Get used to the idea of impeachment hearings and even more acrimonius debates about Iraq.
Get used to the idea that we will, via a House Ways and Means Committee jamming up the budget, be compelled to remove our troops to save their lives since they will have no money. Get used to the idea that the ensuing cataclysmically failed state (either the entire of what since 1920 has been Iraq, or parts thereof) will be the subject of gargantuan epochal finger pointing.
Get used to the idea of 2+ years of control of the motive portion of the democratic party by those who believe the USA was formed BAD, to BE BAD, to be the nation of the priveledged few, despoiling both those workers here, and now all over.
And the fault for this will lie with the Republicans.
The republicans, who faced no accountability in Tora Bora, who faced no accountabililty as Iraq turned in a carnival of looting and armory raiding, who refused to enforce responsibility on the army structure which lead to abuses, who faced no responsibility and unpleasantness when they KNEW FOR YEARS about the great moron Foley, and who continue with mediocrity and sub par performances in leadership positions at a moment of national peril.
Continue reading "The democrats are going to win, the republicans deserve to LOSE" »
3 comments:
You are being as unfair in your attacks on Republicans as the Democrats are when they blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina.
1. Bush certainly wanted bin Laden caught and had smart people running the operation, but they weren't omniscient and perhaps they even made mistakes. However, unless one has good evidence that more competent people could have done a much better job, I do not think anyone has the right to criticize the people in charge of the Afghan operation. Unless one has good evidence that Bush knew that there were those more competent people and failed to act upon that information, one can’t justly criticize Bush or the Republicans.
2. I don’t think “Iraq turned in a carnival of looting and armory raiding” is an accurate description, but let’s say it is. Unless one knows for certain which steps would stopped that outcome, I don’t see how Republicans can be blamed. Remember bad things happen, even to the best prepared people.
3. You have some slight point about “refused to enforce responsibility on the army structure which led to abuses”, but I don’t agree that the Republicans had enough responsibility for what happened for the Republicans deserve to lose. There was simply too many years of accumulated bad habits for a change to occur in the middle of a war. Also, it’s too incredible to believe that Democrats would have done any better.
4. The Republicans are blameless about Foley. To have gone after him, before the ABC News information got out would have been greeted with screams of homophobia and rightly so. Acting on the basis of what they knew about Foley would have also meant acting against many other exchanges and that would be a far greater evil. People have a right to make slight errors in judgments. Foley may have exploited that fact, but it’s more important to let people make little mistakes than to be Puritan freaks. This isn’t so much addressed to your argument, but it needs to be said. If the Democrat had moved harshly against Gary Studds in the 1980’s, most Democrats would have disapproved. How is Foley’s case any different? My feeling is that Democrats were right in their treatment of Studds and their defense of Clinton. Perhaps, the Republican cutting off their nose to spite their face about Foley is being consistent on their behalf, but it’s totally inappropriate for the Democrats to make much out of this issue.
Despite defending the Republicans above, I’d like to see the Democrats win the Senate, so that Bush’s atrocious Supreme Court picks will be DOA at the Senate. My reason is a much substantive reason than the four you gave. It’s the type of thing that elections should be about. Elections should not be about bizarre fantasies of other people’s incompetence at non-political tasks as you suggest.
1)You are short on facts on this one. Tommy Franks REFUSED the CIA people on the ground 800 rangers dropped into Tora Bora because he was afraid of casualties. Mclellan. Armies are to be used. Those are the facts. If you commit to war, you commit to win. He should have been fired. It's that simple. Berntsen just lays it out without any laying of blame, and his account signifies. He is apolitical. He remains uncontradicted by ANYONE.
2)What would have stopped raiding of military bases and looting is MORE PEOPLE. Something we need now to face the military responsibilities we are burdened with. We need 250,000 more combat ready fighters.
3)Whether the dems would have done better is irrelevant. It is the repubs who made their bones on national security, and on a volunteer army. It IS their responsibility. They ARE accountable, except no one will fall on his own sword (euphemistically speaking),..no general, no secretary, nobody
4)Did I see the name Studds?....the repubs AGAIN made their bones on family values, then fail to rid themselves of a Foley..again ALL THAT HAD TO BE DONE was strip him of all committee responsibility. We expect a Studds in the dem party, Foley is intolerable as a proposition which apparently many knew about in the party of family values. sneeer.
I expected MORE of the repubs. WAY MORE. I expected Bobby Lee and we got John Pope. I expected Henry Morgenthau and Dean Acheson, and we got Colonel House.
I am disgusted even more because the dems will be far worse. In the end we will not be happy because we allowed Bush to be sub par.
I apologize. My wording "bizarre fantasies" was far harsher than appropriate. Sometimes, I'm needlessly strident.
It's beyond my area of expertise to second guess Tommy Franks or Donald Rumsfield, but they seem to be smart men. Rumsfield is about the only Bush administration figure that I trust to do the right thing most of the time. If Rumsfield isn't doing the right thing as Secretary of Defense then Bush should fire him as Lincoln fired his generals. If Franks and Rumfield went wrong in their decision making, I tend to lay the blame at Bush's moronic nonsense of Islam as a religion of peace with its implication of how we think about the conquered populations and by Bush trying to fight a war by EU rules. To Bush about the only credit I can give him, the deck is so ridiculous stacked against us by the "peace" bullshit that Bush has little room to maneuver.
If you expect more of the repubs, you are in trouble. Bush is such an intellectual lightweight that he turns off just about the entire world but American Republicans, and I assume that loyalty is why they aren't turned off. It is unfair to say "we allowed Bush to be sub par" when Bush started out as sub par.
Post a Comment