Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
I can see it now, in a couple of decades:

We could've won in Iraq, if those ***** Democrats hadn't tied one hand behind our backs!

We'd have won if those goddamned liberals hadn't stabbed us in the back!

-Arrian

Yep, that was their plan all along. This is why the Democrats bent over backwards to agree with every request this utterly incompetent administration asked; just so no one would claim they were weak on defense or didn't support the troops. Yet in the end the truth doesn't matter to the far right and they will still make their bogus claims.

Just look at the garbage the far right is saying about protectionism right now. The Republicans are worried that with the lose of Congress they'll lose most of their campaign contributions (because the bribers want to bribe people who have the power not the people who don't have power) thus Republicans are now running to business groups crying "GIVE US MONEY OR ELSE THE EVIL DEMOCRATS WILL TURN AMERICA INTO A PROTECTIONIST STATE!!!!".

The problem is that line is total bull****. Sure, the Republicans need some excuse to convince people to give them money but if people really look at the facts then they'd see Republicans not Democrats pushed for renewed subsidies for their politicially favored industries (especially farm subsidies for those economically worthless but vote rich red "heartland" states). It was the Republican Congress which refused to ratify the free trade agreements with Peru and Ecuador because it was an election year. It was the Republican President who slapped illegal tarrifs on steel and equally illegal tarrifs on lumber. While it was a Democratic President and Democratic Congress which signed NAFTA into law.

Neither party is completely free of pro-protectionism but the Democratic Party is mostly run by people from New England and California which are both very pro-free trade areas. Sure, the heartland pro-union manufacturing places still dream of protective tarrifs but their numbers have been going down every year for 40 years. Those guys are no longer in the drivers seat like they were in the 1960's.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Speaking of smug, arrogant, and insufferable moral superiority.... did anyone else hear the ultra surprising and utterly schocking revelation that Dems knew of Foleys misconducts in midsummer 2005. The choice to shop it to media for an election surprise being a complete wow to me. Yuppp damn those Repugs for sitting on this information when our children-pages are in harms way.

Link please.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun



Corruption and immorality knows no single political party. You're just realizing this?

Actually I've been saying this since the beginning it's others who seem to think one party pure as driven snow (or at least comparatively so).

To quote Homer Simpson "That was sarcasm in case you didn't notice!"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Link please.

Look at drudge even now as we figuratively speak.

[Arrian]

Nobody here thinks the Dems are pure as the driven snow. That's just a blatant strawman.

I think they are, at this point, slightly less bad than the Republicans. Leave them in power a while, and that will likely shift.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nobody here thinks the Dems are pure as the driven snow. That's just a blatant strawman.

-Arrian

If you say so. Oerdin otoh has maintained the relative
pure as driven snow mantra comparatively speaking vs. Repugs.

[Dinner]

Bull****.

[Arrian]

Oerdin's been mainly harping on Republican transgressions, and as far as I remember, he's never been particularly impressed with the Dems, except by comparison to the current (or pre-2006 mid-term election) Republicans in power.

There's a difference between recognizing the greater evil and claiming the other side is all sweetness and light.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Bull**** in that you don't beleive that Dems were capable of staying mum until it was to their advantage despite all the while criticizing Repugs for covering up

or...

Bull**** that you haven't maintained Dems are far far less corrupt then Repugs and continue to do so to this day.

or ....

Bull**** used as an expletive that you have finally realized what POS's the Dems truly are.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oerdin's been mainly harping on Republican transgressions, and as far as I remember, he's never been particularly impressed with the Dems, except by comparison to the current (or pre-2006 mid-term election) Republicans in power.

There's a difference between recognizing the greater evil and claiming the other side is all sweetness and light.

-Arrian

Please reference ongoing (almost every thread discussion where in one of either DanS, Rah, Kuci, myself, et al point out that Dems are equally bad only to have Oerdin defend their good name in comparative contrast to Repugs.

As far as the other side all sweetness and light comments, I believe I made sure in every post to reference a comparatively speaking comment.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Actually I've been saying this since the beginning it's others who seem to think one party pure as driven snow (or at least comparatively so).

To quote Homer Simpson "That was sarcasm in case you didn't notice!"

I noticed the sarcasm -- but I thought I would try to take the wind out of your sarcastic jibe by taking it seriously.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun



I noticed the sarcasm -- but I thought I would try to take the wind out of your sarcastic jibe by taking it seriously.

It's nigh impossible to take the wind out of wind bag's sails.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Bosh
So let's try to follow Ned's train of logic.

1. The insurgency in Iraq is doing well because of Syrian/Iranian meddling.
2. So to win the war we have to make them stop doing that.
3. We can't make them stop doing that by being nice.
4. We can't make them stop doing that by getting the world to ostracize them.
5. We can't make them stop doing that by invading them.
6. ?
7. Profit! Erm, victory!

Two points:

I think Iraq is FUBAR for all reasons listed in Lord of the Mark's earlier post in this thread. I think we made critical mistakes in the early days of the postwar occupation. For one, we did not have enough boots on the ground to pacify Iraq. Second, we dismissed the Iraqi army. Both decisions contributed mightily to the deteriorating situation that allowed the insurgency to gain hold.

None of this has to do with Democrats. But I'll like to note that the Democrats advised from the very beginning that we needed more boots in the ground and some were critical of the dismissal of the Iraqi army. This is not a situation where we (Republicans) can blame the Democrats for stabbing America in the back, particularly when the Democrats were right in the first-place.

But I do see the only way we are going to win this in the future is to somehow stop the Syrians and the Iranians from supporting the insurgency. Both of them are doing everything they can to destabilize Iraq and to get the United States to leave. I think we have to go through the recommended diplomatic effort, and when that fails, as even the commissioners expect the diplomacy to fail, we have to go to United Nations to seek sanctions on the respective countries for undermining a UN-authorized occupation and the government of a member nation. If that in fact fails, then and only then would I suggest that we consider our other options which may include issuing ultimatums to the respective countries, perhaps one at a time, Syria first.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned

...I suggest that we consider our other options which may include issuing ultimatums to the respective countries, perhaps one at a time, Syria first.

But with ultimatums, aren't we just screaming in the wind? As I understand it, we now have another 20,000 troops, maximum, which are available. Can we make a viable threat vs. Syria and/or Iran with only 20,000 troops?

[Dinner]

Ned, although some Senators did indeed say we needed more troops most of the objections came from the military itself which the administration ignored or sidelined. Sheshiki originally said it would take 500,000 troops to invade and then effectively control Iraq Rumsfield & Cheney called that "unimaginative" and showed Shensiki the door. Rumsfield and Cheney then went with their own plan of 150,000 troops for the invasion and didn't worry about the actual occupation.

This administration has always ignored and over ruled the military commanders so many of us get pissed off when Bush keeps claiming he's just following the advice of the military commanders. They've gotten rid of the independent thinkers like Shensiki and replaced them with worthless yes-men.