After reading General Franks biography, where he describes the hours before the Iraq war began, I'll take his word on the FACT that those charged with prosecuting this war acknowledged to a man (Generals, included ally Generals) that they had everything they needed to begin, win, and they believed in the plan laid out. I don't put much credence in those Retired Lt. Col. & Generals who were out of the loop and registered their opinions on CNN, paid opinions at that. The fact is that over 350 United States retired Generals and Admirals supported George Bush for reelection in 2004.
Afghanistan is dealing with ancient tribal bullshit, they are not harboring al queda training camps. True, the situation in Afghanistan my never be American style democracy, and I really don't give a shit. The fact that Afghanistan does not harbor terrorist was our intent. Democracy would be a gift from America, if they don't want it, fine, let them go back to the 11th century as long as they don't harbor terrorist!
I will admit that due to the political situation here, the war in Iraq did slow, but now it is cycling up and we will kick some major terrorist ass as we are at this very minute. Will terrorism stop in the region, probably not, it seems to be a religion and culture of death. However, so far, it has stopped terrorism here!
Your "terrorism has increased since 9/11" tripe is not worthy of a rebuttal.
Here's a question to you, how come so many of you anti-Bush guys post with aliases? I'm starting to think there may be just a couple of you with a shit load of names... like the election results!
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?
--------
These are facts, not opinion, it would serve a party of "loyal" opposition well to contemplate them!
... while I think the phrase "most Americans" is misleading and depends on how the question is framed, the piece describes the cultural divide that many seem focused on. The idea of not changing leadership in the middle of a war seems to have receeded.
I don't think cultural issues explain the GOP win. You and I are both old enough to remember the turmoil around Vietnam. It was apparent to lots of people that there were problems around the war and our involvement, yet people continued to "support" the war until a large weight of evidence changed the way things were viewed by the American electorate. We both know (having been there) that you can win the battles and lose the war. That is what I think is happening and will happen in Iraq. Our reasons for invading have been exposed as pretense and we will end up paying for it.
Hopefully, I will be wrong. but I doubt it.
All the best. Harry
-- Modified on 11/10/2004 11:01:35 AM
While we may disagree, your reasoning using the Vietnam War is weak in my opinion. Vietnam was a war fought with extreme political interference. The difference between Johnson, Nixon, Clinton and Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush is that Johnson etal handcuffed the military and Reagan etal approve the plan and let the military execute and prosecute wars. I think the "majority" of the American people will continue to support our efforts in Iraq. Free elections in January, continued advancements in the Iraqi economy will turn the tide in Iraq. I remember several people here laughed at the thought of free elections in Afghanistan, hummm.
We had the North Vietnamese on their heels several times and Johnson, then Nixon ignored Gen. Westmoreland's advice and capitulated... over and over again. Bush won't do that, as GHW didn't, and neither did Reagan.
Furthermore, I am not surprise that you don't see/understand the cultural issues involved in this and all of the elections dating back to 1994. I really hope that the leaders of your party continue to ignore/be ignorant of these issues as well. Have you seen the map of Red/Blue when it is broken down into voting precincts? Not much blue my friend, and it is shrinking every election. And what does the DNC do in 2004? The most liberal Senator and a trial lawyer who couldn't even deliver his own state! And you guys call us stupid! RLMAO
Seating Michael Moore next to Jimmah Carter at the DN Convention was fucking brilliant! Karl Rove couldn't have orchestrated such an act of buffoonery. Now in lieu of the election results, your side is showing their extremely anti-Christian ideology. You think that will work, have at it! lol
BTW, I just finished reading Gen. Tommy Franks biography, "American Soldier", and the guy is fucking brilliant. I think he may be a player in 2008 (remember I said it first).
It must be in the water in Boston, may I suggest a bottled water, but stay away from that Evian french piss, it's obviously worse the the Boston public water.
Always enjoy chatting with you Harry, you are my second favorite liberal, next to my regular squeeze! Oh, try as I might, I can't come up with a third.
The generals told Bush many times he needed more troops in Iraq. 400,000 at least.
Bush ignored them and got us into a counter insurgency conflict.
Elections in Afghanistan has not stopped the counter insurgency there, and it in fact increasing.
The Bush Regime also said the War in Iraq would be over quickly and the Iraqis would welcom the Bush Storm Troopers with open arms. Bush was wrong again.
If you think the insurgents are going to lay down their arms, and be nice as soon as there are elections, you are merely swallowing the Bush REgime delusions hook, line and sinker.
You were told Iraq would turn into a guagmire. And it did.
Terrorism has increased since 9/11, not decreased.
Ashcroft didn't convict one terrorist In the USA. Not ONE!
After reading General Franks biography, where he describes the hours before the Iraq war began, I'll take his word on the FACT that those charged with prosecuting this war acknowledged to a man (Generals, included ally Generals) that they had everything they needed to begin, win, and they believed in the plan laid out. I don't put much credence in those Retired Lt. Col. & Generals who were out of the loop and registered their opinions on CNN, paid opinions at that. The fact is that over 350 United States retired Generals and Admirals supported George Bush for reelection in 2004.
Afghanistan is dealing with ancient tribal bullshit, they are not harboring al queda training camps. True, the situation in Afghanistan my never be American style democracy, and I really don't give a shit. The fact that Afghanistan does not harbor terrorist was our intent. Democracy would be a gift from America, if they don't want it, fine, let them go back to the 11th century as long as they don't harbor terrorist!
I will admit that due to the political situation here, the war in Iraq did slow, but now it is cycling up and we will kick some major terrorist ass as we are at this very minute. Will terrorism stop in the region, probably not, it seems to be a religion and culture of death. However, so far, it has stopped terrorism here!
Your "terrorism has increased since 9/11" tripe is not worthy of a rebuttal.
Here's a question to you, how come so many of you anti-Bush guys post with aliases? I'm starting to think there may be just a couple of you with a shit load of names... like the election results!
... as I come from Massachusetts, all the Republicans I meet are articulate. They have to be to survive. We will continue to disagree, but will do it with some respect.
We will continue to agree on how many of the people that post on the board are interesting and have many worthwhile thoughts.
Harry