November 08, 2002

Vitriolic bloodlust and Bush fundamentalist republican lies aside, Iraq did not attack us. You are lumping your muslims. Bush has the green light to do whatever he wants. What is the plan?

Tony

I guess I need to know which rock you have been hiding under for the past couple of months. Sure Iraq is not associated with Al-Quaida, they only fund the PLO, but Iraq did try to kill GB1 in the 90's, invaded his neighbors in the 80's and 90's and has been killing his own people for a couple of decades now. The plan is to kill terrorists and the people who fund them. Eventually when we kill enough of them, they will stop. When we control Iraq (oh my God imperialistic capitilistic pigs) and set up a representative/democratic gov't things will look a whole lot different in the middle east. And it is easier to attack now, before Sadaam gets Nuclear weapons. I guess we could wait fecklessly twiddling our thums ala Jimmy Carter and Bill clinton, but GW understands that his duty is to protect Americas interest and the American people. Will sweetness and light start upon the death of Sadaam, no, but another thug will be gone, slowly beginning the process of bringing liberty to people living in hellish police states. You post on a lot of sights - what should America do, sit by an let Iraq kill some more Kurds or Isrealis by Proxy through the PLO, while looking to get nasty weapons to other terriorist friends, fearing an uprising of some Arab street. Sometimes the failure to act is not prudence, it is cowardice. America is the pre-eminent nation in the world. And even if this fight is for "oil" as you will no doubt express as an effort to impugn the motivations of GW, Cheap oil is in Americas self interest, better to risk our soldiers for self interest than in some muddled peace keeping action somewhere else.
In other words - what should America do?

When Iraq was gassing Kurds, and Iranians, he was one of our guys.

If imminent threats exist, what is Bush waiting for, a note from his dad?

We do not need a massive invasion and occupation of Iraq to achieve our objectives. Puff all his toys, and Saddam if possible from the air.

America should press the Saudi government to quit funding and nuturing terrorists. Until that happens, our enemies will enjoy lavish funding payed for my our dependence on oil and Bush pandering to the royal princes.

America should hunt, capture, or kill terrorists, and those who support them, and prosecute military police actions and criminal manhunts against them for crimes against humanity.

Kevin,

Your side has won. The american people have decided they want this nationalist approach to foreign policy. Now the hard part comes. If GWB
is going to go to war and remove Saddam we liberals cannot stop it. What happens from here on in is the responsibility of Bush and the Republicans.
We are no longer relevant to the equation. Do you want some predictions?

1). There is not going to be a war in Iraq. The reasons for going to war are gone after November
5th.

2). We are going to have economic stagnation for
the rest of his administration. Ultimately the economy needs consumers and they are going to suffer greatly in the next two years.

3). We are going to have a very conservative judiciary which will overturn many of the gains for
women and minorities.

If these things prove popular with the american people so be it. I'm willing to bet they eventually see through the lies and deception and we'll have regime change in '04.

Re: Tony

"Regime" change? I am so tired of whining democrats comparing President Bush to fascists. More civil liberties were lost during the Clinton/Gore years than any other comparable time frame in the last 50 years. Oh, excuse me - I guess you can't be a "Big Brother"if you're on the socialist/communist side of the equation...

Tony,

You are correct.

You are no longer relevant. Until you and those who share your philosophy are able to clue in to the fact that there are uncivilized people out there—Islamists—whose only real desire is to murder you and shit on your corpse, you will remain irrelevant.

I detect wishful thinking on Tony Foresta's part:

1.) Tony actually wants to see Iraq invaded. It's just that he's hoping for a quagmire and lots of US body bags. Lots of US body bags would make Tony happy, right Tony? Isn't that what you really want? Wouldn't that ensure the election of your candidates in 2004?

2.) Tony prays for a stagnant economy throughout 2003 and 2004. I say he "prays for" such an economy because right now we don't have a stagnant economy. GNP is still growing, not as fast as we'd like, but still growing nonetheless. The election in 2002 wasn't about the economy Tony. It was about September 11, 2001. The majority of the American people decided the Dems couldn't be relied upon to prosecute a war on terror and provide for the nation's defense. The truth hurts. Deal with it.

3.) A conservative judiciary is coming, make no mistake. I don't know what "rights' you think women and minorities will lose because of a conservative judiciary, you don't say. If you mean to imply that women will lose the "right" to unregulated 3rd trimester partial birth abortions, then yeah, they should be sweating bullets. As far as minority "rights" go, again, I havn't a clue what "rights' you think are in jeparody because you don't say. What? You think the Civil Rights Act of '64 is a going to be declared unconstitutional?

The news I'm reading says that Barbie Pelosi will be the next minority leader of the House. Good. Barbie's a true blue "anti-war appeasing multilateralist tax their ass off" Democrat. I hope that's the "leadership" message we hear from the Dems for the next two years. Because if it is you can forget about 2004 and start looking forward to 2006.

Tony,
Re-read Patton's comments -- he's talking about Germans. Germany did not attack us, Japan did. Iraq may not have attacked us, but Al-qaeda did. Germany and Japan shared an ideology. Iraq and Al-qaeda share an ideology. We attacked Germany. We will surely attack Iraq.

Tony, you write a bunch of nonsense.

1. What does it matter if Bush Sr. missed his chance to take out Saddam? We can't go back in time; we have to deal with present threats.

2. Air power will not oust Saddam. Only ground troops can take and keep territory.

3. We don't have to immediately take out Saudi Arabia. Time will take care of it. A free Iraq will take away the Saudi's oil card and place enormous stress on the Saudi's to change. I suspect President Bush has a better grasp on strategy than you do.

4. America will hunt, capture, or kill terrorists, and those who support them. An important part of this will be in denying the terrorist's bases. Also, a free Iraq will stop making payments to Palestinian Terrorists. Without this funding the Palestinian's might become reasonable.

5. The recent election is a referendum on the war. If the voter wants this war who are you to resist it?

6. The war plans will continue, because the voter has spoken. If President Bush doesn't deliver; he is in big trouble.

7. Look for the economy to boom. Consumer spending has been good for the last two years; what's been missing has been corporate spending. The Republicans will repeal the business regulations and tax increases which Clinton put in that caused the decline. Add in terrorism insurance and the economy should be good for several years. It won't be that expensive to take out Saddam.

8. Yes, a conservative judiciary will repeal much of the Liberal's "Judicial Activism." Special favors for women and minorities might go by the wayside. I doubt seriously that anything substantial will change though; the market has changed. Any prior prejudice toward them is gone; they are capable of standing on their own two feet. We aren't going to revert to the 1950's.

9. The changes the Republican's install will prove popular. They are now the new majority party of America. The Democratic Party will retard change but not stop it. The following is the net result.

Government will do less for us. It will provide fewer Liberals with jobs so they will have to work for a living-- doing something useful.

Fewer business regulations will mean that goods will become less expensive and companies will be more flexible at satisfying customers. Unions have already been in decline, but they will become rare as the belief in "Class Struggle" fades.

Fewer taxes means that everyone's standard of living rises. A stable money supply means no hidden taxes on savings that results in price inflation.

A smaller government means that people develop self reliance and a community spirit to take care of the helpless. This leads to more control over one's life, and thus, causes less resentment. Honest judges take dangerous people off the street. Life becomes safer, especially, in the poor parts of town.

But, this won't happen by 2004. The Liberal's took 20 years to get us into this mess; I don't expect getting out will take much less.

Tony, on what do you base your three points?
1) The only thing that stops "regime change" in Iraq is Saddam's implementation of all relevant resolutions. Do you believe that will occur?
2) The GDP grew by 3.2% in the third quarter, should exceed that in the fourth quarter and in all quarters following due to the policies implemented by the Republican majorities in Congress. Is it the "wishful thinking" of a disgruntled liberal that makes you hope for economic stagnation that will be injurious to the people of the US?
3) The President has made it very clear that he will nominate judges and justices that are guided by the "original intent" of the constitution and will defer to the legislatures constitutional responsibility to write law. Are you implying that judicial activism, the penchant of liberal jurists to usurp the law creating power of the legislature, is good for the country? Or is it that you realize the liberal policies that do not win at the ballot box but are implemented by judicial activists won't occur anymore?
Now that that is off my chest ...
Steve, excellent post. Must admit I've never read a positive comparison of Samuel Johnson and George Smith Patton, Jr. before. Funny how very different but highly intelligent people can agree.

the thing that astonishes me about folks such as tony is their inability to think of the coming Iraqi campaign as anything but a full-scale invasion with the US gleefully slaughtering every man, woman and child in sight. it's almost as if they NEED this fiction to sustain their terror of conservatives and their caterwauling and dire predictions for our country, our morals and our future.

but it just ain't so. as louis said, an air war alone won't do it -- but we WILL NOT see the streets of baghdad running with blood and skulls either (as much as Tony would love to be able to smugly watch it on his TV).

no country in HISTORY has fought with a more careful, more HUMANE style of warfare than the US in the past ten years -- and that will continue. the US military has been the harbinger of more peace, stability and humanitarian aid than any force on earth.

it's called the "big picture" tony -- check into it.

Tony: You wrote:
"When Iraq was gassing Kurds, and Iranians, he was one of our guys."

When Stalin was killing, transporting and deporting the Letts, Estonian, Lithuanians, Finns, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans and many, many others, he was one of our guys, who only survived due to the Lend-Lease materiel that was given to him.

Tony, outside of your head, in the real world, its a messy place. In his war with Iran, we gave Saddam just enough intelligence and materiel to ensure that he was not defeated and not enough for him to win. Why? Iran was seen as the greater threat and we didn't want Iran to gain tremendously in strength. That doesn't mean that Saddam was "our guy". We had a temporary correspondence of interests.

When Saddam conquered Kuwait, we then went against him for the same reasons, we helped him against the Iranians, we don't want anyone to get to strong in the Middle Eastern oil fields.

The mistake Bush and company made was to hold to his pre-war promises to Arab governments, who didn't want Iraq conquered. Bush was no thinker, no strategist. He thought that Iraqis would overthrow Saddam and they would've, if he'd taken out Saddam's helicopters. Saddam has been going for Weapons of Mass Destruction, since before he took power. That's Saddam's dream and the only way to kill that dream is to kill Saddam.

I opposed Gulf War I and I opposed leaving "Hitler" in power, which is how Bush I sold the Gulf War to the American People and I believe a big reason, why he lost his re-election. Americans were smart enough to know, that we were going to have to do the Gulf War all over again and so we are.

Tony, you must enjoy constant bliss and the pride of moral superiority over everyone. Life is easy, when you don't allow reality to intrude on your fantasies. The recent election, millions of Americans decided that the Democrats were NOT serious about protecting them or the USA.

You, Tony, are one reason, why voters came to that conclusion. One story I heard is that the polls tanked for the 'RATs, on September 29th, when the Baghdad Democrats made their appearance. I'm sure you agree with McDermott and Bonior. Right?

Might be worth tossing USAF General Curtis LeMay into the mix to see how he compares.

Sirs: IMHO, you are wasting your time on a troll like Tony, and others like him.

You can't change minds when they are so obviously set based on incorrect information. For people like Tony what matters is their belief system, not the facts. The more you attack it, the more they cling to it.

Its like what a shrink told my wife about a mentally ill person in her related family. "You can make the mistake of letting a dog into your home, even one that sh!ts on the carpet. However, you don't have to make the same mistake again. Its not your dog, and its not your responsibility to train it. Its your responsibility to keep that dog out of your house".

In the same way, we made a mistake about Hussein. In this case, since he can hurt us and our children with WMD, its our responsibility in this case to take that rabid dog out back and shoot it, both to protect ourselves, and to put it out of its misery.

This is my first venturing into a "blog"...

I will have to go back to see how this all works.
++++++++++++++++++

The dialogue seems very polarized. On one side the defenders of GWB say his plan is needed, period, and that Saddam is pure evil.

On the other side it is said: USA is always driven by corporate quarterbacks, after oil and other profits, even if at the price of young American lives.
++++++++++

On the radio: David Barsamian ("Alternative Radio", and Noam Chomsky (countless writings) lean toward the "USA,Inc." view.

+++++++++++++++

I believe the latter, AND the former.

Even though US corporations form the tax code, the military/political agenda with their 'cheese wars', etc...... Saddam is a pure s.o.b./eternal threat.

I do believe the path that our Pres. Chad Bush is on,...largely is the right one, with regard to Saddam.

Hello Jack Berry,

It is quite possible to be a conservative and still be wary of corporations; we just don't demonize them. We tend not to believe that the interests of business leaders and working people are antagonistic. We tend to look at people as individuals, with all their faults, rather than as a member of a class, and that crooks come from all economic groups. That the best test of a business, a school or a trade union, is competition. That businesses should be allowed to fail-- or succeed. That people should be allow to gain the fruits of their labors-- good and bad.

My great grandfather was a Democrat; back when the Democrats stood for something. When they stood up for the common man against the elitists. When their motto was "Equal rights for all. Special benefits for none." But, that party ended when the "Progressives" took control in 1906.

Isn't it sad that we don't have a "party for the common man."

Interesting.