Kucinich is a loon. An effing Loon, I tell you. - Page 2

So now we blame the democrats who allowed the war. Nick you just became lame with that statement. Mommy Daddy said I could do it....... Sooooo I blame daddy... he let me hit the cat...... I had nothing to do with it I am just a liddle baby... it was DADDY...

So It has everything to do with everybody but Bush... LOL Hell Blame the French. They caused Bush to do it...


I tell you... the Bush apologists are getting more ignorant by the day. Nick I love you but for God's sake what kind of child are you being with your logic here.

CONGRESS LET BUSH HAVE HIS WAR..... NANNYNANNYNOONY NINNY I CANT HEAR YOU THEY LET HIM HAVE HIS WAR THEY DID IT TOO LA LA...

For the record I agree congress should be held accountable just as Bush but Nick don't you agree that Bush is the one who demanded this war more than any other person? Yet it is not ok to go to the top and blame him?

I beg to differ.

It seems to me the Bush / Dick supporters are trying to save face by blaming everybody but their boys. It can't be their boys they have supported so ignorantly all these years.

It is time to face the music for the neocon cheer leaders in this country. Just admit the obvious... It is not hard for the rest of the world to see how lame you cheer leaders are with your fake arguments.

Fellows

Speaking about lameness...

Let's drop the god-awfully asinine "mommy/daddy/nanny" line of political criticism.

Wow... half rant, half lovefest.


The most interesting thing about your quote there Fellowship it actually represents the pathology of those Democrats who voted for the war. Kerry, Edwards and Clinton have claimed they really aren't responsible for their own votes.

Why the double standard? Why do we vote a Republican out of office who voted for the war, but let the Democrat claim that Daddy Bush lied about the intelligence they didn't even go read themselves, voted to support, and still have not expressed a change in pre-emptive war as a foreign policy tool?

Clinton and Obama (perhaps Edwards but I haven't followed him as well) have both made statements supporting pre-emptive war even AFTER Iraq and if elected.


I'm being the kind of child who can see that when you say you voted to support a pre-emptive war in the past, claim you will support pre-emptive war in the future and have not stopped the man you gave consent to conduct a pre-emptive war, then you really don't represent change and instead desire to criticize only for political gain.


Do you honestly think that anyone who disagrees with the war doesn't blame Bush? This is a false dilemma. You can desire to blame Bush AND still desire to assign responsibility to those who voted to authorize the war. One does not preclude the other.


If you draw different conclusions from the same set of actions, it is a double standard. If you blame Bush then you blame his enablers. You do not blame one and excuse the other.


Did the 2006 midterm elections just disappear? I'll cut you some slack Fellowship. All you have to do is find me ONE piece of legislation related to the war in Iraq or war on terror in general that was passed by Democrats and made a change from prior policy under the Republican Congress.

Find me one change that has occurred.

Nick

First off Nick I never like to get on to you because you are one of my favs LOL

But you are right that the Democrats in congress have been a freaking joke. My main concern is what this is costing the US in all terms. Are you happy with this war in Iraq?

Fellows

Spoken from one who loves a good nanny I am sorry I pick on the idea of a nanny but there is a point to be made how political leaders from both parties appeal to certain people out there in the country in a "nannylike" appeal.

The Government will take care of you...

Democrats.. We will give you your domestic entitlements

Republicans... We are the only ones who can protect you from the "strangers"

Ahhh so nice to have our parents above on the hill taking care of us as we are such children in need of a nanny state.

But hey these political leaders would never pander would they?

Fellows

100% correct.

No, it's inflammatory and stupid.

Enough.

Shawn what is wrong? You don't sound your normal cheerful self?

Fellows

or, as can easily be seen, uh "TRUE."

Long week and trying to do work in advance so I could go to Penn State this weekend.

<--- here we go.

Good luck man,, You know we are pulling for you.

Fellows

I go both ways on this Fellowship. If we are going to be the police for the world, then we had to go into Iraq. If we are going to simply be another member of the international community and not be responsible for the world-at-large via Pax Americana, then that is what we should pursue.

You'll notice my sig. It is quite telling of this view. It is why I note that Clinton and Democrats are really no different. Clinton intervened in many different countries, many because of civil wars much like people are decrying us being involved with in Iraq.

For me, there is no middle ground. Also I have not heard anyone who is a true Democratic nominee for president claim they would move us away from Pax Americana and let the world fend for itself. This is why they can demand we would remove troops, but use qualifiers to keep them there. They end up no different than Bush in that regard.

Nick

Er... stopping you right there.

—No-one asked you to be the world police.
—No-one wanted you to be the world police.
—If you really wanted to be the world police then you wouldn't have started with Iraq—you'd have finished the job in Afghanistan and then gone to Saudi Arabia.

I agree that we don't have to be the world police. However to ignore the isolationism in America's past and declare that they were not forced away from it by the various world wars is just ignorance of history. America was content to simply supply Europe for their fights until a certain country decided to bomb a certain harbor.

The U.S. role since then has been world cop mostly because of NATO and the U.N. The role was easily endorsed at first because it provided balance to the Soviet bloc. Finally we can't ignore things like the Marshall Plan which gave the United States the responsibility for basically rebuilding Europe in hopes of ending the starvation and recession there, and hopefully put an end to the chronic wars on that continent.

There are plenty in the United States who do not desire us to continue this role however my point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say be the police for the world and then complain that certain actions are not consented to by rogue elements or even complain about exercise of authority. My view is that if the United States is willing to give up authority and action, then complaints about responsibility must fall on deaf ears

Nick

Well here's an interesting look at the situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/911.poll/index.html


" Poll: Few Americans think U.S. is winning war on terror "


From the article :

" Six years after the worst terror attacks on U.S. soil, three in 10 Americans believe the United States and its allies are winning the global war on terror -- one of the main justifications cited by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. "

CNN link #412. Added to wistful glee at perceived American weakness for purely political reasons.
America is losing! Rah! Rah! And nanny nanny boo boo Bush sucks too!

And we just had a discussion about how there are some that LOVE bad news about the US effort because of their own political goals.

Choice.

From a sociological perspective, this is a documented phenomenon. People hear what they hear in the media and from their social networks and literally report the same feelings so as not to be "uninformed" or "incorrect" when their opinion or experience conflicts with what the opinion-makers (read:MSM) are pushing. Those folks, minus FNC, have been talking the economy, the war, Bush, the GWOT, global warming, health care, and the whole playlist of the nightly news into a crisis mentality. Their "crises" are the DNCs vote-getting "crises." How often do you hear the word "crisis" come out of a conservative's mouth? Only concerning illegal immigration and terrorism, by and large. I don't have the rest of the night to type out every liberal "crisis" that we are being told we need to look to the federal government to "fix" with higher taxes and less freedom.

I mean, who the hell wants to be called "unenlightened" by the arrogant assholes in PO because they dare to question the dogma? Oh, the FEAR! It's not that you disagree, it's that you are not as smart as us. Incredible in practice. Enlightened people understand human nature and predator mentality. The modern left understands neither, or at least pretends not to for political expediency.

Polls really do not mean shit anymore. Really. The noise machine from both sides has so distorted and polarized things that you rarely, very rarely, get to actual opinions. And the more polarized the country is, the less accurate these polls become.

Radio 4 did a lovely piece on Verdi this morning.

So now I understand completely what SDW is saying in this thread.

Even if Kucinich is arguably right about everything he said, and even if his ideas about dialogue with Iran and Syria have been floated by even the Republicans, and even though everyone knows all of this already, the fact that he said it where he said it and to whom, and at what time, makes him "effing loony" and "traitorous". Got it.

Traitors are those who keep making "effing" excuses for this administration.

Saying "Bush fucked up" is NOT anti-American, nor does it give aid and comfort to the enemy. It gives us a chance to make a correction.

Cozying up to Lil Bashar is aid and comfort. Sorry.

Talking about Chimpy is not anti-American. Trashing our troops in the field is. *coughMurthaMcDermottKerryReidLantosPelosicough*

Nobody is "trashing our troops" except those who commit crimes. Please show me one example of "troop trashing" that isn't related to terrible misbehavior, directed at those doing the misbehaving, or the culture that allows such misbehaviour (that should by right be addressed immediately and never tolerated again). Didn't we learn anything at all from "little gook babies!"?

I disagree. Taking responsibility for a mistake is not "cozying up". by far the greatest amount of "aid and comfort" for the enemy comes from the inept management of the war. When we say "we're not going to stand for this failure any more" we are not aiding them. We are actually doing something that should give them cause for concern.

You understand too that he also went there to view the care of the 1.5 million refugees from Iraq who streamed over Syria's borders.


But skip over that. Nothing to see here, move along...

How many Iraqi refugees have been allowed into the U.S.?

Approximately 7,000


No, Syria has not been the bastion of peace and human rights. But neither was China or Russia in the 70's and 80's respectfully. One of the truly great qualities of leadership is to face the opposing leaders across a table and iron out differences. But first you have to have credibility if that is your goal. Bush and this administration doesn't have the "prestige anymore to be a negotiator.

There are more human rights there than in the States of many US allies. You could go downtown Damascus any day of the week, go to a Christian Church, head to a bar afterwards for a few G&Ts, check out some (non-hijab wearing) babes and party till dawn in your establishment of choice.

Try that in Saudi or Pakistan and it won't just be the 300 lashes in public you'll be worrying about.

Btw: Syria is fighting the same extremists the US claims to be - of course the US will never give any credit to this because they are 'evildoers' but it revolves just the same.

It's not even close. What are you talking about?

I'm always perplexed that people can make broad pronouncements like that 1) because treason is such a difficult crime to prove and purposefully has such a high standard of proof that you have to know only the most extraordinary acts can be considered treason 2) because it's an odious form of political criticism to accuse your opponents of treason especially in light of the necessarily cynical motives behind it. I say necessarily because as the first point illustrates, you can't possibly believe what you're saying has even the remotest possibility of truthfulness.

You know nothing. Nothing at all.

Thanks for the "report on the ground" or "embedded party animal" observation . People need to travel more, read more and just understand that people on average in many countries are doing just what we do, barring a few religious or power mad nut-jobs of course.

Kucinich really got no positive press from this meeting. None that I could find.

You can't be serious. NEWS FLASH- your side is advocating WITHDRAWAL- that is a wet dream for the insurgents who want to turn Iraq into a land of sectarian warlords. Concern? CONCERN? They''re dancing in the streets every time a Democrat gets in front of a camera with another "terrorizing women and children in the dead of night" comment or PelosiReidMurthaWexler pontification. Cause for CONCERN? ROTFLMFAO. Cause to celebrate.

I'll say again- the "enlightened" Democrats just do not understand the predator mentality.

Like Mookie Al Sadr is saying to the guys "oh my gosh- they are going to leave- just like we want them to... oh, no... please, please... we're concerned because you are doing exactly what we have been praying for. "

It's like Parallel Universe time. I know we need to ricochet the conversation, what with OBL's talking points sounding just like the far left Democratic Leadership (minus that dislike of taxes thing)

So you are saying you wouldn't prosecute the case out of fear of not getting a conviction. That is fine but it doesn't mean he can't call it aid and comfort. There is more to life than the law. Some of us even have degrees that are NOT law in the law but in other human endeavors.

Strange but true, I know.

Also the KosKids called... they want to know where you took the ad-lib forms for their anti-semetic comment generator.

Are you really personally committed to being in Iraq for the next 20-30 years or however long it takes, knowing full well that the chance of any sort of "success" at this point is extremely attenuated? Fortunately, you don't get to make those kinds of decisions to expend our nation's resources all by yourself. We have a party in Congress that recognizes the reality of our situation-- which you are either incompetently blind to or just cynically playing political games with whatever talking points that help make the Iraq pill easier for you to swallow.


No, I wouldn't prosecute the case because it's clearly not treason.

Yes, he can call anything whatever he likes. But "aid and comfort" was in the context of treason, not giving aid and comfort to say, the girlfriend, or in his case a foot massage to the Free Republic forum moderator. The implication was that the conduct was treasonous, which I disputed.





Lies!

Freeper? FYI- I don't visit FR, but if that makes your intellectual dismissal easier then by all means, be my guest. The "you read X" is far beneath your capabilities, Shawn.

I've got no interest in being in Iraq in 5 years, if that long. Look back through my posts and you'll recall my disapproval of many aspects of the iraq situation. I've said over and over that the iraqis need to step up and meet the deadlines. It is time for this war to end- with a US victory rather than a political defeat. I'm sorry there is no "instant gratification" here, I know that is often how the left side of the isle works.

Your beloved "party in Congress" is doing NOTHING of substance (as usual), preferring the symbolism of grilling a decorated officer and letting the CodePinkos do the media work. OBL is 100% correct- the Dems have no spine. At all. What is holding you guys back from defunding, cutting off the troops, and bringing it all to an end if there is such widespread public support? Huh? It's like "where's the beef" all over again. You guys accuse Bush of chest-thumping, well, the Ds talk a big game on ending the war, let's see some actions that back it all up. I mean, actions besides slumber parties and "betrayus" ads.

Jubelum is right on the Iraq thing. The Democrats have no backbone at all regarding Iraq, there are Republicans who have gone to Iraq numerous times and they have decided that they were wrong in supporting it, too. Go both ways, not only Democrats though. Honestly they're all fools. They are not seeing (or showing us) the real picture. Neither are all the top presidential candidates, ignorant to the fact that we will never leave Afghanistan, Iraq and more than likely Iran.



The Bases Are Loaded

The only prediction I can make with clarity now after watching this report is that we will stay in Iraq solely for the reason that we have permanent military bases in Iraq (and Afghanistan, though the Pentagon omits many of them from their reports). To protect the sole reason we are there for: Oil.

The only recourse to change this fact is if we lose, surrender, pack our bags and go home.

No one can argue this so far. No one can. Because it's the truth.

Spot on.

How on earth can you believe any sort of success- however that's measured- is still possible?


That would be quite a different issue if Republicans across the country start pressuring their respective Members of Congress to withdraw since success at this point is just not going to happen. However dissatisfied we are with Democrats, you and your fellow war apologists don't make the political situation any easier. You're complicit in all of this.

According to US-law any war that the congress authorises or declares is legal, since there are no limitations to the US' souvereignity to lead wars as long as the congress agrees.

But there is an international law trying to reduce the occurrences of war, and the US is liable to that international law like all UN-members.

According to that international law war is only legal for the purpose of selfdefense from direct attacks and from imminent dangers.

The use of force is also allowed within the body of the security-council in order to maintain peace and security.

The Bush-administration although already authorised by Congress to use force, made the deliberate attempt to gain international legality for the planned invasion by trying to convince the UN.

In front of the UN, Powell made the case that Saddam Hussein violated the UN-resolutions put in place against Iraq by not cooperating fully with the UN-inspectors, and secretely maintained an active WMD-program developing nukes, chemical and biological weapons, and thus justifying the US as a member of the SC to enforce militarily the resolutions, which would make the invasion legal.

There are a few problems with that argumentation:

1. Individual members of the SC don't have the right to unilaterally use force to enforce resolutions. Only the SC can decide if force should be applied.

2. The decision that Iraq was or was not in compliance with resolutions can't be made by individual members of the SC, but only by the organizations tasked with the controlling of Iraq, ie. the IAEA and UNMOVIC. In fact neither organization found that Iraq was not in compliance, and stated shortly before the invasion that it would take months to verify Iraq's compliance one way or the other.

3. The resolutions have no passage aiming at regime-change. Even if IAEA and UNMOVIC had concluded that Iraq was in violation and the SC ordered that force should be applied to enforce the resolutions, there is no rationale or justification based on the resolutions to conduct a regime-change.

That's why the UNSC did not authorise a military intervention, and that's why the US formed its own coalition of the willing to do the job outside of the UNSC.

The US tried to justify their unilateral action on the basis of selfdefense in face of imminent danger, but since that could not be explained rationally, the US-administration invented a new category, preemptive selfdefense, against a danger that will probably come to fruit in the future, citing the claim that Iraq and Al-Qaeeda cooperate, and therefore the danger would be there that WMD's espescially nukes could be given by Iraq to Al-Qaeeda in order to smuggle them to the US and to use them in a terror-attack...


a claim, the US-administration knew was wrong before the invasion, but was so convenient to instrumentalise in the post-9/11-world.

Therefore the invasion was internationally illegal the whole way through.

In fact the invasion's goal of regime-change was made in 1998 under Clinton and the decision to remodel the middle-east according to US' strategic and ressource-interests was made in 1990 and 1975, and this whole project served only to establish permanent US-military bases in Iraq, in order to have a secondary guaranteed access to oil-fields in the ME, as well as to have leverage against Russia and China.

Now that the US and the coalition of the willing have illegaly invaded a souvereign state for the purpose of regime-change, getting access to fossile ressources and installing permanent military bases, why doesn't the world form another alliance to throw out the US and its allies out of Iraq, just like the world did it when Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait?

Nightcrawler

OK, smart guy- GIVE ME A SOLUTION. You have a shitload of criticisms for the right, for anyone attached to the current situation (I mean, besides the Dems who voted for the war as well)... so fine, it's now ShawnWorld, and you can do whatever you wants. Tell us all how YOU are going to solve the problem moving forward. I'm excited to hear what real solutions you have.



apologists? complicit? you're confused, and willfully so. Go back and read my posts, Shawn. Just because I do not agree with your little POV does not mean that I do agree with BushCo and the endless-war crowd. I expect deeper, non-2D thinking from you. As far as being complicit- uh, Democrats voted FOR the war, FOR PATRIOT, and continue to fund both. That is what we call complicit- having the power to change the status quo and not doing anything but political theatrics with sleep-overs and officer-trashing.

We leave.

We can argue about the specifics of leaving, but we have to agree to withdraw if there's no reasonable likelihood of any kind of success in staying any longer.


Comparing Democrats to OBL and to insurgents "dancing in the streets" isn't much of a difference, Jube.

Rep Wexler has a bit of a spine- I'd love to see the polls if the Democrats would ALL sound like this. It'd be 1994 all over again. The American people LOVE things like this, especially when thrown at a four star theater general who made the mistake of reporting good news that is bad for an American political party.


Wow, this guy is really playing to his base. MoveOn and the CodePink girls must be having a massive collective orgasm hearing this. Many of you here as well. As far as Schmexler- I like the CYA placating of "yeah patriot, yeah yeah" and the outright lie that the surge has failed. Even Wexler's fellow Dems are starting to say that it is having an effect. So is the military on the ground.

Also Bobby, good CodePinko points for bringin up Vietnam- that's always a winner of a talking point.

Oh, and "I'm not questioning your credibility, but you are full of shit"