taxes is the answer to all problems not solved by invading Iraq. Having a huge federal debt does not encourage one to save. The exact opposite is true. All those bonds and t-bills and such are largely purchased by China (Over $1 billion per day) so its not the folks here in the US that are investing.

Arminius...Bush may have mentioned various reasons in a speach, but the ONLY reason on the document asking Congress for authorization was WMD. This president is the king of the flip flop on Iraq. According to Bush's own economic advisors, there was no Clinton recession. Your use of labor statistics is a best disengenuous, there are many who are not counted because their unemplyment benefits have run out and they are not using a gov't agency to assist in finding work. Some conservative economists peg the true unemplyment number as 3-4% higher than reported for that reason. If you think the economy is swimming along nicely, you either aren't paying attention, or haven't studied history.

gconfo 9 years, 6 months ago

In my opinion, Moderationman is correct in both his assessment of the budget under President Clinton and his interpretation of President Bush's Iraq speech.

So, where shall I begin with Arminius' letter? Perhaps it's a matter of intent. While the various intelligence organizations reported the unlikelihood of WMD storehouses in Iraq, Bush et al decided to conveniently ignore anything counter to their intentions. Arminius mentions Joseph Wilson and Richard Clarke. What about Wilson's now infamous trip to Africa and subsequent report? What about Clarke's requests to meet with Bush prior to 911?

Bush's aforementioned speech certainly does mention the concepts that Mr. Schamle mentions as subsequent invasion rationales, albeit in a roundabout way. It does not, however, give any concrete reasoning for war other than Iraq's threat to the security of the U.S. These other reasons are presented as secondary consequences-icing on the cake, so to speak. Additionally, it mentions the terrorist connection between Iraq and Al Qaida:

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida." Here is but one link that shows the 911 commission's dismissal of that claim, based upon AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html.

As for Arminius' view of the job market and the availability of numerous jobs, I'll simply ask this; Would you consider an exchange of decent paying, manufacturing or IT jobs for a preponderance of low-paying, service industry positions healthful for the economy? Maybe to line the pocket books of upper management lackeys. Certainly not for the average citizen simply trying to eek out a living for their family.

Perhaps you should watch a little less Fox news before calling someone out for "misinformation".

gconfo 9 years, 6 months ago

Arminius,

I thought we were talking about Bush's reasoning as stated in his "war speech", not about any resolution that Congress passed. Why shift the blame in mid stream?

Regardless of Congresses resolution, Bush had every intention of invading Iraq. We all know that he did not need Congresses' authorization. While many (though not all) reasons stated in the Congressional resolution may be valid, what is called to question is Bush's intentions as outlined in his address. Essentially, he manipulated information to soothe the American public. Maybe you should read your own links before admonishing us to "brush up on the facts".

bisky1 9 years, 6 months ago

it is always the same: bush lied, bush is stupid, bush this, bush that. all this is history, when will the "progressives" advance the ball? the united states should expect more of the loyal opposition than opposition. where are your solutions?

gconfo 9 years, 6 months ago

Hmmm, did I touch a nerve with the Fox news comment?

I'll try and address this point by point.

I may have misspoke when I said that various intelligence agencies reported the unlikelihood of WMDs: I will, however, direct you to the Butler Report, whose findings are covered in the following story: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=136082004.

Here is an interesting tidbit from the above:

"The JIC's report in March 2003, which came as British and US troops were lining the Iraqi border ahead of invasion, added that "intelligence on deployment" of chemical and biological weapons "was sparse"."

So, here have a report from our most staunch ally, Great Britain. It indicates that intelligence regarding Iraq's ability to quickly launch chemical weaponry "was sparse", at best.

You also directed me to a Washington Post link that calls into question Wilson's findings. I find it a stretch to say that it "bolstered the administration's case". At best, it HIGHLIGHTED faulty intelligence. You might also direct your attention to the following quote from the article:

"Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said."

The Post also issued a correction to some of the information in the article, which essentially indicates that Wilson believed that Iran, not Iraq, had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium in 1998.

gconfo 9 years, 6 months ago

...continued

As far as the 2 articles you supplied from Joseph Wilson's website, Wilson does indeed indicate that the CIA felt that if backed into a corner, "Saddam is very likely to fight dirty." However, he uses this as a rational not for invading Iraq, but for conducting military sponsored weapons inspections. These articles offer no proof that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, or that it had existing stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Wilson is simply framing his thoughts on how we should have dealt with that possible scenario.

He goes on to say the following regarding Iraq's ties to terrorist organizations:

"The assertion that Hussein might share weapons of mass destruction with a terrorist group, however, is counterintuitive to everything I and others know about him. The Iraqi leader is above all a consummate survivalist." So much for using Wilson's own words to bolster your position.

Your link to the article on Richard Clarke is actually laughable. Here is your quote:

Richard Clarke also argued that Iraq had WMD and warned that those WMD could be turned over to terrorists. Therefore, Clarke concluded, the U.S. had the right to strike first (i.e., preemptive attack). See http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/p...

If you are asserting that Clarke's address on October 8, 1998, declares that Iraq had WMDs, I'm wondering if you actually read the article? Clarke was outlining organizational changes within the Clinton administration to better prepare local municipalities when dealing with possible chemical or biological weapons. He mentions the Iraq-Iran war briefly, but makes no direct link between the Iraqi regime, and terrorist organizations. Further, he does indicate the "United States reserves for itself the right of self-defense, and if that means our taking the first step, we will do so. We will not tolerate terrorist organizations acquiring or maintaining stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction". We all know that Sadaam HAD chemical and biological weapons, the question is whether he had them at the time of the U.S. invasion, and whether or not he was in a position to use them. There is little EVIDENCE that he did, at least not from the sources that you have provided.

I would love to go on, but I need to finish up with work. Besides, I find it wearisome to continue debunking your own sources.

BrianR 9 years, 6 months ago

The search for WMD: Another faith-based initiative.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.