Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The "Republican-controlled Senate committee" includes 7 democrats and 8 republicans, 2 of whom, Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow, are anti-war.> Calling Hagel anti-war is quite a stretch. He's been critical of the way this war has been prosecuted, but that's not the same thing. It seems to me that Doug (and the national review link) are upset that Hagel and Snowe didn't just toe the party line. Instead, they (gasp!) dared to think for themselves, and contradict some of what the administration said. The horrors.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Show me a single liberal protester who ever had a anti- Saddam sign?> Me. Outside the Iraqi embassy. Both before and after the gassing of the Kurds.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I mean really, anyone who accuses Bush of lying is a fan of evil dictators? It's the argument of the simple minded.. Exactly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It seems to me that Doug (and the national review link) are upset that Hagel and Snowe didn't just toe the party line.> It's a little more complicated than that, as the National Review article made clear. <Both before and after the gassing of the Kurds.> But not in 2002 or later.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Yeah, Dabob. I believe you when you say you were protesting Saddam back in the day. Democrats back then were TALKING really tough against Saddam also. But when it came time to make Saddam acually be accountable you and every lib on the planet decided to protest against Bush, not Saddam. You guys talk a big game but refuse to ever take any real action. This must be why Bush is such a villian to you guys. He actually backs up what he says. So to distract from being so weak and scared you guys make up distractions from reality and say Bush " lied " or the was was for oil, or that the war was for revenge for Bushs daddy, or we made 9-11 happen ourselves. The only liars are the liberals and their heros like Joe Wilson, Teddy Kennedy, Michael Moore who they worshipped when his movie came out, Clinton, and Sandy Berger.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By HyperTyper ... hit "Submit" prematurely ... People like Lieberman can clearly voice opposition or disagreement to this policy or that decision, but keep the discourse civil and remain supportive of democracy and opposed to terror and tyranny. There is plenty of room in the Republican tent for disagreement. Bush, the most gracious politician in Washington right now, has made clear that dissent does not amount treason, or lack of patriotism. He's put up with a lot of vicious, personal attacks and a whole lot of c__p, and turns the other cheek again and again. You won't see that on the left, where agreeing with Bush on ANYTHING makes one a traitor. Look what the dems and libs did to Lieberman!!! Liberals from Dean to Hillary to Kerry to Sheehan, from prominent leadership to the rank-and-file, have drawn the line. Bush is THE enemy. Saddam and company are mere annoyances ... of no concern, who can be left to torment their own without consequence. Anyone who crosses that line to work with Bush on anything or say one kind word about him is dealt with swiftly and severely. Some people have some nerve, lecturing conservatives about being small-minded.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Not when such people are far more vocal about Bush's perceived evils than Saddam's proven ones. Such behavior doesn't make one a fan of evil dictators, but it does make one an enabler of them.>> Now that is a great sentence Hyper. Shows why you are one of the best writers on here ever. Dabob, what good did it do to stand outside an embassy with a little sign if you were going to fold up like a cheap card table and be against actual action that would remove Saddam from his evil ways? Funny how the libs like to talk a tough game but act like stuck pigs when it's time to take action. Kinda like when they were forced to vote on their constant demand to cut and run from Iraq.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Show me a single liberal protester who ever had a anti- Saddam sign?>> So when and where did you hold you anti-Saddam sign Beau? We all know you never did. As usual you are all bluster and no action. Pathetic.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<So when and where did you hold you anti-Saddam sign Beau?>> Why would I waste my time holding a protest sign? I would rather support the troops and the president in their fight against terrorism instead of trying to undermine them like your buds on the left do day after day. Clinton sucks.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Now that is a great sentence Hyper. Shows why you are one of the best writers on here ever. Wow, thanks, Beau. How ya' doin'? I believe the main reason why Bush's approval has gone down (even with some conservatives) is Americans don't have much patience. We want everything fast, from our Big Mac burgers to our war victories. We were in war mode in 2001 because we were hurt and mad. We sent our boys over gladly, because we thought our necks were on the line. Now, thanks to some proactive terrorist hunting, they're on the run and we've been untouched for nearly five years. Those with short memories think if we just slide out of the middle east and placate the world with policies that are popular with everyone (as if that is even possible) we'll be fine. Or if we only hand-pick the worst enemies we can link to 9/11, the rest will leave us be. Hardly. Bush made clear from September 2001 that this was going to be a long, hard slog through the mud, and it wasn't going to be pretty. I clearly remember it. Now he's accused of underestimating the time and effort required. Nonsense. We WILL leave Iraq, and it will probably be within a year or two, in my prediction. The criteria for our leaving is not the end of violence. It will be the ability of Iraqi law to maintain stability, enforce the law, and keep the country stable and functioning. We move closer to that goal daily, and we will reach it, though doubt and interference from among our own DO slow us down. This war has outlasted the world wars and the Civil War not because Bush or Rumsfeld are incompetent, but because the enemy is relentless, ruthless and has no regard for the lives of their enemies, their loved ones or themselves. We didn't have an ememy like this in even the Nazis, and (sadly) it was only the ultimate weapon that stopped the Japanese. (And turned them into allies and friends.) Unless we're willing to pull that weapon out again (and I'm not), it's going to take more time because evil of this sort doesn't wave a white flag. Unlike some critics who think they're psychic and want to set a date for pullout, Bush knows the goal will be reached when it is reached, and not before. The U.S. commanders and the Iraqis will be the ones who will decide when Iraq is ready to assume full control, not Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, James Carville or Matt Lauer. Until then, who do the formerly gassed Kurds have to thank for relief in their oppression? Sign-bearing protesters in Washington? "Thoughtful" news anchors and pundits? Or soldiers and leaders from the U.S., Canada, Britain and elsewhere who "go it alone" to fight terror in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm thanking Bush and company. And I think the Kurds are too.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hyper, hope all is going well. It's always nice to read you on here because you just lay out the reality of the war on terror and what are are facing. I get so tired of all the BS and the distractions from the left who insist Bush is the enemy and the war on terror isn't even real. We are lucky the American people re elected a guy who is serious.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It seems to me that Doug (and the national review link) are upset that Hagel and Snowe didn't just toe the party line.> <It's a little more complicated than that, as the National Review article made clear.> Care to elaborate? Because I didn't see much more in the National Review article than that, if one knows how to read between the lines. <<Both before and after the gassing of the Kurds.>> <But not in 2002 or later.> Since you, by your own admission, never gave a rat's patootie about Saddam until the Bushes did, I've got you beat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You guys talk a big game but refuse to ever take any real action. This must be why Bush is such a villian to you guys. He actually backs up what he says.> It is quite possible to recognize Saddam's evil, and yet say that invading and occupying his country would be unwise. Just as it's quite possible to recognize Kim Jong Il's evil and say that invading the Korean peninsula would be unwise. Which is pretty much Bush's position.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Yes, Beau, all is well. It's nice to have some time to sit down for a little while and bash some Bush-bashing. >>> We are lucky the American people re elected a guy who is serious. Darn tootin'. And entertaining! I like the president because he knows not to take himself TOO seriously. So many political elites are so obsessed with their own self-importance, and take glee in calling Bush a hick and a stupid cowboy. But they underestimate him every time (the same way conservatives underestimated Clinton's ability to bounce back). But Clinton, Gore and Kerry were all about crafting an image. Bush takes the image given him, and runs with it. Pure genius. (Or is it character?) Bush can mangle his English, but he can mangle Uday, Kusay and Zarqawi too. And he's got the smarts (and just enough English) to disarm his critics' fluffy, intellectual, nuanced arguments, leaving them dumbfounded and fuming. And that's what counts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Not when such people are far more vocal about Bush's perceived evils than Saddam's proven ones. > First, most of us here outside of Ed have never called Bush "evil." Second, it's an unfair comparison. We as Americans can have an effect (sometimes) on US policy. We can't have much of an effect on a foreign dictator, other than sometimes shining a light on him and forcing a few concessions if there is enough international scrutiny. I'm willing to bet that in the 90's you lambasted Clinton a lot more than you did, say, Kim Jong Il. Yet one is evil and one is not. But you recognized that a). you might actually accomplish something talking about clinton, and would usually be wasting your breath talking about Kim (certainly, you wouldn't be able to get him to change his policies); and b). as an American, Clinton (and now Bush) represents you, and carries out policies in your name. If you disagree with them, it's quite right and proper to speak out against them. >>Me ... Outside the Iraqi embassy. <Yes, there was a time (before Bush was president) when liberals enjoyed protesting Saddam. But the protesting wasn't very effective against him, wasn't it?> We succeeded in getting a number of political prisoners released. More than I'm betting you've ever done.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> It is quite possible to recognize Saddam's evil, I don't recall many liberals actually saying that, though, while plenty gleefully said it about our president. >>> and yet say that invading and occupying his country would be unwise. Just as it's quite possible to recognize Kim Jong Il's evil and say that invading the Korean peninsula would be unwise. Which is pretty much Bush's position. Like I said, disagreement is fine. But that's not what we're getting from the left. They are engaging in wholesale character assasination against the president instead of the villains of the world who truly deserve it.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> We can't have much of an effect on a foreign dictator, Saddam's removal, supported by the majority of the American people and the president they elected, would seem to contradict that statement. >>> I'm willing to bet that in the 90's you lambasted Clinton a lot more than you did, say, Kim Jong Il. Perhaps, but Kim Jong Il wasn't on the nightly news and I didn't even know really who he was. Saddam was a different story. He WAS a story. >>> We succeeded in getting a number of political prisoners released. The protesting did that? Something tells us you're not giving someone else their due credit. >>> More than I'm betting you've ever done. Who knows. I do vote regularly, and attend my caucus meetings (all of them), and study the issues, and support good over evil, which I'd guess is at least as effective as marching in circles, chanting and hold a placard.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Care to elaborate?> The article was far more elaborate than I can be in a post. <Since you, by your own admission, never gave a rat's patootie about Saddam until the Bushes did, I've got you beat.> Hardly.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You people on the left should have a red light going off in your empty heads when your daily anti- Bush, anti America talking points are repeated on Bin Laden videos. How does it feel to have our enemy use YOUR words and YOUR bullet points in their speeches? Doesn't that even make you wonder that you might be totally screwed up and lost in your leftist ideology? The fact you guys lose should come as no surprise when you take the side of the enemy so often. Now please, somebody show me a thread started by a liberal on here that is pro America, pro military, pro winning.
