Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, August 13, 2006

Democrats, Michael Moore seeking payback on war

August 13, 2006

Advertisement

Forget the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or any other war against which Connecticut citizens are said to have voted by defeating Joe Lieberman and nominating Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate.

The operative war for American citizens is something closer to home - a war of independence from the bickering partisans who have made political life in America a childish and tedious exercise.

Democrats aren't wrong when they say that the Lamont victory was a defining moment. It defined the Democratic Party as a vigorous, motivated, organized force that is ... completely out of touch with mainstream America.

Don't get me wrong. Lamont is a perfectly respectable candidate - well-spoken, attractive, gracious and rich. What's not to like? And millions of Americans of every political stripe are disgusted with the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War.

But what happened in Connecticut allowed the rest of the country a close glimpse of what the Democratic Party has become - a ruthless machine of the far left, fueled by left-wing blogs and personified by the stubbornly adolescent Michael Moore.

Their triumph in bringing down Lieberman may prove to be their undoing in November, as well as in the 2008 presidential election. Here's why: Americans may not like the war, or the deficit, or the Bush administration's immigration stance, or pick-your-grievance. We enjoy a surfeit of issues to divide us. But Americans also share a reflexive resistance to Stalinist tactics.

What else can one call the message now being telegraphed to Democratic leaders? You either stand with us against the war in Iraq, or we take you down.

The morning after Lamont's victory, for instance, Moore posted a note on his Web site to Democratic candidates that is a threat without the veil. He specifically targeted Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards, all likely presidential candidates in '08.

Noting that nearly every Democrat planning to run for president had voted for or supported the war, Moore said, "we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night."

Even though both Kerry and Edwards have changed their minds and are now anti-war, that's too late for Moore, who wrote: "Their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land."

To Clinton, he spoke directly: "I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope."

As for the rest, "To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power."

Moore's manifesto, through which he may have lost a few grammarians, is straight out of Stalin's playbook under 'P' for purge. Like Stalin, the operatives who ousted Lieberman are determined to remove dissidents from The Party.

Clinton, among others, snapped to. Looking grim before television cameras, she vowed her allegiance to the party, promising to support Lamont in the general election against Lieberman, who is running as an independent. And though Clinton has resisted calls for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, she recently hammered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an apparent attempt to distance herself from the administration.

Kerry and Edwards similarly have reiterated their party allegiance. Genuflection noted.

Flash to Connecticut immediately after the count, and Lamont's victory photo tells the rest of the story. There they were, those two perennial groupies to irrelevancy, the twin reverends Sharpton and Jackson. Heaven forbid a Democrat should give an acceptance speech without their pandered presence.

Lieberman - admired by centrists and conservatives - promises to stay his own course as a nonpartisan independent. His decision may be viewed as a blasphemous, punishable offense by the MoveOn/Moore wing of his party, but he's hitting a note that rings true for the times.

The extremes of both parties - whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right - have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both. The independent candidate, who puts state and country above party, may be the right candidate in this climate, while the Democratic Party - now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party - may have written its own suicide note.

Working title: "When Hari Met Kari."

Kathleen Parker is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

holygrailale 7 years, 8 months ago

ASBESTOS:

The reasons listed in the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq have been found to be false for quite some time now.

That's what "debunked" means.

=======================================

You should look up the multiple investigations that go into the details. One of the investigations was co-chaired by our own Pat Roberts of Kansas.

President Bush and the White House have also stated publicly that Hussein was not involved with 9-11, al Qaida, or had weapons of mass destruction.

This knowledge is common knowledge and has been in the public domain for almost three years now.

That the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq is debunked at this point is certainly not based upon "my interpretation".

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

"The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq has been largely debunked."

That is according to the way YOU read it. That does not mean you read it correctly or came to a proper conclusion. I have read it too. It is a pass piece of legislation. The Use of Force is not "debunked" it was voted on and passed by congress. How can a passed legislation be "debunked"?

Asa for "gutting the militarty", yes that administration most certianly did. There were NO SPARE PARTS for most of the Howitzers, I know that for a FACT. Just ask any of the lifers how it was under the CLinton Admin.

The Military was simply NOT a priority under the CLinton admin, everyone knows this, the facts back it up. It is NOT a "Talking point".

How the hell do you think he "balanced the budget", and had no "deficites" (sp? please don't make fun of me, I M on lunch break). Defense spendig was cut by a whole lot, and some entitlement programs.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 8 months ago

BigAl is right.

Operation DesertFox did in four days what George W. Bush hasn't been able to justify in three years.

0

prioress 7 years, 8 months ago

"You mean like how we used to be able to keep military operations and espionage under wraps?" +++++++ Perhaps, but check out the Republican doctrines on "private armies" and private contracting of military functions, which still use taxpayer money but are, in many ways, unaccountable to Congress or the American people.

""[I]f Presidential family connections were theme parks, Bush world would be a sight to behold," writes Kevin Phillips, author of new book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. "Mideast banks tied to the CIA would crowd alongside Florida Savings and Loans that once laundered money for the Nicaraguan contras. Dozens of oil wells would run eternally without finding oil, thanks to periodic cash deposits by old men wearing Reagan-Bush buttons and smoking 20-dollar cigars." "

0

BigAl 7 years, 8 months ago

Bill Clinton did not "gut" the military. Another rightwing talking point.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 8 months ago

ASBESTOS:

"As for the "authorization of Force" it would habve been politicized whti either party in power, the real question was it right. If it was right good leaders would have came to the same conclusion." ---- ASBESTOS

=======================================

The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq has been largely debunked.

I appear to be the only person on this blog who has actually taken the time to read the darn thing and demonstrate (paragraph by paragraph) how it is a worthless piece of paper.

Everybody knows that the basis for invading Iraq is false. Has known for almost three years now.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

BIll CLinton COUNL NOT go into Afganistan, remember how he gutted the military. I think he would have gone down the same road GWB did. Remember that Saddam threatened Pres. Clinto too.

As for the "debunking you speak of,..most of it has too been, "debunked". You will not believe that nor will youaccept that. But please do not post all those long winded and reposts of what has happened to been posted already.

NO, the UN does not like the US, under either a Democrat or a Republican, and that is what you guys need to learn! We sure got a lot of help in Somilia, and Bosnia from the good ole UN didn't we.

The UN is BS. I will be glad when Koffee is gone. His anti US and Anit Israel bias is not befitting a sopposed "man of peace". NO thje UN will not go anywhere and make a difference. Kind of like how the are doiong in Darfur and how the preformed in Lebannon. NO the UN is the weakest a$$ed argument there is so don't and STOP bringing that one. They are just not worth it.

As for the "authorization of Force" it would habve been politicized whti either party in power, the real question was it right. If it was right good leaders would have came to the same conclusion.

SO in a way...you are agreeing with me.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 8 months ago

ASBESTOS:

Bill Clinton already went into Iraq. He destroyed a great many targets and lost not a single US Solider. He got in and got out in four days.

=======================================

My feeling is that Usama Bin Laden would have been caught by now under a Bill Clinton administration.

=======================================

We would not have gone into Iraq because the reasons outlined in the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq were shaky then and are completely debunked and insane now.

I admit that everyone was caught up in the "Let's go get someone" hysteria of post 9/11 and to vote against that Authorization would have had some serious political repercussions, no matter how ill advised the resolution was.

=======================================

Under Bill Clinton, if we had gone into Iraq, we would have had the UN on our side (as happened in Desert Storm and (for the most part) Desert Fox) and we would have had a legitimate coalition. Not the bullsh1t "Coalition of the Willing".

Under Bill Clinton, I see us making incursions into Pakistan and Afghanistan to capture or kill Bin Laden. We don't start a war there but we have a single target.

I see much more pressure being put on Saudi Arabia than the Bush Administration is doing. The Bin Laden family in particular.

I think we could pull that off.

=======================================

Under Bill Clinton, I don't see Clinton stating publicly that he "doesn't think about Bin Laden all that much" six months after 9/11.

Under Bill Clinton, I don't see the Bin Laden Unit at the CIA being disbanded.

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

Swbsow ya missed the point, I was stating that even with my disagreements with the man, he is parsecs better in wisdom than the Micheal Moores, Howeird Deans, and Cindy SHeehans of the screechy far left.

I do believe if Bill CLinton were in Office dutring Sept. 11, 2001, we would have gone down the same road as GWB went, right into Iraq (without all the screeching from the far looney left, but with screeching from the far looney right). It was the only course for history, because that is where all the intel takes us, ALL. Evee the Democrats supported it lock step with Pres. Clinton at the time and believing that Iraq, was an "immenent threat" because of their "Stockplies of WMD". DO you think GWB really invented that little Point of VIew?

I do believe however it AL Baby were the POTUS at that pivital time in the US History, he would have gone for appeasement.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

Damn, this was a good article by Parker----looks like the lions' share of the far-left Bush haters are even staying away from this one.

Far-lefty Bush haters probably couldn't make it through the article.....hehehehe.....great stuff!!

Good day, nice real estate sale, great things happening for Republicans---time for a Weller's and Diet 7-up.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

by sbwsow:

"JFK got caught too, but managed to keep it under wraps."

You mean like how we used to be able to keep military operations and espionage under wraps?

Different day...can you imagine D-Day now? HA! What a debacle that'd be now!!

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

It was also a little thing called "perjury"! And lying to the American people.

This classic line: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is."

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

by holygrail:

"And if Linda Tripp hadn't said anything, not even that."

Wrong, holygrail, I thought you were sharper than that....it was ultimately a blue dress worn by Monica Lewisnky with Willy J. Clintons semen splattered all over it.

0

swbsow 7 years, 8 months ago

My beef with Clinton was the fact he allowed himself getting caught being given a blowjob. JFK got caught too, but managed to keep it under wraps.

Asbestos, that is simply because people believed it was JFK's personal life and it didn't affect his ability to govern. Those things were simply not brought up in those times. People believed that was business between a husband and wife and no one else.

Lots of Presidents had their affairs or extra-marital flings and those were not brought into the political forum because it was considered not to have an affect on their ability to perform their jobs.

I think the turning point was actually during Gary Hart's campaign. He was a stupid man for goading his political enemies into finding dirt on him. The Republicans saw how this worked and ran with it.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 8 months ago

Posted by xenophonschild (anonymous) on August 13, 2006 at 9:27 a.m.

Yeah, like we're going to believe anything printed in the Washington Post.

They seize on any nuance they think might benefit their beloved Republican party and administration.


Now you know why it's called the Looney Left. The words "Washington Post" and "beloved Republican party" linked in the same message?

As if...

0

ASBESTOS 7 years, 8 months ago

markpb said:

"The democratic party has for a long time now not had any leadership, period. "

What about "Bill the Great"? Was he or was he not a Democratic leader? He was a "Centerists", and co-opted many moderate Republican themes.

If you are saying that MMoore, is more of a leader than BIll CLinton, you need to eat some more "mental wheaties"!

And Yes the "Far Left" has taken over the Democrat party, why else would they throw out Joe?

My beef with Clinton was the fact he allowed himself getting caught being given a blowjob. JFK got caught too, but managed to keep it under wraps.

The $70,000,000 was also for a dress cleaning that was never done as well. The leader of the free world should have promoted Linda Tripp, and made it go away, instead took the cheap way out. THAT was the lesson of Bill Clinton.

You still have to fight the whackos.... no not those (Republicans)....

The Fundamentalist Islamic Yahoos that want to kill us all. And yes they do no matter how much you want to try to understand them, or see it from their perspective, the Dems need to learn, these folks want to kill them too.

0

BigAl 7 years, 8 months ago

Terrible, terrible waste of time and taxpayer money.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 8 months ago

BigAl:

I think "the check" for the Starr Commission hearings was around $70,000,000.

$70,000,000 to learn of a blowjob.

And if Linda Tripp hadn't said anything, not even that.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

BigAl, it wasn't a waste: Disbarrment, impeachment, lawsuits up the wazoo, disgraced himself globally.....it was necessary, because Willy J. Clinton was and is a consummate scumbag and so is his vile, wretched wife.

0

BigAl 7 years, 8 months ago

How's that lock-step thing working out for you guys? Do you have to disengage the mind first?
Wait, blame the press first.... if that doesn't work, holler out 9-11. Or how 'bout just calling people "haters"???

0

BigAl 7 years, 8 months ago

Do you guys even have a clue how hard the republicans went after Clinton. 8 years of it. Spent millions and millions of dollars and wasted vast amounts of valueable time. Finally "got him" for lying about having sex in the white house. Republicans wasted 8 years.......and now they are crying and whining about how poor Bush is being picked on.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

Yes, the Dummiecrats are starting to see through the fog on their glasses from all the heavy breathing that "attack, attack, attack" and no ideas really is coming back to haunt them-BIG TIME!!

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

acg,

hhhhaahahahah...........you so funny.....NOT!

ROTFLMAO,

You're so bushleague!! LMAO

0

acg 7 years, 8 months ago

Anyone notice that this conversation was a bunch of p. gnat #1 and p. gnat #2 giving each other the ol' Lewinsky? You guys make such a cute couple.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

Rightthinker,

I wish it was that easy. The communists have reinvented themselves so many times and their sick ideology just won't go away. After every failure they just try it all over again, damn the human suffering and economic cost. The DNC is really the ACP. But your post is an important goal, a day when communism is dead and buried.

Good day today, the Libtards are in panic mode.

Respectfully, Conservativeman

0

Fatty_McButterpants 7 years, 8 months ago

rightthinker: What in the holy hell are you talking about?!

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

2029, Year Of Our Lord, Lawrence Kansas.

"Daddy, what's a d-d-d-dum-a-ccccrat, is that how you say it Daddy? "

Well, little Suzie that's how you say it (hahaha). A "Dummacrat" Suzie was at one time, a long time ago, right before I met your Mommy, after I got out of that Army uniform that Bobby likes to put on, a bunch of really bad people who tried to destroy America....Suzie, remember that trip to that building with the big 'bubble' on top?"

"Yes".

"Well, they worked there, and the American people like me and your Mommy all got together and made these bad people go away, so we could save America for cute little kids like you and Bobby."

"Where did all those bad people go, Daddy?"

"That's for another day, Suzie....it's past your bed time, go brush your teeth and get ready for bed!"

"OK, daddy."

0

rightthinker 7 years, 8 months ago

by Parker:

"....while the Democratic Party - now fully revealed as a radical, anti-war, far-left party - may have written its own suicide note."

Golly gee, you could have lifted those words from a rightthinker post. What have I been saying since joining this debacle of a forum?

I'm starting to really like this Parker gal.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Libs:

So Mad So Sad I'm Glad

xxxooo, rightthinker

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

Continued:

MYTH 4: Pursuit of happiness is a solitary endeavor

PRAVDA: The government knows better. There's nobody who can better plan, monitor, supervise and assess your personal happiness than a well-meaning government official, sensitive to your and your loved ones' needs and fantasies. Happiness in general is a selfish, individualistic notion. Instead, we encourage everyone to cultivate the feeling of guilt. Guilt is a healthy sentiment that gives you the brazen strength of a martyr as you sacrifice your own happiness to the common good.

MYTH 5: Third World countries should be self-reliant

PRAVDA: The world is infinite; wealth is finite. If you eat a liverwurst sandwich someone else goes hungry. If you don't eat it you go hungry. Somebody somewhere is always hungry. Dialectical Materialism is a Marxist science that explains how, if capitalist America grows more food, the same amount of food mysteriously disappears in a socialist Third World country. The United Nations must then employ an army of functionaries to relocate the food to the places from which it had been mysteriously lifted, and the American taxpayers must pay for it since it's all their fault. The UN is a world socialist government whose task is to subdue the capitalist achievers in order to feed and preserve the inefficient Marxist dictatorships worldwide.

MYTH 6: Capitalism creates wealth

PRAVDA: All wealth is finite (see above). Capitalism ensures an immoral redistribution of wealth, lifting it from the poor, giving it to the rich. Socialism offers a moral way to redistribute existing wealth by splitting your sandwich right in the middle and appointing an army of bureaucrats to ensure that everyone gets a crumb. The bureaucrats eat the liverwurst.

MYTH 7: Individual rights are the foundation of a civil society

PRAVDA: Individual is nothing, the collective is everything. We would have no power if we were to rely on the individual. But if you divide people into antagonistic minority groups, each fighting for more collective rights and entitlement at the expense of all other groups generally, then pitch them against one another and act as a mediator, you will own the world! Abandon your puny notions of surviving with an individual mind, learn to think with the collective brain which speaks most accessibly and conveniently through our Party representatives. The rewards are obvious: in a collective you automatically gain the same rights and entitlements as the next member without moving a finger. Group reality gives one a strong feeling of selflessness, belonging, and protection against all other such collectives, also known as special interest groups.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 8 months ago

Original draft of DNC concession release written by Party officials after 2004 election. (Communists in the DNC supplied the draft, it was rejected later in favor of a more opportunistic version).

(Hao-Tse Dean) We have lost this election because Americans obdurately continue to believe in old myths and archaic nonsense about themselves. We shall continue to scorch it out of their murky skulls with our red-hot burning Pravda! Re-education is the key! Our agents in the academia, mass media, and trivial entertainment divisions have failed to sway the voting populace into embracing their true nature as a mote of a vast collective! The guilty shall be purged. Our efforts shall be quadrupled. Resistance is futile!

We have put together a list of national myths entertained by our foes we would do well to eliminate by stealth or worse in the new Four-Year Plan. Circulate widely.

Myth 1: America must be protected from its enemies

PRAVDA: Americans cannot be trusted in protecting their country because they just might succeed. For too long has America stood in our way! We must put it under the protection of the United Nations. What's good for Rwanda is good for America! Nothing in this world succeeds like failure.

MYTH 2: The Patriot Act will help our national security

PRAVDA: The Patriot Act must be rescinded in Congress as it infringes on the basic inherent rights of militant radicals to kill imperialistic Americans. We would not mind arresting the rogues and scoundrels who reject our sensible anti-American propaganda, but the terrorists aren't among those and should be allowed to roam free. They and us both find America not merely contemptible but despicable and unconscionably insane. They do it for God, we for history, we merely have different goads to take up the same justice.

MYTH 3: People must have the right to bear arms

PRAVDA: The path to the new society lies through discipline and submission to the authorities. This becomes impossible if half of the population own guns and may join organized resistance. Despite our best efforts, the ban on gun ownership has fallen behind schedule. It was originally scheduled to expire simultaneously with public morals. But thanks to Welfare, feel good schools, the ACLU, and through the promotion of drug culture, we have achieved the deterioration of morals and personal responsibility in inner cities ahead of schedule. This lapse in timing has created a rather unpleasant urban mix (guns and drugs) which makes us want to move to the suburbs.

++++++++++++

Amazing what liberals believe, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DNC is a communist organization.

0

markpb 7 years, 8 months ago

Your point that the far left has taken over the party is wrong. The way my friends and I see it, Moore is a force that has taken out (purged) a long time rouge member of the democratic party. I disagree that Moore has taken over the party, but he does have some influence. The democratic party has for a long time now not had any leadership, period. Moore has filled that void and rightfully will do so till someone steps forward to take over the helm of the dem party.

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 8 months ago

Yeah, like we're going to believe anything printed in the Washington Post.

They seize on any nuance they think might benefit their beloved Republican party and administration. The Democrats and their dust-up in Connecticut allows the elephants to at least try and shift focus from their incompetence and mishandling of every nuance - Iraq, Katrina, stem cell research, intelligence gathering, even protecting veteran's identities - and give them some hope - albeit unfounded - that they have a chance to prevail in November.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"The extremes of both parties - whether the Michael Moore left or Pat Robertson right - have had their day, and most sensible Americans have had enough of both."

To try to equate these two in this way demonstrates why no one should want anything to do with your DLC, Republican-light "centrist" position that is nothing more than sucking up to the corporate-sponsored, inside-the-beltway groupthink that has brought us the quagmire in Iraq.

I hope you and your other lemming friends find that cliff soon, Kathleen.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.