This cant happen soon enough...

[Evermore]

Dems: Congress Must Fight Bush on Iraq
Friday, February 16, 2007 10:50 AM EST
The Associated Press
By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats said it was time for Congress to challenge the White House over Iraq as they pushed a resolution criticizing President Bush for his troop buildup toward House passage Friday in a rare admonishment of a wartime commander in chief.

Democrats who wrote the nonbinding measure and back it with near unanimity were clear that it would set the stage for more decisive steps to constrain Bush's warmaking powers. They proposed ideas to put legislative strings on future funding in Iraq and prevent any pre-emptive invasion of Iran.

"The time has passed for accepting this administration's assurances at face value. The human cost of its repeated assurances is too great," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said Friday at the opening of the fourth and final day of debate.

The anxiously awaited vote was expected by Friday afternoon. The Senate planned to meet Saturday for a test vote on the same resolution.

During the first three days of debate, 343 out of the 434 House members — 187 Democrats and 156 Republicans — spoke on the resolution. Democrats supported it, while all but about a dozen Republicans opposed it, warning that it would hurt the morale of the troops and encourage the terrorists.

The public is growing more weary of the war. More than half say the Iraq war is a hopeless cause, according to an AP-Ipsos poll released Friday. They're increasingly open to reducing spending on the war — 38 percent want to cut money for the additional troops that Bush is sending to Iraq, and 29 percent want to cut off all funding for the war.

Democrats say the votes are the first step toward forcing Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops and lost favor with voters.

"This country needs a dramatic change of course in Iraq and it is the responsibility of this Congress to consummate that change," said Rep. John Murtha, who chairs the House panel that oversees military spending.

Murtha, D-Pa., is preparing legislation that would set strict conditions on combat deployments, including a year rest between combat tours; ultimately, the congressman says, his measure would make it impossible for Bush to maintain his planned deployment of a total of about 160,000 troops for months on end.

Murtha's proposal also might block the funding of military operations inside Iran — a measure intended to send a signal to Bush that he will need Congress' blessing if he is planning another war.

"The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money," Murtha told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on movecongress.org.

Spokesman Scott Stanzel said the White House has not seen the various proposals from lawmakers, but that the administration opposes any effort to stop the president's plan for Iraq.

"If they get to a point where they're moving to cut off the support for our troops, you can expect that this administration will be working very heavily to be in contact with members of Congress to oppose them," Stanzel said.

"The president will aggressively fight for the resources that we need," he said, "to make sure that we can help the Iraqi people bring security to their capital city to provide the political breathing room so they put in place a democracy that is stable and can be an ally in the war on terror."

In an interview Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Bush said at a news conference Wednesday he has no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims by senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad that the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.

Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack Iran, at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.

In a speech Thursday, Bush said he expects Congress to live up to its promise to support the troops.

"We have a responsibility, Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail," Bush said.

In the third day of a House debate on the war, GOP combat veterans spoke out against the Democratic resolution.

"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia," Johnson said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, called the political maneuvering by Democrats "extremely dangerous."

"It could stop reinforcements from arriving in time to stop major casualties in any of a number of scenarios," said Hunter.

Democrats will have to fight critics in the Senate as well.

"I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.


I disagree with the cut off all funding part cause only the deployed troops would suffer but reigning this shit in cannot happen soon enough.

[Lueyen]

Don't get your hopes up for a more immediate withdrawal, it isn't going to happen overnight unless Congress completely cuts off funds (which I don't see happening). Funding is already appropriated without those restrictions until the end of this fiscal year. After that it's likely Bush would sign appropriations and disregard the qualifications and restrictions on a constitutional basis if it's even necessary by that point(at which point it would likely be and issue before SCOTUS again lengthening the time it takes for Murtha's intended effect). The non binding resolution will not have a tangible physical effect, but it will have (and already has had a political one).

The biggest question asked in regards to troop surge was if Maleki could and would step up and do what was necessary especially in regards to Sadr. The change in course and the troop surge has already begun. The non binding resolution will not stop it, but it has reinforced a message to Maleki that he and the new Iraqi government are on notice if you will. While none of the congressional actions will have an immediate effect (and may or may not have a physical effect in the future) the political message to Maleki is that patience is growing thin, and he needs results now. It has been confirmed that Sadr has left Iraq and is now in Iran. This is a huge indication that Maleki is serious about being non partisan in regards to secular violence, and Sadr got the message loud and clear.

All in all I'm optimistic that all of this will generally have a positive effect on the situation on the ground, in that it will result in strong pressure for the Iraqi government and security forces to take over the situation in preparation for a general US exit that will not result in a catastrophic outbreak of blood shed and strife.


[/quote]

[Agrajag]

I find it amusing that dumbasses like Evermore are so hot to pull our troops back. You have no idea of what is going on in Iraq other than what the media allows you to know. The media wants ratings and right now making Bush and the Republicans look like they screwed up is the rating earner.

Evermore, you constantly call people sheep for blindly following anything that you are against. Now, who is the sheep for falling into the media trap? And you can't stop, either. You keep posting your crap articles talking about how the Reps screwed up again and how the Dems are riding in on their white stallions to fix it.

I have a letter from a guy that is over in Iraq right now. Once I go to work tonight I'll copy it from my work email and post some of it here. He actually talks about some of the stuff that the media deems to kind towards the war effort. Some of the stuff that would actually make the sheep like you think twice before posting your idiocy. Well, maybe not you, Evermore. Someone that has a brain, maybe...

[Lyion]

Ya know, I completely disagree with Evermore's viewpoint.. and yet I have never insulted him, nor been personally attacked by him.

Ag, make your points and say your peace, and realize that you'll never change Evermore, or Arlos, or Zanchief's mind anymore than they'll probably change ours...

Everyone has opinions, reasonings, and bias. Everyone should also be civil. Well, everyone but Taxx.

[Zanchief]

Everyone has opinions, reasonings, and bias. Everyone should also be civil.

I can't agree with that...




















stupid mother fucker.

[Agrajag]

Ya know, I completely disagree with Evermore's viewpoint.. and yet I have never insulted him, nor been personally attacked by him.

Ag, make your points and say your peace, and realize that you'll never change Evermore, or Arlos, or Zanchief's mind anymore than they'll probably change ours...

Everyone has opinions, reasonings, and bias. Everyone should also be civil. Well, everyone but Taxx.

Peace or piece? Anyway, I am just tired of seeing people whining about how Bush screwed the pooch on this subject. Evermore seems to be the biggest poster on this and he was the one that caught my attention. All I see is Bush this and Bush that. For all of you that think that Bush had a hand in this decision other than approval, you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things. Bush didn't start this war, Congress did. Bush just said "Yes" when they asked if it was okay.

Now, you have a Democratic Congress that isn't holding up to their "deal-when-elected" of getting troops back from Iraq. Wow! Who would have thought?

[Tossica]

A crock of shit

Bush is ultimately responsible. That's his fucking job. He most certainly would take all the credit if something was to go right and he is equally responsible when the shit hits the fan.

[Menlaan]

For all of you that think that Bush had a hand in this decision other than approval, you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things. Bush didn't start this war, Congress did. Bush just said "Yes" when they asked if it was okay.

Haha, what? Care to substantiate this?

[Evermore]

I find it amusing that dumbasses like Evermore are so hot to pull our troops back. You have no idea of what is going on in Iraq other than what the media allows you to know. The media wants ratings and right now making Bush and the Republicans look like they screwed up is the rating earner.

Evermore, you constantly call people sheep for blindly following anything that you are against. Now, who is the sheep for falling into the media trap? And you can't stop, either. You keep posting your crap articles talking about how the Reps screwed up again and how the Dems are riding in on their white stallions to fix it.

I have a letter from a guy that is over in Iraq right now. Once I go to work tonight I'll copy it from my work email and post some of it here. He actually talks about some of the stuff that the media deems to kind towards the war effort. Some of the stuff that would actually make the sheep like you think twice before posting your idiocy. Well, maybe not you, Evermore. Someone that has a brain, maybe...

I was going to stoop down and respond but i decided blind fools like this are just not worth it

[Agrajag]

something other than what Tossica believes

Bush is ultimately responsible. That's his fucking job. He most certainly would take all the credit if something was to go right and he is equally responsible when the shit hits the fan.

You are quite true. Bush is there to be the scapegoat. He took a chance when he stood up for an 11 year old promise.

For all of you that think that Bush had a hand in this decision other than approval, you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things. Bush didn't start this war, Congress did. Bush just said "Yes" when they asked if it was okay.

Haha, what? Care to substantiate this?

Substantiate what? That you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things? You prove that with your lack of knowledge of the workings of the American government.

[Evermore]

For all of you that think that Bush had a hand in this decision other than approval, you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things. Bush didn't start this war, Congress did. Bush just said "Yes" when they asked if it was okay.

Haha, what? Care to substantiate this?

lol i would like to see this substantiated too

[Menlaan]

Hmmm, let's see. Do you think that Congress declared war on Iraq? They "authorized the use of force". Bush's administration did FAR more than just say 'Yes' to Congress.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't think Bush said "Yes" to Congress at all, but that he and his Administration proposed the war, sold it to Congress and the U.N., and then ordered the military to strike.

[Evermore]

Ya know, I completely disagree with Evermore's viewpoint.. and yet I have never insulted him, nor been personally attacked by him.

Ag, make your points and say your peace, and realize that you'll never change Evermore, or Arlos, or Zanchief's mind anymore than they'll probably change ours...

Everyone has opinions, reasonings, and bias. Everyone should also be civil. Well, everyone but Taxx.

some people are not capable of having civil discussions over disagreement, lyion. its rather unfortunant ( sp )

[Evermore]

something other than what Tossica believes

Bush is ultimately responsible. That's his fucking job. He most certainly would take all the credit if something was to go right and he is equally responsible when the shit hits the fan.

You are quite true. Bush is there to be the scapegoat. He took a chance when he stood up for an 11 year old promise.

For all of you that think that Bush had a hand in this decision other than approval, you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things. Bush didn't start this war, Congress did. Bush just said "Yes" when they asked if it was okay.

Haha, what? Care to substantiate this?

Substantiate what? That you need to go back to elementary school and learn a few things? You prove that with your lack of knowledge of the workings of the American government.

you should shut up while you're ahead. really.

[Agrajag]

let me say this in a way a simpleton like you can understand.

You sir are a fucktard. totally. My nephew has done 2 tours in IRAQ and my family has started a charity to support the troops. fuck you and your letters. I am talking to people that have actually been shot at or, in some cases, lost limbs from this bullshit war.

apparently you are too stupid to even read the govenment's own assessments or too much of a republican cocksuck so you just ignore them.

As for the Dems being able to fix it? I doubt it but they are the best chance for getting our troops out of that fucking mess. I am sorry you cannot or will not face the FACT we NEVER should gone into iraq in the fucking first place. You CANNOT beat an idiology with guns.

so quit talking out your ass and actually learn something besides how to swallow bush's hockey puck. You shit covered fuckstick



sorry folks, sometimes you have to speak to the uneducated this way so they can understand...

WOW! Your nephew was in Iraq for two whole tours!? I was in Bahgram either getting shot at or dodging incoming mortars, too, Gramps. My sister was in the Army and did three seperate tours in Iraq. I'm not impressed. If you haven't been there then you are the one talking out your ass. You heard from your nephew what limited instances he saw while there. Probably either a whole lot of nothing or getting shot at. That would constitute the stories he told you. Not only have I been to Bahgram, but I had to stay at Kandahar to fix aircraft that were transporting troops out. Try replacing hydraulic tubing while being shot at and hoping that you don't get hit. I was lucky enough to come back with all my limbs intact and no holes, but I did lose a friend of mine I went to school with.

And the fact that we never should have gone to Iraq is not a fact. Do you even remember what the reason is for initially going there? I doubt you do. It is you who is blindly following what ever the Democrats say as truth.

[Tacks]

lol thank god for braindead meatheads

[Agrajag]

So, now who's stalking who? I see you took my advice on checking what threads I respond to.

P.S. Get a life, a real life.

[Tacks]

lol thank god for braindead meatheads

phew!

[Evermore]

let me say this in a way a simpleton like you can understand.

You sir are a fucktard. totally. My nephew has done 2 tours in IRAQ and my family has started a charity to support the troops. fuck you and your letters. I am talking to people that have actually been shot at or, in some cases, lost limbs from this bullshit war.

apparently you are too stupid to even read the govenment's own assessments or too much of a republican cocksuck so you just ignore them.

As for the Dems being able to fix it? I doubt it but they are the best chance for getting our troops out of that fucking mess. I am sorry you cannot or will not face the FACT we NEVER should gone into iraq in the fucking first place. You CANNOT beat an idiology with guns.

so quit talking out your ass and actually learn something besides how to swallow bush's hockey puck. You shit covered fuckstick



sorry folks, sometimes you have to speak to the uneducated this way so they can understand...

WOW! Your nephew was in Iraq for two whole tours!? I was in Bahgram either getting shot at or dodging incoming mortars, too, Gramps. My sister was in the Army and did three seperate tours in Iraq. I'm not impressed. If you haven't been there then you are the one talking out your ass. You heard from your nephew what limited instances he saw while there. Probably either a whole lot of nothing or getting shot at. That would constitute the stories he told you. Not only have I been to Bahgram, but I had to stay at Kandahar to fix aircraft that were transporting troops out. Try replacing hydraulic tubing while being shot at and hoping that you don't get hit. I was lucky enough to come back with all my limbs intact and no holes, but I did lose a friend of mine I went to school with.

And the fact that we never should have gone to Iraq is not a fact. Do you even remember what the reason is for initially going there? I doubt you do. It is you who is blindly following what ever the Democrats say as truth.

i'll compare that to guarding a convoy and having the brains of the driver of the truck you are in getting spattered all over you. Bullet missed him by a 1/2 inch. yea it would have sucked for you if you got shot replacing the toliet tubing.

it is most definately IS a fact. there are no WMD's never was. this is about OIL and don't fool yourself into thinking its about anything else. talking like this I dont think you were even there.

let me as you this, internet badass. why do you think all the support for this BULLSHIT "war" is falling away faster then your IQ?

[Lyion]

Except for people who opposed it from the outset, there has been no change, Evermore.

I think the problem is that regardless of if the war was going swimmingly, Arlos and you would still be posting Bush hate pieces because of what he is politically. That can get tired at times. Good debate is great. Propaganda hit pieces don't really leave much room for debate.

The Iraq war was fought for the right reasons. It is also easy to see the war and efforts within have been grossly mismanaged from the disbanding of the Iraqi Army to the military approach for a democratic change which isn't a good strategic means.

The simple truth is the Defense Department should have been yanked from control of Iraq the minute heavy combat operations ended, and the state department should have been placed in charge immediately. This screw up rests solely on W's head. He allowed Rumsfeld to run the show, when Powell should have. By doing this he's kept it a military mission long after it should have been a state run one.

What we should do is look for how we can maximize our potential for curbing terrorism, securing Iraq, and allowing for stability. Unfortunately I do not see much real discourse going on, just partisan bickering and even worse partisan attacks from both sides.

[Arlos]

Oh please. Lyion is one of the posters here most singularly INcapable of any debate. Which one of us continually posts from highly slanted blogs & websites? Guess what, it's Lyion. Just look how many times he's quoted National Review or others of its ilk. Meanwhile, people like Evermore and myself post from major news outlets, like MSNBC, the BBC, CNN, ABC, etc. Lyion also is notorious for taking people's words and utterly twisting them around to some off-the-wall conclusion that bears no resemblance to the original statement. I've called him on that innumerable times in the past, and it's one of the few things on this board that have actually angered me, and when I got sick of it, I flamed the fuck out of him.

See, the thing is, Lyion and his ilk aren't Conservatives, not in the Barry Goldwater mode, certainly. I'm reading a fascinating new book by John Dean on the modern Conservative movement, and it explores people like Lyion and his friends in the Religious Right. It was actually started a joint project between Dean and Goldwater, so it's notes on Goldwaterian conservativism come straight from the source. What most of the hard-core right (aka Lyion) are is Authoritarians, who feature, among other things, a near-blind obediance to authority, so long as that authority seems to represent their beliefs. They also have almost no conscience, certainly not about actions done or ordered by those they consider to be superiors.

Goldwater, on the other hand, once said, that in any legislative action by government, the primary concern for a conservative should be, "How does this increase the freedom for the individual". When has this admiinistration EVER been concerned about personal freedoms, much less held them as the highest factor of importance? Goldwater also believed that compromise was the key to the functioning of government. Since when, since 94 and Newt Gengrich have the Republicans been primarily concerned with compromise, as opposed to an unbending inflexibility in gettin exactly what they want? That's why I find Lyion's claim to admire Goldwater so hypocritically amusing, because he's about as far from Goldwater as you can get, politically.

Lets look at a list of comparative traits, shall we?

First, lets call this group Group A.
This group believes:
Order and safety always trump freedom when government needs to balance them
A "unitary executive" branch operates under the president, who has virtually exclusive and unlimited powers in foreign affairs as commander-in-chief
If conservatives control Congress, they run it their way and exclude others from having a say.
Federal courts should be staffed by judges who think and act like good conservatives, and if they do not, Congress should take jurisdiction away from lower courts, which it controls.
Government secrecy is necessary in an age of terror, and transparency makes it difficult to run the goveernment.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the Bible is an indisputable guide for government, and there is nothing in the Constitution creating a "Wall of Separation" between church and state.
Voters who are kept anxious by fears of terrorism will become or remain conservatives and keep Republicans in power; it is time - and smart politics - to go back to a Department of War to deal with terrorists.
So long as America remains the strongest nation, it can control the world and maintain peace by preemtively going to war to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Tough times demand tough talk, and it is an unfortunate reality that mudslinging works in politics.

OK, now lets look at Group B.
Group B believes (in the same order as group A, in counterpoint to the same list):
Freedom trumps order and safety when government needs to weight them.
They insist that the separation of powers in government be maintained, along with checks and balances in all areas.
They believe Congress must be a deliberative body free from tyranny of the majority.
They oppose packing federal courts with ideologues and interfering with judicial independence
They reject governmetn secrecy and seek as much transparency as possible
Religious dogma is personal and private, and the Bible is not a basis for government policy; separation of church and state is essential in our pluralistic society.
The politics of fear have no place in a democracy. A strong defense is the best offense, and the military-industrial complex should not control the Department of Defense.
American cannot police the world unilaterally and needs the good will and cooperation of other nations to prevent the spread of terrorism and WMD
Civility is a sign of strength not weakness, and democracy cannot survive without it.


OK, I don't think there's any question whatsoever that Lyion is quite firmly in the Group A camp. Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen him support a single thing that Group B believes, while he's been hardcore in support for several of those Group A do. Guess what: Group A is authoritarian beliefs, not classic conservativism. Group B is Goldwater-style conservativism. Current republicans are, almost to a man, it seems, also quite thoroughly in the group A camp, which is, at it's core, anti-freedom. (authoritarianism is inherently anti-freedom, by its very nature)

Now, I disagree with Goldwater on many things, but I can guarantee you, I would have infinitely less disagreements with the Republican party if it were composed of Goldwater-style conservatives rather than the current authoritarian idealouges and their allies of the religious right. The funny thing is, Pat Buchanan, who I consider to be something of a loon, is closer to Goldwater-style conservativism than is Lyion, Bush, DeLay, Newt, Pat Robertson, or the rest of their ilk.

Fascinating book, really. By John Dean, called "Conservatives Without Conscience", which he originally started with Goldwater, as a 35-40 year later re-look at conservativism after Goldwater's book, "The Conscience of a Conservative". More on it when I finish the entire book, but so far, it's been extremely accurate in explaining the actions & behaviors of the majority of the modern Republicans.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Maybe I'll become more moderate and open minded, like you Arlos. You sure are fair and balanced!

[Lyion]

http://article.nationalreview.com/print ... cxMzAyNTY=

There is an idea out there. Perhaps not a fully formed one. Perhaps more like the whisper of one gusting like a sudden draft through the rafters of the conservative house, causing some to look toward the attic and ask fearfully, "What was that?"

This wisp of a notion is simply this: Maybe a Democrat should win in 2008.

Personally, I don’t believe in this poltergeist, at least not yet. But every now and then, I must confess, I do shiver from its touch.

The idea goes something like this: If you believe that the war on terror is real — really real — then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House. If the clash of civilizations is afoot, then the issues separating Democrats and Republicans are as pressing as whether the captain of the Titanic is going to have fish or chicken for dinner. There’s a showdown coming. Period. Full stop. My task isn’t to convince you that this view is correct (though I basically believe it is), but merely that it is honestly and firmly held by many on the right and by a comparative handful on the left.

And that’s the problem: Only a handful of people on the Left — and far too few liberals — see radical Islamists as a bigger threat than George W. Bush. Which is why if you really think that we are in an existential conflict with a deadly enemy, there’s a good case for the Democrats to take the reins. Not because Democrats are better, wiser or more responsible about foreign policy. That’s a case for Democrats to make about themselves and certainly not one many on the right believe. No, the argument, felt in places we don’t talk about at cocktail parties (vide A Few Good Men), is that the Democrats have been such irresponsible backseat drivers that they have to be forced to take the wheel to grasp how treacherous the road ahead is.

The current spectacle in Congress has made it clear that the Democrats don’t believe that the war in Iraq is America’s war. They think it’s Bush’s vanity project turned albatross, but they won’t take responsibility for their convictions. They fawned on Gen. David Petraeus like schoolgirls, confirming him as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq almost instantly, but they denounce the escalation he helped design and is tasked with implementing. And on the floor of the House this week, they bared their teeth to Bush while bragging about how their resolution is toothless.

It was always a bit of a myth that partisanship ended at the water’s edge. But Democrats have debunked, exposed and parodied that myth. Of course, they claim that the president started it by running foreign policy as a partisan enterprise. Fine, there’s obviously some truth there. But when the likes of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Jay Rockefeller whine that they were misled into war, they’re declaring that they never took their responsibilities seriously in the first place. Indeed, as Christopher Hitchens recently illustrated in Slate, Clinton wasn’t tricked by Bush; she supported the war because of what she deduced on her own, both as a senator and as presidential trainee in Bill Clinton’s White House when it bombed Iraq and adopted regime change as U.S. policy.

Pro-war Democrats (Sen. Joe Lieberman and a few others excluded) simply hopped on the bandwagon, figuring it would be a political free ride. When it went south, they hopped off and claimed that the driver lied to them. Of course, many Democrats sincerely believe that the war on terror is real and that Iraq is a dangerous distraction from it. But that’s not the issue. Terror hawks think you can’t both believe the war on terror is real and argue for handing Iraq over to the enemy — even if we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place.

If the war on terror really isn’t that big a deal, hurray. Then Democrats can’t do that much damage, and we can all argue about the minimum wage and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plane. If it is a big deal, Democrats need to be slapped out of their anti-Bush hysteria by real life. Australian Prime Minister John Howard — a Churchillian figure to hawks — said this week that al Qaeda is "praying" for a Democratic victory in 2008. It may be. But what happens when a President Clinton or Obama has a 9/11 — or worse — on her or his watch? Or is faced by the prospect of an Iraq run by terrorists? I’d like to hope that president would rise to the occasion, out of conviction or political self-interest.

For hawks who believe that the Bush White House either hasn’t been hawkish enough or has done a much better job than the conventional wisdom holds (remember, no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11), counting on Democrats to learn on the job is a chilling thought. Which is why it remains a whisper, for now.

[Tossica]

Ridiculous.

[Arlos]

*shrug* I believe in somethign akin to the set of beliefs espoused in that B group, as I've shown repeatedly. You, Lyion, are quite obviously behind group A, as is clearly seen in your track record on this board alone.

I leave to neutral observers which camp is a greater supporter of freedom, though I should think it obvious.

As for your article, I find your hypocrisy of slamming me for being partisan and then following it up with verbal dribble from a frothingly right wing rag like the National Review highly amusing. Notice I never post anything from MoveOn, Soros, or any of the liberal blogs. I post quotes from far more centrist sources, such as major news media. Yet Lyion feels no compunction countering that with quotes from National Review, Washington Times, etc. etc. etc. Who is being more partisan, hmmmm? Oh, and how many terrorist attacks were there during Clinton's term on US soil? 1, and far less severe than 9/11? And 9/11 happened on WHO'S watch again? Which administration ignored clear warnings of imminent attack, according to insiders who were involved, like Clarke? Gee, both of those would be Bush, wouldn't they. Gosh, I know which side *I* want defending this nation!

You also blithely ignored one of my main points: While I disagree with a number of Goldwater's stances, I could respect him, and were the Republicans in power largely made up of Goldwater conservatives, I would have far more confidence in them to preserve our freedom and way of life. However, that is manifestly NOT the case, as has quite easily and readily been shown. Indeed, Goldwater DESPISED people like Lyion and the rest of his clones of the religious right, and considered them one of the biggest detriments to the political system ever seen in this country. So, the hypocrisy of Lyion claiming to admire Goldwater, while observing NONE of his stances is highly comedic.

In Goldwater's own words:

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. When it comes to balancing these forces, the conservative's first consern will be: Are we maximinzg freedom?"

To date, this administration, and it's fanatical supporters like Lyion, have NEVER ONCE evinced the beginnings of a concern for even modicums of personal freedom, much less held it to be the highest standard and paramount concern. Lyion is obviously comfortable with the erosion of freedoms, most likely because he trusts, implicitly, higher authority when it tells him it'll be OK. Sorry, but unlike autocratic followers like Lyion, I choose to think for myself, and actually look at the issues, not blindly trust what anyone says about them.

-Arlos