Just A Slow Turning From The Inside Out

[kentuck]

Interesting read.....
======================================================
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1126-24.htm

<snip>

George Bush is right. President George W. Bush, Republican President of the United States, is right, has made a true, unequivocal, honest statement. He did not lie, mislead or misrepresent; his vocabulary, grammar and syntax did not corrupt or derail the delivery of his message to our ears.

<snip>

But he's right about just this one thing. With very few exceptions members of the the Democratic party in leadership positions aided, abetted, supported, contributed to, favored, financed, and voted for these tax cuts, this war and every other foul-smelling worm in the can. Joe Biden smiled his greasy smile and demanded more troops. Bill Clinton says the war has been "a big mistake", but Bill Clinton was viciously bombing Iraq in 1998, long before G.W. set his own war in motion. They supported me then, cries a beleaguered Bush, but now they're "rewriting history." And he's right. Congress gave President Bush authorization to go to war when, where and as he wished, passed bill after bill to fund it, and all but a very few Democrats either expressed their enthusiasm, voiced cautious support for their Commander-In-Chief, or kept silent. For years. For more than two thousand dead American soldiers, at least thirty thousand collaterally dead Iraqi civilians, a country reduced to outlaw bands, feuding religious sects, terrorist recruitment centers, and bordering on civil war.

John Kerry deserved to lose the election in 2004. His message (yes, Virginia, he did flip-flop, however annoying it was to hear the Republican ditto-heads chant it) was that he would fight the war better than Bush, that he'd do a better job of "winning" it. This one isn't winnable. It never was. We can kill them but they'll just keep coming. Doubling. It's the brooms in Fantasia, except this is no fantasy, no dream. (Yes, George, they do hate us. Now.)

<snip>
Bush is right about the Democrats, mostly. Wrong about the war, entirely. Wrong and doesn't know it and can't admit it. And isn't some convoluted lard tributary in Dick Cheney's rotten, charred heart ever going to blow up and promote him to Paradise so the Intelligent Designer can review his service to humanity by some standards perhaps more pure than those of Scooter Lewis and Bob Woodward? Put the dogs on him, God. Hook a magneto to his manhood. That'll be quaint.

[Soup Bean]

1. I think this article by Pat Buchanan is relevant to this discussion.

Leadership in this country is abysmal, whether it be Democratic or Republican. All any politician cares about is winning office and staying in power. Special interests of all stripes are killing what's left of a great nation, a great experiment in freedom.

I would give my all for one good man or woman, who would put America and it's citizens best interests at heart. I would give my all for a real LEADER.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47557

[nofurylike]

17. self delete :) peace! eom

[teryang]

2. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

How refreshing!

[Toots]

3. Sad but true and that is why Democrats approval ratings are hardly any

better than Republicans. If Democrats don't draw an absolute line in the sand and speak unambiguously they will be treated to the scorn they deserve.

[TayTay]

4. It is revisionist wishful thinking.

The electorate was FOR the war in 2004. Bush's numbers were terrible on economic and domestic issues in general. However, the majority of the American electorate had not turned against the war in 2004. They still regarded Bush as the better war time leadeer, which is not true in Nov of 2005.

There is no proof whatsoever that having Kerry be specifically anti-war in 2004 would have increased his vote count. This is revisionist and wishful thinking on the part of liberals who believed the war was wrong.

Even today, only 20% of the American people believe that immediate withdrawal is a good idea. We are fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. The tide is turning, but it is turning slowly.

[Toots]

5. My post mentioned nothing about war or Kerry

My post was about Democrats that go which ever way the wind blows them. They refuse to make a stand. How did every single bill Bush* put before Congress get passed so readily? Huge tax breaks for the wealthy...no problem...clean air act...no problem, abandoning most foreign treaties...no problem...Casting aside Congressional Law on Presidential Papers...no problem.. Democrats have been complicit and that is why their approval rating are not very good..

[TayTay]

6. The article posted did mention this.

And the point is that Democrats are also deluded. It is not enough to just recite what has gone wrong. It is also delusional to think that the American public was waiting around for someone to be anti-war in the last election and that this would have been enough to swing the election. That is not true. The American public was not there yet.

Lots of things happened last year that made security front and center and prevented the doubts about IRaq from over-coming the fears about terrorism and the need for America to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. We are kidding ourselves if we look back in revisionism. And we don't learn the lessons of the last election. We just 'see what we want to see' and are as bad as the freepers who also just 'see what they want to see.'

Remember the Terror alerts, Beslan, the continuous mentioning of 9/11? These things happened and contributed to the atmosphere around that election. They swayed voters. That was not an easy election to win and it is a liberal fantasy that it was.

[welshTerrier2]

7. Kerry supporter glossary: "liberal fantasy", "left freeper", "DU fringe"

it continues to fascinate me that so many of Kerry's supporters on DU seem to take such consistent delight in bashing liberals ... and your point about few Americans wanting "immediate withdrawal" doesn't reflect the national mood at all ... most Americans want to get out of this war ASAP even if we do not stabilize Iraq before we do ... and the numbers are much higher among Democrats ... Kerry's "big Iraq speech" had ZERO impact on the American people; Murtha's bold and clear statements had a huge impact on shifting the national dialog ... the point isn't that Murtha's plan is necessarily better or worse; the point is that Kerry still thinks he can "wishy-washy" policy issues and doesn't understand tapping into the "national will" ...

the bottom line to Kerry's unnecessary loss last year was that Kerry was far too easy for bush and the republicans to paint as "neither here nor there" ...

Kerry MIGHT have done better had he taken a bold consistent stand on the war ... instead, his position was highly nuanced and it came across as weak, flip-floppy and "politically calculated" ... bush, on the other hand, had a clear, strong, consistent (and horrible) position ... my view is that it MAY have been as important for Kerry to take a sharper, bolder position on Iraq than any specific solution for Iraq he might have proposed ...

maybe it shouldn't be that way, but sometimes form carries more weight than substance ...

and last but not least, DU's Kerry supporters seem to prefer insults to effectiveness ... we've all come to expect that from DU's Kerry community ... it certainly is a most curious political strategy to promote Kerry's best interests by continually insulting DU'ers ...

[ProSense]

9. Just so you know

Kennedy supports Kerry '08.

[LWolf]

10. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Kennedy also helped craft NCLB.

Somehow, what Teddy says or does doesn't drive my perspective.

Cannot voters think for themselves? Do they have to have public figures do their thinking or make their decisions for them?

[ProSense]

12. Excuse me

Referring to the signature in previous post! Am I allowed to think for myself?

[PassingFair]

15. I don't know....

let me know when you start...

[ProSense]

18. Start what?

Deciphering jokes that are disguised as responses because thinking of one is hard work?

[LWolf]

16. You are excused. n/t

[Donna Zen]

8. This electorate FOR the war business

I went back and checked the old polling reports from that time. First, until the Democratic 22 became bush's cheerleaders, the polling was not for war. What is more curious is that in January, the polls showed that there was only a majority of Americans who favored the war if we had UN support and a coalition.

bush and blair, knowing that they could not get UN support, never called a vote on a second resolution for war at the UN. We did not have the "qualifying" element needed to make this revision of history the truth.

"The United States ACTED ALONE in attacking Iraq, WITHOUT the support of the United Nations" Y N
3/13-14/03 43 54 3
2/6-7/03 37 59 4
1/23-24/03 31 65 4
1/16-17/03 31 63 6
1/3-6/03 34 59 7

^^^^^^^^^

"Which statement do you agree with more? Iraq presents such a clear danger to American interests that the United States needs to act now, even without the support of the United Nations. OR, The U.S. needs to wait for approval of the United Nations before taking any action against Iraq."



Act Now


Wait For UN

Shouldn't Act (vol.)

Don't Know
3/4-5/03 36 59 0 5
2/24-25/03 31 64 0 5
2/10-12/03 38 56 1 5
2/5-6/03 31 63 0 6


^^^^^^^^^

Sorry if the table are a mess, but what is important to note is that the public favored the action because they thought there would UN support. But what is also apparent from the internals, if that the Democratic base was not on board. Yes, the polling was mixed, but that is part of the point.

Pollingreport

[karynnj]

13. Wrong time frame

Kerry was not for invading in March 03 himself. He also never was for a unilateral attack or a joint mission just with Britain. The question was what to do once we were in. At that point the numbers were as the poster said - the majority wanted us to stay and win.

[ProSense]

11. Nonsense!

Bush is not right about the Democrats. There was a lot of media bashing of the nine Democrats before the primaries and during the campaign. Bush was always wrong. The country doesn't deserve Bush.

[PassingFair]

14. Where to start?

First of all, these Senators voted AGAINST *'s IWR:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Let's here it for them!

Do NOT FAIL to mention that the MAJORITY of Democrats in the House voted NO!

In the Senate, 22 of the 50 Democrats voted no on the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). HOWEVER, of those still serving in the Senate, the opponents of the IWR comprise a 20-18 majority. The yes votes no longer in the Senate are Carnahan, Cleland, Daschle (who were all defeated), Torricelli (who probably would have been because of scandal), and Breaux, Edwards, Hollings and Miller (who all retired). Of the no voters, only Wellstone and Bob Graham are gone from the Senate. And in the House, a solid majority of Democrats--126 to 81--voted no. Even in Congress Democratic support for the war was a minority position.

A look back in time on DU would show that the majority of democrats were screaming "OH HELL NO!" in regards to the invasion of Iraq, and MILLIONS of Americans were taking to the streets to protest the Anglo-American take-over of Iraq.


The "New" Democrats have a plan that relies on their notion of "plausible deniability".

The rest of us are supposed to shut-up and let the spin play out. Their arguments are:
We did NOT vote to go to war! (SURE they didn't)
We were fooled by faulty intelligence! (SURE they were)

The "chess players" figured that they would "win", whatever the outcome of the invasion:
If it had worked (5% chance), they would have voted in accordance with the "winning" side.

If it didn't work (95% chance) they could pull out the "you lied to us" semantics.

Cynical. Murderous. Unforgivable.

Hundreds of thousands have died. Time to demand truth and accountability from our dems.

Someone here, (UndergroundPanther?) has a sigline which reads:

Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Thou shalt not be a victim. But ABOVE ALL, thou shalt not be a bystander. (Heavily paraphrased, sorry UP!)

A minority percentage of our democrats voted yes and sat back and watched the invasion unfold without trying to stop it because they believed it was politically expedient to do so.