Well, you know, I think that’s his own decision. It would be better for the Democratic Party, I think it would be better for the people of Connecticut, it would be better for the country if he did it. Not because he hasn’t been a good Senator, not because he isn’t a good man, but this is a critical time. And we have to change course. We have to focus on those that attacked us on 9/11 and get away from this very mistaken policy in Iraq. So it would be helpful if he would do it, but obviously Joe will have to make that decision for himself.meanwhile, i am left to wonder, henry higgins-like, and ask, "why, oh why, can't chuck schumer (or bill clinton for that matter) be more like... a man... ?"
Sunday, August 13, 2006
fresh air...
when asked if lieberlips should get the hell out, russ feingold said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Heard Lamont lashing out at Cheney and others for the proposition that attacking the war emboldens our enemies. Lamont was offended.
Being offended is always the first card played in the liberal hand when one doesn't have any trumps.
(already, I hear G and Spared getting all hot and bothered. Or at least G, spared is simply hot
;-).
It occurs to me that this simply supports Lieberlips point about partisanship. We know, and can certainly agree that being against the war is not illegal or beyond the bounds of civil discourse. But Lamont is "offended" at the notion that this position emboldens our enemies. Yet, this position is also not beyond the pale, and IMHO, is correct. This nation's enemies do take comfort and hope from our internal division. It is only natural and predictable that they would do so. And it likely does result in them acting to inflict harm because they feel it gets them a tangible result. Conversely, if this country were of one voice on the war, it may well dissuade insurgents from taking action.
So, it is not incorrect to say that attacking the war emboldens our enemies. It does. It isn't illegal or uncivil to do so -- Lamont and any other person has the right to question our policy and undercut this Administration's efforts without running afoul of the treason laws. Voicing oppo to the prez is not the same as voicing support for the enemy, which is not the same as aid and comfort. I may not like it, but it is legal.
So why doesn't Lamont run on a platform of "dissent is patriotic and legal"? Two reasons: First, it is bad politics to buy into the debate because one will have to admit the possibilty that soldiers are dying because of your oppo. (among other reasons, like bone-headed foreign policy). Second, because it simply doesn't sell well. So, he resorts to the reliable standby position of being offended.
So much for ending the divisiveness.
the better point is the war in iraq has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do w/the war on terror... and the war is one of attrition, and unless you only want to hear what you want to hear and not the truth, don't read further: we are losing that war of attrition...
or how about this: this republican administration and it's republican rubber-stamp congress cannot fix the mess we're in...
all they know how to do is break things...
and a weasally enabler like lieberlips should be kicked to the curb quickly, and then kicked repeatedly...
that is all...
one more point - what emboldens our enemies is our not learning a damned thing from history...
staying in iraq is nothing short of stupid -- THAT emboldens our enemies: our stupidity, and our greed, and our oil addiction, and our complacency...
and the boring republican talking points...
Getting cranky in your old age, G.
Or is it divisive? (heh, heh).
I posit only that these things will come to pass, not that they are wrong or right. Fact is, we are headed toward another post-Vietnam style funk period. Who it gets blamed on, and who takes blame or credit for what happens during that period, has enormous ramifications for the foreseeable future.
My point is that the Dems are being set up to take that fall. Perhaps they know it, which explains their divisiveness.
G-
I concur with the point the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror - they are separate animals. I do not agree that republicans cannot fix the mess we are in. After a long talk with someone this weekend I realize these fascist, neo-conservatives have hijacked the Republican party, which explains why I sometimes agree with some of the points ( policies that promote fiscal responsibility, creation of social programs that enable citizens, not enslave them to welfare, school vouchers, etc) - then feel physically sick at the thought of having anything in common with them.
This is not the party of Abraham Lincoln... or Teddy Roosevelt. The party has evolved into a mutant that needs to be ripped apart so that it can not form a sequel.
Joe Lieberman is an enabler for the party, but if Democrats grew a pair more often and at the right time, a Lieberman would think twice about being photographed exchanging saliva with our resident idiot.
Mr. Feather -
"Conversely, if this country were of one voice on the war, it may well dissuade insurgents from taking action."
Re-read that... and ask yourself if you make sense. You are saying that if we all were FOR the war, that would dissuade the enemy? Not embolden them. But if we are AGAINST the war, this won't save a few lives?
Like Hezbollah, many of these terror organizations' issues are not with the American people. It's with our leaders and American policy. Like, invading countries that don't attack us first, or defending countries that attack civilians while we proclaim to move in the name of morals and humanity.
I realize you like to set off G, but some common sense is required for these discussions I would think.
Oh, and further, it is not simply staying in Iraq. That provides an initial impetus for the insurgency. The reason they persist is that they are encouraged by Iran, etc., who is encouraged (as are the insurgents) by their prospects of victory, which they gauge every night by CNN and the BBC.
Remember, victory for them is not total defeat of America. That cannot happen. The Vietnam did not defeat us either. We defeated ourselves. Whether or not it is deserved is a question left to historians. Again, I posit only that it will happen. And it will happen because, in part, they know that they can win this fight in their own way.
To think otherwise is delusional.
Despite what you are smoking, I refuse to believe you are that deluded.
I don't smoke or drink so I'll assume you are talking to G.
Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed you only see as far as the tube to explain how the insurgency reacts. You apparently either are incapable of or refuse to acknowledge how US policies have nurtured this hate. And that is also a bit reflective of the hubris that got us in the first place. So... I suppose it's also not a surprise. Shame though...
Spared,
Yes, I was replying to G.
Now to you:
The fact that our foreign policy had sucked in prior years, has little relevance to the current situation, except to explain "why they hate us." The insurgency is emboldened by our divisiveness because it is there only path to success. If it were not there, there would be no perception of success. Further, in the months following 9/11, when there was a widely-held perception of US resolve, we made significant inroads with other governments and with Arab NGOs. No further proof is needed than Pakistan's cooperation, and Libya's new-found interest in ending its tensions with the West. Governments are rational beings that act in their own interest, and one of those interests is to keep from being obliterated. When they perceive this, they get nice in a hurry.
I harken back to the Iran Hostage Crisis when the hostages were released just prior to Reagan being sworn in. Their stated reason was that they had intended to humiliate Jimmy Carter, and that had been accomplished.
Think about that: Carter as the face of the Great Satan. This strikes me as ludicrous, but they could not admit otherwise and save face. Later, we learned that they were afraid that Reagan would nuke them once he came into power. This was based in no small part on the fact that America was perceived to be royally pissed, and Reagan's election confirmed this to the world. Fact is, spared, the world listens, and this part of the world, where survival is a real issue, listens well.
Had I the time, I could come up with a lot of analysis from Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, or similar journals considered to be authorities, as I used to do when studying for my B.A. in Political Science, or my Masters class in [deleted] Policy.
But none of this will dispel the taint you perceive, that of someone who holds an opinion you decry as odious. I cannot rebut that and I won't try.
Baseless ad hominem doesn't piss me off nearly as much as those who insult my intelligence. Those people I cannot convince, and won't try. Further, I won't waste any more of my time on them.
Goodbye Spared and G. It was fun.
Oh jesus... did you not take your midol today? What would you like for me to have done Naahm? respond to your frequent comments on my "hotness" instead of address what I have commented on directly?
If you are offended by my bluntness, then I am offended by your need to address me by anything other than the content of my character.
Whatever my opinion is, I am entitled to it. If you cannot handle disagreement then you are right, there is no point to debating or even communicating. I think the feeling is mutual at this point.
u 2 really need to get a room... !!
;)
Oh shut up G, this is your fault!
well, if we were married i'd agree w/u...
>phew!<
If we were married, I'd get half this blog and change your last name to spared!
as it stands, i've been *spared*...
AHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAH... !!
Sos un cretino... y por suerte no hablas castellano asi que matate!
LOL
Post a Comment