Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So it seems the line that has the DEMS' panties bunched is "some attack the president for attacking the terrorists" (paraphrased). This goes back to the 6 month argument of whether the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you believe it is, then this line is roughly true (at least close enough for politics, and certainly closer than "BUSH LIED"). If you don't, well . . . your panties are twisted.

In absolutely no sense is it true that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is attacking the president for attacking terrorists. Those attacking him on Iraq are saying that he's failing to attack terrorists. (It also is not true that Saddam Hussein, whatever his other flaws, can fairly be called a terrorist. You can call him that, but it renders the word almost meaningless.)

Someone at the RNC or the White House should call the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and tell them that their children died to re-elect George Bush, because that's what this gutless, shameless appropriation of national security for partisan gain amounts to. Sadly, there appears to be no one with both class and heft left in the Republican Party, because if there were, they'd be telling the RNC to cut this shit out.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Someone at the RNC or the White House should call the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and tell them that their children died to re-elect George Bush, because that's what this gutless, shameless appropriation of national security for partisan gain amounts to. Sadly, there appears to be no one with both class and heft left in the Republican Party, because if there were, they'd be telling the RNC to cut this shit out.

You probly dislike ROTC and think Condi Rice is a whore.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You probly dislike ROTC and think Condi Rice is a whore.

Characterizing women you don't agree with as "whores" is such a moral majority kind of thing to do, Atticus. Knock it off.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In absolutely no sense is it true that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is attacking the president for attacking terrorists.

I didn't know there was anybody left to the right of Chomsky.

I'd respond to the rest of your post, but frankly I'm sick of having the same argument over and over again, so I'll leave it as simply that I disagree.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. But I guess the military has to keep up traditions, like having a basis for one ensign to look down on another ensign

sheeesh...what law school did YOU go to?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I haven't seen it, but it sounds shameless. Here's a good description. As these folks suggest, it has a whiff of desperation about it. If they're resorting to this crap now, where will they be next October?

Ty you need to start reading sometihng more evenhanded. I didn't get past the banner ad- 3 books "Bushisms" "A long Short War" then Hillary's book with a photo of her looking all smart.

where "they'll be" next November is with a bigger share of the house 55 Senate seats, and of course a big win for Bush.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Sadly, there appears to be no one with both class and heft left in the Republican Party, because if there were, they'd be telling the RNC to cut this shit out.

Yeah, tell us all about class while you proclaim Bush a moron and make up one attempt at discrediting him after another, failing each time.

("He should'a said "thought they learned, not learned!! Damned LIAR!!")

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, tell us all about class while you proclaim Bush a moron and make up one attempt at discrediting him after another, failing each time.

"Failing each time"? I know it's your MO to shout "Scoreboard!" when anyone decries anything the GOP does, but I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea. A surprising number of GOP moderates are willing to agree that Bush overstated the case for war against Iraq --- they tend to side with the president over whether it was nevertheless worthwhile, but this idea that Bush remained on solid swear-on-grandma's-grave credibility ground throughout this international debacle is starting to look a little bit like Indian territory against Manifest Destiny.

Only 52% of Americans say the war was worth fighting, down from a high of 70% in April. For those of us who think the "Let's all go to war!" decision should look a bit more like a jury verdict and less like a Coke-versus-Pepsi poll, that's a pretty low number. You're entitled to feel differently, though. This is America, where it is always and everywhere classy to throw stones at powerful men.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
A surprising number of GOP moderates are willing to agree that Bush overstated the case for war against Iraq --- they tend to side with the president over whether it was nevertheless worthwhile, but this idea that Bush remained on solid swear-on-grandma's-grave credibility ground throughout this international debacle is starting to look a little bit like Indian territory against Manifest Destiny.

By moderates, I assume you mean moderate Democrats, John McCain and the RINOs in the Northeast. Other than that, I am not hearing anything of the sort and I can confidently say that I have more opportunities to do so than you do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, tell us all about class while you proclaim Bush a moron and make up one attempt at discrediting him after another, failing each time.

It's a puzzle. No WMD. No link to Al Qaeda. (Though God knows they've tried to build a case.) So many pre-war statements that just weren't true. And yet you say the guy isn't a moron (and I'm inclined to agree). Presumably he's very, very angry at whoever misled him. And yet no heads have rolled.

Let's face it, the man discredits himself. His job performance has been abysmal, on every criteria save for making his core supporters wealthy. His re-election is premised on the fact that some foreigners are trying to kill us, never mind the fact that he's been making it worse.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
never mind the fact that he's been making it worse.

Worse than what? History absolutely screams that we must address our enemies. Sure, I'd rather not make more, but who is our enemy now that wasn't yesterday? Yemen? France?

The Arab street has been burning our flag for decades.

If nothing else, the best change he could offer is to lower our overseas profile in places which a.) we are not adversely occupying and b.) where the government acts as our friend, but insists we are not needed. Maybe its not for reasons that you or I like, but Western Europe, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Vieques all have a lower presence of U.S. troops than when he began. Conclusion? We are confronting our enemies and we are decreasing the likelihood that our friends will resent our presence on their soil.

Sure, there is still Syria and Iran, but they were there before. Its not like he created that problem. So what is he making worse? If nothing else, the U.N. general assembly has to explain several fewer times a year why it coddles tyrants. See, e.g., Mullam Omar and Saddam Hussein. What a perfect spot for us to put our allies in.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"Failing each time"? I know it's your MO to shout "Scoreboard!" when anyone decries anything the GOP does, but I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea.

I have no idea what this means. "Scoreboard"?

A surprising number of GOP moderates are willing to agree that Bush overstated the case for war against Iraq --- they tend to side with the president over whether it was nevertheless worthwhile, but this idea that Bush remained on solid swear-on-grandma's-grave credibility ground throughout this international debacle is starting to look a little bit like Indian territory against Manifest Destiny.

I agree that Bush sold his case - hard - but I guess I draw a different line than you do when it comes to assigning the "liar!" epithet to what he did. Having watched many here do the posting version of shrilly screaming "liar!" at every opportunity, (with the consequent backing and filling as new information came to light, repeatedly), I have little patience for the new version consisting of "well, he never said imminent, but I just know that he knew that that's what we would be claiming after the fact, and so it's his fault that he didn't disclaim the imminence of the threat more forcefully". I now get a huge surge of glee listening to the vituperative ones claim that the new ads are somehow . . . crossing some line of civility to which THEY, of course, have always adhered. Yeah, right. There's a new crowd out there for whom I used to have intellectual and moral respect and for whom I now have none.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I now get a huge surge of glee listening to the vituperative ones claim that the new ads are somehow . . . crossing some line of civility to which THEY, of course, have always adhered.

The problem with the ads is not that they're not "civil." They're flat-out dishonest. And they take a cause around which the nation should be rallying, and use it in a divisive way for partisan gain. It's not a question of style -- it's their substance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The problem with the ads is not that they're not "civil." They're flat-out dishonest. And they take a cause around which the nation should be rallying, and use it in a divisive way for partisan gain. It's not a question of style -- it's their substance.

Concur. To pick an emotionally hot-button topic and accuse the other guy of being against something that one simply cannot be against, is vile. The whole point of such ads is to force away debate on the issue. If the other guy then raises a question about how the issue is being handled, em is certainly a deeply misguided person, and probably anti-American, or worse. The ad's aim is to prevent any discussion on a topic, which by its nature is important, and should be open to debate.
Such ads are unfair and are themselves misguided.

I should admit. I haven't been following the thread. You were talking about the Democrat's ads that accuse Republicans of hating children because they question whether the Department of Education fulfills any legitimate or valuable role, right?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I should admit. I haven't been following the thread. You were talking about the Democrat's ads that accuse Republicans of hating children because they question whether the Department of Education fulfills any legitimate or valuable role, right?

Oh, that was just nasty.

I like it.

(Imagine, a contemporary Democrat railing against the vileness of misrepresenting someone else's position! Well, no, I just can't even think of such a thing . . . )