How quickly you forget the facts, Bush Rulez. Republicans were opposing the way the action was being run in Kosovo because the Clinton Administration refused to send in ground troops — which, as my previous post of facts showed, was a counterproductive strategy.

And if you think the Kosovo war was mismanaged, you must really hate the war which was strategically similar- the first Iraq war. If dropping bombs from 20,000 feet bothers you, wasn’t that the strategy employed during the Iraq war?

Please show us the fact — since you only deal in facts, Bush Rulez — that there were no ground troops whatsoever involved in the first Gulf War and that the first Bush administration flatly refused to even consider using ground troops, since you argue that the wars were the same.

I believe the real legacy of Bush will be massive deficits and a national debt controlled by the Saudis and Chinese, and less stability in the MidEast because Bush prioritized a war of choice and, meanwhile, allowed Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

ALLOWED? Iran and North Korea both were certified “nuclear weapon free” and did not have a development program — or so said the IAEA and the Clinton administration, under the Agreed Framework. You think they just started building them? They’ve been in development for DECADES.

If anything, under the Bush administration, both Iran and North Korea have been CONFRONTED about the fact that they’re lying to the world. But to admit that they did lie exposes your liberal incompetence, so you try the spin that North Korea and Iran just went out one day and decided to build bombs.

Maybe you and your rightwing websites don’t think the Kosovo war was relatively successful, but the American people know otherwise. Why are you on Milosevic’s side? Maybe you would have liked to live in his “kite flying paradise”?

Desperate spin, Bush Rulez. Saddam was hundreds of times worse than Milosevic, but you denied anything of the sort was taking place and claimed any action against Saddam was “unnecessary and unjustified”.

I supported both actually FIGHTING the Kosovo war, instead of leaving Milosevic’s forces unscathed on the ground to murder and mutilate hundreds of thousands, as well as the war in Iraq.

And I suppose that now more kites are flying than ever? That’s the problem with the Liberal Media® (talking point copyright RNC) and the Liberal Elite®, they “don’t ever show the good things that are going on in Iraq”®! They never show the new Iraq as a Kite-Flying Utopia® and the cars that don’t explode; not to mention the cute puppies and kitties being born every day!

Just like Hurricane Katrina, the Liberal Media® only focuses on the bad. There were many good things happening in New Orleans, but all the Liberal Media® focused on was the flooding, the looting, and the people dying. Just like in Iraq!

But, hey! “We Have to Fight Them Over There So That We Don’t Have to Fight Them Here®”, right?

I believe the real legacy of Bush will be massive deficits and a national debt controlled by the Saudis and Chinese, and less stability in the MidEast because Bush prioritized a war of choice and, meanwhile, allowed Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. And I further predict that some of our “allies” will become our future enemies (Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia).

It’s sort of funny that the 90s were going so well that a President was impeached for lying about a blowjob! And he still had nearly 70% approval rating! Maybe you and your rightwing websites don’t think the Kosovo war was relatively successful, but the American people know otherwise. Why are you on Milosevic’s side? Maybe you would have liked to live in his “kite flying paradise”?

The Milosevec trial didn’t end you and fellow Republicans thinking of pre-war Kosovo as a kite-flying paradise, did it?

This is the most incompetant administration ever- Rumsfeld told us the war wouldn’t last more than 6 months and there was absolutely no planning for the occupation.

And if you think the Kosovo war was mismanaged, you must really hate the war which was strategically similar- the first Iraq war. If dropping bombs from 20,000 feet bothers you, wasn’t that the strategy employed during the Iraq war? Iraq will never be the utopia of a “Jeffersonian democracy” which is an ally, peaceful, and a beacon to the rest of the middle east. Hell, I would be very surprised if there’s not a civil war once we leave (and we will “cut and run” before the 2006 elections, believe me) At least we didn’t drop nuclear bombs to end the war (a la WWII)- a strategy some of your fellow Republicans have been promoting.

If you still have faith that things are going as we were told, you are extremely naive and should sign up for the military immediately. Hey, free flowers and chocolates!!!

Unlike Saddam, even North Korea had the sense to listen. If the ears of one must be opened with bullets, then bullets must be used.

Kosovo showed the world that the only mistake Milosevic made was in killing white Europeans. Millions of Arabs and Africans can die, and Democrats will do nothing. Saddam’s major mistake was in overestimating the strength of the Democrats.

Kosovo had a clear objective, a clear time frame, a real coalition, and the cost in troops and financial resources was modest.

All of which were?

Why don’t you read a bit about your “effective war”?

As it turns out, Serbian atrocities increased after the air war began, and the Serb knowledge that there would be no ground troops committed allowed them to react accordingly — dispersing their forces to successfully avoid air attack.

Meanwhile, why is it that Democrats call this success? You insisted that there was no longer any ethnic violence in Kosovo. The facts show clearly otherwise?

And, ummm, did you see that 67% of Americans disapprove of how Bush is running the war in Iraq?

That will end as soon as Saddam’s trial shows the lies that you and your fellow Democrats were telling about Iraq being a kite-flying paradise.

This is so funny that I assume you’re joking! Compare Kosovo to the Iraq war and I think any military commander would tell you which one was better managed. Kosovo had a clear objective, a clear time frame, a real coalition, and the cost in troops and financial resources was modest. None of the same can be said for Iraq. In addition we’ve had blunder after blunder- from not immediately securing the weapons we knew existed to not having enough troops to provide security and safeguard the borders, to prison abuse, to “losing” 9 billion taxpayer dollars, to no clear objective or way to gauge our progress.

Are you suggesting that the Serbs are still persecuting the Albanians or that there have not been as many civilian deaths in Iraq? We didn’t promise a utopian Jeffersonian Democracy that was a beacon to the entire region in Kosovo. How long do you think establishing that in Iraq will take and how much will it cost?

Again, you surely must be joking to even compare the two. And, ummm, did you see that 67% of Americans disapprove of how Bush is running the war in Iraq? What was the Kosovo approval rate under Clinton? He ended his 2nd term with nearly 70% approval.

And check this out:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html

You lie and distort, NDT. My earlier response seems to not have taken, but I have been the only one to ever provide the raw statistics for my facts. Just quoting one uncredited statistic from one web site does not count- I could prove anything using that method.

Furthermore, one can condemn the brutality of a dictator without thinking it’s the US’s responsibility to take over every brutal regime. Or maybe you are consistent and believe we should invade North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc, etc. I believe Hussein should be prosecuted for his crimes, but that doesn’t mean I think we should invade every country run by a totalitarian regime unless it’s in the US’s best interest. By your logic Limbaugh, Hannity, DeLay, etc were on Milosevic’s side and don’t believe he should have been prosecuted.

As to the charge that I adhere to the DNC’s talking points, maybe I should check them out. I didn’t know that they had talking points at all, let alone that they support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc! I see a lot of phrases around here which come verbatim from the RNC (“blame game”, “liberal elite”, amongst many others).

And as to the charge by others that Ginsburg is “radical”, many of her beliefs are echoed by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank. But many in both parties like the word “freedom” more than the idea itself- as Rumsfeld put it, “freedom is messy”.

This illustrates how full of it you seem to be, NDT. I clearly stated that an unreference stat from one web site was proof of nothing and asked you to find the data to prove your point. I was the only one who provided any statistical proof of anything. You twist my words (and the words of others) with the intention of deceipt.

For instance, you probably know that Moore wasn’t attempting to paint Iraq as a “kite flying utopia”. At least I hope you do. Or else every timesomeone talks about Hitler inventing the Autobahn and the VW Bug, you must get furious about the ‘utopia’ being portrayed. Hell, I can even see that Rush Limbaugh isn’t seriously portraying Gitmo as a real ‘vacation retreat’, but maybe I have a better understanding of artists and communicators’ intentions.

Let me explain it for you. It is clear that Moore was showing everyday life for the citizens of Iraq who had learned to live under a dictator. Just because the citizens of Iraq lived under tyranny doesn’t mean that they didn’t lead normal lives. He was illustrating the fact that the war undoubtedly changed things in Iraq and not always for the better.

You can spout all the propaganda you want, but ‘freedom’ without security means nothing. Just ask the residents of New Orleans or Iraq. I wonder how thankful those in New Orleans were that they can vote when there were armed bands of bandits raping and murdering innocents? It’s great that one can vote, but would be even better if one had employment, electricity, water, and could safely get to the polling place without fear of being shot.

I’m sure you recall that I asked someone to prove his snide comment that liberals had no ‘family values’. I went on to prove, from government statistics, that Blue states have lower divorce rates, less domestic violence, and less child abuse. He then accused me of saying that all conservatives are child abusers. Just like you are twisting my words now.

The fact is you pulled a questionable claim from a TV news web page without any supporting evidence and then had the audacity to stand by it with no supporting evidence. By that method, I can prove Cold Fusion:

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/04/26/ColdFusionDogma.html

That should solve our energy problems, huh? Why doesn’t the government want us to know about cold fusion? Is it because they are in bed with the oil companies?

Or that Lyndon Johnson killed JFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm

Compelling, huh? We Yankees just can’t trust those Texans, even when they’re our running mates. . .

Or that Clinton is a homicidal maniac who killed 19 people during his two terms:

http://users.rcn.com/virtual.nai/sot/videos/clinton.htm

And he was impeached for lying about a blowjob? Talk about a technicality! You would think there would be enough evidence to convict him of at least one of those murders, wouldn’t you?

Who needs facts when you have dogma? Just ask the anti-science crowd about the ‘theory of evolution’ or whether a person with only the brain stem can “talk, laugh, and communicate” or be rehabilitated!

Ever watch Fahrenheit 9/11? Ever hear Cindy Sheehan speak? Why don’t you explain why these two DNC talking points now say that getting rid of the Taliban was wrong, much less of Saddam Hussein?

If I did, I would be accusing all Republicans of believing racist, homophobic, and insane things uttered by Lott, Falwell, DeLay, Frist, etc.

Problem is, you do.

Maybe you think Republicans want the best to happen for Democrats? Weren’t they all undermining the Kosovo war while our troops were in harms way just for political reasons?

The reason most Republicans were “undermining”, Bush Rulez, was because there were no troops in Kosovo, and there should have been.

Kosovo showed why Democrats are patently unfit to lead a war. The issue in Kosovo was that Serbian armed units were going into Kosovar villages and slaughtering the populace. You can’t stop that with airstrikes, because when you drop bombs on soldiers intermingled with civilians, you kill civilians. The only way to stop it is ground troops, not bombing totally unrelated areas — which was what the strategy was. That’s why Kosovars were dying by the thousands while the Clinton administration was bombing the Chinese Embassy.

I believe in facts, not in dogma and talking points.

We’re used to this, Bush Rulez. You come in spouting your stereotypes, get bitch-slapped, then start turning all moderate and claiming you rely on “facts” in an attempt to paint yourself as something you’re not.

You don’t believe in facts. When I pointed out that the teenage pregnancy rate of Democrat-controlled Cleveland and Cuyahoga County was massively higher than a so-called “red county” whose rate you were calling an example of “failure”, you first tried to argue that I didn’t link to my source (an outright lie); then, when you made an absurd claim that you said was based on facts, I challenged you to post them, and you couldn’t.

Go back to the DNC and get a new set of talking points. You’d better hurry, because Saddam’s trial starts soon, and you’ll need to explain why intervening to stop his butchery, torture, and imprisonment of millions of people was “unnecessary and unjustified” in the context of you wetting yourselves to get into Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic was horrific and evil, but Saddam makes him look like a Boy Scout.

The Confederacy and its leader, Jefferson Davis. And still the confederate flag is flown and incorporated into state flags in the south.

Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don’t want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don’t want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can’t credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what’s happening in Lebanon is great, but it’s not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.

Maybe you think Republicans want the best to happen for Democrats? Weren’t they all undermining the Kosovo war while our troops were in harms way just for political reasons? And, BTW, I know Clinton-bashing is popular around here, but can you name one thing other than a blowjob that Clinton deliberately lied about? Was it anti-American that Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al were undermining our war effort at that time on the basis of Clinton getting a blowjob?

Ummm, I had direct quotes from prominent Republicans about the war. This is how the war was sold to the American people and most people were gullible enough to believe it. Now show me the direct quotes about a “kite flying paradise” etc.

I believe in facts, not in dogma and talking points. I also don’t take quotes out of context to prove my point and expand it to include all members of the other party. If I did, I would be accusing all Republicans of believing racist, homophobic, and insane things uttered by Lott, Falwell, DeLay, Frist, etc. I know that most Republicans have been duped by their leaders into thinking their party is one of “fiscal responsibility” which is what has won them quite a few elections. . . but Americans are waking up and discovering that this president is the biggest spender EVER. He even outspends LBJ, the previous champ, in non-military discretionary spending. Again, Clinton was extremely fiscally conservative compared to this administration.

If I’m wrong about your gullibility prior to the war, then document for me your healthy skepticism about how long the war would last, how many US casualties would result, that Iraq may not end up “a Jeffersonian-style democracy”, and that “we would be greeted as liberators”. You probably also were skeptical that Iraq had WMDs or, at least, that they couldn’t “prove” a negative.

I’m sure you did a lot of writing in the build-up to this war- your unwillingness to believe this administration’s Pollyanna-ish predictions should be well documented.

You’ve just hit a major pet peeve of mine.

We are not in a time when political polarization is greatly different than any other era. It goes all the way back to the birth of the nation.

Look at the fights between the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans for goodness sake!

[/rant]

And more to the point, since you’re comparing the past to the unprecedentedly polarized present, why doncha throw in the usual post comparing the “party of Lincoln” to the Dixiecrats. That’s another fine specimen of recent Republican argumentation.

I think your assumption about what Republicans were allegedly thinking is no match for my direct quote of what a Democratic staffer is saying publicly.

Of course, you have to divert and deflect attention, Bush Rulez, because what she’s saying is true. It is at its heart what Democrats believe, but it’s not publicly kosher to admit that the only reason your party exists is to obstruct, delay, and harm others for political gain.

You probably believed that the Iraq war would be “a cakewalk”, that “it would pay for itself”, and that we “will be greeted as liberators”. And once the administration pulls out significant numbers of troops without accomplishing what we were told were the objectives (a peaceful democrat Iraq that doesn’t threaten its neighbors and allows equal rights for minorities and women) merely for political gains in 2006, you undoubtedly won’t be calling it “cutting and running”. Instead, you will be parroting whatever the GOP catchphrases are at the time.

I’m impressed with your attempts to read my mind, Bush Rulez. Not with your accuracy, but with your attempts.

Meanwhile, I daresay you believed that Iraq was a kite-flying paradise, that the Taliban really were quite respectful of women’s rights, and that Saddam Hussein never persecuted or harmed minorities and gave his people political freedom.

See how the game is played?

Glad you missed me, but I don’t think the left is organized enough to come up with “talking points”. I don’t think you’ll find many prominent Dems who share my combination of libertarianism and liberalism- I used to be considered a Republican before they lost their minds! Actually, I fully expect some Republicans to start distancing themselves from Bush since he is now so unpopular and his presidency has been a disaster. Sort of like when Bush Sr. called Reagan’s policies “voodoo economics”. Isn’t it un-American to have so much of our debt owed to China and Saudi Arabia? Bush’s legacy will be an enormous debt and more instability in the middle east than before. So much for conservatism.

Unfortunately, this site has been boring me since it does nothing but repeat the same Republican talking points. I expected more when I first visited and I was quickly disappointed by the lack of independent thought. Even the most asinine things are defended; from Falwell to ID to Bush’s poor response to national emergencies. . .it gets tiring.

Oh, and since 67% of Americans now disapprove of the president’s handling of Iraq, why does America hate America?

You can swallow all the crap you’re fed through the meaningless talking points-Hook, Party Line, and Sinker. You probably believed that the Iraq war would be “a cakewalk”, that “it would pay for itself”, and that we “will be greeted as liberators”. And once the administration pulls out significant numbers of troops without accomplishing what we were told were the objectives (a peaceful democrat Iraq that doesn’t threaten its neighbors and allows equal rights for minorities and women) merely for political gains in 2006, you undoubtedly won’t be calling it “cutting and running”. Instead, you will be parroting whatever the GOP catchphrases are at the time. So much for independent thought.

I think the ones who really want the US to fail are the ones in charge currently. How else to explain the record deficits, badly mismanaged war, dependence on foreign oil, corruption, and gross incompetance. They seem to care more about their political party than the US.