VP Lashes out! HypoCrats in full retreat!

[amicus]

VP Lashes out! HypoCrats in full retreat!


Historical revisionists, (House and Senate Democrats) who have conveniently lost their collective memory concerning the build-up to the Iraq war, have been called out by Vice President Cheney.

In a list of elected public officials of the donkey kind that stretches on for four and a half minutes of vituperation against former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, Democrats in general were reminded, in no uncertain terms, of their hypocritical stance which now opposes the ongoing war in Iraq.

Drawn to Cspan 1 & 2 over the past few days by increasing conflict over both House and Senate sub-committee hearings on a number of subjects, I was reminded of the pre election hysteria by Democrat politicians in mid 2004.

In addition to the Amtrack hearing which I have already offered comment, there have been hearings by the House Science Committee on Weather Satellites, the House Education and Workforce Committee on Mexican immigrationand a hearing on Global Insurgency, all on CSPAN. Each has become a political battleground.

Many of these hearing are somewhat uninteresting to watch unless you have a special interest, but of recent have become arenas of high politics as House and Senate Democrats attack planned legislation by the Bush administration.

It is more than ‘politics as usual’ as Democrats froth and slaver to resist, obstruct, delay and confuse issues before Congress.

Using methods such as ridicule and name calling, Democrats have even forced panel guests to swear an oath before testifying, something seldom done to those who are there to provide expert testimony in the field in question.

All the hot and current issues are brought into play at every opportunity as Democrats attempt to embarrass Republicans in a public forum.

This was no doubt fueled by recent events coming from the special prosecutor’s office concerning Chief of Staff, Carl Rove, VP assistant Lewis Libby, in the supposed outing of a CIA agent and her pandering husband, former ambassador Wilson.

The ploy failed as no serious indictments were brought down, Rove will skate free and the Dems are left with a large amount of egg on the face.

I have not witnessed better comedy in years!


(edited to add) Oh, yes, to add to the woes of the Democrats, with one Conservative Judge in place on the Supreme Court and another waiting in the wings and nearly a certainty to be approved, left wing social agenda legislation may well be in the waning moments.

Just to add to the broadside above to explain why the left is so frantic as 2005 merges into 2006 and 2008, election years ya know?
Amicus…

 

[cantdog]

You can't write a sentence except by accident, can you?

 

[amicus]

Hi, Cant, up to your usual level of communication again?

Amazing how when you cannot muster a comment on content, you criticize style. At least you aren't into name calling today.

amicus...a one sentence wonder....


(like the ellipses?)...

 

[elsol]

You think it's hypocrisy to say...

"You know... 2000 kids dead without any exit plan is causing a LOT of people at home some panic."

Not that's what the Democrats are doing in this case... I'm just saying, I'd like to see someone acknowledge that our kids are dying and from my perspective, not for a good fucking reason.

Afghanistan... most definitely.

Iraq...? Not so much.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

Well, you know Elsol...I listen to a lot of news, a lot of interviews on political events concerning the war in Iraq. I really do.

I also search out websites concerning events going on in Iraq, watch CSpan 1 & 2 amd the military channel and even the Marine Corps News channel from Cherry Point.

Perhaps I learn a few things about actual events in Iraq and the progress being made and the attitude of those young men and women and older military people in country who are not politically motivated to speak out against the Bush administration.

There is also a wide range of events from other Arab countries, many of whom was more freedom than they have and many of them trusting that the United States will carry out the necessary plans to institute a democratic form of government in Iraq, control or contain Syria and Iran and stabilize the entire region.

It is hard for anyone to justify the ultimate sacrifice in any war, I have a son in law in the Marines, I served in both the Navy and the Air Force myself.

And I can still see those towers in New York, burning and crumbling to the ground. There has been arab terrorism in the middle east since the arab nations attacked Israel in 1948. That terrorism has spread world wide and taken thousands of innocent lives.

I think it has to be fought. I would have have the conflict there rather than on American soil.

amicus...

 

[EggShellBoy]

I'll do a little calling out of my own then.

show us the weapons of mass destruction.

show us the real links between the secular regime of Saddam and al-quaida (as opposed to the made-up ones).

show us how invading a sovereign country has made the world a safer place.

show us how you can win (another) un-winnable war.

you yanks should have known that the best way to deal with Saddam is the way you're dealing with the Chinese - drop the sanctions, invest in your McDonalds/burger King/Kentucky fried chicken - let them aspire to your dream. it would have taken time but would have cost a lot less lives all round.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

you yanks should have known that the best way to deal with Saddam is the way you're dealing with the Chinese - drop the sanctions, invest in your McDonalds/burger King/Kentucky fried chicken - let them aspire to your dream. it would have taken time but would have cost a lot less lives all round.

Well that plan wouldn't have worked under Saddam... in this newly constructed - er - elected - Iraqi regime, however, this US plan for world domination just might take hold... guess we'll have to wait n see....

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Replacing conservative judges with conservative judges des little to change the dynamics of the high court Amicus. Granted, your oft stated desire to see Abortion outlawed gets a boost, because O'connor was a conservative who took aminimalist view on issues and thus often voted with the left situationally. But the court still remains in the hands of liberalsby the same count until you replace at least one of the ul;tra liberal or moderate liberals and none of them seem ready to step down. they may very well hold on like Blackmon, until they get a dem in the white house to replace them.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Of course Cheney loves this war. If it weren't for Iraq, he and his boss would be out of a job and he knows it.

2077 American soldiers dead for the sake of creating a government that treats woman like slaves. What a brilliant use of American lives and money.

It's coming up on three years now. I guess we've got that terrorism problem just about licked, huh? That's why McCain is calling for 10,000 more troops to be sent over. For the victory parade, no doubt.

 

[amicus]

I don't see it that way, Colly. And I think all the clammor from the left underlines my opinion that if this new Justice is confirmed and seated, the Court will begin with a series of 5-4 decisions in a conservative direction.

Another vacancy would make that a certainty and I expect that to happen during the next three years. You could well be right however, they could hang on until late enough into this administration to hold over for the next President.

Roe v Wade has almost become a moot point anyway as there seems to have been a change of attitude concerning on demand abortions. State by state is placing limitations and restrictions and I think that will continue.

Some other areas concerning race and education issues may well come into play, as well as quota systems to equalize gender and ethnic differences. I think also the latest eminent domain issue will reinstate greater attention to the entire field of property rights.

We shall see.


amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't understand. You've got control of the White House, the senate and the house and the Supreme court. Your boys are in charge. It's your football and has been for four years.

Iraq isn't working, the economy sucks, the deficit is huge and owned by China, Iran has nukes, terrorism is rampant, and we have no energy policy or national health coverage...

And still, all you can do is blame everything on the Democrats?

Can't you boys do anything right?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I don't see it that way, Colly. And I think all the clammor from the left underlines my opinion that if this new Justice is confirmed and seated, the Court will begin with a series of 5-4 decisions in a conservative direction.

Wellllll then we can kiss places like Lit goodbye in the not-so-distant Orwellian future... *sigh* and you won't even have this public forum to gloat on, Am!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't see it that way, Colly. And I think all the clammor from the left underlines my opinion that if this new Justice is confirmed and seated, the Court will begin with a series of 5-4 decisions in a conservative direction.

Another vacancy would make that a certainty and I expect that to happen during the next three years. You could well be right however, they could hang on until late enough into this administration to hold over for the next President.

Roe v Wade has almost become a moot point anyway as there seems to have been a change of attitude concerning on demand abortions. State by state is placing limitations and restrictions and I think that will continue.

Some other areas concerning race and education issues may well come into play, as well as quota systems to equalize gender and ethnic differences. I think also the latest eminent domain issue will reinstate greater attention to the entire field of property rights.

We shall see.


amicus...

which five are going conservative?

I have thomas, Scalia, roberts and the new guy. That's still just four. the ruling on immennet domain, a huge triumph for big governemt seem s to indicate the court is still leaning towards leftist social engineering doesen't it?

 

[amicus]

Mab, I sometimes do not comprehend the motivation behind your words.

United States support of Israel could probably be seen as the cause of Arab and Muslim hatred towards this country.

Were it not for the invasion of Kuwait and a United Nations mandate, the US would not have gone into Iraq in the beginning.

The links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism in the Middle East are evident from many sources and in many instances.

One could speculate what the middle east power situation would be if the United States had not taken the lead to liberate Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq; perhaps you could share a little intellectual journey into the distinct possibility of a unified middle east under Saddam?

Just how low do you think Israel would remain viable? Would Egypt and the Suez remain open to world trade? Would petroleum products be on the open market or controlled by a dictatorial OPEC that sold only to a chosen few?

amicus....

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

O.k... somebody set me straight, here.

This is what I think is going on (not "wild conjecture", this is what I sort of got out of the news and whatnot over the months and I think it's a pretty fair picture of what the average American thinks about Iraq):

A) The World Trade Center got taken down, we set out to wipe terrorists off the face of the earth for ours and others' good.

B) While trying to make that happen, we decide to take out Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons including weapons of mass destruction, social oppression, manhandling the Middle East in general for years and years, and links to terrorist activity taking place in his authority--if not by his order, necessarily.

C) We whoop him.

D) Pockets of resistance have prevented the convenient exit strategies we figured we had, so we've been holding the territory and losing soldiers in an attempt to "clean house" and ensure that a workable democracy and society will not crumble in our leaving (as has happened in other parts of the world, where we didn't "finish").

E) It is a work, yet in progress--many think we should just stop.

Is that about right?

(not being argumentative, but that's what I get out of the daily paper and the evening news in a nutshell)

 

[amicus]

joeW you might want to expand that a little to include some history of European and world interest in the area.

That includes, but is not limited to the French in Algeria, the Italians in Ethiopia, the Dutch oil magnates in Iran, British oil interests in the region since the 1930's, United States determination to support the continued existence of Israel at almost any cost.

And I think one must also take into consideration the expansion of Muslim's throughout Africa, Asia and the Malay Peninsula and the Philippines.

It may not seem logical for Muslim terrorist activities in Bali and Sumatra or in African countries, but things seldom happen without a reason or a history behind them.

(edited to add: it also helps if you picture Saddam yearning to be a reincarnation of Adolph in the Middle East.)
amicus...

 

[amicus]

I don't understand. You've got control of the White House, the senate and the house and the Supreme court. Your boys are in charge. It's your football and has been for four years.

Iraq isn't working, the economy sucks, the deficit is huge and owned by China, Iran has nukes, terrorism is rampant, and we have no energy policy or national health coverage...

And still, all you can do is blame everything on the Democrats?

Can't you boys do anything right?

Government has many layers, Mab. Take the 9th Court of Appeals out in California. Courts at all levels throughout the nation have been packed with left wing judges advocating a secular position.

The halls of government are filled with g-8's through g-16's, a couple million of them, union guided and left wing derived.

As are the halls of academe; intellectuals that vote 8 to 1 in every election for a democratic candidate with no other qualifications other than being a democrat.

Book publishers, movie people, music people, artists in general (we discussed this before)

Truthfully, I was somewhat surprised that a Republican could ever be elected again; the left has had a long run.

Having did newspaper reporting among government entities, I can assure you that the left is alive and well in city, county and state agencies, in Port Authorities, in school board, in practically every institution in every field, every board, every agency.

I have said before; I think it would take another 20 years and ruthless Republican house cleaning at all levels of government to take the nation back from the left wing.

My only real hope is the the Democrats are really as insensitive as they appear. The anti war stance won't fly among the electorate.
The pro gay, pro abortion stance won't fly.
The energy crisis, if the American people ever realize the left is the cause, could bring them down again.
The attack against Christianity by the ACLU and the left may be enough to keep democrats at bay for another 8 years.
People may begin to choose not to send their children to the increasing liberal and promiscuous college atmosphere.
The sex and drug culture of Hollywood liberals may well influence politics in general. The Brown University scandal is just one of many that is beginning to disgust people about liberal morality.

Doubt that is the answer you wanted....

amicus....

 

[amicus]

Wellllll then we can kiss places like Lit goodbye in the not-so-distant Orwellian future... *sigh* and you won't even have this public forum to gloat on, Am!

Hi, Selena....the left wing has so long scoffed at christian morality, pushed gays and lesbians into the mainstream, proudly strutted abortion and now want Christ out of Christmas, God out of the schools and other public buildings.

Did those of you of the left think you could have your way forever?

I am an atheist and personally don't give a damn, and just so I don't have to look at gays, lesbians and transvestites, I could care less.

Abortion bothers me as it is the taking of an innocent life.

We have been on the verge of a moral crisis since the playboy days of the mid 1950's and you folks just won't stop pushing your agenda.

Many of my friends will not come to the forum just because of the pornographic avatars on the side...and thas too bad, for it can be an interest place to exhange thoughts and rants.

amicus...

 

[SlickTony]

Many of my friends will not come to the forum just because of the pornographic avatars on the side...and thas too bad, for it can be an interest place to exhange thoughts and rants.

You know, it is possible to hide the avatars--then your friends won't have to see them. That said, I wonder why they would ever contemplate coming here at all--surely there's a universe of conservative sites and blogs that would suit them better. But then, there are people who will come into a butcher shop and complain that the place is full of meat.

 

[cantdog]

wtf

There is also a wide range of events from other Arab countries, many of whom was more freedom than they have and many of them trusting that the United States will carry out the necessary plans to institute a democratic form of government in Iraq, control or contain Syria and Iran and stabilize the entire region.

Many of whom..

"whom" being countries, as if they were people? Or is the antecedent of "whom" that range of events, as if they were people?

Many of whom was...

Many was?

Many of whom was more freedom than they have


?


Goddam. I wanted to take issue with you, ami old fruit. I admit it. But it is almost impossible to determine what you've said. Is English your first language?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

O.k... somebody set me straight, here.

This is what I think is going on (not "wild conjecture", this is what I sort of got out of the news and whatnot over the months and I think it's a pretty fair picture of what the average American thinks about Iraq):

A) The World Trade Center got taken down, we set out to wipe terrorists off the face of the earth for ours and others' good.

B) While trying to make that happen, we decide to take out Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons including weapons of mass destruction, social oppression, manhandling the Middle East in general for years and years, and links to terrorist activity taking place in his authority--if not by his order, necessarily.

C) We whoop him.

D) Pockets of resistance have prevented the convenient exit strategies we figured we had, so we've been holding the territory and losing soldiers in an attempt to "clean house" and ensure that a workable democracy and society will not crumble in our leaving (as has happened in other parts of the world, where we didn't "finish").

E) It is a work, yet in progress--many think we should just stop.

Is that about right?

(not being argumentative, but that's what I get out of the daily paper and the evening news in a nutshell)

Many think that the violence occuring in Iraq has one primary cause: the United States' invasion and occupation. Their opinion is that our very presence there is preventing the establishment of the kind of government we say we want, and that the Sunnis will never accept a US-backed regime.

They believe furthermore that we're accomplishing nothing by being there except producing more terrorists, preventing the establishment of a true democracy, and getting more Americans killed in a fruitless war.

They see our presence there as being exactly counterproductive to our stated goals, and that's why they want us out now.

Personally, I don't think we can pull out now. We've stuck our foot in it and we're trapped. But I sincerely doubt that our best efforts are going to result in a democracy there in the forseeable future. Most likely we'll be stuck there for years, suffer many more American casualties, and after we leave there'll be a civil war and a takeover with Iran helping the Shiite majority, which will result in the creation of another virulently anti-American Islamic theocracy, and this one equipped with the atomic weapons Saddam never had.

It was just a terrible decision to invade, and now we're stuck.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Many think that the violence occuring in Iraq has one primary cause: the United States' invasion and occupation. Their opinion is that our very presence there is preventing the establishment of the kind of government we say we want, and that the Sunnis will never accept a US-backed regime.

They believe furthermore that we're accomplishing nothing by being there except producing more terrorists, preventing the establishment of a true democracy, and getting more Americans killed in a fruitless war.

They see our presence there as being exactly counterproductive to our stated goals, and that's why they want us out now.

Personally, I don't think we can pull out now. We've stuck our foot in it and we're trapped. But I sincerely doubt that our best efforts are going to result in a democracy there in the forseeable future. Most likely we'll be stuck there for years, suffer many more American casualties, and after we leave there'll be a civil war and a takeover with Iran helping the Shiite majority, which will result in the creation of another virulently anti-American Islamic theocracy, and this one equipped with the atomic weapons Saddam never had.

It was just a terrible decision to invade, and now we're stuck.

From my perspective, the problem with the Iraq war, is that it is no longer a war. It's an occupation. Whole different ballgame.

The U.S. is good at war. in fact, we're the best on the planet at it. Bar none. We can, without much difficulty, attain air supremancy anywhere in the world we please. We have the technological advantages of highly effective command and control, overwhleming artillery support, Armor that is rivaled only by people we woulnd't ever fight (Britain, Israel), and a logistics train that is simply unmatched. When we go to war, we will win, and that isn't going to change if we are fighting Arabs, chinese or anyone else. When it comes to wageing war, we are in a position of primacy that hasn't been seen since the romans onland or the British Navy at sea in her heyday.

No one is good at occupation. The very best at it are only marginal. The Brits, the israelis, they both know how to go about it in the least inefficent way, but even that is bad. You really have two options in occupation.

The first, and most efective, is a reign of terror, with curfews, random sweep and kill operations, and darconian reprisals of such feroicity, you literally crush the will to resist from an occupied population. It can be done. It's ugly, it's brutal and it borders on inhuman, but it can be done. The Brits did it to the Boers, locking their women and children up in festering sores of concentration camps wehre they died like flies from malnutrition, lack of basic sanitation and disease. And the boer commandos eventually gave up, because they could fight and stay in the field, but everything they were fighting for was starving to death in British concentration camps.

The US. did it inthe phillipines. Same basic principal. Same brutal methodology. Same results. the ocupation was successful.


The second methond is the winning of hearts and minds approach. And it too, can be successful, if you have the patience and you have troops specially trained to diffuse situations rather than incite. That's a lot more patience and restraint than the average soldier has. And we don't have anyone trained to do it.

The basic flaw in Iraq was assuming winning the war meant winning. No one was prepared for an occupation. And we are paying for that lack of vision. CI warefare is more about intelligence than ordinance. Basically, you get IED ambushes and the occasional sniper or RPG man and sucidie bombers. Our air power is useless. We are relatively safe if we stay in our armored vehicles and convoys, but you can't run an occupation without getting out on the streets and as soon as you do, your solders become targets.

We have the big booms and the super jets, but we have zero in the way of intelligence. We don't know who they are, wehre they are, or even how they operate. And you can't fight a CI war not knowing all those things, bust less none of them

I was for this war. I remain commited to the idea it was the right thing to do. But I was never for an occupation. And I remain committed to the idea we shouldn't still be there. When we won the war, that was the time to pack up our toys and go home. I don't see any reason to still be there. they've drafted a constitituion. their form of government is their affair and if they choose islamicist thocracy, they should have that right. the only thing we are doing overhere now is providing targets.

In sum, we aren't tough enough to do it the brutal way. We aren't sublte enough to do it the sly way. And half assed measurs in either direction just breed resentment. We should get out. Like yesterday. And if it all falls to hell with in fighting and civil war? We've been down that road, as have the Brits, the Germans, the French, the Russians et al. It's as much a part of the maturation process of staaes as getting your first wet dream or your period is part of the growing process as a human.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I was for this war. I remain commited to the idea it was the right thing to do. But I was never for an occupation. And I remain committed to the idea we shouldn't still be there. When we won the war, that was the time to pack up our toys and go home. I don't see any reason to still be there. they've drafted a constitituion. their form of government is their affair and if they choose islamicist thocracy, they should have that right. the only thing we are doing overhere now is providing targets.

In sum, we aren't tough enough to do it the brutal way. We aren't sublte enough to do it the sly way. And half assed measurs in either direction just breed resentment. We should get out. Like yesterday. And if it all falls to hell with in fighting and civil war? We've been down that road, as have the Brits, the Germans, the French, the Russians et al. It's as much a part of the maturation process of staaes as getting your first wet dream or your period is part of the growing process as a human.

Er, the oil. You're forgetting the oil. And Halliburton's profits. Who will safeguard those if we leave the Iraq?

 

[amicus]

You know, it is possible to hide the avatars--then your friends won't have to see them. That said, I wonder why they would ever contemplate coming here at all--surely there's a universe of conservative sites and blogs that would suit them better. But then, there are people who will come into a butcher shop and complain that the place is full of meat.

Slick Tony....opposites attract...thus I have learned...I have always loved liberal ladies who will fuck when the mood moves them...whereas tightly wrapped conservative broads need to be woo'd and pacified before they give in.

Flip a coin.

I find conservatives boring...and not creative, nor artistic, nor musical...and I love the gay life (gay in the uncorrupted sense of the word), thus my rational friends, mainstream, moms & dads who are not into the liberal world of gays and druggies, rebel at the 'tone' of this site.

I, however, find it challenging, to combat those who have no ethics, no morality, who live in a world where 'anything goes, butt fucking and all', and I am just nasty enough to refer you to the ancient greeks to whom erotica led to a downfall of a marvelous civilization.

I like sex, I love sex...I love the interplay between male and female and the social parameters that contain and control that activity. I enjoy writing about it, creating scenario's, most do not...most do sex in the dark and under covers, so be it.

But there are some very good, cultured and educated minds on this forum, those I would like to share with others...but a penis avatar or an open vulva, which is mostly exhibitionism anyway, turns an otherwise rational mind away from participating in this forum.

The site is what it is...I came here because my writing was too explicit for another site, but was appreciated here, I even won a monthly prize, I am pleased at that.

My only point, really, was that there are some really good people here and I am appreciative of that...I just wish I could bring others into the fold.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Er, the oil. You're forgetting the oil. And Halliburton's profits. Who will safeguard those if we leave the Iraq?

No, I'm not forgetting the oil. But if you are going to say it's all about the oil, then you need to buck up, build some gulags, and get about the grim bussiness of crushing the people of the conqueored territory. Oil isn't something you can loot quickly. And an occupation that lasts long enough to get it is going to be a long term project. If that's the goal, we are better served long term by dropping all the high moral tone and getting down to the dirty part of running an empire. And it's quite dirty.

I don't think GW or his neocon pals are man enough to do what has to be done. Quite frankly, metaphorically speaking, Queen Vic had more balls than the lot of them could scrape together.

If that is literally why we are there, then we have already screwed the proverbial pooch, in as much as doing it the hearts and minds route goes. And that leaves you with simply crushing the iraqis.

If we continue with the current policy of having no policy, you will pay for every drop of that oil with the blood of american service personel. That price is too high, even for americans who love their Hummers.