Bad news for Democrats and liberals?

By this statement "One...you are supposing Bin Laden is dead. He may not be." you agree that there may be WMD's in Iraq, correct? After all many are supposing WMD's are not there, but they may be.

The meaningful questions are whether or not he had the motive, the financial wherewithal, the technical capacity, and the base of operations from which to try to create havoc in our country and the answers to those questions are all resounding YESs.

Unfortunately, one of the main reasons we invaded Iraq was that Saddam had mass quantities of WMD's and was an immediate threat. It turns out that wasn't the case, but a great evil was eliminated in the progress.

Like I say, a 'mass quantity' of anthrax powder could amount to 500 lbs worth, and I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would never be found.

By this statement "One...you are supposing Bin Laden is dead. He may not be." you agree that there may be WMD's in Iraq, correct?

After all many are supposing WMD's are not there, but they may be.

Unfortunately, one of the main reasons we invaded Iraq was that Saddam had mass quantities of WMD's and was an immediate threat. It turns out that wasn't the case, but a great evil was eliminated in the progress.

Thank you for your kind words, LV...and accept, if you will, similar sentiments in return from me to you.

I will, of course, let the "libs" answer for themselves...

...but I want to take this opportunity to offer a personal Independent perspective on the flavor of what you are suggesting in this observation.



I am, quite frankly, appalled by what the fringe elements of both sides of the political equation...the far left and the right...are willing to do in furtherance of their ideological sensibilities. At times, it amazes me...as I am sure it amazes many others.

That having been said...I must be very honest about the present situation.

I view the George Bush administration as such a calamity for the United States and the world...with severe damage done to our economy, to our civil liberties; to our international relations and to meaningful precedents established over the history of our country...

...to the point where I truly see support for him in the face of such obvious incompetence to be primarily ideological in nature. An outgrowth, if you will, of what prompted you to make the above statement.

I drives me nuts to even think about it. (I know...some might call it a chip rather than a drive!)

I cannot see how intelligent people like you and McG, to name the first two that came to mind, can get past that.

Whatever you are trying to say to the liberals in this forum with that statement up above...I am saying back to you in spades.

If you are outraged by what you see as their failings in this area...I would respectfully suggest that you would be doing the world a much greater favor if you gave up on calling these things to their attention...and spent some time before a mirror lecturing yourself on these very points.

Our world is in serious trouble right now, LV...it can be argued much more so than during the coldest parts of the cold war. I would have a very hard time thinking of a group of Americans less capable of dealing with that problem than George Bush and his administration.

If the conduct detailed in the comment I quoted from you up above truly bothers you...you really ought to reconsider your support for them.

Have you ever noticed that when conservatives and moderates are talking with other conservatives/moderates about politics and the impact a program or idea might have on the country, they will talk about implementing that program or idea for the good of the US?

Listen close when liberal Democrats have similar conversations. Often, they will not talk about an issue as being good for the US; they will talk about it as being good for the Party.

A fair question, Frank. I will take a short stab at it tonight (I just got in [from a high school football game, a wonderful slice of small-town America], but will elaborate a bit more at a later time).

First, I think he made the right call to invade Iraq, given the information US intelligence services had discovered and the fear within the country after 9-11. Taking away all the partisan shrillness of 'he lied' and "he is related to the Saudi's", I felt that he had to make a tough call, and made it.

In discussing my support for his actions with friends, (some of who agreed and some who disagreed), I found it useful to compare the problem that faced Bush with the problem that often confronts a police officer: that is, he or she has to make a decision, quickly and with the information on hand, or someone might die. For example, a police officer receives information that violent gang-bangers are in a home, loading weapons and making bombs and preparing to kill members of a rival gang (and anyone who happens to be in the way).

The cops get word that this might happen at any time. Some of the thugs are on probation, and their probation officer visited the house a number of times in the last couple of weeks, but he hasn't seen anything out in the open that would justify a search of the house. But they know these thugs have killed people in the past.

Still, the cops have reliable informants that the killing is going to occur any day. So the cop, fearing for the safety of his community, calls for backup and storms the house. Although the cops find bodies in the back yard, they don't find any weapons inside the house.

I know, this example might be simplistic, but it is an example I am familiar with and it did occur. Essentially, Bush had information that he had to address one way or another; ignore it, continue with the same inept actions of the UN, or take action. He took action.

Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. The media thought so. Congress thought so. Kerry thought so. Other countries thought so. Even the UN thought so. So Bush made the call to invade, but no WMDs were found. To the surprise of everyone.

Second, while I am not overtly partisan, I do fear a liberal Democrat administration.

Maybe because I live in California, where left-wing Dems had unchecked power in every aspect of politics within the state. They had the executive branch and both the senate and assembly. In a nutshell, they really, truly screwed up my state. Unchecked liberalism, to me, is a scary thing. It got so bad that Gray Davis was recalled and Arnie was elected. But they still hold sway over government, the schools, and business, and they continue to ruin the state.

Clinton was a moderate Democrat, the shrillness of the right not withstanding. And he governed from the middle. To vote for Kerry, who is amongst the most liberal of Democrats, is not in my country's best interests, IMO.

I think Bush, at this time, is the best choice given the condition of Earth, 2004.

If a moderate Democrat had been nominated this time, I might even have voted for him if I felt the extreme left of his party was not holding him hostage.

But, if Kerry is elected, I will support him and will not undermine him in order to get a Republican elected in 2008. I won't talk about leaving the US. I will not try to make him look like a fool to other nations. Which is something most liberals could never say.

Please...don't give lectures to the other side considering what people in this country had to endure during the eight years of Bill Clinton's administration at the hands of your conservatives.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Please...don't give lectures to the other side considering what people in this country had to endure during the eight years of Bill Clinton's administration at the hands of your conservatives.

and clinton still left office with an approval of something like 63+%.

i don't think that it's that conseratives or liberals are the bad folks. it's the rabid extremists on both sides that make life hell.

Although during the Clinton years...the extremists seemed to make up the majority of the conservative mindset.

"So anyway, Frank, this probably doesn't address every comment you had; I'll try to follow-up on it over the weekend. And I certainly expect the lefties here to ridicule what I've written."

This lefty does not ridicule honest views, honestly expressed without sneering and insult.

I think you will find that most do not.

"So anyway, Frank, this probably doesn't address every comment you had; I'll try to follow-up on it over the weekend. And I certainly expect the lefties here to ridicule what I've written."

This lefty does not ridicule honest views, honestly expressed without sneering and insult.

I think you will find that most do not.

Get away from that Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative mindset...because it sets up a we/they situation that clouds one's mind.

Please...don't give lectures to the other side considering what people in this country had to endure during the eight years of Bill Clinton's administration at the hands of your conservatives.

There is absolutely nothing about the aftermath of 9-11 that makes the move to invade Iraq even slightly more reasonable or palatable to me. They had nothing to do with it...and using 9-11 in justification of the invasion of Iraq is almost a non sequitur.

Probably nothing more satisfying to me than watching a high school football game. Haven't been to one in a while...but your comments here may inspire me to see one soon.

in the real world neither party can admit to any error.

Bush's "I can't think of any" attitude