Kevin,
You'd think that after 6 years of this B.S. the Democratic party would respond vigorously, forcefully and continually to these charges. Sen. Reid seems to be at least game for the challenge.

It's progress, but the headline still sucks. It should really be "Bush Team Ties Democrats To Dirty Hippies Without Evidence"

Kevin, it is beyond ironic that you would (correctly) point out the GOP's failure to identify these sinister figures after you did the exact thing yesterday in the "Black Gold" thread, declining to specify your alleged "fever swamps" of lefty "conspiracy theorists" after numerous invitations from us to do so.

Then you actually use the phrase "fever swamps" again here--as yet another attempt to appear "balanced," or as a big F-you to your readership?

Another "bullshit" I'd like someone to call Bush on: "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable, and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies -- Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al-Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban." --Bush today in Salt Lake City, courtesy AP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, Iraq needs to be able to defend itself? Where is the effort to create an efficient, sizable Air Force? The Mideast is a festering pool of nations often at each other's throats. From one month to the next you're subject to attack by most of your neighbors. Has Bush initiated the sale or loaning of heavy artillary, short range missiles, mechanized infantry, ground radar and all the other items needed to, as he puts it, "defend itself"? Where are the training programs for advanced fighter pilots? Where are their jets and munitions? Certainly the only threat to Iraq isn't one that can be deterred with small arms and ground soldiers. Exactly what kind of army is it we're standing up so that we may stand down? It doesn't appear to be one capable of fending off the organized, armed military of many of its neighbors. Why isn't someone prominent crying "bullshit" on this canard?

Kevin: You can't find anybody on the Left who insists the war in Iraq is the cause of increasing terrorism? What's the obvious corollary?

'Logical interpretation' or objectively a threat to US securitiy? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. think the latter.

Bigcat-

I don't think it's all the Democratic Party though. I really wish someone in the media would ask him about that statement at the next press conferance. Or on the next talk show, ask Cheney who's saying that the terrorist will leave us alone.

Either way it's clear the Bush admin really wants to link itself to the heroic struggle against Hitler again. Good luck with that. Fitting a square peg in a round hole isn't going to work at election time this year.

Under the Constitution, Congress, and only Congress, declares war, but Congress has failed to exercise that authority for over 50 years.

But at least until now, Congress has maintained a backup authority over military involvement: using its power to approve or not approve funding.

Congress — controlled by Democrats in both houses — ended the war in Southeast Asia by cutting off funds. Even after we had pulled out all of our ground troops from Vietnam, we were still bombing in Laos until Congress cut off the funds.

What we have here is an attempt to discredit Congress' authority to cut off funds, as Congress did in 1974, to finally bring all of our troops home from that fool's errand in Southeast Asia. Mr. Cheney and his thought police allies are trying to make it politically impossible for Congress to exercise yet another of its constitutional powers, both to aggrandize the Executive over the Legislative Branch, and to help assure continuation of the present quagmire. Will he get away with it?

Even better would be to simply refuse to quote the straw men lines. "President Bush today continued to make stuff up."

Al nails it!

Democrats are the incarnation of Satan. So anything that captures and communicates this evil is, indeed, True.

And to think all this time, I thought Iraq was a "sovereign" already. How many sovereign nations out there require $100B/yr occupations just to prop them up?

Alexander,

I wish I shared your optimism regarding the press. It would be nice if someone who's getting paid to uncover the facts would try it just once. I'm not so confident we'll see any such thing. You'd hope the midterms would allow the opportunity to call some of these weasels on these gratuitous lies.

Irony Man:

"How many sovereign nations out there require $100B/yr occupations just to prop them up?"

Apparently several of them. Just as an example, NATO has cost the U.S. about $90 billion a year. South Korea military support, $59 billion a year. And how many years has this been going on?

So, surrendering to terrorists isn't surrendering to terrorists, so long as the democrats don't admit it?

Kevin, you are a piece of work. Also, exterminating the JEWS isn't anti-semetic unless you can get the nazis to admit it.

Note to Republicans: the media will stop using unnamed sources when you guys do.

Joel Rubinstein,
There is truth in what you say. Most people do not operate with the same frame of reference as the Cheney administration. This is really the revenge of Richard Nixon and the paranoid, autocratic governance he represented. The project war in the Middle East is their baby and they want to keep it going, but their real interest, their deeper revolution, is the restoration of the sovereign power of the executive. Although this is a perversion, as the Supreme Court has pointed out.

Most Americans would be shocked if these men ever articulated their true political beliefs. There is no doubt they would have been for a monarchy in 1783 and not such an unrealistic scheme as separation of powers.

Um, is "REVENCE" a word?

Has Bush initiated the sale or loaning of heavy artillary, short range missiles, mechanized infantry, ground radar and all the other items needed to, as he puts it, "defend itself"? Where are the training programs for advanced fighter pilots? Where are their jets and munitions? Certainly the only threat to Iraq isn't one that can be deterred with small arms and ground soldiers.
Posted by: steve duncan

Bush isn't about to sell or loan the Iraqis those types of weapons. They can be used by the Iraqis to drive out those nations who have come to take away their oil. If a bunch of supposedly outmatched goat-herding insurgents can wreak such havoc on our military using what they're using now, imagine what an Iraqi Air Force can do with American-made jets?

A Hawk

There isn't anybody surrendering. The fact is, without the US military and media over there, the Iraqis will revert to form and start killing a whole lot of terrorists.

Bush surrendered to Al Qaeda when he outsourced capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora. He sold out the victims of 9/11, along with the rest of the country (except for idiots like you), when he chose to let Bin Laden live comfortably in Pakistan and invade Iraq instead. Who else but a traitor would let Bin Laden off the hook and who else but a traitor would cheer for the coward who did it?

Hey, I'm getting good at this Republican shtick.

It's about time the straw men started fighting back.

But that would presuppose a press that had the sense to ask the questions. They're way too busy covering JonBenet and Warren Jeffs.

Irony Man:
How many sovereign nations out there require $100B/yr occupations just to prop them up?

How much do the Chinese loan us every year?

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Here's what's so warped about Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, NO ONE is suggesting passivity. Democrats are not saying, 'we want to make nice to terrorists'. In fact, what they say is "let's get tougher, and fight smarter". Invasion and bombing may allow the boy wonder to strut around the stage, but it not only doesn't kill terrorists, it helps create them.

We're long overdue for a real dialogue about what a smarter war on terror might be.

More revealing I think is this:

“We face an enemy that has an ideology,’’ Mr. Bush continued. “They believe things. The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think.”

Well, isn't that convenient! That simplifies everything, doesn't it? The Democrats "think the opposite of the way we think," too.

What an ass.

Good point, Kevin. However, what are the Dems proposing (other than bland, vague family-values type stuff) to do on those fronts; Iraq, national security, and fighting terrorism?
Also, one could equally interpret the Dems' response to said statements as fear-mongering, fear for the continued republican domination.

Hey Al, you bastard, come on down...

Als & AHs are right on this one. I'm a liberal and not only to I want to surrender by literally standing on my roof and waiving a white flag (how does Nov. 1 sound?) but I think we should fly all Islamofascists to the US and give them the keys and codes to our nuke stock. We should welcome them with big pictures of Osama and the call to prayer blaring from our Christian church towers. Just before the detonations we should all praise Allah and bend over. Yeah, that's what I want to do. You got me, wingers! I thought I could cover my appeaser plan by suggesting a rational redeployment and aggressive diplomacy plan, but you have seen right through me.

It is stupid to even attempt to fight these accusations.

The Dems should just emulate the opposition and declare, e.g., (a) that the Republicans want to establish a Dictatorship and give unchecked power to the dictator, (b) they want take your children and send them off to die in wars based on lies, etc. etc.. Actually these assertions are more supportable as following logically from the Repubs' statements of the past five years than the nonsense coming from the idiots' mouths.

So, surrendering to terrorists isn't surrendering to terrorists, so long as the democrats don't admit it?

Uh, no, little feller, let me explain it to you nice and slow: leaving Iraq for the Iraqis to sort out--no doubt with substantial Iranian influence--is not surrendering, whether or not cracker nincompoops like yourself acknowledge it.

Shitbird.

We're long overdue for a real dialogue about what a smarter war on terror might be.

Absolutely correct.

It's about time the straw men started fighting back.

Word. And Democrats should point out that the constant use of this dishonest tactic by Bush and his cronies Republicans only proves they're afraid to debate the Democrats' actual positions, because they know they -- the Republicans -- are the ones out of the mainstream.

Perhaps the italics really belong around the phrase Pressed to support these allegations.... That seems to be the new element here.

Kevin: You can't find anybody on the Left who insists the war in Iraq is the cause of increasing terrorism? What's the obvious corollary?

To anyone with rudimentary capacity for logic, the "obvious corrolary" to the position you relate is that, all other things being equal, stopping the war in Iraq would arrest the increase in terrorism associated with that war.

It is certainly not a corollary, or even a reasonable inference, that stopping the war in Iraq would stop terrorism (rather than halt the increase in terrorism attributable to the war), though it might be a reasonable (though not necessary) inference that stopping the war in Iraq is a necessary but not sufficient step to success against terrorism overall.

Speaking of straw men, where's Al?

Strawlublicans. Liarluicans. Fantasicans. Repulican'ts. Shitheadicans. Makeshitupicans.

Speaking of straw men, Kevin implicitly criticizes the Bush and Chaney speechs by pointing out that "the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone." However, neither Bush nor Chaney had made such a claim in their speech.

However, this point is just a quibble. In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation. In November we will see which POV the voters support.

By raising these easily deflected strawmen, the Republicans allow Democrats the opportunity to ask and re-ask Republicans to explain their actions in Iraq and why they let Al Qaeda go years ago. We want a smarter and more effective war on the guys who attacked us. We want results. Where the heck are the results Mr. President?

In fact I have to wonder if the Republican strategy is all too easy. I wonder if they have a rabbit they are going to pull out of their hat. Are they are going to drag Osama out of a hole and perp walk him down the streets of Washington?

The Democratic response has to account for that possibility.

Clearly Representative Strawman is causing the Democratic Party problems with his crazy off the wall imaginary comments.

Glad to see that these comments are starting to get challenged by the media.

In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation.

You wish. Again, while the GOP has worked hard to create this impression in the public mind, the public mind can't help but notice 1) the conspicious Republican incompetence in terms of waging the so-called "war on terror" and 2) the conspicuous disconnect -- as always! -- between Republican words and deeds when it comes to waging a "vigorous" war on terror.

Hell, Bush insists on paying for his war with a tax cut and loans from the Red Chinese -- that's all you need to know he isn't serious.

Come November, we'll see how little credibility the GOP marketing scheme has with American voters, "ex-liberal". Only dishonest hacks like you -- part and parcel of said marketing scheme -- will trust the GOP with national security for a generation. The American public, not so much.

of course the righties insist that Rumsfeld didn't say anything mean about Democrats. they say he was horribly misunderstood and misquoted . :(

In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation. In November we will see which POV the voters support.
Posted by: ex-liberal

actually going after terrorists instead of fabricating lies to invade an unrelated country for purposes of oil and profiteering is not considered "negotiation."

but you're a repub ... and a stupid one ...

I can see how the shiny flash of repub merchandising could blind an ignorant dipshit like yourself to the reality of their incompetence.

Speaking of straw men, Kevin implicitly criticizes the Bush and Chaney speechs by pointing out that "the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone."

Kevin explicitly criticizes the Bush and Cheney speeches by pointing out what you quote; there was nothing implicit about the criticism.

However, neither Bush nor Chaney had made such a claim in their speech.

Wrong; Bush claimed the first part, Cheney claimed the second. The White House could support neither.

In the public mind, Republicans stand for more vigorous war and Dems stand for more reliance on negotiation. In November we will see which POV the voters support. exliberal

Looking at the polls, if that is the choice, the House and Senate Republican leadership ought to start laying off staff right now to give those socially connected boys and girls a chance to catch on with some K Street gang before November.

who the fuck is "Chaney" ?

steve duncan wrote:

"So, Iraq needs to be able to defend itself? Where is the effort to create an efficient, sizable Air Force? The Mideast is a festering pool of nations often at each other's throats. From one month to the next you're subject to attack by most of your neighbors. Has Bush initiated the sale or loaning of heavy artillary, short range missiles, mechanized infantry, ground radar and all the other items needed to, as he puts it, "defend itself"? Where are the training programs for advanced fighter pilots? Where are their jets and munitions? Certainly the only threat to Iraq isn't one that can be deterred with small arms and ground soldiers. Exactly what kind of army is it we're standing up so that we may stand down? It doesn't appear to be one capable of fending off the organized, armed military of many of its neighbors. Why isn't someone prominent crying "bullshit" on this canard?"
__________________

steve, you aren't the first to notice that all the effort has been going into the Iraqi Army. We in DOD are aware of it as well. There is the beginnings of an Iraqi Air Force, but so far it's only helicopters and transports. I suspect that the reason is two-fold. Firstly, the immediate danger is internal and ground related. Secondly, nobody has much of an Air Force over there, except us and the Israelis. Giving the Iraqis fighters could be seen as a waste of effort right now, though eventually they'll probably get them (if they live that long.)

But your larger point is important. Eventually, we'll be talking about artillery, logistics, and armor, without which they would be helpless against an outside threat. The problem extends to all government departments. We'll also have to rebuild their equivalent of an FAA, since all air traffic control is in US military hands, as well as a dozen other technical services that any government needs. But the security needs preclude paying more attention to that kind of stuff right now. That's where Kevin's idea of a "progressive army of society builders" falls a little flat. It's a chicken and egg thing, we can't leave because the security situation sucks, and we can't improve things because we can't deliver all the services they need without security. We've got a tiger by the tail and cannot let go.

We on the Right will ensure or men and women of the Armed forces will die with dignity,Which is why we perposed to cut death bennifits to there survivors.We on the right will make sure the terrorists kill american over there so they will not kill or harm the top 5% of americans over here.We on the right will pledge to make sure the top 5% do not get burdened with too high of taxes.We on the right will make sure the lower populace will pay for and fight the wars that make the top 5% safer and richer.Now what righty can't win there elections on this platform?

The Democratic Party needs to select and nurture a wedge breaker. Some one who can take on these rethug arguments aggressively and stuff them down their slimy throats.

Keith Olbermann demonstrates how to do this here:

Olbermann Blasts Rumsfeld On Facism

For those of you who do not follow American football, a wedge breaker is a special teams player on the kick offs. His job is to sprint down the field throw his body into the blocking wedge that is forming to protect the ball carrier.

If done correctly two things happen: 1) the wedge breaker gets battered, 2) the ball carrier is exposed, and stripped of protection, brought down.

"Bush Declares That U.S. Must Stay the Course

By DAVID STOUT
Published, NYT: August 31, 2006

President Bush began a new drive today to rally the American people behind him on the Iraq war and national security, declaring that the United States must stay the course in Iraq because it is a battleground in an epic struggle between democracy and tyranny."

I almost did a spit-take when I saw that headline this morning. "Declares", instead of "repeats", echoing his "epic struggle between democracy and tyranny" crap without quotation marks and, above all, accepting "stay the course" as an actual policy — laughable, if it weren't so tragic.

Good thing the Times is so liberal, right? What would they do if they were in Bushbaby's back pocket. Anybody notice how bloated and decrepit he looks in the accompanying photo. Dorian Gray, party of one!

Sorry Blew the tags. Here is the link:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannBlastsRumsfeldOnFacism.wmv

Interesting Olbermann comment. It was obvious from the get-go he was adopting an Edward R. Murrow pose. THe diction was the same. But it's a good idea. He's saying things that cannot be condensed into a single-clause sentence, because the situation in which we find ourself is too complex to be condensed into single-clause sentences, and indeed many of hte ills we now face may stem from too much striving to condense our thinking into single-clause sentences.

We didn’t teach them how to slaughter the cow to get the butter. We gave them the butter.

Only a Republican would slaughter the cow to get the butter.

Jeez.

Trashhauler, I posit the main reason we don't create a real Iraqi military is it couldn't be trusted to act rationally (i.e. in U.S./Israeli interests). Modern weapons in the hands of a force that can't control infiltrators, defectors or other unhinged actors is just not wise. Imagine a squadron of fully loaded F-16's suddenly turning the Green Zone into a killing field. As long as there are U.S. military units present Iraq will never be given much beyond small arms and small bore, short range field artillery. Even if our army leaves altogether untrustworthy Iraqi factions dictate allowing but a weak military capability, if for no other reason than mimimizing violence against remaining American civilians and other Iraqis. Iraq won't have a modern military so long as the risk entails loose, uncontrollable use of it by angry malcontents. That means never.

cmdicely wrote:

"...all other things being equal, stopping the war in Iraq would arrest the increase in terrorism associated with that war."
_____________

Well, that's not quite right, cmdicely. A three or four way struggle will continue, probably breaking out into open warfare. We cannot stop all the fighting in Iraq, we can only stop participating in it. And even then, only very gradually and with the knowledge that we'll have to reengage as soon as things get shitty enough to make it obvious to everyone. And, wherever we "redeploy," we'll still be the Great Satan, so our withdrawal might have no effect on jihadism, except to give them everything we can't haul out of Iraq.

Keith G,

If done correctly two things happen: 1) the wedge breaker gets battered, 2) the ball carrier is exposed, and stripped of protection, brought down.

I think you've just hit upon the perfect way for Lieberman to show that he is with the Democratic party.

I'd like a pony, too, by the way.

Reprobate wrote:

"If a bunch of supposedly outmatched goat-herding insurgents can wreak such havoc on our military using what they're using now, imagine what an Iraqi Air Force can do with American-made jets?"
________________

Reprobate, the insurgency isn't wreaking havoc on the US military and never did. This low level combat is draining and dangerous, but hasn't threatened any unit's military effectiveness. And attacking the US military remains a quick way to wind up dead. Most of their efforts are now directed against Iraqi civilians for that very reason.

Some say that Bush sold out the World Trade Center at a secret meeting with members of the Bin Laden family at his ranch in July 2001.

Kevin,

Maybe you can see how it feels now when the trumpet call is sounded from the left about how the Bush administration wants to
"set up a theocracy", "take-away our first amendment rights", "take-back all the civil-rights advances"...

How dare a man of the left talk about over the top rhetoric! We have a name for Democrat over the top lingo. It is part of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It runs rampant through all levels of the Democratic party.

Personally, I would like to get all of the over the top lingo out of politics and have nice reasoned discussions. Its of course just my opinion, but if any Democrats want to see the reason that reasonable discourse has been dumped in favor of straw-men and exageration of the opponents positions, they only have to look in the mirrror.

From a frustrated right-center voter who enjoys sensible political discussion.

Well, that's not quite right, cmdicely.

Perhaps not.

A three or four way struggle will continue, probably breaking out into open warfare.

Well, sure, that's a plausible result; I was reading "the war in Iraq" generously to the poster I was responding to as "(the US participation in) the war in Iraq", and then only describing what was and was not a reasonable corollary of the position he attributed to liberals, not making my own prediction of the actual likely results of withdrawal.

There was no politcal solution to our own civil war. A very big bunch of people had to die and a subculture had to be pretty much destroyed before peace was possible.

Is it possible that there is little that the US military can do to prevent the sectarian violence?

If that is the case, might not the best thing to do be to just back off and let all these factions try to cope with the unpleasent reality of their desires.

"There was no politcal solution to our own civil war. A very big bunch of people had to die and a subculture had to be pretty much destroyed before peace was possible."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If only that subculture had been destroyed........

if any Democrats want to see the reason that reasonable discourse has been dumped in favor of straw-men and exageration of the opponents positions, they only have to look in the mirrror

well that's not a very "sensible" thing to say.

BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It runs rampant through all levels of the Democratic party.

Eh - an exaggeration, to be sure.

However, rightwing partisans are loath to admit that this syndrome also runs through the Repulican party, albeit in a more pathological form. There, the derangement consists of people who, when the topic of Bush comes up, lose whatever semblance of rational thought they possess, and reflexively defend and support anything the man says or does. Sounds like derangement to me.

The problem for the Democratic Party is that they enable the Bush Administration to set up strawmen through their rhetoric. Unless they speak with specificity about how they would change our approach in the Middle East and Iraq, they leave the field to the Administration. It isn't enough to answer every strawman with a litany of past Administration mistakes and sins, fun though it may be. After the fifth or sixth time, all that does is make the critic sound slightly moonbatty. All the Administration has to do in that case is say, "See, they don't have a plan, except to quit.

Somebody, somewhere, must come up with a plan better than, "Elect us because these guys are awful and we won't lie and we won't make the same mistakes." While people might agree that they current Administration is awful, nobody believes the next Administration, Democratic or not, won't lie, if they feel they need to. And, unfortunately, they will be as prone to mistakes as any other group of humans.

The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at, as well, but at least the debate will progress beyond sophomoric insults and the political equivalent of, "Quitter, quitter!! Am not! Are too! Am not! Are too!"

cleek: well that's not a very "sensible" thing to say.

But so typical of "reasonable" poster John Hansen. Plead for civility and tolerance in political discourse, call self a moderate, then include gratuitous over-the-top shot at Democrats. (I left out the part where he invariably mistakes Kevin for a leftist.)

In a way, it's worse than the crap spewed by the vitriolic trolls, because Hansen appears to really believe he's a rational man surrounded by injustice.

Personally, I would like to get all of the over the top lingo out of politics and have nice reasoned discussions.

Oh please. You're going to have to remove the Bush administration before there's a chance of this.

We didn’t teach them how to slaughter the cow to get the butter. We gave them the butter.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh on August 31, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I know I'm a city boy, but don't you milk the cow and slaughter the milk to get butter?

shortstop:

I called Kevin a "man of the left" ( which he is ) not a "leftist" ( which he is not). The terms mean very different things to me.

"Straw Men" would be a great name for a band. The Straw Men Fight Back would be their first album.

Rock!

LMAO at trashhauler.

His satirical essay about how Dems are responsible for the strawmen set-up against them by the GOP, because they don't have a plan for Iraq -- itself the biggest strawman set-up against the Dems -- is genius.

I look forward to more essays by trashhauler where he lampoons the thought processes of the rightwing.

A "frustrated right-center voter who enjoys sensible political discussion: wrote: We have a name for Democrat over the top lingo. It is part of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It runs rampant through all levels of the Democratic party.

Ah, he tried not to give the game away by saying "Democrat Party," but forgot when talking about the lingo...

So-called "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is another side of the Republican's dishonest rhetoric, designed to make the very act of criticizing Dear Leader seem deranged. (Which, conveniently, absolved the GOP from having to address said criticism." Anyone who uses such a dishonest term exempts him/herself from "sensible political discussion."

But speaking of straw men, I wonder what our so-called "frustrated right-center voter" would consider an example of "over the top lingo" from the Democratic party.

Yes, as trashhauler blames Dems for GOP-manufactured strawmen, by using GOP-manufactured strawmen, John Hansen blames Dems for GOP over-the-top rhetoric by using GOP over-the-top rhetoric.

These folks are nothing if not consistent.

tomeko,

Ok, I know I'm a city boy, but don't you milk the cow and slaughter the milk to get butter?

I believe the term is "churn": as in you milk the cow, and churn the milk to get butter.

Disputo,

Why, thanks, I rather liked it myself. lol

Seriously, I didn't mean to say that it was the Dems fault, it's just in the nature of how debate works. The Administration has something to defend, while the Democrats have hypotheticals. It leaves them with a natural disadvantage.

As to the Democratic alternative plan, I've heard scattered ideas from some Democratic politicians, but nothing close to an actionable plan. I think Senator Biden comes closest to having a plan, but he doesn't represent all of the Democrats and he hasn't been specific enough about how to implement his ideas. The Democrats have to stop wasting the first three minutes of every opportunity to talk with accounts about mistakes made three years ago. Believe me, our military leaders don't enjoy putting their Services - the kids they lead, their friends and colleagues - through this bullshit, anymore than most here enjoy reading about it. Worse, probably, because they've all been there, done that and it sucks.

I'd like to see some Democratic leader (Hillary?) hire some of those anti-Bush generals to develop an actionable plan for disengagement and redeployment, including who stays where, what the rules of engagement should be, and who we should be ready to fight next. That last is important to us military types, because we know there is always a next fight, even when Democrats have the White House. And the thing that would really piss us off is if we have to fight our way back into some shithole we just left. That would really suck.

speaking of straw men, I wonder what our so-called "frustrated right-center voter" would consider an example of "over the top lingo" from the Democratic party.

I believe I gave three examples in my original post.

Dem speeches about how the Bush administration wants to
"set up a theocracy", "take-away our first amendment rights", "take-back all the civil-rights advances"...

I don't have access to a search of campaign and other speeches made by Democratic candidates/officials. If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

1. you don't have any examples of X
2. you assert X anyway
3. you challenge others to prove no X ever happened, anywhere, even though you can't prove that one did
?

how very sensible

I don't have access to a search of campaign and other speeches made by Democratic candidates/officials. If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

Wait a minute...you cite three pieces of rhetoric you claim as over the top (an assertion not in evidence, by the way, but we'll accept it for the sake of argument) that you attribute to the "left," then attribute these words to "over the top lingo" from the Democratic party, citing "Dem speeches" that you admit you can't provide a single example of?!?!

Withdraw your accusation, hell -- you made the claim and you admit you don't have a basis except some vague perception you got somewhere (gee, I wonder where) that Democratic rhetoric is over the top.

You made the accusation -- back it up. Put up or shut up.

Trashhauler: The Administration has something to defend, while the Democrats have hypotheticals. It leaves them with a natural disadvantage.

Normally I might agree with you, but since it's nigh-impossible to honestly defend the Republican record of mendacity, incompetence and corruption -- a record with which the American public is deeply dissatisfied -- dishonest rhetoric is the GOP's only recourse. It isn't a normal part of debate or political discourse; it's the Republican Party's only hope.

Dear cleek,

Here is an example of X.

April 18 2005,
[ Howard ]Dean said in California, "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?"

trashhauler,

I'd like to see some Democratic leader (Hillary?) hire some of those anti-Bush generals to develop an actionable plan for disengagement and redeployment, including who stays where, what the rules of engagement should be, and who we should be ready to fight next.

Why not just review General Clark's plan? Why do you need "some Democratic leader (Hillary?)" to pick some other general or set of generals? This is not a parlimentary system. There is no shadow cabinet. There is no acknowledged leader of the Democratic party.

Also, where is the GOP plan to which the Dems are supposed to provide an alternative?

Maybe if we ask nice, Iran will give Iraq back its Air Force?

Trashhauler: The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at...

See here. While I'll be the first to say it could use work, it's more coherent than the shotgun of talking points and bullet lists the administration (or the GOP) has produced.

Maybe if we ask nice, Iran will give Iraq back its Air Force?

IIRC, the neocon "solution" would be to bomb Iran so they will give Iraq back its Air Force.

Here is an example of X.

Feverish Googling revealed that Howard Dean, a Democrat, used the word "theocracy," indeed, but how is that rhetoric "over the top"?

Stories about campains are the easiest place to find these things.

Another example of X.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/16/candidates_slam_bush_on_pickering?mode=PF

Trashhauler: The only way to stop strawmen arguments is to stand up real alternatives to argue about. That means the Democratic plans can be critiqued and picked at

Of course! That's the whole point -- so that Democratic plans, rather than the current republican failures, are critiqued and picked at.

It's a lame tactic at the level of high school debate, and a sure sign of a side that knows it's losing.

To the "troop supporters":

My car gets 46 mpg.
What are YOU doing to fight Terrorist Funding?

(I wish that would fit on a bumper sticker).

Stories about campains are the easiest place to find these things.

Then one wonders why you made an accusation that you admitted you couldn't support.

Feverish Googling revealed that Howard Dean, a Democrat, used the word "theocracy," indeed, but how is that rhetoric "over the top"?

Because the clear insinuation of his comments is that the theocracy he is speaking about is what will happen if the Republicans stay in office.

Actually, we SHOULD block additional money; it's the only way to get us out of Iraq.

Her failure to vote that way is why I will vote for a Green write-in candidate rather than semi-liberal Eddie Bernice Johnson for Congress here in Dallas.

Oh, and by the way, Johan Hansen, you stipulated that "If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation." The article you cited appears to be dated 2004, which by my count is more than a year ago.

Also - I think it's high time Democrats begin using the term:

Neo-McCarthyism.

Because both Democratic candidates used fear mongering that civil rights would be severely turned back if Pickering were appointed.

Because the clear insinuation of his comments is that the theocracy he is speaking about is what will happen if the Republicans stay in office.

Even granting your interpretation of the "clear insinuation," how is that over the top?

Or inaccurate, for that matter? Remind me, which party is the party of choice of the religious right?

Or isn't the whole point of calling it "over the top" a dodge to prevent considering how accutate it might be?

"Enjoys sensible political discussion," my eye.

Democratic candidates + fear-mongering = LOL!

The article you cited appears to be dated 2004

That is the reason that I stated that campaign stories would be the palces that this stuff could be found. The last time that a lot of this type of rhetoric was covered extensively by the press was 2004. It is just an example.

Apparently several of them. Just as an example, NATO has cost the U.S. about $90 billion a year. South Korea military support, $59 billion a year.

$59B for Korea? The figure I've seen says it's more like $2B. And that's hardly an "occupation" like what we have in Iraq.

And the NATO example? Stop being silly.

John Hansen is just a 30-percenter and a dead-ender, a Bush cultist through and through. Since there is nothing that would shake him of his view of Bush as the God-annointed King and of Republicans as saintly angels, why bother?

Kraft writes:

Apparently several of them. Just as an example, NATO has cost the U.S. about $90 billion a year. South Korea military support, $59 billion a year. And how many years has this been going on?

Um, NATO isn't a country. And the American military spends about $1.5 bil in South Korea annually, 40% of which is paid by the South Korean government. What source are you using? Or are you just making up stuff?

Because both Democratic candidates used fear mongering that civil rights would be severely turned back if Pickering were appointed.

Sorry, John Hansen, but your claim that they "used fear mongering" isn't good enough. What did they say?

And if they did predict that Pickering's appointment would harm civil rights, again, how is that over the top?

Wouldn't it have to be untrue to be over the top? And isn't the whole point of this game to give the GOP the presumption that such accusations are untrue, by labeling them over the top, thus avoiding discussing uncomfortable issues?

As we've been discussing, the rhetorical tactics of the GOP are dishonest to the core (but no wonder, when the majority of the country prefers the Democratic priorities, and all the GOP has to offer is mendacity, incompetence and corruption).

And you, John Hansen, are an eager participant in that dishonesty. Now that's "over the top", and a sure fire exemption from consideration in "sensible political discussion."

So John Hansen,

How are those checks from Karl Rove ? Can you buy enough Cheetos to keep you happy ?

You sir, are a prime example of "over the top" ignorance

Just yesterday I was in a cab driven by an obvious Muzzlum and I can tell you that I was scared shitless. The only way out of this mess is to bomb the daylights out of Iran, since it's full of Arabs and all.

Gregory,

You have to admit it, any mention of the word theocracy associated with America is over the top. If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion. Just because many religious people find the Republican party more in line with their views is no reason to use such a loaded word.

On the other hand, ( and I could not find it in the archives of this site, but the discussion was about nationalized health care), I have been commended by the very people on this site before for discussing things in a very reasonable manner, free of name-calling and ad hominem attack.

I think what we need in discussions is clarity over sharp rhetoric. To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone, is to put one's head in the sand.

John Hansen is just a 30-percenter and a dead-ender, a Bush cultist through and through. Since there is nothing that would shake him of his view of Bush as the God-annointed King and of Republicans as saintly angels, why bother?

No, no name-calling here.

That is the reason that I stated that campaign stories would be the palces that this stuff could be found.

A big relief, I'm sure, since you already admitted making an accusation you couldnt' back up, resulting in your feverish Googling. However, I think you'll find that political rhetoric is a pretty much ongoing process -- I refer you to The Washington Post.

The last time that a lot of this type of rhetoric was covered extensively by the press was 2004.

Well, no, you don't really have a basis for making this statement -- big surprise -- simply because that's what your Google search found.

And, of course, you already stipulated rhetoric within the last year or so, which lets 2004 out entirely, so rip that one up anyway.

An alternate explanation, of course, is that the Democratic Party really doesn't engage in this sort of rhetoric.

It is just an example.

Well, no, it isn't, really. It's outside the time frame you yourself specified, and moreover, you haven't established that it's an example of over the top rhetoric at all.

(Here's a hint: Just because you -- and obvious Republican sympathizer -- agree with your Party's diktat that its lousy civil rights record should not be criticized, nor its ties to the religious right and its agenda, doesn't make bringing up uncomfortable subjects to the GOP "over the top".)

Objection.

If no one has used such language in a year or so, and this type of language has only been by supporters, then I will glady withdraw my accusation.

Dean's use of the term "theocracy" was April 18, 2005

Source--John Hansen on August 31, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Edo wrote:

"Why not just review General Clark's plan? Why do you need "some Democratic leader (Hillary?)" to pick some other general or set of generals? This is not a parlimentary system. There is no shadow cabinet. There is no acknowledged leader of the Democratic party.

Also, where is the GOP plan to which the Dems are supposed to provide an alternative?"
________________

Edo, from what I've read of General Clark's ideas, they differ only in small detail from what we are currently doing. Without the mistakes, of course. Has he published something recently I don't know about?

I realize that there is no requirement for a shadow government. I'm just pointing out that one cannot stop strawmen attacks by saying, "That's not our plan! You are misrepresenting us!" The Bush Administration is quite free to say anything they want about what the Democratic Party plans to do, so long as there isn't a plan somewhere that people can compare against the Adminstration rhetoric.

As far as the Republicans go, they have the advantage of controlling the Executive Branch. Therefore, "their" plan is institutionalized in formal government publications, such as "The National Defense Strategy of the United States." Google it and go to "Operations" for the plan, such as it is, in Iraq and in the GWOT.

Once the Democrats get back into the White House, they will write their version of "The National Defense Strategy" (and I will have to defend it.) However, that doesn't prevent them from issuing something a bit more substantial then they have so far.

No, no name-calling here.

I am merely applying the Rumsfeld standard to you, John. If you can't take the heat....

If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion.

A prime example of over-the-top rhetoric.

You have to admit it, any mention of the word theocracy associated with America is over the top.

Oh, that's rich! I call you on the fact that you haven't established that rhetoric as over the top, and you rejoind that I have to admit it? I have to admit no such thing. Prove it, or shut up. (Here's a hint: for it to be over the top, it has to be untrue, which is, of course, what this whole thing is about.)

If you actually spend some time talking to people on the religious right, you will find that they are the strongest supporters of freedom of religion.

Which is, of course, neither here nor there when considering the agenda promoted by the leaders of the Religious Right and thrie allies in the REpublican Party. You're engaging in distraction, and obviously so.

Just because many religious people find the Republican party more in line with their views is no reason to use such a loaded word.

Straw man. The word is a criticism of the religious right's political agenda and the Republican Party's professed support of same.

On the other hand, ( and I could not find it in the archives of this site,

Your poor search skills are obvious, rest assured.

I have been commended by the very people on this site before for discussing things in a very reasonable manner, free of name-calling and ad hominem attack.

Here's a hint, John: Just because you refrain from name calling doesn't mean you discuss things "in a very reasonable manner," as my critiques of your posts, your steadfast refusal to substantively rebut those critiques, your use of straw men and other fallacies, and your wholehearted embrace of dishoenst Republican frames attests. You are not, in fact, discussing things in a very reasonable manner. You're parroting GOP talking points, and failing to support them.

I think what we need in discussions is clarity over sharp rhetoric.

It'd be nice if you could provide some, then.

To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office

I remind you that anyone can run in a primary, of course, but it's rich that you, who claimed to avoid ad hominem attacks, just engaged in one. As a fallacy, fo course, your rhetoric deserves to be rejected out of hand.

has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone, is to put one's head in the sand.

What's even more rich is that you repeat this assertion -- with the added bonus of an ad hominem! -- despite having totally and utterly failed to prove your point. Since you have failed to do so, of course, your assertion is meaningless.

No, no name-calling here.

John, you refuse to engage in honest discusson, so why on Earth should you be accorded any respect? You deserve none. Ford knows it's nigh-impossible to honestly defend the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Republican Party, but no one forces you to, or forces you to do so as poorly as you've done.

I think what we need in discussions is clarity over sharp rhetoric. To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone, is to put one's head in the sand.

Remind me again, John, of when Pat Robertson was in a similar position. Indeed, is not George Allen interested in the highest political office? Pot and kettle and all...

Sorry, but I think that everyone on the left is seriously underestimating Karl's plan. This sort of "democrats want to appease the terrorist" rhetoric is simply to give pundits something to ponder on November 8, 2006, when the real issue will be Diebold and lack of a voting paper trail. As long as the Admin follow Karl's playbook by frothing at the mouth about democratic appeasers, then post-election when the democrats fail to take a majority of the house, Cokie Roberts, George Will, David Broder will all say that they are a little surprised that the message carried so well. Only a few in the tin-hat crowd will look a voting irregularities. They will be dismissed as crack-pots and another election will have been stolen.

"Because the clear insinuation of his comments is that the theocracy he is speaking about is what will happen if the Republicans stay in office."

Well sure...IF you strip away all the context. He was speaking specifically about the Schiavo mess - a fact you neglected to mention. A very odd choice for you to provide as an example of Dem "over the top rhetoric" since virtually all of America was scared absolutely shitless by the *Republican* rhetoric around that. You may recall it was the beginning of the endless slide in popular approval for both Bush and the GOP in general.

Straw man = lying communicator
America's Least Wanted

I like it, Tomeck ! Slaughter the milk works for political churn.
gregor did ok at 1:46 too.
http://ww.boston.com/news/globe/articles/2006/08/30afghanistan_ignored/
U.S. Rep Barney Frank Mass 4th Congressional District talks straight about aiming at the wrong target.
I even did a blunt enough comment on my own board that "reasonable" John Hansen would like to ride me out of town on rails ... whoops. Done already.

John Hansen wrote: "To deny that the party who had Al Sharpton as a legitmate candidate for its highest political office has not made a major contribution to the descent of rhteoric into the garbage zone."

Please provide specific quotes of statements made by Al Sharpton as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 that represent "rhetoric in the garbage zone".

Please also provide specific quotes from other well-known Democratic politicians endorsing or approving of any such quotes from Rev. Sharpton that justify your attribution of any such comments as you are able to quote from Rev. Sharpton to the Democratic Party as a whole.

Alternatively, you may simply continue slavishly regurgitating scripted right-wing extremist Republican propganda.

He was speaking specifically about the Schiavo mess - a fact you neglected to mention.

Dishonestly selective quotation from a GOP supporter? I'm shocked! Shocked!!

A very odd choice for you to provide as an example of Dem "over the top rhetoric" since virtually all of America was scared absolutely shitless by the *Republican* rhetoric around that. You may recall it was the beginning of the endless slide in popular approval for both Bush and the GOP in general.

Which makes it all the more important for John Hansen to change the subject from the GOP's relentlessly dishonest rhetoric to the Democrats. The GOP simply can't afford an honest debate, and John Hansen proves they don't intend to offer any.

There is no good word to describe the gang that runs the party today.

Ah, another dead-ender now joins the fray. And what word, dead-ender, would you use to describe the leader of the Republican party? It certainly would not be either popular or competent.

It might be easier for the straw men to fight back, now that we have this:

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), once an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, said yesterday that the Bush administration should set a time frame for withdrawing U.S. troops. He added that most of the withdrawal could take place next year.

"My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal," Shays said from London in a conference call with reporters. "A timeline of when the bulk of heavy lifting is in the hands of the Iraqis."

PS - John Bolton just lied today: He said there is no other use "for uranium metal" than making weapons. But whether uranium is weapon-worthy depends on the *concentration* of fissionable U235 within it. This is inexcusable.

There is no good word to describe the gang that runs the party today.

Hey, John Hansen! Care to respond to this under-heated non-rhetoric from your kith and kin?

trashhauler,

then how about the Dem's Real Security Plan to Protect America

Backed by fellow Democrats, Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks about the nation's security during an event at Union Station in Washington, March 29, 2006.

From left is former General Wesley Clark, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, Reid, firefighter representative Harold Schaitberger, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI).

Surely you're not claiming that this is a) not a Democtratic Party plan for national security, nor b) differing in only small details from the GOP plan?

Doesn't the Republican framing of this conflict really just amount to "So tell the court sir, when did you stop beating your wife?".

cmdicely wrote: Bush claimed the first part, Cheney claimed the second [that major Democrat have proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone]

Three points:

1. cmdicely, you can find those words in some reporters' interpretations of the speeches, but they're not in the speeches themselves. If you disagee, I challenge you to find

2. Leading Dems like Sen. Kerry have proposed withdrawing from Iraq. If we withdrew, wouldn't that mean cutting off funds? Minority leader Harry Reid has complained about too much spending in Iraq. Doesn't that equate to a proposal to cut funding there?

3. I agree that it's exaggeration to assert that Dems have claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terro