Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jan 19, 2005.
One of her better rants. Sorry for the length.
Ooohh, she's got a way with words, that one! Some good questions there.
But if you don't rubber stamp the authorization for $$ you better be prepared to defend yourself and your Congressional seat against charges that you don't support the troops ala the John-Kerry-repeatedly-voted-against-critical-weapons-systems charges that the GOP will level.
Democrats seem to have lost all semblance of a spine. They are so afraid of having to face those kinds of charges that they will go along with anything Bush wants. It made me sick when they (almost) all voted to authorize the war in the first place, and it makes me sick that they are so afraid of being portrayed as not supporting the troops that they will still roll over and give Bush anything he wants.
Maybe we should replace the Dems in Congress with friendly dogs. You know, the kind that roll over and show their stomach in submission whenever you get near them. At least the dogs would be cute. And you can't stay mad at a dog for long...
Edit: The loss of Paul Wellstone is becoming larger every day that no one fills his shoes. Not that anyone truly could, but someone needs to try.
But would not a pullout from Iraq be a clear message to all those in sympathy with Al Qaida et al that they won? That the US is indeed a paper tiger? And would they then not step up their efforts against anybody who's allied with us? And would that not provide encouragement to those who hate Israelis because they're Jews?
The ripple effect of a pullout, IMO, would include encouragement for Iran's nuclear and rocket program. It would probably lead to chaos following the end of the House of Saud, no matter one's repugnance to that regime. It would give strong encouragement, seems to me, of all those desiring rule by Sharia...
People have said that a pullout would lead to civil war in Iraq. Now, it might thereafter be quite satisfying to bash the U.S. for that, but wouldn't that mean ignoring the fact that multitudes of dead Iraqis otherwise remain alive?
It seems to me that whether one is for or against the efforts in Iraq, or is just plumb bored by it all, it is a real problem that we're just flat-out stuck with in a long-haul effort.
And from her writings, I've not seen that Arianna Huffington has had an original thought since puberty, and those thoughts weren't really original...
'Rat, please point out where in this column Huffington is calling for a pullout. She is asking for honesty and accountability from the White House, which it seems to me, is something we've deserved all along. I will count your vote as being against it, and promise to wonder less in the future how the administration gets away with being so shifty and evasive.
The key is overstretch. The last time we overstretched and failed spectacularly was in Vietnam. In the late 1970s, it appeared that the Soviets were winning the battle for the third world, so much so that it emboldened them to embark on their last effort at overstretch in Afghanistan, which, along with numerous other factors, brought down the Soviet Union.
What am I saying? We've lost. Let's admit it, put our tail between our legs, and go home. Like Vietnam, it'll be a major hit to the US in power, prestige, and influence. It will also appear to be a weakening of US security. It will embolden those who we claim to be fighting against, and weaken those we claim to support. But, as with the USSR, these temporary victors will sooner or later be exposed in their fundamental weaknesses.
I think the US can survive another humilation. I don't think those countries in the Middle East can.
No money = no stay = pullout.
Bush has clearly stated what he's trying to do. Why is there any doubt as to his aims and hopes? But, it takes money to achieve his goals in Iraq.
To me, the argument is over whether or not it's doable. miloblithe is convinced it's not. I'm not convinced either way, really, although I'm not yet all that pessimistic--but I think it's too early to tell, either way.
There ARE other views, as seen in the article in
Well, I made it about half way and then had to stop. His continual rant about the lack of good media coverage, especially in Fallulaja is a joke. Unless I'm mistaken, the media was NOT allowed into Falluja before, during or after major fighting, along with aid convoys, but that's another story. Also, his statements that they are killing terrorists right and left along with your statement that many more Iraqis are alive because Saddam is out of power is another joke.
Where are the names of all these terrorists, a list of age, gender, religious background etc? Or are all bodies automatically toe tagged "terrorist"? How many have died both directly and indirectly as a result of the US occupation? Water, access to health care, lack of electricity/refrigeration, schools etc are in very short supply and the first two are killing people right and left. The US is not interested in giving out any of this information because it only underlines the lack of a postwar plan and the fact that the continued brutal occupation is only exacerbating the growth of the insurgents. It also reminds me of that infamous Vietnam statement, " We had to destroy the village to save it"
The doubt comes from past performance, or the lack thereof. The need to insure accountability comes from the history of a lack of same. Nobody in government deserves to be issued a blank check for anything.
So who sounds like the conservative now?
If you think her point was that Democrats should de-fund the war effort you didn't get it.
This line should help you:
She's arguing for accountability, and some straight answers about what our exit strategy is, and what our goals in Iraq are. She argues that Congress needs to highlight fraud and waste in government. Haven't I heard you argue this very same point when it comes to social programs, and just about every other government effort?
My jaw is on the floor right now. The counter-argument to what Huffington is saying is apparently that the Bush administration should not be held accountable for its actions, and even more startling, that they're not even capable of accountability.
A blank check and blind faith. Yikes.
Although the rest of the post gave the appropriate context, I highlighted just this line for it's power.
This made me laugh, in the nervous, cynical way. It really is a topsy-turvy world, when the GOP are more like the popular-concept of Liberals and the Democrats are more like the Conservatives.
I believe there are a lot of confused people out there, both as citizens and as members of government. I guess that is why faith is so popular right now, as there is hardly a rational, logical leg to stand on...
Black is the new white.
I think some people mistook yesterday's events for a coronation.
looking at the final price i think they are excused...