Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 3, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

REPUBLICANS AND THEIR SLOGANS....Atrios wonders if I was being coy when I asked pro-war hawks to explain what they mean when they say we need to do "whatever it takes" to win in Iraq. Answer: sort of. Mostly, though, I was trying to make the point that although Democrats get routinely skewered for "not having a plan," neither do Republicans. But nobody ever calls them on it.

Take Fred Hiatt's apparent attempt to mimic the slashing prose style of the late lamented Ben Domenech in the Washington Post today. Writing about "Real Security," the recently released Democratic national security plan, he starts out like this:

You can look at the Democrats' national security plan, released last week, as simply a political shield, akin to the upgraded body armor they promise for U.S. troops.

...."Real Security"....is an amulet for 2006 candidates: You see? We have a plan. We Democrats will buy more weaponry than the Bush administration, sign up more troops, give more to veterans, inspect more shipping containers.

I guess that's what passes for cute these days, and it takes three paragraphs of this snide drollery before Hiatt confesses that there is another way to look at the document, namely as a serious policy statement. But he's no happier with that perspective:

President Bush believes that the United States "is in the early years of a long struggle"....the United States must first and foremost offer better values, promoting democracy and opposing tyranny. It must be ready to take the fight to the enemy....must seek to ease the poverty that breeds hopelessness.

This is a mug's game. Hiatt is unhappy that the Democratic plan actually focuses on achievable goals instead of slogans like these, despite the fact that he all but admits that these slogans are pretty empty in Republican hands. But if it were the other way around, he'd complain that the plan lacked details to back up its fancy words.

But why give Republicans a free pass? Where's their plan? What I've seen is a National Security Strategy that's full of windy phrases that plainly don't match the administration's actual intentions, and a Quadrennial Defense Review that pretends to be concerned with terrorism but devotes virtually all of its real resources to the same old platforms designed to fight the same old Cold War enemies. Why is that considered "serious"?

It's time to end the double standard. President Bush gives stirring speeches, but his actions indicate rather plainly that his administration isn't really driven by concern for democracy, global poverty, nuclear nonproliferation, port security, foreign oil dependence, or public diplomacy. As for Iraq, it's obvious he doesn't have a clue what to do.

So aside from slogans, what's the Republican plan? Guys like Hiatt ought to be asking.

Kevin Drum 2:57 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (147)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's time to end the double standard.

OK. done.

Posted by: cleek on April 3, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

So aside from slogans, what's the Republican plan?

Aside from slogans, there is no Republican plan.

Unless, of course, you believe closing your eyes real tight and praying for a miracle can accurately be considered a "plan."

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

So aside from slogans, what's the Republican plan?

The Republican plan is to win. The Democratic plan is to lose so they can use the loss to bash Bush.

Hiatt is unhappy that the Democratic plan actually focuses on achievable goals instead of slogans like these, despite the fact that he all but admits that these slogans are pretty empty in Republican hands.

Wrong Kevin. Hiatt believes the root cause of terrorism is the lack of freedom and democracy in the Muslim world. That's why staying the course in Iraq by keeping our troops there is the best way to destroy the scourge of terrorism.

Posted by: Al on April 3, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Contract with America" many will mock Newt, but that simple phrase changed the makeup of the U.S. House. Thus a good slogan that is clear, brief and to the point is a winner.

Posted by: daveyo on April 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

You were right on Kevin - it would be very refreshing if we (all) started pushing back more on empty, stupid rhetoric. I think Duncan missed your point by taking you too literally.

"Do whatever it takes" doesn't answer the question at all, it just avoids answering how you'd actually do it.

Right up there with other stock phrases:

"zero tolerance",
"it's a question of resolve", or "will"
"war on drugs, terror, cancer, etc."

All of these are empty at the core. Not only would be good for Democrats if they started sniping at dumb phrases like that - it would help the civil discourse if idiot statements like it were challenged more often. Maybe with little follow-up questions, such as "Sounds good, would you tell us exactly how intend to do it?

And yes, Hiatt's little litany of excuses was painfully pathetic. Why exactly do the Post and the Times want to chew up editorial space with Hiatt, Cohen, Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, etc. ?

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I'm telling you, the craigie plan is the only real option we have. We declare that Iraq is the 51st state, and then everything flows from there.

First, we can send in the whole National Guard, because it's now America. Second, we can open the border to Iraq from Mexico, and declare an amnesty on illegal immigration - so we solve two problems at once!

We'll have Iraq up to Alabama's standards in no time!

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Words speak louder than actions, Kevin, except for tax cuts to the owners of the corporate media!

And trust Al -- he's honest and true, and he knows the answer is: Win!

See -- words!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on April 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

There's also, of course, the Republicans' trusted "Plan B" which is to blame Democrats for not clapping hard enough.

But it's never answered what, exactly, this neboluous Democratic support would have achieved. After all, here in the real world Bush has gotten every tool he's asked for to fight the war in Iraq. He has all the troops he claims he needs and all the money. Congress has passed every spending bill he's proposed, and he's had, essentially a free hand.

So since Bush has claimed that he didn't need any more money and didn't need any more troops, this demand for Democratic suppport is a demand for...what, exactly? Are we really meant to believe that we'd have "won" in Iraq if only people in America had cheered louder? That is was this lack of cheering, and not the deplorable lack of planning, and the insecurity and chaos and incompetence and corruption, that is the real cause of failure?

In the Republicans' minds, of course, the answer is "yes." And it is because of this that they have revealed themselves as wild-eyed fantasists who must never again be trusted with America's security.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Thus a good slogan that is clear, brief and to the point is a winner.

And thus is the GOP brain explained once and for all. Content is nothing, slogans are all.

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wow Big Dumb Al walked right into that one.Should we light him up or let him stew in his own urine.

Posted by: Right minded on April 3, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

As long as Americans are dying each day in Iraq *but* killing more of those evil terrists as they go, America is Winning and Safe! And only I, Al, and Bush can continue to protect us all!

And you want more -- that is why you lose!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on April 3, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

The Repbulican plan is multi-dimensional:

#1: The battle for hearts and minds: aka slogans (also the ever useful - "9/11 changed everything")
#2: Attack the Democrats as having no plan other than attack the President.
#3: Respond to assertions they have no real plan, by just saying this proves number 2.
#4: "Remember 9/11"
#5: Attacking the President emboldens the terrorists in this post 9/11 world (see #1, #2, #3 and #4).

Meanwhile use every government resource and taxpayer dollar you can get ahold of to buy propaganda, reward political sycophants, enrich corporate donors, and bribe religious groups, while pointing to all of the problems as just another symptom of big government.

Posted by: Catch22 on April 3, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Al for making Kevin's and Duncan's point so well;

"The Republicans plan is to win."

Like how?

That's the point - statements don't create reality. Nice talking points don't tell us how it's actually going to happen.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 3, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think Rove is posting as Catch22. That just seems too, too accurate.

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Whosoever put Democratic and plan for security in the same sentence should be awarded this year's prize for best humorous writing.

Republicans have a vision, and whatever plan they have is (a) designed to serve the vision and (b) to be adapted in face of real conditions on the ground, as has been so admiringly done by the Bush administration in Iraq.

Democrats never had vision, and so even if they come out with a plan it will be like a quadraplegic's program for training for a marathon.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 3, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic plan, step one: Authorize generals to tell the truth so realistic planning is possible.

Posted by: Ross Best on April 3, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

The contract with America was a slogan,One has to remember the right was gerrymandering districts years before they took over,They would move people in and out of counties to get republicans elected and then move to another county and do this all over the country.Newt had a map of every county every state he would know where they needed a handful of votes here and there,and before you knew it they had righties put in places where they needed them. So the Country has not moved to the right it was pushed!

Posted by: Right minded on April 3, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

"And thus is the GOP brain explained once and for all. Content is nothing, slogans are all."
craigie in nearly every blog I read, I continually see that the r's are not so bright, not as smart, George W. isn't smart, etc.. So what would be best to connect with your people... Obviously the simple slogan. Of course in the slogan "contract with america there were 8 points:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. So the slogan gets their attention, then they can look deeper into what is behind the slogan.

Posted by: daveyo on April 3, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

I am referring to all references to Mess-O-potamia (hat tip to JS and TDS) as Bush's War.

Posted by: stumpy on April 3, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Mostly, though, I was trying to make the point that although Democrats get routinely skewered for "not having a plan," neither do Republicans. But nobody ever calls them on it."

It's good to see Kevin acknowledging the Dems of not having a plan. So, I guess the point is: at best (the Repubs not having a plan as Kevin is postulating), the Dems are the same as the Republicans.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on April 3, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

A Vision that is the best you can do Holy Shit David Koresh had a vision does that put you guys in the same Boat. Tbroz A VISION DOES NOT A PLAN MAKE.

Posted by: Right minded on April 3, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

The Republican plan is to win.

That's not a plan, that's a goal. Plans require execution.

Example: my goal is to have a billion dollars. My plan to get a billion dollars is...what, exactly?

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

The fake tbrosz is getting scary good. I really had to check to make sure that wasn't just him in an ornery mood. It's like Skynet! It's become self-aware!

I hope that never happens to W, or we really are in trouble.

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

So what would be best to connect with your people...

Now I have people! Fantastic. Hmmm... (taps fingers together) what shall I do with them?...

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's plan is to bankrupt and frustrate the military so that they'll stage a coup. They anticipate a conservative/Fascist military.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum >"...So aside from slogans, what's the Republican plan?..."

"All things valuable belong to us" - ReThuglican plan

"...It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins..." - Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: daCascadian on April 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "The Republican plan is to win"

That sounds a lot like my get-rich-quick plan (which I will now unveil to all of Kevin's readers)...

STEP NO. 1: Get, like, a billion dollars.

See how easy that is?

Posted by: K Ashford on April 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Achievable goals? I was expecting them to promise to get the crabgrass out of everyone's yard, too. That was a laundry list of cheap promises that the Dems have no idea how they would go about attaining.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

"To win" isn't even really a goal as much as it is an empty platitude.

What does it mean to win? How will we know when we've won? I've never heard an answer to this.

Posted by: Boots Day on April 3, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Bushs main goal was permanent power projection into the heart of the MidEast - its the oil. His failure is colossal, and the turmoil thats killing our troops is the only tactic Bush has left. The turmoil justifies our staying, our staying causes the turmoil, and Bush gets to stay. Hell sacrifice another 1000 troops because hes convinced some of us thats how you support them. A killing circle; kill another 1000 so the other 2300 dont seem so wasted.

Well be gone unless Iraq divides up and we stay in Kurdistan. An independent Kurdistan would be threatened by Turkey and Iran, since the Kurds are trans-national. If Turkey is rejected by the EU (which has Arab problems reflecting poorly on Turkey), they will feel little restraint.

The other Iraqi divisions would be pure trouble - an oil rich Shiite state allied with Iran and a poor Sunni fundamentalist hotspot. Borders manned by who knows who what even where. Osama could walk from his cave to Beirut.

How will we leave? On our timetable? Or handed one from a unified democratic Iraqi government? Perhaps packing it in after anybodys final atrocity? Can we at least look like we have control?

Posted by: Richard W. Crews on April 3, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK
...it will be like a quadraplegic's program for training for a marathon.
tbrosz on April 3, 2006 at 3:16 PM

...and Republican foreign adventures are making more quadriplegics every day. Don't be such an ass.

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 3, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

You just know that their favorite slogan, popularized by the film Apollo 13 although I'm sure it's older, is "failure is not an option". But they think that just saying it is enough.

Ironically, as I remember it, this is one of Rand's lessons in Atlas Shrugs; eventually, saying "we have to think of a way" comes up against reality.

Posted by: DonBoy on April 3, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

What does it mean to win? How will we know when we've won? I've never heard an answer to this.

Victory is like pornography. You know it when you see it!

Posted by: nut on April 3, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

The fake tbrosz is getting scary good. I really had to check to make sure that wasn't just him in an ornery mood.

Same here! That was freak-ay!

Posted by: shortstop on April 3, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats will ... inspect more shipping containers.

Yes, because Republicans are hoping for a new terrorist attack.

It's their only hope.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on April 3, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin fundamentally misunderstands.

You don't need "a plan" if you are already doing what the plan is supposed to be for. How many big terrorist incidents here in the US since the war on terror began? Zero. Bush doesn't need a plan; he is already accomplishing the goal.

Posted by: The Real real Al on April 3, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

That was a laundry list of cheap promises that the Dems have no idea how they would go about attaining.

So, so true. As opposed to the specifics contained in Instaclown's "Win."

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

How many big terrorist incidents here in the US since the war on terror began? Zero.

And how many times did the Imperial Japanese Navy attack Pearl Harbor after the US entered World War II? Zero!

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

How many big terrorist incidents here in the US since the war on terror began? Zero.

How many big terrorist incidents (apart, that is from the domestic ones like Oklahoma City) here in the US since before the "war on terror" began? Zero.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

All plans are slogans until the action points are executed. And therein lies the Dem problem, all talk, no walk. The real real Al nailed it.

The Dems "Real Plan" needs to be stated as "Real Polls, we'll do what you tell us to do because we're fucking clueless".

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:Actually, one. The bombing of the WTC in what..93?

Posted by: Karmakin on April 3, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, the first WTC bombing was not a terrorist act?

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Bush gives stirring speeches?

He can occasionally read a sentence correctly off the teleprompter, and he's got that "I'm pissed off and just might drop a bomb on you" look down, but that doesn't make him an orator.

His speeches are stirring only in the sense of stirring a crockpot.

Posted by: Bassfish on April 3, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Al,

"Hiatt believes the root cause of terrorism is the lack of freedom and democracy in the Muslim world."

Hiatt is wrong. He has drunk the neocon cool aid.

Muslim world has never had freedom and democracy. They were not always terrorists. Iraqis lived under Ottoman rule for centuries. Much of the Arab world lived under Ottoman rule. They did not become terrorists.

Washington Post editorial page has become fully neocon. They were instrumental in selling the Iraq war to the American public by repeating the GOP propaganda and demonizing opponents of the war, including Al Gore as pro-Saddam.

I wish someone would launch a liberal paper in Washington DC and offer the public an alternative to the neocon Washington Post and right-wing-cult paper Washington Times.

Posted by: Nan on April 3, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

demonizing opponents of the war, including Al Gore as pro-Saddam.
Telling the truth isn't demonizing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Are you sure that the column was actually written by Fred Hiatt?

Methinks it's the work of Ken Mehlman.

Posted by: lib on April 3, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:Actually, one. The bombing of the WTC in what..93?

The February 1993 World Trade Center bombing wasn't a "big" incident. "Only" six people died, (if a term like "only" is appropriate when referring to senseless murder) and the plan failed. Moreover, the conspirators were caught, properly tried and jailed by the Clinton Administration, and the country didn't descend into a mindless hysteria for years afterwards.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

The bombing of the WTC in 1993 killed five people, right? Smoke inhalation, I believe it was. If such attacks occurred every year for the rest of the history of the Republic, they wouldn't even produce a meaningful bump in New York City's murder rate, and the city would be best off paying more serious attention to problems that kill many more people, like asthma and traffic accidents.

There is, so far, little evidence to suggest that the WTC attacks were not a one-off freak occurrence. It's possible that, as some of the terrorism experts say, the detonation of a nuke in an American city is only a matter of time. But it's also likely that it'll never happen.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

That said, I have some sympathy for Hiatt's point that the Democratic document might fail to connect the narrative of national security to any larger vision of what the world is like and what it should be like. Democrats ought to be casting themselves as the party of cooperative internationalism, the building of worldwide collaborative webs, the party of Interpol. They ought to be contrasting that strategy with the miserably failed lone-gunman image of the Bush GOP, still trackin' OBL hopelessly through the wilderness all these years later, like the nutjob John Wayne character in "The Searchers".

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Victory in Iraq will be made in ruthless military terms, which is to say: the war in Iraq is won when the entire country is the "green zone". Anything else is just spineless Republican backpedaling.

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 3, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Moreover, the conspirators were caught, properly tried and jailed by the Clinton Administration
Yep, and fear of the dreaded US legal system prevented any more attacks on the Trade Center...oh wait...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Was the USS Cole a freak occurence? How about the Khobar Towers and Somalia (that turned out well).

Yup, no terrorism here, let's focus on asthma.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush gives stirring speeches,

Riiiight. Closer to slurring, I'd say.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on April 3, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

The USS Cole was attacked in Aden. The Khobar Towers are in Saudi Arabia, and Somalia is in Somalia.

Kenya, which you failed to mention, is in Kenya.

Many other terrorists attacks occurred in the 1990s, none of them in the U.S., which was the subject of discussion. If you instead wish to discuss acts of terrorism against Americans abroad, it's obvious to any idiot, and State Dept. statistics show, that the number of deadly terrorist attacks against Americans (and others) worldwide has gone up by a large multiple under President Bush (i.e. since the War on Terror started).

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oh - I forgot to note that Tanzania is in Tanzania, and that your reference to "Somalia" is somewhat mysterious, since no acts of terrorism of which I am aware took place there under President Clinton. The US Army did get involved in skirmishes with local militia though.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

I know brooksfoe and had we just focused on asthma, all would be well in the world. Because as the Clinton Admin. proved to us the Islamic extremists wouldn't dare mess with our legal system.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

It was terrorism on behalf of the US Army as directed by that terrorist himself - Bill Clinton

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I will let your comments slide until you say something that has some kind of semantic content. Give it a shot, it's not so hard.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

You must begin by realizing that Hyatt is not a journalist; he is a businessman, subject only to the bottom line which he strokes by being "unbiased."

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on April 3, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, and fear of the dreaded US legal system prevented any more attacks on the Trade Center...oh wait...

Yep, and fear of the dreaded US military has prevented any more terrorist attacks...oh wait....

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Fear of the US Military causes them to plant bombs and run. Much like the democratic party.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Yep, and fear of the dreaded US legal system prevented any more attacks on the Trade Center...oh wait..."

And also just like the incredible, steely-eyed and heroic Bush administration thwarted the attacks on the WTC in 2001....oh wait...

Jackass. He inadvertently proved our point.
Right wingers are so witless. It's no wonder Iraq is such disaster.

Posted by: GOPNemesis on April 3, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Me: Moreover, the conspirators were caught, properly tried and jailed by the Clinton Administration

Yep, and fear of the dreaded US legal system prevented any more attacks on the Trade Center...oh wait...

Yep, and fear of the dreaded US legal system prevents any more murderers and rapists from striking...oh wait...no it doesn't, so why do we even bother to try and jail any murderers and rapists? I mean, what's the point of doing anything, right, if you can't prevent any other possible attacks years and years in the future? After all, obviously the point of catching, trying and jailing the 1993 conspirators wasn't to punish them for their specific crime, but to deter all other potential terrorists for all eternity....

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
You're beginning to think along the right lines, there.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, and fear of the dreaded US legal system prevented any more attacks on the Trade Center...oh wait...

Yep, we probably should have gone for the military response instead. And since the 1993 attack was carried out by Egyptians and Pakistanis living in New Jersey, obviously we should have invaded...what, Morocco? Iran? Iceland?

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Just like Clinton was able to thwart the first WTC bombing.

And the Khobar Towers bombing.

And the Oklahoma City bombing.

And the USS Cole bombing.

But he did a fine job in Waco.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Fear of the US Military causes them to plant bombs and run. Much like the democratic party.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:29 PM"

Yup, we invented the IED. Sure. What color is the sky in YOUR world?

But we really invented the balanced budget. And a solvent Social Security program. And the 40 hour work week. etc. etc. But we don't illegally wire hour political oppponents or steal Presidential elections, destroy the military, or banrkrupt the country. That's YOUR side's specialities.

Posted by: GOPNemesis on April 3, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

obviously we should have invaded...what, Morocco? Iran? Iceland?

Stefan, any country that harbors a terrorist is itself guilty of terrorism. We should have invaded New Jersey.

We would have been welcomed as liberators.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

One Liberal's Argument for Staying in Iraq

Posted by: WPB on April 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

There's a special place in Hell for Hiatt to squawk and beat his drum for eternity.

If Hell really is other people, then Hiatt will have to share very cramped quarters with the likes of Judy Miller & Ben Domenech.

Posted by: Bragan on April 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Ramzi Yousef was an Al Qaeda operative and the mastermind of the first WTC bombing. So, that means we should have invaded what country Stefan?

C'mon, I know you can come up with it.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Jay, have you ever run for office? It looks like there might be a GOP slot for the Senate race in Florida available. I think you should go for it.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, I know you can come up with it.

Hey, this is gonna be funny. It looks like Jay thinks he knows where Al-Qaeda was mainly based in 1993. Let's see if he gets it right.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for bringing that up GOP. It actually was the 1994 Contract With America and the GOP majority Congress, for the first time in forty years, that balanced the budget and created the projected surplus. Remember, Congress controls the purse strings.

And speaking of current deficits, did you see how the Democrats wanted to tack on an additional $200 billion in spending in 2006?

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

It wasn't New Jersey brooks, but thanks for playing.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, we probably should have gone for the military response instead
Naw, Stefan, you guys have convinced me. We should sit down to cookies and soy based milk substitute and have the terrorists tell us what is wrong with the United States, and then we can change our way of life to meet their expectations.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

And only liberals should be taxed when I am elected prez thats what I'm gonna do.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Now that's a platform, brilliant!

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

CN don't forget that big campfire we sing around holding hands....keepin each other warm.......

Posted by: jay on April 3, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Ramzi Yousef was an Al Qaeda operative and the mastermind of the first WTC bombing. So, that means we should have invaded what country Stefan?

Ramzi Yousef wasn't an Al Qaeda operative in 1993 as Al Qaeda as we know it wasn't formed until a few years later. The first major attack attributed to Al Qaeda was the 1998 embassy bombings.

Moreover, Ramzi Yousef was an ethnic Pakistani raised in Kuwait, and he was in collaboration with the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was from Egypt.

So yeah, exactly what country should we have invaded? Kuwait, perhaps?

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

No, Jay, you're right. It was Pakistan.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/

"Where does al-Qaeda operate?: There is no single headquarters. From 1991 to 1996, al-Qaeda worked out of Pakistan along the Afghan border, or inside Pakistani cities..."

I am intrigued by your suggestion that we should have invaded Pakistan in 1993. How interesting that would have been. At least they didn't have the bomb yet. Though it might have been inconvenient trying to explain why we were invading a democratic country (as Pakistan was at the time).

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

About that campfire, I thought we were supposed to cry and engage in group hugs around the campfire. It would be hard for the terrorists to be able to tell us their demands while they were crying, and hard for us to write them down in the group hugs.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Last group hug I was involved in was at a Promise Keepers meeting. But whatever.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Brooks, you need to confer with Stefan. The articles for incorporation for Al Qaeda apparently weren't formalized until "a few years after 1993".

In 1993, they were unincorporated, a privately held company, operating mainly in construction, trucking and agriculture

It wasn't until later that they became incorporated, named officers, issued stock and began to branch off into the airline industry.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

They don't have a plan. Having a plan would mean that other people could plainly see whether or not they were following said plan and how effective they were.

By not having a plan, and therefore no concrete milestones, they evade responsibility. All the while duping the credible with "tough words" and eliminating political enemies with the expanded powers they've been handed by the Rubber Stamp Congress.

2008 ought to be very interesting to see how easily they give up the enormous powers they've usurped.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 3, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Gonna try to weasel out of it that way, huh, Jay? Well, you've got no option - you painted yourself into a little corner there.

I'm goin' to sleep - I'm on the wrong side of the world from you jokers. Enjoy.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Naw brooks, I was thinking of this kind of stuff

The secular men's movement has its spokesmen, like Iron John author Robert Bly, and its ceremonies, like "Wildman Weekends" in which men gather, bang drums, exorcise their emotional demons, and cry. An estimated 250,000 men have experienced one of these weekend retreats.

But anyway, what do you think? Should we do the Wildman Weekend with the terrorists, or sit down to cookies and soy based milk substitute?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think the terrorists are lactose intolerant, so soy will have to do.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

About that campfire, I thought we were supposed to cry and engage in group hugs around the campfire. It would be hard for the terrorists to be able to tell us their demands while they were crying, and hard for us to write them down in the group hugs.


Come on CN there's no terrorist in our world just happy people havin happy thoughts.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Brooks, UBL was in Sudan in 1993. Of course, not yet CEO of Al Qaeda, as they were not yet incorporated.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

You don't need "a plan" if you are already doing what the plan is supposed to be for. How many big terrorist incidents here in the US since the war on terror began? Zero. Bush doesn't need a plan; he is already accomplishing the goal. Posted by: The Real real Al on April 3, 2006 at 3:36 PM

Wrong, as always, Real, real Al. It's my rock that keeps America safe from terrorists. Do you doubt that my rock works? Ask yourself, have we had any terrorist attacks?

Obviously my rock works.

ALL HAIL THE ROCK!

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 3, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Quite obviously the 5:01 PM comment by "Jay" wasn't written by him -- no mispellings, for one thing, too many big complicated words and concepts, and it's far too clearly written and funny for him to have done it.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

The "plan" has been in operation for three years now Dr. You remember, deposed dictator, three elections, building and training a military/security force. That kind of stuff, please try and keep up.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

ALL HAIL THE ROCK!

It is, truly, a wondrous rock.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

cn, where the heck did you haul that men's-movement citation out of? That's so with-it -- circa, oh, 1993 I think? Have you been saving your back issues of Spy magazine?

Tell you what - you invite some "terrorists", whoever exactly it is you mean by that, to a drumming circle with Robert Bly, and I'll invite the leaders of Hamas to join me and Pat Robertson at the old Koresh compound in Waco for a weekend gun fair, where we can all purchase fully automatic assault rifles without background checks and then perhaps go hunt down some wily illegal immigrants trying to cross the Rio Grande. There's nothing like the taste of smoked Mexican - it beats quail (or Austin lawyer) any day. And those Gaza imams are pretty handy with a double-ought! A festive time will be had by all, I'm sure.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 3, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

All me Stefan. Sorry to disapoint you, now there's a mispelling for you.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush gives stirring speeches

If by "stirring" you mean swirling around a toilet bowl preparatory to being sluiced into the sewer with other worthless offal.

Posted by: cowalker on April 3, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

A weekend hunting trip with Cheney should suffice, right brooks?

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever it takes--except, of course, putting my sorry ass on the line.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

There's nothing like the taste of smoked Mexican - it beats quail (or Austin lawyer) any day.

I don't know, with a fiery Texan barbeque sauce them Austin lawyers are mighty tasty!

'Course you have to slow roast them all day on a spit, so it's pretty labor intensive.

But the meat just falls off the bone if you do.


Ack, I think I just grossed myself out.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 3, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

OK, someone else is starting to take over the "Jay" handle. The real Jay, who is sub-literate at best, wouldn't even be able to spell suffice, much less know what it means.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Waco. That reminds me, under Clinton religious fanatics were burned out. Now we're suppose to capitulate to them.

It is true that I dug up the Iron Man stuff from a while back; but hey, good ideas never die, right? The left is still trying to recycle socialism and that was proved a washout somewhere prior to 1900.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, you under estimate me. Much like the democrats under estimate the intelligence of the average American every election cycle.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, any country that harbors a terrorist is itself guilty of terrorism. We should have invaded New Jersey.

As a New Yorker, I've been advocating that policy for years. It would be just recompense for the way that New Jersey drivers invade and clog our city streets every weekend.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 3 At least nine American troops died in two incidents in the insurgent stronghold of Anbar Province, including four who were killed in a rebel attack and at least five who died when their truck accidentally flipped over, the American military command said today.

See, this is what it's all about, you liberals just don't get it.
People, people other than me, dying for a noble cause. Only because I'm too old and fat to fight. But I was in 'Nam, or at least I played a video game that looked a lot like Vietnam.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Cute, now the fake "Jay" is trying to do a better job by deliberately misspelling "under estimate" and leaving the capital "D" off "democrats." Nice try, but still not convincing.

Posted by: Stefan on April 3, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I can't comprehend the concept of multiple me's.... I is there 4 i isn't can b.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

The left is still trying to recycle socialism and that was proved a washout somewhere prior to 1900.

Someone help my buddy find Sweden on a map.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

But he did a fine job in Waco.

Oh here we go...Jay- defender of terroristic, pedophilic, cultist, religious extremists.

Posted by: ckelly on April 3, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

uh-oh, nine Americans died in Iraq. We need to pull out now.

Also, seven Americans were gunned down in Seattle over the weekend. We need to get the hell out of there to.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Well, nine Americans plus over another 2000, plus several thousand more who are permanently disabled.

Whatever.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

NO..that's not right other Jay the dirty smelly faggot hippies from the 60's lost that f**king war. We aren't pussies and we can kick anybodies ass got it! Now git er done.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Will the last American to leave Seattle please bring the flag!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

And don't forget Ruby Ridge! That was Clinton's fault too somehow. At least that's what conspiracy nut told me, and such a gentle lover would never lead me astray.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

BTW Jay, how are you liking all this attention? They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I hope all this flattery doesn't go to your head.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Who's imitating me? All the posts here are mine.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

It's way up on top of the space needle cn. The only person that could reach that would be harry Reid. "Real Withdrawal".

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

The left is still trying to recycle socialism.

Oh boy here we go....Cnut- defender against big bad socialism creeping in from every corner of the globe. Let's have a War on Socialism.

Cnut and Jay - a pair of fucking broken records.

Posted by: ckelly on April 3, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

I know they all love me cn. Afterall they're liberals. I am a terrorist, therfore I am understood.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm thinking that Reid taking a flag from the top of the Space Needle would just scream for a "space cadet" joke.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

But I need more education on socialism conspiracy nut. You tell us that socialism was a washout prior to 1900, so Sweden and all those other Euroweenie states aren't socialist?
So why do I hate them again? Please tell me what to think.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

I sure wish Jay's father had practiced "real withdrawal".

Posted by: Jay's Mom on April 3, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

But enough of the space needle talk cn, it's exposing our penis envy and reminding me of my inadequacy.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

And yes, Hiatt's little litany of excuses was painfully pathetic. Why exactly do the Post and the Times want to chew up editorial space with Hiatt, Cohen, Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, etc. ?

Well, it keeps them off the streets. My sense is that the op-ed page denizens are on the fast train to oblivion. I think they attract a lot fewer eyes than they like to believe already, and they sure aren't offering anything to reverse that trend.

Posted by: sglover on April 3, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Besides, real men don't climb the space needle, they wear codpieces and flightsuits and land on carriers floating off of San Diego and proclaim mission accomplished.

I'm sure Americans are killed every weekend in San Diego too, so what if the same number of our soldiers are also needlessly killed in Iraq? Big deal.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly
I've drawn an unbroken line from Nancy Pelosi to Karl Marx. And since is hasn't yet soaked in, I'll do it again.

Nancy and 60 other Democrats in the House belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The CPA was started by the Democratic Socialists of America, as part of their plan to infiltrate the Democratic Party (since the Democrats are their "natural allies"). You can read all about it on the DSA website. The DSA bills themselves as the largest socialist organization in the United States and a member of Socialist International. And on their website they proudly proclaim

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit
At the very beginning of their manifesto they lament that Marx's dream of a young and vibrant socialist movement did not come to pass. You can go to their website and read their whole manifesto, Nancy has.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

With Fred Hiatt as editor WP editorial page is resembling the WSJ editorial page.

Posted by: Nan on April 3, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

But let's not draw attention to the direct link between the CCC("kinder and gentler KKK") and the Republican Party.

Besides, better to be a racist than a socialist.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Careful with the KKK stuff, you might get Byrd excited. Wouldn't want him breaking his hood out of the closet and making the Dems look bad.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

look out there's a communist or is it a marxist no it's a damn socialist no how about an islamist yeah an islamofascist dammit lets nuke em all

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

oh cn, you beat me to it.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

oh cn, kiss me you fool

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

cn looks like were alone now

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Early birds and worms, now I'm waiting for a setup to make a gig at Kennedy.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Byrd's a lost cause, it's all the good white Republican men who attend CCC meetings and rub elbows--like Haley Barbour and of course Trent Lott.

From the CCC statement of principles--

(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.
We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.
We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime.
We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies.
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

The CCC, working hand-in-hand with today's Republican Party.

Posted by: Jay on April 3, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote:

So aside from slogans, what's the Republican plan?

Make as much money for themselves and their donors while they can, for as long as they can. Beyond that, it's all just PNAC wishful thinking (also known as 'vision')...

Hell, the Bush White House didn't have a plan going in, so why does anyone think that they have a plan coming out? From July 11, 2003:

The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.
The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader.
The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, had no backup plan.
Today, American forces face instability in Iraq, where they are losing soldiers almost daily to escalating guerrilla attacks, the cost of occupation is exploding to almost $4 billion a month and withdrawal appears untold years away.
"There was no real planning for postwar Iraq," said a former senior U.S. official who left government recently.
The story of the flawed postwar planning process was gathered in interviews with more than a dozen current and former senior government officials.
One senior defense official told Knight Ridder that the failure of Pentagon civilians to set specific objectives -- short-, medium- and long-term -- for Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction after Saddam Hussein's regime fell even left U.S. military commanders uncertain about how many and what kinds of troops would be needed after the war.
The disenchanted U.S. officials think the failure of the Pentagon civilians to develop such detailed plans contributed to the chaos in post-Saddam Iraq.
"We could have done so much better," lamented a former senior Pentagon official, who is still a Defense Department adviser.
Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring that post-Saddam planning anticipated all possible complications lay with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, current and former officials said.
The Pentagon planning group, directed by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official, included hard-line conservatives who had long advocated using the American military to overthrow Saddam. Its day-to-day boss was William Luti, a former Navy officer who worked for Vice President Dick Cheney before joining the Pentagon.
The Pentagon group insisted on doing it its way because it had a visionary strategy that it hoped would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies. The problem was that officials at the State Department and CIA thought the vision was badly flawed and impractical, so the Pentagon planners simply excluded their rivals from involvement.

We basically knew that we were up shit creek without a paddle two months after 'shock and awe'...And we still have to listen to these mincing righties project their faults on to their political opponents...The dishonesty they display is not an American or even Christian value...Anybody who mealy-mouths this 'Democrats have no plan' crap should be embarassed.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 3, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! You mean there is actually somebody opposed to affirmative action! Oh my, I had no idea that the world was that close to ending! And these same people realize that forced integration was a dismal failure? Nobody else ever had that idea. And what, they think we're descended from Europeans, too?!

Oh my, I have to go home and place a cool rag over my throbbing temples. Who will save us from these awful ideas...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody who mealy-mouths this 'Democrats have no plan' crap should be embarassed.
Why? Consider a foot race between you and me, if you decide not to run but simply sit down on the curb, would you expect me to try to set a course record?

We have a 2 party, adversarial system and the Dems are sitting on the curb whining about how poorly the Repubs run and claiming that they can run faster.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: "We have a 2 party, adversarial system and the Dems are sitting on the curb whining about how poorly the Repubs run and claiming that they can run faster."

Hogwash. Republicans control Congress. Republicans control the White house. Democratic efforts, for or against, have had no material effect on the prosecution of the war in Iraq.

Bush has gotten everything he has asked for in support of the war in Iraq. No legislation material to the war effort has been blocked by the Democrats.

Not to mention that the system has became markedly more adversarial in the last 12 years--along with the rise of Republican control.

The only thing keeping Republicans from running faster is their own incompetence.

Posted by: has407 on April 3, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 6:26 PM:

...would you expect me to try to set a course record?.

Yes. If defeating your opponent is the only thing that motivates you to do your best, then what motivation do you have when there is no competition?

We have a 2 party, adversarial system and the Dems are sitting on the curb whining.

Oh please...Conservative Repubs are the majority party in Congress, hold most federal judicial appointments, and are in the Oval office. And still they whine and play the victim when someone merely disagrees with them...More dishonesty, c-nut. You should be embarassed.

about how poorly the Repubs run and claiming that they can run faster.

Because, in the past, they have run faster, and will again in the future.

BTW, c-nut: What is the Republican plan for victory in Iraq? Or are they waiting for the Dems to offer one that they can steal and call their own?

Posted by: grape_crush on April 3, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

has407
And only one person wins a race. Does that mean that the other competitors should just quit?

grape
Yes. If defeating your opponent is the only thing that motivates you to do your best, then what motivation do you have when there is no competition?
A noble sentiment. Maybe you can explain how the Democrats lost the House in '94. Most people do not behave like Edwin Moses, they perform their best only with competition.

BTW, c-nut: What is the Republican plan for victory in Iraq?
I don't believe they have one, to stick to my analogy they ran on for a block and then sat down on the curb themselves. Although that doesn't just apply to the Iraq war...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut on April 3, 2006 at 7:24 PM:

to stick to my analogy they ran on for a block and then sat down on the curb themselves.

Yup. A block in the wrong direction. Then they demonized anyone who told them so.

Actually, I see the Dems more as 'benched' than sitting on the curb. Whether or not they did it to themselves is debatable.

Heh. There's a sports analogy for just about anything, isn't there?

Although that doesn't just apply to the Iraq war...

Hey, we agree! Maybe not on the specifics, but it's a start.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 3, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: "And only one person wins a race. Does that mean that the other competitors should just quit?"

No. Nor have they.

Posted by: has407 on April 3, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

I think Kevin's rather missing the point. here.

Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) on April 4, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Two points:

(1) How do you "win" an occupation?

(2) Until someone takes on the fact that being on a permanent war footing is not only unAmerican, but a threat to our future as a nation, what difference does it make which party is in power?

Militarism does not equal patriotism!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 4, 2006 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

....must seek to ease the poverty that breeds hopelessness. Hmm... sounds like we could use some of that in the good ol US of A. Sure do wish we could see fit to treat our own in the same way that we propose to treat others around the world.

Posted by: Jerry on April 4, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly