How Liberals Debate

[Dr Grump]

Bullshit. A large scale bombing campaign, followed by invasion is exactly what Westmoreland wanted. The politicos in Washington are what held it up. If we had invaded and "slaughtered" the Vietnameze, Jane Fonda would have screamed even louder and my Father would have still been spit on when he returned.

BS..a large scale bombing campaign and invasion would not have had the desired result. Look at Iraq now. A third of the population and no forested landscape to hide behind. The only way to win would have been to nuke the place...and what sorta victory would have that been.

And why was it a bad thing that the US left Viet Nam? They never should have been there in the first place - domino effect or no domino effect...

 

[red states rule]

BS..a large scale bombing campaign and invasion would not have had the desired result. Look at Iraq now. A third of the population and no forested landscape to hide behind. The only way to win would have been to nuke the place...and what sorta victory would have that been.

And why was it a bad thing that the US left Viet Nam? They never should have been there in the first place - domino effect or no domino effect...

Nothing like the support and confidence libs shows toward the US military

 

[glockmail]

the cold war ended rather precipitously, if you'll recall. It was Cheney who pressed hard for the peace dividend... and it made sense....


I ask you again...just use common sense.... what sort of billion dollar military spending program would you think would work against car bombs in parking garages? Do you think an extra five infantry brigades would have prevented WTC '93? Or Khobar Towers? Od the African embassy bombings? Or the inflatable raft loaded with garden variety explosives plowing into the side of the USS Cole in a foreign port?

And defense industry jobs? building what? more SSN's? More CVN's? What?

Well bringing the fight to the enemy, as Bush is doing in Iraq, has worked to stop all these things on American soil.

 

[red states rule]

Well bringing the fight to the enemy, as Bush is doing in Iraq, has worked to stop all these things on American soil.

Meanwhile, the peaceniks hold their Pro Terrorist rallies -

and MM is there showing his support for the Dems who slime and insult the troops

 

[T-Bor]

[Reagan did NOT win the cold war. There were lots of players over many many years that helped win the cold war. Reagan just came in during the final act and closed it out. I mean the pope helped out a bit didnt he ? Reagan physically winning the cold war single handidly is a gross misconception.

QUOTE=onthefence;539473]Whether or not Reagan won the Cold War(he did BTW, I'll give you that) was not pertinate to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

 

[red states rule]

[Reagan did NOT win the cold war. There were lots of players over many many years that helped win the cold war. Reagan just came in during the final act and closed it out. I mean the pope helped out a bit didnt he ? Reagan physically winning the cold war single handidly is a gross misconception.

QUOTE=onthefence;539473]Whether or not Reagan won the Cold War(he did BTW, I'll give you that) was not pertinate to the discussion.

[/QUOTE]


Libs do continue to rewrite history in a lame attempt to cover up how they opposed Reagan's policies toward the Soviets

 

[red states rule]

I do hope the Dems keep up the good work............


A Democratic blueprint for defeat

TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 22, 2007


Today, the House begins consideration of the "slow-bleed" plan for defeat in Iraq that has been crafted by Rep. John Murtha and tucked into a $124 billion supplemental bill that includes money to fund the war. If Mr. Murtha, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership are successful in getting this bill enacted into law, it would jeopardize the ability of the approximately 150,000 American troops serving in Iraq to defend themselves. It also would effectively ensure that Iraq spirals into civil war and that terrorist insurgent and militia groups would prevail over the United States. A strong case also can be made that it contemplates micromanaging the war in ways that unconstitutionally encroach on the president's powers.
No one should be fooled by the fact that a few members on the far left of the House Democratic Caucus -- who oppose on principle any funding for the war -- will join with the overwhelming majority of House Republicans in voting against the bill. While in our view these fringe-left Democrats are foolhardy and irresponsible, they are at least at some level honest about their belief that victory is impossible and that it is time to abandon Iraq. But the bill being considered today is permeated by intellectual dishonesty.
Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Murtha, et al. realize full well that ever since George McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon in 1972 that the American public has come to distrust their judgment on national security because it perceives them to be "soft" on America's enemies. So, in the wake of November's elections in which the Democrats recaptured control of the House and Senate, they concocted a strategy that, if successful, would enable Democrats to make it impossible to conduct the war while giving themselves plenty of political cover when defeat inevitably occurred.
But managing a coalition that consists of left-wing ideologues who cannot abide even the pretense of trying to succeed in Iraq and Blue Dog Democrats who have to at least pretend to want victory is a difficult task. So, the legislation orders President Bush to meet a Murtha-concocted set of standards for unit readiness, length of deployment and time between deployments, and requires that U.S. forces be removed from Iraq by August 2008. In their more candid moments, Democratic leaders say openly that their plan will cripple the troops' ability to operate on the battlefield in Iraq. "They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha told a Web site run by anti-war groups last month.
And just a few weeks ago, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, when confronted outside his office by activists demanding an immediate cutoff of funds, blasted "idiot liberals" who failed to understand that "We're trying to use the supplemental to end the war. ... The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war [and] makes it illegal to proceed with the war."
No one should be under any illusions: The bill on the floor today has been crafted primarily to pave the way for an American military defeat in Iraq while giving the Democrats a fig leaf of deniability.


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070321-091128-1159r.htm

 

[glockmail]

[Reagan did NOT win the cold war. There were lots of players over many many years that helped win the cold war. Reagan just came in during the final act and closed it out. I mean the pope helped out a bit didnt he ? Reagan physically winning the cold war single handidly is a gross misconception.

QUOTE=onthefence;539473]Whether or not Reagan won the Cold War(he did BTW, I'll give you that) was not pertinate to the discussion.

[/QUOTE]


Maybe you could explain then why commies took over territory during every deomocrat administration afte FDR until Reagan.

 

[red states rule]

Maybe you could explain then why commies took over territory during every deomocrat administration afte FDR until Reagan.[/QUOTE]

Remember how the Soviets toyed with Pres Peanut Carter

Soviets invade Afghanistan and Pres Peanut responds by pulling the US out of the Olympics

 

[red states rule]

Business as usual? Dems load up Iraq bill with pork
Tuesday, 20 March 2007
The Democratic leadership of the House, the same leadership that promised an end to "business as usual" when it came to pork barrel spending, has greased up the Iraq funding bill with billions in pork to try and win approval from reluctant lawmakers.

Loading up appropriations bill with pet projects from lawmaker districts is an old tactic on Capitol Hill, one that brought widespread criticism of the old Republican leadership and one that Democrats promised to stop if voters returned them to power in the 2006 midterm elections.

Instead, the Iraq spending bill is so loaded with pork that lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are shaking their heads in disbelief.

Writes Jonathan Weisman of The Washington Post:

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

So far, the projects -- which range from the reconstruction of New Orleans levees to the building of peanut storehouses in Georgia -- have had little impact on the tally. For a funding bill that establishes tough new readiness standards for deploying combat forces and sets an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline to bring the troops home, votes do not come cheap.

But at least a few Republicans and conservative Democrats who otherwise would vote "no" remain undecided, as they ponder whether they can leave on the table millions of dollars for constituents by opposing the $124 billion war funding bill due for a vote on Thursday.

"She hates the games the Democrats are playing," said Guy Short, chief of staff to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), a staunch conservative who remains undecided, thanks to billions of dollars in the bill for drought relief and agriculture assistance. "But Representative Musgrave was just down in southeastern Colorado, talking to ranchers and farmers, and they desperately need this assistance."

Democratic leaders say the domestic spending in the bill reflects the pent-up demand from lawmakers who last year could not win funding for programs that had bipartisan support such as disaster assistance.

But in a formal veto statement last night, the White House denounced what it called "excessive and extraneous non-emergency spending." With unusually caustic and combative language, the statement dismissed provisions of the bill as "unconscionable," and said it "would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk" and "embolden our enemies."

As the opposition heats up, the Democrats have had some successes in their furious search for support. Yesterday, MoveOn.org announced that with 85 percent of its members backing the bill, the liberal activist group will begin working for its passage. That could prove to be a major boost for Democratic leaders struggling to keep in line the most liberal wing of the party, which wants to cut off funds for the war by the end of this year.


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cm/content/view/296/159/

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Perhaps. Though that doesn't comport with anything I've read on the subject. But the fact still remains that if a victory had been presented instead of a continued list of fallen, the objections of the far left would have fallen on deaf ears. It was the fact that there was no victory to offer and never would be that led to increased voices against the war. That, plus the fact that there was a draft and, unlike in WWII, there was no noble cause to fight for. The military did its job, but, was ill used, IMO, of course.

Good to see you OTF.

You are missing the point. The noble cause was the same as Iraq. Allowing a people to be free and enjoy democracy. Public opinion limited the victory. "Killing gooks" simply infuriated the peace mongers. It wasn't the absence of victory that caused an increase in unfavorable public opinion. It was the method that needed to be implemented to achieve victory. Besides the goal in Vietnam was never to conquer North Vietnam. It was to keep the North from conquering the South. When unfavorable public opinion forced us to pull out, the North came in and conquered and our mission was lost. Therefore, unfavorable public opinion led to a less than victorius outcome in Vietnam.

 

[Dr Grump]

You are missing the point. The noble cause was the same as Iraq. Allowing a people to be free and enjoy democracy. Public opinion limited the victory. "Killing gooks" simply infuriated the peace mongers. It wasn't the absence of victory that caused an increase in unfavorable public opinion. It was the method that needed to be implemented to achieve victory. Besides the goal in Vietnam was never to conquer North Vietnam. It was to keep the North from conquering the South. When unfavorable public opinion forced us to pull out, the North came in and conquered and our mission was lost. Therefore, unfavorable public opinion led to a less than victorius outcome in Vietnam.

If South Vietnam was a beacon of light and a great democratically run country, you might have a point. Diem and Theiu were corrupt politicians who didn't exactly give two shits about the population of South Vietnam...

 

[red states rule]

If South Vietnam was a beacon of light and a great democratically run country, you might have a point. Diem and Theiu were corrupt politicians who didn't exactly give two shits about the population of South Vietnam...

Sounds like how Dems feel aboout the Sunni and Shiite populations in Iraq

 

[red states rule]

So much for libs supporting freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Now libs are attacking one of the most liberal newspaper in the US for haveing the gall to say something bad about how Dems are running the government


Democrat Congressman Accuses Washington Post of Helping Drive Nation to War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 24, 2007 - 20:37.
As NewsBusters reported, the Washington Post published an editorial Friday that was highly critical of the bribery tactics employed by House Democrats to get their pork-laden Iraq withdrawal bill passed.

As surprising as this event was, even more shocking was a Democrat Congressman so angered by this paper disagreeing with his Party that he said “[the Post] helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for [the Iraq war]."

Displaying such unbridled disgust was Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) who had rather harsh words for the Post on the House floor Friday (video available here):

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world.

Dontcha just love it? Do Democrats have any responsibility for the decisions they make in Congress? After all, when it comes to this vote, what we’ve been hearing for years is that it was all the Bush administration’s fault. Now, it’s also the media’s fault?

Are these children that have been elected to serve the nation, or adults that are supposed to take responsibility for their actions and their decisions without pointing at others while saying, "He made me do it?"

Regardless of the answer, Obey wasn’t finished:

So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines. What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.

Hmmm. But isn’t that a bit of a double standard, Congressman? After all, for quite some time, your Party and its representatives have been telling the American people that the President manipulated intelligence reports to mislead legislators and the public. In fact, you’ve all made a big deal about “specific language,” even so far as criticizing sixteen words in a State of the Union address, correct?

As such, isn’t it somewhat hypocritical to be taking such a Machiavellian position whereby the specific language of this bill, and its atrocious bribery tactics, are irrelevant if they accomplish the goal your after?

Congressman, heal thyself.

*****Update: The Washington Post wasn't as gung ho about the Iraq war as Obey claimed on Friday. In fact, one of the strongest antiwar mainstream media voices in March 2003 was the Post's Walter Pincus. Take a look at his March 16, 2003, article entitled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," as well as his March 18, 2003, article entitled "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" for example.

It appears that Obey isn't familiar with Pincus' work, although facts don't seem very important to many folks who are trying to make a dubious point.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11624

 

[maineman]

gosh...not only more news busters...but they are repeats of cut and pastes from other threads.....

SPAM ALERT!

 

[red states rule]

gosh...not only more news busters...but they are repeats of cut and pastes from other threads.....

SPAM ALERT!

Just putting the article on all the proper threads -which seems to bug you very much

 

[maineman]

it doesn't really bug me....I am just disappointed that you don't seem to be able to write anything or even think anything on your own.... you are a broken recordol pot nazis durbin hate the troops blah blah blah ... over and over and over and over again.

you can't even bring yourself to answer simple yes or no questions.

I think you are pathetic and, if I were a conservative on this board, I would be embarrassed about the damage you do to the cause.

 

[maineman]

and as has been suggested to you on numerous occasions...if you would put a paragraph from your editorials and then the link to the rest of the text.... some people might actually take the time to read them...as it is... another day..another lengthy cut and paste oped piece from newsbusters that red states rule substitutes for his own inability to construct intelligent thoughts.... it's just boring.

 

[red states rule]

and as has been suggested to you on numerous occasions...if you would put a paragraph from your editorials and then the link to the rest of the text.... some people might actually take the time to read them...as it is... another day..another lengthy cut and paste oped piece from newsbusters that red states rule substitutes for his own inability to construct intelligent thoughts.... it's just boring.

I tried that and libs responded by cherry picking a few sentences and twisting the entire article around

Typical ploy for libs

I know you do not read them - you admitted you do not care what source I use

 

[maineman]

I tried that and libs responded by cherry picking a few sentences and twisting the entire article around

Typical ploy for libs

I know you do not read them - you admitted you do not care what source I use

I care to read YOUR thoughts as YOU can express them. YOU are unable to do that.

really sad.