Archive for Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Democratic delusions on war

September 6, 2006


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.


Curtiss 11 years, 8 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.

jonas 11 years, 8 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.

prioress 11 years, 8 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.

staff04 11 years, 8 months ago

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

Curtiss 11 years, 8 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.

ksmoderate 11 years, 8 months ago

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

ksmoderate 11 years, 8 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.)

Art 11 years, 8 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.

staff04 11 years, 8 months ago

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!

BOE 11 years, 8 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,

BOE 11 years, 8 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.

BigAl 11 years, 8 months ago

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

Tychoman 11 years, 8 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.

paladin 11 years, 8 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.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 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.

Tychoman 11 years, 8 months ago

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

Tychoman 11 years, 8 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.

Tychoman 11 years, 8 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.

Porter 11 years, 8 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!!

ksmoderate 11 years, 8 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.

Porter 11 years, 8 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!!

Curtiss 11 years, 8 months ago

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

BigAl 11 years, 8 months ago

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

Tychoman 11 years, 8 months ago

Is the word not complacent?

Clinton wasn't complacent, the GOP Congress was.

Big surprise. Story of their lives.

Curtiss 11 years, 8 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.

Tychoman 11 years, 8 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.

Tychoman 11 years, 8 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.

Tychoman 11 years, 8 months ago

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

Tychoman 11 years, 8 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.

Curtiss 11 years, 8 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.

Curtiss 11 years, 8 months ago


"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.


Scott Drummond 11 years, 8 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....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.