[subego]

I'm talking about all the partisan anger for the last few years.

These types of threads get posted every now and again, but over the last few months, with the benefit of hindsight, I think I've been able to peel off most of the layers and am near the center.

I have three observations, that taken together, I think are the key elements that took us down this road.

1) The Republicans viewed the war as apolitical.
2) Contrition seems to put Bush in literal physical pain.
3) The Democrats did not and do not "support" the war. They will tolerate it if we are winning.


The span over which these three mixed so explosively was the period between when the Democrats started to get antsy about the lack of WMD (almost immediately), to the time when it was acknowledged there were no WMD.

Number one prompted the Republicans to vehemently reject the Democrats' restlessness.

Number two, which we all know about now, is easily dismissible as a character flaw. Four years ago, this was a less understood idiosyncrasy. What did his silence mean? We all know what "no comment" means, right? This made the Democrats even more antsy, and they start unloading because...

Number three and number one are mutually exclusive. The war was not sold in such a manner that no WMD was winning. Considering how central the assurances of the existence of WMD were to the selling of the war, I don't think you could have made a concurrent case for no WMD being a win.

So during the most crucial time, the Democrats were allowed to control the debate almost completely. As the situation did not suit them or their constituency, their control of the debate was anything but constructive. Thinking the war to be apolitical, the Republicans denounce this, only making the Democrats want to take it further. All the while, the top is silent, further reinforcing the idea that the Democrats are barking up the right tree.

By the time Bush finally does say something (in a far less contrite manner than the Democrats felt they deserved), it's already too late. The Republicans are "eeevil". the Democrats are willing to mortgage the future to just so they can take a shot at Bush.

Both of these allegations (and many that are less colorful) are ridiculous. These are just too damn easy.

[Doofy]

What happened?

1) Dems weren't in power.
2) Dems are whiney bitches.

That just about sums it up.

[subego]

Too damn easy count: 1

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What happened?

1) Dems weren't in power.
2) Dems are whiney bitches.

That just about sums it up.

I would suggest that whiny bitches are rampant on all sides of the political spectrum.

I think it's just you're perspective that when Republicans bitch it's righteous indignation, and when Democrats bitch it's whining. I say it's ALL whining

[Nicko]

America is so bad at winning wars, it makes one wonder why they start so many.

[vmarks]

Perhaps the 'too damn easy' options are the unintended consequence of the intended ones.

For example, I have had people I've known for years in my community tell me with a straight face "Republicans don't think they're evil." Which implies that of course, they are.

That is to say, there are possibly 30% of the country which believes such a thing. I made that number up. Could be less, doubtful to be more. What is the sum of unique members of MoveOn, DailyKos, and DemocraticUnderground?

Likewise, Democrat actions, whether they are shots at Bush or encouraging support and dialogue with terrorists ...

Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary to President George W. Bush and a member of the RJC Board of Directors, wrote in protest to former President Jimmy Carter, who accused Israel of launching an "unjustified attack on Lebanon." In an interview in Der Spiegel, Carter said Israel lacked "any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."


Fleischer wrote:
...Mr. President, your words are music to Hezbollah’s ears and your message is a blow to long-term peace.
Just as you underestimated the threat of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, you underestimate the threat of radical Islam today. Your condemnation of Israel, the victim, only encourages Hezbollah, the attacker, to bide its time and attack again.

Ahmed Barakat, a member of Hezbollah’s central council, last week told the Qatari newspaper as-Watan that "Today Arab and Muslim society is reasonably certain that the defeat of Israel is possible and that the countdown to the disappearance of the Zionist entity in the region has begun. The triumph of the resistance is the beginning of the death of the Israeli enemy."

I was raised a Democrat but I changed parties in 1982 because I believed your policies and the nuclear freeze movement invited increased Soviet militarism and adventurism. President Reagan's military build-up and credible threat of the use of force helped bring about the demise of Communism and brought freedom and a better life to hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe. It also secured a lasting peace.

I'm sorry to see you articulate about Hezbollah and its aggression the same weak world-view that encouraged Soviet aggression. As Ronald Reagan showed us, peace through strength is the only formulation understood by those bent on destruction.

I understand your longing for peace and your fond hope that Hezbollah can be reasoned with. However, when you call Israel’s defense "an attack", when you call what is justified "unjustified", and when you call morality immoral, I conclude that the pro-defense, strong foreign policy lessons of the 70s and 80s remain unacceptable to you. Also, when you criticize Israel for targeting so-called "civilian" areas in Beirut and other areas where Hezbollah hides its operations, the result would be - if Israel listened to you - the creation of safe havens from which more violence and rocket attacks would be planned and launched.

Sadly, Hezbollah today is planning its next war. For the sake of peace, Israel deserves your praise, not your condemnation.

Sincerely,
L. Ari Fleischer

And Fleischer isn't the first Democrat to become a Republican- some of the more notable bloggers, like Charles Johnson, started out as dyed in the wool Democrats, and became Republican/Libertarians. I'm also pretty sure there is some reverse movement as well, but I do not know of any examples.

Or Congressman John Dingell - D - MI refuses to say that he's opposed to HizbAllah instead insisting that “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel” in the current conflict. According to his remarks, the U.S. should negotiate with “both sides” to stop the violence.

It is outrageous that a member of the United States House of Representatives would refuse to denounce Hezbollah, an organization on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups that is responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group except al-Qaeda.

So, there is some justification for the notion that Democrats will do anything, support anything, mortgage their future (all our futures) by giving comfort to terrorists in order to take a shot at Bush.

Still, that isn't their intended goal. They don't intend to mortgage all of our futures, they just want to take that shot at Bush.

Mortgaging our future is the unintended consequence.

[marden]

Dad goes to work the field and bring home game and protect the kith & kin in the homestead.

Mom tends the home and all in it.

Dad recognized a threat to the homestead and took action. Mom put on pants and tried to tell Dad how to do his job.

Chaos resulted, screwing up the homestead and sabotaging Dad's efforts to keep the homestead safe.

Mom began having tea with the cattle rustlers.

Dad is too kind hearted to do anything about it. Dad begins wondering if he is P-whipped.

The kids choose sides between Dad and Mom.

Family Feud.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

W. T. F.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Perhaps the 'too damn easy' options are the unintended consequence of the intended ones.

Being "eeevil" or "wanting to mortgage the future" are motivations, not consequences.

That's my whole point.

It really, really matters why someone does something.

For instance...

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Or Congressman John Dingell... Still, that isn't their intended goal. They don't intend to mortgage all of our futures, they just want to take that shot at Bush.

Well, I can only go on what you gave me, but why is his attitude necessarily indicative of wanting to take a shot at Bush. Have we lost the ability to have our own ignorant opinions?

It saddens me, but Israel is not really that popular over here, and it hasn't ever really been that popular. Most people don't get it. This has nothing to do with Bush.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Dad goes to work the field and bring home game and protect the kith & kin in the homestead.

Mom tends the home and all in it.

Dad recognized a threat to the homestead and took action. Mom put on pants and tried to tell Dad how to do his job.

Chaos resulted, screwing up the homestead and sabotaging Dad's efforts to keep the homestead safe.

Mom began having tea with the cattle rustlers.

Dad is too kind hearted to do anything about it. Dad begins wondering if he is P-whipped.

The kids choose sides between Dad and Mom.

Family Feud.

Yup.

It's really sad how many relationships go sour because the man never learns how to say "yes, dear".

P.S. When was Dad being too kind hearted? I don't think Mom was aiming the ashtray at his "kind heart".

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

W. T. F.

[mac128k-1984]

I think politics in general of taken an ugly turn these few years. Its not a democrat thing or a republican think, I think its both sides. Its even spread beyond the candidates to regular people. People lash out on the opposing side with so much vitriol, it makes it difficult to have an intelligant debate/conversation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I think politics in general of taken an ugly turn these few years. Its not a democrat thing or a republican think, I think its both sides. Its even spread beyond the candidates to regular people. People lash out on the opposing side with so much vitriol, it makes it difficult to have an intelligant debate/conversation.

I like, sooooo suck at naming threads.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by subego 

I like, sooooo suck at naming threads.

yeah but its short and to the point

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I like, sooooo suck at naming threads.

I can help with that.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by subego 

Being "eeevil" or "wanting to mortgage the future" are motivations, not consequences.

That's my whole point.

It really, really matters why someone does something.

For instance...



Well, I can only go on what you gave me, but why is his attitude necessarily indicative of wanting to take a shot at Bush. Have we lost the ability to have our own ignorant opinions?

It saddens me, but Israel is not really that popular over here, and it hasn't ever really been that popular. Most people don't get it. This has nothing to do with Bush.

The fact that he's putting Israel on the same playing field as the second most damaging terrorist group to US soldiers and civilians is outrageous.

Doing so is anti-Israel (ok, ignorant and deadly stupid, but ok) and also anti-US (mortgaging the future), but lastly, anti-war-on-terror (anti-Bush.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

I can help with that.

Thank you, but with some things, it we just have to find our own way.

Call it reinventing the wheel if you like.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The fact that he's putting Israel on the same playing field as the second most damaging terrorist group to US soldiers and civilians is outrageous.

Doing so is anti-Israel (ok, ignorant and deadly stupid, but ok) and also anti-US (mortgaging the future), but lastly, anti-war-on-terror (anti-Bush.)

The key is the difference between saying someone's policy is X, Y, and Z, and saying that person is X, Y, and Z.

As laborious as it may be, the former needs to be shown the error in their thinking. The latter, dying of thirst in the desert, doesn't deserve your pee.

It sorta alters the framework of the entire argument.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Thank you, but with some things, it we just have to find our own way.

Call it reinventing the wheel if you like.

Don't say I never offered to help or try to cooperate.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The fact that he's putting Israel on the same playing field as the second most damaging terrorist group to US soldiers and civilians is outrageous.

Doing so is anti-Israel (ok, ignorant and deadly stupid, but ok) and also anti-US (mortgaging the future), but lastly, anti-war-on-terror (anti-Bush.)

The neo-con plan for world domination is being deconstructed and Bolton is its latest victim. Get over it, there is no so called 'war on terror'.

[subego]

I want to throw in an aside WRT Democrats' criticisms "sending the wrong message" and "aiding the terrorists".

Let's say we have a message, a really direct one, like "do this and we will put you in prison for the rest of your life."

Have you ever noticed that there's a whole mess of people who miss this message?

Makes you wonder how many of the indirect messages get picked up by someone 6,000 miles away who doesn't have a toilet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Get over it, there is no so called 'war on terror'.

So, we're in Iraq because...

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, we're in Iraq because...

Good question. Seems the Bush Admin doesn't quite know either as they are now pleading with Iraqis to stop killing each other. http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ATURE_americas

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, we're in Iraq because...

Because we're a self-centered society that can't stop slurping at the trough of ME Oil, and we thought we had a plan to ensure a long term supply of it, but we obviously didn't understand the region and the various factions that have had long animosities towards each other. We also have never cared about what others think, as long as we get our way, and this is going to be the first of many future times when we don't get our way. Hopefully, we'll wake up and realize that we are not the ultimate end all and be all on planet earth; if we don't we'll continue to see what's really starting to happen, and that is the marginalization of the U. S. as a "superpower." China and India are more than capable of taking our spot as the world's preeminent power. The fact that many such countries own huge stakes in our economy ought to be a wake up call, but I'm beginning to wonder if we're smart enough to see and hear it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Democrats are quite simply miserable people who lack any sense of humor - and are offended when they see happy people...who they believe must be stupid because the world is evil and people suck.

[moodymonster]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sweden aims for oil-free economy

[subego]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Because we're a self-centered society that can't stop slurping at the trough of ME Oil...

Things seem to point more towards wanting to kick some ass in the wake of 9/11.

The oil is a bonus.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Democrats are quite simply miserable people...

Too damn easy count: 2

[tie]

Originally Posted by subego 

By the time Bush finally does say something (in a far less contrite manner than the Democrats felt they deserved), it's already too late. The Republicans are "eeevil". the Democrats are willing to mortgage the future to just so they can take a shot at Bush.

Both of these allegations (and many that are less colorful) are ridiculous. These are just too damn easy.

I think you are underestimating the seriousness of the war. Best estimates are that it is going to cost the US $1-2 trillion. That's a ton of money. There are also perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead because of the war, and thousands of Americans. And finally, we are less safe than before the war, since we are having to sit still as North Korea and Iran develop and test nuclear weapons -- and terrorism has disappeared from the government's priority list.

None of the consequences of the war are too easy. It is an enormous disaster, and it will have huge negative consequences for our country and the world. It will have political consequences for the next twenty years.

I enjoyed your post and don't mean to draw this thread off topic. But I think you are over-emphasizing Bush's political mistakes, and under-emphasizing his more serious mistakes. Not only is it too late now for Bush to make nice politically, more importantly it is probably too late for him to fix things in Iraq after "staying the course" directly toward Iraq's ruin.

[subego]

Originally Posted by tie 

I enjoyed your post and don't mean to draw this thread off topic. But I think you are over-emphasizing Bush's political mistakes, and under-emphasizing his more serious mistakes. Not only is it too late now for Bush to make nice politically, more importantly it is probably too late for him to fix things in Iraq after "staying the course" directly toward Iraq's ruin.

I think a lot of the serious mistakes were vastly compounded by the political.

One of the key reasons I believe he didn't send more troops after the **** started to hit the fan is he had already politically boxed himself into a corner with the double whammy of a botch (WMD) and over-promise ("Mission Accomplished").

Another factor, which straddles both the political and serious, is that sending in more troops would have been a repudiation of the Rumsfeld doctrine, so Rumsfeld was very disinclined to do so.

In hindsight, Bush needed a few spies in the Pentagon, as it was, the Pentagon had a spy in the White House. Cheney.

Bush got steamrolled.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

Dad goes to work the field and bring home game and protect the kith & kin in the homestead.

Mom tends the home and all in it.

Dad recognized a threat to the homestead and took action. Mom put on pants and tried to tell Dad how to do his job.

Chaos resulted, screwing up the homestead and sabotaging Dad's efforts to keep the homestead safe.

Mom began having tea with the cattle rustlers.

Dad is too kind hearted to do anything about it. Dad begins wondering if he is P-whipped.

The kids choose sides between Dad and Mom.

Family Feud.

If you had a wife, would you let her go work while you tend home?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

America is so bad at winning wars, it makes one wonder why they start so many.

America can win any damned war it wants to--anytime.

We won the Iraq war easily, but we're not fighting a war any longer and that's the problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

America can win any damned war it wants to--anytime.

We won the Iraq war easily, but we're not fighting a war any longer and that's the problem.

It depends on how you define "win". We shouldn't parade our feathers around too proudly that we overwhelmed the Iraqis militarily, because this was certainly not a surprise in the slightest.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

We won the Iraq war easily

Not quite. We went in with an extraordinarily small force. Even considering how weak the Iraqi army was, there was a fair amount of risk. In Desert Storm the odds were truly overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

but we're not fighting a war any longer and that's the problem.

Bingo! If you were working for the Pentagon you would have been fired by now.

Aside from the (goofy) implications of what we call what's going on in Iraq, I think the reality of the current situation is that Iraq is in the middle of the mother of all gang wars.

You fight gangs with cops, not infantry.

[moodymonster]

it's getting better, don't you know:

USATODAY.com - Cheney says Iraq situation is improving

btw gang war is a good analogy

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you had a wife, would you let her go work while you tend home?

Hell yeah. In fact I'd insist on it. It's hard enough to juggle 3 girlfriends while I'm sitting on my ass doing nothing. If I had to tend my home, too, then I'd need a live-in maid instead of the twice-a-week service I currently use.

[besson3c]

Cheney, Mr. "Last Throws".

Credibility: 0.


Plus, he just looks stupid. Even Spliffdaddy looks better than him.

[Spliffdaddy]

and that's sayin something

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What happened?

1) Dems weren't in power.
2) Dems are whiney bitches.

That just about sums it up.

Not quite that simple. Add "the Dems controlled all media for several generations" and you might get somewhere. Let me restate that as "the LEFT controls the media." Sensationalism pays the big bucks.

[subego]

I was negligent with this one.

Originally Posted by Nicko 

The neo-con plan for world domination is being deconstructed and Bolton is its latest victim. Get over it, there is no so called 'war on terror'.

Too damn easy count: 3

Originally Posted by finboy 

Not quite that simple. Add "the Dems controlled all media for several generations" and you might get somewhere. Let me restate that as "the LEFT controls the media." Sensationalism pays the big bucks.

Too damn easy count: 4

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not quite. We went in with an extraordinarily small force. Even considering how weak the Iraqi army was, there was a fair amount of risk. In Desert Storm the odds were truly overwhelming.

I still think it's fair to say we won easily. I don't think there was any risk of Hussein's military defeating us, to say the least.

I should amend one of my original statements. I said America "could" win any war it wanted any time, but I should exclude nuclear wars. We all know the 80's classic War Games that nobody wins a nuclear war.

Other than that, though...

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you had a wife, would you let her go work while you tend home?

Let's just say, if I had been K-Fed, Britney would have left the house every morning with a nourishing bag lunch and a nice hot dinner waiting for her every night when she came home.

A dinner of hot BEEF.

But when MAN'S WORK arose she'd have to sit down and know her place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

A dinner of hot BEEF.

With a lot of gravy, I'm sure...

But when MAN'S WORK arose she'd have to sit down and know her place.

What the hell is man's work?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden 

But when MAN'S WORK arose she'd have to sit down and know her place.

I'm gussing your "Man's Work" includes bed sheets and burning crosses.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

With a lot of gravy, I'm sure...

What the hell is man's work?

Anyone who has to ask...

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm gussing your "Man's Work" includes bed sheets and burning crosses.

No, those guys are hiding under your bed.

(For anyone itching to cite me for this post under the guise of believing it an attack, I think your efforts will come to naught. olePigeon has a trademarkable phrase when dealing with abe or mojo or marden where he says the terrorists that any of us are concerned with are "hiding under the bed." So, my comment is a non-musical paean to him.)

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was negligent with this one.



Too damn easy count: 3



Too damn easy count: 4

Hehe I couldn't resist. But hey, I'm not american, so its ok for me to say it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

Anyone who has to ask...

Seriously, what do you mean? I want to hear your theory on the roles of genders and their rigidity.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Seriously, what do you mean? I want to hear your theory on the roles of genders and their rigidity.

Let's put it this way, if the woman has bigger balls she can defend the homestead.

There. Happier that way?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

Let's put it this way, if the woman has bigger balls she can defend the homestead.

There. Happier that way?

Defend? From what? What needs defending? A gun wouldn't suffice?