From the Wall Street Journal (subscription only, so I’ll excerpt at length):
Joseph Lieberman’s primary loss might be a satisfying victory for the partisan extremes, but it is a sharp blow to bipartisan efforts to prevail in a global war that may span generations.
The political gamesmanship is heard by the troops on the front lines. Many in the media tend to portray our warriors as mindless pawns who are unaffected by debates on the home front. This misperception is largely a result of troops unwilling to openly talk politics with the press. But as American servicemen who together served three tours in Iraq, we can attest to the discouragement those in battle endure in the face of a domestic politics that has a seemingly singular focus on controversy and negativism.
Our troops are witness to the 24-hour news cycles, as American television is beamed into the “chow halls.” Military base Internet portals also provide access to sound-bites from Washington in real time—a phenomenon that did not exist in earlier wars. […] Ultimately, the wartime politics of partisan destruction is corrosive to troop morale.
Sen. Lieberman made it clear that a nation cannot effectively fight a war by looking in the rearview mirror. Too often it appears we are fighting a war among ourselves instead of against the enemy.
This is all the more reason why Joe Lieberman is needed now as an independent voice to represent America’s troops and their interests abroad in the war on terror. This is not to suggest that our troops do not welcome healthy debate about the direction of the war, or serious accountability of our leaders. But supporting our troops, understanding the stakes of the mission, and still constructively questioning military and civilian leadership is a difficult balance to strike—and one on which Joe Lieberman has repeatedly risen to the occasion. This should be the model. Our national security agenda must never be borne out of divisive domestic campaigns that champion partisan vindictiveness. Semper Fi.
Quips Terry Hastings, who sent along the link:
I wonder if the media will grant them absolute moral authority?
To which the answer is, of course not.
Absolute moral authority is only granted to those who care about the soldiers. Clearly these soldiers don’t care about themselves, or else they’d be looking to climb out of the quagmire that is Iraq and embrace the correct position—that held by Ned Lamont, Jack Murtha, and the anti-war alliance of progressives and paleocon isolationists.
Who care about the troops. So much so, in fact, that they refuse to listen to the stupid babykilling hick jarheads. Because let’s face it: if anybody is going to look out for these imbeciles, it’s gotta be those who recognize their imbecility and are willing to advocate on their behalf. Which, that’s just what progressives do. It’s the cross they bear for being so much better than everyone else.
Don’t hate them because they love you.
I wonder every day how a bunch of fucking ignorant assholes came to have such a loud voice.
This post nails it, Jeff. Thanks again for being an oasis of sanity in a sea of shreiking morons.
Who hasn’t been able to “feel the love” from the left for some time now?
One reason for the media’s blindness is that they hold the microphone. At least, they think they do. We’re coming to take it away.
Great post, Jeff.
With everything from the ruckus in Lebanon, to this latest foiled plot to blow up airplanes… I find it harder and harder to be around any of my colleagues outside of work… or even some friends.
That any people in the creative arts in Boston might not be progressive/liberal is something they never consider….. evidenced by the comments made at parties or in small talk moments.
The last ‘graph of that post sums it up so well.
TW = run
You can run but you can’t hide.
Yeah, but see, by even writing this post you are squashing the right of the anti-war crows to dissent, and in any case what right do you even have to opine on the subject since you are a chickenhawk. The very fact that you continue to support this war for oil/war of choice/war to enrich white men/war to kill puppies and kittens, proves that you just have no regard for all living things, and what’s more the fact that you would point out the damage the rhetoric might have on the murderous killbots proves that you are in fact evil. Which is a concept that doesn’t exist, but I’ll use it for now to ‘speak to you in your language’.
Jeff, I just don’t understand why you won’t just listen to your moral betters and get with the program.
Jeff, please, they aren’t “progressives”, they are reactionaries of the worst stripe.
The other day someone (Michele Malkin???) called them paleo-dems.
Sounds good to me.
That “love” sure expresses itself in interesting forms. Particularly the “babykiller” line, and the “soldiers as terrorists” line.
If the soldiers are terrorists, why the hell do they want to bring them back over here? Oh, that’s right, they LOVE terrorists. I forgot. Silly me.
As far as supporting the morale of the troops, I would suggest that they write (TW
letters, but I would not want the troops to be depressed by reading their drivel.
Who gave these draftees television privileges?
TW: placed—I wasn’t the one who placed them in this position—Buch did!
Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend.
TW: True story.
I thought this would be appropriate to the topic.
For those who care.
My, you sound bitter.
Right.
But bitter.
I’ve come to loathe the deep thinkers of the progressive left that can’t seem to get it out of their heads that if there just wasn’t a George Bush(and by extension Israel)then ‘they’ wouldn’t have a beef against us. What is it about western culture that they(the lefties) hate so much?
It makes no difference whether you hate GW or not, we’re committed over there. Those men and women are ours. They aren’t republican soldiers or democratic soldiers.I’m not about to tell the people who are doing the heavy lifting that I think the couch would look better over here.
I think it comes down things like honor and respect. If you have those qualities or admire those qualities in others you know what they are. But if you don’t, no amount explaining will get you an understanding of what they are.
It was neo-neocon.
Just when they think they got the answers, I change the questions.
If the so-called Progressives’ only goal was not to fight, they could just ignore the war and go on hanging out at Starbucks all day. But their goal is to have the power to enforce their will, to make the United States conform to their ethic. And their ethic is full of self-loathing and despair. Basically, it’s an ugly worldview.
Consequently, they have to couch their anti-war argument in terms of concern for the troops themselves; otherwise, everyone can see their will to power all too clearly.
I agree: the so-called Progressives need another name that reflects their goals more accurately. I’m tired of always having to write, ‘so-called Progressives’. They’re most assuredly not liberals and, although they vote Democrat, they’re not traditional American democrats. What should prevent us from giving them a defining name? They try to define us at every turn.
I’d call them ‘Marxist-Lite’ right now for want of a better term.
Hey, I’m just a retired babykiller—I’m too stupid to grasp nuance. And I guess we breed true—my kid is patrolling in the Sunni Triangle now, and he’s too dumb to recognize that he needs a Caring Progressive to think for him, too.
TW: Who needs armed forces when we have progressives?
I don’t hate them because they love me, Jeff; I hate them because they’re beautiful.
Your penultimate paragraph reminds me of a discussion I was having with a Progressive once, online.
She was using an alleged (don’t know if it was real or not, or planned at one point but never happened, or actually happened) cut in some sort of Veteran’s benefits to attack the President for Hating Our Troops.
And immediately afterward attacked the troops as being mindless killbots who she had no respect for.
She left in a hurry once the dissonance between these positions was pointed out.
(Pity, really. She’s not stupid or anything – just not thinking critically about politics.)
I was the recipient of a group email the other day which purported to inform all about “what is really going on” in regards to our gov’t, Israel and Lebanon.
I simply asked a few questions of the person who’d sent it out.
What did I get in return?…
Excerpts…
“how dumb does a person have to be to insist on examples that his government is not telling him the truth? that stance alone is fatally flawed.”
“you know the US media is government controlled to large extent.”
“and if this is your attempt at “intellectually silencing” open opinion…”
…any attempts to besmirch his (Chomsky) legacy by amateurs only goes to prove the ignorance of those perpetrators’ lack of understanding.”
I’d sent this emailer Jeff’s interview with the Gnome, for giggles.
What boggles the mind is how many of these radicals are out there.
They support the troops like a wifebeater supports his spouse. He loves her with his fist.
Personally, I witnessed what I thought was the worst of it – the 2004 election. All of us were fascinated and repelled at the same time. Funny thing is, while most of us officers kept our gobs firmly shut – the NCOs were quite vocal about their, uh, thoughts. There sure were an awful lot of f-bombs lobbed toward the televisions in the DFAC, heh heh.
I remember how bewildered the Afghans were – “how could you not keep your President”? One interpreter told me he could get 26 million more votes if the Afghans were asked… Let us just say their relief was palatable, when Senator Kerry conceded. (And one of my favorite RAF officers, when told the news, simply looked up and said “Right. I guess you’ll be staying to finish the job then…” and went back to work.)
Major John–
I think you mean “palpable,” rather than “palatable.” On the other hand, Maalox are palatable. Barely.
Effort. And the effort of principle.
Ironically, the casualties would be brown people. Well, and Joos, but you know, primarily brown people.
The paleo-left (love that term) are simply lazy; lazy in much the same way—surprise!—that Nazism was before it, back during the prior systemic intolerance within the last hundred years.
The American Left is not only delusional, they’re simply lazy (think: State = nanny) and now evil. They hate.
Not sure where I found this, but this sums it up for me:
Posted by JLS | permalink
on 08/11 at 11:47 AM
Gracias.
I disagree. I believe we ought to retain civilian control over the military.
Great citations, 6Gun.
Just the other day I was asking a friend if there was something of Arendt’s “banality of evil” in Chomsky. I was uncomfortable in saying that he is/was evil, but I feel comfortable illustrating how he’d given vocal support to some murderous regimes/movements over time.
One of the reasons I like your blog so much, Jeff, is that you manage to eloquently and efficiently express what I am thinking. I sit down to write what I think and it takes me so long and it is so painful and I edit every single word and nothing ever gets published.
You defined a ‘progressive’ so well; someone who feigns offense on behalf of another, usually the other being someone who can speak very well for themselves. The artificial nature of their offense is revealed as they quickly turn on the “redneck trailer trash” they claim to represent with unions and ‘living wages’ and the “baby killers” they claim to represent with demands for quick returns home.
If I associated with progressives I would advise them thusly: if you want our men and women home, help them accomplish their mission. When the mission is accomplished, they’ll be home. End of story. Take heart: our soldiers are intelligent, courageous and able to speak for themselves.
TW: At least it didn’t take me months to type this comment.
Oddly, we are not in complete disagreement, David. Neither the military nor the civilian sector should have exclusive control over the military. Either extreme is bad.
*And one of my favorite RAF officers, when told the news, simply looked up and said “Right. I guess you’ll be staying to finish the job then…†and went back to work.) *
The brits are extremely high on my cool list at the moment.
And somebody was saying we shouldn’t have that, where?
I think you may have posted in the wrong thread….or on the wrong blog for that matter.
I think once we begin speculating about the political philosophy driving these lunatics, we’re asking the wrong question. For the most part, they have no philosophy, have not reflected on the ideas motivating them, and can point to no coherent intellectual heritage for their political impressions.
The reason I say this is that I was once one of them–though not nearly so delusional, I hope–and I suspect the same is true for a number of readers of this site. Self-described “progressives” are disproportionately youthful, and their movement bears many of the worst characteristics of that age group: near-total ignorance combined with hubris, the conviction that their moral hunches provide them with special insight denied to their (corrupt and/or ignorant) elders, and the confusion of blind conformism and idol-worship with intelligent dissent. Their political feelings are the product of an ideologically monolithic education combined with (an otherwise healthy) individuating rebellion against mommy and daddy. Sound familiar? Anyone? Bueller?
What I remember of myself at that age was that I wanted to be intelligent and independent-minded. Naturally, I looked to others for guidance in this task, and what I found was that all the other intelligent and independent-minded kids thought pretty much the same thoughts, blamed our society for everything bad, read Chomsky without ever checking his citations, and generally struck a cool, all-knowing pose. It was the easy route to sophistication, and it came with the bonus of experiencing a constant warm bath of reinforcement from most of my contemporaries. It took several years of travel and employment, an engineering education, lots of reading, parenthood, and 9/11 to snap me out of it.
Fortunately, most of them will grow out of it as many of us did, and some of them will end up here. (I think actus is on that road already, though he does fight it, poor boy.) Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait. Doubly unfortunately, there’ll be legions of pre-grownups ready to take their place as long as the public schools and universities are filled with teachers dedicated to brainwashing the young in the name of “social justice”. So there’s no good answer, other than “Force them to grow up more quickly”, and good luck with that.
But I don’t think we should confuse ourselves by searching for their philosophy. They’ve got nothing, just feelings disguised as opinions.
– What David really means is the hard Left wants control over the military. The executive calls the shots, but the executive is Bush, and therefore we need to watch him like a hawk because he’s not “us” so he can’t be trusted.
– They want to return to the heady days of non-military reaction to attacks by the Islamofascists, ala Clinton. These people that are simply afraid to confront the extremists are doubly problematical. On the one hand they shy away from confrontation, thereby embolding the enemy that is bred and raised in a strong horse/weak horse culture that accepts only aggression and power by force, and on the other they are dedicated to obstruction and vehement opposition to any success in overcoming those same enemies.
– The post modern legacy of a once thought dead ideology, a strange mix of Marxism and Fascist anti-defense, rearing its cowardly head again in our time. If they have their way a great many people will die, as history has shown, time after time. You cannot appease aggression. The Left continues to try to seduce the Western world into global suicide.
Heard a cool story about a former RAF pilot, who was flying a commercial jet into a German airport (I’m thinking it was Hamburg, but can’t remember for sure.) Apparently they have some special rules there, which the air traffic controller was eager to impress upon the pilot, so he asked if the pilot had ever been there before. The pilot replied that he had, some years before, but hadn’t actually landed, at the airport, you see.
TW: That seemed to help the ATC get into the right frame of mind.
This should turn your stomachs:
Never mind whether or not we should be in Iraq, this administration cannot be trusted to bend to reality when it conflicts with their ideology. When lives are on the line, that’s intolerable.
My, that is damning, David.
You’ve certainly convinced me! Thanks!
So I take it you think the “chickenhawk” smear is a bunch of crap, and will tear into the next person you hear uttering it?
Wow, David. You seem really adamant that this administrations can’t be trusted. Yet, your only response to this feeling is posting a comment about it on a blog that usally fall on the opposite side of your view points….
Do you piss into the wind a lot? Just curious.
Progressives = ChickenPussies
Uh, david, your quote tries to blame Rumsfeld for a behavior of Franks. It’s also unsourced, which is to say “how do we know you didn’t pull it out of your ass”?
Beyond that, you (or your alternate ego “David”) just said that you believe in civilian control of the military. Taking your quote as true (though without a source, it’s only a hypothetical) it’s the job of officers at the level of Franks to turn civilian direction (whether it’s in the form of PowerPoint slides or typewritten memos) into operational orders. If they don’t, that’s a failure on their part, not on the civilian leadership part. The SecDef doesn’t write the operational plans; the SecDef advises the President and the President orders what he wants to happen.
Ya might wanna read up on that “civilian control of the military” thing. You seem to have a problem when the civilians aren’t sufficiently military.
“Who hasn’t been able to “feel the love†from the left for some time now?”
That ain’t love. And they never even leave a tip….
Hooah, hooah!
What these pols don’t realize is not only that in Iraq we get a steady diet of CNN and FoxNews in the chowhall but that we also don’t forget who are friends or our enemies are. We will swiftboat your asses!
the wall street journal makes an enormous presumption.
that is, that in a democracy, we all must agree on the exact course to best thwart and eradicate terrorism.
the principles of democracy do not selectively apply to the “issues” that one side decides that they do. they apply to all of the issues of a nation.
one is how best to thwart and eradicate terrorism.
while a handful of democrats (as do some republicans) believe that the threat has been exaggerated, for the most part this is a gross mischaracterization of the democratic party.
the problem (and the democrats have contributed to this by not spinning the same repetitive sound bite over and over) is that disagreement with how to best accomplish this is being mischaracterized by what I presume is your party (in fact, this site seems extremely far right, though I imagine by the nature of being extremely far right you perceive yourself to be moderate, correct?).
again, disagreement with how best to accomplish this is being grossly mischaracterized by the right as demcorats being “soft” on terrorism.
the question then becomes, and I ask it here as well, why does the right, and in particular, the far right, have to mischaracterize (and I believe you really believe what you are saying) its opponents positions in order to continue to support its point of view? given how commonly this occurs, this seems like a fair question.
there are a LOT of democrats who believe that international, sovereignless, terrorism poses a grave danger. That we are NOT doing enough to combat it, and that we are doing the wrong things.
Just as one example, perhaps a bit more ambiguous than most (though clearly people on both sides each see it clearly, though in opposite terms), take Iraq. Yes, a democratic Iraq would be a piece to a larger puzzle. but since Iraq was largely secular, contained, unconnected to 9/11 (facts, not spin, are what we are talking here. by the links to (9/11 made by Hadley, etc. the “U.S.” was connected), a strategic, rather than essential, piece.
thus, from a strategic perspective, the issue is very different. plusses and minuses. these have been repeatedly addressed elsewhee, and so do not need to be repeated here. thus, the idea that the 300 plus billion, sacrifice of our soldier’s lives, anti americanism that it has produced (and this is worsened by the fact that we have shortsightedly done a POOR job explaining Iraq to the world) and risk of it devolving into what it was before the action—a breeding ground for terrorists, or simple long term warring factions between ethnic groups paint a cogent argument for not going in the first place, for making it far more international in scope (my suggestion), and doing more to transistion out much earlier on.
YET the point is, somehow, these same very reasonable points, simply by one element of our political systemt, are being turned into this gross mischaracterization that those who hold them, are, thus, SOMEHOW SOFT ON THE “WAR ON TERRORISM.”
this is not being honest. with one’s audience. with oneself. in fact, it is misleding both onesellf and one’s audience to believe this.
cogent arguments to follow a certain strategy are one thing. but the common mischaracterizations that seem to invariably flow, are quite another. why so much of the latter?
minor side point. your last sugestion:
question: can you get wine out of water? water out of stone? because you seem able to accomplish that with logic.
somehow, and notice how you have managed this, you spin concern for our troops into something negative. and somehoe you spin our troops required loyalty, into a supposed satrical slur against them, which you really mean those that argue that our responsibility as a country and as a government is to put them in the best possible situations we can.
as for Iraq, a questionable strategic call with arguments on both sides, I ask you if you agree with the following test, suggested by a republican veteran.
maybe in October, when we expected U.N. support (for strategic help, for a much larger force and to keep our troops available for elsehwere, and for the most important aspect of all—perception) and we thought Iraq had WMD, but in March, when both were no longer. (On WMD, it was still an open question. but the inspectors, first time there in four years, and first “real” inspections in many more said, “hold off.”)
in March, did Iraq pass that test? I pose that as an honest question. I don’t know the answer. For me, as stated, I thought it was strategically misguided, while at the same time I would be doing a LOT more to combat and thwart terrorism.
Our soldiers, meanwhile, are being asked what to do. to make the argument about troop support being blind support for our government’s policies (easier to say when you agree with them) rather than about actual troop support (such as getting them the very best protective equipment while in combat, which, outrageously, for a few years under this administration our troops in battle did not have) seems a way, once again, to avoid the substantive arguments.
(several examples on this thread do this as well..for example someone characterizing democrats as calling soldiers terrorists, or babykillers. this is so out of touch with the overwhelming majority democrat position that it is not funny, and to the extent a few have expressed this or similar, it has almost always been arrived at via a distortion of what was actually said. a classic example is noted in the link above, where Ken Mehlman knowingly mischaracterized what John Murtha said. again, why? it is also interesting to note that R Rep. John Kline said the same things Murha said. why wasn’t he attacked? )
I’m not saying that facts are omitted, or mischaracteritions engaged in, to play games, or manipulate people. but to avoid them in a way to have to avoid asking oneself the difficult questions. what are some of those who disagree with me really saying, and could they have some valid points as well?
Aw, c’mon, guys. David’s just focused (like a laser) on the stuff that really matters.
Is that what you call it? I guess that’s what it is around here. I figure you guys must be getting worn out trying to keep your bizarre world view together in the face of an unremitting flow of contra-indicating world events. So, I thought ,with the wind at my back everywhere else in the country, I’d come over and test the wind speed around here. I guess you could say it’s like a wind tunnel in here, completely isolated from actual weather conditions. I imagine when this place falls apart it will be very sad for you. There aren’t many like it left.
There is a reason unseating a popular and powerful incumbent US senator is a rare and significant event.
First, what have you got? HuffPo, dailyKOS, atrios and truthout? C’mon Dave….there’s plenty of conservative sites out there. The blogoshere is the new talk radio where all the conservative sites are just one helluvalot more fun.
Second, you didn’t unseat anyone. Lieberman lost a PRIMARY but is still running in the general election. Got it? If he loses, then you have unseated him!
Third, unseating Joe does not give any authority to your cause. It doesn’t show widespread revolt against the president and certainly doesn’t validate the anti-war position. It shows that in a liberal state like CT, you can whip the liberal mob into a froth. That is what it proves.
Fourth, no one seems to mention much about McKinney being “unseated.” She is about as anti-war as it gets. At best, you get a wash.
Fifth, its a win-win for Republicans either way. Democrats unseating democrats? How can the Democrat’s civil war be any good for your party?
Lives are always on the line, and what you fail to realize is that there are times in which death that comes about from the attempt to secure freedom from a tyrant, capable in the extreme of taking and controlling lives in his own right, is preferable to the long, slow, bleeding of lives and faith/hope that occurs under real tyranny, such as Saddams. Because that was as equally as real as what is going on now.
Stop pretending that just saying “War is bad” is enough. It isn’t and it never will be. Do you think you are teaching something to the people here by lamenting the loss of innocent life?
A) He’s not unseated.
B) You mean like Daschle?
C) Lieberman is about to become more powerful than he ever has been before. Don’t be surprised if Giuliani taps him as a running mate.
David,
Hate to break it to you, but Lieberman is still the incumbent Senator. Lamont has won a spot on the ballot in November.
True enough.
Problem is, none of them seem to have anything of value to contribute and are seemingly content to simply bitch and squawk about any and everything that is actually being DONE.
Lead, follow, or piss off.
l.c.
You asked why Republicans mischaracterize the position of Democrats vis a vis the war on terror.
The truth is, beyond objecting to Bush’s policies in pursuit of that war, Democrats haven’t offered a “position.”
So what “position” are you talking about? Here are various “positions” I’m aware of on how the war has been conducted.
Republicans: We support the Patriot Act because it enables federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to coordinate in ways that were previously impossible—to “connect the dots” before attacks happen.
Democrats: We’re against it.
Republicans: We think the NSA should be able to monitor electronic communications between terrorists abroad and their co-conspirators in the U.S.
Democrats: We’re against it.
Republicans: By removing Saddam Hussein from power, we eliminate the threat that he will arm terrorists with dangerous weapons, and we also create an opportunity for democracy, which is good because democracies seldom make war on one another.
Democrats: We’re against it.
Republicans: We’d like to seal the borders to prevent people (including terrorists) from coming into the country illegally and without our knowledge.
Democrats: We’re against it.
Like petulant children. Opposing Bush—demonizing Bush—is more important than protecting lives.
mgl: I agree; to a certain extent progressivism is a fashion in thought. I think you’ve captured it well.
Do you have a point, or are you trying to bore us to death?
Hint: Try a thesis, with arguments leading to a conclusion. Supporting facts would help. All that stuff you should have learned in High School English class.
Condescension doesn’t cut it. I don’t know you from any other set of initials on the web.
</blockquote>There is a reason unseating a popular and powerful incumbent US senator is a rare and significant event<blockquote>
You’re right, let me rephrase that:
There is a reason the primary defeat of a popular and powerful incumbent US senator is a rare and significant event.
Quibble, quibble. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
(that excerpt is from Fiasco and who said Franks was any prize? Didn’t he back up Bush when Bush lied in the Miami debate about not knowing if OBL was in Tora Bora? Just another rich dude covering his ass.)
Capitalization helps, too. Seriously.
Look over there at the shiny thing!
IC: You’re in the wrong room. The Far Right is down the hall. I like to think of us as the Party Hearty Right.
If that assertion is true, then you will undoubtedly have several examples of an alternative policy against terrorism that is possible to express without using the words ‘pull out’, ‘come home’, ‘Okinawa’, ‘negotiate’, ‘stand down’, ‘roll back’, “UN peacekeeping force’, ‘France’, ‘consensus’ ‘incentive’, or ‘re-deploy.’
You will also be able to defend the New York Times’ decision to expose a major classified, legal counter-terrorism program–a program which was effective in preventing the massacre of hundreds of innocent people only yesterday.
You have our attention.
tw: dead.
So, I gues the answer is “Yes, I do piss in the wind a lot.”
When Democrats see one of these guys, they try to unseat them. When Muslims see one, they cut his head off. Its levels…same thought process, just different levels.
Classist.
Your presumption of excluding the words on your list is baseless and harmful to American and Israeli interests (see: Iraq, War in).
By the way, in your view, are things going well in Iraq?
I guess we should overlook that the majority of “our soldiers†actually support the continued effort in Iraq, that they are re-enlisting at unheard of numbers & overwhelmingly voting Republican.
You have conveniently forgotten that the major cause of the lack “the very best protective equipment while in combat†was & is the gutted supply infrastructure courtesy of the Clinton Administration & it’s progressive military cutbacks.
From the last Democratic Presidential Candidiate, John Kerry “…No reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women†I guess someone who terrorizes women & children isn’t a terrorist?
The only wind you are experiencing is the decompression you experience leaving your perfect, factless little world.
Goalpost much,
Ddavid?No, I was trying to make a polite suggestion on a way for someone to improve the readability of what they write. If I.C. wants to communicate, then he wants people to read what he writes, correct? Well, if I see a ten-paragraph block of text with improper capitalization as a matter of course, not as an occasional error, then I’m not going to bother reading it.
Why? Because the author clearly doesn’t care enough about what he’s writing to make it easy for me to read. If the author doesn’t care, why should I?
Yes.
Dude, you need to lay off the Rush Hannity show for a while.
Are you okay? A girl could pull a few muscles reaching that hard.
I imagine you are familiar with the feeling from every time you exit your basement.
I guess now’s a good time for me to give up on waiting for a few examples of affirmative measures Democrats have proposed that will assist in defeating Islamic terrorism.
*yawn*
*stretch*
Retrogressives.
Nihilogressives.
Retardogressives.
Eurogressives.
UNgressives.
Aggressives.
Whinogressives.
My favorite: dickeheadogressives.
Ddavid, let’s not forget that the last Democrat candidate for President made his break into politics by making false accusations of war crimes, being involved with a plot to assassinate US politicians, and taking part in illegal negotiations with a government we were at war with.But that doesn’t mean the party that made him their standard bearer has anything against the military. Oh, no. Not at all.
David: See? You can’t do it. All the Democrats’ plans involve retreat.
To answer your question–which is a red herring, incidentally–I think we’re having trouble in Iraq right now, but the outcome is by no means clear. If you like basketball, you may realize that all things are possible until the buzzer sounds. (Nah, you’re too smart.)
I’m not prepared to abandon innocent Iraqis the way we abandoned almost 3 million innecent people in southeast Asia thirty years ago. You and the rest of the left may sleep well despite their deaths, I don’t. And don’t tell me ‘you can’t paint me with that brush’. I can. I can because that is essentially what you’re advocating.
You’re a boring troll, David: Stupid, sanctimonious, amoral and boring.
Anyway, I can’t wait for Lamont to win in November, can you?
ic
You sound reasonable enough, but have you not turned on a television or read a Democratic blog in the last six years? The peopled who are leading your party are out of their fucking minds.
Have you not listened to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean or ever read “The Daily Kos”? The Dems nominated John Kerry for cripes sakes!
The Democrats havwe no answers , they only have turds to throw. That’s why it’s always a laughfest around here. You should hang out for a while, because you never know… You might actually pick up some facts that the MSM and the Dems don’t want you to know.
This place is frequented by people who get their own information from the web and elsewhere, and tend to sneer at the MSM, because the MSM only gives you half of the truth.
You say this is “far right”? In truth, a lot of the people here are closer to JFK Democrats than are the people own your own party. You need to wake up and ditch that bunch of snivelers that you call “your” party. If you listen very closely, you will find that most of the Dem leaders are nothing more than neo-Marxists who are wearing the brown shirts that they accuse Republicans of wearing.
It’s kind of an epiphany thing…
How shall we measyre well?
Another fine example of the non-sexist, politically correct progressive response to a perfectly valid question. David, I.C. was trying to claim that
And amazingly, the words of the last representative (placed forth by the Democrats) & his description of the actions of US troops as terrorists doesn’t count – much like his pre-Iraqi War assessment of Saddam Hussein & WMDs I would imagine. Unless, David, you are arguing that Kerry wasn’t characterizing the actions of the US military as “terrorizingâ€Â? Or are you arguing the Democratic Presidential Candidate’s views do not reflect the views of the Democratic Party? We all know that the 2000 Vice-Presidential Candidate’s don’t count or reflect the party of asses right now. Funny how Democrats’ views on foreign policy & the world seem to change w/ each political season or are only limited to the time it takes to make a specific point. Strangely enough, Lieberman’s view of the war hasn’t changed & he was forced out.
David –
After reading your post at 2:43, the only logical conclusion that one can come to is that not only can’t you read, but that you are monumentally stupid.
Unbeleivable. After PMain sticks irrerfutable FACTS up your butt, you just ignore them! This is why the Dems are so funny/scary.
What a moron you show yourself to be.
Sheeeee, David, between making fun of girls and making fun of gays a few days ago, you’re getting lots of friends around here.
However, I do have to say thanks. Your rhetorical missteps, while trying to act superior and smug, ironically have the effect of making us PW regulars actually feel smug (and superior). And Lord knows I can use that some days.
TW: income. Insert Ned Lamont joke here.
Or is it david? I get confused.
Anybody want to go fishing this weekend?
Dan,
How long have you been reading here? If you try to correct all my poor typing and the like, you’ll be awfully busy!
Well, Jeff, this is way down on the comments line so you may not see it, but:
I’m leading a one-man campaign against the use of the term “progressives”. Do you view what they stand for as progress? I don’t. So why call them “progressives” if their actions don’t lead to progress?
I.C.
I would like to thank you for trying to drive towards a cogent post, but unfortunately, as you’ve written a fairly long post-and-commentary-about-everything, it makes it a little bit more difficult to, as you note:
and I would welcome the opportunity to engage with you. So if there are a few specific things you would like to hold forth or ask about, I think many here would be quite happy to accomodate you. But, as noted here and elsewhere, an All Enocmpassing Post Describing Political Philosohpy, Natural Law, and the Role of Organized Violence and Religion On Inter- And Intrastate Relations is a bit more than can be reasonable tackled in a blog comment section. So I invite you to rephrase and shorten to some a few consise points.
BRD
I don’t reject a priori the notion that Democrats can be a solid party on national security. But when I look at Pelosi, Murtha, Durbin, Kerry, Kucinich, Moore … (or are they not representative)? I think I can say I’ve got a pretty solid empirical basis for concern. I mean, Alcee Hastings over Jane Harman for House Intelligence? Are they serious?
Bush et al. have made mistakes, but every administration does. He’s made some overbearing claims for the Executive, but so did Clinton, and Clinton couldn’t cite nearly as good a set of reasons. Don’t believe me? Check out the CATO symposium on “Clinton and the Constitution.” Nadine Strossen tore him a new one.
Anyone who honestly believes Lamont’s going to beat Lieberman hasn’t thought it through clearly. I have yet to see any polling on point since Tuesday, but it’ll come soon enough… The July Quinnipiac polling had Lieberman way ahead in a hypothetical 3-way general, but I’m not sure what his standings were relative to Lamont among Dems as of the date of that poll, and his losing the primary probably costs him a little standing (and Lamont gained a little more name recognition). But Joe’s had consistent Republican and Independent support in CT for his Senate runs. Where’s Lamont’s support outside the primary voters?
That’s why it’s called “the reality-based community”.
y7, that’s just priceless.
Here’s where they present their plan:
That’s about it. I looked through most of the rest of the site, but didn’t find anything that might be confused with, like, a detail or anything similar as to how they might go about accomplishing their objectives.
They care, though. They want to care for EVERYBODY.
The Dem party doesn’t have a plan because they don’t need one. They’ve grown used to getting contributions based on how much they hate Bush, and that’s actually a lot easier (and politically advantageous, in light of the mentality of their engaged constituency) than doing statesmanship stuff.
They are a minority party, and they worked through literally decades of majority stats to inculcate that minority = oppressed/helpless/not responsible or just plain victims. They used to use that paradigm as a cynical tool, but have since become victims of their own propaganda.
The most momentous redirection of American policy in the second half of the last century was accomplished by Ronald Reagan, who didn’t have majorities in either house. But he did have genuinely good and effective ideas he believed in, and the majority party at the time was willing enough (or careless enough) to bargain in good faith with the result that the 80’s tax cuts, economic reforms, and rebirth of our military continue to generate dividends today. Granted, some of the Dems of that era were certain that Reagan’s policies would be destructive enough to benefit Dem political futures, but that’s just politics.
Today’s Dems look no further than their own fiefdoms and the connected, crushing burden of keeping their wildly varying, wildy irrational constituencies within voting distance but far enough away that the officeholders themselves aren’t too splattered with the moonbat droppings.
It still works in solidly blue regions, but it won’t work nationally. At least it hasn’t for the last thirty years. Even Bill Clinton had the sense to create the DLC to insulate himself from the “real” party.
Big grievances. Great theater. No big plans, though. None that really get past reserved parking spaces and the “good” offices in the Rayburn building. Ceratainly none that even consider changing the face of continents and nations in order to end a virulent and geometrically expanding lethal threat, when all is said and done.
Unless we act very soon to get a truly effective policy aimed at destroying the fonts of Islamist terror I see a future where our target set for daily military operations will someday include the words “males, age twelve and above…”.
It doesn’t have to be that way. There are rational and reasonable strategies that we can execute that fall short of wars of annihalation; the list of governments we must bring down isn’t all that extensive and once they are gone we will have removed the critical foundation the Islamists need to achieve mass casualty attacks. But our political minority is short on rational and plumb out of reasonable, so the efforts we are making now remain fatally hamstrung.
We are a democratic republic. The will of the people may be ignored, tempered, or softened by elected luminaries just so far. Once enough people have had all they will take the real hammer will come out of the closet and rational/reasonable won’t even be a consideration.
Until our Prog/Lib/Dems can find it in themselves to hate Islamist terrorists nearly as much as they hate George Bush, we cannot fight this war to a conclusion.
I have to admit, though, it’s kind of funny in a sick and twisted way to watch them campaign so hard against a man who is done running for office.
TW=”former”.
Yeah! What he said.
I don’t. I have been back for a few months now, spent a year on Abu Ghraib, wore body armor every day for a year, went on a lot of convoys ie “outside the wire,” and I never saw an insurgent. I am sure they saw me but, hell, its just the Sunni triangle. Who can expect to see alot of action?
y7: Good news. And thanks!
tw: love. Yeah, Jeff is screwing with us.
No, not so much. A rare and important event is when a sitting Senate Minority Leader goes down in a general election to a candidate of the other party.
That is significant, my friend.
If Joe is a Senator with and (I) after his name instead of a (D), just what has Ned accomplished?
You may not have noticed this, but 48% of the voters in a Democrati primary voted for the Pro-Bush guy. Swirl that around for a while.
Thanks for the post. I’ve been trying to aay this for years, but I’ve never seen this said so well.
Well, no, of course they aren’t serious. Not about national security, at least. Returning to power, though, ya, they are all kinds of on top of that, seriousness-wise. Which is pretty much the whole problem.
I remain convinced that there is no position at all that the Left will not advocate, surrender included, if they think it gets them closer to elected power. And many, I’m pretty sure they would do without elections if they could.
They have no philosophy to guide them; they merely have tactics.
TW: lack. This thing is f’n’ magical.
another fair comment put the same inquiry this way:
Andrew Sullivan made similar points, reasonably discussed, here.
I think the simple answer is that fighting terrorism is about “execution and decision making.” not just a “plan.”
(seriously, what “plan” can you have other than, as Sullivan puts it, “reforming the Middle East”?
regarding that “plan,” while it sounds great in theory, it may not be the most practical short or even long term strategy. but since there seems to be very little awareness of this, most of what is otherwise said trying to explain why, is often mischaracterized, and dismissed.
reforming the middle east can also seem to middle easterners to be telling them what to do, and also does exactly the opposite of what we need to do to keep this issue correctly framed, as an effort to thwart and eradicate a small band of fringe extremist terrorists that do not speak for anybody.
I will note that the current “plan” is to “to root terrorists out of their caves,” which we have not done. And to try and turn Iraq into a democracy; that is, an Iraq that was largely unconnected to 9/11 or radical terrorism (but considered a threat bc of its believed WMD. it is also critical to consider—though it has gotten roundly mischaracterized by the media –that by March when we went in inspectors were discovering we were probably wrong.
Also, while the U.N. is not responsible for our “security,” in a strategic action, of which Iraq serves as the classic example, the role of the U.N. is key.
More insight (which obviously we could have benefitted from), much more troop support, giving us the forces their to get the job done, instill peace from the get go, turn it over largely to the U.N. and not make it about the U.S imposing its long term will (their perspective, not ours) and having our forces otherwise available (such as Afghanistan, where a lot more focus needs to have been maintained). And most importantly, the larger issue of perception was critical, and clearly the U.N’s involvment would play a role herein.
(Yet, as an aside, we not only have not adequately explained to Iraq what we are doing to the world, I’m not sure we have recognzied the importance of it).
At any rate, going back to that “plan,’ namely, rooting out terrorists and going into Iraq. It really wasn’t much of one.
My plan. More focus (and money) on securing unsecured fissile materials, and particularly fissile and already developed weaponry from the former USSR states.
Take the religious aspect out of it. It is tremendously counterproductive. When we tell the world “religion is God’s gift to the world,” parts of the world view this very differently from us. In fact, they view it the same way we view them (that they are wrong is irrelevant, since our goal is to thwart and eradicate terrorism, not impose our understanding of what is “right” on them—again, which is exactly what their most extreme elemtns want to do, from their (nonetheless warped perspective), on us.)
Language and phrasing are critical. again, addressed here.
what is far more important than a “plan” is implementation and decision making.
bush laid it out in his sept 20, 2001 speech, where he said we will use every tactic, diplomacy, law inforcement, military, covert, education (okay, maybe he didnt say that one, I dont remember), INTELLIGENCE. the problem is under the current leadership, we have not done most of these things. And the intelligence we have engaged in is to spy on Americans, violate the constitution, and become anti democratically obsessed with secrecy in government. [more on this in the comment below, responding to below, responding to some erronous characterizations of the issues).
it is critical to have focused from early on, on Intelligence, (for example, getting enough people who speak the appropriate languages into the intelligence agencies, where we had a huge shortfall and backlog of data, and more on international covert action. I would have put a lot more pressure on Pakistan (Understanding their President’s delicate position), etc.
the list could go on. The problem is, it isn’t a sound bite thing. But a lot of democrats had reasonably comprehensive plans (again, recognizing the fact that this is is not an easy dilemma to solve).
And parts of those would be taken out of context, and turned into a distorted sound bite.
The worst of which is this “pre 9/11 mentality thing.” Actually, it was the Bush administration that had a “pre 9/11 mentality,” in the months leading up to 9/11. (Seriously, read those documents. I know it has been spun into Clinton’s fault, but his administration unequivocally paid a LOT more attention to this issue, at a time when the threat and our awareness of it were lower.
and Look at what Sandy Berger said in person to Condi Rice. How much more specific can you get? And she ignored it. Anyway, if it had been a new Gore administration that came in and ignored this issue in this way, we would still be hearing about this today, and you know that.)
another one is this idea of “law enforcement.” This was lifted right out of Bush’s pretty decent September 20, 2001 speech. And he was right.
yes we need to use our Military, (look at Afghanistan, supported by a vote in Congress of 518 to 1, you don’t hear about that much in the blogsphere, to unseat the Taliban which was intertwined with al-Qaeda, and root out al-Qaeda who had their base there, and for ongoing covert military operations).
But by its nature, as severe as this is, as irrelevant as the idea of “enforcement” is to pre or post 9/11 mentality as opposed to intelligent policy based upon the evolving facts and circumstances at hand, it is a matter of enforcement and intelligence (intelligence, again, does not mean spying on anybody in America under a simple hunch, with absolutely no oversight, as opposed to under the guidelines as set out by law—seek a warrant—almost always granted, either beforehand or afterwards in those instances WHEN IT INVOLVES AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IN AMERICA).
but can you sell that – enforcement – in a sound bite? It sounds horrible.
What does it mean? It means catching every damn one of the al-Q members, and eradicating or putting them behind bars. Just because it is enforcement, doesnt mean that it is not comprehensive, or assisted by the military.
but the very nature of the use of the term “war,” to simply drum up the idea of seriousness (which, again,has led to what? an escalation of ideals, not much reduction in copycat cells, exhaustive expenditures, and not much security) makes it something it can not be by its very nature. we’re fighting a band of extremist radical terrorists with no relevant sovereignty, no land, no army. come on, our military could wipe out most nations in weeks.
fighting pathological civilians bent on engaging in depraved tactics in a world of increasing proliferation of WMD is an entirely different matter.
Unfortunately how we spin this, how we present it to the world, also matters. It is imperative to do everything possible to keep it from degrading (which it somewhat has because of the way we have handled it) into something more than what it really is. a band of radical fringe extremist terrorists that need to be thwarted, mitigated, rendered incosequential (I dont even like that we put Bin Laden’s tapes on TV, who cares what he says)and as best as can be, eradicated.
The other big problem is that a lot of what democrats are accused of in these regards, are the same tactics engaged in against democrats, but because one might not agree with what the democrats are saying, it is easy to just dismiss it as whining, or criticing.
the fact is, handling these matters poorly matters. A lot.
handling Iraq poorly matters.
Nor can it be countered with “well, democrats supported it too.
I would have likely supported the resolution in October of ‘02 as well, for the exact same reasons Kerry (and many other democrats did). ”in order to force inspections you need the threat of force.” Iraq had not let inspectors in for four years, and prior to that, was uncooperative.
”let me be clear.I give this vote for one reason and one reason only, to rid Iraq of WMD, if the same can not be accomplished by new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.” By march, no U.N support, and our assumptions on WMD were changing.(I read all the DIA, the CIA, and the DOD reports. they ALL noted that our views on Iraqi WMD were “assumptions,” made, critcially, in the “absence of data.”
I would not have gone in March. Why? because the resources could have been better spent elsewhere, and it would likely lead to more strife. was this right or wrong? who knows? terrorist like al-Q cells have not gone down, and we rooted out most of them in Afghanistan, so they should have.
and we’ve spent near a trillion now on this, and put our soldies lives on the line in Iraq? its not an easy call.
criticism of this is fair, even by those who voted for the resolution, and particularly those (and there are many) democrat and republican alike, who as early as spring of 2003 kept arguing for things to be handled in a different way. most of the suggestions were ultimately listened to, but often a year or two late. every one of kerry’s was listened to, ultimately.
but taking the wrong course, and not listening for over a year, cost lives. that is a pretty clear conclusion. but because it paints a bad picture of the bush administration, instead, of say, the “clinton” adminsitration, it is spun into all of this anti american and whining and “what is your solution” stuff.
it is anti-american to spin anti bush sentiment into ‘anti americanism.’
are we commingling true patriotism, love of one’s country and the principles for which it stands, with love of the particular government which we might have voted for?
and what is the democrats solution on Iraq?
there IS NO solution. that is the problem. that is why in March, when it became about removing Hussein, I wouldn’t have gone. ( curiously, it was about removing Hussein, all through the election year 2004, when, in the many months leading up to Iraq, the administration maintained it was about WMD. Bush in his Cincinnati speech on October 7, 2002, even stated, “approving this resolution does not mean that war is imminent or unavoidable.” what did this mean? Kerry cited it on the floor of the Senate before casting his vote. What did it mean?
that’s the main challenge. creating a problem that was not thought through, with no solution.
Democrats solution, more or less (though many republicans disagree, and until recently, a lot of democrats disagreed)is that “we are misfocused. we are not helping Iraq. we need to slowly get the Iraq gov’t to take more responsibility for this, as opposed to us being the de facto Iraqi army (and at the same time getting crap from the rest of the world because of it) for time infinitum. is it a great plan? No, but its probably a better alternative.
again, the main point is execution and decision making. I fear that the reason demcorats are so easily dismiised today is beause it is known that there is a lot of truth to this. what is not recognized is that this issue is not like the federal debt. easy to solve (tax more, or spend less, or both. take a 4th grade math class. apply basic principles).
In a nutshell, more focus on thwarting and catching terrorists, consistent with the principles upon which America was founded (again, I repeat B Franklin’s quote “those that would choose some security over some libery deserve, and shall get, neither. granting unchecked gov’t power to spy on U.S. citizens (for any cause, “the theory of good intentions of governing has no oversight) is not consistent with democratic principles, or the principles upon which America has founded. Chaning these principles is just what the terrorist could have hoped for.
less emphasis on trying to reform the middle east, and more on keeping the issue correctly framed as the actions of a small group of radical cultural pychopathic terrorists.
more focus on international intelligence, and international cooperation (like it or not, by the very nature of this problem, this aspect is critical. essential. trancendent.
A much more directed focus towards al-Q and related cells, securing unsecured fissles materials, and yes, our borders and ports. and a far more thorough, comprehensive and intelligent foreign policy that does not alienate the U.S. at a time when cooperation at expunging this element is critical (no, how to do that can not be turned into a sound bite.)
as for a few of the notions on here that democrats hate george bush more than terrorists, that is extremely insulting. it is strange that some people seem to want to believe this? in order to be able to dismiss the many substantive reasons why democrats, and so many republicans, thoroughly disagree with this administration’s policy, processes, and, in many instances, constant rhetoric either in place of sound policy, or that contradicts what we actually do.
It is not hatred of George Bush per se (I personally like him. Just not as President). it is a deep discontent with policies that are seen as increasingly autocratic and inconsistent with the needs of a democracy, and some would say, out of touch with the issues.
this constant characterization of democrats as “bush haters” seems more often than not as merely a way to dismiss a real substantive evaluation of the issues.
Due, no one wants to read 35 paragraphs of your effin opinions.
Bu-bye.
Ned Lamentable:
The “hero” being Ned the Rescuer.
I call bullsh*t.
This is 5 years after 9/11 with an all-volunteer force. The vast majority of those soldiers believe in their mission and want to accomplish it–and they certainly don’t feel the need to be “rescued” by a panty-knotted nobody like Ned Lamont.
They want to come home, alright–but in Victory, not the Victimhood that Lamont the Chicken-Hero is peddling.
– I won’t bother to fisk that whole “book”, just take one single example, which clearly shows you’re simply contemporizing right and left.
– If he were so intent and focused on Intelligence, after one of his people established a “wall” between services so they couldn’t even share intelligence, then why the hell didn’t he move after the attacks on our Beirut embassy. Why did he pull the plug when he had Bin Laden in his sights, not just once, but at least three times we know of. Clinton didn’t want to confront the threat. Took the same position the Left always does. If you can just talk your way out of things, somehow it will all work out.
No. I’d say all you’ve done is reinforce exactly the reasons why the Majority of Americans not only wouldn’t trust the Left with the keys to the executive, but think you’re all fucking nuts.
– As I said in a previous post. The “Progressives” want to progress us into a sinkhole, trying to seduce the West into global suicide. Almost all the ME people have been born, bred, and indoctrinated too believe in the strong/horse weak horse way of life and survival. They see “negotiation” as what their enemies do when they’re afraid, and it makes them want to cut your head off even faster.
– Thats the fact you on the Left want, and desperatly need, to ignore. The Islamofascists only negotiate when they think they’re getting their asse’s kicked. Thats it. Never in good faith. they trully do believe your very existance is an insult to their beliefs. Your whole approach to foriegn policy is gallows humor.
– Your necks are collectively on the chopping block, and you want to stop the proceedure of the executioner and discuss the fine aspects of cultural victimization. I’ll tell you what I’ve heard some Muslims say. They think you’re fucking nuts too, but their damn glad you obstruct and fight against the people they really fear in thier Celiphate efforts.
– Your escapism/isolationiam only forestalls the inevitable, and generally gets even more people killed.
Progressives = ChickenPussies
Funny. We are already coming home to a hero’s welcome. When I came home on leave, I landed in Dallas. The Dallas Fire department posts a fire truck on the runway for returning soldiers and hoses down the plane down witht he front nozzle as a salute to the troops. Then, when we get inside the terminal, there is gauntlet of Vets, and male and female supporters greeting us and shaking our hands. (Sadly, one of the older ladies kinda slipped me the tongue. I was all like, “Damn, did the cute girls down the see that? Shit. Yep.)
Then, after the gauntlet, a very business-like came up to me and asked “Where are you going?” I replied. Then, “What flight?” I replied. Then she foudn me a different flight getting me home HOURS earlier.
Same thing when came home for good in Maine, except for the tongue.
y7, yeah that reception at DFW was something – I thought I was suffering some sort of jetlag related hallucinations. Bangor was cool too – those folks have met every plane in since day one.
-IC( From the Book)
Again,
Plenty of bitching from the left side about monitoring communications, and the SWIFT program. The NY Times can’t wait to plaster the next big thing all over the front page. The UK was scared shitless to share info with us lest it leak out by way of some disgruntled mid level wank with a hard-on for BushChenyHalliburton.
Yeah ok. More intel would be great.
I think the first and primary plan of the Democrats should be to learn the difference between plans and goals. Maybe I can walk you through it. You see, deciding to learn the difference is a goal. If you just say, we need to learn the difference between plans and goals, you are not making plans, you are stating a goal. The plan would be: let us look in the dictionary and see what the words mean.
See what we want to achieve is a goal, those are easy, how to achieve it is the trick:
So our plan worked out! Because now we can see a plan entails how we plan on achieving our goals, and is actually alot more important because it is alot harder than just having a goal.
Do you ever suspect this tendency of Democrats to focus on goals and completely neglect plans is a reason many of them are less sucessful than they want to be?
TW: Shown, but to what effect?
I second that emotion.
I.C. needs to get his own blog or sod off.
When the Democrats had the House majority and named Ron Dellums the head of the Armed Services Committee, they lost me. I voted “D”, twice I think, in all the years after that…
I live in Illinois, so I have a foul outlook toward both parties, actually.
EEEK a Fibby!
y7, that landing and reception in DFW was way cool! And the hospitality didn’t stop at all on the way home. Nor on my return trip to the Sandbox.
David (or is it david?): Seriously, how do you expect to have open and honest discussions if you reject the opinions and facts offered by people that disagree with you?
Ultimately, that’s what is wrong with the Democratic party and/or the “netroots”: if they can’t get what they want, they sulk or throw a tantrum.