Dishfunctional, welcome to SDMB. It’s good to have an impassioned voice from the opposition.
I find parts of your post a little contradictory:
How can you post that after having said:
The last part of your sentence contradicts the first two lines of your sentence. Your words are slogans that are said in every war. I’ve been hearing them for sixty years. At least you left off “Freedom is on the march.” Thanks for that.
A few women have died in this war too.
If you are unable to handle strong opinions, even those stated as fact, against Bush, you will be unnecessarily limiting yourself here. Liberals tend to outnumber Conservatives at the Dope.
In the spirit of the OP, I hope that both parties offer differing but worthy visions of the course that the US should undertake. I think the nation would be better off if men of vision and conviction were to take over the Democratic party and men of integrity and tolerance were to take over the Republican party.
The OP is correct, in 2006 nobody is going to base their votes on Scooter Libby’s fate. What is going to dwarf everything else is Iraq. By election day next year, very likely the death count will be over 3000. Very likely the insurgence will continue unabated. They may have a democratically elected government, but one with little actual control over the nation. The 2006 and possibly 2008 elections will be referendums on Iraq. A coherent Democratic alternative to the continuing drip-drip-drip of casualties would be warmly received.
I believe the best Democratic strategy is to offer a clear vision of what we believe the nation should be doing, not merely running against what the Republicans are doing. If the Democrats are successful enough in doing this (successful enough to overcome election fraud) , a return to power will follow. If not, then we don’t deserve to be in power.
Lest the Republicans get too cocky, I point out that the Democrats won pluralities in three of the last four presidential elections, and but for fraud would have won electoral majorities in all four.
You’ll have to make sense of yourself here, because this makes none in terms of the transaction I’ve outlined. We’re comparing “taking the same as before” with “taking less than before.” “Taking more” is not under discussion.
Which explains where I said:
Yeah, but all those models have to deal with basic arithmetic, OK? However the government widens its gap between what it takes in and what it pays out, the money doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s borrowed and has to be repaid by someone, or the value of the debt (along with everyone’s savings) is diminished through inflation, or whatever.
No matter what your economic or political model, these inconvenient realities don’t go away. (Bloviating won’t chase them away either.)
See above.
Fascinating. Maybe you should start a thread about this - it doesn’t seem to connect with anything in this discussion.
But handwaving and irrelevant comments never go out of style.
Thanks for the welcome, Zoe, and thanks, too, for the inside advice. I surely haven’t been here long enough to take a head count, but it does seem that either there are, as you say, more Dopers inclined to criticize the war effort than to support it, or its supporters are simply less vocal. Either way, I’ll try to remember that and temper my reactions accordingly.
As for my apparent inconsistency, I can see where my stated reluctance to trade “talking points” might seem to be contradicted by my subsequent use of them, but in my own defense, I feel the statement, “In a war where surrender is not an option and truce is not a possibility, there can be no peace without victory” is not a “talking point” but a legitimate and specific response to a suggestion that the war on terror had already been won, and that it was just the peace that we were now fighting for, a purely nonsensical statement. Furthermore, I believe the sentiment I expressed to be true on its face, and do not see how the fact that it has been said by others throughout history makes it any less so. My honorable opponent’s statements, however, which precipitated my withdrawal, that “the war in Iraq was fought on false pretenses” and “American soldiers… died in Iraq for political expediency and one man’s quest for personal ‘glory’” are not patently true and therefore more properly fit the term “talking points” in the sense to which I was referring.
However, in view of your earlier point regarding my minority status, and since I’m still a double-digit noob with too much free time and not enough common sense, I’ll defer to your critique and STFU.
I’m sorry… didn’t mean to ignore that remark. You’re right, of course, and I considered changing it when I typed it, but decided against it for two reasons: 1) It’s an awkward and contrived formulation when there’s no doubt as to the sense of the term, and 2) I wanted to be politically incorrect. Since it caught your attention, I’d say I suceeded.
It was not meant as a slogan, it was meant as the way I see it.
I can safely state, that in dealing with the “head choppers”, I can go as ruthless as anyone. I’ve gone on record in favor of the murder or assassination of specific individuals at least once, here on SDMB. However, I do not see the benefit in going after those who are not part of this group.
Don’t withdraw on my account. If you have something to say, you have as much right as I do.
I offer this snippet from the web as part of my “concern” over the war, the motives, and the arguments that were given to us as “fact” before, during and after…
On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoliezza [sick] Rice was on Meet the Press, making this astonishing statement:
"The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.
“Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it’s difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing.” This admission that allegations of weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda were not the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) was not only met with no challenge from host Tim Russert, …
I don’t think so, but there are others who might argue that the war has really been won. I wouldn’t advise contesting the notion, however… I’ve heard there are liberals lurking.
Fair question, elucidator. Here’s the way I see it:
The threat of al Qaeda overpowering our military here at home was never an issue. The threat of that happening can only come from ourselves, from within. If we are to be defeated, it will be only because we defeat ourselves. It was the loss of public support that caused our military to fail in the only losing war effort we’ve ever encountered.
If we were subject to daily bombings of our city busses, our subway and commuter stations, our schoolyards, shopping malls and amusement parks, all while we’re still fighting an active campaign abroad, you can bet we’d be re-thinking our war strategy in a hurry. What few have taken the time to ponder is that if we were ever to withdraw our troops in retreat, THEN is when it would really get ugly. I mean, c’mon… even John Kerry finally gets it.
But, as it stands, there has been not one successful domestic attack since 9/11. I would point to that fact as justification for the rationale that we are at the very least keeping the enemy busy recruiting more of their brethren and sending them along to join their holy jihad in Irag, and killing many of them in the process. As their successes diminish in the eyes of their radical supporters, and as the Iraqi’s defense capabilities increase in the eyes of neighboring Arab states, the opportunity for a declared victory on our terms inches closer.
So, since the threat you proposed never really existed, I’m not even sure if that’s a proper answer to your question. I do believe, however, that the internal threat I mentioned still exists - that if public support were to drop to untenable levels here at home, the war effort would fail and all who have died would have then died for naught. The fallout from that scenario is too bleak to even contemplate…
I swear, every time I hear that half-assed talking point, I think my hair will catch fire. “Oh, never mind the WMD stuff, that wasn’t the only reason, why, we hardly even mentioned it more often than every goddam waking moment!!” Please tell me that your contempt for our intelligence does not permit you to pee down collective necks and swear that its raining.
They started with nukes, when that appeared to be falling apart, they shifted to WMD, which, by definition, was just about anything they could think of. They even tried to claim that a balloon-filling apparatus was a mobile bio-chemical plant. Not just a state of the art bioweapons lab! Oh, no! On wheels, no less! ('Fess up…did you buy that one? You can tell us. We won’t laugh at you. Well, some of us might, but they probably already are…)
Remember Colin Powells dignifed surrender of his last scrap of self-respect, at the UN? You want to try and tell me it wasn’t almost entirely about the threat from Iraq? Go read the speech, tell me about how it wasn’t entirely about the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons. Double dog dare you!
WE were here, for Chrissake! We heard what they said, we argued about it here, at length, ad nauseum. If it wasn’t about WMD, then why the bleeding fuck was the ultimatum about weapons? “Saddam must disarm, or else!” Do you hear a lecture on bourgeios Parliamentary democracy, and the advantages of the free market system?
The war was about the threat from Iraq. There was no such threat. Period. Full stop.
Absolutely. And yet, one still has to wondr about previous mis-steps, changes in rationale, and the lack of any concrete physical evidence (the weapons that as was said in various speeches “we know they have them and we know where they are”). There are simply too many supposed “facts” that were not borne out, or were later contradicted by the serious lack of any physical evidence.
I promise I would never do that. I might douse an adjacent area, but only if your hair’s on fire.
OK. No contest, mate. This is kind of old news, but I’ll admit it again, if it makes you feel better: They were wrong. Now, just because they were wrong about the WMDs doesn’t mean that it was a lie, nor does it mean that it wasn’t part of the rationale for the invasion. But, as I said to SteveG1, just part of it. The rest of the reasons you’ve pretty much nailed.
The good part is, since you were here then, as you say, and you saw the part they were wrong about, you’re still here now to see the parts they were right about. So, try to focus. It’s not really all that complicated. Try to look at it as if it were a John Kerry policy and search for the nuance. I believe you’ll see that a person can clearly believe that there can be more than one compelling reason to do something, just as the war in Iraq can be part of a wider, global campaign against terrorism.
This is from American Conservative Magazine and was found by BobLimDem:
This ia from retired Lt Col Kwiatkowski, who was IN the Pentagon during much of the “proceedings”:
So, it wasn’t about nukes, WMD, head cutters, or anything else. The administration wanted war, and were not about to get “confused by the facts”. Then, there are still the CIA reports, the Blix reports, Powell’s quick resignation and subsequent slams, the Downing Street memo, Rice’s apparent error in stating the reasons behind the war (she has trouble keeping the lies straight?) and the utter failure to find any evidence at all, of any weapons or nukes.
No one was more surprised than I was when we found nothing. If I had had a farm at the time, I would have lost it. I mean, I listened to the same speeches you did, saw the same analyses in the NY Times that the rest of the world saw, and heard the same “inside” information everyone else heard. The only objections I heard were from compromised Euro-weenies and the usual bunch of domestic political opponents whose constant rhetoric just tends after a while to get lost in the din. I may actually still have copies around here somewhere of FAX and eMail messages I sent to my various elected representatives at the time, during the six months or so of dickering with the United Nations just prior to the invasion, I was SCREAMING IN CAPITOL LETTERS that if they didn’t quit the diplomacy crap, there wouldn’t be anything left for them to find. If he was playing shell games with Blix, you don’t think he’d blink with the Big Kahuna breathing down his neck? But, nobody listens to me. Go figure.
I just don’t know. If Syria and Iran were just a bit more friendly and allowed even cursory inspections of their border areas, who knows what we’d find? I know the argument is that if the Syrians had Saddam’s WMDs, they would have spirited them back into Iraq by now for the jihaddists. I don’t think so, and neither do people a whole lot smarter than me. About all Syria has going for it right now is Israel’s unbelievably high tolerance levels, and if terrorist IEDs started spraying sarin or worse all over the countryside, all bets would be off. Same basic story in Iran, except they have even more reason to keep them – future leverage against a new, relatively secular republic just across the border.
Look, Steve, there’s no denying they weren’t there when we got there, and that’s a very bad thing. So bad, in fact, that Bush and company should not have been re-elected. I’ve said this before and still believe that had his political opponents not gone nuclear with the outlandish proposition that his mistakes were deliberate treachery, if they had just played the awesome hand they were dealt instead of going for the Big Bluff, I believe they could have parlayed ’04 into a win, and a big one. Without the indignant, defensive anger of the Right at what was seen as an unprecedented and totally unfounded, over-the-top attack on the integrity of the president, lots of GOP votes would have stayed home, including me.
But, I don’t expect any of that to change any time soon. Nobody listened to me then, and damned sure nobody’s going to listen to me now.
Well, yes, semanticly correct. Much the same way as I insist that the Pacific Ocean is wet, and you respond that its not all water, there are strands of seaweed and random globs of whaleshit.
I notice you ignore the point about the ultimatum. Don’t want you to miss anything, I’ll make it again: the ultimatum was about weapons. Divest yourself of your bad mojo, Saddam, or else. The punch line is, of course, that he had nothing to surrender! Bush demanded compliance on threat of war, and Saddam couldn’t comply!
(The real punchline, the icing on the shitcake, is that Saddam tried even that, he sent a feeler through Richard Perle offering to replace UN inspectors with US inspectors and they could go anywhere! Our answer to a desperate attempt to avoid war? Perle said, IIRC, that he didn’t even pass it on! Too late, no dice, we’ve already ordered the pizza…)
Perhaps more to the point, without the threat, the Iraqi war initiative would have gone nowhere. There is no chance whatsoever…zero, zip, nada…that a war powers declaration would have been supported without such a threat.
Nuances! Nuances!? Lord, give me strength in my hour of tribulation! There are no fucking nuances! What there is: a huge pile of dead people and enough money pissed away to buy Jupiter at 10 cents a pound! The Muslim world thinks we are at war with Allah and the rest of them think we’re nuts! I don’t suppose these are the nuances you speak of? Something more subtle, no doubt.
Sure, I can believe there is more than one compelling reason to do “something”. I demand at least one compelling reason to go to war, and it has to be a doozy! Something along the lines of an immediate and explicit threat that demands premptive action will do nicely. Which you ain’t got, and never had.
I, like elucidator, have heard this stuff before, and my response is the same as it was then: If we can convene a grand jury to investigate the outing of a desk jockey at Langley, we sure as hell should be able to get one to look into this… if it’s credible enough to warrant it. I am not a cool-aid conservative. If these guys did the things they are accused of, I will be mortified, ashamed, embarrassed, humiliated and ultimately offended as would anyone whose trust had been desecrated. Now, knowing that that’s what I have to look forward to if you are right, can you blame me for hanging in there?
I’ll give you this, SteveG1… I’ve not read that report or article from that particular publication, so I’ll go see if I can find it and give it a look, just to see if it’s any different. Thanks to you and BobLimDem for the heads-up.
You are in the same exact boat I was in. I believe in my country, or at least I believe in what it should be. I try to believe in our leaders (allowing for a little bit of cynicism). I am very pro-military. I believed the newspapers, the rhetoric, and the speeches. I really thought we were in the right at first. It even fit neatly in with my own vengeful wishes to make some evil S.O.B. somewhere suffer (especially as one who had been born and raised in NYC - Bayside). We were attacked, someone had to pay. The problem is, we only got “their” side of the story for far too long, and anything that differed was “unpatriotic” or swept aside. Personally, I wish there were some damn law we could file real charges on, other than perjury or obstruction. There’s no reason to feel mortified, ashamed, or anything else. You were defending what you believed to be the truth. That’s worthy of respect. I didn’t feel embarrassed, in keeping with my nature, I went straight for anger and rage. When during the last election our Leader tried to say Bin Laden was not important, it’s a good thing for him that I couldn’t reach through the TV and throttle him. There was lots of freedom, America hater, freedom hater, stay the course, but no facts, evidence or proof - only empty catch phrases. You see, none of the stories added up, none of them were consistent, and none of the proof was there.
I didn’t ignore it, I thought I covered it. Evidently, I wasn’t clear enough. Let me try again: There were no WMDs. They were wrong. So, sue them. It’s the American way.
And what’s with all this sympathy for a bloodthirsty, fascist autocrat? It’s a whole lot more than just a pile of dead people and spent money - we’re minus one murdering dictator in the Middle East and people over there now get to keep all ten of their fingers and women don’t have to give it up to get along. Pardon me if I can’t bust a tear here. Until and unless proven otherwise, as long as I get to choose who gets the benefit of my doubt, murdering dictator or leader of the free world, I’ll go with the Texan every time. This was an intelligence failure that had unfortunate consequences for a whole lot of people, both the good guys and the bad guys, but the bottom line is that it’s an irrefutable plus, especially for Iraqi women. A free woman’s worst day is a thousand times better than dancing to the whims of a despot. As I said earlier, my sister is in the Army and she tells me such things.
That’s right. Too little, waaaay too late. Shit like that happens in life, and you would think a warm and fuzzy fellow like him would have seen it coming. You screw around with the wrong guy just one toothless resolution too many, and you just might get your ticket punched. It’s called street cred… on the world stage. And before you tell me how despised we are around the world, I don’t care. In the jungle, nobody likes the lion. Nobody fucks with him, either.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Perhaps more to the point, without the threat, the Iraqi war initiative would have gone nowhere. There is no chance whatsoever…zero, zip, nada…that a war powers declaration would have been supported without such a threat.
[/quote}In other words, the war powers declaration would never have been supported unless everyone had believed there was a threat. We may be on to something here.
So, how many times are you going to make that point? It’s been elucidated quite enough, I suspect. At the time, I believe there were 373 out of 525 congressmen and senators who believed they had at least one compelling reason to approve the resolution. Since I’ve already gone on record as having vehemently disagreed at least with the administration’s timing of the invasion, I guess that makes you and me two of the smartest people in the room! Shit, maybe we should run for something! What a bi-partisan ticket that would be! With your intuition and my timing, we could rule the world! :eek:
