" had never lived in a place where a slip of the tongue could get me killed. My country is the United States of America, where just about anything goes, even when criticizing one's government — where calling one's president a liar, an idiot, a murderer or someone worse than Hitler is far, far more likely to get you a seat at the Oscars than a bullet to the brain."
No, but we do live in place, based on these two posts, where when you do criticize the president you are called a defeatist and a traitor. A place where you use someone's name (Obama) to childishly hope that someone will quake at the name of "Hussein" in fear.
No, sir, we may not kill people who disagree with the powers that be anymore After all, you can only have so many lone nuts to go around. No, we "swift boat" them, engaging in what has been the greatest propaganda compaign since Goebels.
So when you say that Democrats are defeatists or "cut and runners", I say
BUSH LOST THE WAR. PERIOD. I know this is hard to accept, folks, but it is true.
All this nonsense about Democrats letting the Iraqis down....the Bush Administration let the Iraqis down because they drew up the post war plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebees. Of course Democrats want to win but don't you think that's impossible now that we are in the process of ethnically cleansing the place?
"BUSH LOST THE WAR. PERIOD. I know this is hard to accept, folks, but it is true."
Go to Iraq and tell the people there, Mark.
"Of course Democrats want to win..."
Based on what evidence? Every word out of their mouths has been "lost," "losing," "withdraw," etc. The word "quagmire" was uttered within the first day of the invasion of Iraq. I seem to recall its use with relation to Afghanistan as well. And the Vietnam parallels have been unending.
If they truly believe the war is lost and the best thing that can be done is to bring home the troops right now, they have the power to PULL THE FUNDING.
And they don't. They don't even discuss it.
Because they KNOW the majority of the American people DON'T believe the war is lost no matter how many times the media repeats the mantra.
It isn't over, Mark. It won't be over for years. And you know what? Bush TOLD everyone that from the outset.
Some people were apparently not listening.
"No, but we do live in place, based on these two posts, where when you do criticize the president you are called a defeatist and a traitor."
Welcome to the world of freedom of speech, where words are met...
...with words. Not bullets. Not rubber hoses. Not rape rooms. Not plastic shredders.
But people do not have the right to say anything they want without repercussion. If the shoe fits...
"A place where you use someone's name (Obama) to childishly hope that someone will quake at the name of "Hussein" in fear."
One would hope that with the name "Hussein" he might have a little more compassion for the people he seems so willing to abandon to (self-admitted) genocide.
And finally, WRT "Swiftboating": I note that John F'n Kerry has let the statute of limitations run out on the possibility of suing the Swiftboaters for libel. I also note that he never did release his entire military record.
Propaganda, Mark, is usually the most effective when its truthful.
I don't have to tell them. They already know. The word quagmire was uttered by Dick Cheney in 1994 in direct relation to what would happen in Iraq. Did you watch the video of what he said? Everything has come true.
True, the Democrats could pull the funding. They don't because the want Bush to keep screwing things up so they can win in 2008. Harry Reid (the worst leader in the history of the Senate) is just as bad as Bush at this point. They, too, are playing politics with our troops' lives.
"They don't because the want Bush to keep screwing things up so they can win in 2008.
--
"They, too, are playing politics with our troops' lives."
And this isn't traitorous?
Don't you think it's possible after the events of 2001 that politicians reassessed the risks, ran a cost/benefit analysis and determined that attempting to reform the middle East was a better option, even though it meant decades of military deployment there? I certainly drew that conclusion, and I did it before jihadis flew airliners into buildings on 9/11.
Yes, it is traiterous. I think, maybe, there are a dozen or so people I would trust to saferguard our nation's security. Here is a list off of the top of my head and in no particualar order
1. Barack Obama
2. Colin Powell
3. Bill Richardson
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Anthony Zinni
I'm sure there are more but that's all I can think of for right now.
Mark, could go go through why in particular you would trust each one, especially with Obama and his somewhat odd remarks that he would have unconditional talks with everyone, yet invade Pakistan?
and as our resident liberal whats your opinion on Clinton?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-defeatism-matters.html (10 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
And to show what happens when a former anti-war dem looks them in the eye:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003859964_baird30m.html
Now how about them apples?
Touché.
" had never lived in a place where a slip of the tongue could get me killed. My country is the United States of America, where just about anything goes, even when criticizing one's government — where calling one's president a liar, an idiot, a murderer or someone worse than Hitler is far, far more likely to get you a seat at the Oscars than a bullet to the brain."
No, but we do live in place, based on these two posts, where when you do criticize the president you are called a defeatist and a traitor. A place where you use someone's name (Obama) to childishly hope that someone will quake at the name of "Hussein" in fear.
No, sir, we may not kill people who disagree with the powers that be anymore After all, you can only have so many lone nuts to go around. No, we "swift boat" them, engaging in what has been the greatest propaganda compaign since Goebels.
So when you say that Democrats are defeatists or "cut and runners", I say
BUSH LOST THE WAR. PERIOD. I know this is hard to accept, folks, but it is true.
All this nonsense about Democrats letting the Iraqis down....the Bush Administration let the Iraqis down because they drew up the post war plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebees. Of course Democrats want to win but don't you think that's impossible now that we are in the process of ethnically cleansing the place?
"BUSH LOST THE WAR. PERIOD. I know this is hard to accept, folks, but it is true."
Go to Iraq and tell the people there, Mark.
"Of course Democrats want to win..."
Based on what evidence? Every word out of their mouths has been "lost," "losing," "withdraw," etc. The word "quagmire" was uttered within the first day of the invasion of Iraq. I seem to recall its use with relation to Afghanistan as well. And the Vietnam parallels have been unending.
If they truly believe the war is lost and the best thing that can be done is to bring home the troops right now, they have the power to PULL THE FUNDING.
And they don't. They don't even discuss it.
Because they KNOW the majority of the American people DON'T believe the war is lost no matter how many times the media repeats the mantra.
It isn't over, Mark. It won't be over for years. And you know what? Bush TOLD everyone that from the outset.
Some people were apparently not listening.
"No, but we do live in place, based on these two posts, where when you do criticize the president you are called a defeatist and a traitor."
Welcome to the world of freedom of speech, where words are met...
...with words. Not bullets. Not rubber hoses. Not rape rooms. Not plastic shredders.
But people do not have the right to say anything they want without repercussion. If the shoe fits...
"A place where you use someone's name (Obama) to childishly hope that someone will quake at the name of "Hussein" in fear."
One would hope that with the name "Hussein" he might have a little more compassion for the people he seems so willing to abandon to (self-admitted) genocide.
And finally, WRT "Swiftboating": I note that John F'n Kerry has let the statute of limitations run out on the possibility of suing the Swiftboaters for libel. I also note that he never did release his entire military record.
Propaganda, Mark, is usually the most effective when its truthful.
I don't have to tell them. They already know. The word quagmire was uttered by Dick Cheney in 1994 in direct relation to what would happen in Iraq. Did you watch the video of what he said? Everything has come true.
True, the Democrats could pull the funding. They don't because the want Bush to keep screwing things up so they can win in 2008. Harry Reid (the worst leader in the history of the Senate) is just as bad as Bush at this point. They, too, are playing politics with our troops' lives.
You don't have to tell them what?
"They don't because the want Bush to keep screwing things up so they can win in 2008.
--
"They, too, are playing politics with our troops' lives."
And this isn't traitorous?
Don't you think it's possible after the events of 2001 that politicians reassessed the risks, ran a cost/benefit analysis and determined that attempting to reform the middle East was a better option, even though it meant decades of military deployment there? I certainly drew that conclusion, and I did it before jihadis flew airliners into buildings on 9/11.
Yes, it is traiterous. I think, maybe, there are a dozen or so people I would trust to saferguard our nation's security. Here is a list off of the top of my head and in no particualar order
1. Barack Obama
2. Colin Powell
3. Bill Richardson
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Anthony Zinni
I'm sure there are more but that's all I can think of for right now.
Mark, could go go through why in particular you would trust each one, especially with Obama and his somewhat odd remarks that he would have unconditional talks with everyone, yet invade Pakistan?
and as our resident liberal whats your opinion on Clinton?
Bill or Hillary? I assume Hillary.....here is my take on her..
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/05/2008-presidential-profile-2-hillary.html
If it's Bill, let me know. I have plenty to say about him. As for the others...
Barack Obama:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/05/torch-is-finally-passed.html
Colin Powell:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2006/05/profiles-in-courage-part-five.html
Bill Richardson:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/05/presidential-profiles-8-bill-richardson.html
Rudy Giuliani:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/05/mayor-of-our-town.html
Anthony Zinni:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2006/04/profiles-in-courage-part-one-general.html
The Obama column was written before his remarks on Pakistan so my take on that is simple: that's where the people are that bombed us on 9-11.
thanks, interesting read
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>