Saw Bush’s speech, thought it was ok, glad he explained in no uncertain terms that we will not leave Iraq until the overall mission has been completed. I had worried he might be going wobbly. Then, on cue, as if to reeassure me why I should not take Democrats seriously, the nine dwarves responded and reminded me why I am not a Democrat. Bush has done a lot of things to piss me off, but lord help us if the Democrats win in 2004.
Reader Interactions
17Comments
Comments are closed.
S-Train
$87 billion is alot of scratch for the war on terrorism. Is anyone but me worried that we may neglecting something vital domestically? Oh well, I’m a isolationist, what do I know… :)
Jay Caruso
John, their response was predictable but ridiculous just the same.
whatever
I found it funny that NOT ONE of them supported the speech. I mean, how are the people supposed to tell them apart if they spew the same sh&t. I follow the news and all and I really don’t know the difference between them.
The smart thing to do would have been to come out in support of the speech and then quibble on details that don’t really matter. That would have gotten them noticed.
GFW
God forbid someone should call out the president when he does a bad job.
cameron
JUst heard 87 billion aint gonna b enough. They are gonna go back for more.
What a suprise.
Andrew Lazarus
I thought the mission was elimination of Saddam’s WMD and WMD delivery systems capable of attacking on 45 minutes’ notice.
Since there were no WMD, and no delivery systems, the mission is, as GWB put it in his Navy Fantasy Camp field trip, accomplished. Indeed, that was true even before the war started: what mathematicians call vacuously so. So, what’s the matter?
I suppose we liberals are grouchy because (1) there is still neither explanation nor apology for all of the WMD bullshit; (2) there was no indication of how to raise the unexpected $87 billion [ soon to be raised to over $100 billion]; (3) while of course we have always been willing to accept allied help UNDER OUR TERMS, there is little reason to see why “chocolate-eaters” whom we accused of being dupes and cowards for not recognizing the threat from Saddam’s WMD, WMD delivery systems, and WMD Imperial Death Stars are going to send money and troops, the more so that we apparently expect them to work only under our command.
Oh, and I haven’t yet mentioned how we arranged a tactical alliance between Iraqi secularists and Al Qaeda,formerly bitter enemies, resulting in a continuing stream of American casualties. Luckily, I found a cartoon that explains it all.
We’re waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool says to push on.
David Perron
That’s what you get for trying to think, Andrew. You might want to try another approach.
GFW
Dave, you’re so eloquent. Especially when to grapple with your opponents arguments and refute them in a resonable manner. You raise the level of each discussion you participate in. I salute you.
David Perron
I just deal with people as they present themselves to me. When they’re being deliberately obtuse, I treat them as if their opinion is of no value. Andrew comes up some silly strawman reason for bringing war on Iraq, and I respond with all the analytical rigor that argument was worthy of.
See how that works?
Kimmitt
I’m quite glad the Democrats stood up to the President and his ongoing idiocy. You say, “Lord help us if the Democrats win in 2004.” My response is that He already will have.
Andrew Lazarus
Excuse me, David, but I do believe I have repeated precisely one of the reasons adduced by the Bush Administration for the War on Iraq. We claimed he was hiding WMD from ineffective inspections. Don’t blame me that it was all bogus. I was even nice enough not to mention that we went to war to interdict shipments of yellowcake that were known at the time to exist only is forgery.
And as far as going to war with Iraq because of their alliance with Al Qaeda, that’s crap, too.
Since you don’t like my version, why don’t you give us three reasons for the Iraq War as offered at the time?
David Perron
There’s a fair amount of space between “one of” and “the”, Andrew. As you well know. Hence my response.
Andrew Lazarus
0+0+0+0+0…
JPS
Andrew–
It was all bogus? You’re sure about that; we should just stop looking now? You are certain that no weapons will ever be found? That nothing awful was spirited away to Syria, or buried someplace obscure, during that year when the cowboy unilateralist administration was goofing around with the UN? Not like they didn’t have some warning, after all.
Not long ago, we found some MiG-25s buried up to their tail fins in sand. If we’d been worried about them, it would have been an awfully embarrassing search, right up until we stumbled upon them by accident.
Here are your three reasons:
Iraq was ruled by a man who’d used chemical weapons on his own people and on Iranians.
Iraq was ruled by a man who hated our guts and would dearly love to hurt us, badly.
This man was a lot closer to nukes than any expert thought, when the first Gulf War intervened. He’d have had them, if he hadn’t miscalculated in invading Kuwait.
So Andrew, maybe he didn’t have nukes. Maybe he never would have, or never would have given them to terrorists. Which American city would you be willing to bet that you were right, and never would have been proven wrong?
If we were wrong, then for selfish and misguided reasons we deposed a mass-murdering fascist. If you were wrong, we’d have lost a city someday. And used nukes in response.
So thanks for proving John’s point: “Lord help us if the Democrats win in 2004.”
Kimmitt
Yes, yes, we should invade and conquer every single nation which has a regime hostile to ours before it gets access to nuclear weapons.
David Perron
Sounds good to me, Kimmitt. As long as we’re being flip, anything goes, right?
Meanwhile, this is an action that Many Democrats (Gephardt, Bentsen, Edwards, Waxman, to name a few, in the House). Probably, though, they were just playing politics. Guess that just goes to show you that you can’t trust your congresscritters, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on. I think Daschle voted against it in the Senate, so I guess your he and Dean are still viable candidates for the Presidency, as far as you’re concerned.
Oh, I believe Inouye voted for the cloture of the Senate version. Is he going to lose your vote next election?
Kimmitt
Nah, Lieberman and Edwards have both made clear that they share something akin to the President’s position on the issue.
I believed that the Democratic Party was making a major error, and that is part of why I supported and support a candidate who spoke out against the policy.
Sen. Inouye did not vote to authorize the President’s war in Iraq, though Tom Daschle did.
link