Post #7
It’s hot. I’ve been looking at bikinis on the internet. If I was getting paid to do this – quite frankly, it is depressing to keep track of George W. Bush’s failures of leadership, I’d be more willing to do this. But it’s to Bush’s advantage that he has ignored global warming. :p
A top story today on MSNBC.com, “President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday they want an international force dispatched quickly to the Middle East but said any plan to end the fighting must address long-running regional disputes to be effective.”
Those two have no credibility. The time to address the long-running regional disputes was BEFORE the fighting started. As usual, Bush has been caught with his pants down.
“’In Lebanon, Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors are willing to kill and use violence to stop the spread of peace and democracy,’ Bush said. ‘They’re not going to succeed.’”
Uh, how many dead Lebanese define peace? It is in America’s interests for there to be quiet peace all over the world. I expect a President of the United States to actively work for this goal – NOT to ignore situations until all he can do is rattle an empty saber.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
Post #6
Subject: P.U.S.H. -- George W. Bush's Approach to Foreign Policy
When everything seems to go wrong... just P.U.S.H.!
When the job gets you down... just P.U.S.H.!
When people don't react the way you think they should... just P.U.S.H.!
When your money looks funny and the bills are due... just P.U.S.H.!
When you want to curse them out for whatever the reason... just P.U.S.H.!
When people just don't understand you... just P.U.S.H.!
P.U.S.H - Pray Until Something Happens!!!!!
Subject: P.U.S.H. -- George W. Bush's Approach to Foreign Policy
When everything seems to go wrong... just P.U.S.H.!
When the job gets you down... just P.U.S.H.!
When people don't react the way you think they should... just P.U.S.H.!
When your money looks funny and the bills are due... just P.U.S.H.!
When you want to curse them out for whatever the reason... just P.U.S.H.!
When people just don't understand you... just P.U.S.H.!
P.U.S.H - Pray Until Something Happens!!!!!
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Post #5
My responses and additions – in [backets]….
The end to cowboy diplomacy
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
July 11, 2006
The era of "Cowboy Diplomacy" is over, writes Time magazine.
The Bush Doctrine -- "The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons" -- is being defied by Iran's Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with impunity.
[Yes. As any schoolkid knows, when confronted by three bullies on the playground, take out the biggest, and the others will fall into place. Instead, we went after the smallest, Iraq. And, now, with our troubles in Iraq, our military options are limited. Thank you, George W.]
he White House seems to have lost interest in its democracy crusade, after free elections advanced the prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank. In Ukraine, the victors of the Orange Revolution have made a mess of things, and the pro-Putin forces are making a comeback
Neither the Afghan war, in its fifth year, nor the Iraq war, in its fourth, goes well. U.S. casualties are not falling, while the death toll among Afghans and Iraqis mounts toward levels where they may have to be described as not simply insurgencies, but civil wars.
America is a spectator in the Palestinian conflict, wringing its hands, but backing Israel as she seeks to starve to death a Hamas that came to power in elections Bush himself sponsored.
What has happened? What has rendered impotent the robust cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush, a policy of pre-emptive strikes and preventive wars, of crusades for global democracy and ridding the world of tyrants, a policy declared in his "axis-of-evil" address and Second Inaugural?
[Winning rhetoric for a lost cause – a cause that Bush lost.]
Answer: Bush has run up against the limits of power. Strong as our military may be, it is but one-tenth of the size of the U.S forces that conquered Germany and Japan. U.S. air and missile power, and U.S. special forces guiding warlord armies, can knock over a Taliban regime, with few losses. U.S. armored divisions, backed by unrivaled air and missile power, can roll over an Iraqi army and unhorse an Iraqi regime.
But building a nation is another matter. As the French learned in the Ruhr in 1923, "you cannot dig coal with bayonets," Americans are discovering you cannot build a democratic nation on Islamic soil in Texas-sized nations like Iraq and Afghanistan without a massive, long-term occupation, if a slice of the population looks upon the regime you support as a sock puppet of American imperialism.
Why has Bush decided diplomacy is the better part of valor in dealing with Iran and North Korea? Consider the alternative.
Pyongyang is a formidable power with a million-man army and 11,000 artillery pieces on the DMZ. Iran is three times as populous and four times the size of Iraq. Should Bush attack either, he could end his term with U.S. forces fighting three major wars.
But if the military option carries too many risks, multilateral diplomacy appears to offer little hope. China and Russia will veto any tough U.N. sanctions on Iran or North Korea. They have no desire to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire. Is the United States, then, "the pitiful, helpless giant" Nixon warned we could become?
By no means. Though the neocon bombast about our being "the unipolar power," the "indispensable nation," "the benevolent global hegemon" was always fatuous, America remains the first military, economic, cultural and political force on the planet. We are simply not omnipotent -- indeed, far from it, as always
[Yes, neo-conservatism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology – tho some continue the call for war and more wars. Neo-conservatism has run into reality, and reality has won.]
What is needed is fresh thought on foreign policy now that Cowboy Diplomacy is being abandoned by Bush. We are at what Walter Lippmann called a "plastic moment," when a new foreign policy can be imposed to meet a changed world. And the place to begin is by returning to basics. What are the vital interests of the United States, and who threatens them?
[The more things change, the more they stay the same.]
On the terrorism front, the president has done well. Since 9-11, 85,000 Americans have been murdered, but not one due to a terrorist attack. While we need to be vigilant, there is no need to frighten ourselves to death over terrorism. We are all going to die, but few of us by terrorist attack.
[Uh, 2500 and counting in Iraq. Oh, yeah, none on Main Street – unless ya count the Army recruiting center. :p]
As we cannot ensure Iran and North Korea are free of nukes without invading, and we are not going to invade, we should put both on notice, as we did Moscow in the missile crisis, that if any WMD used in an attack on the United States is traced to either, a full retaliatory response will follow. But if they wish such relations as we had with China and Russia in the late Cold War, they are on offer.
[And do not forget what I said earlier: George W. Bush’s Iraq folly has limited our military options.]
Then, we should pull our troops out of Korea, where they are hostages in harm's way. If the South wishes to appease the North, let them run the risks and assume the consequences.
As one reviews the ledgers of his foreign policy, Bush seems to have alienated or antagonized just about everyone on earth, with precious little to compensate us for our war losses. And if we are about to jettison his cowboy diplomacy, perhaps it is time to look again at the successful policies Bush and the neocons dismissed and deplore. For, unlike theirs, these policies never failed America.
What are they? The anti-interventionism of the Founding Fathers from Washington to Wilson, and the conservative policy of containment and deterrence pursued by Eisenhower and Reagan.
Both deserve a hearing in the politics of 2008 -- one that neither McCain nor Hillary will give them.
[I disagree with Pat Buchanan about half the time – check out his nutty “On the Issues” at theamericancause.org . But, on this issue, Pat is correct: George W. Bush’s Iraq policy has made us weaker. Indeed, the Decline and Fall has begun. Can we get a leader!?!]
My responses and additions – in [backets]….
The end to cowboy diplomacy
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
July 11, 2006
The era of "Cowboy Diplomacy" is over, writes Time magazine.
The Bush Doctrine -- "The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons" -- is being defied by Iran's Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with impunity.
[Yes. As any schoolkid knows, when confronted by three bullies on the playground, take out the biggest, and the others will fall into place. Instead, we went after the smallest, Iraq. And, now, with our troubles in Iraq, our military options are limited. Thank you, George W.]
he White House seems to have lost interest in its democracy crusade, after free elections advanced the prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank. In Ukraine, the victors of the Orange Revolution have made a mess of things, and the pro-Putin forces are making a comeback
Neither the Afghan war, in its fifth year, nor the Iraq war, in its fourth, goes well. U.S. casualties are not falling, while the death toll among Afghans and Iraqis mounts toward levels where they may have to be described as not simply insurgencies, but civil wars.
America is a spectator in the Palestinian conflict, wringing its hands, but backing Israel as she seeks to starve to death a Hamas that came to power in elections Bush himself sponsored.
What has happened? What has rendered impotent the robust cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush, a policy of pre-emptive strikes and preventive wars, of crusades for global democracy and ridding the world of tyrants, a policy declared in his "axis-of-evil" address and Second Inaugural?
[Winning rhetoric for a lost cause – a cause that Bush lost.]
Answer: Bush has run up against the limits of power. Strong as our military may be, it is but one-tenth of the size of the U.S forces that conquered Germany and Japan. U.S. air and missile power, and U.S. special forces guiding warlord armies, can knock over a Taliban regime, with few losses. U.S. armored divisions, backed by unrivaled air and missile power, can roll over an Iraqi army and unhorse an Iraqi regime.
But building a nation is another matter. As the French learned in the Ruhr in 1923, "you cannot dig coal with bayonets," Americans are discovering you cannot build a democratic nation on Islamic soil in Texas-sized nations like Iraq and Afghanistan without a massive, long-term occupation, if a slice of the population looks upon the regime you support as a sock puppet of American imperialism.
Why has Bush decided diplomacy is the better part of valor in dealing with Iran and North Korea? Consider the alternative.
Pyongyang is a formidable power with a million-man army and 11,000 artillery pieces on the DMZ. Iran is three times as populous and four times the size of Iraq. Should Bush attack either, he could end his term with U.S. forces fighting three major wars.
But if the military option carries too many risks, multilateral diplomacy appears to offer little hope. China and Russia will veto any tough U.N. sanctions on Iran or North Korea. They have no desire to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire. Is the United States, then, "the pitiful, helpless giant" Nixon warned we could become?
By no means. Though the neocon bombast about our being "the unipolar power," the "indispensable nation," "the benevolent global hegemon" was always fatuous, America remains the first military, economic, cultural and political force on the planet. We are simply not omnipotent -- indeed, far from it, as always
[Yes, neo-conservatism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology – tho some continue the call for war and more wars. Neo-conservatism has run into reality, and reality has won.]
What is needed is fresh thought on foreign policy now that Cowboy Diplomacy is being abandoned by Bush. We are at what Walter Lippmann called a "plastic moment," when a new foreign policy can be imposed to meet a changed world. And the place to begin is by returning to basics. What are the vital interests of the United States, and who threatens them?
[The more things change, the more they stay the same.]
On the terrorism front, the president has done well. Since 9-11, 85,000 Americans have been murdered, but not one due to a terrorist attack. While we need to be vigilant, there is no need to frighten ourselves to death over terrorism. We are all going to die, but few of us by terrorist attack.
[Uh, 2500 and counting in Iraq. Oh, yeah, none on Main Street – unless ya count the Army recruiting center. :p]
As we cannot ensure Iran and North Korea are free of nukes without invading, and we are not going to invade, we should put both on notice, as we did Moscow in the missile crisis, that if any WMD used in an attack on the United States is traced to either, a full retaliatory response will follow. But if they wish such relations as we had with China and Russia in the late Cold War, they are on offer.
[And do not forget what I said earlier: George W. Bush’s Iraq folly has limited our military options.]
Then, we should pull our troops out of Korea, where they are hostages in harm's way. If the South wishes to appease the North, let them run the risks and assume the consequences.
As one reviews the ledgers of his foreign policy, Bush seems to have alienated or antagonized just about everyone on earth, with precious little to compensate us for our war losses. And if we are about to jettison his cowboy diplomacy, perhaps it is time to look again at the successful policies Bush and the neocons dismissed and deplore. For, unlike theirs, these policies never failed America.
What are they? The anti-interventionism of the Founding Fathers from Washington to Wilson, and the conservative policy of containment and deterrence pursued by Eisenhower and Reagan.
Both deserve a hearing in the politics of 2008 -- one that neither McCain nor Hillary will give them.
[I disagree with Pat Buchanan about half the time – check out his nutty “On the Issues” at theamericancause.org . But, on this issue, Pat is correct: George W. Bush’s Iraq policy has made us weaker. Indeed, the Decline and Fall has begun. Can we get a leader!?!]
Friday, July 14, 2006
Post #4
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/index.php
Sometimes, I just surf the net, reading various far-flung political opinions – left, right, even a few from outer space! But… I just have to comment. I knew this was a right-wing – far-right-wing – website. After all, they feature Bob “The-Right-Doesn’t-Leak-They-Just-Disclose-Names” Novak and Ann “Dances-On-Widows” Coulter. But I wasn’t prepared for “Iraq had WMD” – a story that they found 20-year-old discarded weapons that contained still deadly chemicals. That’s like saying that Nazi Germany is a threat because they still find unexploded shells from WW II! Doesn’t anybody see how ridiculous that is!?! And the article goes on to attack the “liberal” media for ignoring this story. Of course, when this story was first debunked by the “liberal” media months ago, they quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that those weapons were not the weapons that justified war. As I saw somewhere, the truth has a “liberal” bias. Don’t the editors of that website realize that any nuggets of truth there get lost in the fumes of crap?
Oh, and speaking of Ann Coulter and her contention that the 9/11 widows should not criticize George W. Bush’s folly. Well, Ann, dear, I happen to give more moral authority to someone who has actually lost something. That’s why I listen to the parents of dead soldiers – do not always agree, but I listen. That’s also why, in matters of war, I listen firstly to someone who’s actually been shot at!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/index.php
Sometimes, I just surf the net, reading various far-flung political opinions – left, right, even a few from outer space! But… I just have to comment. I knew this was a right-wing – far-right-wing – website. After all, they feature Bob “The-Right-Doesn’t-Leak-They-Just-Disclose-Names” Novak and Ann “Dances-On-Widows” Coulter. But I wasn’t prepared for “Iraq had WMD” – a story that they found 20-year-old discarded weapons that contained still deadly chemicals. That’s like saying that Nazi Germany is a threat because they still find unexploded shells from WW II! Doesn’t anybody see how ridiculous that is!?! And the article goes on to attack the “liberal” media for ignoring this story. Of course, when this story was first debunked by the “liberal” media months ago, they quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that those weapons were not the weapons that justified war. As I saw somewhere, the truth has a “liberal” bias. Don’t the editors of that website realize that any nuggets of truth there get lost in the fumes of crap?
Oh, and speaking of Ann Coulter and her contention that the 9/11 widows should not criticize George W. Bush’s folly. Well, Ann, dear, I happen to give more moral authority to someone who has actually lost something. That’s why I listen to the parents of dead soldiers – do not always agree, but I listen. That’s also why, in matters of war, I listen firstly to someone who’s actually been shot at!
Post #3
“What good has it done?”
My Grandma is a surprisingly astute political observer. She can sum up a situation with a phrase or, as in the case of a recent discussion of the Iraq war, a question: “What good has it done?” She then got on a roll:
“Where is the democracy?” Yeah, the Iraqis didn’t follow the script -- greeting us with flowers. Of course, democracy is not always pretty. Just ask President Gore. After all, they elected terrorists in Palestine. Hey, now I see the wisdom in staying the course – George W. Bush doesn’t want a election where he can’t pre-determine the results. :p
“Where is the cheap oil?” To my Grandma on her fixed income, the price of oil really bites. She is already worrying about heating oil for this winter. But lots of people see it as just a minor annoyance and not a reason to change their lifestyle – or their voting habits.
“What good has it done?” Grandma repeats, not even bringing up WMD – or the lack thereof. Well, we “got” Saddam. But didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag? What good has it done?
Grandma answers herself: “NOTHING!”
“What good has it done?”
My Grandma is a surprisingly astute political observer. She can sum up a situation with a phrase or, as in the case of a recent discussion of the Iraq war, a question: “What good has it done?” She then got on a roll:
“Where is the democracy?” Yeah, the Iraqis didn’t follow the script -- greeting us with flowers. Of course, democracy is not always pretty. Just ask President Gore. After all, they elected terrorists in Palestine. Hey, now I see the wisdom in staying the course – George W. Bush doesn’t want a election where he can’t pre-determine the results. :p
“Where is the cheap oil?” To my Grandma on her fixed income, the price of oil really bites. She is already worrying about heating oil for this winter. But lots of people see it as just a minor annoyance and not a reason to change their lifestyle – or their voting habits.
“What good has it done?” Grandma repeats, not even bringing up WMD – or the lack thereof. Well, we “got” Saddam. But didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag? What good has it done?
Grandma answers herself: “NOTHING!”
Friday, July 07, 2006
Post #2
I get e-mails. I thought this was good – and I have a little bit to add in [brackets] at the end:
Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values; by Dennis Prager
November 9, 2004
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"
As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.
Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City born and raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.
To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.
To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.
To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.
To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.
To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.
To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the election."
To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.
To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.
Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values." Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?
[To most Americans, the Republican party does NOT represent traditional values either. Those Americans who bother to vote chose the lesser of two evils.]
I get e-mails. I thought this was good – and I have a little bit to add in [brackets] at the end:
Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values; by Dennis Prager
November 9, 2004
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"
As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.
Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City born and raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.
To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.
To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.
To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.
To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.
To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.
To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the election."
To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.
To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.
Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values." Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?
[To most Americans, the Republican party does NOT represent traditional values either. Those Americans who bother to vote chose the lesser of two evils.]
Monday, July 03, 2006
Post #1
Subject: War Is Over! If ya want it….
My responses and additions -- in [brackets]….
Is defeat now an option?
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
Jun 27, 2006
"There is an awful feeling that everything is lurching downward," the Western diplomat told The Washington Post.
"Nearly five years on, there is no rule of law. ... The Afghans know it is all a charade, and they see us as not only complicit, but actively involved. You cannot fight a terror war and build a weak state at the same time, and it was a terrible mistake to think we could." What that disconsolate diplomat is saying is that America is losing the Afghan war.
According to the Post report, President Hamid Karzai is losing the confidence of his people and our European allies. The Taliban dominates the southeast of the country at night and is fighting in the largest units it has deployed since the fall of the regime in 2001. Anti-Americanism is spreading. A fatal accident, involving a U.S. military vehicle, caused anti-American riots across the capital.
NATO forces, who are to take over from the Americans in the embattled provinces, are likely to begin taking causalities as soon as they arrive. Meanwhile, the narcotics traffickers are bolder than ever.
In Iraq, the good news -- Zarqawi's death, completion of the Cabinet -- is old news. Sen. Richard Lugar describes present conditions as grim: "Given current events in Baghdad ... quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific."
Lugar was reacting to reports that the U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, has presented a plan to the Pentagon to substantially reduce U.S. troop levels by year's end and cut U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from today's 14, to five or six by the end of 2007.
But, as there is no sign the insurgency is defeated, and daily evidence it is stronger than ever, how do we propose to draw down U.S. forces from the 127,000 there, without risking disaster?
[We can’t. The risk is there. But our troops ARE coming home. George W. Bush broke the Army. If you pay attention to the retired Generals on MSNBC, you know the troops have been stretched so thin that reality demands a withdrawal beginning this Fall. No doubt this will be coached as “The Iraqis are standing up, we are standing down.” No matter what the conditions on the ground are. Make no mistake: Bush’s insistence on fighting this war on the cheap is forcing a pre-mature withdrawal which increases our risk.]
The new Baghdad government is also proposing an amnesty to the insurgents, though not al-Qaida or the Saddamites. But if this means a free pass into politics for insurgents who have killed U.S. soldiers, America will react with rage -- and demand an even earlier withdrawal.
[Yes.]
Neither in Afghanistan or Iraq does there seem to be either a strategic plan to defeat the enemy and build an enduring democracy, or adequate U.S. and allied forces to ensure such a victory.
[That is correct.]
The question then could not be more critical. If victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is the Bush goal, why does he not tell the nation of the sacrifices victory clearly requires -- an indefinite commitment of far more U.S. troops than we have yet sent into either conflict?
[It is a failure of leadership.]
If Bush is not willing to lay it out, or to pay that price, and the Casey plan is the Bush plan, the president and the country had best brace themselves for the possibility of defeat on one or both fronts before the end of the Bush term. For that is where we are headed.
It needs to be stated coldly. The Casey plan, for a drawdown of over half of all U.S. combat brigades in Iraq in 18 months, risks an insurgent triumph, chaos and civil war, ethnic cleansing and a Baghdad that is turned into a hellish no man's land.
A decision not to ramp up U.S. military forces in Afghanistan risks defeat there, as well. For no NATO force we send can match U.S. forces in combat effectiveness, and the Taliban resistance has grown to present levels -- the most impressive in five years -- in the teeth of attacks by U.S. forces now giving way to Europeans.
A U.S. defeat in either country would result in a bloodbath for those who sided with the Americans. It happened in Vietnam and Cambodia. If we lose these wars, it will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps the above is too pessimistic. But if Americans, with the finest fighting forces on earth, have not been able to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, what makes us believe Iraqis trained by Americans will succeed where we failed? And if the Taliban, after five years of U.S. air strikes and Special Forces search-and-destroy missions, are stronger than ever, who thinks that NATO units that have never seen combat can take them down? President Bush needs to face the truth, and tell us the truth
We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
[Yes, three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.]
The Democratic Party, having voted to begin redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, has taken its stand: end U.S. involvement, now or soon. If Bush, too, has decided to depart, America had best prepare for the strategic consequences abroad and the political consequences at home of another lost war for the United States.
[Yes, I hear Australia is nice. Where are ya gonna move to?]
Subject: War Is Over! If ya want it….
My responses and additions -- in [brackets]….
Is defeat now an option?
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
Jun 27, 2006
"There is an awful feeling that everything is lurching downward," the Western diplomat told The Washington Post.
"Nearly five years on, there is no rule of law. ... The Afghans know it is all a charade, and they see us as not only complicit, but actively involved. You cannot fight a terror war and build a weak state at the same time, and it was a terrible mistake to think we could." What that disconsolate diplomat is saying is that America is losing the Afghan war.
According to the Post report, President Hamid Karzai is losing the confidence of his people and our European allies. The Taliban dominates the southeast of the country at night and is fighting in the largest units it has deployed since the fall of the regime in 2001. Anti-Americanism is spreading. A fatal accident, involving a U.S. military vehicle, caused anti-American riots across the capital.
NATO forces, who are to take over from the Americans in the embattled provinces, are likely to begin taking causalities as soon as they arrive. Meanwhile, the narcotics traffickers are bolder than ever.
In Iraq, the good news -- Zarqawi's death, completion of the Cabinet -- is old news. Sen. Richard Lugar describes present conditions as grim: "Given current events in Baghdad ... quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific."
Lugar was reacting to reports that the U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, has presented a plan to the Pentagon to substantially reduce U.S. troop levels by year's end and cut U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from today's 14, to five or six by the end of 2007.
But, as there is no sign the insurgency is defeated, and daily evidence it is stronger than ever, how do we propose to draw down U.S. forces from the 127,000 there, without risking disaster?
[We can’t. The risk is there. But our troops ARE coming home. George W. Bush broke the Army. If you pay attention to the retired Generals on MSNBC, you know the troops have been stretched so thin that reality demands a withdrawal beginning this Fall. No doubt this will be coached as “The Iraqis are standing up, we are standing down.” No matter what the conditions on the ground are. Make no mistake: Bush’s insistence on fighting this war on the cheap is forcing a pre-mature withdrawal which increases our risk.]
The new Baghdad government is also proposing an amnesty to the insurgents, though not al-Qaida or the Saddamites. But if this means a free pass into politics for insurgents who have killed U.S. soldiers, America will react with rage -- and demand an even earlier withdrawal.
[Yes.]
Neither in Afghanistan or Iraq does there seem to be either a strategic plan to defeat the enemy and build an enduring democracy, or adequate U.S. and allied forces to ensure such a victory.
[That is correct.]
The question then could not be more critical. If victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is the Bush goal, why does he not tell the nation of the sacrifices victory clearly requires -- an indefinite commitment of far more U.S. troops than we have yet sent into either conflict?
[It is a failure of leadership.]
If Bush is not willing to lay it out, or to pay that price, and the Casey plan is the Bush plan, the president and the country had best brace themselves for the possibility of defeat on one or both fronts before the end of the Bush term. For that is where we are headed.
It needs to be stated coldly. The Casey plan, for a drawdown of over half of all U.S. combat brigades in Iraq in 18 months, risks an insurgent triumph, chaos and civil war, ethnic cleansing and a Baghdad that is turned into a hellish no man's land.
A decision not to ramp up U.S. military forces in Afghanistan risks defeat there, as well. For no NATO force we send can match U.S. forces in combat effectiveness, and the Taliban resistance has grown to present levels -- the most impressive in five years -- in the teeth of attacks by U.S. forces now giving way to Europeans.
A U.S. defeat in either country would result in a bloodbath for those who sided with the Americans. It happened in Vietnam and Cambodia. If we lose these wars, it will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps the above is too pessimistic. But if Americans, with the finest fighting forces on earth, have not been able to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, what makes us believe Iraqis trained by Americans will succeed where we failed? And if the Taliban, after five years of U.S. air strikes and Special Forces search-and-destroy missions, are stronger than ever, who thinks that NATO units that have never seen combat can take them down? President Bush needs to face the truth, and tell us the truth
We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
[Yes, three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.]
The Democratic Party, having voted to begin redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, has taken its stand: end U.S. involvement, now or soon. If Bush, too, has decided to depart, America had best prepare for the strategic consequences abroad and the political consequences at home of another lost war for the United States.
[Yes, I hear Australia is nice. Where are ya gonna move to?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)