Another Republican/Conservative commentator takes a hit at Bush

Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman from Florida and current attorney and news commentator wrote the following commentary. Scarborough was elected in 1994 to the House as part of the Republican majority and was a fervent supporter of Gingrech's contract for America.

It seems like there is serious dissension in the land of the true believers!

 

The media are the true heros here. Their calculated campaign, just like in Vietnam, has paid off for the democrats and the enemies of our country. Who could ask for more?

 

Media is both good and bad Gtech. I disagree. In some cases it is revealing news people want to know and/or news the administration is controlling for a variety of reasons.

What do you think of this one; USAtoday and AP submitted a freedom of information request to find out which are the 1200 levees that are weak and subject to breaking in times of heavy floods.

According to the Corps of Engineers head guys they accumulated the info and then told the communities concerned. Then the Freedom of info request hit and they gave the info to the press.

If I'm a community member w/in one of the cities...I wanna know about it. Will it cost me tax money? Do I have to buy flood insurance? and all sorts of questions and issues.

If I'm a terrorist....cripes that's another soft target!

So how would you treat that as a press issue?

 

I'm not concerned about it as a media issue. The issue here is, the media have and continue to portray anything related to Bush and the war in Iraq as a one-sided campaign against him. I can't imagine anyone is so blind, they cannot see this. Whether it's the AP literally making up stories (search Jamil Hussein), the NYT going so far as to commit treason, or NBC with it's crooked "fake but accurate" stories, or CNN's blatant biased reporting, or an MSNBC military anylist/guest blogger for WAPO who says what the left really thinks...smearing troops.

Of course, anyone that actually follows news doesn't actually need these things pointed out:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203

Now, tell me again, with a straight face, that those of you that simply hate Bush no matter what, haven't had your victory handed to you on a silver platter by the media.

Even worse, I recall last year the complaints you raised about not sending enough troops. Of course, generals always suggested they had enough. Then Bush/Military puts a new plan together to send in more troops and suddenly you (and the democrats who had been calling for such) are disappointed.

Let's go to the media to confirm this one as well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm

Could democrats be any more hypocritcal? They spend years crying about troop levels, when generals say there is enough. Then when a new plan comes about that requires more troop levels, they're against it. Flip/flop.

Perhaps kerry changed his mind after meeting with and giving aid and comfort, yet again, to our enemies?

 

The hate thing (hate Bush or hate Democrats) is obviously two sided.

Calling the NYTimes, Kerry, and Murtha traitors is an example of hatred from the other side.

We obviously disagree on tons of issues.

Clearly, I am one who is fed up w/the administration. I am also one who would like to crush terrorists. I don't think we are doing it in Iraq. I also don't think that will be easy or quick. I believe that the Iraq situation has made the US situation worse.

My quick interpretation is that the administration got lots of leeway on the War in Iraq from the Press and public for quite some time.

A listing of things having gone wrong, not unlike what Scarborough, wrote is a fair example why someone like me has soured on the administration.


I don't believe there are easy answers with regard to either the war in Iraq, the long term issue with extreme Islamic terrorists, and security for the US but I don't believe the administration is pursuing a path that is working.

I'm happy to see lots of reporting on the war. It is illuminating for the public to be educated as to current situations.

I was a young adult during the war in Vietnam and lived through its evolution, both in terms of our involvement, our escalation of the war, the growing dissent and public unhappiness with the war and ultimately our pulling out.

There are no easy pat answers. I'd rather see the public well educated about the situation then otherwise.
I wouldn't speak for all those who are not happy with the administration.

 

Possibly. But there are *real* reasons from one side and just made up reasons from the other.

No, it's calling it the way it is. Holding them accountable for the deplorable behavior. I will admit, that some people do admire treason and those that sell our country out. I can't say I'll ever understand. Perhaps the blind hatred of Bush makes otherwise rational people subscribe to irrational ideas.

I cannot understand how one wants to crush terrorists, yet blindly supports the democrat party (even when some commit treason). The two ideas just simply do not add up. Democrats have demonstrated time and again they are weak on security and are not serious about going after terrorists. In fact, democrats want to take away the lawful tools used to do so, virtually tying our country's hands behind it's back. We are crushing them in Iraq. Though the media is loathe to report it, there are some outlets that actually report it. The Iraq "situation" is made worse, and only worse, no matter what...by the media.

I cannot see how you can *honestly* (key word there) offer such an interpretation based upon what I posted above. How does one come to such an opposite conclusion with nothing to back it up?

Just like in Vietnam, the media has worked (in some cases deliberately...CNN, AP) as agents of our enemies. The only difference, that we're not aware of yet, is that kerry actually met with our enemy during Vietnam, while still a commissioned officer of the Navy reserves, to discuss terms of surrender and how his group, VVAW, could assist their efforts back in America.

For Bush haters, especially those whose hatred is so severe that they would sell our country out before giving him credit for *anything*, the media has done a fantastic job of misinformation. It's really disgraceful.

 

GTech:

You say we are crushing them in Iraq. Please list the successes and describe how and where we are crushing them. I don't see it that way.

 

There are daily reports about how our troops, as well as Iraqi troops, are taking out large numbers of terrorists there. Don't even try to put that kind of burden on me, when there is so much left unresponded to in my last post. I know a good diversion when I see one.

 

I acknowledge that we keep taking out large numbers of terrorists, shiites and sunni militias.

It doesn't seem to me that means we are winning. Its like the Isreali's. They keep taking out lots of terrorists and they haven't yet won (its been 50 years!)

I know we whipped the Iraqi military. That was quick. We killed the al queda guy, Saddam's sons, caught saddam, had him tried, and saw him hung.

meanwhile the fighting goes on.

A British general who has been around for decades recently wrote something about the different conditions in wars between the past and more recent things (say Vietnam era and since then). He described something like in the past we fought armies and military forces. Now we are fighting amidst the country and the populace. its very different. ( I don't remember the guy's name). Its not the same kind of fighting. The guy might have something!

I think it means the West needs to rethink how we do this.

(I'm not trying to divert you....I'm trying to engage you in a discussion....even though I know we are on very different sides!)

 

So we have that issue resolved. It's really a non-issue because we take out far more of them they are taking out of our soldiers. The problem there though, is that these terrorists are focused on taking out Iraqis. Not just sectarian violence. Now think about how bad it will be if we pull out before the Iraqi Army is prepared to take over?

Depends on who is defining winning and what those milestones are. It doesn't mean "we" are losing either. Even though many democrats want a loss because they hate Bush that bad. Israel is still Israel, therefore it hasn't lost itself. This ought to be the eye opener that terrorists don't just give up. It's a shame the democrat party has no interest in defending our country. If democrats were half as vigilant about going after terrorists as it were in going after Republicans, there would be no question.

And it will continue after we pull out. The choice is either leaving Iraq as it is now, and letting terrorists take over (I acknowledge that many here want that to happen), or doing like we did in fallujah and taking a direct assault on them to clear out what can be cleared out, then turn things over to the Iraqi army.

We're fighting an enemy who believes that fighting us is the most assured way to get 72 virgins in heaven. They want to die.

 

You and I would like to see the terrorists whipped. We disagree on methods.

Blaming the democrats for everything wrong and accusing them of defeatism is the exact same as blaming Bush for everything.

Current conditions no longer apply, IMHO, to our "winning" or "losing" in the sense that we won WWII with allies and crushed the German, Japanese, and Italian military.

Whether we were to pull out shortly or stay for a decade the fighting might well go on. I don't think we or any of the very top military and strategic leaders have a good fix on that.

In terms of your last paragraph.....I would like to help them find a way to do that quickly and in mass....but I don't have an answer on that one......yet.

BTW: I read the entire article by Wilson. he is a very well known and respected academician...and has been around for decades. He is also well known as being conservative and using his smarts and analyses to push forward certain perspectives that promote his political leanings. Other similarly respected acadamicians from the other side have debated his findings over decades.

I was too young at the beginning of Vietnam to remember it all....but definately it was better received by the American public during the earlier years of the 60's than the later years.

Gotta go (to be continued! ) I'm sure!

 

Democrats don't have methods. The Clinton administration proved that. Remember Sandy Burglar?

I'm not, nor have I blamed them for everything wrong. We're talking about a very finite, yet extraordinarily important issue. However, I do note that from my perspective, you do blame *everything* whether, real, or perceived, on Bush. Isn't that the crux of all the posts you start? I mean, you could have started a post about the SF Mayor's admitted affair with is best friend's wife. But, he was a democrat, so probably better to not bring it up, right?

So for years, democrats (including yourself) harp on "more troops, more troops" but when Bush (once again) gives the democrats what they want, the democrats (including yourself) are suddenly against it? I simply cannot think of anything more hypocritcal than that. I can't even count the number of times I've seen you raise that as an issue, but now since democrats get their way (once again), you don't support it? How does that work?

Bush has given the democrats exactly what they wanted with Iraq from day one. Prior to Bush ever being elected as President, democrats were screaming for war with Iraq. Democrats were screaming "WMD, WMD, WMD in Iraq!" Democrats from every corner talked about how bad saddam was, how we (as in, our nation) could not let saddam build WMD, could not let saddam bully the world.

Then along comes Bush. We get attacked because the incompetence of the Clinton administration (three times they could have taken bin laden out, but didn't). Bush, determined to never sit around (like the democrats) and let our country get attacked again, starts listening to all that "rhetoric" the democrats spouted for years. He takes action against those in Afghanistan and then action against another enemy the dems have been crying was a threat for YEARS, to make sure he doesn't get the chance.

So Bush did the dirty work for the democrats. Dems longed for war for years before he was in office and when he gets into office, gives the democrats exactly what they've wanted all these years. Same intel, same positions democrats have had all along.

But when things get tough, democrats start whining. They start back pedalling. They start flip/flopping. They start preaching defeat and retreat, surrender, how bad Bush is for doing what they wanted all along. Talk about hypocrisy! Democrats should be grateful that Bush has done their dirty work for them. Dems got exactly what they wanted, exactly what they've been calling for, for years prior to Bush getting into office. They got exactly what they voted for in Congress...the war with Iraq they always wanted when Clinton was in office. The benefit for the democrats is, they got what they wanted, but then paint Bush as the evil man for doing what they wanted in the first place! Deceptively clever, don't you think?

Nor do democrats, nor have they ever had any ideas, other than the fact they wanted the war in the first place, but when things get tough, they are the first ones to should surrender. I believe all anyone could ask for, is one last surge (after all, dems, including yourself have been preaching more troops for at least two years now), clean out the terrorists like they did in Fallujah and turn things over to the Iraqi army. I'm not about staying there forever. The fighting will continue after we pull out. But doing so prematurely will ensure a success for terrorists in taking over Iraq. I do realize that some, right here on this board, are in favor of the terrorists taking over (not a dig at you in the least bit, I've never sensed that about you).

I'd much rather see it happen sooner, than later. I remember the success of Fallujah. It was a brilliant operation that went through the city, home/dwelling by home/dwelling, taking out zarqawi's fighters and recapturing the city. Given, Bahgdad is far bigger, an operation like this will be just as successful, taking out the "bad guys," securing areas, turning these areas over to the Iraqi army. I don't know what the plan is after the operation, but I do hope 1) it's successful (Fallujah was, and when our "boys" are not restricted due to political pressures, they can actually go in and do their job) and 2) when complete, they start turning even more than already is, over to Iraqi army control and 3) start bringing our troops home.

I think it's absolutely dangerous to do anything less and believe we will end up back there, in worse conditions, just a few years down the road, if not.

He raises some good questions and even more so, points out some interesting statistics regarding the media. I've taken it that since you haven't really countered with anything against the claim I've made about the media, is probably because it's true. The media has been nothing short of absolute shamefulness. I pray to God that some day, conservatives will take over the role of journalists some day and bring some real integrity to the media. Thank God these freaks and liars were not around during WWI and WWII.

Until Cronkite came along. The media was shameful then too. So were liberals back then, spitting on our soldiers when they came home, treating them like shit for a job they had no choice but to do. kerry made it all the worse, by lying before the Senate and having met with enemies of our country to assist them. On Fox, earlier this week, an Iraq Veteran that lost his leg was at the protests last weekend, said he was called names and spit on by protesters. What a shame.

I was far too young then (Vietnam). My sister and I were kids in the early 70s. It really didn't set in with me what it was all about. I knew we were at war, but didn't know for what and had no grasp of how big the world was. I saw hippies all the time, the peace symbols, the protests. The t-shirts, the beards, the stoners. I loved the music. I remember seeing Nixon on TV. But at that age, and not being something talked about in school, it just never set in what it was all about.

 

I am trying very hard to avoid GTechs post so thankfully haven't looked at any in this thread.

Did he say the US are crushing them in Iraq???

Oh lordy.

 

Seems to me you are following me around like a little pound puppy! Every post I make, along comes 1/2 of dumb and dumber right there sharing with the world how stupid he is.

Yes, I was saying the US is crushing your buds in Iraq. I know, you have strong emotional feelings for your buds, but they are losing and you'll have to come to grips with the losses of your buds

 

Exactly. Any time I see Dem Chuck Schumer on TV shilling his book, he's always repeating the same thing about opposing the troop surge. He's like a walking
soundbite. It wouldn't have mattered what the President decided to do, because the Dems would have opposed it anyway. Dems don't have a plan. They just have an anti-plan.

 

torunforever, I came across this story/opinion journal today that gave me chills when I read it. It fits this discussion so well, it's as if he was reading this topic in the future, then going back a few days ago to comment on it. It really hits home.

I hope Earlpearl and especially some of the more hateful posters like gworld, AGS, mistermix, ferret (to name a few) would read this with an open mind.

http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/e_jeffers/02012007.htm

Just a few snips. The story has quite a bit more to it. It's a good read. One that might make (at least) a few here re-think about what they do and how they are affecting others over something they've not been asked or required to do anything about in the first place.

 

Point by point response:

I'm not sure that means anything. but it immediately attacks democrats. what's up do you hate democrats more than terrorists. Certainly seems that way with this as a first comment.

I do blame a lot on Bush. No doubt about it. While you say you don't blame democrats lets look at some of your most recent threads in P&R

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=230777

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=207819 (about democrats--though it points out that Senator Boxer acted against a questionable Islamic group)

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=201982 Your title--Bad news for terrorist supporters. (btw reread some of the comments on this one)

So if you are saying I blame Bush....yup. That is right. If you are saying that you don't blame democrats or equate them with terrorist supporters then I'd say that is misleading.

(btw, I don't blame him for everything...and as you know I'm not against every aspect of everything he has done...but I disagree with this war in Iraq.)

As far as the mayor in San Francisco story....I couldn't care. Just as you couldn't care about the press actions with regard to the publication about weak levees referenced at the top of this thread.

I left out a lot of paragraphs.

Between 1991 and the start of the war in Iraq all sorts of Americans, including Democrats and Republicans spoke out against and warned against Iraq. Nobody started a new war against Iraq prior to 9/11.

One group of people that spoke out against Iraq were members of PNAC, Project for a New American Century set up in the late 1990's. Members and founding members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Wolfewitz, and others who are generally described as neoconservatives. (Jeb Bush was a member-but not George W. Bush)

All these guys were in the current Bush administration when the plans for the war on Iraq started.

If you are going to blame democrats for everything Bush did then you are simply rewriting history, not paying attention to Republicans who spoke out against Iraq prior to 9/11, and not paying attention to who was in the administration and who developed plans for the war on Iraq.

Currently there are many democrats and republicans who are speaking out against the war in Iraq. Some of the republicans include members of the administration back in 2003, and who are no longer there. Others include current members of congress. As referenced above one such person is Scarborough, whom I quoted at the top and was a conservative republican member of congress from 1995-2001

More democrats spoke out against the Iraq war earlier than republicans. Now republicans are doing so and/or disagreeing with Bush. One republican who started speaking out against the war at a very early time was Sen. Chuck Hagel, though he initially voted for the war. Of interest Hagels record, per the congressional quaterly is that he virtually always votes with the current administration.

Well I disagree with the first sentence part about ....the first ones to surrender. Personally, making statements about one party and equating them as surrenderors or terrorist lovers or anything like that is problematic and leads to horrible domestic strife. When we do that stuff it makes coming to hard decisions harder. Real decisions get screwed up with politics.

In terms of wanting more troops. I voiced concern about troop levels some time ago here. I'm sure I read about these concerns earlier. Per testimony following the election it military leaders have hard cofirmed that the ongoing war in Iraq is specifically straining the army and marines. I have a deep concern about that. I've similarly read about 2 strains of republican thought on these issues; one concerned about the strain on the military and one concerned about winning in Iraq with the two sides unnable to come together on this dilemma. I don't argue with hard debate--I argue against attacking one side (more on that later).

As regards equating Fallujah with Baghdad I see that you went into this in more detail later. I noted a while ago in thread about how to continue you expressed similar thoughts about going through Baghdad. I sorta liked the thinking...but I am doubtful about it.

Of course if this worked--and it worked quickly that would be great IMHO.

Even as this plan has been advanced and is moving forward there are many, including some in the military who doubt it. Some of the so called problems include:

The shiites putting down their weapons, hiding and waiting out till the American effort ends; (there have been news reports about this one)
The Iraqi government not supporting the effort against the shiites.
It may not be enough troops. (Casey said its more troops than we need)
Insufficient and non quality support and coordination with inadequate Iraqi troops.

I acknowledged Wilson's fame and reputation above. I don't have the capability to counter his research nor would I want to spend the time. I merely suggest that other academics would probably research the issue in a different way and come up with other alternative ways of disecting how the American public turned against the Vietnam war.

I won't bother with commenting on the last part of your comments. I don't have a problem with it.

I was older than you in the 70's and went through it. Everyone develops their own perspectives. I recall that there was inititially public support and then it soured. For Americans in total there were two really bad aspects igonoring consequences of the war and the total number of Americans who died. One was how Americans treated our soldiers. That was terrible. Many Americans treated soldiers like cr@p.

That has changed in this war. Generally Americans have tremendous respect for American soldiers. That is good.

The second bad consequence was how it ripped Americans apart into terrible partisinship that in some ways continues to this day. Partisinship screws up governance and leads to cr@ppy decisions from both parties, IMHO.

Where do I stand? I'd like to see us beat radical islamic terrorism. I agree with that simple statement recently from Cheney who sees this as a long term battle that could take several administrations into the future.

I don't think Bush is going through this well. While I'm one of those who wanted to see the war in Iraq turn out well for Americans it hasn't. Frankly I like the way Scarborough described it above (the part I highlighted).

Since I don't think we are going about this well I lean toward getting out of Iraq earlier rather than later...and rethinking how to combat this threat across the board. The guy I agree with the most is Thomas Friedman, editorial commentator at the NYTimes and book writer. He supported the war in Iraq initially. He is unhappy with it now.

We should put everything into neutralizing the benefit of oil. Do everything we can to keep the prices low by developing alternative fuels. Keep the cash from flowing into oil rich Islamic (and other countries) and starve them financially.

In the meantime, yup, we should increase the size of American ground forces in the Army and Marines. Over time that will be hugely expensive.

We should be putting lots of effort into defending American borders and reworking alliances and support to better have allies help us take out or block dangerous foes. I agree we need to speak more with countries like Iran, Syria, etc. I think we are wasting American lives and money in Iraq, let alone further alienating us from the rest of the world.

The one thing about this series of concepts that I find troubling is that pulling out of Iraq early will also have negative consequences but one way or the other I just see negative consequences in Iraq...so which is better for America. that is a judgement call IMHO.


Finally, in terms of attacking Bush or attacking dems....okay....I'll try and limit my attacks on bush....but in this forum....I see continued attacks on dems.

so what are we going to do about it?

Think I'll try a few more posts about transparency with regard to progress in the South, post Katrina. Its an issue all Americans should pursue. The feds are putting the most money and resources into recovery across the board in all states and progress is cr@ppy IMHO. Transparency about progress would identify beurocratic bs, identify who are the problems (feds, states, cities) find best practices and spread the best practices actions to areas where progress sucks.

 

You are of course correct:

Iraq is not in civil war.
3000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq have not died.
There was no bomb explosion today that killed 140 people.
Bush has not asked even for more money (250 billion) to waste on this war.

Everything is just a media conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

 

It means what it implies. Democrats have not methods for either the war or fighting terrorists. By their very party, they are weak.

No, let's try being honest for a change, EarlPearl. I didn't say "I don't blame democrats," I said I have not blamed them for everything wrong. In fact, one of your selective posts shows I thought (for a moment, at least) they might be "getting it." But they aren't.

What I said was "However, I do note that from my perspective, you do blame *everything* whether, real, or perceived, on Bush." And now you seem to be confirming it. There's a first step!

Incorrect, I do not know this at all (as suggested). Have never seen anything from you to even remotely suggest I could agree with such.

Exactly. He wasn't republican.

Clinton didn't have the balls to do what he himself, as well as his party, called for. He was too worried about his "reputation" and dealing with his lies and a scandal with an intern young enough to be his daughter. Still, democrats cried out en mass for war with Iraq. Bush gave them what they were too weak to do themselves.

Actually, one group that spoke out against Iraq were democrats:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4

It's a given that Republicans spoke out, based upon the intelligence and information democrats had gathered for their own case to go to war with Iraq long before Bush was in office. There is no "if" about it. What I'm pointing out, and what it seems like you wish to sweep under the rug, is that LONG before Bush was ever in office, democrats were calling for war with Iraq. Democrats were touting "WMD, nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, threat to the US, etc" LONG before Bush was EVER in office.

Doesn't matter. Democrats wanted war with Iraq, long before Bush was in office and Bush gave them what they wanted.

Again, doesn't matter. More red herrings to cover up the fact that Democrats wanted war with Iraq, long before Bush was in office and Bush gave them what they wanted. With 2008 elections coming up and the media (as pointed out with sources) have done what they do best, many candidates are naturally trying to back pedal, including Hillarious Clinton herself.

I've pointed this out before, in how you make calls like this, but then the next day, do the same yourself when it comes to republicans. It's as if it's a one way street with you. Tell me, was it democrats or republicans who first and still call for retreat and defeat?

So when democrats call for more troops and Bush delivers, they turn their back and decry the very plan they've been calling for? How does that work? How hypocritical. I'm not overly concerned with republicans that dissent. Most of those that are, are doing so because they plan to run for office.

It's not entirely uncommon for us to find some common ground. What is troubling to me though, is that democrats have been calling for "more troops" for so long and when Bush gives them what they want, democrats shun the idea. To me, that is nothing more than partisan politics based simply upon their hatred. There's really no other logical explanation I can come up with.

I'm a bit more optimistic. When it works, it will be great. Why the optimism? Despite the media's best efforts and some democrats as well, the one thing no one can take away from our military is, they have not lost a single battle in Iraq.

News to me. Even as this plan advances, there are many including many in the military, who believe it will succeed.

There is a possibility that this very well could happen on a small scale. However, if one had an understanding of how our troops went through Fallujah, building by building, room by room, one might have a bit more optimistic outlook. Fallujah was a huge success.

It's very disturbing information, of which seems to shared by a solider I posted about his story above.

The media was responsible for that sour turn. Not unlike they are today. People like jane (queen of treason) fonda and jawn (king of treason) carry (yep, I despise both for their treasonous behaviors) ultimately were responsible.

Initially, yes. Today, not so much. Refer to story above, refer to my comments about last weekends "peace" protest where a soldier was spit upon. Granted, it's not on the scale of Vietnam, yet, but give liberals enough time. Give liberals like Arkin (noted above) room in WAPO to spew his hatred, and it will escalate again. It sure won't be Republicans doing this.

I agree with that, but the way the media and democrats have conducted themselves doesn't look very prospective for continued success. Think about it, what democrat (other than maybe Lieberman) seems to have a genuine concern for thwarting terrorist plots? Democrats have proven time and again, they want to take away the legal tools our government uses to do such. I fail to see how anyone that is *really* serious (not just tossing out rhetoric) about fighting terrorism, could vote democrat. Democrats have a failed track record from the nineties and have fought tooth and nail to take away the tools necessary to do so in the 2000s. They've done nothing but complain all along the way.

I disagree. I don't think the media would cover anything positive or give him any credit, no matter what he did. And I've sourced a number of materials above to back that assertion up.

I believe anyone who relies on news outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the NYT, LAT, WAPO and a host of others, will have the same conclusion. That is what their motive is.

That's a long term objective. Very long term. That doesn't solve or address anything regarding terrorism. Whether oil exists or doesn't exist will have no bearing on those that want to kill Christians and Jews.

It will be expensive. This is one of Clinton's huge short comings (not just seeking blame for the sake of blame here). He gutted our military drastically during the 90s, during the time when terrorists were ramping up on his watch. It was a huge mistake. True, he gutted the military to reduce the deficit, but the outcome was a dissaster.

It's a two way street. Until recently, when d16man, azhitman and a few others showed up, there were times that I was taking on half a dozen or more "Bush haters" on any given day. Just flat outright vile and hatred. I'm extremely frustrated with democrats right now. The hypocrisy of calling for troops, calling for more troops, then Bush (once again) gives them what they want, and they turn their back, once again. I see nothing from any democrat to suggest anyone in the party leadership wants any level of success at all. All I see is retreat/defeat. Pessimism, no support. As I've pointed out before, democrats have such a hatred for Bush (for doing what they wanted all along), that they are willing to sell our country out rather than acknowledge anything that could be perceived as positive for Bush. I invite you to prove me wrong on that, but that's how I see it.

 

Blaming democrats for the war Bush started is an outrageous example of historical revision. It is total BS and an amazing distortion of history.

Who does stuff like this? The President of Iran recently hosted a meeting that there was no holocaust. That is similar.

Prior to 9/11 there was a nationwide level of unhappiness with Saddam Hussein. Americans across the board were unhappy with Hussein. In 1998 the Congress passed a law with incredible support across the board, that identified Hussein as dangerous and among other things supported some financial support for anti Hussein Iraqi's.

The vote in the Senate was unanimous. (remember it was a Republican majority at the time). The vote in the House was overwhelming with only about 30 Nay votes. (while Republicans and Democrats were both included in the Nay votes a majority of the Nays were Democrats.

Clinton was criticised for delaying signatture on the law and then for not fully funding the actions.


How does that Congressional action that included more Republicans than Democrats supporting anti-Iraq actions support that this was a war wanted by Democrats.

Your historical (or should I say hysterical) revisions are (to quote Cheney) HOGWASH.

Its sort of nuts. After 9/11 Bush articulated a response that stated that the US would engage in proactive actions against perceived enemies. He did this vocally and in writing and his speeches were widely distributed and noted.

Noone else did this. The effort against Iraq was purely, simply, singularly developed by the Bush administration.

Any claims otherwise are simply outrageous distortions of history.

The response to 9/11 to attack Afghanistan was widely supported in the nation and worldwide. The response to Iraq was another matter.

Subsequently, as is being revealed in the Libby case there is mounting evidence from testimony from Bush administration personnel that the administration was very aware and active in countering the claims of Wilson, which in turn countered claims from the Administration about the "reasons" for going to war in Iraq.

The entire Iraq situation should and does fall on Bush's shoulders. The American electorate recognized this during the elections this past November. A growing number of Republican politicians acknowledge this. The world acknowledges this.

The only ones who don't are those that are engaged in histerical/historical revisions.