Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Democratic delusions on war

September 6, 2006

Advertisement

Congress returned to town this week for an abbreviated session. One doesn't need to be psychic to predict little will be accomplished in the run-up to the November election. Democrats, aided by their many media allies, can be counted on to parrot their latest line about the "incompetent" Bush administration.

When gas prices rose to near record levels this summer, it was supposedly due to the incompetence of the Bush administration. Gas prices have now dropped to well under $3 a gallon where I live. If it was Bush's "incompetence" that caused the spike, does he now get credit for the decline? Market forces set gas prices, so he should neither be blamed for the spike, nor praised for the decline, but the Democrats won't see it that way.

August employment figures again show a healthy economy due largely to what Democrats call "irresponsible" tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 128,000 last month, with the unemployment rate staying at a low 4.7 percent. Does the president get competence points for this? Not from Democrats.

The war on terror scored an important victory last weekend with the arrest of al-Qaida in Iraq's No. 2, Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi. Iraqi and coalition forces issued a statement that said the arrest has caused al-Qaida a "serious leadership crisis." Will Democrats and their media allies praise the Bush administration for this sign of competence in fighting the Iraq War? No, because this is about Democrats regaining power and nothing more. Were the Bush administration to announce it had discovered the fountain of youth and cures for cancer and adolescent rebellion, it wouldn't be enough.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has repeatedly stressed that the war with terrorism will be long, difficult and frustrating. It is unlike any war the country has fought and so all comparisons - from the time it is taking, to the number of casualties - are imperfect. It is not a war America chose to begin; it is a war the United States could not escape.

This war was unavoidable, because religious fanatics concluded a new strategy was needed after Arab states lost five wars to Israel. They viewed Israel as strong - until the Lebanon fiasco - and the United States weak. That weakness, they determined, wasn't in military might, but in staying power. They calculated the United States lacks the stomach for a long war, especially one fueled by religious fanaticism.

Seeing America as religiously weak and morally challenged, the islamofascists are determined to strike us where we live. The Clinton administration failed to see this war coming, but Democrats do not regard its minimal response to terrorist attacks as incompetence or weakness. Condemnation is reserved exclusively for President Bush, who they say misjudged the war on terror by attacking Iraq. But the war was coming and would have come with or without the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

At a symposium last spring on "Islam and the West," which was sponsored by The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations noted, "The human species is facing a huge historical, cultural problem. : For reasons that have very little to do with the U.S., we need to face the fact that we'll be living with this for a very long time." Mead said it isn't just an Arab problem, but an Islamic world problem, which transcends borders and regions. "If you don't understand this, you're deluding yourself," he said.

Do Democrats and their media allies understand this or are they deluding themselves? What would they do differently from the Bush administration in credibly fighting this plague that transcends borders, regions and even political parties? Should Democrats win a congressional majority in the fall election, they must do more than try to frustrate the president, hoping to win the White House in 2008. The war won't wait for them to prove their competence, or incompetence.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Comments

scott3460 7 years, 7 months ago

When gas prices rose to near record levels this summer, it was supposedly due to the incompetence of the Bush administration. Gas prices have now dropped to well under $3 a gallon where I live. If it was Bush's "incompetence" that caused the spike, does he now get credit for the decline?"

Bull!!!! The criminal gouging that has gone on in gas prices has never been attributed to Bush's incompetence. It was a cold, calculated theft on the part of the oil industry. The apologist who wrote this article should quit lying about the past.

Also, just as most thinking Americans understood it was the Bush Administration's manipulation of the oil markets that led to the obscene prices for the past year, so too most Americans will see through this cynical manipulation of the prices back down in advance of Election Day. Any takers on what sort of natural disaster/supply interruption/increased terror warning, etc... will lead to $3 gas immediately after the elections have taken place? My money is on "the stars are twinkling brighter," so the oil futures market goes crazy, but then I tend toward the outrageous. As we have seen, they can float any idiot reason out there and it will be dutifully reported as fact by the corporate lapdogs in the mainstream press. In any event, I am hoping for a good whopper this time - something really imaginative. Maybe space aliens....

0

scenebooster 7 years, 7 months ago

"George W. Bush is calling the shots, not Cheney, not Rove, not Rice, not Rumsfeld. They work for George W. Bush. George W. Bush is the President. Blumenthal and Lanny Davis and Janet Reno and Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger worked for and advised WJC---that's how it works."

"Oil is not the reason we are there; oil simply exist under their soil. Do they lord it over us and the rest of the industrialized world? Absolutely."

Wow, RT! This is one of your more laughable posts...are you really this clueless?

0

holygrailale 7 years, 7 months ago

This just in from the NY Times......

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein's government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?hp&ex=1157860800&en=6b11a9b2ce4125ad&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=6b11a9b2ce4125ad&hp&ex=1157860800&partner=homepage

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

References:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf

0

i_tching 7 years, 7 months ago

Rightwing authoritarian personalities, especially the fearful follower type, are not easily persuaded by facts and figures. These people are too righteous, too hide-bound by their ideology of fear, and too hypocritical to see the value of rational argument.

It just doesn't reach them.

They are mean-spirited, bigoted and judgemental, deeply afraid of their perceived enemies, and totally reliant on authority to protect and inform them.

Because they are not insightful, they certainly do not see themselves as we others see them. No matter what, they remain righteous and angry, eager to punish those who oppose and thereby threaten them. They also easily absolve themselves of guilt, so if they're caught in a lie, their righteousness spills over anyways and they proceed with their spewings.

Sociologists have been studying these types ever since WWII, in response to a desire to understand what happened to German citizens under the Nazis.

Most of this information about authoritarian followers and social dominators is found in sociology peer-reviewed journals and textbooks, rarely disseminated to the general public. It would be better for us all if such personality types were more widely identified and understood.

John Deans' recent "Conservatives Without Conscience" is just such an attempt to spread the word.

0

Curtiss 7 years, 7 months ago

rt:

"That's a big deal," you said. I said "big ado."

What's the difference? Either way, it was about virtually nothing.

And I notice this lovely Friday morning, LJW has again, just two days later, printed another hate screed from this idiot who hates America and everything our Constitution stands for, Cal Thomas.

His new column is full of lies and distortions. I can't wait to start beating it down.

HOW COME IT'S NOT ONLINE?

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

Curtiss, the Dan Rather flap was "big ado about nothing"?

That effectively ended the biggest, most beloved liberal media icons' career. That's a big deal.

0

Curtiss 7 years, 7 months ago

right_thinker says:

Why all the fuss over "Path to 9/11"? Why is Clinton so upset about this movie? Why did no one on the left complain about "Farenhype 9/11" or "The Reagans" or "60 minutes" Dan Rather/W Natl. Gd. pc?


Here's why the fuss. It's a fictional piece written by a radical filled with distortions and made up scenes, pure fiction presented as accurate history. Its purpose is to try to make it look like the 9/11 attack was Clinton's fault. They have to lie to make that point, but they've spent forty million dollars making an epic that will be presented on a channel virtually everybody in the U.S. gets.

Plenty of people complained about Fahrenheit 9/11, from all sides. And yet with all the screaming from the right, the film is filled with indisputable facts. Fierce investigation by hundreds of angry rightwingnuts unearthed only a couple very minor discrepancies. Sadly, that film was filled with facts and truth.

The Reagans? From what I hear it was a piece of crap from either side, and unless it made Ronnie look like an idiot, it was probably unrealistically flattering.

The Dan Rather flap? Big ado about nothing. The one piece of paper that fell into dispute has never, ever been proven to be a forgery. The whole flap stems from CBS's inability to prove it's not, and yet the person who typed the original certified that the information in it was accurate, whether the document was genuine or not. So it turns out the guy they appointed President actually was a wartime deserter, just like they said.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

Tychoman, you're right, Democrats have a chance. I believe Truman has the lowest so far? I may be wrong--then Nixon, then Carter. And Carter only did one term--but that's no surprise.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

Clinton shouldn't be the only person upset over this movie (whether it incriminates him or not): it's too soon for f'ing dramatizations about 9/11.

Plenty of us on the left complained about Fahrenheit 9/11. The left isn't any more hypocritical than the right-wingers.

Bush has the lowest approval ratings of any president in history, Republicans are splitting apart. The Democrats have a chance.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

Why all the fuss over "Path to 9/11"? Why is Clinton so upset about this movie? Why did no one on the left complain about "Farenhype 9/11" or "The Reagans" or "60 minutes" Dan Rather/W Natl. Gd. pc?

It clearly shows the hypocrisy of the left again. But I am hesitant to get on that whole band-wagon again.

GWB and the Repubs have this sewn up and the Democratic Party is in a 4th quarter scramble to try and win a game they've already lost.

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

rightthinker wrote:

"sbwsow, maybe not a major network, but IFC or Sundance and art house."

So it won't reach any major audiences then and any audience that it reaches on T.V. will be ones who have cable or satellite.

Whereas the 9/11 "documentary" is going to be aired on one of the 3 major networks in America. No one has to subscribe to any extra services to view it.

It really isn't much of a comparision. One movie may or may not be broadcast on channels that are offered only to subscribers of cable & satellite. Or in an arthouse. Not any major movie theaters as well.

The other movie is being shown on a major television network that requires nothing on the viewers part to see, pretty much free access to it.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

So it'll show in the U.S. I don't see what all your fuss is about, thinker.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

sbwsow, maybe not a major network, but IFC or Sundance and art house. Movies from Australia, S. America, Asia etc etc make it to the US. It has been at the Toronto Film Festival and depending on it's reception, it could be in the states in months. It really is not out of the norm.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

So there's a movie that speculates (fascinating subject, too. I love "what if" scenarios) on the assassination of a sitting president at a crucial time in his administration. Big deal. It's not like it's going to give anyone ideas. There have been movies and whole series made about presidential assassinations before. "24" for example. Crappy show, though.

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

right_thinker wrote:

"Actually, the movie will eventually work its way into the US---we all know that, silly"

So you believe this British movie will be aired on a major American network?

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

Actually, the movie will eventually work its way into the US---we all know that, silly. It's showing at the Toronto FF and UK. I think it will be interesting personally. Look at the age we live in, isn't it something?

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

Thinker, swbsow answered your ludicrous question about "where is the equivalent criticism and speculation?"

Answer: It's not being shown in the U.S.

This dramatization is definitely a bad idea (as dramatizations of tragedies generally are) but the Clinton administrators and workers shouldn't be trying to censor this movie.

George Bush is calling the shots? Please, don't remind me.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

George W. Bush is calling the shots, not Cheney, not Rove, not Rice, not Rumsfeld. They work for George W. Bush. George W. Bush is the President. Blumenthal and Lanny Davis and Janet Reno and Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger worked for and advised WJC---that's how it works.

The arguments presented by Democrats are merely theory and conjecture and speculation; backed up by circumspective information. Iraq has control now, terrorists are being thwarted, captured, and killed. No attacks have occured on US soil in five years. Oil is not the reason we are there; oil simply exist under their soil. Do they lord it over us and the rest of the industrialized world? Absolutely.

Re; the ABC movie, propaganda is only OK when it besmirches GWB? And a movie about assassinating "a sitting president" is somewhat provocative but where is the equivalent criticism and speculation?

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

right_thinker,

If you believe Clinton did nothing or very little to stop terrorism & the Republicans are going all out against it, please read the article I have linked and explain why you still believe the way you do.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

And the reason that there is no outcry by Americans over the film about GWB's supposed assasination is because it is a British show that will be only shown on British T.V.

It is not appearing (as far as I have read) on any American television channel. Most Americans will not see it and are probably not aware of its existance.

0

Curtiss 7 years, 7 months ago

right_thinker says:

"The outcry about "Path to 9/11" as bogus by Clintonites is just beyond laughable. But you don't hear a word about the film about the hypothetical assassination of GWB."

Sorry, rt, but you're wrong on this one. There's no comparison. The Bush assassination movie presents an obviously fictional event, and focuses on the very interesting question of what would happen to America after such an event.

The ABC 9/11 movie is presented as a documentary, although much has been deliberately omitted and much more made up, contrary to known facts. The two rightwingnut activists who came up with this propaganda did it with the express purpose of blaming everything on Clinton.

ABC screened this movie to get advance publicity, but only to right-wing bloggers.

ABC says the film is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report," but about a critical scene, Thomas Keane, 9/11 commission chair, said, "Some of the people shown there probably weren't there."

Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger are depicted in the film, and they all say it's wrong.

Screenwriter/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh says, "when you're making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted." In other words, it's history, but they made up better versions.

This movie is filled with scenes that try to put the focus on Clinton, but it turns out the most damning scenes are totally fictional.

And yet with two thirds of Republicans in the latest survey calling Bush a liar and saying Saddam Hussein WAS involved in 9/11, these dimwits will suck up every bit of this movie and think it's gospel.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 7 months ago

Honestly Right-thinker, do you really think anyone on this board is being fooled by your reprise of Cheney's "a vote for [Democrats] is a vote for terrorism/another attack" concealed as "if the Democrats win, America will cease to exist"?

Well, it's pretty damn easy to say that when YOUR current leader is doing everything in his power to increase distrust of America in the world, and therefore, increase the number of enemies, and therefore, increase the likelihood that (unless the Democrats can assure the world that Dubya was an anomaly of his election fraud) someone will want to see America cease to exist.

Your logic is faulty and your motive is immature. I love how the Republicans are responsible for producing a president that divides people, creates chaos, nourishes fear, and starts wars, and THEY are the ones to have the audacity to say that Democrats being elected will result in danger to America. It's like in 2004 when the very party that allowed an attack to occur on American soil was the same one accusing the other party that they would allow another attack on American soil.

Imagine if when Enron had occurred, Mr. Lay and his accomplices had said--"you better leave us in charge of Enron, otherwise the next group of executive leadership may bring the company down and steal all the employees money".

If the Democrats are the wearers of tinfoil hats, then the Republicans are the ones trying to fit a square peg in a round hole while wearing blinders.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

Is the word not complacent?

Clinton wasn't complacent, the GOP Congress was.

Big surprise. Story of their lives.

0

BigAl 7 years, 7 months ago

Conservativeman is a classic example of how and why the NAZI party flourished. Question nothing and follow blindly.

0

Tom Shewmon 7 years, 7 months ago

The Democratic Party is in need of a serious reality check and this will be performed as needed in November and again in two years. The outcry about "Path to 9/11" as bogus by Clintonites is just beyond laughable. But you don't hear a word about the film about the hypothetical assassination of GWB.

The Democratic Party, in comparison to their analysis of GWB as incompetent, is somewhere between "underqualified" to "terminated for intellectual dishonesty" and "failure to perform assigned duties".

It's effectively the end of the line for the Democratic Party in my humble opinion; I could be wrong.

If I am wrong, and there is a small chance I am, then its' all over for America, somewhere between 5-10 years from now.

There is simply too much at stake for America to vote Democratic Party and embarassing as it is for all of us to endure, the Democratic Party realizes this and can not accept the truth.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 7 months ago

ksmoderate:

Excellent "blast from the past". Thanks!!!

I don't know why your post was removed either.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

scenebooster,

Right, thanks for the laugh.

Respectfully, Conservativeman

0

scenebooster 7 years, 7 months ago

"patriotic Republican Americans"

An oxymoron.

"Give war a chance"

Just as soon as you (or your kids) suit up, friend.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

Hillarious the moonbats just loved moores "documentary" because it was released to coincide with the elections. Now a drama has the libtards in an uproar because it is within 3 months of the election. Hmmmm Go figure. Libtards are such hypocrits!

0

Porter 7 years, 7 months ago

I heard that one of Saddam's WMD programs involved "ice-9". Anyone else hear that rumor?? Good thing we went after him!!

0

tony88 7 years, 7 months ago

see the cat? see the cradle?

0

ksmoderate 7 years, 7 months ago

Actually, it was the Republican majority in Congress that was too busy with Monica while Clinton was trying to get something done about the terrorist threat. That is history. That is true.

This "docu-drama" that ABC plans to air will also make Little Georgie's administration complicit, I hear.

Unfortunately, since most knuckle-dragging americans believe everything that is fed to them on TV, the public might believe the falsities presented in this program. Too bad it doesn't follow the TRUTH of the 9/11 Commission report. Sad.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

Bill Cliton begs ABC to not aire Path To 911, ABC by revealing the truth of his complicity in allowing Laden to launch the attacks. Too busy with Monica to take care of business????

The 4 hour mini-series is scheduled to air soon( early next week perhaps) unless the impeached President is successful in persuading ABC to censor it's production and present the Clinton Administration's version of the truth.

The ex-prez simply has no dignity. Calling ABC directly.... I can just imagine the wrist wringing and uproar in the DNC cult.... ...and it will all serve to call attention and raise interest in the mini-series.

We can only hope that ABC doesn't cave in.

0

Silence_Dogood 7 years, 7 months ago

Is this an example of the "liberal bias" the Right-regime stupidly argue dominates the media?

conservativeman: you are a waste of space. You're breathing the air I could have. And why do you hate America so much, zealot?

0

holygrailale 7 years, 7 months ago

Porter:

Bush and Rice doing Boko Maru.....

Gee, ......Thanks!!

I haven't had breakfast yet.

0

Porter 7 years, 7 months ago

Holygrailale- Did you call Usama Bin Laden Bokonon?? I love it.

I've always thought of the Bush Administration as a Granfalloon.

I can just picture President Bush and Condi pressing their bare feet together. Ok, I was joking, but now I can't get that picture out of my head!! Yikes!!

0

holygrailale 7 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04:

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

"I can't think of one independant democracy that came about because another country converted it from a different form of social policy."------logicsound04

Independence and democracy have to be earned. No one can give you your wings, you have to earn them.

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

The only way we can legitimately "promote democracy" abroad is by being the best "America" we can be and let others say "Hey, I want some of that."

Right now, other countries are rejecting the American Wal-Mart, cheap plastic, American Idol, "What do you want to do? I dunno, what do you want to do??" television lifestyle as inauthentic and irreligious.

A lifestyle with no meaning.

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

Bringing back industry to American would help. Way too many of our dollars are leaving the country.

Increasing access to education pays back in so many ways. Ireland made education free. Look what it did for them. Second highest GDP in Europe.

A progressive tax system would help immensely to free up some liquidity to increase standard of living.

Systems die if too much of their energy gets concentrated and uncirculated. Money represents the energy of an economic system.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 7 months ago

What gets me about this whole thing is that, if America didn't poke its nose around in that region so much, leaders in those countries wouldn't be able to run on a "I'm gonna stick it to those intrusive, destructive, arrogant Americans" platforms, creating even more distrust of our government from a very large segment of the world population.

I understand that the idea of bringing democracy is a noble concept in theory--we in America have discovered how great and powerful a system it is--however, I can't think of one independant democracy that came about because another country converted it from a different form of social policy. We are so arrogant to think that we should be the world's stewards of humanity.

The real way to spread democracy and equality is to bring the world onto a more level economic playing field with more international trade. If countries depend on one another to function in the world market and their citizens have money with which to consume, extremism and anti-Americanism, and conflict in general would be much less (though it would exist) because countries would have to have a measure of respect and diplomacy with each other in order to conduct business. Most wars can be traced back to economic origin anyway.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 7 months ago

Curtiss:

Very good post to start the thread. With good followups.

Cal talks about employment figures without discussing income. A sweatshop has "full employment".

Working for minimum wage at McDonald's is "full employment" but not a very good life.

Maybe Cal Thomas would like to discuss "wage inflation" and what that refers to. Or "Real earnings".

I doubt it.

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

Iran will become the second country in the Middle East we "declare war" upon without bothering to capture the Bokonon of this age, Usama Bin Laden.

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

xenophonschild has the most likely scenario.

Iraq will divide. Two, possibly three, countries will emerge.

I see three divisions ultimately: Kurds to the North, Sunnis to the West and Shia to the South East. Either three new countries or three very autonomous states within Iraq.

A unified democratic government supported by the United States flying???

HAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHHHAAHHAHAHHAAHAH

The whole region is going theocratic.

0

JLoh21 7 years, 7 months ago

I like how al gore made a movie about global warming and now as we move from summer into fall things have cooled off and it is thanks to him.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

Tychoman,

I........forgot again. Please forgive me.

Forgettingly, Conservativeman

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

What on earth makes you think I have or want a boyfriend?

Have fun sleeping alone with your homophobia and gay stereotypes tonight. Neanderthal.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

observer 7 years, 7 months ago

con-man is a joke. you have to treat him like a 3 year old. That's actually about his level of maturity and common snse.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

There's a difference between satire and all-out slander. Some of the crap he used to post used to make me laugh but once again, he's crossed the line into all-out offensiveness. Whether it's a joke or not, it still offends me to REPEATEDLY be referred to as pro-terrorist.

0

observer 7 years, 7 months ago

you have to overlook con-man, he's new at posting satire. Little beyond his skill levels.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

That post is so offensive it's not even funny, conman.

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 7 months ago

No responsible politician wants to "cut and run" from Iraq; what everyone is - or should be - watching is whether or not the Iraqi national government can stem the slide into civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

The two religious opponents are fleeing into safe areas - where they can live and operate in relative safety. What this may mean eventually is a de facto Sunnistan and its neighboring Shiastan; the former supported and armed by Saudi Arabia and Eygpt, the latter by Iran.

Our soldiers are over there to buy the national government time. If the national government can grow and be an effective governing body, then the sacrifices of our soldiers will be worthwhile.

If the national government - and the Iraqi security forces - cannot prevent civil anarchy, then we will have lost and Iran will celebrate our loss of face.

No politician - Democrat or Republican - can really do anything but continue to support the Iraqi national government to the best of our ability.

Cal Thomas should know better.

0

paladin 7 years, 7 months ago

C-man, I'd tip my hat to you, but I haven't got a hat. Da da da da daaa da da. What a guy. But, I think maybe you've been outed.

0

observer 7 years, 7 months ago

con-man, good thing I know you. Some might take your posts as something other than great satire.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

It is my opinion and this opinion is shared by millions of patriotic Republican Americans that the following is evident:

  1. Liberals are against America and are traitors.
  2. Liberals and Islamofacists have many of the same goals.
  3. Terrorists and liberal Democrats are the cause of most world problems.
  4. Anti-American sentiment is a liberal value.
  5. Supporting terrorism is part of the DNC platform.
  6. Communism is the goal, socialism the path, democratic party the tool.
  7. Democrats hate private ownership.
  8. Democrats use welfare to keep the races down.
  9. Democrats use abortion to kill minorities.
  10. Conservatives are the last defense against liberal tyranny!

Sums it up pretty well. Give war a chance!

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

What a ludicrous post, as usual. I love how people/animals/wastes-of-space like you throw around "America" like it's a magical, superpatriotic term or a word that should be on a platinum pedestal above any other country's name.

Democrats do not support terrorism. Democrats do not hate America.

This is a stupid article anyway. I don't recall anyone blaming Bush specifically for higher gas prices. Whoever DID complain about gas prices doesn't have any right to because, per gallon, we pay more for other products we use more of anyway, plus other parts of the world pay double what we do and they don't whine, snivel and drool on themselves the way the complainers on this forum do.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

"Were the Bush administration to announce it had discovered the fountain of youth and cures for cancer and adolescent rebellion, it wouldn't be enough."

Just substitute Clinton for Bush here and you pretty much sum up 1992-2000.

0

BigAl 7 years, 7 months ago

Conservativeman. Instead of slinging tired old talking points and right wing spin, how about actually trying to respond to Curtiss?

0

BOE 7 years, 7 months ago

" Were the Bush administration to announce it had discovered the fountain of youth and cures for cancer and adolescent rebellion, it wouldn't be enough. "

===

There wouldn't be a need for the Bush administration to announce it had discovered adolescent rebellion.

It exudes it.

0

BOE 7 years, 7 months ago

" When gas prices rose to near record levels this summer, it was supposedly due to the incompetence of the Bush administration.

If it was Bush's "incompetence" that caused the spike, does he now get credit for the decline? Market forces set gas prices, so he should neither be blamed for the spike, nor praised for the decline, but the Democrats won't see it that way. "

===

You want to know who else doesn't see it that way, Cal?

====

"Higher gas prices are a sign of a failed presidency."

-- Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, 1998,

0

staff04 7 years, 7 months ago

http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/

I like the way you think, but I think this guy, he is actually just a few fries short...

That would take some SERIOUS dedication to the cause to read all the talking points and conservative propaganda he references!

0

Art 7 years, 7 months ago

I was just thinking, a fella who didn't like conservatives could sign on here with a rightwingnut-sounding name and rant and rave like a dang fool and create the impression that conservatives are generally nuts.

Then I had that oh-my-gosh moment, and realized that might be exactly what Conservativeman is doing.

I mean, we all know Arminimus has a few screws loose; he's the real deal. But trying to make conservatives look ludicrous actually is a good explanation for the drivel Conservativeman types.

Maybe he's smarter than he gets credit for.

Maybe Conservativeman is actually Curtiss, or Holygraileale, or Agnostick, or Defender, or Xenophonschild. He writes something dumb as Conservativeman, then answers it with a much smarter argument from one of the above.

Or, maybe I'm wrong, and contemporary conservatives really are that oblivious, and don't need an imposter to make them look like fools. It was just a thought.

0

staff04 7 years, 7 months ago

Curtiss:

That was beautiful. Thanks.

0

logicsound04 7 years, 7 months ago

Honestly, what kind of truth can people actually expect from coerced testimony.

There was a time in our country when a President advocating the admission of COERCED testimony would have heard calls for a new President.

I wish people could see this issue more personally. I think that the reason almost half the country tolerates this gestapo, facist bull$hit is because they sit in their private little world and think :

"I'm not a terrorist and I don't engage in suspicious activities, so I won't be affected, and the terroists will be brought to justice; win, win!"

However, the problem with laws like this is that your lack of involvement in suspicious activities is not only irrelevant (since you have no rights once you are a suspected terrorist), but it is hard for us to know what these terrorist investigtors find "suspicious". As a recall, after 9/11, John Lennon's "Imagine" was banned from the radio--apparently that song was suspicious.

Lets also not forget that a mentally handicapped man was killed in the name of anti-terrorism; what would you tell his family about "suspicious activties" and what exactly warrants that classification?

Laws like this are dangerous because they don't affect you negatively until its too late to save yourself because you have no power of defense.

0

billyflay 7 years, 7 months ago

coitus, may i interuptus?

the more bad guys killed the better, don't be confused by all the back ground noise from the liberal press,

just remember, bad guys need to die,

to surrvive we need to kill them before they kill us,

it's the law of the jungle,

0

ksmoderate 7 years, 7 months ago

Cal talks about falling gas prices.

He posits that the recent decline in the cost of gas is due to natural market economics.

So, the demand has gone down? Up until a couple of weeks ago, I remember reading that DESPITE higher gas prices, most americans were buying as much or more gas than a year ago. Anybody else smell a fish?

My humble, uneducated guess is that someone figured out how to lessen the price of gas as we approach the Nov. elections.

Thoughts? Discuss.

(Lunatic Fringe Boy--I mean, conservativeman, do us all a favor and stay out of this one. We've all heard the BushCo. talking points over and over and over again already. Repeating something does not make it the truth.)

0

ksmoderate 7 years, 7 months ago

I think "Canuckistan" is a derogatory term for Canada?

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

This is interesting as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

"WASHINGTON - President Bush pushed a hard line Wednesday on trying terror suspects through military tribunals, exhorting Congress to allow evidence to be withheld from a defendant if necessary to protect classified information. "

"In both military and civilian courts, a defendant's right to see evidence is viewed as indispensable to mounting an adequate defense.

"I think it's important that we stand by 200 years of legal precedents concerning classified information because the defendant should have a right to know what evidence is being used," said McCain, R-Ariz.

Another potential point of conflict is whether coerced testimony should be admissible. Administration officials have said allowing coerced testimony in some cases may be necessary, but McCain said the committee bill would ban it entirely."

So, Bush is proposing that we, America- land of justice and fairness, should be able to withhold evidence from those who are defending themselves against accusations. What a lovely way of showing the world that America is for truth & justice.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 7 months ago

Curtiss, could you please share a link to that CNN story you referenced in your first post in this thread? I'd like to read the entire article.

Thanks! :)

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Here's a snippet...

"As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria. "

and another one...

". . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed - he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier - recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world. "

0

logicsound04 7 years, 7 months ago

For those of you that are new to Conservativeman's unitelligent, hate-ramblings, here is a brief Conman's Dictionary, to help diffuse any confusion that he injects onto the message boards:

mindless rant = well-reasoned argument with citations

democrat = communist

hate = criticism of subpar leadership

anti-American = not Conservativeman or Cal Thomas traitor = taxpaying, voting citizen

question = answer

0

Curtiss 7 years, 7 months ago

Wow, C-man. I didn't think you were deranged, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you'd just drunk the GOP Kool-Aid, and would say anything, true or not, to support President Cheney and his bunch.

Sorry, but you just lost the benefit of the doubt.

You just made up a whole lot of stuff that I allegedly believe. You obviously have no idea what I believe, and from that we can assume you have no idea what two thirds of the people in America believe (the two thirds that know the Iraq war is a lie and a failure).

I do not hate America period. I do not hate an America "that embraces individual liberty." You kind of put your foot in your mouth on that one, because lately "Individual Liberty" has become a Democratic concept, seeing as how the GOP has come out against it every chance they can. I'm all for America, AND I'm all for individual liberty.

I do not want "Amercia to fail" as you so charmingly tried to say. By supporting such fairy-tale based policy, you obviously do. Personally, I want America to base its policy on truth and facts. And succeed.

I don't blame America for everything I don't like, but lie-mongers like you are certainly a big part of the problem.

As for your silliest point, "America elected GWB by a majority." How many times do I have to review these very simple points before you'll absorb them and realize the truth?

1) A majority elected Gore in 2000. Nobody questions that.

2) The professional audit paid for by all the big corporate media showed that Gore won Florida in 2000 by thousands of votes, which means that he actually won the electoral college vote too.

3) Bush was appointed to the presidency by his dad's pals in 2000, and nothing can ever change that.

4) The same cheating that took place in Florida in 2000 was rampant in Ohio in 2004. Against odds of billions-to-one, almost all errors benefitted Bush.

5) The GAO, the investigative arm of (the GOP controlled) Congress, officially certified the Ohio vote as so fraught with cheating and errors that the actual result was "unknowable." Losing Ohio loses the electoral vote, so Bush was not actually elected in 2004 either. It's certified by Congress.

So since you apparently think truth, facts and history are only "libtard" concepts, your goofy character assassination attempts only embarrass you. You don't do much for the conservative movement locally because, after all, who would want to identify with you?

Incidentally, I read the papers to, so I also know that the advertised image of the GOP as being better defenders against terror is THE ONLY SINGLE POSITIVE THING pollsters can find Americans saying about Republicans. And I also know that the fall election plan is to hammer that one propaganda point over and over and over and over. So I understand why you feel you need to say it. It must be disheartening to have only the one argument, and to know that even that one's based on fairy tales.

0

staff04 7 years, 7 months ago

conservative man is one heckuva cheerleader, isn't he?

0

prioress 7 years, 7 months ago

Cal sometimes stumbles onto the truth. He did not, however, do so today. The issue is much more complex than either side lets on. We cannot work our way out of this through executive murder (AKA the Army and Marines) and the long-term solution is a combination of diplomacy and economics. BUSHCO's major failing on the international scene is their refusal to talk to our enemies. Good diplomacy has always required this and the tradition goes back to the middle ages. The military IS an important component of the effort, but cannot be the primary tool of our foreign policy.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

jonas 7 years, 7 months ago

You're not trying to confuse Conservativeman with facts and reality, are you? Can't you see that he's trying to pontificate?

Unfortunately, Cal knows that his reader base won't remember, or perhaps just refuse to acknowledge, the general American apathy towards Terrorism prior to 9/11, and can thus use lack of prior response to paint a picture that his pre-judging, spoon-fed base wants to see, and so he continues to make money. Disgusting.

0

Curtiss 7 years, 7 months ago

Conservativeman demonstrates exactly how out of touch the NeoCon GOP leadership is, how little the truth matters to them. Truth is what they say it is.

I point out a past CNN story with an excerpt showing how the GOP blocked Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts at every turn (remember all the "Wag the Dog" publicity, where the Republicans said Clinton just wanted to pretend there was terrorism to keep us from focusing on the real story, which was his zipper?), not a made-up Cal Thomas fable but an actual news story.

Remember, the GOP wouldn't even let him tap terrorist's phones?

Remember the headline it carried?

"GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation"

C-man responds: "A vote for a dimocrat is a vote for terrorism."

He obviously sees white and feels the need to shout out that it's black. Don't you wonder how that happens? Is it brain damage, childhood trauma, drugs, or what?

This guy, who obviously supports us borrowing tons of money from China so we can split it between tax relief for Paris Hilton and health care for Iraqis while driving the country into generations of debt, who obviously supports us pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into stirring up a hornet's nest in a hellish quagmire with no end and no way out in sight, who obviously thinks it's a great idea to send your sons and daughters by the thousands to be ground up and killed in a military operation doomed to failure and reviled by two thirds of the American people,... this is the guy that says:

"Why do you liberals want America to fail?"

Conservativeman, whether you're serious, or just a mindless troll here to stir up emotions and pointless internet traffic, you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you hate Americans so much, you should just leave. Go to Iran. They have a nice, conservative, religiously oriented government there, with legislated morality. You'd love it.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 7 months ago

Cal hits another HOMERUN,

Dimocrats haven't a clue about defense, about security. A vote for a dimocrat is a vote for terrorism. THats how I and many other Americans see it.

Why do you liberals want America to fail? Why do you support terrorism?

It must be some psychological defect.

Cal is the MAN!!

0

Curtiss 7 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.