May 23, 2007

Bush bitch slaps Dems on war bill

Disgusting

There is no good way to spin this. It's an utter defeat for the Democrats.

40 Comments:

At 5/23/2007 3:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened to the Democrats that won the Congress by promising to end the war?

Timetables? What a bunch of crap. Where is the end of the war? No timetables...no money immediately.

 
At 5/24/2007 9:58 AM, Anonymous yinn said...

We may have to throw out the bums a couple more times to get this right.

 
At 5/24/2007 8:50 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I've heard some commentary on this and the only thing that I can blame this on besides Dems is the American public and the right's overwhelming propaganda network's ability to distort reality and put out a version of reality that is utterly senseless.

First of all, consider that this president is sitting at a popularity rating below 30%, everyone knows he's a liar that constantly spouts meaningless or deceptive bull every time he opens his mouth.

Yet the Dems cave in to him and give him everything he wants and then some? Even when the public overwhelmingly supports the Dem position? It's preposterous on it's face, but there are some pretty discouraging factors behind it.

The key factor here, and it's tawdry and shameful when you recognize that many more, hundreds, of Americans and inocent Iraqi's will lose their life and limbs because of it, but the reason the Dems, as always, caved in, is that they were simply afraid of what the Republicans would do to them if they actually did what the public wants, namely cut off funding and get us out of Iraq.

The fact remains that the Dems continually buy into the right wing spin THEMSELEVES, which is a fatal mistake in my view.

In this case, they're running scared of giving the Republicans a, as usual, utterly false, story that would blame the Dems for "losing" this mess in Iraq.

The story, as everyone knows, is that if the Dems cut funding, that somehow the troops would be stranded in Iraq, forced to throw bullets at the enemy by hand, and having to swim home to the U.S.

It's utter and complete bullshit, needless to say, but it's their story and they're sticking to it.

The Dems by their actions have bought into this line and given it legitimacy.

But the underlying reason is that this is all a kubuki dance to try to pin blame for this war where it belongs, namely squarely with Bush and his henchmen, and the Republicans who love them and would stoop to any level of immorality or deception to prop him up.

The Dems know that if they fought for and were able to pass a measure which reduced funding as a means of forcing us to do the right thing, the thing most Americans want, namely getting us out of Iraq, at least not as we are situated now, that when we get out of Iraq, which is only a matter of time, namely, the time when Bush is no longer in office.

Yep, Bush the criminally selfish, is willing to sacrifice any amount of blood and money in order to save his hide and irresponsibly dump his collossal screw up into the lap of the next, presumably Dem, president's lap.

And when the time comes to get out of Iraq, the Republicans would have screamed from the rafters that it was the Dem's fault for cutting funding and supposedly pulling the rug out from under "the troops". In other words, the Dems will have "lost" this "war" which was phoney and ginned up from thin air to begin with.

Of course that idea is preposterous, and of course it's obviously false on its face.

Yet the Dems know that there's enough Republicans with such psychological problems in coming to grips with just how incompetent and reckless, and criminal their darlings in the White House truly are, that they would be willing to swallow ANY story line that took the blame away from where it belongs and put it on the Dems.

So in essence, the Dems were willing to sacrifice lives and limbs themselves in order to preserve their "high ground" and not allow lying right wingers to accuse them of being the ones who "lost" this "war", a "war" which was lost the moment the insane scheme was acted on to begin with.

Dems are understandibly not going to want to hand Rove & Co. a perfect bullshit story line to tar them with in '08, but they're also guilty of acrificing the lives of "the troops", those sorry pawns which have been shamelessly used by the right to hide behind in their effort to get more of them killed (for nothing, in the end) in order to avoid political damage.

In that they're almost as shameful as the right, but they'd still have a long way to go to equal the squalid and purposely dishonest tactics of the right to perpetuate an ongoing scheme to enrich the few at the cost of the lives and well being of so many brave servicemen, and whose greed will hobble the countries economy for decades.

They're looting the country with both hands, and have been for years. It will only stop a few years into a Dem administration, and that's IF the Dems have enough guts to stand up to corporate interests who've become entirely used to having everything their way for 6 years now.

Things can only get better. They can't get worse.

 
At 5/24/2007 8:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Dem's have no integrity, they run against the war, then they pass a meaningless bill knowing that Bush would veto it.

If they had integrity, they cut funding immediately.

But then - what happens to the Islamic terrorists? Do they just go away - of course not!

And the Democrats in Congress know this and this is why they are doing nothing about the issue...they are just using the rank and file liberal saps.

 
At 5/25/2007 1:04 AM, Blogger Craig said...

FYI.... Phil voted against the war funding bill.... I knew there was a reason I helped him get elected!

 
At 5/25/2007 7:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, Bush's approval rating is 33%, yes - however, why don't you mention that the approval ratging for Congress is 29%!?

Craig, so maybe you can help me understand...we leave Iraq, then Iran takes control of Iraq (a very likely outcome, as they are a major factor behind the 'civil war') - what do you think happens then?

Or, if you do not want to accept that this is a real likelihood...

We leave Iraq, do you believe that Islamic terrorism just goes away?

Two very simple questions - can you answer them? Thank you.

 
At 5/25/2007 7:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Craig, before you duck the question, or dismiss it - please watch the news specific to the speech given yesterday by cleric 'Al Sadr' gave in Iran yesterday.

After doing so, if you still believe that Iran is not a threat to the US, or that Islamic-terrorism is not a long-term threat, I certainly can understand your excitement over Phil Hare.

 
At 5/25/2007 11:47 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're very confused in your thinking, but that's to be expected after years of swallowing the counter-reality goop coming from Bush & Co. The cognitive disssonence does that to you.

I'd rather be a part of a group of hundreds of people who have a low approval rating than one leader who is distrusted by 6 out of every 10 people in the country.

But most importantly, you're horribly messed up with all these false choices and gobble-de-goop that you've been fed by the right and the Bush administration.

First of all, you've bought the absolutely crazy premise that we simply HAVE to continue a perpetual war in Iraq or else we'll be invaded by "terrists".

That's bullshit, pure and simple.

The fact of the situation is that there is FAR FAR more terrorists recruited to the cause exactly BECAUSE we've completely wrecked a country and replaced a ruthless and efficient dictator with utter chaos and clueless incompetence, not to mention rampant war profiteering.

Bush has made us far less safe than we were on 9-11. bin Laden must be laughing his beard off every day at how astonishingly stupid Bush's reaction to 9-11 has been. If you didn't know any better, you'd think Bush was working for bin Laden, as he's handed him everything bin Laden could dream off and then some.

Freedoms stolen and privacy rights thrown out the window, millions of dupes soiling themselves in fright over imaginary boogie-men that are going to be galloping camels down the main street of Galva any day now.

Freaked out weirdo fundimentalists convinced this is some cataclysmic war between religions.... the insanity goes on and on. America has literally gone nuts, and the head nut is such a loon that he doesn't give a damn how crazy what he says is, or how many die because of his bizarre desire for conquest.

The Bush administration is a perfect storm of ideological screwballs, think tank idiots, fundementalist zealots, corporate interests whose greed knows no bounds, old right wing loons from the Nixon administration living out their cold war fantasies at the expense of lives and using up our military, and on and on.

All for a war of choice.

As for Iran taking over Iraq...

Don't you think the "grown ups" in the Bush administration might have considered that outcome before they bulled their way in there?

But aside from their criminal negligence and short-sightedness, the fact is that the big winners in this "war" are Iran and bin Laden.

That's plain to see. Thanks George.

So what if Iran gains influence over Iraq? Why are you so frightened of Iran? Have you ever stopped to really think about it? Are you afraid simply because all the trash on the airwaves tell you you should be?

But this is what you get when you go blundering into the mideast, knock off a dictator who was ruthless and barbaric because he HAD TO BE to keep all the various factions in line, and then stand around like helpless idiots while utter madness takes over the country to fill the vacuum.

What a glorious chapter in our nation's history, brought to you courtesy of the Republican party and their great way of looking at the world.

But your last question is the most silly.

Do you really still believe that if we stayed in Iraq, we could somehow eliminate terrorism?

That .... what? Maybe we could just keep slaughtering people that might be terrorists until.... what? There's no terrorists left? Or until they get scared and say, "Gee, it's just not worth it to fight the people who invaded our country and will rule us by force and take our resources."

Are you really convinced that we have to stay in Iraq to somehow keep terrorism under control?

How childish are you?

Terrorism isn't a group of people. It's not an army, or any organization, TERRORISM IS A TACTIC.

Terrorism is simply the means of fighting back against a superior enemy by people who have no standing army and don't have mulitiple billions of dollars tied up in equipment to kill people efficiently.

You can continue feeding young American bodies into the meat grinder in Iraq until the sun goes out, you'll NEVER eliminate terrorism.

Are you so longing for your pre-9-11 sense of security that you actually think America can spend a few trillion dollars and go blow the hell out of everything and somehow that will keep you safe?

I've gone on too long as usual, but you REALLY have to start taking a cold hard look at reality, NOT the bulllshit you've been swallowing with gusto for years now.

It's 99.9% pure unadultrated lies.

I know it's tough to come to grips with that, but ..... there it is.

IF we stay in Iraq, we're continuing to provide bin Laden and every other Arab terrorist with the answer to their prayers.

They've been preaching that the U.S. is agressive and determined to invade and take over their sacred homelands.

And what did Bush do? EXACTLY the thing bin Laden had been predicting and warning about.

Now bin Laden is a sainted hero to millions and Bush is a blatant liar who has more blood on his hands than the worst thug dictator.

Now Bush is doing the best recruiting job for bin Laden that bin Laden could have dreamed of.

Where once they were a small controllable group in Afghanistan, their now millions and millions of people who sympathize with their cause around the world.

bin Laden has give these oppressed and beaten down people some pride and something to commit to, courtesy of the idiot in the White House and the idiots who voted for him.

So give up any twisted notions that we can somehow drop enough bombs or shoot enough bullets to every stop those who want us out of that region.

If we stay the problem only intensifies and expands.

If we leave, then we take away the biggest recruiting tool for those who want to engage in terror.

We need to stop trying to shoot our way into and out of every foreign problem.

If we instead were devoted to trying to moderate the political chaos which will inevitably ensue when you yank someone like Hussein out and leave a huge power vacuum.

But don't believe for a split second that WE will be any worse off if we get out of Iraq.

We can't POSSIBLY be in any worse shape than we're in right now. It could only be better.

 
At 5/25/2007 2:26 PM, Anonymous nooncat said...

Amen.

And don't think for a moment that it's only libs who oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq. Patrick J. Buchanan has gone on record repeatedly over the years as an opponent of the Iraqi War; he even started his own magazine, "The American Conservative," "whose mission," in his words, "is in great part to counter the disastrous projects of the War Party."

A short list of other conservatives who have spoken out against the U.S. war in Iraq includes John J. Duncan, John Dean, Charlie Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, James Webb, Robert Novak, and members of the Cato Institute.

ConservativesForPeace.com is devoted to spreading the word among fellow conservatives regarding "the wars and hypocrisy whereby we create our own enemies."

Their main charges are that this war, and the Bush administration in general, stands in contradistinction to traditional conservative values: Bush's big goverment rather than small government (war, of course, is the ultimate "big government" program); bloated deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility rather than spending cuts and resposibility toward the financial well-being of the Federal Government; Wilsonian empiricism and world government rather than America first and a strong national defense; preemptive war rather than self-defense. All the ills that conservatives and neo-cons have accused liberals of espousing for decades are now being embraced by Bush and his supporters regarding our war with Iraq.

 
At 5/25/2007 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Dope, what a response for 2 simple questions!

Knowing that your response is as boring as it is trivial, I see no reason to put myself through reading your all-to-long response. Is there no way that you can address a simple and brief question with a simple and brief response (without all the hatred)?

I'll try again...

1. Please tell me what the left thinks is a reasonable expectation of Iran (with a US pullout of Iraq), and

2. Does Islamic-terrorism just go away if we were to leave Iraq?

Thank you in advance for your brevity in a response - and if you can, can you answer in a reasonable manner with no name calling (issues only please)?

 
At 5/25/2007 3:09 PM, Anonymous qcexaminer said...

Please provide proof, not just DNC talking points that the following is true:

1. more terrorists have been recruited because of our invasion of Iraq. Who really "surveys" terrorists?

2. Freedoms stolen and privacy thrown out the window. Well, yeah, if you have a phone a computer, a credit card, etc. your privacy is pretty much gone---but what does that have to do with Iraq? the NYTimes is doing the same data-mining that they denounced the government for doing. Hypocrisy will do in the left----unless you think the NYTimes is a "conservative" publication.

3.Bush has made us less safe. Where's the proof? Just because those Democrats running for POTUS say it's true, doesn't make it so. Gonna poll those "terrorists" to prove your point?

4. "Criminal negligence". Don't you think that if this was REALLY true, criminal charges would be brought?

5. "Feeding young American bodies into the meatgrinder of Iraq". Normal people don't speak this way----where did you get this talking point? And if you were intellectually honest, should you mention the fact that these "young America bodies" volunteered for service and were not drafted as Democrat Rangel insists they must be?

6. "99.9 unadulterated lies". Let's have some facts here and less emotion. Can you really prove this claim?

More reasons why thinking people don't take TID seriously: "Ideological screwball, think tank idiots, fundamentalists zealots, corporate interests whose greed knows no bounds." Fascinating, but I'd like your take on the greed that knows no bounds that is Jack Murtha and his enabler Nancy Pelosi, plus Dem Jackson who was caught with $90,000 in his freezer, yet the Democrats STILL elected such corrupt politicians. Let's get real---Democrats don't throw their corrupt and greedy politicians out of office---they keep re-electing them. (Murtha was part of the AbScam scandal during the 70s, yet the people love him!)

You claim the opposition is "childish" but what do you have to offer except emotion instead of facts?

I would really love for you to prove ANYTHING you have claimed above, and I mean credible sources, not just left-wing fantasy sources.

 
At 5/26/2007 12:44 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 2:40

I'm sorry about your ADD, but please don't insist I keep repeating myself for your short attention span's benefit.

I gave your questions more than adequate response, the fact that you can't comprehend it isn't my problem.

But as usual, I'll go down this same road again.

First of all, you ask ME what "the left's" expectations are about Iran.

Do you speak for the entire "right"?

Why ask one person to represent the entire "left", as if that's a monolithic and single minded position?

The question is dumb on it's face.

Secondly, what does it matter what someone speculates Iran would do? It's completely unknowable, and dependent on a completely dynamic and unstable situation over there.

And again, you're willing to continue to feed human beings into a death mill due to your unspecified fears of Iran?

The fact remains that Bush's policies have strengthened Irans position and influence in the region beyond their wildest dreams. How do you respond to that?

Sadaam was Iran's mortal enemy, and visa versa. Now look.

You want to continue to hemmorage billions into Iraq to keep our kids dying in the middle of a civil war and a power struggle between dozens of factions, Iran of which is only a major influence.

we've seen how well that works. And you want to continue it? This keeps you safe how? And I'm glad you're willing to maim, cripple, and kill people for your half-baked theories about what may or may not happen if we were to at the very least stop being part of the problem in Iraq.

As I said before, the childish oversimplified logic of your second question barely merits a serious response.

Of course terrorism doesn't just evaporate if we leave Iraq. What's your point? That it will become WORSE if we do?

I simply don't see that happening at all. If anything, our presense there makes it infinitely worse. Withdrawing from at least our purely military role there would only take away motive and rationalization for those who are fighting to get us out.

The only winners in Bush's war are Iran, bin Laden, and the corporate cronies who are making a killing on the killing. Period.

And you want to perpetuate this disasterous course... why?

Because you think the US presense there, holed up inside an incredibly fortified Green Zone that still is mortared with regularity is somehow keeping the boogie-men at bay? Grow up.

Paying Haliburton and others literally billions to construct massive military bases in Iraq is making us safer how?

It's clear to all that this is little more that capitalist imperialism like always. Don't expect those you exploit to like it.

And the law of diminishing returns applies here in spades. Any fool can continue to throw other people's money and lives into a failed idea, and Bush and the Republicans have been for years. But a wise leader recognizes when it's not working and cuts their losses.

When you're bleeding money and lives and gaining not a thing, making things demonstrably worse, and despite an effort longer than the entirety of WWII, shows only signs of getting progressively worse and making us less secure, then yeah, you might want to think about doing something differently.

It sounds like you could be put to good use digging a pit on the beach. Sure, it would continually fill back in with each wave, but you'd stay there for years, digging and digging and digging.

But at least your misguided belief that you'd eventually succeed wouldn't be causing the death and maiming of thousands of men, women, and children.

Imagine the Mark ... and every single seat in it was filled with a bloody corpse. That's probably the results of this "war" in only a month's time or so.

Then stand on stage and tell those corpses of Mom's, Dad's, kids, husbands and wives that you want to fill up another Mark with bodies because Iran might do something bad or that you're scared of the people who are fighting for control of Iraq.

OOOOps.

Forgot you can't handle more than bumper sticker replies like you hear on Rush Limbaugh.

Better stop, I've already exceeded your word limit I'm sure.

 
At 5/26/2007 12:57 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

examiner.

Your duplicity and spin is simply breathtaking.

You cite one corrput Dem and wonder why we continue to "elect corrupt politicians".

What a joke. The Republican list of felons and crooks is too long to even recite here, and you somehow think Dems are the corrupt ones?

And the fun has only just begun. If you pay attention, there's new crimes and scandals being revealed on almost a daily basis.

Monica Goodling. Wow. A totally unqualified hack hired for her fundementalist zeal and doing dirty oppo research for the RNC and then blatantly breaking the law by deciding hiring and firing of career U.S. attorney's by their political beliefs. Her defense? "I didn't mean to."

An even brief overview of theives, crooks, and immoral weirdos among the right wing would be far too extensive to include here.

And so sorry my expressing my views and characterizing idiots as idiots offends you.

I might remind you that if you don't take TID seriously, don't flatter yourself that others don't.

I can always count on you adding to the debate by scanning and then recounting every adjective I use to describe the criminals who got us into this mess.

What do you do with the rest of your time? Watch PBS kids shows for signs of satanism or support of the "gay agenda"?

As to the reason my assertions are true, it's unreasonable to expect me to cite the thousands of pieces of evidence for them. Anyone who pays attention would surely not question them to begin with.

And your question as to the criminal conduct of Bush and others makes me laugh. Surely you're not so naive as to think that every crime gets prosecuted against this administration, especially when the Republican enablers have been in charge for years. That's part of the problem! The criminality is exposed, people explain the criminality, for instance in Bush's secret authorization of warrentless searchs and surveilance, and no one has the political balls to do anything about it.

But please spare me the childish notion that there must not have been any criminal conduct because, why if there was, they'd be charged.

A president doesn't have to shoot someone on a street corner to commit a crime, and Bush is exhibit A of that fact.

And when you consider that lying to congress is a crime, this administration is FULL of criminals, and tellingly, chief among them the very person charged with being the nation's top law enforcement official.

If you can't see the corruption in this administration, then you'd simply excuse ANY sort of behavior by any president. And that's scary.

 
At 5/27/2007 10:25 AM, Blogger THE ORACLE said...

Inside: The media is selling the Dems as capitulators to President Bush on this thing but you have to look at the whole picture. If They do not fund the Iraq occupation I have no doubt Bush will leave the Troops there anyway. He just won't send bullets and equipment to help them do their jobs. With each casualty report he gets, Bush will just blame Democrats for not letting him have his way, regardless of what the vast majority of the American People want. It sucks, yes. But the Dems had no choice. We have to keep our Troops supplied. In essence, they had to protect our Troops from their Commander in Chief.

 
At 5/27/2007 9:47 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

That's essentially what I was trying to say. But the fact remains that A. The myth that "de-funding" the war would somehow "de-fund" the troops is a flat out lie.
Wars have had funding withheld in the past, and trust me, the troops would have all the funds, equipment, food, armor, bullets, etc. that they need.... at the very least as much as they have now, which in many cases has never been enough (yet another irony, that the Bushies accuse Dems of somehow short-changing the troops when they've NEVER provided them with enough equipment or the best equipment, and it's gotten a lot of soldiers killed because if it.)


The facts as I believe them to be is that a funding cut could be passed without affecting the troops in any way, shape, or form, as there's already so many billions in the pipeline, available in other areas of the budget (most of the war's cost has been conveniently left "off budget" and isn't counted towards the total or the deficit)

It's a complete and utter scam by the Republicans, and the Dems caved.

You can argue that they had no choice, but of course they did. They could have dug in, done what the vast majority of people WANT them to do, and that's do something to hasten a change of strategy in Iraq.

They could have passed the funding cuts and taken the heat, and patiently and effectively explained that this is NOT leaving the troops under-equipped. But no... they conceed to the Republican noise machine and give up, figuring that the right will once again win the PR battle.

All well and good if it were only politics, but tragically, this little political move will cost people their lives.

 
At 5/28/2007 2:57 PM, Blogger THE ORACLE said...

I don't trust the Bush/Cheney team to see that thr Troops are supplied. Thousands have been killed and tens of thousands wounded because of the bungling mess they have made. Lost lives and limbs have no effect on the consciences of these two. They would rather continue to let our Troops be in harms way for no reason other than Bush and Cheney refuse to admit they were wrong.

 
At 5/29/2007 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, you deflect when you have no answers...

I will rephrase and ask YOU, to speak for YOURSELF,

1. If we were to leave Iraq, what do you believe to be Iran's position (in Iraq) at that point?

(My understanding of the situation is that Iran will continue with their efforts to destabalize Iraq and control Iraq, whether outright or in a hidden manner).

2. I believe that any reasonable person understands that Islamic-sponsored terrorism is here to stay. If you were king, how would you suggest that the U.S. battles this?

Again, simple questions - care to explain YOUR thoughts on the issues?

 
At 5/29/2007 11:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Iran would have the greatest influence in Iraq, as they already do. They have a natural alliance with several of the factions vying for power there.

Bush's debacle has played into their hands perfectly.

Of course they'd have great influence there, as is natural. They're a regional power and until Bush & Co. marched in and upset the apple cart, they were mortal enemies of Sadaam and Iraq.

They'd lost literally millions of people in wars with Iraq and were unsucessful. Now Bush has done what they weren't able to, get rid of Sadaam and leave the place wide open for them.

Again, thanks George.

Do I think a Iranian dominated Iraq would be the end of the world? No, definitely not.

Do I think we should utterly abandon Iraq? Of course not, and neither do the vast majority of Dems and liberals.

We obviously need to retain influence there, and can do much through INTELLIGENT dimplomatic and economic strategies to try to salvage some shred of influence with people who we've beaten, killed, and abused and destroyed their country who hate our guts and want us gone.

The bottom line is that what Bush and his cold war hacks have done simply has never worked, is not working, and will never work. Period.

If Iran has political influence there, that's the breaks. We can't prevent it, we're there now sacrificing trillions and thousands of lives, and we haven't stopped their influence. Why worry that if we change course, things would be any worse?

IF Bush and his pals were even marginally competent, they would have focused immediately on securing the Iraqi borders after the invasion. They didn't. That's just one of the miriad of collossal blunders which have led us to this place.

Bremer handed out BILLIONS in cash, literally blocks of cash piled on pallets, to Iraqi ministries with NO accounting for it. Now something like 16 BILLION of it is unaccounted for. Most likely a HUGE chunk of it went directly to those who later killed our troops. Is THAT smart?

And the majority of it went right into Swiss bank accounts of U.S. contractors.

It's very hard to hear Republicans demand that Democrats solve their wicked mess. It really is.

They lived in some la-la land where they could send in 20 something right wing robots and create a sort of right wing utopia on the Tigris. They had kids with no qualifications other than they were young Republicans over there spending their time trying to set up the economy using all their right wing schemes. It was ridiculous. Put in your time on the Bush campaign and get a free trip to the Green Zone, an amazingly important position, get to order veteran generals around, and get paid more money than God, all without having the slightest clue what you're doing other than Republican dogma and wacky fundementalist ideas.

Now we see what doing this has come to.

We've lost the cause. Might as well try to stop the hemmoraging and pull back. Manage the defeat, so to speak. Because we sure the hell aren't going to come anywhere near "winning", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

If it makes you feel better, you can follow the Vietnam dictum of declaring victory and going home.

And if I were King, the first thing I'd do is find someone smarter and better qualified to find someone much smarter and better qualified to take my place immediately.

But beyond that, I'd hope that we first of all, STOP PANICKING, settle down, stop opperating from irrational fear and do things right.

I'd banish all bullshit talk about terrorist coming to get us, make it a felony for anyone to utter such a ridiculous and stupid phrase such as "They want to kill us because they hate our freedom" or anything approaching such non-sense.

I'd put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, and Bush's entire White House staff in leg irons and send them to Guantanamo and give them the Abu Gharaib treatment.

That alone would cause global jubalation and strike a blow against terrorism in a huge way. Without those goons to hate, the terrorists would be left without much. Bush & Co. are the only ones who've managed to somehow create hundreds of millions of rational people around the globe who actually have some sympathy for the terrorists. Just think about that.

Things will never get better until they're away from all power and for good. And the Republicans and all their goofy ideologues and fundy ministers should be banished to the minority for decades until they can wrestle control back from these weirdos and start being more honest and less incredibly selfish and greedy.

What we don't need are a gang of arrogant, short-sighted, selfish, and woefully wrong-headed bullies who's goal is to destroy government and whose guiding priciples are driven not by their faith in people, but by the overwhelming power of their own greed running the show. That ends now.

The majority of troops would be withdrawn from Iraq to an "over the horizon" location, such as Kuwait. The forces that remained would not be focused on combat, but on fixing what we've broken.

Getting reliable power back, getting water and sewer services back, helping individual communities claw their way back with loans, help with businesses, schools, etc.

Talks with Syria, Iran, and other players would begin immediately with the goal of allowing the Iraqis to reclaim and run their own country.

Some sort of consortium of nations and diplomats would begin immediately to work on the thorny question of how to divide up oil rights, with American and huge global oil corportations having to compete on a level playing field.

Work on the trillion dollar effort to build massive permanent military bases in Iraq would cease immediately. Instead, regional embassys of sorts would be build in their place as a means of providing bases of operation to rebuild the country. These bases would be staffed by military for security purposes only.

An international effort... a COOPERATIVE effort with other nations around the world, would be launched involving intelligence and law enforcement agencies in order to identify, arrest, and prosecute anyone suspected of terrorist attacks.

Randomly busting down doors and hauling off suspects from their families in the middle of the night simply because Hakim down the road said they thought he was involved, then sending the guy to some eastern european country where they can torture him "off the books" will stop.

The rule of law will begin to be instituted and enforced.

You simply can not "defeat" terror with bombs and bullets and locking everyone you see away somewhere with no charges and forgetting about them.

Again, all these dumb moves were motivated by ignoratnt fear and near panic and leaders who were too dumb to realize that they couldn't "John Wayne" the problem away by simply killing every person that someone thinks is a "terrorist". The killing and imprisonment goes on with little to no rationality or reason. It has to stop.

So....

Stop military exercises in Iraq. Change the mission to trying in a small way to repair the irreparable damage we've done to the country and it's people. Engage in constant and hard-eyed diplomacy with everyone involved. And switch the "war on terror" to a law enforcemnt stance which it always should have properly been.

Devote part of the massive waste not devoted to the military effort into developing better intelligence sources and doing things that will inspire cooperation, not resistence and sabotage.

I know we've gone so far through the Bush looking glass that you may forget, but this isn't rocket science. It's pure common sense. Humans are humans, and this sort of thing you learn in Kindergarten. Somehow, Bush must have flunked.

 
At 5/29/2007 12:55 PM, Anonymous qcexaminer said...

Sorry Dope, I couldn't make it through your mindless screed, in fact I stopped reading when you implied I'm some sort of Bush apologist----which I ain't. But I do understand that you need a strawperson to knock down---glad to oblige, even if it's a lie. It makes you feel good about yourself.

But whatever. I noticed a commenter above was shouting loud hosannahs to Phil Hare for voting against funding for the military. Hare was caught in a lie when he stated in a D/A article that he "would not vote to deny money to troops in the field". I guess you Dems don't mind "lies" told by your specially and not so specially selected Dems----only GOP "lies" are subject to criticism. Credibilty problems? Nah!

 
At 5/30/2007 8:38 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Speaking of mindless screeds, don't you have your own blog to write them now?

Anyway, did you ever think that maybe voting for funding cuts for the war is not actually "denying funds to troops in the field."?

The fact is, that "the troops" wouldn't notice any difference whatsoever if the measure had passed, other than many more of them would live to see their families and spouses again.

 
At 5/30/2007 11:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting that this qcexaminer clucks and harumphs about the Dope expressing his views and calling idiots idiots, yet has not a problem with simply dismissing every word the Dope says without even the slightest attempt to address his views in the slightest.

At least when the Dope uses labels, he clearly explains why he feels that way.

examiner simply calls Dope names without any reason at all, other than the fact they disagree and don't like hearing the truth.

Clean up your own house, qcexaminer, before you start bashing people for no reason.

 
At 5/31/2007 6:42 PM, Anonymous yinn said...

Iran desiring/having influence in Iraq is natural. They're neighbors. What if Iran (or Russia or China or Venezuela) invaded Mexico? Would we have no interests to protect in that case?

When we acknowledge the double standard and eliminate it, we'll be much better off. Our culture of exceptionality and entitlement threatens to do us in.

 
At 6/01/2007 8:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

God help us if the liberal perspective of Iran is nothing more than an 'interested neighbor'!

How incredibly foolish...

 
At 6/01/2007 8:56 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Tell us why it's "incredibly foolish", oh wise one.

What boogie-man bullshit have you taken as gospel that leads you to that conclusion?

Tell us all about your fears and how you know they're true.

 
At 6/01/2007 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, if you want to debate this issue, you need help.

You have clearly gone beyond reason if you believe that Iran is a calm and rational neighbor just keeping an eye on their borders.

 
At 6/02/2007 5:48 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I fail to see why I need help debating someone who hasn't said SHIT either explaining, defending, or laying out their side of this.

You simply don't debate at all. You've said nothing ... nothing at all, as to what your position is or why you're so cocksure and certain you're correct.

You're the one that needs help.

Where do you get your views on Iran? Fox news?

If you feel they're some evil menace, then explain why before you shoot your mouth off. Thanks.

 
At 6/02/2007 8:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Iranian President has made constant and undisputed threats against the United States

and every report, whether from Fox News , CNN, MSNBC, whoever, identifies Iran as a severe threat to the United States - AND ACTIVE IN IRAQ!!!!

- how dense are you?

 
At 6/02/2007 10:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope,

After further consideration...are you pulling my leg?

You are really not willing to go on record as being foolish enough to not see Iran and its leadership as antagonistic, aggressively antagonistic towards the United States AND involved in Iraq.

You must also agree with the Iranian position that the Holocaust was all PR?!


Are you starting to see how foolish your thinking is? I suspect that you will understand and censor this (as you always do when I prove you to be a fool!).

 
At 6/02/2007 5:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Not nearly dense enough to believe that some leader of a country with incredibly low popularity with his own people spouts some bellicose bullshit for his own domestic political gain is a real threat.

You're too gullible to be believed. Bush must love you and your sheep-like ilk.

And you're amazingly willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that Bush and his government have CONSTANTLY been making threats against Iran, including at this moment spending billions to steam a few carrier groups around Iran's front porch.

And so their leader says a few things to indicate they won't be bullied, and you start thirsting for Iranian blood and guts?

You people are sick.

YOU go fight Iran, how's that?

 
At 6/02/2007 5:24 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

qc or whomever you are, you're simply chock full of shit. That's all there is too it.

YOU are so damn ignorant and simplistic that your entire argument for proving that Iran is some big huge threat is that .... what?

Their pip-squeak leader said something about the Holocaust not occuring and THAT is your case for why they're a real and present "threat" to the U.S.?

You want to send MORE troops to their deaths for THAT?

What one guy said?

You and the rest of the armchair generals make me nauseus. You're barking mad, and painfully simple-minded.

Next time, think before you write.

 
At 6/03/2007 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, thank you for straightening me out...

Of course, Iran is a peaceful nation with a bit of a strange leader who talks alot but has no real power.

How foolish I have been.

NOT!

 
At 6/03/2007 1:08 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Still... your best argument or evidence is "NOT". That's really bright.

Have they invaded any nations lately? Just HOW are they a threat to us?

You're just a gullible tool, that's all.

 
At 6/03/2007 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - it really is tough to take you seriously.

Do they really need to attack and kill before you accept their threats as threats???

 
At 6/03/2007 7:56 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Listen, if you can't grasp how looney and paranoid your thought process is, and how it would lead to massive violence and the destruction of the entire world, then I can't help you.

Twisted unclear thinking like yours would justify bombing Costa Rica into the stone age. After all... how do we know they're not going to attack us at any moment?

Have we really gone through the looking glass into some sort of bizarro world where our government can simply pick our enemies and have dolts like yourself be ready, willing and able to send OTHER PEOPLE off to die, simply because they MIGHT attack us some day?

That, beyond a doubt, is insane.

 
At 6/04/2007 7:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You seriously see no threat from Iran?

You see them as a passive nation with no ties to terrorism, no desire to be aggressive?

You see them as, what, grossly misunderstood?

I hope that you understand that you are alone on this issue. Even the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc, etc. have stated otherwise (and please do not ask me to quote these sources, because if you truely believe that Iran is peaceful, you are too far gone).

 
At 6/05/2007 5:32 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Once AGAIN, not a shred of solid evidence of any threat.

And now you're taking the word of your "liberal media" to be willing to go to war?

And you also woefully distort my position as well, but that's typical.

Give it up. You think Iran is some threat because the gang of incompetent war mongers in the White House want you to... and you're about as sheep-like and gullible as they come, ready, willing, and able to quake in your boots over each new boogie-man they throw at you.

 
At 6/05/2007 7:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again Dope, what 'solid evidence would you ever believe?

I have provided sources, both conservative and liberal that do not question the threat that Iran poses.

You could pose the question, "Is Iran a threat to the U.S.?" at the next Democrat debate and not one person running for President is going to say, 'No.'

I am amased that you will sometimes debate such basic truths.

Let's try an experiment, I believe that the earth is round...can you agree to this? (Or do I need to site 22 sources?).

 
At 6/05/2007 8:58 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You haven't cited crap.

You don't prove a thing by saying that X, Y, and Z think Iran is a threat. Why do they think they're a threat?

All they're doing is reporting the bullshit of the administration that is trying to gin up Iran as a threat, period.

And yes, the Dems are too wussy to stand up to it, but I'm sure some of them would gladly state the facts, that the leader there is almost as unpopular with the people of his country as Bush (though not that bad) and that all you're getting in a tizzy about is the leader responding to incredible beligerance and threats, both verbal and otherwise, from the U.S.

It's this administration and its lemmings like yourself that are causing Iran to be defensive.

The fact is that Iran is NOT a threat to the United States in any way, shape, or form.

They're still decades away from having anything resembling the ability to actually put nuclear warheads on functioning rockets that could even come close to the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter.

And the fact remains that this administration, and it's mush-headed followers who eagerly bow to authority of any kind, is trying mightily to MAKE Iran the new boogie-man.

The fact is that it doesn't have to be an enemy at all. But the crew of reckless militarists in the Bush Administration is refusing to deal with them diplomatically and instead issues a steady stream of threats and openly states that our goal is to topple the current government of Iran, and having half our Navy steaming around off their shores.

And you can't figure out why a leader of a country that is clearly being threatened and pushed around by the U.S. might say some tough sounding words?

But you still don't know just exactly HOW they pose a threat to us, do you?

As usual Mowen, you begin and end all your mindless arguments assuming that your assumptions are simply rock solid facts.

That's bullshit.

You try to compare this to arguing that the earth is round.

No, Skippy, that's entirely different. The world has been proven to be round.

The fact that you can't provide a shread of proof or even credible evidence that Iran poses any real threat to us is enough to show that you can't pull your usual witless certitude on this issue.

Did God tell you Iran was evil?

Otherwise, what are you basing that assumption on?

You haven't even come close.

 
At 6/05/2007 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. They are chasing nukes.
2. Their leader has specifically stated that he wants to see the 'west and Israel wiped off the map'
3. Their leader has his nose so far up Hugo Chavez' butt...(and of course, Chavez is a great US alley),
4. Their leader has made specific threats on the floor of the UN.
5. Every Republican AND Democrat running for office agrees that Iran is a SERIOUS threat to the US.

But, of course, you disagree, so everyone ELSE must be wrong...

 
At 6/05/2007 9:05 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

A. You're a liar. Not every Dem and Republican believe that Iran is a "serious threat". Some don't think they're a threat at all. And most believe that they don't have to be, as they're not currently.

The only way they'll become a threat is if we continue to sabre-rattle and threaten them.

And again, you base your belief in this propaganda on crap put out by our administration which hasn't a shred of credibility left and selectively quoting a few of the Iranian presidents more inflamatory remarks.

How about you send YOUR kids and grandkids to fight Iran? Deal?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home