0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 03:15 pm
Lash wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Lash wrote:
Hell. If I was of the liberal persuasion--I don't think I'd have the nerve to say "Told you so" about anything.

You guys are definitely in free fall.


Hell, I'm an old crusty liberal that has been in freefall ever since Nixon ran his campaign on his "secret plan to end the war in Vietnam" well after another 125,000 US dead he gave us "peace with honor" and I can easily recall the film clips in my mind of the fall of Saigon, you remember those Lash? I'm sure Timber does. Wanna talk about it?

Nobody's right about everything--nobody's wrong about everything.
Nixon didn't start Vietnam. Kennedy did.
The mention of Nixon doesn't make the complete failure of the Democrat party less real.


actually it was ike that sent the first u.s. troops into vietnam. call them observers or advisors or whatever, the fact is that most were u.s. military. others were non-military agencies.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 03:24 pm
correcting my data error (excuse my brain dysfunction) the number of US Troops killed after Nixon gained the presidency is listed as 15,183. His (Nixon's) secret plan to end the war and bring peace with honor was only slightly less bizarre that was Johnson/McNamara's win the war by body count. (McNamara had the decency to apologise)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 04:17 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No, that's eligible, same as Iraq. That 43% figure doesn't fit anywhere. It can't be the kids, either, because kids are half of the country. This is a shameless distraction anyway. Despite horrific threats and attempts at violence, the Iraqis at least matched the United States' best performance. This was a truly amazing display of defiance in the face of their would-be oppressors. Give that heroic populous it's due. They earned it. Idea


I just asked a question, and when you ever would have really read what I wrote, you couldn't have responded in such a way!

[I didn't mention 'kids' in my original post at all: this was introduced by gunga, btw.]
I still don't know what the 43% and the :wink: was all about, but honestly, I don't care. I was answering your question and at the same time trying to redirect your attention to the more important facts of the day. 43% remains an inexplicable number, but even if it were accurate it would be cause for celebration under the circumstances. That they matched our typical performance despite threats of beheading (Shocked), etc... is nothing short of spectacular. I watched people who were second-class citizens all their lives doing a real happy dance inside and flashing the purple finger to the crowd, hooting and hollering when they emerged.

I think it's a shame that millions of people experiencing this freedom for the first time, should be slighted out of partisan silliness.

Ps. In case I haven't been clear: I'm not attacking at all and seek no dispute. Any shrillness you may have picked up in my tone is just excitement rubbed off from watching the Iraqis.


http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 05:35 pm
Way cool, O'Bill!!! A virtual army of peeps doin' the happy dance Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 05:44 pm
nukkem bill

What did you think of the Ignatieff piece?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 05:56 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Way cool, O'Bill!!! A virtual army of peeps doin' the happy dance Smile


The happy dance:

http://bozek.mstu.cz/obrazky/Animals/.small/0076.gif
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 06:54 pm
resisting
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 08:53 pm
blatham wrote:
nukkem bill

What did you think of the Ignatieff piece?
Thanks for the re-direct. Mostly good stuff… a more eloquent version of my own message really... except for the undertone that both sides are preparing for failure. He seemed to still be trying to get the Right to share in the doubt and I really don't think many do. I don't know about you, but when I spend hundreds of billions of dollars, I expect to get what I pay for :wink: … and I believe we will. If you spend $100,000 on an automobile; many people will think you're crazy. They may or may not be right, but you'll still have one hell of a car, no? I wonder if everyone noticed the "occupiers" weren't even in the building. Idea I really don't argue about this stuff of this historic day though… I feel like it belittles the brave deeds by those still in harm's way. Suffice to say; Saddam's gone. We can't undo it… and whether an individual would or not is irrelevant to this event. Millions of brave men and women faced down the enemies Iraqi Democracy today (Iraqi Democracy!). This wasn't us… it was about them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 06:40 am
I really like on passage especially in this opinion :wink:

Quote:
Monday January 31, 2005

Is Atlanticism dead?
Andrew Brown argues it will soon join communism on the scrapheap of discredited doctrines
History is full of honest mistakes. Sometimes they change character and become mistakes that no honest person could make. Communism is an example.

The list of really admirable ex-communists is long. Among my personal heroes, Denis Healey, Robert Conquest, Arthur Koestler, and Claud Cockburn had all been active party members. All of them joined the party in the 30s, when, in Britain at least, it was still an honest mistake to do so. I don't see how anyone living under Stalin could have been an honest communist then, but this is because I am blinded by hindsight. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was a fervent believer in his youth.

But by 1945, or 1947 at the latest, you couldn't call communism an honest mistake. Anyone who wanted to stay a communist had to ignore so much evidence about the workings of the Soviet Union that they were in a condition of constant bad faith.

There are no doubt plenty of Guardian readers who would argue that this was not the fault of communism, that it has never been really tried, and that without Stalin, or Russia, or Lenin, or the cold war, or some other excuse, things might have been different. There was a wonderful phrase expressing this in the last days of the Soviet empire, when apologists would take about 'actually existing Socialism' by contrast to the communism which didn't actually exist, but which they would prefer to talk about.

But in the end virtually everyone realised that the actually existing things were the only ones worth bothering with and that the ideals of communism were inevitably opposed to its practice. I still remember and admire the courage and seriousness of some of the hunger strikers I met in a church in East Berlin just before the wall came down. They were not risking beatings and worse for capitalism, but for a more just and purified version of something they would have called socialism.

But we can see now that their hope was doomed. There was no halfway house. Political ideals without a country are twittering shades.

Has the same moment of truth has now struck the conservative, or Atlanticist, movement? Like communism, this is not just a political philosophy, but one that has been incarnated in a particular country. British Conservatism of this sort is not just a theory about which institutions best promote human wellbeing, and about the way that change should be managed. It also supposed that these were incarnated in a particular country and its satellites.

This might very well have been true. I'd have accepted it myself as true without any question five years ago. It seemed to me axiomatic. I had never heard of Alberto Gonzalez, nor dreamed of a Britain where the home secretary could denounce the Bar Council as dangerous liberals.

But as we enter the second Bush term, it becomes harder and harder to see Atlanticism as an honest mistake. The language of liberty, of parliamentary government, and of the rule of the law which had seemed, so to say, incarnated in Anglo-Saxon practice now seem entirely meaningless when used by the Blair and Bush administrations. There has to be a moment when the betrayal of these ideals is so absolute that we doubt they can be properly incarnated in the countries where they had seemed rooted.

It's like a divorce. This is particularly difficult for Conservatives, who suppose that such an incarnation takes time, and grows naturally out of the small-scale values and practices of society. Constitutions and elections are not enough. They have to be animated by the right sort of pride. Senator Joe McCarthy was finished when he was asked "Have you no shame?"

It's hard to believe the question could wound our present leaders. To hear Bush praising liberty is like hearing Lenin praise fairness. Obviously this comparison is a little unfair to both men: Bush has not had his secret police shoot tens of thousands of people, and Lenin made his way in the world without help from his father's friends. But there is one very important quality that their rhetoric shares. The words mean nothing, and in both cases this meaninglessness is what carries the real meaning - which is that the powerful can lie to us with complete impunity.

Conservatives shouldn't be shocked by this. Suspicion of the powerful and a distrust of unfettered government were the mainsprings of Conservatism. But they are rendered defenceless when the upholders of law despise it.

The result, in Britain, has been a sort of madness among the conservative intellectuals. They excoriate Blair for Bush's faults, and they have reacted to the Labour government's proposals to introduce house arrest and internment without trial by blaming the European convention on human rights. It is not a European government that is pressing us to destroy the liberty we should be fighting for.

* Andrew Brown maintains a weblog, the Helmintholog

Source
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 06:54 am
Let me guess which passage, Walter:

"...They were not risking beatings and worse for capitalism, but for a more just and purified version of something they would have called socialism.

But we can see now that their hope was doomed...."

Were you one of those "Der dritte Weg" supporters? Are any of them still around?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:04 am
HofT

I'm glad you didn't mention
Quote:
To hear Bush praising liberty is like hearing Lenin praise fairness.
:wink:

Yes, I've been one of those "Der dritte Weg" supporters, and sometimes I really fall back to old habitudes.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:05 am
Ha! I knew it!
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:08 am
Actually, to be accurate, the question Welch asked McCarthy was:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?".

I think someone should have spoken up and asked this question of Barbara Boxer at Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings.

Have you no decency, Ms. Boxer? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?".

<Insert shame if you must. It would have worked, too>
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:10 am
JW - the quote I've always seen is "Have you no shame, sir?" Possibly the quote is as you say and not as oft repeated - do you have an original source?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:14 am
HofT - Welch is often misquoted. I guess it's in the Senate transcripts somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:15 am
You have that backwards.

Someone should have asked it of Rice.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:28 am
Can all those Iraq critics please keep in mind that Americans are the ones bearing the cost in blood and treasure? In a thread since locked and edited >>
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44343&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&sid=168d9cf41935834b22c24ba134431a24
>>> Timberlandko, who fought in Vietnam and currently has a son in Iraq (USMC), wrote the following (in response to a Q from me) and his passage bears repeating:
_____________________________________________________________

"Gotta say too that comparin' "Fallujah et al" to Khe San is sorta like comparin' a squabble over a parkin' space to a full-blown riot. Not to dismiss the tragedy of any death, but from a purely operational perspective, overall own-force casualties to date in Afghanistan and Iraq combined are militarily insignificant. For an instance truly representative of slaughterin' Marines, I refer you to Tarawa. I wasn't there, but my dad was. And his dad heard Gunny Dan Daly shout "C'mon, you sons-o-bitches! Do ya wanna live forever?" at Belleau Wood 25 years before that. Its a matter of perspective.

Thanks for thinkin' of my son. I appreciate that. "
_____________________________________________________________

Btw, Boxer was out of line in blaming Rice for mistakes made by the intel folks and mistakes of the Pentagon - Rice didn't handle those, then or now. Does Boxer have any better ideas for how to extricate ourselves from Iraq? Kerry didn't.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:33 am
Boxer really ought to have, at the very least, kissed a shoe or scrambled over on her knees holding a tasseled-pillow weighty with gift, or DONE SOMETHING TO SHOW FEALTY! Goodness knows, the 'advice and consent' role of the Senate ought really to be not other than pennants waving and the high shout of trumpets. Condiness is a Queenly aspect, after all. And it is deeply improper - deeply - to imply the Queen has behaved like a low-class obfuscation slut.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:35 am
It's "advise and consent".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 07:37 am
It's "decency", not "shame". The relevant excerpt of the Senate transcript, along with a link to an audio file of the Welch-McCarthy-exchange, can be found here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 06:32:07