Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

They accept the quagmire scenerio, because they either don't, can't or won't (take your pick) see the only similarity between Vietnam and Iraq, is their behavior. And yes, there was a bit of smile on my face, but mostly because they don't have the guts to back up their rhetoric with action. Instead, they try to have their cake and eat it too, acting not out of principle, but expediency (what strange behavior for a politican is that? ) So, in that respect, yes, I'm a smiling

[sailaway21]

The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save from itself. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[PBzeer]

To distill it somewhat further, conservatives believe it is people who make the difference, while liberals believe it is government that makes the difference.

In the broader scope, I think conservative and liberal are much more descriptive terms than Democrat and Republican. The parties, as such, have really become Tweedledee and Tweedledum, differentiating, only in espoused philosophy, rather than in acting upon it.

The biggest drag though, on American politics is that few people vote intellectually. It's either by emotion, habit, or misguided loyalty.

[hellosailor]

It is sadly expected to see the Democrats playing politics over Iraq. They say "We were fooled (gee, we weren't smart enough to use our own resources and gather our own facts) and we were wrong to vote for it (but we voted for it, and we didn't invoke the War Powers Act for six years even though we are the ones who wrote it and passed it thirty years ago for exactly this reason) but those other guys were wronger to do it and we're going to stop it. We have no idea how to stop it or what the alternatives might be, we have no plans and we're ignoring the mess we'll leave behind if we do anything differently, but those other guys are bad so you shouldn't vote for them you should vote for us."

I don't know, but to me that sounds like EXACTLY THE SAME WHINING AND LACK OF A PLATFORM that lost them Congress (after a 40-year run of Democratic majority) and lost them the White House.

I do know that a lot of people voted for Bush not just once, but twice, simply because the Democrats did nothing but whine and say "We have platform byu the other guys are bad" and in fact, that is literally what one of the Democratic candidates said during their 9-way presidential nomination debate, "It doesn't matter which one of us you vote for as long as you vote against the other side". (Quoting from memory but that's damned close to literal.)

There's only so many fools you can con into a voting booth when you're honest enough to say "We have no platform, we have no ideas, we have no solutions." Compared to that--almost anything sounds better.

Sure looks like the Democrats are going to make the Republicans win AGAIN. I like to say Bush won, and won again, because he was the best candidate the DEMOCRATS had to offer.

A sad comment on politics in America.

[sailaway21]

Pretty much on the money, Hello. There is a deafening silence on the subject of what happens to Iraq, and how does that influence the terrorism movement, if we withdraw from Iraq. At the moment, the jihadists seem to be rushing to Iraq in an effort to defeat the great Satan, as well as having a stake in the new Iraq, and I find that convienient. Convenient because we have a large quantity of soldiers and US Marines there, who are trained in the killing of such types. The more jihadists who's tickets get punched in Iraq, the fewer that will be available for other mischief. Obviously, once things improve and we get Iraqis killing them we will have made a significant dent in the terrorism problem, as well as fundamentally changed the balance of power in the Middle East, which is what is needed to eradicate the problem long term.
One would have thought, after 9/11, that the days of kicking the can down the street, ala WJ Clinton, were over. But some still think, that if they close their eyes, click their heels together 3 times, it will be September 10, 2001 again.

[hellosailor]

Sailway, if Iraq was just "jihadi bait" and provided a good way to get all the fish in one barrel, I'd agree.

But I think they are just collateral to the issue. Iraq is not and never has been a nation, it was another bastard partitioning of war conquests and none of the tribes living there want to live with each other. Worse, they actively NEED to kill each other because the mere existance of the "wrong" believers is going to make them all burn in flame forever. (Try reading the Koran, you may lose any respect for Islam after doing so.)

So...The la-dee-da western Christian White Man's Burden, that we can overthrow the nasty dictator and make all the tribes happy and enlightened friends living in one land? Uhuh, that's a pipe dream. I'd be just as happy to let 'em all kill each other since that's what they REALLY WANT. I just don't want the world to say that happened because of the US stepping out, and I don't want to see us leave a vacuum that allows wholesale slaughter. Even though, again, I'm convinced there are enough zealots in Iraq so that this cannot be prevented EXCEPT by the iron fist of a dictator.

Not a pretty picture, but it is an Islamic state, and an awful lot of the Koran says "Do as you are told or burn in hell forever!" along with some hints about how to treat those who believe incorrectly--not just the unbelievers.

It ain't an easy read but I think one must read it to have an informed opinion on the world's fastest-growing plague. A religion that meshes perfectly with Machiavellian politics as a way of keeping the oppressed down, while using them to kill everyone else.

[cardiacpaul]

"They say "We were fooled (gee, we weren't smart enough to use our own resources and gather our own facts) and we were wrong to vote for it (but we voted for it, and we didn't invoke the War Powers Act for six years even though we are the ones who wrote it and passed it thirty years ago for exactly this reason) but those other guys were wronger to do it and we're going to stop it. We have no idea how to stop it or what the alternatives might be, we have no plans and we're ignoring the mess we'll leave behind if we do anything differently, but those other guys are bad so you shouldn't vote for them you should vote for us.""

Hopefully, someone will be smart enough to brinng up these little tidbits... everyday

""In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

I really like the thought of Fred Thompson running, he's got that same swagger and gift of gab that reagan had. He's old enough and got enough behind his voice and mannerisms to be a real leader... One of those "good 'ol boys" where a mans word is his bond and "if he sez it, he means it" demeanor that I think would set the US back on it compass, and the world on its heels.

I don't give a rats patootie if he was/is an actor, that means nothing. I think the man has common sense and could bring some much needed "git-r-done" attitude to the beltway.

[cardiacpaul]

jeez, seems as if you hold up a democrat with their own statements, they shut up.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)

"The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition. "
Nancy Pelosi

Well, which is it nancy? maybe syria will straighten it all out for us, you listen to them.

[hellosailor]

I wonder if Nancy P. ever heard the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".

Hey, look at that, the shoe fits on both feet.

[PBzeer]

The one thing I find encouraging about the whole Iraq situation in Congress is that it is getting to the point where people on both sides are going to have to put up, or shut up. If Bush stays firm and doesn't back down (as Republicans usually do), the Dems are basically screwed. They'll either have to vote to defund the war, which they won't do because of the consequenses it would have on their re-election. Or have to give in. It will also show how many Rep. are really behind Bush, or with the Dems.