Bush supporters' aftermath thread

That brings me back to my basic question: what's more important about this war? Installing democracy in Iraq, even if it may turn out to yield a government hostile to America, or installing an America- (and possibly Israel-)friendly regime, even if it may require stifling democracy? I mean, assuming there is a fair chance that you might not be able to have both.

This kinda seems, to me, the question I see many conservatives here ducking, which is creating a lot of the confusion about their motivations and the allegations that they're being disingenious. There's a few posters here of whom I think I know what their answer would be - O'Bill would go, bottom line, for a democracy over a strategic ally, while George would probably argue that the strategic interest angle is overriding. But most here seem to be avoiding the question.

It's not necessarily an either/or question, mind you. You could answer, for example, that you'd prefer a democratic government even if it may be hostile to America - as long as it wasn't actually controlled by the "Islamic fascist death cults". (If you can perceive of such a thing, of course.)

From what you wrote about the analogy with WW2, when America went to war "under false pretense" (too?), I am almost guessing you mean to be saying that the "spreading democracy" case was more or less a false pretense as well, because the only thing that really counts here is getting an Iraq in place that "is friendly towards the US [and thus] an excellent building block in this war against Islamic fascist death cults". But I don't want to just make an assumption like that here.

ourlaw

My glass is half full, thank you.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
My glass is half full, thank you.

nimh wrote:This guy's glass is half-full too:

"...some parts of Nineveh Province, [the situation] is not all blood and fire and destruction in all places every day."
-- senior State Department official in Iraq, briefing Pentagon reporters on January 4

"Our system of government is rooted in the sovereign principle of democratic authority bestowed by the people. And the people, both the Inauguration participants and city residents, are resolved to go forward with an event that so deeply reflects that ideal."

"Our very system of government is rooted in the sovereign principle of democratic authority bestowed by the people. And both convention participants and Bostonians are resolved to go forward with an event that so deeply reflects that ideal."

Thursday -- January 13, 2005
THE SWINE SPEAKS AGAIN

We heard from that tired old Social Democrat Ted Kennedy again yesterday. Ted Kennedy. The man who never had to struggle to pay a bill in his entire life. The man who has never held an actual job. The man who wandered up and down a deserted seaside road worrying about his political career while a young woman (his girlfriend?) suffocated in the back seat of a car in just over four feet of water. Yeah ... that Ted Kennedy. Well .. there he was yesterday engaging in his usual hyper-leftist over-the-top liberalism. Mr. Cradle-to-Grave government care. Mr. Womb-to-Tomb health care. The man who thinks that America is great because of its government.

Kennedy was telling us (again) yesterday that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. In making that statement there is not one bit of doubt in my mind that Ted Kennedy gave virtual aid and comfort to Islamic insurgents in Iraq and to Islamofascist terrorists around the world. There is no doubt in my mind that Kennedy's statement yesterday so encouraged and emboldened the insurgency in Iraq that American servicemen will die as a result. Ted Kennedy doesn't seem to be satisfied with the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, he wants more .. or so it seems. If Ted Kennedy cut a notch in his bed for every death of an American serviceman or woman at the hands of an Iraqi insurgent encouraged by his remarks, and by leftist opposition to the liberation of the people of Iraq, he would be sleeping in sawdust.

Iraq is Bush's Vietnam? We lost in Vietnam. We ran. Is that the message Kennedy is sending here? Is that the solution he's calling for again? The media took a U.S. victory, the Tet offensive, and turned it into a rout of, not by the Americans. This actually seems to be what Kennedy wants ... what a lot of Democrats want. I truly believe that they actually want to see the United States leave Iraq with its tail between its legs. The Iraqi people? Who cares? The future of peace in the Middle East? Again, who cares? What is important to Democrats here .. what is more important than establishing a beachhead of peace in the most dangerous region of the world .. what is more important to the left is disgracing George Bush and disgracing the Republican Party so that they can return to their rightful position of dominance in Washington. Ted Kennedy and his sickening sycophants are actually willing, if not eager, to endanger every man woman and child in the United States -- to actually increase the threat level of another and probably more horrible terrorist attack on our soil -- if it means they can take back what they believe their birthright -- the right to rule the roost in Washington.

And why does Ted Kennedy matter anyway? Could there possibly be a more despicable figure in American politics today? Ted Kennedy is a true symbol of the weakness of a system that allows far too many people to vote. This "one man, one vote" nonsense is a death sentence for freedom and for America.

MODERATOR: This person asks, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected with over 80 percent of the vote, and over a million of those voters were also President Bush voters. What did Senator Obama do that Senator Kerry and other Democrats not do?

And do you think the Democrats need to move toward the center to recapture the majority position?

And finally, If a Democrat wins the next presidential election, what are the most difficult problems he or she will face in 2008?

KENNEDY: There you go.

Why don't we just ask Osama bin -- Osama Obama -- Obama what -- since he won by such a big amount. Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special.
...

Yep. Once he actually said "Osama Bin La" LOL.

MODERATOR: This person asks, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected with over 80 percent of the vote, and over a million of those voters were also President Bush voters. What did Senator Obama do that Senator Kerry and other Democrats not do?

[Two other questions snipped]

KENNEDY: There you go.

Why don't we just ask Osama bin -- Osama Obama -- Obama what -- since he won by such a big amount. Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special.

He was a community activist. He was out there on the streets pulling different groups together in Chicago. He was working with families out there about family needs and he rang the bell in Illinois.

He talked about that, but he also talked about bringing people together. You'll all have a good chance to hear him, I'm sure, often.

But I think -- I would hope that Senator Obama would agree with most of what I had to say today. I'll send him a copy. I'll let you know.

[Response to two other questions snipped]

The president, according to the White House, has not added a new suit to his wardrobe for the swearing-in. But he will maintain a tradition established in 1995 when he was first sworn in as governor of Texas. He will wear a pair of gold cuff links inset with platinum Navy wings that were given to him by his father. President George H.W. Bush received them in 1943 when he was commissioned into the armed services in Corpus Christi, Tex.This will be the fourth swearing-in to which his son has worn them.