Of course you do. But for people who care about what things mean, I’d like to point out that he says nothing new in the first statement and nothing at all in the second.
Straightforward, boilerplate stuff. ‘We can’t admit this was a mistake because that’s what they want.’ Agree or disagree, it’s not a new thought and it’s hard to say it’s relevant to the CT primary. Here’s the interesting part, though (paraphrased):
If you’ve given any thought to this statement, what you ought to be thinking is “what the fuck does this mean?” He mentions Al Qaeda and then it disappears right away, without any follow-up. It’s like he just wanted to say the word. The criticism he’s attempting to make about the internal affairs of the Democratic Party has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. He only mentioned Al Qaeda in the first place so he could try to imply that Lieberman losing the primary sent the wrong message to terrorists - and he didn’t even manage to complete the thought.
So? Am I only allowed to agree with “new” statements? Is last year’s rhetoric no longer fashionable enough?
“New” or “not new” is hardly the criteria I use when choosing whether or not I agree with something.
It means just a few years ago Lieberman’s views were mainstream but a large portion of the population no longer supports those views. Rather they support views more in line with what Al Quaeda wants. This is, the whole point of terrorism. You can’t win militarily but you can wage a war of fear and rhetoric to push malleable softheads into thinking what you want them to think.
I doubt it. If you just want to say a word, you should say “Kumquat!”
Sure it does. Do you think you live in a vaccum? Terrorism is simply PR with bombs. The whole point is to get people to change their viewpoint, and control their thinking.
I truly beleive that the greatest asset of Al Qaeda is the Democratic party. Yer dupes.
I understood it. I think it’s correct. It shows how much the Democratic party has changed as a result of this conflict.
Good call. This is a key point. I opposed the election of Bush in 2000 and 2004 and also the invasion of Iraq. It’s important to remember because it means I’m not personally responsible for anything that’s happening in Iraq. When you say we let it happen, you are lying. I didn’t let it happen, I worked to prevent it, and the notion that I have somehow bought into the horrible mistakes of this administration because a bunch of damned fools didn’t listen to me and others when we warned that electing Bush was a huge mistake, is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I have EVER heard!
It’s like this. You’re sitting wth your bud at the liquor store parking lot, sharing a bottle of Mogen David, and he says, “I think I’ll shoot myself in the foot” and whips out his Saturday Night Special. And you say no, don’t do it, and beg and plead and eventually fight to get the gun away from him, but he wrests control of the gun from you and triumphantly blows a hole in his foot. Some time later (about six years) all the bleeding and pain convinces your bud that he’s made a mistake.
And he’s all “We can’t be all about who shot who in the foot now, man! We gotta figure out what we can do about it! Sure, it’s a mess and it’s awful and it hurts, but I think the only thing we can do is stay the course … we have to keep shooting my foot man!”
And then when you point out that it was a damn fool idea to shoot himself in the foot in the first place, and maybe we should think of this whole “stay the course” plan in light of that initial damfoolery, he calls you a traitor and coward and irresponsible.
Under circumstances like that, it takes the patience of a saint not to just say, “fuck you, you idiot, do what you damn well please.”
But I happen to have the patience of a saint. So I have a counter-argument to offer. A sane one.
The reason that we’re having all this terrorism or insurgency or whatever else you want to call all the killing in Iraq, is that the factions involved know that the US won’t let anybody get too violent. Fallujah being a case in point. So they happily continue the violance, figuring it will help their respective bargaining positions when things settle out, if they ever do. People in the middle east have been doing crap like this for centuries.
As soon as the Americans leave, the Shia leaders will say, “We hold the power here, and we promise to put a leash on the Ministry of the Interior death squads if you’ll stop killing shias. And that means you’re going to have to kill or drive out the terrorists you’re harboring. Because if you don’t we’ll kill you all with the help of our Iranian buddies, and by “all” we mean just that. There are no more Americans here to stop us.” And the Sunnis will say, “OK, let’s talk,” and they’ll talk things out. The situation will be far from their liking, but nothing induces wilingness to put up with a bad situation like the certain prospect of being in a much worse one.
So, departing will actually make Iraq more peaceful.
Perhaps, friend Scylla, you would like to explain your take on Senator Leiberman, the Vice-president, Iraq, the war against terror and what ever else it is that you are talking about in light of the Big Dawg theory of international affairs and national security? If so, use illuminating examples such as the French invasion of Mexico, the Philippine Insurrection and the Soviet’s war in Afghanistan.
While you are at it maybe you can offer some exculpatory, factors-beyond the-nation’s-control, who-could-have-predicted-it, light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel narrative of how an invasion designed to disarm Sadam, foster order and commerce in the region and cultivate liberal Western democracy in the Middle East developed into this present cluster fuck featuring Iraq, Iran, a resurgent Taliban, an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, chaos in the Gaza and general instability in the region and an Osama still at large.
For extra points you can expostulate on an alternative to allow Brer W and Brer Dick to get disentangled from this particular Tar Baby – something beside “More of the Same.”
As far as Senator Lieberman and the Vice-President are concerned, they are hardly the first politicians to discover that if you throw enough mud some of it is bound to stick.
Scylla, you know I like you personally, and respect you as a well-meaning human being. But don’t you take this stuff seriously?
You’re vehemently against big government and big government spending, and I know that you’re actually a humane, good person who wants the right thing. So how is it that you continue to think this invasion was a good idea in the first place? I mean, honestly. Seriously, at one point some years back you apparently said that if WMDs were not found by Christmas or something (I never saw the original post, just a reference to it), you would admit that it had been a bad idea, and even admit to the possibility that Bush and company had been lying. You never did that. OK, I understand that it’s really hard to admit something like that, especially when you’re on a message board where the liberals do outweigh the conservatives about two to one, and you still (for reasons I find bewildering, but accept that it’s true) support the current administration.
Is there any way in which you can state categorically that the Iraqi people are better off now than they were prior to our invasion? Yes, they’re rid of Hussein, but instead they have about thousand Hussein wannabes ranging from Sunnis who want their privilege back to those who want to establish a Islamic republic like that in the glorious and delightfully free Islamic republic of Iran. Leaving aside for the moment the incredible bloodshed and destruction it would take for one of these to win out, do you see any probability that any of these would be better than Hussein was if he (one of the wannabes, not Hussein) were to win power? In the meantime, they’ve lost most of their infrastructure, most of their oil revenue, and almost any sense of safety on the streets or ability to lead a normal life. No one is claiming that Hussein was Santa Claus, but at least daily life in Iraq was something vaguely resembling normal for the most part prior to the invasion. Yes, there was the possibility that Hussein would scoop up you or a family member and disappear them. Unfortunately, that possibility has not lessened now; it’s just that it’s not Hussein who would be the driving force anymore.
I happen to agree with you at this point that the right thing to do is to stay, without a specific timetable for leaving. Of course, the reason I want to stay is so as to wait out the current administration, and hope for a more internationally credible subsequent administration that could negotiate a deal with other nations to see this through to the end, because there’s no question at this point that the presence of US Troops in Iraq is an aggravating factor, even as it continues to be the only thing (IMHO) that holds the lid on at all. I’m not clear what you hope our continued presence in Iraq will accomplish.
There is some virtue to consistency but even more to being right.
We don’t have to fight al-Queda on their terms, a ground war in Iraq is not the only and indded not even the best way to fight al-Queda. If we killed OBL, could we declare victory and just leave, I mean could al-Queda declare victory if we left after kiloing their figurehead?
Jeez, if you removed the refence to terrorism and the military that would describe in a nutshell how I think we got into this war in Iraq.
I doubt it. If you just want to say a word, you should say “Kumquat!”
Sure it does. Do you think you live in a vaccum? Terrorism is simply PR with bombs. The whole point is to get people to change their viewpoint, and control their thinking.
I truly beleive that the greatest asset of Al Qaeda is the Democratic party. Yer dupes.
I understood it. I think it’s correct. It shows how much the Democratic party has changed as a result of this conflict.
[/QUOTE]
The point is that Cheney’s “analysis” of Lieberman’s loss was actually an excuse to trot out some very tired bullshit that had nothing to do with the situation. I think that should be a little annoying to anyone who cares to think critically, but…
I know. Since we’re on the subject, what the hell ARE your criteria? “Did Cheney say it?”
Debates about what Al Qaeda wants are pretty tiresome, I think, but I’d say we’re doing them a favor by outraging people and fucking things up in Iraq. “Do the opposite of what we think Al Qaeda wants” isn’t a strategy.
Since you admit - well, it’s not much of an admission, it’s true - that Lieberman’s views are no longer mainstream, why is Cheney using that fact as a criticism of Democrats? It’s not a problem for the Democrats. It’s a bigger problem for Cheney.
That’s also a perfect description of what the Bush administration did to start the war in Iraq. They launched a war of fear and rhetoric to push malleable softheads into thinking what they wanted them to think. Your head is still mushed in.
Again, he attempted to make it relevant to what he was saying, but didn’t. I’m guessing he hoped you wouldn’t notice, and you didn’t.
If the topics are so intricately connected, I wish I knew why Cheney couldn’t manage to connect them.
How many countries has Al Qaeda entered because of ill-advised invasions by Democrats?
I agree. A few years on, it appears that they’ve figured out the difference between up and down.
Invading the wrong country was the greatest asset of Al Qaeda, and clearly you are once again swallowing the bullshit from the ones that gave you WMD; you are really a glutton, this time their bullshit is calorie free, but it stinks just the same. No Democrat is in favor of Al Qaeda, no Democrat is demanding to end the hunt of the perpetrators of 9/11 and the latest threat, take your bad faith back or you will only be recognized as a Troll.
They are learning not to swallow the BS, you were fooled before by the same people, you need to learn again not to.
To that I have to add what the demagogues of the right conveniently forget to mention: Plans like the one Murtha has proposed have on them the idea to remain close and on the ready to throw in swift punishment from above if any faction gets the idea to start a genocide or to set up terrorist camps.
I do. That’s why think these yahoos with this incredibly stupid, and insipidly smug viewpoints and attitudes need to be ridiculed.
Because we can’t win against terror by trying to guard against it. We can’t be perfectly vigilant 100% of the time. To win we have to defeat militant fundamentalist Islam, and while that war is being fought in terms of terrorist attack/military response we can’t win any more than Israel could. The tactic we are fighting against counts on us making a limited military response. To win, we have to threaten them directly and force them to engage us directly. Iraq is the logical choice for this for any number of reasons.
Actually, what I said was I would admit that Bush was lying, and seriously question my support. It was actually supposed to be by thanksgiving and I did start a thread in GD about it a month early when I saw I was wrong. Somebody else started one in the pit where I showed up so I could get beaten up about it.
So, I conceded the point multiple times.
Bush clearly lied. He did not know what he said he knew.
I did admit it. Multiple times. Apparently though I haven’t fully converted to liberalism. I’ve renounced my Republicanism (because of social conservativism,) not Iraq. I’d classify myself as conservative economically and foreign policy wise, progressive socially, and confused sexually (I have a thing for sheep. Just kidding)
Freedom and self-determination, and the ability to screw it up that goes with it, but also the chance to make their country into a great place to be.
That’s pretty good. To give them the chance.
I’m not sure what to say about this, that would make an impression.
Really the only thing I can think of is slavery. When he had slaves in this country we had law and order, normalcy. Yes, there was the fact that slaves could be raped and killed at will, but some, maybe most were reasonably well-enough cared for.
How many people had to die to change this? Was it worth it? Couldn’t we just have lived with slaves and tolerated it for the sake of peace and normalcy?
I have to think and beleive the answer to that is “no.” The chance for freedom is worth it. The chance for self-determination is worth it.
[quote]
I happen to agree with you at this point that the right thing to do is to stay, without a specific timetable for leaving. Of course, the reason I want to stay is so as to wait out the current administration, and hope for a more internationally credible subsequent administration that could negotiate a deal with other nations to see this through to the end, because there’s no question at this point that the presence of US Troops in Iraq is an aggravating factor, even as it continues to be the only thing (IMHO) that holds the lid on at all.
[quote]
You know, you may be right. It’s fully possible that a new President can disavow Bush and make Iraq work from a new perspective. Kind of like a good cop, bad cop thing on an International scale.
The bottom line is that these problems that were facing have existed for a long time and been constantly deferred by previous administrations. I think it’s good that Bush is doing something to resolve them. I think ultimately a lot of problems and dilemmas are being brought to a head.
A stable democracy, after a time as a battleground, symbolic and real against militant fundamentalist Islam. The first step in the very real war against Islamic fanatacism and terror tactics.
See, this is more reasonable stuff. I don’t think it happens to work in Iraq (although I’ve never supported an immediate withdrawal either), but it beats “Al Qaeda likes Lamont” by a landslide.
How was attacking a secular Islamic nation the first healthy step against militant fundamentalism (of which there was virtually none in Iraq prior to our actions)? Yes, Hussein trotted out the occasional Islamic rhetoric when he was trying to drum up support in the Arab nations, but if the battle was against Islamic fundamentalism, the last thing we should have wanted to see was a regime change in a nation run by Sunnis (who tend to be more on the secular end of things) where the majority religion was Shia (and the leading cleric for them an Irani). Iraq was not by any stretch of the imagination a fundamentalist Islamic nation.
Do you feel that Iraq is now closer to a stable, secular democracy than they were prior to our (invasion? liberation? whatever you want to call it)? If so, in what way? Do you see any hope of a real, elected Iraqi government being able to maintain security in Iraq without outside assistance in, say, the next five years?
That’s a laughable quote from Dick “Deferment” Cheney. The typical John Wayne Armchair Patriot bullshit from someone who disappears when the “heavy lifting” has to be done. :mad:
