Memo to GOP: For Your Own Good, Stop Equating Opposing War With Supporting Terrorists

[Centexfarmer]

Well GA, what do you expect?

That's all that the GOP has to run on this November.

They've done such a dismal job protecting us already, while they give $725 billion dollars tax cuts to the few who don't need it than they do to the ministry of Home Land Security, without few Americans actually knowing about it.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf...f#search='eighty one billion dollar tax cuts'

While only providing $49.7 billion to Homeland Security:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/65xx/doc...ty.pdf#search='Funding for Homeland Security'

That's not a record I would be running on if I were a Republican.

What the Republicans are really saying between now and November is that the Democrats wouldn't do anything at all except coddle terrorists, instead of the rich.

Which by the way, they have NO cites to quote, just conjecture.

 

[Centexfarmer]

In fact, their record under Bush is no different than their record under Clinton---they really don't care about terrorism or America; their only true concerns are re-election and Republican hegemony.

That's slanderous!




..or is that liable?







Either way it appears to be the truth no matter what you call it.

 

[chance1]

I just find it fascinating that the Republican Party is in such dire meltdown over the upcoming election, and their possible loss of majority status n the House and the Senate. The GOP, rather than defend their record, wants to paint Democrats as traitors. Yes, that's right, traitors.

Now, one could say that the GOP is going beyond the pale, that they're acting like Nazis; far be it from me to agree with this thinking, far indeed. Though, one must pause and reflect: with two-thirds of Americans saying they do not believe Bush or the GOP has a plan to win in IRaq, and with Bush's polls in the toilet over issues like the war, his "trustworthiness," his weakness as a leader and his reputation as a divider, wouldn't the American people come to see that the GOP, by calling Democrat "terrorist lovers," they are pissing off most of the country?

Today, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) may have set a new low for the GOP. He said that Democrats seemed "more interested in protecting the terrorists" than protecting America:

"I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people. They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them."

Do you agree? Are Democrats and some Republicans more interested in protecting terrorists than defeating them?

Silly coment by Boehner - soon as he said it, I imagine he thought better - too late. It will be used as one of many small daggers against the Repubs. Goes both ways - stupid comments are made by individuals from both parties. Getting elected does not guarantee smarts.

Polls are important for getting a sense of how people feel but they are not necessarily a barometer on who they pull the lever for IMO. No one wants to be in Iraq - however, a majority do not favor a pull out. So there is conflict in American's feelings I believe. As a whole they believe

1 - we should not have gone there
2 - things are not going well there
3 - better to be out of there

but as smart people, they realize that #3 doesn't mean pull out

and really, Americans don't trust the Dems either - no love affair either way. The Dems may win by default as they are "not Bush" and "not Republican"

I think Cheney on MTP and Bush in his speech the other night made good arguments for staying in Iraq as the only option. That terrorism must be defeated and leaving would only serve to empower our enemies and send our allies the wrong message.

Just not sure this is the Republican message Alfie - that all dems are traitors - seems to be isolated to me.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It would be libel, despite the equivocation to the contrary by another poster here.

It stands true since no one has yet posted to their defense... the best I saw was kev saying "I still believe that Clinton did nothing anyway."

Well that may be true from kev's perspective, but I felt much better, and had a better sense of pride as an American while Clinton was doing "nothing" than all of the shit the GW, and his brood have gotten a free pass on while they apparently have been doing "something."



Looking after what's best for Americans, instead of what's best for Republicans and their campaign contributors doesn't count as doing anything in my book.

Oh look, this thread is beginning to look like another "pile on" against Republicans doesn't it?

Sadly, only Republicans and those who support them, appear to be the ones who've suffered at the hands of terrorists since 9/11.

It must be great to be, victim, martyr, and instigator of one's demise all at the same time.



Damn those Bush Hating, Terrorist Appeasers!

 

[jackoroe]

I have to believe the Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than our citizenry. What other possible excuse could they have fo failing to put forth a plan, any plan at all, to fight terrorism or the war in Iraq? They oppose the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorists conversations, detaining the little dears at Club Gitmo and would like to give them Constitutional rights. Where is the disincentive to being a terrorist to a Democrat?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Silly coment by Boehner - soon as he said it, I imagine he thought better - too late. It will be used as one of many small daggers against the Repubs. Goes both ways - stupid comments are made by individuals from both parties. Getting elected does not guarantee smarts.

Polls are important for getting a sense of how people feel but they are not necessarily a barometer on who they pull the lever for IMO. No one wants to be in Iraq - however, a majority do not favor a pull out. So there is conflict in American's feelings I believe. As a whole they believe

1 - we should not have gone there
2 - things are not going well there
3 - better to be out of there

but as smart people, they realize that #3 doesn't mean pull out

Well, in all fairness, the Republicans have only used conjecture to infer that if you elect Dems that they'll pull out of Iraq, and the terrorists have won.

It's an issue that deserves some level of debate, but as a Democrat myself, I don't think abandoning Iraq until its Government is on it's own two feet is what anyone within the Democratic Party is advocating.

Part of the debate is being able to measure some degree of success. That is unless you support sending the sons and daughters of Americans into what is increasingly becoming a meat grinder indefinately that is and Iraq and increasingly the mid-east.

We're not having that debate right now.

Politically it would be a huge mistake to pull out of the region entirely. I've NEVER once heard anyone within the Democratic Party introduce that as a solution. If you have, I would love to see the cite.

and really, Americans don't trust the Dems either - no love affair either way. The Dems may win by default as they are "not Bush" and "not Republican"

Actually that would suggest that American's trust the Dems more to do something beyond "stay the course," and "adapt and win."

Rah, Rah, Rah, reed Kick'em in the knee, Rah, Rah, grass Kick'em in...... the other knee.

As the chearleading chant seems to be going.

There has to be a bigger picture strategy beyond just Iraq on the war on terror.

I don't see any Republicans debating those issues.

Meat Grinder or Solutions? The Republicans havent' given the American public anything beyond fear mongering about what might happend if you vote for Democrats.

If the Dems win in Novemeber, I believe it will be because of that, and not how the Republicans are trying to scare everyone back behind their duct-tape and plastic.

I think Cheney on MTP and Bush in his speech the other night made good arguments for staying in Iraq as the only option. That terrorism must be defeated and leaving would only serve to empower our enemies and send our allies the wrong message.

Cheney is right.

Leaving would empower our enemies.

But what you apparently missed in that MTP interview, was the fact that Cheney was inferring a premise based upon a conjecture that because members of the Democratic Party have called for a withdraw is that the Democratic Party would get elected and just abandone the region.

There's not proof for that, and hardly even a theorem.

Just not sure this is the Republican message Alfie - that all dems are traitors - seems to be isolated to me.

Isolated?

Did you not hear/read about Rumsfeld's speech to the VOA a couple of weeks ago?

Rumsfeld Speech on Terrorism Generates Controversy

Isolated?

It's a pattern and strategy, in the last weeks before mid-terms.

They got nothing!

 

[Centexfarmer]

I have to believe the Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than our citizenry. What other possible excuse could they have fo failing to put forth a plan, any plan at all, to fight terrorism or the war in Iraq? They oppose the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorists conversations, detaining the little dears at Club Gitmo and would like to give them Constitutional rights. Where is the disincentive to being a terrorist to a Democrat?

Good Gawd man!

Do you ever play cards?

Do you show your hand after the hand has been dealt.?

Do you honestly believe that it's incompetence on the Democrats part to allow the Republicans to use nothing more than conjecture against the Democrats to defend their bankrupt positions?

Come on Jack! I really took you as someone who was much more intelligent than that.

You being a "libertarian" and all.

For someone who claims to NOT be a Republican you, more than anyone, has the Republican "talking points" down to a science!

 

[chance1]

Well, in all fairness, the Republicans have only used conjecture to infer that if you elect Dems that they'll pull out of Iraq, and the terrorists have won.

It's an issue that deserves some level of debate, but as a Democrat myself, I don't think abandoning Iraq until its Government is on it's own two feet is what anyone within the Democratic Party is advocating.

Part of the debate is being able to measure some degree of success. That is unless you support sending the sons and daughters of Americans into what is increasingly becoming a meat grinder indefinately that is and Iraq and increasingly the mid-east.

We're not having that debate right now.

Politically it would be a huge mistake to pull out of the region entirely. I've NEVER once heard anyone within the Democratic Party introduce that as a solution. If you have, I would love to see the cite.



Actually that would suggest that American's trust the Dems more to do something beyond "stay the course," and "adapt and win."

Rah, Rah, Rah, reed Kick'em in the knee, Rah, Rah, grass Kick'em in...... the other knee.

As the chearleading chant seems to be going.

There has to be a bigger picture strategy beyond just Iraq on the war on terror.

I don't see any Republicans debating those issues.

Meat Grinder or Solutions? The Republicans havent' given the American public anything beyond fear mongering about what might happend if you vote for Democrats.

If the Dems win in Novemeber, I believe it will be because of that, and not how the Republicans are trying to scare everyone back behind their duct-tape and plastic.



Cheney is right.

Leaving would empower our enemies.

But what you apparently missed in that MTP interview, was the fact that Cheney was inferring a premise based upon a conjecture that because members of the Democratic Party have called for a withdraw is that the Democratic Party would get elected and just abandone the region.

There's not proof for that, and hardly even a theorem.



Isolated?

Did you not hear/read about Rumsfeld's speech to the VOA a couple of weeks ago?

Rumsfeld Speech on Terrorism Generates Controversy

Isolated?

It's a pattern and strategy, in the last weeks before mid-terms.

They got nothing!

centex - my thoughts

the "sons and daughters" going to war is an emotional tug that will always tell you "can't go to war"

As for my "isolated" remark, I meant calling Dems traitors. I read Rummy's remarks - don't see traitors - I agree on the "appease" angle. I think it's true. Dialoguing with terrorists is appeasement. Ask the Israelis, they know.

I agree that the Repubs have not crafted much of an argument behind their playbook - other than perhaps Immigration. They are in free fall for sure.

 

[Centexfarmer]

centex - my thoughts

the "sons and daughters" going to war is an emotional tug that will always tell you "can't go to war"

Isn't fear ALSO classified as an emotion?

Aren't Republicans using fear to decry Democrats as "terrorists appeasers" based up their own conjectures?

There's no logic and reason working here in our political process. Heads up!

As for my "isolated" remark, I meant calling Dems traitors. I read Rummy's remarks - don't see traitors - I agree on the "appease" angle. I think it's true. Dialoguing with terrorists is appeasement. Ask the Israelis, they know.

I agree that the Repubs have not crafted much of an argument behind their playbook - other than perhaps Immigration. They are in free fall for sure.

Not sure about the Immigrationt thing that you're refering to.

Actually Bush's stance on Immigration is more appealing to me than anything out there. But we both share the same Congressional District here in Texas, so what do I know?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Oh, you mean the basic, transparent, and obvious collision between the pot and the kettle? Yes, would seem that if talking to terrorists is appeasement, then the US government, by its covert conversations with the insurgents, is indeed a big gooey appeaser.

But the right, the bin-Ladenists, will say, "So what? Michael Moore is fat." And to them, somehow, that makes all the sense in the world!

Don't forget that he doesn't shave regular either! That's important too.

 

[iman]

That's slanderous!
..or is that liable?
Either way it appears to be the truth no matter what you call it.

No, it's Democracy. It's the way things are supposed to work. The majority of voters got pretty much what they wanted, unfortunately.

 

[iman]

Well, I read the poll question too quickly and voted yes in error. Just assume one of the Republicans voted twice (they do that, you know).

Isn't the irony of Boehner's remark the fact that Bush has been a god send (Allah sent?) to the extremist in the Mideast?

Cheney claims that one of the reasons we invaded Iraq is that there was a terrorist living in Iraq and now Al Queda is in control of Anbar province and the Shiite President has been co opted by Iran. Well, that's real progress.

Bush continues to make a hero of Bin Laden and Al Queda by using them as boogie men for campaign purposes and alienates Arabs by keeping the military on Arab soil and giving Israel unqualified support.

And of course there is Afghanistan which has just produced a bumper poppy crop (soon to hit our streets) and the Taliban is in resurgence because we don't have enough troops in country and didn't secure the country to begin with.

Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, all serious problems that we are handicapped in addressing because we are tied down in Iraq and Pakistan.

If the Bush Administration were fifth columnists, double agents for our enemies, they could not have done more harm to this country.

 

[naked gent]

Why do people who accuse the Democrats of being "soft on terrorism" always overlook the fact that the 9/11 attacks occurred during the Bush Administration when Con-dough-leesa Rice was National Security Advisor?

That little fact always seems to escape these "patriots."

Quite right. On 9-11-01 Bush had been president for almost 9 months yet republicans (who usually preach responsbility) somehow believe it was Clinton's fault.

I wonder how long Bush would need to be in office before Clinton could be let off the hook. You would like to think that had the WTC attack occured on 9-11-03 that by then it would be Bush's fault....but you never know.

I've heard republicans blame the current problems with Iran on Jimmy Carter yet since 1980 republicans have occupied the White House 18 out of 26 yrs but somehow its still Carter's fault.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Memo to GOP: For Your Own Good, Stop Equating Opposing War With Supporting Terror

Well, I guess I will choose you to respond to Naked gent as you are one of the only anti-bush posters on this thread that isn't a frothing at the mouth extremist. (Is it always this way here? There are some good posters here, but, geez...do you guys really think the "Bush is responsible for all evil" post are effective? Someone needs to switch to de-caf.)

I could take humbrage with that remark, but since you didn't name names.

I for one don't personally hold Bush responsible "for all evil," just his mediocrity.

The man is the leader of the free world. He commands one of the largest, and most powerful Armed Forces perhaps in the history of the world.

But yet he can't unite his own people on something as crucial as HIS war on terror.

Mediocrity my friend. Mediocrity.

On another post I defended the movie "Path to 9-11"...yea, yea, I know it was a dramatic, therefore, not meant to be taken as a documentary account, but I, and apperently many of the principles involved, who are NOT partisen, think it was a good movie <snip>

Harvey Keitel, the lead in ABC's The Path to 9/11, had some reservations:

Harvey Keitel Voices Concerns about ‘Path to 9/11′

But then, again, he is an "actor" after all. This is how he makes his living. Most folks in that industry, if they want to act again, don't go around biting the hand that feeds them.

bout BOTH the Clinton AND the Bush White House failings to take the terrorist threat seriously. 9-11 didn't happen within the first 9 months of the Bush admin. It began with the first assault on the WTC in 1993.

Yeah it happened with the first year of the Clinton administration.

So, under that logic, can I not assume then that the attacks on the WTC in 1993, was actually Bush 41's fault.

Iran wasn't entirely Carter's fault, but it clearly IS a perfect example of that disasterous and bunglling administration with it's bizaar foriegn policy ideas.

Actually we would probably have to go as far back as the Eisenhower administaration for that one. Remember the Republican WWII General who became President during the fabolous 50's?

Iran's problem began LONG before Carter ever thought about running for public office, and guess which party was in charge when that was going on?:

"The root of the shah's problem is that he was never able to establish his legitimacy as a nationalistic, patriotic leader of Iran. And the reason he wasn't able to do that goes back to how he came into power. In the early 1950s, Iran was under a democratic government and had a fairly popular elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. But Mossadegh ran afoul of the British and Americans for his desire to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. As a result, the CIA and the British secret service collaborated to overthrow him," Kinzer said.

source: http://www.payvand.com/news/04/jan/1116.html

Sadly, history must not be something that is taught in America's school's anymore.

Maybe it has something to do with "No Child Left Behind," teaching our kids how to "take tests," instead of how to think for themselves.

It also pointed out that the different Parties DO view this conflict in different terms.

I would consider that a good thing!

Back to topic....Does anyone think that the Democratic Party, if it captures a solid majority in both houses, if it goes on to win the Presidency in 08' will NOT pull out of Iraq? Either...

This Democrat does not believe that they will "pull out of Iraq."

It's not sound policy. All that the Democratic leadership has demanded an action plan for Iraq. If the Republicans don't have one, then we need to get out.

If you'll recall, our reasons for going in were a lie. Then when the truth came out, we over threw a "tyarannical evil dictator." Which now equates to "nation building," a promise that Bush broke when he said:

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."


source: Once against nation-building, Bush now involved

The Democrats could take everything that Bush stood for when he was running for office, both and 2000, and 2004, and effectively run a campaign using Bush's original foriegn policy ideas!

And stand a much better chance on "national security" and not only that HAVE THE CREDIBILITY in the world that Bush is now lacking.

a. They current majority of Dems must be lying to the Ameircan people, most have declared that thier intintion, or people are trying to have it both ways, (i.e., we WILL pull out, but we still want to be the strong guys on national defense.)

Please give me a quote or a cite of one Democrat who has publicly stated that this will be the defacto policy if they take control of the House of Representatives the November. Just one.

What you've been hearing, actually is the Republican propaganda machine, trying to scare you into voting for them.

In the eyes of the rest of the world we're just imperialists, hypocrites, and liers. I can give you cites, and why we're perceived that way if you like.

I'll allow the remainder of your post to prove me point.

b. If the Dems are honest about "re-deploying our forces to Okinawa" as Mr. Murtha said, than they SHOULD campaign on that. What I don't get about the gist of this thread is that the President and the Republicans seem hell-bent on making Iraq and National Security THE central issue of the campaign. Does the thread author realize that?

c. I hope very much the campaign IS waged with that as the central issue. It IS the major issue facing the country. The Republicans, with all the past faults, have staked out their position and fully intend on running on it.

d. If the Dem position isn't (a.), than what the heck is it?

Many Dems want to be able to oppose the Patriot act, Club Gitmo, (I nicked that), wire tapping terrorist, and treating terrorist like, well, i dunno, TERRORIST! And then turn around and say,,geez, just case we want those who are beheading your loved ones to have ACLU council....geez, it's not like...Just cause we think BU"SH is the REAL enemy of the country...Geezz.

I plan on voting Republican BECAUSE of National Security.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Memo to GOP: For Your Own Good, Stop Equating Opposing War With Supporting Terror

<snip>

I don't blame the President for anything he doesn't deserve.

1. Bad post war planning...YES

2. Bad PR in keeping the public informed...YES

3. Not laying it all on the table to begin with...YES

The President's analysis of the nature of the GLOBAL threat of radical Islam is I think correct. Our need to stay and fight it out in Iraq is correct. The cost of loosing there is correct. The threat to America if we loose is correct.

You and I are in complete agreement here.

Bush's actions have so completely distablized the region, that we have no other alternative than to stay until some measure of success is achieved.

The desire to foster democratic ideas in the islamic world and get them to intergrate into the rest of the world is correct.

I seriously wonder how the remaining Monarchies of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait feel about being replaced with Democracies?

I get this image in my mind of the Saudi Royal family squirming in their seats when Bush starts talking about "bringing democracy to the middle east." You can bet it won't be happening in Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

We've seen what "democratic elections" have brought us in Lebanon, and Iran.

I've yet to here one single intelligent viable Democrat alternative to this except the tiresome Blame Bush above all else crowd.

When have they had the chance?

The Republicans have been so busy telling everyone else what Democrats are going do, that they haven't been able to get a word in edge wise.

The instant, that a Democrat so much as "burps" something remotely sounding like a suggestion, the Republicans take it the furtherst possible conclusion, regardless of how illogical that conclusion is, and runs with it to scare the bejeezus of out their base to get out the vote.

I give the American public more credit than that.

However, the Democratic message will never see the light of day, if everyone still keeps running around like chicken little and parroting "right-wing" talking points.

Where is the honest debate here?

Taking the advice of the title of this thread would be a good start.

IMHO

 

[naked gent]

seapuppy I don't think Bush is evil but he has done some stupid things and while getting rid of Saddam wasn't a fuck-up it also was not worth the cost in blood and money......and given the circumstances there are probably more than a few Iraqi's who would agree.

I honestly don't think Iraq has made us any safer or and less safe. I don't think if we leave anybody will follow us home. I don't think the dems would just pull us out of Iraq if they could and if you think the dems are lying well I think the republicans will never tell the truth that more troops are needed.

I know you're voting for the republicans because of national security but I'm wondering why Rice was asking NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan because the Taliban are making a comeback. Since those are the guys who actually hit us shouldn't Rice be saying we're sending an extra 1000 troops in you guys send some too. Allowing Afghanistan to slide doesn't make me feel more secure and asking other countries to take care of it isn't my idea of national security.

I think the republicans have done a poor job governing and shouldn't be encouraged with re-election. Besides I prefer divided government......we can't be expected to watch them all the time so its best to have them watch each other.