Thursday, August 10, 2006

Silly Democrats

Lieberman will win in November and he will return to Washington free to be a pain in the ass to whomever he pleases, notably the democratic establishment who tossed him aside like a plump intern. By embracing Lamont the Democrats have cleverly positioned themselves as the "cut and run party". If we live in peace and harmony forever and that nasty bit of business on 9/11/2001 was just an anomaly this is brilliant strategy. Unfortunately this is the real world and the next clump of shit to hit the fan is an only a week, month, year or decade away. When it happens, and it will, sooner rather than later, Lieberman's pro war stance will make him seem like a moderate Sybil.
As for Lamont, some unsolicited advice: If Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are standing behind you and smiling, you're probably doing something wrong.

6 comments:

Dexter said...

"9/11" The Bush Mantra.Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The whole notion of the so called cut/run and painting anti-war Dems as cowards is a farce. That said I don't know what the answer for an exit strategy is but clearly one needs to be devised.

zaphod said...

Yes, Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 (neither was Hitler involved in Pearl Harbor) but he was involved in terrorism. It wasn't a coincidence that Zarqawi fled to Iraq after we made Afghanistan no longer hospitable for Al Qaeda. We don't need an exit strategy for Iraq. WE NEED A FREAKING LOYAL OPPOSITION IN THIS COUNTRY. If anti-war Demomocrats were 1/10th as committed to defeating the terrorists as they are to defeating President Bush, the enemy wouldn't stand a chance.

Dexter, you claim that naming the Democrat strategy as "cut and run" is a farce. Then in the very next sentence you say we need an exit strategy from Iraq. Could you be more incoherent? I understand why Dems don't like the phrase "cut and run" but unfortunately it's accurate.

There was a reason we had troops stationed in Germany and South Korea for the past 50-60 years even though no shots were being fired. Those were two fronts of the Cold War. Iraq (where shots ARE being fired) is a central front of THIS war. The enemy has all but painted it in neon for us. Al Qaeda has declared it so. Iran, the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism, is next door and they are waging a proxy war within Iraq against us. How does an "exit strategy" advance our interests in any way, shape or form?

On September 12, 2001 Michael Moore complained that the terrorists had killed the wrong Americans:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Three years later Moore was given a place of honor at the 2004 Democrat Convention. This is how corrupt the Democrat party has become. Lieberman should wear his primary defeat as a badge of honor.

Dexter said...

Zaphod plays Huxley to Duderino's Darwin.

Shots are being fired in anger in Iraq because this administration bullied congress into an unncessary ground war based on specious evidence and had absolutely no idea what to do when ground war was complete. It is an admin full of hubris and unable to accept criticism of its obviously fatally flawed policies. I am fully confident that Bush fils will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever, on both domestic and foreign affairs.

zaphod said...

You didn't answer my question.

And before you make rash predictions about what future historians will say about President Bush, you would do well to get a better handle on the history that happened only a few years ago. The admin bullied Congress into the war? Really? The war is certainly his responsibility but can you name a SINGLE Republican who claims he or she was bullied into supporting the war? It was, after all, a GOP Congress that authorized force... ANYBODY? Maybe there are Dems who felt bullied but if so, that would simply underscore why they shouldn't be trusted with power. If they can’t be trusted to stand up to President Bush, how can we expect then to stand up to our enemies?

And you do realize, don’t you, that regime change was established as official US policy towards Iraq two years before Bush was even elected. Did Bush bully the Clinton admin too? I mean, if he did, that’s pretty damn impressive.

As for having no idea what to do when the ground war was complete, well, that’s also not true. There’ve been three elections. A constitution has been adopted. A government is in place. We’ve been rebuilding infrastructure, training Iraqi security forces and waging a counter-insurgency. Have we made mistakes? Sure. And we clearly haven’t had the success we hoped for but wild-eyed accusations ain’t going to make things better.

I don’t know how open the Bush admin is to criticism. I do know that a lot of the criticism from the left has been made in bad faith. If the Dems aren’t being heard, that’s why.

Dexter said...

It advances our interests by removing US troops from the cross fire of a civil war. Iran seems to be the only country to have benefited from the removal of Hussien and the opening of Iraqi borders. Is the average Iraqi citizen safer now? What is the daily death toll? Can this duly 'elected' govt truly represent their constiuents or will they in effect rule from the Green zone? Is the Bush administration simply marking time until they are no longer responsble for US-Iraqi policy?

As for incoherency, 'I am large. I contain multitudes.' Plus I wouldn't want to risk losing my status as the resident knee jerk liberal.

zaphod said...

What's with the scare quotes? Are you implying they're NOT duly elected?

As for removing our troops, it's certainly true they won't be shot at anymore. Not landing at Normandy would have saved a lot of lives too.

You complain that Iran seems to be the only country that has benefitted from Saddam's ouster. I'd say not the only one but setting that aside, I'd agree Iran has benefitted. One of the major motivations for their nuclear program was the presence of Saddam next door. (Now of course, their nuclear ambitions have acquired a life of their own.) Saddam was a threat to Iran and now he's gone. Iran was always going to benefit no matter what happened. That was pretty much "baked in the cake". The problem is they've been able compound their gain by undermining our efforts in Iraq.

Getting back to your argument, removing our troops would only magnify and consolidate this trend. I still don't see how cutting and running advances our interests.